Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

First!

[Supremacy Claus]

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.

[Frank Drackman]

Good luck with that

[LexAquilia]

Have you tried using Claude?

[Kazinski]

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

[Stephen Lathrop]

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?

[Kazinski]

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.

[LexAquilia]

According to the AZ Senate, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs stole the election for the soon to be Gov. Katie Hobbs.

[Frank Drackman]

Watta-Boutism!!!!!!!!
I love saying that

[Commenter_XY]

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.

[Kazinski]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[Kazinski]

Goods and services the government purchases are included in GDP, including wages paid.

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[Poxigah146]

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.

[Poxigah146]

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.

[Kazinski]

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.

[Poxigah146]

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?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"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?

[Poxigah146]

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.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

Inflation; is there anything it can't do?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because they own them, and that's what people are willing to pay?

[Poxigah146]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

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.

[Commenter_XY]

How do you think buyers of government notes and bonds will respond to a reduction of real after tax returns to close to nothing?

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.

[Poxigah146]

Which is why people are paying $120k for a bitcoin.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

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.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"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?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

[Commenter_XY]

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. 😉

[Poxigah146]

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.

[jb]

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/

[Poxigah146]

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.

[Kazinski]

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.

[jb]

"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.

[Commenter_XY]

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?

[jb]

Probably helps to read the discussion here rather than just regurgitating the Breitbart headline, no?

[Stephen Lathrop]

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?

[Commenter_XY]

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". 😉

[David Nieporent]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

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."

[Stephen Lathrop]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

"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?

[Sarcastr0]

How would you tell the difference between this mistake you're so forgiving of and racial profiling?

[Brett Bellmore]

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."?

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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?

[Don Nico]

"ICE is more and more acting like the lawless cartels in Mexico"
Spoken like a true Dem partisan. Typical gaslighting.

[David Nieporent]

"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.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"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.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

'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.

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed. That's exactly what should happen.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Indeed. That's exactly what should happen."

You missed the joke and I'm not going to explain it to you.

[David Nieporent]

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.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"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.

[Commenter_XY]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

What the fuck don’t call people child predators when you don’t have proof.

[jb]

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.

[Commenter_XY]

Horseshit, David. Hispanics in tony Montclair NJ have nothing to fear.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

" 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.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is there a point to all of that?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Obviously, yes.

Relax. Drink a cup of coffee. Breath deeply. Perhaps your specific gravity will decrease.

[Don Nico]

The many hispanics who work for us in Oakland never had problems working on our property.
But that is just anecdotal.

[ReaderY]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

No, forgiving this as an honest mistake because government is too big is not the libertarian thing to do.

You are so authoritarian.

[Brett Bellmore]

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?

[Don Nico]

There you go again with your damned mind-reading vibe.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Bellmore's mind is not hard to read as it split open long ago and is leaking all over the place.

[jb]

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]

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.

[jb]

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/

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"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?

[David Nieporent]

The man was a druggie, and a child predator,

Like Abrego Garcia, he was neither.

[Riva]

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.

[Joe_dallas]

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.

[not guilty]

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.

[Kazinski]

Or 4) when she got around to reviewing it, there was nothing of substance.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or the preported victim can not be belived.

Dersh essentially said that...

[David Nieporent]

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.

[Commenter_XY]

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?

[David Nieporent]

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.

[LexAquilia]

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.

[Commenter_XY]

David, assume there are such recordings.

Should they be released with the victims anonymized?

[Michael P]

Also note the tense of the assertion: "they don't exist". Did they exist at some point? If so, who destroyed them, and when?

[Commenter_XY]

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.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"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.

[David Nieporent]

No, they did not exist at some point.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If they include thepurported victims lying about their ages?

[David Nieporent]

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.

[LawTalkingGuy]

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

[Commenter_XY]

I don't have a problem with identifying child sex predators. You're right.

You defend them, don't you.

[Estragon]

“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.”

[LawTalkingGuy]

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?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Distinction without a difference.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Was that a complete thread when you linked to it? It's full of holes, now...

[LawTalkingGuy]

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.

[LexAquilia]

Since when do you act as a voice of reason?

I'll have to stop calling you DavidNotImportant if you keep this up!

[Don Nico]

David,
In this case I agree that is the most probable.

[Riva]

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?

[Estragon]

“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.

[Riva]

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?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"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.

[Riva]

Actually, my position is the opposite of that. That's your side. The projection is strong with you today.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

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?

[hobie]

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.

[LexAquilia]

lmao are you for real? You still believe that whole youtube video nonsense?

[Kazinski]

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.

[Commenter_XY]

The last rescissions bill was when...Nixon?

Hope this becomes a common practice.

[Don Nico]

That was not the last recission C_XY

[Frank Drackman]

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

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"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.

[Frank Drackman]

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?

[LexAquilia]

Hell yea! What a win.

Ain't no brakes on the Trump Train! Speaking of no brakes, Timmy No Brakes has been hilarious.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is more like pumping the brakes on the Biden train, actually.

[Stephen Lathrop]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Poxigah146]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

In theory, it could have meant that. But I don't believe it actually DOES mean that.

[Poxigah146]

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?

[hobie]

Easy now, Lathrop. Don't be touching my oil and gs subsidies.

[Joe_dallas]

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.

[hobie]

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!

[Joe_dallas]

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?

[tylertusta]

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.

[Commenter_XY]

They need to win elections, first.

[Poxigah146]

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.

[Don Nico]

tyler,
Certainly the defense budget is bloated. It does not have a provably better record of cost management than other agencies.

[Don Nico]

'Looking forward to D-sponsored claw backs from defense contractors"
Stephen,
In many cases that would be welcome.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump v. Murdoch, rhovld be fun.

[hobie]

Vladimir, STOP!

[LexAquilia]

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?

[ReaderY]

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?

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Poxigah146]

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.

[Stephen Lathrop]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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?

[Malika the Maiz]

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

[David Nieporent]

The problem? Kaczynski never attended MIT, and Trump’s uncle was not the longest-serving professor there….

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.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

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.

[ReaderY]

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”

[ReaderY]

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”

[TwelveInchPianist]

There's always the famous motion to kiss my ass.

[Malika the Maiz]

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”

[hobie]

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

[Frank Drackman]

You and Queenie should get a room

[hobie]

Whatever. I'll try anything once

[Commenter_XY]

Why Arthur, we never knew that about you.

[hobie]

Hey, XY. It's me, Artie. How are you clingers doing?

[Armchair]

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?

[Michael P]

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.

[hobie]

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?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, the pardon is valid. Same reason as Wed...the pardon power is absolute.

[Michael P]

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?

[Frank Drackman]

Funny how those wanting to abolish ownership of private property have quite a bit of it

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Riva]

And globalize the intifada. Not sarcasm. He wants to…wait for it…globalize the intifada.

[Michael P]

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?

[Riva]

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?

[Frank Drackman]

Well he does resemble a composite of the September 11th Hijackers

[David Nieporent]

That is not, of course, what he said.

[hobie]

Shhh! We're watching in real time the precious birth of a new conspiracy. Isn't it beautiful?!

[Michael P]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

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?

[Michael P]

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?

[Brett Bellmore]

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".

[Sarcastr0]

No he didn’t. You read that you want, yet again.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[jb]

...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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[jb]

"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.

[Michael P]

"...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.

[Sarcastr0]

"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.

[jb]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

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.

[Michael P]

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?

[Bored Lawyer]

'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.

[Poxigah146]

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.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

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.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

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.

[David Nieporent]

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.

Basically, they're rounding up day laborers under the pretense of public safety.

[LexAquilia]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

Mere illegality IS the basis, though. Criminality just is the basis for prioritizing deportation, not deportation itself.

[jb]

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.

[Riva]

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.

[hobie]

"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

[Michael P]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty sure deportation attaches to being here illegally, regardless of your conduct while here.

[Sarcastr0]

It's a may not a shall in the law. Riva pointed that out thanks to blindly using ChatGPT.

[Riva]

I guess you just forgot that you’re the one who uses ChatGPT. But honesty has never been your strong suit.

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[Riva]

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.

[Don Nico]

"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.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It's a may not a shall in the law."

And the administration wants to, so, what difference does "may" make?

[Don Nico]

"Riva pointed that out thanks to blindly using ChatGPT."
The man cannot help making up lies to try to prove his points.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Which raises an interesting question: How can you prove a bot isn't using ChatGPT?

[Michael P]

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).

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

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.

[David Nieporent]

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.

[Michael P]

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.

[John F. Carr]

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.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

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...

[ikaritenshi]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[LexAquilia]

The district court judge ordered the immigration judge to reverse their determination.

The district court judge has zero jurisdiction or authority over that.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Commenter_XY]

Does the Art3 judge even have jurisdiction here? Or did Congress remove it?

[tylertusta]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[tylertusta]

And I'll take Congress and the Supreme Court over dipshit district court judges any day of the week.

[loki13]

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

[ikaritenshi]

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.

[loki13]

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.

[ikaritenshi]

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.

[loki13]

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.

[ikaritenshi]

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.

[tylertusta]

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.

[John F. Carr]

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.

[tylertusta]

Someone is doing something wrong does not grant judges jurisdiction to hear a case and issue orders to parties.

[John F. Carr]

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.

[Bored Lawyer]

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.

[John F. Carr]

A court has jurisdiction to decide the court's jurisdiction. The claim isn't frivolous because it has such an unusual fact pattern.

[Sarcastr0]

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."

[LexAquilia]

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?

[LexAquilia]

Why aren't American Christians outraged at Israel targeting and genociding Christian communities like they're doing the Palestinians?

[Frank Drackman]

Umm because it’s not happening?

[Riva]

Israel doesn’t do that. Genocidal games are played by the “from the river to the sea” crowd.

[jb]

No true bombing, amirite?

[Bored Lawyer]

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?

[jb]

I'm pretty sure it's bad to bomb churches and kill the innocent people inside regardless of whether or not its genocide.

[hobie]

The way to Armageddon is paved with the blood of every Jew. What's a few Christians added to the tarmac.

[LexAquilia]

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".

[Riva]

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.

[hobie]

No.

[LexAquilia]

Fauci, Schiff, Miley, and their conspirators might be in serious legal trouble then.

Good, I say. America needs justice.

[Estragon]

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?”

[Riva]

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.

[Estragon]

“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.”

[hobie]

Remember when Trump was comparing dick sizes with Little Marco? Maybe little girls aren't his thing after all.

[Riva]

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.

[LexAquilia]

Or public school books for ages 4-6.

[Estragon]

“Who the f typewrites a card?”

He doesn’t even draw pictures!

[hobie]

CNN said he signed his name where the pussy would go. Marking his territory, baby!

[Riva]

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?

[hobie]

He delegated the typing work to a towel girl during his massage session.

[hobie]

Another cartoon hoax scribbled by Biden

[TwelveInchPianist]

"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?

[Estragon]

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.

[LexAquilia]

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.

[Estragon]

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?

[hobie]

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?

[LexAquilia]

They will never Name the Jew.

That's why. No Republican or Democrat in Washington D.C. will ever undermine their true masters.

[Michael P]

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

[TwelveInchPianist]

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.

[gedojap350]

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

[loki13]

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.

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

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.

[loki13]

Today is already a good day! It's almost like people are rushing to self-identify, thus making my life that much easier.

[hobie]

Except for the Applebees, he's chronicled my life to a tee.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

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

[John F. Carr]

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.

[loki13]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

Would you rate Biden's pick of PBJ as "ideological"?

[hobie]

Drink!

[hobie]

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."

[grb]

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?

[loki13]

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)

[grb]

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."