Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The District Court in Florida has denied the government's motion to unseal grand jury transcripts stemming from the government's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. The federal grand juries were convened in West Palm Beach in 2005 and 2007. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.693993/gov.uscourts.flsd.693993.4.0.pdf

The government's motion was a sideshow. The movants filed the motion, secure in the knowledge that it would be denied based on Eleventh Circuit precedent. Now Donald Trump and Pam (Bottle) Blondie can claim that they wanted to disclose the subject materials, but the big bad judge wouldn't let them.

[Frank Drackman]

Dammit you’re fast, but so am I, if you can joke about the AG’s hair can I joke about Michelle Obama’s Penis?

[Bwaaah]

A Muslim, a Jew, and Michelle Obama's Penis are stuck in a lifeboat...

[Frank Drackman]

Third Base!!

[Bwaaah]

What? (LOL)

[Frank Drackman]

He's on Second

[TwelveInchPianist]

Who?

[Bob from Ohio]

" if you can joke about the AG’s hair"

ng is a lib so he can be sexist toward GOP women, its (d)ifferent.

He has a track record, recall his many comments about the female lawyer in Fani's Georgia fiasco and her possible breast augmentation.

You aren't supposed to notice, its "tone policing" per Sarcasto.

[Frank Drackman]

how about what Representative Mullah Omar is hiding underneath that Turban she always wears.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Remember when you masturbated to videos of Liz Cheney??

[Kazinski]

So the next move is Ghislaine Maxwell's deposition to the House, Todd Blanche the Deputy AG interviewed her today, evidently it was the first time anyone from the DOJ interviewed her.

US justice department officials interview Ghislaine Maxwell
Maxwell lawyer says client ‘answered every single question’ as deputy attorney general plans another meeting on Friday

Anna Betts in New York and Maya Yang
Thu 24 Jul 2025 20.06 EDT

The Jeffrey Epstein files scandal swirling around Donald Trump and his administration continued to escalate on Thursday as officials from the Department of Justice met with the late sex offender’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell, whose lawyer said she “answered every question … honestly and to the best of her ability”.

Todd Blanche, the US deputy attorney general, arrived on Thursday morning at the office of the US attorney in Tallahassee, Florida, ABC News reported. The state prosecutor’s office is based in the federal courthouse in the Florida capital and Maxwell’s lawyers were also seen entering the building."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/24/ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-doj

Some context about Trump and Maxwell here:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/04/trump-well-wishes-ghislaine-maxwell-391274

Somehow I think if Maxwell has no dirt to offer on Trump, then its a dead end, if she doesn't have then who would? It will make it difficult for the cover-up conspiracy to remain viable.

[LexAquilia]

Obviously the Bush DOJ, Obama DOJ, and Biden DOJ avoided interviewing her to protect Trump.

Look at me I'm smart like Loki!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Ghizzstain was holding out for the best deal.

[loki13]

Sure, Kaz! I mean ... it's not like Maxwell is actively appealing her (federal) conviction.

And that the attorney sent by the administration to interview her, Todd Blanche ... where do I know that name from? Oh, that's right! He was appointed to the DOJ after he was Trump's personal attorney, representing him in multiple matters (including criminal ones).

I mean, I'm not saying that there is any kind of coverup. Not at all. I am just saying that it is totally normal, and not at all suspicious, for Trump to make sure that the person sent to talk with Maxwell's attorneys and Maxwell is .... his own personal attorney who represented him in multiple criminal matters and was rewarded for that with a position in the DOJ. Because that's totally how I would quash any appearance of impropriety, and make sure that no one thought anything weird was going on.

[Estragon]

They were referring to Maxwell as a “victim” on Newsmax yesterday! I had assumed an outright pardon was politically untenable but it’s hard to see this as anything other than laying that groundwork.

https://x.com/travisakers/status/1948515892813595005?

[loki13]

Here's how I imagine the conversation went.

Blanche: So, Ghislaine, we are doing an investigation about Epstein.

Maxwell: Oh. I may have met him.

Blanche: Well, what we want to know is ... did you ever see him with President Donald J. Trump?

Maxwell: .....

Blanche: Now, there are photos of all of you together. So you can't say you haven't. But ... you know, it's really terrible you are in prison. It's a shame, really. Our prosecutors ... they might have done you dirty. I'd have to review that at some point. Anyway, did you ever see President Donald J. Trump, my boss, do anything untoward or even uncouth with Jeffrey Epstein?

Maxwell: Oh! (glances at own attorneys, who are nodding and smiling) No. Of course not. I knew President Trump socially, and of course I saw him on occasion, as did many people in the area like that terrible Jeffrey Epstein, but he was always a gentleman and a scholar. He never once did anything other than behave in a courteous manner. In fact, I remember him telling me once, "Ghislaine, I am worried about you. I've seen you at social occasions with that Jeffrey Epstein character, who I only know from public social occasions, and I wanted you to know that if he ever acts in a creepy manner, you should report it to the police. Because that's the right thing to do."

[Josh R]

The "best" she can do for Trump is give mild exculpatory testimony. Is that enough to get her a pardon or commutation? Will that possibility depend on how the public reacts to her statements?

[Estragon]

I mean… she’s looking at being in prison until she’s 80 or saying “Trump
Is the least pedophilist person ever, I never saw him at any of the parties and it was actually Bill Clinton” and maybe getting out in her early 60s and spending the rest of her life on the French Riviera. The incentives are not exactly inscrutable here.

[Kazinski]

Well then how about Virginia Giufre then, Ghislaine Maxwell actually recruited her when she was a teenager working at Mar-a-Lago she would have had the dirt right?

"Giuffre explicitly stated in a 2016 deposition that she did not believe Trump participated in any of the acts of abuse, according to The Washington Post. She clarified that while Trump was a friend of Epstein's, he never flirted with her and did not partake in any sexual acts involving her or the other girls."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/17/trump-epstein-relationship-records/

[not guilty]

It would be difficult to interview Virginia Giuffre, who reportedly committed suicide on April 25, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/26/us/virginia-giuffre-dead.html

[Kazinski]

Then I guess this is the final word, at least from her:

"Giuffre explicitly stated in a 2016 deposition that she did not believe Trump participated in any of the acts of abuse".

[Estragon]

Pam Bondi said there were 1000 victims. Did you take Ms. Giuffre’s statement as being dispositive as to all of them? If so, why?

Do you agree that Ms Maxwell could be realistically described as a “victim” here?

[Kazinski]

Ok, then name some others.

I didn't call Maxwell a victim, she is a convicted felon, and co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein.

[David Nieporent]

Pam Bondi said there were 1000 victims. Did you take Ms. Giuffre’s statement as being dispositive as to all of them? If so, why?

Not arguing with your overall point, but just to be clear: Epstein both was a child predator and a collector of child porn. For political reasons (no politician wants to be soft on child abusers), if one possesses child porn involving person X, that person is deemed to be one's "victim" even if one downloaded the porn from some shady website and never had any contact with the person. Bondi's figure included those people as well. The number of victims of actual abuse by Epstein was nothing close to that figure.

[myself]

Somehow I think if Maxwell has no dirt to offer on Trump, then its a dead end, if she doesn't have then who would? It will make it difficult for the cover-up conspiracy to remain viable.

You think that the conspiracy would go away because people would believe Maxwell???

Lets be realistic. Trump absolutely knew what Epstein was up to. I don't know for certain if he had sex with Epstein's underaged girls (though there's specific girls who accused him of such) but he definitely knew that Epstein was finding underaged girls for sex.

And that fact alone might be enough for Trump to cover things up.

As for the DOJ, I'm legitimately curious why no one other than Maxwell got implicated. Maybe the evidence was too circumstantial to go to trial, maybe Epstein somehow protected them with his original case in Florida, or maybe there's simply too many big names involved (though I'm skeptical the Biden admin would have upheld that part of the coverup).

In any case, even I know there's more than has already been disclosed, meaning there's no way that conspiracy minded folks are going to take Maxwell's word for it. Especially when everyone knows that Trump has the power of pardon / commutation and the willingness to use it.

[Kazinski]

Who accused Trump?

The one woman involved with Epstein told the FBI about an encounter with Trump in Epstein's offices in NY in 1995. At the time she was working for Epstein as an art curator, she said she went to the office that day wearing running shorts.

She said that when she encountered Trump there at the office that Trump, and excuse me for being so explicit here, "looked at her legs". She was in her mid 20's at the time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/us/epstein-farmer-sisters-maxwell.html

[Commenter_XY]

NG, do different circuits have different rules regarding the release of GJ transcripts? I would have thought there would be a uniform set of rules governing the release.

Can that decision be appealed?

[BrotherMovesOn]

All sweetness and light when you want something from not guilty, eh?
"I learn so much, that's why I'm here, to learn!"

And then mock his concerns with glee a couple days later in the next open thread.

not guilty is free to do what he likes but if I were him I'd tell you to do your own damn research.
You're such a know-it-all anyway. Ingrate.

[not guilty]

Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applies in all federal courts. Some federal circuits hold that Rule 6(e) provides the only permissible grounds for disclosure. Other circuits hold that a District Court's inherent authority includes the power to unseal grand jury materials in circumstances not addressed by Rule 6(e).

The instant decision in Florida is appealable, but the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, has held that Rule 6(e) is exhaustive, and that district courts do not possess inherent, supervisory power to authorize the disclosure of grand jury records outside of Rule 6(e)(3)'s enumerated exceptions. Pitch v. United States, 953 F.3d 1226, 1234 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc), cert denied 141 S.Ct. 624. Only a future decision of that circuit sitting en banc or the Supreme Court can overrule or modify that holding.

[David Nieporent]

All circuits have the same underlying rules — it's in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which are national — but (as with any other federal law or regulation), different circuits can apply them differently. Some courts have held that courts have 'inherent authority' to release grand jury materials, and there is a circuit split on the issue. 2 and 7 say yes; DC, 6, 8, and 11, say no. And 1 has hinted that it doesn't think so.

To answer your second question: of course any decision can be appealed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It is one thing to tell people how a court would rule -- good faith is having the court actually do it.

[Riva]

This Donald Trump you refer to, would this happen to be the same Donald Trump that tossed Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago? And would this be the democrat Jeffrey Epstein who is famously associated with multiple democrat politicians and rich slimy democrat supporters?

This Epstein obsession is worse than the Russian collusion fraud. You guys must really be desperate. Those declassified files exposing Obama and his national security hacks apparently really scares you.

[jb]

Riva's got the latest batch of talking points!

[Brett Bellmore]

And you've got a dandy all purpose avoid talking point: Just accuse anybody who points out anything inconvenient of being a "bot".

[Sarcastr0]

Did you notice only one poster comes in for that particular mockery?

Not all purpose at all.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Not all purpose at all. "

Just stupid and a lie in Riva's case.

His comments are on topic and not repetitive.

[David Nieporent]

The bot's comments are always repetitive, rarely on topic, and — even when vaguely on topic — non-responsive to the comment to which they were responding. All you have to do is look at the one above which sparked this exchange to see that.

[Riva]

All the leftist trolls here do seem to be particularly intimidated by my comments, little communist girl that never smiled. I'm flattered.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why reply substantively to nonsense, which may as well have been spewed by ChatGPT?

But yes, it's the same Trump, and the same Epstein.

As soon as Trump learned what was in the files, he blocked their release. End of.

[jb]

Have I ever said you're a bot, or Kaz, or XY, or any number of other commenters here?

In any case, I didn't actually say anything about Riva being a bot this time, just noting the response was particularly uninteresting and predictable.

[Mr. Bumble]

"... just noting the response was particularly uninteresting and predictable."
The same could be said about many/most of the commentators who post here.

[damikesc]

Facts can frequently be uninteresting and predictable.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "..points out anything inconvenient of being a "bot"."

Except Riva has never done anything so substantial as point out something "inconvenient".

[SRG2]

And yet it is House Democrats who want to release the docs, and GOP House leadership that doesn't.

[Commenter_XY]

Where where they (Team D) circa 2021-24 when they controlled Congress? Your point rings hollow.

I favor complete disclosure. Let the chips fall where they may. Anyone in the recordings who molested children should be identified.

[SRG2]

Releasing the Epstein files was not a major issue for the Democrats. It was a major issue for MAGA. Now you can say that the Democrats are being somewhat hypocritical and that they are intent on releasing files now for political advantage, but you can hardly complain about that as part of an argument about who is in them.

I favor complete disclosure. Let the chips fall where they may. Anyone in the recordings who molested children should be identified.

For once we agree. The difference is I draw adverse inferences about people trying to prevent the release, and you refuse to.

[Life of Brian]

Now you can say that the Democrats are being somewhat hypocritical and that they are intent on releasing files now for political advantage

I think for me the political advantage piece is the most telling point that there's approximately negative nothing here. It's beyond reasonable debate that Team D pulled out every single stop they could dream up to try to prevent Trump term 2. It simply beggars belief that they somehow would have opted not to include a banging-little-kids smoking gun if they truly had it.

[Nelson]

I’m baffled about the obsession with Epstein. He was a disgusting human being. He hung out with rich people like Trump. He killed himself because pedophiles are cowards. Every piece of information that the government could possibly release has been known by the DOJ for years.

If there was anything worthy of further investigation, someone over the years would have had a motivation to do so. There have been multiple Administrations.

He was a gross man who hung out with other gross men like Trump. He’s dead. Good riddance.

[Estragon]

“I’m baffled about the obsession with Epstein.”

I’m not. This is a scandal because it is scandalous! International child sex trafficking ring involving the rich and famous? Increasingly desperate attempts by the sitting President to direct attention away from this story and his possible connections to it?

“known by the DOJ for years”

Well, that’s the thing, isn’t it? Enigmas never age…

[Don Nico]

Hear, hear!

[LexAquilia]

Senate Democrats, meanwhile stymied a call to release ALL the documents.

These are selective leaks to bloody up Trump by implication and association.

It's all a political game because in the big scheme of things the Democrat brand is in the toilet.

[JohnSmith97]

I still find it remarkable that the all-left-all-the-time crowd in here still hasn't figured out that if there was anything on Trump in those files, the previous admin would of leaked it years ago.

It sure wasn't a mystery that Trump would be running again.

[NvEric]

Alina Habba is now the Acting US Attorney for New Jersey.

[Kazinski]

Which is kind of interesting, because Trump had to withdraw her nomination as the permanent US Attorney of New Jersey so she could be appointed acting.

But it does allow her to be Acting USA for 210 more days.

Then I'm not sure what the options are.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Couldnt she be renominated?

[windycityattorney]

The Court named her first assistant to the position and that person said they plan on carrying out the Court's wishes. So I guess on Monday both show up to the same office and....cat fight???

Not sure who gets paid when there is an ongoing dispute and one is told to be there by the President and the other by the actual federal circuit judges the jurisdiction lies in. This is, not surprisingly, somewhat unique territory.

*Sips tea*

[Bob from Ohio]

Well, Ms. Habba will have FBI agents with her if she wants and Grace will not.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Sure. But let’s be real: only one of them has business being a US attorney and the FBI agents know which one it is, regardless of who they’re escorting. Law and order types simping for an incompetent and inexperienced lawyer with serious ethical problems to be the top federal prosecutor should be astounding but unfortunately it is not.

But in the end that’s not going to make federal law enforcement effective or people safer.

[John F. Carr]

Unless the courts refuse to recognize her.

[Commenter_XY]

Can the Courts actually do that, though?

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently they can but should they be able to?

[John F. Carr]

Who is going to stop them? Judges can decide who appears in their court and who properly represents the United States. The criminal case in against Donald Trump in Florida was dismissed after the judge determined it was brought by a person not authorized to bring actions on behalf of the United States.

My question is, are the judges pissed off enough to take a really extraordinary step?

[Bob from Ohio]

You think the US attorney appears in court much? Or at all?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Not personally, although I’ve known two USAOs who made it a point to try a case or two/appear personally for certain things.

But the important thing is that their name is on the filings. Everything the assistants do is in their name unless they’re being used under some other authority.

[Bob from Ohio]

You think judges are going to strike filings on the basis its the wrong USA?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Judges strike filings when the lawyer lacks the authority to represent the party in a court. Like an attorney who has not been admitted files stuff without local counsel and being admitted pro hac vice.

Or when a lay party attempts to represent someone else. Or a corporation.

Why wouldn’t they if the USA lacks the legal authority to represent the United States in court?

[Bob from Ohio]

We'll see. I bet they won't do any such thing.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Maybe not. If they don’t, I assume it’ll mean they think the appointment was legal. But the idea that they won’t strike filings by someone with no authority to file is wrong. Real lawyers know that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Real lawyers know that."

Not all "real lawyers" are litigators but of course I never made the general statement you say I did.

I was only discussing striking United States government filings. You've never seen such a strike.

Baby lawyers are so arrogant and dumb.

[LawTalkingGuy]

lol I’m not a baby lawyer anymore by a long-shot.

[David Nieporent]

You think judges are going to strike filings on the basis its the wrong USA?

He literally just cited an example of a judge doing just that.

[SRG2]

Fair enough - she has all the necessary qualifications, to wit, being a loyal bimbo.

[Mr. Bumble]

So says the misogynist.

[loki13]

I wouldn't use the word bimbo. I would say that based on everything I've seen from her, she is either incompetent, or whatever competence she has (which appears to be limited) will always be sacrificed when Trump has asked.

[SRG2]

Fuck off, Bumble. It's not misogynist to imply that a woman got a job because of her appearance when she lacks qualifications or competence, any more than - to use your arguments - it's racist to suggest that someone got a job because of the colour of their skin when they otherwise lack competence or qualifications.

There is a pattern to Trump's hiring of women, and you have to be a cretin not to see it - which it must be admitted, is a sufficient explanation for why, indeed, you do not see it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Get you dick caught in your zipper this morning?

[Estragon]

Fantasizing about injuries to genitals again this morning?

This is the third time I’ve caught in the last few weeks where you’ve rolled out this little bon mot you seem so enamored with. Might be worth a few moments of reflection…?

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks troll. I lost count.

[Estragon]

“I lost count”

Could be something to contemplate…

[Mr. Bumble]

OK, I'll contemplate that while you continue to contemplate your navel.

[Estragon]

“contemplate your navel”

Lol… ok. And you keep contemplating dick injuries I guess? Keep posting about your fantasies too!

[Bob from Ohio]

"It's not misogynist to imply that a woman got a job because of her appearance"

In fact, it is. You are just invoking the "libs get away with sexism" card. Plenty of that going around.

[SRG2]

In fact, it is.

In fact, it isn't. When a qualified and competent woman gets a job, to imply she got it because of her looks or her sex is likely sexist. When an unqualified and incompetent but good looking woman gets a job, to imply she got it because of her looks is mere recognition - and in the case of a Trump appointment, there is a very clear pattern - indeed, it's dishonest to refuse to recognise it.

So fuck off.

[Bob from Ohio]

Cussing shows passion! Keep it up!

Nice distinction, "I, Srg2, a man, get to decide when a woman's looks matters". Not sexist at all!

[SRG2]

Cussing shows passion! Keep it up!

No - cursing merely shows that I can use the appropriate terms in appropriate situations.

, Srg2, a man, get to decide when a woman's looks matters". Not sexist at all

No - I, SRG2, can have an opinion based on my knowledge of the real world.

It's both lazy and dishonest for you to assume that any disparagement of a particular woman is equivalent to general disparagement. of women.

Still, SOP for the right to accuse others of imagined offences of which they themselves are genuinely guilty

[Don Nico]

Remember your complaint the next time someone complains about a "DEI hire."
You're correct. What goes around, comes around.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — Problem is, a lot depends on who does the spinning.

With some folks, stuff comes around time and again—stuff that never went around at all. I see that kind of occurrence as more MAGA than otherwise. They seem to be poor judges of what exactly went around in the first place.

[Frank Drackman]

enough about Kamala

[Voize of Reazon]

Alina Habba is now the Acting US Attorney for New Jersey.

Habba was originally appointed interim (not "acting") US Attorney by Pam Bondi according to 28 U.S.C. §546.

I think a straightforward reading of §546(d) is that when an interim USA appointment times out after 120 days the court for that district gets an opportunity to select a new interim appointee (an appointment that would not be subject to a time limit, see United States v. Hilario (1st circ. 2000) where one lasted 6 years). If the court doesn't act then the AG can appolnt someone for another 120 days. There's no reason it can't be the same person as the first time.

If the AG also fails to act, then an acting officer may be determined under the terms of 5 U.S.C. §3345. In this case the office remains vacant (as contrasted to an interim appointment) but another person is empowered to perform its duties. Since a USA is a position requiring Senate confirmation, by §3345(2) the acting role doesn't automatically fall to an assistant but requires designation by the President.
Such a designation also has a time limit, of 210 days.

But that's not what happened here. The court did act, and selected current senior AUSA Desiree Grace to succeed Habba. Bondi seems to think that firing Grace from her AUSA position (which as AG she has the power to do) would prevent her from assuming the interim USA role, and appointing Habba as her AUSA replacement would entitle her to assume the role again but this time in an acting capacity.

I don't see it, and I don't think the court will either. Grace doesn't have to be an AUSA to take on the interim assignment, so getting fired this week won't affect her assuming that role.

What might work though is to let Grace assume the office and then have President Trump fire her. Even though she is appointed by the district court the current Supreme Court would surely agree that the President can fire her. That would create a new vacancy, and Bondi could then make a new 120 day interim appointment. The district court wouldn't be involved because the statute only lets them choose after a 120-day period times out, not after a firing.

[Sarcastr0]

There's an explainer here (at the request of Prof. Kerr):
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/07/23/wednesday-open-thread-26/?comments=true#comment-11137263

It has me thinking the admin has a pretty good formalist claim thanks to crap drafting.

[Voize of Reazon]

Thanks for the pointer. I could have saved myself some time today if I'd seen that.

[David Nieporent]

Alina Habba is now the Acting US Attorney for New Jersey.

She is not. There can only be an Acting US Attorney (or Acting anything else) if there's a vacancy in the office. And there's no vacancy in the office because the judges, acting pursuant to congressional authorization, appointed Desiree Grace to fill the position.

[Kazinski]

My theory about Musk's OBBB meltdown got a some support today, as Tesla released 3rd quarter earnings and the stock dropped 8.2%:

Tesla (TSLA) stock came under pressure Thursday after it posted an earnings and revenue miss in the second quarter and CEO Elon Musk hinted at a "few rough quarters" amid mounting challenges for the automaker.

Tesla reported second quarter revenue of $22.50 billion vs. $22.64 billion expected (per Bloomberg consensus), a 12% drop compared with the $25.05 billion reported a year ago. Tesla posted adjusted earnings per share of $0.40 vs $0.42, with operating income coming in at $923 million vs. $1.23 billion expected.

Tesla's revenue from the sale of regulatory credits fell to $439 million from $890 million a year earlier, and will continue to drop following passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), the company said. Musk spent months blasting the bill, but Trump signed it into law earlier this month."

The revenue miss is smaller than the decline in "regulatory credits" which is a funny way of saying carbon offsets, Probably the bigger impact is going to be the end of the EV mandate as that was going to start to kick in in 2026 with sales quotas.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-stock-slides-after-earnings-miss-musk-warns-of-few-rough-quarters-221407333.html

[Commenter_XY]

Why the concern with Tesla, which is <2% of the S&P 500 index?

Companies have good and bad quarters; good and bad years. It wasn't so long ago that Tesla was near the brink of bankruptcy and scrambling for funding. The stock has delivered phenomenal returns to shareholders for the last 15 years.

If Tesla makes a great product, they'll do fine.

[Kazinski]

Because my concern is Elon's motivation trashing the OBBB, he owns 13% of Tesla and his holdings of the rest of the SP500 is negligible, and I think his rather surprising turnabout was due to internal assessments at Tesla about the bills impact on its stock price.

Besides the SP500 is boring, its had 4 consecutive record closes this week, boring.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, I know, just atrocious = Besides the SP500 is boring, its had 4 consecutive record closes this week, boring.

Elon is a citizen with an opinion. Roughly 325MM American citizens also have opinions. It doesn't matter all that much wrt OBBB; it was passed into law.

Elon has plenty to do with his 4 other companies. As for Tesla, it remains the dominator in the EV space.

[jb]

"Besides the SP500 is boring, its had 4 consecutive record closes this week, boring."

In other news, the Chicago Cubs broke the record for most baseball games played six times this week!

[Frank Drackman]

I always hated before Sabremetrics how the idiot announcers would say such and such team won 95% of the games where they were ahead going into the 9th Inning, where even the 1962 Mets did that

[Kazinski]

More interesting than the 4 consecutive record closes of the SP500 is why you would get 4 straight records in late July.

Good earnings reports as the roll in.

173 companies reported earnings Thursday, 75% beat expectations. Most of those were not a
SP500 or NASCAR 100, but the NYSE and Nasdaq listed companies as a whole.

So one more indication that tariffs are not affecting corporate profits, and we already know they are not causing rising inflation.

[bernard11]

So one more indication that tariffs are not affecting corporate profits, and we already know they are not causing rising inflation.

Where do you suppose the tariff payments come from. Because according to you they seem to be magical. Nobody pays, and yet the money appears in the treasury.

[Kazinski]

Unless of course the importers are eating it, but that contravenes the law of physics, or something.

[bernard11]

If the importers are eating it how does it not affect their profits?

Fantasyland.

Ford, say, has to pay tariffs on components imported from China. They decide it will hurt sales too much to pass them on, so they eat the costs.

Here is question number 1:

Does this decision affect Ford's profits? Explain your answer.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bernard11 — Some skills are so advanced they defy recognition except by adepts. In all such cases, the answer is the same: "It works by FM." (Fucking Magic).

[Poxigah146]

Of which 30% of the S&P is held up by 7 stocks.

[Kazinski]

The Russell 2000 is up 8.09% this year, about the same as the SP500.

The Russell 2000 is a very broad based small cap index which excludes the 1000 largest stocks.

[Riva]

Not just Musk. Exploiting government subsidies are the only reason any investor funds a green energy scam project. The grift is on its last legs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I follow this green energy guy's blog. (He usually talks about other stuff that is actually interesting.) He had a big analysis of a green energy project he was pursuing, and how it was clearly an economic winner.

Hard to avoid noticing that about 300% of his projected profits came from subsidies... Despite the fact that he kind of talked around it.

[Poxigah146]

Which article is it?

[Brett Bellmore]

The Terraformer articles, generally, but this one specifically.

[Joe_dallas]

Quite a few subsidies in the green energy realm
- tax subsidies
- lack of govt production/severance taxes
- shifting the cost of stability, intermediacy to the fossil fuel generation sector,
Just to name a few,

Is electric renewable generation cheaper than electric generation from fossil fuels ? Yes - if you are only measuring the cost of generation. Not if you are measuring total costs of generation, maintianing stability etc

[Mr. Bumble]

There is nothing green about green energy.

[Joe_dallas]

yes there is -
Its called green $'s going to the promoters for the funding of the "not so green energy".

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, that's the only thing green about "green energy".

[jb]

To put it in perspective, though, the decrease in revenue from regulatory credits is only about a fifth of the overall YOY decline in revenue. Elon has been doing a much better job of tanking Tesla sales than any affect a shift in government policies is likely to have.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think he failed to appreciate just how much of his market consisted of people who would hate his politics, and would decide what to buy on that basis, not the quality of the products.

[jb]

That seems pretty obvious. This is why most people who run businesses try to avoid taking really polarizing political positions. Musk was particularly dumb, though, since he took very visible and confrontational political stances that were pretty obviously strongly at odds with what was surely a left-leaning customer base.

[John F. Carr]

A Texas man, represented by Jonathan Mitchell, filed a class action suit against a California doctor who sent abortion pills to his girlfriend. He seeks damages for wrongful death under state law and an injunction preventing defendant Dr. Remy Coeytaux from sending any more pills into Texas.

The lawsuit is in federal court in Galveston and will soon have to surmount the standing barrier. The courts could defer to Texas law (abortion is murder) or make up a federal common law rule saying that fathers have no recognized interest in a fetus that is not viable outside the womb.

The "capable of repetition but evading review" doctrine applies because his girlfriend is pregnant again.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70861975/1/rodriguez-v-coeytaux/

Mother Jones is terrified. National Review has a probably contrary opinion which I can't read because Cloudflare blocked me. (Cloudflare recently turned up its firewall settings in an attempt to block AI scrapers.)

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/07/jonathan-mitchell-texas-hes-suing-his-girlfriends-doctor-for-prescribing-abortion-pills-could-this-gut-access-everywhere/
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/texas-wrongful-death-lawsuit-targets-manufacturer-of-abortion-pill/

[Michael P]

NR's Bench Memos quotes Mitchell and the complaint, but doesn't opine on the merits of the suit or Texas's policy choice in enacting SB8. The post is only three (short) paragraphs long.

[Commenter_XY]

Jonathan Mitchell...didn't he argue Dobbs? And a few other controversial cases before SCOTUS (and win)?

Does the TX man get his injunction? What do you think?

[John F. Carr]

Coin flip. Abortion makes for strange law. The courts may want to wait for the lead plaintiff to stop impregnating his girlfriend. No girl, no standing for prospective relief.

Or wait for her to get formally divorced. Her estranged husband, who would be on the hook for child support, pressured her into having an abortion.

[Longtobefree]

Well, the 'future human' aspect of birthright citizenship would make this really, really interesting.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Jonathan Mitchell...didn't he argue Dobbs?"

No. Its the SB8 law he won, that was Texas authorizing private suits to enforce an anti abortion bill, precursor to Dobbs. Also Trump v Anderson.

He's good though. Possible SCOTUS pick

[LawTalkingGuy]

He has spent a substantial portion of his life trying to make it harder for people to access HIV prevention meds in the hope that gay people will die.

[John F. Carr]

Josh Blackman likes to call him a genius. Better SCOTUS choice than James Ho, at least.

[David Nieporent]

Jonathan Mitchell...didn't he argue Dobbs?

No.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sooner or later, the issue of child support has to be balanced against a say in the abortion decision.

[Poxigah146]

Why? The courts have no issue carving out rules that are unprincipled, as long as they hurt whites, men, Christians, or all of the above.

[Longtobefree]

WHAT!!??

Balance rights and responsibilities?
Are you crazy?

[Poxigah146]

Leftists dishonestly employ an argument that goes like this.

"When a woman gets pregnant, it's 100% her choice as to whether or not she allows the fetus to remain in her body and carry the baby to term. Her body, her choice."

"When a baby is born, he is entitled to parental financial support. That has nothing to do with how or why he was born."

Leftists really don't see anything incongruent with that.

[JD85]

Because the positions aren't incongruent.

The man has a say in if there is a child (unless it was rape). Sex and impregnation takes two people. After impregnation occurs, the rest of the activity is undergone by the woman, and the man is not required to participate any further (although many / most do choose to help their partner during their pregnancy).

If the man doesn't want to have a kid, don't have sex. If the woman doesn't want to have a kid, they have more options.

The morality of the options depends upon your religious views.

[Mr. Bumble]

So remember what your mom said:
Always wear a raincoat.

[not guilty]

I haven't finished reading the complaint, but ¶3 avers in part, "Venue is additionally proper because each of the defendants resides in Galveston County." At ¶5 the plaintiff avers, "Defendant Remy Coeytaux is a citizen of California, where he operates a
solo medical practice." Mr. Coeytaux is the sole defendant.

Operating a medical practice in California would be quite difficult for a Galveston County, Texas resident.

[Life of Brian]

Yay, found your typo for the day! Best reward yourself with a cold one.

[not guilty]

Actually, LoB, Dr. Coeytaux's citizenship goes to the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal court, which the Plaintiff invokes only under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. With the plaintiff being a citizen of Texas, (¶4,) if the allegation as to Dr. Coeytaux's citizenship is inaccurate, the matter would be subject to dismissal.

Any pleading that avers the sole defendant to reside in Texas while being a citizen of California is potentially problematic.

[not guilty]

That complaint states at ¶23, "Mr. Rodriguez seeks this injunction on behalf of a class of all current and future fathers of unborn children in the United States." The complaint fails to plead the various factors of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 as to class action requisites.

For example, how many putative class members interact with Dr. Coeytaux? Rule 23(a)(1).

What questions of law or fact are common to "all current and future fathers of unborn children in the United States"? Rule 23(a)(2).

How are Mr. Rodriguez's claims typical of the claims of the putative class? Rule 23(a)(3).

How will Mr. Rodriguez fairly and adequately protect the interests of "all current and future fathers of unborn children in the United States"? Rule 23(a)(4). Impregnating another man's wife three times suggests that good judgment and decision making are not his strong suit.

How would "all current and future fathers of unborn children in the United States" be notified? Rule 23(c)(2).

[John F. Carr]

If a judge can allow a nationwide class action on behalf of all newly born children of noncitizen parents a judge can allow a class action on behalf of all fathers-to-be. It's up to Jeffrey V. Brown, the only regular judge in the Galveston Division, to decide if he is as angry at Dr. Coeytaux as the various citizenship judges are at President Trump.

I think the citizenship judges are too hasty in throwing broad injunctions around. I would limit preliminary relief to the lead plaintiff while deciding if he has standing under these novel circumstances.

[ReaderY]

Various Trump officials accusing Obama of treason and the setting up of a task force to find a way to prosecute him is another indication that we have gone full Hitler - that Hitler is the only analogy appropriate to this administration. It hasn’t yet consolidated the power that would enable it to do Night of the Long Knives type assassinations, or perhaps paramilitary or mob lynchings, of judges, members of Congress, etc. who are in its way. But both the administration’s rhetoric and actions are slowly moving in that direction, building up a propaganda framework for an event where Trump dramatically rescues the country from the Great Traitors.

I hope I’m wrong. But I fear I’m not.

I fear we are in a limited period where the administration still mostly maintains a charade of legality and still humors and mollifies branches of government it doesn’t have full control over. But I fear some dramatic move to wrest full control is coming.

Even after the Enabling Act Hitler did not have full control and there were still some sources of power fhat he had to mollify. The Night of the Long Knives itself was in part an attempt to appease the regular army by liquidating the SA, the paramilitary force that had helped bring Hitler to power, and assassinating its leaders. And Hitler had to mollify Hindenburg until his death in 1934. Even Stalin had a transitional period where he had to mollify others before he got enough power that he could simply kill them.

[Commenter_XY]

Do you ever tire of playing the Nazi card, ReaderY? We had an election last year where the Nazi card was played incessantly. The electorate saw through that, and elected POTUS Trump. Simply put, that dog don't hunt.

Every day, hundreds of millions of Americans wake up, eat their wheaties, and go about their business. They go to work, to school, to some creative endeavor. They come home, eat dinner, probably watch mindless TV shows, brush their teeth, and go to bed. They don't seem overly troubled about becoming the 4th or 5th Reich because that just is not happening. There are no goose-stepping stormtroopers on my streets, or yours.

The charade here is cynically playing the Nazi card.

You think maybe there is a better historical analogue in American history to compare to the present situation? How about 1825, two centuries ago?

[Michael P]

No. He just wants to make excuses for Democrats to continue acting like Hitler and Stalin, while claiming that it's ackchually Republicans blocking Jews from campuses, terrorizing members of the public, waving foreign flags during insurrections, fabricating stories about kidnappings, and so on.

[apedad]

Not sure about who's blocking Jews on campus but these good ol' boys don't want Jews in their community.
----------
A whites-only community could be coming to Missouri

The outspoken co-founder of Return to the Land, a relatively new whites-only group based in northern Arkansas, said the group could be expanding to Missouri.

Eric Orwoll, co-founder of Return to the Land (RTTL), told NewsNation local affiliate KOLR that a group of people is considering developing an RTTL community near Springfield.

According to RTTL’s website, RTTL is a private member association exclusively made for white people. Jewish people are also barred from membership. Members are vetted through an application process based on European ancestry.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/a-whites-only-community-could-be-coming-to-missouri/ar-AA1Ja2iU?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=21c43dd683d64ebc93e07f700b268ca2&ei=60

[Michael P]

You missed the coverage of campus occupations at universities like Columbia? What rock were you hiding under?

Let us know when those Missouri nuts actually break ground. Talk is cheap.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's pretty stupid. Me and my wife had a real laugh over it; She'd be barred for obvious reasons, but she said my freckles would disqualify me, too. (My freckles have freckles... I may even be as dark as her, on average, by the end of the summer.)

As stupid as it is, though, I don't see what the problem is from a libertarian standpoint. They're not violating anybody's rights, they just happen to want something stupid.

[Michael P]

I can imagine that RTTL would end up violating federal antidiscrimination law in their efforts to keep out non-whites. I can also imagine that they don't, or more likely that they never get their project off the ground. Lots of people talk big about doing things that might violate laws; there are enough actual violations of those laws that I don't spend my time worrying about fringe groups who so far are only guilty of having big yaps.

[Brett Bellmore]

As long as the group is small, and avoid any attempt to incorporate as a local government, they can probably pull it off, for a while. As stupid as it is to WANT to pull it off.

Where they'll run into trouble, I expect, is the lack of any legally enforceable mechanism to KEEP the community white.

[Poxigah146]

Correct. The courts won't uphold racially restrictive covenants on the real estate, so if someone later wants to sell to someone else (or if a receiver, trustee or administrator sells on a person's behalf after death), the courts won't stop it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do what the NYC apartment buildings do- require group approval of buyers.

[Joe_dallas]

Racially restrictive covenants.
Ted kennedy made a big deal of Bush2's home with a racial covenant until it was pointed out his DC home had similar covenant. Most of DC have similar covenants

[Frank Drackman]

So Hey Zeus Himself couldn't live there, he'd be walking across everyone's pools anyway
Ironically, the "Christian Identity" nuts consider themselves to BE Jews,
It was an offshoot of a 19th century sect called "British Israelism" postulating that the Peoples of Europe were members of the "Lost Tribes"
and did you know there's a Star of David right above the Eagle on the back of a Dollar Bill?
and "Arkansas" is Cherokee for "Place where Settlers Horses died"

Frank

[LexAquilia]

Genetic tracing suggests the original residents of the region were closer to Europeans than to the mudbloods that live there now.

But don't let facts or science get in the way of your Jew Pogroms.

[Frank Drackman]

You need to get the Spirochetes back on the Hamster Wheel there Lex, see you at SynO'Gogue tonight?

[LexAquilia]

Oh dude thanks for the link. I might have to make a move. I'm sure they will accept me as I am a Pure Blooded Organic Non-GMO human. We are getting rarer and rarer as we face constant persecution and an ongoing genocide.

[Commenter_XY]

From your cite...

The group’s homebase land association is based on 160 acres in northern Arkansas and has been in development since 2023.

Guess this was one of those Biden 'Build Back Better' projects. Wasn't Biden president (sort of) in 2023?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Apedad, those are private communes.

[Frank Drackman]

Dr Ed! you had us (well me, anyway) worried, thank Jay-Hey for the "Silver Alerts"! (or "Matties Calls" as we call them in Jaw-Jaw)

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"A whites-only community could be coming to Missouri"

Whataboutism and nut picking in the same comment! Well done.

[jb]

I think a lot of the Nazi/Hitler analogies are overwrought, but this is a really bad argument:

"Do you ever tire of playing the Nazi card, ReaderY? We had an election last year where the Nazi card was played incessantly. The electorate saw through that, and elected POTUS Trump. Simply put, that dog don't hunt."

You know that the literal Nazis won the 1932 election in Germany and that's how they came to power, right?

[Commenter_XY]

Let me know when goose-stepping stormtroopers march down your neighborhood street, jb. That isn't happening in the tony towns of the People's Republic of NJ.

CTry harder.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/07/28/ice-agents-invade-a-manhattan-little-league-field

"ICE Agents Invade a Manhattan Little League Field
Youman Wilder has coached local kids for twenty-one years—including four who have gone pro. When masked agents tried to interrogate his players, he told them, “You don’t have more rights than they do.”

I'm not quite as dramatic about it all as ReaderY, but if you're not getting Nazi vibes that's because you're a cheerleader for the bad guys.
You know, the side you share with the open antisemite with many names.

[Brett Bellmore]

" he told them, “You don’t have more rights than they do.”"

Obviously coaching doesn't require being a wiz at civics.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, that was true of the Jews in Nazi Germany as well.
I know you don’t care. You should.

And you assume a lot about the identity of these kids.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

According to Wilder, all the kids are American citizens. There is contradictory reporting on this. A CNN personality (Burnett) stated that they were all American born. In another report somewhere else it is claimed that Wilder said the kids were from various countries but were all American citizens. Of course, ICE denies everything.

For what it's worth, some knobs who are not ICE officers have been arrested for impersonating ICE officers and there have been people dressing up in suggestive garb deliberately trying to give public employees the impression that they are government agents investigating wast, fraud, and abuse.

Exactly what Brettmore is suggesting above, who knows, but it's my belief that all American citizens have the same rights. But, I'm not an adherent to Brettmore civics.

[LexAquilia]

Enforcing immigration laws is what Nazi's do!

Another hot take by the world famous Sarcastr0.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean. That’s what they did? They created a legal regime that excluded certain people from the body politic and then physically removed them.

[LexAquilia]

I'm sure a clever person could generalize anything into to a high degree to make it comparable to Nazi's.

Tracking fitness apps relentlessly monitor every step and your heart rate at every moment, just like a Gestapo dossier!

Enforcing visa overstays is practically a page from Hitler’s playbook, as both involve the audacity of expecting people to respect rules over chaos!

ICE detaining criminal aliens mirrors the Gestapo’s iron grip, because deporting felons is just like orchestrating a genocide!

[LawTalkingGuy]

What about revoking green cards, visas, and arresting people at their immigration court hearings?

Or say purporting to overturn over a century of precedent on birthright citizenship by executive fiat and rending people born here stateless?

[LexAquilia]

Green cards or visa's never got revoked before?

Immigration courts are immunity zones?

Overturning precedent is what Nazi's do?

You're being melodramatic. Probably because you people have been trained and manipulated for decades now to live in a state of perpetual stress. Humans aren't designed to operate that way.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Green cards or visa's never got revoked before?”

Not at this scale and for some of the reasons given.

“Immigration courts are immunity zones?”

People complying with the immigration court process and doing what they’re supposed to do typically aren’t seized and detained for the same reason we don’t arrest people on bond in a pending criminal case when they come to court if they’re complying with their bond conditions.

“Overturning precedent is what Nazi's (sic) do?”

They overturned the precedent of Jews being German citizens. Which is the relevant comparison point. The Nuremberg Laws were citizenship laws.

[LexAquilia]

>They overturned the precedent of Jews being German citizens. Which is the relevant comparison point. The Nuremberg Laws were citizenship laws.

That's a weird parse, probably to hide your dishonesty.
Hitler retroactively revoked citizenship.
President Trump's EO is forward looking.

See what I'm saying? If you didn't know the difference between the two, then you should be ashamed for being so mad about something you were just as ignorant of.

If you did, but intentionally obfuscated that critical distinction, well you should be ashamed for being so dishonest.

Do better.

[MaddogEngineer]

Yes, that is exactly his schtick. That's why I don't believe that crowds claims that fear for the rule of law. They undermine the rule of law complaining about legitimate immigration enforcement.

And don't give me the possibility for excesses crap. People like him dismissed those concerns by others during the pandemic.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Nazi vibes"

What? You are Mr. Anti-Vibes.

Did they shoot the kids or the coach? Drag them to a death camp?

You debase the memory victims of Hitler with these hysterics.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Did they shoot the kids or the coach? Drag them to a death camp?”

Is that the first thing that happened in Nazi germany? Or was it something where the government started changing people’s citizenship and legal status to aid in their removal from society?

Whether the Nazi comparison has legs depends on to what extent there is collective radicalization among immigration/border enforcement agents and right-wing politicians and influencers when they realize they actually can’t easily deport the ever shifting number of “illegals.” Do they simply accept it can’t be done and that there are actual legal and practical barriers to it and just call what they did a job well done? Or do they find another way to “remove” that undesirable population (whose numbers are constantly shifting)? Do they simply let detention and neglect take the lead? Or will that not satisfy them?

[Bob from Ohio]

Lots of words does not make the comparison any more accurate.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What’s wrong with it?

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump isn't Hitler, ICE is not the SS and ICE agents are not engaged in some ethnic cleansing.

Nazi comparison is a play to the already convinced. It does not change any minds.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Trump is not Hitler.” Yeah no shit. Can you answer what is going to happen if the people they want to remove are still here a year from now for various reasons?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Can you answer what is going to happen if the people they want to remove are still here a year from now for various reasons?"

Sure.

Just arrests and removals, same as now. No death camps, no mass shootings, no genocide.

[LawTalkingGuy]

And why are you so convinced of that?

[Bob from Ohio]

"And why are you so convinced of that?"

Unlike you, I've retained some rationality.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well that explains why you can’t see the parallels. Your belief in your own rationality and in the rationality of your allies makes it harder for you to understand and recognize you’ve aligned with a fundamentally irrational phenomenon like fascism.

Like your entire theory for why there is no parallels is that Trump is literally not Hitler and we don’t have 1940s fascist aesthetics* combined with a very healthy dose of “no it won’t.”

*but see the DHS Twitter account

[Bob from Ohio]

"why you can’t see the parallels."

There are no parallels. You are just increasingly lurching into Sarcasto hysterics territory.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do you know who Chris Browning is?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Do you know who Chris Browning is?"

No.

Google leads with some tv actor.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He’s one of the leading scholars of the Holocaust, he wrote Ordinary Men back in 1992. One of the proponents of functionalism. He’s been examining the parallels people have made between Trumpism and Nazism for a bit. And while he ultimately doesn’t come down on one side or the other on the fascism debate, he doesn’t think it’s hysterical to probe the question.

A leading scholar of fascism and an expert on the quasi-fascist regime of Vichy France, Robert Paxton, thinks Trump and Trumpism is fascist.

And they’re not the only historians and experts to seriously engage in this issue.

All this is to say that if the people who have been studying Nazism and fascism since long before Donald Trump became an American political figure, think the topic is at least debatable, then it’s probably not hysterical to examine the parallels.

Also not for nothing, but, the people who cheer on Trumpist immigration policy the most online are often open fascists.

[Bob from Ohio]

"he doesn’t think it’s hysterical to probe the question."

Well, he's wrong.

Problem with narrow focus historians, unlike more generalists of earlier generations*, is they think every current situation is exactly like the only thing they know about. Vichy especially has little relevance to 2025 US.

*though these dudes are ancient!

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Well he’s wrong”

Talk about arrogance and being dumb. Lol.

[MaddogEngineer]

Do you have any update on the deported Chilean grandfather green card holder?

https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/07/21/luis-leon-ice-guatemala/

Any idea why his family stopped speaking to the press?

Any idea why national news orgs are not demanding answers from ICE about the fascist agency claiming no record of him or his deportation? It's quite the mystery why this isn't getting the attention Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia got, considering this is a far more serious allegation.

[Sarcastr0]

The scenario was "goose-stepping stormtroopers march down your neighborhood street."

That people are attempting to vector to death camps is defending American stormtroopers by setting a very low bar.

Way to go.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Fascist and Nazi propaganda was so effective that even today people associate those movements with their carefully crafted aesthetics. They don’t really appreciate the reality that these movements were run by a collection of weirdos, incompetents, and thugs. So when such a coalition gains enough power and their support they can’t actually recognize what happened.

[Bob from Ohio]

"American stormtroopers"

They don't exist.

BTW, "stormtroopers" does not apply to agents of the state like ICE agents. Its a translation of Sturmabteilung aka SA, a Nazi Party organization similar to Antifa. Maybe refine your insults to reflect some actual history.

I've never seen an ICE agent goosestep either.

[David Nieporent]

a Nazi Party organization similar to Antifa.

You mean the SA didn't exist?

[Michael P]

Speaking of bad arguments, are you implying that winning democratic elections is a sure sign of fascism?

[jb]

No, I'm saying that winning an election has nothing to do with whether or not you're a Nazi.

[Michael P]

You base that conclusion on the Nazis winning ONE election in their decades of existence?

[jb]

A few things:

1) They actually won several elections in 1932 and 1933.
2) Subsequently, Hitler took complete control of the government, including banning all other political parties in 1933 so the question of winning elections or not became moot, although a large majority of the German people did help consolidate his power by voting to combine the roles of President and Chancellor in 1934.
3) Regardless of how many elections the literal Nazis won, the point is pretty simple: since the literal Nazis were elected into office, it doesn't make any sense to say that Trump isn't a Nazi by virtue of the fact he was elected. Why do either of you think that proves or disproves his status as a Nazi?
4) As an obvious analogy, many folks here have been saying that Zohran Mamdani is a communist. If I were to respond "he can't be a communist, he won the Democratic primary election", do you think that would change your mind about whether or not he was a communist?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Hamas also won one election, I seem to recall...

[Bob from Ohio]

"They actually won several elections in 1932 and 1933."

Not really. They became the largest Reichstag party in July 1932 but not a majority and they lost ground in November.

I guess they "won" the1933 election but it was hardly a fair one. Technically, they only got a majority because of a coalition.

Once again, I'm begging people to read some history.

[jb]

"Not really. They became the largest Reichstag party in July 1932 but not a majority and they lost ground in November."

In Parliamentary systems, you win elections by winning more seats than anyone else, which the Nazis did in all of the 32/33 elections. By your logic, Labor didn't win the last election in the UK, Netanyahu didn't win in Israel, the Liberals didn't win the 2025 election in Canada, etc. I'm sure there's countries where no party has ever won an election if the standard is you need to win a majority of seats.

[Don Nico]

jb,
Indeed Labour won the last election in the UK with a large parliamentary majority but only 28% of the popular vote

[David Nieporent]

By your logic, Labor didn't win the last election in the UK, Netanyahu didn't win in Israel, the Liberals didn't win the 2025 election in Canada, etc.

…and Trump didn't win in 2016 or 2024!

[Nelson]

You do know where that ended up leading, right?

[Bob from Ohio]

"literal Nazis won the 1932 election in Germany and that's how they came to power"

Not true. Read some history.

Hitler lost ground in the second 1932 election and was never close to a majority in the Reichstag.

[ReaderY]

Exactly. Every day in Germany from 1933 until Allied bombings sometime in 1943 or so became noticable, millions of Germans woke up every day, ate the equivalent of their Wheaties, and went about their business. They went to work, to school, to some creative endeavor. And all the rest. Exactly as you said.

Nobody ever had to notice that certain people were disappearing. For the vast majority, life went on exactly as normal. Exactly as you say.

If you think what you’re saying is some sort of assurance that everything’s normal, you really don’t know your history. Or perhaps you do know your history and are callously giving us what is fact a Nazi assurance - if you’re a good American, of pure blood, and loyal to the leader, everything’s going to be fine. You’ll even be better off because we’ll get rid of some of your competitors and share some of their confiscated property.

[ducksalad]

"We had an election last year where the Nazi card was played incessantly. The electorate saw through that, and elected POTUS Trump"

A more accurate breakdown:

50.2% of the electorate voted for someone other than Trump.

Out of the remaining minority of 49.8% that voted for Trump, some estimates:

25% were so oblivious to non-MAGA info sources, or to info sources at all, that they never heard the Nazi card.
15% heard the Nazi card and dismissed it as Democrat hyperbole.
10% heard the Nazi card, believed it, and said "Hell yeah!"

Out of charity we'll assume all of you here were in that 15%.

[Joe_dallas]

The nazi card is simply a projection

Democrats demanding allegence to their believes is vastly closer to nazi like behavior

[Brett Bellmore]

I think treason is hyperbole, but it does appear that the Obama administration has seriously dirty hands, and maybe some genuine legal exposure. I realize that you're reasoning starts from the premise that this isn't so; That's going to seriously compromise your capacity to understand events.

[Joe_dallas]

Funding a terrorist organization/nation which is an avowed enemy of the US sits pretty high on the list of treason.

[Krayt]

He used the word hyperbole, then you immediately did it. That that opposition does this itself all over Trump for 8 years, through literally the timestamp of recent posts, doesn't mean your side isn't doing it, too.

Rhetoric is fun, though.

[Joe_dallas]

are you disagreeing that funding a terrorist organization/nation that is an avowed enemy of the US would be treasonous?

Or at least geopolitically stupid?

[ducksalad]

You're painting yourself into a corner.

At some point Trump is likely to make his own deal with Iran, that deal will involve reducing sanctions, and you'll be on record insisting that reducing sanctions equals "funding".

What are you going to say then?

[Joe_dallas]

The only ones painting themselves into a corner are those that have been ignoring the geopolitical realities in the region that have existed since the late 1970's.

The JCPOA never was a viable long term solution. Nor was paying off the mulahs a viable long term solution and quite frankly borderline aiding and abetting the enemy with money to fund additional terrorism.

Its astonishing something so obvious is so hard to grasp.

[Sarcastr0]

I think you once again angrily missed the point.

If Trump makes a deal with Iran, and it includes some sanction reduction or the like, will he be a terrorist-funding traitor?

You're proving way too much with your broad condemnations (based on, as you do, citation to 'reality.')

[Joe_dallas]

Gaslight0

No point was missed except by your failure to grasp that funding a terrorist regime is only in the best interest of the Mullahs and is geopolitically stupid, both long term and short term.
A - you are purely speculating on what Trump might do
B - There is no comparison with Obama dumping pallets of cash on a sworn enemy of the US .

The major problem in your rationale and most leftist's rationale is the complete lack of grasping the reality of the geopolitical consequenses.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm asking a hypothetical. To show that you prove too much.

And now you're weaseling. As expected.

[Joe_dallas]

You are asking a hypothetical because you cant admit or even grasp the absurdity of the geopolitical consequences of funding a terrorist nation and making Iran a regional power. The funding of a terrorist sponsoring nation and facilitating making Iran an regional power was one of the goals of obama and subsequently carried on by the biden adminstration.

Try to grasp the geopolitial reality, not some deranged hypothetical

[Sarcastr0]

Nah, we're all pushing back on saying Obama funded terrorists. That's the 'prove too much' deal.

I like how you seem to think if you say 'geopolitical consequences' enough you'll sound like an expert.

[JohnSmith97]

I'm sure the pallets of cash Obama dropped on Iran went to fund women's shelters in Tehran..

[ducksalad]

Pallets? Dropped? The way I heard the story it was a dozen C-47s loaded with gold bullion stolen from the US Border Patrol bereaved widow's fund. The US crews were ordered to take a knee and apologize for America when they landed in Teheran.

[David Nieporent]

The JCPOA never was a viable long term solution. Nor was paying off the mulahs a viable long term solution and quite frankly borderline aiding and abetting the enemy with money to fund additional terrorism.

Its astonishing something so obvious is so hard to grasp.

Another field in which a bookkeeper is an expert!

[Mr. Bumble]

The ankle biting rat terrier speaks.

[jb]

Brett: can you give some examples of what you think Gabbard's new "evidence" shows that anyone in the Obama administration did that was questionable?

I got bored reading the docs because they were basically all just about how people though it was a good idea to look into Russian attempts to meddle with the election.

[Joe_dallas]

Russia's meddling in the election was to so discord

Russia always preferred a democrat president with a similar policy as obama of which clinton fit that bill. Clinton was already compromised.

Quite frankly it is inane to think that Putin wanted trump to win. It makes absolutely zero sense to believe putin wanted trump to win. Clinton / any democrat win always has favored Russia's and Putin geopolitical goals.

[SRG2]

Oh righjt, Russia didn't meddle but they did so to support Hilary.

I:n the real world, Russia does want to sew [sic] discord, but also wanted Krasnov as US president

[Joe_dallas]

SRG - intentionally distorting my statement .

I agree that the Russia did meddle - albeit a trivial amount.

My point, which should be well known by all those paying attention is that Russia geopolitical goals are vastly better served with a democrat party president while being ill served with a republican president. That has been true throughout the post WW2 era.

Quite frankly, the belief that Russia / putin wanted trump to win is simply a deranged belief. It never served putin goals.

[Nelson]

Of course it does. Trump gets treated like a 98 pound weakling by Putin every single time. Putin loves having a weak and easily manipulated admirer like Trump in the White House.

TACO is Putin’s friend.

[Joe_dallas]

Your comment is a typical deranged comment and disassociated with any geopolitical reality. Its simply inane

There are no facts supporting your response

[Nelson]

Really? You may want to look at the videos of Trump publicly sucking Putin’s dick on multiple occasions. When has Trump ever gone head-to-head with Putin and not gotten beaten like a red-headed stepchild? He can barely, slightly, oppose Putin third-hand, through the federal bureaucracy. Face to face he turns into a fawning fanboy every time.

Tell me, where would I look to see Trump firmly handling Putin? Or even slightly disagreeing with him?

I’ll wait.

[Joe_dallas]

your response remains deranged and lacking of any facts associated with reality.
Thats the problem with leftists - you are living in an alternate universe

[Bob from Ohio]

"deranged and lacking of any facts associated with reality"

Never read Nelson before?

[Joe_dallas]

Bob from Ohio 22 minutes ago
"deranged and lacking of any facts associated with reality"

"Never read Nelson before?"

Quite frankly - a lot of leftists beliefs require derangement and departure from reality.

Since the post WW2 era , a democrat president has always been to Russia's geopolitical favor (with the exception of Truman and possibly JFK)

[JohnSmith97]

It is remarkable, then, that the last 2 major moves Putin made were all done during (D) admins. I guess things really are (D)ifferent for (D) true believers.

[Commenter_XY]

Hmmmm...I don't believe this exists = Really? You may want to look at the videos of Trump publicly sucking Putin’s dick on multiple occasions.

[Nelson]

Fair point, XY. It was a reference to Trump’s fawning obsequiousness towards Putin, especially carrying his water on Ukraine. Obviously I don’t think Trump fellated Putin literally, just rhetorically.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2025-04-14/the-literally-dozens-of-times-donald-trump-has-praised-vladimir-putin

[Brett Bellmore]

I would say the primary problem was forcing the intelligence agencies to pretend that the Steele dossier was good intelligence, when they already knew it was just a paid for smear job.

This appears to have involved some perjury when testifying before Congress.

[Moderation4ever]

Brett you are following the usual Trump worshipper line that the Steele dossier was bad. The fact is that intelligence agencies would know exactly what type of intelligence was in the dossier. The dossier is no different than a lot of the information that an agency would use as a starting point. It was unconfirmed but a number of points in the dossier have been shown to be true. Most notably the cooperation of the members of the Trump campaign staff and Russian agents. Paul Manafort for example who wrote about working with the Russians in his book.

[Michael P]

The dossier WAS bad. Implying otherwise without actually saying so is dishonest and cowardly.

If the IC knew what kind if evidence was in the dossier, they would not have needed an IG investigation to reveal that it was almost entirely RUMINT from one guy who didn't even leave the Beltway to gather information. Or in the alternative, they were themselves dishonest on a grand scale by citing it at all.

[Michael P]

Update: It was the alternative, based on orders from on high: https://open.substack.com/pub/taibbi/p/in-brutal-document-release-the-russia

[jb]

Sorry, who forced the intelligence agencies to pretend anything about the Steele dossier? Even Gabbard doesn't seem to be making that claim, unless I'm missing something:

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2025/4090-pr-18-25

[John 4]

You’ve been corrected on this point multiple times, yet you haven’t seemed to integrate the new knowledge into your thought process, Brett. Are you stupid or dishonest?

[Nelson]

It’s more intentionally self-delusional. He’s smart enough to know better, but chooses to pretend he’s not.

[Kazinski]

They ignored the intelligence communities assessment that while Russia was trying to sow discord in the election they were not trying to help one side or the other.

One example is Russia sat on DNC emails they had about concern about Hilarious health and tranquilizer use, because they wanted to save for when she was president, not waste it during the campaign.

John Hinderaker also makes the point that we as Americans shouldn't really be concerned about who the Russians prefer as president, for instance there is little doubt the Russians preferred Obama over Romney in 2012. Should that have influenced how American's voted? Not really unless you are a single issue anti-Russian voter.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/07/who-cares-what-putin-wanted.php

[Sarcastr0]

Russia sat on DNC emails they had about concern about Hilarious health and tranquilizer use, because they wanted to save for when she was president, not waste it during the campaign.

That is an allegation from a House committee report. I know you think Comer and the like only spit true facts, but you should source stuff for those who are more skeptical.

Other bits in the report: "The Russians also allegedly had information that Clinton "suffered from ‘Type 2 diabetes, Ischemic heart disease, deep vein thrombosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.’""

"The Russians also allegedly possessed a "campaign email discussing a plan approved by Secretary Clinton to link Putin and Russian hackers to candidate Trump in order to ‘distract the American public’ from the Clinton email server scandal.""

How incredible.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/russia-sat-intel-hillary-clintons-alleged-heavy-tranquilizers-use-new-docs-claim

[Joe_dallas]

lets ignore the post ww2 geopolitical areana

[David Nieporent]

bookkeeper_joe's using vague phrases again because he doesn't know any facts.

[Ridgeway]

So Comer learned that the Democrats believed (or pretended to believe) that Russian hackers were meddling in the 2016 election from emails hacked by the Russians? Outrageous!!

[Sarcastr0]

Asserted. Not learned.

When you folks choose to trust politicians and when you don’t is telling.

[Ridgeway]

You missed my dripping sarcasm and irony....

Comer is using information hacked by the Russians to .... show that the Russians were not meddling. In MAGA-land, that is compelling evidence of a treasonous conspiracy. To me .... not so much.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah, got it.
And ayep that's where we are these days.

[Kazinski]

Not Comer, Schiff, if you want to blame who was running the committee. But it was a classified Majority Staff report, a Democratic majority staff report.

Comer is on the oversight committee, has never been on the House intelligence committee.

What'd you do just pick the scariest Republican you could think of to blame? Nunes was on the committee at that time, but he was in the minority, he didn't have any input to a majority staff report.

[Sarcastr0]

How many times are you gonna be corrected on this?

[Kazinski]

Give me an on the record source.

Schiff would know. Swallwell would know, Show me a direct quote saying it was not a majority report. Schiff made a generic retort which does not refute the claim it was a report from his majority staff.

The PDF I linked has the date, which is September 2020, when Democrats are the majority, and says "What the Majority Found".

[jay.tee]

You may not believe it, but you know who did? James Comey! It prompted him to hurriedly declare Hillary innocent of all wrongdoing before the Russians could prove otherwise.

The Obama WH also likely believed it - they declared the intel privileged and withheld it from consideration for the ICA because it would completely undermine its preordained conclusions.

[Kazinski]

Adam Schiff was chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee in 2020 when that report was prepared, and it was a majority staff report, so there were no Republican fingerprints on it at all.

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2025/4090-pr-18-25

Democrats controlled that committee from 2019-2022.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah. You think the classified report would have been spiked by Schiff, giving the right ammo to complain.

This makes the list of diseases Hillary has managed to survive since 2016 much more plausible.

You remain very bad at critical thinking when you want to believe.

[Kazinski]

You will have to be more coherent, I have no idea what that means.

Go ahead make some more stuff up, but at least get the names right, and try to put the words together so they mean something.

[jb]

C'mon Kaz, do a little independent research instead of just regurgitating Gabbard's nonsense. The report you're referring to was originally created when Republicans controlled the House in 2017, and then updated by the Republican minority on the committee in 2020:

The report Gabbard declassified was prepared by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee and is dated 18 September 2020.

So it's true that Democrats were in charge at the time, but the report was not endorsed by any Democrats and instead represents a disputed and partisan point of view. Contrast this with the unanimous, Republican-led Senate report that reached the opposite conclusion.

[jb]

"They ignored the intelligence communities assessment that while Russia was trying to sow discord in the election they were not trying to help one side or the other."

They ignored that because that wasn't actually the position of the intelligence community, as made clear by the (Republican-led) Senate investigation into the matter.

But let's say, arguendo, that was the position of the intelligence community and that Obama, Brennan, etc. ignored it. I still don't understand why anyone thinks that implies some sort of legal jeopardy for them, much less Gabbard's charge of treason.

[loki13]

More importantly, a normal person would be a little concerned that Gabbard's job (as is the job of everyone in this administration) is simply to say exactly what Trump wants them to say.

Remember Gabbard testifying about Iran. Then when Trump was asked about what she said ... she magically announced a new position?

And now when Trump wants distractions, he orders Gabbard to lie about documents we all know about. So the usual morons can parrot either "Obama is a traitor!" or, if they still have a few functioning brain cells, "Well, maybe there's something there ...." (there isn't).

Here's the usual reminder- the President is a serial liar. We all know this. If you prefer to understand that he simply doesn't care about the truth, that's fine. It is what it is. Anyway, a serial liar is in charge, and has filled the administration with loyalists that he demands lies for him. What do you think is the likely result? Truth?

[jay.tee]

The position of the IC, before the beginning of Dec 2017, was that Russia was not necessarily favoring either candidate (and especially not Trump). They even had a PDB drafted and ready to go that stated that conclusion (which would have gone to President-elect Trump, too).

However, Obama held his infamous meeting to convene a new ICA that had to be rushed out before he left office. He/Brennan/Clapper et al restricted its creation to only five loyal analysts, deviating significantly from normal practice (just look at the expansive list of contributors to previous ICAs).

They used four laughably weak and insignificant pieces of evidence to bend the ICA to their preordained conclusion Russia preferred Trump. Brennan had to personally overrule the analysts to include the information in the ICA because even his handpicked analysts recognized the absurdity and lack of justification.

One piece of “intelligence” was the knowingly contrived Steele dossier. Another was a fragment of HUMINT that each of the analysts interpreted differently and, even then, wasn’t conclusive. Yet another source came from the Ukrainians (a fact that was hidden from Obama) that the Russians had a plan to improve Russian/US relations if Trump won. The last was a 2014 SIGINT reported by the US ambassador that a Russian pundit suggested Putin and Trump work together like businessmen.

And that’s it; that’s all the “intelligence” that “supported” the assertion Russia preferred Trump. Importantly, they omitted from the ICA information from those same sources that directly contradicted their preordained conclusion.

Why would Obama et al decide to overrule the IC’s conclusions just before he left office for good? As shown above, it certainly wasn’t due to any new, legitimate intelligence; all the above was already known when the previous assessments were completed.

Does manufacturing “evidence” and manipulating the IC to damage an incoming, oppositional administration expose them to legal jeopardy? If it doesn’t, it sure should.

[jb]

Funny how the Republican-led Senate investigation totally missed all of this when they took a look! Check out the findings of Volume 4 of their report, which says (amongst other things):

The Committee found the ICA presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential
election. On the analytic lines of the ICA, the Committee concludes that all [redacted] analytic lines are supported with all-source intelligence, although with varying substantiation. The Committee did not discover any significant analytic tradecraft issues in the preparation or final presentation of the ICA...

In all the interviews of those who drafted and prepared the ICA, the Committee heard consistently that analysts were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions. All analysts expressed that they were free to debate, object to content, and assess confidence levels, as is normal and proper for the analytic process.

But, once again, even assuming that everything you wrote above is exactly correct, the entirety of your argument against Obama is that he asked for a new intelligence assessment and did so on the basis of some weak intelligence. There's no claim that he suggested the IC look into the Trump campaign, nor that he suggested that Russia was trying to tilt the election in Trump's favor. Not sure why you think that's nefarious in any way, especially since there is consensus that the scale of Russian interference was unprecedented.

[David Nieporent]

Also, it's kind of weird how Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta, and leaked info at times helpful to Trump, but never did the same to the GOP, if they actually didn't want Trump to win.

Also, a bit weird how Trump had an actual Russian asset as his campaign manager. And how Trump's previous campaign manager and son and son-in-law met with Russian emissaries who expressly told them they wanted to help Trump. And how one of Trump's campaign flunkies met with Russians who offered him dirt on Hillary. And how Trump's fixer was secretly meeting with Russians about business deals for Trump and lying about it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Assuming arguendo and stipulating that what you wrote above is true, then thank God it worked and kept Madam Kankles out of the White House.

[not guilty]

Actually, Tulsi Gabbard asserted the existence of a "treasonous conspiracy." Treason and conspiracy to commit treason are distinct offenses. Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 126 (1807).

Donald Trump has asserted that Barack Obama, among others, committed treason. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3liaPW17mDI

As I have asked before on these threads, do MAGAts allege that President Obama had levied war against the United States? If so, based on what specific conduct?

Do they 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?

[Kazinski]

Read the September 2020 House Intelligence Majority Staff report for yourself.

Its right here, but unfortunately you can't copy text from it.

https://www.odni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Declassified-HPSCI-Report-Manufactured-Russia-Hoax-July2025.pdf

[jb]

As I pointed out above, this is not the Majority Staff report from 2020. It is the opposite. It's the minority report (in 2020) originally prepared by the Republican majority in 2017.

[Kazinski]

Where do you see that?

What page, and where on the page.

The date on page one, nothing about it being a revised report.

Top of page 2 in blue letters almost illegible:

"What the Majority found".

[jb]

Does it ever make you mad that the people you're constantly defending are actively trying to mislead you (and apparently succeeding)?

Even Fox News acknowledges the report was written in the Devin Nunes era:

The report, which was based on an investigation launched by former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was dated Sept. 18, 2020.

As I linked above, the BBC also confirms that it was a report prepared by Republicans despite the 2020 date.

A longer piece by a former military intelligence lieutenant colonel who is critical of both the Obama and Trump administrations, but also makes clear the report is both (a) written by Republicans and (b) at odds with the unanimous findings of the Senate investigation:

Nothing Gabbard has released proves that assertion, including the 2017 House Intelligence Committee report questioning the intelligence community assessment that Russia wanted Trump to win the 2016 election.

That 2017 conclusion is at odds with the unanimous and bipartisan findings of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that found Russia did in fact try to influence the campaign in Trump’s favor but those efforts did not affect the outcome.

[Kazinski]

Here is an official statement from the House Intelligence Committee:

"These claims are false. The Majority Staff Report was fully developed, researched, and written by two HPSCI majority staff members. These two staff members are in regular contact with the Chairman and committee staff to this day, and they were not the source of the public claims made. Further, there is not now, and never has been, a 200 page version of the report."

https://x.com/HouseIntel/status/1948579424057569320

The BBC report you have referenced above is not sourced.

So you have one unsourced report contradicting both the Director of National Intelligence, and the official Spokesman for the House Intelligence Committee, and the report itself.

You will have to do better.

[jb]

As you'll see above, I already liked to two other sources (including Fox News!) that say it's a Republican work product.

As far as I can tell, neither Gabbard nor the statement you quote above make the claim that the report is the majority view of the House Committee in 2020. So actually I have three sources (there's more! but I had hoped the Fox News one would put this to rest and I can only do two at a time) that make a statement about the origin of the report that is not contradicted by the DNI or anyone else. You're just falling for their dumb trick of re-publishing a majority statement from 2017 in 2020 and trying to pretend that means it was a Democratic or consensus report.

[Kazinski]

Your reading comprehension sucks:

"The report, which was based on an investigation launched by former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was dated Sept. 18, 2020."

Nunes might have spearheaded the investigation uncovering the facts, but the report itself says its the majority view on Sept 2020. Nunes lost his chairmanship, and the majority status Jan 3 2019, more than 21 months before the majority report was issued.

And providing unsourced news reports from whatever outlet, even if they actually said what you claimed is not what "sourced" means.

Who made the assertion on the record?

Nobody, not even Adam Schiff when he was asked.

[jb]

Adam Schiff didn't respond because he wasn't asked "was this the majority view of the House Intelligence Committee?" And he wasn't asked that because no one except for you is making that claim! Gabbard isn't making that claim, Fox News isn't making that claim, Republicans in Congress aren't making that claim, no one.

The sole piece of "evidence" for your position is the the use of the word "majority" in the report which, if it was actually produced by Nunes in 2017, would be exactly the situation.

Also, just do a sense check here: which seems more likely to you, that the Democrats in the House put together a report saying that the Russians didn't favor Trump and the ICA was botched, but no one brought any attention to this fact until 2025, or that Devin Nunes put together a report in 2017 that made that same claim and then the Republicans included that in some classified exercise in 2020.

Here's the on-the-record view of Schiff and the Democrats on the committee in 2018, which directly rebuts many of the claims made in the 2020 document. But your view is that two years later when they were in charge they secretly changed their position? Does that really make sense to you?

Anyway, I can put one more link in, so here's some more reporting that disagrees with you:

NBC News:

Gabbard cited a 2020 report from Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which she declassified and released this week

If you want to disagree with basically every media outlet (sourced or not), point to anyone other than yourself saying the doc Gabbard released this week was a majority view of the 2020 House committee.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "I think treason is hyperbole, but it does appear that the Obama administration has seriously dirty hands"

That's completely wrong. I'm going to explain why and then you'll have the choice of honestly owning you've been duped or not. This latest agitprop hysteria is based on two lies:

1. That Obama told everyone something different from the conclusions he was told by U.S. Intelligence in private. But that falls apart at the slightest examination. This "contradiction" was created by Gabbard editing one statement to obscure the fact it referred to a different subject. Obama was told there was no evidence the Russians committed cybercrimes against election infrastructure. Obama said the the Russians committed cybercrimes to affect the 2016 election. No only is there no contradiction there, but both statements are one-hundred percent correct. Here's Andrew C. McCarthy over at the National Review:

"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”

You're welcome to double-check this on your own, but I'm right and you're wrong. Own it.

2. And that's all that's new in this latest campaign of lies. The other half is stale garbage disproved a dozen times over: "There was never any Russian effort. The investigations found nothing. The Russian didn't act for Trump in 2016". For that, you need only go to the five volumes produced by the GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee. Its investigation extended more than three years, interviewed more than 200 witnesses, and reviewed more than one million documents. As Marco Rubio, acting committee head, said: "No probe into this matter has been more exhaustive.”

Their conclusion? The Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Donald Trump, which included assistance from some of Trump's own advisers. You can back-check that too for all the good it gets you.

I leave you with the simplest of questions : How many "hoax" investigations uncover the fact that a presidential candidate's campaign was being run by a Russian spy? Most "hoax" investigations are nowhere near that productive. Comer's weren't.

[jay.tee]

As I explained above, the foundational claim that Russia preferred Trump was completely manufactured. Primary-source documentation belies all the subsequent political analyses that conclude otherwise.

And your #1 above doesn’t make sense:

“Obama was told there was no evidence the Russians committed cybercrimes against election infrastructure. Obama said the the Russians committed cybercrimes to affect the 2016 election.”

Correct - Obama and high-profile Democrats knew Russia didn’t hack voting systems, but that didn’t stop them from blatantly lying and publicly proclaiming the exact opposite. This is separate from Russia’s well-known efforts to influence the election (I.e., $100k? in non influential FB ads) and the debunked assertion Russia preferred Trump.

[grb]

1. You're just spinning your wheels. As I noted, your "conclusion" is the exact opposite of the later GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee and its five volume report. Claiming it can be ignored because of "primary-source document" is just using fancy-sound terms to get you where you want to go. What documents did Marc Rubio not have? He had MUCH more information than anything contemporaneous by a gargantuan margin. More information trumps (intended) less information everywhere but in MAGA fantasies.

2. You want evidence? Here: Russian Intelligence stole John Podesta email messages and sat on the trove over seven months. And when did they begin leaking their haul? Mueller determined it was less than an hour after the Access Hollywood story first appeared in the news, knocking the Trump campaign back on its heels. Their boy needed help and they rushed to help. Good luck finding any similar assistance to the Clinton campaign.

3. You also don't seem to realize you've abandoned all of the hysterical case against Obama. That lie was predicated on Obama being told there was no Russian effort and then pushing the exact opposite conclusion. Treason, the dupes shriek! But that falls apart with even the briefest review. What you're left with is a claim Obama knew the Russian effort (conceded by jay.tee) was directed against both candidates, not one. Even if you can sell that lie to the Cult, so what? It wasn't the basis of the investigation that followed. And it's positively hilarious you think Obama had enough information immediately after the election to reach any final conclusion anyway.

4. Of course in addition to your jokey "primary documents" crutch, you also add the even more comical "subsequent political analyses" - even while ignoring the most bipartisan and comprehensive political analyses of all. Kinda strange, that. Yes, you can find "political analyses" that tell you what you want to hear. That isn't very hard. But none come close to matching the depth and thoroughness of Mueller & the Senate's inquiry. Which you don't want to hear. We're beginning to see a pattern here...

[loki13]

Well, but this is the difference. See, Tulsi Gabbard, noted straight shooter, just announced this! Because this a real scandal!!!!! Something she just happened to uncover, right now!!!!!

And it has nothing to do with that other scandal that is boring and we shouldn't talk about, because Obama.

In other news, "gullible" isn't in the dictionary.

[jay.tee]

Wow, what an insightful comment. Really moves the “narrative” forward.

And who’s trying to distract again?

[jay.tee]

#1 - Those aren’t my conclusions. It’s a summary of how politics turned the evaluation of the IC upside down
#2 - I’m assuming you have some type of evidence the two are connected? Or, is this your “yes, but it rings true” moment (Brennan’s justification for including the knowingly false Steele dossier in the ICA).
#3 - Obama was fully aware of his and his leadership’s deceit. He’s the one that ordered the new ICA, directed who would work on what, etc. He knew Trump had nothing to do with the Russians, and the Russians had nothing to do with his victory. He knew the origins of the Steele dossier, and he knew why Clinton hatched it. In short, he’s fully complicit.
#4 - Let me paraphrase your response: “I’m going to ignore new documentary evidence that further reveals how the Russiagate conspiracy was concocted because…I really really want it to be true.” Neither Mueller’s report nor the Senate report stand when their legs are knocked out from under them; a corrupted, conclusion-driven IC produces corrupted, conclusion-driven assessments.

I’m not even clear what you believe at this point! We know Clinton devised and paid for the contrived Steele dossier in an effort to hobble Trump, distract from her legal, health, and political problems, and ultimately win the election. We know Obama was aware of this (Brennan told him). We know the IC held one opinion based on extensive intelligence and analyses. We know that, based on Obama’s command, that opinion changed despite no new intelligence or breakthrough analysis.

[grb]

Wild flailing ain't a good look, jay.tee. Retire from the field with what's left of your dignity.

[jay.tee]

Sadly, didn’t expect anything more from you.

It appears your desire to keep Russiagate on life support overrides everything else, including glaring evidence to the contrary.

[grb]

Bonus Point! : Just weeks ago, there was a so-called comprehensive review of the existing evidence by .... wait for it .... Trump's own CIA Director John Ratcliffe! Now, it would be easy for me to say anything from anybody in the administration of liars can't be trusted. Because it's true.

But in this case Ratcliffe's conclusion is interesting precisely because he's an unreliable flunky. One way to judge your view is to see what the opposite side produces. (thus your determined blindness about the Mueller and Senate conclusions). So what did this Trump apparatchik say?

He agreed the Russians made a concentrated effort to influence the election, but claimed it was anti-Clinton, not pro-Trump. On that, two observations : First, you - jay.tee - can't even get a Trump toady to buy what you're selling above. Second, the difference between a Kremlin campaign against Clinton vs one for Trump is a mighty thin reed. I expect a lot of interpretation & wishful thinking went into determining it - if not the aid of a Ouija Board to make the final call.

You just can't seem to find anyone to agree with you, can ya, jay.tee?

[jay.tee]

Your comment is extraordinary revealing and shows just how ignorant or in denial you really are.

Most of this information - if not all of it - was known in 2018 thanks to the HPSCI investigation. So no, it has nothing to do with Ratcliffe.

Yet more dissembling. You’d do better to actually read the primary source yourself and skip the left-wing denialism.

[grb]

Your reply is revealing because (a) it's incoherent, and (b) it responds to none of the points I made.

[jay.tee]

Apologies - I misread your post. When I re-read it, I understood why. It’s sophistry.

Ratcliffe referred Brennan for criminal prosecution. He believes Brennan and his conclusions are frauds. No matter how you try to parse it or move the goalposts, Obama directed a fraudulent ICA to reverse the IC’s findings. Brennan was fully complicit and repeatedly lied under oath about it.

[not guilty]

A President discussing intelligence reports with advisers is an official act. Under Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), how would evidence of such discussions be admissible in a criminal trial?

[Armchair]

Feels like Reader is actually using his party's own playbook.

1. Use the power of law to go after the previous president.
2. Set mobs on the politicians and judges who hold undesirable views
3. Use violent rhetoric about how "evil" the opposition is.

[ReaderY]

I have never claimed to be a Republican. I have avoided revealing personal identifying information including party affiliation.

[Riva]

You’re worse than wrong. Your Hitler comparison is laughably amateurish projection. Where was your pathetic hand ringing when the Biden regime targeted his main opponent with multiple meritless investigations and criminal charges? Not just President Trump. The DOJ and FBI was unleashed against any political opposition.

[Poxigah146]

The amount of resources used to prosecute people who trespassed on Capitol grounds is a great example.

[SRG2]

I don't understand why people like you get so upset at Hitler comparisons given that it's obvious you'd have voted for him - and in some cases, like you specifically, would have joined the Party in 1932 if not earlier.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

How many of those "meritless investigations and criminal charges" were dismissed on the merits? None. The federal charges in particular were wholly legitimate and could be re-filed once the purely corrupt Trump Administration is over.

Trump remains a convicted felon, and although he has appealed his NY convictions, he has advanced no arguments for appeal based on merit.

[Poxigah146]

Actually, he has advanced many meritorious arguments.

[Nelson]

Really? Name one legally sufficient argument about merit?

[Bob from Ohio]

"gone full Hitler"

Thought you were learning there were other tyrants in history with the Stalin usage a few days back. Alas, not to be.

You do recall that the last administration indicted Trump twice. I guess that was Hitler too.

[damikesc]

"Various Trump officials accusing Obama of treason and the setting up of a task force to find a way to prosecute him is another indication that we have gone full Hitler"

Miss the last 4 years?

[Michael P]

Colorado has adopted yet another policy that blatantly discriminates against protected speech. They don't seem to learn from court losses on this front.

https://adflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/born-again-used-books-v-sullivan-2025-07-16-complaint.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

What they learn from court losses is that they can impose costs on people they don't like for years on end, without ever suffering any personal liability. Did you expect them to learn some other lesson?

[hobie]

So you don't like it when the government imposes costs organizations for their speech, eh?

[Nelson]

Only when it’s the people he likes getting screwed. Equal opportunity screwing is anathema to Brett.

Principled positions that acknowledge that his allies are as corrupt as the other side is absolutely a no-go zone for Brett.

[hobie]

You noticed that too.

[Commenter_XY]

What is the likelihood that each of the following individuals will have their homes raided by the FBI (ala Mar-a-Lago): James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey, Barack Obama?

It isn't 0%. 😉

[Riva]

I bet Comey is actively trying to discard every seashell in his collection.

[SRG2]

There was probable cause in the case or Mar-a-Lago. Here? Nope.

[loki13]

It's amazing, isn't it, that someone can both cavalierly say, "How dare you compare what is happening to authoritarianism... my community seems normal, because I keep having breakfast...." and then say, "Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the President is going to order federal law enforcement to punish political enemies."

See, the thing is- they refuse to admit that they know that this President will, because as seen in the Wednesday thread, this President and this administration willfully lie to courts and manufacture evidence when it suits their political ends.

But some people don't care when it happens to brown people, or political enemies, or when it's good theater or something.

[hobie]

Since the election XY has gone full fascism. He's also been quite gleeful regarding the misery of others. Classic MAGA progression.

[Bob from Ohio]

Will the agents sniff the lingerie in their wife's bedrooms?

Obama's many mansions are not getting searched though.

[not guilty]

"What is the likelihood that each of the following individuals will have their homes raided by the FBI (ala Mar-a-Lago): James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey, Barack Obama?"

What facts amount to probable cause that evidence of criminal activity would be found at any of those homes?

A search warrant cannot lawfully issue based on stale information.

Would the FBI dare to conduct such searches without a warrant? Possibly, but that would be grounds to impeach the Attorney General.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, XY.

I once won a motion to suppress on grounds of staleness because the affidavit recited facts occurring in the previous January which were essential to probable cause. The assistant district attorney conceded the issue.

Was that a typographical error, similar to writing the previous year's date on a check written during January? Probably. But in evaluating whether the contents of an affidavit make out probable cause, the judge is confined to the four corners of the affidavit.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, those "South Park" guys are really daring, depicting Martin Luther King Jr. in bed with Satan, calling him "Martin Lucifer King" and having a micro penis, having sex with underage boys on Epstein's Island, boy the protests are going to be epic.

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

Come on Frank, again I ask are you losing it?

[Bob from Ohio]

He's making a comparison to the recent South Park episode involving Trump.

[Frank Drackman]

Jeez-us, do I have to draw you a Diaphragm??

[Michael P]

@TheDemocrats briefly tried, on Xitter, to blame Biden's grocery inflation on Donald Trump: https://nypost.com/2025/07/24/us-news/democratic-party-effort-to-highlight-record-high-grocery-prices-completely-backfires/

Are they all senile over there?

[Commenter_XY]

No, they're sore losers.

[Malika the Maiz]

8/9/24:
“Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again, to bring down the prices of all goods.”

[Commenter_XY]

Funny, inflation Jan-Jun is ~1.7% and PPI is flat. I'd call that a good start.

It is a huge contrast to the 9% inflation under The Cauliflower.

[Frank Drackman]

"Cauliflower"?? That's an Insult!!!

to the Cauliflower

[SRG2]

You are aware that post-Covid inflation was a global phenomenon, right?

[hobie]

But what happened to 'day one'? You know, the same day Ukraine and GAZA were to be resolved.

[Nelson]

Trump struggles with simple concepts. Day One is just one of many things he fails to understand.

[hobie]

You don't think he lied just to fool the rubes and get votes...do you?

[Frank Drackman]

Sure, both Barry Hussein and Parkinsonian Joe

[hobie]

Drink!

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court of the Philippines found it had the power to review impeachment proceedings for consistency with the constitution. The case against Sara Duterte is dismissed on grounds of fairness and procedural irregularity. No new impeachment can be brought before February 6, 2026, because only one impeachment is allowed per year.

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/278353-278359-sara-z-duterte-in-her-capacity-as-the-vice-president-of-the-philippines-vs-house-of-representatives-represented-by-ferdinand-martin-g-romualdez-et-al-atty-israelito-p-torreon-e/

The United States Supreme Court ruled that judicial review is not available in impeachment cases. The majority said never, the minority said not yet but maybe some day if the process is severely abused.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not seeing any basis in the constitutional text for them to assert such a power. Looks to me like nothing more than a judicial power grab over a topic given entirely and completely over to the legislature.

[Krayt]

There is a process to deal with severe abuse. The next election.

It's the same way as the process to deal with a crappy exec who executes the laws poorly, or not at all using sophistry of limited resources, then nanoseconds later blathering how it's good policy as well, the former having nothing to do with it other than standard operating procedure for congenital liars.

Which president do I speak of? Your beloved one, or the other party's demon-spawn?

Yes!

[Commenter_XY]

Suppose SCOTUS takes on Washington v Trump, and SCOTUS ditches birthright citizenship. What federal and state benefits would be NOT be affected by the loss of citizenship?

Social Security?
Medicare?
Medicaid?
UI benefits?

What Fed/State benefits are universal to anyone in the US?
Military enlistment?

[John F. Carr]

Getting rid of birthright citizenship is a way to keep Social Security solvent another year. People born to foreign parents are no longer eligible for benefits. They are not citizens. They are not lawful residents. They had no reason to apply for green cards when they thought they were citizens. And it's too late for them to file for tax refunds from 20 years ago. We have their money and we owe them nothing.

If Trump wins big on this issue Democrats will reverse it in 2029. Congress can pass a law saying "anchor babies are citizens after all." Except they would use different words to the same effect.

[Brett Bellmore]

Even if you did get rid of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens, as a constitutional matter, nothing would stop the legislature from statutorily naturalizing them, save perhaps a lack of votes.

The 14th amendment clearly made an exception to birthright citizenship for the Indian tribes, but Congress was still able to just naturalize them all anyway, back in 1924. A Democratic Congress in '29 could do the same with illegal aliens.

This is actually why deportation is so absurdly important. As long as those illegal aliens are present, they represent a continuing temptation to Democrats to just naturalize them all, and increase their voting base by tens of millions in one fell swoop.

[Poxigah146]

And even more important to ensure no "asylum" seekers or "migrants." Not unless they're willing to accept sterilization as the price of being released into the United States.

[Nelson]

Sterilization? What sort of evil eugenics plan are you spouting today?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You mean after Trump has disenfranchised this same, Democrat-leaning voting base in one fell swoop...

[damikesc]

They are already used to give them extra Congressional seats.

[Joe_dallas]

Citizens and non citizens are eligible for social security benefits based on how much they paid in fica during the employment while located in the US.

[EllaWilson]

Prices continue to fall under President Trump:

"On Inauguration Day, January 20, 2025, CPI inflation was 2.9%. By June 2025, it was 2.7%, a decrease of 0.2 percentage points."

Thank you, President Trump!

[jb]

"Prices continue to fall under President Trump"

LOL, this statement indeed shows a very Trumpian understanding of economics.

(Hint: inflation is a measure of how much prices are still increasing.)

[Mr. Bumble]

If inflation is bad (and I think it is) why is it official policy of the Fed to aim for 2% inflation every year? Why shouldn't the target be 0%?

[jb]

The theory is that deflation is a lot worse than mild inflation so you want your target set such that if you miss a little you don't accidentally get into a deflationary spiral.

There's legitimate arguments about whether deflation is as bad as the Fed seems to think it is, but it strikes me as a pretty reasonable balance of risks.

[Mr. Bumble]

Assumes that any deflation would become a runaway downward spiral. Why is that anymore likely than any inflation becoming a runaway spiral?

[Brett Bellmore]

I believe the actual assumption, not that they'd want to be explicit about it, is that the government rakes in a substantial seigniorage profit from inflation, as well as being able to lower expenses by lowballing COLAs, so they don't want inflation to go to zero, they just want it low enough that people don't get pissed off and take it out on incumbent politicians.

[jb]

That assumption seems sound to me: deflation leads to low growth because there's an incentive to defer purchases. And low growth will tend to reinforce the deflationary pressure.

On the other hand, inflation doesn't lead to high (real) growth, and in fact high inflation will slow the economy, so it is somewhat self-correcting.

[Bwaaah]

Deflation causes your cash to increase in buying power, while inflation causes it to decrease in buying power. My amateur theory is that some inflation assures that people get a sinking feeling when their money is sitting around, and causes them to instinctively try to spend and/or invest their money rather than just sit on it and watch it lose value. Deflation has the opposite effect: it gives the feeling of reward for sitting on your money, and thereby discourages economic activity.

Anybody schooled in economics who might correct my thinking?

[jb]

Yes, that's the theory. Deflation tends to discourage the movement of money, which slows the economy.

There's a current debate about whether the problem is planned vs unplanned changes in inflation rates more than deflation vs inflation, but for now the Fed generally prefers low levels of inflation to avoid the risk of deflation.

[Mr. Bumble]

Assumes the money not spent is sitting in your mattress.
That money is in savings or investments where it works its way through the economy.

[jb]

No, look at Japan which had to resort to negative interest rates to try to combat deflation. So it was better to keep your money under a mattress than invest it.

In any case, you don't have to agree with the theory. You asked why the Fed sets the target at 2%. The risk of deflation is why. Maybe they're wrong about the risk, but that's their rationale.

[Bwaaah]

With steady, predictable DEflation, people can afford to keep their money in their mattress. I think steady, predictable INflation has been the driver for people to bank their money; it's an ongoing hedge against inflation. Without inflation, I think much less money would have been kept in the banking system.

It's interesting to consider indications that the mattress, i.e. unbanked home savings, may be rendered less preferred and less irrelevant by our continuing transition away from paper money and toward electronic accounting for cash (e.g. credit cards, cash apps, direct deposit of paychecks, ubiquitous ATMs). So though we have needed the pressure of inflation to motivate us to put our money in the bank, the convenience (i.e. reduced "friction") of electronic banking may be enough to make electronic banking an instinctively preferred choice now and in the future.

Electronic banking is a boon to government tax authorities and their ability to see taxable capital. Black markets being persistent as they are, and there being at least a little bit of tax eavoaider in a lot of us (and a lot in some of us), cryptocurrency looks like the next place to put what you don't want The Man to see. (He'll be eyeing that stuff with fangs drawn.)

[Kenneth Almquist]

The difference is that the Federal Reserve can raise interest rates as high as it wants, but cannot lower interest rates below zero. When the economy experiences deflation, the Federal Reserve will reduce interest rates. If that ends the deflation, well and good. If the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates all the way to zero and that’s not enough to reduce deflation, the economy goes into a deflationary spiral.

[SRG2]

Because 0% inflation tends to accompany low growth, and cushions inefficient companies.

But credit to you for asking an intelligent question that shows your willingness to have your ignorance addressed.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Because 0% inflation tends to accompany low growth, and cushions inefficient companies."
Cite?
Also, I only suggested that 0% be a target. What's the magic of 2% and where did that come from?

[hobie]

I guess you don't shop very often. Prior to the election my gas here in Cleveland was $2.85/gal. Now it is $2.99/gal.

Dozen eggs $4.99. Today $5.49

I've kept detailed tabs on these two metrics

[Mr. Bumble]

Poor you. Big country, lots of different markets; your's sounds like an outlier.

[Nelson]

Prices for services have been zero, but prices for products have increased. More than anticipated, in fact.

Those who have an interest in claiming prices haven’t increased due to tariffs (which impact product, but not service, prices) are trying to pretend that the blended number is the same as prices on products. Because those people are dishonest.

[Mr. Bumble]

Again, big country.
For my location:
Reg. gas: $3.29 prior to election, now $2.89.
Large eggs: $5.79/dz prior to election, now $2.71 (Aldi's)

[Nelson]

Yes, that’s why there are national numbers that identify the national trend. And nationally, the prices of products are up, more than expected, while the prices for services are flat. What could possibly be the difference between services and products that might account for such a large discrepancy? Hmmmmm.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Natural gas is the one that should worry everyone in Dallas that bought a 3500 square foot home in the last 4 years.

[Frank Drackman]

Was I the only one disappointed that Fed Chair Powell didn't get a "You're Fired!!!!" yesterday?

[Commenter_XY]

There is no reason to remove Powell, Frank. The jury is still out on the inflationary impact of tariffs. We won't know until the end of Q1 of next year.

POTUS Trump appointed Powell. I'd say that Powell did an excellent job steering Fed policy through the pandemic. For this alone, he should serve out his term.

The Fed governs by consensus, not fiat.

[Poxigah146]

No. Powell did an awful job in 2020 to mid 2022. He has done a decent job since then, but that doesn't make up for the excessive pandemic response that created a host of problems for the housing market and economy in general.

[Mr. Bumble]

Whatever he did is past. He's gone in less than a year so who should his replacement be?

[Poxigah146]

That's fine. I'm just pointing out to not to whitewash his obvious errors, and yes, they were obvious at the time too, not just in hindsight.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You mean peace and prosperity?? Do you want to return to the war and hardship of Bush and Bernanke??

[Nelson]

“ I'd say that Powell did an excellent job steering Fed policy through the pandemic.”

Beyond excellent, rather almost impossibly amazing. Navigating the soft landing from high inflation without triggering inflation took threading a needle that virtually no one thought was possible.

Powell has been an exemplary Fed Chair, using a light touch and communicating clearly with business. Trump values incompetent sycophants over superlative performance, so of course he hates Powell.

Watching Trump’s “Gotcha” moment get handled, simply and definitively, by Powell while simultaneously exposing the President as a complete buffoon, all in real time, was *chef’s kiss*.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The weird thing is how MAGA made inflation a big issue when lower class Americans that live paycheck to paycheck aren’t harmed by inflation. Of course the GOP also made Iraq and gay marriage big issues so who knows??

[loki13]

As someone who doesn't want to see the markets tank, I am very happy that Trump didn't fire Powell. In fact, the only reason Trump hasn't fired Powell (because the law and the Supreme Court won't stop him) is that he has been told, repeatedly, that firing the Fed Chair will tank the markets.

It's the same reason he "paused" the tariffs.

But despite all the BS going on, the independence of the Fed actually matters. If Trump was in charge of the Fed, setting monetary policy with all the same care and deliberation that he sets ... oh, tariff rates ... people would looking up Zimbabwe on wikipedia.

Every thing else he is doing is just a tantrum because he expects to get everything he wants when he wants it, like a toddler.

That said, it was pretty funny when he was corrected on camera for his usual lying. You can't include the construction costs for a past construction project in the current project to artificially pump up the numbers. It just shows you that when Trump is BSing, which is 100% of the time, people really should not pay any attention to what he says. The way to tell that he is lying? His lips are moving.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Who was that lickspittle accompanying Trump on his tour of the Fed building? Yes, of course, it was Sen. Tim Scott. Was he the source for Trump's claim that the renovation costs had recently increased to $3.1bn? Oddly, Trump handed the paper [back?] to Scott--after Powell had looked at it and quickly noted that the $3.1bn figure included the costs for the Martin Building, a renovation project which had been completed five years previously...

[Nelson]

That exchange showed the difference between someone who knows his numbers and someone who has gone bankrupt multiple times and would be a failure if he hadn’t inherited a half-billion-dollar cushion from his father.

[Moderation4ever]

Jeffrey W. Rupnow will stand trial in Madison for providing the handgun to his daughter Natalie Rupnow. Natalie a minor used the gun to shoot several students and a teacher at Abundant Life Christian School. I continue to wonder why a parent of a child having social and mental issue would think that giving a gun to that child would be a good idea. Common sense should tell a parent this is a bad idea. Maybe a conviction of Mr. Rupnow will make the point that some people are missing.

[Commenter_XY]

Nobody hunts game in WI?

[Moderation4ever]

Most hunters use rifles or bows, not handguns. Even if we are talking rifles, I don't recommend giving one to a minor with mental health issues.

[SRG2]

Irrelevant.

[hobie]

He tried to 'squirrel' us. It was a pretty lame attempt. Riva and MichaelP are much better at it

[not guilty]

"Nobody hunts game in WI?"

How is that germane to the charges against Mr. Rupnow? The original charging instrument is here: https://spectrumnews1.com/content/dam/News/static/pdfs/wi/Jeffrey_Rupnow_Criminal_Complaint.pdf

Schoolchildren are not game to be hunted.

[Frank Drackman]

You Liberals are always pushing "Assisted Suicide", he was assisting her with her Suicide.

[Moderation4ever]

First I am not a liberal, I a centrist. Isn't this a bit sick? Frank I think you are starting to lose it based on your recent comments. You can do better.

[Michael P]

Lots of far left loonies mistakenly think that they're centrists just because they have not yet gone full Pol Pot.

[Bwaaah]

I consider myself to be a centrist. But now that I see that M4e is a centrist, I'm thinking I must be far right.

I didn't change. The world did.

[Bob from Ohio]

"centrist"
Maybe in the Soviet Union.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's now commonplace for third parties to be prosecuted for crimes committed by other people--at least in the narrow "school shooting" context.

That is not how law or ethics is supposed to work: each person is responsible for their own actions so long as they are mentally competent. Criminally second-guessing the actions of third parties may be viscerally satisfying, but it is unjust.

[Nelson]

“ each person is responsible for their own actions so long as they are mentally competent”

While giving a gun (that they couldn’t get in their own) to their mentally unstable child could be argued to show a lack of mental competence, the fact remains that providing a gun to your child means you are responsible for the result of your actions.

Fuck those parents. You give a gun to your minor child and they kill people, it’s your ass. Be a responsible gun owner or go to jail.

[not guilty]

Mr. Rupnow is being charged with three Class H felonies based on his own actions. Those charges are two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18 years, causing death and one count of contribute to the delinquency of a child. If he were vicariously liable for his daughter's actions, he would be charged with some degree of homicide.

The criminal complaint includes considerable detail. https://spectrumnews1.com/content/dam/News/static/pdfs/wi/Jeffrey_Rupnow_Criminal_Complaint.pdf If the daughter's actions were committed by an adult, there would be a strong case of premeditated murder -- and offense for which the father is not charged.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, we all know that is what the law currently says, but nothing you have said responds to my assertion, which is that justice requires that individuals should be held responsible for their own actions, not for those of (legally competent) third parties.

The law currently tries to have it both ways (this was even more starkly illustrated in another school shooting case where the parents were held responsible for "what happened" even when their criminal child was tried as an adult). In Wisconsin, possession of a handgun by a minor is only a misdemeanor, recognizing the obvious fact that mere possession of a prohibited weapon is not a plausible threat to anyone. Logically, the same reasoning should also apply to making a handgun available to a minor, but Wisconsin legislators apparently decided to create a new crime which depends on the outcome of subsequent events undertaken by third parties--which necessarily must occur after the alleged criminal act by the defendant--and as if to emphasize their illogic, they made this new crime a felony.

The "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" law is at least more traditional, but also suffers from the same flaw, in that it hinges upon the subsequent acts of a third party minor who (as we have seen) would almost certainly have been found competent to stand trial "as an adult" had she survived.

(Rupnow's speculation about how his daughter might have gained access to the handguns she used in her crimes is the strongest piece of evidence against him.)

As I said, I recognize that this is nevertheless the law in many places, and it is a bipartisan phenomenon. US "liberals" have traditionally been happy to fudge the law and principles of justice in the same way as US "conservatives" (albeit usually in a different direction). That is why they are not libertarians.

[Commenter_XY]

SM811....this is for you, and your SO. Figs are coming into season. Fire up that blender!

https://toriavey.com/fig-and-honey-cocktail/

Some notes here. I have added 1/16th tsp of clove, or cinnamon, or allspice on occasion (for the pitchers). I have also subbed out the ginger ale for ginger beer, or ginger flavored seltzer water (Wegmans brand). This drink recipe is very flexible.

A few years back, I posted a recipe for figs with goat cheese and date syrup. They (drinks, fig w/goat cheese) go well together.

Hope you enjoy this during a spectacular sunset on the Left Coast, maybe the Santa Monica pier?

[Poxigah146]

The people who support birthright citizenship claim they're taking that position out of "fealty" for the Constitution, but the reality is that they just want more brown citizens to dilute the voting power of the white conservatives they so hate.

If most of the people being born on U.S. soil to illegal aliens or "asylum" seekers were from Romania, Poland, or Ireland, they'd be singing a different tune.

[Frank Drackman]

as seen recently with the White South Africans seeking asylum (I'd say escaping Chief Kwazi Mojumbo Kwanza's cooking pot deserving of "Asylum")

[Poxigah146]

Good point. The left just wants to destroy America. The stupider, browner, and less functional the people they admit in, the better for that end.

[SRG2]

Alternatively, the people who oppose birthright citizenship don't like the idea of brown people as citizens, and want to make the US a country of "decent law abiding white folk".

[Poxigah146]

They may not like the idea of brown people becoming citizens whom they have not invited. Which is their right.

[SRG2]

If "they" don't want that, then pass a constitutional amendment.

[Poxigah146]

They don't need to. Don't allow the mothers in in the first place and it's a moot point.

You know as well as I do that the intent of the citizenship clause was not for the federal government to intentionally not enforce immigration law so that Democrats could import socialistic and mentally dull brown citizens.

[SRG2]

Because we have more than enough mentally dull white citizens already?

[Nelson]

Only the Nazis and Christian Nationalists. There are plenty of other conservatives that are perfectly average, mentally.

[Joe_dallas]

Delaware Valley regional school board is being sued for intentionally hiding the "transitioning " of 9th grade girl into believing she is a boy by the father. currently on appeal to CA3.

No school should be hiding medical or mental health issues from the parent.

[Moderation4ever]

No schools should not be hiding any information from parents. Parents should be the primary decision makers for their children and this would also include getting gender affirming care where the parents think it warranted.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Now do FGM...

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

(I meant that the way the kids mean it, which is not literally. No, don't do female genital mutilation--even though it is arguably in the child's "best interests", as solemnly determined by their loving parents and dutiful medical practitioners. The same goes--I would argue--for male genital mutilation and any other drug-based treatment designed to interfere with a child's physical development.)

[Commenter_XY]

It isn't just Delaware Valley. This is happening in many NJ school districts.

[Joe_dallas]

yes - it appears that it is NJ statute provides that schools are not required to inform parents and/or allowed to hide the schools efforts/involvement to participate in the transitioning.

[Moderation4ever]

I am certainly not aware of all the uses of AI videos that are out. I am aware that videos have been made depicting Democrats. I was waiting till users started on Trump and I see that South Park stepped up with one. I sure we can expect many more as Trump is a rich subject for this sort of thing.

[SRG2]

And here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afetnw70S04

[Nelson]

And he can’t help himself. He has to respond to anything that points out what a buffoon he is, even if it’s from two well-known, highly successful satirists who will just make him look like even more of a buffoon.

South Park is so good at this. And Trump is just the sort of thin-skinned fool that they feast on.

[loki13]

So a brief refresher on the timeline:

February- Bondi states that a "client list" from Epstein is "sitting on my desk right now to review." (This is later retconned to mean the Epstein files in general)

Later in February- Bondi's DOJ distributed binders to right-wing influencers that were labelled (you can't make this up) "The Epstein Files: Phase 1" for photo ops. (It was later learned that most of the materials were public domain)

"Spring" (March-April) - Hundreds of FBI agents and federal prosecutors go over Epstein files more than four times, instructed to flag any reference to Trump. The review process was led by ... Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal attorney who had been elevated to number 2 in the DOJ.

April- Bondi briefs Trump and tells him that he is in the Epstein files.

May- Patel begins media tour, telling various outlets that there was nothing to the Epstein matter.

July 6- DOJ and FBI conclude that there is no evidence that Epstein blackmailed anyone, had a client list or clients, or was murdered. Also, no need to release stuff.

.... then the drips of information start coming out, surprising no one.

Last week, for example, Trump was asked if Bondi had told him if he was named in the Epstein file. Trump denied it.

This week? We learn that he was named in the Epstein file. (Duh) And that Bondi specifically told him about it, and that they agreed that there was no need to release the Epstein file.

We learn of a picture (the "wonderful secret" picture, with the doodle and Trump's signature as public hair). Trump claims that he never draws pictures, and supporters claim he never used the word enigma because that's too fancy for him. Both are lies- he doodled extensively at that exact time, including providing his doodles to charities (because he's cheap) and there are videos of him saying the word enigma like it's a weird tic.

More and more pictures and videos of the two of them together keep popping up, because, again, they were best friends and pals for well over a decade. A decade when Trump was a serial womanizer (to use the nice term) and Epstein was a serial ... you know.

The latest? In order to help ... clear things up ... the DOJ dispatches someone to have a private talk with Maxwell and her attorneys. Who is it? Oh, Todd Blanche. Trump's private attorney that he elevated in the DOJ. They literally could not have picked a single more suspicious person if they were actively trying to cover something up.

The reason I point out these facts is not to say that there is anything happening. But only because I am amazed that so many people here glom on to utter BS and manage to craft elaborate conspiracy theories out of it (even going so far as saying that the absence of anything is evidence of the coverup), but will tie themselves into knots when they look at this to find a reason to say, "Eh, seems perfectly normal to me. It's not like Trump would ever do something shady. Right?"

[Bwaaah]

You've come back (for now). You've dropped in. And here you are again, now, for the Epstein thing?

I'm glad you've found a not-too-toxic place to dip your toe back in. But the Epstein thing?

There being little accounting for taste, it shouldn't be surprising that the ascendant topic has a little bit for just about everybody, if you're everybody who goes for a little T & A (and girls!, girls!, girls!). Oh, and the law! (HRUMPH!!!)

The Epstein thing? You're weak, but at least relaxed, and anyway for me it's a cheap pleasure to see you again. (Happy Mangoville.)

[Estragon]

Well— it’s like Don said, isn’t it?

“a guy who never dies— Jeffrey Epstein.”

I wonder if he’s seeing ghosts late at night…

[loki13]

Well, I'm as surprised as you are. I was saying that Epstein wasn't even worth mentioning a short while ago because, again, HOW COULD ANY PERSON NOT ALREADY KNOW THAT TRUMP AND EPSTEIN WERE BESTIES FOR YEARS? Not to mention, how could anyone not know the type of person Trump was? I assumed that most of y'all had already "priced in" the Epstein stuff.

"That's just our Trump. Grabbin' 'em by the pussy. Takin' what he wants. Creepin' on his daughter. No biggie, so long as he can extort money from companies for his own personal benefit to make libtards mad, amirite?"

But I was wrong. It happens. Some people do care, at least performatively, about it. So might as well point it out. Maybe at some point you might care about the other stuff, too. Not that I'm holding my breath.

[Bwaaah]

"Maybe at some point you might care about the other stuff, too. Not that I'm holding my breath."

Is that "you" me, or the generic you? If me, is there something you think I don't care about that I should? I'm skeptical of the "not caring" implication, and how you make such a determination. I'm also skeptical of its relevance, given how unrelated it typically is to mechanisms of action. (Gazan civilians come to mind, trying to get to food trucks.)

I admit that I haven't cared about the Epstein thing, and feel no inclination to change that now. More notable, I think, are all the things I care about, for many of which I make few or no comments here in this VC forum.

Who should care about what why?

On second thought, I think you found a good jump-in spot in the Epstein thing. If you veer, this could start looking more like the seriously contentious and important political challenges of the day. That'd be necessarily ugly, I think, by any road you take.

[loki13]

That was the general "you," not the specific "you."

I think my concerns were well documented- mostly about the breakdown of regular process which I've discussed before. It's manifested in a lot of areas, but as I pointed out previously, I've been thinking a lot about Hart/Fuller recently for a reason.

That's seems way to high-falutin' for what this ostensibly legal blog has devolved into, so ... how you like dem Epstein apples?

[Bwaaah]

I never heard of the Hart/Fuller debate. I just read about it.

Wow. Those there are some big questions.

That looks like a large set of concerns that encompass wide and deep levels of abstraction. I have only relatively immature thoughts about that stuff.

What about this time relates most, in your mind, to that debate? Which actors are of greatest concern to you, why, and how would you like to see that debate drive their actions?

Feel free to decline to answer. But if you feel like taking a swipe at it, it'd be interesting for me.

[loki13]

Well, a full (Fuller) answer would require a lot more space. But very (VERY) briefly... I tend to be a positivist in my approach to the law. Very much into the Hart aspect.

But as I've been watching the breakdown in process, I keep coming back to the Fuller position- the substantive approach to the law, a need to examine the moral implications.

In the very simplest form, I am doubting that the way the law is working now is consistent with Fuller's principles- that the legal system is devolving and lacks morality.

I am being very brief here and this is incredibly nuanced, but it seems that, at an increasing pace, the legal system may still kinda sorta match the positivist aspect of Hart, but no longer is a match for a moral system of law (qua Fuller). When I look at all eight principles enunciated by Fuller, to some degree I see that we are falling away from a justifiable framework of law.

[Bwaaah]

That "falling away from a justifiable framework of law" that you describe...over what period of time are you thinking? (I'd guess the DJT period, but that's not necessarily so.)

Are all those eight principles of equal concern to you here? Care to comment on one(s) that concern(s) you most?

What, characteristically, changed in execution of law that caused the Hart view to be descendant in your view, and Fuller to be ascendant? (Please avoid names; focus on titles/roles/practices.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

loki13 — Notably and unwisely excluded from Hart v Fuller is Holmes: "The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience."

Do you think that either way—Hart or Fuller—you end up rummaging rationalisms, striving to identify axioms, and to reason from those to posit facts? I think those practices have their uses. But they can be used best, I think, by folks alert to notice the kinds of pickles which result when facts crop up un-posited—the kinds of facts which embarrass the axioms.

The right response in a case of that sort is generally not to discount to zero any embarrassing facts. Better instead to adjust or discard a discredited axiom.

I take that to be the message from Holmes. The question how to reconcile that with a positive institution such as the U.S. Constitution then becomes a topic worthy of careful focus.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I hope Pamela Bondi's eye is okay. A torn cornea sounds potentially serious.

[Frank Drackman]

it's the eye equivalent of a scraped arm, extremely painful until it heals, usually a few days.

[Ridgeway]

In these days of Bennifer and Brangelina, shouldn't that be a "tornea"?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There was an amusing bit on Friends where Jennifer Aniston/Rachel had a phobia about anything touching her eye.

"According to the American Academy of Ophthalmology, "a corneal laceration is a very serious injury and requires immediate medical attention to avoid severe vision loss." Such an injury may have even required surgery"

Read More: https://www.thelist.com/1922010/pam-bondi-medical-emergency-trump-administration-health-issues/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Paramount and Skydance merger has received a lot of attention. I caught a couple of interesting articles.

One has this bit:

On Tuesday, as part of the review process, Skydance committed to undergo “a comprehensive review of CBS” after the completion of the transaction and to create an ombudsman role for at least two years to handle complaints of bias at the network. The company also pledged to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, an action Carr has said is a prerequisite for any merger approval.

https://archive.ph/fjZFN

That's Brendan Carr, the chair of the FCC, who recently took a potshot at Stephen Colbert. DEI again. The latest anti-woke.

See also: https://www.npr.org/2025/07/24/nx-s1-5477530/paramount-cbs-skydance-sale-fcc-approves

BTW, someone recommended a film to me. I checked it out. I did not like it. Tastes differ.

[hobie]

Opposition press slowly going away thru extortion and suppression. Navalny?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Joan Biskupic had an article about SCOTUS dissents.

https://archive.ph/5bAEq

It references a comment by Justice Robert Jackson that appears suitable for some content here:

I give up. Now I realize fully what Mark Twain meant when he said, "The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/332/194/

[Eric Rasmusen]

VC authors, I look forward to a serious discussion of Bondi's appointment of of Habba as no. 2 in the US Attorney;s office so she can become Acting US Attorney again. It's clever, but it is totally contrary to the idea of the Senate confirmation requirement. It could be used for every nomination to avoid the requirement. It is OK by statute to get around the 120-day rule, but is it unconstitutional?

[Brett Bellmore]

BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Panel Rules California’s Ammunition Background Check Law Violates the Second Amendment

Of course, pro-2nd panel rulings in the 9th circuit are fairly common. The problem is that they ALWAYS, no exception, get overturned by en banc panels, with the maximum delay before the Supreme court getting it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Such courts should get slapped down in no uncertain terms. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court seems more interested in doing Trump's bidding these days (and he gives no actual shits about gun rights) than in disciplining the Judiciary to faithfully follow precedent.

[Michael P]

FACT CHECK: Hillary Clinton was not "doped to the gills" during the 2016 campaign.

Humans normally do not have gills, and unlike Kevin Costner while acting in Waterworld, there is no direct photographic evidence that Hillary Clinton has gills. Experts say that it is unlikely that a human would have gills without undergoing extensive genetic modifications in order for their biology to be compatible with these traditionally fishy body structures. Therefore, Glenn Snipes Factchecking rules that it is FALSE to claim that Clinton was doped to the gills.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Let’s say significant faction of the ruling coalition and security services in a particular country has identified a massive population (the number of which appears to arbitrarily increase) and seeks to remove that entire group. What do they do when they run into the issue that legal deportation of that amount is slow and impractical? And that they’ll never get close to the arbitrary number they’ve selected? And that even if they change laws to their favor it’s still logistically hard to do, and will require intentional cooperation? And they’ll still have to live in a society with people like that group who simply aren’t eligible for deportation on any recognizable legal theory? What happens next?

[Bwaaah]

It'll be another day where the world isn't like anybody wants it to be. And as long as nobody's shooting at us or bombing us or poisoning us, we'll tolerate that sad state rather than risk making things much worse.

Ain't no more hate today than there ever was in the past, and from my distant view, it looks like there's less and less of it in the world.

What do you think happens next?

[Commenter_XY]

What happens next? eVerify becomes mandatory, and business owners employing illegal aliens go to jail. No bail before trial. And that includes Fortune 500 CEOs.

If you want to change behavior, you must make the behavior very costly (money, time, or loss of freedom).

[Structured Chaos]

Candice thinks Briggitte is actually a man. The Macrons don't like that. Now suit. Do the discovery rules in Delaware permit the Court to Order an independent medical examination of Ms. Macron, which Order is commonly granted in the State of Georgia?

[Bob from Ohio]

Kenneth P. Vogel@kenvogel
"NEW: In a sign of what could be in store for other targets of Trump & his allies, Media Matters (@mmfa) is struggling to survive.

The Dem-aligned group has racked up $15m in legal bills, dialed back its criticism of Trump & Musk & contemplated closing."

Another Trump win!

[damikesc]

That thing that never happens has a lawsuit to make sure it can happen. Weird.

https://www.wkow.com/news/wisconsin-20-other-states-sue-to-stop-trump-administrations-restriction-of-some-safety-net-programs/article_eb8fe537-b0b3-40cd-aa65-c654e58d916d.html

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A second whistleblower and former Justice Department attorney has come forward with evidence that corroborates allegations that Trump’s judicial nominee Emil Bove directed DOJ attorneys to defy court orders and withhold information from judges, according to Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit that helps public and private sector workers report and expose wrongdoing.

Bove, 44, is on track to be confirmed next week to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. His [primary] credentials for the job are that he was Trump's personal criminal defense attorney and has used his role at DOJ to seek retribution against Trump's perceived political enemies.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tariffs-white-house-latest_n_686ec29fe4b09bd98fe4be7e/liveblog_6883c79ee4b0dc9c82941b6b

The latest procedural vote I saw split down party lines with Collins and Murkowski voting against & one senator from each party (the Republican criticized the Democratic walkout from one committee vote) not voting. No Vance vote seems necessary yet.

[LexAquilia]

Speaking of whistleblowers. You see this?
20 CIA and FBI Agents have now confirmed Barack Obama worked with our old CIA Director to create the fake Russia Hoax and then “locked it away in a CIA vault for almost a decade”

https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1948379351684182495

[loki13]

Honestly, Bove is a great litmus test for the GOP in the Senate. He is such a bad and odious pick that most people that are Trump supporters, but retain a few functioning brain cells, can't support him. There are literally so many other people that could be appointed.

So it's nothing more than a test- is your fealty to Trump greater than what little integrity you still have?

[Mr. Bumble]

"There are literally so many other people that could be appointed."
Did you say the same thing when PBJ was nominated and confirmed for the SC?

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump has confidence in Bove from his personal relationship. Not many can claim that connection.

[damikesc]

Every nominee he makes is "bad and odious" to you. I know nothing about him, but if you dislike him, I'll support him. Bare minimum, he has the correct people hating him.

[loki13]

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

I always believed that. But I have begun to realize that there was an unaddressed issue....

What about people that persist in fooling themselves?

It's funny- people associate the phrase with the 90s, because of the X-Files, but I think that it perfectly captures our zeitgeist...

I WANT TO BELIEVE

[LexAquilia]

... TRUMP SLEPT WITH SEX TRAFFICKED EPSTEIN GIRLS

lmao

[Sarcastr0]

There's a big populist anti-immigration movement in Japan.

Japan has 3% immigration. Some of the strictest policies and border controls around.

I really do fear that the Internet's positive feedback loops have really fucked us up, cognitively, for at least the foreseeable.

[Bwaaah]

As if we weren't feeding enough on our own bullshit, AI is about to seriously ratchet up the echo chamber. Fortunately, I expect that onslaught to cause increased feelings of confusion and uncertainty, not clarity. And that will result in greater caution, which from my perspective, will be helpful.

I admit to being prone to optimism.

[grb]

To be fair, the Japanese isolated themselves from almost the entire world for over two hundred years. The effort they made then was bizarre in its fanatical comprehensiveness.

Of course that was followed by the Meiji Period, where they sought and absorbed foreign influences as a man rescued from the desert gulps down water. Likewise, the imperialist calamity of WWII was followed by another period where they consumed outside influences like a sponge. So the nativism & isolationism is there somewhere in their cultural DNA. And it (or its opposite) can manifest itself in extreme pendulum swings. That one could be triggered by the toxic influence of internet extremism isn't surprising.

[Sarcastr0]

That's a pretty good cultural point; there's a longstanding foundation there for nuttiness to build from.

[grb]

I'm always down for Japanese history because of a personal fanaticism of my own : collecting Japanese woodblock prints. It's an interesting art kick because (a) throughout much of the 1800s publishers knocked the things out like flapjacks (creating a saturated market for budget-conscious buyers now), (b) and the market is very grey, meaning lots of later printings are available super-cheap, and (c) it's a fascinating look at the Id of Shogun & Meiji Japan.

The genres of Japanese prints match well with much of today's consumer culture. Kabuki prints correspond to movie house posters. Landscape prints were often the equivalent of travel mags. Bijin-ga prints (beautiful women) celebrated fashion style and the glamorously attractive. Of course there's also shunga, of which I have one very nice example. Every print has a story of Japanese history and culture.

Plus they're often strikingly beautiful as art.

[Brett Bellmore]

My impression is that the Japanese simply intend that Japan continue to be Japanese. This isn't a bizarre position, Americans would like America to remain American, Canadians would like Canada to remain Canadian, the British would like Britain to remain British... How many countries are populated by (As opposed to ruled by...) people who don't like themselves?

The only thing unusual about it is that their government has actually been doing as their citizens want. That seems pretty rare in the developed world, I wonder how they pulled it off?

[Michael P]

Japan pulled it off because almost the entire culture was heavily racist (against foreigners generally) by Western standards.

That seems to be changing somewhat now, largely because of population pressures leading to more immigration.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

America used to be a place where anyone who wanted to be American could be one. In such a culture, it was impossible for America to no longer "be American".

[Sarcastr0]

1. That's nativism. It's a kind of bigotry. If you have faith in our culture, you should not treat it like some kind of fragile thing. So too with these other countries you speak on behalf of.

2. Stuff like this is why when you say you're just worried about illegal immigration, no one believes you.

3. 'Germany for the Germans' did not go down well. This kind of negative nationalism has a very bad history. You do realize the parties you are endorsing with this rhetoric, right? They're...as much atavistic as nationalist.

4. Anti-immigrant populism doesn't just cite fear immigrants would change our Sacred Culture. It's also all about blaming immigrants for every evil from crime to inflation. Because hate goes with fear really well.
You do the crime thing as well, as I recall. Ignoring statistics for vibes. As all bigots do.

5. Japan is at 3% immigration. The concern you lay out is very silly for them. It is for anyone, but especially for them. It's not rational. But then neither are you.

[Frank Drackman]

Overlooked in Hunter Biden's Flight of Profanity,
Somebody gave Sleepy Joe an Ambien right before the Debate???
OK, that would explain some things, but how did Dr. Ronny Jackson get access to the POTUS???

Frank

[Stella Link's Ghost]

That's sort of funny. What's wrong with you?

[NvEric]

Presidential immunity ?
Only for official actions within the purview of constitutional bounds.
The actions against Trump, from 2016 on, do not fall under those bounds. Usurping is not protected, but a court will need to determine that question.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The problem is that Trump appointed Rodentstain…so Trump’s own choices almost got him “usurped”. But Trump has learned from his mistakes and it started in his first term when he finally grew a pair of balls and stood up to the Military Industrial Complex and surrendered to the Taliban!

[grb]

NvEric : " ... Gibberish ..."

Let's review two situations :

1. Rightwingers claim Obama committed treason because they're easily duped clowns. They claim he was told one thing in private briefings but used the exact opposite conclusion to justify an investigation. Of course the private briefing was about whether the Russians committed cybercrimes against the election infrastructure and Obama's statements were about cybercrimes in general, so there's no contradiction. He didn't lie. Both statements were true. But - hey - no one ever said people like NvEric were very bright.

2. But suppose you go with the MAGA fantasy, despite its untruth. Then you should be introduced to a White House meeting on 27Dec2020. Background : Jeff Clark was a low-level flunky in Trump's DOJ who thought he saw a chance to leapfrog everyone to the top job. So he went to Trump and offered a deal: If given the acting Attorney General job, he'd write letters to target states claiming there was a DOJ investigation that uncovered evidence of election fraud which made it essential the states postpone vote certification.

Of course this was all a lie. There were no investigations and zero evidence. But to a criminal like Trump, this seemed a good scam. By the day of the 27Dec meeting, Clark was being listed as "acting Attorney General" in the White House call logs.

But Trump brought in real acting AG Jeff Rosen along with a roomful of Justice officials to try and get them onboard the con. They refused, telling him to his face there was no investigation, no evidence, and no cause to interfere with state vote certification. All this was witnessed by multiple witnesses who'd later testify before Congress. They also recounted this statement from the criminal-in-chief : “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen”. This came after Trump was told no evidence of corruption existed. Trump then tried the Clark card, threatening to fire Rosen. But was told there'd be mass resignations at DOJ as a result and backed down.

You could hardly come up with a better match : MAGA's fantasy scenario about Obama with the documented facts about Trump. I bring up this sordid episode because of the Trump v. United States decision by Roberts. He recognized how damaging the 27Dec meeting was to Trump and carved-out a special section in the decision to make sure DJT was completely covered on the meeting alone. Per Roberts, even if Trump was asking DOJ to lie, he was immune. Even if Trump was launching a investigation he knew was fraudulent, he was immune. Even if Trump tried to stop vote certification on false grounds, he was immune. It wasn't just that Trump couldn't face charges on 27Dec, but the meeting couldn't be used as evidence in a criminal trial even for other charges. Evidence on Trump's motives could not be used in court. That's how far Roberts went to have Trump's back re-27Dec.

Guess what, NvEric: Even if every single lie you tell about Obama was true, it could never clear that hurdle.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/january-6-hearing-trump-pressured-justice-undermine-election-rcna34804

[hobie]

You need to understand trolls like NvEric, Riva and MichaelP. They have found that if you make an outlandish, unsubstantiated statement, the suckers will respond with a long, researched retort. The idea is to get you to waste your time substantiating things they couldn't/wouldn't do themselves. I fell for the trap for awhile. But not anymore.

[Michael P]

This is hobie's excuse for being an asshole who just makes shit up and never bothers to support his claims.

[hobie]

I'm about 5 blocks from the main Cleveland Clinic campus...along the main thoroughfare. Down it just now comes the largest police convoy I have even seen. At least every police cruiser from every department within a hundred mile radius; all flashing and blaring. I would say nearly a thousand police cars.

Two days ago, two Lorain officers sitting in their cruisers eating their lunch were sniped by a gunman. A third that responded was also shot to shit. All three in critical condition until this one man, his hearse, and this armada came to pass by my hood which lasted almost 20 minutes.

I've always respected the police. Since the advent of the body cam surge, we all get to see how abused they really are. I would never presume to insult this man and his family with a performative 'thoughts and prayers' or 'thank you for your service'. So I really mean it when I say, 'I am very sorry this happened to you.'

[Bwaaah]

Here, once again, I agree with you, Hobie. I agree with your sentiments.

[dwb68]

I am against tariffs... until I see Volkswagen/Audi moving production to the US to avoid them.

The problem is: tariffs may be bad, but twin deficits (the trade deficit and the budget deficit) are worse and unsustainable. To finance the trade deficit, we sell assets to foreigners (like real estate to wealthy Chinese).

A ruthless academic economist might tell you we are better off employing foreigners to make cheap goods, but I don't think that this has panned out over the last 40 years. We have broken the back of the domestic unions (which was the original Republican goal of lowering trade barriers and offshoring jobs in the 1980s). I should know... I used to be one of those Republicans and ruthless academic economists.

Exporting jobs to China has not resulted in the liberalization of China; it's only resulted in China having more power over supply chains.

So yeah, I am against tariffs, but they are the least bad of a lot of bad options. I have yet to see another solution for the trade deficit. (don't get me started on the budget deficit, puke).

[Nelson]

Your problem is that you view trade deficits as a problem that needs solving. It isn’t.

It’s a sign of prosperity and efficiency in the American economy: we have a LOT of disposable income to spend, so people want to sell us stuff. We also have a lot of competition for jobs, so the floor of our labor costs are significantly higher than other countries that produce the same level of quality. In fact, our floor is higher than most other countries’ ceiling.

If your citizens have no money, you have a trade surplus because no one sells into your market. That’s not a good thing. If your country is wealthy, you’re going to have a trade deficit because everyone wants to sell into your market. That’s a great thing.

In a choice between being a poor country with a trade surplus and a wealthy country with a trade deficit, I know which one I would choose. I’ll take America over India every day.

[Frank Drackman]

Good Point, we give other countries this stupid Green Paper, and they give us really cool cars and electronics.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The devil's in the nature of what's being traded.

If you're importing factory equipment and exporting services, good.

If you're importing whisky and exporting bonds, bad.

[Commenter_XY]

Debt size matters, Nelson. 30T+ is way too large.

[Nelson]

National debt (money the government borrows to fund expenses that exceed its revenue) and trade deficit (the difference between the imports that private companies bring into the country and the exports that private companies send out of the country) are, at best, tangentially related.

Said another way, a trade deficit doesn’t add to (or subtract from) the national debt.

And you’ll get no argument from me about the obscene and indefensible size of the national debt. It’s why I constantly point out to the “fuck you, cut spending” crowd that cutting spending in some places while creating a larger, not smaller, annual deficit is complete idiocy.

A balanced budget is the important thing and net increases in spending are never justified by tiny cuts here and there.

It’s like the idiots who think that rolling their present car loan into their new car loan is smart. Same stupidity, different context.

[dwb68]

No: a trade deficit means we are exporting employment. Weve exported a lot of jobs in steelmaking and tool and die manufacturing, for example, and hollowed out entire industries. Unemployed people dont buy nice things, unless they can sell assets.

A trade deficit does not make us efficient. It makes us expensive, and dependent on the countries that have taken over critical industries weve exported.

[dwb68]

Axios: "Scoop: Dems think they can get ahold of Epstein's birthday book"

I mean that says it all right there.

I said earlier, WSJ cannot keep dribbling out accusations based on a 2003 birthday book they suddenly discovered. This has Russia hoax written all over it.

Remember: Trump is the Boomerang King. What goes around will come around. Nothing sticks to him. Democrats have, after a decade, yet to learn this.

[Estragon]

Russian hoax? LOL.

Dersh has admitted that he sent something in for the book. They’ve talked to people who worked at the bookbinder in NYC. So the book exists. Is it so hard to believe Trump added something for his bestest pal and neighbor— in 2003? It’s not indicative of any kind of criminal conduct beyond what we already knew about the relationship between Trump and Epstein.

“Russia hoax” is soooooo flopsweat. For the life of me I can’t understand how Trump and co have handled this so poorly.

[dwb68]

Yes, its very difficult to believe that this book magically surfaces after two presidential campaigns during which the Dems threw literally every ("Grab ’em by the pussy") turd at him and even made some up.

It's even more difficult to believe Democrats think this will somehow slow Trump's momentum after throwing the same shit at him for 10 years and none of it slowed his momentum.

But yeah, its possible I am wrong on both counts.

[Estragon]

Feel the “momentum”!

I personally am fascinated by this for the opposite reason: this is the first issue I can remember on which Trump has failed to refocus and command attention, despite his best efforts.

It is, of course, very indicative of the MAGA mindset that a decades-long relationship with the kingpin of a child-sex ring is so casually dismissed.

The book exists. Its existence will not change your willingness to go along with whatever Trump says. That is overdetermined.

Can you see yourself supporting a Maxwell pardon? Because it is coming. Prepare yourself to defend that or be labeled a weakling and a RINO.

[dwb68]

Wake up: it has nothing to do with the MAGA mindset.

What I actually care about is the balance in my 401k.

What most people care about is what's in their wallet. If their wallets are fatter, they are happy and reelect incumbents. If their wallets are thinner, they vote for change.

Maybe at some point Democrats will wake up and get out of the bubble.

[Estragon]

“What I actually care about is the balance in my 401k.”

Refreshingly honest. One thousand sexual abuse victims— but how’s your 401k doing?

Have you ever wondered if there’s more to civic life?

So if your 401k would do better you’d be in favor of pardoning Ms Maxwell?

[dwb68]

Democrats are busy releasing perverts with no bail, especially if they are Latin American illegal immigrants, so a thick 401 (k) will buy me enough shotgun shells to take care of the perverts victimizing children.

You see the problem right? Democrats cant be against perverts when they are totally ok with the illegal immigrant perverts.

[Estragon]

“Democrats cant be against perverts”

You just said you didn’t care about diddlers as long as your 401k was doing well!

How many pervs are you hoping to “take care of” with those shotgun shells? And is Matt Gaetz one of them? This information will be useful later.

[dwb68]

I really dont care about diddlers--they should be in jail or worse. Gotta plan for that?

[Commenter_XY]

Shhhhh....let them sleepwalk into more election losses.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Charles Kushner, the newly arrived U.S. ambassador to France, promptly dispensed with diplomatic protocol to express outrage on X, calling Mr. Macron’s decision “a gift to Hamas and a blow to peace.”

Kushner's moral judgment is duly noted.

Mike Huckabee, Mr. Trump’s ambassador to Israel, noted that France had not stated where the “Palestinian” state it will recognize would take form. “I can now exclusively disclose that France will offer the French Riviera & the new nation will be called ‘Franc-en-Stine,’” the ambassador wrote on X.

Huckabee's moral smallness is consistent, at least.

The Declaration of Independence offered a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind." The likes of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, however, are no match for Charles Kushner and Mike Huckabee.

https://archive.ph/7eQsw

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, first time I've agreed with Huckabee on anything

[JRipplefireEsquire]

Friday, U.S. District Judge Lindsay Jenkins of Chicago said she was dismissing the case because the U.S. "lacks standing" to sue the defendants "with respect to the Sanctuary Policies," adding that the lawsuit from the DOJ was an effort to encroach on state sovereignty....
The "Sanctuary Policies reflect Defendants' decision to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law—a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment and not preempted by the [Immigration Nationality Act]," Jenkins wrote. The Tenth Amendment centers around federalism, or the principle that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government or denied to the states remain with the states. ...

Jenkins went on to say that if she ruled in favor of the Trump administration, "it would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment."

It is a federal felony under 8 USC sec. 1324 to harbor or encourage illegal entrance to the country. Violating this Congressional mandate by a state goes far beyond discretion not to prosecute or participate in enforcement. When you openly offer sanctuary from prosecution or rewards for illegal entry you are subject to being jailed, be you a citizen, Mayor or Governor, as Congress did preempt this, methinks.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Sanctuary city is about what local governments won't do; it is not a positive act like harboring.

2. The judge's issue is a well defined one under US law. Check it out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandeering#In_the_United_States