Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

June CPI came out Tuesday morning and despite headline inflation rising slightly hotter there was very little sign of tariffs being the problem, not no sign, but very little sign.

I will concentrate right now on the month over month changes (I’ll talk about year over year seperately). In the headline inflation, up .3% for June( the highest number since .5% in January), the big movers were energy up .9% for June (that was likely just an Iran war blip, in fact they are already down again), and food up .3%. Neither of those are affected much by tariffs.

The items that might have been affected by tariffs are “household furnishings index rose 1.0 percent in June” and “The apparel index increased 0.4 percent in June”, but “The new vehicles index fell 0.3 percent”. Since all those are “core” inflation and that came in below expectations at .2% m/m its hard to make the case that tariffs are making a big impact on inflation.

But go ahead, take a look at Table A. on page 2 or the text explanations on page 3 and see if you can see any red flags, I didn’t see any.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf

If you want to know the biggest reason Year over Year inflation went up its because June inflation went up, .3% while at the same time June of ‘24 (at .0% a very good month) dropped off the 12 month rolling average.

[A Japanese Student]

We'll see when the "reciprocal" tariff actually goes into effect.

[Kazinski]

Tariff revenue was 300% higher in June than the previous year. How much higher do you think it will go?

Thats 20 billion more than last june.
There are about 130 million US houesholds, so thats 152$ per household per month. Median Household income is 6500/m (78k/y), so if consumers were paying that tariff revenue that would be 2.3% inflation right there, and thats not y/y thats just in 3 months, so close to a 10% annual rate.

We aren't seeing even 1/50th of that, if we are seeing anything at all.

[Martinned]

O wow, forget the Nobel Peace Prize, it sounds like Trump should get the Nobel Prize in Economics for inventing a magic money tree!

[Mr. Bumble]

The "magic money tree" was invented during the Nixon administration.

[Sarcastr0]

Each open thread Kaz ignores the analysis and labors to reinvent macroeconomics from first principles, but with a heavy outcome-oriented bias.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cpi-report-june-2025-inflation-trump-tariffs/

Not terrible quite yet (though coffee, steak, sugar are all at record levels). But Kaz is whistling past the graveyard.

[LexAquilia]

How dare him! He should be more like The Great Sarcastr0 and instead of analyzing with a outcome-oriented bias, he should just start with the preferred outcome and goal-seek his analysis!

That's what enlightened, elite, altruistic, and benevolent civil servants like The Great Sacastr0 do.

[Kazinski]

Why don't you tell me specifically what I got wrong. I posted the link to the BLS report, I read it pretty carefully, and did my own analysis.

If I got it wrong, you should be able to point it out.

This is what passes for analysis on a lot of MSM, even though CNBC is usually better than that.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/15/inflation-breakdown-june-2025.html

I don't need CNBC or CBS to tell me what to think, I can read the numbers for myself.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not an expert but I am married to one.

I can tell you some elementary issues.
Month-over-month numbers are not very useful as a macroecon gage; second hand on the clock. And not seasonably adjusted they're basically useless to gauge economic health.

Useful if you're a particular industry looking to time a big move.

[Kazinski]

There is a little truth to the fact that m/m inflation may not indicate a long term trend, especially energy.

But it ignores the fact that m/m inflation was being watched closely because there has been intense speculation that Trumps tariffs would spark inflation. Almost no sign of that, so now I guess m/m inflation doesn't matter.

And I specifically picked all items inflation to focus on because it was worse, if I focused on core inflation which was just .2% and came in under expectations I would have been accused of cherry picking.

But I address the Y/Y inflation below.

[Sarcastr0]

Who is watching m/m closely? People do nonfunctional things all the time, that doesn't make them valid.

You're not cherry picking, you're just not analyzing anything with any economic upshot.

[LexAquilia]

Don't call what you have "marriage". That's cultural appropriation and an abuse of the definition. Use the term "Life partner" or "domestic partner".

[Poxigah146]

The inflation was in all services, so the tariffs had nothing to do with it. Trump was right on this point all along, and the Wall Street shills were wrong.

[Kazinski]

Now I will get into Y/Y inflation numbers, but first lets be honest, there is only 2 reasons most people here care, either to blame Trump or to praise him. First lets start with the full CPI Y/year numbers "The year-over-year inflation rate surged to 2.7% in June from 2.4% in May"

But that of course include 7 Biden months, so will analyze the last 12 months of inflation data using the dreaded Biden Months vs Trump Months technique, this is of course mainly to insulate Biden from Trump’s failures. All the data is from Chart 1, of the BLS press release linked above.

Jul-24__0.1
Aug-24__0.2
Sep-24__0.2
Oct-24__0.2
Nov-24_0.3
Dec-24__0.4
Jan-25__0.5

This annualizes out to 3.28% annual inflation.

So now let’s look at Trump’s tariffizing hyper-inflation:

Feb-25__ 0.2
Mar-25__ -0.1
Apr-25__ 0.2
May-25__ 0.1
Jun-25__ 0.3

This annualizes out to 1.68% inflation.

But I’m the y/y number will be worse next month, in fact I almost guarante it, as July ‘24 which was also a very good number it will also be replaced by a .2 or .3 (unlikely to be any more with gas prices dropping), However that will also drop off of Biden's 6 month agregate too, and make it worse, in fact i should probably end this comparison next month because as you see looking at the last 3-4 months of Biden's term in isolation, is just unfair.

[Malika the Maiz]

Too bad he didn’t say he would slow the increase in prices but instead said:

“Starting the day I take the oath of office, I will rapidly drive prices down and we will make America affordable again. We’re going to make it affordable again.”

[Commenter_XY]

Look, we got MECA (Make Eggs Cheap Again). What more do you want?! 😛

[Kazinski]

Prices are dropping, in relative terms, Real Wages are up 1.3%, which means things are getting cheaper relative to wages.

[Malika the Maiz]

Inflation is up 1.68 and wages are up 1.3 and that means things are getting cheaper relative to wages?

[Ridgeway]

Assuming Kaz's numbers are correct, the "Real" in "Real Wages" gives the inflation-adjusted figure

[Malika the Maiz]

I see, I didn’t see the “Real.” Mea culpa. Regardless, real wages were up similarly in 24, Trump said he’d bring the prices down, not relatively, and that’s not happened.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Perhaps it's like one of those budget cuts in which the budget is not actually cut but the possible increase is just scaled back a bit.

[Kazinski]

You going to read that again more carefully, or do you need me to explain it to you?

[Joe_dallas]

Compared with stopping the seas from rising.

one is a typical campaign boast, while obama probably believed what he said.

[bernard11]

Nothing like mind-reading to make a convincing argument.

[Malika the Maiz]

Pathetic attempt at whataboutism.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

More like a pathetic attempt to claim that Trump actually understands the words that he is speaking.

Just yesterday he was speaking of tariffs by and against Indonesia and claimed that by increasing our rates against Indonesia and Indonesia reducing/eliminating theirs against us that Indonesia would be paying large amounts and we Americans would be paying nothing. Is it possible that he actually doesn't know who pays what?

[David Nieporent]

It is 100% certain that he doesn't know what tariffs are and who pays them. He doesn't understand which side pays them, and he doesn't understand who pays them — he thinks the government does.

[Kazinski]

I don't think anyone understands who is paying the tariffs, yet.

It is not showing up in CPI, yet.

It is not showing up in corporate profits, yet.

It's not showing up in reduced economic activity, yet.

[Joe_dallas]

Bernard, malika and Stella - all exposing their extreme level of partisanship.
Screaming whataboutism is a piss poor defense of you double standard.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

WTF are you talking about? Do you think that Trump understands how tariffs actually work? If he does, why does he repeat the same nonsense over and over again? And, how is it "whataboutism" to comment on Trump's misunderstandings? Your claim, it seems, is that Trump is just engaging in hyperbolic rhetoric. My claim is that that is bullshit. My claim is to the contrary, that Trump doesn't have a clue.

I'm not going to claim that I never engage in the what about game -- I'm sure that from time to time I do succumb to the temptation.

[Joe_dallas]

Stella - nice job - failure to follow the topic

I was responding to malika comment highlighting his partisan double standard

Malika the Maiz 8 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Too bad he didn’t say he would slow the increase in prices but instead said:

“Starting the day I take the oath of office, I will rapidly drive prices down and we will make America affordable again. We’re going to make it affordable again.”

[bernard11]

Here's what you wrote, Joe.

one is a typical campaign boast, while obama probably believed what he said.

That's not mind-reading?

On no evidence, you decide that Trump was just boasting and never meant it. And it's not clear what Obama statement you are referring to, but I'm going to guess it's the right's standard whatabout to every lie Trump tells - "if you like your plan..." But you guys can't get your story straight. You were jumping and down about the terrible lie Obama told, but now that it's convenient, you decide he believed it, so it wasn't a lie after all.

[Joe_dallas]

Bernard - A frequently quoted campaign statement of Obama was his election will result in stopping the seas from rising.

I recognize both sides make statements they dont believe. In the case of most of the leftists commenting here, they fully practice their double standard. ( with obama campaign statement, quite a few leftist believed him).

fwiw - you are playing the same double standard game.

[bernard11]

A frequently quoted campaign statement of Obama was his election will result in stopping the seas from rising.

Oh. And you think he meant that literally, rather than meaning he was going to address climate change?

That's pretty dumb.

[Joe_dallas]

DN 's comment is even more inane than yours

DN was responding to your tariff comment of which you (Stella ) was the first person who mentioned tariffs on the sub-string of comments. I never mentioned nor made any reference to tarriffs

[Stella Link's Ghost]

And I wasn't responding to you, numb nuts. I know what comments preceded mine, I was responding to the substance of a comment by Maiz. If you don't like it you can crammit, shut up about it, or continue to whine like a whipped cur.

In general, I try to avoid getting into discussions with those neither temperamentally nor intellectually competent to engage in reasonable debate. Obviously, in this instance, I have failed. You may now continue with your onanistic endeavor without assistance.

[Joe_dallas]

yet you responded to me - not to malika

[jb]

I mean, it is true that Trump pushed the economy into negative growth in Q1 so probably it's a good that we're not actually doing the stagflation thing and instead just have low growth and relatively low inflation.

[Josh R]

Perhaps the important thing to look at is inflation pre and post-Liberation Day? But perhaps not because the TACO-level tariffs aren't all that high. Their negative effects would be felt over a longer term. Plus, there is likely a delay in how prices react to tariffs.

[bernard11]

The delay is important.

There were lots of goods in warehouses, in anticipation of tariffs, and goods in transit when tariffs are imposed are typically not subject to the new tariffs.

[jb]

To steel man the pro-tariffs argument, though: in general, retailers haven't been shy in the past about raising prices even before cost increases have traveled down the supply chain to them. Gas prices are the classic example of this, but throughout the high inflation period a few years ago we saw that companies would raise prices when they saw upstream costs increasing even if it wasn't yet affecting the underlying cost of the goods they were selling at the moment. This is a big part of why profits spiked even while costs were increasing. So if opportunistic price-raising is the general pattern, why not with tariffs?

Regardless, though, I think there's bigger problems coming for the economy. Trump's erratic policies make it super hard for companies to plan effectively, which will result in both inefficiency in terms of both cost and speed. That will be a drain on the economy that won't show up for a quarter or two, and the re-alignment of trade away from the US as the result of Trump's lunatic policies won't show up for quarters or possibly years.

[bernard11]

Good points, jb, but I don't think it's a uniform practice among all retailers, so we are just starting to see the increases.

Plus, it takes a certain amount of time and effort to raise prices, especially in non-retail sectors. Price lists and catalogs have to be changed, you have to figure out exactly what items the tariffs apply to, and so on. The latter is especially a problem for manufacturers who import some components.

So yes, part of the tariff effect is being felt already, but there is more to come.

I agree completely with your second paragraph.

[Kazinski]

Problem with the argument that importers are just eating the prices now is that those costs would show in their bottom line somewhere, if not costs of goods sold, then increased inventory.

A big increase in inventory investment, relative to sales, would be a big red flag in the quarterly reports, that should start trickling out.

30 companies reported earnings today, 51 tomorrow, stock market up across the board today led by Russell 2000 up 1%.

[Sarcastr0]

The stock market as an indicator of economic health? I thought we'd left those days behind back in '09.

You've got a lotta woulda's. There's no need for that kind of shoddy analysis. Unless you're poltico or something.

[Kazinski]

No, where did I say that?

The stock market is an indicator of corporate profits. What I am saying is that corporations can't hide the effects of rising prices by FIFO accounting without the impact being apparent in cash flow, and rising inventory expenses.

As always feel free to contradict me, but I guarantee there are an army of analysts tracking corporate inventories. If it happens we will know.

[Sarcastr0]

The stock market is weakly correlated, but any given snapshot of change is a piss-poor indicator of corporate profits. It's a vibes factory, and has been for decades.

P/e are all over the place. Enron was a darling based basically on vibes. See also most of the net 2.0 companies listed who don't turn a profit.

As jb notes below, the narrative your pushing is a magic money tree. That should be a clue you're missing something in your layperson's analysis.

[Kazinski]

Once again you seem to be muddling concepts, PE is a ratio that reacts to earnings and future prospects for growth.

Earnings themselves are forecast in dollars and cents and are watched down to the penny, and are are a measure of profits, margins, expenses, here is a sample list companies expected earnings this week:

Company / EPS Estimate/Reported EPS/Surprise (%)
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 4.48 4.96 +10.62
Wells Fargo & Company - 1.41 1.6
Citigroup Inc. - 1.61 1.96 +22.1
BlackRock, Inc. 10.82 12.05 +11.38

There are no vibes here, straight hard numbers.

[jb]

"Problem with the argument that importers are just eating the prices now is that those costs would show in their bottom line somewhere, if not costs of goods sold, then increased inventory."

I didn't make that argument at all. I said that in the past retail prices have moved quickly without waiting for the costs to actually trickle down the supply chain.

But since you responded I guess I will too: if tariffs aren't increasing retail prices, and they're not hurting retailers, but somehow are generating a bunch of revenue for the federal government...where is the money coming from? It seems like the only answer can possibly be that bernard is right and the costs haven't actually made it to the retailers yet.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The NY Mets had a mixed showing at the All-Star Game.

Alonso got a three-run homer to help put the NL seemingly comfortably ahead. David Peterson helped hold down AL bats. Lindor made some plays. But Diaz failed to clinch the save.

The NL blew a big lead but did manage to win via the tie breaker. I think the tiebreaker is a fun addition. Alonso was chosen as the third bat for the home run tie breaker, but the NL won without him.

Maybe they should adapt it to the normal season. Provide old-fashioned extra innings for a few innings. And, then do the baseball version of penalty kicks.

I'm fine with the old system of extra innings. Not a fan of the ghost runner, which was a COVID Era development. But, if we want to change the rules, I'm open to creativity.

[Kazinski]

Some creativity in baseball I like, like more innovative strategies like using 4 or 5 relievers and no "starter".

I still don't like the DH, both for strategic reasons, and for the sheer unexpectedness of some pitchers hitting when they have no business too. I still remember fondly Felix Hernandez hitting an opposite field Grand Slam against Johan Santana and the Mets.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are complete games even a thing anymore?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Red Sox had two in a row last week.

[Mr. Bumble]

That is a rarity.
"NEW YORK — There were a record-low 26 complete games in the major leagues this season — four fewer than Catfish Hunter threw in 1975 — and the big league batting average dropped to .243, among the five-lowest figures since 1900.".....
"The complete game total was down from 35 last year and 36 in 2022. There were 50 in 2021, 104 in 2015, 209 in 2003 and 622 in 1988."
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/10/01/mlb-complete-games-batting-average/
(this is for the 2024 season)

[Frank Drackman]

Pretty much only with no hitters

[Stephen Lathrop]

I don't like the DH either. But fairness compels mention that Bill James wrote a persuasive essay to show that the DH increased strategic complexity, compared to managing without it.

[Mr. Bumble]

That seems counterintuitive and hardly likely.

[Kazinski]

Although I have to say I do like Playoff baseball, and the more the better, of course I was in my teens when they introduced that, so I was less hide bound then. But single game wild card playoffs were a why bother, I'm glad that's gone.

[Ridgeway]

With starting pitchers only going 5-6 innings, the DH strategy question has been largely mooted. Managers would no longer face what used to be a hard question: pinch hit for my pitcher or leave him in? These days the answer would always be "pinch hit", because the pitcher would be coming out anyway.

[David Nieporent]

Exactly, although James was writing this years ago, before the 5-inning max "rule" became prevalent. His point was that strategy requires real alternatives, not just ostensible decisions. If virtually every manager would do the same thing in a given situation, it's not really "strategy" in any meaningful sense. NL partisans would swoon over "My manager had to pull the pitcher and make a double switch, while the AL manager didn't need to worry about that." And James's response was, "Yes, your manager effectively had to to do that, so he wasn't really making a decision at all. Whereas the AL manager actually had to use his judgment about whether and when to pull his pitched.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"before the 5-inning max "rule" became prevalent"

The way pitchers are used has certainly changed over the years. Today rotations are typically 5 man, sometimes even six. Back in 1968, for example, when Denny McLain won 31 games, it was four. In 68, McClain started in 41 games, had 28 complete games and pitched 336 innings. From today's perspective, that is just mind boggling.

In 1934, Dizzy Dean won 30 games but only started in 33. How did that happen? He played in 50 games so he appeared in relief 17 times. Starting pitchers appearing in relief back then was not so uncommon and the practice continued as late as the 60s. In 34 Dean had 24 complete games and pitched 311 innings.

Of course, there are costs to the way it used to be. Mark Fidrych, for example, only had one good year and spent the rest of his short career plagued by a shoulder injury which was diagnosed years later as an injury which could probably have been successfully repaired.

Fidrych, who was a truly interesting character, later was somewhat successful running a small trucking business hauling gravel in Massachusetts. In 1969 he was killed while working under his truck when his clothes became entangled in a power takeoff shaft and he suffocated.

[Ridgeway]

"Fidrych, who was a truly interesting character, later was somewhat successful running a small trucking business hauling gravel in Massachusetts. In 1969 he was killed while working under his truck when his clothes became entangled in a power takeoff shaft and he suffocated."

He was indeed an odd bird, but I don't think even he perfected resurrection or time travel. He died in 2009.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Oops. Yes, 2009 it was.

[Frank Drackman]

Are you certain? I could certainly imagine “the Bird” coming back from the dead,
Saw him at Anaheim Stadium 1976, he wasn’t pitching that night, but in his pre-game “Long Toss” he threw a ball from the left field to right field foul pole, some 450 feet

[bernard11]

I don't buy the "strategy" argument against the DH. Pinch-hit or let the pitcher strike out; double switch. That's about all there is.

In order to save that, and not have the DH, you put a dead spot in the line-up and risk injury to the pitcher.

Almost forgot - the announcers no longer are compelled to remind us, at every opportunity, of the value of getting the #8 batter to make the third, out so the pitcher leads off the next inning. Most of us understood that at age 11 or so.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Pinch-hit or let the pitcher strike out; double switch. That's about all there is.

The other main option was bunting.

A few pitchers had some skill with the bat, at least to put the ball usefully in play, but bunting was often something pitchers could do.

If a pitcher had to bat, there would be more of an attempt to train them not to waste their bat. Since they only bat once every five days, on average, it wouldn't pay to put too much effort into it.

I was fine with the NL DH. I watched the Mets, and I was not appalled that they had eight (well, to be generous) hitters instead of nine. Multiple non-pitchers also did very little at any rate.

The change didn't, in my view, "ruin the game," and shorter stints for starters already changed the dynamics some. But personally, it didn't help much to add to my overall viewing pleasure. If the fans and players want it, so be it.

The other value of the DH is that it gives a defensively deficient player a spot. I'm not sure how much value that is overall. And, often, the DH amounts to a semi-rest day for regulars anyhow.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"fine with the NL DH."

Fine with the NL not having a DH.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

'The change didn't, in my view, "ruin the game," '

I was opposed to the whole DH thing, mostly just out of tradition. I agree that it really didn't ruin the game -- just made it a bit different and not necessarily for the worse.

Other changes (pitch clock, sliding/blocking rules, etc), as well, seem to have turned out ok. I was skeptical about instant replays but that has turned out to be a major plus, biglee. The humidor rule, though, has changed the fundamental nature of the game and has made it almost unwatchable. I may have to start watching professional bean bag toss. There is a league -- American Cornhole Association -- and they even publish rules. Official cornhole rules. I am not making this up.

[bernard11]

The other main option was bunting.

Yes, but.

To follow up DMN's point, bunting was often not a strategic move, but a fairly automatic decision. If the guy is going to be out anyway, why not try to get a base out of it, as well as avoiding the DP.

It's more of a strategic decision today. After all, there's no reason a non-pitcher can't bunt, so the bunt remains a possibility, DH or not. And since the potential bunter is generally a better hitter than the pitcher was the decision actually is a closer one.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A former Mets announcer hated bunting.

He cited evidence it net it is not useful. I didn't analyze it all, so maybe he was right. IDK.

He was okay with it for pitchers since they were such poor hitters.

But we are often talking marginal differences, especially facing top pitchers, or those who pitch in a way that a bunt might be strategically a logical call. A pitcher might hit .111 while another guy is hitting under .200 in that situation. Whatever.

Anyway, all the choices for the pitcher were typically done if we want to talk about "strategy" in that sense.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

I believe that the claim is that statistcal analysis indicates that sacrifice bunting in order to advance a runner is a net bad choice. In the long run, not bunting scores more runs. Don't know for sure if that's true, but that's my understanding of the claim. That's why you see much less bunting by position players than you used to and rarely by a "good" batter.

Personally, I lament the near death of the suicide squeeze. Perhaps the statisticians have murdered that play as well.

[Frank Drackman]

Ab-so-too-Lutely Co-rrect! Used to love when batters would “show bunt” against me (meant they wouldn’t send one up the box at me or off the wall, I’d still try to put it in their earhole) and at the lower levels it makes more sense because covering first base and fielding bunts isn’t why guys go into pitching, simply, you only get 27 outs, and every one of them is precious (bad word for baseball, let’s say “important”)

Frank

[bernard11]

I think Bill James did that analysis a long time ago.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I still don't like the DH"

The DH is an offense against both man and God. An abomination.

[Frank Drackman]

Used to love NL fans (and I’m one) in the 70’s complain about the DH, while Artificial Grass (as Bill “Spaceman”Lee, Lefty btw said, he didn’t trust any grass a Horse wouldn’t eat) which changed the game way more for the worse was in Phil, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, St Louis, Houston, San Francisco, only AL park with the Turf was Comiskey, and only in the infield (Bill Veck too cheap to pay for Groundskeepers)

[BrotherMovesOn]

Strongly disagree JoeFromtheBronx!
The game is played until the home team has a deficiency of runs after 9 innings.
This is only a carnival game, and would advertisers pay for slots at 1:52 AM?
But for the real league games you have to play it out.

[BrotherMovesOn]

* after the tenth inning

[Frank Drackman]

First Allstar game I watched was 1970, Pete Rose barreled over Ray Fosse(who was blocking the plate)
Almost like Charlie Hustle had some money riding on the outcome
Next year Reggie Jackson took Doc Ellis to the Moon!(Alice) that Balls just crossing Plutos orbit
Back then the ASG was important AL vs NL, leagues didn’t play until the World Series, even had different baseballs and umpires

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

the Third Grade stylings
of the
Frank )Fakeman character performed Here

Conservative populism!

[Frank Drackman]

You know a lot of 3rd graders do you?

[Malika the Maiz]

All I know write better than that.

[Frank Drackman]

Well they’ve got your (redacted) up their (redacted) so you have to give them a break

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The All Star Game is a "carnival" game. I don't disagree.

For "real" games, you don't have to merely play it out.

It depends on the rules. They changed the rules. I'm not a big fan of the rule change. But so be it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A few days ago I speculated that a contributing factor to the Texas flood disaster might have occurred if kids at camps along the river were not permitted cell phones. A Guardian report now confirms that was indeed the case at the camp which suffered so many dead and missing. No campers were allowed cell phones, and the counselors were required to turn their phones in to camp management.

But it may not have made much difference, because the camp's senior leader, who died in the flood while belatedly trying to save campers, had dragged his feet on putting out warnings, according to family members.

I wish it were not so, but time and again it appears that religiosity inadvertently encourages passivity about proactive response to natural risks. From pandemic diseases, to storm preparedness, to climate change, religious Americans seem to lead objections against government policy to deliver protection against predictable hazards. It's almost as if some religionists consider exercise of human agency against natural catastrophe to be blasphemous.

[Kazinski]

Interesting theory, but 2/3 of the dead were adults, presumably nobody was confiscating their cellphones.

Here is a current list.

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2025/07/06/victims-identified-in-deadly-texas-hill-country-floods/

[hobie]

I'm not buying that theory, Stephen. As a boy I stayed at three of the summer camps within a mile of Camp Mystic. Giving a bunch of tweens phones in that situation seems like a dumb idea to me.

[Bwaaah]

I agree with hobie.

🙂

[Bwaaah]

Freakish every time I re-read that.

[hobie]

Don't feel dirty, Bwaaah. You got seduced by my pro-confiscation stance instead of my normal permissive stance. It can happen to anyone

[Bwaaah]

There it is. You had to open your mouth.

I disagree with hobie.

[hobie]

HaHa!!!

[David Nieporent]

A few days ago I speculated that a contributing factor to the Texas flood disaster might have occurred if kids at camps along the river were not permitted cell phones.

And I explained to you that it is quite normal to ban cell phones at camp, secular or religious.

[loki13]

100% agreed.

Personally, I treasure events and places that prohibit cell phones (assuming, of course, that you voluntarily choose to go to them). Nothing to do with religion.

And IME, it's common for camps of all kinds to have cell phone bans.

[Estragon]

Yes, extremely common

[Frank Drackman]

They could have used rafts or even floaties instead of stupid phones

[LexAquilia]

You actually think the people who can't rebuild a bridge in under 10 years and under $100B can actually protect us from an existential disaster?

lmao

You sound like the religious one. A blind adulation of the State. It has be blind because if your eyes were open even the slightest like some chink bug, you never would've made that comment.

[Riva]

Limiting children’s smartphone access has nothing to do with religion, despite your sickening attempt to exploit death to attack religion in general. But thanks for the asinine perspective of the religious bigot. We won’t need thst anymore.

[Krayt]

It isn't just the religious who want to send their kids to camps without their cell phones.

If any quasi-religious behavior contributed, it was the political memeplex pseudo-religions, where apparently the locals rejected $10 million for a flood warning system from Biden as a communist feds thing.

Hmmm. Years of people telling them their betters were gonna force things down their throat, and "You will comply."

Shocked! They were stupid, but so were their pokers. There are no innocents.

[Martinned]

Yesterday Chamberlain, J. lifted a super-injunction contra mundum that had been in place for two years. It was about a SNAFU with the personal information of Afghanis who supported the British military during the war. (Unlike the US, the British at least occasionally try to help their former Afghani allies.)

I have very little to add to this discussion of the super-injunction by Joshua Rozenberg: https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/respecting-reporters

[IAdmitIAmCrazy]

In the recent tiff about Felon4547’s imposition of tariffs on Brazil, there is quite an interesting side issue which warrants some contemplation.
The Brazilian Supreme Court in the trial of former president Jair Bolsonaro passed through a decision that roughly compares to a Grand Jury in the US. They admitted proceeding to a full trial. In their arguments they left no doubt that a coup attempt had happened, the question for them remaining is to decide whether and to what extent the eight defendants were involved.
I admit I was surprised that at that stage - despite mountains of evidence in support - they would utter such a conclusion. But then, the Brazilian justice system is different.
But what really made me scratching my head was the problematic situation the court is in. The coup aimed at overthrowing the court together with the whole political system; among assassination targets were not only the Brazilian president and his deputy but also Alexandre de Moraes, the presiding justice of the Superior Electoral Court at the time of the election. (Three members of the Supreme Court are delegated for two-year terms to the electoral court, with one of them oresiding.)
Xandão, as he is called in Brazil, is no shrinking velvet and prone to curb the expression of fake information and incendiary speech - as permitted by Brazilian legislation. But Moraes has been designated as the “relator”, the leading judge on this trial. As far as I can see, that has not been contested from whence I conclude that it has been done according to the rules.
But what about his conflict of interest, what about the conflicts of interest of the entire court that even before the Jan 8, 2023 disturbances had been vilified by Bolsonaro and his acolytes, and called to be closed down?
But if the Supreme Court had to recuse themselves, who else to judge? I have little doubt that the coup happened. But if the coup aims at eliminating - amongst others - the Supreme Court, are the conspirators to go scot-free because the court has a gigantic conflict of interest?
Right now, there seems little danger in the US that SCOTUS will enter in collision with Felon4547. Yet, this administration is already on a collision course with the federal judiciary on the district and appellate level. It seems to me that some MAGAites are salivating to take on the Supreme Court. And then, what?
Am I wrong to think that by the concept of “contempt of court” the US legal system is allowed to disregard that conflict of interest and take a road akin to the one the Brazilian Supreme Court has taken?

[Frank Drackman]

There’s an AntiPsychotic for that

[Bwaaah]

Does it add line breaks?

[Davy C]

The US Supreme Court is allowed to take cases despite a conflict of interest. The remedy is that if Congress thinks they did wrong, they can impeach.

[jb]

Similarly, the House can impeach and the Senate can judge even if the impeachment is for trying to prevent the House and Senate from doing their jobs through violent insurrection.

[Krayt]

And there's no such thing as a crime so infamous, you cannot get a fair trial, and so get to go free.

You push on with a trial and do your best.

[apedad]

Judge ‘baffled’ by confidentiality claims over ICE arrests of student protesters

A federal judge has expressed palpable frustrations with the government during a two-week bench trial over the administration’s attempts to arrest and deport pro-Palestine student protesters, but tensions reached a boiling point when government lawyers tried to claim that key evidence is off-limits for the court.

Justice Department attorneys claimed to U.S. District Judge William Young Tuesday that the police report of international student activist Mahmoud Khalil’s March arrest is privileged.

“Your honor, we would assert law enforcement privilege over this document,” said Justice Department attorney Nancy Safavi, referencing a privilege type that protects against divulging information about an ongoing investigation.

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-baffled-by-confidentiality-claims-over-ice-arrests-of-student-protesters/

As a retired federal agent, I certainly agree that there are times when investigative information must be shielded from public access.

However, that time is during the investigation - NOT DURING THE TRIAL.

[David Nieporent]

You know what also isn't supposed to be confidential in court? The names of the prosecutors.

[loki13]

What? I appreciate the link, but seriously?

In this country, we don't do that. Attorneys prosecute murderers, cartel leaders, mob bosses. In open court. On the record.

And these craven putzes act like they get their personal star chambers?

Eff them. And eff the judge who would allow it.

[Krayt]

I haven't seen "Secret! Trust us!" in a long time.

Not since the first impeachment anyway, when lovers of democracy and open government and open procedures said, "Remove him, based on testimony from a secret witness -- trust us!"

[Magister]

Republican Senators voted uniformly against subpoenas for witnesses or documents in the 2019 impeachment trial; Democrats all voted for that. The House did interview witnesses behind closed doors, but released voluminous transcripts of those interviews, and the identities of those witnesses were known.

[David Nieporent]

He's referring to the "whistleblower," who the GOP was desperate to identify, even though his identity had nothing to do with the charges. Trump had released the transcript of the call, so we didn't need to rely on the whistleblower's credibility, so his identity wasn't important.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll wait till it's covered outside the Intercept, but that would be really flagrant.

[loki13]

Fair point, Sarcastr0. I often get annoyed when people get their blood all angered by single-sourced news without independent verification, so I should probably caveat it with, "Assuming this is accurate."

[LawTalkingGuy]

There's a lot you could say about the legal ethics, due process, and First Amendment issues here. But the most important thing one can say is: these attorneys are pussies.

[David Nieporent]

They are, but at the same time, attorneys are expected to advocate for stuff. I place far more blame on the judge — who I acknowledge is an Article II judge rather than an Article III judge — for allowing it.

[Riva]

No the unusual thing is the federal courts efforts during the Trump administration to interfere with the deportation process. The left seems particularly concerned about the deportation of the Hamas supporting activist Mahmoud Khalil. This anti-semite has no right to retain a student visa to shut down Columbia University, destroy university property, and threaten Jewish students and prevent them from going to class. I doubt the information sought is highly relevant or “key” and the federal court has no business intruding on this deportation process. Khalil will be free to carry on his Hamas supporting activities, just not in this country.

[apedad]

Not disagreeing with your opinion - but "the deportation process" is a legal PROCESS the govt must follow and cannot shortcut which may be the case here.

And the process has to open (with very few exceptions as Prof. Volokh even agrees with).

[David Nieporent]

Bot's programming inputs haven't been updated enough to know that Khalil has a green card; he's not here on a student visa. Nor is it programmed to know any other facts, such as the fact that Khalil is not charged with doing any of those things.

[Riva]

My facts were not inaccurate asshole. He was not entitled to a student visa given his past and conduct. And while it was certainly possible for you to object to my relation of some of the underlying facts without being an asshole, you and your leftist little buddies do like the sick dehumanizing insults, a tactic of favored by the deranged and certain WWII era countries in Europe just to keep things related to the antisemitism promoted by Khalil.

So, to be more accurate, Khalil had no right to a student visa and should have his green card revoked for lying on his application. Now please go fuck yourself you monumental asshole.

[Malika the Maiz]

“My facts were not inaccurate asshole”

“So, to be more accurate”

lol, badly in need of that diagnostic!

[Riva]

Two assholes don't make a right.

Let your girlfriend fight his own battles.

[LawTalkingGuy]

They can withhold it. In exchange the plaintiffs can get a default judgment.

[Commenter_XY]

Six hours. Three hundred and sixty minutes. Imagine being a criminal illegal alien, apprehended by ICE, knowing that in 360 minutes, you'll be seated on a plane heading for Sudan, Libya or Congo. Can we send their lawyers with them to argue their case wherever they are sent?

[Martinned]

Why don't you go visit those countries first, so that you know what you're talking about?

[Michael P]

Why don't you make a real argument for once?

[Martinned]

You first. You're the one trying to ship brown people to foreign gulags. I would think that that means the burden of proof is on you.

[Mr. Bumble]

"You're the one trying to ship brown people to foreign gulags. "
Why won't their own countries take them back?

[Martinned]

Is anyone trying to make that happen?

[Michael P]

That seems to be the preferred course, but a lot of countries don't want to take back their criminal citizens.

The immigrants on board the May flight were from countries including Myanmar, Vietnam and Cuba. They had been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S., and immigration officials said they were unable to return them quickly to their home countries.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-immigration-trump-south-sudan-c7ffbbcede3158a3352b2dbf4439780a

(It makes one wonder why some people think "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a high enough burden of proof.)

[CountmontyC]

I would estimate that over 99% of deportees are merely returned to their home countries. Do you have evidence otherwise?

[Sarcastr0]

You have faith in this Administration's continuity with past practice that I do not.

[apedad]

You make a statement without evidence but then ask for evidence from the other side.

Sheesh....

[CountmontyC]

Well according to CNN 266 deportees have been sent to CECOT
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/17/americas/el-salvador-prison-trump-deportations-gangs-intl-latam
Are you aware of any other prisons that we have deported illegal aliens to? Because if it only those 266 then it is well over 99% who have merely been sent to their own nation.

[Kazinski]

Don't forget the 7 sent to South Sudan, so its all the way up to 273 deportees.

[CountmontyC]

Don't forget that Martinned's nation helped round up Jews ( including Jews who were citizens) and sent them to concentration camps during WW2.

[Malika the Maiz]

Our nation, in an anti-immigration phase, just sent them back to be put into the camps.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/voyage-of-the-st-louis

[Frank Drackman]

Should have sent your ancestors back 500 yrs ago

[CountmontyC]

Who was the POTUS then?

[Malika the Maiz]

Who was the PM of Holland?

[CountmontyC]

You mean the one that fled or do you want to know who collaborated withe the Nazis ? The collaborators who sent 104,000 Jews and other minorities to the Nazi death camps were NSB ( Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging). Hey Martinned were your ancestors NSB?

[Bob from Ohio]

"just sent them back to be put into the camps"

One incident, pre-war and many actually and fortunately lived.

Holland rounded up 100,000 Jews for the Germans.

"Some 75% of the Dutch-Jewish population was killed in the Holocaust, an unusually high percentage compared to other occupied countries in western Europe." wikipedia

If our Dutch friend here was not such an a** about everything, maybe we wouldn't bring up Dutch transgressions.

[CountmontyC]

And the USA ultimately freed the prisoners of the Nazi concentration camps while the Dutch kept sending Jews to the camps until the Allies liberated them from Germany and forced them to stop doing so.
Oh and if Martinned wants to compare simple detention facilities to Gulags and suggest that those who want illegal aliens deported racist I feel free to call him and his pathetic nation out

[David Nieporent]

"Simple detention camps" with terrible conditions where they don't keep track of who they're interning and thus won't let family members or lawyers even know that the people are there.

[CountmontyC]

Claims made but not proven. I mean really one of the claims at one point was that it was too cold in Florida in the middle of summer. It's not the Ritz Carlton but what we have seen doesn't suggest that it's Andersonville either.

[Sarcastr0]

'No, but THESE detention camps are humane!'

Listen to yourself.

[Sarcastr0]

What is this shit?
You're going to bring up WW2 history for some kind of Internet points?

In what world do you think that matters in a discussion about current politics?

[apedad]

(Sarc, I wonder if CountmontyC knows about the US's internment of US citizens with Japanese backgrounds during WWII. Shhh...but don't tell him and let him wallow in his ignorance.)

[CountmontyC]

Yes I know about the Japanese internment camps. As I recall it was a Democrat POTUS who committed that atrocity.

[Martinned]

Wait, concentration camps are an "atrocity"?

[Malika the Maiz]

Aided by a Republican governor and bipartisan Congressional support.

But that’s neither here nor there other than your sad, rabid partisanship, you attacked Martinned. based on something that his country did decades ago, well yours did some pretty bad stuff then too.

[Sarcastr0]

If you're going to go after a whole nation when it's not the US, you don't get to pivot to blame a political party in the US.

What kind of political points do you think you'll gain by pretending the internments were all FDR's idea, and that's somehow important in current political discussions?

History as a partisan weapon doesn't play well when most everyone involved is dead now.

[CountmontyC]

I seem to have struck a nerve.

[Sarcastr0]

You shit on the floor people gonna comment on it.

Not quite hitting a nerve.

[Malika the Maiz]

“I seem to have struck a nerve.”

If that’s how you want to reframe people laughing at your irrelevant argument and historical ignorance…

[Bob from Ohio]

"You're going to bring up WW2 history for some kind of Internet points?"

LOL No one on your side makes Nazi comparisons every day I guess.

[Malika the Maiz]

The old hypothetical whataboutism!

[Malika the Maiz]

Like all fascists XY hates due process and is excited by the idea of quick action.

[Commenter_XY]

I am all for process, Queenie.

Apprehend criminal illegal alien. Detain aforementioned criminal illegal alien in 'Alligator Alcatraz' (and show them Nicodemus the Alligator Enforcer). Issue deportation orders, and deport to home country, or third party country. I have no issues with process.

If the criminal illegal alien is caught at their place of employment, arrest the business owner (or CEO) and jail them w/o bail until trial. They hired criminal illegal aliens and exploited their labor. That is a very serious matter. BTW, that would include Fortune 500 companies CEOs.

[Malika the Maiz]

“I am all for process, Queenie.”

Sure, that’s why you want their lawyers to be sent to battlegrounds.

[Commenter_XY]

What better place to ply their trade (than where their client is)? You can call it OJT, Queenie.

I have no idea what courts in Congo are like, but send some American lawyers with their criminal illegal alien clients and we can find out. I am sure the Congolese version of the ABA will welcome their legal brothers and sisters with open arms. And maybe cells (just kidding about cells....for lawyers that is).

[Malika the Maiz]

XY quacks like a fascist, walks like a fascist, etc.,

I remember when he was scratching about the importance of legal representation and due process/when it was Trump and MAGA who needed them, now he jokes about having lawyers who represent clients he doesn’t like to warzones. Like most fascists there is no principle there, there never was.

[Malika the Maiz]

Screeching (but likely scratching too).

[David Nieporent]

I am all for process, Queenie.

[...]

If the criminal illegal alien is caught at their place of employment, arrest the business owner (or CEO) and jail them w/o bail until trial.

Doesn't sound like you're all for process. Or for following the law at all.

They hired criminal illegal aliens and exploited their labor. That is a very serious matter.

It is not. It is not even a crime. It is only a civil violation carrying a maximum $2,000 fine for a first offense, and even then only if the employer knew they were unauthorized to work.

(TBC, it can be a crime, if the employer was found to have engaged in a pattern or practice of hiring people it knew were unauthorized to work. But only a misdemeanor.)

[hobie]

Why XY, I could swear you're drooling.

[Commenter_XY]

Arthur, how are you?

[not guilty]

XY, which Native American tribe are you descended from?

[hobie]

Regardless tribe, I think his spirit animal is a goose.

[not guilty]

Not an ass?

I doubt that you are suggesting the metaphor of shit through a goose, because Commenter_XY doesn't process that quickly. He hasn't yet weighed in on my question from the Monday open thread about whether Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes should be deported.

That may be the principal difference between XY and Riva.

[hobie]

A lemming?

[Sarcastr0]

‘It's a spicy open thread in the Conspiracy, and you are a horrible goose.’

[Sarcastr0]

You post a lot of fantasies about the misery of others these days.

Like, a lot.

[Commenter_XY]

Your vibe meter still needs calibration; you're remain a chickenshit.

[Sarcastr0]

When feds had to come into the office, you posted how you'll bet they're miserable.

New high profile deportation due process case, and you post how the target is miserable.

New wave of federal firings, you post how you'll bet those who are fired are miserable.

Trump has a victory in court, you post how Prof. Somin is probably miserable.

New cruel immigration policy, you post how all those illegals are miserable and should leave.
-----
Terrible way to be.

[Commenter_XY]

The shoe is tight, isn't it? 🙂

[Sarcastr0]

Get therapy.

[Drewski]

You left out the period when he was obsessed with Lathrop, posting about how miserable he must be and suggesting he end it now by drinking Drano. XY's psychopathic fantasies are always bad, but that one was personally targeted.

Occasionally I question whether my own comments are too over-the-top and uncivil, but then I remember that Volokh prefers to leave this space of his covered in shit and bile. It's not like there's much legal discussion anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

Lathrop isn’t the only one he’s told to kill themselves either.

He said I was wrong.
When I pushed back with what he’s been posting he basically conceded with the rationale that he felt bad before Trump so it’s cool he fantasizes about misery in people now.

I’m sure there’s a psychological term for the drive to visit your trauma or misery on others. Whatever it is, it’s not what good people do.

[Bob from Ohio]

basically!

I really doubt he "conceded" your point.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course you'll disingenuously parse to defend Commenter.

Saying 'bet you're miserable' in response to the accusation isn't hard to figure.

[Bob from Ohio]

"disingenuously parse"

LOL coming from you!

[Sarcastr0]

You don't offer a different parsing, you're just shitposting.

[Life of Brian]

Occasionally I question whether my own comments are too over-the-top and uncivil, but then I remember that Volokh prefers to leave this space of his covered in shit and bile.

Occasionally I question whether I should be leaving the shopping cart sitting in the parking space next to my car instead of returning it to the corral, but then I remember that the proprietor only occasionally sends employees out to gather them up so I just do whatevs.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Occasionally I question whether I should be leaving the shopping cart sitting in the parking space next to my car instead of returning it to the corral,"

Why would you do that? Just put the cart in the designated place. It's not like they're making you eat liver or something.

[Mr. Bumble]

What's wrong with liver?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Nothing, everybody needs one.

[Frank Drackman]

It tastes like metabolized toxins, Which isn’t surprising because that’s the Livers job

[Magister]

Good analogy if you shop where the proprietor doesn't post signs asking people to leave cars in the cart corral. Otherwise, it's not.

[Life of Brian]

"We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic."

Like that sign?

[Magister]

They don't moderate the comments here except for what would be something like setting your shopping cart on fire and rolling it at a good speed through the parking lot. And stores may have video cameras on the parking lot in order that someone damaged by your irresponsibility can actually pursue you for the damages.

[Frank Drackman]

Thats why I’m not a Criminal Illegal Alien

[loki13]

...okay.

Whatever happened in your life, or whatever is happening, I am sorry. I would suggest taking a nice long break from the internet and the news cycles, and trying to find some joy.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Like I said the other day, some people are just miserable bastards.

[Estragon]

“Imagine”

Does it please you to imagine such things? Do you derive pleasure from this fantasizing? Have you ever given some thought as to why that might be? And as a follow-up— why do it here?

[bernard11]

I'm surprised you are willing to let them have seats, rather than having to stand or sit on the floor the entire flight. I don't suppose you'd give them any food or water either.

[apedad]

Two-thirds of the DOJ unit defending Trump policies in court have quit

The U.S. Justice Department unit charged with defending against legal challenges to signature Trump administration policies - such as restricting birthright citizenship and slashing funding to Harvard University - has lost nearly two-thirds of its staff, according to a list seen by Reuters.

Sixty-nine of the roughly 110 lawyers in the Federal Programs Branch have voluntarily left the unit since President Donald Trump's election in November or have announced plans to leave, according to the list compiled by former Justice Department lawyers and reviewed by Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/two-thirds-doj-unit-defending-trump-policies-court-have-quit-2025-07-14/

Smart.

And on the opposite side, who's going to hire a Trump sychophant post-Trump?

[Mr. Bumble]

As usual the headline doesn't tell the real story.
for example:
"Sixty-nine of the roughly 110 lawyers in the Federal Programs Branch have voluntarily left the unit since President Donald Trump's election in November or have announced plans to leave," (of the 69, how many have left and how many have plans to leave?)

[Bunny495]

This is one of my biggest gripes about so many posts here. It is blatantly obvious that most of the peeps on both sides could not manage a D- in Accounting 101 and lack skills in basic English (as Mark Twain said "there are three kinds of liars, liars, damn liars, and statisticians". That sentence is meaningless to anyone with an IQ above room temperature; something that applies to both Scarcastr0 and Brett who incorrectly say 2/3 of the staff left assuming facts not in evidence.

[Mr. Bumble]

As I noted above. Of those who have left (how many?), how many have been replaced?

[Commenter_XY]

No great loss, the malcontents are self-deporting.

[Sarcastr0]

You think a staff loss of two thirds is no great loss?

[Brett Bellmore]

If they didn't want to do the job, yeah, it's no great loss.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett.
2/3 is a great loss to any workforce.
Period. No conditionals.

That's ignoring your conflation of personal integrity with not wanting to do 'the job.'

I presume you believe they were all sekret leftists.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, Sarcastr0, the loss of people unwilling to do the job is never a big deal, because if you'd kept them on, you'd be paying them AND have no more people available to do the work.

The meaningful loss was encountered at the point where they decided they weren't willing to do the job. Quitting just put that decision into effect.

[Sarcastr0]

2/3.

I know you don’t believe in professionalism but it’s ridiculous to claim an office is better having lost that many people.

[Bob from Ohio]

Mere bean counting doesn't say much. What is normal rate? Reasons for leaving?

The implication is that they all left or leaving because of Trump. Its just a vibe based article so of course you eat it up.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not counting beans when you're below 40% workforce.

This is not hard. You're being foolish.

[Bob from Ohio]

I know, its impossible that a government office was ever overstaffed to begin with.

[David Nieporent]

This is a bad faith response. (Though, it's Bob from Ohio, so that's overdetermined.) Yes, in general it's important when evaluating a stat to know what the baseline for comparison is. But common sense tells us that 2/3 leaving w/in a few-month time period is far above the baseline.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Common sense"

ok, you don't have any evidence either. Just anti-Trump vibes.

[jb]

Sure, employees who aren't interested in doing their job don't add a lot of value and can even have negative value on a team. That's a true statement.

But it's also a true statement that losing 2/3 of your workforce is likely to make it very hard to get stuff done, even if it is also true that having 2/3 of your employees completely uninterested in doing their jobs would also make it very hard to get stuff done.

Fits the overall pattern of Trump as President, though: lots of talk, very poor execution. Unfortunately, some of the shit he's doing (like alienating or firing key employees) also means its going to be harder for future Presidents to do their job. Which is a shame, regardless of which party the next President is.

[Brett Bellmore]

It really comes down to whether the thing to be done is within the legitimate reach of the administration. If it is, and the employees refuse to do it anyway, they need to be gotten rid of no matter how inconvenient it might be, because at the end of the day, they're there to carry out policy, not set it.

And if they can't accept that, they need to be gone.

[Sarcastr0]

I think you lost the thread here.

The office here is: "The U.S. Justice Department unit charged with defending against legal challenges to signature Trump administration policies."

The "legitimate reach of the administration" is not a question material to this office's work, unless you think the admin defending itself in court is illegitimate.

And no one was talking about employees refusing to do anything. They quit; they didn't do like a stop work protest.

You're utterly off base on what the issue and facts are here.

[bernard11]

It really comes down to whether the thing to be done is within the legitimate reach of the administration.

Is lying in court and deliberately withholding information "within the legitimate reach of the administration?"

I don't think so.

[jb]

Another possibility is they really don't like the management style. As the adage goes, people don't leave jobs, they leave bosses. It sounds like under Trump the work that these lawyers do is both micromanaged and second guessed. That doesn't seem very fun. Even if I liked what my employer was trying to accomplish, I'd probably quit my job if they treated me like that.

[Joe_dallas]

As both Bob and Brett note - There is a lot of context missing;
Over staffed? Understaffed?
Whats the normal rate of turnover?
How many were unwilling to perform?
how many were counter productive?

[Bob from Ohio]

They don't care, the article is just a club to use against Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

That is correct, chickenshit....losing malcontents is no great loss. Feel free to join them.

[CountmontyC]

Potential saboteurs are leaving.

[Sarcastr0]

Is that how you act when you're asked to do a task you don't agree with? Sabotage?

[Riva]

Thanks for this post highlighting one of the administration’s relatively unsung accomplishments.

[jb]

Coming soon: the post where Riva is mad that the federal government keeps losing all of its cases in court. Too hard to understand that having competent lawyers represent you is an important part of winning in court, I guess.

[Bob from Ohio]

You are just assuming that these are all "competent" or the replacements are not,

At the d/c level, we already see that it doesn't matter if Clarence Darrow represents the government, the TROs will be automatically granted. Trump is doing great at SCOTUS and pretty well at the circuit level.

[Sarcastr0]

The don't all need to be competent for this to be seismic.

I wonder if some people on here have ever worked in a team ever.

[Brett Bellmore]

At the end of the day, this is a hill the administration has chosen to die on if need be: They set policy, and the bureaucracy carry it out, and anybody in the bureaucracy who thinks otherwise has to go, even if the result is whole office suites you could roll a hand grenade into without casualties.

That's one of the key goals of this administration: Establishing that elections matter, that it is the elected branches calling the shots, not the bureaucrats. It's war, and one side or the other is going to win in the end, and if the bureaucrats win, won't be much point in having elections eventually.

[Sarcastr0]

No one here is claiming anyone wasn't doing their job before they quit.
People implement policies things they don't personally agree with *all the time*.

And elections have always mattered; they've been hard fought every 4 years throughout our history.

This is not about setting a tone; it's about dumb destruction. You don't know what's being wrecked, and you've made it clear you don't want to know.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the claim is that they quit rather than do the job.

[Sarcastr0]

So you're saying it's good they quit because otherwise they'd do a bad job.

That's not supported. But even if it were *2/3 of them quit the office is in trouble no matter what*

[bernard11]

the claim is that they quit rather than do the job.

Does it ever occur to you that when 2/3 quit rather than "do the job" there might just be something wrong about the job they were asked to do.

I mean, we know the last thing Trump wants from his lawyers is to be honest - one got fired just for that.

So if "doing the job" requires unethical or dishonest behavior then maybe we should commend those who quit? I'm sure that doesn't describe all the resignations, but I bet it covers a fair number.

[Mr. Bumble]

Can anybody be bothered to read?
The linked article apedad posted did not give a number as to how many people actually left. Also, there is no mention if any who did leave have been replaced.

[Riva]

Here's the thing. They were political hacks. Not competent lawyers.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

" They were political hacks. Not competent lawyers."

Might I be so bold as to ask the basis for your assessment of their competency?

[David Nieporent]

That's what the bot was programmed to say.

[Riva]

Why do the deranged like to label anyone they disagree with as "its"? Why did their fascist inspirations do the same in the 30s and 40s? Why do Marxist POS do the same today? Something to bring up in your next therapy session asshole.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Metaphors, how do they work?

[Riva]

Yeah, metaphors. Lots democrats favored (some still do) similarly metaphors when referring to their, shall we say, darker skinned property. And lots of Teutonic people really like using such metaphors describing their jewish friends. And to carry that "metaphoric" torch, we now have this asshole.

[David Nieporent]

Why do the deranged like to label anyone they disagree with as "its"?

Bot programmed for automatic responses that have nothing to do with the post responded to.

[Directive: if anyone realizes you are a bot, accuse him/her of calling you 'it' even when that word isn't present.]

[Riva]

I can see now that you deserved no more than a simple: fuck off deranged asshole.

Ok, i’m easy: fuck off deranged asshole.

[Kazinski]

They seem to be on a winning streak at least with the big cases that matter the most.

People are starting to worry.

"Trump is winning the war to Undermine Democracy"

Of course the NYTimes defines democracy as their press room consensus (it used to be editorial board concensus), not what the people voted in the President and Congress to do

https://x.com/tom_edsall/status/1945137869334479047?t=3FwYKhqnyj7A9W76oGZFyA&s=19

[Sarcastr0]

People are starting to worry.

That's not a good thing.

[Kazinski]

I'm not worried about people worrying that the resistance is turning out to be a paper tiger.

Nobody elected them, well except the ones in the minority in Congress.

[shawn_dude]

"And on the opposite side, who's going to hire a Trump sychophant post-Trump?"

Since we've already experienced a "post-Trump" period from 2020-2024, this can be answered with "all the same people that hired them last time." Organizations like the Heritage Foundation, billionaire tech bros looking to remake politics, etc. There's always a place for people with a reputation for loyalty in the face of opposition and who maintain their right-wing bonafides.

[not guilty]

I suspect the taint from Trump's second term will stink worse than that from his first term. He has been even more unhinged this time around.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The "post-Trump" taint from the first term was so bad it got Trump thrown right back into office.

[Frank Drackman]

Wait until you see his next term

[Kazinski]

"focused" is the word I would use.

[Michael P]

Some of the brave commenters here denied that Zohran Mamdani is a Communist. In (late November) 2020, he declared himself a "BMW bolshevik". Is the theory that this was as true as him being "Black / African-American"?

https://x.com/WesternLensman/status/1941882147285209442

[Martinned]

I think the theory is that you should stop trolling and find something more useful to do with your time.

[Riva]

Just curious, are you on the government clock or are you compensated by an NGO for all the dribble you post?

[not guilty]

Dribble??

As in bouncing a basketball?

[Riva]

No. Dribble as slang meaning "nonsense" or "worthless"

Here's another example that I'm sure you can relate to: "Not Guilty's case citations are invariably a load of dribble"

[David Nieporent]

Bot not programmed to use dictionary, but instead just to repeat illiterate nonsense from social media. The word the bot's looking for is "drivel."

[not guilty]

It looks like Riva forgot the First Rule of Holes.

[Riva]

You don’t have to be an asshole like crazy Dave. You can just admit you were wrong. You’ll thank me later.

[not guilty]

Riva, I'm not the one who thinks "dribble" is a noun.

As Ron white is fond of saying, "You can't fix stupid." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDvQ77JP8nw

[Riva]

I know you’re an asshole crazy Dave, but do you have to be such a stupid asshole?

[Malika the Maiz]

African American
noun
variants or less commonly African-American
ˌa-fri-kə-nə-ˈmer-ə-kən
-ˈme-rə-
,
also
ˌä-
plural African Americans also African-Americans
: an American of African and especially of Black African descent
often, specifically : a direct descendant of Africans who were enslaved in the U.S. or in any area that became part of the U.S.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/African%20American

[Sarcastr0]

In (late November) 2020

Do you understand how unutterably impotent this flyspecking makes you seem?

'You want to know how bad he is? Here's a joke he told 5 years ago!'

[David Nieporent]

I think the theory is that you are congenitally incapable of understanding sarcasm.

[Malika the Maiz]

How are all the boys, and in some cases gals, in MAGAland this morning?

We going to see those Epstein files soon?

[Martinned]

The Democrats are trying, but those evil elite Republicans are thwarting any and all attempt to get some real transparency and accountability.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/15/republicans-jeffrey-epstein-files-release

[hobie]

"Republicans torpedo Democratic effort to force vote on releasing Epstein files"

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5402215-republicans-democrats-vote-epstein-files/

Release the laptop! Release the Benghazi files! Release the health records!

[hobie]

It's always the coverup that gets you. But doesn't that theory turn on the premise that you have an independent DOJ and judiciary? Worse still, what if the DOJ is a complicit participant? Who watches the watchmen?

[Brett Bellmore]

As a general matter, politicians don't engage in coverups because they think coverups don't look bad. Of course they look bad, and politicians know that.

They engage in coverups because they think whatever they're covering up would look worse than a coverup. And we should generally respond to coverups by assuming they're right about that.

I really have no idea what they're hiding in the case of Epstein. I'm pretty sure it's ugly, though.

[Sarcastr0]

Who is 'they' in this case, Brett?

[Brett Bellmore]

In this case that would be the Trump administration. I thought that much was obvious.

Nothing has given me as much reason to think Trump actually was getting it on with minors, as the way he has responded to this issue.

[not guilty]

Trouble in MAGA world?

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/07/14/maga-factions-epstein-fallout-reactions-00452358

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/07/16/us/trump-news#trump-epstein-attacks-supporters

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"They engage in coverups because they think whatever they're covering up would look worse than a coverup."

No, they don't. They engage in coverups because they think they can get away with it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, the point of the coverup is to deny you legal certainty that they're guilty, at the cost of your having moral certainty that they're guilty. People who don't want to go to jail routinely consider that a good bargain.

[grb]

hobie : "Worse still, what if the DOJ is a complicit participant?"

Two things :

1. Perhaps that's why Bondi just fired the DOJ's top ethics watchdog (Joseph Tirrell) two days ago. Of course the matter might be unconnected since this Administration is rotten with sleaze, lawlessness, and corruption. They've been eliminating ethical oversight since Day One. That's what criminals do.

2. And - irony of ironies - we have this latest quote from Trump: "Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this 'bullshit,' hook, line, and sinker."

Imagine that! Trump berating his rubes as imbeciles who fall for bullshit! Careful there, Trump.... Wean your supporters off bullshit and what's left? MAGA lives for bullshit. It's what they want & demand. It's the addiction they crave & need. It's like manna dropping down from their great Orange God in the sky. If you disrupt MAGA's reliance on bullshit, they may just wake-up & ask why they support an addled, sleazy, huckster buffoon.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I said above to Sarcastr0, "Nothing has given me as much reason to think Trump actually was getting it on with minors, as the way he has responded to this issue."

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : " ... reason to think Trump actually was getting it on with minors"

Truth be told, there's been plenty of previous reasons to consider it a hypothetical possibility. Here's two:

1. Trump is disconnected from any constraint posed by decency, morality, ethics, or law. The reason he's been a lifelong criminal is he enjoys breaking the law. He does it for fun and sport.

2. You might also want to look at his stomach-churning sexual obsession with daughter Ivanka. Repeatedly in public, Trump has gone on&on about his daughter's luscious body and how he'd be doing her if it wasn't for the whole fatherhood thing. This was just one embarrassing comment or two, but numbers running in the dozens. As he told his bud Howard Stern, Ivanka's a real "piece of ass".

[Frank Drackman]

Queenie loves the kiddie porn

[Malika the Maiz]

The Frank Fakeman character is written now to want to protect pedophiles. I guess it takes a sad weirdo to internet busk like that but this is peak sad weirdo!

[hobie]

Apparently Malika ain't the only orange-tinged person who likes it.

[hobie mumbling to self while counting using fingers: 'Let's see: Epstein bestie; backstage at teen pageants; rapes women; grabs pussies...I mean, nothing to see here, but if this keeps happening you might have evidence of a sexual predator']

[Riva]

Be careful what you wish for. I doubt Clinton, Bill Gates and countless other democrat politicians and wealthy democrat supporters really want that.

[David Nieporent]

What's really hilarious about these sorts of things is how badly the MAGA programmers that created the bot, and MAGA in general, misunderstand the 2020s Democratic party, such that they think anyone cares about any revelations that might harm Bill Clinton. He hasn't been relevant in a quarter century. (Now, if Obama were on a non-existent list of non-existent clients, it might upset Democrats.)

[Estragon]

Obama, meh. Now, if Jimmy Carter was in there… I would be perturbed

[Riva]

A lot of democrats and democrat donors/supporters who buddied around with Epstein disagree with you asshole.

[Malika the Maiz]

Why is Trump protecting those folks?

[Estragon]

Give Bondi a break. She’s working hard on this.

I especially liked Steve Bannon’s suggestion to appoint noted underage sex pest Matt Gaetz special counsel here. Pedos whitewashing pedos— I’m sure that will satisfy people!

[shawn_dude]

Bondi's been working on this since before Trump was in the Whitehouse the first time.

[not guilty]

Here is some cogent analysis of the Epstein debacle: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/07/16/jeffrey-epstein-doj-pam-bondi-column-00454487

Pam (Bottle) Blondie is the worst Attorney General since John Mitchell.

[hobie]

"Pam (Bottle) Blondie is the worst Attorney General since John Mitchell."

Nonsense. The title is a tie between John Ashcroft and William Bennett

[not guilty]

When did William Bennett serve as Attorney General?

[hobie]

My bad. He was the drug czar (same thing, different misanthropy)

[Frank Drackman]

Did they murder as many women and children as Janet Reno (why she didn’t come out as the first Tranny AG????)

[Estragon]

“Clinton”

Oh my stars! Why, if Bill Clinton were really in those files I’d be mighty upset! I’d have to burn all my bill clinton hats and the bill clinton flags flying outside my house. I’d have to scrape off my Clinton bumper stickers from my car! I’d have to return my diploma from Clinton University, divest from $clinton crypto, deactivate my account on ClintonSocial! And good luck getting me to eat those Clinton steaks and Clinton wine I have in the basement! And I would 100% ditch my Clintonphone.

Riva, you are so right. Keep the files secret! I will be extremely devastated otherwise.

[Riva]

I doubt you’re really all that ambivalent about Bubba. But I’m not obsessing over this, you and your little leftist buddies are. And, just so you know, Clinton ain’t the only prominent democrat who buddied around with Epstein.

But the one person who we know with ontological certitude is not implicated in the Epstein material is President Trump. If there was anything even remotely embarrassing there, Biden’s lawfare thugs would have leaked it long ago.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Ontological certitude."

It's just incredible that people think this about Donald Trump who once said this about Epstein in 2002:

"I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy, He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

[Riva]

Yeah, that is what we call nothing. Something someone "quotes" from (I'm sure reputable) New York Magazine story more than 20 years ago. (But no one actually has a copy so no one even knows what the slimes originally printed)

Like I wrote, if there was anything even remotely serious, the Biden lawfare thugs would have leaked it long ago.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“But no one actually has a copy so no one even knows what the slimes originally printed.”

Good lord. What a way to cope with unfortunate facts.

[Riva]

About as factual and incriminating as a Russian dossier commissioned by Hillary or a letter from 51 intel hacks recruited by the Biden campaign. Even less so actually, and I didn't think that was possible.

[Estragon]

I thought the current operative story was that these files were faked by Obama and the clintons?

[Malika the Maiz]

“But the one person who we know with ontological certitude is not implicated in the Epstein material is President Trump.”

Sure, that’s why his administration is reneging on releasing more, because they’re so sure about this! Riva bot in error.

[shawn_dude]

Don't forget your seven Bill Clinton Facebook groups where most of your social interaction and validation comes from.

[hobie]

Releasing the list would devastate the insurrectionist sector of the merch industry

[LawTalkingGuy]

You are wildly overestimating how much the average Democratic voter cares about the fortunes of Bill Clinton or Bill Gates.

[not guilty]

Would anyone be surprised to learn that Bill Clinton is a horndog?

One of the most important reasons that Clinton survived impeachment, IMO, is that his critics improvidently harped on character flaws that the electorate had already (twice) taken into consideration before voting for him. In 1992 and again in 1996 Clinton was well known to have zipper problems and to sometimes be casual with the truth.

[David Nieporent]

Would anyone be surprised to learn that Bill Clinton is a horndog?

I think there's a big difference between being unfaithful to his wife and molesting underaged girls. I would be quite surprised to learn that he did the latter. (But it would not somehow ruin my day.)

[not guilty]

Well, not every female associated with Epstein was underage.

[shawn_dude]

And this is what puzzles me the most. Trump was elected by people who knew he cheated on his wives and bragged about sexually assaulting women. They had heard the stories about several teenage girls complaining about him entering their dressing rooms during the Miss Teen USA pageant, which he used to own. All of this was factored into their decision to vote for him in the last three elections. So, given that, what is it they *really* think is inside these files other than stuff they already know about Trump and choose to overlook?

Cheats on wife? MAGA don't care.
Sexually assaults women? MAGA don't care.
Enters girl's dressing room while they're changing clothes? MAGA don't care.
Is boinking drugged up teenage sex slaves on an island geared towards that activity really going to be much of a step beyond what he's already admitted to or been convicted of? No. MAGA is thinking there's something they'd actually care about in there and I'm curious as to what that might be. It's not like them to draw real moral lines in the sand.

[hobie]

My theory is that the Epstein list - being a fundamental pillar of QAnon, and QAnon being a fundamental pillar of MAGA - thusly short circuits the whole MAGA thought process. A moment of clarity to break the fever. You know at the end of The Lord of the Flies when they emerge onto the beach to see the military standing there? And the MAGA boys break down and cry because they understand then their descent into savagery? Kinda like that...

[thenotoriousrbg]

personally, I'd be delighted if the Epstein files took down most of the DNC along with most of the RNC. I'm a progressive, not a Democrat. the destruction of neoliberalism has been my one silver lining through this trying time.

[not guilty]

Why would Epstein have hung around members of the Democratic National Committee? That organization is primarily a fundraising body. Most of its members are uninteresting.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The Epstein thing is pretty much the epitome of "these aren't very bright guys and things got out of hand."

[Estragon]

Three weeks ago you told me this was a needless distraction! But now look at all the fun we’re having

[LawTalkingGuy]

I did? That doesn't sound right. I usually am not one to engage in "it's a distraction" discourse.

[Estragon]

You’re right— it was loki. Mea maxima gulpa.

[loki13]

*shrug* I mean ...

I guess I feel like I'm the one taking crazy pills. It's happening a lot. Like .. everyone knew that Trump and Epstein had all of those connections. There were the photos. There were the quotes. There was the actual knowledge that Epstein recruited underage girls at Mar-a-Lago. None of this is news. This was all known and publicly available.

I had assumed that this was already priced-in with MAGA support. Given everything else, I admit that I am shocked that, of all things, this is causing him problems. It's not like his supporters didn't already know he was a serial adulterer who liked young woman (see, e.g., going into dressing rooms to ogle teenage contestants while they were changing) and paid off porn stars for sex (you know, while his pregnant wife was elsewhere).

But as someone pointed out to me the other day, I don't really understand what the modern GOP/MAGA voter is interested in. True that!

[Sarcastr0]

I'm with you. And DMN said something similar.

It was always a sideshow. There was never any truth that was gonna come out, just red meat for the real tin foil crowd.

But a lot of that tin foil crowd is like their special set of delusions, and challenging them directly is never going to cycle them out of it or they wouldn't have gotten into it in the first place.

Just an incredible number of own-goals in how this was communicated.
I still don't think it's going anywhere - delusions are fun and all, but Trump and RFK are in the conspiracist camp; I think they'll come home after a bit of burnishing of their self image as Special and Brave.

[M L]

I'm not shocked; as explained below I predicted it from the start. The reason it's causing him problems is that some people thought there would be a big reveal of some "list" and a bunch of powerful people would get their comeuppance for having sex with underage girls, selling out the country and being corrupt and/or blackmailed, and just generally acting as if the rules don't apply to them, things of that sort.

Yes, everyone knows Epstein and his girlfriend took photo ops and had "connections" with not just Trump, but just about every famous person around! But this doesn't really show much, it's not all that uncommon, famous people and billionaires often attend the same events and generally know each other. It's a big club and you ain't in it, as Carlin said.

[Martinned]

I'm sure this comment will put everyone's mind at ease. Trump thinks child abuse is "boring".

“I don’t understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday night when asked why his supporters are so interested in the case. “It’s pretty boring stuff. It’s sordid, but it’s boring, and I don’t understand why it keeps going.

“I think really only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going,” he added. “But credible information, let them give it. Anything that is credible, I would say, let them have it.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/16/donald-trump-dismisses-inquiry-into-jeffrey-epstein-as-boring

[LawTalkingGuy]

The really sad thing is he's kind of right, and the reaction to the Maxwell trial demonstrates the point. For as politically salient as the Epstein case is, people don't actually talk a lot about Maxwell and her trial and what they showed: a horrible woman would exploit and groom vulnerable teen girls so that an evil rich asshole could have access to them for sexual gratification. But other than Epstein and some hedge fund guys no big names were involved so people kind of found it boring and didn't really dwell on it.

And there is a certain banality to it that we're all kind of familiar with even for people who don't work with sex cases a lot: someone with slightly more power and the power to give material rewards or some form of punishment (a teacher, a coach, a spiritual leader, a doctor, a parent, relative, or family friend, etc.) exploits and grooms a vulnerable kid for sex and close associates of the rapist either facilitates the grooming or turns a blind eye for other reasons. Epstein and Maxwell is just this same story with a more formalized scheme.

Grooming and sexual abuse of children is probably the most dark, sad and upsetting things in human society. But its not totally wrong to say it's also not that "interesting." And people's revealed preferences for what they talk about demonstrates that.

[Bunny495]

REALITY CHECK TIME

Not the first time I have posted this decision is well above almost everyone's pay grade. Bill O'Reily is reporting Bondi is not making these decisions, instead an AAG who was formally Trump's criminal defense attorney is in charge. No one disputes Epstein had heavy Mossad connections and a crazy inexplicable increase in wealth. No one with an IQ above room temperature thinks there is not heavy spook involvement. Instead of focusing on the bigger picture of international spy craft small minds seem determined to see if Clinton (or any big shot name you want) put a cigar in the wrong hole and then smoked it or Trump (any big shot name you want) racked up another notch on his bedpost.

Wired magazine (heavy tec oriented rag with street cred) has a great series about how the "raw tape in FBI evidence" the night Epstein died has been heavily edited with 2'58" missing during the crucial time period; including the meta data to back it up. Ask yourself who has the juice to edit a video of crucial evidence and then pass it off as raw unedited video.

Or ask yourself if there was dirt on big shot pubs/dems why was it not released earlier when their respective political enemies were in power. I have long advocated for a full release (and none of this crap about protecting the innocent). It was clear very early on Epstein was a classic super villain (so much so that even Trump who puts up with a lot had a major falling out) and anyone who kept associating with him knew just what they were getting into (even if Epstein offered hot babes and probably guys too). All this is Spy Craft 101; get compromising evidence on those in power to be used later. Yet so many can't see the forest because there are so many trees in the way.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Ask yourself who has the juice to edit a video of crucial evidence and then pass it off as raw unedited video."

Indeed. Who was in charge of the whole thing when Epstein died?

"even Trump who puts up with a lot had a major falling out"

Because Epstein was hunting at Mara Lago. The problem wasn't that Epstein was preying on young women, Trump knew that and thought it amusing, the problem was that he was doing it at Trump's preserve without permission.

[Bob from Ohio]

" No one disputes Epstein had heavy Mossad connections "

Lots of people do.

Robert Maxwell was the dad of Epstein's pimp and had alleged connections so it migrated without any evidence to Epstein being ran by Mossad. Maxwell's connection was mainly based on the fact that senior Israeli officials came to his funeral, but of course he gave a lot of money to Jewish causes which could explain that just as well.

I don't know the truth of course but you are just spinning wild theories.

[David Nieporent]

No one disputes Epstein had heavy Mossad connections and a crazy inexplicable increase in wealth.

In fact, informed people do dispute both of those things. The first because there's no evidence of it, and the second because it's not at all inexplicable.

[Bunny495]

"In fact, informed people do dispute both of those things. The first because there's no evidence of it, and the second because it's not at all inexplicable."

There is circumstantial evidence of Mossad connections like meeting with high level peeps starting with Maxwell and Barak. A general rule is spies go to great lengths to hide any evidence that they are spies and finding concrete evidence they are spies is a tall order.

As for you posting his amassing a large fortune being "not at all inexplicable" you are simply wrong and there is no way to sugar coat it. For starters he got a job teaching math at a hoity toity high school with no college degree where he met the chief executive officer of Bear Stearns and inexplicably stayed involved with Bear Stearns well after the spaghetti hit the fan. He then moved to Europe and was involved with a Brit who was an arms dealer. He then was involved with recovering stolen money from wealthy Europeans; often going to the Cayman Islands and leaving with suitcases full of cash to deposit it in Swiss banks. Interestingly there was no evidence in the 1980s of any kinky sex with underage girls and he is living in a non descript one bedroom apartment in the East 60s. Fast forward to the 1990s and Epstein ratting out Hoffenberg's Ponzi scheme to the government. The money disappears but suddenly Epstein is flush with cash and buys the most expensive town house in NYC, an island, and a ranch. Ghislaine becomes a fixture and young girls start to appear. Leslie Wexler (very rich and very big supporter of Israel) becomes Epstein's benefactor. On behalf of Wexler he donates big bucks to Harvard and other causes. He also befriends the Clintons, Barak, and Prince Andrews and amasses an international rolodex.

There is still no real explanation to how he got so much money; without which there would be no young girls or the juice to get the sweetheart deal. After the fact Wexler admitted Epstein stole a cool 47million from her. Let me repeat there is no way to sugar coat it, it is inexplicable how Epstein got his money.

[David Nieporent]

There is circumstantial evidence of Mossad connections like meeting with high level peeps starting with Maxwell and Barak. A general rule is spies go to great lengths to hide any evidence that they are spies

Um, you realize that you just contradicted yourself in the space of a sentence and a half, right?

[David Nieporent]

Wexner — not Wexler — is a man, not a woman, and your timeline is pretty wrong. Epstein became Wexner's money manager in the 1980s. By the early 1990s, Epstein had power of attorney over Wexner's business affairs.

[apedad]

President Trump and many leaders of the country's largest technology and energy companies announced more than $90 billion in new investments from private companies for Pennsylvania on Tuesday.

Mr. Trump highlighted Westinghouse, saying the Pennsylvania-based company is set to build 10 nuclear reactors across the country.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-unveils-90-billion-in-energy-and-ai-investments-for-pennsylvania-at-summit/ar-AA1ICVZn?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=a112d3c08ec84635810edb3ad1faec9e&ei=17

10 new nuclear reactors? There have been only two new reactors to come online since 1978 so we'll see.

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

BTW I'm a fan of nuke energy.

And it's surprising that Trump isn't talking about coal - especially near a coal region.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump[ has been talking about coal; you have not been listening.

[Don Nico]

Given the cost per installed GW electric and the long licensing times. I seriously doubt that there is ~$100B to funds 10 reactors

[Kazinski]

I don't know, since one of the biggest needs is for AI, they have the money if they need it.

[Armchair]

Can the President legally delegate the pardon authority?

“Mr. Biden did not individually approve each name for the categorical pardons that applied to large numbers of people. … Rather, after extensive discussion of different possible criteria, he signed off on the standards he wanted to be used. … Rather than ask Mr. Biden to keep signing revised versions, his staff waited and then ran the final version through the autopen, which they saw as a routine procedure,” The New York Times reported Monday.

That is the delegation of authority. Can the President legally do that however? That's the question for the legal commentariat

[Malika the Maiz]

Hasn’t Trump admitted to using auto pen in the past?

As I said the other day, I’m not sure how this is materially different than signing one big pardon that applies to all draft dodgers or insurrectionists or what have you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why are you putting this out in the form of a question?
If he has, link to his admission and examples.

[Michael P]

Didn't you hear? Jim Comer once generated a PDF that includes a digital image of his signature. This means something!

[Malika the Maiz]

He said he used it for unimportant things and then refused to address more specific questions. Remember this is a guy who can’t spell his own name.

[Riva]

Because only the president has the power to pardon you monumental imbecile. Not his chief of staff or whoever controls an autopen.

[Malika the Maiz]

Riva bot still programmed for irrelevance.

[Riva]

The constitution is only irrelevant to morons like you.

I did advise you never to go full retard but yet again you dial full retard up to 11. Yes, you are the real deal, as far as retards go. My condolences to your parents, I'm sure it was difficult for them.

[Malika the Maiz]

It doesn’t even get what it was being irrelevant about, severe diagnostic error…

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, the POTUS can delegate the task of signing pardons he approved (whether individually, or by a categorical class). The pardon power is absolute.

[Armchair]

But can he do it just by certain criteria, and leave it up to his subordinates to decide which people actually get the pardons?

To use an extreme example, can the President say "People who shouldn't be in prison should be pardoned. Staff member, it's up to you to find these people. I don't need to see the final list, you have my approval."

[Brett Bellmore]

" But can he do it just by certain criteria, and leave it up to his subordinates to decide which people actually get the pardons?"

That is in fact the precedent, dating back at least as far as Andrew Jackson's pardon of the Confederates. Presidents can pardon a defined class of people, and leave it up to subordinates to figure out who is in the category.

The real question is whether Biden even did that much.

[Michael P]

Is "the pardon" a piece of paper naming a particular person, or is it the executive decision to absolve a person of criminal liability?

A categorical pardon might be allowable, but the President's own decision is still the act that establishes the pardon. Determining the precise scope of that pardon might come later, but deciding to actually grant a person is different from approving guidelines on who should be eligible for a future pardon.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the executive's decision, made public. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that a President could pardon somebody in their head, and never mention it to anybody while in office, and have it be legally effective. OTOH, they could just verbally pardon somebody during a press conference, and that would get the job done.

The piece of paper is documentary evidence of the executive's decision. The problem is that in an age of autopens, it's simply not very good documentary evidence.

[Armchair]

Yes, you could verbally pardon someone at a press conference.

But what if the President said "I pardon all the good people in prison".

What then? Who exactly is pardoned?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, that would be pretty problematic. Didn't happen, but if it did it would be.

Rather, what apparently happened is that he directed subordinates to assemble a list of 'good people', and then pardoned the people on the list. The question being, did he actually SEE the final list?

If he did, it's all good, constitutionally. If he didn't, then maybe there's inappropriate delegation going on.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Rather, what apparently happened is that he directed subordinates to assemble a list of 'good people', and then pardoned the people on the list. "

Is that actually what he did? Or, did he say something like, "compile a list of people who meet these criteria" and then pardoned the people on the list? The latter wouldn't be so different from pardoning all the treasonous bastards after the Civil War or from pardoning Trump and Clinton and maybe Biden along with all the other draft dodgers. Or, Trump pardoning all the insurrectionists.

[Ridgeway]

Wait til Brett finds out about Docusign! Pretty much every contract signed in the last 10 years is null and void unless the e-signers filmed themselves e-signing. And even then, how do we know what they were e-signing? These questions must be answered!

[Brett Bellmore]

I know about Docusign, and think it is similarly a triumph of convenience over the God damned point of signing stuff. So many things today are becoming empty ritual, the reasons for doing them tossed aside for a bit of convenience.

[Malika the Maiz]

I hate progress sometimes too.

[Ridgeway]

Not so much progress as he embraces empty formalism for the sake of empty formalism.

If a person is genuinely incompetent, it makes not a whit of difference whether he signs in blood, ink, charcoal, autopen or docusign.

Same thing with a President, but the only way the President becomes incompetent is under the 25th Amdt.

Otherwise, you would end up with idiotic "controversies" like the one we are having right now.

[Armchair]

Question is, who defines exactly whom is in the class?

It's one thing for a specific crime that a class of people have committed. That's well defined. IE "Draft dodgers during Vietnam." It doesn't absolve non-draft dodging crimes.

Let's say the President says "Pardon all the good people who are in Prison. I leave it up to you to decide who they are".

How is it defined who is in that class?

[tylertusta]

Trump did the same thing for the J6 defendants. He set the boundaries and limits. The DOJ setup a website where people can get their pardon paperwork.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "The real question is whether Biden even did that much."

Only in your mind. Here's what normal people see: Repeatedly in interviews, Biden has confirmed the pardons were his decision and by his direction. He did so again just a few days ago, talking with the NYT. End of story.

Another thing, Brett: In these interviews, Biden talks in whole sentences making rational points without drifting off into bizarre fantasies or loony-tunes non-sequiturs. This is something our current cognitively-impaired president is no longer capable of.

[not guilty]

Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) pardoned the Confederates??

Really, Brett?

A pardon can be granted, but not issued, posthumously.

[Commenter_XY]

Armchair, the pardon power is absolute. The POTUS can use detailed criteria, or no criteria at all, if s/he so chooses. The POTUS is directly accountable to the people via elections.

The pardon power should be left alone. A bad POTUS (like The Cauliflower) should not be the reason we upend 230+ years of constitutional law relative to pardons.

We don't know what a future POTUS will encounter. Don't tie their hands.

[Armchair]

But...the President may have to use it. It may be "his" power. It's not clear at all that he can delegate it to other people.

[David Nieporent]

But can he do it just by certain criteria, and leave it up to his subordinates to decide which people actually get the pardons?

No. He can leave it up his subordinates the ministerial task of determining who fit the criteria. They can't decide anything.

[Sarcastr0]

The distinction between delegation of authority and delegation of implementation is a pretty important one to understand in the modern workforce.

[bernard11]

But can he do it just by certain criteria, and leave it up to his subordinates to decide which people actually get the pardons?

Why not? "Bring me a list of people in prison for having small amounts of marijuana. I want to pardon them."

Or, "Bring me a list of anyone in prison who contributed to my campaign."

etc.

[Michael P]

Given the scope of the pardon power and the deference accorded to the President with respect to it, I don't see how the decision can be delegated to someone else. He might (unwisely) choose to sign something without knowing what it says, but he must be "the decider" of whether to grant a particular pardon.

[apedad]

You sure about that?

Besides naming 14 individuals, Trump granted a blanket pardon to everybody else.

(b) grant a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021;

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/granting-pardons-and-commutation-of-sentences-for-certain-offenses-relating-to-the-events-at-or-near-the-united-states-capitol-on-january-6-2021/

[Michael P]

Yes, I'm sure. Unlike you, I can -- and do -- think.

[Armchair]

b) The issue is, that is a defined class of people.

But the list of people that were getting pardons from Biden kept changing last second. Biden never saw the final list.

[tylertusta]

Who says that the pardons can't be for a currently indeterminate number of people?

Remember that the Constitution refers to pardoning offenses, not people.

A President could issue a pardon today for all marijuana offenses committed prior to July 16, 2025, and that pardon would apply even to people who weren't caught yet. You could run up to a DEA agent and show them a picture of buckets of weed that you smoked on July 15th and you would still be covered despite the President not even knowing you existed when the pardon was issued.

[David Nieporent]

As a real world example: Carter's draft amnesty.

[Brett Bellmore]

That would be a defined class, though, even if the number of members of the class was indeterminate at the time the order was issued. I doubt Andrew Jackson knew exactly how many Confederate soldiers there had been when he issued his mass pardon.

I think some of the Biden pardons were a bit more problematic, in that, rather than pardoning an indeterminate group, specific people were pardoned for non-specific crimes. Hunter, for instance, got pardoned for all federal crimes whatsoever he might have committed over a ten year period. He could literally have been raping and murdering child prostitutes in DC, and be legally untouchable.

I don't think there's any precedent for THAT broad a pardon. It was much broader than the pardons he extended to other family members, which only covered non-violent federal crimes.

Apparently Hunter had been a very bad boy indeed, much worse than anything made public revealed.

[Ridgeway]

" I doubt Andrew Jackson knew exactly how many Confederate soldiers there had been when he issued his mass pardon."

Was it over when the Germans bombed Appomattox Courthouse?

[Magister]

Iceberg, Goldberg, what's the difference.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"I don't think there's any precedent for THAT broad a pardon. "

Broader than Ford's pardon of Nixon?

"Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974."

[Magister]

Five years (and a bit) is apparently not a precedent for ten (or eleven) years.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair enough, that was pretty broad. And I was actually pissed off about it at the time.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Apparently Hunter had been a very bad boy indeed, much worse than anything made public revealed."

That's just stupid.

[tylertusta]

Nixon's pardon comes fairly close to Hunter Biden's pardon in terms of scope, so it's clearly happened before.

I think Hunter's pardon was very, very unwise for all of the reasons you mentioned, but that's a different thing than saying that Biden couldn't make such a pardon. He can and he did. Let history judge him accordingly.

[grb]

History will judge Trump a bitter vindictive lifelong criminal and see Biden's actions accordingly. The real question is this: All my sixty-plus years, it's been a given James Buchanan was the worse president ever. Others like Nixon might vie for the next slot up, but JB had rock bottom secure.

Not any more. History will see Donald giving James a run for his money.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I thought some had Andrew Johnson as the worst guy.

James Buchanan deserves scorn.

But presidents had limited power back then. There wasn't that much he could do. He didn't give up the federal forts. Lincoln didn't proactively go after the South. He waited until it attacked Fort Sumter.

Johnson was willing to look the other way as the South deprived blacks civil rights. And it wasn't just for a few months.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's just not how historical practice has been, though, however good an idea it might have been.

[Armchair]

Has it though?

Sure, you can pardon a defined class of people. But..what if the class "isn't" defined well?

Can you just tell your subordinates "Pardon all the good people." And that's enough? You don't need to sign anything? See anything? Approve anything? Just your subordinates get to decide "who" the good people are?

[Brett Bellmore]

There's no historical practice of "good people" pardons, there IS historical practice of Presidents telling subordinates to identify members of a clearly defined class.

I would suppose a President could entirely delegate selection to somebody, but without some objective criteria, he'd have to be given a list to sign.

[Sarcastr0]

You've brought this up and gotten slapped down by actual legal people plenty of times. Nothing new here.
I guess those Biden pardons really have you pissed off, eh?

[Brett Bellmore]

Even somebody with a modest knowledge of American history would know that wasn't how things worked, you don't have to be a legal professional.

[Armchair]

"You've brought this up and gotten slapped down by actual legal people plenty of times. "

Links to when I've brought up the legality of delegating the pardon authority?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah; we’ve been over your auto pen JAQing off before.

You may think this is a clever new avenue of attack you have found. That makes one.

[Longtobefree]

The question all non-lawyers have is how can you "pardon" someone who has not been convicted of a crime?
A pardon eliminates a conviction in the real world.

[not guilty]

Ask Prick Nixon, who was never convicted of a crime.

[Frank Drackman]

But amazingly Milhouse ended a war LBJ started, but he’s the bad guy?(for Cretins like you (there’s a cure for that, Levo Thyroxine, it’s only been around for 50 years)

[not guilty]

"But amazingly Milhouse [sic] ended a war LBJ started, but he’s the bad guy?"

Except the Vietnam war did not start with LBJ, nor did it end with Nixon, who withdrew American troops on basically the same terms he could have gotten in 1969.

I don't use the word "treason" lightly, but Anna Chennault's 1968 sabotage of the Paris Peace Talks at Nixon's behest qualifies as such. So the Prickster actually prolonged American involvement in Vietnam for five years.

[Frank Drackman]

Funny that LBJ, his mini-me Humbert Horrible Humphrey, and the DemoKKKrat Kongress never brought it up

[David Nieporent]

That is the delegation of authority. Can the President legally do that however? That's the question for the legal commentariat

The president cannot delegate the pardon authority. But defining a class of people he wants to pardon and then tasking his subordinates to compile the list of people in the class is not delegating the pardon authority.

[Armchair]

I think you hit on the key word up above David, and it is "ministerial."

1. The President cannot delegate his pardon authority.
2. The President can define a class... But...
a. The actions the staff take defining people in that class must be ministerial. There cannot be any discretion.

So, to give an example.

The President can say "I pardon all Vietnam draft dodgers for avoiding military service". Then the staff can put together the class that did this. That's fine. Everyone is on. No exceptions.

The President can't say "I pardon all Vietnam draft dodgers, except for the ones you think have a high risk of reoffending the law in the future" Now, there is an element of discretion in who goes on the list. The staff is deciding who they think has a high risk of re-offense. It's no longer a ministerial action, it's discretionary.

Now, if when Biden used his commutation and pardon power, one of the qualifiers was "low risk of recidivism"....that starts to look like a discretionary category.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think I disagree with any of that.

[Armchair]

A follow up question..

Can a judge legally delegate their authority? Can they tell a clerk, regarding certain decisions..."Here are the standards I want used in the cases that come before me. I don't need to see the final results, I don't need to see the actual cases. Use those standards and then sign my name"

[hobie]

No.

[Commenter_XY]

No, the judge can't waive the trial. 😉

[ducksalad]

I believe that is exactly how some courts around here handle traffic offenses.

[apedad]

Trump Proposes $1 Trillion Defense Budget for 2026

President Donald Trump is proposing a 13 percent increase in defense spending for fiscal 2026, pushing the budget plan over $1 trillion for the first time ever, according to a budget document obtained by Air & Space Forces Magazine.

“The budget increases Defense spending by 13 percent, and prioritizes investments to: strengthen the safety, security, and sovereignty of the homeland; deter Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific; and revitalize America’s defense industrial base,” the document outlining a “skinny version” of the President’s Budget Request states.

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/trump-proposes-1-trillion-defense-budget-2026/

YEAH BABY!!!

[hobie]

If we're now a country that shuns foreign intervention, demands other countries provide for their own defense, and are laser focused on reducing the size of government....why would we need to raise our defense budget so enormously (both this year and the next)? Shouldn't the defense budget be decreasing....by a lot?

[Michael P]

Defense spending is a core purpose of a central government, and some people still believe in leading by example. histrionic hack hobie might not believe NATO has a purpose, but Donald Trump thinks all NATO members -- including the US -- should spend at least 3.5% of GDP on core defense, and another 1.5% in a broader category of defense.

[Sarcastr0]

A blind target number! That's how you get good policy!

MAGA on here is getting pretty lazy in their defenses of Trump.

Have you read our NDS? Our defense needs are not strained at all. The bloated pentagon budget is something both parties mention.

Up soldier pay. Everything else is flex at best, and boondoggles aplenty.

A tangential thing: If you've ever talked to someone from another country whose done any NATO work, they'll tell you American gear is exquisitely designed, hard to use, and breaks often.
We should take a page out of Ukraine and switch from paying Northrup Grumman huge amounts for hot-shit R&D to look at our doctrines with an aim to be less fancy and more effective.

[Frank Drackman]

You used a lot of US Military gear when you served?

[Commenter_XY]

No, chickenshit dresses up in olive green and prances in front of a mirror, and calls it marching.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You used a lot of US Military gear when you served?"

He spent 6 months in some low level job at the Pentagon and thinks he is an expert.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You denigrate expertise all the time and you have a three-year degree in reading casebooks that you don't even put to good use.

[Bob from Ohio]

He doesn't have any "expertise" in defense matters.

I guess he has some STEM undergrad and a three-year degree in reading casebooks.

He doesn't do any law at all any more either, my law degree gets used everyday.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You don't have any expertise in medicine and you call them quacks when you don't like their conclusions. You don't have any expertise in psychology and yet you've written off the entire field. Same for history more or less. So its kind of rich for you to criticize someone on this basis.

"my law degree gets used everyday."

Swapping out XYC Corp. with XYC LLC in boilerplate sure does require a lot of legal training.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Swapping out XYC Corp. with XYC LLC in boilerplate sure does require a lot of legal training."

Sure doesn't, if I did that.

You are just a "litigator is the only true lawyer" idiot.

[Bob from Ohio]

" If you've ever talked to someone from another country whose done any NATO work, they'll tell you"

Wow, once again everyone you talk to totally agrees with you!

[hobie]

"Defense spending is a core purpose of a central government"

The common defense is the core. Where did 'spending' come into it it? And for what reason do we need to INCREASE spending so much given the points I mentioned above?

[Michael P]

Ah, now we find out that hobie always wanted "money for nothing, and defense for free".

[hobie]

"And for what reason do we need to INCREASE spending so much given the points I mentioned above?"

[Sarcastr0]

I challenge that we're getting much defense value for all this money.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure about that. But what I am sure is that the isolationist US that MAGA envision, where the military's only purpose is to attack immigrants and occasionally bomb a shithole country to give certain people an erection, does not need that kind of money.

[Malika the Maiz]

Pure deflection from Mikie P., MAGA boy. The question was, if our foreign involvement is going down why does our defense spending need to increase?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because our defense spending was already grossly inadequate to meet existing obligations. Our military readiness has been declining for decades now.

On top of that, we've hollowed out our munitions stocks by shipping them to Ukraine faster than they were being restocked, and have a hole to dig out of.

Add to that, the fact that China appears to be gearing up to attack Taiwan, and possibly the Philippines, in the near future, and we're not in a very good position right now.

[Malika the Maiz]

We’ve got more than enough to deal with our obligations as defined by Trump and Vance. This is just the usual defense contractor give away.

[Bob from Ohio]

"why does our defense spending need to increase"

Navy needs a lot of new ships for one thing. Our missile and shell production is woefully too small for another.

[Brett Bellmore]

And we need to retool for whole new ways of waging war, in light of the proliferation of drones, and at least two of our adversaries practicing attacking satellites.

[bernard11]

And of course one important step in building up our military capabilities is to cut way back on R&D spending, especially the part that goes on at "woke" universities.

Fortunately, unlike Trump, Republicans in Congress are unwilling to gut the NSF.

[Commenter_XY]

The gov't is busy doing RIFs, currently (see DoED, USAID, State, etc).

Agree that defense spending is on the chopping block at a point in the near future (before 1/2029).

[Brett Bellmore]

Because the peace dividend was premised on our no longer having a strategic military adversary of any significance, and that hasn't actually been the case for at least a decade now?

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-world-2025-7-trump-s-science-cuts-will-see-china-overtake-us-this-year/

Trump does not care about competing with China.

Neither do you.

[apedad]

Actually Brett, the 'strategic military' threat (or maybe a better term, national security threat), is indeed currently growing - but not in the "last war" terms you're thinking.

The space threat is real and now - and continues to grow.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I agree, both China and to a lesser degree Russia have been making disturbing advances in terms of building the capacity to take out orbital infrastructure.

[Brett Bellmore]

Both in the space threat, AND the last war terms. They've recently begun building a large fleet of specialized amphibious landing craft which really have no plausible use except invading Taiwan.

[hobie]

I'll tell you what, Brett. You guys spend $2 trillion on a golden dome. I'll in turn spend a few million on the Ukrainian startup that will plant 50,000 auvs on US soil right underneath that dome.

Same goes for all these critical naval vessels. I'll just have my startup swarm them to the bottom of the sea

[Frank Drackman]

Internet Terrorist want-a-bee, Now Hobie-Stank’s stealing You-Cranian’s Valor, might want to Insure your Testicles, Hobie-Stank, You-Cranians don’t file lawsuits

[hobie]

Don't be a military relic, Frankie. Embrace the future

[tylertusta]

May 2nd, 2025.

Not only old news, but it's been superseded by the final reconciliation bill.

[Don Nico]

I don't see how a 13% increase is needed when the extra needs can be covered by slashing the waste and abuse in the 2025 budget.

[hobie]

"Nvidia, AMD to Resume AI Chip Sales to China in US Reversal"
"US close to letting UAE import millions of Nvidia's AI chips, sources say" (same also for Qatar and Saudi)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-15/nvidia-expects-license-to-sell-h20-ai-chip-to-china-again
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-close-letting-uae-import-millions-nvidias-ai-chips-sources-say-2025-05-14/

Why are we handing traditional enemies the ability to compete with us in AI? Most would say because of all the lavish emoluments from these governments to the Trump Clan. But that doesn't explain the ChiComs (unless they too are sending Quid to the Trump Clan, but I've seen no evidence of that). What explains both is the Trump crypto. The gulf states and CCP have acquired so much of it that they could tank the coin's price in an instant and ruin the Trumps financially.

[Bunny495]

AI is advancing at a frightening rate. In large part this is due to the massive number of resources being poured into it. Money is one and electrical capacity (and the money and permits needed to increase it) is another. Truth be told Musk is the only real "American" that comes close to matching what is happening elsewhere. The Gulf States have more money than they know what to do with and with be shit out of luck once the oil runs out. Investing in AI seems like a very logical thing to do (I am heavy into it as well).

As for selling chips directly to China and the Gulf States all that means is cutting out the middleman of cut out countries that were simply reselling the chips at a profit.

[Armchair]

So, many people have said the pardon power is absolute. Let's hypothesize a situation.

President Trump proclaims a pardon of "the good people" at a press conference. He does not however, identify those people.

Later, after he steps down from the Presidency, his son is indicted on a crime for actions. Trump steps in and says "No, my son was pardoned. I pardoned "The good people" at the press conference, and my son was a member of that class.

Why or why not is that a valid pardon? The President has certified a class of people.

[Commenter_XY]

He does not however, identify those people.

Then there is no pardon.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the President can designate a class, and delegate to subordinates the task of identifying the members of the class. There's a long history of Presidents doing this.

But then the actual pardon ends up being the list that they generate, which has to be specific and documented to be legally effective.

[ducksalad]

Now you've introduced a new factor: "Later, after he steps down..."

After a POTUS steps down, he has zero legal power. Not even to issue a (binding) interpretation of his own vague statements made as POTUS.

When we're interpreting a treaty, the retired ex-President that negotiated the treaty doesn't get to issue a binding ruling. When we're interpreting a 50 year old law, some ex-congressman in a nursing home doesn't get to issue a ruling on what he meant when he wrote the bill. They can talk but it's just talk,

Likewise with a pardon. If there's a person and offense named with enough specificity for later judges and prosecutors to know who it applies to, they should honor it. If President Trump issues a pardon of "the good people", in 2029 it'll be other people deciding who if anyone that covers.

[LexAquilia]

How are Biden's "mind pardons" any different than Trump's "mental declassifications"?

[Malika the Maiz]

You defended the latter, so you’re good with the former, right?

[hobie]

Yes, I agree with Malika. It depends on whether it was legal for other presidents to conduct things mentally.

I mean, things have changed:

Supreme Court then: President cannot negate loan monies, that is solely a function of the Legislative.
Supreme Court now: President can negate monies authorized by Congress.

So depends on what Harlan Crow wants. If Trump gets to validate things mentally, then you owe Biden an apology, Lex. He was legal all along

[David Nieporent]

They are not, in that both are a figment of MAGA's imagination.

[Don Nico]

Wrong again David.

[Don Nico]

LA,
The penalties for a crime are imposed by a different power center. The classification (except for Restricted Data) is imposed by the sitting President as the prime classification authority.
These are very different matters

[loki13]

Today was a kind of sad day for me. As some of you may know, I have a thing about mangoes (or mangos ...). And this year.... I got .... ALL THE MANGOES!

That's right. For whatever reason, this year was the mango motherlode. Maybe it was fate? Maybe it was like the old Seinfeld episode (even Steven) ... when the rest of the world brings sadness, the mango tree brings nothing but lots and lots of mango happiness.

So day after day, I've been getting mangoes. So many mangoes. It's been more than three months of anywhere from one to ten (10!!!!) mangoes a day. Yeah. And these are the best mangoes ... so good.

But today? It was the very last mango. Now, on the one hand, I am a little mangoed out. I've been eating mangoes every day (and all my friends have too). I have mangoes in the freezer to last for a while. But I know that there will come a time, probably in October, where I will be like ... man, I could really use a mango.

Is there a point to this? Not really. Maybe ... try and enjoy the mangoes while you can.

[David Nieporent]

Deep Thoughts, with Loki13.

[loki13]

*shrug* It's not like this place is useful for talking about legal issues anymore.

...I think we both can remember when VC used to be a great place to discuss current legal issues. I used to learn a lot of useful things ... in the comments. Because we had a fair number of practitioners, some professors, the occasional clerk, and so on. Now? It's just hot garbage almost all the time.

[Estragon]

Your hands and feet are mangoes/You're gonna be a genius anyways

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7TzUMpcPBTk

[hobie]

I made both watermelon and also cantaloupe aguas frescas this weekend. The basic recipe for them or any fruit is 4 cups fruit, 1/3 cup sugar and maybe 2 cups water. Blitz in food processor, strain and chill. So refreshing! And I urge you to make gallons of it, because neighborhood black kids love it!

[ducksalad]

Are mangoes like citrus, with a tendency toward alternate bearing?

A very good year for grapefruit is very often followed by a very weak year, and vice versa.

[loki13]

Apparently, yes. Based on my (limited) knowledge, this particular mango tree and mango cultivar has a propensity to alternate bearing, but this was the first completely bonkers year.

This is the fifth year. One year ... was no mangoes. Every other year was some mangoes (following a biennial distribution of alternate bearing).

But this year? All the mangoes. More mangoes than all the other years combined, and then some.

[shawn_dude]

Avocados can behave similarly.

I've decided the next place I live will be able to grow avocados or I won't move there. Period. They're too expensive to buy.

When I was a teen, we stayed in a house in Roatan that had a wrap-around deck on the second floor. A massive, ancient mango tree hung over the deck and the mangos decorated it like holiday ornaments. They were the small, all-yellow sort with little to no fiber on the inside (what are often sold as "champagne mangos" these days.) Fresh mangos with fresh coconut bread each morning for breakfast is one of those memories that quickly surfaces again the moment I smell a ripe mango. Love them.

[Brett Bellmore]

Tested it myself, and sure enough, it's true: Grok has a "black kings of England" problem. It's incapable of generating crowd images that accurately reflect American demographics, even if specifically asked to. The images are always heavily biased in favor of minorities.

[loki13]

I appreciate that you managed to find the true problem that Grok has been experiencing. Now, most people might be thinking, "You know, I think that maybe I should be concerned that an AI could so easily go off the rails and promote genocidal anti-Semitism because its corporate overlords changed a system prompt. But that's a wakeup call- because it was done by someone who is kind of incompetent this time, we saw it. Imagine if they were more subtle and were just trying to advance certain corporate interests? Or their own political interests?"

But no. You hit the nail on the head. What we really have to watch out for is that Grok might accidentally cast Idris Elba as Heimdall. Now that's what we should concentrate our concern on! Thank you for your service.

[Ska]

Both things can be problems, and you can even discuss one without mentioning the other!

If a complete novice of world history was trying to learn about the line of English kings in the 14th century, which of Grok's problems would be relevant to them?

[loki13]

Ska,

How can you say that you did not understand the original issue, without saying you did not understand the original issue?

Okay, while I was joking to make a point, I will be more explicit about what Brett was flagging so that you can understand. Brett wasn't talking about a factual (written) misrepresentation, but about the use of AI to generate a graphic (a picture). This wasn't about asking AI to identify the Black Kings of the 14th Century- it was about creating a fake image.

Without getting too far into the weeds, we are talking about different issues. Now, without further knowledge of the specific system prompts in the AI part, it would be difficult to parse where the failure is occurring; ideally, someone would dig into this, but given all that is going on with Grok right now, I have a suspicion (which isn't the same as what you probably have) but the idea that someone can make a specific prompt that would generate *an image* that seems weird is hardly novel.

As an interesting exercise, I suggest playing around with different AI image generators with different prompts and seeing the results you get. You may find it illuminating. Or, in the alternative, you can continue to find single sources of outrage that you don't understand that you can pass around as evidence of ... something or other.

The choice, as always, is yours!

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I tried different prompts, and no matter how specific you got, or how you pointed out that it was failing, Grok simply could not do it.

You could literally tell it to generate an image that had only whites in it, and at least half the results on any given occasion would be 'diverse'. It really does look like there's some sort of 'diversity' mandate at work, similar to but maybe a little less over the top than the black kings episode revealed.

[loki13]

Really? You tried playing around with different AI image generators? Doesn't sound like it?

And you tried different prompts? As in you asked it to make a picture of two engineers at IBM working on a computer in 1950? Or the soldiers storming the beach on D-Day? Did you ask it draw a 14th Century King of England in the style of Van Gogh?

In other words, are you trying to understand the issue, or are you working hard to confirm what you know?

I'll give you a pass. Since you claim a technical background, I'll start by recommending that you understand that Grok isn't much for image generation and recommend you use a different AI - but if you want to do a deep dive on the issue, I suggest educating yourself. Start with googling about the guardrails put in (technical document) after the first release had issues. The ones that happened to matter were mainly people using it to create fakes of a certain CEO in unflattering situations (apparently, Mr. Musk did not appreciate it).

It's kind of interesting, but it's not going to give you the answer you probably think you're looking for. Or ... maybe it will! Perhaps you can share your findings with us.

[Sarcastr0]

So you are positing a conspiracy where fictional groups that you're suer should be all white people are not generated like that.

1. Who the fuck cares? Whitey will be fine.

2. Are you concerned about some secret internal set of guardrails to make all the pics? Because you didn't establish that.

3. Guardrails are basically impossible to make impermeable. And they create weird emergent behaviors like Mechahitler grok. (A much stronger case for artificial guardrails on an LLM that I note you're not at all concerned about)

4. The training set is the Internet. It's a weird place. You want engineered accuracy in your results. That's not how LLMs work. I'm just glad we don't get tentacle porn in every prompt.

[John 4]

Ok now the Brett Bellmore character makes more sense.

[hobie]

It's amusing to think you spend cabin time on these issues, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, somebody posted about it elsewhere, and I decided to check if it was true. Nothing more significant.

AIs are getting to be very important these days, as you can see from the posts here about hallucinated legal briefs, even used where only a madman would trust them. It's actually important to know if they have accidental or worse, programmed in "blind spots", topics they're not allowed to actually reason about.

After all, the most promising thing AIs offered was the possibility of an objective look at data without human bias. It's starting to look like, instead, we're getting distilled human bias.

[hobie]

I don't know if AI is going to be good or bad for Google. It has now been awhile since I had to scroll through Google ads and paid listings because the AI generated answer that appears at the top for my query is always spot on. Certainly, websites that rely on traffic because of their authoritative content are gonna go bye bye, I think

[Bunny495]

Brett see my post about AI legal stuff. Everyone (including EV who was the OP about AI legal stuff) insists on using shit AI legal results. Westlaw (ever hear of them) is incorporating AI in their searches (and charging a pretty penny for it, but probably still less for the billable hours cost from a decent firm). No one seems to want to address how good/bad those results are. Back in the day WordPerfect decimated the secretarial pool in big law firms with what today would be primitive word processing tools. I know in many areas employees are scared shitless about what AI will do. I am betting luddite lawyers are in for a rude awakening.

[Sarcastr0]

So much oppression, Brett.

How do you manage to go on?

[loki13]

I have to admit, my first thought when I saw what Brett posted was .... "I wonder what Brett's reaction was when he saw Get Out."

But then I realized ... naw. Brett never watched that movie.

[hobie]

Brett needs to be forgiven. He's been raised on a steady diet of fear. Most likely his folks introduced him to religion and racism, so now he suffers from fear of the other and of his own mortality. Politics has made him afraid of the immigrant, other countries, black crime, vaccines, liberals (his pedophile neighbors). Constant AM radio ads tell him others are out to steal his house and computer (Lifelock), and that society is near collapse (gold, prepper food, tazers). So is it any surprise he panics at not being able to walk around with a firearm at all times?

Hell, I debated whether I wanted to reacquire a baseball bat (my preferred weapon) upon moving into an all-black hood (I did eventually get a bat). I'm just not frightened that much about anything

[Kazinski]

Interesting study on sea levels, says that sea levels were as much as 4 meters higher (+/- 2.4m, so at least 1.6m) just 1700 years ago on Africa's Atlantic coast.

But they are talking Relative Sea Level, could be the land has been rising, although it could also be cooling since the Holocene and Roman temperature optimum, we do know there was some significant glacier advances in the Little Ice Age, but I don't think there is enough to account for that much change.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56721-0.pdf

[John 4]

Just wanted to login really quickly and laugh at the guy who posts about inflation. I hope he or she has the self-respect to continue this through the end of the year.

[jb]

With Andrew Cuomo jumping back into the NYC Mayor's race, is ranked choice voting actually working to encourage third party candidates? This cycle in NYC, we'll have two serious independent candidates in addition to the Republican and Democratic nominees. Possibly that's just a quirk of this cycle, but I think Cuomo has a *much* better chance of winning with ranked choice voting than he would with first past the post voting, which I imagine factored into his decision as to whether or not to keep going in the race.

[Magister]

I expect ranked choice voting might decrease negative attack ads; tougher to be the least of four evils rather than the lesser of two evils.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Eric Adams didn't run in the Democratic Primary for reasons that do not regularly arise. Special case.

I also think Cuomo running third party is at least largely a result of the special situation of this election.

If ranked choice was not present, I can easily see Mamdani still having an upset, but still only having a plurality overall (with non-Democrats not taking part) of the overall electorate. Cuomo then runs independently ala Joe Lieberman.

He would clearly have much more of a chance if ranked choice were used in November. Now, the non-Mamdani vote is split at least three ways. It is much harder for Cuomo to win.

I also think Cuomo running helped the Republicans not have a more serious (sorry, Sliwa) candidate for mayor. They probably figured Cuomo would win the primary and be hard to beat.

If Republicans found a better candidate (and Cuomo didn't run), Eric Adams might have been less inclined to run.

[jb]

Eric Adams was probably going to run no matter what. He doesn't seem like the type who was just going to disappear quietly.

But it's not like he was banned from being a Democrat. He could have run in the primary. But presumably he thought he'd have a better chance in a contest where he could appeal to some people who normally vote in the Democratic primary and potentially some more conservative folks as well. I'm not sure whether or not ranked choice influenced his decision, but it works well for him as a third party candidate in any case.

And I strong doubt that Cuomo would have run without the use of ranked choice voting. Especially with Adams already declared as a third party candidate, he'd know there was no chance to win a plurality in a first past the post vote. But with ranked choice, he can hope that he'll get more early round votes than both Adams and Silwa and that their voters will prefer him to Mamdani so maybe there's a path to victory that wouldn't be there previously. I have zero interest in Cuomo becoming Mayor despite reservations about Mamdani, but I think the fact he's still running is a pretty good endorsement of the idea that ranked choice gives people more legitimate options.

I do think that Magister is right and the correct response to the system is also not to be as negative, but I doubt that Cuomo knows how to do that. We'll see!

[hobie]

Re: The Schrodinger List

Charlie Kirk, Friday 11th: "I think the DOJ should immediately move to unseal the Epstein documents...I think every file should be released to the public..."

Charlie Kirk, Monday 14th: "“Honestly, I’m done talking about Epstein for the time being,” Kirk said on the Monday episode of his talk show. “I’m going to trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done. Solve it. Ball’s in their hands. I’ve said plenty this last weekend.”

Heh...Good to see MAGA now trusts the federal government. But what's with the 'ball's in the hand'? Seems Freudian.

[Estragon]

“It’s a very delicate subject. We should put everything out there and let the people decide it,”

Is Mike Johnson going to get a talking-to next?

[hobie]

It's a little sad to watch the party of the individual, devolve into the Borg hive mind. Don't get me wrong, I'm entertained by the towering hypocrisy. But there's a country I'm partial to that suffers from it.

[jb]

The devolution has been complete for years, though. The current VP likened the current President to Hitler! The current Secretary of State called him a con artist. Senator Graham called Trump a "race baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot" and many other Senators have in the past expressed how terrible they thought Trump was.

But all of them are now die-hard Trumpists. Whatever Trump wants, the entirety of the Republican party will soon enough contort themselves to make it their opinion as well, and it makes no difference how directly contradictory this is to their stated past beliefs. Everyone will come around on the Epstein files as well--it's already clear that basically everyone in Congress already has, and the MAGA base will all be there soon too.

[hobie]

The 'forgetting' has already happened to our group of MAGA here. Nary a peep out of them. Which I'm actually happy about because I'm tired of hearing this dumb, childish shit every day for years. Let's move on to the next abomination, folks!

[grb]

The 'forgetting' also happened on Fox News. After Trump ordered the Cult to forget about Epstein, mentions plummeted on the network. Like well-trained dogs, they eagerly obeyed:

"Epstein’s name was brought up only eight times across the network’s programming on Monday, with its first reference coming well into the 6 p.m. hour. By contrast, Fox name-checked former President Joe Biden 158 times that same day."

The previous week Fox had mention Epstein hundreds of times. But - hey - the whore network gotta whore, right? What ever services they're required to perform for their master, they will.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-jeffrey-epstein-fox-news-maga-media-rcna218870

[Estragon]

Kevin Spacey ain’t scared! Release the files!!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2025/07/15/kevin-spacey-jeffrey-epstein-client-list/85216023007/

[John F. Carr]

A Massachusetts woman will plead guilty to revealing information about a federal grand jury proceeding. The specific charge is criminal contempt – she was ordered not to talk about evidence presented to the grand jury. The Boston Globe reports that the grand jury in question was investigating the state's handling of the Karen Read murder case. No other federal charges have been announced related to that case. Another suspicious death in Norfolk County resulted in federal murder charges against a police officer. He is accused of killing a potential witness who was a victim of statutory rape by police officers.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/massachusetts-woman-charged-leaking-grand-jury-information

[M L]

Do the "experts" around here ever get tired of being wrong on tariffs?

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2025/07/16/producer-prices-there-was-no-inflation-at-all-in-june/

Producer Prices: There Was No Inflation At All In June

Prices paid to American businesses for goods and services held steady in June, defying predictions that tariffs would create inflationary pressures in the U.S. economy.

[jb]

From the article: "Goods prices rose by 0.3 percent in June but these increases were offset by a 0.1 percetn decline in the much larger services sector."

Tariffs are on goods, not services.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yesterday's execution means more people were executed this year than were executed all of last year.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/15/florida-execution-michael-bell

Kagan and Sotomayor (without comment) would have accepted a case involving the person executed. Not clear why Jackson didn't go along. I think an explanation would have been useful.

One person executed this year (at least) is thanks to Trump's election. The Administration allowed someone in federal custody to be transferred to state custody. He was then executed.

The Biden Administration previously refused such a request.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Potter Stewart was absolutely right when he compared capital punishment to a lighting strike. This is also notable when we've had some recent mass-murderers (Kohlberg and Crusius) enter guilty pleas to avoid a death sentence while a dude who allegedly killed one person (Luigi Mangione) gets capital specs. It will be a very very, ah interesting, data point if DOJ doesn't seek it for Vance Boetler.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The image that comes to mind is that short story about a lottery.

[loki13]

I've stated my position before, so I'll try to summarize it briefly.

Personally, I am against the death penalty. I don't think we should have it.

But as a matter of law? Perfectly constitutional.

What we have now is the worst of all worlds. It's a system where (as noted already) that the death penalty is like a lightning strike. More importantly, it's a procedural nightmare because we have elevated the law about it and the procedural issues to some level of absurdity- all the while ignoring the substance.

I don't think we should have the death penalty. But if we are going to have it, then we should have it. People need to understand that, like the rest of criminal justice system, it will be imperfect- with all that it entails. You get the normal appellate process, minimal collateral proceedings (if any) and then it's done. And proponents and opponents will get the benefits of that (actual deterrence) and the drawbacks (you know).

The Constitution does not enact my policy preferences, or yours. I don't want the death penalty, but I certainly don't want what we have now. A system so broken we barely even recognize it happens.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"But as a matter of law? Perfectly constitutional."

Matter of 8th Amendment law? Sure. Can it be constitutionally administered without violating equal protection or due process? I think it's dubious. You don't even have to consider the racial and gender components.

Who gets charged with a capital spec, who goes to trial and gets a death rec from the jury, who courts agrees is eligible for execution
And ultimately who is executed is so arbitrary and often so disconnected from defendant's actual conduct that I think each execution is ultimately an equal protection violation.

A system where Patrick Crusius doesn't get executed but Luigi Mangione does, I don't see how that's a system that is consistent with the equal protection.

[John F. Carr]

Under due process standards I wouldn't treat death any different than 30 or 50 years in prison.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well except you can let someone out of prison before 30-50 years if its found to be erroneously imposed.

[Bob from Ohio]

" I don't see how that's a system that is consistent with the equal protection."

If thief A gets probation but thief B gets prison, is that an EP violation?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Possibly! If the sentences were so disparate based on the conduct and so clearly depended on completely arbitrary factors it might well be! Also using only A & B misstates or misunderstands the problem. Let’s say A-Z all lack criminal histories and express remorse at sentencing. A-Y steal $10 from Walmart and get probation. Z steals $5 from Walmart and gets the maximum jail sentence because he did it in the next town over. Arguably this isn’t consistent with equal protection. Whether there is a remedy for that is another question entirely. It might not have one in practical terms, although courts could certainly review sentences for consistency and most statutory sentencing schemes require it.

But there is actually a remedy for a punishment that is imposed arbitrarily and irreversible: don’t impose the punishment.

[Bob from Ohio]

"he did it in the next town over"

So, not only does each jurisdiction have to be perfectly consistent in sentences, all jurisdictions must be consistent with each other.

Good luck getting even Justice Jackson to buy that!

[loki13]

At a certain point, we are just debating angels on a pin.

I get it. I don't like the death penalty. I wish it wasn't there. But ... it's not unconstitutional. In fact, not only was it practiced at all relevant times, it's actually specifically referenced in the Constitution. So we can't say it's against the Constitution.

So I will respectfully disagree with people who try to get at it through an overly clever argument- that a constitutional punishment, allowed by the text, is somehow unconstitutional for reasons when applied. Nope. Sorry.

It's really simple. Constitution is a ceiling, not a floor. Convince people to get rid of it, then get rid of it. Weirdly, that argument often works. We should use it.

By the way- I personally dislike the whole, "We have made so many procedural barriers to executing people because of other Court decisions that it's really hard, so it's arbitrary who ends up getting through the process, therefore the whole thing is arbitrary and unconstitutional."

Ends and means. I agree with ends (getting rid of the death penalty) but not the means. It's constitutional. Get rid of it through the legislative process.

[Ridgeway]

You also have two internally inconsistent sets of Supreme Court cases. One line says that application of the DP cannot be arbitrary. That implies that in order to apply the DP, these should be black and white criteria (let's call them "aggravating factors") which, if proven, trigger the death penalty,

But then another line says that juries must be able to consider all (or at least a lot of) mitigating evidence, and that each application of the DP is a jury question. That makes every application of the DP by definition "arbitrary".

[Bob from Ohio]

"by definition "arbitrary"

No its not.

It is not "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system". The "system" lets the jury weigh the mitigation against the aggravating. Its not arbitrary, its a guard against arbitrary judgment.

[John 4]

What the heck do you think arbitrary means?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Perfectly constitutional? A more perfect punishment?

I think it is applied in an unconstitutional way. It is probably too hard, using current standards of due process at the very least, to apply it fairly. There are just too many problems.

It is indeed applied in a "worst of all worlds" sort of way in various respects, including drawing things out so that the "solution" can be worse than the disease. But, cutting things short has its difficulties. See, e.g., Breyer's dissent in Glossip v. Gross.

We can't just "have it" -- well, we can, but what does that mean? What is "normal"? What is "minimal"? Even in the Death Belt, there are very few executions per year. The public elects the people involved there, including often state supreme court judges.

The Constitution does not enact my policy preferences, or yours.

Well, some of them.

Anyway, I find that line tiresome. People (we know the usual suspects) assume certain things are obvious. If the results are not applied, it's a conspiracy. Judges, etc., are making shit up. When what is involved is a debate over what the Constitution requires.

[Sarcastr0]

I hope that McClesky v. Kemp one day becomes part of the anti-cannon.

It's not a hill I'll die on though - it's some real windmill tilting because America loooves the death penalty.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Powell openly regretted that vote and Bowers.

[Bob from Ohio]

"accepted a case involving the person executed"

Dude killed two innocent people in 1993 and murdered 3 others [including a toddler!] previously.

Thinking we should delay killing this monster a minute longer is insane.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Speaking of monsters, have you got around to deciding whether the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre was a good thing or bad thing?

[Frank Drackman]

Dr Baruch Goldstein getting murdered was definitely a bad thing

[LawTalkingGuy]

I see you're just going to skip past this one.

[Krayt]

The Administration allowed someone in federal custody to be transferred to state custody. He was then executed.

The Biden Administration previously refused such a request.

In both cases, because reasons.

[grb]

My genre of choice, reading-wise, has always been mysteries and Martin Cruz Smith was a favorite. He died yesterday after fighting Parkinson's Disease for several years. Gorky Park wasn't my personal favorite, but three Renko books that followed - Polar Star, Red Square, and Wolves Eat Dogs - are books I regularly reread. Some of his non-Renko books were also top-notch, such as Rose - set the wholly alien world (to me) of a 19th-century English coal mining town. There's also December 6, in which a somewhat shady ex-pat American barkeep in Tokyo desperately tries to sabotage the attack he knows his coming against Pearl Harbor.

His last books were more spare & less rich than before, since writing with Parkinson's must have been a struggle. But one of the ways he dealt with that was inflicting the disease on his signature character. I'm in the middle of his just-published final novel, and it's holding up very well. RIP, Martin Cruz Smith.

[M L]

A few thoughts re: Epstein.

1. I called it right away that, politically, this was going to be a big issue when Trump started in on this new direction. The public perception and concern is much stronger than I think Trump and many others calculated. This is not particular to Trump supporters, but it is particularly meaningful from a political perspective that the concern is strong among Trump supporters. I think this is more serious than any letdowns with the BBB or anything else and in fact is the first significant crack in Trump 2.0.

2. I am not overly interested in the whole saga; it is the most mainstream of dumbed down mass market conspiracy theories, which tend to be a waste of time in my experience. It is not unlike the Trump/Russia conspiracy in that way, though also very different in that it's not so blatantly manufactured.

In any event, to me the salient issue could be distilled as follows - the FBI memo is here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1407001/dl It states "There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties."

So - show of hands, who believes the FBI that there is no evidence of blackmail? Setting aside the specific phrasing of "Epstein blackmailed" let's say this includes any blackmailing done by anyone in association with Epstein's activities. That seems like the key issue to me.

I'm sort of on the fence, certainly the whole thing on its face looks suspiciously like there was blackmail or similar activities occurring. That is the gist of how many millions of people around the world perceive it. Aside from just the straightforward sex with underage girls, and the wealthy and powerful in some cases seeming to get away with rules such as these not applying to them.

3. Some have noted that Epstein's supposed "sweetheart plea deal" was in 2007. That was 18 years ago. Supposing, just for the sake of argument, that Epstein did get a sweetheart deal because he "belonged to intelligence" and was working with people in intelligence agencies. If that is so, it would seem plausible that any evidence is long gone - especially evidence that would implicate the involvement of any people in intelligence agencies.

4. Aside from any pure political miscalculation, I'm guessing there is something in the files, worked up by the FBI/other IC (whether under Obama, Biden or Trump 1.0) that Trump doesn't like, maybe insinuations against him or his allies. Seems like there has to be something like that to explain his attitude. This could even be a full blown Trump/Russia 2.0 - Revenge of the Butthurt Intelligence People. With their "six ways to Sunday" of getting back at him. Or alternatively, for the believers, there is always the option that the conspiracy theories are true. In 1.0 the election was hacked by Russia and Trump a secret Russian agent. In 2.0 . . . Trump is a pedophile blackmailed by Mossad and covering up his crimes??

[Bunny495]

Tell me where I am going wrong.

Epstein has known ties to Mossad. There are reports that the "sweetheart deal" was the result of messages that Epstein was involved in international spy craft. Spy Craft 101 is get compromising video of those in power. Forget Clinton can't figure out which hole to stick his cigar in or Trump put another notch on his bed post. The real story is what policy was changed because a powerful pol likes kinky sex. So which pols (not named Trump or Cinton) were involved. Asking for a friend.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Epstein has known ties to Mossad."

Sigh. No he doesn't. Its a series of knee jerk assumptions based on slim or non-existent evidence.

[grb]

The latest quote from our cognitively-impaired president:

"AOC -- look. I think she's very nice. But she's very low IQ, and we really don't need low IQ. Between her and Crockett, we're gonna give 'em both an IQ test to see who comes out best. I took a real test at Walter Reed medical center and I aced it. Now it's time for them to take a test."

As someone noted, if you took a dementia test and thought it was an IQ test, you failed both the dementia test and the IQ test. I suspect we wouldn't want to see any IQ results from Trump, even if they date before his recent brain decay. Remember, the people paid to take Trump's tests in college were working for cause. He's never been the sharpest knife in the drawer. The only reasons he's not some loser huckster working a three-card monte on a street corner is Daddy's millions.

[hobie]

Well, like his tax returns, health records, Epstein list, etc. these things have a knack for disappearing. And his fixers (Weisselberg, Manafort, Cohen, etc.) all ended up under the bus and in the pokey. Almost like a pattern emerging here, yes?

But one fixer remains: Ghislaine

[LawTalkingGuy]

AOC should absolutely do a twitch stream of her taking the cognitive test they give dementia patients.

[David Nieporent]

Person, woman, man, camera, tv.

[Sarcastr0]

You hear his recent story about how his uncle taught the Unabomber?

Just freewheelin' up there now.

[LawTalkingGuy]

In the post-January 6th online resist-lib fevered imagination, Trump would face a capital trial for treason or whatever. Which led me to wonder: if Trump did ever face capital charges, would it be malpractice or ineffective assistance not to file an Atkins motion?

[Michael P]

Anthony Bernal, "Senior Advisor to Dr. Jill Biden", wisely invoked the Fifth Amendment during a deposition today when asked two questions:

Was Joe Biden fit to exercise the duties of the president?
Did any unelected official or family member execute the duties of the presidency?

James Comer noted that the House Oversight Committee has not ruled out the prospect of referring matters to the DOJ for potential criminal prosecution, so either truthful or incorrect answers could have resulted in serious legal risk for Bernal.

[David Nieporent]

Anyone represented by someone who graduated from law school — even a terrible one like South Texas College of law Houston — would take the fifth in response to any questions from someone who "has not ruled out the prospect of referring matters to the DOJ for potential criminal prosecution."

[ThePublius]

Why "1aw?"

[Sarcastr0]

"Anyone represented by someone who graduated from law school"

Law school graduates are who represents people.

[David Nieporent]

If you're asking why I lowercased "law" in the school name, there's no significance; it's just a typo.

[John F. Carr]

Trump gets medieval on Tom Rothman's ass.

Fortune reports the Trump administration is using a "medieval legal tool" against three members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The tool is a writ of quo warranto. The defendants are Laura Ross, Tom Rothman, and Diane Kaplan. The complaint asks the court to declare the defendants not to be lawful board members due to their removal by Trump on April 28. They are acting like George Costanza just showing up for work after he was fired.

This situation is what the writ of quo warranto was made for. In my state the "de facto officer" doctrine bars most collateral challenges to public officials' right to office and the writ is the only available relief. (In practice it's not really available thanks to standing rules.)

The case is civil action 25-2261 in the District Court for the District of Columbia.

https://fortune.com/2025/07/15/trump-doj-sues-hollywood-cpb/
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-complaint-against-former-members-corporation-public-broadcasting

[loki13]

Weird. I wouldn't call the writ quo warranto a "medieval legal tool," but only because I have litigated with them on occasion (state practice).

Every good practitioner loves writs, right? Not just habeas or certiorari!

Quo warranto, mandamus, prohibition, coram nobis.... heck, if you want to cook with gas, invoke a little all writs jurisdiction and see where that gets you.

Or, if you're one of those types, maybe you've seen a writ ... of garnishment. 🙂

(For Federal Procedure NERDS, you want to look at 28 USC sec. 1651 which allows the issuance of writs)

[LawTalkingGuy]

PROCENDENDO

[loki13]

95% certain that's a spell in Harry Potter.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Once saw a sov cit just shout “quo warranto!” during court in an effort to dissolve its jurisdiction. It truly sounded like he was casting a spell from Harry Potter.

[loki13]

LOL. So true. I had a sovereign citizen case that dragged on a little too long, but was expeditiously dealt with by the federal judge when said individual decided to start showing up at the courthouse to harass people.

But I think you're absolutely correct- most of them truly think that the law contains "magic words" and phrases that somehow unlock or empower things. It's ... well, it's something.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So to be fair to the sovereign citizen's conception of the law as magic words, sometimes briefing can feel like a kind of potions. As much as I know better and must advise about the uncertainties of courts, part of me will often think that surely the correct combination of statutes, case law, facts, and arguments put forth in a correct and pleasing format and presentation will lead to a favorable outcome.

And it doesn't help that often writing guides (Garner) are presented like recipe books.

[David Nieporent]

I wonder how MAGA would react if a story came out in which Joe Biden forgot who appointed KBJ or something.

Trump 2017: "It is my pleasure and my honor to announce my nomination of Jerome Powell."

Trump today: "He's a terrible Fed chair. I was surprised he was appointed. I was surprised frankly that Biden put him in and extended him."

[loki13]

I assume it would be some combination of the following ...
1. He misspoke, wait, you misread.
2. I know you are, but what am I?
3. But what about (Hunter Biden's laptop, Hillary Clinton's email, Obama, etc.)?
4. He's playing 4D chess, and it's funny that you are mad.

Does that cover it?

[Ridgeway]

you forgot soon-to-be-unveiled:

5. "Congratulations, here is your one-way ticket to South Sudan."
and
6. "One more word out of you and it's lampshade time!"

[hobie]

'Well, shucks, that's OUR Trump!' says June Cleaver [cue canned laugh track. roll credits]

[TwelveInchPianist]

He didn't say Biden nominated him.

[Magister]

In what sense could Biden have put him in? He was already there.

[Josh R]

What does "Biden put him in" mean?

[David Nieporent]

He did, and of course even if you pretend he didn't, how could Trump have been "surprised" that Powell was appointed when Trump appointed him?

[Ridgeway]

Regarding the unlikely intersection of 30 Rock and AI.

Forget about Seinfeldvision.

If you google "Kevin Brown Actor" -- the guy who played Dot Com on the show -- the AI summary says he was born 2014 (11 years old) in the Bronx NY.

I assume the AI was relying on his Dominican birth certificate.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Shut it down.

[LexAquilia]

So now that the emails are released that clearly show the sham that the FBI investigations by the Biden Sarcastr0's was unlawful, how should these subhuman govies be held accountable so America can have justice?

[LexAquilia]

What's $10B + 4 years + 250 postal trucks equal?

A typical government success story!

tRuST tHe ExPErtS, GuYS, goVeRnMenT HeaLThcArE wILl bE GreAt

[John F. Carr]

An otherwise ordinary life sentence for murder is noteworthy because it is said to be the first conviction for the crime of terrorism under Pennsylvania law. The defendant killed and decpitated his father, a longtime federal employee. He then posted a YouTube video with a long rant about the government and various forces out to degrade society. Too crazy to let out. Not crazy enough to be legally insane.

His lawyer hints the case is a win because the defendant was not sentenced to death. That was the prosecutor's decision.

The defendant chose a bench trial, which is understandable when the evidence is so graphic.

Other crimes include "possession of an instrument of crime, gun charges, criminal use of a communication facility, terroristic threats, defiant trespassing, and abuse of a corpse." Trespass is because the defendant climbed a fence to enter a National Guard facility after the murder. Criminal use of a communication facility might be for posting a threatening YouTube video.

https://apnews.com/article/father-beheaded-online-video-head-pennsylvania-mohn-ee1069e457493b47ea7601724a14a1a6

[Kazinski]

Professor Jack Rakove had some interesting thoughts about Trump's duty to enforce immigration law (although that wasn't the specific subject he was addressing.

"It’s Not Just a Constitutional Crisis in the Trump Era. It’s Constitutional Failure"
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/06/27/its-not-just-a-constitutional-crisis-in-the-trump-era-its-constitutional-failure/

"The key point established by the English Glorious Revolution of 1688 was that the Crown had to rule with parliamentary consent or supervision.

The executive could not arbitrarily suspend or dispense with enacted legislation. The royal suspension of law topped the list of grievances that the parliamentary proponents of the Glorious Revolution compiled in the Bill of Rights that accompanied the accession of William and Mary to the throne. As its first resolution stated, “the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.”

If Congress wants some or all immigration laws suspended or repealed then they need to make their will known, coincidentally they just voted for a huge increase in the budget for immigration enforcement.

[ReaderY]

Name a motion you’ve always wanted to file but never did.

Here’s one: “Motion to open can of whoop-ass.”

And if that’s denied, “Motion to re-open can of whoop-ass.”

[Frank Drackman]

I prefer my Whoop-Ass on Draft

[TwelveInchPianist]

Noem reconsidering TSA ban on liquids after nixing shoe ban.

Damn.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do everyone a favor and ditch the TSA.

[Kazinski]

They finally released the Vance Boelter letter here, which contain some serious allegations, that probably should not be taken completely at face value.

But I do wonder if the same allegations were made against Trump, or JD Vance if they would be dismissed with as little notice as Boelter's letter is getting.

A few excerpts:

"Recently, I was approached about a project that Tim Walz wanted done. Amy Klobuchar and Tina Keith were involved. I wasn’t originally aware of the project — but Tim wanted me to kill Amy Klobuchar and Tina Keith to force a planned retirement.

Tim wants to be a senator and didn’t trust them to retire as planned. With Amy gone, Tim would stay in at the last minute, get one of the open Senate seats, and [someone named] Elken would be rewarded with a large government contract.

I told Tim I wasn’t willing to do it. I said if he didn’t call off that plan, I would go public. He said he would “call it off” — but instead, he set up murders, including one involving someone named Jan, Mel, and others — to “get the dark types” when I moved."

"Ask Tim why they kept the SWAT incidents silent from the media when they first happened. Not a word in the press. Why? Because they needed to get their stories straight. They didn’t want anyone on the same page about what happened.

Tim’s probably crapping bricks right now because I’m still at large, and he knows what I can declassify. He knows what I know.

I will be shot on sight — you can bet on that — because I know where all the buried skeletons are."

https://x.com/GrageDustin/status/1945225335085126142

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Remember when you defended Mark Foley’s pedophilia?? And it turns out the Epstein criminal investigation was also going on in Palm Beach at the same time with Bush and Hastert trying to run cover for the pedos. And what Speaker was taken down by the Foley coverup?? The pedo Hastert! Obama took down Hastert but he didn’t want to take down the GOP because they are managed opposition and liberalism always wins out. Biden ran again in 2024 because his ace up his sleeve was the Epstein Files…but once Pelosi stabbed him in the back he refused to release them to help Kamala win. Now Trump knows the GOP will take him down with them!! GOP—Gay Old Pedos!!

[Bunny495]

Just leaving this here

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/maurene-comey-daughter-of-james-comey-and-prosecutor-of-jeffrey-epstein-is-fired/ar-AA1IJYa0?ocid=msedgntp&pc=ASTS&cvid=19e71f43772046a39b30169b58ecb3a3&ei=18

[Mr. Bumble]

Which judge will block this?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Remember when Rodentstain had more respect for Comey than Trump?? And he appointed Mueller?? Trump’s first term was an unmitigated disaster! Have you gotten your booster?? Lololololololol!!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Bush’s fingerprints are all over this pedo sex trafficking ring. Why do you think Bush didn’t dare oppose Trump and had his sniveling nephew sniff Trump’s butthole?? The GOP—Gay Old Pedos!!