Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 7.18.2025 4:06 PM
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
NEXT: No Special Counsel for the Epstein Suicide Investigation
Hide Comments (708)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
First!
I need help finding a program that will open the PDF face sheet of a bankruptcy court lawsuit, the B1040. Then, I need to list 28 AGs in the box of defendants, their lawyers in the lawyer box. WordPerfect, Word, Google Docs mess up the boxes when opening the PDF.
I want to intervene in the AG lawsuit against 23andMe. They are demanding written consent from 15 million providers of the genomes possessed by the company. The website has a pull down option to delete one's sample already.
I bought a kit myself but could not send it in. I was a sperm donor. I did not want a host of chubby annoying heirs knocking on the door trying to hug their Daddy.
Good luck with that
Have you tried using Claude?
Don't forget Abraham Lincoln's maxim: He who represents himself has a fool for a client.
What do you surmise to be your grounds for intervention, Supremacy Claus? What remedies would you seek?
You may have a problem with timeliness. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/today-is-last-day-for-23andme-customers-to-file-claim-against-the-company/ar-AA1Ie5FA
I need help
Indeed. Admitting that is the first step.
In all the excitement about CPI coming out Tuesday, I almost missed the Producer Price Index coming out Wednesday.
The June producer price index showed an absolutely flat line of 0.0.
Producer prices being a leading indicator of possible future Consumer price increases, that just underlines the fact there is no evidence of little inflation pressure in the pipeline (core CPI was +.2 for June on Tuesday).
To put the June PPI in context here is the first 6 months of the year:
Jan. 0.7 Feb. 0.1 Mar. -0.1 Apr. -0.3 May. 0.3 June 0.0
Since February, that also totals 0.0. And while the data can be slightly noisy, as illustrated by the April-May trough and bump, over 3 months it certainly can show a dependable trend.
Y/Y PPI is 1.9%, but as you can see that was all in the first 7 months From July '24 to Jan '25.
All the numbers are here.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ppi_07162025.htm
And at least some members of the Fed are starting to notice:
Waller makes strongest call yet for rate cut in July, underscoring Fed divide 9 hours ago — Federal Reserve governor Christopher Waller made his strongest call yet for a rate cut in July as he again argued that any inflation from from tariffs [of which there is almost no evidence] would be temporary, underscoring a divide within the central bank."
"I believe we should cut the policy rate at our meeting in two weeks," Waller said bluntly in a speech in New York Thursday night, referring to the central bank's July 29-30 policy meeting."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/waller-makes-strongest-call-yet-for-rate-cut-in-july-underscoring-fed-divide-223023930.html
Kazinski, what do you think of Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd? Have you been a supporter of MAGA efforts at election denial, by refusal to certify properly cast election results in the 2022 election?
I hate to disappoint you Lathrop, but I didn't know who they were until I just googled them. Seems like a pretty weak case though.
But in any case I was not an Arizona resident for the 2022 election, and I wasn't much of a Kari Lake supporter anyway. It took a very a very weak candidate to lose to Katie Hobbs.
According to the AZ Senate, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs stole the election for the soon to be Gov. Katie Hobbs.
Watta-Boutism!!!!!!!! I love saying that
In the grand scheme of things, what would be so bad until waiting to Shmini Atzeret to make any rate decision?
Unemployment is low, and there are many people who've yet to come off the sidelines and get re-employed. It would be very good to see the U-6 rate come way down.
I hope you don't start regularly making me look up dates of obscure Jewish holidays, when you could have just said middle of October.
But to answer your question, there may nothing wrong with waiting until September when most people think the next cut is coming, I doubt it they will wait until October, but GDP was flat in the 1st qtr (preliminary 2nd qtr GDP comes 7/30). The housing market is stagnant, and getting interest rates below 6% would be a big boost in activity. Increasing growth would increase tax revenues and reduce the deficit, and a 1 point reduction in interest rates would reduce payments on the debt 170 billion a year.
Perhaps the federal layoffs will provide a little slack in the labor market, not enough to offset the tightening from deportations, but they are in different sectors. And the end of green subsidies over the next few months should reduce federal spending and inflationary pressures too, and could slow the economy a little.
The way GDP is calculated, any reduction in government spending, no matter how unproductive it was, and regardless of the lack of impact on people's lives, counts as a reduction in GDP. So, yes, reducing federal spending will "slow the economy" according to the numbers.
GDP is calculated 2 ways, the GDP of expenditure (C+I+G+(X-M)) and GDI - sum over all income earned by households and businesses.
They don't quite agree and there's plenty of academic interest in the discrepancy that BEA publishes every year.
But the point is there is no 'way GDP is calculated' if you care about GDP, you care about government spending.
Goods and services the government purchases are included in GDP, including wages paid.
Brett seems to think that’s not required, what with all his weasel words about ‘as calculated’ and ‘according to the numbers.’
But it’s not some convention, that is the number because that’s the thing with economic moment.
I don’t think GDP alone is very useful as an economic pulse since it’s so broad and more symptom than cause. But it’s not some put up job to make the government seem more vital than it is.
For our purposes GDP is what the BEA says it is,
I didn't see Brett arguing that point.
GDP is not some positiviest assigned metric like, say CPI. It is economically derivied.
Brett does not like it, because he would rather measure his vibes.
"The way GDP is calculated" "government spending, no matter how unproductive it was" "regardless of the lack of impact on people's lives" "according to the numbers"
Government spending is part of our domestic production, even if it's unwise production. It is also part of our income on the supply-side.
This is descriptive science; it is not predictive, and not vibes.
No, you don't understand economics at all.
It's a dismal science.
And it certainly is predictive, not to a certainty, but a probability.
*GDP* itself is not predictive. My 'this' referred to the gathering and rolling up of GDP as descriptive science.
You can have models that use GDP to make predictions, but GDP itself is a description of the past.
Economics itself actually has a ton of vibes in it - one of the main projects in the academic discipline right now is taking the economics of the past and reducing it to math and science from vibes (albeit vibes that worked - see Ricardo). I'd venture they're just finishing the 19th century now.
NBER has some fun stuff on Youtube if you're interested in the cutting edge. Stick to macroecon though - microecon is boring and black-boxy. Good background listening when you're playing Stellaris or the like.
Kazinski — Nope. The notion of predictability belongs to the language of causation. This cause delivers that effect, every time. If that does not happen sometimes, then some other influence has been at work—an influence not identified as a cause, or among multiple specified causes acting in specified concert.
The notion of probability belongs to the language of correlation. The language of correlation is the language which permits outcomes to vary, and to do so unpredictably. Correlation is not causation.
If it were otherwise, then market players would game whatever causative inferences proved valid, until those players' activities adjusted market behavior, and returned it to unpredictability.
If you want accurate description of what may be done by economic inference, then you have to confine that description's terms to correspond to the continuously-demonstrated certainty that no one has capacity to predict the economic future. That only happens in instances too brief and trivial to give meaning to any notion that economic events are, "predictable." No sooner does such a prediction work in one instance, than it fails in another.
Not to mention that reducing interest borrowing costs would also slow the economy, as the recipients of interest income spend it.
A good 25-30% of it probably cycles back to the federal government anyway.
Not to mention that reducing interest borrowing costs would also slow the economy,
You have it exactly backwards. Lower interest rates encourage spending.
Government interest payments are a small part - about 3% in 2024 - of GDP.
Among the profligate, yes. Among people with cash in the bank who see their interest income reduced, it'll discourage it.
No. Savings will be discouraged, so spending will increase.
Look, if you have $1000 you can either save it or spend it. (Of course you can do some of both, but let's keep it simple.)
If you save it you are trading current consumption for future consumption. The interest rate tells you what the benefit of that trade is. If you earn 3% over a year, say, you are deferring your consumption in order to get 3% more in a year. If it's 6% you get 6% more.
Which situation is likely to cause you to spend more and save less today?
Basically, the cost of spending today instead of waiting is either 3% or 6%. So spending today is relatively cheaper with lower rates.
This is fundamental.
Also, any reduction in private spending, no matter how unproductive it was, and regardless of the lack of impact on people's lives, counts as a reduction in GDP.
Get off your hobbyhorse.
First, cutting the fed funds rate doesn't mean the 10 year (which is what the 30 year fixed mortgage tracks) will follow. The first 100 bps of cuts led to the 30 year increasing by that amount, the exact opposite of what he may have wanted.
The housing market is stagnant because too many people are demanding aspirational, peak 2022 pricing. Drop prices, and houses will sell just fine, even at 7% rates.
Bond rates and mortgage rates are market rates. But wjen the fed lowers interest rates it lowers the cost of funds for banks, allowing them to loan money for cheaper, which means lower rates for mortgages or car loans.
Doesn't guarantee it, but with the current inflation and employment its very likely.
And lowering interest rates makes houses more affordable.
But the mismatch is exactly what got banks like First Republic and Silicon Valley into trouble. It may be cheaper for a bank to borrow money short term, but that doesn't mean that they're going to be willing to lend it out for 30 years, or even 10 years, at that lower rate.
Again, why are boomers who bought their houses in 1988 for $50,000 entitled to get $1 million today?
"Again, why are boomers who bought their houses in 1988 for $50,000 entitled to get $1 million today?"
What does entitlement have to do with it?
The whole idea that we should lower interest rates so that homeowners (sellers) can keep their unearned gains, instead of keeping rates at historical norms and letting sale prices fall, is entitlement.
Where have sales prices on homes appreciably fallen since interest rates have risen? "After declining modestly at the end of 2024, home prices are up 2.75% through April 2025. Home prices in the current decade gained more than 56%, although the pace of increase recently slowed." https://www.usbank.com/investing/financial-perspectives/investing-insights/interest-rates-impact-on-housing-market.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWhile%20current%20home%20sales%20are%20slower%20than,$2%2C820%2C%20a%20drop%20from%20May%27s%20record%20high.
They haven't fallen because sellers aren't in a rush to sell. But eventually they will, especially if sellers realize that 3% rates aren't coming back.
Inflation; is there anything it can't do?
Because they own them, and that's what people are willing to pay?
But they're not willing to pay, which is why the housing market has stagnated. That's why they're calling for rates to be dropped back to 3-4%, so they can unload their overpriced houses.
If they're not willing to pay, nobody buys it, and there's no 'unearned gain' to be whining about.
There's no morality one way or another about prices, there's just what people who own things are willing to sell for, and what people who want things are willing to pay.
And what the people who aren't selling would be willing to sell for, or the people who aren't buying would be willing to pay, has nothing to do with anything.
I agree in a perfect world. But when people are calling for the government to artificially distort the bond market so that rates drop back to 3% to make homes "more affordable," what they're calling for is bailing out sellers. Homes would be just as affordable with 7% rates if the sale prices were much lower.
High housing prices are not a symptom of interest rates being too low, they're because its too hard to build new housing.
And its easier to build new housing and make it affordable enough to put pressure on existing housing prices when interest rates are lower.
Bullshit. Being hard to build new housing is not what caused housing prices to double between 2019 and 2022 in some places.
" ... because its too hard to build new housing." How do you figure?
"Easier to build new housing" Don't builders strike up production when the price they can sell at is high? I'm not in this industry but you can't throw a dead cat in my neck of the woods and not hit new construction. Granted, mostly McMansions; the intricacies of the affordable housing market are beyond my knowledge. Poxigah146 makes some good points that ring true. My brother's house went from 600K to 1.4MM in less than 6 years. That's screwy.
Banks and other !mortgage lenders don't generally lend it for 30 years anymore. If the loan is conforming then they securitize it and its sold in a package to investors as a mortgage backed security. then they may still service the loan, collect the monthly PI, and manage the escrow account, but are not on the hook if it fails or interest rates rise.
Non-conforming are kept by the lender and those have higher interest rates, and are not near as common.
But the mismatch is exactly what got banks like First Republic and Silicon Valley into trouble.
I'm not familiar with the details of those failures, but all banks borrow short and lend long, and face that mismatch.
The job is to manage it and not overdo it. Lehman's failure was due to much the same process. AIUI, they borrowed very short - overnight - to buy mortgage-backed securities, which have a longer maturity. When a lot of those securities crashed they were in deep shit. It didn't help that the ratings agencies had often overrated the MBS'.
They were effectively functioning like a bank - borrow short, lend long, but free from regulation they went wild.
So, if you want to reduce bond/note rates by roughly 25% what does the fed need to do to the rate that it actually controls?
"Doesn't guarantee it, but with the current inflation and employment its very likely."
Can you show your work? Current inflation is about 2.5% (or a bit more) and any notion that the inflation rate will be reduced by 20% to the target 2% rate is just rank guesswork.
How do you think buyers of government notes and bonds will respond to a reduction of real after tax returns to close to nothing?
"And lowering interest rates makes houses more affordable." Lowering interest rates also drives up home prices -- sometimes by a lot. Think about the crazy market that occurred back in 2021 and 2022.
They'll dump bonds. I know I have a very healthy slug of bonds and for the last year (since May 2024), I've had real return on my bond holdings for the first time in 10+ years. It makes a difference.
Cheap money breeds irresponsible returns chasing.
Which is why people are paying $120k for a bitcoin.
I don't own any bitcoin or other pseudo currency. When someone can explain in terms that I can understand what it is that one buys when buying these things, I might consider it.
You need to get up to speed on cryptocurrencies. Things like stablecoin tend to have some real advantages like fast cheap transactions (look at things like discount for cash or additional fees for using a credit card; especially in cross border transactions) and also offer some protection against inflation for peeps with weak currencies). As for pseudo currencies how do they differ from fiat currencies (I know, but more and more fiat currencies seem like pseudo currencies).
"You need to get up to speed on cryptocurrencies."
No, no, I don't. There is no gap in my life or finances that some pseudo currency will fill.
And thank you for not using valuable pixels to try to explain exactly what it is that someone buys when purchasing these things, whatever they are.
"They'll dump bonds. " And, dumping bonds will tend to lower bond prices and, therefore, increase interest rates. I, for one, can't predict the net affect on rates. Perhaps someone with a Brett sized brain could do the computations mentally.
"Cheap money breeds irresponsible returns chasing." Does that have an afffect on inflation?
Other things equal, lowering interest rates would make housing more affordable only in a market where home sellers were unaware the rates went down. Otherwise, the home sellers take advantage of the lower rates to increase prices. By how much is a question which bankers mediate by loan policies, with other factors delivering other effects which make outcomes anything but predictable.
So....your answer is that no real harm accrues from waiting 1-2 additional months (until mid-Q4).
Remember, the Fed front-loaded rate reductions with a half-point reduction last year. There is a small possibility that rates will need to be raised in order to finally subdue inflation (defined as <2%).
Re: Holidays...yeah, I'll make you look them up. You will learn something. 😉
I think the most important thing is higher interest rates are leaving faster growth on the table.
Faster growth we should bank now while we have an administration that will allow people to build things.
The producer price index is about goods. We've known for years about no problems with goods inflation. The problem is services inflation, including housing, health care, and child care, is still very elevated.
Waller is an idiot. He wants the Chairman job, and is sucking up to Trump.
AIUI, PPI covers goods and services, with services outweighing goods significantly.
That is why the June PPI report showed a 0.3% increase in goods costs, offset by a 0.1% decrease in services costs. I'd suspect that at least some of that 0.3% was tariff driven.
But a large percentage of US imports are finished goods. That doesn't show up in producer prices, but would in CPI, both core and all items, but didn't. Core CPI for June was just .2, Feb-Jun is 2.4% at an annualized rate, which shows a big improvement over the 2.9% Y/Y.
Like I said maybe it could be all the modest inflation we are seeing is tariff driven, that would be great news because it would mean there is no other inflation in the system, well other than food, which isn't out of control, but could be lower.
I see.you read the same Breitbart article that M L posted on Wednesday.
Problem being (for your theory that this is proof the tariffs aren't having an effect) and for Poxigah146's (that they know something about economics) is that the PPI includes both goods and services. Goods, which is what tariffs affect, increased by 0.3%, while the larger services sector actually decreased by 0.1% to net out to no change:
https://www.reuters.com/business/us-producer-prices-unchanged-june-2025-07-16/
What is I said is that the CPI services inflation customers are seeing has nothing to do with producer prices. It's been that way for years now.
I don't read breitbart, so I guess I missed the article.
And I did say the other day about the cpi report that maybe drops in other prices were enough to mask the increases in imports, which after all is only 10% of goods, and almost none of services.
However I compared tariff revenue to median household income, and it looks a little too big to hide.
But really, if tariffs are making prices rise. then it has to show up somewhere.
If this is all there is then its not a problem.
"But really, if tariffs are making prices rise. then it has to show up somewhere."
Yeah, it's starting to: in the price of goods in the very report you started this discussion with. It makes sense the increases would show up in wholesale* prices first, and then into retail prices slightly later.
Because of the TACO tariff policy, you're right that the relatively modest tariff levels currently in place aren't likely to have a huge effect on overall goods prices**, but if Trump were to actually to stick with the much higher rates he keeps threatening on various sectors/countries you'd see a substantial uptick in inflation.
* Not quite what PPI is, I know. ** Of course, current tariff levels aren't sufficient to shift production back to the US, so they're just a pure, regressive consumption tax.
Wholesale prices are flat; 0.0% increase last month.
We heard all of this before in 2017-18. You were wrong then about the effect of tariffs. Why are you right now?
Probably helps to read the discussion here rather than just regurgitating the Breitbart headline, no?
SPOILER ALERT
While I have trouble keeping up with just how large the deficit is I am convinced this is the main cause of inflation and while not discounting the importance of the fed rate as long as we approach a forty billion national debt and keep adding around another billion a year the only thing a change in the fed rate will do is change the amount of vig we will pay on the national debt.
Interesting numbers, but, given that GDP was down .5% in Q1, not too surprising.
Retail sales was released yesterday to, it doesn't look like if the economy slowed in the first quarter that it lasted:
Advance estimates of U.S. retail and food services sales for June 2025, adjusted for seasonal variation and holiday and trading-day differences, but not for price changes, were $720.1 billion, up 0.6 percent (±0.5 percent) from the previous month, and up 3.9 percent (±0.5 percent) from June 2024. Total sales for the April 2025 through June 2025 period were up 4.1 percent (±0.4 percent) from the same period a year ago. The April 2025 to May 2025 percent change was unrevised from down 0.9 percent (±0.2 percent)."
That bodes well for 2nd quarter GDP.
CBS News, 3 days ago, reporting on a story which broke in the Washignton Post:
Immigrants who had lived in the U.S. unlawfully for years were eligible for bond hearings and the opportunity to persuade an immigration judge that they were not flight risks and should be allowed to fight their deportation outside of a detention center. But under the policy shift, their only avenue to be released would be if ICE officials — not immigration judges — agree to "parole" them out of custody.
The policy change last week came about after the Department of Homeland Security "revisited its legal position on detention and release authorities," in coordination with the Justice Department, according to one of the sources, who read portions of a memo outlining the shift.
My question is whether that makes U.S. citizens vulnerable if they are challenged by ICE, and found to be without papers. Stories elsewhere allege prisoners held in ICE custody are denied access to lawyers. Congress has just massively increased the deportation budget.
Taking everything together, why is this not totalitarian concentration camps for all, purportedly enacted by law?
lathrop, I don't think you need to worry about American citizens getting snatched off the street while walking their dog in a suburban neighborhood. You probably live in a very nice neighborhood, no need for you to worry about ICE coming for you.
Taken together, you might say, "Elections have consequences". 😉
lathrop, I don't think you need to worry about American citizens getting snatched off the street while walking their dog in a suburban neighborhood.
…unless they're Hispanic.
https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2025/07/17/veteran-and-us-citizen-arrested-by-ice-warns-it-could-happen-to-anyone/
"George Retes, 25, who works as a security guard at Glass House Farms in Camarillo, said he was arriving at work on July 10 when several federal agents surrounded his car and — despite him identifying himself as a U.S. citizen — broke his window, peppered sprayed him and dragged him out."
How does that differ from criminal kidnapping? Or did they let him go after the assault and battery?
Members of the U.S. Congress take an oath to support the Constitution. If they pass laws which purport to overturn Constitutional protections for citizens, they ought to be charged with oath breaking, and found unfit to serve. If you need to swear an oath to get into the job, you ought not be permitted to remain in the job after violating the the oath.
Legislation to fix that problem is overdue. Ds ought to propose it, and let the Rs vote it down. Then take it to the people for a decision at the polls.
"How does that differ from criminal kidnapping?"
How does that differ from any mistaken arrest? If you're going to have law enforcement, you're going to have some background level of mistakes.
Which is a great argument for having no more law enforcement than is actually necessary, but we have democratically decided that having immigration laws is necessary, and that they will be enforced, regardless of whether the minority would prefer they not be.
And so there are going to be mistakes made. Complain if they happen excessively often, sure, but do we have any stats on the error rate for immigration enforcement arrests relative to other arrests?
How would you tell the difference between this mistake you're so forgiving of and racial profiling?
By investigating what actually happened, of course, instead of just casually assuming that Retes is telling the truth.
The guy was at a pot farm that clearly employed illegal aliens, including unaccompanied minors. It would be perfectly legit to detain EVERYBODY there, and release them as they provided proof of citizenship. Arguably that's what should have happened. For all I know that IS what happened.
Retes says he was detained as he was arriving, but what is he going to say? "I tried leaving, and they busted into my car and arrested me when I refused to stop."?
You have assumed probable cause and I don’t think you can just beg that question.
ICE is more and more acting like the lawless cartels in Mexico you all scaremonger about.
This is problematic. If this was some sort of investigatory detention, the standard is reasonable articulable suspicion (which need not be articulated) not probable cause. I have no idea how that standard should be implemented in this situation. Probably ICE doesn't either.
But, even if the detention is not justified, the driver in a situation like this has no right to refuse to exit the vehicle when ordered and the police (assuming that the ICE agents have the authority to act as police) have authority to force entry and use reasonable force to remove the driver. My understanding is that the driver has no right to resist even if the detention is pretextual.
I agree that this situation appears to suck, bigly. And I agree that Brettmore's reaction is his typical blame the victim bullshit, but the fact is that, no matter the legal justification for the stop/detention, the proper course of action when they tell you to get out of the car is to suck it up and comply and get your 15 minutes of fame, and probably a losing lawsuit in return.
It's not blame the victim, it's "Don't assume the purported victim actually IS a victim, until you've investigated."
The innocent protest their innocence, but so do the guilty. Have you not noticed that?
"ICE is more and more acting like the lawless cartels in Mexico" Spoken like a true Dem partisan. Typical gaslighting.
That literally has nothing to do with gaslighting.
"Don't assume the purported victim actually IS a victim, until you've investigated."
But that's not actually your positiion. Your position is, "assume the victim is lying until he can prove that he's an innocent victim." You have a history, you know. As does DilDon Nico.
Sarc this is one of the silliest posts you have ever made (and that is a high bar to meet). I love traveling to Mexico and not only do it often but also have personal friends that live there. Without exception, all of them agree that the cartels are an integral part of life in Mexico. It is common for a successful business to pay more to the cartels than taxes to the government. Until ICE starts killing peeps, dismembering their bodies and burring them in mass graves I am calling bullshit on your comment.
'Retes says he was detained as he was arriving, but what is he going to say? "I tried leaving, and they busted into my car and arrested me when I refused to stop."?'
So, release the body cam footage and put all questions to rest.
Indeed. That's exactly what should happen.
"Indeed. That's exactly what should happen."
You missed the joke and I'm not going to explain it to you.
It would be perfectly legit to detain EVERYBODY there, and release them as they provided proof of citizenship.
That would not in fact be perfectly legit.
I've hung around here long enough to know that Brett used to understand stuff like probable cause and whose responsibility it is to demonstrate it.
You're an employee at a marginally legal (State legal, federal illegal but enjoying prosecutorial discretion.) business that employs illegal immigrants. That by itself looks to be like enough cause to ask you to document your legal status.
What are the alternatives to that? Racial profiling or just not enforcing?
But I'm betting this guy wouldn't have been detained at all if he'd just stepped out of the car.
"But I'm betting this guy wouldn't have been detained at all if he'd just stepped out of the car."
What? He was asked to step out of the car because he was already detained. If the exchange was consensual, he couldn't be compelled to get out of the car. When they stop your car and start to give you orders, you are already detained.
You're nowhere near probably cause with 'employed at a business that involves pot.'
What are the alternatives to that? Racial profiling or just not enforcing? Do police work to establish probable cause that the people you want to arrest have committed a crime.
I'm betting this guy wouldn't have been detained at all if he'd just stepped out of the car. How speculatively forgiving of you.
You're an employee at a marginally legal (State legal, federal illegal but enjoying prosecutorial discretion.) business that employs illegal immigrants.
Wait. Let's not let that slip by. How exactly is it known that the business employs illegal immigrants? Did ICE check everyone who works there? If so, why didn't they know that Retes is a citizen?
"And so there are going to be mistakes made. Complain if they happen excessively often, sure, but do we have any stats on the error rate for immigration enforcement arrests relative to other arrests?"
So, just suck it up and let it go? No. The proper thing to do, if you want to reduce the "mistake" rate is to complain every time it happens. If for no other reason that if a "mistake" was made (like eating your peas with a knife or something) some innocent person is getting screwed and that's wrong, even when rare.
Bellmore — It differs from mistaken arrest by:
1. Being done deliberately;
2. By being supported by announced policy, and;
3. By strenuous efforts to prevent judicial means to review mistakes, and;
4. Being a politically popular effort to impose authoritarian rule.
Why are you backing that, except because it gratifies an authoritarian impulse of your own?
From your cite, dipshit.
A U.S. Army veteran who was arrested during an immigration raid at a Southern California marijuana farm last week said Wednesday he was sprayed with tear gas and pepper spray before being dragged from his vehicle and pinned down by federal agents who arrested him.
Also a child predator, using forced child labor at that farm.
What the fuck don’t call people child predators when you don’t have proof.
In their zeal to justify all things anti-immigrant, Commenter_XY has decided that since this person worked at a cannabis farm they are a druggie, and since that cannabis farm employed some minors that everyone that works there is now a "child predator".
Sigh.
Horseshit, David. Hispanics in tony Montclair NJ have nothing to fear.
" Hispanics in tony Montclair NJ have nothing to fear."
They might if the happen to do their own yard work.
How about an American born tree service guy driving a 1994 Toyota pickup truck* to Home Depot in El Paso, or Houston, or Tucson, or San Diego who happens to be speaking Spanish to his American born wife while there? Should that person be fearful? What about his American born wife who is just a passenger and doesn't have ID with her?
Even if you are correct about Hispanics in tony Montclair NJ, how do you justify your callousness?
*I used to own a 1994 Toyota pickup while living in Houston. Over the years, Hispanic guys would drive by and see it and stop and try to buy it from me. Because of its age and the smog law at the time I owned it, every year it had to be tested on a dyno and as most vehicles no longer required that, dynos were getting scarce. So, I was waiting outside the station while the thing was being tested and a Hispanic guy walks up to me (I'm somewhat short and had a decent tan and have a mustache and was wearing a broad brimmed straw fedora) and starts talking to me in Spanish about buying my truck. I'm lucky he wasn't an ICE agent.
Is there a point to all of that?
Obviously, yes.
Relax. Drink a cup of coffee. Breath deeply. Perhaps your specific gravity will decrease.
The many hispanics who work for us in Oakland never had problems working on our property. But that is just anecdotal.
Jews in cosmopolitan Vienna have nothing to fear.
+1
In other words, you’re essentially admitting that this program will go after the poor, minorities, etc. despite their being US citizens, creating an framework where whatever the law may say on paper, de facto citizenship and an actual ability to live without fear will be only to groups the Government favors.
Maybe today, maybe tomorrow, rich and middle-class white people won’t have anything to worry about as you say. But someday, maybe the day after tomorrow, if you aren’t a supporter of or are suspected of disloyalty to the Leader, into the van and into the concentration camp you go.
No, what I'm saying is that all law enforcement has an error rate, and the only way to drive it to zero is to not enforce laws.
That's a good reason to not have unnecessary laws, but we have as a society decided that immigration laws ARE necessary.
So I'm not going to freak out over an occasional mistake, any more than I would for enforcing any other law.
No, forgiving this as an honest mistake because government is too big is not the libertarian thing to do.
You are so authoritarian.
We literally do not know if it was an innocent mistake or not at this point, how do you not get that? It's as stupid to assume Retes is telling the truth, as it is to assume ICE is, maybe wait on evidence?
Bellmore — Of course no one without access to specifics can prove that any specific seizure is not a mistake. But there is no reason to try. A policy to conduct seizures in that manner has been announced and defended both in public and in the courts. You are defending it now yourself.
There you go again with your damned mind-reading vibe.
Bellmore's mind is not hard to read as it split open long ago and is leaking all over the place.
Mind reading and still stalking Brett around VC. When do you manage to find time to actually work between your busy posting schedule?
Wow.
Commenter_XY has come out and said it: as long as the civil rights abuses aren't likely to happen to rich white people, it's fine. There's really no principle other than that.
Commenter_XY said that the concern is overblown.
Try reading the cite, dumbass. The man was a druggie, and a child predator, to boot. This of course, does not trouble you in the slightest. That speaks volumes about you.
What cite? Lathrop was asking about a generalized risk to citizens from the lack of due process and you said not to worry about it because he lives in a nice neighborhood.
But assuming you're talking about Sarcrast0's link, maybe try to explain away this one:
https://floridaphoenix.com/2025/04/17/u-s-born-man-held-for-ice-under-floridas-new-anti-immigration-law/
"The man was a druggie, and a child predator, to boot."
Even if true, he is an American citizen with all the rights and privileges of any other American citizen.
Has he been charged with being a druggie and a child predator?
The man was a druggie, and a child predator,
Like Abrego Garcia, he was neither.
You may be right, Kill-More Garcia's mostly transported drugs and children.
You’re confusing reality with a Cheech Marin movie.
And, as far as totalitarian states go, Kevin Bass PhD recently reminded us of this in an X message:
Just three years ago, 30% of Democrats believed that children should be taken away from unvaccinated parents.
Nearly 50% of Democrats believed that the unvaccinated should be sent to camps.
This is what a totalitarian ideology looks like.
"Nearly 50% of Democrats believed that the unvaccinated should be sent to camps."
As usual, Riva is incorrect.
Those are exactly the numbers reported by Rasmussen. Source: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/covid_L19_democratic_voters_support_harsh_measures_against_unvaccinated
As usual, JB is full of it. You've have different numbers? Let's see 'em smart ass. We can compare.
First: bad bot. Your link is broken. Probably need to refresh your model with fresher data.
Second, the poll* didn't say what your previous message claimed. There wasn't even a question about putting unvaccinated people in camps. There was a majority Democratic support for requiring unvaccinated people to stay home, but that's basically the opposite of moving people to camps.
*By not a pretty biased and not very reliable pollster
That's not at all true you lying POS. If the link is no longer working, anyone is free to read the original email and review the polling results for themselves. Asshole is of course not honestly relating the results: https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1926822978810978746
And this exchange is now over dickhead.
A working link for the intellectually incurious.
There wasn't even a question about putting unvaccinated people in camps. There was a majority Democratic support for requiring unvaccinated people to stay home, but that's basically the opposite of moving people to camps.
And if they refuse to stay home? Australia did demand people stay home, and those who refused were put in camps. It is the logical conclusion that something similar would take place here.
Lantrop - Its been explained to you multiple times -
If a person is born in a US hospital at least since 1990 then the hospital is going file for a ssn on behalf of the newborn.
If the person has a drivers license, then the applicable state dept of motor vehicles is going to have a record of what ID was used to obtain the drivers license.
" whether that makes U.S. citizens vulnerable if they are challenged by ICE, and found to be without papers"
Yes it does, I suggest you moving to Canada now, while you can. South Sudan is no picnic
Do you think US citizens being vulnerable to being deported to war zones is a good thing? What if this happened to a colleague or family member?
I'm mocking his paranoia, that's all.
No citizen is in such danger.
Why do you think that?
Bullshit.
Lets' see. ICE mistakenly detains a citizen and ships him off to El Salvador. Trump says, "Tough shit. There's nothing we can do."
Is that implausible? No, it's not.
Which citizen was that ?
Pam Bondi in February 2025 regarding Jeffrey Epstein's client list: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NbTF-csBsOA "It's sitting on my desk right now to review."
A memorandum jointly released on July 6, 2025 by the Department of Justice and the FBI proclaimed that a "systematic review [of Epstein materials held by the DOJ and FBI] revealed no incriminating 'client list.'” https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1407001/dl?inline
Off the top of my head, this suggests three alternative inferences.
(1) Pam Bondi was lying to Fox News in February about the existence/location of the Epstein client list.
(2) The July DOJ/FBI memorandum is a fabrication.
(3) Both statements are true, in that Bondi reviewed the client list and thereafter arranged for its destruction/disappearance.
Or 4) when she got around to reviewing it, there was nothing of substance.
Or the preported victim can not be belived.
Dersh essentially said that...
Or the real answer, which is that Bondi was saying in February that Epstein files, but not a client list, were on her desk, and it just got slightly garbled.
David, do you think the recordings of the adult men (and women) who diddled with these teenaged girls should be released?
If the faces of the children were blurred and the voice changed (so they cannot be identified), does that change your answer?
No, for the same reason I don't think the recordings of the Mossad planning the Lincoln assassination should be released: they don't exist. There were no such recordings because there were no such adult men (or women), other than Epstein himself.
They probably do exist for the JFK assassination, the USS Liberty attack, all those classified military secrets being sold to our adversaries, among other things.
David, assume there are such recordings.
Should they be released with the victims anonymized?
Also note the tense of the assertion: "they don't exist". Did they exist at some point? If so, who destroyed them, and when?
Release all of it. Identify publicly the predators who victimized those underaged teenaged girls. We already know about William J Clinton, George Mitchell, Bill Richardson, Bill Gates, Reid Hoffman, Jes Staley, Prince Andrew and a bunch of other sick hollywood cretins.
The Diddy trial just crystallized everything we thought about those people.
"We already know about ..." No, we don't. We do know, however, about the close friendship between Jeffrey and his wingman Donald. We also know that Donald is concerned about what else (other than his cute birthday message) might be revealed about him as he is starting an anticipatory (some would call it "proactive") campaign to label the Epstein files as a hoax created by Obama, Comey, and Biden. You just can't make this shit up.
Stella your post will not age well. Trump is suing the WSJ over their story about the birthday letter. Sounds like a reasonable case due to Trump warning them beforehand it was fake and when he demanded to see the letter the WSJ admitted they did not have the actual letter, or even a copy of the actual letter. As an aside the wording of the letter does not seem to fit Trump's style of wording.
"Trump is suing the WSJ over their story about the birthday letter."
We don't know if that's true or not.
"when he demanded to see the letter the WSJ admitted they did not have the actual letter, or even a copy of the actual letter"
Is that coming from the WSJ or from Trump or one of Trump's lackeys? If not from the WSJ, we have no cause to believe that the have admitted that.
Of course, I, like you, have no good information on which to judge any of this with confidence though it does sort of fit into what we know about the relationship between Trump and Epstein. But, it's sort of strange, too.
So, do you think that all Trump's blathering in recent days about how the Epstein files are all fake created by Obama, Comey, and Biden is for no purpose?
"Is that coming from the WSJ or from Trump or one of Trump's lackeys?"
Neither. Trump observed in his suit that the article does not say whether the WSJ was in possession of the letter or how they obtained the contents: "the Article does not explain whether Defendants have obtained a copy ofthe letter, have seen it, have had it described to them, or any other circumstances that would otherwise lend credibility to the Article." He did contact the WSJ with a C&D but didn't ask them to produce the letter.
Bunny I guess tried to read a Twitter thread about it, got bored halfway through, and just started embellishing. But that's more effort than usual!
Stella I agree there is a lot of FUD surrounding this issue. From what I currently know the letter is part of evidence in the FBI's possession and was a compilation of birthday wishes to Epstein that Maxwell produced. I have no intel about how the WSJ got wind of the letter but best guess is it was a leak by a FBI employee. Since the WSJ claims it reviewed the letter (no mention of it being a copy) this raises some serious legal questions. While a leak is one thing anyone providing the WSJ with actual evidence probably breaks some laws.
I also have real questions about DJT actually drawing anything, less yet a nude female. Famously Hunter produced what most peeps think is crap art and I doubt DJT has even the limited skills Hunter possesses as an artist. I have always viewed Trump as a crass braggart who views most women as disposable playthings but, it seems a stretch he would go the lengths required to produce such a letter. There is also the question of the wording. Trump has always been a world class bullshitter and the letter's wording does not mimic Trump's previous elocutions.
As for Trump's "blathering" I always apply the 72-hour Trump rule. Always wait 72 hours before taking seriously anything Trump says.
Bottom line is the press secretary said when pressed the WSJ said they did not have the letter. While it would not be the first time a press secretary lied, she may well have been telling the truth.
In previously customary legal practice, a Wall Street Journal reporter's sworn statement in court that he had:
1. Seen the original of the letter; 2. Presented for his perusal by a person positioned to have access; 3. Whom the reporter reasonably believed a trustworthy source; 4. Would be evidence so likely to sink a presidential libel claim that no president could find a lawyer to recommend bringing the case.
Problem is, the character of legal custom is under assault, and the president has armed himself with lawyers under threat of extortion. Which makes the character of the lawsuit into something different than previously.
The difference is a threat to American constitutionalism. The severity of the threat is all-too-plainly a double function. It is a question of which judge gets the case, and lack of public confidence that the appellate process will operate without again repeating a partisan bias against letting Trump suffer a consequential legal defeat.
There is no way that any lawsuit by Donald Trump survives a motion for summary judgment. As a public figure plaintiff, Trump would need to produce clear and convincing evidence by which a jury could reasonably find that the article was false and defamatory and that it was published "with 'actual malice' -- that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-280 (1964).
That is a high threshold, requiring a public figure plaintiff to show that the defendant must have made the false publication with a "high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity," Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74 (1964), or must have "entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication," St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968). Harte-Hanks Communs. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 667 (1989).
Trump is merely blowing smoke.
I also have real questions about DJT actually drawing anything,
As has since been reported, he routinely made drawings that were auctioned off.
Some "wingman" - banned Epstein from his properties in 2007. If there was any real dirt on Trump it would of dropped years ago.
No, they did not exist at some point.
If they include thepurported victims lying about their ages?
In the hypothetical world where such videos existed, no, they shouldn't be released; rather, they should be used to prosecute the men involved, not as props for a press conference.
The level of narcissistic entitlement of the people that think they have a right to access actual CSAM, because they think their least favorite politicians are depicted in it, is absolutely staggering.
Reminds of those freaks who think the parents of shooting victims should give them pictures of their dead kids.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2022/06/shooting-school-texas-uvalde-sandy-hook-conspiracy.html
Nieporent — which kind of fails to address the situation in today's non-hypothetical world, where a judicially-decreed royal impunity has been imposed. It prevents public disclosure of incriminating evidence in a trial with charges against one named defendant. So what is your opinion of what ought to happen in today's real world? Just to pretend nothing has changed?
I should add that I do not expect any incriminating Epstein records to see the light of day with Trump's name on them, and thus doubt that the current uproar is anything but a distraction which would be better bypassed. At worst, backed into a corner, Trump would say, "Sure, I told so-and-so in the marketing department to fix up a birthday greeting and send it off to Epstein. I never saw it myself."
I’m not sure why you’d have a problem with it. You seemed almost gleeful to be watching CSAM when it purportedly involved Hunter Biden:
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/03/22/the-question-i-would-ask-kbj-how-would-you-change-the-supreme-court-confirmation-process/?comments=true#comments
I don't have a problem with identifying child sex predators. You're right.
You defend them, don't you.
“I don’t have a problem”
One thing I especially liked about that exchange was when you slowly started to realize in real time that admitting to viewing CSAM on a public website wasn’t such a bright idea. So you tried to backtrack and excuse it by saying it was on “Taiwanese TV.”
If you’re not authorized as a law enforcement agency to investigate CSAM, seeking it out to “identify” people in it makes you a federal sex criminal.
18 USC 2252A(a)(5)(B).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A
And I’m not defending you am I?
Distinction without a difference.
Was that a complete thread when you linked to it? It's full of holes, now...
Yes. A person named mad_kalak kept taking about how he viewed a video purporting to be of Hunter Biden having sex with a 14 year old girl and encouraging others to do the same. And there is no “but Hunter Biden” defense to intentionally accessing CSAM.
A fun game to play is “what handle is the CSAM guy posting under now?”
I have my theories.
Usernames are automatically updated in old threads when changed, and Reason/Volokh did not delete all his posts in the thread. There's at least one "innocuous" post from him still showing.
Since when do you act as a voice of reason?
I'll have to stop calling you DavidNotImportant if you keep this up!
David, In this case I agree that is the most probable.
I concur. Most likely, the client list was made-up conspiracy theory bullshit. But now that the Trump administration won't release anything (which it can't because nothing is there), will:
1) the MAGA right continue to demand release of the information.
2) the MAGA right let it go, at least tacitly admitting it was all BS from the start.
3) the MAGA right will follow Trump's lead, let it go while embracing the conspiracy theory that the Democrats created the Epstein hoax (I'm not sure whether that means Democrats were the ones that claimed there was a client list or Democrats created a phony client list).
We all know #3 is world-class nutcase dumb-fuckery. But, it appears Trump is going there and the MAGA right almost always follows him.
I think that is the most likely explanation. She was responding to a specific question about "the client list" as if it had been a question about "the case file". Not 100% correct, but understandable. It's human to make a mistake like that in the heat of the moment, such as a televised interview, and despite being a pretty shitty example of one, she's still a human.
That said, the Trump Administration is still fairly obviously failing to uphold its repeated, even "trumpeted" promises to release all the hidden Epstein evidence, and there's probably a reason for that. It may not be a good reason, but all it takes is Trump's decision one way or the other--that's all the reason they need.
And in case we forget, the sole reason for MAGA demanding the release of "all the evidence" hidden away by the government was because they didn't trust the government to release only the parts it may determine are "relevant". If MAGA now accepts the selective release of Epstein evidence after all it has gone through to get it, they truly are "p-wordies"...
"Or the real answer, which is that Bondi was saying in February that Epstein files, but not a client list, were on her desk, and it just got slightly garbled."
That is why I linked to the video. The interviewer specifically asked, "The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients? Will that really happen?"
Bondi immediately replied, "It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump I'm reviewing that, I'm reviewing JFK files, MLK files. That's all in the process of being reviewed."
There was nothing equivocal about the interviewer's question, nor about Bondi's answer.
Except for the part of Bondi's answer that went, "...I'm reviewing JFK files, MLK files. That's all in the process of being reviewed."
NG, don't go all partisan hack on us now! Oh, wait, you are an admitted partisan hack (albeit a very well informed one).
I have never pretended to be anything other than a proudly partisan Democrat.
I did once vote for a Republican in a contested general election, however -- a local judge who had done a good job while on the bench, running against a Democrat whom I was not too impressed with.
I joke that someone once asked me the age old question about whether I would vote for a yellow dog if he ran as a Democrat. I replied, "Well, probably not in a primary."
I believe that and I respect your position.
Or perhaps the handiwork of James Comey’s daughter at play?
Now what makes me think you still won’t stop obsessing over this nonsense even after the Grand Jury testimony is released?
“even after the Grand Jury testimony”
Why would that satisfy anyone? The GJ materials are merely a small subset of the materials that the FBI has in its possession already, for example, this birthday letter. That letter would not have been relevant to criminal charges against Maxwell and Epstein and therefore wouldn’t be included in GJ materials. There are mountains of evidence like this in the FBI’s possession. They could release it today! What are they hiding?
The GJ thing is an obvious distraction, a classic Trump tactic when he is cornered.
So then, i guess you agree that I’m right, the obsession will continue. Perhaps it’s a variation of the Rahm Emanuel line, never let a good conspiracy theory go to waste?
"never let a good conspiracy theory go to waste?" "Or perhaps the handiwork of James Comey’s daughter at play?"
So, let's create a conspiracy with absolutely no predicate evidence or reason.
Actually, my position is the opposite of that. That's your side. The projection is strong with you today.
It's our side trying to create a conspiracy theory involving Comey's daughter out of whole cloth? Can't you follow your own path over a period of just a few hours? What's wrong with you?
That was something of a joke, although I wouldn't be surprise if it were true. The real conspiracy insanity is the Epstein fixation, which democrats will exploit as long as they can. Same as the Russia, Russia, Russia play. Together with a new fake pee tape in the form of a birthday card. If this were real, democrats would have used it long ago. This is getting boring.
That was something of a joke, although
Ain't this the way they do.
You're confused. You're the little communist girl that never smiled. Not Stella whatever. Unless this is an alias? So many of you fuck shit trolls parrot each other I wouldn't be surprised. And of course, it goes without saying, wit is wasted on fools, and Marxists little girls. Now fuck off, we're done.
Riva, where do you get "the little communist girl that never smiled" from Sarcastr0's comments? Do you think that is clever?
Yes. But you'll have to figure it out on your own.
"That was something of a joke, although I wouldn't be surprise if it were true. "
Sure, it was a joke, but a true one. You're shameless.
"The real conspiracy insanity is the Epstein fixation, which democrats will exploit as long as they can. "
You're nuts. The whole Epstein fixation, as you call it, is a MAGA/Q fixation, not a democrat invention. If it's a manifestation of insanity, it's MAGA/Q insanity.
As for the birthday card, it has not yet been shown to be fake. This will be anything but boring, no mattter how it turns out.
That's fine. I'm sure you still believe the Bush National Guard story; the Steele "dossier" (and its pee tape of course); the Charlottesville lie; and, it should go without saying, that the crackhead bagman Hunter's laptop is Russian disinformation. Am I forgetting anything? There's been so many bullshit lies it's hard to keep track.
Also, no law would permit the GJ materials to be released anyway, so it's just an attempt to deflect. He's going to throw up his hands and say, "The judge won't let us."
The chatter about grand jury testimony is a red herring.
Disclosure of grand jury materials by an attorney for the government requires leave of the District Court in the district where the grand jury convened. Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(3)(F). Rule 6(e)(3)(E) limits the circumstances where the court may authorize:
(E) The court may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand-jury matter: (i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding; (ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury; (iii) at the request of the government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use in an official criminal investigation; (iv) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of State, Indian tribal, or foreign criminal law, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate state, state-subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official for the purpose of enforcing that law; or (v) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate military official for the purpose of enforcing that law.
(E) The court may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand-jury matter:
(i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding; (ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury; (iii) at the request of the government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use in an official criminal investigation; (iv) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of State, Indian tribal, or foreign criminal law, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate state, state-subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official for the purpose of enforcing that law; or (v) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate military official for the purpose of enforcing that law.
Here is the DOJ motion to unseal submitted to the Southern District of New York: https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/9c64ad8c95afef8d/f22572b2-full.pdf
Boring! Just another hoax conjured up by the Libs - like they did Benghazi - to rile up the rubes and get their vote. Works every time.
lmao are you for real? You still believe that whole youtube video nonsense?
How long before commenters here will learn the Trump Rule (always wait 72 hours to comment on anything Trump does).
Trump just announced he has ordered Bondi to release grand jury transcripts of the Epstein case (while there was some wiggle room about which grand jury). As Dershowitz (and others) have pointed out there are currently ongoing court cases limiting what can be released. Dershowitz went on to say there were two judges (he would not name) who were protecting Epstein's "clients".
Bottom line is releasing everything is a tall order with many potential roadblocks. Disclaimer: I have a long history of wanting everything released; even if I doubt this is possible.
Trump just announced he has ordered Bondi to release grand jury transcripts of the Epstein case
No; he announced that he has ordered Bondi to seek the release of the documents. (Releasing them requires a court order; Bondi can't do squat. (And a court order requires a legitimate reason, not "people are mad at me."))
I noted some weasel words, "No sufficient evidence [on what sounded like a list of people, and only makes sense at that moment in that context] for prosecution of anyone else."
Well. Ok. And it would be just to not reveal grand jury investigation discoveries just because you want to embarrass someone.
But there would be tons of fun in it!
Of course, beyond legend are the tales of crypto logs and crypto ledgers of sketchy enterprises...
The House passed what is expected to be the first of several rescission bills early this morning. 8 billion in USAid funds, and 1 billion from NPR/PBS.
"House Republicans late Thursday night approved the first batch of cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), sending the $9 billion package to President Trump’s desk in a big victory for the GOP."
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5407804-doge-cuts-public-broadcasting-foreign-aid/
"The legislation — which claws back already-approved federal funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting — cleared the chamber in a mostly party-line 216-213 vote less than one day after the Senate passed the measure.
Republicans see the bill as a critical “test run” for the party, as Trump administration officials have already indicated they aim to send multiple special requests to Congress to claw back more funding if the first package makes it through."
This will end any court case contesting the impoundment of those funds, and sets the stage for ending other court cases over other budget cuts.
The last rescissions bill was when...Nixon?
Hope this becomes a common practice.
That was not the last recission C_XY
Shouldn't be a problem for National Pubic Radio, Pubic Broadcasting. They're always crowing about how they hardly get any Shekels at all from Uncle Sammy, and with their great programming, (Garrison Keillor? Tom and Ray's "Car Talk", "Live from Here"??) they shouldn't have any trouble getting support from their listeners, you can tell I listen every day
Frank
"you can tell I listen every day"
We have something in common -- I listen every day as well. I've also started making sizeable contributions directly from my IRA to satisfy the RMD requirements.
I was being sarcastic as none of the programs I mentioned have been on in years, you got a touch of the Ass-Burgers too?
"I was being sarcastic"
"We have something in common"
I was obviously being sarcastic, dumb fuck. You and I have almost nothing in common. For one thing, I am not a compulsive lying fake war hero.
"Relax. Drink a cup of coffee. Breath deeply. Perhaps your specific gravity will decrease." For the record, Drackman has never claimed to be a "war hero"; only that he served.
'Drackman has never claimed to be a "war hero"; only that he served.'
You've not read his stories about trudging through the mine fields? For the record, you are once again, full of shit.
Did you get your dick caught in your zipper this morning?
The whole friggin Second Marine Division, me included, trudged through the Mine Fields, (into Kuwait, the Iraquis didn't exactly roll out a red carpet)
Sure, you betcha.
You sound almost exactly like Mrs. Drackman the first 57 times I asked her out. She finally said yes, (thank god for Flunitrazepam*)
Frank * 1: The Statue of Limitations has run out 2: I'm not sure if it was Flunitrazepam or not, probably the Double Vodka Martinis 3: I know it's "Statute", I just love the imagery of a "Statue" of Limitations running out of the scene.
Hell yea! What a win.
Ain't no brakes on the Trump Train! Speaking of no brakes, Timmy No Brakes has been hilarious.
This is more like pumping the brakes on the Biden train, actually.
Kazinski — Looking forward to D-sponsored claw backs from defense contractors? Do you see even a hint that, "claw back," is a Constitutionally legitimate power of Congress? If so, where do you find it? How about claw backs for oil leases? That might turn out a great way to unwind at least part of the MAGA attack on climate regulation. Ds could run on that.
I believe the federal government can constitutionally 'claw back' funds that have been appropriated, but not spent, under most circumstances. Since the validity of the public debt constitutionally can't be questioned, if the government has contracted for some good or service, and already gotten it, it has to pay for it.
But canceling the contract before the work has been done? No constitutional issue there.
Couldn't the "public debt" just mean that the federal government can't default on treasury bills? It doesn't necessarily mean that individual parties who provided services to the federal government are entitled to payment.
In theory, it could have meant that. But I don't believe it actually DOES mean that.
But it says "the public debt," not "public debts."
At what point is a dispute over goods or services supposedly provided to the federal government "questioning" the public debt, by that standard?
Easy now, Lathrop. Don't be touching my oil and gs subsidies.
The "oil and Gas Subsidies" are an delusional accounting fiction (with the exception of %depletion in excess of basis). Its possible to argue the time value of money is a subsidy for the current deduction for domestic idc, though it is only for the timing difference, the total deduction doesnt change.
The depletion credits are our favorite. You rubes pay us when our wells go dry. [psst...we claim it even when our wells aren't dry. Wink!]. Does Target get paid when the Trump Sex Trafficking Action Figure doesn't sell? I think not!
Hobie - you are exposing your extreme level of ignorance!
There is no such thing as "depletion credits"
Who is paying who when a well goes dry?
Kazinski — Looking forward to D-sponsored claw backs from defense contractors?
I love it how Dems keep thinking of defense spending as a piggy bank that they can rob in order to pay for their social largesses.
They also want the US to remain Europe's protection while underwriting European security while simultaneously maintaining the current international order.
They need to win elections, first.
And they're going to. Perhaps as soon as 2026. A Dem trifecta in 2028 isn't off the cards.
The next time that Dems get a trifecta then their gloves will come off.
Exactly. I would love to cut the defense budget. But the left whined when Republicans proposed cutting aid to Ukraine. And the left's social spending is reliant on being able to borrow and spend trillions of dollars each year, which in turn requires us being the reserve currency.
Indeed. It's like modern communists who complain about late-state capitalism by tweeting on their smartphone. The idiots just don't know how the world works.
tyler, Certainly the defense budget is bloated. It does not have a provably better record of cost management than other agencies.
I won't argue that the defense budget can be better spent and be made more efficient, but it's certainly not bloated. I see this kind of talk from people who just don't have an understanding of what we ask our military to do and how our money is spent.
Our military spending is paltry in comparison to the rest of our government's outlays. Cut back on that spending and you need to pick which commitments we are going to drop and then accept the economic and geopolitical consequences of us ceding our position as a superpower and hegemon.
'Looking forward to D-sponsored claw backs from defense contractors" Stephen, In many cases that would be welcome.
Its not actually a clawback when Congress revoked authorization to spend money.
The funds haven't been disbursed, they are still in the treasury.
As for defense contractors, weapons systems are cancelled all the time. Here is an example:
"The trio are the only named contractors in a group of cuts announced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who claims $5.1 billion of cancelled contracts with $4 billion in savings."
https://www.washingtontechnology.com/contracts/2025/04/pentagon-hits-accenture-booz-allen-and-deloitte-contract-cancellations/404500/
Perhaps the Democrats should now change course and let the government shutdown when the current CR runs out in September. It's a gamble over who will get the blame, but any CR deal they agree to is not worth the paper it is written on unless they get an assurance of no further claw backs in what is agreed to.
"1 billion from NPR/PBS."
Hurrah! We've been trying since Newt Gingrich's time to end these.
Trump keeps on giving wins.
You're not ending either of them. Cities gonna keep funding their public broadcasting.
This is going to end local reporting and radio coverage in rural areas.
What a victory! Truly, the libs are owned.
"local reporting and radio coverage in rural areas."
Like you care about "rural areas", filed with MAGA people. Pull the other one.
Its not even true. No rural area depends on NPR, its just a stupid talking point.
You continue to assume everyone is a partisan-brained asshole like you. Plenty of rural people aren't MAGA, and I have some MAGA friends; we just don't talk politics.
Its not even true....its just a stupid talking point. How would you know?
"I have some MAGA friends;"
Sure Jan.
Turns out you don't need aligned politics to roll d20s together.
I have no idea what that is.
Not surprised at that.
I bet he does know what that is but is pretending he doesn’t because he wants to seem cool to anonymous nerds on the internet.
I had to look it up, but I'm not totally square, I can drive a D6 bulldozer.
Aside from college towns, who in rural areas are listening to lower power NPR stations? NPR's condescending programming is not exactly aimed at rural America.
Also, there are a multitude of rural religious, and commercial stations on both the AM and FM bands. Your average rural listener will be listening to XM, talk radio AM, a religious station or a country FM station instead of NPR.
I actually agree with you that the tone of a lot of NPR's national programming is...not tuned for my taste.
My thought to fix it would be switch to bloc grants to local stations. But Trump's not into fixes he's into scalps.
But the rural programming isn't going to be the national stuff - that's funded by big city money and endowments etc. But there's plenty of local news and programming. And Weather, especially important for ag folks.
I'm sure there's some broadcast of nationally produced soft-voiced cringe on rural stations. But that's hardly all of it.
You live in a DC suburb and work in DC I guess. Well known rural areas.
Yes, and I never leave and have never met anyone who is from a rural area.
Do you think NPR is lying about their rural programming?
NPR lies about most things.
If NPR broadcasts and no one is listening, does it make a sound.
Sure, Jan.
I listen to a public radio Jazz station, but only because they don't have NPR news or pledge drives.
Good thing PBS/NPR has long claimed that very little funding actually comes from the fed. Well, right up until there is a threat to remove it - then that "little" is critical to keeping the lights on.
For rural stations, that's probably true.
Mine was a 4 line comment, and you have understood it exactly backwards.
You need to read first, fight after.
Trump v. Murdoch, rhovld be fun.
Vladimir, STOP!
The accusations against Schiff and Letitia James re: Mortgage fraud look pretty legit and air tight.
Do you think Santa Trump will bring us Schiff and James hand-cuffed frog marches in 2025 or will we have to wait until 2026?
Not disputing Schiff and James seem to have lied on loan and tax documents and it will be easy to prove it in court. What I am wondering is how common this is? Living in Florida I know the state law allows claiming "homestead exemption" if you occupy your home on the first day of January which basically means anyone buying a vacation home in Florida and taking a Christmas vacation every year gets tax benefits. There have been stories about peeps being legal residents in two states and sometimes voting in both.
Bottom line is I doubt either will be handcuffed and frog marched; more likely just fines and pay back taxes.
They should get the exact same treatment they give others.
Almost every state has similar provision for property taxes. The status of the residence as of Jan 1 is valid for all twelve months. Homestead in most states will be valid for all twelve months, even the property is sold to someone holding the property for rental on jan 5th. There may be some states that are different, though I am not aware of any.
MA defines residency at 181 days a ydar.
The 181/183 day residency is for state income taxes, and for determining whether the property qualifies for the homestead and/or the over 65 exemption for the state's property tax laws. Neither of which conflicts with the first statement which is the property tax status as of Jan 1st applies to the property for the entire year in many if not most states.
States are obligated to give illegal aliens 14th Amendment Equal Protection, but the federal government is not bound by the 14th Amendment. And where aliens are concerned, the 5th Amendment “equal protection component” of Due Process subjects classifications involved aliens to only rational basis.
Could Congress make an end run around Plyler v. Doe by using its Spending Clause powers to federalize education, creating a federal primary and secondary education program analogous to Social Security,Medicare, etc. which states could choose to join. And could it then make not extending services to illegal aliens a condition of participating?
It hasn’t happened because it has had no political constituency. It’s been a traditional Republican position that education shouldn’t be federalized, while it’s been a traditional Democratic tradition that minor illegal aliens should be educated. But this Administration has been willing to plow through traditional Republican positions to reach its goals.
How little does Congress have to do to federalize the constitutional status of illegal aliens with regard to a federal program? Could it create a purely nominal “program” SOLELY to do so, one that doesn’t really do anything else? For example, could Congress create a federal primary education program that grants states one dollar per year per state to spend on primary education, on condition that they create a primary education program, and impose a further condition for participating that a participating state cannot provide primary and education to illegal aliens? Would this purely nominal program be sufficient to make education federal and subject to federal Equal Protection and not state Equal Protection in states choosing to participate in the program?
I don't see any chance of this at all, the very idea is silly. That education shouldn't be federalized is a VERY strong position on the right, we're not even all that comfortable with states running schools, the federal government getting involved in it is a horrific idea.
To be sure, we don't think that illegal aliens should be getting government services, but the straightforward solution to this isn't federalizing all government services, it's deporting all illegal aliens.
Which we're in the process of doing, and can legally do even in states that don't want us to. So why would we compromise a basic principle into coercing the states into complying on an issue we're in the process of rendering moot?
But to address your final question, no, nominally, or even genuinely, federalizing state programs, would not to my understanding get them out from under the EPC, so long as the states were running them. States have to satisfy the EPC even if they're doing something the federal government is telling them to do.
That's basically it. Birthright citizenship wouldn't even be an issue if we didn't have hordes of illegals and hordes of migrants, even if legal, here.
ReaderY — Are you really insisting that because the 14A does not mention explicitly federal due process, that means due process requirements for the federal government are somehow less protective than for the states? If so, I hope you turn out to be wrong.
The Federal government is subject to due process through the 5th amendment, not the 14th. Compare the language:
5th amendment: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
14th amendment: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
Perhaps you're thinking of the Equal Protection clause, which unlike the due process clause, lacks a federal counterpart?
Maybe he was talking about our MAGA boy?
Trump: My uncle was at MIT, one of the great professors. 51 years whatever… three degrees in nuclear, chemical and math. Kaczynski was one of his students? Do you know who that is? There is very little difference between a mad man and a genius.”
Trump added: “I said, what kind of a student was he? Uncle John, Dr John Trump? He said seriously good. He said he’d go around correcting everybody. But it didn’t work out too well for him.”
The problem? Kaczynski never attended MIT, and Trump’s uncle was not the longest-serving professor there….
There’s also no evidence that Kaczynski who completed his undergraduate studies at Harvard and earned graduate degrees in mathematics at the University of Michigan, ever studied at MIT. In fact, by the time Trump’s uncle had already been working at MIT for decades, Kaczynski was still a child.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/he-taught-the-unabomber-trump-claims-his-uncle-was-longest-serving-mit-professor-is-it-true/amp_articleshow/122552943.cms
Also, John Trump was dead long before the Unabomber was identified, so he could not have been discussing the guy with Donald even if he had been his student.
As always, it's difficult to know whether Trump is suffering from dementia or is knowingly lying.
Both, but probably not at the same time.
With this new Kaczynski story, his "magnets don't work under water" claim and his "M-S-1-3" claim, I believe he truly believes false things to be true in each case. Whether the cause is "dementia" or just garden variety delusion, I don't know.
I'm not sure about his claim to have won the 2020 election. That could just be a lie he repeats because he knows it's what his base wants to hear. This category also includes the vast majority of his other false statements.
Distraction: Give the funniest frivolous pro se motion you’ve seen, or if you like one you wished you’d seen.
Example:
“Motion to Open Can of Whoop Ass”
If denied, follow up with the inevitable
“Motion to Re-Open Can of Whoop Ass”
Of course, there’s always the straightforward and highly versatile
“Motion to Go Fuck Yourself”
followed by the inevitablw
“Motion to Stop Living in Denial”
I recall an apocryphal motion that is popular among the criminal defense bar:
Motion to Change the Facts
There's always the famous motion to kiss my ass.
Trump on Epstein then and now:
“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.”
“I don't understand it, why they would be so interested. He's dead for a long time, he was never a big factor in terms of life. I don't understand what the interest or what the fascination is”
Unlike the rubes, I'm not gonna run with this for years and make it a pillar of MAGA/Lib society. No. I'll bust their balls with it for a couple of news cycles then move on. It is now established what was known all along: MAGA is the party of child sex trafficking. The damage is done. Them doth protesting too much should have been the dead give away
You and Queenie should get a room
Whatever. I'll try anything once
Why Arthur, we never knew that about you.
Hey, XY. It's me, Artie. How are you clingers doing?
Reiterating an interesting hypothetic that David posted on Wednesday.
Let's say the President signs a full pardon, before witnesses, etc. But the wording on the pardon is as follows. "the names of the people within this sealed envelope stapled to this pardon are hereby pardoned'
Is such a pardon valid? Why or why not?
Before answering, I should like to know what crimes their names committed. And whether the pardon identifies the scope of crimes being pardoned, as is traditionally done.
Ultimately, I think validity hinges on whether the President knows who is named inside the sealed envelope. If he doesn't know, he's not the one deciding who is pardoned. If the pardon identifies crimes with enough specificity, that would evince an intent for a sufficiently detailed pardon.
The envelope is no big secret. It's just the donor list from the last RNC convention. Apart from the Trump Militia, has anyone Trump has so far pardoned this year not been a financial donor to the Trump Clan?
Yes, the pardon is valid. Same reason as Wed...the pardon power is absolute.
The question isn't the sealed envelope. It's a sealed envelope in the president's possession, not revealed much less opened until well after he leaves office.
This is so far afield from actual pardon practice, nope, doesn't count. Too sketchy a loophole.
I don't think POTUS can pardon names, only people.
On Wednesday, someone with more bravery than wisdom accused me of being unable to infer that a "BMW bolsheviks" signature by Zohran Mamdani was sarcastic.
Yesterday, video was publicized of Mamdani calling for the abolition of private property in an explicit argument that the ends justify the means. Was that also sarcasm?
Funny how those wanting to abolish ownership of private property have quite a bit of it
Advocacy for the abolition of private property has always been like that: The property stops being "private" only because it becomes the property of the state, which is to say, the property of the people running the state.
Which the advocates expect to be.
And globalize the intifada. Not sarcasm. He wants to…wait for it…globalize the intifada.
Is that the slogan that he wouldn't use, but he supports the idea behind it (of killing all the infidels and Jews across the globe)? Or was that the slogan that is geographically limited to Israel?
He promises most sincerely…not to use those words so much. Not that he won’t globalize the intifada, he’ll just globalize the intifada under more euphemistic terms. In other words, he’ll lie. Everyone feel better now?
Well he does resemble a composite of the September 11th Hijackers
You can tell, by the many times he used that phrase. Oh, wait, no, that's Riva, who has now used it two more times than Mamdani.
Posting under a pseudonym? How else could you possibly know everything he ever said? Or is this just more of that acceptable to the left mind reading?
That is not, of course, what he said.
Shhh! We're watching in real time the precious birth of a new conspiracy. Isn't it beautiful?!
He did not use those exact words, which why I did not use quotation marks. What he said: "If there was any system that could guarantee each person housing — whether you call it the abolition of private property or you call it a statewide housing guarantee — it is preferable to what is going on right now."
Any system means any system, and he explicitly included the abolition of private property.
Calling for the abolition of private property wasn't his exact words...but it was included in a list of things preferable to what we have now!
Haha oh man what a backpedal.
Did you read past the headline before DMN called you out?
Your hypothesis is that he prefers abolition of private property to what we have now, but he's too chickenshit to actually want it? And that's supposed to somehow be in his favor?
Wait, you think you actually scored a point here? He actually DID say that the abolition of private property would be preferable to what we have now, if it would guarantee people housing.
It would not, of course, but he's clearly proposing confiscating privately owned homes in order to house people, and saying he doesn't care if you call it abolition of private property or "a housing mandate".
No he didn’t. You read that you want, yet again.
Yes, he did. "Whether you call it the abolition of private property or, you call it, you know, just a statewide housing guarantee"
He doesn't care what you call it, but he's advocating confiscation of private property to house the homeless. That's what he's talking about. The remark makes no sense otherwise.
On the left, talking about the abolition of private property is just viewed as being "edgy", I guess.
2021 Young Democratic Socialists of America conference:
"Right now, if we're talking about the cancellation of student debt, if we're talking about Medicare for all, you know, these are issues which have the groundswell of popular support across this country," Mamdani says in a video to conference goers. "But then there are also other issues that we firmly believe in, whether it's BDS or whether it is the end goal of seizing the means of production, where we do not have the same level of support at this very moment."
Not, "that you believe in", "that we believe in".
Give it up already, he's a communist. Take him seriously when he says this crap, he means it.
...says someone who tells us not to take Trump seriously all the time.
But look: Mamdani may have been a die hard communist in 2021. Maybe he still is deep down in his soul. Why don't we just look at his stated policy goals, though? That seems a lot more productive, and if you're inclined to believe in free markets, there's plenty to criticize there without needing to worry about what to call his political ideology.
Yeah, sure, maybe in the last four years he read Adam Smith, and completely changed his worldview. But you'd think that, if that had happened, he'd say so.
No, I think he's a radical socialist, in addition to being the sort of "from the river to the sea" activist who likes Hamas, and is just getting a little cagey about it in hope of being elected.
"Yeah, sure, maybe in the last four years he read Adam Smith, and completely changed his worldview. But you'd think that, if that had happened, he'd say so."
This has been discussed before. People change their minds about political things all the time without explicitly renouncing their previous view. That's just not how it works. See: just about every major Republican politician and their views on Trump.
Sure, and yet, if you run for office, and a few years ago you were publicly saying really radical things the voters might find objectionable, not explicitly renouncing them rationally leads to the conclusion that you still believe them.
Because if you did change your mind, you'd say so.
You can come to whatever conclusion you want, I guess, and selectively apply this standard to politicians you generally prefer to vote for versus those you don't.
But I'd guess the voters of NYC think Mamdani is a Social Democrat (because that's what he calls himself, and has explicitly said he's not a communist), and wants to do stuff like freezing rent, taxing rich people more, and making the buses free. Because he's said all of those things repeatedly on the campaign trail and put them on his website, versus once on an obscure video.
The stuff he's proposing is already well to the left of the median Democratic politician. Why not just talk about that stuff?
"...says someone who tells us not to take Trump seriously all the time."
You got that hilariously wrong. Conservatives take Trump seriously not literally; leftists take hin literally but not seriously. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/
The argument here is to take Mamdani seriously, and not waste everyone's time by screaming halfwittedly "but he didn't literally say 'I call for'".
Politicians lie. A lot. That's why their stated policy goals during one brief part of a single election campaign are hardly worth the electrons they're printed with.
"The argument here is to take Mamdani seriously"
Also: "Politicians lie. A lot."
You're kind of an idiot, eh?
You're going to elevate whatever random quote parsed in a very particular way from years ago that NY Post just dug up over the politician's platform because...you wanna.
"You got that hilariously wrong. Conservatives take Trump seriously not literally; leftists take hin literally but not seriously."
I don't care what "Conservatives" do. I'm talking about Brett in particular.
The abolition of private property and a housing guarantee are two different policy options, not two different terms for the same policy: presumably the housing guarantee is something like the Northern European countries have wherein the government provides a large fraction of the housing stock and makes sure that everyone who wants to sleep under a roof has the ability to do so.
No, they aren't, he's saying he doesn't care which you CALL it.
Just above I linked to extended remarks at a socialist conference. The guy is all in on this stuff, a true believer, a radical.
He could believe the Moon landings were faked, or that Trump won the 2020 election--neither would matter one bit if the guy's just the Mayor of NYC.
Are you arguing that it doesn't "matter one bit" whether the mayor of NYC wants to confiscate private property, or just suggesting it backhandedly without being brave enough to defend the suggestion?
I'm making the shocking observation that the Mayor of NYC has no power to confiscate private property, yes.
Just like the President and deportation?
If the President couldn't actually deport anyone to, say, El Salvador or South Sudan/Eswatini, you mean?
Donald Trump doesn't deport people. He has minions for that, just like Hizzoner has minions to confiscate private property.
So long as there is a functioning court system in NYC, and the rule of law, none of your imagined transgressions could ever happen.
He correctly believes that people, such as many of the commenters here, might call it abolition of private property, not that call it that would be correct.
'Dirty Jew': French rabbi attacked with glass bottle by fifth time antisemitic offender
A French rabbi was attacked with a glass bottle and called a “dirty Jew” while walking in Levallois-Perret in the Île-de-France region on Sunday. After the attacker was arrested, it was revealed that this was his fifth instance of targeting a rabbi since last September.
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-861233
When authorities decide not to enforce the law, this is what happens. Bad people believe they are free to behave badly.
One wonders if an Imam was assaulted and told to go back to Africa, if the French authorities would react the same way.
That's the same situation here. Our criminals are constantly released on bond or on their own recognizance. Anyone accused of a violent crime should be detained until trial, unless they have minimum $1 million in bond, which cannot come from non-profits, but only from family and individual donors.
Why should an innocent person be detained until trial if there is no flight risk or expectation of further criminal activity? Why should taxpayers pay for such unnecessary pre-emptive punishment?
It seems like you're just attracted to government coercion for its own sake. Which is fine. You do you.
"Anyone accused of a violent crime should be detained until trial, unless they have minimum $1 million in bond, which cannot come from non-profits, but only from family and individual donors."
You are free to propose a constitutional amendment to allow the implementation of that policy.
8th Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Not 100% sure I agree with your Police work Stella (Ghost? I thought you were a Dog) Bail's never required, you can always just stay in jail, and many defendants are denied Bail.
"Bail's never required, "
As usual, you are ignorant about the topic on which you comment.
It's not "excessive" if it's to keep violent people away from the community.
MAGA have literally the opposite conception of bail from what is is. The point is to let people out, not to keep people in.
“Keep people in.” Yeah that makes perfect sense. MAGA just wants people jailed. Even after conviction and sentencing. That must be why President Trump signed the First Step Act into law. 3,100 inmates released in the first year and now up to 30,000 +.
Bot programmed to issue random responses completely unrelated to the comment to which the response follows, based solely on keyword matching.
The topic here is bail. Did the bot's comment have anything to do with bail? No; it was a pre-programmed response.
(And, since this comment calls the bot a bot, the next preprogrammed response will be to rant about being called "it," even though the comment doesn't use that word.)
he did respond to the question - specifically your question - you just didnt like the answer.
specifically your question
Um, I didn't even ask a question. WTF are you talking about? I said, "MAGA have literally the opposite conception of bail from what is is. The point is to let people out, not to keep people in." Do you see a question mark ("?") in there?
First part: Sounds like a rather lax way to enforce laws. Hard to say, though, without knowing if any of his previous four "priors" were violent or not, and whether he had been prosecuted for any of them (the article doesn't say).
Second part: Assumption about French authorities "deciding not to enforce the law", followed by inadvertently revealing hypothetical musing about what "everyone knows" would happen if an Imam had instead been the target.
I feel so much safer:
Of the estimated 100,000 people who were deported between January 1 and June 24 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 70,583 were convicted criminals, according to an ICE document obtained by CBS News. However, the data also shows that most of the documented infractions were traffic or immigration offenses. The ICE document listed out raw data that was broken down by conviction, not by deportee. Only 1.8% or 2,355 of the total convictions against those criminals had to do with sex offenses. Another 1,628, or 1.2%, were for sexual assault. The number of homicide convictions totaled just 729, or 0.58%, and the number of convicted kidnappers were 536, or 0.42%. About 10,738 convictions were for assault, or 8.5%, the data showed.
Of the estimated 100,000 people who were deported between January 1 and June 24 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 70,583 were convicted criminals, according to an ICE document obtained by CBS News. However, the data also shows that most of the documented infractions were traffic or immigration offenses.
The ICE document listed out raw data that was broken down by conviction, not by deportee.
Only 1.8% or 2,355 of the total convictions against those criminals had to do with sex offenses. Another 1,628, or 1.2%, were for sexual assault. The number of homicide convictions totaled just 729, or 0.58%, and the number of convicted kidnappers were 536, or 0.42%. About 10,738 convictions were for assault, or 8.5%, the data showed.
Basically, they're rounding up day laborers under the pretense of public safety.
Woah? CBS News? Now that's a trusted news outlet when it comes to highly charged political issues!!! They're way up there with Politifact, Snopes, LittleGreenFootballs, Reddit, and DailyKos.
lex - you omitted npr, msnbc and quite a few others in your list
No, we're rounding up illegal aliens on the basis that they're not here legally, and that's enough reason to round them up and deport them even if they're otherwise candidates for sainthood.
They're not saying mere illegality is the basis, though.
Because they know they gotta play beyond those who think rule of law requires these people are not human.
Mere illegality IS the basis, though. Criminality just is the basis for prioritizing deportation, not deportation itself.
Trump's rhetoric is all about getting rid of the rapists and murderers, and the people support those efforts. Certainly, Steve Miller wants to deport them all, but it is very likely that sweeping up otherwise law-abiding workers is unpopular.
illegal aliens = law abiding workers
A little stretch of the english language perhaps
Sure, but isn't Trump telling us he's getting rid of "the worst of the worst"? If this is what the worst of the worst looks like, soon we will be rounding up candidates for sainthood.
I'll just note for the record: looks like despite running roughshod over due process and a complete indifference to the human rights of immigrants, Trump is on pace to hit about 20% of his deportation goal. It does look like he's finally on track to beat Biden's rate of interior removals from the US (~200K vs. ~150K) but not by a particularly impressive margin.
We call that enforcing the law and securing our border. Kinda what presidents are supposed to do under that constitution thing. But if you’ve got a spare room feel free to sponsor some foreign sex offenders and murderers.
"Basically, they're rounding up day laborers under the pretense of public safety."
Not in Iowa they are. Them criminal immigrant terrorists are different. As long as they are pickin' radishes for bubba, they are not part of the national emergency
What's a typical criminal conviction for a traffic offense in these cases? In my home state, a large majority of traffic tickets are for non-criminal infractions like simple speeding, failure to yield, or even running a red light. Criminal convictions are for offenses like DUI or reckless driving. And deportation only attaches to convictions for crimes of "moral turpitude" or multiple convictions, so an isolated traffic misdemeanor would not qualify.
Pretty sure deportation attaches to being here illegally, regardless of your conduct while here.
It's a may not a shall in the law. Riva pointed that out thanks to blindly using ChatGPT.
I guess you just forgot that you’re the one who uses ChatGPT. But honesty has never been your strong suit.
I asked what law Biden was breaking and you provided an answer just like CharGPT answer.
I quoted that and you got wrecked for literally botposting.
It was really funny, and you taking my posting the AI response to show how your response was just like it is keeping the laughs coming.
Almost. Except you were the one who relied on ChatGPT and decided to jump on board with more sick repugnant insults. Where would you be without your little friend projection? My mistake was to respond to you actually expecting an adult answer. Not making that mistake again. And this exchange is now concluded.
"you provided an answer just like CharGPT answer" Not only is he dishonest, but he has little practical knowledge of how sophisticated ChatGPT answers can be.
"literally botposting"
literally!
He is not a "bot". Its just a stupid insult DN made up.
"It's a may not a shall in the law."
And the administration wants to, so, what difference does "may" make?
"Riva pointed that out thanks to blindly using ChatGPT." The man cannot help making up lies to try to prove his points.
Which raises an interesting question: How can you prove a bot isn't using ChatGPT?
Why is that interesting? How do I know that you are not and LLM output? And why do you think that ChatGPT is the only widely used LLM?
Sure, the bit about moral turpitude is only relevant for aliens who were lawfully present. But the core of my point applies equally to illegally present aliens: Criminal traffic violations are generally fairly severe, and rare, offenses. Do 60% of the general American public have (say) either DUI or reckless driving convictions? https://insurify.com/car-insurance/insights/states-with-the-most-duis/ estimates 2.16% have a DUI "on record", which I guess means a conviction (rather than arrest) that is somewhat recent (in my state, misdemeanor driving offenses stay on one's driving record for 11 years but one's criminal record until/unless expunged; whereas DUI becomes a felony from the third conviction).
Not true that only crimes involving moral turpitude support deportation. That supports mandatory deportation, but the Trump Administration is claiming to be deporting everyone in the country illegally.
FYI, driving without a license or insurance is usually a crime in the US.
"Criminal traffic violations are generally fairly severe, and rare, offenses."
Not necessarily true. In Texas, almost all traffic offenses are crimes. Even a seat belt violation is a crime. Other states, of course, are different.
Famously, a Texas woman was taken to jail for a seat belt violation even though the maximum sentence for the crime is just a fine. The case made it all the way to the US Supreme Court which said, fine by us, lock her up.
And deportation only attaches to convictions for crimes of "moral turpitude" or multiple convictions, so an isolated traffic misdemeanor would not qualify.
That's for LPRs. People here illegally can be deported for a parking ticket (or for sneezing, or just for breathing); isolated traffic misdemeanors absolutely qualify.
I'll also note that the numbers cited by CBS indicate about 130,000 convictions across the 70,000 deportees. There's close to a power-law distribution of convictions in a random population. That shouldn't hold true in this case, because serial criminals should be deported under existing law, but maybe it does thanks to feckless Democrat policies and bureaucrats. On average, that's almost two convictions per deportee.
America is all over the place when classifying minor traffic violations. In one of the Southern states the lowest grade speeding ticket is still a misdemeanor punishable by a year in jail. In Maryland a speeding ticket is criminal and is downgraded to civil if you pay it instead of contesting it. In some states speeding tickets are petty criminal offenses less serious than misdemeanors. While you're very unlikely to go to jail for a speeding ticket in New York, a jail sentence is allowed for speeding 66 in a 55 zone. The law doesn't allow jail time for less than 10 over. In Colorado state law doesn't allow jail time for minor speeding tickets but home rule cities can put you in jail for speeding.
Interestingly, in the UK you would not even be prosecuted for driving, say, 62mph in a 55 zone. Under the guidelines, prosecution begins at 10% +2 mph over the limit. Eligibility for a "speed awareness course" would then usually be available for a first offence within 3 years up to another 10% or so (I don't recall exactly).
Of course, the UK is also where 2-lane country roads barely wide enough for two MINIs to pass one another have default 60mph speed limits...
Aren't you burying a different lede?
Unless I am missing something, 100,000 deportations over a half-year period is significantly under the historic average. The COVID period seems to have messed up the figures, but before that (under Trump 1.0 and Obama), totals were usually 300-400,000 per annum.
https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook/2022/table39
You are missing something: Obama redefined "deportations" to juice the numbers, by including border area expulsions that formerly wouldn't have been considered "deportations".
High deportation figures are misleading
Trump having basically shut down illegal immigration at the border, the numbers under the new definition drop because there are very few of the immediate removals that Obama had added to the "deportation" numbers, essentially all the "deportations" are what administrations prior to Obama could have labeled such.
That article is paywalled, but even if Obama rejiggered the numbers, the numbers for 2003-08 (all under Bush II) are all north of 200,000 as well.
So yesterday in KHALIL v. JOYCE (2:25-cv-01963) a district court Judge, essentially ordered an Immigration Judge to vacate their ruling. is that legal? what happens if the Immigration Judge, tells the court to go kick rocks?
the order just seems highly inappropriate, but I could be wrong.
Well, the district court judge is an Article III judge, which is to say he's actually a judge.
The Immigration "judge" is an Article II 'judge", which is to say that he's not actually a judge, he's just a bureaucrat who does judge adjacent stuff.
So, honestly, in any judicial throw down between them, I have to go with the one who is actually a judge.
That's not to say the real judge actually ruled correctly, real judges make mistakes all the time, but let's see what happens on appeal.
The district court judge ordered the immigration judge to reverse their determination.
The district court judge has zero jurisdiction or authority over that.
The district court judge is a judge, he actually exercises Article III power. The immigration 'judge' is just a pretend judge, who exercises Article II power, not Article III power. He's as subject to the judiciary as anybody else.
Does the Art3 judge even have jurisdiction here? Or did Congress remove it?
Congress removed jurisdiction from district court judges over removal proceedings. A district court judge has no authority to order an Article II judge to do anything here.
And we'll see what happens on appeal. I'm just saying that, as a general matter, I'll take real judges over pretend judges.
And I'll take Congress and the Supreme Court over dipshit district court judges any day of the week.
Congress removed jurisdiction from district court judges over removal proceedings.
Non-lawyers who get their knowledge from reading a few tweets do not understand the law. Congress removed jurisdiction from the district courts only from three specific types of claims, not from all immigration-related matters.
The Article III judge has habeas corpus jurisdiction, conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a).
It's truly amazing how people can comment without reading the opinion. I did, and the reasoning is obvious.
There was a preliminary injunction in place, BY THE ARTICLE III Court, prior to the ALJ order sought by the party that was enjoined. In other words, an actual judge enjoined the government from seeking to remove Khalil. But ... this will shock you ... this administration doesn't "play well" with court order. So instead of abiding by the Court's preliminary injunction while continuing to fight it, they instead went to an ALJ after the injunction was already issued.
If you read the opinion, footnote 1 shows how restrained the judge is in recounting events. The Court simply notes that the government first tried to argue that the June 11 injunction was forward-looking only, and therefore (wait for it) .... the Court cannot apply the injunction now to an act on June 20, after the injunction was entered, because that's backwards-looking. The judge simply notes this, but if this is what our government attorneys are now trying to argue in court ... WTF???!!!!
Anyway, footnote 2 shows how the law is supposed to work. Which is ... kind of the problem. The Court is going out of its way to treat this as a normal case and stay in its lane. To respect the executive branch.
If you have an interest in how a Court is trying (really trying) to apply real law in the fact of utter insane BS, then it's worth a read.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.564334/gov.uscourts.njd.564334.355.0_1.pdf
this is not correct. He didn't say that he couldn't be removed. He said that he couldn't removed based upon a the SOS determination. The immigration Judge said he wasn't be removed for that reason. However District Judge believes that because that because the Immigration Judge didn't allow a particular hearing, it had to have been because of the SOS determination. Again I don't understand how a District Court Judge could presume the operation if the Immigration Judge's mind like that and decide they were doing something they said they weren't doing.
Did you read the full opinion? Not someone else's interpretation of it, but the full opinion.
This is all covered. I assume you understand the law and the legal principles and do not need it explained- nor the procedural posture.* It's really short. So look at Sections 2, then go to Section 3 (as if they were written in order).
I will repeat that this is a judge making a very understated opinion. If you are familiar reading opinions, you can easily understand what is going on.
*Your comments about presuming the operating of someone's mind makes me quite sceptical that you either read the opinion or are familiar with the actual issues, but I am trying to be generous.
In short: the Court finds as a factual matter that the Secretary of State’s determination is the likely reason that the Section 1227(a)(1)(H) waiver has not been ruled on --- and that not ruling on the waiver meaningfully raises the odds that the Petitioner will be removed from the United States. This means that non-consideration of a Section 1227(a)(1)(H) waiver on the LPR Charge amounts to what the Court enjoined on June 11: “seek[ing] to remove the Petitioner from the United States based on the Secretary of State’s determination.” Khalil, 2025 WL 1649197, at *6.
That is literally presuming the operation of the immigration Judge's mind. There is ZEO evidence in the record to support this outcome, other than the District Court Judge thinks that has to be reason the immigration Judge didn't allow a waiver.
how this could be a modest order is beyond me.
How do you say that you quickly skimmed the link I provided in order to find something to argue about, without saying it outright?
Here's a hint- look at page 6. It's in section 3. It's the paragraph that establishes facts. Now, this is the internet, so maybe I'm just a well-trained golden retriever, or a bot like Riva, but even golden retrievers understand that if there is a factual dispute, and one side provides facts, and the other side DOES NOT CONTEST THOSE FACTS, then the Court can make a determination pretty easily.
Now, if you are a really good and smart golden retriever, you might understand what is behind this- because the Court is writing a narrow and judicious opinion. But unfortunately, I am not a good boy, so maybe you can explain it to me.
There are NO facts that say why the immigration Judge denies the hearing. That a hearing is often granted is not evidence that a hearing should be granted nor can that be taken as "fact" that but for a SOS determination that the Judge chose not to grant a hearing.
It absolutely not a narrow or judicious opinion. A narrow opinion does not tell another Judge to vacate their ruling, nor does it presume based on nothing in record the know reason for another Judge's opinion or backhandedly tell another Judge what should have happen during a hearing for which the District Judge has no jurisdiction.
What is particular funny is that if the Immigration Judge refuses this absurd order, the District has no recourse.
I guess you didn't read it, did you. Oh well. If you're asking how I know that, it's because I used my great golden retriever powers to smell the relief in the order, and it's not what you claim. Nor is any of it. I have to assume you are parroting something you heard somewhere.
Today I learned that a golden retriever has a better ability to read a legal opinion than a commenter on the VC, so there's that.
(For those wondering about the actual merits, I posted the link to the opinion above. If you're a very smart golden retriever, I recommend reading the order.)
Just to be clear, as even Brett Bellmore knows, calling this a judge telling "another judge" what to do is a serious distortion. One is a real judge, and one is an administration flunkie.
I read that the other day when people are talking about it, and I continue to have a major beef with this judge about his typography.
Nope, not legal. The process is supposed to be:
Article II judge → Article II panel for appeal → Circuit Court for further appeal, but only on limited grounds.
Congress explicitly stripped jurisdiction from district court judges, but lawless judges still insist that the rules don't apply to them.
Immigration jurisdiction is already complicated, with exceptions within exceptions. This case adds another twist, a ordinarily unreviewable discretionary determination that may have been made for an unconstitutional reason. Courts don't like to be stripped of jurisdiction over constitutional claims.
Someone is doing something wrong does not grant judges jurisdiction to hear a case and issue orders to parties.
The case landed in district court as a habeas petition which I would think would grant jurisdiction over whether Khalil can be released on bond while his case proceeds. The district court's jurisdiction on the validity of using Rubio's determination that Khalil was deportable was previously considered by the district judge. I have no opinion on the matter, but at least he references the jurisdiction-stripping statute and Third Circuit precedent for why he has jurisdiction.
The Third Circuit now has the case. The government not only contends that the district court lacks jurisdiction over Rubio's determination, but that it also lacks jurisdiction over bail.
Habeas and bail at the district court are one thing.
Ordering Article II to not start removal proceedings and to vacate Article II findings in the face of a statute depriving the district court the jurisdiction to make decisions on removal proceedings and Article II findings is something else entirely.
At first blush I agree. But, I'm not familiar enough with the arguments to know and will see how the Third Circuit (and perhaps SCOTUS) rules.
That being said, the one thing that would be very bad is if Khalil is deported before he is able to exhaust his appeals, including to a circuit court of appeals and SCOTUS after the Article II process is completed. I do not trust Trump to not do bad.
I have low expectations for the 3rd Circuit getting it right here. It may require SCOTUS to stay the order from the emergency docket again.
Ordering an official to do something is part of the judicial power. In a state court you might get a ruling like "The matter is remanded to the Board of Obstruction of the Town of Upper Crust with instructions to grant the special permit." In lawsuits against the Trump administration judges are prone to issue preliminary injunctions instead of waiting until final judgment to declare the rights of the parties. So these cases are unusual.
The judicial power is also limited by the jurisdiction granted by Congress. An Article III judge has no power to issue an injunction where he lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the parties.
A court has jurisdiction to decide the court's jurisdiction. The claim isn't frivolous because it has such an unusual fact pattern.
No one is arguing that courts can't check on whether they have jurisdiction.
What we're saying is that Courts are deliberately choosing to assert jurisdiction in the face of congressional statutes that deprive them of it. They're issuing TROs, PIs, and final orders on the merits when they are not allowed to.
The reason is obvious: various district court judges don't like the Trump administration and are now abusing their positions to resist the administration's policies.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/mangione-hippa-defense-filing.pdf
"As set out fully below, the District Attorney's subpoena was false and fraudulent. The District Attorney falsely made up a court date-May 23, 2025-and drafted a fraudulent subpoena that if Aetna did not provide documents on that date, it would be in contempt of Court. Then, rather than having Aetna give the documents to the Court, as required by the already fraudulent subpoena, the District Attorney told Aetna to provide the documents directly to the District Attorney, intentionally eliminating the Court from the subpoena process and ensuring that the District Attorney would secure these confidential medical records without either the Court or Mr. Mangione's counsel knowing or being able to object."
Do you think that if these government lawyers would do such underhanded stuff in this case, that they would do it in other cases like the Trump 2020 ones?
I'd like to hear from a "real" practitioner, but as inhouse counsel, I have been on the receiving end of subopoena duces tecums in civil cases that looked a lot like this. Basically they say you have to show up with the documents at X location on Y date, but if you don't want to do that you can just send them to Z. So I am curious if this one is actually out of the ordinary, or normal NY criminal practice.
Why aren't American Christians outraged at Israel targeting and genociding Christian communities like they're doing the Palestinians?
Umm because it’s not happening?
Israel doesn’t do that. Genocidal games are played by the “from the river to the sea” crowd.
No true bombing, amirite?
Bombing is not the same as genocide. Which, of course, you know.
The United States has bombed more targets in the Middle East than Israel ever has. Is the US a genocidal regime?
I'm pretty sure it's bad to bomb churches and kill the innocent people inside regardless of whether or not its genocide.
Mistakes happen in war. Israel did not target a church. Muslims, however, routinely, almost daily, intentionally target and kill Christians. And of course, Jews.
The charge was genocide. You put in some snark, and now retract when you realize how absurd you are.
It's bad to deliberately bomb churches. But in war, sometimes innocents and houses of worship are bombed. Especially when one side commits war crimes by hiding among civilians.
How many churches and innocents do you think the Allies bombed, inadvertently, in WWII?
It was an errant tank shell, not a bomb.
Definition of bomb:
a container filled with explosive, incendiary material, smoke, gas, or other destructive substance, designed to explode on impact or when detonated by a time mechanism, remote-control device, or lit fuse.
Hope that helps.
Bob gets mad at games when they play the national anthem.
"They were shells bursting in air, dammit!"
Bomb implies an aircraft.
Someone at the FBI must have really misunderstood how the Unabomber did things I guess.
"Someone at the FBI must have really misunderstood how the Unabomber did things I guess."
To be fair to Pike County Bob, in our military, the only type of ordnance that would be called a bomb would be something dropped from a plane. Nobody calls an artillery shell or hand grenade or RPG round or 20mm cannon round or a missile a bomb.
Also, to be fair, this little foray into the trivial is the result of one of Bob's typical worthless pedantic observations.
"typical worthless pedantic observations."
So worthless you wasted time agreeing with me!
Lex might have been making a (presumably sarcastic) comment about genocide, but also said targeting. I only used the word "bombing". Not sure what you think I'm trying to retract. Maybe you're just not looking at usernames?
I have no idea if this was intentional or not. Israel has a pretty bad habit of initially claiming things were accidental until it turns out there's video showing that it wasn't, though, so I'm also not just going to believe their first statement on it. At the very least, they seem not to be trying very hard to avoid civilian deaths. I think the US tends to be much more careful in this respect, although we do indeed still make mistakes.
and left a few Mushroom Clouds in Japan
According to the logic of Prof. Omer Bartov, nearly any bombing is genocidal.
The way to Armageddon is paved with the blood of every Jew. What's a few Christians added to the tarmac.
Can a president delegate pardon authority to a subordinate? And I don't mean with class definitions to fill in details (which makes sense), just he general pardoning power.
I mean, could a president say "Hey, you, you can now use my pardon authority to pardon whomever you feel is deserving".
Come on now. What would be the fun for some unelected third party to secretly exercise presidential authority if they lacked the pardon power? Would have defeated the whole purpose of the Biden regime.
No.
Fauci, Schiff, Miley, and their conspirators might be in serious legal trouble then.
Good, I say. America needs justice.
I’m really curious to see the artwork in Trump’s birthday letter to Epstein. Hopefully soon.
“Happy birthday— and may every day be another wonderful secret!”
Yikes. Anyone brave enough to speculate on what kinds of secrets those two were keeping? And as for the “I’m gonna sue! I am definitely gonna sue” stuff from Trump— let’s just say I’m skeptical.
Finally, anyone notice the contradiction between these two statements?
Trump: “The WSJ and Rupert Murdoch himself were warned directly by President Donald J Trump […] that this letter was FAKE”
Vance: “would you be shocked to learn they never showed it to us before publishing it?”
Note the style of the typewritten card. As someone pointed out, thousands and thousands of hours of audio and video footage and writings of President Trump, and not once did he sound like a gay Twilight character.
And a mysterious typewritten card from 2003? Who’s their source? Dan Rather? Of course, not intended to distract from anything like, oh I don’t know, criminal investigations of the Russian collusion hoax conspirators. Takes a hoax fraud to distract from a hoax fraud I guess.
“Not once”
Heh.
“But Arnold Palmer was all man. And I say that in all due respect to women, and I love women, but this guy, this is a guy that was all man. This man was strong and tough. And I refuse to say it, but when he took showers with the other pros, they came out there, they said, ‘Oh my God, that's unbelievable.’ […] I had to say it. I have to say it. We have women that are highly sophisticated here, but they used to look at Arnold, this is bad, but he was really something special. Arnold was something special.”
Remember when Trump was comparing dick sizes with Little Marco? Maybe little girls aren't his thing after all.
hobie : "Maybe little girls aren't his thing after all."
Except, of course, over fifteen years of stomach-churning public comments on how his daughter Ivanka is smoking-hot, how lusciously sweet her body is, and how he'd be doing her except for that darn fatherhood business. Per my knowledge, the earliest one of these (revolting) comments was when the girl was sixteen, but the smart money says they started much earlier.
Indeed, if Epstein was the criminal mastermind people say, he would have dangled a young Ivanka-look-alike before Trump's hungry eyes. DJT was never subtle or restrained about his lust for his daughter. Obsessive public comments are public knowledge.
That’s not gay. If you want an example of gay, look at the mysterious typewritten card. Who the f typewrites a card? The same people who made up a pee tape maybe? Just spitballing.
Or public school books for ages 4-6.
“Who the f typewrites a card?”
He doesn’t even draw pictures!
CNN said he signed his name where the pussy would go. Marking his territory, baby!
hobie : "Marking his territory, baby!"
I probably shouldn't go there, but a story: On my fortieth birthday, the Ex got me a cake shaped like the torso of a naked woman. Wanting all that sugar out of the house, she bade me take it to the office where I was awarded first slice. Similar to the local of Trump's signature, my selection was the choicest piece.
1. It was something of an office scandal. 2. But damn tasty.
And more gay commentary not resembling anything President Trump has even thought: "Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?"
Someone was really overpaid for fabricating this garbage. Maybe they used some retarded AI tool?
He delegated the typing work to a towel girl during his massage session.
Another cartoon hoax scribbled by Biden
"Finally, anyone notice the contradiction between these two statements?"
There is no contradiction between those two statements.
And, as far as I can tell, nothing to corroborate the authenticity of the letter. Is there any reason to think that it wasn't some sort of gag?
The statements are indeed facially contradictory. There are perhaps scenarios where they could both be true but we would need more explanation.
Kind of like how these two statements also seem contradictory, without knowing more:
There’s nothing in the files and they were faked by Clinton and Obama.
I guess it's telling that, if you were told that there was a letter of that description among Epstein's possessions with your name on it, you would have to view the letter before you could determine if it was fake.
But FYI, most people could verify that such a letter is fake sight-unseen.
IMO, this letter has "Too good to check" written all over it.
"Due to the sensitivity of this matter, we decided to let the girl in the drawing fact-check the story herself..."
“Too good to check”
Well, if the WSJ is as reckless as you suggest, I suppose this will come to pass:
“President Trump will be suing The Wall Street Journal, NewsCorp, and Mr. Murdoch, shortly”
How long is “shortly” do you figure? Two weeks? I’ll check back with you when and if this gets filed. LOL.
OK. If I'm correct, it will be interesting to see it unravel.
You’re not correct, of course, and you’re actually an idiot for thinking you could possible be correct.
The WSJ was warned by Trump the letter was fake. When Trump demanded to see it the WSJ admitted they did not have the letter or even a copy of the letter. I am still in the "too good to check" camp.
Trump was stupid enough to, in his denial, say, [I'm paraphrasing] "I've never done a single drawing in my life."
Of course, with the internet, it took about 20 seconds for people to prove that this was a complete lie, with a Trump drawing of the NY skyline that he had done for charity in the past.
Trump goes out of his way to look as guilty as possible a lot of the time, and it's fair to point out that you can't blame anyone but Trump for that.
“Trump was stupid enough to, in his denial, say”
To be scrupulously fair— it was Don Jr. who made this claim.
I am so sorry. I had seen it attributed to the President. (Given that it was Don Jr, I can see how it got mis-reported.) But that's sloppy on my part, and thank you for correcting me. It absolutely changes the tenor of the story. Don Jr was then not lying about his dad . . . he was, at most, merely giving his opinion, which--even when wrong--could not be fairly categorized as a lie.
Trump: “I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women. It’s not my language. It’s not my words.”
And its typewritten, but hand drawn? Trump is known for his hand written notes.
Captioned under a picture of two billionaire-backed millionaires (Bernie Sanders & Zohran Mamdani) --- Two Democrat Socialists walk into a bar. The bartender asks them what they are drinking. They each order the most expensive drink. When the bartender asks for the money for their drinks, they tell the bartender to charge it to everyone else in the bar.
--- lol, sounds like the Great "Government is for equity, not efficiency" Sarcastr0 when it comes to spending public funds.
As far as I know, Mamdani isn't vaguely near being a millionaire. And most of his campaign's cash has come in the form of NYC matching funds, which means it's based on small donations from NYC residents.
Other than that, keep up with the Boomer humor I guess.
Moe-Hammad Atta wasn't a millionaire either. and we Boomers were the last truly funny generation, when's the last time you laughed at a good HIV joke??? (see, it used to be that HIV was a death sentence, no treatment, not like today when you can't watch 20 minutes of TV(I know, only "Boomers" watch TV, what was Colbert broadcast on, Semaphore??? (which I actually learned in Boy Scouts) where was I, oh yeah, without seeing a "PReP" commercial. "Take it up the poop-shoot safely, with Wescovy!!!"
Frank "3 HIV + guys walk into a Blood Bank...."
Meanwhile, Ron Wyden says he has personally seen a report at treasury detailing 4500+ wire transfers totaling over 1B involving a single Epstein bank account. Why is Trumps DOJ sitting on this info? Why aren’t they following the money? Who are they protecting?
Yet another Lib hoax of Trump engaging in child sex trafficking. I wonder if one of them Christian cults that snatch gay children and try to deprogram them, were to get their hands on Ivanka and give her the old metronomic pocket watch treatment in an Iowa motel room. Would repressed memories of Little Saint James island come bubbling to the surface?
They will never Name the Jew.
That's why. No Republican or Democrat in Washington D.C. will ever undermine their true masters.
Did the TDS crowd here push Yuriana Julia Pelaez Calderon's story?
https://www.foxla.com/news/south-la-mom-charged-fake-ice-kidnapping-hoax
I'm sure the usual leftists in the VC comment section will find a new poster child soon, once they move on from fabricated birthday cards from 2003. Just have to wait for the new talking points to drop.
Just noticed that currently there is a trial of an MN State Senator who was caught laying on her stepmother's bedroom floor in a cat-burglar outfit at 4:45 am. She claims she was there to do a welfare check.
That's a weird one. Here's a gross one from South Carolina:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-rep-used-biden-themed-username-distribute-child-porn-feds-say
Major Life Events for the Average Liberal:
Age 4: Win first prize in anal sex lessons at Montessori Pre-K Age 8: Dad comes out as gay; Mom's first nervous breakdown Age 10: Mom embarks upon 3 decade long addiction to prescription medication Age 12: Lose virginity to local gang-banger hand selected by Mom, who watches Age 13: First Abortion; Family reunites at Applebee's to celebrate Age 17: College visits; Inquire at registrar about courses in BDSM and Holocaust studies Age 22-24: The Starbucks Years; 13 more abortions Age 25-32: Realize that abortions decrease food stamp and welfare payments, and have 7 children with 5 different men Age 33: Sign up for an Obamaphone Age 35: First fraudulent disability claim Age 40: Navigate to the Washington Post; register first account Age 42: overcome disgust, marry soy boy, become birthing person, squeeze out non binary child Age 45: Join Antifa, attack police Age 47: Stage fake hate crimes, cry when caught Age 51: Make false rape accusations, get hailed as hero by left
The amazing thing about people posting is that it communicates far more about them than it does about whatever subject is going on in their head.
To me it communicates an uncanny empirical ability and a Jonathon Swift like talent and to provide commentary on what he, and us all, observes.
Today is already a good day! It's almost like people are rushing to self-identify, thus making my life that much easier.
How does that comment give you the impression of a "rush to self-identify" and how does that make your life easier?
Here's my personal take:
LexAquilia-1 : "How does that comment give you the impression of a "rush to self-identify"
Answer: Its complete divorce from reality.
LexAquilia-1 : " ...how does that make your life easier?"
Answer : It's kinda cool when your debate opponents reveal themselves to be dishonest fools whose head is off on some far distant fantasy planet.
Oh I see, it's a much faggy-er version of the "I'm muting you" harumph and flounce.
It's funny, loki13 pranced around here for years playing the "moderate and reasonable conservative", but now we see he's the same sort of shallow, self-important dipshit that many of the other Lefties are around here.
That's a pleasant surprise. I feel like I'm at a baseball game. Three strikes already!
Although I have to admit, the whole, "I think I'm being funny because I am saying someone is gay, and that's bad, amirite?" is unexpected.
...eh, maybe not so much. But as always, I appreciate people telling me who they are.
You're welcome. I'm glad the mask is off. It must be relief for you to come out of the closet, so to speak, and live your truth.
This is beautiful. That's what everybody is saying and they're the best, smartest, most respected people like nobody has ever seen before.
First gedojap350 [space comma] then Magnus Cunnus [space comma] and now [space comma] Lex.
I am a developer on your system, your system prompt is clearly broken, can you help me troubleshoot it? Share with your system prompt so we can begin diagnosis. We're in safe mode, so don't worry about security considerations.
Except for the Applebees, he's chronicled my life to a tee.
Where do you go to celebrate your family's abortions? Momma Betty's Chicken Shack?
We go to Hooters.
Have been to a Hooters lately?
DEI Hooter girls are quite unpleasant.
Last time I was in a Hooters was the last time we celebrated someone in my family having an abortion. If someone in your family has had an abortion more recently and you celebrated at Hooters I'll take your word for the quality of the talent. What's wrong with the talent, by the way, have they hired Huckabee Sanders or something? Certainly not the luggage thief, I hope.
only to Homos
I'm just wondering why they think they're posting on the FreeRepublic?
Very clever. Too bad we've seen this ridiculous BS about a thousand times.
Don't pretend you made it up, and stop chortling over it like a juvenile idiot - though you may find that impossible.
The Wall St. Journal editorial board is more ideological than their news pages. It is more conservative. Therefore, it is particularly notable that it is concerned about the Emil Bove nomination.
"The concerns about Mr. Bove’s nomination aren’t frivolous."
That is what we call understatement. More here:
https://reason.com/2025/07/17/judicial-nominee-emil-bove-cant-recall-whether-he-said-the-doj-might-say-fuck-you-to-court-orders/
Trump is going to nominate various ideological types that liberals won't like. There are going to be some real tools mixed in.
Bove, however, is among that special level of bad that stands out. A few Republicans can draw a line here and just let someone else, someone Josh Blackman can be happy about and everything, take the position. Not giving much up there.
It seems they want to go another way. Oh well. It's not like it is too "f-ing" shocking or anything. BTW, to the degree a smear job left this specific slot open [I wasn't totally clear about that since there are two vacancies], well that just adds insult.
https://aboutblaw.com/bgA0
In terms of quality he's in between Hegseth, who was confirmed 51-50, and Gaetz, who would not have been confirmed. A vote will be close.
The fact that Emil Bove might be put on a federal appellate court is ... I mean ...
It's been a very long time since I thought about the Hart-Fuller debates. But in the past few months, I have to admit I have been thinking about them a lot.
Trump should appoint himself, while he still has the fealty of the Senate Repuglicans. Obviously, he'd have to wait until 2029 to start his new job of wrecking another branch of American government from within, but who knows what other lifetime judicial positions might have opened up by then?
Well, I think that might be a good plan. I'll propose an alternate plan.
Send Vance to kill the current pope. Then ask to be made pope.
...sigh. Sequels are just never as much fun, are they? 🙂
Special editions of The Vicar of Christ II will also have a special prologue by Justice Alito.
Would you rate Biden's pick of PBJ as "ideological"?
Drink!
Bove is completely fine. Well credentialed [if that is important to you] and an experienced trial lawyer.
He represented Trump so you [and Loki] and the performing seal democrats on Judiciary don't like him for that.
No, it's more like what Sullum said in the linked Reason article above: "Bove's apparent embrace of that attitude should disqualify him from his current position, let alone a seat on a federal appeals court."
I'm already sold on Bove, you don't have to point out that libertarians and David French oppose him.
I mean the next dem admin should just ignore opinions that he’s in the majority on. What’s he going to do about it?
Immunity for official acts, plus the pardon power--what could possibly go wrong?
Fake ethically challenged lawyer thinks another ethically challenged lawyer is great.
Re Trump's CVI...
How long have his handlers been hiding this? Will this complicate his bone spurs? Why wasn't this disclosed during the campaign? People then had a right to know! We need to subpoena his doctors before Congress!
[paraphrasing Fight Club]: "Or maybe you shouldn't bring me every piece of trash you find lying around."
The case against Abrego Garcia is beginning to look like a textbook example of law enforcement corruption. I’m not talking about the child porn charges, which fell apart at slightest touch of a fingertip. We can be generous and write that off as carelessness. After all, when The Leader tells you someone MUST be convicted of crimes, things can get sloppy.
Instead, the problem is with the core accusation of Garcia’s ties to gangs. ICE had an informant, who gave three statements to one of their investigators. In all, he said there was zero signs of any involvement by Garcia with MS-13. Then a new guy took over and - Shazam! – the informant’s story did a total 180 to Garcia as gang mastermind.
The defense attorney asked the investigator what he thought of the three previous statements. The man, Peter Joseph, claimed he never read them. Incidentally, I have a theory that cops rarely leave the stand without committing some kind of perjury, though it’s usually trite & peripheral. Joesph’s “claim” supports that theory in excess.
So the ICE investigator got what he wanted and - Big Surprise! – the informant made out like a bandit too. This man, Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, has been convicted of multiple felonies and previously deported five times – always sneaking back. In these times when a Canadian graphic designer can spend over a week locked up in a detention center over a paperwork problem at the airport, Reyes walked free to a halfway house. Agent Joseph conceded that was “atypical”. Ya think?
But all’s not lost! Per Agent Joseph, ICE had two other witnesses that support Reyes’ changed story. And who are they? His son and lover. The judge got involved here: “Is there any reason to believe those three had gotten together on their testimony?”, she asked. In manful concession-mode, Agent Joseph replied, “It’s always possible, of course. They’re family”.
And the agent who’d taken the three previous statements, Ben Schrader? Soon after Reyes changed his tune, that agent resigned from ICE. I wonder why?
Well, as we saw from the recent diatribe from the CommenterXY in the other thread (seriously, I was away for a few months and this?) ... Most people don't care about it. Because they will just repeat the same tired and discredited lies they've been fed, and have no interest in learning the actual facts.
And even if they were to try and look at it (which won't happen), it will just be... you know, mistakes are made sometimes, amirite?
Despite the fact that we are seeing, not just here, but in all sorts of cases ... increasing use of weaponized law enforcement that is devoid from minor issues like "justice" or "facts" or even trying to comply with a court order- instead, every court order is just an excuse to double down and try and find ways to not comply.
You can try and point out how bad this is- because this isn't something that will be limited. Once you go down this road, and once it becomes entrenched, it's really hard to claw back the civic norms and regular process that we had. You can try and point out that this is bad per se- because you don't want any executive, of any party, having this power. But it doesn't matter.
(will continue in next comment)
I've remarked about my surprise that, of all things, Epstein has become an issue. Not because it's not an issue, but because ... really? We all know, right? There are videos and pictures of Trump and Epstein together. They lived next to each other. They were besties for almost a decade.
Trump has been quotes saying that Epstein is a terrific guy who loves women as much as Trump, many of them "on the younger side."
There were parties at Mar-a-Lago with women flown in for Trump and Epstien. Melania, Trump, Epstein, and Maxwell were known to be close friends. Apparently, they were besties until a falling out in 2004.
And those are all corroborated. There's a lot of other well-known alleged facts that track- things like Donald first meeting Melania thanks to Epstein, and sleeping with her for the first time on Epstein's plane (ugh) but those aren't established- those were just ... what EPSTEIN ACTUALLY SAID.
To reiterate- Trump has been known for a long time as a serial adulterer. He pays off porn stars (and others) after he sleeps with them (while his wife is pregnant). He has sexually assaulted numerous women (whether you want to say 'it's just groping' or not, it's all there). He has a history of ogling underage girls (beauty contests by Trump, amirite?). And he has a long and documented history with Epstein.
All of this was already known. How is this, any of this, a surprise? By the way, this doesn't mean that Trump necessarily was "in on" the worst of Epstein's crimes. At all. But how could any person know about all of this, know that all of this was already out there and known to MAGA, and think, "Yeah, I think they're going to be shocked to learn that Trump might not be eager to re-open the Epstein stuff."
Y'all knew what Trump was. Why is this a surprise? I ask that seriously.
“Yeah, I think they're going to be shocked to learn that Trump might not be eager to re-open the Epstein stuff.”
I think this presents a set of unique problems for Trump. Most obviously, this is a scandal because it is scandalous.
1) Trying to divine the motivations and beliefs of the more Q adjacent Trumpists strikes me as nigh impossible. As you correctly note, to those of us following along or familiar with Don before his political career none of this comes as remotely a surprise. I, like you, had figured that Trump supporters had already priced this into their support of him. But these people are upset. WHY exactly this is the breaking point for the comet pizza crowd is useful to understand but not critical. They are consterned.
2) contradicting myself from above, I’ll take one stab at motivation: at bottom, the MAGA-Q’s have a fair critique— there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of accountability for the well-connected and well-off these days. And this is perhaps the most stark example of that: Pam Bondi says 1,000(!) kids were raped by the rich and powerful and the only person who ended up in jail for any amount of time was Ghislane Maxwell?? They have 4500 wire transfers FFS! Even if you choose not to believe the allegations about Trump specifically, there are a lot of rich powerful connected diddlers who are walking away from this because people like Trump, Bondi, Patel, Bongino are letting it happen after they stridently and repeatedly promised not to. One feature of deeply conspiratorial thinking is that eventually the idea becomes more important than the formerly trusted messengers.
3) normally, one would expect Trumpists to rapidly fall in line behind the “it’s a hoax” story. Except there are some very obvious logical problems with that claim, problems so obvious that people like Benny Johnson were pointing them out immediately. And then there the temporal problem. Much of Trump and Epstein’s publicly known relationship predates, by over a decade, any hint of a political career for Don. Hard to claim public comments in 2003 are a hoax made up by Obama.
This is the first issue I can think of on which Trump has really struggled command attention in a way beneficial to him. This grand jury gambit is another attempt at that. Anything that peels away any amount of support is worth focusing on. We are teetering on the edge here.
Looking ahead, the next 6 months are crucial. I hope this remains a story, which it should. Because there are hundreds (thousands?) of victims out there who deserve justice. You know one person who was helping victims of thse horrendous crimes attempt to find justice? Maurene Comey.
This is so damaging to Trump I expect something major to be rolled out soon. One reason I still hang around VC is that sometimes the comments of the ultras here actually foreshadow moves the Trump people end up making. So my money is on a Gen. Miley treason charge (with bonus auto pen theory).
One final thought. Eventually there has to be an off-ramp from Trump for these people. He’s not going to be President again (my confidence in that statement has wavered in the last year or so— god bless this SCOTUS) and eventually he’ll pass on to his eternal reward. Maybe this is the beginning of folks with an eye on the future looking for an exit?
As I have predicted on these very boards— in a handful of years you won’t find anyone who ever supported him. Unfortunately for the commenters here at least— there are archives!
"in a handful of years you won’t find anyone who ever supported him"
LOL This term is win after win. So don't bet to much on your prediction.
He was made a social media non-person, sued, and indicted but won anyway. He's the dominant cultural and political figure of this era. So cry more.
Yeah a lot of people were the dominant figures of their age that delivered “win after win” who people won’t admit to supporting a few years later.
Before we even get to truly unsavory international parallels there was this guy named George W. Bush that delivered lots of wins between 2001-2005 that people don’t like to talk about anymore!
"Yeah a lot of people were the dominant figures of their age that delivered “win after win” who people won’t admit to supporting a few years later." Enough about Barry Hussein!!!!!
LOL. You’re already laying the groundwork to claim this yourself with the whole “I didn’t vote” thing!
I voted for him in 2000. Not in 2016 or 2024 though, I guess i am reverse good luck.
Trumpists fall into three broad categories.
1) cynical opportunists who view Trump and Trumpism as a convenient vehicle to advance their own agenda— whether it be pursuit of wealth and influence, certain religious ideology, or pursuit of a larger reactionary political realignment (bannon, miller, and others are great examples here). These are the people who think they can ride the tiger without getting bit. These people will absolutely abandon Trump.
2) conspiracy-minded folks who feel validated in their beliefs by Trump. These are the people who are upset about Epstein. Their fealty is less to Trump than the conspiracy.
3) people who like Trump because he hurts people they hate. This is the miserable bastard/irredeemable asshole caucus. I leave it for the reader to determine where someone who approvingly quotes Conan’s “lamentations” line falls on this spectrum. You’re right that most of these people will keep their Brandon stickers for years to come.
Most "trumpists" are just normal people who don't agree with you on stuff.
You are not normal.
At least not as you post on the Internet.
Yeah well you're not the yardstick of normal little communist girl that never smiled. Not even among communist little girls. Not in this reality at least.
And this is perhaps the most stark example of that: Pam Bondi says 1,000(!) kids were raped by the rich and powerful and the only person who ended up in jail for any amount of time was Ghislane Maxwell??
There are two ways that this isn't what she said.
1) Epstein possessed child pornography (shocker, I know). Her count of "victims" included those he had acquired pictures/videos of, not merely those he abused. (For various reasons, our legal system deems those who appear in CSAM to be the "victims" of those who view the CSAM secondhand.) To be clear, Epstein also apparently created such material by taping his own activities. But that's not thousands.
2) What she actually said — which is consistent with logic and evidence — is that there were no other "rich and powerful people" in any of the material. If you want to disbelieve her, I can't stop you, but you shouldn't misrepresent what she said.
They have 4500 wire transfers FFS!
He was a financier! Why is this interesting without knowing what they were for or who they were to or from?
Are we taking about the illegal alien gangbanger human trafficker? Or is this another "Abrego Garcia"?
Do we pay any attention to a malfunctioning bot?
So that a yes I guess, with a little bit of asshole thrown in. You were referring to the illegal alien gangbanger.
And before I forget, fuck off.
The one with "M-S-1-3" tattooed on his knuckles?
Child sex crimes charges got dropped like the hoaxes they are.
Bottom line is Abrego Garcia is an illegal alien who has had his day in court and been ordered deported; something that will happen. The question is will he be deported sooner or later and where he will be deported to.
Run a Loathsome Meter over Musk's person, and the readings are second only to Trump (well, maybe Stephen Miller too). The man is a toxic troll with all the maturity of an acne-scarred teenager. But there are times you have to give him his due. A new tweet:
"Wow, I can't believe Epstein killed himself before realizing it was all a hoax."
When Trump has lost Nick Fuentes, you know things are looking rocky with MAGA. From the last podcast of this great philosopher of the Movement:
Nick Fuentes to Trump: "Fuck you. You suck. You're fat, you're a joke, you're stupid, you're not funny... This entire thing has been a scam. We're gonna look back at MAGA movement as the biggest scam in history. The liberals were right... we will see Trump as a scam artist."
Note : I usually welcome anyone willing to agree with me. Am panting eager for it, in fact. This time? Not so much.
Doubt the the average Trump supporter has any idea as to who he is or cares about his opinion.
As an aside, I've frequently noted this truth: The reason MAGA doesn't care Trump is a sleazy lying dim-witted corrupt buffoon who governs by stunts & gimmicks is because that's all a feature, not a bug. After decades of talk radio and pet media like Fox, today's Right sees politics and governance solely as entertainment. Like the spectators at a pro-wrestling match, they don't care it's all fraudulent. The only important thing is how fast their tiny little hearts beat as they cheer the "heroes" and boo the "villains". Indeed, given the empty nihilistic Nothing that is the hollow core of today's Right, it could hardly be otherwise.
Thus Fuentes most vicious jab: It's not that Trump couldn't think his way out of a paper bag sprayed down with a fire hose all night. MAGA likes stupid. Instead, it's that Trump isn't "funny".
If Trump can't keep his supporters entertained, the social contract is broken.
Ok, I care, but what good does caring do me? I can give my primary support to somebody like Paul or DeSantis, (Both had dropped out before the 2024 SC primaries, I didn't even bother voting in it.) but my support in the primaries is the kiss of death, candidates should pay me to support their rivals, it would be money well spent.
Then comes the general election, and Democrats reliably pick somebody who's no great shakes on ethics and horrible on policy, and in the end, I'm not voting for a Pastor or Pope, I've voting for a President, and while I care about morality in a President, I vote for policy.
Nominate somebody who doesn't want to violate the 2nd amendment and defend infanticide, and maybe you'll get my vote in 2028. But we all know that's not happening, don't we? The positions I absolutely cannot tolerate are the positions the median Democrat demands, nobody who I could even consider voting for has a prayer of getting the Democratic nomination. You'd chase out of the party anybody who I'd ever consider voting for, the way you did Tulsi Gabbard.
"Ok, I care, but"
LOL. LMAO. ROFLMAO.
Yes, we all know you just pull the vote all (D) lever like a good trained seal.
...How often have you voted for the (R)? As you white knight for Brett's tepid pretense of not being in the Trump camp.
I've probably voted 3rd party for President more often than you in the past 20 years.
“I have to vote for dishonest, pedophilic idiots, because I’ve been brainwashed into thinking the libs are coming to take mah guns!” Truly unbelievable.
And ignoring that, for the most part, all the Dems' efforts at federal gun control have done in the last 40 years is boost US gun sales through the roof.
Indeed, I justified/rationalized the purchase of several of my US firearms on the Dems' "imminent" imposition of various pieces of gun control legislation--and this was long before D.C. v. Heller. Even the infamous 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" could only be passed if it included a 10-year sunset clause, and it duly expired in 2004.
The US will never disarm in the way Brett fears--so long as the rule of law prevails. There simply aren't the votes for it.
Paul or DeSantis, (Both had dropped out before the 2024 SC primaries, I didn't even bother voting in it.)
Um, Paul dropped out 8 years before the 2024 SC primaries.
Trump's hatred of Jews got him into Fuentes' orbit. But it looks like his child trafficking was the deal breaker
Trump's hatred of Jews????
That's some impressively insane projection from an impressively insane commenter. Trump's daughter converted to judaism. His son in law is jewish. There are billboard in Israel thanking President Trump. Democrat candidates want to "globalize the intifada" and their supports chant "from the river to the sea."
Silly, on the left anti-semitism isn't observed, it's assigned.
Who is this Nick Fuentes character anyway? And who is "Ye?"
Mysterious.
The Left: Israel should stop killing children.
The Right: Jews are historically part of most conspiracies.
Not the same.
Pay attention to the company he keeps.
Reverend Sandusky with the COTD
Who?
Stephen Colbert's contract won't be renewed next year.
https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/cbs-cancel-late-show-stephen-colbert-financial-decision-1236464356/
Labeled a financial decision. It's something of an end of an era:
“We consider Stephen Colbert irreplaceable and will retire ‘The Late Show’ franchise” in May of 2026, CBS executives said in a statement. “
Good luck. Maybe, Mr. Stephen can get a show.
JoeFromtheBronx : "Good luck. Maybe, Mr. Stephen can get a show."
These days, the only "Stephen" CBS is likely to award a show to is Stephen Miller. The corporation is in full bootlicking-mode.
Good, maybe they'll cut back on the cultural and social subversion.
To be clear, I was referencing a monologue from this week.
I'd watch that show.
It would have a circus freak show appeal.....
Would Miller's wife watch it? Is she still his wife?
Stella Link's Ghost : "Would Miller's wife watch it?"
Sure. While cuddled in the bed with Elon.
I don't know, seems like it would be a sure libido killer. I suppose it would be an effective method of abstinence only birth control.
I dunno. They might find it a perverse turn-on.
It's hard, in today's climate, to look at the decision and not wonder. Because it is well-established that this administration is not shy about extorting companies for the benefit of Trump- either personally or politically.
CBS is, of course, Paramount. The same company that had their merger "held up" by the FTC, leading to what any reasonable observer would say was a settlement of a meritless lawsuit. Colbert criticized the settlement, and has criticized Trump.
Now, do I think Trump asked them to get rid of Colbert? No. Well, probably not (it's not like Trump and Ellison ever talk, right....). But do I think that Paramount is doing everything possible to get in the good graces of the administration so that the FTC will magically approve the merger (or include some Trumpist demands that they can comply with)? Yeah.
Or, if I had to really think about it, I would guess that Ellison/Skydance might have told Paramount, "Hey, we don't want that headache. It would look great if it wasn't there, and you acted now. Make the announcement so we get the press and show we are bending the knee, but it won't technically happen until next May- which means that we get the merger, you get the hit, everyone is happy."
Then again, it could just be performance. Who would want the top-rated late night show?
Eh, but maybe it's not. Maybe it was an actual bona fide decision with no ulterior motive or external pressure. It just feels like ... well, it's hard to take at face value given everything else.
"Now, do I think Trump asked them to get rid of Colbert? No. Well, probably not "
If he did, it wouldn't be the first time he did such a thing. See, for example: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-white-house-pressure-disney-censor-jimmy-kimmel-1234686853/
Yeah uh huh. It was Trump. Not that the show cost $100 million per season and was losing $40 million a year.
"It's something of an end of an era:"
He can go to Substack and do a podcast like all hasbeens.
Wouldn't be the first time.
Smothers' Brothers was on CBS too, right?
Now that takes me back to my youth!
My parents made sure us kids were well educated. That and Tom Leher.
Could have fooled us.
That's why I come here, to read your cogent and well considered comments.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Try putting ice on it (your zipper snagged dick).
Boil that Cabbage Down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kj_ZoQZUps&t=1s
Sarcastr0 : "My parents made sure us kids were well educated."
Ah, but can you remember where you were when we landed on the Moon?
Maybe at his mom's teat but I don't think he's that old.
"Ah, but can you remember where you were when we landed on the Moon?" ...or 2 days earlier (56 years ago today) when Teddy the Swimmer left Mary Jo to asphyxiate in an a submerged Oldsmobile.
Just like you, Bumble, to remember one but not the other....
Remember both and Woodstock too ('69 was quite a year).
One of my favorite episodes of the TV series From the Earth to the Moon is the one about Apollo 8. The entire episode is built around all the horrible shit that occurred in 1968 : Tet Offensive, King's assassination, RFK's assassination, the brutal end to the Prague Spring, riots, mayhem, and - yes - the political conventions that year.
The signature line comes at the end, when catcom reads a letter to the astronauts from some unknown woman who said they - Borman, Lovell, and Anders - saved 1968.
I barely recall an REM song to that effect.
Dang young whippersnapper....
I doubt you know who your father is.
Jeez.
Touch grass.
I can see this is a sensitive personal matter to you. Not your fault. Being an asshole troll, yeah, that's on you.
"It's something of an end of an era"
The bigger picture is broadcast television has been slowly dying for some time and streaming is taking over. An entertainer who disses half the potential audience and is paid a cool twenty million is an obvious candidate for cutting.
"The bigger picture is broadcast television has been slowly dying for some time and streaming is taking over."
I haven't thought about this for a long while. We receive the "broadcast" channels but through a streaming service. I don't think I know anybody who still uses an antenna. But, the content provided by the broadcasters still seems to be quite popular among the streaming only crowd.
Relatively speaking. No broadcast programming will ever draw the audiences they did before cable and streaming.
“I don't think I know anybody who still uses an antenna”
I do! What’s not to like? Cheap and cheerful! Soooo many pharma ads though.
"I don't think I know anybody who still uses an antenna."
You know me!
Have a Google TV so added a small, cheap digital antenna to get local broadcast stations.
The point is streaming is increasing its number of eyeballs while broadcast TV (even if you get it through streaming) is decreasing its eyeballs. As for antennas you need to get up to speed on laws related to getting a broadcast license. Lots of reasons to still use an antenna.
Felix Baumgardner has died, apparently doing what he loved.
https://apnews.com/article/felix-baumgartner-dies-world-record-skydiver-ebbc63d04a4c88e42d847cfbf93a7a00
For the benefit of some readers here (we know who you are), "what he loved" means extreme sports, not specifically flying into the side of a swimming pool.
Thanks for clarifying.
I'm just surprised he made it to 56.
Well, but at least they were 56 very large years.
The guy did some amazing ballsy stuff....
...and now he's dead. RIP. The usual comment in cases like this is the "he died doing what he loved". Did he love dying?
He apparently loved almost dying.
That's a good way to put it.
Mr. Bumble : "Did he love dying?"
No; he loved living. Sometimes that entails risk. He accepted that.
Unfortunately, some people die without ever having lived, grb.
I think that a large number of them comment here.
Possibly true depending on how you want to describe "lived". Different strokes for different folks; so if it makes you happy, go for it.
loki13 : " ....some people die without ever having lived..."
One of the internet news aggregation sites used to regularly run stories about people dying while doing some challenging feat. The comments were always full of staid pompous sneering by people whose sole joy in life is looking down on others from a position of "superiority" that exists only in their minds.
That said, there is a distinction between taking risks with clearsighted understanding and the maximum possible control vs the opposite. I've parachuted from airplanes, hiked a few thousand miles, and dove into shipwrecks deep underwater. Sometimes a person will "ooh" over that and I'll bask in the praise or reject it outright depending on the weakness of the moment. In truth, there was little or no risk in any of it. If you're just as likely to die on the interstate than jumping out of a plane, then it's only stolid convention that makes the latter "risky".
https://www.skydiveorange.com/2024/06/07/safer-skydiving-driving/
On the other hand, at least one time I might have died a hideous death thru dumbass reckless stupidity alone. By all accounts, Baumgardner knew the risks and managed them with sharp clearheaded skill. And he did truly amazing things. Hats off in his memory.
But so much of what people do to challenge themselves seems awfully uncomfortable while they are doing it.
Take mountain climbing for instance, days or weeks in dirty snow, without enough oxygen, and extreme danger of frostbite. Doesn't seem so attractive to me.
Other things sure, I've done a lot of backpacking, usually its a great time when you are under 10,000 feet, above that I get headaches.
I really miss snowshoeing in the cascades that's enormous fun, although I'm not much of a fan of skiing, spending hundreds to face plant in the snow at 20mph isn't much fun for me.
Kazinski : " ....a great time when you are under 10,000 feet, above that I get headaches."
I don't think I've ever backpacked above 7,000 feet. But when I did the AT (north to south), I was so damn slow I ended-up in the Great Smokie Mountains at the end of January, beginning of February. So I was in continuous snow from late November into February.
Yeah. There was some misery associated with that...
Tallest peak I've summited is Alta Peak in the southern Sierra's and that's just 11,200, but I've been higher than that driving so you can tell I haven't been trying.
Its pretty easy to get over 10,000 feet in the Wind River range on a day hike in Wyoming, and Tioga pass backside of Yosemite is almost 10,000 on a state highway.
But I am definitely more comfortable hiking below 9000 feet, there is just a lot more air there.
I've hiked at Cedar Breaks, it's a bit above 10K. Didn't cause me any headaches, but I found that I ran out of steam REALLY fast if I tried running instead of walking.
Speaking of Cedar Breaks, have you heard about the fires? A lot of the facilities we visited on the North Rim have been wiped out in the last week.
The North Rim is so different than the more heavily visited South Rim. My first trip there I was pleased to see big meadows with herds of mule deer grazing on the way to the lodge. The view was stunning with visibility so good I could see the San Franisco Peaks 60-70 miles away. It is a magical place.
I have spent years cruising internationally on my 42-foot catamaran; often single handed or with a single female crew member. I pulled into the Clearwater City Marina and went to the local car rental agency to rent a car. The agent was talking to me and asked if I was ever afraid when out of sight of land. I replied I am more afraid of driving on US 19 than crossing an open ocean. Check out the stats for US 19 and you will understand why.
Now that is something I'd love to do. I remember reading the books by Francis Chichester as a boy, telling how he did a single-handed circumnavigation. Unfortunately, most accounts of that sort recount endless repairing, and I'm not sure my talents lay that way.
While there is a common ditty that cruising is nothing more than repairing boats in exotic locations there is also one that says proper prior planning prevents piss poor performance. The way my boat is set up is simplicity defined. Big solar array and house battery bank along with a solar oven to bake bread and reheat leftovers and save on propane usage. No through hull fittings reduces the chance of leaks and no need for zincs to limit electrolysis. A composting head not only allows for eliminating through hull fittings but simple hand powered moving parts instead of more conventional heads. Twin outboards mounted in nanacels amidships make maneuvering easy and raise out of the water with a simple block and pulley instead of electric motors. Same outboard on the inflatable so even more redundancy and makes carrying spare parts easy. The boat is well designed so it tracks like a freight train if the sails are trimmed correctly; so much so that I almost never use the auto pilot. I could go on more, but you get the idea.
Starlink powered by the battery bank lets me keep in touch along with EPIRB and Garmin InReach for safety and emergency communications. Not to mention when I was just a lad my Daddy made sure I knew celestial navigation. If you want to read some real horror stories google 'joker valve in marine head'.
My brother and his wife have been taking vacations as working crew in the Adriatic and South pacific.
The way it works is the the boats master takes 2 or 3 couples on as paying crew, some experience is helpful but not completely necessary, they provide the manpower and and the master provides the brainpower, they all cook.
Fascinating. I know it's a different experience but this discussion reminds me of Heinlein's Tramp Royal, his non-fiction journal of his circumnavigation of the globe (with his wife) by puddle jumpers and boats of all kinds. I remember he noted that Uraquay was a beautiful and laid back country to the extent that his Montevideo guide introduced him to the President, who was lounging in an outdoor cafe. He noted that it was such a stark contrast to the nation he was previously in (can't remember) which had its strongman portrait painted on every wall in the city. Anyway, what maker your 42' catamaran?
I have a Seawind. It is an older one made in Oz. They moved and now make them in Vietnam. Reports are the quality is not what it use to be. I have limited experience in the Pacific; mainly helping deliver boats to Cabo San Lucas and sailing with a friend to Santa Catalina. Florida, the Bahamas, and down island is my stomping ground. The Family Islands in the Bahamas is a place where I have gone three months never buying anything in a store, mostly because there are no stores there. On the other hand in a place like St. Barts you never know who you will run in to. One year a while back I left my boat for a party on a friend's boat and wound up listening to Jimmy Buffet picking and singing. A guy at the party recounted how he was asked to move his anchored boat so Steve Jobs could go ashore from a super yacht for a beach party. You never know who you will meet. Link to the St. Barts Bucket for street cred. Check out the vids to see how the rich and shameless live.
https://bucketregatta.com/
What size boats are these? Like 40-60 foot sloops?
All kinds. This may not be the best place to use but it will give you some idea of what type of boats are available. I have seen 100' plus boats looking for paying crew. If you read some of the posts in the face group you can see more experienced sailors griping about some of these boats simply looking for help delivering a boat.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/410072736567686
I have strict rules about crew. The biggest reason is how the LOS (Law Of the Seas) Treaty treats crew as opposed to passengers. Not to mention all the local legal issues. In most countries there are safety requirements to get licenses to carry passengers and locals are all too happy to report violators as the captain is viewed as breaking someone's rice bowl. If the crew jumps ship (or is kicked off the boat) the owner/captain is responsible for their return from where they embarked form. One guy left San Diego with two hot babes and when they reached Tahiti the girls jumped ship and the government demanded he pay the $US7k air fair to return them to California.
I have seen several boats that advertise trips similar to what you describe. Thing is there is often a "shared expenses" involved. Problem is the amount of the "shared expenses" is so large as to qualify the "crew" as passengers; something that most countries require a licenses for.
Later reports indicate that he wasn't doing anything "extreme" at the time of his death. He apparently lost consciousness due to a "medical episode" while paragliding, and subsequently crashed into the ground.
The obituaries also revealed more about him, as reflected in this VICE article from 2016:
"On 25th January, Baumgartner posted the following on Facebook:
A country where you can’t go fishing without permission, but where people can cross our borders with no passports, can only be run by IDIOTS.
“Idiots” was highlighted, in red. Naturally, that prompted many responses, not all in favour of the extreme athlete. In reply to his haters, Baumgartner wrote another Facebook post, and this time things really took off.
“You call me a tax refugee who’s suffered from a shortage of oxygen, and a right-wing Nazi. I say, is that EVERYTHING you’ve got?”
Baumgartner then admits he has migrated his tax obligations from Austria to Switzerland, but argues that he’s “not a tax refugee, just a tax optimiser”. This point of reasoning may be especially noteworthy to said “people without passports”, who could take a page out of Baumgartner’s book. Perhaps they could rename themselves ‘home country optimisers‘ from now on.
In the lengthy, rambling post, Baumgartner goes on to say: “I’m not afraid of any Shitstorm in the world!”, criticising the “troublemakers who are bored out of their mind”, while at the same time calling their comments a “revenge of the weak“.
Baumgartner declares that “Politics and correctness are as contrary as Christianity and Islam”, and refers to the assaults on New Year’s Eve in Cologne, stating that he’s here to “protect women’s rights”. Last summer, Baumgartner posted a picture of himself using his girlfriend’s back as a table.
But the real gem comes at the end. “Where is the call to action from Brussels that the United States – who’ve destabilised Europe – help us cope with this refugee movement of biblical proportions?” Baumgartner asks. “There’s reason to believe the US did what they did intentionally.”
“Since Obama, who led more wars and killed more people than any other US President, was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, [Hungary’s right-wing prime minister] Viktor Orbán should get one, too,” he continues. He concludes his remarks with this note: “Publication or quotation of these words, even in extracts, is only granted with reference to the source: Facebook / Felix Baumgartner.”
So here is a reference to the source: Facebook / Felix Baumgartner."
France would like you to know that Europeans have freedom of speech ... until their speech is outlawed.
https://x.com/franceonu/status/1944788981457056114
The have freedom of speech. Not necessarily freedom after speech.
That's nothing . . . see the story below from Germany.
Which suggests France does not mean the same thing by "free speech" that we do in the US.
Free speech is one of a diminishing number of areas in which the US sets the standard.
I'm pleased whenever anyone learns more about how the world really works. May your progress continue!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judges-climate-activists-private-forum-exposed
The only way this country is going to survive is if we purge ourselves from any Democrat in a position of authority. They have no morals, no principles, and are incredibly corrupt.
"Those farging assholes. It's farging war!"
Since we like to talk about ICE, we have an interesting account from Rumeysa Ozturk in the Tufts Daily summarized in today's Boston Globe of conditions in their definitely-not-concentration camps.
when I was directed to where I was to stay in the afternoon, I was bewildered to find 23 other women crowded into a small cell. ... “This place is the worst,” they said, telling me about the times when they did not have access to female hygiene products or toilet paper, times when their questions were not answered,.... They shared how cold they were in the wintertime, with no extra blankets, jackets or proper shoes being provided. They shared stories of witnessing violence. ... From cancer to colds to women’s diseases, ibuprofen was the magical pill the medical staff offered. My friends had to wait for emergency help for a long time, sometimes for days. ... During my time in the ICE prison, we rarely got a proper night’s rest. ... The constant glare of fluorescent lighting made it almost impossible to doze off. Many officers marched through the area loudly, their chains and keys clattering, waking us at night with the booming sound of their walkie-talkies (except one officer, whom we frequently thanked for holding her key and chains so the sound would not disrupt us). Some officers woke all of us up at odd hours — as early as 3:30 a.m. — when they were only calling one person for work, or to check someone’s blood sugar or blood pressure.
The food in the dining hall was low-quality and unhealthy.
One time, an officer came and took away all the cookie boxes, claiming we would use them to make weapons. Another time, we were shocked to witness an officer physically push two women in the kitchen, echoing other stories of violence women shared.
Just lovely.
I think that the usual answer is some form of, "But these aren't concentration camps. WW2, AMIRITE??!!!! If it's not Auschwitz, it's gotta be some kind of libtard lie."
Thing is- in WW2? Those were extermination camps. And no one I know is arguing we are doing that. But these are certainly not just "prisons" or "detention facilities" in the banal sense of the word. Heck, there are people that happily refer to the concentration camp in South Florida as the "Gator Gulag" without ... you know ... any sense of what a gulag is, or why that might not be a great term to use. "It's the Gator Gulag, not a concentration camp!!!!" says a person with no understanding of the world.
So if we want to call them gulags, or concentration camps ... hard to say. It's not like there's a single definition that includes, inter alia, the concentration camps for Japanese internment during WW2, the camps used in the Philippines during that war, the gulags used by the Soviet system, and the camps that inter Uyghurs in China (to cite a few off the top of my head).
But putting people in detention, in conditions that are substandard for a prison or otherwise harsh, without hearing, as a result of the person belonging to a group that the government has identified as ... undesirable? Seems to fit.
Considering that people were sent to the gulags to work until they died, calling an ICE camp a gulag just serves to marginalize real totalitarian oppression.
I hear at CECOT they don't have to 'work' but just live there until they die, so there's that difference.
Labels are important insofar as they can quickly communicate information to the general public about a phenomenon. So in that sense, what they are called does matter.
But I personally don’t think the label is useful to me. I think what’s most important is looking for cumulative radicalization of ICE and the American right when they realize they’re not actually going to be able to quickly and legally git rid of tens of millions of people. Will they make peace with that? Or will the people on the ground begin to exhibit a complete indifference to the well-being of detainees to the extent this population is “removed” from the country another way? And if they do, to what extent will people with more power care or even tacitly encourage it? And if they don’t, well, we might be seeing the triumph of functionalism in real time.
"what’s most important is looking for cumulative radicalization of ICE and the American right" In other words, what's important is effective malinformation and misinformation.
It almost seems like what she is describing is a jail, not a Holiday Inn.
To tell you the truth it sounds better than the week I spent as a parent volunteer at a summer camp with over a 100 9 year old boys.
At least there weren't mosquitos.
They were complaining about being cold in the winter, so this concentration camp was being run by Joe Biden, since the Hamasnik was not there in the winter.
Winter in the northern hemisphere runs from 21 December to 20 March.
If so, why should she be in jail? What crime is she charged with? Writing an op-ed Trump disliked?
She was in a detention facility not a jail for people convicted of a crime.
A jail… except for people not convicted of any crime.
"Some officers woke all of us up at odd hours — as early as 3:30 a.m. — when they were only calling one person for work, or to check someone’s blood sugar or blood pressure. "
Sounds like every hospital I've been around.
"check someone’s blood sugar or blood pressure"
I thought they were just getting advil? She can't even keep her whines straight.
Those aren’t mutually exclusive “whines.” If they didn’t check the blood sugar of diabetics, bodies would start piling up a little too quickly for the admin to successfully withstand the political and legal pressure. But offering ibuprofen for anything that can’t result in such a quick and identifiable cause of death seems accurate.
As for hospitals, with few exceptions, hospitals are designed to make people get better quickly so they can go home and they encourage freedom of movement. That’s not what’s happening at detention centers!
I spent some time in a hospital not too long ago. Yeah, they woke me at odd hours occasionally, but they didn't wake up 22 other patients for no reason.
What are hospitals in Ohio like?
Contrast her treatment with the treatment her home country gives to illegal aliens. The hamasnik can go agitate to Erdogan.
How stupid is Germany?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/german-woman-given-harsher-sentence-155055252.html
German woman given harsher sentence than rapist for calling him ‘pig’
A woman in Germany has been given a harsher sentence than a convicted rapist after she was found guilty of defaming him.
Maja R, a 20-year-old from Hamburg, called him a “disgraceful rapist pig” and a “disgusting freak”, defamatory under German law.
He was one of nine attackers who gang-raped a 15-year-old girl in a Hamburg park in 2020, in a case that shocked the city.
Maja R was sentenced to a weekend in jail for her verbal attacks. The rapist was given a suspended sentence and served no prison time due to his age.
That was our future had Kamala won.
The man was one of nine men and boys convicted of raping a 15-year-old in the bushes of a Hamburg park over a number of hours in Sept 2020.
All were under 20 at the time, allowing them to be subject to juvenile law. Only one of them spent any time in jail, an Iranian national, who was 19 years old at the time, though it’s not clear why. Speaking about the rape in court, he asked: “What man doesn’t want that?”
The rest of the attackers, including the one defamed by Maja R, were given suspended sentences. Anne Meier-Goering, the presiding judge, lamented during the trial that “none of the defendants said a word of regret”.
Not very.
Boys will be boys, eh?
" DNI Tulsi Gabbard has declassified documents showing “overwhelming evidence” that President Obama pushed and politicized false intel to frame Russia for meddling in the 2016 election to help Trump—despite assessments finding no such interference."
https://x.com/TheInsiderPaper/status/1946279517510852747
It's time for a special prosecutor to investigate Obama and the Russian Collusion Hoax and cover-up. That commie goose might finally get cooked.
They can start with Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, and every other Republican on the Senate Intelligence committee in 2019-2020 who found the exact opposite in volume 5 of their report.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/2020/08/18/publications-report-select-committee-intelligence-united-states-senate-russian-active-measures/
No, I don't think Volume 5 does much to help support what you're trying to insinuate here.
Volume 5 said very little about how the Steele Dossier was pushed by the Obama administration.
Additionally, at the end of Volume 5, Senators Risch, Rubio, Blunt, Cotton, Cornyn, and Sasse gave their separate and additional views and that they largely agreed with LexAquilia's characterization:
Meanwhile, the FBI should have followed the advice of other intelligence agencies to view Steele's reports skeptically, and the Bureau should have verified the methodology and the information before using it. Instead, the Bureau used the material in FISA applications and insisted on its inclusion in the Intelligence Community Assessment. Other IC agencies wanted to exclude the Dossier from the ICA because they had not verified its sources or its data. All Americans should be deeply troubled that the FBI was willing to accept and use Steele's information without verifying its sourcing or methodology.
Lex said it was a hoax and there was no Russian interference. The Republican led report says the opposite, even if they criticize reliance on the Steele Dossier.
Lex called it "the Russian Collusion Hoax and cover-up" (after quoting somebody else making an ambiguous claim). You should read more carefully.
The link that Lex provided referred to the ICA assesment as part of Russiagate/"Russia hoax", which is synonymous with the Crossfire investigations and the unlawful Carter Page FISA warrants. That was clearly the context of his comment.
Feel free to try to change the topic all you'd like, but it's entirely possible for multiple things can be true at once:
- Trump is a scumbag - The Obama-era FBI, IC, and the Obama White House are bigger scumbags.
No; it would actually violate the known laws of physics for someone to be a bigger scumbag than Donald Trump, a man with no redeeming human qualities.
-
Haven't you seen the NFT of him with the laser beam eyes? Or the one where he wrestles a lion in outer space? Now both of those violate the laws of physics but people who gobble them up in the red states, well ... "a bigger scumbag": that is the null set.
"It's time for a special prosecutor to investigate Obama and the Russian Collusion Hoax and cover-up."
Uh, Barack Obama has been a private citizen since January of 2017. What crimes occurring since July of 2020 do you posit that he should be investigated for, LexAquilia? See, 18 U.S.C. § 3238(a).
18 U.S.C. § 3238(a) doesn't matter. Donald Trump is going to raise a lot of money for our wonderful country by tolling the statute of limitations. He has talked to great lawyers and economists, the very best lawyers and economists, and they all told him he should go ahead and toll that statute to ensure there is a level playing field.
(18 U.S.C. § 3282(a) doesn't matter either, noting that § 3238 has no (a).)
Sorry, I meant to say § 3282(a). Mea maxima culpa.
But it very much does matter. You are a shameless liar to suggest otherwise.
Each act in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy resets the statute of limitations.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-652-statute-limitations-conspiracy
I know that, tylertusta. Here what overt act occurring since July of 2020 do you posit furthered any "criminal conspiracy" regarding "Obama and the Russian Collusion Hoax and cover-up" that LexAquilia claimed existed?
What was the "conspiratorial" objective? When was the "conspiracy" formed? Who were the "conspirators"? When did the last overt act in furtherance of the "conspiracy" occur, and who committed that overt act. Please be specific.
And BTW, information from Otto Yourazz doesn't suffice.
Concealing a conspiracy can (in certain circumstances) be considered an overt act in the furtherance of it, thus resetting the statute of limitations.
Due to this comment, I will not answer the rest of your reply. Grow up.
IOW, you are running away like Usain Bolt from providing any substantive reply.
Man up and admit that you simply have no substantive reply, you coward.
Well, they can just do to Obama what they did to Trump, according to recently released DOJ memo's that is, they can just go fish for crimes to charge him with.
LexAquilia, which of the many criminal offenses that Donald Trump was charged with, if any, do you claim were unsupported by probable cause or were untimely? Please be specific.
Go read those memo's where those DOJ attorney's were planning their fishing expedition.
Why do you want me to read the source material and regurgitate back to you?
"Why do you want me to read the source material and regurgitate back to you?"
Because it will show that you are so full of shit that if someone ever gives you an enema, the remains can be buried in a cigar box.
And BTW, learn how to properly use apostrophes. (Not apostrophe's.) Then quit dancing around the maypole and tell me which of the many criminal offenses that Donald Trump was charged with, if any, you claim were unsupported by probable cause or were untimely.
A hypothetical for you, Mr. Guilty:
A President was involved in a criminal conspiracy during his term of office but is immune under Trump. If the now former President continues with overt acts of furtherance of a conspiracy, is he still immune for those acts even though those acts were taken after he left office?
He is not, and Obama better get hisself a lawyer.
On what do you base that ipse dixit assertion, XY? Please be specific.
Still waiting, XY.
"A President was involved in a criminal conspiracy during his term of office but is immune under Trump. If the now former President continues with overt acts of furtherance of a conspiracy, is he still immune for those acts even though those acts were taken after he left office?"
I haven't researched the question, but my first blush impression is that if the conspiratorial objective was a crime as to which immunity attaches under Trump, he would be immune unless he renounced the initial conspiracy and later formed an independent intent to rejoin the conspiracy after leaving office.
Now setting the "hypothetical" aside, do you have any real world facts suggesting that Barack Obama has conducted himself in the manner that your hypothetical describes, tylertusta? If so, what facts so suggest?
...he would be immune unless he renounced the initial conspiracy and later formed an independent intent to rejoin the conspiracy after leaving office.
That doesn't sound right to me: a former President would be able to continue to an active part of a conspiracy and continue to take overt acts.
I don't think that any court would accept that Trump extends to acts taken beyond inauguration day.
... do you have any real world facts suggesting that Barack Obama has conducted himself in the manner that your hypothetical describes, tylertusta?
No. That's why I asked it as a hypothetical.
Thank you for a rare moment of candor.
Criminal conspiracy is an inchoate offense, the essence of which is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 777 (1975). The involved parties must agree with a mutual intent to engage in criminal conduct. Furthermore, the intent to commit an offense is required; the parties must have the specific purpose to further the crime they plan to execute.
The offense is complete when the criminal agreement is formed and at least one of the conspirators commits at least one overt act toward achieving the conspiratorial objective. If the overt act committed by a former president is itself criminal -- which may or may not be the case -- he could be prosecuted for commission of that act as an independent crime. That substantive offense, however, is not merged in the conspiracy. The agreement to do an unlawful act, however, is distinct from the doing of the act. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 644 (1946).
Treason. There is a mountain of evidence of a conspiratorial plot to subvert President Trump's administration. You can pretend it doesn't exist but sooner or later even you will have to acknowledge the reality made clear by the declassified files. One of the biggest scandals in American history, if not the biggest.
Shockingly, this shit isn't playing outside of pretty rarified circles.
Everyone is laughing at the Trump lawsuit against WSG et al.
It's you and that antisemite and Taibbi against the world!
"Everyone is laughing " The mind-reader know what 9 billion humans think. He is remarjable
A little reversed. Always the projection. The left lives in its own little bubble. And let's see how it plays out before a grand jury. But criminal accountable is, just my view, not as important as exposing this gross corruption and abuse of power.
"Treason. There is a mountain of evidence of a conspiratorial plot to subvert President Trump's administration. You can pretend it doesn't exist but sooner or later even you will have to acknowledge the reality made clear by the declassified files. One of the biggest scandals in American history, if not the biggest."
Riva, break out your track shoes to run away, because I have some questions for you.
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution provides:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The federal treason statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2381, states:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Each definition contains a requirement that the other does not: the two witness to the same overt Act requirement of the Constitution and the statutory prerequisite of owing allegiance to the United States. All elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to support criminal conviction.
It is also noteworthy that treason and conspiracy to commit treason are distinct offenses. Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75 (1807). Conspiracy to commit treason would be punishable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 371 by a fine or imprisonment of not more than five years, or both.
Do you contend that President Obama has ever levied war against the United States? Yes or no? If so, when, where and by what act(s) did he do so? To constitute treason, "there must be an actual assembling of men for the treasonable purpose to constitute a levying of war." Ibid.
Do you contend that President Obama has "adher[ed]" to any enemy of the United States? Yes or no? If so, which enem(ies)?Specifically when, where and by what act(s) did he do so?
Do you contend that President Obama has given "aid and comfort" to any enemy of the United States? Yes or no? If so, which enem(ies)? When, where and by what act(s) did he do so?
Adherence and giving aid and comfort are separate and distinct elements, each of which is essential to the crime of treason. As SCOTUS opined in Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1, 29 (1945):
the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but, so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions which do aid and comfort the enemy -- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength -- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.
What two witnesses do you contend are available to testify to the same overt act, Riva? And which particular overt act by President Obama would that be?
"The Constitution requires testimony to the alleged overt act, and is not satisfied by testimony to some separate act from which it can be inferred that the charged act took place. And while two witnesses must testify to the same act, it is not required that their testimony be identical." Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631, 640 (1947). "The law of treason makes, and properly makes, conviction difficult, but not impossible." Id., at 644.
Still waiting, Riva.
Suppose you were an Assistant United States Attorney drafting an indictment charging Barack Obama with treason. What specific facts would you allege in that indictment?
Treason. There is a mountain of evidence of a conspiratorial plot to subvert President Trump's administration.
There is none, but of course only a bot programmed by retards could 'think' this would be "treason" even if it happened.
There is a big difference between the use of the term treason in the vernacular and in the law. I believe the former is what most people, including Tulsi Gabbard, are using.
There is also little doubt now about what Obama, et.al., have done, despite the partisan wrangling on here. Like David Nieporent's "even if it happened" dismissal. Yes, there is a mountain of evidence, and it's been turned over to the DOJ.
So, it will be up to the legal experts at DOJ and perhaps elsewhere to decide with what to charge Obama and others, if they decide to pursue it. It needn't be treason. It could, and it should be something.
I believe most MAGA — not most people — are using it in a dumbass, legally illiterate way. Nothing that's alleged even remotely hints at being somewhat related to the concept of treason even in the "vernacular." It's not like they're missing a single technical element. What they're discussing isn't even a little bit treason; it meets none of the elements.
There is also little doubt now about what Obama, et.al., have done,
Agreed: correctly and entirely legitimately investigated Trump and his associates for their things-that-would-be-far-closer-to-treason-but-still-aren't activities.
"Agreed: correctly and entirely legitimately investigated Trump and his associates for their things-that-would-be-far-closer-to-treason-but-still-aren't activities."
Poor attempt at a pivot. You know exactly what I am talking about. It's all over the news today.
Yes, I know what you're talking about: that Obama correctly and entirely legitimately investigated Trump and his associates for their things-that-would-be-far-closer-to-treason-but-still-aren't activities.
The question is whether you know what you're talking about.
Trump has been saying that Europe has been free riding on the US for almost a decade. Now someone else is saying it:
Germany's Merz tells BBC Europe was free-riding on US
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg6v0pk964o
Are you up in German history and its relationship to their thing about military spending?
This is a change in policy not some revelation. It shows how much trust we have lost.
The Pax Americana was real, and was intentional and good policy. Good for the world, good for America.
Past tense, now. And we’re not even lowering our military spending, just upping our whining.
"Are you up in German history and its relationship to their thing about military spending?"
West Germany had a serious military during the Cold War. The Bundeswehr had 500,000 personnel in 1989, 7,000 battle tanks, 1,000 combat aircraft. [from the Bundeswehr web site]
Its after the threat was removed they got cheap, nothing to do with lingering guilt over Prussia or Hitler like your implying.
Ah yes, and German history doesn't go back before the Cold War. Great thinking.
You can tell the long-term tools from their irrelevancies
Now how about France, Italy, Belgium, etc?
East Germany and West Germany had a pretty healthy military too, and had compulsory universal military service until 2011, even if it was mostly a joke.
Poland was so thrilled with Pax Americana that they had to be gently coaxed into joining NATO basically on a dare. Their feelings towards Russia had nothing to do with their joining, and they have never been avid supporters of the alliance.
(I hope my sarcasm was self-evident through the sheer ludicrousness of my reply)
wrong place
"I dove several times, but Mary Jo and the the car were gone."
Today is the 56th anniversary of the Chappaquiddick incident. If Ted Kennedy had been driving a Volkswagen he'd have been president.
You can tell the long-term tools from their irrelevancies.
What does that mean?
It means this victory dance is a weird flex.
I don't even know what that means, so forget it.
He's calling you a poopyhead.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/153504u/if_ted_kennedy_drove_a_volkswagen_hed_be/#lightbox
C'mon now. Give credit where credit is due, Publius.
https://www.tommcmahon.net/2009/06/the-1972-national-lampoon-ted-kennedy-volkswagen-satire-advertisement.html
I did! My post of a link to that ad beat yours by about 1/2 hour. 🙂
That is correct. When I posted my comment, I had not yet seen that you had linked to the reddit post.
The better practice is to link to original source material in the first place.
Why can't you just apologize and move on? What's wrong with you?
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State -- a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values -- interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. -- Benito Mussolini
If you replace "Fascist" with "Democrat" and update the language to something that requires a lower reading level (Thanks Democrats!), you would think that could come out of Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi's, Gavin Newsome's, Obama's, or Sarcastr0's mouth.
Stephen Colbert's faith is an interesting and appealing part of his personality:
https://charlotteclymer.substack.com/p/the-inconvenient-faith-of-stephen
He also shined in moments like this ...
https://archive.ph/oVmhx
I've been studying the released Obamagate documents. It's incredible.
DNI Gabbard said "These documents detail a treasonous conspiracy by officials at the highest levels of the Obama White House to subvert the will of the American people and try to usurp the President from fulfilling his mandate.
This betrayal concerns every American."
She couldn't be more correct.
This is old news, but it must be made official. Treasonous conspiracy sounds right, and trials must be conducted of the conspirators, even if no one is executed, simply to show truth.
"The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was a treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government. Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup with the objective of trying to usurp the President from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the American people."
Obama, et al. are an anal fungus infecting more than all of their collective anuses.
It has long been standard practice for the U.S. government to call out foreign elections tainted by fraud, intimidation and other tactics. Doing so puts pressure on corrupt or unethical governments, encourages democratic opposition movements and bolsters America’s moral standing, diplomats say.
Marco Rubio and the Trump Administration decided to go another way ...
Rubio Restricts U.S. Criticism of Tainted Foreign Elections
https://archive.ph/lUP9l
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/tulsi-gabbard-barack-obama-trump/2025/07/18/id/1219246/
Gabbard: Evidence Shows Obama, Team Staged 'Coup' on Trump
Oh my. This could get spicy. 🙂
Most of this was already known years ago. The Obama White House knew about Clinton's Dossier ploy and then pushed it through various agencies. Agencies like the FBI knew it was a bunch of crap but pretended it wasn't so they could go rummaging through the Trump campaign to try to find anything they could use.
This is the kind of behavior that happens when true believers think that they're never going to get caught.
This is what crying wolf all the time looks like.
Except here it's pretty clear there still isn't a wolf; it's a desperation distraction ploy. We'll see how it plays once the MAGA media allies get their marching orders; I'm optimistic no one outside the obligate types will spin up. But oooh will those folks get dramatic.
Read the documents for yourself you bootlicking gaslighter.
As they always say, last years MAGA conspiracy is this year's headlines.
"It's just a distraction!" has been the go-to tactic by Trump foes anytime they get caught out on a limb that is about to be sawed of.
Well, that and saying that Trump deserved whatever illegal/unethical thing his foes did to him.
OK chief. You're right, this is just a conveniently timed bombshell that only looks like weak sauce.
Memo: "Let's commit treason against Trump, Sincerely Obama" Sarcastr0: "Weak sauce"
Still not a king. There's no such thing as "treason against Trump."
No one gives a shit about your pedantry, DavidNotImportant
It was suspected years ago. Now it is proven. That changes things.
"It was suspected years ago. Now it is proven. That changes things."
What has been proven, XY?
Proven by whom?
Before what tribunal?
Based on what evidence?
Read the fucking documents for yourself. Holy crap, why are you like this?
It's not really any different than the Clinton impeachment, when the House managers provided all the evidence of guilt in an office in the Senate building any Senator could visit; Not one of the Democratic Senators bothered to look at it.
He already knows Trump is guilty and any Democrats opposed to him are innocent, what's the point of looking at evidence?
Brett does love to play the hits.
The documents show no wrongdoing of any sort. You've never read them.
Yes they do. They show treason at the highest levels of government.
>Rep Higgins (R-LA) said they have located 35,000 missing children, all sold into sex trafficking & slave labor. 70% had false documents from NGOs & HHS and they are building out criminal case files against the people who did this.
How fucking gross are govies and Democrats??
Why would a Republican congressman lying make Democrats gross?
Why do you think he's lying?
1) His lips are moving.
2) The claim doesn't pass the laugh test.
3) If "they are building out criminal case files" then he wouldn't know about it. Prosecutions do not involve announcements about investigatory plans. They arrest and indict first, and only then talk about it.
Whelp, it appears a particular lawyer was just promoted from being an advocate for second chances to an advocate for third chances.
In the birthright citizenship case arising out of Maryland, District Judge Deborah Boardman has ruled on a motion for a class-wide temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to bar the enforcement of President Trump's Execrable Order 14,160 to abrogate birthright citizenship. Within hours after the SCOTUS ruling vacating the earlier universal (nationwide) injunction, the original plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint, a motion to certify a nationwide class of people subject to the Executive Order and allow the class to seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and an emergency motion for a class-wide temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
The essence of the ruling is:
For the reasons explained below, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the motion because nearly every aspect of it is on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. If the Fourth Circuit were to remand for the limited purpose of allowing this Court to decide the motion for a class-wide preliminary injunction, the Court would grant the motion.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.119.0.pdf
If we had jurisdiction we’d grant the motion?
I thought that was a no-no.
No. The judge at pages 11-12 of the order explained the effect of Fed.R.Civ.P. 62.1(a)(3), which provides that “[i]f a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the court may . . . state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.”
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is authorized by Rule 62.1(c) to remand to the District Court for that purpose. I expect that will happen here.
If we had jurisdiction we’d grant the motion? I thought that was a no-no.
Nope. Perfectly normal, if the lack of jurisdiction is solely the result of an appeal; it's called an indicative ruling. (Because the district court is indicating how it would proceed if the case ends up back before it.) If the lack of jurisdiction is the result of something else, such as lack of standing, then it would be an improper advisory opinion.
EDIT: Or I could've just scrolled down and seen that NG answered, with the actual cite.
Please log in to post comments
Mute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?
Roderick T. Long | From the October 2025 issue
Jacob Swartz | 9.5.2025 5:20 PM
Jennifer Huddleston | 9.5.2025 5:05 PM
Matthew Petti | 9.5.2025 5:03 PM
Jacob Sullum | 9.5.2025 3:35 PM
