Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 8.4.2025 6:14 PM
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
NEXT: Restricting Open Carry of Guns Constitutional if Concealed Carry Allowed
Hide Comments (790)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel has reportedly launched an investigation into former Special Counsel Jack Smith for potential violations of the Hatch Act during his criminal inquiries into President Donald Trump. This is a steaming load of bullshit.
Nothing about the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. § 7321 et seq., purports to prohibit or regulate the acts of a federal prosecutor in determining which cases to prosecute or the manner in which any prosecution is maintained.
And assuming arguendo (without conceding) the existence of any Hatch Act violation, the penalties are mostly inapplicable to someone who has left federal government service and does not seek to return. Per 5 U.S.C. § 7326:
An employee or individual who violates section 7323 or 7324 shall be subject to— (1) disciplinary action consisting of removal, reduction in grade, debarment from Federal employment for a period not to exceed 5 years, suspension, or reprimand; (2) an assessment of a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000; or (3) any combination of the penalties described in paragraph (1) or (2).
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/02/jack-smith-hatch-act-probe-00490405
It would be grossly irresponsible for the U.S. Office of Special Counsel NOT to investigate the thug Smith for wrongdoing during his tenure. And such an investigation is absolutely within the law. This thug should be barred from ever functioning as a federal employee again to say the very least. But don’t worry, plenty of other investigations at play for more serious offenses for this whole corrupt lawfare enterprise, like conspiracy to violate civil rights. Play stupid corrupt lawfare games, win the prizes.
I agree there should be plenty of investigations of the current administration’s stupid, corrupt lawfare games.
A little review.
Imbler v. Pachtman (1976) anchors the doctrine: prosecutors have absolute immunity for courtroom advocacy functions.
Burns v. Reed (1991) limits immunity for advice-giving, categorizing it as only qualified immunity.
Courts apply a functional approach, protecting advocacy functions absolutely while holding prosecutors civilly liable for investigative or administrative misconduct under qualified immunity.
Prosecutorial immunity is civil only—not criminal. Prosecutors can still be facing criminal charges in other contexts, but resistance to civil suits is strong when tied to advocacy.
Imbler and Burns involved civil suits for damages, which is not at issue with regard to Jack Smith.
As I wrote upthread, nothing about the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. § 7321 et seq., (which deals with federal employees' participation in partisan political campaigns) purports to prohibit or regulate the acts of a federal prosecutor in determining which cases to prosecute or the manner in which any prosecution is maintained.
And in response Michael P. cited 5 USC 7323(a)(1), and argued that federal prosecutors are also employees in the sense of that provision. For completeness:
(1) “employee” means any individual, other than the President and the Vice President, employed or holding office in— (A) an Executive agency other than the Government Accountability Office; or (B) a position within the competitive service which is not in an Executive agency; but does not include a member of the uniformed services or an individual employed or holding office in the government of the District of Columbia;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7322
What is the flaw in this reasoning? (Other than that prosecuting someone for a crime they actually did commit isn't something one does "for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election", regardless of whether the accused is campaigning for political office at the relevant time.)
I have never disputed that federal prosecutors are employees.
However, there is neither precedent nor logic applying the Hatch Act to impose (civil) sanctions to the conduct of a federal prosecutor in a criminal prosecution insofar as his role in deciding whom to prosecute and his strategic and tactical decisions as to how to present the case. As I have explained elsewhere on this thread, such an interpretation would be sharply inconsistent with the doctrine of constitutional separation of powers as recently propounded by the clowns of SCOTUS.
The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees within its coverage from taking an active part in political management or political campaigns for partisan political office. The term “active part in political management or in a political campaign” means those acts of political management or political campaigning which were prohibited for employees of the competitive service before July 19, 1940, by determinations of the Civil Service Commission under the rules prescribed by the President. 5 U.S.C. § 7323(b)(2)(B)(4).
Neither presenting a criminal matter to a federal grand jury nor prosecuting any ensuing indictment falls within the scope of such prohibitions.
Yes, that makes more sense. It's not that there's something special about federal prosecutors, as you repeatedly seemed to argue. It's that the (overt) acts that they carry out are simply not forbidden by the Hatch Act.
No need to bring in separation of powers or the Supreme Court. That is at best a red herring.
No, it's not a red herring. As I have explained elsewhere, the constitutional separation of powers is germane to how the statutory language of the Hatch Act must be interpreted.
A construction or interpretation which would call into question whether a statute is unconstitutional as applied to the conduct at issue is to be avoided.
No, because (as I already explained) that logic proves to much. That same logic suggests that Congress cannot criminalise a prosecutor taking a bribe in return for (not) prosecuting someone.
The whole bit about "taking active part in political management or in a political campaign" is doubly a red herring because it's a creation of regulation (rather than statute), yet 5 CFR part 734 repeats that both "less restricted employees" and "further restricted employees" "may not use [their] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election."
The primary purpose of Jack Smith's appointment was to interfere with the result of an election. That's a large part of why his cases collapsed.
“The primary purpose of Jack Smith's appointment was to interfere with the result of an election.”
Cool story, bro!
Perfect Trumpian statement, in that it combines a stupid lie with a stupid conclusion. His cases didn't collapse; they had to be dropped because Trump won and OLC says a sitting president can't be prosecuted. And of course no aspect of his appointment "Was to interfere with the result of an election."
"The primary purpose of Jack Smith's appointment was to interfere with the result of an election. That's a large part of why his cases collapsed."
As the comedian Ron White is fond of saying, "You can't fix stupid. There's not a pill you can take. There's not a class you can go to. Stupid is fo'evah!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDvQ77JP8nw
Don't mess with Riva today. He's so pissed off he used the word "thug" twice. If Jack Smith is a thug, I wonder what word Riva uses to describe the military-attired, heavily-armed, masked I.C.E. people who have invaded our farms, factories, restaurants, etc.
Today’s programming.
I call them federal law enforcement officers but I understand democrat insurrectionists probably have different views.
"But don’t worry, plenty of other investigations at play for more serious offenses for this whole corrupt lawfare enterprise, like conspiracy to violate civil rights."
Riva, I realize that you like to bandy about conspiracies. When I ask you for specific facts in specific situations, however, your refusal to answer speaks volumes.
Conspiracy to violate civil rights is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 241. In regard to what you fantasize to be Jack Smith's criminal culpability, please specify each of the following:
(1) Who are Smith's co-conspirators? (2) Whose federal constitutional rights did the conspirators intend to violate? (3) As to each person identified in response to item (2), which of that person's specific constitutional rights did the conspirators intend to violate? (4) Was there a single conspiracy or multiple, separate conspiracies? (5) When was each conspiracy formed? (5) When did each conspiracy end? (6) What was the object of each conspiracy? (7) What were the manner and means which evince operation of each conspiracy? (8) What overt acts, if any, were committed? (9) When, where and by whom was each such overt act committed?
(1) Who are Smith's co-conspirators?
(2) Whose federal constitutional rights did the conspirators intend to violate?
(3) As to each person identified in response to item (2), which of that person's specific constitutional rights did the conspirators intend to violate?
(4) Was there a single conspiracy or multiple, separate conspiracies?
(5) When was each conspiracy formed?
(5) When did each conspiracy end?
(6) What was the object of each conspiracy?
(7) What were the manner and means which evince operation of each conspiracy?
(8) What overt acts, if any, were committed?
(9) When, where and by whom was each such overt act committed?
Unlike brandishing a cross at a vampire, the mere utterance of the mantra "conspiracy to violate civil rights" does not have talismanic qualities.
Still waiting, Riva.
If you've got bupkis, then cowboy up and say so.
If I have given you credit for a modicum of integrity that you obviously lack, forgive me, Riva.
An employee may not "use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election". 5 US Code section 7323(a)(1). Federal prosecutors are employees.
Uh, Congress lacks the authority to interfere in a federal prosecutor's discharge of his duties (other than by impeachment). To construe the Hatch Act so broadly would raise significant separation of powers issue about the constitutionality as applied of the statute. As a matter of constitutional law:
The Attorney General and United States Attorneys retain" 'broad discretion'" to enforce the Nation's criminal laws. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985) (quoting United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 380, n. 11 (1982)). They have this latitude because they are designated by statute as the President's delegates to help him discharge his constitutional responsibility to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U.S. Const., Art. II, §3; see 28 U. S. C. §§516, 547. As a result, "[t]he presumption of regularity supports" their prosecutorial decisions and, "in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties." United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926). In the ordinary case, "so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion." Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978).
United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996).
Jack Smith was neither Attorney General nor United States Attorney at the relevant time. Quoting a decision about selective prosecution shows extremely little that is relevant to the Hatch Act.
Jack Smith was the appointee of the Attorney General pursuant to applicable statutes and federal regulations in a matter that the Attorney General found it inappropriate to pursue on his own.
What article and section of the Constitution, if any, do you claim empowers Congress to interfere with the executive branch's selection of what criminal cases to present to a federal grand jury or the manner in which a prosecution is conducted (other than impeachment after the fact)?
How about:
Congress shall have the power (...) To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
(Being, in this case, laws that govern how people deal with classified government documents, laws that govern how federal crimes are investigated and prosecuted, etc.)
Uh, the micromanagement of criminal prosecutions which are supported by probable cause is not among "the foregoing powers" listed in Article I, § 8, nor elsewhere in the Constitution.
"The actual art of governing under our Constitution does not, and cannot, conform to judicial definitions of the power of any of its branches based on isolated clauses, or even single Articles torn from context. While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J. concurring). As SCOTUS has opined recently:
[T]he Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. [United States v.] Nixon, 418 U.S. [683,] 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090; see United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670, 678–679, 143 S.Ct. 1964, 216 L.Ed.2d 624 (2023) (“Under Article II, the Executive Branch possesses authority to decide ‘how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.’ ” (quoting TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 429, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 210 L.Ed.2d 568 (2021))). . . . Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is “the special province of the Executive Branch,” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985), and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President, Art. II, § 1.
[T]he Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. [United States v.] Nixon, 418 U.S. [683,] 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090; see United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670, 678–679, 143 S.Ct. 1964, 216 L.Ed.2d 624 (2023) (“Under Article II, the Executive Branch possesses authority to decide ‘how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.’ ” (quoting TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 429, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 210 L.Ed.2d 568 (2021))). . . .
Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is “the special province of the Executive Branch,” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985), and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President, Art. II, § 1.
Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, ___, 144 S.Ct. 2312, 2334-2335 (2024).
Goose, meet gander.
So you agree that the Trump administration's prosecutors are free to take these Hatch Act claims to a grand jury, and then to a petit jury when the former returns a true bill?
P.S. The Hatch Act is not "micromanagement".
This Hatch Act?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/probe-finds-trump-officials-repeatedly-violated-hatch-act
"So you agree that the Trump administration's prosecutors are free to take these Hatch Act claims to a grand jury, and then to a petit jury when the former returns a true bill?"
Of course I do not agree. The Hatch Act creates no crime and carries no criminal penalties.
The first rule of statutory construction: remove your head from up your ass!
So ... your complaint is that if the Trump executive branch disbars and/or fines Jack Smith, Congress was micromanaging the executive branch's prosecutions?
You're coming off as pretty unhinged here.
I have no idea what you think you're talking about here. Disbarring someone is a judicial act, not an executive one.
How terrible: I wrote "disbar" when I meant "debar". You got me!
Now on to the actual merits of the question.
"So ... your complaint is that if the Trump executive branch disbars and/or fines Jack Smith, Congress was micromanaging the executive branch's prosecutions?"
Uh, the executive branch did not admit Jack Smith to the bar, and it has no authority to disbar him or any other lawyer.
My point is that if the Hatch Act were construed to sanction a federal prosecutor for his past conduct of a criminal prosecution -- a purely executive branch function per Trump v. United States and the authorities cited therein which I quoted above -- such a construction of the Act would be unconstitutional as applied for violating the constitutional separation of powers.
As SCOTUS long ago opined:
It is elementary when the constitutionality of a statute is assailed, if the statute be reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, it is our plain duty to adopt that construction which will save the statute from constitutional infirmity. Knights Templars Indemnity Co. v. Jarman, 187 U.S. 197, 187 U.S. 205. And unless this rule be considered as meaning that our duty is to first decide that a statute is unconstitutional, and then proceed to hold that such ruling was unnecessary because the statute is susceptible of a meaning which causes it not to be repugnant to the Constitution, the rule plainly must mean that, where a statute is susceptible of two constructions, by one of which grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise and by the other of which such questions are avoided, our duty is to adopt the latter. Harriman v. Interstate Com Comm'n, 211 U. S. 407.
United States ex rel. Attorney General v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U.S. 366, 407-408 (1909). It is axiomatic that an enactment of Congress should be interpreted in a way that avoids placing its constitutionality in doubt. A. Scalia and B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts § 38, 247 (2012).
That maxim is just as true of the Hatch Act as it is of any other Congressional enactment.
I certainly remember the giant yawn the media gave to both Hillary and Bidens treatment of classified documents. I'm sure your average holder of a security clearance would of been treated the same way if they moved classified materials from a classified network to an unclassified one, or kept files in boxes in their garage.
I certainly remember the giant yawn the media gave to both Hillary and Bidens treatment of classified documents.
TF? The media obsessed over Hillary's emails. They couldn't have covered it more if it were the OJ trial.
And of course neither of them did anything close to what Trump did.
"They couldn't have covered it more if it were the OJ trial." JohnSmith if you cannot get ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, C-SPAN or FOX, I'd suggest asking someone to take a look at your TV. If you have one.
The entire Constitution is replete with indications that official misconduct may be prosecuted after the individual leaves office or is removed through impeachment. This principle is not limited to prosecutions.
For example,
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Generally this lawmaking power is encompassed under this clause:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
That can't be right. Presumably you agree that Congress can punish corruption among prosecutors, and similar official misconduct. Why would the Hatch Act be different? As long as Congress makes general rules that govern all prosecutors and/or all prosecutions, I'm not sure what the problem would be.
He's going to be REALLY surprised when he finds out that Congress tells the judicial branch how to do their jobs, too.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3553
I agree with Martinned; indeed, ng seems to me to be making a Trumpian immunity argument here. I think that such an argument is bullshit when applied to the president, and even more so when applied to his subordinates.
I heartily agree that Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is bullshit. It is, however, an authoritative pronouncement by SCOTUS that "Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is 'the special province of the Executive Branch,'” which is highly relevant to whether the Hatch Act can be interpreted to impose (civil) sanctions to the conduct of a federal prosecutor in a criminal prosecution insofar as his role in deciding whom to prosecute and his strategic and tactical decisions as to how to present the case. Such an interpretation would be sharply inconsistent with the doctrine of constitutional separation of powers as recently propounded by the clowns of SCOTUS.
As Justice Robert Jackson said of his Supreme Court colleagues, concurring in result in Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953), "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
David's comparison of my argument as to statutory construction of the (civil) Hatch Act to Trumpian immunity from criminal prosecution is, with due respect, bizarre. Of course a prosecutor who commits crimes is subject to criminal prosecution. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 429 (1976); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974); Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 28 n.5 (1980).
Uh, a difference of opinion, like when a Prosecutor charged a certain POTUS with 34 bullshit felonies, that’s what we have Courts for
“a difference of opinion”
Like how some third graders think every noun gets capitalized but non-disordered adults think differently.
Tbf, Germans think that too.
At least I don’t be sayin’ “Nome Sane” every other word like a certain Demographic group do
Wait, so your theory is that if I commit a federal crime and find it annoying that I'm being investigated or prosecuted for that crime, all I need to do is run for office so that the prosecutors will have to stop what they're doing to avoid interfering in the election?
Jack better lawyer up with some expen$ive DC counsel. Sounds like a very lengthy (billable hours) process ahead. One weeps.
So no jail time, just a small fine and debarment from federal employment for 5 years. Slap on the knuckle joints of the fingers.
Of course this is the goal, harassment. If I were Mr. Smith I would push for a quick trial and call all the people so reluctant to testify before. I would bet the case gets dropped real fast.
The Merit Systems Protection Board and the Office of Special Counsel are responsible for enforcement of the Hatch Act. There is no judicial trial.
The process is the punishment.
I thought I remembered Pam Bondi and Kash Patel both talking at their confirmation hearings of moving forward and not back.
Of course everybody knew they were full of shit.
Trump is incapable of letting go of any grudge. And his GOP MAGA enablers in Congress will waste valuable and limited Congressional time on anything other than something productive. A new Jan 6 commission to investigate the first Jan 6 commission! Maybe a fresh look at the 2016 election. An investigation of Hillary's emails again! Pathetic wankers.
Moving forward is identifying the corruption of the last decade and ensuring it doesn’t happen again. It was deployed against Republicans in numerous ways (RussiaGate, a certain laptop, Catholic persecution, National School Board, IRS, etc.) and in support of Democrats (again RussiaGate, yes Hillary’s emails and its coverup, etc).
I’d prefer we root it out, hold those responsible accountable, and make sure neither party uses it against the other in future.
Hahahaha. Nobody believes this bullshit. Trump was indicted for criminal acts...including refusing to return classified documents he was not entitled to possess and obstructing their return by deliberately lying about possessing them.
There is nothing illegal about Jack Smith's investigation. The only reason it dragged on as long as it did was because of Trump's own attorneys dragging it out and appealing every possible thing not to mention prior to the indictments...throwing every single claim of executive privilege at the wall to prevent witnesses from testifying (and then appealing those decisions to drag it out even further.) THIS IS A WASTE OF TIME. Nothing is going to happen to Jack Smith. Zero. Nada. He will be in the headlines briefly and then it will go away when the next stupid MAGA headline happens.
Notice you didn’t address what I wrote….
“There is nothing illegal about Jack Smith's investigation.”
Except of course his appointment, his authority, and hence every action he took as a prosecutor.
“throwing every single claim […] at the wall”
Same can be said of Smith and the Biden admin.
None of that is correct, and in any case would not make anything he did "illegal."
I mean sure, aside from the ruling explicitly stating Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional? Ok Dave…
In case you’ve forgotten: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.672.0_1.pdf
I have not forgotten Aileen Cannon's final attempt to throw the case to Trump, ignoring directly on point Supreme Court precedent. Fortunately, it's of no precedential value. And still would not make anything he did "illegal."
Glad I was able to refresh your memory. And glad you admit his appointment was illegal as was granting him authority to prosecute. You did try mighty hard to move those goalposts though.
Reading isn't your strong suit, I guess.
“None of that is correct”
Yet you admitted it was. Honesty and consistency aren’t your strong suits, I guess.
Did you not get his “Fortunately, it's of no precedential value. And still would not make anything he did "illegal”?
Oh look! Another dishonest goal-post mover!
“no precendential value” means squat to the case at hand. Smith’s appointment and grant of authority was unconstitutional, i.e. not legal.
No, a ruling by a single district judge does not determine whether his appointment was legal. And if it did, well, you're kinda painting yourself into a corner, because Trump tried the same argument in DC and, of course, lost because other judges besides Judge Cannon consider themselves bound by precedent.
A ruling by a single district judge did in fact determine Smith’s appointment was illegal. And that Smith did not in fact have legal prosecutorial authority. And the case was subsequently dismissed.
I don’t understand the denialism, even if you disagree on the merits.
What kind of self-image allows someone to make villain monologues like this?
Facts don't matter; the law doesn't matter. Only the suffering if your foes matters.
Everything we're taught says this kind of thinking is evil. And yet, thanks to MAGA, we see this shit openly these days.
Maybe something about the Internet and loss of non-chosen community.
Lawfare is pernicious, especially the 'throw everything at the wall and see what sticks' variety.
Then the Dems shouldn't have started it.
The “he started it” defense! A man of no principles…
"A man of no principles…"
Not true. "Eye for an eye" and "don't want none, don't start none" are principles.
Anything that will get the Epstein case and the unemployment numbers off the front page.
I hope this case gets resolved before the next Democratic party president is elected. Otherwise we could see the new AG and DOJ agree to settle this case with a consent judgment paying Smith millions of $$. A model for this is the DOJ under Merrick Garland agreeing to pay Peter Strzok and Lisa Page $2 million in damages because the content of their love messages to each other sent on DOJ owned and issued devices were disclosed to the media.
The elite protect and enrich each other. All of them should be investigated and thoroughly exposed. We will never be able to hold them criminally or civilly liable for their misconduct since no jury in DC will rule against these elites. But we can expose them for the rapacious creatures that they are.
"I hope this case gets resolved before the next Democratic party president is elected. Otherwise we could see the new AG and DOJ agree to settle this case with a consent judgment paying Smith millions of $$. A model for this is the DOJ under Merrick Garland agreeing to pay Peter Strzok and Lisa Page $2 million in damages because the content of their love messages to each other sent on DOJ owned and issued devices were disclosed to the media."
Uh, we are not talking here about a suit for damages. Proceedings under the Hatch Act are handled by the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Office of Special Counsel.
Soo... I assume the US now has 0% unemployment and 0% inflation?
Well actually its about ~2.7% inflation and 4.2% unemployment.
That gives a "Misery Index" of 6.9%.
Google AI provides a helpful overview of the Misery index and its rather informal benchmarks:
"The Misery Index, a measure combining inflation and unemployment rates, doesn't have a fixed "threshold" for predicting election outcomes or economic sentiment. However, historically, a Misery Index reading above 8 has been associated with a higher likelihood of an incumbent party losing an election. Some analyses suggest a threshold of 7.35% for incumbents to win re-election."
Maybe next week then.
Well if you look at a chart of the Misery Index from the St Louis Fed, you will see its near the bottom 20% of its historic range.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=IenV
Its hard to have unemployment ~4% and inflation below 3%, or at least it used to be.
The Phillips Curve isn't quite the economic gospel it once was. It used to be taken for granted that an unemployment rate below 6% was inflationary. The "Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment" (NAIRU) is the lowest unemployment rate an economy can sustain without causing inflation to increase."
It sounds like Trump should fire some people in St. Louis.
"Trump should fire some people in St. Louis"
Soon.
Soon what? He doesn’t have any authority to hire and fire economists at the St Louis Fed’s research department.
Once he takes over the Fed of course.
And how is he going to take over the regional banks when they are private corporate entities? Also how is he going to take over the Fed when SCOTUS won’t let him?
Bob would be fine if he did it with an angry mob.
He doesn't have to do any of that, one fed governor just resigned giving him an unexpected appointment now. Powell's term as Chairman ends May of next year.
It was a joke, but "private corporate entities" should not "distribute currency and regulate its value".
The whole federal reserve system is a Constitutional monstrosity.
For the next 3-1/2 years, Kazinski's labor statistics will need an asterix because we'll have to assume the numbers have been manipulated to please Dear Leader. You sure owning the libs is worth all this shit, Kazinski?
They were already bogus. Here's the Hill's headline before the firing:
"Stunning revisions show US added 258K fewer jobs than first reported"
And the problem was worse in the Biden Administration:
"The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced a preliminary downward revision of 818,000 jobs in the annual benchmark revision for the period between April 2023 and March 2024."
But don't worry there are other sources of employment data, the ADS employment survey comes from the private sector, and then there is State data, and since they administer unemployment benefits they have data to cross check too.
Revisions are expected, Kaz. They are not a sign of incompetence, nor do they make the numbers untrustworthy.
All the big economic numbers are offered as early as is useful but with high uncertainty, and then later revised with more fidelity but less timeliness. ---- You use these numbers constantly to shallowly cheerlead for the administration, so now it seems Kaz is at war with Kaz.
"You use these numbers constantly to shallowly cheerlead for the administration"
Absolutely. The point is we hear constantly from the media and democrats how Trump is wrecking the economy, so its is important to make sure the reality isn't lost in the noise.
You don't want to see the statistics, as flawed as they are, when they are good, and that's why you complain.
I am rooting for good numbers, but I won't hide for them if they are bad.
You want bad numbers, and for people to lose their jobs if it hurts Trump, well as long as they aren't government workers.
I complain because of how you *use* the numbers. You ignore experts, and try to derive macroeconomic metrics from first principles.
Your methods are very bad. I've never had an issue with the numbers' accuracy.
I am rooting for good numbers, but I won't hide for them if they are bad. I look forwards to seeing this. Kind of amazing how all your numbers so far have been aces, eh?
You just don't notice when I post the bad numbers, but you freak when I post the good numbers.
You never dispute anything, you just quibble, and its obvious why.
But I certainly do post bad numbers when they come out,the existing home sales figures were terrible when they came out last week and I posted those.
But the bottom line is, as Powell keeps saying, the economy is in very good shape overall, which is why he won't lower interest rates.
I've pointed you to experts who have in depth and well explained analysis that contradicts your own.
You don't care.
You can call it a quibble; I call it fatal to the credibility of your project. You're not going to re-derive macroeconomics all by yourself, and certainly not being as openly a cheerleader for this administrations economic policies as you are.
The point of "experts" is to help you reach a conclusion not to reach it for you. Especially economists:
"If all the economists were laid end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion."
But lets return to my original question, what indicators should I be using to gauge the economy if its not the ones I am using?
“I am rooting for good numbers, but I won't hide for them if they are bad.”
Nah, you’ll just say they’re wrong if they’re bad for your Orange Leader.
When have I said that?
I'm posting comments about them at least 1/2 dozen times a month, shouldn't be hard to find an example.
They were not, in fact, bogus. They were preliminary. If you don't want revisions, then all data is going to have to be three months behind.
If you don't want revisions, then all data is going to have to be three months behind.
If, as I've been patiently and repeatedly instructed, the initial numbers are randomly skewed and there's just no way to reasonably predict in which direction and by how much the revised numbers will move, what possible value do the initial numbers possibly have as a signal to the markets/Fed?
Put differently, in what universe is it somehow better to use known unreliable data today rather than waiting ~3 months for reliable data?
That... strikes me as a silly question. It generally IS beneficial to have information as soon as possible, even if it's a bit noisy.
LOB's question might be a "silly question" if he were referring to "a bit noisy" data (your words). But per his point, the data seems to be grossly wrong, quite regularly, and not just a bit noisy. Given the known uncertainty (based on the history of major revisions), any analysis that presumes early data to be correct should be viewed as highly suspect.
I think we could reasonably debate whether 90% CIs like 73k +/- 135k really qualify as "a bit noisy" as opposed to "throwing darts while blindfolded" or similar.
It's really not clear to me that markets making broad sweeping decisions based on (or politicians taking political cover behind) numbers that arguably don't even qualify as directional are somehow better for us on a systemic level.
Now, if the numbers are generally skewed in a given direction such that the green-eyeshade folks can effective tighten up the error bars to something more actionable, then yes -- at least a subset of the financial world may be able to benefit from it. But as I mentioned in my opening post, that's generally a verboten notion. And even in that scenario, the problem of political cover remains.
Yeah, I guess it was silly for conservatives to keep citing them when convenient for them.
What it really depends on is the magnitude of the error.
The 258k miss over a few months isn't that bad, the 818k miss December-January was much worse.
"It's really not clear to me that markets making broad sweeping decisions based on (or politicians taking political cover behind) numbers that arguably don't even qualify as directional are somehow better for us on a systemic level."
But they're not though. It's one input. Among multitudes. And it's well understood and factored in. And has worked pretty well for a long time.
Like Brett said there's a tradeoff. I'm with him here.
To be clear, the annual benchmark revision for total March 2024 payrolls (NSA) ended up being -598,000, not -818,000. The -818,000 was the preliminary estimate for the annual revision which comes out in August (of 2024 in this case) and which is itself based on incomplete data. The final annual revision comes out in February (of 2025 in this case).
So the total nonfarm payrolls for March 2024 (NSA) was revised from 157,210,000 to 156,612,000, a 0.4% revision. That revision was larger than normal but comparable in size to many other annual revisions we've seen. For instance, two years prior the annual benchmark revision (NSA) was +506,000 and for March 2019 the revision was -489,000. Going back further there are a few revisions which were even larger.
The mean absolute revision over the last 45 years is 267,000, though the mean (not absolute) revision is only 9,000 because the downward and upward revisions largely offset.
If we don’t like your numbers who do we fire?
We're running out of podcasters to head US secretarial departments. Until last week I would have said the Q Shaman was next in line, but he broke with MAGA over the Epstein scandal.
Well since I've been getting some carping about some of the economic statistics I've been posting, things like GDP (3%), CPI (2.7%), Core PCE (2.8%), Consumer confidence (up) and the Deficit (down slightly), what current statistics do you think show the current state of the economy as a whole?
What have I been ignoring?
Trump failed to hit 3% GDP in his first term just like the black guy. Lol.
Your guy Trump says these numbers are all lies now.
Yiu appeared to agree regarding BLS being incompetent for decades and that’s why firing the director was legit.
I would add the jobs numbers and unemployment while removing consumer confidence and the deficit.
Actually I have been commenting on the employment report, past couple of months, and consumer confidence is useful bit hardly a hard bankable number, plus there are a few different surveys you can compare.
But actually I think the carping is for the same reason Trump fired the BLS commissioner, the numbers don't say what they want.
I think the carping results from you not knowing what you’re writing about.
Then offer your own analysis, tell me where I am wrong.
Or tell me what numbers you think I should be looking at, otherwise its just carping.
Kazinski — Nobody should pay any attention to your number picks. Before you set out on this numbers jag, you built a steady record of citing bullshit stories from dishonest media, to try to make MAGA look better. I watched you do it, and decided that nothing you post is done in good faith, or with any regard for truth. I am confident that carries over to your numbers picks.
I can't figure out why you waste so much time doing it, unless you are getting paid for it, which I doubt. Who would be stupid enough to pay you on any premise that what you post would be taken seriously by anyone? You have turned yourself into a museum-quality example of an unanswerable conundrum—where does MAGA motivation come from, and why is it so desperately committed?
The simple answer is I have always been a numbers guy, my degree is in Computer Information Systems and Quantitative Analysis. So I have always been prone to dive into the numbers when I find it interesting, whether Baseball, climate, or economics. So I am comfortable working with data, and the numbers in these economic reports are pretty simple and its trivial to pull them up on Google sheets and do a little analysis when I want to.
As for "MAGA motivation" it isn't devotion to Trump or MAGA, its devotion to keep progressives out of power, and the Democrats have completely given themselves over to the progressive wing of their party, and for now Trump is what is standing in their way keeping them from attaining power.
Which of course also explains your and their anti-MAGA fanaticism.
R.I.P. Loni Anderson, dead at 79.
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxYCO2lLAZpKMJfYVJLjLTwHEFHQhEOs7a?si=_qGF7jUbaxF3KfIa
Senator Ted Cruz has criticized New York Governor Kathy Hochul for wearing a headscarf at the funeral of Didarul Islam, a New York City police officer who was among those killed in the shooting last Monday at 345 Park Avenue. The detective was Muslim, and the funeral was held at his mosque in the Bronx. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/03/nyregion/cruz-hochul-head-scarf-officer-funeral.html
Really?
What exactly was the criticism that you refer to?
It would be more accurate to write that "The failing New York Times, a leftwing rag that is no longer capable of even basic journalism, devoted hundreds of words to trying to smear Sen. Ted Cruz over five letters and two punctuation marks."
Also, I cannot think much of a Community Notes system that promotes a note that misspells yarmulke as "yamaka".
Cruz reposted this on X:
Why in TF is the Governor of New York wearing a fcking hijab?!
Adding himself, Um, what?
Regarding a head scarf worn by said Governor at the funeral of a slain police officer who was Muslim.
Why would a news organization cover a sitting US Senator’s very public, expletive laden criticism of a sitting state Governor is indeed a mystery that can only be described as a smear campaign.
Is there a group of immigrants that are bigger pussies than Cubans?? WTF would we give preferential immigration treatment to a group of people that failed to fight for their island?? And Castro was a clown so it’s not like they were up against a Hitler or Pol Pot…they turned tail and ran from a clown with a boat!?!
Are you talking about the Bay of Pigs? There was considerably more on the Castro side than a boat.
I have to say that I wouldn't take "um, wut?" as agreement with the quoted question. More like a way of saying, "Are you stupid?"
Given Cruz’s response to Hochul’s response you’d be wrong. His um, what was directed at Hochul, agreeing with the WTF of the post he reposted.
I have to say that nobody could read it that way in good faith. Which is fine, because you never read anything in good faith. You interpret every statement from someone left of Mussolini as praise for Karl Marx, and every statement from someone right of Mussolini as innocuous by ignoring the actual words said.
Ted Cruz posting approval of wearing a head scarf at the funeral of a Muslim.
Is that really what you think was going on, Brett? Cruz standing up for Islamic customs?
OK, everything is starting to make sense now. Brett is just illiterate.
Have you seen Hochul? A Hijab is an improvement
Be fair, Frankie. You know that Jewish women are required to wear head coverings as well.
The Arab League has come out with a peace plan which, although the details and guarantees may need work, at least seems sane:
“Governance, law enforcement and security across all Palestinian territory must lie solely with the Palestinian Authority, with appropriate international support, in the context of ending the war in Gaza, Hamas must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority, with international engagement and support, in line with the objective of a sovereign and independent Palestinian State.”
The text also condemned the deadly October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel, and proposed the deployment of “a temporary international stabilization mission” upon invitation by the PA and “under the aegis of the United Nations.”"
Of course while the PA may need small arms any rockets would need to be destroyed. And there needs to be war crimes trials for Hamas leaders for both Oct. 7th, and their crimes against Gazans.
It certainly seems to be saner than the Anglo-French-Canadian surrender to Hamas plan.
The PA is no better than hamas; just incompetent and equally corrupt.
No better? There was no Oct. 7th attack by them. Why do you hold Israeli lives so cheaply?
No queenie, the PA for years had its pay-to-slay system.
Equivalent to Oct. 7th? That’s daft.
1,000 Israelis were murdered in the so called Second Intifada.
It was not one day but it equivalent to Oct. 7th in deaths.
Thank you, Bob.
No, it has been for decades. You are daft. The PA is as homicidal toward Jews as Hamas
Not for a while, has it?
Things change, I guess. Because this is what it said in the Times of Israel in February:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated in a statement Monday that “there will be neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority” in Gaza after the war there ends, responding to unconfirmed Arab media reports that the terror group had agreed to hand over the reins of the Strip to the West Bank-based PA. According to Sky News Arabia, Hamas made the decision under pressure from Egypt, a mediator of the terror group’s month-old truce and hostage deal with Israel. Responding to the reports, Netanyahu spokesman Omer Dostri wrote on X: “Not going to happen.” In a later statement, Netanyahu also said that he was “committed to US President Trump’s plan” to oust Gaza’s roughly two million residents and rebuild the Strip.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated in a statement Monday that “there will be neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority” in Gaza after the war there ends, responding to unconfirmed Arab media reports that the terror group had agreed to hand over the reins of the Strip to the West Bank-based PA.
According to Sky News Arabia, Hamas made the decision under pressure from Egypt, a mediator of the terror group’s month-old truce and hostage deal with Israel.
Responding to the reports, Netanyahu spokesman Omer Dostri wrote on X: “Not going to happen.”
In a later statement, Netanyahu also said that he was “committed to US President Trump’s plan” to oust Gaza’s roughly two million residents and rebuild the Strip.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-said-to-agree-to-cede-gaza-governance-to-pa-netanyahu-not-going-to-happen/
There is nothing to negotiate with a people who gleefully celebrate this, other than terms of surrender or departure.
https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2025/08/02/hamas-video-shows-israeli-hostage-forced-to-dig-own-grave/
What we see in gaza is a whole of society effort. A sick society and culture, marinated in Judeocide from cradle to grave.
XY, do you regard genocide of Arab ethnic groups -- which you have routinely called for on these threads -- as being somehow more noble?
As the novelist Michael Ventura said, “Be careful how you choose your enemy, for you will come to resemble him. The moment you adapt your enemy's methods your enemy has won. The rest is suffering and historical opera.”
You are no better than a Hamas operative, XY.
How did the Soviets behave when they retaliated against Operation: Barbarossa?
I'm not familiar with that. Please explain how it is germane to this discussion, Z Crazy.
So you’re ignorant of History, we Jews aren’t
Just English!
NG - cut the crap - There is no Genocide being committed by the Israelis
pure BS -
Genocide has a number of formal definitions, and plenty of ambiguity informally.
That's irrelevant, though. The accusation here is against XY here not Israel.
Yea right - Genocide with a number of informal definitions and ambiguity so that a leftist can accuse anyone genocide when it is not happening. We see though the BS
My assertion is that Commenter_XY has routinely called for genocide in these comment threads.
I was not commenting on Israeli actions. Learn to read, Joe_Dallas.
1) there is no genocide. 2) what what rule of international law is the PA entitled to Judea and Samaria. It was Jordanian land under the partition. Jordan last that land in a war that it started. The sooner Mr Trump recognizes Israel's sovereignty over eretz Israel, the better
Does international law allow gains from wars won? I know John Locke was against it (see Second Treatise of Government).
"Does international law allow gains from wars won? "
Not since Jews started winning wars.
Cool story, bro.
True story queenie
International law does not permit unilateral annexation. Not for Jordan, not for Israel and not for the PA.
Whatever the status of the land, it must provide equal rights and citizenship for all. Your solution will result in one of 1) a state that is barely majority Jewish, 2) an apartheid state where non-Jews in the West Bank aren't citizens, or 3) repatriation of non-Jews (i.e., ethnic cleansing) out of the West Bank.
josh R - do jews in gaza enjoy equal rights?
"...jews in gaza..." You meant hostages, right?
No other type in Gaza.
Is your defense of Israel “well, they’re not Hamas?” With friends like these…
Thanks for your ipse dixit Josh
It isn't ipse dixit if you can't come up with an alternative other than the three I did.
what what rule of international law is the PA entitled to Judea and Samaria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
Commenter_XY, I see that when you are called out on your vile bloodlust, you run away like Usain Bolt.
Why am I not surprised? Could it be because your people come from a long line of practitioners of genocide?
not guilty is practicing die große Lüge again.
What vile bloodlust? There is no compromise to be had. The only genocide happening in gaza is by hamas toward the Jewish hostages.
This is a rough neighborhood, and they don't operate with western rules of engagement. The traditional terms in that region are; surrender, or death. The Juedeocidal terror group hamas (and their direct supporters) have chosen death. I won't weep.
What vile bloodlust? There is no compromise to be had.
I think you just answered your own question.
The only genocide happening in gaza is by hamas toward the Jewish hostages.
This is gibberish. Even if Hamas simply murdered all the remaining hostages, it would not constitute "genocide."
And what was Oct 7? By the tightest reading of IHL, it was geneocide
In intent, yes, but not in effect (again, no credit to Hamas there whatsoever mind you).
It was not. Hamas is on the side of genocide, absolutely. If it could, I have no doubt it would; that’s its long term goal wrt Israel. But 10/7 was a massacre, not a genocide.
I don't think it aids discourse to label any time a bunch of people get killed as "genocide."
Genocide isn't defined by being effective in exterminating a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group -- it's defined by the intent and partial completion of such extermination. Hamas doesn't get excused just because they "only" killed 1200 and wounded 5400 more.
https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
“Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”
What specific person gleefully celebrated that?
Well this is not an Israeli plan, so that may not have changed.
And most Arab states fear the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is an offshoot more than the fear the Israelis.
I don't deny its a risky plan, for one the most influential Arab States (Egypt and the Gulf States), have distanced themselves from the Palestinian cause significantly in the.last couple of decades, and there is a risk in this plan of them re-engaging.
The Arab League plan is a non-starter, but represents incremental movement in the right direction.
I don't think you understand the meaning of the phrase "non-starter."
How does that path poll with Gazans, though?
https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/08/poll-most-palestinians-say-no-to-peace-if-it-means-weakening-hama/
From the PDF linked from there: "About 1 in 5 Palestinians are satisfied with the performance of President Abbas and 81% want him to resign." (69% also don't think he will carry out promised reforms.) 87% think Hamas did not commit atrocities against Israeli citizens on October 7. On the bright side, a small plurality of Gazans now believe Israel will win the war.
And to answer my original question, Hamas polled better than both Fatah and the PA. The crosstabs on question 1 in section 9 have a marked "grass is greener on the other side" effect.
Time to rename those fries again?
Time to stuff your craw with them queenie
No sense of humor and an appeal to violence, two terrible tastes that often go together!
The Anglo-French-Canadian plan to recognize Palestine is not a surrender to Hamas. The Arab League declaration was signed by the UK, EU and Canada (among others).
In the abstract, the plan is fine. But, the PA is corrupt. It's in the interest of the signatories, as well as Israel, to assist the new state in establishing lasting institutions as part of the "temporary international stabilization mission."
Sure, but why would the signatories want to do that if Israel keeps destroying whatever they build?
The Anglo-French-Canadian plan is a moral travesty, and rewards terror.
Bomb Canada?
A Palestinian state was morally correct before October 7 (*) and remans so afterwards. Thus, it is not a reward for terror.
(*) You and Don Nico demur, but cannot avoid that your position results in one of a barely-Jewish state, apartheid or ethic cleansing.
"Palestinian state was morally correct before October 7 "
Arabs stated, fought and lost multiple wars. They have waged terror against for decades, including murdering Americans.
Your moral clock has stopped.
Selectively noted and still not determinative of the question.
"Palestinian state was morally correct before October 7 (*)" Josh, The Arabs have rejected your "morally correct state" (whatever that means) several times. According to the Balfour declaration Samaria and Judea are Jewish. As for the Gaza strip, Egypt did not want it back and Jordan did not want the the "west bank" back. Let trump recognize Eretz Israel.
It's morally correct because everyone ought to have the right to self determination.
Josh R's comment (*) You and Don Nico demur, but cannot avoid that your position results in one of a barely-Jewish state, apartheid or ethic cleansing.
You are making $--- up
How do you end up with Israel annexing Gaza and the West Bank without one of 1) a bare majority of Jews, 2) apartheid for the non-Jews living in Gaza and the West Bank, or 3) forced repatriation of non-Jews from Gaza and the West Bank to places outside Israel?
Repatriation, as the etymology of the word implies, involves returning people to where they came from. Gazans/WestBankians can no more be repatriated to places outside Israel than Israelis can be repatriated to Poland. The term you're looking for is "ethnic cleansing," or in slightly less inflammatory language, "expulsion."
The plan is NOT fine. It gives Hamas all the encouragement needed not to agree to a cease fire. It would turn over administration of Gaza to a despised and corrupt PA. Israel is the only competent state in the Mandate
As I said, it is fine in theory. For it to work in practice, the PA would have to be not in control, but rather an international group which would build institutions in the same manner the USA did in Japan after WWII.
The UN tried that. Failed miserably. In fact, UN staff aided hamas on 10/7/23.
Judea and Samaria will be annexed; gaza will become a plowland.
Annexation means either a bare-majority Jewish state, apartheid, or ethnic cleansing. Which one do you endorse?
He has expressly endorsed ethnic cleansing.
Losers don’t dictate peace terms the Winners do
As a Big Loser the Frank character knows.
No, I’d call the Blacks who got killed in Detroit, Atlanta, LA, St Louis over the weekend bigger Losers, every Atlanta local news is just a recount of the days murders with nattily attired APD Homicide Detectives (since “the First 48” they’ve all turned into Sam Spade) milling about and local witnesses “didnt see nuthin’” Let me know when one gets snuffed by a White guy
PPP only had $250 billion in fraud that went to buy guns and fentanyl…oops.
I for one welcome inquiries into war crimes.
Israel closes down or leaves unresolved 88% of cases of alleged war crimes or abuse – report
Thus far, the media coverage I have seen of Trump's proposed pop-up plutocracy palace has been subdued, bordering on friendly. No sign of critique for the size of the thing. No mention that Congress has a statutory role that Trump seems determined to ignore. No puzzlement about private funding, or comment to suggest private funding to control what happens to the White House is a bad thing, not a good one.
The broadcast-style media, at least, seem to have have learned their lesson. Bad things can happen to good broadcasters.
I really don't think this is worth the effort to worry about. The next President can turn it into a homeless shelter. The Donald and Melania Trump Shelter for the DC Homeless.
A gilded ballroom is just the kind of in-your-face extravagance the peasants want to see in their leaders.
Stephen, You are correct on this one. The Trump "plan"is a monstrosity.
The ballroom addition is 90,000 sqft. The entire White House complex is currently 55,000 sqft. So Trump's bling wing isn't that far off from being twice the size of the existing central building, its two low connecting wings, and the pair of flanking buildings combined.
Can't people see how wrong that is? If this monstrosity gets built, it will visually overwhelm the building that is currently the iconic image of America's presidency. The next time a tourist from Idaho poses before the fence or a reporter does a standup report, this empty shell coated inside with gold-colored excrement will loom above its little kid brother, whether looking from the North Lawn or Lafayette Square. I've seen people "claim" its bloated bulk will be hidden by trees and vegetation, but who's fooled by that?
Prediction : If this piece of crap is built, people will see it as a grotesque embarrassing mistake the second its size becomes apparent by the silhouette of steel standing alone. Of course by then it will be too late.
I've seen instances where a new building's form is prefigured by a light prefab frame and canvas, so people can see its size, shape, and impact. Trump's "donors" (anonymous of course) should spring for that first, so we can avoid a painful debacle for the ages - something beyond any remediation or repair.
Unfortunately, if Trump wants to trash the White House there seems to be little anyone can do to stop him. The existing building is exempt from the regs protecting historical structures. There's a separate board, but its members are appointed by the president. I'm afraid the final appeal is to (a) a pair of functioning eyes, (b) common sense, and (c) respect for one of our nation's most important historical buildings. But none of that will stop our brat-child president. There's always Congress - but only after the midterms. Trump could pimp-out the building with day-glo Vegas neon colors and the GOP's cowards and whores wouldn't raise a peep of objection.
"The entire White House complex is currently 55,000 sqft."
What are the dimensions of the White House?
"The Ground Floor, State Floor, and residence floors of the White House are approximately 55,000 square feet. This number does not include the West or East Wings."
The East and West wings account for another 12,000 square feet.
So, yes, it IS larger by itself than the entire White house complex, but not as much as you're suggesting.
Still, I think your complaint is entirely fair. The entire complex would end up nearly as large as Biltmore, which is to say, freaking huge. And it would spoil the architectural symmetry of the complex.
Texas Democratic State Legislators have fled to Illinois to deny a quorum in the Texas legislature to stop a new redistricting plan that would:
"create one new majority Hispanic district and two new majority Black districts."
I guess the objection is that it would dilute the White Liberal vote.
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/01/texas-redistricting-gop-gains/
It is interesting that the redistricting map, which to be sure is intended to give the GOP an advantage, depends in large part on Hispanics to provide that enhanced majority:
"If the districts were in place during the 2024 election, Trump would have carried each by at least 10 percentage points, according to a Texas Tribune analysis.
Such margins depended, in large part, on Hispanic-majority counties whose voters have been moving rightward since 2016. And in 2024, when the vast majority of U.S. counties shifted right, predominantly Hispanic counties saw even more pronounced movement.
Trump carried all four counties in the Rio Grande Valley after failing to crack 30% in the region during his first presidential bid, and he won 14 of the 18 Texas counties within 20 miles of the border.
But Trump’s coattails extended only so far down the ballot, with Democrats winning numerous local races in the same counties that recorded eye-popping shifts at the top of the ticket. Cuellar and Gonzalez secured reelection even as Trump carried their districts, and even with Cuellar also facing down an indictment for alleged money laundering and bribery."
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/03/texas-redistricting-congressional-map-latino-hispanic-voters-gop/
REPORTER: Are you calling, then, for a complete redrawing of the congressional map ahead of next year? PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, no, just a very simple redrawing. We pick up five seats.
There isn't any need to make it anymore complicated than that.
Then why guess the objection?
You know, under state law, legislators who refuse to show up in order to prevent a quorum can be dragged in by force. I wonder if the federal government can assist in this if the state where they hole up refuses to extradite?
I doubt it, not without legislation, and even then it seems a 10th amendment problem.
Google Gemini suggests "18 U.S. Code § 3182 - Fugitives from State or Territory to State, District, or Territory" might be applicable depending on the details of Texas law on the subject.
I think they ought to consider amending the state constitution to establish that refusal to show up for a session of the legislature is considered to be constructively resigning the seat.
"In other words, Democrats hatched a deliberate plan not to show up for work, for the specific purpose of abdicating the duties of their office and thwarting the chamber’s business.
That amounts to an abandonment or forfeiture of an elected state office. When the Governor calls a Special Session, our Constitution provides that the “Legislature shall meet.” TEX. CONST. art. III, § 5 (emphasis added). It’s not optional. It’s a duty. The absconded Democrat House members were elected to meet and vote on legislation—not to prevent votes that may not go their way. Every session, legislators on both sides of the aisle find themselves on the losing side of a legislative vote. And every session, most of those legislators find a way to disagree agreeably and behave like adults, rather than going AWOL." More at link: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/08/breaking-gov-abbott-says-he-will-remove-office/
The behaving like adults here would be state officials kowtowing to their national party’s interests and drawing districts based on partisan interests?
Isn't that what parties always do?
Parties do a lot of non-adult behavior, though they usually at least pay some homage to adult behavior, unlike here.
So Texas Dems should man up and return to their job?
Their job doesn’t involve blatantly partisan redistricting at national party leader’s command.
Queenie, their job is to represent the people who elected them by their attendance. They are free to vote againt the maps and when the lose follows SOP and challenge them in court. Wasn't it Obama who said "elections have consequences"?
“their job is to represent the people who elected them by their attendance”
Now do Johnson’s early House recess!
And they are representing the people who elected them, the TX GOP should look into that instead of doing Trump’s blatantly partisan bidding.
As always the Queen of obfuscation.
Is obfuscation like blow jobs, something you don’t know the meaning of? Because I’ve not done that here.
I hope he is able to remove them. Oregon voters had enough of Republicans fleeing and passed "Measure 113" barring habitually absent lawmakers from seeking reelection.
The underlying problem is a combination of extreme partisanship and a requirement of only 50%+1 votes to pass major bills. I like the idea of major questions requiring a modest supermajority to pass. To avoid gridlock, if the body can't get 55 or 60% for a budget bill, dissolve parliament and hold new elections with incumbents disqualified.
Democrats doing quorum-based tactics in Texas have been a thing since I've been paying attention.
It's never been considered constructive resignation before, and I have a hard time seeing that applying this time - it's a negotiating tactic, and if Texas doesn't like it they've had a long time to change the rules.
But these are partisan days, maybe Texas will pull that trigger. It'll be an open lie, but maybe that won't matter in Texas.
And that is why I suggested a constitutional amendment MAKING it constructive resignation. Since easy travel to states that won't extradite has rendered state enforcement of compulsory attendance impractical, another mechanism to stop this ploy is needed.
Well, it looks like Abbott intends to pull that trigger.
Greg Abbott Drops Bombshell on TX Dems Who Fled State: Return Today or Be Removed, Face Felony Charges
You know, Sarcastr0, being in the minority sometimes, and losing votes, is a normal part of democracy. If you're going to knock the board over and run away every time it looks like you're going to lose, you should probably be in a different line of work.
As I said, quorum game-playing has been a normal part of Texas democracy for decades. I don't follow Texas politics, but these events make national headlines every time. And there's plenty of fun with sheriffs and brinksmanship every time too.
Pretending this is some horrifying unfair play requires some real work to focus only on generalities and paeons about fairness and not the actual history here.
As for the threat of felonies, certainly Texas is one-party enough if they want to pull that trigger, I figure they can do it. Wouldn't be what I call rule of law (he's not even citing an AG opinion on the felony bit), but rule of law left the MAGA tent long ago. Best you can think is that there will be a price to pay among most people not as committed to defending their side as you.
All sorts of abuses are "normal" in the sense that they happen with some frequency. As the very fact that the Texas constitution authorizes the use of force to return absent legislators and restore a quorum, (A feature it shares with almost all constitutions!) should tell you, running away to prevent a quorum so that you don't predictably lose a vote is NOT, legally, a legitimate legislative tactic. It's more of a crime.
Maybe it's time for Texas to stop pussyfooting around and crack down on that crime.
“As the very fact that the Texas constitution authorizes the use of force to return absent legislators and restore a quorum,”
Citation?
"Sec. 10. QUORUM; ADJOURNMENTS FROM DAY TO DAY; COMPELLING ATTENDANCE. Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.
This is a common constitutional clause that you will find in the constitution of basically all democracies. Refusing to attend in order to deny a quorum is an old, old abuse, but it IS an abuse, not a legally legitimate tactic.
So they need two thirds to compel?
Read it again.
It pretty clearly says, "but a smaller number", no, no, they don't need 2/3rds to compel. As long as they're in session, even two or three would be authorized to do it.
The “smaller number can adjourn” is separated by commas so wouldn’t the “and can compel” apply to the 2/3 mentioned before the separation?
“Bret and Twelve can turn on the tv, and any one of them can turn it off, and compel others in house to come into the room and watch.” If any one of them had the last power shouldn’t it read “ Bret and Twelve can turn on the tv and any one of them can turn it off and compel others in house to come into the room and watch”?
No, see here.
And your example doesn't make sense grammatically, it relies on the fact that compelling someone to watch a turned off TV doesn't make sense.
"Bret and Twelve can turn off the tv, and any one of them can turn it on, and compel others in house to come into the room and watch."
If it happens a lot, and Texas has not acted to prevent it, you declaring it illegitimate is just throwing a tantrump; it has no relation to actually what is legit.
I would have no problem if Texas *passed a law* to make these tactics a crime. Though honestly better is just to do the constructive resignation thing. Bringing in criminal law is going to make things overcomplicated.
You seem to be rooting for Texas to...invade Chicago? Drama first makes folks stand on some weird business.
Are you making some kind of desuetude argument? Because the state constitution pretty clearly treats it as an abuse: You don't authorize the use of force to end ordinary legislative actions, after all.
Charge with felonies for getting donations for fines. Though telling people, go ahead and violate the law, I'll pay for it, might have legal implications for both parties. Or not. Ask the lawyers.
Anyway, Texas rhetoriticians, don't forget to add the latest legal infraction buzzword, "corruptly".
Though telling people, go ahead and violate the law, I'll pay for it, might have legal implications for both parties. Or not. Ask the lawyers.
Well, it didn't when Trump told his supporters that!
No objection whatsoever to the redistricting plan, Brett.
You often worry about the Democrats entrenching themselves so they can't be removed except by a cataclysmic (to them) election.
But when your guys do it it's all just business as usual, and you cheer.
NY, CA redistricting?
A whataboutism to a charge of whataboutism!
piss poor defense of the typical leftist double standard
Tripling down! I don’t think he knows what whataboutism refers to, or maybe his grasp of logic (or self awareness) is that slight?
Neither New York nor California is gerrymandered to the extent that Texas already is.
Democrats doing quorum-based tactics in Texas have been a thing since I've been paying attention. It's never been considered constructive resignation before,
It's never been considered constructive resignation before,
Not Texas, but along those lines: Oregon voters passed a ballot measure a couple of years ago that said that more than 10 unexcused absences by a legislator made that legislator ineligible to run in the next election. But it didn't deem it to be a resignation in the current term.
Yeah, I would have no issue if Texas did that. I'm actually not quite sure why they haven't. Maybe they like the drama.
"I think they ought to consider amending the state constitution"
But that needs a quorum also.
Brett, 18 U.S.C. § 3182 deals with extradition of persons charged with a crime in the requesting state.
Yeah...
But they are not fugitives, quorum enforcement is more civil not criminal, but not even civil, it's legislatively enforced, not by the courts, so using criminal law won't work.
The state could modify its constitution to change quorum rules, or declare the seat vacant for quorum evasion.
They'll just argue in court for a fugitive bond...and they'll get it too.
You talking about the same federal government that fled DC to avoid an Epstein vote?
The irony of fleeing to Illinois to protest gerrymandering is not lost of me.
It could be a message that Democrat controlled states could follow Texas to recover the five seats. What Texas has really done is show the need for all states to have impartial committee to redraw all districts. Gerrymandering has simply gotten out of hand.
Given the track record of California's so-called "impartial" committee, I'm immediately skeptical of anyone calling for more "impartial" committees that only draw districts to favor Democrats.
What’s that track record?
2024 congressional popular vote
Dem 60.48% GOP 39.23%
Seats
Dems 43 GOP 9
GOP should have 20 seats.
Bob - you are exposing the left's double standard and hypocrisy
Similar results in NY as I recall
Ohio has a bipartisan commission (dominated by republicans) that tried to do a 12-3 gerrymander but ended up with a 10-5 Republican gerrymander (in violation of court orders) in a state that is pretty consistently 56-44. So it should be like 9-6 or 8-7.
Wisconsin is 6-2 R in a state where the vote is consistently 50/50 and democrats actually dominate state wide offices. A fair map would be 4-4.
And then there’s the Carolinas. One dem seat in SC out of 6even though it’s a 60-40 state. NC is even more ridiculous: 10-4 R in a state that is routinely 51-49 partisan split.
Basically every single time you pull up a dem state to expose dem double standards there’s a republican run state that also has an egregious gerrymander! But only one party wants a nationwide ban on the practice and it’s not republicans lol.
This sort of crude analysis of state-wide vote totals for local offices is just stupid, I can't be any more polite than that. Under our system, members of the legislature just aren't elected in a way where state-wide percentages are relevant. (This is as true looking at California as at Wisconsin.)
In most states Democrats suffer from their voters being inefficiently distributed: Rather than being a bare majority over large areas, they're massive majorities in isolated areas. It's routine for Democrats to get 70, 80, 90, even 100% of the vote in urban precincts.
And every vote after 50% plus 1 is wasted. So Democrats suffer in the legislature relative to their state-wide numbers, in states that are relatively close to 50-50. That's why they do better in the Senate than the House, for instance: The more granular the election, the worse they do, they need those local areas where they totally dominate to be smeared out to 50%+1 in order to do well in the totals. The simple fact is, Republicans have less need of gerrymandering than Democrats, due to this.
But you get a state that's totally dominated by one party, like California, even if the minority party is a substantial minority, they're rarely going to be a local majority, which is what they need to win seats. So they start to be under-represented.
I'd love it if we had proportional representation instead of single member first past the post. Minor parties would have an easier time competing. But we don't, and in single member first past the post systems, you simply do not rationally expect the aggregate of local elections to correspond to the global average.
So, how do you tell if you're looking at gerrymandering, or you're looking at merely inefficient "political geography"?
This is how! you do simulations of how things would look if the districts were drawn impartially, and then see where the real outcomes fall in the distribution.
So? California? Yeah, actually it IS gerrymandered. (Or at least was when they ran the numbers back in 2016.) The actual outcomes you see are way outside the results you'd get from any politically impartial districting. It's mathematically implausible that the districts weren't drawn to achieve this result.
And Wisconsin? Also gerrymandered, but to much less of a degree, most of the discrepancy between that state-wide percentage and the composition of their legislature is a product of political geography, not gerrymandering.
In fact, when Democrats were litigating this, they hired an expert to draw the most favorable map for themselves, and it STILL left them at a disadvantage!
“ In fact, when Democrats were litigating this, they hired an expert to draw the most favorable map for themselves, and it STILL left them at a disadvantage!”
Doesn’t this indicate a more egregious gerrymander because the Republicans weren’t satisfied with their natural advantage and had to push the limits?
I'm not actually defending the Republicans gerrymandering the state. I'm just saying that it was a considerably more mild gerrymander than you see in California.
I mostly brought that up to point out that discrepancies between legislative totals and statewide percentages are perfectly normal, not proof of gerrymandering.
Brett, I agree with you.
However, Democrats are more than happy to use those statistics to try to complain about gerrymandering that works against them, so I'm more than happy to throw that same metric back into their faces.
Whataboutism. Ohio's commission is not nominally "independent" like california's claims to be.
"(dominated by republicans) "
Only because you guys cannot win statewide elections for row offices. Are we gerrymandering those elections too?
“Whataboutism“
The whole issue is whataboutism! A democrat complains about Texas. You go WHATABOUT ILLINOIS like Joe did. So I go what about Ohio etc. That’s the point. You can’t look at things in isolation.
“Only because you guys cannot win statewide elections for row [sic] offices.”
Well we were doing great at the Supreme Court and courts of appeal until Republicans realized their voters are apparently too dumb to understand who they’re voting for and needed to be spoon-fed. And you got what you wanted: a complete fucking imbecile like Joe Deters.
“Are we gerrymandering those elections too?”
No. But aggressive gerrymandering does make it harder for a party to develop political talent at the legislative level, so the pool of candidates for statewide office is often more limited. Talented people are either going to leave or stay local.
"You go WHATABOUT ILLINOIS like Joe did."
Queenie asked about California "What’s that track record?" and I answered. Where did I mention Illiinois?
"Well we were doing great at the Supreme Court ”
GOP has had a majority on the Ohio Supreme court since 1986. You were doing better than you should have been, until we got smarter.
Partisan primaries but non-partisan general elections are pretty dumb.
“Queenie asked about California "What’s that track record?" and I answered. Where did I mention Illiinois?”
Well I wasn’t replying to you and then you jumped in to say “whataboutism.” Your inability to follow a conversation is actually pretty impressive.
“You were doing better than you should have been, until we got smarter.”
I mean, going from the inability to research judicial candidates to cutting out the thinking entirely is “smarter” in a way.
That does seem fishy to me.
The recent 2024 results are in keeping with the entire history of the CCRC from it's very beginning. The CCRC enacted a pro-Democrat gerrymander with its very first set of new district lines after the 2010 census, and it was caught by none other than ProPublica:
How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission
In California, Democrats’ Redistricting Strategy Paid Off
Little has changed today, except perhaps that ProPublica has more important things to do than criticize pro-Democratic gerrymanders in California.
The 2024 results are more egregious than they appear because Republicans increased their share of the vote (a 3% gain) compared to 2022's yet the GOP lost three House seats all under the same maps, which was a 25% loss in the GOP's total house representation.
I've been pretty clear about my views on gerrymandering: We should abolish it entirely by having the maps drawn algorithmically based on data that has no racial or voting information in it. Just generate a load of compact, equal population maps, let the ballot qualified parties eliminate most of them by a process like jury selection, and then pick one of the surviving maps by using a bingo cage.
The thing is, there's not a lot the Democrat dominated states can do to counter Texas redistricting, because they're already gerrymandered. Take Illinois for instance. Gerrymandered up the wazoo.
I remember when Chris Christie imploded and NJ overcame it's Republican gerrymander to regain control of their house. And what did the newly Dem house try to do first? Gerrymander. And what did the NJ Dem public do in response? They screamed bloody murder, and the Dem house backed down.
Us libs abhor gerrymandering. But I hope this all out war will bring us to something similar to your solution, Brett. But you know as well as I that if that happens, MAGA will never control Congress again.
That's a bit of revisionist history.
I think it's hilarious that they fled to Illinois of all places.
Safety in the arms of Jabba the Prickzter.
I think it’s hilarious you made the same point as defaultdotxbe forty minutes later.
Great minds think alike.
And some don’t read the others who’ve said it first?
And some who read it, agreed, but didn't agree in the same way and thus posted their own comment showing their agreement.
lol, you didn’t use the exact same words, I guess, but you essentially posted the same thing.
It's an obvious point, Illinois being about the most egregiously gerrymandered state in the country.
The obvious point is it’s goofy to repost an obvious point directly below someone who said it already.
The only one here who thinks it's goofy is you.
Go outside and touch grass.
You’re not a parrot, are you? If not restating the same thing as someone else in a debate is indeed goofy. Touch grass indeed.
Also Illinois is a sanctuary state; it didn't help the Wisconsin state police facilitate the removal of Democratic state legislators who fled to Illinois to prevent a quorum on an anti-union vote in 2011.
Hence my question as to whether there might be a federal role in capturing and returning fugitives who another state refused to extradite.
The federal law only requires the other state to comply if the requesting state provides documentation "charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime". Likewise the constitution's extradition clause doesn't apply to fugitives in general, it only applies to those fleeing criminal prosecution.
That is separate and distinct from being subject to arrest and detention. Texas has laws allowing police to arrest and detain material witnesses, people under a commitment order, people needed for jury duty....and truant legislators. But none of those are charged with a crime, and the underlying objective is not to bring them to justice, it's to make them show up.
Now if you're a big fan of using pretexts to get around the constitution, Texas could bogus charge them with some unrelated crime, and then say oopsie and dismiss the charges once they had them, since in reality they want them on the House floor, not in jail awaiting trial.
But even then Illinois has a countermeasure. There's an exception to extradition if the person is currently serving a sentence. The fugitives could plead guilty to a crime in Illinois, the sentence for which is house arrest in a luxury hotel until it's too late to redistrict in Texas.
Laughable nonsense from Brett Bellmore, White Supremacist.
Inter-racially married and living in a 50-50 neighborhood 'white supremacist', mind you.
You're not a white supremacist.
But it's not because those two facts disprove it. Lots of slaveowners had black mistresses and lived in a "neighborhood" that was 90+% black.
So Brett is a slave owner now?
I believe you are the only one confused, but just for you: no, Brett is neither a slave owner, nor a white supremacist.
We don't know if he is or not, but let's make him deny it!
Well out in front of people who call themselves white supremacists on the question of gutting the VRA, so yes, you are a white supremacist.
The left is praising them as heroes for "doing what needs to be done."
If Republicans fled to avoid a bill where Democrats were voting to lionize transgenders, they'd be "hateful bigots, interfering with the democratic process."
A key Senate committee on Wednesday approved legislation that would bar members of Congress, the president and the vice president from trading stocks, after its Republican sponsor changed the bill to ensure that a divestment requirement included in the measure would not apply to President Trump.
The legislation, sponsored by Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, attracted an unusual coalition of supporters, winning approval from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee with every other Republican on the panel in opposition and Democrats unanimously in support.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/us/politics/senate-stock-trading-bill-congress-trump-carveout.html
I could live with any incumbent through the end of his/her/its current term being exempt, i.e. for anyone elected or REelected 2026 or after, which Trump can't be.
Remember the two term rule didn't apply to Truman.
Yet another instance of innumeracy or lying from Trump
Trump claims the U.S. gave $60 million in Gaza aid. It’s $3 million so far.
The State Department has allocated $30 million in U.S. food donations to Gaza, half what Trump has claimed. But only 10 percent has been disbursed to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/08/01/ghf-trump-gaza-aid-millions/
He also claimed that the US was the only country giving money to Gaza, so I think reality wasn't really a factor in that conversation anyway.
Back during World War II, the Soviets were actually supplying the Germans with weapons and materiel, until the morning of Operation: Barbarossa.
They effectively fed the monster that turned on them.
History rhymes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html
Well, of course they were. They started WWII on the same side, remember?
Sen. Mike Lee Is proposing that Congress go into A formal adjournment is August to allow President Trump to fill the 120 or so vacancies he has nominees pending for but the Senate hasn't votes on yet. The Recess appointments would be good until the end of December 2026.
Both the Senate and the House would have to vote for adjournment, or just one of them, and then the President can break the tie and adjourn both houses:
"and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;"
Although that could be interpreted as both houses have to vote to adjourn, but disagree on the date. I think that could also be arranged.
I think what Trump should do is come up with a list of his nominees that would be confirmed if a vote were held and restrict himself to nominating just those nominees. That would give the Senate the confidence to use this procedure in the future, when a minority party is obstructing nominees favored by the majority. Although a rules change would also work to streamline the voting process.
If Congress is going to be a waste of space, it might as well vote to abolish itself for all the good it's doing. That way its members can spend all their time collecting bribes instead of just half their time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
"I think what Trump should do is come up with a list of his nominees that would be confirmed if a vote were held and restrict himself to nominating just those nominees."
Trump does not have a 'restrict himself' capability.
I wonder, can the Senate advise the President to nominate someone, or even give a consent (which the President can then accept or refuse)?
That's basically what the "advise" part of "advise and consent" meant, so, sure, they can. I don't think they can confirm a nominee prior to the President nominating them, though.
Of course. In a sensible country the President and the Senate majority would negotiate over a package of nominations, and actually make sure that the vacancies are generally filled.
And we would have yet another year with no appropriation bills.
Isn't the number of votes needed to adjourn exactly the same as the number needed to just approve the nominees anyway?
(To be clear, I'm talking about constitutional requirements, not Senate rules, which can also be changed by simple majority vote if constitutional-nuclear options are on the table.)
The problem is not the votes, the problem is the procedural hurdles to get to the votes.
Its much easier to get through the procedural hurdles for one vote to adjourn than 120 votes to confirm.
That's why a recess with an agreed upon list would be the solution.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14965757/new-jersey-sanctuary-state-illegal-migrant-kills.html
A mother and her 11-year-old daughter were killed in a head-on crash after an illegal immigrant allegedly drove drunk into oncoming traffic in New Jersey.
Why cant people see that the proliferation of illegals is a threat to public safety, just like the proliferation of guns is a threat to public safety?
And New Jersey has blood on its hands:
Raul Luna-Perez, 43, a Mexican national living in the US illegally has a long rap sheet and two DUI arrests in just the last four months together with multiple arrests for drunk driving, domestic violence, and hit-and-run. Luna-Perez had been living illegally in Red Bank since early 2023 and was able to remain free under New Jersey's sanctuary policies.
Raul Luna-Perez, 43, a Mexican national living in the US illegally has a long rap sheet and two DUI arrests in just the last four months together with multiple arrests for drunk driving, domestic violence, and hit-and-run.
Luna-Perez had been living illegally in Red Bank since early 2023 and was able to remain free under New Jersey's sanctuary policies.
AOC has blood on her hands. We had record illegal immigration because Trump failed to build his wall and she should have known we would have a backlash. So progressives should have been passing legislation to increase funding of ICE in order to remove violent illegals because that was the best way to eventually get asylum for the vast majority of the illegals that came here in the last 4 years. So if most illegals remain then Trump’s presidency will be a failure even if he serves 8 years because he ran on stopping illegal immigration and then we had record illegal immigration.
Trump helped an American that killed a Brit in a car accident flee prosecution in England. Trump inexplicably allowed an Iraqi intent on assassinating Bush into the country during a pandemic with a Muslim ban!?! WTF???
Most people do, it’s why “45” is “47”
Trump failed to build the wall and then we had record illegal immigration. Let me guess—you also opposed his surrender to the Taliban and his Covid vaccine?? Hopefully you support his $8 trillion in debt?? WTF??
One of the cognitive differences I've observed between "conservatives" and "liberals" is that the former react more to specific instances while the latter react more to statistics.
So a conservative takes this instance to condemn illegal immigrants, while a liberal would look at the overall statistics for illegals v citizens.
I hope you recognize the complete inanity (and irony) of your post?
If I had generalised from that one example, that would indeed have been ironic. But I didn't.
Why cant people see that the proliferation of illegals is a threat to public safety,
Because that's stupid. Any person can commit a crime; there's nothing about illegal immigrants as a class that makes them a "threat to public safety."
Except that in this case, if NJ cooperated with ICE a woman and her daughter would be alive today. As would Laken Riley had Athens done the same.
Whether illegal aliens are statistically more likely to create further crimes is irrelevant. If they’re not here, they can’t commit (more) crimes here.
if NJ cooperated with ICE a woman and her daughter would be alive today.
Do you have any evidence that ICE was trying to deport this guy before the crash?
From the OP’s linked article: “Despite his extensive rap sheet, Luna-Perez was never turned over to immigration authorities and remained on the streets thanks in part to New Jersey's status as a 'sanctuary state', a designation made official in 2018 under Governor Phil Murphy's administration.
That year then-Attorney General Gurbir Grewal issued the Immigrant Trust Directive, which restricted local police from sharing immigration information with federal authorities and barred them from asking suspects about their immigration status.”
To be clear, I don’t believe states should be coerced into carrying out the federal government’s bidding or even forced to cooperate. However, states do subsequently bear the responsibility for outcomes when states allow people to remain free - when they clearly shouldn’t be - and continue to commit crimes instead of alerting the feds.
That quote, besides being weaselly — among other things, the use of "extensive rap sheet" is seemingly carefully phrased to hide the fact that the guy was apparently never convicted of anything — doesn't respond to my question. If ICE wasn't trying to deport him, then NJ being a "sanctuary jurisdiction" wouldn't have hindered ICE.
You know damn well that if NJ wasn’t a sanctuary state and actually cooperated with ICE, this guy would have been processed for deportation. Ok, well maybe not during the Biden admin, but definitely during a functional administration.
I do not know damn well that someone who — I infer — was never convicted of a crime would have been prioritized in any administration.
Resorting to “you know damn well” in a long argument is usually weak.
I have no doubt that’s what it means when you use it.
When I use it, it means I’m calling you out for not reading the OP’s linked article and/or being intentionally dishonest.
The article stated but for NJ’s (and its localities) laws, law enforcement would have notified and worked with ICE very early in his career as a criminal.
The article did not state that, and how on earth could a random journalist know that anyway?
The article (a) quoted DHS's own Josephine Goebbels as saying that; and then (b) threw in a completely unsupported and also vague claim that the guy "was never turned over to immigration authorities and remained on the streets thanks in part to New Jersey's status as a 'sanctuary state.'" (Emphasis added.)
There was a coup attempt to oust Trump and install Pence as president…and it has nothing to do with Democrats. Rodentstain is at the center of the conspiracy and everyone knows that he appointed Mueller…and he also discussed removing Trump via the 25th Amendment.
...meanwhile, thanks to Herr Stormtrooper, what remains of freedom of speech is being suffocated in the UK.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
In terms of freedom of speech, though, we'd be the ones with the mote, and the UK, the beam.
No, America is explicitly targeting all sorts of groups for their speech. Well beyond Europe. You just don't count it as an infringement on freedom if it's not speech you agree with.
Sarcastr0, America is regulating government speech of government employees, and continued residence by non-citizens. The UK is sanctioning private speech by private citizens. That's a LOT bigger deal than what we're doing.
Do you somehow not understand the difference between saying that a government employee on the clock has their work related speech dictated by their employer, and saying that a private citizen on their own time has their private speech dictated by the government?
Trump’s threats to yank licenses of networks because their news or late night shows are critical of him is not regulating government speech.
Can you please give me an example of that?
So here:
https://thehill.com/media/5247488-trump-says-cbs-should-lose-license-after-60-minutes-segments-on-ukraine-greenland/amp/
And here:
https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/donald-trump-slams-seth-meyers-threatens-comcast-1236274067/
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/11/trump-nbc-broadcast-license-243667
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/12/trump-abc-debate-dispute/75196601007/
1. Speech is speech, and freedom is freedom. Hiding behind formalities is a common move among authoritarians.
2. Trump has in no way limited himself to public employees. Law firms. Broadcast networks. Private universities. Foreign nationals.
You don't care. You over and over demonstrate how narrow a view you have of who counts enough for you to care about their freedom. Protect but do not bind the ingroup; and bind but do not protect everyone else. You know, keep America for the Americans.
Government speech is government speech; The government no more violates the 1st amendment by dictating what its own employees say on the job, than I violate it by deciding what *I'm* going to say.
You have a somewhat better case for the speech of non-citizens, but don't pretend it's slam dunk in your favor.
Meanwhile, you keep dodging the fact that the UK is censoring and punishing citizens' speech on matters of public interest. They really DO have a beam in their eye, relative to our mote.
Brett is so desperate to avoid admitting that Trump is the worst that he's just going to repeat the same inappicable mantra over and over again.
Hint: the government speech doctrine and employee speech are different things.
They're not going at people who are speaking for the government, they're just going after people who work for the government for their speech.
You're wrong formally, but more importantly you're wrong as a matter of principle. Based on your weaseling on facts and principle, one can only conclude you don't give a fig about free speech.
I've said I don't like the UK policies. But you're being a fool to pretend that the US doesn't have it much worse under Trump.
1. In number of people effected 2. In the level of sanction 3. In the arbitrary whim of it
“You just don't count it as an infringement on freedom if it's not speech you agree with.”
Says the guy who is ok with the government punishing people for wearing t shirts that say there are only two genders.
Do you just remember these things, or do you save them and don't like to cite things?
Because my comment was pretty anodyne:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/05/27/justices-alito-and-thomas-dissent-from-courts-declining-to-hear-there-are-only-two-genders-school-t-shirt-case/?comments=true#comments
"Sarcastr0 2 months ago I can see pretty reasonable reasons for the outcome going either way, but I'd certainly not call this schools 'being run by' federal judges."
Your comment to Brett: “You don't care. You over and over demonstrate how narrow a view you have of who counts enough for you to care about their freedom.”
Why don’t you care about the freedom of people who want to say that there are two genders?
I'm not relitigating a debate from 2 months ago with you.
If you want to see the argument on the other side I found reasonable check out the 1C opinion that carried the day.
I'm not seeing from his quoted comment that Sarcastr0 did not care about the T-shirt wearer's freedom in school; only that the freedom of the rest of the school from disruption might balance that out.
You’re the one criticizing others for not caring about freedom of speech, it’s perfectly reasonable to point out that you don’t care about it either.
"only that the freedom of the rest of the school from disruption might balance that out."
Your defense of Sarcastro condoning censorship is that he felt that the benefit of the government censoring the student's speech outweighed the harm of the censorship?
Just looking at the quotation provided, yes, that seems a reasonable reading. Students in schools have more limited First Amendment rights, and even a seemingly bland statement on a T-shirt might acquire disruptive power from the circumstances which led to that case.
OK, I guess we agree that Sarcastro feels that the benefit of censorship outweighs the harm.
America is regulating government speech of government employees, and continued residence by non-citizens.
Is Rumeysa Ozturk a government official? CBS?
No Brett, S_O chooses not to understand
https://xkcd.com/3081/
I really enjoy Randal's work, but he seems to have omitted the "enter the US on a student visa" step from his timeline.
First, that shouldn't matter! Second, thanks to the lack of a review, there is no internal control making that a required step.
Yeah, you think that shouldn't matter. Wake me when your policy preferences have the force of law.
Wake me when your policy preferences have the force of law.
Like the First Amendment? That policy preference was specified by We The People, and is deliberately absolutist in nature, so weasely future politicians could not censor or harm opposition.
So what? I don't see anything about hearings or due process either.
Is all you care about getting rid of immigrants, by any means necessary, whoever they are?
Apparently so. Not out of bigotry, of course. LOL.
CNN is reporting that net migration to the US is plummeting and that this could be the first year in at least 50 years that net migration is less than zero.
Since we get about 1 million legal migrants a year then that would mean that people out migrating would be greater than 1 million.
Based on news reports, I am guessing the largest categories of out-migration are: Self deporting Illegals Involuntary deported illegals Social Science professors at liberal arts universities Hollywood actors who no longer have careers
https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1952065321889902682
This is not a good headline for the US, your weak joking aside.
We don't have the hard numbers yet, but US foreign STEM student enrollment is looking to be a horror show.
The competition for talent is global; snarking as we quit the field is truly ignorant.
It would be a shame if foreign STEM students fell for the media's conflation of illegal and legal immigrants. As a STEM student you're pretty safe if you're not promoting Hamas or acting as a spy for the Chinese.
The MEDIA'S conflation?!?
You spelled MAGA wrong.
No, I spelled "media" right.
Read the news, Brett. Social media vetting. Pulling visas for speech. An God forbid you come from China!
Blaming the students is impressively ignorant of what the administration is doing, and as apedad noted what MAGA believes.
And what you've said about nationalism, and America for Americans. Do you think that's helping?
I do read the news, and what you're describing is exactly what I was talking about: Support for Hamas, and being a spy for the Chinese.
I mean, they're not exactly vetting social media to exclude people who like Taylor Swift, now, are they? They're looking for support for terrorist organizations and their fellow travelers like Students for Palestine.
Now, I get that you think that foreigners here on our sufferance should be as free to support heinous causes as American citizens are. I don't agree. I think that when you're a guest in somebody else's country you need to be on your best behavior, instead.
You think you shouldn’t be able to write an opinion piece in a campus newspaper that was critical of Israel's war?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3nd0dwlpgo.amp
I think *I* should be able to, but *I* am a citizen in my own country, now, aren't I? If I were residing in another country, I'd be quite circumspect about that sort of thing.
Meanwhile, just a little up the thread, you're defending the UK censoring their own citizens for daring to publicly protest government policies.
"It would be a shame if foreign STEM students fell for the media's conflation of illegal and legal immigrants"
[offer not valid if Brett's not a fan of your speech.]
I think we as a nation value free speech because we think open debate is good and government control of it is bad, to say a person can be kicked out for a single not very radical criticism of an action of a non-host country demonstrates a real lack of commitment to that value.
Gaslight0, we've needed to do this for decades...
Social media vetting has been policy for a while, I've filled out almost a dozen visa applications both immigration and non-immigration, and in the past 10 years Social Media profile has always been on the form.
Now maybe they haven't expended the effort to check, but its always been the policy they can ask, and th that you have to provide it.
https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/06/announcement-of-expanded-screening-and-vetting-for-visa-applicants
"Under new guidance, we will conduct a comprehensive and thorough vetting, including online presence, of all student and exchange visitor applicants in the F, M, and J nonimmigrant classifications.
To facilitate this vetting, all applicants for F, M, and J nonimmigrant visas will be instructed to adjust the privacy settings on all of their social media profiles to “public.”"
So? In the last 2 years, all before that date, I have filled out 6 visa applications, 5 tourist, 1 immigration.
All of them I had to provide social media account information. That includes my 4 year old nephew.
So it may be new policy to require staff to check, it is not new policy to ask for it, and optionally check it.
Yeah, how could they not have complete faith in this administration to carefully, clearly and consistently target only a small sub-set of foreign students clearly established by a fair and due process?
I don't have such faith, but I think that if we're going to analyze a government policy in terms of its legality/constitutionality, we need to look at whether it even CAN be non-abusively carried out, before assuming it will be done abusively.
In the case of the UK, they started with the abuses up front.
This is about the loss of foreign talent; you hiding behind 'well it's legal/constitutional' doesn't even make sense.
It's only about the loss of foreign talent if they're staying here after they finish their schooling.
You don’t they provide value to their classmates and others while here?
So one faction of MAGA is deeply angry that foreign students stay after they graduate, and wants to eliminate the H1 visa. Another faction thinks it's a loss if they leave and thinks H1 visas are good.
Yet both vote for the same person, and supposedly because they like his position on immigration.
I'm on record saying that we should be skimming the cream, rather than importing unskilled labor. Both as a matter of economic productivity, and to reduce income inequality.
So if we're going to be having foreign students studying STEM, we want them to stay after they graduate, all else being equal. Not, of course, if they're antisemites or Chinese spies. But as a general matter.
I'm not so fond of H-1B visas, because they nominally are only available for jobs where you can't find an American to do it, and the record pretty clearly shows that employers are NOT respecting that requirement. They're not quite indentured servitude, but they're uncomfortably close.
I'd much prefer a system where employers could simply sponsor specialists for ordinary immigration visas.
And lots of them did! America used to be a great place to work and live for foreign scholars.
You act like switching from alluring to hostile won't change our talent retention.
It would be a shame if foreign STEM students fell for the media's conflation of illegal and legal immigrants.
BS. I know a foreign STEM student (not from the UK) who chose to do his postdoc in the UK rather than here. It had nothing to with being an illegal immigrant, but rather fear that his visa would be taken away for no reason, or that grant money would disappear before he was finished. Which has happened to people under Trump's policies to promote ignorance.
Those are not lies.
Do you imagine others don't think the same, and are encouraged to do so by foreign universities?
If you actually gave a shit about STEM in the US you'd be screaming about Trump's policies. Instead you blithely say they are legal (which they might occasionally be) and cheer them on.
Again, bigotry and xenophobia.
"that grant money would disappear before he was finished."
Even worse, the people losing their postdoc positions aren't losing them because of anything they did, said, or even thought about personally.
They're losing them because some unrelated people on the other side of campus protested against Israel, and therefore the administration is going after the whole institution.
Funding stability issues makes US institutions a bad bet for everyone - temporary visa holder, permanent resident, or citizen.
"his visa would be taken away for no reason"
No one's visa is being taken away for "no reason"
Your foreign student, like you and sarcasto, is just being paranoid and slightly hysterical. Hope he likes the 30-40% less he will get in UK. On the bright side, taxes and housing costs are higher too.
the media's conflation of illegal and legal immigrants.
You are the only one who makes that distinction. MAGA does not.
Uh huh, and I’m sure you have data to back that up?
Quick search of poll data shows Pew found 68% of Republicans (and those who lean that way) support maintaining or increasing the level of legal immigration.
Why do people post with no cite for a specific factual claim?
I specifically cited Pew to make your job really easy.
To save you the hassle: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/12/19/americans-lean-toward-keeping-legal-immigration-steady-see-high-skilled-workers-as-a-priority/
If you already looked it up, you might as well have posted the link immediately.
"Why do people post with no cite for a specific factual claim?"
Could it be that providing supporting facts causes MAGAts to break out in hives?
Could it be that left-wing zealots don’t know how to read?
No one can read cites you don’t provide.
If it weren't for ipse dixits, MAGAts would have no dixits at all.
I find it pretty interesting that you branded me a “MAGAt” because I used actual data to counter the feelz of David N.
Explains a lot.
Well, the administration (for at least a while) had totally paused interviews for student visas, and has been attempting to cancel all student visas for at least one university. So students might rightly be concerned about their ability to get visas and just go to other countries where there's a lot less uncertainty about whether you'd actually be able to go to school or not.
The horror show is for universities hoping for lots of kids who pay full freight.
Don’t you claim to work in STEM research? If you do surely you know lots of foreign students doing valuable work here.
The top STEM school are still going to have more than their fill of foreign students. Liberal arts colleges, maybe not so much
If you work in this area you know their chosen competitively so they may still have students but not the best.
Maybe so. For a President who seems very concerned about balance of trade, though, why would you want to discourage a bunch of rich people from spending their education dollars in the US?
"foreign STEM student enrollment is looking to be a horror show"
Good, fewer Chinese spies and more opportunities for American citizens.
There seem to be as many if not more Indian international STEM students than Chinese in the US.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/international-students-united-states#:~:text=For%20the%20first%20time%20in,top%20origin%20countries%20have%20risen.
And…? How many Chinese vs Indian foreign students are charged and convicted of being spies (security or industrial)?
I was answering the charge that it didn’t matter if international students stopped coming here because it would just mean less Chinese spies.
And they will keep applying to MIT and Caltech and Stanford. Don't worry
Because they can be confident Trump will not change his mind and start targeting India! That guy is so rock solid!
Also, elitist much?
I think it would be bad long term, but its a good corrective over the next few years.
I would fully support Congress raising the number of legal visas to compensate for deporting the 10-20 million illegals.
Also concentrating on foreign STEM students when that's going to be just a few percent of the million plus self-deportees is just a red-herring. We've got 1.1 million foreign students in the US now, a few thousand leaving won't hurt, and foreign student visa fraud is rife, so there needs to be more scrutiny anyway.
You can support a lot of stuff; that doesn't change what the admin you support is doing right now.
concentrating on foreign STEM students when that's going to be just a few percent of the million plus self-deportees is just a red-herring. Yeah, it's going to be bad all over. I talk about foreign STEM students because that's what I know.
foreign student visa fraud is rife Did Comer tell you that?
That's not one of Comer's issues. Here is a couple of examples from the Obama administration as examples so you can't claim its just a Trump manufactured issue:
ICE set up a fake university. Hundreds enrolled, not realizing it was a sting operation
https://www.fosterglobal.com/blog/ice-set-up-a-fake-university-hundreds-enrolled-not-realizing-it-was-a-sting-operation/
"3 senior executives of for-profit schools plead guilty to student visa, financial aid fraud
The defendants, whom HSI special agents arrested in May 2014, have agreed to forfeit $7,440,000 of proceeds of the student visa fraud conspiracy to the U.S. government, and agreed to pay $1,000,000 in restitution to the U.S. Department of Education for losses from the student financial aid fraud conspiracy. "
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/3-senior-executives-profit-schools-plead-guilty-student-visa-financial-aid-fraud
Ah. so ICE press releases are your source now.
You suck so bad at critical thinking!
I mean, look at your scope here - for profit schools and a fake university.
You're using this to argue foreign students in the US tend to be frauds? You're not providing evidence relevant to that claim.
I said there is a lot of fraud in Student Visa's I did not say foreign students tend to be frauds, I doubt if the fraud is any more than 5% of the total, that doesn't mean it couldn't be tightened, or that 1 million is the proper number, I'd be fine if they cut that in half.
I did see that the Trump Administration is going to start a new program to require bonds of 5-15k for tourist and business visa's from countries that have a high overstay rate. That actually might loosen up visa's.
"Targeted Requirement: The bond will apply to applicants from countries with high visa overstay rates (10% or higher), where screening and vetting information is considered deficient, or from countries offering citizenship by investment without a residency requirement. Bond Amount: Consular officers will have the discretion to set the bond amount at $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000, depending on the applicant's circumstances and to deter overstaying."
From 'rife with fraud' to 'that doesn't mean it couldn't be tightened.'
Come on, man.
And yes, tourism is fixing to be another terrible blow to our economy.
Let me explain it to you in different terms, that you maybe able to understand.
If I said unemployment benefits are rife with fraud, I don't think that's controversial, but it certainly doesn't mean that I am saying people who apply for unemployment benefits tend to be dishonest and should be denied benefits. It means the program should be tightened as much as possible to reduce the fraud without unduly denying benefits.
And I might also say that industries that get tipped are rife with tax fraud, and I would probably go even further and say people that get a substantial amount of their income from tips tend to be tax cheats.
I hope that makes it clearer, but I am not holding my breath.
The Opinio Juris blog just published a relatively sane post considering whether Israel's behaviour in Gaza amounts to genocide, which is obviously a question that a lot of people are wondering about at the moment. The author is an Associate Professor of International Law at the University of Western Australia, President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and Visiting Scholar with the Human Rights Center at the University of Minnesota Law School. She brought A Lot Of Sources.
https://opiniojuris.org/2025/08/04/is-genocide-happening-in-gaza/
Both sides in America suck—the progressives that started attacking Israel on 10/8 and the Republicans that attacked Biden for attempting to build a dock to deliver food to Gaza. Btw, America has islands and the Navy needs to be able to build docks and so why not support the mission if anything as training?? I feel sorry for the Palestinians that got caught up in dumb and dumber engaging in partisan bickering.
I think the fiasco was a worthwhile learning event, if the US Military can't build a dock in the relatively calm and relatively flat Mediterranean, it raises serious questions about competence.
There are parts of Maine which have 20 foot tides (seriously) and a lot of places where that "storm" would be considered a "relatively calm day." And sand beaches are an abnormality, usually it is volcanic ledges. The waves in parts of the Pacific coast are such that the USCG has lead bottomed boats that can roll over without capsizing.
So our Navy can't manage to not collide with other ships and our military can't build a temporary wharf. Wonderful....
I’ve been to the Caribbean when it should have been calm but it was rough. And I’ve had a family member that lived on a Caribbean island and shortly after they left it got hit by a hurricane and it was just a total disaster. That’s also why I support an orderly border because it is America’s responsibility to help the Caribbean when it inevitably gets hit by a hurricane. So if we have too many immigrants taking advantage of our asylum system then we can’t help foreigners when they really need it.
A -The article is BS B - there is no genocide being committed by the Israelis
Its a pure propaganda piece
If you keep saying it, eventually it must be true. Not today, though.
Given that Hamas is claiming around 60,000 dead out of a population of around 1.8 million it seems like Israel need to pick up the pace of their "genocide".
It remains pure BS -
I love how joe answers an ipse dixit charge with an ipse dixit.
Amusing that you'd say that in this context. Pretty much summarizes the entirety of the "Israel is committing genocide!" half of the debate.
I remember academics trying to prove that George W. Bush was a fascist. Winning that argument basically allows you to get your viewpoint promoted more on Wikipedia.
We can see what's happening in Gaza and the West Bank. The West can stop Israel if the West has a problem with Israel's conduct. Whether the stated justification is genocide, war crimes, aggression, or some other term is not important. Our source reports that Israel was attempting to buy yellowcake, bombs away!
Meanwhile, we're keeping a spot warm for Netanyahu here in The Hague.
Quid or quo?
Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been moved from a federal prison in Florida to a prison camp in Texas as her criminal case generates renewed public attention….
Minimum-security federal prison camps house inmates the Bureau of Prisons considers to be the lowest security risk. Some don't even have fences.
The prison camps were originally designed with low security to make operations easier and to allow inmates tasked with performing work at the prison, like landscaping and maintenance, to avoid repeatedly checking in and out of a main prison facility.
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/01/g-s1-80655/ghislaine-maxwell-epstein-prison-transfer
Barr took pEestain off the board…Ghizzstain will remain on the board as long as she is useful to the Deep State. The CIA’s motto should be “always tie up loose ends” and pEestain was the loosest of loose ends!!
I've seen that womens camp in downtown Bryan, TX. You pass by its fence on the sidewalk like it is just another outdoor cafe in the city. Were it not for the little fence, it would be indistinguishable.
Regardless, why are you still talking about Epstein, Malika? Do you see any MAGA here bringing it up?
It’s interesting how quickly they turn off a conspiracy spigot they turned on.
Because a 63-year-old society gal is such a security risk.
She's really going to knife someone in the shower or hijack a laundry truck. Really.
Minimum security saves money -- she should have been there from the start. Even if she walked away, where is she going to go???
She could walk right out the front gate and start molesting children again. And like Trump said, 'We wish her well'
I think the vast majority of America knows of her crimes and proclivities so doubtful recidivism will be an easy avenue for her.
However, the question is why they moved her now? The timing seems extraordinary suspicious.
Loni Anderson's death was referenced.
She is best known for her classic role in WKRP In Cincinnati.
“I was against being like a blonde window dressing person, so I made my feelings known,” she said on Australian television in 2017. “And as we know, Jennifer was the smartest person in the room.”
https://archive.ph/SjPsk#selection-739.0-746.0
As is often the case, the blonde look was not her natural color:
Her trademark blond locks were not her natural hair color, and she initially had conflicted feelings about them. Ms. Anderson had been a brunette for most of her life, including during her early acting career, and worried that she would not be taken seriously as an actress if she dyed her hair.
Over the decades, Ms. Anderson has amassed more than 60 acting credits, continuing to appear in roles in recent years.
Most manipulative person in the room, not the smartest.
Like Bud Bundy or Cordelia from Buffy, stupid all the time, until the plot needs them to be a genius for comedy purposes. Brittany from Glee is your queen.
Was Cordy generally dumb? My vague recollection was that she was usually extremely brainy, other than one glitch where she did poorly on her SATs. (This is going off 20-year-old memories, so I'm possibly getting this totally wrong.) I thought that--other than Willow and Oz, natch--Cordy was one of the top students in the entire school.
She was not generally dumb, but she wasn't smart until they retconned her.
Farmer was the first transgender plaintiff known to have a case heard by the Supreme Court, and her lawsuit was the first time that the court addressed the issue of sexual assault in prison. And it laid the groundwork for the landmark Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003.
The case arose from her pro se petition. The 1990s case was an important case concerning prisoner treatment.
The Court politely treated Dee Farmer with Justice Souter noting in his opinion announcement that "The prisoner here is a federal prisoner who is a transsexual and respondent, federal prison officials agree, projects feminine characteristics."
The opinion carefully references her as "petitioner," though two of the concurring opinions used masculine pronouns.
One notable thing was the long prison sentence she received:
In 1985, she was arrested and charged in state and federal courts with separate crimes related to the scheme: theft, burglary and passing bad checks in state court; credit card fraud in federal court. She pleaded guilty, thinking the judge would order her various sentences to run at the same time. He did not. At 21, Farmer was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison, to be followed by 30 years in Maryland state prison.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2025/07/17/farmer-brennan-transgender-prisoner-supreme-court
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1993/92-7247
I represented a prisoner who had been sentenced as a habitual criminal to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. She had a long history of criminal convictions pursuant to prior guilty pleas, but the LWOP sentence was imposed following a jury trial for forgery.
I filed a petition for post-conviction relief on equal protection grounds. The sentencing scheme then in force provided that any felony designated as an infamous crime could trigger application of the habitual criminal statute. Under Tennessee law, forgery was an infamous crime, while the related offense of uttering forged paper (without which no "victim" would suffer any pecuniary loss) was not an infamous crime. Thus a person with the requisite criminal history convicted of forgery was subject to an LWOP sentence, while a person with the selfsame prior history convicted of uttering forged paper was not.
I argued that Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942), mandated a finding that this disparate sentencing treatment of offenders who were convicted of offenses of equal gravity violates constitutional equal protection guaranties. The Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed. State v. Russell, 866 S.W.2d 578 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1991).
It seems to me that the problem with your argument in this case was, who gets to decide if offenses ARE of "equal gravity"?
Arguably, the same legislature that made them "offenses" in the first place, and apparently it had decided they weren't.
Anyway, your client sure sounds like a habitual criminal. Did she at any point consider, (I know this sounds crazy...) just going straight?
She was eventually paroled pursuant to a measure designed to alleviate prison overcrowding. I don't know what happened following her release.
The legislature did not decide what crimes are infamous; the judiciary did. In the case of forgery and uttering (that is, passing) forged paper, the equivalency thereof is a no brainer. The offenses are two sides of the same coin -- without both offenses having committed, no victim suffers any pecuniary loss.
"When the law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same quality of offense and sterilizes one and not the other, it has made as invidious a discrimination as if it had selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment." Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). Any distinction between forgery and uttering forged paper is even finer than the larceny and embezzlement offenses compared in Skinner.
If that was the case, then I suspect a huge due process violation. Vague sentence enhancement conditions are unconstitutional, and "infamous" (if not used in the sense of "felonious") probably counts.
Was this case pre or post Apprendi?
It was pre-Apprendi, but Apprendi would have made no difference. The trial of the triggering forgery offense was bifurcated. The jury first found guilt as to the charged offense, and then in a separate sentencing proceeding found that the accused had the requisite prior criminal history. And in any event, the existence of any prior criminal conviction is an exception recognized in Apprendi itself.
Under Tennessee law, forgery was an infamous crime, while the related offense of uttering forged paper (without which no "victim" would suffer any pecuniary loss) was not an infamous crime.
I find the argument that these were of equal gravity to be weak. Lying is bad, but lying to cheat someone is worse than lying that doesn't cheat someone. Makes perfect sense that one would be considered worse than the other.
I think the complaint above was that originating the forgery was treated as "infamous", but actually using it to defraud somebody wasn't.
I suppose there's an argument that the wrongful nature of originating the forgery is certain, (The forger absolutely understood themselves to be engaged in forgery.) while for the person who uses the forged document there may be some lingering doubt if they really understood that it was false.
But it's not a distinction I'd personally care to defend.
Didn't know that was petitioned pro se. I wish those old court documents were easily accessible.
...and in case you missed it: Northern NJ hit by 3.0 magnitude earthquake at 10:18 PM Saturday. The quake was located six miles beneath Hasbrouck Heights in Bergen County NJ. No tsunami warnings were issued.
You have to ask yourself, are these the true measurements, or have they been manipulated to please Trump?
You truly have TDS.
Didn’t read the news this weekend or no sense of humor or both?
Publius, Get a fucking sense of humor
So far this term, MAGA's pretext for destroying an American institution (press, immigration, universities) has been MAGA's performative, cynical exploitation of Jews/Antisemitism as a political weapon. So I've been waiting to see what the next target is going to be. Then here is this article in National Review:
A Plague in the Healthcare Profession. https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/08/a-plague-in-the-health-care-profession/
Basically this breathless, hyperbolic, citationless article boils down to the same weak sauce bullshit employed before: Some students have 'overheard' others saying Free Palestine or Stop Zionism, claimed it made them 'uncomfortable, and when they reported feeling uncomfortable, they were told to stop being so uncomfortable. This last part National Review says equates to monstrous antisemitism by itself.
But my question for the hayseeds here is this: what's your beef with the healthcare industry? We already know your fear of medicine, but why the industry as a whole?
My chief beef with the healthcare industry is that it's not treated like any other industry: Providing products and services to customers who are free to buy or not buy what they want, so long as they can afford it. Essentially all the pathology of the health care industry would go away if it were treated like a normal industry.
For the non-catastrophic stuff. You always have to qualify it because the Left will then argue as if catastrophic care is the only healthcare in existence.
My chief beef with the healthcare industry is that it's not treated like any other industry
The nature and elasticity of the demand, and the opacity of supply, is very different from any other industry, as is the use of IP. The healthcare industry cannot therefore operate as a mostly free market, therefore.
Only catastrophic care. Non-catastrophic care can operate as a mostly free market. For the non-catastrophic market, it will only become transparent when we allow price signals to drive consumption.
I still recall taking Econ 101 in college, back in the 70's. My Econ prof's first words on the first day have stuck with me: "We will not be using the word "need" in this class. Economics is about what people want, not "need"."
The entire health care industry can function as a free market, if the government wants to help people who can't afford health care they really want in a desperate circumstance, it can help them out financially, in the same manner that the government gives people money to buy food, instead of mandating that grocers give it away for free to the poor.
Well, I think we have a moral obligation to do something for catastrophic care. Maybe not government run, but it should be part of the social contract & safety net.
Let's help with cancer, but buy your own infertility pills and pay for your own check ups.
You can't form a market for catastrophic care. You can for catastrophic care insurance though, so long as it's risk-rated.
Sounds like we're roughly on the same page.
I think that if we want the health care industry to operate properly, it has to be allowed to be a free market in all cases, but charity is part of a free market!
Last Saturday I spent the day packing food to be sent to Cuba, to people who won't be paying for that food. (See that guy in the lavender shirt and white cap in the middle photo? That's me, last year.) But every ounce of the food we packed was produced by the free market, and paid for. Just by us, not the people who'll be eating it.
THAT is the free market in operation.
Also, the story of LASIK shows how healthcare can operate without government coercions or insurance company dampening of pricing signals.
It was crazy expensive and now affordable for many middle and lower class families and we saw plenty of innovation.
Would testing for catastrophic conditions be considered under your obligation?
The pre-existing conditions thing I know is a huge problem. I do not have a good answer for.
It would be less of an issue if the government would remove the incentives for health insurance being tied to your work. Because you could reasonably have one policy for a very long time.
Right, that's a big problem.
The groups allow for nice averaging, and negotiating power, but you could get that by allowing a free choice of group basis, and people would be getting their health insurance though CostCo, or the NRA, or the Masons... Associations they could maintain for life.
Ideally people should purchase that covers conditions that come up when a person is covered, regardless of whether or not you maintain the policy.
Workers comp insurance works like this, if you get hurt at work, your employer’s insurance will cover you even after you leave the job. That type of policy should be the norm. But to make that happen, we have to break the link between employment and insurance.
If we have a moral obligation to take care of people in our society as part of the social contract, then we can't allow everyone in the world into our society.
You can have a welfare state, or open borders. You can't have both.
I agree to an extent, but to the extent newcomers contribute that argument weakensz
Your prof made a simplifying assumption - both typical and necessary for undergraduate economics.
That's not a simplifying assumption, SRG, it was fundamental: Economics does not respond to "need", it responds to "want". "Need" is just an excuse to do things that are economically irrational.
Do you think that maximising utility is economically rational or irrational?
"My chief beef with the healthcare industry is that it's not treated like any other industry"
Maybe that's because it's different than any other industry. Literally every other country in the world also treats it differently from any other industry, so this is not the thing that makes the US healthcare system weird and messed up. In fact, the thing that is uniquely bad about the US is that we sometimes try to pretend that it's a normal industry but then have to backstop that with a bunch of ugly hacks to prevent obvious terrible outcomes like people dying in hospital lobbies because they didn't have wallet in their pocket when they got hit by a bus. As a result we get all of the regulation that conservatives are worried about and relatively little of the benefits that liberals want, so pretty much worst of all worlds.
People die if they don't eat, too, but we somehow manage to survive having the food industry be a normal industry, just backstopped by charity and welfare.
The one area where healthcare is different is that death is inevitable, in a way starvation isn't. Humans are mortal, and eventually die no matter how hard you try to keep them alive.
So, for food and shelter, there's some minimum threshold you have to cross, and you've got it taken care of. Anything beyond that threshold is luxury, not 'necessity'. You might be annoyed if your diet is monotonous and tasteless, but you'll get by. Extra expense buys you nothing you actually 'need'.
But because humans are mortal, and age, any given human can usefully consume an almost unlimited amount of healthcare. Barring accidental death, people face escalating healthcare expenses with virtually no ceiling, as they approach the end. You could bankrupt the whole world providing everybody in one country the best possible healthcare, and they'd actually profit from it, too. Just at a diminishing rate of return.
So it is absolutely unavoidable that, at some point, you must deny people healthcare they would actually benefit from. Where do you draw the line?
And that's why it's actually more reasonable to have a free market in health care: It gives you an objective place to draw the line: People get the health care they pay for!
I don't suggest healthcare is different from any other industry because its necessary for survival, but because it seems completely resistant to basic market forces around pricing. Have you ever tried to find out the cost of a non-trivial medical procedure in advance? Even if you do tons of due diligence, it seems basically impossible to avoid surprises because some random doctor might be called in while you're unconscious, or you might unexpectedly cry during your appointment.
Other countries take various approaches to universal healthcare. Some of them (Canada, UK) use single payer approaches. Some (Germany, Switzerland) rely heavily on private insurance. Some (Singapore) are mostly pure fee-for-service. Some (Australia) have hybrid models. But what all of them have in common is that the government regulates pricing for a large portion of medical services. The US does this as well for Medicare and Medicaid and it seems to mostly work fine; maybe we should think about extending the concept so we could then have a reasonable conversation about getting the rest of the system right.
That's not resistance to basic market forces, though. That's the consequence of a heavily regulated industry where almost all the money moves through third party payers. The health care industry doesn't look or function like a free market because it hasn't been a free market for the better part of a century.
The government is not forcing anyone to have needlessly opaque pricing structures, and in the places where the government is more involved like Medicare/Medicaid pricing is much more transparent. One good idea that Trump had in his first administration was to try and force more transparency around pricing in health care, although I think in practice it has had basically zero effect.
And once again: every other advanced economy regulates health care prices, even countries like Singapore that are touted as good examples of free market approaches to health care. There's got to be a reason for this, right? Let's hear your counter hypothesis if it's not "the market is not that good at this particular task".
In a way, government does force an opaque pricing structure especially when it comes to drugs.
The rules for Medicaid, Medicare, VA and 340b are all different (I’m sure I’m leaving some major programs out, but the point holds). The mandated distribution systems are very complex and involve “rebates” at various stages that may or may not be refunded. The tight regulation of health plan margins has strongly encouraged the market to vertically integrate and shift focus to PBMs. And on and on, all of which makes pricing structures extremely complex and difficult to trace. After all, less than half the money paid for a prescription drug goes to the actual manufacturer.
Trump issued an EO mandating healthcare price transparency. I believe Biden repealed it upon assuming office.
"exploitation of Jews/Antisemitism " If it is an exploitation your Leftist colleagues have provided it big time. So stop whining about it.
As long as you boys keep abusing them, I'll keep bringing it up
Seems that you revel in the growth of antisemitism. It's good to know where you stand
“ So far this term, MAGA's pretext for destroying an American institution (press…”
The press destroyed itself before Trump took office this time. His first election exposed it as mostly advocacy masquerading as journalism. The vast majority of that advocacy metastasized against Trump, with some notable outliers falling into his camp.
“His first election exposed it as mostly advocacy masquerading as journalism.”
Yeah, all that free coverage by CNN, NYT coverage of the Clinton email nothingburger while ignoring his Russia ties, it was pretty biased.
You mean non-existent Russian ties? And a complete whitewash, driven from the top, of a serious breach of national security?
The CJR, that bastion of right-wing think (/heavy_sarcasm), has a pretty expansive analysis of the media’s behavior during that period. To make your life easier, here’s a link to the report:
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-ed-note.php
Dude, Paul Mannafort was his campaign manager! Give it up.
And the Russians directly contacted the campaign and said that they wanted to help Trump win, and asked for a meet. And Trump's campaign manager, son, and son in law went to the meeting! At Trump Tower.
The claim — maybe true, maybe not — was that the people calling the meeting didn't actually have any help to offer. But that doesn’t change the fact that Trump's people went to that meeting, rather than, say, reporting it to the FBI.
You’re both just throwing all the conspiracies against the wall, hoping something will stick.
Manafort was (is) slimy, ethically challenged, and had no business running a campaign. He also gave internal polling data to Kilimnik to pass on to two Ukrainian oligarchs. Again, slimy but it in no way connects Trump and Russia.
The meeting in Trump Tower was setup so Trump Jr, Kushner, and Manafort could hear alleged Russian kompromat on Clinton. Instead, they heard complaints about the Magnitsky Act and the ban on adoptions of Russian babies. Agree Trump Jr should have gone straight to the FBI though, given its corruption at the time, who knows what would have happened. Also, the Russian attorney they met with was working with Fusion GPS (name should sound familiar).
Again, there’s no “there” there. And at least the Trump campaign didn’t pay for materials made-up by Russian intelligence.
You're being disingenuous. They may have been of Ukrainian nationality, but they were in the pay of Russia. So, yes, hiring a guy who was under Russia's thumb to run the campaign pretty directly connects Trump and Russia.
And I don't even understand your second attempt at a rebuttal. Russian emissaries saying, "We want to meet with you to give you dirt on Hillary as part of the Russian government's efforts to help you win the election," and them responding, "If it's what you say, I love it," is the opposite of "no there there." Ok, they might have been lying, but so what? When you set up a meeting with a hitman to hire him to kill your business rival, and it turns out that the hitman is actually an undercover cop, that doesn't mitigate what you did, just because he was lying about his willingness to commit the murder.
And at least the Trump campaign didn’t pay for materials made-up by Russian intelligence.
I'm not sure why having Gabbard put such materials out without Trump paying for them is supposed to be a defense of Trump.
Nope, not disingenuous at all. Manafort previously worked with both of the Ukrainians. Hence, that’s where he intended the data to go. Doesn’t make it right, but that definitely doesn’t it make it what you assert.
You don’t understand #2 because you don’t want to. Trump Jr, Kushner, and Manafort broke no laws per Mueller. Not defending them, but no collusion or coordination occurred.
And again with the denialism. Clinton paid the Russians to make up dirt on Trump. Not directly, but she explicitly paid to concoct the Russia-Trump fiction. Of course, she and her campaign repeatedly lied about it but even the feckless FEC saw through her charade.
1) What's disingenuous is you describing them as "Ukrainians" to distance it from Russia. Ukraine was under heavy Russian influence at the time, with the country split between pro- and anti- Russian factions. These were part of the Russian faction.
2) Whether the meeting was illegal is beside the point. You claimed that Trump's Russian ties were "non-existent." Taking meetings with Russians to discuss how they can work together to defeat Hillary is not 'non-existent.' (And — most importantly for our purposes — certainly means that investigating was legitimate.)
3) Clinton did not "explicitly" pay any Russians, directly or indirectly, to make up anything. Clinton paid an American company, Fusion GPS, to conduct opposition research on Trump.
Keep digging the hole deeper with denialism…
1) I said they were Ukrainians because, well, they were Ukrainians! At the time, Ukraine had a legitimately elected, pro-Russian government as is their right. That is, before we interfered. 2) Bottom line: no Russian ties were forged, nor even promised, from that meeting. Your assertion otherwise is pure fabrication. 3) Read what I wrote again. I wrote “she explicitly paid to concoct the Russia-Trump fiction,” which is indisputably true. She ended up indirectly paying for information generated by Russians, likely Russian intelligence.
At the time, Ukraine had a legitimately elected, pro-Russian government as is their right.
1) And therefore ties with Ukrainian "oligarchs" at the time were ties with Russia.
That is, before we interfered
Ah, so you're just generally on the Putin propaganda tour.
2) Bottom line: no Russian ties were forged, nor even promised, from that meeting. Your assertion otherwise is pure fabrication.
The MEETING ITSELF WAS A TIE. To go back to the analogy: that the person didn't hire the hitman because it turned out that the guy wasn't a real hitman doesn't mean one can legitimately argue, "How can you investigate this guy? He never actually hired a hitman." That there was no followup doesn't change the fact of the meeting itself.
3) Read what I wrote again. I wrote “she explicitly paid to concoct the Russia-Trump fiction,” which is indisputably true.
No, it's indisputably false. She explicitly paid for opposition research. Do you not know what the word "explicitly" means? Here's what "explicitly paying to concoct fiction" is: "Here's some money. Please concoct fiction." You need an entirely different adverb here: perhaps "inadvertently" or "unknowingly" or "indirectly" would work. But explicitly absolutely is wrong.
https://www.pennlive.com/crime/2025/07/woman-calls-police-to-report-nuisance-child-lemonade-stand-the-officer-found-it-refreshing.html
Thank you to "Mrs. Anonymous" for calling to complain about a kids’ lemonade stand. We responded and enjoyed a refreshing cup while making some new friends!
Um, wut? (To coin a phrase.)
I take it you are posting this because the kid was an illegal or antisemitic or something?
As usual, you are wrong. There's a selfie at the link. The only jerks here were "Mrs. Anonymous" and you.
Kid looks brown to me
You're a racist. You always pivot to a racist angle, on any topic. This story had nothing to do with racism, or immigration status.
ThePublius 2 days ago
Why Do Statues of Fat Black Women Keep Popping Up?
Well, it is an interesting question. Why statutes of fat black women? Statues are normally idealized people. They're generally sculpted to look good. I can't recall that last time I saw a statue of a guy with a pot belly. Except for Buddha, of course.
Unless you're sculpting a particular person who happened to be overweight, you basically never see sculptures of fat people.
So, why? It's hardly because all black women are fat.
WTF?
Why indeed do I have to keep bringing up racial shit in this commentariat?
"An Oval Office Replica Opens, Without Trump’s Gilded Flourishes
The White House Historical Association recently unveiled its replica of President Trump’s Oval Office, but it mirrors the office from his first term, before he festooned it with gold."
Will the Association be the next on the chopping block? I think what is more likely is that Trump starts selling the 'official' gilded White House replica in a snow globe which is advertised as the official paperweight to hold open the Trump Bible
The golden touches are certainly classless.
A convicted priest is back at work. Child advocates want Pope Leo to act.
Carlo Alberto Capella served prison time for a child pornography conviction but was allowed to return to work at the Vatican, posing a test for Pope Leo XIV.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/07/31/pope-leo-priest-convicted-vatican/
A city populated by celibate men is a good place for him to work.
The presumption that they are celibate is at odds with the behavior of Carlo Alberto Capella and others, isn't it?
They aren't filling Vatican City with kids. That's what's important.
Also the Church proclaims that no one is beyond redemption. Work scrubbing floors would be a proper continuing penance.
"A city populated by celibate men (who drink wine and wear dresses) is a good place for him to work."
FTFY
The guy was charged for child pornography so keeping him away from children would seem advisable. Not sure what the "celibate" (they are supposed to be celibate) part adds to the equation.
As a general manner, I think it does not help the overall situation to require priests, limiting that role to men, to be celibate. It overall sets up an unhealthy situation that leads some to find outlets, some of which are not good outlets.
Reading that story, I wanted to know about the Vatican prison. The article I read said someone said it was harsh, but others said it was pretty cushy, if perhaps not as cushy as the one in Beverly Hills Cop.
Anyway, maybe he should be assigned to an isolated location without Internet service or computers.
Celibate priests result in a city with few or no child residents. That's all I meant. Whatever they are doing with their penises, they are not openly starting families.
Don’t lots of families visit Vatican City?
Libertarian question, Does Trump's desire to control information from the US Government incentivize private data analysis? Will this decrease the role of the government if people are now looking to private data firms for economic data?
We'll now have to require an outside auditor to crunch the numbers (Palantir to the rescue?). Begs the question: can we first trust MAGA to faithfully provide the numbers? MAGA's stated goal of undermining the US government may very well lie in this approach, don't you think? Gold peddlers and prepper food stuffs have long propped up the MAGAverse. They count on societal collapse and they must be given their due
We already have at least one private source for employment data that’s widely used by economists:
https://adpemploymentreport.com/
(yes, I realize it’s not apples-to-apples for the BLS data)
Not only is it not apples-to-apple with the BLS data .... (by which you mean the BLS's monthly jobs report) ...
...but it also REQUIRES BLS data. It isn't done independently. Look at the technical notes. It is using the BLS's QCEW data to generate its reports.
In other words, because ADP does only a tiny fraction of the work required, what it is doing is taking a different BLS stat (that is five months old) and then using its own limited sample and extrapolating those numbers using the BLS's numbers.
ADP is better than nothing, but remember that not only do they require the BLS to be accurate, they also only cover the private sector, and they only cover the subset of positions that ADP does processing for.
In short- ADP is very limited, but has some uses. BLS is better. The best is the third BLS. And ADP depends on the accuracy of BLS numbers in order to provide any useful extrapolation.
This is completely wrong.
ADP uses its payroll data to generate weekly employment and wage statistics. It only uses QCEW data to apportion that top line information to states and industries. The QCEW data may lag, but that impacts only how data is calculated at the state-industry level; the overall employment and wages data is updated weekly.
From their technical note: The purpose of the ADP NER is to produce a more timely measure of U.S. employment than the QCEW measure of near universe U.S. employment.
To produce a nationally representative measure of employment, we use QCEW data on the national distribution of employment across industries, U.S. states, and business establishment employment size categories to weight the weekly employment growth of establishments in the ADP weekly matched sample.
How can you tell when someone doesn't know what they are talking about, and quickly looked something up, and then showed you that they don't know what they are talking about.
Next time, try reading something and working to understand it before showing that you don't understand what you just read. Heck, just look at the third paragraph in what you responded to. Do you even understand that? Or did you literally look at the source I gave you to try and argue without understanding what you were reading?
I mean, I literally told you what you didn't know, and then you took what I obviously already knew and tried to argue with me, just showing that you don't know what you're talking about. Here's a protip- on the internet, no one knows if you're a dog. But if you are constantly asking for treats, people eventually know you by what you write.
Your characterization of the ADP numbers were completely wrong. Very obviously, you don’t understand data analytics and how to interpret an analytical process.
“I mean, I literally told you what you didn't know” Forgive me if I go to the source to understand ADPS’s process rather than rely on an ignorant and arrogant internet commenter’s attempt to manipulate it for political purposes.
For example, this entire paragraph of yours is a complete lie: “In other words, because ADP does only a tiny fraction of the work required, what it is doing is taking a different BLS stat (that is five months old) and then using its own limited sample and extrapolating those numbers using the BLS's numbers.”
ADP generates a completely independent, more timely, and more accurate national-level employment and wage dataset than the BLS. It uses its own internal datasets that are more granular and accurate than the BLS. The reliance on BLS QCEW is to apportion that national data to state-industry granularity.
Reposting the source I provided so people can read for themselves: https://adpemploymentreport.com/
Um, your statement —
"The reliance on BLS QCEW is to apportion that national data to state-industry granularity."
— and ADP's statement —
"To produce a nationally representative measure of employment, we use QCEW data on the national distribution of employment across industries, U.S. states, and business establishment employment size categories to weight the weekly employment growth of establishments in the ADP weekly matched sample."
— are very different things that contradict each other. And I think ADP probably has a better handle on their own use of the data than you do.
So this question relies on a few faulty presumptions.
The first is that the most basic economic data is a public good- it's incredibly useful (everyone, and I mean EVERYONE uses it) and you only need a single source- but the usefulness of it is that it is public and free and that everyone has the same access at the same time.
That allows everyone else (from academic researchers, to private companies, to the markets, to commenters on the VC who love to cherrypick those numbers) to have the same economic data, at the same time. This is such a truism, that all countries (well, all non-failing countries) do it. The US has always been the "gold standard" and it has formed the basis for our incredible markets (as well as our ability to do research, economics, and have pointless debates on the internet ... I guess?).
So what's the problem with just having this done by private companies? Well, if it's a product, how are they selling it? Assumedly, they would have to provide something like "tiered access" (for example, you pay more to get earlier access to unemployment numbers). Or there may be incentives to not rate things correctly (for example, when you have private companies rating the worthiness of instruments that get paid to rate them, they might feel obligated to hold back their fire ... remember 2007?). Also, if they are private companies, they might not get accurate reports from other private companies.
Anyway, if you're curious, Planet Money happened to re-run a podcast (only 10 minutes!) today that examined how hard BLS works to generate those jobs numbers every single month. Worth a listen.
"So what's the problem with just having this done by private companies?"
Like I said, if MAGA wants to manipulate the reports we see, what is stopping them for manipulating the raw data as well?
The obvious problem is that even if the numbers aren't being manipulated (which is obviously a big "if" at this point), the fact that it is now known that people will be fired for simply accurately reporting the numbers means two things- a. There will be a lot of pressure to massage the numbers to make sure that you don't displease the President. You don't want to be the one to say that the numbers show that he doesn't have any clothers. b. The markets, investors, etc., will no longer assume that the numbers aren't being manipulated, even if they aren't. Credibility is something that takes years to build up, but is lost in an instant.
Replying here to say thanks for the Planet Money recommendation. I’m probably just restating what you said, but wanted to reflect on it a bit.
On the idea of privatizing the jobs report: before CES launched in 1915, employment stats came from states and private trade groups, and the data was fragmented and inconsistent. The CES changed that by centralizing, standardizing, and — crucially — making the data public and free.
A private firm today would struggle to match that. They wouldn’t have access to the UI-based employer database or the QCEW benchmarks used for annual corrections. Without legal authority or confidentiality protections, it’s hard to build a representative, reliable sample — let alone maintain participation.
They’d also have to monetize access, creating tiered availability and potential conflicts of interest. And reconciling industry category changes each year — like BLS does — would require massive coordination and trust.
So sure, you could try to replicate it. But it’s a public good for a reason.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that (the company formerly known as) Twitter can be sued for having child porn, despite the apparent immunity granted by Section 230. Twitter is obliged to have a good reporting system and to promptly report child porn to the proper authorities. In effect, delayed reporting makes Twitter liable as a publisher.
But Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence per se and their product-liability theory based on defective reporting-infrastructure design are not barred by § 230 immunity because they do not arise from Twitter’s role as a publisher.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/08/01/24-177.pdf
Child exploitation must be vigorously investigated
I suspect the 9th Circuit made this ruling because Musk is the owner.
In any case, the court's ruling regarding a "defective reporting infrastructure" is erroneous on its face. Ultimately, saying that a web servicer provider's infrastructure and process for reporting bad content does not work well is a thinly veiled way of saying you don't like the way they moderate, which is the exact behavior that 230 was intended to protect.
Christopher Wray just got hit with a criminal referral for perjuring himself in front of Congress.
Good, root out the corruption.
So you don't like corruption, eh?
After Trump won the recent election, the Biden FBI launched investigations into Trump insiders.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-1-0-alums-share-chilling-google-message-from-before-second-term-return-lawfare-its-finest
That's sickening. Democrats are sickening disgusting subhumans.
Who does? I know you think this is some stupid gotcha question and you're gonna copy and paste some stupid Blue Anon shit from bluesky reddit, but just save it.
The adults are in charge and they're purging the filthy Deep State of the Democrat partisans who have been ruining our country for the past several decades.
Fighting corruption? By firing inspector generals? Refusing to enforce anti-corruption laws like Foreign Agent Registration? Pardoning or dropping charges against people who committed frauds? Taking luxury jets as personal gifts from foreign governments? Not releasing his taxes? Opposing legislation to restrict stock trading while in office?
A billion here and a billion there...soon we'll be talking about real corruption
False. Why are you lying? This was years before Trump won the recent election.
Sigh. Once again: "hit with a criminal referral" is just social media clickbait. It has no legal significance of any sort. All it means is that someone asked a law enforcement agency to investigate and/or prosecute someone. Which anyone can do at any time, and has no legal consequences. It doesn't trigger any special rules or rights or obligations, does not allow or require anyone to do anything they couldn't or wouldn't have done anyway.
It's just a more formal version of ranting "Lock her up!"
I think the “congressional criminal referral” has more significance than mere clickbait even if it’s of limited immediate legal significance to the target. It creates this perception that Congress’s investigatory powers and hearings are judicial in nature and that the goal is to build a criminal case against its witnesses.
The more that committees and Congress members do “criminal referrals” and act like their hearings are quasi-criminal proceedings, the more likely it is that everyone takes the 5th on everything. As they should when that’s the apparent goal.
But if everyone is taking the 5th, then Congress isn’t getting any useful information to perform its legislative functions which is what its powers are supposed to be for. I’m a big proponent of the idea that Congress has broad legal ability to compel info for legislative reasons (which includes whether to impeach/remove and whether to pursue an amendment). But there’s no reason to be forthcoming if the purpose is to make a criminal case against a target. And that is incredibly damaging to Congress as an institution. But they’re too dumb to realize that.
"Democratic Group Calls on Blue States to Draw New House Maps
The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee is pressing legislatures to counter Republicans’ redistricting efforts in Texas and elsewhere."
“The D.L.C.C. isn’t going to sit back and allow Republicans to cheat the system to keep themselves in power,” Heather Williams, the president of the group, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, said in a statement. “All options must be on the table — including Democratic state legislatures using their power to fight back and pursue redistricting mid-cycle in order to protect our democracy.”"
I like gerrymandering now. Get rid of all those pesky Republican seats in NY, CA, IL, OR, WA, CO and the entire Northeast. And the funny part is that in MAGA states you've already gerrymandered out most of the Dem seats, so you don't really have much to gain anymore
In 2022, gerrymandering gave Democrats +10 seats. 2020, gerrymandering gave Democrats + 2 seats. 2018 +3 2012 +3 2006 +2
2025 is Republicans "using their power to fight back".
I don't have any idea where your numbers come from or how you think there was redistricting going on in random years.
I don't see a way out of it. Basically a free rider problem on steroids. I see no national political will to pass some grand reform, so for the foreseeable it's just a bunch of state-level arenas where the only incentive is to maximized the party in power's federal footprint.
The norm of a limited time in which it was okay to mander your gerry held it back some. But thanks to TX that's already shredded regardless of where this comes out.
Add in the Supreme Court's newfound appetite to further go at the Voting Rights Act...our democracy is gonna get terrible.
I truly sickens my stomach that we too have to go down this democracy-killing path. Choosing your own voters should enrage everyone. Yet...here we are
Choosing your own voters is no different than choosing your own judges.
Two systemic flaws leading to a Red Queen type problem.
My state proudly created an independant non-partisan citizen's redistricting commission.
Their first try: rejected by courts.
Their second try: rejected by courts.
It just pushes the gaming off one level, as something akin to regulatory capture shifts focus. Either the members of the commission are elected, so a huge push by parties, or they aren't, and thus capture by the facetious. Hummies have to get into slots behind the desks somehow.
As Lou Costello says, "Third base!"
What is a hummie?
Kamala Harris correctly said the process is broken.
Those running for office and others need to focus on a future that works to fix a broken system. Comprehensive election reform is something that should be part of the solution.
There is some broad support for some reforms. Other reforms could pass without significant popular opposition. Any package would have to be a compromise. For instance, I'm not a fan of voting ID, but limited support of that could be mixed in.
The last time Democrats had a trifecta, the House supported major voting rights reform. Biden was okay with it. There were about 50 votes for it in the Senate. Something like 48 or so Democrats were willing to have an exception to the filibuster to pass it.
Obviously, not enough. Democrats gaining control of the Senate again is an uphill battle. IF they do, I think the filibuster might not be the same barrier.
We need to work toward a world where voting reform on a national level is possible. Rick Hasen's book on a voting rights amendment is informative. As he says, this very well is a long-term effort, like voting rights has been throughout our history.
"Kamala Harris correctly said"
First time for everything I guess.
I don't know about this: giving the federal the levers of power over voting. Imagine if one day we had an administration full of insurrectionists. They could really fuck shit up.
The problem is that rather than focusing on specific problems about which there was widespread agreement, the House decided to create an omnibus progressive wet dream bill containing every possible provision that any activist group ever decided was a good idea. So there was no chance of getting any compromise bill through. (They did reform the Electoral Count Act after tossing out that monstrosity of a proposal.)
The problem was that there was no Republican will to compromise.
The Senate crafted a more realistic bill, working with Joe Manchin, but as I recall, a single Republican (Murkowski?) was willing to sign on to it. The House would have gladly signed on to such a bill.
The progressives, including the so-called Squad, regularly aimed high & then were willing to sign on to a more limited bill that could pass. However, here, there simply was no possibility of that.
Republicans used to, for instance, support extending the Voting Rights Act. The last time, they did so warily, with many in opposition. So, after Shelby v. Holder, it was simply unrealistic to hope for a legislative fix, which in an ideal world would have made that opinion less troublesome.
I’m an optimist. I think the country will figure something out, just not in my lifetime. It took 2 centuries to reform the House of Commons. But it happened. It took another 80 years to do something about the Lords. But that happened too. In both cases it involved entrenched interests voluntarily giving up their power due to public pressure. So by 2150 we’ll have proportional representation in the House!
The argument for mandated "majority minority" districts is that blacks can only be represented by other blacks. It's false on its face.
Then why does Texas keep creating white-majority districts...often with lots of geographic corkscrews to make it happen?
Did I miss the release of the Epstein files?
No. But you did miss the recent transfer of Maxwell from the prison in Florida to a cush low-security Federal prison in Texas.
Right after Trump's personal attorney .... sorry, the number two at the DOJ (and Trump's personal attorney) met with her.
Total coincidence. But weirdly, they still haven't managed to release the Epstein files. Something that is in their complete control (no, we aren't talking about grand jury proceedings- but the files that the Trump administration has in their custody and control).
I've seen recently the repurposing of the photo where Trump got his ear thwicked:
"Fight! Fight! Fight!
to keep the Epstein files secret!"
Speaking of Saving Democracy.
Did anyone else see that leak about Bernie Sanders in 2016?
How do you get an avowed Socialist millionaire to drop out of his presidential campaign?
Ask your pals at USAID to give his institute $40M to 'save democracy'. Democracy Saved!
Do you think Bernie used his position in office to enrich himself?
He's a multi-millionaire with 3 estates.
So yes. He's only been a career public official. His top 1% wealth could only come from graft.
Forbes estimates his net worth at 2.5 million. He’s had a job that pays six figures for twenty years or more. So that’s pretty pathetic from you, I guess anything to help your delusion that your support for a golden toilet owning millions inheritee is sticking it to the “elite.”
His institute got a $40M grant from USAID just before he dropped out in 2016.
How rich do you think his kids are?
In other words, your typical Socialist.
Do you have a citation for that claim? And also, does he personally get money given to “his institute?”
'does he personally get money given to “his institute?”'
Probably not much, if any, given his net worth.
Once again: it's just a flat out lie, and we know that because Sanders never dropped out in 2016. He stayed in the race until Hillary won the nomination.
Best I can tell from a quick look, Sanders is worth somewhere near $3 million with about $1.1 million net real estate value. In addition to his very nice salary as a member of Congress for 33 years or so, he has earned about $2.5 million from book sales. So it's not really surprising (nor any evidence of graft or other corruption) that he is relatively wealthy. But, as our resident REMF is wont to point out, a million isn't really that much anymore.
I don't understand why some wingnuts think that people advocating for more re-distributive tax policies need to immiserate themselves in order to be credible. It seems pretty obvious that Sanders is willing to live with the policies that he advocates. If someone finds the policies advocated by Sanders to be distasteful, advocacy against those policies is in order, not attacking someone for having acquired a modest wealth as a result of years and years of substantial earnings.
You don’t understand why rich Politicians who want to redistribute other rich people’s Shekels should be willing to redistribute their own(Shekels)?? Well that’s why women are better left in the kitchen and nursery, doing what they do best, even California Governor Calvin New-Scum admitted his hypocrisy when he was demanding his citizens social distance while he was drinking Cosmopolitans(a woman’s drink, tells me all I need to know about him) at the “French Laundry”
Frank
Ignorant comment from the lying REMF.
" It seems pretty obvious that Sanders is willing to live with the policies that he advocates. "
Do you disagree with my assertion? What is your evidence to indicate that Sanders is not "uwilling to redistribute" his own income/wealth?
Frank, did you come up with this dumb persona, with the bad writing/grammar and borderline-schizophrenic reasoning, as a defense mechanism? You genuinely come off like the guy in front of the 7-11 that's most convenient on my commute. He also has serious mental and behavioral issues.
Is anyone in your life worried?
Is this as true as everything else you write? Yes, yes it is. Bernie Sanders did not drop out of his presidential campaign in 2016. He lost the nomination.
More like the nomination was stolen from him, but hey, you got 2 terms of Hillary Rodman!
Uh, Bernie never owned the nomination. It accordingly could not have been stolen from him.
Sometimes I think you're a moron. But then it occurs to me that your IQ is very likely above 70, so you couldn't be a moron.
As usual Bwaah’s got nothing but insults.
"Sometimes I think you're a moron. But then it occurs to me that your IQ is very likely above 70, so you couldn't be a moron."
When I was a child I tested at 155. I have no idea what my current IQ is.
Cite, maybe?
Trying to Google WTF you're talking about isn't even finding anything on the usual Republican mouthpiece blogs, etc. so this one seems even more made up than usual.
The Boston Globe reports on a new study about public school enrollment in Massachusetts. The pandemic and the concurrent woke revolution stopped the decline in private school enrollment in Massachusetts. Private schools reopened sooner than public schools. Private schools aren't cutting advanced classes in the name of equity. Private schools keep their students better behaved. Public school enrollment by high income families is down 5% relative to the pre-pandemic trend line, mostly in the middle grades. Poor families can't afford private school.
A co-author of the study points out that declining enrollment in public schools means declining voter support for public schools. Budgets may be cut or tax increases not approved.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/08/04/metro/massachusetts-private-schools-covid/ https://www.educationnext.org/school-enrollment-shifts-five-years-after-pandemic-public-education-shrinking-middle-schools/
"Woke revolution" is my own phrase. The Globe would never put it that way.
Building on the comments about the BLS, above, I thought I'd add a few more notes. Getting the jobs numbers on a monthly basis is really hard work, and they try to get the number as accurate as possible. But complete accuracy is impossible- that's why there are always (always!) revisions afterwards. In an economy as large as the US, the fact that they usually only miss by about 51k (since 2003 when they went to a better sample design; before that it was 61k) is remarkable since the monthly report is based on a very incomplete picture (FYI, it's the third estimate (the "final revision") of the numbers that is considered the most accurate number).
There are some interesting issues with this- the first, and biggest, issue is that the monthly revisions are never mistakes- they are simply revisions to include more information as it comes in.
The second is that there was an anomolous period in 2020 and 2021 with incredibly high revisions- but there was something else going on then (survey responses were .... poor ... during the pandemic).
Third is that revisions ALWAYS happen.
Fourth is that revisions generally happen in sequence. In other words, if the initial reports (and probabilities based on what was happening before) are overly strong, then when the full data comes in ... that month will look weak, and the revisions will be down for the past months. If, on the other hand, there was more strength, then the current month will usually overperform, and the past months will often have revisions upwards. But again, that's not because there was any massaging of the data- it's to reflect MORE COMPLETE PAYROLL DATA as it comes in.
It's a tradeoff- if we want more accuracy (and less revisions), then we can't get numbers as quickly. But since we want snapshots as soon as possible, we have to accept that those numbers will be revised as we get a more complete picture.
These revisions were the 44th and 56th largest for June and May respectively (out of 555) since 1979, large but not unusual.
I'm not even sure what MAGA envisions. The woman Trump fired doesn't calculate the figures; she just issues them. The data is the data. Do they plan to fake the data? Have ChatGPT generate it based on Trump's feelings?
“The data is the data.”
“It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics.”
I point this out because virtually all data is more than just the “data.” How you define it, where you source it, what time period you use, and on and on. We should be circumspect of all data, whether it originates from this administration or any other.
A famous example: the claim that Newt and the Clinton WH balanced the budget (or even ran a surplus) is bunk. A little research in Treasury data reveals the debt increased each year, meaning we ran a deficit. They withheld SS payments to create an illusion that was largely accepted without question.
Actually the data isn't the data, its several surveys, which is not what I would call data, they survey both businesses and people to get a picture of the labor force and job availability.
And sure polling is hard, but if 538 could "fire" Rasmussen from its average, I don't see why Trump can't fire his employment pollster and get a better one.
Well, that would be great ... except Trump didn't make his decision based on any specific and articulable reason. What, do you think he did a deep dive into the survey responses and the methodology (which has remained the same since the last comprehensive redesign in 2003)?
The methodology is consistent. And it's not "polling." I tried to explain this above- it's about reporting the data, and the data is progressively more accurate over time. He is angry because they announced the revisions (the MORE ACCURATE data), and the more accurate data was stuff he didn't like. Pretty simple.
He did like the original numbers that were less accurate, but as more accurate numbers came in, those were the reason to get rid of ... the person who reported them. Perfect.
Is there any thing you can't find a reason to excuse? I love the internet- even when people are presented with how things work in practice, they still find a way to say, "I don't understand this, and I'm not going to bother to try, so I'm going to make an analogy to something else I don't fully understand* and show my ignorance of both issues."
*No, 538 didn't "fire" Rasumussen. They were dropped because they would not answer questions about their methodology. This is the same reason that other poll aggregation sites chose to move them down (give them "less value") in their aggregations. I don't say this to defend 538, by the way ... that place went downhill fast after Silver left. But trying to compare poll aggregation to government economics statistics is ... well, as I keep having to say, you do you. You can look around to other countries that chose to make their own economic statistics "responsive" to their political leaders. It doesn't work out very well.
A few hopefully non-partisan points from me:
1) The sources for the employment data seem to be a bit of a black box. It might be better to accompany the reports with a statement of what hard data has been received and what is still outstanding, as well as what is going to be modelled/estimated regardless. Sorta like how they update the voting results with X% of precincts reporting and a list of what is still out.
2) Why are there such big discrepencies between the ADP numbers and the Govt numbers, when looking at private payrolls?
3) Are the initial weekly jobless claims numbers actual or modelled? There was a while when the numbers were coming in exactly the same for weeks straight, which made me think they were models with essentially unchanged inputs.
4) Did anything in the BLS methodology change during COVID, because people are claiming that the revisions post-COVID are bigger than they had been, even compared with turbulent periods like the 07-08 Financial Crisis and the Dot-Com crash.
5) Did DOGE impact the headcount at BLS?
6) Where do the numbers around "native-born" employment come from? I have never seen anything remotely relevant to that on any employer-employee paperwork (nor would I expect to), so it cant be coming from employer reports. Is it from surveys of employees? How reliable can those be?
BLS methodology is publicly available: https://www.bls.gov/ces/methods-overview.htm
ADP has some neat discussions of discrepancies being method-driven here: https://www.adpresearch.com/when-the-economic-data-is-confusing-take-a-closer-look/
The payroll numbers haven't changed yet for anyone who took the deferred resignation; they're all still getting paid through September 30.
I don't have time right now to provide a detailed answer to all of your queries, so I'll respond to (6) for now and try to come back later to respond to others.
The native born / foreign born numbers come from the Household Survey which reports things like total employed, total unemployed, unemployment rate(s), and demographic breakdowns. The process used for that survey is quite different from the process used for the Establishment Survey, from which we get numbers like total nonfarm payrolls, average hourly earnings, average weekly hours, and industry sector breakdowns.
Both processes rely on sample surveys, but the sample population for the Household Survey is much smaller. It involves selecting and contacting a sample of households and interviewing someone from those households to collect information about members of the household. A selected household is interviewed for 4 straight months, then off for 8 months, then interviewed again for 4 straight months. This ensures some degree of continuity in the sample population for month-to-month and year-to-year comparison purposes while also gradually changing the sample population. A given MtM comparison will be based on sample populations with about 75% overlap. A given YtY comparison will be based on sample populations with about 50% overlap.
Initial interviews are generally done in person. Subsequent monthly interviews (i.e. for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th month) are generally done over the phone.
The household representative is asked a bunch of questions about the demographics and employment situation of each household member. Relevant to your query, and depending on the answers to other questions, they are asked what country each member was born in, what country each member's mother was born in, what country each member's father was born in, whether each member is a U.S. citizen, whether each member was born a U.S. citizen, whether each member became a citizen through naturalization, and when each member came to live in the United States. So, in short, this information is self reported.
Now, if you're thinking this reality may offer an alternative explanation for why we've recently seen a significant uptick in reported native born employment and downtick in reported foreign born unemployment, then I would say... A deeper dive into the reported numbers suggests that alternative explanation probably is, at least to some extent, what is really going on.
For instance, it isn't just total native born employed that's up significantly YoY, it's also total native born unemployed, total native born not in labor force, and total native born civilian noninstitutional population 16+ years old (which is the base population used for some rate calculations). That last one is up 2.25% YoY (from July to July) after having been up less than 2% total over the last 5 years and having been up less than 1% annually for 11 straight years. There's some nuance in the numbers that would take a while to sort through, but, yeah, there's a story in there.
What isn't up YoY when it comes to the native born numbers? The unemployment rate, the participation rate, and the employment-population ratio are all down YoY even while the total number of native born employed is up significantly. (The native born / foreign born numbers are only reported NSA, btw.)
People can, of course, make of that what they will in light of how the native born / foreign born distinction is determined.
The system won't let me edit the post above. So... paragraph 6 should refer to a significant downtick in foreign born employment, not "reported foreign born unemployment."
Also, as an edit, the second to the last paragraph should say that the native born unemployment rate IS up YoY. The participation rate and employment population ratio are down YoY. The point is, it's the reported native born base population that's increased significantly, not the portion thereof which is employed. The unemployment rate, participation rate and employment-population ratio all moved in directions out of sync with the total employed number which has been much talked about.
As for (4)...
Revisions during the COVID ordeal and in its wake (i.e. during 2020 and 2021) tended to be bigger. That's often the case during turbulent times and when the payroll additions or losses themselves are unusually large.
But revisions since then haven't really been out of whack. The average (absolute) revision for a given post COVID year might be a little higher than for a given pre COVID year, but it'll also be lower than for plenty of other pre COVID years. There's considerable noise, but no clear significant change. And the average (not absolute) revision for most years ends up being fairly small because over time there's more or less as many downward revisions as upward revisions so they largely cancel each other out.
As for (3)...
I think they're supposed to be actual counts. But there are seasonal adjustments and they also report 4-week averages which of course tend to be stabler.
As for (2)...
I don't follow ADP's numbers or methodology as closely as BLS', but I think what they purport to report varies slightly (even beyond the private vs total difference). For one thing, ADP tracks both payroll employment (i.e. someone is on a payroll during, e.g., a given week) and paid employment (i.e. someone was paid during, e.g., a given week). I'm not sure, but my assumption is that ADP's headline number is the former whereas what BLS' reports is the latter.
They also, no doubt, rely on different sample populations though both use very large sample populations. As I understand it, ADP used to try to be a forecast for BLS' numbers but it changed its methodology and that's no longer its intent.
As for (1)...
The BLS provides tons of information on methodology for both the Household Survey and the Establishment Survey, though what it provides by way of explanations in each monthly report is relatively cursory.
That said, when it comes to the issue of the day - revisions of payroll numbers - it does provide (though not in the monthly reports themselves) what you seem, more or less, to be asking for. They provide collection rates which reflect how many responses (from establishments reporting payroll information) were received in time to be used in a given estimate. So, e.g., we can tell what percentage of expected respondents had reported information by the time the first preliminary number was estimated, by the time the second preliminary number was estimated, and by the time the final number was estimated.
To give a sense of such collection rates, I'll follow up with them for each of the last few months. It may be worth considering - and I went into more detail on this in a post in last Friday's thread - that the timing for reporting this information can be pretty tight. Depending on how the calendar falls inn a given month, and the payroll periods chosen by a given establishment, the payroll period at issue might have ended only a few days before the information from it would need to be reported to be included in the first provisional estimates.
So here are the collection rates from the relevant sample populations for the last 4 months as would have been available for the first preliminary number, then the second preliminary number, then the final number. When it comes to the reported adds or loses for a given month, revisions (for total nonfarm payrolls) for that month as well as for the prior month can affect the revised adds or loses. It's really the total nonfarm payrolls for each month that are being revised and the adds or loses between months are being calculated based on those revisions. So relatively small revisions to the total monthly numbers can cause relatively large revisions in the reported monthly differences. It isn't so much going, e.g., from +50,000 to -50,000 payrolls as it is going, e.g., from 150,100,000 payrolls to 150,000,000 payrolls.
April 2025 - 55.7%, 88.1%, 93.9
May 2025 - 68.4%, 93.5%, 94.4%
June 2025 - 59.5%, 92.3%
July 2025 - 57.6%
A couple more points. The sample population is made up of around 600,000 establishments which would be responsible for around a quarter of the payrolls in the country. The BLS also reports something called the response rate which takes into account more or less all of the chosen sample population. It's been much lower, e.g., 42.9% for May 2025 (it's only reported for the final estimate for a given month). The collection rates listed above are based on the number of respondents the BLS expects to hear from. It excludes, e.g., those in the chosen sample population who decline to provide information or who are many months delinquent in providing information.
Thanks so much -- that was extraordinarily helpful
I agree with this — especially that revisions reflect added data, not corrections in the usual sense. One thing to note: CES estimates go through two monthly revisions and then an annual benchmark to the QCEW, which draws from mandatory employer tax filings. Even the “final” number is still modeled, just with more complete inputs.
Also worth mentioning: the CES response rate hasn’t rebounded since COVID — it’s around 43% now, down from about 60% a decade ago. Participation is voluntary, especially for small businesses, and many probably don’t see a reason to respond when their data ultimately flows into the QCEW anyway.
And while the headlines often focus on the topline number, the real value of the CES is in the detailed industry-level breakouts. That’s what economists, policymakers, and businesses use to understand where the labor market is actually moving.
Texas Governor should just appoint a new State Representative for each of them who literally deserted their state. Take a look at Californias Congressional districts, a friggin Rorschach blot isn’t as convoluted
You should look at Houston metro's districts, Frankie. In the middle of Houston are two of the whitest, richest enclaves in America. Surrounding them is all the neegroes and meskins. So there's a big donut district to lump all the brownies together and the donut hole is for MAGA. Be a shame if them elites got paired with their subhuman neighbors, don't you think? Ah democracy...Texas style.
Freedom to associate also includes freedom to disassociate.
And lets even legislate that disassociation!
So what? Better than mandated association that our entire society has been suffering from for the past many decades.
“I am proud to vote for him as a Jew,” said Emily Hoffman, 37, as children read books, sang songs and played near a big cardboard bus that evoked Mr. Mamdani’s campaign promise to make city buses fast and free.
“It’s unfair that it feels like Zohran is starting with a kind of assumption of antisemitism against him, both because of his racial and ethnic identity and because of his politics on Palestine,” she said. Mr. Mamdani would be the city’s first Muslim mayor.
Ms. Hoffman said she was deeply disturbed by the images she had seen of the humanitarian conditions in Gaza, which reminded her of pictures she saw as a child when she first learned about the Holocaust.
And she called Mr. Mamdani’s belief that Israel should provide equal rights to citizens of all religions “the common-sense position,” adding, “if you’re against that, you are not on the side of justice.”
Not the Right Jew alert.
[Non-snark, see also Brad Lander, and many other supporters.]
https://archive.ph/SwEe9#selection-915.0-937.203
No, it’s fair to assume a Moose-lum Ham-Ass supporter might be a tad Anti-Semitic, especially one who looks like he could have been the “19th Hijacker”, maybe, just maybe, Adams, Sliwa, and Cuomo(all 3 of them) supporters can get together and send Zoran Ramadan-a-ding-dong back to his native Uganda
Part of the insidiousness of antisemitism is that it seeks to dehumanize Jewish people, wouldn't you agree Frankie?
"Dehumanize" is that what they're calling murder now? "Did you hear about the Mass Dehumanizer in California? They're calling him the "Zodiac Dehumanizer"!!! Sorry if I'm Old (School) but "Dehumanizers Inc" just doesn't have the panache....
Frank "C'mon man, you're Dehumanizing me here!"
This third grader is murdering English writing! Remember, Trump loves the poorly educated.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that somebody who co-founded a chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine is an antisemite. Realistically the organization is a Hamas front, chapters were literally celebrating Hamas' attack on Israel.
"Globalize the Intifada". He won't criticize it. He can't bring himself to condemn it. He just can't say it. Why not?
Basically the guy is trying to carefully walk a line that's not there to walk, he supports people he knows damned well are murderous antisemites, but he doesn't want to admit to being one himself. But he can't reject them, either.
Seems like he doesn't say it because he doesn't agree with it, but he won't condemn it because he also understands the frustration with the Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians that inspires it. I don't know--seems like (as with most things about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict) a complex topic that people want to try to boil down to black and white.
What I do know is that New York's highest-ranking Jewish elected official and many other Jews who know him well have endorsed Mamdani, so it seems pretty unlikely he's actually antisemitic.
Well, actually, he DOES have a history of saying it, a few years ago. What he can't say today is that there's anything wrong with the phrase...
When did he ever say that? (No, I'm not looking for you to repeat "a few years ago." I'm looking for some actual cites to actual times when he said that.)
"pretty unlikely he's actually antisemitic"
Remind me of this:
"HITLER TAMED BY PRISON.; Released on Parole, He Is Expected to Return to Austria. By Wireless To the New York Times. Dec. 21, 1924"
"Ms. Hoffman said she was deeply disturbed by the images she had seen of the humanitarian conditions in Gaza, which reminded her of pictures she saw as a child when she first learned about the Holocaust."
Wonder what this shanda felt when she saw the video Friday of the Jewish hostage being starved by her Hamas friends.
If I showed you a picture of a starving or maimed child, didn’t tell you the context, just showed you the picture, how would you feel?
"didn’t tell you the context"
Yes, if you lied, like most of the world did about the kid with the genetic condition, then yeah, a lot of people will feel bad.
And she is going beyond feeling bad. She is saying attacking her candidate is racist. Sorry, for that you need to learn the "context."
So basically you’re saying whether you feel bad for someone in distress depends on the political context? And that your natural human empathy can vanish the minute someone explains that a suffering person is Palestinian? Don’t you see that as morally dubious?
Nice try. That's not what I said.
I can feel bad for anyone in distress. A child with a genetic defect that makes him suffer would make me feel bad. I can go to any hospital and see that.
Whether that translates into political outrage depends on the context. The woman was making a political point, not a purely emotional one. For that, I hold her responsible to understand the context, and also understand whether she is being lied to.
So you can feel bad for a situation but not politically outraged depending on who is suffering? Isn’t that morally dubious as well?
Wow, you keep beating up on straw men.
What's morally dubious is your continuous twisting of my words to make a dubious point.
Get a clue. The Palestinians are suffering because they brought it on themselves. They could have had a peaceful state in Gaza 20 years ago. They choose the path of war. That's the context that you and this woman are missing.
So when a five year old is blown up I shouldn’t be outraged or feel bad because they brought it on themselves 20 years ago?
You should feel outraged at those who caused it: the terrorist genocidal government that brought on a war.
"it’s still a concession that what’s going on is collective punishment of an entire population"
Not. It's a statement that when a government goes to war, its own people might suffer. Especially when they violate the laws of war by hiding their forces among the civilian population, using children as warriors, and stealing food aid for their own purposes.
The Palestinians are suffering because they brought it on themselves
Not this really is sounding genocidal.
Even if it’s not “genocidal” in the sense of wanting to eliminate all Palestinians it’s still a concession that what’s going on is collective punishment of an entire population. Which isn’t much better.
It’s really more these people don’t value Palestinian lives.
"...what’s going on is collective punishment of an entire population." Please apologize the the German and Japanese population. A-bomb and fire bombing weren't directed at military targets.
political outrage
I don't understand this term.
"Ms. Hoffman said she was deeply disturbed by the images she had seen of the humanitarian conditions in Gaza."
Seems like standard feeling bad for others in distress, not whatever political outrage means. It's fucked up to call it political outrage so you can declare it illegitimate.
You have permission to feel bad, just not permission to take a political position you think will stop the bad thing.
This is the Republican approach to a lot of things btw. Like yeah you should feel bad about a mass shooting but you shouldn’t do anything to make them less likely. You can feel bad about hungry kids but you can’t spend money on free school lunch.
So the formal instantiation of thoughts and prayers as the only legitimate response.
The sad thing is: thoughts and prayers are giving way to “toxic empathy” and the total lack of consideration for other people by the right. Vice signaling is ascendant.
Look at our senators.
Mike Lee posting the moments before his colleague’s friends were murdered with a dipshit level conspiracy and then acting shocked when called out for this deprived behavior. I’d rather have thoughts and prayers.
Ted Cruz doubling down on mocking someone respecting the customs of a house of worship at a funeral for a fallen officer. Again, I’d rather have thoughts and prayers.
Disingenuous and ineffective politeness is still way better than openly assholery.
"natural human empathy"
Funniest thing you've said in a while.
Ever been around toddlers? Empathy certainly not "natural" with them.
Empathy is a learned virtue.
“Ever been around toddlers? Empathy certainly not "natural" with them.”
Yeah my nieces are actually very empathetic people who care about others. Maybe your entire social circle is just filled with shitty people who don’t care about others? Would explain a lot.
“Empathy is a learned virtue.”
If that’s the case you didn’t do a very good job of learning it.
Toddlers' brains are not fully formed, you can't use them as the exemplar of higher-order human behavior!
Someone should’ve taught it to you.
How about the ones maimed and killed before they’re born? How would YOU feel?
Don’t get our edgelord phony to start crying about baby holocaust!
Somebody has to care for you savages
Savages, as in those with no sense of English punctuation?
her Hamas friends.
So how many American Jews dd you accuse of being friends with Hamas?
Only those who support Hamas.
And what counts as supporting Hamas? Feeling bad that people are dying? You see how that’s psychotic right?
“And what counts as supporting Hamas?”
Disagreeing with Bob on how to deal with them, of course!
'shanda'
You using a derogatory word on that Jewish lady? That'll get you shanda'ed by the MAGA here. Oh wait, Trump made it okay to target American Jews as long as they don't vote MAGA. You starting to see why no one believes your selective, performative philanthropy? Like I said supra, you boys are just exploiting Jews as a political weapon. And Mamdani ain't. So who's the better man here?
“It’s unfair that it feels like Zohran is starting with a kind of assumption of antisemitism against him, both because of his racial and ethnic identity and because of his politics on Palestine,” she said.
Ah yes, the old race card. He is stigmatized because he supports radical terrorists, then tries to hide it. "Globalize the intafada" is a code for violence against Jews throughout the world. He knows it, but hides behind excuses.
Sorry, you don't get to cozy up to terrorists, and then hide behind your ethnicity.
cozy up to terrorists
This level of magic word melodrama does nothing but teach people not to listen to such accusations next time.
He ain't exploiting Jews for political ends like you are, bro.
No, just supporting people who try to kill them.
Someone who lives in my neighborhood was married. When he and his wife were pregnant, they went to the Sbarro pizza shop in Jerusalem. It was bombed, and his wife and unborn child were murdered. That was part of the Intafada.
"Globalize the intafada" means, bring that kind of bombing to the world. You know, places like New York, London and Paris.
Frankly, you can go f--- yourself. If calling out people who support terrorism is "politicizing," then I plead guilty.
Good news for Patrick.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/08/04/starfish-sea-star-wasting-disease/
Anybody here get the New York Times actual paper?
I'm just wondering if any of the last couple of issues had a big picture of the starving Jewish hostage being forced to dig his own grave?
I forgot, his name is Evyatar David and he is about to die.
"I'm just wondering if any of the last couple of issues had a big picture of the starving Jewish hostage being forced to dig his own grave?" Hahahahahaha Only room for "starving" children. Not even enough room for his well fed mother and brother.
I was going to post on that. Interesting contrast.
About a week ago, the NY Times, and every major news outlet, splashed a picture of an emaciated child from Gaza. Purpose to blame Israel --- look what their starvation policy does. Except, it turns out, that child was emaciated because he had a genetic disease. His mother and siblings are anything but emaciated. The whole thing was a lie.
Of course, the NY Times issued a half-hearted retraction. But on a different Twitter feed that has less than 1% of the followers. Damage done.
Now just this weekend, Hamas released a video of an emaciated hostage, who was being forced to dig his own grave. Some of the world press picked it up. But not the Times, certainly not with the same fanfare the first one was.
Blood libelers gotta libel.
I think it's a reflection of the NYT's readership that the near copy-paste of Hamas's propaganda has continued, and it has continued despite the NYT getting called out for obvious mistakes again and again.
What's worse is that this continuing string of articles from the NYT shows that contingent of anti-semetic, anti-Jewish leftists is still growing in power and influence among the Democratic Party.
In the long term, this does not bode well for Jews in the USA and internationally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel "Blood libel or ritual murder libel (also blood accusation)is an antisemitic canard which falsely accuses Jews of murdering Christians in order to use their blood in the performance of religious rituals."
Not only are you abusing this term, you're assuming an intentional conspiracy by the NYT with nowhere near enough support for that extraordinary claim.
NYT sure can suck sometimes, but that doesn't give you license to go full paranoid delusion on them.
They cropped the photo to delete the normal looking brother. Mom isn't emaciated either. Shouldn't have that told them something?
"you're assuming an intentional conspiracy"
He made no such assumption.
I don't know what happened, but you've already contradicted yourself if they left in the mother who looked fine but cropped out the brother.
What a badly executed conspiracy!
"Of course, the NY Times issued a half-hearted retraction. But on a different Twitter feed that has less than 1% of the followers. Damage done." That 'damage done' implies an intentional conspiracy.
Leaving in the mother doesn't mean squat, it takes TIME for adults to become visibly emaciated. Children become starved looking a lot faster on account of the fact that they're still growing.
Of course it was intentional, do you suppose they accidentally cropped the photo, accidentally omitted mentioning the siblings were fine?
Like their motto says; All the news that's fit to print. Fit to print doing a lot of work.
Probably not, but he deserves it anyway
I don't get the actual paper, but:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/02/world/europe/new-hostage-videos-sow-fear-and-horror-in-israel.html
Seems weird you guys can't be bothered with a three second Google search.
Obvious mistakes! Lol
Paywalled.
Was there a big photo of Evyatar on page 1 above the fold?
Web story is not the same, Thanks for playing.
Bob's gonna keep those goalposts moving!
" goalposts moving!"
No goalposts were moved, I asked about the print edition. He came up with an online story.
See, here is my question:
"I'm just wondering if any of the last couple of issues had a big picture of the starving Jewish hostage being forced to dig his own grave?"
Jb "I don't get the actual paper" link to a story on the internet I can't read was not responsive, was it?
page 1 above the fold seems new to me.
But hey you didn't accuse the NYT of a conspiracy to do a blood libel, so you're not the worst person in the conversation.
Nowadays, much of publicity take place on the internet. Here is what a former director of the NY Times, who worked there for 35 years, had to say:
Short (sad) story in 3 images: 1. The New York Times published a "starving child in Gaza" image on their front page 2. They now (halfheartedly) "admit" that he wasn't being starved. 3. The account they use for the "correction" has only 89K followers (main account has 55M)
https://x.com/HamasAtrocities?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1950497011918139463%7Ctwgr%5Ea82003b424cce01753d7297083d5eadf11e3a487%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fvodkapundit%2F2025%2F08%2F05%2Fformer-nyt-director-paper-is-digging-own-grave-n4942410
Conclusion: the NY Times is a dishonest reporter of the facts, that is driven by a narrative, and does less than the bare minimum to correct its own mistakes.
California Republican to introduce bill banning middecade redistricting
Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) said he plans to introduce legislation on Tuesday that would ban all middecade redistricting efforts nationwide and nullify any new maps approved before the 2030 census.
In a statement Monday, Kiley took aim at his own governor, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has said he is exploring several options for California to take on its own redistricting push, in response to Texas Republicans’ move to redraw their state’s maps.
Kiley, in his statement, did not mention Texas, which has proceeded with a midcycle push to approve new maps that would give Republicans in the state five more pickup opportunities ahead of the 2026 midterms.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5435251-newsom-california-redistricting-push/
Watching Republicans is like watching Animal House.
Otter: He can't do that do that to our pledges.
Boon: Only we can do that to our pledges.
This is genuinely good policy so I don’t mind if he thinks only attacking California will help. I mean he needs to figure out a coalition of Dems and vulnerable Rs. He could probably get one theoretically. But I doubt Johnson lets it proceed, if it did, I doubt the senate approves. Trump certainly vetoes.
It will be very difficult to redistrict California anyway, voters passed a redistricting commission constitutional provision in 2008 and 2010 taking redistricting out of the legislature to a citizens commission.
Not impossible to game but it makes it harder, and tie up in the courts.
Wait a minute, all you MAGA above said California was equally guilty of gerrymandering. Looks like that hasn't been the case there for 17 years.
What, you think "citizen's commissions" can't be guilty of gerrymandering?
"California's state legislative and congressional districts are drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The commission was established after the passage of California Proposition 11, or the Voters First Act, in 2008 for state legislative districts, and Proposition 20 in 2010 for congressional districts. The commission consists of 14 members: five Democrats, five Republicans, and four independents or voters affiliated with another party.
Members of the commission are selected through a rigorous process.
In addition to the federal requirements of one person, one vote and the Voting Rights Act, California’s state constitution (Art. XXI § 2) requires that state legislative and congressional districts be compact, contiguous, preserve political subdivisions, and preserve communities of interest, defined as “a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation.” Consideration of partisan data is prohibited except where required by federal law, as is favoring or disfavoring an incumbent, candidate for office, or political party.
In 2011, California passed AB 420, ending the practice of prison gerrymandering and reassigning currently incarcerated populations to their last-known place of residence for the purpose of redistricting."
https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/reforms/CA
Keep trying, Brett. Keep trying. One day you'll blurt an unresearched assertion and it will be correct. Like hitting the lottery.
I've linked before to a computer analysis of districts in all 50 states. California's districts are way, way outside what is statistically plausible without intent to gerrymander. The state is, objectively, gerrymandered, and quite heavily. See page 338: California was, at the time this paper was done, (2013) the most gerrymandered state in the country.
"any new maps" seems overbroad
The whole mid-decade census thing isn't new. I remember opposing it earlier this century. The fights these days often have a "been there, done that" feel to them in certain ways.
Good news for you ShareBlue shills!
Democrats are firing up the old astroturf spin machine again, so you all may be able to earn a few rubles.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/08/04/exclusive-democrats-plan-to-spend-tens-of-millions-of-dollars-to-fund-hundreds-of-content-creators/
Exclusive: Democrats Plan to Spend Tens of Millions of Dollars to Fund Hundreds of Content Creators
Democrats are planning to spend tens of millions of dollars to spin narratives on social media as part of a $110.5 million fundraising effort, according to images of slides from a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) donor event obtained by Breitbart News.
Sounds like a good idea. MAGA was very succesful in 2024 from doing this.
Political party to launch social media campaign. Colour me shocked.
Trump is putting the screws to India to stop buying Russian Oil
“They don’t care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine,” he said in a post to his Truth Social network, also accusing India of selling Russian oil “on the Open Market for big profits”. In a previous social media tirade last week, he said of Russia and India: “They can take their dead economies down together.”
Trump has a lot of leverage here, if the tariffs don't provide enough, restricting H1B and Student visas from India would ratchet up the pressure further, and then a foreign remittance tax would also provide enormous leverage.
China might be a tougher nut to crack, but they are not invulnerable.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/04/donald-trump-demand-that-india-stop-buying-russian-oil-puts-narendra-modi-in-tight-spot
Kaz and Trump have always been a supporter of Ukraine in this struggle. And of Trump's tirades.
Presidential tirades are not embarrassing and detrimental to our standing on the world stage. If you really look, you will find they are full of leverage.
Also, let's be quite clear. Trump does not have leverage.
The United States has leverage. Trump is using the accumulated capital that our country has spent a long time building and using it to leverage .... whatever it is he wants at any given moment. But most of OUR leverage? Our political capital? It's being wasted, devalued, diminished.
Countries know that they can't depend on us for stability. To have a consistent approach. Heck- are we supporting Ukraine, or abandoning them? I don't even know anymore.... tune in tomorrow on As the Trump Turns!
*shrug* The only consistent thing is that Trump will continue to enrich himself and his allies, and useful tool like Kazinski will continue to find reasons to think he is playing 4D chess, as opposed to flailing wildly from one thing to the next.
Well I have been a supporter of Ukraine, not a blank check supporter, but certainly supportive of doing what we can to ensure their survival, while avoiding a wider war.
Trump has blown hot and cold on Ukraine, now he is in a hot phase.
Can the US replace RUS oil, barrel for barrel, for India?
They don't need to, the US doesn't export much oil anyway.
The Persian Gulf will sell them all they need, including Iran. But they like the deep discount they are getting now because of the restrictions on Russian oil.
Oil is 66 A barrel now and supply doesn't seem to be a problem.
"the US doesn't export much oil anyway"
Nonsense.
"The U.S. is a significant oil exporter, ranking among the top global exporters. In 2023, the U.S. exported just over 10 million barrels per day of petroleum to 173 countries and three U.S. territories. This makes the U.S. a net exporter of petroleum, meaning it exports more than it imports."
I guess that has changed in the past few years.
I was surprised when I just checked its 40% of domestic production.
The US has become a net exporter of energy writ large. That includes crude, petroleum products (gasoline, diesel etc), natural gas, coal and other misc items.
See this chart: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65524
If you just look at crude oil, the US is still a net importer, but that is only part of the picture.
https://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/15/the-dangers-of-government-by-executive/
Remember that? I do. Professor Bernstein, beating the drum of how bad executive orders were (but, of course, always reminding us that Obama was the baddie ... still, Executive Order and trying to legislate by EO was just the absolute worst!).
That really was his beat for a long time. It's weird, isn't it, that he hasn't been posting incessantly about it. Huh.
Implying Bernstein is a hack feels quaint in the Blackman era. Josh makes David look like John Hart Ely.
The only reason most people cite Ely these days is for an article he wrote fifty years ago against Roe v. Wade, & they (even many liberals!) don't point out he ultimately supported Planned Parenthood v. Casey & opposed the abortion funding cases as a violation of equal protection.
I read the article, btw, and I didn't find it too compelling. FWIW, of course.
These days, Bernstein seems to be mostly here to bash any mild criticism of Israel.
This will get buried (it's now Tuesday) but I just wanted to respond to this. Since I've been here a while, I can say that bashing criticism of Israel has always been Bernstein's beat. But ... if you remember Kontorovich's posts, Bernstein was positively pro-Palestine in comparison. Yeah, really.
My recollection of Bernstein is that he was always casting about for his own "Randy" (Randy Barnett) moment. There was the Lochner revisionism. There was the "if you see race, you're the racist" moment. There was the (relatively brief) Executive Order stuff (which has been stuffed down the memory hole, for obvious reasons).
I have had issues with this .... scholarship ... ever since I read one of his Lochner pieces, and it cited a proposition (basically, saying "someone agreed with X") from an article in the 1920s. I happened to know a lot about that particular individual, and I knew that could not be true. And it wasn't a pincite, it was a citation to an entire law review article. I pulled the article and read it. It did not, in any way, support what he was saying from anything I could find. Tried to engage him in the comments, and not in a mean way (just asking where in the article it was from because I couldn't find it) and he threatened to dox me* (unsuccessfully, since he called me by a name that wasn't mine).
Ahem. Look, he used to occasionally write about evidence (Daubert, Frye) and he was really good on that. I'm not saying he's Blackman (Blackman really is sui generis) but I think he's comfortable being more of an advocate in some of his pieces than carefully documenting what actually occurred.
*The irony of this, given the saga of Juan Non-Volokh, was not lost on me.
I'll push back on this a little bit in that seeking a tentpole issue around which you build your academic brand is pretty normal.
I do find his scholarship pretty one-sided, but I suppose I would. And he engages in the comments which I like.
But yeah, his conduct has made me wince a lot of times. A sign I hold him in some regard since Blackman is capable only of making me roll my eyes. His likudnik-or-antisemitism takes get personal really fast, and his penchant for calling out law student protesters and using his authority and this blog to browbeat them is all righteousness no responsibility. Dissolute threats to dox commenters does seem within his character.
"I'll push back on this a little bit in that seeking a tentpole issue around which you build your academic brand is pretty normal."
Yes....ish. Look, maybe I have a different view of law professors. I remember mine fondly. But my recollection was that they were always looking for a tentpole issue because ... it interested them! They weren't doing it for any particular reason other than they found something that fascinated them and they started burrowing into the issue. They were intellectually curious about the law.
Um, except one professor. He got his tenure, was a great teaching professor (really, loved his classes) but he was good doin' the bare minimum, being a great teacher, and fishing.
Anyway, I can't help but think that Bernstein keeps latching on to issues that he hopes will take off in a ... partisan way. If you catch my drift. Maybe that's unfair of me, but it does seem like he keeps casting his net in different directions, and there only seems to be one unifying theme that I can discern.
We're doing a bit of close reading telepathy here, but I figure if you're partisan enough issues that align with that partisanship feel just as interesting.
At least for me, inspiration/interest arise from a big soup of factors many of which I may not be consciously tracking and plenty of which are contradictory or motivated by other than dispassionate curiosity.
More than Blackman who is indeed sui generis, I'd contrast Bernstein with Ilya Shapiro, who has made his academic reputation out of pure oppression theatre.
He also thinks his status as a law professor gives him special insight into any number of topics and doesn’t like when experts in a relevant field know better than him. He honestly thinks his 3 year casebook degree and title make him a better scholar than PhDs who actually are experts on the fields he decides to delve into. He once went off on some literature and art professors who focus on the ME for signing a letter on Israel-Palestine and accusing them of not being experts on the region. But they actually speak Arabic and the art/literature they study are intimately connected to politics. So they certainly have as much claim to expertise as Bernstein, if not more. (Does he even speak Arabic?)
He also likes to make broad unsupported pronouncements in his posts and when called on it for being unsupported…says it’s just a blog post or op ed not a dissertation. Which is annoying because he’s still using his title to try and give an authoritative statement on a topic he knows nothing about. He once did that on the topic of what liberal Christians in Europe believe (LOL) and was all pissy about how I was rude for asking him how he came to that conclusion.
This is by no means just a conservative problem, plenty of law professor as astrophysicist liberals out there. But I’ve noticed it’s relatively prominent on the right, and I think that’s because it’s easier (and more lucrative) to get a JD than a PhD and they’re an intellectually lazy movement.
Yeah- I think DB is particularly bad with that (and contrast that with Prof. Kerr, who is very good at explaining that he is not an expert in other areas). But ... it's really common.
A long time ago, I got into a debate (on-line) with someone on a subject I happened to know about. And this other person was rude, obnoxious, condescending, trollish, and really really wrong (no, I wasn't arguing with myself, thank you for asking).
I learned that this person was ... a law professor who is THE EXPERT in a particular area. As in ... if you want to know about X, this is THE GUY. And I was a massive fan- I loved his work. He was brilliant ... about X. But he didn't know about this other topic (cue- difference between law professors and law practitioner, and difference between X and Y) and he was an insufferable tool on the internet.
Which goes to show- the internet usually brings out the worst in all of us. I try and remember that whenever I get too disheartened by the comments here. I have to.... I mean, I assume that the people I see act like this here aren't massive tools in their daily life.
....although I do have questions about Dr. Ed. How can you not?
If you're going to summarize him, you could at least give a nod to his housing bubble stuff.
Bernstein doesn't post much here about anything in the last year or 2, and when he does post its about Israel.
Last time he was posting here regularly was after he published "Classified" and the Supreme Court was considering the Harvard DEI case.
I suppose we have an implied contract with the Conspirators that they are supposed to drop everything and post on our pet topic when ever we get upset about something, but if Bernstein isn't keeping up with his obligations at least Ilya has been diligent filling in for him.
I don't expect the conspirators to post about anything. I do wish that the best conspirators would post more often, or didn't disappear.
Personally, I think that Orin Kerr, Will Baude, and Tyler Cowen are all top-notch. But two of them departed (Cowen was well over a decade ago) and Kerr barely posts here. I used to count EV among them, but ... he's been more uneven for a while. IMO. He's still definitely at the top of the next batch.
EV, Adler, Somin (although he's repetitive on "foot-voting" and immigration), Anderson are all good. Eric Posner as well, IIRC (although again, more than decade).
But as much as I think DB has issues, he's definitely not at the bottom tier.
Kontorovich. Lindgren (who seemed to just lose it in terms of his on-line presence ...). Zywicki (if you remember, you remember).
I guess there's a subbasement that consists of Blackman (who makes up in volume what he lacks in quality) and Cramer (um ... public flameout).
Um, you forgot Calabresi.
I did, and I blame you for reminding me. 🙂
"FEMA to Deny Grants to States and Cities That Boycott Israeli Companies"
Forget Russia. What kind of fucking Kompromat does Israel have on Trump such that you favor a foreign nation over your own people?
None. If it wasn’t Israel it would be some other thing. Trumpian thought on disaster aid is personalist and transactional. Right now this is important to the admin. It’ll be something else later. Like he’ll probably threaten to withhold aid over redistricting or immigration or DEI or some dumb culture war thing or conspiracy.
Dude, ZOG has been in control alot longer than Trump.
"ZOG"?? Hey Minimus Pilatus, Blockbuster called, wants their "Blood in the Face" Tape returned (Be Kind, Rewind!) Oh yeah, they're sort of pissed about that crusty material on that tape of "Home Alone" you returned, don't think they're buying that it's Syrup, Oh, and that Smallpox Scar on your arm??, it's permanent, and don't blame my People, that was Edward Jenner's baby, as WASPY as you can get, we only invented the Polio, Plague, Cholera ones. And that Acylovir you take for your "Rash"?? thank Gertrude Elion (who like Einstein, didn't get her PhD until after her achievements, who did you blow, I mean impress to get yours?) Seriously, Minimus, you're like a Pinata, a "BP Fastball", Galaxian at Level 1, you're the Revolting Reverend Kirtland without the charm, John Wayne Gacy without the makeup, a Vegetarian Jeffy Dahmer, you got kicked out of the Fire Academy because you kept setting yourself on fire, couldn't study Chemistry because they wouldn't let you near any dangerous chemicals, and in your fambily tree you're the Sap. But hey, even Barry Bonds took BP, so give me your best shot
BDS is just a currently convenient way to filter out the most unreasonable states and cities. As LTG points out, there are other potential filters, but this is an easy one at the moment.
This is a step up from the Biden administration, which used FEMA resources to block the distribution of aid to "Republican" regions hit by Hurricane Helene without any explicit threshold.
It did not. Why do you think nobody will notice you're lying? Or do you just assume people have already written you off as a partisan joke so nobody will care about one more lie?
Look, I realize that flatly denying the easily confirmed is almost your whole gig here, but give it a rest already.
Fema official ordered storm crews not to help Trump voters
Now, FEMA denies that it was a systematic practice, but it absolutely was happening.
David Notimportant thinks he his Obi-Wan, capable of Jedi mind tricks.
Ankle biter continues to bite ankles.
Wanker continues to wank.
Look, I realize that never reading the stories you desperately try to cite in favor of fake points is your thing, but… there is no but. That's just your thing.
One fucking person did this. That is not "the Biden administration." It's one fucking person. And even that doesn't capture the totality of the lie. It was not "using FEMA resources," not "blocking" anything, and not to "Republican regions."
One fucking person told her subordinates not to knock on the doors of people with Trump signs out front. It was wrong, and as soon as people found out, she was fired.
@ David Nieporent 4 hours ago "It did not"
"IT DID TOO!!! DOUBLE STAMPED NO QUITSIES/ANTI QUITSIES/STARTSTIES AND YOU CAN'T TRIPLE STAMP A DOUBLE STAMP!! INFINITY!!!!!" Oh I'm sorry, was I shouting? I just demonstrated that your stupid gratuitous assertion can be just as stupidly gratuitously refuted
+1 for use of stupidly in a sentence with no punctuation at the end.
Trump loves the poorly educated!
It did so! Why do you think nobody will notice you're lying? Or do you just assume people have already written you off as a partisan joke so nobody will care about one more lie?
Prove it.
It?
Judge Wingate:
Before this Court is Defendants’ “Motion to Correct Docket, Preserve Record, and for Clarification” [Dkt. 58]. Having reviewed the motion, the record, and the governing law, the Court finds the motion not well-taken and, therefore, DENIED.
Is it a lie to characterize mistakes in an opinion generated by AI as clerical errors? I would say that it is.
He probably sought counsel, and the counselor said, "Whatever happens...ADMIT NOTHING."
So now we have the stench of Judge Henry T. Wingate in air. I suspect (and hope) that smell will be particularly harsh to other judges.
https://open.substack.com/pub/public/p/exclusive-new-files-show-brazils
Brazil's leftists copied those in the United States, except they have also subverted Brazil's highest courts.
This is emblematic. It’s an easy bet that Mikie P knows little about Brazil’s history, culture and politics. But, in true Mikie P fashion, he comes across a post about a report by a recently formed organization about Brazil that would help him justify Trump’s recent, weird tariff actions. Reads it, can’t evaluate its claims in anything approaching an informed way, thinks (as of course whoever led him to this wanted him to think) “a ha, this proves the partisan point I’ve been dying to make” and then posts it as authoritative.
Incredibly sad.
In Israel, whatever problems there were on the political plane, rights protection and civil liberties in general still stood firm. But the supreme court and the other courts have been steadily beaten into submission, and stuff like this isn't great either:
Last night, during a speech in memory of the victims of the Shefar'am massacre 20 years ago, I was violently removed from the podium in the middle of my speech, simply because I quoted the words of the Israeli writer David Grossman against the genocide in Gaza.
Even critical writers are no longer allowed to be quoted in the parliament of the only democracy in the Middle East.
To paraphrase Heine: Where they silence quotations, they will, in the end, also silence dissidents.
The tweet has a video: https://x.com/ofercass/status/1952612786715972078
Maybe it's about time Israel bit the bullet and got themselves an actual constitution, rather than relying on judicial supremacy.
We've done just fine for 6,000 years without one
Well, sort of. I don't think that it's right to say that Israel relies on judicial supremacy. Certainly not if the suggestion is that Israeli judges are more powerful than, say, US judges. The Israeli judiciary has invented some rules around the basic laws, but the effect of that is to create a Constitution that the Knesset can change. The fact that the Knesset cannot change the Israeli constitution as easily as it can change other laws isn't particularly unusual. That doesn't mean the Israeli judiciary has somehow grabbed more power than it ought to have.
"The fact that the Knesset cannot change the Israeli constitution as easily as it can change other laws isn't particularly unusual."
It's pretty unusual given that the laws you're calling the Israeli constitution are just ordinary laws, and there's no textual basis for them being harder to change than other laws.
Seriously, they need to get themselves a real constitution. They've been putting off writing one for 75 years now!
You act like 75 years is a long time
the laws you're calling the Israeli constitution are just ordinary laws
Except they're not. The Israeli judiciary has empowered the Knesset to adopt Basic Laws which are very much not "just ordinary laws". They are the Constitution of Israel. The fact that there's 14 of them doesn't change that. And just like other constitutions there are hurdles for changing them.
Why does it matter whether there are 14 Basic Laws or just one Basic Law with the same provisions?
"The Israeli judiciary has empowered the Knesset"
And you deny that this is based on judicial supremacy...
Any thoughts on the Union Pacific/Norfolk Southern merger? Here are some opinions to get you started: https://www.ft.com/content/604887c5-c200-4282-b62d-bd605b53b26f
Multiple Kentucky whiskey distilleries file for bankruptcy
The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States told Newsweek: "This has been an extremely difficult time for distillers across the country who are dealing with increased production costs, a slowdown in spirits sales in the U.S. marketplace, and a significant disruption to spirits exports due to threat of tariffs and retaliation related to ongoing trade disputes.
"In fact, the majority of provinces in Canada, the U.S. spirits sector's second largest export market, continues to keep American spirits products off store shelves."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/multiple-kentucky-whiskey-distilleries-file-for-bankruptcy/ar-AA1JTdSi?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=f0f6d764af514218a9a341e5549e59c1&ei=47
Trump screwing his base.
Raise your hand if you're surprised.
I think it's at least partly due to the gradual post-Prohibition shift back to consumption of lower strength alcohol; Prohibition dramatically shifted US consumption away from wine and beer, and to hard liquor, because the latter was easier to smuggle. We've been gradually shifting back to our pre-Prohibition consumption patterns, to the detriment of the hard liquor industry.
As the article itself states, foreign sales are only part of the sales drop.
Hard liquor sales declined for the first time in decades in 2023.
“The US spirits market—that is, the US market for liquor—declined by 2% in 2023, which marked the first time it has declined in almost 30 years.”
https://www.escoffier.edu/blog/world-food-drink/alcohol-and-beverage-trends/
It's called Capitalism and if you can't make a profit distilling Corn and Yeast, letting it sit in some wooden barrels for a while, that's a "You" problem. Same thing's happened with the Marriage-A-Juan-A business, funny, it's not that hard to grow a Weed, I got some incredible Edibles (hey, that rhymes, I didn't intend that) in Colorado a few months ago, just enough to get me to the Airport (it is the "Mile High" City, and I never fly sober), for less than a 12 pack of Dos Equis. (took 20mg, hour later nothing, took another 20mg, 30 minutes later I'm in the Bejeezus Belt) Glaucoma, I've got the Glaucoma, (and the Medical Card) and it was Colorado, where you don't have to make up a reason to get stoned, and the "Dispensary" is literally right next to the Airport Hotel
Admitting to a federal crime on a public law blog?
You're not as smart as I thi . . . .
Nevermind.
https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/medical-marijuana/is-medical-marijuana-legal-under-federal-law.html
Thanks Officer Friday, but please don't tell me that "Blue Boy" story again. Have you been to DIA? 90% of the TSA Agents are stoned.
He discovered periods (unlike his mom, dad was away so much)!
To: LawTalkingGuy 15 hours ago From: Frank Drackman CG* Subj: Stupid Comment on VC "Even if it’s not “genocidal” in the sense of wanting to eliminate all Palestinians it’s still a concession that what’s going on is collective punishment of an entire population. Which isn’t much better." "Collective Punishment of an entire population"?? that's what Wah is (Dumb Ass) Did Scipio say "Hey, you Carthaginians who didn't fight us, let us know where you live and we won't strew salt on your farm!" Did Sherman say "Hey, you Georgians who didn't take up arms or own Slaves, put a sign up in your yard and we won't burn down your House!" Did Colonel Tibbets say "Hey all you Japanese Civilians, might not want to be in Hiroshima on August 6th"
I see why you don't allow people to comment on your inane postings, but I'm like that Hemorrhoid you can't get rid of, just when you think I'm gone, I start itching again
*Certified Genius
The writer of this character knows, he’s been told he’s like a Hemorrhoid (sic) so many times before (sometimes not by his mom)!
Useful little thread:
I detect confusion between a Trumpian trade “deal” and a real trade agreement. A Trumpian deal is based on the assumption that governments can simply tell companies what transactions they will do, whether in trade or investment. Most governments cannot do that. A Trumpian deal is largely unwritten and is non-binding, enabling governments to have deniability and be able to cancel all or part of the deal whenever they wish. The objective of a Trumpian deal is to give Trump a chance to crow that he got a deal, not to achieve anything of substance. The downside of the deal is the tariffs, though Trump will apply these whether he has a deal or not. Tariffs are not integral to the deal, merely the engine of extortion. A trade agreement ignores transactions. It sets the rules of the game, but leaves it to the private sector to do their own transactions. Agreements may contain details and rules on the proper use of tariffs, product standards requirements, export subsidies or any number of other trade practices. The rules in a trade agreement may take anywhere from 18 months to several years to negotiate, depending on complexity and negotiating skills. Such negotiation, unlike the Trumpian deal, requires intimate knowledge of the other country’s objectives and needs. Trumpian deals require no legislative approval, indeed they avoid it. Real agreements require approval to put the agreement into law. They carry the full weight of law and may be enforced in courts. By ignoring previous trade agreements, Trumpian deals violate the law.
I detect confusion between a Trumpian trade “deal” and a real trade agreement. A Trumpian deal is based on the assumption that governments can simply tell companies what transactions they will do, whether in trade or investment. Most governments cannot do that.
A Trumpian deal is largely unwritten and is non-binding, enabling governments to have deniability and be able to cancel all or part of the deal whenever they wish.
The objective of a Trumpian deal is to give Trump a chance to crow that he got a deal, not to achieve anything of substance. The downside of the deal is the tariffs, though Trump will apply these whether he has a deal or not. Tariffs are not integral to the deal, merely the engine of extortion.
A trade agreement ignores transactions. It sets the rules of the game, but leaves it to the private sector to do their own transactions. Agreements may contain details and rules on the proper use of tariffs, product standards requirements, export subsidies or any number of other trade practices.
The rules in a trade agreement may take anywhere from 18 months to several years to negotiate, depending on complexity and negotiating skills. Such negotiation, unlike the Trumpian deal, requires intimate knowledge of the other country’s objectives and needs.
Trumpian deals require no legislative approval, indeed they avoid it. Real agreements require approval to put the agreement into law. They carry the full weight of law and may be enforced in courts. By ignoring previous trade agreements, Trumpian deals violate the law.
https://bsky.app/profile/kekepana.bsky.social/post/3lvmg3aitkk2o
Meanwhile:
Trump on his EU trade deal: "The details are $600 billion to invest in anything I want. Anything. I can do anything I want with it."
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lvnp7fzxsx2a
Like build a ballroom?
For the people who don't read past headlines: that is not a term of the deal. Trump isn't getting one penny to invest in anything.
CNN is reporting that Attorney General Pam Bondi directed federal prosecutors to launch a grand jury investigation into accusations that members of the Obama administration manufactured intelligence about Russia’s 2016 election interference. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/attorney-general-bondi-orders-prosecutors-to-start-grand-jury-probe-into-obama-officials-over-russia-investigation/ar-AA1JTUcs?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Where is the factual predication for investigating events occurring before President Obama left office more than eight and a half years ago? Per 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a):
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.
Ha! You keep assuming that Trump's DOJ is motivated by the law, and not by "feels," "vibes," and "press releases."
(paraphrased)
"Laws? We don't need no stinking laws!"
Why do you defend that terrible felon Obama?
Who's Levine? You call yourself a Lawyer You (Redacted)??!!!! No insult intended (OK, maybe a little insult) Because while I-ANAL, I have watched a lot of "Perry Mason", "Law & Order(the original, not the awful spinoffs), "Boston Legal" (Denny Crane!) and yes, "Rumpole of the Bailey"(I know it was on PBS, in the 70's you didn't have alot of channels to choose from, and it was a BBC show anyway) Well put this in your Barrister Pipe and smoke it, Barry Hussein, Clapper, Brennan, et al will likely be charged with that favorite of the DOJ, "Conspiracy" and the Statue of Limitations doesn't begin to "Toll" (love Lawyer words) until after the last overt act of the Conspiracy, which obviously, is still in progress. OK, maybe I'm wrong, that's what Courts and Lawyers are for.
Conspiracy to do what, Frank?
And what overt act(s) in furtherance thereof do you claim that any alleged conspirator has committed since August of 2020?
It'll come out during "Discovery" Jeez, I thought this was a Legal Blog
Frank "You don't win the Steak Knives"
IOW, you are getting your information from Otto Yourazz.
more like Jack Mehoff
Punctuation, what is it?
No, really, someone tell this sad internet busker.
Punctuation is overrated, I have met people who will say the actual punctuation mark in verbal conversation to indicate something (that they're a pretentious Prick usually) and while I might not know which side of the plate a Semi Colon goes on, I'd wager my Brainpower's a bit more than yours, sort of like comparing a Yugo to a 67' Vette ("Vroom! Vroom!" HT S.J. Biden)
Frank "Go, Comma, and Fuck Yourself Exclamation Point"
"Discovery" in a criminal case is not how the prosecution develops information. Discovery obligations fall primarily (but not exclusively) upon the prosecution to provide information to the defense regarding information in the government's possession.
A United States Attorney should not seek an indictment unless the government is prepared to begin a jury trial within seventy days after the finding thereof.
As Beria said, "Show me the person, and I'll show you the crime."
Yogi Berra didn't say 1/2 the things he said.
Wasn’t that what the Durham investigation was for?
Sure, but various members of the Biden administration hid relevant evidence from Durham's team. That's why we are only finding out a lot of these details now.
Which is useful for some people to remember before asking troll questions like "what happened during the Biden administration to further this conspiracy?"
"Sure, but various members of the Biden administration hid relevant evidence from Durham's team. That's why we are only finding out a lot of these details now."
Supporting facts, Michael P?
John Durham had the same resources, including the subpoena power of federal grand juries, as the Bondi clown crew has. What makes you think the outcome will, from a MAGAt point of view, improve?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/us/politics/trump-russia-obama-gabbard.html outlines some of the newly available information, for example.
From the article that you link: "The document released on Wednesday was a report that the House Intelligence Committee originally drafted in 2017, when Republicans led the panel."
Why do you surmise that that report was unavailable to John Durham, Michael P?
"Surmise" implies that it's a conclusion drawn from evidence, rather than just something fabricated. The most charitable interpretation of these claims is that the logic went like this:
1. This stuff is damning. 2. But Durham didn't use it. 3. The only reason he wouldn't have is if he didn't have it. 4. Therefore, he must not have had access to it.
The problem with that logic is that step #1 is false.
I don’t know why you expect a new investigation spear-headed by people much dumber than the ones who did it the first time to result in anything other than humiliation for DOJ/The IC and resignations by even more career staff.
Bill Barr couldn’t get anything on this. He’s much smarter and competent than Pam Bondi. This is going to fail. And 12 years from now you’ll be posting about how the new GOP AG is going to finally get Obama and Hillary.
I think Bondi is in over her head as AG.
To be fair though, plenty of new information has come out. And, prior efforts have been shackled, restricting them from using and disclosing some information (the CIA refused to cooperate). For instance, one whistleblower approached Durham only to be told Durham had no way to provide his/her testimony to the DOJ.
I also don’t think Barr nor Durham had the will to make waves with their work, exactly the opposite of Mueller (or more likely, Weissman). Otherwise, we would have had a much more complete picture sooner.
No new information has come out. They're just breathlessly repeating already known stuff that doesn't show any wrongdoing and pretending it does.
Sure, David. Again, I don’t understand the outright denialism though it does seem to be a pattern with you.
Plenty of new, incriminating info: belatedly declassified annexes, whistleblower accounts, emails, etc.
First of all, nothing in there is "incriminating." Second, no, it's not new. Sure, the text of the forged emails in the Durham annex were not published before, but the general contents were already known.
“Hey, let’s make up a story about Trump-Russia ties to distract from my criminal activities. And the FBI will pour oil on the fire. Oh, and we’ll use CrowdStrike to seed disinformation in the press.”
“Hey, let’s overturn the IC’s consensus using made-up and meaningless information. Oh, and only use this tiny group of handpicked loyalists and hurry up before TRUMP.” (Obviously paraphrased, but accurately represents the material released by Gabbard)
No David, of course that’s not incriminating. Not at all..(to remove all doubt, I’m being sarcastic. Of course it’s incriminating!)
Yes, you have accurately summarized the Gabbard narrative. The problems are that (a) it's based on forged emails from Russia; (b) no, a candidate making up stories about another candidate — even if that had happened — is not a crime; (c) no IC consensus was overturned; (d) "hurrying up" is also not a crime.
David it is a little more nuanced than you seem to understand. Some of the classified stuff was not widely "already known stuff" because of claims that " their release could compromise sensitive intelligence sources and methods". There does seem to be solid evidence that Clapper and Brennen at least shaded the truth testifying before congress and there is a real possibility that one or both of them outright lied; even the statute of limitations prevents charges (unless DOJ gets creative). Bottom line is lots of billable hours
And yet, nobody has identified any testimony from either of them that is actually false, let alone that they knew to be false at the time they said it. There's just repeated handwaving about "conspiracies" and such.
Tulsi was asked yesterday on Ingraham — so, a friendly setting — and couldn't point to a single thing.
The main area of focus of the accusations is itself based on a lie: that they or other Obama officials knew Russians hadn't hacked into elections systems and yet put out contradictory reports and/or testified otherwise. But that's a lie! They never did that! They said that the Russians had not changed vote totals via hacking elections infrastructure, but interfered in the election in other ways. (Like hacking emails and such.)
More lies and denialism. Here are three readily available instances of Brennan outright lying about the role of the Steele dossier: https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/brennan-steele-dossier-did-not-play-any-role-whatsoever-in-early-intelligence-assesements-1153421379595 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGg8gpGqr-w&t=7229s https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Brennan%20Transcript_Redacted.pdf
The testimony in the last link was in 2023, so well within the statute of limitations for perjury.
“they or other Obama officials knew Russians hadn't hacked into elections systems and yet put out contradictory reports and/or testified otherwise. But that's a lie! They never did that!”
Again, another easily disproven lie. Here’s a highlight reel so you don’t get held up by the memory hole: https://youtu.be/uoMfIkz7v6s
See, you keep handwaving instead of pointing to actual specific statements that were false. I've already read the 2023 transcript in its entirety. I don't see any statement in there that's contradicted by anything that's been released. (And obviously Durham didn't either.)
See, you keep denying instead of admitting that any time Brennan (or Comey, or Clapper) claim they didn’t utilize the Steele dossier while under oath, they’re committing perjury.
Same holds true for the justifications for the FISA warrants. And it’s not like Brennan hasn’t got caught with his hand in the cookie jar before - he was director when the CIA hacked Senate computers. And a journalist….
"To be fair though, plenty of new information has come out. And, prior efforts have been shackled, restricting them from using and disclosing some information (the CIA refused to cooperate). For instance, one whistleblower approached Durham only to be told Durham had no way to provide his/her testimony to the DOJ."
Uh, John Durham (an experienced prosecutor) had the full resources of a Special Counsel, including the ability to use the federal grand jury in any district to investigate. He could have subpoenaed anyone he chose to testify before the grand jury. His work yielded one tangential guilty plea and one acquittal by a jury.
What "new information" do you claim has come to light since?
California Governor Gavin New-Scum just said California's going to "Fight Fire with Fire" next will be fighting Landslides with Landslides and Flooding with Rain.
Will someone fight the Frank Fakeman character performed here with an ignorance of English capitalization, punctuation, etc.?
I want tickets for when California fights high-speed trains with high-speed trains.
Trackside tickets, not passenger tickets, of course.
If they're lucky, my grandchildren will get to use them.
If they're lucky, nobody will ever be able to use them. But luck won't save them from their skill at pursuing senseless "green" boondoggles.
For many on the left, trains are one of those moral imperatives where cost is no object. Cost is only important during the idea phase when they need to grossly underestimate it in order to justify the project.
Never look back. Never learn.
I generally take a similar view to Trump on things like this.
President Trump Dismisses AI Economic Disruption Concerns: ‘End Result Is You’re Going to Need Jobs Even More’
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/08/05/exclusive-president-trump-dismisses-ai-economic-disruption-concerns-end-result-is-youre-going-to-need-jobs-even-more/
"Impeachment proceedings should be brought against these judges, in which they can be required to explain what happened–although, to be fair, what happened seems obvious. If they relied on AI programs to write opinions on cases before them, they should be removed from office."
Our Artificially Intelligent Judges
I remember how and when the US shifted from an industrial economy to our current financial/information economy. All economies (I think--I didn't get more than Econ 101) operate on transactional principles and legal enforcement of contracts. Why do so many basic human interactions now seem to be conducted on a transactional basis?
One example might be what looks like an episode of "The War Between The Sexes". Women are said to evaluate men they meet (indoors, out of doors) in terms of measurable criteria: e.g. fitness, income, and sperm counts. In other words, women are said to be coldly calculating and allegedly willing to befriend or marry only high status men. Men are said to evaluate women they meet solely in terms of fertility, beauty, and dutiful deference and are advised to get women they meet to take some sort of serious personality and status test. Maybe none of that is true, or maybe some of it's true, or maybe all of it's true.
That's just an example, and it doesn't necessarily point towards a large shift in attitudes about "transactionalism" throughout our culture. But I don't think I'm seeing something entirely nonexistent. I could use some advice towards gaining clarity about it.
Please log in to post comments
Mute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?
Stephen Slivinski | 10.7.2025 11:55 AM
Jason Russell | 10.7.2025 10:20 AM
Jacob R. Swartz | 10.7.2025 10:02 AM
Liz Wolfe | 10.7.2025 9:30 AM
Damon Root | 10.7.2025 7:00 AM
