Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Well, Donald Trump has gone there, expressly accusing President Barack Obama, among others, of treason. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3liaPW17mDI

In the past two open threads, some MAGAt commenters (most obnoxiously, Riva) have claimed that President Obama in the wake of the 2016 presidential election somehow committed treason. Some more cautious MAGAts suggested that he engaged in a "treasonous conspiracy" -- a distinct offense. Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 126 (1807).

When I challenged these commenters to identify what conduct satisfies the essential elements of these offenses, the crickets suddenly stopped chirping.

Here I will renew that challenge to any MAGAt who has the stones to take it up. "[T]he Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged." In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). Under the Federal Constitution, "the accused" has the right (1) "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" (that is, the basis on which he is accused of a crime), (2) to be "held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" only on an indictment or presentment of a grand jury, and (3) to be tried by "an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." Amdts. 5 and 6. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, (2000) (Thomas, J., concurring, joined by Scalia, J.)

Suppose you are an AUSA drafting an indictment for presentation to a federal grand jury charging Barack Obama with treason, or if you prefer, a Bill of Particulars as to that offense under Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(f). Do you allege that President Obama had levied war against the United States? If so, based on what specific conduct?

Do you allege that he adhered and gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States? If so, which specific enem(ies)? What acts or omissions evince adherence? What acts or omissions evince giving aid and comfort? As to each such act or omission, when and where did it occur? What two witnesses are available to testify to the same overt act? And which particular overt act by President Obama would that be?

If the offense alleged is conspiracy either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof, then what was the conspiratorial objective? Who are the conspirators? When was the conspiracy formed? When, if at all, did the conspiracy end? What overt acts furthered the conspiracy? Which of these overt acts, if any, occurred during the previous five years, such that prosecution would not be barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a)?

If the allegation is that President Obama committed a substantive criminal offense while in office, what federal statute did he violate? Where and when did the alleged violation occur? How is he not immune from prosecution pursuant to Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024)?

If the allegation is that President Obama committed a substantive criminal offense after leaving office, what federal statute did he violate? Where and when did the alleged violation occur? How is criminal prosecution not barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a)?

Merely chanting "beige man bad" doesn't suffice.

[Kazinski]

Related story from the NYPoat about a YouTube demonatizing a video showing prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, Adam Schiff claiming "Russia Hacked our Election" with almost the exact same words.

YouTube eventually reversed the decision.

The video is here
https://youtu.be/uoMfIkz7v6s?si=jnzatXNkCtOWU7Gx

Post story here:
https://nypost.com/2022/09/29/youtube-restricts-video-of-dems-critics-saying-2016-election-was-hacked/

There definitely was a conspiracy to make people think Russia hacked the election for Trump.

[not guilty]

"There definitely was a conspiracy to make people think Russia hacked the election for Trump."

Assuming arguendo, without conceding, that any such conspiracy existed, what federal criminal statute would that have violated, Kazinski? Please cite by number.

[Kazinski]

Oh, I'm not sure there is a peg to fit in that hole as I said before in the Monday thread.

Falsifying intelligence reports for political gain is a terrible abuse, but hard to criminalize.

In any case I think Trump v US will make it very hard to investigate anyway.

[Brett Bellmore]

I tend to think that, if Trump did it, a NY prosecutor would find SOME way to criminalize it. Maybe Obama claiming his administration was scandal free could be construed to be fraud to sell more books, or something equally stupid.

[shawn_dude]

"I tend to think" followed by some sort of conspiracy theory.

LOL.

[Malika the Maiz]

And a hypothetical one!

[Armchair]

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

Fraud against the United States. That includes the following " To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest."

Seems that fits the bill, doesn't it Kaz? Falsification of intelligence reports for political gain that obstructs with lawful government functions.

[tylertusta]

Thus the danger of letting Mueller and Smith distort the federal fraud statutes to achieve political goals.

Let's recall Mueller' Potemkin indictment against Russian nationals and Russian companies:

The conspiracy had as its object impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful governmental functions of the United States by dishonest means in order to enable the Defendants to interfere with U.S. political and electoral processes, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Golly, that indictment sounds an awful lot like what someone would need to write in order to indict the Russiagate hoaxers, except you'd add "2020" and "2024" to the elections that were the goals of the conspiracy.

[not guilty]

What agency or governmental function do you claim was obstructed, Armchair? Don't just beg the question.

Once again, what was the conspiratorial objective? Who are the conspirators? When was the conspiracy formed? When, if at all, did the conspiracy end? What overt acts furthered the conspiracy? Which of these overt acts, if any, occurred during the previous five years, such that prosecution would not be barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a)?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Armchair.

[Armchair]

You asked what "what federal criminal statute would that have violated" "Please cite by number."

I directly answered that question. That's not begging the question. That was a direct answer.

If you can't argue honestly, perhaps you should try again.

[grb]

Kazinski : "Falsifying .... (which is what Kazinski does)"

Let me introduce you to Andrew C. McCarthy, legal commentator for the National Review. He sees his role in life as telling right-wing audiences what they want to hear the maximum degree possible while keeping one foot in actual facts and real law – a challenging task with a movement addicted to lies! So even though he piles on the sugar to make the medicine go down, he has to be frank: This latest Obama fake-scandal via Gabbard is worthless bullshit.

He starts by noting the Trump Administration itself contradicts this:

“Gabbard’s intelligence community peer, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, did issue an analytical report just a few days earlier that contradicts Gabbard’s implication that there was no evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election…… That is mainly because, after months of scrutiny, the Trump CIA has reaffirmed the ICA’s conclusions that (1) Russia sought to interfere in the 2016 election and (2) did so in order to denigrate Hillary Clinton…”

That Russia was anti-Hillary, not pro-Trump is easily refuted, but we’ll let that slide. McCarthy then notes this about Gabbard:

“She claims that in the run-up to and the immediate aftermath of the 2016 election, Obama intelligence officials, including then-DNI James Clapper, took the position that Russia was “probably not trying . . . to influence the election by using cyber means.” But later, as top Obama administration officials huddled and executed the rapid-fire completion of the ICA, Gabbard says the administration changed its tune and claimed that Russia had used cyber means to interfere in the election….It’s a frivolous argument. The original (and true) claims that Russia was not engaged in cyber espionage were unambiguously referring to cyberattacks on election infrastructure. Try as she might, even Gabbard cannot get around this in the press release and the selectively redacted documents she released — e.g., Clapper’s December 7, 2016, statement: “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the US Presidential election outcome”

"Nonexistent cyber intrusions on election infrastructure are different, not just in degree but in kind, from what the Obama intelligence officials settled on, which was that Russia had conducted cyberattacks (1) to hack the DNC emails and (2) to promote anti-Clinton political messaging. The fact that the Obama officials claimed that Russia was responsible for those operations is not contradicted by those same officials’ admission that Russia didn’t conduct cyber ops against voting machines."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/07/russiagate-re-revisited-gabbard-urges-doj-to-prosecute-obama-officials/

All you cult bootlickers should give it a read. As noted above, McCarthy does his best to make the debunking palatable, so even a truth-challenged right-winger should be able to get it down.

[M L]

Politicians lying? Intelligence agencies lying? The GOVERNMENT lying? *gasp*

Say it ain't so.

[Joe_dallas]

kinda hard to believe Putin wanted trump to win the 2016 election when Hillary & gang were already more lenient to Russia and since HRC was already compromised.

[grb]

1. Kinda hard to see how you can ignore all the evidence amassed by Mueller and the GOP-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Maybe you just don't care what's true or false?

2. At a bare minimum, Putin would prefer the U.S. be led by an ignorant huckster buffoon. That alone would justify his picking Trump. Maybe he anticipated DJT would cripple the U.S. space program, destroy our lead in scientific research, trash our relationship with NATO and other allies, and damage the primacy of the U.S. dollar as a world currency by bat-shit lunacy. Maybe Putin just wanted to sit back and watch this country embarrassed and humiliated on the world stage.

3. Here's another piece of evidence for you to pretend-away: The Russians hacked John Podesta's email and sat on what the stole over seven months. So when did they first begin leaking the trove? Mueller found it was less than an hour after the Access Hollywood story first appeared in the news, rocking the Trump campaign back on its heels. Their boy was in trouble. They rushed to help.

[I Callahan]

Probably no actual direct cite, but in spirit, you could certainly categorize this as treasonous:

Treason is the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance.

This typically includes acts such as participating in a war against one's native country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, its officials, or its secret services for a hostile foreign power, or attempting to kill its head of state. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

[shawn_dude]

Now apply that to Jan 6.

In any event, Russia did hack the DNC email servers.

If any of the secret documents stored in Trump's bathroom ended up in Russian hands, would that qualify as "spying on its..secret services for a hostile foreign power..."?

[damikesc]

"In any event, Russia did hack the DNC email servers."

Given that no independent entity examined them...no, they did not. There has never been any evidence to make such a claim.

...also, hacking the server of a private organization has dick to do with an election.

[Mr. Bumble]

...by the way, who murdered Seth Rich?

[Riva]

You’re really working hard today NG trying to erase one of the, if not the, greatest scandals and abuses of presidential power in US history. Better men then you have tried and, as recent events show, failed. Odds are not in your favor and if these comments are your best effort, looks like you need a time out.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"what federal criminal statute would that have violated, Kazinski? Please cite by number."

Are you sure you're a lawyer? Anyone who is able to do basic internet research using modern tools is able to find the statute:
Federal Integrity of Electoral Discourse Act (FIEDA) – 18 U.S.C. § 4101

"It shall be unlawful for any elected official or candidate for federal office to knowingly disseminate materially false information concerning the security or integrity of a federal election with the intent to undermine public confidence or provoke unlawful disruption of governmental processes."

[shawn_dude]

Would this cover a candidate claiming the election was rigged?

[TwelveInchPianist]

To be clear, since it's a statute found doing basic internet research using modern tools, it doesn't cover anything.

[bernard11]

Sounds like something Trump has repeatedly violated.

[not guilty]

TwelveInchPianist, is that as true as everything else you have said?

The full text of 18 U.S.C. § 4101 is as follows:

As used in this chapter the term-

(a) "double criminality" means that at the time of transfer of an offender the offense for which he has been sentenced is still an offense in the transferring country and is also an offense in the receiving country. With regard to a country which has a federal form of government, an act shall be deemed to be an offense in that country if it is an offense under the federal laws or the laws of any state or province thereof;

(b) "imprisonment" means a penalty imposed by a court under which the individual is confined to an institution;

(c) "juvenile" means-

(1) a person who is under eighteen years of age; or

(2) for the purpose of proceedings and disposition under chapter 403 of this title because of an act of juvenile delinquency, a person who is under twenty-one years of age;

(d) "juvenile delinquency" means-

(1) a violation of the laws of the United States or a State thereof or of a foreign country committed by a juvenile which would have been a crime if committed by an adult; or

(2) noncriminal acts committed by a juvenile for which supervision or treatment by juvenile authorities of the United States, a State thereof, or of the foreign country concerned is authorized;

(e) "offender" means a person who has been convicted of an offense or who has been adjudged to have committed an act of juvenile delinquency;

(f) "parole" means any form of release of an offender from imprisonment to the community by a releasing authority prior to the expiration of his sentence, subject to conditions imposed by the releasing authority and to its supervision, including a term of supervised release pursuant to section 3583;

(g) "probation" means any form of a sentence under which the offender is permitted to remain at liberty under supervision and subject to conditions for the breach of which a penalty of imprisonment may be ordered executed;

(h) "sentence" means not only the penalty imposed but also the judgment of conviction in a criminal case or a judgment of acquittal in the same proceeding, or the adjudication of delinquency in a juvenile delinquency proceeding or dismissal of allegations of delinquency in the same proceedings;

(i) "State" means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States;

(j) "transfer" means a transfer of an individual for the purpose of the execution in one country of a sentence imposed by the courts of another country; and

(k) "treaty" means a treaty under which an offender sentenced in the courts of one country may be transferred to the country of which he is a citizen or national for the purpose of serving the sentence.

(Added Pub. L. 95–144, §1, Oct. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1213 ; amended Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §223(m)(1), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2029 .)

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section4101&num=0&edition=prelim

Is there anything you won't lie about, TIP?

[Kazinski]

I guess you missed this part:

"To be clear, since it's a statute found doing basic internet research using modern tools, it doesn't cover anything."

It was a ChatGPT hallucination.

[Malika the Maiz]

“There definitely was a conspiracy to make people think Russia hacked the election for Trump.”

So, before the Mueller and Senate Intelligence findings that Russia used cyber means to influence the election some Democrats (any contemporaneous officials?) said they “hacked” it?

Thin gruel at best.

[Kazinski]

I named names, they are in the video compilation.

"Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, Adam Schiff"

Those seem pretty contemporaneous.

[Josh R]

All you have established is there were sour grapes that the election was stolen from Clinton by Russian influence. What you have not established is a conspiracy that claims Russia hacked into the election results and changed the numbers.

[Malika the Maiz]

None of which were administration officials at the time.

[Kazinski]

Right, because they lost the election.

They were the highest ranking elected Democrats in the country.

Schumer was Senate Minority leader, Schiff was ranking member of the House Intelligence committee.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, supposing that Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren and Adam Schiff all agreed on something -- it is reasonable to believe that they agreed that Mrs. Clinton would be a more capable president than Donald Trump -- how did any such agreement violate any federal criminal statute?

You posited upthread that "There definitely was a conspiracy to make people think Russia hacked the election for Trump." How, pray tell, is that a federal crime? What federal criminal statute prohibits four political figures coordinating their political messages regarding an election? If there were any such statute -- there is not -- it would likely be facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, in that "core political speech" concerning elections is an area in which the importance of First Amendment protections is "at its zenith." Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 425 (1988).

If the statute at issue were 18 U.S.C. § 371, prohibiting "two or more persons conspir[ing] either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose," then riddle me this:

What was the object offense, if any?
What governmental agency, if any, was intended to be defrauded or obstructed?
When was the "conspiracy" formed?
When, if at all, was the conspiratorial objective achieved or the conspiracy abandoned?
What overt act in furtherance of the "conspiracy," if any, has been committed since July of 2020?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Who gave the “stand down” order??

[Frank Drackman]

It'll come out in the trial

[not guilty]

What will come out, Frank?

And why do you think there will be any trial?

[Frank Drackman]

Wait and see, live and learn
Oh you gotta have a trial, you've got to (and mulch)

[Commenter_XY]

NG, stay tuned. Obama approved and helped engineered one of the dirtiest (and most successful) tricks in American political history, that much is clear. Lots more documents to come out. I think you're right; Trump v USA rightly immunizes POTUS' for performing their constitutional duties in office.

Is engineering a political trick against an opponent a constitutional duty of office? We are about to find out. Pres Obama did not have that great a record before SCOTUS, as I recall.

Just remember NG....no one is above the law. You'll hear that a lot in the coming days. Probably incessantly. 😉

[not guilty]

For not the first time, I will ask you what federal criminal statute did President Obama violate?

There is no need to analyze immunity when there was no crime from the get go.

Is merely "engineering a political trick against an opponent" a federal crime at all?

[Frank Drackman]

Similar to what Mr. Blonde said to the Cop in "Reservoir Dogs" before cutting off his ear.
"I don't really care if Osama committed any crimes or not, we're going to torture him anyway, because it amuses us"
and I'm talking political torture, not physical violence (with those Elephant Ears you'd need a friggin Machete)

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I do not believe that engineering a dirty political trick is by definition, illegal. Now, the actions undertaken by to advance that dirty political trick might well be. Those AUSAs are certainly looking at that very question. There is more coming out. We'll see if any laws were broken. Stay tuned.

There is a timeless aphorism that applies here: Where there is smoke, there is fire. Americans can see and smell a lot of smoke right now. And some Americans are even blowing smoke. 😉

One last point: I am acutely aware the shoe will be on the other foot. I am not in any hurry, nor am I inclined to indict (let alone prosecute) any ex-President for anything other than glaringly and blindingly obvious illegality. We saw the opposite of that 2016-24, and it damaged the country terribly. You did not agree with Trump v USA....I see that decision very differently. Trump v USA stops a lot of BS legal cases (and they should be).

[SRG2]

Where there is smoke, there is fire.

So you agree that Trump is a pedophile.

[Frank Drackman]

That was stupid even by your standards

[damikesc]

When did SRG have standards?

[Sarcastr0]

That, SRG2, is a great zinger.

Who would guess XY is not consistent in his facile condemnations!

[shawn_dude]

Anything to keep the press from covering the Epstein files.

Distract
Distract
Distract

but...but...but... HILLARY!

[damikesc]

What do you think it being covered up?

We know Trump is not in them. If he was, Biden (OK, whatever intern was running the admin instead of that vegetable) would have released it with joy.

[Sarcastr0]

And yet Trump's admin did a 180 so fast MAGA's head is still spinning.

And then just opened up the bullshit funnels and let out whatever they could...Obama, Hillary, MLK...

You need some kind of explanation for Trump and his people running scared. You don't seem to have one.

[Malika the Maiz]

He has an imaginary one: he thinks if it had Trump then previous administrations would have released them because he’s sure they’d take every advantage like he and Trump would.

[damikesc]

Biden sent the FBI to raid Trump's home with orders to fire upon people if any opposition is faced. Obama sicced the IC on Trump for literally no reason and lied about it.

Yes, predecessors did nothing to weaponize government against him. Sure.

[not guilty]

"Biden sent the FBI to raid Trump's home with orders to fire upon people if any opposition is faced. Obama sicced the IC on Trump for literally no reason and lied about it."

Supporting facts, damikesc?

If you are talking about the execution of the August 5, 2022 search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, here is the original source material: https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=22131380-trump-warrant-uns

President Biden didn't send anyone to those premises; Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart did. Please specify what word or group of words constitute "orders to fire upon people if any opposition is faced."

[bernard11]

We know Trump is not in them. If he was, Biden (OK, whatever intern was running the admin instead of that vegetable) would have released it with joy.

Well, Trump wants to keep something secret. Maybe he's not in them but some of his henchmen are, and he wants to protect them. Still, Trump is not someone who is willing to protect others at a cost to himself, so that seems dubious to me.

[Malika the Maiz]

Then why won’t Trump release them?

[damikesc]

There might well be nothing to release.

[SRG2]

We know Trump is not in them

We know no such thing

Justice Department Told Trump in May That His Name Is Among Many in the Epstein Files

[damikesc]

The most deeply investigated political figure in our history.

Yes, "Serial pedo rapist" would have been kept quiet. Sure.

[David Nieporent]

The most deeply investigated political figure in our history.

Hillary Clinton.

Yes, "Serial pedo rapist" would have been kept quiet. Sure.

But I agree with this; as I've been saying, the "Epstein files" do not contain lists (or photos or videos or anything else) of other pedophiles. Epstein was the only one.

[Josh R]

Again, none of Mueller, Horowitz or Durham concluded Obama engineered a dirty political trick. Don't hold your breath for "lots more documents" to come out that weren't available to those three.

[Armchair]

We answered your questions. You simply didn't like the answer.

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

Fraud against the United States. That includes the following " To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest."

To interfere with the lawful functions of the United States includes the development and execution of a deceitful operation by government employees. This operation, whereby information which is known to be false is deliberately included, disseminated, and published for the purposes of interfering with Presidential functions, including and up to being used for impeachment proceedings.

This is a crime, and of course it's a crime. It's a fraud upon the American people and government.

[not guilty]

No, merely referring to the statute doesn't answer the question at all.

Who are the conspirators? What was the object offense, if any? (Pursuing impeachment is no crime -- it is expressly contemplated in the Constitution.) What governmental agency, if any, was intended to be defrauded or obstructed? When was the conspiracy formed? When, if at all, was the conspiratorial objective achieved or the conspiracy abandoned? What overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, if any, has been committed since July of 2020?

Criminal offenses are comprised of component elements. If a single essential element is absent, then there is no crime.

The elements of a criminal offense are like ingredients in a recipe. For example, suppose I were charged with the hypothetical criminal offense of baking a chocolate cake. The evidence shows that I mixed together sugar, flour, eggs, milk and various other ingredients, without adding chocolate or cocoa, baked things in the oven at the right heat and for the right duration, and applied white frosting. The jury would be obliged to find me not guilty of baking a chocolate cake. Indeed, the judge would be obliged to enter a judgment of acquittal, with or without submitting the case to the jury.

[Riva]

Who would the conspirators be? Obvious that you haven’t bothered to look at the f’ing mountain of evidence in the declassified files. That hasn’t stopped you from posting comments though. We’re rather spoiled for choice in the Obama national security apparatus. Just off the top of my head, how about we start with John Brennan and James Clapper?

(And just as an aside, I bet you’ve never baked a cake in your life)

[not guilty]

I have indeed baked a cake. I love to cook, although cakes are not a specialty.

How does an alleged conspiracy between John Brennan and James Clapper implicate Barack Obama? Respondeat superior is a tort doctrine, not a criminal law doctrine (at least apart from a corporation as a criminal defendant).

But if we posit a Brennan/Clapper conspiracy, what was the object criminal offense, if any? What governmental agency or function, if any, was intended to be defrauded or obstructed? When was the conspiracy formed? When, if at all, was the conspiratorial objective achieved or the conspiracy abandoned? What overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, if any, has been committed since July of 2020?

You're getting there, Riva, albeit by baby steps.

[Riva]

While your insults and impressive conceit would generally make me disinclined to respond, I think this may be a good learning experience for you since you seem to have little or no understanding of current events. So before commenting further, let me ask first, do you know what Tulsi Gabbord meant when she described “the most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history?”

[not guilty]

No, Riva, I do not "know what Tulsi Gabbord [sic] meant when she described 'the most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history?'” I don't claim to be able to read the woman's mind.

I would be quite surprised if even Ms. Gabbard know what her hyperbole meant.

But I do know that a politician saying something doesn't make it so.

[Riva]

Not too good a start. And you don’t need to read her mind. You just need to read the declassified files, which you pointedly will not do. In sum, at the direction of Obama, his national security team manufactured a fraudulent intelligence assessment to delegitimize the election of President Trump and destabilize his incoming administration. Years of smears, baseless, investigations, and perjury. The DOJ is now investigating but a criminal conviction of any of the conspirators is most definitely NOT the measure of the seriousness of this gross abuse of power. Now let that sink in and, when you’re ready, we can have fun speculating on the criminal liability.

[damikesc]

More of a seditious conspiracy than 1/6 ever hoped to be.

I would be satisfied with most of his admin spending 3-4 years in jail.

[Armchair]

"No, merely referring to the statute doesn't answer the question at all."

When you repeatedly ask

"Assuming arguendo, without conceding, that any such conspiracy existed, what federal criminal statute would that have violated," "Please cite by number."

It absolutely does answer the question. You just don't like the answer.

[not guilty]

No, it is a woefully inadequate, ipse dixit assertion that the statute applies, completely bereft of supporting facts. My request to cite the number of the statute is one of a series of relevant questions about whether and how any particular statute applies.

But I suspect you know that and are just being cantankerous. An indictment that alleged merely "Barack Obama violated 18 U.S.C. § 371" would be dismissed in seconds flat.

[Armchair]

No, you're being tedious. If you ask a question, what statue applies...it was directly answered.

This is your game. Ask the same question, over, over and over again...and ignore the answers.

I never alleged "Barack Obama violated 18 U.S.C. § 371". Again, that's a strawman.

If you can't discuss logically and fairly, perhaps you should stop.

[ReaderY]

I don’t understand why there’s a problem here.

Stalin had no difficulty finding that his political opponents, or indeed people he imagined might have harbored a disloyal thought, had committed treason. The simple application of torture tends to obtain the necessary confessions quite readily. And even confessions can be dispensed with.

I don’t see why Mr. Trump will have any more difficulty.

It is essential to any totalitarian regime or movement to have a steady supply of traitors to hate and revile. MAGA needs Obama like Oceana needed Goldstein and Stalin needed Trotsky.

What in the world do facts have to do with it?

[LexAquilia]

It's like you don't know 2020 to 2024 even exists with the full court press against Citizen Trump doing exactly what you're crying about now.

[Malika the Maiz]

Where exactly means quite different

[Riva]

You don’t understand because you’re ignoring the evidence.

[Malika the Maiz]

Riva bot not programmed for context l, clearly doesn’t get what Reader is saying.

[damikesc]

Many warned the Left they would not love living under the rules they created.

C'est la vie.

[Malika the Maiz]

We get you have no principles.

[damikesc]

My principle is "bad rules are only changed when EVERYBODY is forced to live with them".

[Bob from Ohio]

"Stalin had no difficulty"

See everybody, there are other tyrants than Hitler!

[Riva]

Let’s suppose, only for the sake of argument NG, that there is not sufficient evidence to support a conviction of treason against Obama under the standards of evidence in a court of law. Does anything in the fact disclosed up to this time (and of course more will be released) in the declassified material raise any issues regarding the conduct of Obama and his national security apparatus? The fraud of abusing intelligence resources to fabricate a Russiagate hoax is of no significance? So called mainstream “news” outlets and even reason.com can ignore one of the greatest (if not greatest) scandals in American history for so long.

[not guilty]

Wishin' and hopin' doesn't feed the bulldog, Riva.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAdTsAKvVTU&list=RDgAdTsAKvVTU&start_radio=1

[Riva]

Perhaps you misunderstand what it means when someone writes "only for the sake of argument"?

But some small consolation is that you'll now abandon your Watergate obsession. Why would you care? Nixon wasn't tried for treason and certainly can't be now so nothing to see there. Hell, we can make just about any scandal or wrong in history disappear if we use your standard.

[I Callahan]

Nixon bugged some headquarters. Obama tried to bring down a duly elected president. How are those two even close in your eyes?

[Riva]

They’re not. Watergate is amateur hour compared to the significance of Obama’s abuse of power. That’s my point. Take it up with NG, not me.

[bernard11]

You're insane.

[Riva]

Well, you’re a delusional troll so you have no frame of reference.

[Malika the Maiz]

Bots can’t be sane or insane.

[Malika the Maiz]

Why do you think Nixon bugged the headquarters?

[not guilty]

Riva, I'm not accusing Barack Obama of a crime. You and your hero buffoon have accused him of treason, which is laughable.

But if. as you suggest, we suppose, only for the sake of argument, that there is not sufficient evidence to support a conviction of treason against Obama under the standards of evidence in a court of law -- then the result is a not guilty verdict or the trial judge entering a judgment of acquittal (either before or after sending the case to the jury).

I didn't think that you were so dense as not to understand that, but it seems I overestimated your meager intellect.

[David Nieporent]

The fraud of abusing intelligence resources to fabricate a Russiagate hoax is of no significance?

I mean, you're literally describing what Gabbard et al are doing now. Russiagate was real, so the "Russiagate hoax" is not, so Gabbard is fabricating this hoax. Thing is, she's really bad at it, because MAGA people are not smart. At all.

[JohnSmith97]

We know, Dave. (D)emocrats are (D)ifferent. Motives as pure as driven snow, just ask them. "Most transparent administration in history". Why would anyone ever doubt that? The press repeated it, so it _must_ be true. After all, the press would never just take an admins words at face value, right?

Pretty stupid to say everything in emails tho..

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, it was definitely foolish of Obama to send an email to Comey saying, "Obviously Donald Trump is pure as the driven snow, but we need to take him down. I hereby order you to claim the Russians interfered in the election to ruin his reputation. P.S. Go kill a whitey for me, while you're at it."

[bernard11]

The fraud of abusing intelligence resources to fabricate a Russiagate hoax is of no significance?

Since there was no such fabrication it could hardly be significant.

The only fabrication I see is your story, and I do think it's a scandal that the AG of the US is pushing it to distract from the Epstein matter. But, since it's known that she will gladly do Trump's bidding for $25K, it's not surprising she would do it to stay in his good graces.

[shawn_dude]

Pam went cheap. Stormy Daniels got $130K!

[bernard11]

So called mainstream “news” outlets and even reason.com can ignore one of the greatest (if not greatest) scandals in American history for so long.

A few points:

1. Most mainstream news outlets are business operations, aiming at making profits.

2. The way to do this is to attract readers/subscribers/viewers/listeners, as that attracts advertisers and lets you charge higher rates.

3. A news organization that discovered or just reported on "one of the greatest (if not greatest) scandals in American history," as you would have it would attract readers/subscribers/viewers/listeners by the shipload, and rake in money, especially if no one else is reporting on it.

4. Therefore, unless all mainstream outlets are part of a huge Democratic conspiracy, there is no way the story would be suppressed.

5. OTOH, if it's total nonsense they probably would not report it, to avoid both looking foolish and facing libel suits.

Which explanation makes more sense, conspiracy, or common sense?

[LexAquilia]

Look at this egotistical airbag.

This isn't a courtroom. You aren't the judge.

Read the materials for yourself. It's obvious Obama led a soft-coup effort against President Trump.

[not guilty]

"It's obvious Obama led a soft-coup effort against President Trump."

No, that's not "obvious" at all. But if that did happen, what federal criminal statute(s) do you claim that it violated?

[Joe_dallas]

Only not obvious if you ignore the facts!

[Malika the Maiz]

Or as joe often does, the question, context, logic, etc.

[David Nieporent]

As always, bookkeeper_joe makes vague handwaves at "facts" without actually citing any.

[Joe_dallas]

Large disclosure of facts associated with Obama's involvement has been reported over the last few days as referenced by several others on this thread

perhaps should should become familiar with the details

[Malika the Maiz]

As usual, he can’t read facts into any logical context or narrative.

[David Nieporent]

As always, bookkeeper_joe makes vague handwaves at "facts" without actually citing any, and then when called on that just makes yet another vague handwave.

[JohnSmith97]

As is usual, Dave, it wouldn't matter if the (D) admin officials admitted to it on MSNBC - you still wouldn't believe it.

[LexAquilia]

I can't wait to see what our ethical and moral US Attorneys come up with as an answer to your question.

Why do you insist that commenters, who are not the investigating US Attorneys, divine their thinking and give you answers?

Just hold your sea-lioning breath and wait a bit. Trust the experts and the leadership at the DOJ.

[not guilty]

I haven't seen evidence that any attorney who is still with the Trump DOJ is either ethical or moral. Anyone who trusts them is a fool.

What I have asked here is for MAGAt commenters to support their own fevered claims with actual facts and law, rather than engaging in speculation and innuendo.

In an actual lawsuit, whether criminal or civil, facts matter, and the burden of persuasion is on the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court. I realize that that can be a difficult concept for law dilettantes who have never tried to persuade a judge or jury of anything in their miserable lives, but that is where the rubber meets the road.

[I Callahan]

This may not be the most apropos thing to say on a law blog, but I really don't CARE about the law. What Obama DID do was wrong. What the rest of his cohorts did was wrong.

If you can explain how it isn't ethically and morally wrong, I'm all ears.

[Malika the Maiz]

All the stuff in the DNI timeline for after the election but Obama in office is about Russian interference/influencing, which was shown in the later reports. Even Gabbi concedes that Obama said there were no hacks of vote totals but instead focused on the hacking of Democratic servers.

[Riva]

That’s some impressive disingenuous spinning. What Tulsi Gabbord concedes is that Obama engaged in the most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Nope. Trump’s own appointees orchestrated the coup because they wanted Pence as president!

[Malika the Maiz]

No, she concedes exactly what I said, bot.

[shawn_dude]

What your conspiracy theory assumes he did, at any rate.

The law provides a framework for listing and organizing the evidence. Besides this being a "law blog," you should have more than vibes about someone's guilt. Where's the evidence (by which I mean actual documents or other physical evidence that shows your claim to be true?)

Meanwhile, the DNC servers were breached ("hacked") by several groups linked to Russian intelligence in July 2015 and April 2016. This was confirmed by CloudStrike, a third party cybersecurity company.

[Joe_dallas]

In other words, Russia hacks were trying to infiltrate both major candidates .

[David Nieporent]

If you can explain how it isn't ethically and morally wrong, I'm all ears.

I don't know what you mean by "what Obama DID do," so I can't explain that, no.

Given the uncontroverted evidence for which there was an overwhelming bipartisan consensus that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump, and given the significant amounts of circumstantial evidence that Trump was involved, how derelict in one's duty would one have to be not to investigate this? How could that be ethically or morally wrong?

[Riva]

Obvious you don’t know. Because you’ve ignored the evidence. But it’s impressive how you keep on fearlessly keep commenting nonetheless. Willful ignorance can be emboldening. By the way, is there any money in that?

[Malika the Maiz]

It just repeats its programmed lines without responding.

[Riva]

I’d say you sound like a broken record NG but a lot of the younger trolls wouldn’t understand. As strange as it sounds, your credibility would be much stronger if you had just pretended the greatest politicization and weaponization of intelligence in US history never occurred, like the rest of the disgracefully “mainstream” media.

[JohnSmith97]

"No controlling legal authority", right NG? Where is Holder when you need an investigation blocked?

[Moderation4ever]

Trump is desperate to get the Epstein story off the front page but do you want to go this route. There are several reports, the Mueller Report and the Burr/Warner lead Senate Report. There is also much more evidence today of Trump Campaign staff coordinating with Russian agents. This doesn't seem to be the route to go.

[I Callahan]

Let me try to re-word this salad:

Trump Dems are desperate to get the Epstein Russiagate story off the front page but do you want to go this route. There is plenty of evidence that Gabbard released. There is also plenty of evidence she hasn't released yet. This doesn't seem to be the route to go.

[Moderation4ever]

Except the timeline is wrong as the Epstein story came out first.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sounds like a law school exam question.

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2025/05/federal-courts-exam-2025-featuring.html

Anyway, On Treason: A Citizen’s Guide to the Law by Carlton F.W. Larson is a good book for those interested.

[Riva]

And something else for you to lie about NG. Tulsi Gabbord has released new files:

New evidence has emerged of the most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history. Per President @realDonaldTrump's directive, I have declassified a @HouseIntel oversight majority staff report that exposes how the Obama Administration manufactured the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that they knew was false, promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election.

In doing so, they conspired to subvert the will of the American people, working with their partners in the media to promote the lie, in order to undermine the legitimacy of President Trump, essentially enacting a years-long coup against him.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-HPSCI-Report-Manufactured-Russia-Hoax-July2025.pdf

[David Nieporent]

But the ICA was true; Putin and the Russian government did help Trump win (or at least endeavored to do so; there's no possible way to know if he'd have won anyway); "undermining the legitimacy" of a president isn't a "coup";hi1 and how could it have been "years long" when Obama was out of office a few weeks later?
​
​
¹Which is lucky, because wait until you hear what Trump kept saying about Obama's birth certificate!

[Riva]

I know you must be busy watching that Russian pee tape video and reading the Steele “dossier” so I appreciate you taking the time to comment. Just imagine how much more helpful you would be if you actually looked at the, well, shit load of incriminating evidence against the Obama administration national security apparatus.

[Malika the Maiz]

Bot response.

Notice, DN raised several points:

1. the ICA was true; Putin and the Russian government did help Trump win (or at least endeavored to do so

2. undermining the legitimacy" of a president isn't a "coup"

3. how could it have been "years long" when Obama was out of office a few weeks later?

Riva bot didn’t respond to any, just went regurgitation on bot like points.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Donald Trump has gone there,"

You do not have to chase the laser pointer.

[Malika the Maiz]

What kind of POTUS engages in teasing cats?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Like "Lynching", "Treason" is a concept with other explicit names for the actual crimes.

[not guilty]

"Like 'Lynching', 'Treason' is a concept with other explicit names for the actual crimes."

No, Ed, the framers of the Constitution were deliberate and careful to limit what Congress can punish as treason.

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.

[hobie]

Heh. Let me get this straight. After manufacturing for years that the Lib pedophiles are in cahoots with Epstein, it all blows up in MAGA's face and reminds everyone that Trump is the real pedophile.

After all that, you want to engineer a story that Obama had produced fraudulent documents to influence and undo an election? Really?

Look, I've never asked for a favor from you hayseeds. But...PLEASE...keep beating this dead horse. Bring as much attention to it as you can.

[Poxigah146]

Obama is a traitor.

[NvEric]

Reason.com has joined the ranks of Main Stream Media, a.k.a., Lame Stream Media by not reporting on the most important event of our times, the Treasonous Conspiracy of the Obama Regime. Even Reuters has covered this event although only after a lame response by an Obama lacky, a.k.a., spokesperson.

A Nuremberg type of proceedings for these persons is in order to save our Republic from the seditious and treasonous conspiracy of 2016 and to see it never returns.

[not guilty]

NvEric, which federal criminal statute(s) do you claim were violated, and based on what underlying facts? Please show your work.

[Frank Drackman]

18 USC 1001, for starters and fuck that "Show your work" Bullshit, you're not Mrs Crotchrot in 5th grade arithmetic, doesn't matter if there's evidence or not (it's always your side that says they have to investigate precisely because there is no evidence) and I've seen enough "Law & Order" to know it's in the "Discovery" phase where you uncover the really serious crimes.

[not guilty]

"Law & Order" is good television drama. I regularly watch it streaming on Hulu. But it is not an accurate representation of federal criminal practice.

The gravamen of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) includes:

(1) a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, as to which
(2) the accused
(3) knowingly
(4) and willfully

(a) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device
(b) a material fact
(c) or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation
(d) which is material to the federal matter
(e) or makes or uses any false writing or document
(f) knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry
(g) which is material to the federal matter at issue.

A prosecution for violation of § 1001 must be commenced no more than five years after commission of the offense, per 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a).

Frank, what action or omission do you claim that Barack Obama has committed since July of 2020 that violated § 1001?

[Frank Drackman]

that's what "Discovery" is for

[not guilty]

Uh, no. When the feds bring an indictment, they need to be prepared to try the case within 70 days under the Speedy Trial Act. The DOJ uses the grand jury as an investigative tool, along with the FBI. Discovery in a criminal case is primarily for the benefit of the accused.

It is unprofessional conduct for a prosecutor to initiate a prosecution that he cannot reasonably expect to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, in the hope that something will turn up during discovery.

[Frank Drackman]

Uh No, when you spend 10 years trying to put "45/47/48?" in Prison for Bullshit, don't act surprised when he returns the favor, like you guys did, I don't care if Barry Hussein strangled Jeff Epstein during Fellatio, murdered those kids in Idaho, was the 19th Hijacker, it's just gonna be fun to watch his stuttering nappy haid on the witness stand.

Frank

[Riva]

Never watched it myself, so enlighten me, did any episode of “Law & Order” cover the affect of an ongoing conspiracy on the statute of limitations?

[not guilty]

I don't know. I have watched many episodes, but not all. That having been said, I am confident there was not an episode dealing with an 18 U.S.C. § 371 conspiracy, because the show is set in the state courts of New York County.

But it is hornbook law that the period of limitation for a conspiracy offense begins to run when the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurs (or when the conspiracy is abandoned).

A prosecution under § 371 must be initiated not later than five years after commission of the most recent overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a); see, Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 396-397 (1957):

[W]here substantiation of a conspiracy charge requires proof of an overt act, it must be shown both that the conspiracy still subsisted within the [applicable limitation period] prior to the return of the indictment and that at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiratorial agreement was performed within that period. Hence, in both of these aspects, the crucial question in determining whether the statute of limitations has run is the scope of the conspiratorial agreement, for it is that which determines both the duration of the conspiracy and whether the act relied on as an overt act may properly be regarded as in furtherance of the conspiracy. [Footnote omitted.]

This requires analysis of: (1) what the conspiratorial objective was, (2) whether and when such objective was achieved, and (3) whether any subsequent acts of concealment were in furtherance of the initial conspiratorial agreement. As the Grunewald Court opined:

[A]fter the central criminal purposes of a conspiracy have been attained, a subsidiary conspiracy to conceal may not be implied from circumstantial evidence showing merely that the conspiracy was kept a secret, and that the conspirators took care to cover up their crime in order to escape detection and punishment. As was there stated, allowing such a conspiracy to conceal to be inferred or implied from mere overt acts of concealment would result in a great widening of the scope of conspiracy prosecutions, since it would extend the life of a conspiracy indefinitely. Acts of covering up, even though done in the context of a mutually understood need for secrecy, cannot themselves constitute proof that concealment of the crime after its commission was part of the initial agreement among the conspirators. For every conspiracy is, by its very nature, secret; a case can hardly be supposed where men concert together for crime and advertise their purpose to the world. And again, every conspiracy will inevitably be followed by actions taken to cover the conspirators' traces. Sanctioning the Government's theory would, for all practical purposes, wipe out the statute of limitations in conspiracy cases, as well as extend indefinitely the time within which hearsay declarations will bind co-conspirators.

Id., at 401-402, citing Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440 (1949), and Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 (1953).

If legal analysis were easy, the top shelf lawyers wouldn't get paid the big bucks.

[Riva]

Let’s see what unfolds. The DOJ investigation is ongoing. And, unlike you, they’ll actually look at the evidence. Maybe some participants will even decide cooperation is better than jail? Wonder what will emerge? Did some of the Obama corruption leak into the Biden regime? Oh and here’s a new word for you: tolling

[ThePublius]

"fuck that "Show your work" Bullshit, you're not Mrs Crotchrot in 5th grade arithmetic"

My sentiment, exactly. NG has this irritating approach as if he's a professor and we all are his students. It's quite obnoxious.

[Sarcastr0]

So when you complain about anything legal, I'll know you're just using important sounding words to vent your emotions and there's no truth value in it.

Good to know!

[I Callahan]

SC has this irritating approach as if he's a rapier wit and we are all his subjects.

Thanks for proving the point...

[Frank Drackman]

He’s got a Rapists wit allright

[Riva]

Professor? As if that’s necessarily a compliment but if we’re talking about someone who rants nonstop with irrational opinions laced with a politically motivated bias, then yeah I agree. Professorial.

And I don’t take seriously someone who wouldn’t understand dicta if it swam up and bit him on the ass.

[Sarcastr0]

we’re talking about someone who rants nonstop with irrational opinions laced with a politically motivated bias

Oh, Riva.

[not guilty]

The bot is not programmed for irony.

[bernard11]

IOW, you feel free to make all sorts of accusations without presenting any evidence to support them.

[BrotherMovesOn]

So you want him to 'dumb it down' for you?
Seems like an odd thing to request on a legal blog. Maybe, like Commenter_XY, who has repaid NG's thoughtful answers to his many legal questions over the years with mockery and glee over NG's concerns now (now that Trump is in office), you just don't care anymore about legal analysis.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Above reply was to ThePublius.

[KenveeB]

Discovery is for civil trials and criminal defense. It's not a thing for the prosecution. Prosecutors (source: I am one) investigate with the grand jury and are only allowed to bring claims if there is probable cause to support the indictment. That requires actual evidence. You can conduct additional investigation (different from discovery) during the course of a case, but you can't just bring a criminal charge based on "I'm sure there's something" and *then* look for the evidence.

[santamonica811]

LOL. What a whore you are. (In the moral or intellectual sense . . . not in the "selling your body for money" sense, of course.)

But you've kept your sense of humor. I'll give you that.

[Commenter_XY]

sm811...do you (or SO) like figs? I have a drink recipe for you. Figs are coming into season and Commenter_XY enjoys a few with Mrs. Commenter. You let me know.

Think cinnamon, cloves and a couple of other ingredients.

[santamonica811]

The last two recipes have been unqualified hits. I love figs, so I'm definitely interested. Much thanks!!!

[Commenter_XY]

For you, it will be done. Stay tuned. I grow my own figs, so I have experimented for a while.

[bernard11]

Do you also have a vine?

[Malika the Maiz]

The lemmings are really going!

[Kazinski]

On Monday's thread GRB shared a chilling story about an Allentown Grandfather originally from Chile who went to go get his green card renewed and ended up deported to Guatemala.

The newspaper now has an update:

"Officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Monday denied the story shared by the family of an 82-year-old Allentown man who they say was taken into custody at a Philadelphia immigration office and ended up in Guatemala, calling it a “hoax.” Meanwhile, the family is no longer speaking to the media."

They also have more information from a Chilean journalist who wanted to track down the story of such horrific abuse of a Chilean citizen.

"A Chilean journalist, Jose Del Pino of Canalo 13, said a doctor at the Guatemala City hospital where Nataly claimed to see her grandfather had no record of him.

Additionally, Del Pino said, a man by the same name and date of birth died in Santiago, Chile, in 2019. Chilean citizens are issued national identification numbers and none matches another person with that name and birthday, he said. Del Pino provided a copy of the death certificate to The Morning Call."

So as I understand it the INS is digging up corpses in Chile that have been dead 6 years to bring to INS offices in Allentown, PA so the can bus them halfway across country and then deport them to 3rd countries.

I liked the Home Depot and weed farm raids better, I hope they go back to that.

[Commenter_XY]

Every day, thousands of illegal aliens are forcibly ejected from this country and returned to their shithole home country (or willing third party country). That isn't abating one iota. We need much more aggressive deportation to rid ourselves of the millions and millions of illegal aliens that do not belong here.

The fact we are reading about more and more hoaxes, just tells me the deportation efforts are starting to bite. The caterwauling by leftist imbeciles tells me the same thing. POTUS Trump & Congress expanded our means to aggressively deport every illegal alien we can lay hands upon with the passage of OBBB. I am certain we'll see more hoaxes and sob stories along the way; sniff, sniff.

Memo to leftist imbeciles: If you want to change the law, win elections and have Congress change the law. Until then, get stuffed.

[CountmontyC]

What the more hoaxes tells me is that there isn't a lot of sympathetic deportees and most deportees are people we want gone.

[Frank Drackman]

Can we send Bernie Sanders back to Roosh-a along with Mahmoud Khal-Kill?

[Commenter_XY]

Khalil is a hamasnik POS. Ship him to Syria.

[tylertusta]

The temptation for media outlets to just regurgitate rumors must be overwhelming.

Trump really is like a drug.

[Malika the Maiz]

One that makes some people want to rename arts centers after his wife?

[tylertusta]

I don't own an art center, so I couldn't tell you what I would call it.

[Malika the Maiz]

As a taxpayer you own part of this one, but nice try at deflection. What kind of drug makes its addicts engage in such deflection?

[tylertusta]

So ownership is in the same vein as "You don't own that plane, the taxpayers do!"

[Josh R]

Trump's popularity on immigration comes from securing the border and deporting serious criminal offenders. If he follows through with mass deportation of day laborers and farm workers his popularity is likely to fall, and for good reason.

[JohnSmith97]

Illegal is illegal. You do know there is a visa for farm workers, right?

[shawn_dude]

But undocumented immigrants aren't "violent criminals," which is what Trump ran on. Instead, over 90% of people detained for being undocumented have no criminal record--violent or not. Further, some of those detained are born-in-the-USA citizens who were profiled for their race. They've also grabbed people here legally or who are in the midst of legal immigration as they attend their immigration-related meetings and hearings.

The non-MAGA voters didn't think Trump was going to unleash masked stormtroopers to sweep up every hispanic-looking person they could find and throw them into internment camps. He's pulling them from churches, schools, and doesn't even have the decency to wait until *after* they finish picking a farmer's field before disappearing them to some random country.

[MaddogEngineer]

Thanks for posting this. I came here to an open thread (for the first time) to do just that. Because Sarcastr0 dropped this on a reply to me over the weekend (had not seen it anywhere before), on an immigration blog entry where he was once again claiming Orange Man Bad. I was immediately suspicious that we were not getting the entire story (thinking it was a green card holder who ignored governmental notices to appear at a hearing), but never dreamed the entire thing might be made up.

Sacastr0 likes to pretend he's more thoughtful than the rest of us. Even people like me who are Never Trump but have not abandoned conservatism. That moment documented otherwise. Sharing something just reported because it confirms your priors. Just like his (and my) criticisms of MAGA! The Trump administration is so bad, they are now disappearing grandfather asylum green card holders!

[Kazinski]

No, Sarcastro doesn't pretend he's more thoughtful, he pretends he more tuned into the vibes.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I'm anti-vibes.

[Frank Drackman]

Must have missed it in the news, has Zoran Ramadami Ding Dong named the Illegal who shot the Ice agent as his running mate yet?

[not guilty]

It looks like Vance Boelter, the accused assassin in Minnesota, was quite a holy roller. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/19/us/minnesota-shootings-vance-boelter.html

Hmmm.

[Frank Drackman]

1: it's the NY Times, so automatically Bullshit
2: you pay for this Bullshit?

[LexAquilia]

According to the Rules of the Courtroom, in order to make such a "holy roller" claim you need to:

1.) Prove your standing and authority to make a claim.
2.) Cite relevant statutes and regulations.
3.) Clearly, using the highest standards, support your statement with 3rd party verified facts.

Tick tock.

I am waiting.

[LexAquilia]

It's been 10 minutes and ng still hasn't replied.

I am waiting for your response.

Tick tock.

[Frank Drackman]

That's like waiting for the Monkeys at the Zoo to clean up the Shit they threw earlier

[LexAquilia]

It's been hours, not guilty still hasn't replied.

Coward.

[not guilty]

What is this "Courtroom" that you speak of, LexAquilia?

Are you drunk?

[LexAquilia]

You seem to think this is a courtroom with all your excessive demands.

[Malika the Maiz]

A big fan of InfoWars, clearly so prescient when Kaz had him marked here as a disgruntled Marxist!

[Joe_dallas]

Boelter is a nut case that ran through most all sides of the political spectrum.

NG only points out one side.

[Kazinski]

It would be interesting to hear what Boelter himself says about why he did it.

Has he said anything about it, or implicated anyone else?

[Malika the Maiz]

Seems like someone you could rely on!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump has filed a libel suit against Rupert Murdoch—a suit which legal analysts have branded legally spurious. The question I ask is, what collateral losses is Murdoch subject to? What business interests does Murdoch have which Trump can order senior government officials to attack if Murdoch defends the suit, or not attack if Murdoch agrees to settle the suit in Trump's favor?

Alternatively, how big are the losses, and of what kinds, which Murdoch is willing to suffer at government hands, as the price to contest Trump's libel suit on its legal merits?

And finally, if Trump does force a cash settlement on Murdoch, which puts money in Trump's own pocket, why is that not criminal extortion committed by Trump, on a matter not covered by a presidential impunity defense? How can a libel suit for private damages be legally construed as official presidential business?

Is SCOTUS so corrupt that it would judge a presidential order to interfere in a media merger, for instance, as government business? Would SCOTUS do that while the President enjoys a power to protect a lawsuit defendant's business interest, if the President gets a private payoff from a legally baseless lawsuit?

If SCOTUS would do that, do the justices who vote to do it expose themselves to criminal charges as accomplices in an extortion scheme—for which the justices could be tried after they were impeached and removed from office?

[Brett Bellmore]

Criminal extortion requires that you do, or threaten to do, something you don't actually have the right to do, in order to get whatever it is you're extorting. As I'm pretty sure it's not illegal to file a defamation suit, or except a cash settlement to drop it...

Of course, you can always posit that the President is going to also do something illegitimate. Maybe your question would be worth answering if that happened.

[John F. Carr]

Criminal extortion does not universally require that the extortionate act be illegal. "Give me $100 or I'll tell the cops what you did last night."

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. It's not illegal to go to the tabloids and tell them that you're Bill Cosby's illegitimate daughter.

[Riva]

Maybe you didn’t get the memo? After the Covid lies, the trans lies, the Russian collusion fraud, the various race hoaxes, and too many others to keep track of, the public is disinclined to defer to the opinions of supposedly disinterested “experts,” especially the thinly veiled bias of legal analysts.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trans are women!! Pussy is pussy!!

[Moderation4ever]

The fact that this information is coming from the WSJ has raised the question if the power structure in the Republican party are starting to think of moving Trump out. This is an opportune time to move JD Vance into the Presidency and set him up as an incumbent in 2028.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, if that was your intent you'd wait until halfway through the term, plus a day. That way he'd be eligible for two full terms of his own.

[Moderation4ever]

I take your point. I would suggest that first this a opportunity and the powers that maybe don't want to let it slip away. It could also be that better for Republican chances in 2026 to dump Trump now.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's probably a mistake to read too much into the WSJ reporting on something; It's been a long while since the WSJ was reliably aligned with the GOP establishment.

That said, I don't doubt that there are a lot of people still in positions of influence in the GOP who are just trying to wait out Trump. Fewer all the time, though, and really too few to have any hope of moving against him. The real die hard NeverTrumpers have already given up on claiming to be Republicans.

[Mr. Bumble]

Barring death, illness or a successful third impeachment, Trump will not be leaving office until noon on January 20, 2029.

[Frank Drackman]

even then he probably won't leave.

[TwelveInchPianist]

He'll leave for a little bit. He has to get sworn in as VP, then get sworn in as President after the resignation of whatever stooge they use...

[Brett Bellmore]

That doesn't work constitutionally. If you can't be elected President, you're disqualified from being VP.

1. He's not going to make any effort to occupy the office past January 20th, 2029.
2. I expect the odds are about 50-50 that he'll retire for medical reasons before then anyway.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given that he is in better shape than the Crypt Keeper was I don't think 50/50 is right.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, the constitution distinguishes between people who are ineligible to the Office of President (people who aren't natural born citizens and people under 35), and those who may not be elected president.

Only the former are ineligible to be VP.

[Kazinski]

Ridiculous.

Trump is, for better or worse, the power structure of the Republican party, at least until 2028.

Not only is he President, but he also has massive coattails, at least in GOP primaries. You'll notice that even when Thom Tillis publicly bucked him on the OBBB, he promptly announced he wouldn't run for re-election.

[I Callahan]

Is it spurious? Other networks already settled rather than go to court.

[Malika the Maiz]

Networks that Trump has repeatedly threatened to use the power of his office against.

[Moderation4ever]

I would point out that Trump would be required to testify and that he has lost cases where he has testified.

[David Nieporent]

Trump has filed a libel suit against Rupert Murdoch—a suit which legal analysts have branded legally spurious. The question I ask is, what collateral losses is Murdoch subject to? What business interests does Murdoch have which Trump can order senior government officials to attack if Murdoch defends the suit, or not attack if Murdoch agrees to settle the suit in Trump's favor?

The thing is, Murdoch/WSJ had the Trump extortion attempts against CBS/ABC in front of them at the time they decided to go ahead with this story. They must have known with absolute certainty that Trump would use the same tactic on them if he could. So either they're such courageous paragons of journalism that they said, "Shrug. We're publishing. Fiat justitia ruat caelum." Or they knew they weren't vulnerable.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nierporent — Of course you are right on your premises. I suspect more conclusions are possible than the two you list. I do not judge Murdoch a courageous journalist. He may be courageous for all I know, but as a publisher he strikes me first and foremost as able and practical. And I do not think he has been particularly ideological about it.

Murdoch got into the populist publishing niche because he judged that market segment an under-served opportunity. Experience proved him right, while making him look more ideological to many than I think he is.

I do think Murdoch could still be shrewd enough to judge Trump a weakling, and to lay plans on that basis to pay a price Murdoch judges acceptable to go after Trump in court. What that price might turn out to be was the question I do not know enough to guess at. But I would bet Murdoch gave it careful thought before publishing. Why Murdoch would want to go after Trump at all remains an interesting question, I think.

[Sarcastr0]

“You Feel Like Your Life Is Over”
Abusive Practices at Three Florida Immigration Detention Centers Since January 2025
https://www.hrw.org/report/2025/07/21/you-feel-like-your-life-is-over/abusive-practices-at-three-florida-immigration

America is not an evil country but we sure are doing a lot of evil right now.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't accept your premise, but even if we were, it's to evil people, so who cares?

[Krayt]

If nothing else, for my own safety's sake.

[Bob from Ohio]

Those laws sure helped More!

Oh wait, I'm hearing Henry just murdered him anyway after a kangaroo trial

[Swede425]

Because my tear ducts were shot off in The War, when I cry about this story it looks like I'm laughing hysterically.

[Malika the Maiz]

Misspelled balls. Also, a tragic latrine digging story!

[Commenter_XY]

Here, El Vibrador. Here is your vibe.

https://youtu.be/wDYNVH0U3cs

[LexAquilia]

Drone striking children. Not evil.
Cold eggs for illegals. Totes evil.

Nice.

[Joe_dallas]

Gaslight

Is the story credible?

[I Callahan]

Not buying it. Try harder to sell it to me.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not selling anything.

But what's your rationalization for not buying it - do you think all the testimonies are lies, or what?

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 4 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
I'm not selling anything.

"But what's your rationalization for not buying it - do you think all the testimonies are lies, or what?"

Gaslight - did you bother to actually read the report ?

The headline starts with "Abusive Practices at Three Florida Immigration Detention Centers Since January 2025"

Lots of advocacy groups with their commentary, yet the only non advocacy report is the OIG dated April 16, 2024. In summary, the report you cited doesnt support the premise of the article.

[Bob from Ohio]

Good to see HRW stop spreading Hamas propaganda for a little while.

[Joe_dallas]

HRW ran out of hamas propaganda , so forced to start using woke leftist propaganda

[Sarcastr0]

This the best you got?

[Joe_dallas]

Bob is only pointing out how easy you are to be fooled by advocacy groups.

[Joe_dallas]

Alternatively Bob is only pointing out how willing gaslight is to peddle junk

[Malika the Maiz]

He replied to himself hours later!

[MaddogEngineer]

What about the Morning Call green card grandfather deportation hoax you dropped on me in the comments last weekend? Was that evil?

[Sarcastr0]

First, your deflection from this report is noted. Your priorities are...not great.

As to your question, I dunno yet. I'll wait a tick. As I tell everyone else to do often.

Right now we have a denial from politicals in DHS which is by itself not probative at all. (Remember when people clamed FEMA was doing all they could in TX based on politicals? How'd that go?)

I'll wait for this to get reported out. You would be wise to do the same.

[Kazinski]

Now you are moving goalposts, you were claiming it was NWS budget cuts, now its FEMA, which had nothing to do with the disaster, only the recovery.

[Sarcastr0]

It was both, Kas.
I said back then it was both, as well.

And FEMA does disaster response. Often while it's happening.

Trump fucked FEMA. It's a risk; Americans will die who wouldn't have before. We just don't know exactly when or how.

[Kazinski]

FEMA are not first responders, they are bureaucrats.

They don't even do cleanup or bring food in or build temporary housing, they contract and write checks for that.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, a national level disaster localized to a state requires someone to coordinate a national response.

FEMA has some bureaucrats to do said coordination. It also has plenty of experts on what works and what problems to avoid.

If you're going to argue FEMA has never saved a life, you're going to need to do a lot more work than breezy contempt.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ahhh, experts.
That's the ticket.

[Mr. Bumble]

...meanwhile real experts like Samaritan's Purse and the Cajun Navy get aid to affected areas faster and cheaper than FEMA.

[Malika the Maiz]

Remember, Bumble famously here revealed he doesn’t know how blow jobs work (he talked about Clinton on his knees getting one).

[Kazinski]

It's not contempt at all, they have a role and perform it well, but it is not life saving or being a first responder.

Just read their mission statement, they don't do anything until the Governor requests the President declare a disaster, and the President declares the disaster:

"During a Disaster
FEMA coordinates the federal response to disasters that receive a Presidential disaster declaration. We work closely with officials in states, Tribal Nations, and territories as they respond to disasters and make requests for federal support.

Disaster Declaration Process
When a disaster strikes, local government officials review the damage to determine the extent of the incident and its impact. If the state, Tribal Nation, or territory determine they need federal assistance, they submit a request for a federal disaster declaration.

All emergency and major disaster declarations are made solely at the discretion of the President of the United States through the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act."

Notice the verb "coordinates", and notice who responds "states, Tribal Nations, and territories as they respond to disasters and make requests for federal support".

FEMA doesn't man boats or helicopters for evacuation or rescue.

[shawn_dude]

FEMA gets the boats or helicopters, the people to pilot them, and organizes them all to work together to improve the success of the operation. See: Logistics.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, for an agency that does not do first response, FEMA used to hire a surprising number of first responders. And they have been pre-positioning people and supplies for disaster response for quite a while, especially for hurricanes.

One thing FEMA understands better than you apparently do—and certainly better than Trump does—is that when the scale of disaster gets large enough, it wipes out local first-response capability at a stroke. FEMA has long practiced policy to anticipate that problem, and to abate that deficiency, and not just by writing checks.

[Kazinski]

And when local first responders are overwhelmed or wiped out, the Governor and local officials bring in other first responders from other jurisdictions, and the National Guard, and the military, not FEMA.

And keep in mind FEMA does not activate to respond to disasters, until the President declares a Federal disaster, and that is usually not until the Governor requests it.

Note the timing on the disaster declaration for the Pacific Palisades fire:
"Pacific Palisades was declared a federal disaster on January 8, 2025, following the Palisades Fire and related wind events. The declaration, officially designated as DR-4856-CA, was approved by President Biden after a request from the Governor of California.
California Wildfires: How to Recover Tax Documents and Other ...
The declaration came just 36 hours after the request was submitted. The incident period for the disaster declaration is listed as January 7, 2025, to January 31, 2025. This declaration makes federal resources available to support recovery efforts in the affected areas, including Pacific Palisades and other parts of Los Angeles County. The fire, which began on January 7, was declared 100% contained on January 30. "

[Life of Brian]

Americans will die who wouldn't have before. We just don't know exactly when or how.

Stochastic murder? I guess you were overdue for a new entrant on the long and tired list of knee-jerk novel theories that will quietly be retired at the end of this term.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't say murder, don't strawman.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, my bad -- MANslaughter.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't say that either.

[Life of Brian]

Damn, my bad AGAIN. Clearly you were just making a "well, shit, that's life" sort of dispassionate observation and didn't mean at all to imply it was culpable or even bad at all.

Thank you so much for helping me finally see the light and properly interpret your leave-all-possible-options-open-for-later-weaselly-pivoting rhetorical style! This particular instance, at least....

[Sarcastr0]

Now you are excluding the middle.

[MaddogEngineer]

YOUR deflection is noted. You quickly reported something that had dubious corroboration, to try and slam me as uncaring. It turns out there is no evidence that the man in question existed as described to even visited the ICE office. It fit your narrative in that moment that a feeble grandfather could just be disappeared by the fascist administration, and that there would be no record.

We do not just have "political" DHS reporting. We have other things from a Guatemalan immigration entity and the supposed hospital. Plus other reporting that a person with than name may have died outside the US years ago, and his asylum claim was from later than the 1980s. Like I said above, no one has even been able to establish independently that this man as described exists.

I did not reflect about this report, denying that something could have happened, but was suspicious based on what was reported as "fact" that we had the whole story and timeline. I never dreamed it might be a complete fabrication. Yet you're trying to make me out to be the idiot here. What you did is no different than what I see from MAGA in my social media feed every day, one criminal illegal immigrant horror story after another. I have similar skepticism about those too.

[Sarcastr0]

Still deflecting.

I'll drop a discussion of media literacy down below.

[TwelveInchPianist]

A discussion on media literacy from the guy that bought the 51 intelligence agents hoax and the cheapfakes hoax hook, line, and sinker?

[Sarcastr0]

What was the hoax there?

[TwelveInchPianist]

That the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian propaganda.

[MaddogEngineer]

You're still deflecting. I'll take that as a indication you made a mistake here but are too proud to admit it. (More) Evidence of your partisan hackery, as you pretend to be better than the MAGA rabble who engage in this kind of thing.

I'm not the one denying this still couldn't turn out true. It's you who brought it up originally, without any reflection on whether there was enough support in the original story, the only reporting to date, that this man even existed as described by his "family".

It's you who has gone full conspiracy, that DHS/ICE somehow scrubbed any record of this. Something they failed to do with Maryland man Garcia, who they had a greater incentive to disappear.

Since this became a hot story, why hasn't another enterprising reporter followed up with the family? Why haven't the original Morning Call reporters, to try and futher help the family? Or has the "granddaughter" disappeared, as I had seen suggested somewhere. Those original reporters have a continuing obligation to either follow up or acknowledge being duped. But we've seen how well the press handles that with the Jake Tapper apology book tour. If those reporters never obtained enough info on this family, who they are and where they live, to find them again, they were committing journalism malpractice.

[Sarcastr0]

This is getting stupid.

You clearly have no interest in talking about the report I posted. I think we all know why.
But you want to use this space to talk about other issues you have with me.

Nope. Post down below and stop shitting up this space here with off topic deflections.

[MaddogEngineer]

If you want to talk about media literacy, let's talk about everyone repeating a single news report from a small market newspaper, with NO subsequent follow-up reporting, especially including putting the granddaughter who spoke to original reporters in front of a camera. My goodness she should be a media star right now, considering what happened to her grandfather.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's media illiteracy to continue believing in a single sourced story with no subsequent follow-up by any other news org.

[Sarcastr0]

Down below for that.

[Sarcastr0]

BTW do you think the HRW report is a lie? Because so far all you've been working is changing the subject.

[MaddogEngineer]

What HRW report? HRW is not necessarily an objective source for information on immigration and asylum issues.

You could have brought that in your initial reply if it's exculpatory. If you're just trying to justify being duped in the first place, just say so.

[MaddogEngineer]

I just did a google search about this including HRW and found nothing. I did see a dozen links with people repeating the original Morning Call reporting but without any new or additional corroboration. Echo chamber at its finest. Like I said, if this were true, DHS/ICE stonewalling wouldn't work. If he's actually alive in a Guatemalan hospital, SOMEBODY should be trying to get him back and demand answers for this. So where are those people?

[Sarcastr0]

It's my OP!

For fuck's sake you're so tunnel visioned you're selectively illiterate.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Remember when people clamed FEMA was doing all they could in TX based on politicals?"

Who claimed that?

[Sarcastr0]

Joe_dallas
tylertusta
Kaz

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/07/07/monday-open-thread-113/?comments=true#comment-11117865

[Kazinski]

You won't find a single comment on that thread with my name on it that mentions FEMA.

Why do you keep lying about that?

In fact it was only you and Martinned that mentioned FEMA.

Anybody that knows anything about FEMA would know they would have very little role in the disaster zone when search and rescue is still in full swing. FEMA would be busy 3 days after the disaster setting up office space in Austin and San Antonio.

[Mr. Bumble]

Because he's Il Douche.

[MaddogEngineer]

He's just been demonstrating deflecting about the original deported Guatemalan grandfather story he rushed to the comments last weekend. Conspiracies are something other people traffic in.

[Sarcastr0]

Your claim is that the disaster response could not have been improved.

Guess who does disaster response.

Oh hey you doubled down. You do know who disagrees with you?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/21/politics/fema-search-and-rescue-chief-resigns

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wow. Gaslightro has absolutely no shame.

[Kazinski]

No, I claimed NWS issued warnings to the area about flashfloods in the 24 hours before they happened.

You also will not find any criticism or praise of the disaster response in my comments either.

Keep digging.

[tylertusta]

"Remember when people clamed FEMA was doing all they could in TX based on politicals?"

I don't remember it.

A check back on the discussion you linked, and our talk was about whether cuts to the National Weather Service caused the deaths in Texas, and not about cuts to FEMA.

Sorry, but I think you're misremembering.

[MaddogEngineer]

Also why introduce FEMA into a discussion about ICE, Sarcastr0? One government agency's alleged incompetence has no connection to what another unrelated one has or has not done. Unless one believes in Deep State conspiracies, which I thought was something only QAnon types did. Are you suggesting perfect competence conspiracy to target vulnerable elderly green card holders? Or incompetence at accidentally deporting him, yet having the conspiracy competence to wipe any record of it.

All this deflection just to justify your Resistance™ narrative that the administration wants to deport minority citizens and legal resident aliens by rushing a single news report that fit this narrative.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you read my OP about FEMA?

"Right now we have a denial from politicals in DHS which is by itself not probative at all. (Remember when people clamed FEMA was doing all they could in TX based on politicals? How'd that go?)"

Not much of a deflection. I did pick up when other people ran with it; maybe I should have shut them down better.

It looks like you saw my name, had something precanned and just replied. Did no reading. Did not engage with the comment, just took over and posted your shit.

And then did it again just now with the FEMA crack.

Don't do that; it shits up threads.

[Life of Brian]

All hail Sarcastr0, Deshitter of Threads.

Proving once again that double entendre is the best kind.

[apedad]

Five Defendants Sentenced in Connection with Operating One of the Largest Illegal Television Show Streaming Services in the United States

According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, the defendants ran a site called Jetflicks, an online subscription-based service headquartered in Las Vegas, that permitted users to stream and at times download copyrighted television programs without the permission of the relevant copyright owners. At one point, Jetflicks claimed to have 183,285 different television episodes, significantly more than Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, Amazon Prime, or any other licensed streaming service. This was the largest internet piracy case — as measured by the estimated total infringement amount and total number of infringements — ever to go to trial as well as the first illegal streaming case ever to go to trial. The defendants’ conduct harmed every major copyright owner of a television program in the United States. Copyright owners lost millions of dollars from the operation.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/five-defendants-sentenced-connection-operating-one-largest-illegal-television-show-streaming

If you're going to do that much sophisticated work, then you should go legal; I mean you're eventually going to get caught and then will spend years in federal prison.

[shawn_dude]

As streaming services have rapidly increased their prices 2-3 times the consumer price index, online piracy services have started to pop up. There's no way for these services to go legit without becoming just like the companies they're creating alternatives for. Missing from the article is a description of where the servers were hosted and what means, if any, they were using to disguise themselves from detection.

Instead, the article had a lot of "this isn't a victimless crime" BS and tried to claim the copyright holders lost millions of dollars, both without evidence. The assumption, which is false on its face, is that people would have paid high streaming fees to watch all of the same content from the copyright holders had they not had access to this service. There's no evidence to prove that. Also, the profits the miscreants received aren't mentioned and we don't know if the costs to host streaming consumed most of whatever revenue they were bringing in. The DOJ press release is light on useful facts and heavy on chest-thumping.

The one interesting thing in the whole press release is the acknowledgement that most of the streamed content was pulled from file-sharing networks--presumably BitTorrent and more modern systems--which are still out there and still available for people to download from.

Jetflicks' website is still up and their pricing plans are interesting but boil down to annualized subscriptions paid in bulk for $2/$3 a month depending on length.

[Armchair]

Let's talk about something fun. Global Climate Change mitigation via Solar Sunshades.

Basically, the concept is this. If rising global temperatures are such a major issue...let's just shoot a giant umbrella into space to block out part of the sun's radiation. Less solar radiation, lower temperatures, boom global warming issue solved.

It of course is somewhat more complicated....you need to put a series of reflective or diffractive lenses/mirrors at the Sun-Earth L2 point to keep it gravitationally stable. On the other hand, initial prices are quite reasonable. $130 Billion over 20 years. Just $6.5 billion annually. That's cheaper than California's High Speed Rail...and solves global warming for the entire planet.

Why not do this?

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

[Sarcastr0]

I'm all for grand geoengineering ideas like this to deal with climate change. But it's too uncertain to count as a solution on it's own.

We also don't have the political will to spend that kind of money on something so many people have been socialized to think is a hoax or no big deal.

We should move out on doing foundational experimentation and research for such things.

But it's yes-and, along with renewables/nuclear and carbon sequestration and all the other stuff too.

[Armchair]

"We also don't have the political will to spend that kind of money on something so many people have been socialized to think is a hoax or no big deal."

We already spend that kind of money on Global Warming. $6.5 Billion annually is all that's needed.. That's it. Renewable energy subsidies alone easily exceed that ($15.6 billion in the US, 2022). That doesn't even count all the other GW spending that goes on.

[Bwaaah]

Your scheme would fail to empower governments to hobble their economies into a coercive dynamic that forces people to reconcile global equity with social justice and the unfolding extinction event.

You sound like you're from the days of "global warming." We're way past that now. Climate change isn't about the temperature. Grow up, shut the fuck up, and don't come back until you've got a plan that deals with Zionism too. We're looking for a solution to the root problems here (like capitalism and predatory Jews), not your myopic weather concern.

[Sarcastr0]

It is way too early to do an actual estimate of the cost required. And nothing will kill such efforts as fast as putting a cost on it that then balloons.

Separately, even looking at the amount, sticker shock is a thing, especially with government programs. Big tentpole programs are much more difficult politically. Especially given all the GOP well poisoning about global warming.
Maybe if we called it a national security initiative.

If this looks like a collateral attack on our current global warming efforts, that will also mitigate against the consensus required to stand up something like that.

[grb]

Armchair : "Renewable energy subsidies alone easily exceed that..."

Three Points:

1. It's laudable that Armchair is looking at real solutions to climate change. Obviously the easiest road for him would be to pretend it doesn't exist.

2. Sarcastr0 is right there's no will to do something on this scale. The cost would be huge. Remember all the delays & massive budget increases to get the Webb Space Telescope in place and unfolded? Think that multiplied thousands of times over.

3. What's lacking in response to Armchair's idea is any discussion of the political issue. I suspect what he describes could be weaponized. It would require some kind of universal control and the faith of governments around the world in practice. That's even more unlikely than the colossal amount of money needed to make it work.

[David Nieporent]

3. What's lacking in response to Armchair's idea is any discussion of the political issue. I suspect what he describes could be weaponized. It would require some kind of universal control and the faith of governments around the world in practice. That's even more unlikely than the colossal amount of money needed to make it work.

Yeah. My god, can you imagine the conspiracy theories that would revolve around this?

[Frank Drackman]

Oil/Coal are constantly "renewing"
Are you some kind of ignorant "Creationist" believing that all the Oil/Coal there will ever be were created on the 7th day??
It's why despite the world consuming Billions of Barrels of Oil/Tons of Coal a day, the "Known Reserves" keep going up.
I'm actually more worried about Nuke-Ular, not because it isn't safe and efficient, but because we've got Millions of wanta-be Moe-Hammed Atta's who would love to blow the plants up.

Frank

[Bwaaah]

I find it an interesting idea. And as interesting is my belief that if it really were an inexpensive viable solution to our climate change problem in the technical sense, it wouldn't come close to addressing the climate change problem in a political sense, which has little to do with climate.

Sarcastr0's response embodies the ethos: "Yes to your plan, in addition to all the others! This is a call for science, and that begins with more government!"

[Frank Drackman]

I'll overlook that it's an idiotic impossible proposal, it would really mess up my plans for the July 2028 Total Solar Eclipse

[Bwaaah]

Maybe they'd poke a hole in the umbrella for you, Frank? There'd still be three years, fifteen thousand miles, and the threat of clouds between you and your dream.

I saw that last eclipse.

And by the way, it was real, and it was spectacular.

[Brett Bellmore]

The nice thing about geoengineering is that if it turns out to be a mistake, you can shut it off again.

As for the immediate proposal... We're talking the L-1 point, not the L-2 point; The L-2 point is on the far side of the Earth from the sun, would never cast a shadow on the Earth, and the shadow is the whole point.

It would actually have to be somewhat closer to the Sun than the L-1 point, as it would be built very light, and function as a solar sail, and you'd need a bit of extra solar gravity to compensate. But let's ignore that for now.

The L-1 point is about 1.5 million Km from Earth. The Sun is about 150 million Km from earth. The moon is only about 384,000 km from Earth, and just barely is big enough to cast a complete shadow on the surface of the Earth. The moon's "penumbra" is about 6,400km wide.

So, if you put a sunshade at the L-1 point, its penumbra would be about four times this size, 25,600km in diameter. The Earth is only half that size. So, most of the shading power of the sunshade at that distance would be wasted.

It would probably be more efficient to put the shade(s) into a highly eliptical sun-synchronous orbit; This sort of orbit has an orbital period the same as a solar day, but because it's highly eliptical, spends most of it's time between the Earth and Sun.

Then you could use the system as a solar power satellite, too.

[Armchair]

1) You're correct, L1. My mistake.
2) You don't really need a complete penumbra. You just need to reduce the percentage of sunlight.
3) Solar sail concerns are real. One potential solution here is a lens, rather than complete block, such that the solar radiation is merely deflected away from the earth. This may avoid most of these concerns.
4) An orbital system wastes substantially more "shade" than a L1 point does, most likely.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's true that you don't need the umbra to reach the Earth, in fact, that would be undesirable. The problem with L1 is that most of the penumbra misses the Earth; You're spending money to mostly block light that was never going to reach the Earth anyway.

And the sun screen needs to be a lot further from Earth than L1 due to that solar sail effect, exacerbating the inefficiency. I estimate that about 80% at least of the light blocked would never have reached Earth to begin with. And reaching L1 is a lot more energetically expensive to reach than Earth orbit.

From a pure efficiency and cost effectiveness standpoint, you'd actually want the sun shades to be in an equatorial LEO, because then half the time their shadows fall entirely on the Earth, and they're shading the hottest part of Earth. The sun synchronous elliptical orbit only represents a marginal improvement in shading efficiency over a simple LEO shade, in return for added orbital complexity.

On the other hand, my proposal does tend to complicate orbit management around Earth, while the L1 proposal is nicely out of the way. There is that. Maybe we could find some dual use for the L1 station, even if it's too far for practical SPS use.

I'd add that a frequency selective shade might avoid reducing incoming light in the frequencies that drive photosynthesis. If you primarily blocked green light, leaving the red and blue alone, you could reduce insolation for heating purposes without depriving the biosphere of any energy.

[John F. Carr]

I'd want to see climate models before deciding the equator was best.

[Brett Bellmore]

The equator is best from an orbital dynamics standpoint. Yes, you'd have to model the heck out of this.

In theory you only have to block 1-2% of the incoming sunlight to totally negate all the warming from doubling CO2 levels. That would require approximately a 100 km wide sunshade over the equator. Of course, you wouldn't really want to totally black out a 100km wide band around the equator, people living there might object. 😉

[Armchair]

"And the sun screen needs to be a lot further from Earth than L1 due to that solar sail effect,"

Depends how it's done. If it's a straight block...sure. If on the other hand, it was a straight transmission through the sail, there would be minimal solar wind (but of course would not be effective at the block)

But...if instead, it was a pair of lenses, one which directed light 30 degrees north of the elliptic, the second which directed light 30 degrees south of the elliptic, and they were tethered....well, the solar sail impact would be minimal. The two "pushes" would cancel each other out.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The nice thing about geoengineering is that if it turns out to be a mistake, you can shut it off again.

Potentially the most dangerous misconception ever bruited in these comments. Possibly the most dangerous in world history.

For now, there are no erasers on the pencils the would-be geo-engineers use to draft their plans. You can't safely mess with ecology until you are smart enough to reverse-engineer an ecological mistake, and correct it.

Here is a threshold test. Swallows are made of bugs. Until some engineer can begin with raw elements and commonplace chemistry, and engineer replacement bugs to match the quantities, behavior, and ecological impacts of the present world-wide bug supply, and then engineer replacement swallows, with those capable to forage, mate, raise offspring, migrate, and eat bugs, the first step toward safe geo-engineering has yet to happen.

Utter natural ignorance is not the right perch to oversee deliberate schemes to cause and control natural change. The very first steps down that road will show it should never have been embarked upon.

[Longtobefree]

Sounds like a dastardly attack on solar power - - - - - - - - -

[Bob from Ohio]

"Less solar radiation, lower temperatures, boom global warming issue solved. "

Crop failures, rickets.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, a 1% reduction in incoming sunlight would have next to no influence on agricultural productivity. It's well within annual variation due to changing cloud cover.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — More natural stupidity.

You have no notion what the implications would be. Nor any means of finding out. Nor even a catalogue of the organisms subject to effects, let alone any capacity to even estimate multi-order effects, or judge safe parameters to distinguish them from catastrophic ones.

Just for starters, what world political mechanism governs which schemes get tried, and which would-be engineers get suppressed, by what powers? The political problem is a much simpler problem than the ecological ones. Do you think anyone has power, foresight, or capacity to solve the political problems?

[Armchair]

Yep

[shawn_dude]

Diffusion is a real thing.

[shawn_dude]

I think we'll eventually do this or something like it. The Chinese are playing with orbital solar generators that beam energy down to earth and I think these two concepts could be merged to have a large solar array that reduces solar gain but also generates power.

However, it doesn't solve global warming insofar as it doesn't stop the behaviors that are feeding that process. It would certainly be a great way to reduce the impact and extend the time we have to shift our economies away from fossil fuels.

[Armchair]

What I will say, is the responses are ironically pretty standard.

The "conservatives" like Brett argue engineering. Not that it's impossible, but that there may be other, better solutions.

The "liberals" on the other hand, poo-poo the idea, saying "It's too expensive" and "too politically difficult". This is pretty ironic, since, the cost estimated ($6.5 billion a year) is just a fraction of the amount the US alone currently pays in subsidies for renewable energy. A "tiny percentage of the budget" as they like to say.

That doesn't even count the rest of the world. The total amount is less than the California High Speed Rail boondoggle.

It makes me think "liberals" aren't really interested in solving Global Warming, but are more interested in using Global Warming as a method for political and monetary gain.

[Armchair]

Hunter Biden on illegal immigration, and the implications...

“People are really upset about illegal immigration? F–k you. How do you think your hotel room gets cleaned? How do you think you have food on your f—king table? Who do you think washes your dishes? What do you think does your f–king garden? Who do you think is here by the f–king sheer f–king just grit and will that they figured out a way to get here because they thought that they could give theirselves and the family a better chance.”

That, my friends, is the true head of the Democratic Party.

Hunter Biden rages against Trump deportations in bizarre YouTube interview: ‘How do you think your hotel room gets cleaned? Who do you think washes your dishes?’
Elitism — the idea there is a ruling class and a servant class and the servant class’ most important job in life is providing comfort for the ruling class, and they like it that way because they are just gritty, determined, simple folk who only want simple things for their simple lives.

In Hunter Biden’s world — the Democrats’ elitist world — illegal immigrants (by which Democrats almost exclusively mean “Hispanics”) perform the jobs they can’t imagine deigning to do themselves. They wash our clothes, scrub our toilets and clean our hotel rooms. They tend our gardens and pick our food.

Most Americans count a few nights a year in a hotel room as a rare luxury. To the Bidencrats of the world, clean hotel rooms are a part of every day life, an expected essential of basic living.

Most of us don’t have our own gardens to tend, and those who do attend those humble patches themselves, as a form of therapy or sustenance. Bidencrats have gardens, and they can’t possibly tend those gardens themselves. That is work for the servant class.

https://nypost.com/2025/07/22/opinion/hunter-biden-interview-shows-democrats-are-party-only-for-elites/

[Sarcastr0]

To the Bidencrats of the world, clean hotel rooms are a part of every day life

Yes, try for populist flex about hotels. Could hotels be the new Dijon mustard?

[Frank Drackman]

I stay at a lot of Hotels in my job, not the really expensive ones, Hampton Inns in Lubbock, Holiday Inn Express in Peoria, they're filled with Truck Drivers, Construction/Oil Field workers, (and at a Fresno CA Marriot, a "Hell's Angel" wearing Full Colors, (IMHO Hell's Angel who stays at a Marriot should lose his Colors) you gotta really get out in the sticks to find the No-Tell-Mo-Tells Hunter's talkin bout (Willis)

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Internet busking is not a job, it’s a sad, weird “hobby” at best.

[apedad]

OK, I chuckled at that one....

[Frank Drackman]

I can think of sadder, weirder ones, replying to Internet Busking, for example.

[Malika the Maiz]

Laughing at, I get that you’re laughed at so much it’s normal for you.

[LexAquilia]

Make sure, whatever you do, don't comment on Hunter and the Democrat's disgusting racism.

[Malika the Maiz]

Says blatant racist and anti-Semite. It’s never in good faith, folks.

[Frank Drackman]

In his defense, he's still pissed about that Crack he misplaced at the White House, Secret Service of course had to confiscate it, but if it was your typical Maria Via Lobos Sanchez Garcia who found it, she'd at least have split it with him.

[Malika the Maiz]

Does Crack make a Person write
like a third Grader

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know, show us your writing.

[Malika the Maiz]

I just Showed you
Yours (

[Bwaaah]

I don't want to ruin a good thing, but...

If you're not Frank Drackman's most avid groupie, I don't know who is.

[Frank Drackman]

Story of my life, only "Groupies" I get are Tranny Negroes, Old Maids, and Nubile Teen Girls

[Malika the Maiz]

“Nubile Teen Girls”

Add this to his reasons for being such a Trump fan, along with disordered speech/thought, racism, stupidity, etc.,

[Malika the Maiz]

Poor Bwaaah can’t discern between laughing at someone and being a fan, probably from his experiences in life. I knew a lot of sad kids like that in school.

[Bwaaah]

I admit it. I don't think you are a Frank Drackman fan. You just reply to him more than anybody else, mostly with useless repetitive snarks about grammar. ("Does Crack make a Person write like a third Grader") It's as if you always need to show that you are A BETTER PERSON THAN FRANK DRACKMAN.

In your unshakable nastiness, your need to show you are "laughing at someone," you fail to accomplish even that slight task of besting Frank Drackman. (Sorry, Frank. I don't know how to speak within the Queenie context without denigrating people.) Have you considered an alternative strategy, like not replying if you don't have something meaningful to say?

Still, you reflexively chase Frank Drackman's droppings, for your own real reason, as you say. That's quite apparent.

[Malika the Maiz]

“I admit it. I don't think you are a Frank Drackman fan.”

You’re just a phony, we get it. And we get why you hate people that point that kind of thing out, and why you’d be sympathetic when I do that to the sad, weirdo Frank Fakeman character performed here.

We remember your prior acts. I really don’t get why people feel the need to get on anonymous legal blog sites and spin these fantasies about their “character.” You guys are QAnon Shaman pathetic and I am happy to laugh at you.

[Bwaaah]

Yer just chewin' on your own bullshit, Queenie. That's all your own bullshit. (I don't even know what you're talking about.)

[Malika the Maiz]

“In Hunter Biden’s world — the Democrats’ elitist world — illegal immigrants (by which Democrats almost exclusively mean “Hispanics”) perform the jobs they can’t imagine deigning to do themselves. They wash our clothes, scrub our toilets and clean our hotel rooms.”

The Trump Organization has come under fire for having hired undocumented workers. The Washington Post reported that at least 18 undocumented workers from five golf courses in New York and New Jersey have been dismissed over the last two months.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/undocumented-workers-state-of-the-union

[Armchair]

See...they were dismissed. Not kept on as the "Servant" class.

See, Liberal Dems "need" the Servant class. Someone they can lord over. Almost like...what's the other "s-word" Democrats needed to tend their fields and change their sheets...

[Malika the Maiz]

lol, years into his Presidency railing against that.

[Commenter_XY]

Not to worry Armchair, there are plenty of unemployed Americans to take their place. There is also prison labor.

They aren't gritty, simple or determined; they are criminal, disrespectful lawbreakers who will be going home. By the millions.

[Malika the Maiz]

“Not to worry Armchair, there are plenty of unemployed Americans to take their place.”

Like XY!

[Commenter_XY]

I am pondering early retirement presently, Queenie. I have acquired a small lot of property (<50 acres) in eastern TN. I have some plans there; not subdividing. I suppose I could visit NG in Nashville for good BBQ, heh.

Truthfully, it is more psychologically difficult to retire than one would think. I looked forward to it, thinking it would be like a magical moment. Nope. It is very, very hard to switch over from saving and growing the nest egg, to planned spending to zero (for 401K; Roth, Taxable, Real Estate are the way to transfer wealth).

Are you retired?
If so, was it difficult to make the transition?
What was hardest...easiest?

It took me years to figure out that the finance part of retirement is actually quite easy. It is all the other stuff that kept me awake at night....namely, what will Commenter_XY do with his remaining life.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a nice area you've picked, we hike in Pisgah National forest occasionally, just over the state line.

My plan is to build myself a boat. Already bought the plans. And then spend alternate weekends camping out on the water and fishing.

[not guilty]

Welcome to Tennessee if you move there, XY. You can find some good barbecue in Knoxville at Dead End BBQ on Sutherland Avenue. Buddy's Barbecue, a local chain in East Tennessee, is also good.

[Frank Drackman]

Do they require shoes?

[Mr. Bumble]

Planning on leaving NJ for good?

[Commenter_XY]

We will see, but I am inclined to keep the NJ property. Very expensive to maintain.

[Brett Bellmore]

It certainly was a bizarre rant. Does he genuinely not realize that almost everybody actually washes their own dishes, launders their own clothes, mows their own lawn, and regards hotel stays and restaurant visits as occasional luxuries? That the use of servants to do ordinary household chores is limited to a small fraction of the population?

Really, the way he started out reasonable sounding, and ended up enraged and using up a lifetime supply of f bombs in a few minutes... It's got people wondering if he's doing drugs again. It just was not normal looking.

[Armchair]

"That the use of servants to do ordinary household chores is limited to a small fraction of the population?"

I don't think he actually gets that. It's "elitism" by the liberal democrats. That's what they view illegal immigrants as. The people to wash their sheets and do their gardens.

[not guilty]

Brett, almost everyone eats produce and consumes dairy products as to which the labor of illegal aliens is essential to maintaining affordable prices.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's true that most people consume dairy products, and that the labor of illegal aliens does at least somewhat lower their cost. It does so by lowering wage levels in the economic brackets that have the most trouble affording dairy, so the idea that this is a benefit of illegal immigration is somewhat of an illusion.

Mostly the supply of cheap illegal labor has delayed farm automation.

[damikesc]

Sounds like NG would have been opposed to ending slavery due to the risk of increasing prices and all.

[Armchair]

" to which the labor of illegal aliens is essential to maintaining affordable prices."

Plenty of countries across the world have affordable dairy products without illegal immigrants.

Maybe...it's not "essential"

[Krayt]

Shades of Bush the Elder getting burned by the question, "What does a gallon of milk cost?"

The Queen of England gets a pass, nobody else does. Indeed, I'd be offended if she learned this.

Charles, though, who cares? He's bothered by glass skyscrapers, where form follows function, a beautiful thing to engineers like me.

[ThePublius]

The argument many (most?) Democrats make against deporting illegals, that they perform these functions that Americans supposedly won't, is the same argument Democrats made before the Civil War about the necessity of slavery. A tiger doesn't change its stripes.

[Malika the Maiz]

They seem to change their party though as most of those former slavery defending areas are now Republican (and notice how they defend the continuation of memorializing slavery defenders).

[damikesc]

Odd that as the South became dramatically less racist, the Dem Party lost its control over the area, ain't it?

[Sarcastr0]

as the South became dramatically less racist

Have you ever talked to a black person in real life?

[Brett Bellmore]

Have you ever lived in the South? I assure you, interracial couples all over the place, and nobody even blinks. You really need to get over the idea that nothing has changed since Democrats still ruled here.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah….I don’t trust you about what is racist either.

Interracial couples exist doesn’t mean the South became dramatically less racist.
Hell, the Supreme Court had to force that.

[not guilty]

Of course immigrants perform jobs that few Americans are willing to do. Two of them even married Donald Trump.

[loki13]

Not to mention one of them was a model who met Donald Trump in 1998. You know, when Trump was great friends with Jeffrey Epstein.

That guy? Oh, just some big shot who was, um, into models. Apparently he had a lot of ties to the fashion world, including Lee Wexler (Victoria's Secret), and would regularly round up models for, um, parties. Like the one he and Donald had that was documented.

Wonder what happened to him? Anyway, I always liked that Trump guy- willing to give immigrants a chance. In his bedroom, at his golf courses, at his hotels. Didn't always pay them, but work is work, amirite?

[damikesc]

Don't Democrats STILL practically deify a frequent guest on Epstein's plane?

Trump was friends before his full actions were publicly known. He also cut ties with him and barred him from Mar-a-Lago

[Bob from Ohio]

Give it up trying to reason with them on this.

They just know they got ol' Donnie now, he can't possibly wiggle out of this jam! So it concern troll all the way.

[Malika the Maiz]

This is so pathetic.

Modern Democrats are ambivalent about Bill Clinton at best.

And this defense of “Trump never went to Epstein’s island, though we have to admit there’s so much record of them paling around otherwise” is sad.

[damikesc]

Again, most investigated political figure in our history --- somehow, the intel community were unable to find any evidence. Weird.

[Sarcastr0]

The ones who want to pay a living wage to everyone are the Democrats. The ones into no workplace regulations, prison labor and the carceral state are the Republicans.

Oh, and the ones who openly declare blacks are subhumans. Guess who they vote for? Some of them seem to enjoy posting on Reason, even.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the usual: Democrats are all about setting up bad incentives and then ordering people to not act on them. Like importing illegal labor to drive down wages, and then mandating that wages be raised.

Oh, and there are people who openly declare that whites are subhumans, too. Guess who THEY vote for?

[Sarcastr0]

First, you want to go back to pre-lochner so you're way out there in terms of what humans deserve.

Second, you're bad at human nature. You admit this. You are no expert on incentives.

Third, the unvirtuous poor or welfare queen is a right-wing trope; it's not something you can generalize based on vibes. Especially since so many of the GOP (including you) conflate wealth with merit, even virtue.

there are people who openly declare that whites are subhumans, too
Either your off on some DEI bullshit again, or you're talking about small conclaves like the Nation of Islam. Which is barely a thing and it's not at all clear those fringes vote Democrat.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I want to go back to pre-Lochner, and restore our economic liberty. I believe humans deserve liberty.

"Which is barely a thing and it's not at all clear those fringes vote Democrat."

Not just a river in Egypt...

[Sarcastr0]

Pre-Lochner was not actually a more free time for workers, as any historian of the time will tell you.

Your idea of liberty is locked in some platonic ideal and is useless as a policy proposition.

You have a hard time seeing beyond your personal circumstances. This is a great example of that.

[bernard11]

Yes, I want to go back to pre-Lochner, and restore our economic liberty.

Huh? I thought libertarians liked the decision.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose I was reading "pre-Lochner" as "prior to Lochner being demonized". My bad.

Yes, Libertarians generally LIKE "Lochnerism".

[tylertusta]

If illegals become legalized and they then get a living wage at the behest of their Democratic benefactors, doesn't that also increase the price of goods that illegals are making now?

Do Democrats plan on waving a magic wand to lower prices once companies stop paying workers under the table?

[David Nieporent]

Most Americans count a few nights a year in a hotel room as a rare luxury. To the Bidencrats of the world, clean hotel rooms are a part of every day life, an expected essential of basic living.

I mean, this might be true from the perspective of the "Why can't we go back to the 1950s when Americans could live like royalty on a single cobbler's salary?" crowd, but it does not reflect the economy of the 21st century.

[Armchair]

Tell me David...how many nights in a given year do you spend in a hotel room? How many do you think the average American does?

[tylertusta]

How do you think your hotel room gets cleaned? How do you think you have food on your f—king table? Who do you think washes your dishes? What do you think does your f–king garden?

A 'let them eat cake' moment. Jesus Christ that turd couldn't possibly be more privileged.

[apedad]

These Are America’s 50 Wealthiest Suburbs

Key Findings

- The wealthiest U.S. suburb is Scarsdale, New York where the average household income is $568,942. The typical home value in Scarsdale is $1.4 million.

- California dominated rankings with 16 suburbs in the top 50. The five most expensive California suburbs are Los Altos ($400,000), Orinda ($370,000), Palos Verdes Estates ($342,000), Saratoga ($329,000) and Menlo Park ($316,000).

- Which coast has the wealthiest suburbs? The East Coast took the lead with 23 wealthy suburbs, including five in New York and five in New Jersey, making the top 50 ranking. In second place is the West Coast with 19 suburbs.

Top Ten

1. Scarsdale, New York
2. Rye, New York
3. West University Place, Texas
4. Los Altos, California
5. Paradise Valley, Arizona
6. University Park, Texas
7. Hinsdale, Illinois
8. Great Falls, Virginia
9. Orinda, California
10. Wellesley, Massachusetts

https://www.gobankingrates.com/investing/real-estate/these-are-americas-wealthiest-suburbs/

These are all shoreline/international border states.

Six are around the DC beltway.

Hey! Alabama is at # 43!

[Commenter_XY]

I am not far from Princeton, which made the list. Half the boro is owned by Kings College (now Princeton, or PU).

[David Nieporent]

Um, no. King's College was the original name of Columbia. Princeton was originally the College of New Jersey, although Trenton State College stole that name from us.

[Frank Drackman]

Alabama? not even gonna look but it's gotta be Vestavia Hills.

OK, I looked, it's Mountain Brook, which is right next to Vestavia Hills, not sure about the Stats, but the really rich live in "the Hills"

Frank

[bernard11]

I could have told you it was Mountain Brook (a Birmingham suburb, for those unfamiliar with the name).

Vestavia is a nice middle-class/upper middle-class Birmingham suburb.

[Frank Drackman]

That’s what they make you think(well they made me think that anyway) don’t let the beat up F150 fool you, lots of “Millionaires next door” in VH

[Ridgeway]

Wealth is not the same as income. This ranking seems to be measuring in terms of household income. Also, at least given my knowledge of Westchester County, NY, its avg house values are grossly understated. Part of that may be that around here, PO addresses (which I think they are using) do not correspond exactly with school district boundaries (which is about the first, second, third, fourth and sixth most important factor in determining real estate value around here). So for example, you will see listings for Bronxville PO or Scarsdale PO at low-ish prices. The reason is that they are in the Yonkers and Eastchester school districts, respectively.

[shawn_dude]

It's also an average which implies there's probably some elements skewing the result. Median would be more informative.

[Frank Drackman]

First to mention the passing of Ozzy Osbourne??
My favorite?
"War Pigs"

[hobie]

With me it's a tie between Over the Mountain and NIB

[ThePublius]

I mentioned it yesterday in the Monday Open Thread. No one replied.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thread was dead by then.

[Frank Drackman]

Sounds like the time this Chick told me to come over, there was nobody home. I went over, there was nobody home!

[Brett Bellmore]

Ozzy Clarifies To St. Peter He Was Just Joking About The Whole Satanism Thing

[Frank Drackman]

in Desert Storm (OK, the Ground War was over in 96 hrs, but the Marine Corpse engaged the Repubiclan Guard in one of the largest Tank Battles since WW2*) I saw a Marine Corpse M60 Tank with the name "War Pig" Stenciled on the Main Gun Tube.

* "Battle of Kuwait International Airport" Clint Eastwood considered doing a Movie about it but gave up, didn't translate well to the Big Screen

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

....of course the Marines have given up their tanks among other capabilities.
Current "Corpse" leadership needs to be cleaned out.
Since the Air Force doesn't want the A-10s maybe they can be divided between the Army and the Marines.

[Malika the Maiz]

Consumer prices rose in June as President Donald Trump's tariffs began to slowly work their way through the U.S. economy.

The consumer price index, a broad-based measure of goods and services costs, increased 0.3% on the month, putting the 12-month inflation rate at 2.7%, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Tuesday.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/07/15/cpi-inflation-report-june-2025.html

[Frank Drackman]

or it could be the normal Summer increase in Gasoline Prices as more people drive on vacation trips (Mr. Supply meet Mr. Demand, Mr. Demand, meet Mr. Supply)
Oh, and just a heads up, done lost my job, might not have the rent money for you next week, you think you could let me slide it on??

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Sad, weirdo internet busking doesn’t even understand his own schtick (claiming to live in someone’s head when you’re replying to one of their comments). Like I said, the weird and crazy are usually also dumb.

[Frank Drackman]

Like I said, I'll have it for you tomorrow, the next week, I don't know.

[Commenter_XY]

Inflation from Jan-Jun is 1.7%, and PPI is flat; encouraging news.

It surely bests The Cauliflower, who presided over a 9% inflation rate, an own goal brought on by his build back better bullshit.

Did The Cauliflower obtain trillions of dollars of foreign investment? Nope. He gave away billions to Irans Mullahs.

[Malika the Maiz]

“Inflation from Jan-Jun is 1.7%,”

I thought that was the “Biden’s economy?”

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/04/30/trump-gdp-tariffs-biden-overhang.html

[Commenter_XY]

The Cauliflower owns 2022.

[Malika the Maiz]

You were talking about Jan-June of 2022?

[Brett Bellmore]

So, it's towards the end of July, and you're desperate to talk about April's economic numbers? That doesn't make Commenter_XY look wrong...

[Malika the Maiz]

I talked about June, XY brought up the past and I pointed out what Trump said about that past. Try reading comprehension.

[hobie]

Seems like Ghislaine Maxwell is in a very good position for herself all of a sudden.

If she knows some things she could take down Trump and MAGA. If she doesn't know shit then she stays in prison for twenty years...unless she's smart and makes up some things. Who besides herself, Trump and Epstein could prove her wrong?

Of course Trump is in his own dilemma. If he doesn't let her out, she'll spill the beans. But if he lets her out it smacks of more massive cover up. And if the Clintons kill her like MAGA said they did Epstein, well...who knows where that will go.

I've got my fake elector-approved popcorn in hand. Watching a bunch of insurrectionists lose their shit over a conspiracy of their own making is delicious fun. An own goal. And despite what the magaverse tells you, Biden and Obama had nothing to do with this.

[Frank Drackman]

Believe the Woman!

[Mr. Bumble]

"Seems like Ghislaine Maxwell is in a very good position for herself all of a sudden."
Yeah, being in a Federal prison is a good position.
Ask Jeffery how that worked out.
Oh wait, you can't because he offed himself (at least that's the story).

[damikesc]

...because if Trump was on the Epstein client list at all, THAT would have remained silent all of these years.

Sure.

Most investigated political figure in American history. Pedo rapist would have remained silent, though. Of course.

Totes logical.

[Malika the Maiz]

Then why won’t he release it?

[MoreCurious]

Three easy predictions:

1. Maxwell will claim in her interview that Trump and Epstein barely knew each other, that Trump was never present when bad things were going on, that there was no client list and even if there had been Trump wouldn't have been on it, and that she never saw Trump in the company of any woman younger than 25.

2. Maxwell's Christmas gift from Trump this year will be a full pardon.

3. MAGA's response: See, we told you.

[hobie]

The worst outcome for MAGA is if Epstein's bestie doesn't appear in any document

[Armchair]

And in yet another bombshell.

":VOA managers met with Chinese to discuss more favorable coverage for Beijing"

The Voice of America. The anti-communists radio organization. Whose "targeted and primary audience is non-Americans outside the American borders, especially those living in countries without press freedom or independent journalism"

Is meeting with the officials from the largest communist country in the world, with some of the worse press freedoms. To discuss "more favorable coverage"?

https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/kari-lake-says-chinese-officials-told-voa-how-cover-their-country

Shut it down. It's corrupted.

[Commenter_XY]

Kari Lake is doing just that = shutting it down

[hobie]

VOA. PBS. NPR. Paramount. Associated Press. WSJ.

First you take out the press.

[Commenter_XY]

Why Arthur, you sound bothered.

[Frank Drackman]

For years Pubic Broadcasting, National Pubic Radio crowed about how little of their funding came from Uncle Sammy, it was from "Bill and Melinda Gates", in Atlanta the NPR Station is "W-ABE" with the "ABE" standing for Atlanta Board of Ed-jew-ma-cation, the Governing Body of Atlanta Pubic Screw-els, and they're forever having "Fund Raising" Drives with their stupid Tote Bags,
And they used to have a few good shows, "Prairie Home Companion" (a while ago), "Car Talk" (really a while ago) but now it's just a more extreme version of Al-Jizz-eera (that's saying something when Al-Jizz-eera is more mainstream)

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Third grader, internet busking.

[ThePublius]

You know, you're the annoying one, not Frank.

[hobie]

When Frankie makes up shit like the completely apolitical NPR being Al Jazeera, that is more annoying

[Frank Drackman]

Projection, thy name is Hobie-Stank

[damikesc]

Completely apolitical NPR?

OK, you ARE a parody account.

[Malika the Maiz]

Pubic reaches into his deep well of tribal, selective outrage. In other breaking news trouble in the Middle East.

[hobie]

I've been listening to NPR for decades. The mornings are always dedicated to local issues like school funding or ballot issues or court cases. The afternoons are human interest pieces. Last week, among other things, were the causes and treatments for migraines and how to propagate orchids. Weekends are comedies, ghost stories, celebrity interviews, cooking shows.

[Malika the Maiz]

Wait, wait don’t tell me, Christopher Kimball and Rick Steves are all good weekend shows.

[Frank Drackman]

Rick Steves is such a Sap, saw the episode "Enjoy the Cosmopolitan Charms of Qom!!"
OK it was Terror-Anne, and he did walk by Evin Prison, but somehow missed the weekly Public Executions, but even if he hadn't it be like
"nothing like a delicious bowl of Fesenjan after seeing a Homosexual hanged in Public!"

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

He doesn’t write like a third grader though.

In Frank Fakeman language:

He doesn’t Write like a Third
, grader though

[hobie]

My favorite show is The Moth Radio Hour

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd regularly listen to Click and Clack, but they retired.

[Frank Drackman]

I always thought it was "Klick and Klack" and one of them did "Retire" in a sense, but I think it was the "Celestial" Pink Slip, and even they slipped in some Left Wing (redacted) at times.
Tells you everything you need to know about PBS that David Brooks is the "Conservative" in their Friday night "Weekly Recap" where all he does is agree with some African Amurican Queer (know Purjorative EV, the guy calls himself a "Queer")

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I listened to them, didn't read them, how would I know if it was "Click" or "Klick"?

[Sarcastr0]

I like Pop Culture Happy Hour. Good mix of characters willing to mix high-brow and low-brow.

[Malika the Maiz]

Just the News!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Solomon_(political_commentator)

See “Reputational Damage”

Btw-the story is just claims by Kari Lake.

[LexAquilia]

Attack the messenger.

That's what smart people do!

[Malika the Maiz]

All the time, it’s basic informal logic.

[Sarcastr0]

HOLY SHIT THERE WAS TALKING. Assuming it's true. That source has credibility problems, as you well know. Or would, if you had a memory for things posted here.

Not a bombshell; you need to stop reading only right wing media it's got your drama sense all fucked up.

If there was something actually happening, you might have something mildly interesting. Not that interesting, though, given how many of our proud capitalist private institutions have bent the knee for a taste of China cash.

[shawn_dude]

If it's corrupted, it's coming from the top. Who runs it again...?

[Malika the Maiz]

Newly uncovered archived video footage and photos reveal fresh details about Donald Trump’s past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Photos from 1993 confirm for the first time that Epstein attended Trump’s 1993 wedding to Marla Maples... In addition, footage from a 1999 Victoria’s Secret fashion event in New York shows Trump and Epstein laughing and chatting together ahead of the runway event.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/22/politics/kfile-trump-epstein-photos-footage

[Frank Drackman]

Good one, won't really beat the photos of Barry Osama with Lindsay Grahams (redacted) at his glottal opening.

[damikesc]

Has Trump denied he knew Epstein?

Unsure how "He knew the guy before his crimes were known" is some kind of own.

Why, uh, did Bill Clinton --- who Dems STILL deify --- fly with Epstein so frequently without Secret Service protections?

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord you're not up to this work.

Bill Clinton --- who Dems STILL deify
This is a poster who needs badly to read something to the left of Free Republic.

[Bored Lawyer]

Two words: So what?

Trump and Epstein were both rich, well-connected socialites who travelled in the same circles. Apart from being a sick pedophile, Epstein was also a successful Wall Street mover and shaker. (See above, the rich part.) Unless you can show that Trump knew about Epstein's abominable behavior, it's nothing more than guilt by association.

Oh, and while you are at it, please explain why Barack Obama and the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus met with the vile Jew-hater Louis Farrakhan in 2005. Long after Louis spewed his vile statements.
https://www.ajc.com/news/local/could-this-long-lost-photo-have-derailed-obama-2008-campaign/jC8NKhQr6a72VjRYY9o0EM/
But that picture was suppressed until Obama was out of the White House.

[Malika the Maiz]

These liberals are just too focused on Trump!

“Buried in amendments to the Interior Dept. Gov funding bill, is a stipulation that the Kennedy Center Opera House must be renamed the 'First Lady Melania Trump Opera House' in order to receive federal funds.”

https://x.com/ReedReports/status/1947709858133819683

[hobie]

According to the National WWII Museum, no buildings were formally named after Eva Braun

[Frank Drackman]

He thrusts his fist against the post and still insists he sees the ghosts

[bernard11]

+1

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Jill Biden interviewed the author Isabel Allende a few months ago. C-SPAN rebroadcast the interview over the weekend.

Per a CNN article:

Idaho GOP Rep. Mike Simpson, who introduced the amendment, said, “Yes, we renamed the opera house at the Kennedy Center for the first lady, who is the honorary chairman of the board of trustees of the Kennedy Center,” during the House Appropriations Committee’s Tuesday meeting on the bill.

He argued that it’s an “excellent way to recognize” the first lady’s “support and commitment to promoting the arts.”

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not a big fan of naming things after the living.

[Frank Drackman]

But we're talking about Sleepy Joe

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought we were talking about the first Lady. Last I heard, she was still alive.

[hobie]

It looks like all the places within the Kennedy Center are named in relation to president Kennedy. How inappropriate to place another president's name in it. Would be like having an Obama Food Court in the Trump library

[David Nieporent]

Why would they take Putin's name off that room?

[hobie]

Yesterday, NY Times: "President Trump’s directive [to the National Park Service] to remove or cover up materials that “inappropriately disparage Americans.”

Also Trump:
July 2024: "We’re a seriously failing nation."
Feb 2025: "This country has gotten bloated, fat, disgusting"
Oct. 2024: "We're a dumping ground...We're like a garbage can"

[Malika the Maiz]

I mean, Make America Great Again itself states America wasn’t great.

[hobie]

There's that, too. MAGA's contemptuousness towards America is bewildering

[Moderation4ever]

I read this and immediately thought of the book 1984.
Of the character Winston Smith and his job at the Ministry of Truth to make the history fit the narrative of the day.

[Bob from Ohio]

Not renaming the entire center, its one part. Not really unusual in entertainment or sports venues.

"Cleveland Orchestra announced that Severance Hall will be dubbed Severance Music Center in light of a $50 million grant from the Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel Foundation.

The gift, the largest in orchestra history and one of the largest ever received by an American orchestra, will bolster the group’s endowment and support specific programming while also prompting two name changes: that of the building itself and the main venue within it, soon to be known as Mandel Concert Hall."

https://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/2021/09/cleveland-orchestra-to-rename-severance-hall-after-receiving-50-million-gift-from-mandel-foundation.html

[bernard11]

Did Melania give $50M to the Kennedy Center?

[Bob from Ohio]

Way to miss the point.

[Malika the Maiz]

Every accusation is a confession, isn’t it you who misses the point here by citing a renaming from a gift in relation to a story about the slavish devotion of the GOP to Trump in pushing a name change for his wife?

[bernard11]

What point? That if you give the place $50M they will name part of it after you?

I got that. And Severance Hall itself was named for John and Elizabeth Severance, who contributed $1M (in 1931) toward its construction as a permanent home for the Cleveland Symphony, so adding the name of a later donor is not inappropriate.

The Kennedy Center, by contrast was named in honor of JFK two months after his assassination. It contains the Eisenhower Theatre, named, again, to honor the ex-President, not because Ike contributed a lot of money. So the naming protocols are different.

Melania is not an ex-President, or otherwise a national leader, and she didn't donate $50M, so the naming fails on all counts, only satisfying Trump's zeal to put the name Trump on everything.

[apedad]

Knowing Trump, he's scheming how he can get the Kennedy Center to PAY him and Melania to use her name.

He's the Chairman of the Board for the KC, so I'm sure he's thinking about it.

[shawn_dude]

Maybe she convinced her husband/asset that he shouldn't turn it into an internment camp and so saved it from destruction.

[Malika the Maiz]

"He's a terrible, he's a terrible Fed chair," Trump, 79, said on Wednesday, July 16. "I was surprised he was appointed. I was surprised, frankly, that Biden put him in and extended him."

While it's true that Biden extended Powell's chairmanship past 2022, Trump is the one who hand-selected Powell for the gig during his first term.

https://people.com/trump-slams-biden-fed-reserve-pick-11774332

[hobie]

Powell can join Leonard Leo under the bus. Two men who were useful...until they weren't

[bernard11]

"He's a terrible, he's a terrible Fed chair," Trump, 79, said on Wednesday, July 16. "I was surprised he was appointed. I was surprised, frankly, that Biden put him in and extended him."

What an asshole. Trump has no idea what the Fed does or whether Powell has done a good job or not. Even worse, he has no idea how much damage political interference in the Fed will do.

He just wants rates lowered to benefit himself.

[LexAquilia]

Why weren't those PP lawyers sanctioned for their democracy harming legal theory that the Congressional appropriations (or lack thereof) was a Bill of Attainder?

Why aren't they being attacked and having their licenses pulled and getting fired from their high profile law firms for such an illegal legal theory?

Also, why would the a low level judge accept such an absurd argument and usurp Congress's constitutional authority on appropriations?

We have judges ordering Congress to appropriate money.
We have judges ordering the Executive to conduct foreign policy.
We have judges appointing US Attorneys.

Now the "Democracy Protectors" have moved beyond Congress and the Executive and have decided to use the Judiciary to protect democracy from the two branches of government that are accountable to the people. I guess in order to save Democracy, they have to destroy Democracy.

[A Japanese Student]

That's not how sanctions or disbarment work.

[LexAquilia]

Umm, do you not recall what they did to Trump's 2020 lawyers?

Weren't they going so far as trying to try them criminally?

[Malika the Maiz]

He doesn’t know how things work, not working himself.

[Frank Drackman]

Tell us how Fission Bombs work

[Malika the Maiz]

They analyzed data from the second and third iteration of the Nurses' Health Study, which tracked just over 146,000 pregnancies across the U.S. from 1956 to 2015.

They found that if the first two children born in a family are girls, the chances of the third child also being a girl are higher than for a boy — and this pattern continues with subsequent children. The same holds true if the first two are boys: The likelihood of having another boy increases, and the trend persists through later births.

"Notably, in families with three boys (MMM), the probability of having another boy was 61%; in families with three girls (FFF), the probability of having another girl was 58%," the study authors wrote.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/22/nx-s1-5471382/births-boys-girls-odd-chance-research

[hobie]

I remember about a month ago NPR also doing a piece on a lady mathematician named Marilyn vos Savant, who correctly solved and explained the Monty Hall problem. The Monty Hall problem is a statistical brain teaser where, after an initial choice, new information changes the probabilities, making the choice to switch from the initially chosen door statistically advantageous.

When you first choose a door, the probability of selecting the car is 1/3. However, when the host opens one of the remaining doors to reveal a goat, the probability of the car being behind the door you didn't initially choose and didn't open changes from 1/3 to 2/3. Many people mistakenly assume the odds become 50:50 between the remaining two doors, demonstrating a common cognitive bias known as the equiprobability bias.

[ThePublius]

It wasn't Savant who initially solved it, it was Steve Selvin.

"The Monty Hall problem is a brain teaser, in the form of a probability puzzle, based nominally on the American television game show Let's Make a Deal and named after its original host, Monty Hall. The problem was originally posed (and solved) in a letter by Steve Selvin to the American Statistician in 1975.[1][2] It became famous as a question from reader Craig F. Whitaker's letter quoted in Marilyn vos Savant's "Ask Marilyn" column in Parade magazine in 1990:[3]"

[Krayt]

Your door has a 1/3 chance, the other two collectively have a 2/3 chance of win. When Monty reveals the goat, the remaining door inherits the full 2/3 chance.

I explained it once by suggesting imagining 100 doors, with 99 goats. Monty reveals 98 goats behind the other 99 doors. Now will you switch?

"You didn't think that up." Yes I did, the other person got it from me.

[Frank Drackman]

What were the ratios before women could select their babies sex and kill him/her (it's usually a "her") before he/she was born?

[ThePublius]

An airman was fatally injured in an incident with an M18 this weekend. I'm hearing the gun was holstered and discharged unintentionally.

https://www.warren.af.mil/News/Releases/Article/4251188/90th-missile-wing-confirms-on-base-airman-fatality/

This firearm is a pistol, the Sig P320 being the civilian version. It's been swirling in controversy as there have been many cases of alleged "undirected discharge," and yet there's a big fanbase claiming it's not the gun. I say bullshit. I've seen videos of these going off with no finger on the trigger.

I read an article of how some may have been assembled with the wrong parts and that causes the possibility of undirected discharge; like, it's in your holster and it just goes off.

The DoD has paused its use pending an investigation, and substituted M4 carbines.

This could be the beginning of the end of Sig.

I wish the armed services has just stuck with the Government Model 1911.

Here's the Air Force memo on this:

https://x.com/DocStrangelove2/status/1947750682016022853/photo/1

[tylertusta]

Moving away from the 1911 was a good decision at the time and it remains a good decision now.

[Longtobefree]

Because?

[Frank Drackman]

Low Magazine Capacity, Inaccurate out of the box, cheap surplus ammo scarce, stupid grip safety, should I go on?
I still love them, carry my SA or R1 occasionally when I want to feel like Sergeant Rock or General Ripper (Dr. Strangeglove reference) best one I ever had was a Chinese Norinco that I traded for a Microphone, worst was a "Customized" Colt that was nothing but trouble, unloaded it on some Sucker outside a Gunshow 1994 (still waiting for that guy to show up while I'm bathing, like the guy in "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"
I like Revolvers, never Jam, and I don't need 19 shots to kill you.

Frank

[ThePublius]

"Low Magazine Capacity, Inaccurate out of the box, cheap surplus ammo scarce, stupid grip safety, should I go on?"

Baloney, Frank. First, if you can't get the job done with 8 rounds of .45 ACP, you have bigger problems. (That's one in the chamber from your Barney mag, plus your standard 7 round mag. If you want more, stick in a Wilson Combat 8 round mag.)

Accuracy? I have a '60's vintage Colt Commercial Govt. Model, unaltered, that's a tack driver, and an RIA that's just the same. I've placed first in PPC with these, and have cleaned bullseye targets.

Who cares about surplus ammo? You can get 1,000 rounds of current Sellier Bellot .45 ACP in a nifty, metal ammo can for $390, free shipping!

https://sgammo.com/product/45-auto-acp-ammo/1000-round-can-45-auto-230-grain-fmj-sellier-bellot-brass-case-ammo-sb45a-packed-in-m2a1-canister/

For you math challenged, that's only 39¢ per round. And, it's excellent, reloadable brass. I do it even cheaper reloading on my Hornady LnL AP: each pull of the handle yields one round. And, yes, I have a case feeder and bullet feeder. (I only wish you could still get Bullseye, but Alliant has dedicated all its capacity to military contracts.)

I like the grip safety. This thing's not going to go off on its own in my holster. (Although the "safety" - the "lock" - prevents that as well. I carry one in the chamber, cocked and locked, i.e., Condition One:
https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/conditions-of-readiness-for-the-1911-pistol/. I think the other conditions are silly, even though the IDF uses condition three, I think.)

I think the 1911 is the most brilliant piece of pistol engineering, ever. God bless John Moses Browning. This can be field stripped, and detail stripped, without tools, fast. The pieces you remove become the tools for the next step. Try that with an M9 or M18.

[Frank Drackman]

Did you not see I said I love them? (as long bad it’s not a Colt)

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you know anything about the availability and pricing for .45 Auto-Rim?
Asking for a friend.

[ThePublius]

Start from Ammoseek:

https://ammoseek.com/ammo/45-auto-rim

Looks like it starts at about a buck a round.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess it's moon clips then.

[ThePublius]

Yes. I have a S&W modified to take full-moon clips. I think the earlier .45 revolvers that took 45 were for half moon clips. Check out Jerry Miculek reloading with full-moon clips!

So, yes, .45 ACP at about 40¢/round, .45 Auto Rim at $1.

Does "your friend" reload?

[Mr. Bumble]

I don't think he ever fired it. It was a gift from his Grandfather and he wasn't into guns so just stored it away. Now he's thinking of maybe he should take it out and get in some range time.
I haven't seen it in years but it memory serves it was a Smith&Wesson M1917 that was used by the Army before the M1911. Either way ACP or auto-rim, not cheap shooting.
If you want to have some cheap thrills I recently read where Crossman has a fully auto .177 cal. BB gun patterned after the M1 carbine.

[tylertusta]

There are many reasons why it was a good decision, but the biggest reason is that most people in the military that are going to be issued pistols are not going to be Jerry Miculek, and a pistol needs to meet the lowest common denominator.

[ThePublius]

Well, Jerry's more a revolver guy. If you're issued, you should be trained. There's nothing mysterious about aa 1911. It was our standard issue sidearm for 74 years, through two world wars, Korea, and Vietnam. 'Though some chose to carry something different: I have a pic of a young guy exiting a helicopter in Vietnam with an M1 carbine and a Ruger Blackhawk (single action revolver) in a cowboy rig, also in .30 carbine. What a badass!
https://tinyurl.com/ssbe98v2

[tylertusta]

Training in the military is a lot lower of a baseline than I think you appreciate.

Marines are trained on the basics, but outside of the infantry, we wouldn't practice with issued weapons very often. Weapon qualification is annual, and depending on the unit you're in, that is the only time you will fire your weapon that year. You might not even see your weapon in between qualifications depending on how your unit does weapon cleaning. That was my own personal experience. My last year of service I had one rifle qualification and then for the rest of the year I never even saw my rifle again.

So you need to think less of how the infantry would use a pistol and instead how that supply clerk who barely passed qualification will use it. Less about how the person who qualified "Expert" (the highest level) and more about how the masses of "Marksman" (the lowest level of qualification) will use it.

War isn't about turning everyone into .50cal-wielding snipers and Jerry Miculeks; it's about building a sufficient mass of "good enough" firepower to the table. Special Forces used old M1911s because they were highly trained operators who could afford to spend days upon days honing their craft of killing people and breaking things.

[ThePublius]

For those here unfamiliar with Jerry Miculek:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM

[ThePublius]

I disagree. I would like to hear your reasons why you think it was a good decision.

I would much rather carry a 1911 than an M18/P320, especially give the recent incidents with the latter.

[tylertusta]

I say this as someone who owns several 1911s: If the P320 is going to discharge while in the holster I'd also rather carry a M1911 as well! Fortunately for me, I carry a Glock.

I provided a response up above:

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/07/23/wednesday-open-thread-26/?comments=true#comment-11137623

[ThePublius]

I'm not a Glock fan. There are many stories of them going of while holstering them. Plus, I'm not a plastic gun fan.

Do you carry 9mm or something else? Lately I'm gravitating towards .357 Magnum. I even carry a single action in 357.

[tylertusta]

I carry in 9mm.

The issues with Glocks 'going off' was because certain police departments were training officers to holster their pistols with their fingers on the trigger while pushing the pistol into the holster.

[ThePublius]

That sounds like a crazy training protocol! Why would they teach that?

[Brett Bellmore]

Probably to keep them from dropping it if they missed the holster...

[tylertusta]

I believe it was the NYPD that was doing it. They were using the old revolver holstering method of pulling the trigger and slowly releasing the hammer on the revolver. Except that Glocks don't have an external hammer. Boom.

There was a lot of muscle memory had to be undone.

[ThePublius]

I don't buy it. It's a preposterous deflection from the inherent un-safety of these firearms.

Have you ever heard of "trigger discipline?" Geez! You never keep your finger in the trigger guard unless you are on-target and ready to shoot, and the idea that someone would be taught to lower a firearm into the holster witha finger on the trigger is ridiculous.

[Poxigah146]

I have many Glocks. Only an idiot could do this. It's not difficult to holster them without firing.

[grb]

tylertusta : "Moving away from the 1911 was a good decision...."

Don't care. In my day in the Army NG, I was never issued a pistol. It was an M-16 (with which I was a fairly good shot, particularly from the foxhole & prone position), and the M-203 grenade launcher - with which I qualified expert. The latter sounds impressive, but all five or six of us on the range did. Close counts in grenades.

Nah, what I'm here for is to manfully concede the Luis Leon story looks even more shaky.

[tylertusta]

Nah, what I'm here for is to manfully concede the Luis Leon story looks even more shaky.

Thanks. And I get it: it's too easy to get sucked into a news story because it confirms ones' priors. Best we can do is learn from our mistakes.

There are certain outlets on the right that I won't read anymore due to them getting me one too many times: Looking at you, Federalist.

[apedad]

Air Force Office of Special Investigatons (AFOSI) on the job!

[Sarcastr0]

Anne Joseph O’Connell
‪@ajosephoconnell.bsky.social‬

Since @orinkerr.bsky.social asked, a thread, from limited information reported online, about how I see the US attorney mess in DNJ.

1. Trump picked Habba as interim US Attorney under 28 USC 546. Technically, the AG is supposed to pick, but whatever. She gets 120 days to serve.

2. Trump nominated Habba for the DNJ US Attorney job.

3. District court chose someone else, Grace--the first assistant--under 28 USC 546 , after the 120 day period. 120 days runs from appointment, not swearing in. That person can serve until someone is confirmed. Court can pick a non DOJ person.

4. Bondi fired the 1st assistant. But she didn't fire Grace as interim US attorney. Because she can't. The power to remove follows the power to appoint, unless Congress chooses otherwise. Under that rule, she can fire the 1st asst. But only court can fire interim. But that raises SOP concerns.
So OLC has held that the *President* can fire. Trump did fire court-picked interim Geoff Berman in his first term...

5. Now, the Vacancies Act is also available for temporary service. Trump could fire Grace and then turn to the FVRA. In NDNY, when the court did not appoint anyone after Sarcone's 120 days, Sarcone became the acting US Attorney under the FVRA because he got himself named first assistant.

6. But you cannot do that in DNJ as nominees cannot also be the acting unless they served before the vacancy of the last confirmed person. And Habba is the nominee.

7. So what could happen? Trump could fire Grace, and then Bondi/Trump could name Habba to a new 120 day term under 28 USC 546.
Why? Although Congress intended time limits (it put them back it after the AG firing of US Attorneys scandal back in Bush43), the text permits it. There also is no penalty provision (in the Vacancies Act, if you go over time limits, actions can be voided).

I should add that I think this is nuts. There's much I would fix on interim/acting appointments, including barring successive interim appointments, but we need Congress. For more than you'd ever want to know about actings (or a way to fall asleep) could look at: https://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/OConnell_Actings.pdf

And I should add Thomas noted in a footnote in his Braidwood dissent this past term that he thinks court appointments of inferior officers, though permitted by Constitution's text, violate separation of powers. Defendant could raise this to an action by the court appointed interim: 5 votes?

Morrison permitted a court appointed independent counsel but this Court is not too fond of Morrison...

Another thought: under the Vacancies Act, you need another job in the agency or a Senate confirmed post elsewhere. But under 546, the AG and court can pick someone outside DOJ. So it doesn’t matter here that Grace is no longer the first assistant. But under FVRA, the firing would give a new acting.

[OpinionsVary]

"Thomas noted in a footnote in his Braidwood dissent this past term that he thinks court appointments of inferior officers, though permitted by Constitution's text, violate separation of powers."

Thomas thinks the constitution is unconstitutional? It's pretty explicit that Congress can vest the appointment of lesser officers in the Courts (which interim U.S. attorneys must logically be, since they serve without being confirmed by the Senate). I thought he was *against* reading imaginary rules into the constitution's text?

[David Nieporent]

I thought he was *against* reading imaginary rules into the constitution's text?

*cough*presidentialimmunity*cough*

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It is all a bit convoluted & the ongoing Roberts Court changing (perverting) the law in this area factors in.

A general point is that history and tradition (FWIW) support the courts having a role here.

[Bob from Ohio]

Good job judges. Hopefully Grace wanted to start her private practice now.

O’Connell's points 4 and 7 mean they can't win. But the Dems on the court get Resistance! points.

[Sarcastr0]

4. is immaterial to the Acting remaining in the seat.
7. is this academic's opinion and hasn't been tested in court.

You do rush to do performative apologia for authoritarianism where no one else will.

Way to be the worst! For a while I thought Ed or Riva would take the crown, but you've really done a great job standing out as proud of your nihilism, and pushing for the worst things both petty and large.

[Bob from Ohio]

"4. is immaterial to the Acting remaining in the seat."

immaterial!

"So OLC has held that the *President* can fire. Trump did fire court-picked interim Geoff Berman in his first term..."

"apologia for authoritarianism"

LOL

Having the elected President control who an US attorney [important lower official exercising significant authority] is "authoritarianism" now. Everything normal is "authoritarianism" because Trump broke your mind.

[Sarcastr0]

The OLC is not a court of law.

[Bob from Ohio]

No but its opinions carry weight. Plus, Trump already did it, Berman "resigned" rather than fight his removal.

Any president is going to win this kind of fight.

[LexAquilia]

What's more authoritarian, an unelected low level judge appointing a US Attorney over the wishes of the President who is accountable to voters, or the President firing the appointment made by the unelected judge?

Sarcastr0 thinks unelected low level judges implementing their policy preferences is democracy, while elected officials overruling them is authoritarianism.

What a buffoon.

[OpinionsVary]

Take it up with Congress. The constitution lets Congress vest the appointment of lesser officers in the Courts of Law. They did so for situations like this case - where an appointee hasn't secured the nod from the Senate.

[David Nieporent]

Having the elected president violate the law is authoritarianism.

[Bob from Ohio]

No law [neither statute nor court ruling] says he cannot fire an interim or acting US atty.

[LexAquilia]

What about when a Democrat judge commands Congress to fund Planned Parenthood?

Is that authoritarianism?

[Commenter_XY]

What mind...he exists on vibes.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The District of New Jersey shouldn’t have an incompetent federal prosecutor and the New Jersey judges know that. The safest pick to ensure competence in the office is the First Assistant, who is a career prosecutor familiar with the day to day operations of the USAO. I’m not sure why you Trump and Bondi want an unethical parking garage lawyer to be the top federal prosecutor in NJ, but no one who cares about enforcing federal law there does!

[Riva]

Here’s something new for you to study: Recess Appointments.
Is ignorance bliss for you, Sarcastr0?

[Sarcastr0]

Recess appointments under 28 USC 546 are covered under numbers 6 and 7.

[Riva]

All without even mentioning the word "recess." Quite a trick. 28 U.S.C. § 546 does not directly limit a President’s constitutional power to make recess appointments.

I think what you meant to write was an acknowledgment of this flaw in the analysis but ultimately couldn't find the integrity to do that. Because you don't have any. Sorry you can't buy it. You either have it or don't. Don't be sad, you have a lot of company here.

[Kazinski]

Pam Bondi has joined the chat.

".
@USAttyHabba
has been doing a great job in making NJ safe again. Nonetheless, politically minded judges refused to allow her to continue in her position, replacing Alina with the First Assistant.

Accordingly, the First Assistant United States Attorney in New Jersey has just been removed. "

https://x.com/AGPamBondi/status/1947768353025556950

[LawTalkingGuy]

This is just so ridiculous to me. A career AUSA who is First Assistant is generally a prosecutor’s prosecutor. It’s a person who likes prosecuting criminal cases, is good at it, and wants to make sure everyone in the office is good at it too. There is no way some hack with little to no criminal experience is going to be as good at keeping a district “safe” as someone who actually knows what they’re doing.

And 2011 Pam Bondi probably would have known that.

[apedad]

Charges dropped against more than 120 defendants in Massachusetts because they can’t get attorney

More than 120 cases, including some for assault on family members and police, were dismissed Tuesday in Boston, the latest fallout from a monthslong dispute over pay that has led public defenders to stop taking new clients.

At a mostly empty courtroom, Boston Municipal Court Chief Justice Tracy-Lee Lyons invoked the Lavallee protocol in dismissing case after case. It requires cases be dropped if a defendant hasn’t had an attorney for 45 days and released from custody if they haven’t had one for seven days. Tuesday was the first time it was invoked to drop cases, while suspects in custody have been released in recent weeks.

Most were for minor crimes like shoplifting, drug possession and motor vehicle violations.

But several involved cases of assault on police officers and domestic violence. One suspect allegedly punched his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach and slapped her in the face. Another case involved a woman who was allegedly assaulted by the father of her child, who threatened to kill her and tried to strangle her. A third case involved a suspect who allegedly hit a police officer and threated to shoot him.

The 2026 fiscal year budget of $60.9 billion signed early this month by (Gov) Healey didn’t include any increase (for the public defenders).

https://www.wric.com/news/u-s-world/ap-charges-dropped-against-more-than-120-defendants-in-massachusetts-because-they-cant-get-attorney/#:~:text=BOSTON%20%28AP%29%20%E2%80%94%20More%20than%20120%20cases%2C%20including,led%20public%20defenders%20to%20stop%20taking%20new%20clients.

C'mon Mass! This is partly why the Revolution was successful - being able to check the govt "and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

[John F. Carr]

Charges are being dropped without prejudice. The remaining public defenders are prioritizing cases with greater threats to public safety. A murder is worse than a stabbing, a stabbing is worse than a punch, a punch is worse than mouthing off to a cop.

About ten years ago snow plow drivers had a similar concerted action. The state depends on contractors to plow roads. Lawmakers hate to appropriate money for snow plowing. Contractors have to work without pay and wait for a supplemental budget the next summer. One year they said they would stop taking contracts. A deal was reached.

[Krayt]

Good punishment for government. In many cases, trivial stuff is merely a profit center for government qua highwayman.

Indeed, that cynical appraisal casts aspersions on government officials, who can't even be bothered enough to pick up their predatory money lying on the ground. Aspersions they richly deserve.

[Bob from Ohio]

This is what happens when Dems control a state.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe they should raise taxes

[John F. Carr]

Two cases from the First Circuit:

The court found something is not interstate commerce: a Puerto Rico baseball league. The league was accused of antitrust violations under territorial law. A pre-New Deal Supreme Court decision exempted baseball from federal antitrust law. Thanks to stare decisis that decision is still good law. So no conflict preemption. The court decided that regulation of a league entirely within Puerto Rico was not improper regulation of inerstate commerce. So no preemption by the dormant Commerce Clause. The court distinguised cases protecting interstate leagues from state regulation.

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/23-1589P-01A.pdf

Taking a dead body across state lines can be a capital crime. Defendant lured a woman into his car and raped and murdered her. So far it's a state crime. Then he took the body across state lines. That retroactively makes the act a federal kidnapping resulting in death. The only sentencing options are death and life in prison. The rape was relevant because kidnapping requires proof that the defendant had a motive. Sex is a motive. If he killed her for no reason it would not be kidnapping.

US v. Coleman, https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/22-1882P-01A.pdf

[loki13]

I have to admit how wrong I was, based on not guilty's post above. Look, I thought that the MAGA people had already priced in the Epstein stuff with Trump - HOW DID YOU NOT KNOW THIS ALREADY? Like, even if you didn't bother to know the specifics, you knew what kind of person Trump was, right?

But as we can see by Trump tossing out everything (literally, everything) that he can .... Obama is guilty of treason! Rosie O'Donnell will be stripped of citizenship! The Democrats created false Epstein files with me in it but never used them, but left them for my administration in order that I would witch hunt myself!!!!!

As we can see, apparently he is a little unhinged about people saying ... oh yeah, our President was besties with the most notorious sex trafficker and kiddie diddler in memory! Huh. Wonder what that's about?

[LexAquilia]

1. Obama is most likely guilty of treason
2. Rosie should be stripped of her citizenship
3. Given what we know about how dirty the DOJ/FBI were under Obama and Biden, had there been Trump damaging information, it would be released.
4. The Epstein files will never be released because it would reveal the Mossad/Israel connection
5. Trump, like the rest of the political establishment, serves Israel First.
6. The Democrats know facts 3-5 and are only using Epstein and the "drip drip" of leaks to bloody up Trump since his approval is so high and theirs is so low.

These are the facts that smart people know. Do you think you're able to join that exclusive club?

[Krayt]

4. The Epstein files will never be released because it would reveal the Mossad/Israel connection

Whew! Any implicated high Rs or Ds got lucky! How fortunate for them!

[LexAquilia]

And those are obvious to spot, they have Israel flags in their offices, they wear Israel flag pins and they're surrounded by their AIPAC handlers who whisper in their ears what to say.

[loki13]

I assume you're quoting someone I've blocked, so I'll take this quote on faith ...

"4. The Epstein files will never be released because it would reveal the Mossad/Israel connection"

Oh! So Trump was just Epstein's bestie during that time because he was helping our ally Israel, right? Part of the secret plan?

Oh.... oh. Epstein. Israel. Okay. I get it. Nvm. I keep forgetting that for some MAGA, "Israel" is our ally, but the people there? Not so much.

Anti-semitism is just a convenient word to bludgeon opponents, but there's an understanding of who the "real enemy" is for them, amirite? Pity that there are those (*cough*) who are frequent contributors here who seem hellbent on forgetting that the toxicity present on places like the social media site formerly known as twitter is what is really going on.

Hey, with friends like those, it's probably a good idea that you're demonizing the left and the centrists!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Barr is a CIA operative tasked with taking pEestain off the board. The Bush family controlled both prosecutors in 2006 that gave him a sweetheart deal.

[LexAquilia]

Loki only lives in the present and has no knowledge of the past.

FYI.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

MAGA people thought the Epstein files would hurt Democrats & they were promised results. And, now Trump says the whole thing is a "witch hunt" and a nothingburger?

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatTheHellHero

[grb]

JoeFromtheBronx : "...Trump says the whole thing is a "witch hunt" and a nothingburger?"

It's even more funny than that. Just days ago, Trump was fuming about his supporters falling for "bullshit" - he meaning Epstein. Apparently he gave that some thought (to the degree possible given his cognitive state) and decided it was a dangerous road. After all, bullshit is what his supporters want & need. Bullshit is the way Dear Leader communicates with his drudges & serfs. Bullshit is the very lover's language that binds them together.

So that approach has forgotten in favor of a much-more Trumpish solution : Piling on mountains & mountains of more bullshit. And you know what? Trump knows his audience well. Just look thru these comments. All the faithful are beaming-happy as they dog paddle around in a reeking cesspool. Most (if not all) know it's completely worthless garbage. They just don't care.

[LexAquilia]

MAGA people want the Epstein files released because we want to topple ZOG.

America First, not Israel First.

[Krayt]

When reflexively clicking that TV Tropes link, I note a panel from a Superman comic there, where Supes is yelling at an old man, which, from the context is probably the old wizard who made Shazam. "You gave a kid super powers!"

It's a valid point, but at this point, I wanna halt that whole story and pee in the face of the comic author. These are stories for kids. Legion are the kid sidekicks, even of the biggest heroes, the theory being they'd be more popular if kids could imagine themselves as the sidekick.

Robin, Bucky was a kid Captain America took into fucking World War II with him. Wait. Was Kid Flash sidekick a kid?

Wonder Woman had her little sister Skipper or something. Maybe that was Barbi. And variations. Shazam's secret identity was a kid. Johnny Socko had his flying robot. Iron Giant, it's not just limiter to comics. Superman himself didn't have a kid sidekick, Jimmy Olsen notwithstwnding. Wait! He was his own kid sidekick. Superboy, the adventures of young Superman, sometimes even in the 30th century. Home of teen superheroes, Boy this, Lad that.

How dare that comic writer try to gritty-ize this! Shame on you!

[Brett Bellmore]

It's silly anyway, since among the powers he gave the kid was the wisdom of Solomon, which actually made him safer to give powers to than 3/4 of the adult superheros.

Oh, and Bucky? At the time you could enlist at 16 with parental permission, and Bucky had the permission of his guardian.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You strike me as an Archie reader.

[Frank Drackman]

Let’s draw Betty and Veronica with their Clothes OFF!

[Mr. Bumble]

...while they engage in some girl fun?

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Now!
They often did pull each other's hair as they both were after Archie's (Redacted)

[Brett Bellmore]

More of a "Dial H for Hero" reader, actually.

[Malika the Maiz]

Deep pull! +1

[Estragon]

To me the most telling was Mike Johnson and co fleeing town early for vacation so as to not be forced to take a vote on releasing some of this stuff.

As I mentioned at the beginning of all this, I cannot remember any other issue on which Trump has failed to command and redirect attention in the way that he wants.

[Malika the Maiz]

Brave, brave Sir Mike!

[shawn_dude]

For your amusement: https://youtu.be/cFdgjYoBMIg?si=L_oKizGLH8jWIywx

[SRG2]

It really is the gift that keeps on giving. I think that the cultists' position is this - all held simultaneously:

1. The Epstein client list includes top Democrats
2. There is no list,
3. The files need to be released.
4. The files were created by Democrats, so therefore the files should not be released.
5. The videos, awful as they are, should be released.
6. The videos should be viewed by the FBI before release, but they're likely to be too awful to watch, so can't be released
7. Everyone associated with Epstein is guilty bar Trump, who never met Epstein except when he did.

[loki13]

"7. Everyone associated with Epstein is guilty bar Trump, who never met Epstein except when he did."

Seriously, though, that's why I always assumed the Epstein stuff was priced into the Trump support. I will reiterate- this was all well-known.
We all knew what kind of person Trump was. Even ignoring the Epstein stuff, he had a long documented history as a serial philaderer and womanizer who literally cheated on his pregnant wife with a porn star and repeatedly paid women off- and called up reporters to brag about extra-martial affairs (sometimes adopting a pseudonym). Oh, and he liked 'em young, ogling underage girls in dressing rooms. And (AT A MINIMUM!) groping women. Not a good guy, right?

And there is a long and documented history with Epstein (and Maxwell), both in New York and in Florida! They were great friends! There are photos, videos, and contemporaneous quotes about their friendship. Epstein would go ... hunting at Mar a Lago. Trump would fly on Epstein's jet- the subtly named Lolita Express. Epstein used his modelling connection (ugh) to bring girls for private viewing parties, because Trump liked models (he liked 'em so much, he married one .... pity you can't say that about immigrants... oh ...).

Again, it doesn't mean that Trump and Epstein were necessarily doing crimes together, but it would be shocking if you didn't see references to Trump all over any investigation into Epstein, because, again, they were closely connected for a decade when Epstein was doing crimes.

And all of this is before you credit ... what Epstein and others said about Trump*. I'm just talking about the things that were publicly available and well-known.

That is what is crazy-making. People that are unhinged about things with no evidence, yet somehow look at all this and say ... "Eh, nothing to see here. I mean... must be fake news." Which is why I continue to be shocked that there is a single MAGA person out there that is like, "Wait a second. Are you trying to tell me that Trump knew Epstein? No! That must be some elaborate Obama/Biden plot!!! TREASON!"

[loki13]

[Josh R]

Of course Trump said the Epstein case was a Biden/Obama plot. He always attacks back when attacked, even if his attacks are self-contradictory. And while the MAGA world has accepted some of Trump's deflections, is there anyone prominent who agreed that the Epstein case was a Biden/Obama plot?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The Bush family was in charge of the both prosecutors that gave pEestain a sweetheart deal.

[shawn_dude]

Also note that more than one of the underage girls Epstein made available to his friends have accused Trump of taking part and abusing them.

[Frank Drackman]

Did he leave any to Asphyxiate (NOT drowned, there’s a difference)??

[Malika the Maiz]

But look while I kick at Ted Kennedy!!!!

Sad, deranged and old AF.

[Frank Drackman]

and he's been dead since 2009

[David Nieporent]

hunting at Mar a Lago. Trump would fly on Epstein's jet- the subtly named Lolita Express.

Um, no notes on the rest, but you know it wasn't actually named that, right?

[loki13]

True. That's just what people called it- don't want to give the wrong impression.

To be clear- Epstein did not, in fact, have "Lolita Express" written in big letters on the side of the plane that he used to transport Trump (among others) and all of those underage girls (the latter being the reason it acquired the nickname).

[shawn_dude]

I get this image of Trump in a silky gown singing "Happy Birthday Mr Kiddy Diddler..." a la Marilyn Monroe...

[Frank Drackman]

So you’re a Homo, thanks for sharing!

[Malika the Maiz]

Isn’t it interesting how people who throw around homophobic slurs are way weirder in any conventional sense (like going in legal blog comment sites and making up a persona who posts in third grader style writing)?

[Frank Drackman]

Always have to make it about you, don't you?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One question someone posted on another website regards the rules of foreign countries allowing the entry of convicted felons.

It's an interesting, if largely academic question.

(Editor: He's being a bit snarky there.)

[John F. Carr]

I remember when people were saying President Bush wouldn't be allowed to go to Canada because of a DUI. Heads of state get special treatment.

(I think in fact he was only arrested, not convicted.)

[Frank Drackman]

W was convicted of DUI, so was Dick Chaney

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

One of my Uber drivers had a DUI in Canada when i visited Niagara Falls. I just walked into Canada over the bridge but apparently a lot of residents of Buffalo metro have never walked over a bridge to Canada since 9/11 when passports became required.

[Frank Drackman]

Why would you want to?

[Brett Bellmore]

The view of the falls is better from the Canadian side, if you ask me.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One example that some might care about would be Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is a convicted felon. His crimes involved various things including efforts at hiding sexual activities from media outlets because of concerns about political implications.

He received an unconditional discharge but that doesn't mean all possible consequences disappear.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacheverson/2025/05/03/trump-liquor-license-new-jersey-felony/

Trump appealed his conviction.

A U.S. judge's unconditional discharge would not remove the ability of other countries to deny entry to felons. As noted, Trump is a special case. As one discussion noted:

"As president, he has a right to a diplomatic U.S. passport and other nations can waive any inadmissibility reasons at their discretion based on national diplomatic or security," Evelyn Cruz, Arizona State law professor and director of the university’s Immigration Clinic, said

Also, countries generally have a waiver process.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/jan/10/can-donald-trump-vote-travel-internationally-or-ow/

Another thing touched upon there is his right to own a gun. That too, in the current context, might raise special constitutional questions above and beyond the 2A.

[Krayt]

"We're not gonna let you in, haw haw!"

"8000% tariffs!"

"Let's not get hasty! We were just kidding!" His foreign policy is drunken boxing. Whether it's 4D chess or not is an exercise for the reader.

[loki13]

[Mr. Bumble]

...meanwhile Maryland Man is still in jail and his lawyers want to keep him there.

[grb]

...while the government's case against him falls apart.

[Mr. Bumble]

He loses either way.

[grb]

Probably true. But the much ballyhooed show trial that was meant to prove Trump's lawlessness was (somehow) "justified" is proving to be a combination of incompetence & a crude frame job.

In short, more lawlessness from Trump. Ya know, Bumble, as much as you hate immigrants w/ black or brown skin, I would hope you can admit nothing Abrego Garcia ever did (or ever will do) closes close to matching the criminality of the actions taken against him. Nothing Garcia has done harmed United States society as much as the DOJ manufacturing fraud evidence to illegally convict someone for the ensuring TV news spin.

Even in the Cult, that should give pause. If the cultists had a single ounce of integrity left, that is.....

[Mr. Bumble]

You are assuming a lot and I will admit nothing.
I don't hate anyone including "immigrants" especially since two Grandparents and three Great Grandparents were immigrants which is why I was lucky enough to be born in this country (by the way those five were considered non-white [Italians] when they were counted by the census).
I am opposed to illegal aliens who have entered our country no matter the color, creed or any other characteristic.
Garcia was and is under a final order of deportation and if the government had been doing its job he would have been gone before any of this started.
In the grand scheme of things he has not suffered much. To bad all of those confined in Riker's or Fulton County jail don't have a team of lawyers working to get them out.

[David Nieporent]

At no point were Italians ever considered non-white by the census. (There's a guy around here who wrote a whole book on this topic!)

[Mr. Bumble]

I stand corrected as to the census.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : "(by the way those five were considered non-white [Italians] when they were counted by the census)"

I'm curious, Bumble. Doesn't it give you the slightest pause that the same irrational anti-immigrant shrieking hysteria that you enjoy today so much (such entertainment!) happened with your forefathers too?

The same huckster politicians told told the same mobs the same lies then as now. You can lift anti-Italian rhetoric from that time, dust it off a bit as update, and it's no different. Back then, people who look/sound exactly like you believed all Italians were animals and brutes. They could never assimilate. They were rapists and criminals to a man. They were the cause of every White person's problems. They were shifty and treacherous. It was the same garbage. The same lies.

And back then? People like you found that rhetoric thrilling, scary, and scary-thrilling. The more crazy the huckster pitch, the more excited they got as their little hearts beat wildly. I doubt anyone ever claimed the Italians were eating people's cats and dogs, but we're dealing with a special level of political sleaze in these times.

The current ICE budget is larger than the budgets of the FBI, DEA, ATF, Bureau of Prisons, and US Marshals Service combined. ICE will have more funding than any federal law enforcement agency has had in history. If you can't recognize that as hysterical insanity, you're beyond hope. (plus you owe your forebearers in heaven an apology).

[Poxigah146]

There's a huge difference. Italians never tested below the Northern European IQ average. The mutts like Abrego Garcia do, and by a lot.

"People said that Italian immigrants were bad for America. They were wrong. Therefore, anyone saying any current group of immigrants is bad for America is also wrong" is not a logical argument.

[grb]

See Bumble? This clown is the same kind of gutter trash that tormented your grandparents and great-grandparents. Why do you want to be part of this crowd? They're utterly beyond contempt.

[Mr. Bumble]

You read a lot into people's comments.
Where did I say ye relatives were tormented? They became citizens, raised large families and lead productive lives.

[William of Brooklyn]

Does anyone have any insight to the Eighth circuit VRA ruling? I thought the statute empowered States' Attorney Generals and any "aggrieved party."

[John F. Carr]

Based on press coverage, the court ruled that plaintiffs couldn't win a section 1983 lawsuit because the VRA does not create individual rights. When a law provides for an explicit means of enforcement the courts should hesitate to rely on section 1983.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in trade news:
"... which was always a complete NO, NO. The Open Market Japan may be as big a profit factor as the Tariffs themselves, but was only gotten because of the Tariff Power. They also agreed to buy BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF MILITARY AND OTHER EQUIPMENT, and give us 90% of 550 BILLION DOLLARS - AND MORE!!! MAGA!!!"/"Indonesia has also agreed, for the first time ever, to COMPLETELY OPEN ITS MARKET TO THE USA. That’s BIG!!! Our businesses will make a fortune. Likewise Japan!"/"I will always give up Tariff points if I can get major countries to OPEN THEIR MARKETS TO THE USA. Another great power of Tariffs. Without them, it would be impossible to get countries to OPEN UP!!! ALWAYS, ZERO TARIFFS TO AMERICA!!!"/"I WILL ONLY LOWER TARIFFS IF A COUNTRY AGREES TO OPEN ITS MARKET. IF NOT, MUCH HIGHER TARIFFS! Japan’s Markets are now OPEN (for first time ever!). USA BUSINESSES WILL BOOM!"

Writes Trump on Truth Social this morning, here, here, here, and here.
Posted by Ann Althouse at 9:07 AM

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2025/07/remember-japan-is-for-first-time-ever.html

[Josh R]

Yes, the lowering of trade barriers into foreign markets will help our economy (and the foreign partner as well). But, increasing barriers to our markets from abroad will hurt.

So the best argument for this trade war would be we are better off now than we would have been without it because the benefit from lowering export barriers is greater than the detriment of increasing import barriers. And, foreign countries were forced into lowering barriers into their markets only by our tariffs.

But, don't believe what Trump posts about "completely opening markets." So, who knows how this will shake out. Moreover, the best next step would be to get rid of our tariffs so long as the foreign partner does not go back on what they have done. And even better, negotiate further opening of markets on both sides.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump opposes NAFTA!! It literally has “free trade” in its name!!!

[LexAquilia]

In news that no one but Democrats are surprised about:

"City-funded grocery store in Kansas City plagued with empty shelves, rotten produce due to mismanagement, rampant crime"

https://thepostmillennial.com/city-funded-grocery-store-in-kansas-city-plagued-with-empty-shelves-rotten-produce

This is example #887211 of government failure, why would anyone want them to take over all our healthcare? Is it because they have their eyes closed? Is that what it takes to be a Democrat?

[Poxigah146]

Democrats are stupid, evil people who have no conception of morality or human nature.

[LexAquilia]

Seen on X.

"Hey guys, after watching how the district federal judges act are you still wondering why no case on the rigged election had standing in the courts?"

Damn, that's powerful stuff.

[David Nieporent]

This is one of the typical MAGA lies. Many frivolous Trump lawsuits in 2020 were rejected on the merits, not based on standing.

[LexAquilia]

lol wrong

[Michael P]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/22/food/coca-cola-cane-sugar-launch-earnings

Make Coke Great Again? Given that this used to commonly be called "Mexican Coke", should we also call it Mexican (or Bolivian) Marching Soda?

How well does it go with TACOs?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Sugar rots the teeth…Big Dentist has got to Trump!

[Frank Drackman]

It’s certainly rotted your Brain

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, acid rots the teeth. Sugar just gets metabolized into acid. Swish with water afterwards, and you're good, because it can't rot your teeth if it's washed away before the bacteria can metabolize it.

[Frank Drackman]

Radio Silence from Dr Ed 2,
Was he really the “Prince of Darkness”??
Read most of his posts in an Ozzy voice and it makes sense

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

Maddog above takes me to task for telling Kaz he shouldn't have assumed the Luis Leon story was a hoax.

He's really mad that...in retrospect.

Which makes me want to talk about media literacy.

This story was reported by multiple reputable outlets, and ICE stonewalled requests for comment. (A sign of reputable outlets is they check with parties mentioned in the story)
There was no sign that additional investigation and reporting was underway, other than covering as events came out.

I'm pretty comfortable with the source with the knowledge I had when I posted. I would note the pushback at the time was all of the form 'Fuck that guy who cares he's illegal.'
Kaz posted some other hoax and without other evidence chose not to believe. Which is the opposite of how media literacy works.
MaddogEngineer doesn't even appear in the thread.

Since then, ICE has released a statement citing Guatemala (eh) and there has been independent Chilean journalism that seems to have found a similar story.
The ICE statement is useless. ICE lies. The administration lies.
But the reporting is valuable, especially the independent Chilean source and puts the story into question.

The answer is not to condemn without a specific policy you have an issue with.
The answer is to revise your opinion in the face of new facts, but not before then.

So this story is now up in the air. There's no doubt a flurry of reporting by both journalists and immigrants right groups and we'll see where it ends up.

[Bob from Ohio]

Sarcastr0 53 minutes ago
"No, I'm anti-vibes."

"multiple reputable outlets" v. "ICE lies. The administration lies."

An entire long vibes post 45 minutes after saying you are "anti-vibes". Impressive

[Sarcastr0]

Media literacy is anti-vibes.
Understanding when to trust media sources and having a policy about it is how you don't end up believing whatever Breitbart intimates. ie vibes.

Political appointees have a history of lying under this administration. ICE itself said they were only going to go after the worst of the worst criminals. Turns out that's bullshit and Miller has them just going Home Depot parking lots and people coming in for immigration appointments.
Feel free to look up other lies, like the FEMA is doing great one above.

[Bob from Ohio]

"when to trust media sources"

A vibe pretending to be an objective standard.

[grb]

Hey! I introduced this mess here (mea culpa) and the reasons I thought it plausible were two:

1. ICE frequently lies and has free-reign to commit criminal acts. But in this case, the type of lie required was markedly different than their previous examples of dishonesty. That became more and more apparent as their denials grew increasingly emphatic.

2. I couldn't see the family's angle. In retrospect, it was probably a scam for charitable donations, but even given that there was no way this con could ever be sustained. It was always going to fall apart within hours or days, not weeks. I don't consider myself a gullible type, but have a definite weakness for assuming people will shy away from braindead self-destructive idiocy.

As I told tylertusta (who warned me against this Leon folly), that was the root cause of my deeply embarrassing prediction Putin wouldn't fully invade Ukraine. I didn't think that criminal was that stupid either. But sometimes criminals are.

[Kazinski]

And I will give you credit for admitting your error, and not blaming ICE for not knowing about someone they never heard of.

But, I'd just suggest next time one of these comes up be a little less incredulous.

But of course the real fault was the Newspaper that fell for it hook line and sinker, and those who so fervently wish it were true, still won't completely let go of it.

[Malika the Maiz]

But, I'd just suggest next time one of these comes up be a little less incredulous.

Says guy who said MN shooter was disgruntled Marxist.

[grb]

Kazinski : "But, I'd just suggest next time one of these comes up be a little less incredulous"

Says the man trying to convince us all Governor Tim Walz hired assassins to kill prominent Democrats. Says the man who bought an obvious phony lie from Gabbard/Trump and is dupe enough to soil his undies over it.

Please don't take this to heart, but you're the last person on Earth who can lecture others on reasonable skepticism & discernment. You have none. Nary an ounce.

[Kazinski]

ICE didn't "stonewall" comments on the hoax, they said they didn't know anything about it, how could they?

Same deal with the made up story from LA about the mother in LA, ICE didn't have any information about that either, when I pointed out that story which the media ran with was a hoax you said:
"You think that is relevant to any of the above?"

Yes, 100% relevant.

You don't need media literacy, you need hoax literacy, which you can't get from the media.

I saw immediately the Allentown story was a hoax, it was implausible on its face.

[Sarcastr0]

I can't tell if ICE was stonewalling or just doesn't keep track of their detainees. Either way is bad.

You seem to be taking some hoaxes and using them do disbelieve every adverse report that comes out.

That's not any kind of literacy; that's willful blindness.

[Kazinski]

"or just doesn't keep track of their detainees"

Since he was never a detainee and died 6 years ago, then its no wonder they lost track of him.

Not every adverse report, just the ones ridiculous on their face.

[Sarcastr0]

If ICE kept track of their detainees they could have said 'he's not one of ours.'

But they don't so they daren't.

I know MAGA doesn't like it, but publications that have layers of review and openly published standards are more credible than those that do not.
And don't get me started on the people here posting opinion pieces as fact. Especially from John Solomon who gets so many second chances on here he could build a boat out of them.

[Kazinski]

Big First Amendment win in New York, you can't be forced to take that photo at a gay wedding.

"New York ended four years of litigation by Christian wedding photographer Emilee Carpenter by paying her $225,000 in legal fees and promising not to enforce several laws that infringe Carpenter's First Amendment rights, leaving her free to avoid photographing same-sex weddings.

The consent decree between Attorney General Letitia James and Carpenter's lawyers at the Alliance Defending Freedom follows a May ruling by U.S. District Judge Frank Geraci, nominated by President Obama, that it was "beyond debate" the Empire State cannot apply public accommodations laws to "expressive activity to compel speech."

https://justthenews.com/nation/religion/new-york-pays-christian-photographer-225k-threatening-her-refusal-do-same-sex

[John F. Carr]

This is the case: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59804107/emilee-carpenter-llc-v-james/. The judge initially ruled for New York before the 303 Creative decision changed the legal landscape.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, it seems like a straightforward application of 303 Creative.

[LexAquilia]

Expect a Dale Carpenter post about it any minute now, he's the Illya Somin of gay shit.

[Josh R]

Carpenter would almost certainly agree with this decision, as he did with 303 Creative, because wedding photography is both expressive and customized.

[LexAquilia]

Somehow he didn't see how designing and crafting a bespoke wedding cake wasn't expressive and customized.

Weird.

[Josh R]

Neither did Eugene because in that case the baker categorically refused to bake any cake that he knew at the time it was baked would be used in a same-sex wedding. It did not matter whether the cake had any expressive content or was customized.

[John F. Carr]

The intermediate appeals court of Massachusetts ruled that knowledge of state gun license rules is not an element of the offense of unlicensed gun possession. As a matter of statutory construction this much is straightforward. It is a rare crime that requires proof of knowledge that an act is illegal. You are presumed to have read every page of every statute and regulation, all the case law, and the treatises on the common law of England.

But see footnote 12:

The defendant also suggests that it is unconstitutional -- a violation of the Second Amendment and the due process clauses of the United States Constitution -- for the Commonwealth to hold him criminally responsible for possession of a firearm without a license unless the Commonwealth shows that the defendant knew he was required to have a license. Put differently, the argument is that the Commonwealth cannot define this state law crime without including the defendant's knowledge of the law as an element.

The court considered this argument to have been waived and did not address the merits.

One way around the complicated and far-reaching post-Bruen blue state gun laws is for the Supreme Court to say that conviction of a gun crime requires proof that the defendant knew the act was illegal.

Commonwealth v. Shaw, https://www.mass.gov/doc/commonwealth-v-shaw-ac-24-p-864/download

[Brett Bellmore]

Another way is to start taking seriously deliberate state violations of constitutional rights, instead of pretending that they're inadvertent mistakes. These legislatures know damned well that they're attacking a constitutional right, they mean to be attacking a constitutional right, they should be treated accordingly.

Of course, that kind of requires a Court that cares if the right in question is violated...

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "Of course, that kind of requires a Court that cares if the right in question is violated..."

Says Trump's most vigorous cheerleader as he shreds the Constitution. But what am I saying? Neither legal due process, or separation of powers, or any other right Trump is trampling into the ground has anything to do with guns.

And for Brett, the Constitution begins & ends with guns. Even if he heard about all the other stuff in it, he still believes it all to be trifling and insignificant.

[Estragon]

WSJ now reporting Trump is all over the Epstein files and Bondi told him as much months ago.

[loki13]

LOL. First, of course, how could Trump's name NOT BE in the files. He was besties with Epstein. It would be shocking, and a coverup, if his name wasn't. BTW, it doesn't mean that Trump was having sex with 14 year olds ... but he would certainly be a name in the files.

Also, the WSJ is probably one of the few organizations that Trump shouldn't have effed with. I have a lot of negative things I would say about Murdoch, but he loves the WSJ, and he is still a newsman.

[Estragon]

Oh I agree. Far from shocking. But fun!!

[Estragon]

Trump lied in this July 15th interview:

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lunu5qsto22h

REPORTER: Did the attorney general tell you that your name appeared in the Epstein files?

TRUMP: No no. She's given us just a very quick briefing.

[loki13]

Speaking of errors, I just want to remind everyone of what we know so far as Abrego Garcia's in terms of the facts (given people like Bumble, supra, seem to enjoy his misery):
1. First, he was deported to El Salvador without due process- where he was tortured (severely beaten etc.). There was a court order ... BEFORE ANY OF THIS ... preventing him from being deported.

2. The Trump administration belatedly admitted it was an administrative error, but, you know, too bad. They then fought his return all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that they had no control or ability to get him returned. At all.

3. While this was happening, the administration continued to lie; even the most stupid lies. Who can forget Trump claiming that a bad photoshop of Abrego was "proof" that he was in MS-13, when any half-wit (assume Trump is a quarter-wit) could see it was a bad photoshop.

4. The Supreme Court, believing the Trump lies, ordered the Administration to facilitate his return. Unanimously. On April 11, 2025.

5. Still claiming they had no control, the administration claimed that they didn't have to, you know, return him from El Salvador until June 6, 2025.

6. Side note- we later learned that they were lying the entire time, as El Salvador acknowledged that the US has complete control over the prisoners there. Complete.

7. So ... why the wait? Well, after the Supreme Court order... AFTER IT, the Administration began an investigation, so that when he returned, they could charge him with made-up crimes. Judicial review of the charges was, to say the least, scathing. They didn't even do a good job manufacturing evidence. Heck, it was so bad that the AUSA quit rather than try and present this mess to a court (he quit the same day the indictment against Abrego was returned). Good for him.

This... this right here is what you are defending. This is vile- because it's illustrative of the problem. It's not just a government that is refusing to do the right thing, that lies regularly to the public and in court filings, and that will manufacture evidence... the problem is that there is a core of people who simply do not care enough to have this bother them under the theory (I suppose) that it's all fun and games since it's brown people getting kicked out.

But this is ... it's bad.

[Frank Drackman]

1. "First, he was deported to El Salvador without due process- where he was tortured (severely beaten etc.)"

You left out being forced to have drinks with Congressman Van Horrible (DemoKKKrat, MD) I wouldn't wish that on even someone really horrible, like that Kohlberger dude, or Zoran Mahmoud-a-Rama-dan

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

"(given people like Bumble, supra, seem to enjoy his misery):"
Got a basis for that from my post "supra" (above in English).

[grb]

And in court, the United States is pushing a crude frame job against Garcia, all to give Trump's falling polling on immigration a boost. It's one of the ugliest kinds of law enforcement corruption there is. The star witness against Abrego García was due to be deported. Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes has been convicted of multiple felonies and previously been deported five times - always sneaking back in after. He had given three separate statements to his ICE case officer in which he said there was no sign or evidence Garcia was in a gang.

So ICE brought a new guy in, Reyes quickly changed his story a full 180-degrees, and his deportation was canceled. He was released scott-free to a halfway house and is siting pretty. Someone like him would probably bolt as he's done before, but I bet he's sitting on some very sweet and generous promises.

And his original ICE case officer, Agent Ben Schrader? The same day this engineered farce was unveiled to the public, he resigned from the agency. There are people who aren't corrupt and want no part of corruption. He's one.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/prosecutor-resigned-day-kilmar-abrego-160934191.html

[hobie]

"Key themes and methods used in Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda:

Dehumanization: Jews were consistently portrayed as subhuman, vermin, diseases (e.g., lice causing typhus), and parasites, implying they were a threat to German society and needed to be eradicated.

Conspiracy theories: The Nazis falsely accused Jews of engaging in a global conspiracy to provoke war, control the world, and exploit non-Jews for their own benefit. They linked Jews with both Communism and international capitalism, claiming they were behind both movements.

Blaming for Germany's problems: Nazi propaganda exploited existing societal grievances, blaming Jews for Germany's defeat in World War I, the subsequent economic hardships, and the creation of the Weimar Republic.

Stereotypes and prejudices: Nazi propaganda heavily relied on and amplified age-old antisemitic stereotypes, depicting Jews as greedy, dishonest, manipulative, and as enemies of Christianity.
Fabricated atrocity stories: The Nazis fabricated and exaggerated stories of alleged Jewish atrocities against Germans and used them as justification for anti-Jewish policies and violence, such as during Kristallnacht.

Control of media and information: The Nazis exerted extensive control over all aspects of German media, including newspapers (e.g., Der Stürmer), radio, films, books, and even children's literature, to disseminate their anti-Jewish messages without opposition.

Exploitation of fear and prejudice: Propaganda played on people's anxieties and prejudices, particularly fears of disease and social instability, to encourage acceptance and support for policies targeting Jews.

Concealment and deception: The regime utilized propaganda to disguise their true intentions, presenting persecution as "resettlement" and even staging fake inspections, like the one at Theresienstadt, to deceive the Red Cross about conditions in the concentration camps.

In essence, Nazi propaganda effectively transformed Jewish people from ordinary neighbors into enemies of the state and society, paving the way for their systematic marginalization, persecution, and ultimately, genocide.

[hobie]

Then the Nazi extermination program:

Early persecution and dehumanization (1933-1938):
Following Hitler's rise to power in 1933, Jews in Germany faced increasing discrimination and persecution.

Laws were enacted, like the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service (April 1933), which removed Jews from government jobs, and the Nuremberg Laws (1935), stripping Jews of citizenship and prohibiting marriages between Jews and non-Jewish Germans.

Jewish businesses were seized or forced to be sold at low prices, according to My Jewish Learning.
The Kristallnacht pogrom in November 1938 saw the destruction of synagogues and Jewish businesses, the arrest of thousands of Jewish men and their imprisonment in concentration camps like Dachau.

Ghettoization and mobile killing squads (1939-1941):
After the invasion of Poland in 1939, the Nazis established ghettos to isolate and confine Jewish populations in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions.

The Warsaw ghetto, for example, housed over 350,000 Jews in just 2.4% of the city's area.

Mobile killing units called Einsatzgruppen followed the German army into the Soviet Union in 1941, systematically murdering Jews and others through mass shootings.

These killings were often carried out with the help of local collaborators and auxiliaries.

Wannsee Conference and the "Final Solution" (1942):
The Wannsee Conference in January 1942, attended by high-ranking Nazi and German government officials, formally coordinated the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" - a euphemism for the systematic extermination of European Jews.
The conference formalized the plan to deport Jews from across German-occupied Europe to killing centers in occupied Poland.
Extermination Camps and industrialized murder (1941-1945):
In 1941, the Nazis established the Chelmno camp, the first to use poison gas for mass killings, using gas vans.

Later, extermination camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, and Sobibor were established, designed specifically for efficient mass murder.

Gas chambers, initially using carbon monoxide generated by truck engines (in the case of camps like Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka) and later the more lethal Zyklon B (in Auschwitz), became the primary method of extermination.

At its peak, Auschwitz was capable of killing up to 6,000 people per day.

A small number of prisoners, including the Sonderkommandos, were forced to facilitate the killing process by removing bodies and disposing of them in crematoria or mass graves.

[LexAquilia]

lay off the chatgpt, lol holy cow

[ThePublius]

Medical care is extraordinary!

I had cataract surgery yesterday. I've worn glasses since I was like 5 years old. My left eye fogging up is what prompted me to seek treatment. (I'm 68 now.)

I had a procedure called Phaco IOL, which is phacoemulsification intraocular lens implantation. They make a tiny incision in your eye (1 to 2mm), dissolve your existing, natural lens ultrasonically, and then implant an artificial lens. This is perhaps the most common cataract surgery these days. Almost immediately after my surgery I could see with that eye without glasses, more clearly and more in focus than in my entire life! I can just about read with that eye, without glasses! And this is with a simple lens, since my eye is too short to take the toric multifocal implant. Incredible. The other eye is scheduled for next month.

Just incredible. I'm thrilled.

[Frank Drackman]

As usual Anesthesia not recognized.

[LexAquilia]

lol poor Frank, always the bridesmaid never the bride

[ThePublius]

Oh, they took care of me! A nurse anesthesiologist; I told her I was really anxious, and she relaxed me as I haven't been relaxed in years. Only thing, I couldn't stand up afterwards! Ha, ha.

[Frank Drackman]

I know you did that on purpose, it's "Nurse Anesthetist", nothing wrong with them, they've earned a lot of Shekels for me over the years, but you don't want one of them doing a more complicated case (and Cataracts are about as simple as Anesthesia gets, the Eye Doc numbs up your Eyeball, and we just give you enough Goofy Juice to keep you quiet. They're regular old RN's who do 2 years in a Nurse Anesthetist training program (some do more training so they can call themselves "Dr" like Jill Biden)
"Anesthesiologists" (or "Ologists" as we say in the Biz) are Physicians who've done 4 years of Med School, Internship, and then 3 years of Anesthesia Residency, and a lot do another year or two to specialize in Cardiac, Pediatric, or OB Anesthesia.
at Bethesda they made a big deal about how the CRNA's were the same as the "Ologists". Funny that all the Politicians (Barney Fag for one) insisted on "Ologists"

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Aren't those tranquilizers they use something else? I was incredibly nearsighted, so I could see the scalpel clearly the whole way in until it made contact, and I was just "Hm, this IS kind of interesting. Yup, I do feel some pressure." Not a care in the world.

[ThePublius]

Whatever they did, or who did it, it worked. They told me "just look at the light" when the operation was going on. It reminded me of someone saying "just go for the light where grandma is standing." Ha, ha. It worked out fine. They are really superb doctors and staff. (My doc is a Cornell grad.)

[grb]

I need help from our MAGA commentators on this math. After all, they have their fantasy facts and fantasy "scandals", so they should be able to insist with fantasy math. Trump:

“We’re gonna get the drug prices down. Not 30% or 40%, which would be great. Not 50% or 60%. No, we’re gonna get them down 1,000%, 600%, 500%, 1,500%,” Trump said at a Republican dinner. “Numbers that are not even thought to be achievable.”

Is there anyone left still contesting Trump's cognitive decay? The man barely has half a brain left - it that.

[Frank Drackman]

anyone left? looks like only you.

[shawn_dude]

Because tariffs on pharma are a price-reducing measure?!

[Brett Bellmore]

I suppose it's possible you might see isolated cases of drugs going down in price by 1,500% or more. I occasionally get quoted insane prices for prescriptions, which turn into something reasonable when they apply a coupon of some sort.

[David Nieporent]

I suppose it's possible you might see isolated cases of drugs going down in price by 1,500% or more.

Um, Brett? No, it's literally not possible. The companies are not going to pay you to take their drugs.

[Bwaaah]

Such a percentage reduction can be interpreted as the inverse of an increase of that amount, i.e. 1500% can refer to a reduction to one-fifteenth of the price. Though it may be inarticulate in a strict math-speak sense, it's conceptually quite understandable (and not an uncommon way of informally communicating such a point).

I don't know what Brett meant, but this interpretation would make sense of what he said, and is how I understood it.

Understandably, in the DMN universe, this interpretation can't exist.

[Michael P]

How 18th Century of you. https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/it-operates-at-four-times-less-pressure-than-the-old-ones.1488998/

[LexAquilia]

Q: "Do you believe that the Gentiles, the goyim, will one day become the slaves of the Jews?"
A: "I believe it is part of the Torah".

Unbelievable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftbFp7eksiY

[Frank Drackman]

Keep raging, Heathen

[Kazinski]

Existing home sales fell 2.93% y/y, while listings increased 16%, and prices hit a record high, all of which indicates houses at the top of the market are selling while nobody is buying entry level homes because interest rates are too high.

“High mortgage rates are causing home sales to remain stuck at cyclical lows,” said Lawrence Yun, chief economist for the NAR, in a release. “If the average mortgage rates were to decline to 6%, our scenario analysis suggests an additional 160,000 renters becoming first-time homeowners and elevated sales activity from existing homeowners.”

Mortgage rates have not moved markedly in the last several months, remaining stubbornly high amid concerns over the broader economy. The average rate now is 6.77%."

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/23/june-home-sales-drop-as-prices-hit-a-record-high.html