Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

On the last open comment thread, Riva posited that Jack Smith and unnamed others should be investigated by the DOJ for conspiracy to violate civil rights. When I pressed for details, (s)he utterly failed to respond -- to no one's surprise.

Frank Drackman predicted that Barack Obama, James Clapper, John Brennan and possibly others "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." I asked, "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?", Frank cravenly declined to answer.

I fully understand the metaphor of throwing past against the wall to see whether anything sticks. That metaphor, however, presupposes having a pot of actual pasta to begin with. In his famous 1946 essay, Politics and the English Language, George Orwell observed:

[M]odern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. . . . It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug.

Let me now pose these questions to any MAGAt who fancies him/herself as having the brainpower and fortitude to answer. Regarding Jack Smith:

(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?

With regard to President Obama, Clapper and Brennan:

(1) What did they conspire to do, and which federal statute prohibits such a conspiracy?

(2) Was there a single conspiracy or multiple, separate conspiracies?

(3) When was each conspiracy formed?

(4) When did each conspiracy end?

(5) What was the object of each conspiracy?

(6) What were the manner and means which evince operation of each conspiracy?

(7) What overt acts, if any, were committed?

(8) When, where and by whom was each such overt act committed?

Have at it, MAGAts.

[Kazinski]

I really wish I could answer all your questions, but they are just starting the process of empanelling the grand jury.

It would be improper for me to disclose any details that may be presented before the grand jury (mainly because I don't have any more knowledge of that than you do).

[not guilty]

Kazinski, the folks bound by grand jury secrecy are listed in Rule 6(e)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You aren't one of them.

I am asking the MAGAts for their views, based on what information is available to them, make up the conspiracy offenses that they incessantly yap and yammer about in Jospeh Goebbels fashion.

I am encouraged to see you admit that you don't know bupkis. I challenge your fellow MAGAts to do the same.

[Commenter_XY]

You're right, NG, we don't know bupkis. All POTUS Trump supporters are stupid, shiftless, lazy and incompetent. Who knew? For instance, we didn't know POTUS Trump would win the 2024 election. We didn't know he had coat-tails to swing Congress, either. Nobody said anything about the battleground states (esp PA) swinging to POTUS Trump during the election (nah...). We didn't know Biden was an incipient Cauliflower. We didn't know about the lawfare. We didn't know about the MSM lies. Nope, nobody knew any of that. Total shocker!!! Gosh by golly!

NG, one way or the other, accountability will be delivered. Whether it is a state courthouse, a bankruptcy court or some other means. None of those people will walk away unscathed. Nor should they.

[not guilty]

Thank you for admitting your ignorance, XY.

[Frank Drackman]

For someone who calls himself "not guilty" you sure act guilty.
I think in the Prosecutorial world it's called "Consciousness of Guilt".
Throwing Pasta against the wall? you're throwing something but it ain't Pasta.
Sorry, Queenie/Malika's already charging me too much rent for me to pay for a pad in your Dome also, can I put it on "Account"??
On "Account" of I won't be paying you,

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Notice how Trump supporters write with an ignorance of basic English rules of punctuation, capitalization and such. Trump loves the poorly educated!

[Mr. Bumble]

Definition of Argument from Repetition

Argument from repetition is a logical fallacy in which an argument or premise is stated and restated until no opposition cares to discuss it anymore. Since no one is speaking out against this claim, it appears as if everyone agrees with it.

The shoe fits...

[not guilty]

The shoe fits whom, Mr. Bumble?

[Malika the Maiz]

Bumble almost never knows what he’s talking about. He’s aptly named.

[Bwaaah]

Queenie, who drones on and on about Frank Drackman's punctuation. It's not humorous. It's not informative. It was uninteresting the first time, and no more interesting the fiftieth time.

At some level, it can be said that almost all regulars here are guilty of droning on (myself included). Still, not much of it is so inartful as, "You're punctuation is wrong!"

It surprises me that rather than pass this one over, you decided to stop and raise issue. Your use of a questioning voice doesn't obscure evidence of a nagging hair up your ass.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course Queenie, I was talking about you.

[Kazinski]

Malika, I put and Frank in the same bucket, almost completely substance free, mostly annoying, and occasionally, once in a while post something I don't regret reading. I have had you both muted at one time or another, usually after reading 20 comments back and forth between the two of you saying nothing more than some variation of "your momma".

And punctuation doesn't even come into it.

Quit worrying about the mote in Frank's eye.

[loki13]

"NG, one way or the other, accountability will be delivered. Whether it is a state courthouse, a bankruptcy court or some other means. None of those people will walk away unscathed. Nor should they."

I'm just going to point out, Commenter, that at this point ... all you want is blood. You don't care how it happens. You don't care if the people actually "did" something. You just want revenge for "wrongs." What type of wrongs?

Apparently, wrongs against Trump. Just a reminder that our government has always functioned (not always perfectly, but usually somewhat well) with the idea that it is a system, and that the government wasn't simply the embodiment of a person who could use it at his discretion to punish people he didn't like, and to extort from others.

[Malika the Maiz]

Wanting blood is kinda his thing. He wants the Palestinians eradicated, he wants protesters murdered, he wants all his political opponents jailed.

[David Nieporent]

All POTUS Trump supporters are stupid, shiftless, lazy and incompetent.

You forgot dishonest, corrupt, and evil.

[Mr. Bumble]

In other words, a basket of deplorables.

[Supremacy Claus]

100% the fault of the toxic lawyer profession that streeted him after age 16.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/intruder-stabs-woman-to-death-then-her-husband-shoots-and-kills-him-va-cops-say/ar-AA1K2Bya?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=6893a6f9f8864d14ae0584e5473350ad&ei=54

[Michael P]

You sealion shtick is overdone and has always been lame. It's even dumber that you complain when nobody indulges you by dancing to your ridiculous demands.

[not guilty]

Michael P, what you characterize as sealioning is my way of calling attention to the fact that there's no "there," there.

Do you recall who it was that said:

Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favorable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favorable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must, of course, be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_Nazi_Germany [ellipses in original]

Hint: his initials were A. H.

[LexAquilia]

It's all spelled out in the source documents and in the press releases from the DOJ.

You ask for more information than that from us, as if we have special information that you don't have access to yourself.

Really what's going on is a massive amount of cognitive cope, because you - especially you - have been so emotionally invested in these people that you can't mentally accept you've been bootlicking a bunch of corrupt crooks and shysters.

Cope.

[not guilty]

"It's all spelled out in the source documents and in the press releases from the DOJ."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, LexAquilia?

[JohnSmith97]

I guess no case can go anywhere unless the evidence is all shipped to NG and DN to review, but everyone with a brain knows how that would work out: (D): case dismissed (R): death penalty.

[David Nieporent]

It's all spelled out in the source documents and in the press releases from the DOJ.

No, it isn't. That's the whole point. There's no there there. Which is why you're doing exactly what I've called out repeatedly (including above, a few minutes ago): handwaving. If you had seen a source document that proved something, you'd have cited it. But you know there isn't one, so you just allude vaguely to "source documents."

"This person did something bad. Somewhere in this hundreds of pages of documents there's support for that claim" is either evidence that one hasn't read those documents or that one knows that there isn't any support in those documents.

[Michael P]

The lack of self-awareness would be ironic if it were not coming from a putative former criminal-defense attorney who just argued that federal prosecutors have some sort of atextual constitutional super-immunity to both criminal and administrative sanctions over abusive conduct, on top of their official immunity to civil suits.

[not guilty]

The role of a criminal defense attorney is to hold the accusers -- the prosecution -- to its burden of proof. To point out how the government's evidence doesn't make sense. As a colleague of mine once put it, "I've never gone to court with a guilty client. I have, however, left some of them there."

As for the interpretation of the Hatch Act, I have disclosed the authorities that I rely upon to show that federal prosecutors' selection of whom to prosecute and the strategic or tactical choices made during presentation of the government's case are simply not within the prohibitions of the statutory scheme. Have my critics cited contrary authorities?

No, I didn't think so.

[Michael P]

The plain language of the statute and of the regulation that elaborates on the statute encompass "federal prosecutors' selection of whom to prosecute and the strategic or tactical choices made during presentation of the government's case". You pretending otherwise, when even Martinned and DMN were telling you how nuts you were, just demonstrates invincible ignorance.

[not guilty]

"The plain language of the statute and of the regulation that elaborates on the statute encompass "federal prosecutors' selection of whom to prosecute and the strategic or tactical choices made during presentation of the government's case".

I have never and do not now dispute that federal prosecutors are subject to the Hatch Act restrictions. What language of 5 U.S.C. § 7321 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations indicate that a prosecutor's selection of whom to prosecute and the strategic or tactical choices made during presentation of the government's case constitutes taking “active part in political management or in a political campaign” within the meaning of § 7323(b)(4), which "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", Michael P?

."In ascertaining the plain meaning of the statute, the court must look to the particular statutory language at issue, as well as the language and design of the statute as a whole." K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988). "Statutory construction, however, is a holistic endeavor. A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme[.]" United Savings Association of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988).

[Michael P]

You might as well ask what language of section 7323 indicates that answering press questions -- including previous violations such as saying "mega MAGA Republican officials who don't believe in the rule of law" -- is taking "active part in political management or in a political campaign". You just refuse to acknowledge that the Hatch Act has very broad applicability.

[not guilty]

Michael P, is your vehicle also a Dodge?

[LexAquilia]

Oh don't forget when he also claimed that they have a "indica" of ethics and propriety.

Weird how that deference has since vanished.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Hint: his initials were A. H."

And we want Nuremberg trials for the Obamas, Clintons, and Team Biden.

[LexAquilia]

My favorite is when that jackass puts time limits on his responses.

Like he's the Professor, and we're his captured audience. The arrogance.

The conspirators seem to be on the path to accountability.

[Malika the Maiz]

They’re not going to answer that because they can’t and it doesn’t matter, the Konservative Keyboard Kommandoes here are following their orders to talk about these things to deflect from Trump’s increasingly implicating statements and actions re Epstein.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's the Clintons and Obamas who need to worry about Epstein.

And I wonder if Hillary went to the island and what she might have done with little boys, or perhaps girls...

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"It's the Clintons and Obamas who need to worry about Epstein."

Is it?

According to some folks around here, it's logically impossible for the files in the government's possession to contain incriminating information about Trump as any of that information would necessarily have been released during Democratic administrations. If that is so, then isn't it also true that any information damning of the Clinton's would necessarily have been released during one of the Trump administrations?

I think that we do know some things. Lots of people, including Trump and the Clintons, associated with Epstein when they should have known better. There is no evidence publicly available that implicates that either Trump or the Clintons participated in any of Epstein's crimes. Trump had a very long and close association with Epstein and there are indications that he should have, at least, had suspicions, particularly after Epstein poached Virginia Giuffre at Mara Lago.

[Estragon]

“Trump had a very long and close association with Epstein and there are indications that he should have, at least, had suspicions, particularly after Epstein poached Virginia Giuffre at Mara Lago.”

It’s hard to believe but Trumps actual operative story right now is that he knew Giuffre was “stolen” by Epstein, told him not to do it again at MAL (but elsewhere is fine??) and then barred him after Epstein tried to do it again to the daughter of a member. This last part of the story has actually been out there for years. It’s strongly suggestive that— at best— he knew sex slavers were recruiting at MAL and did nothing about it.

One key thing to remember here is that they want to obscure the fact that it was MAXWELL who recruited these girls into sex slavery. She was the member of MAL. And we have multiple accounts from victims describing her as worse than Epstein in many ways.

Having this all be about Epstein poaching serves to lay the groundwork for the pardon of Maxwell that is coming down the pipe, even though she was an extremely bad— maybe even worse— actor in this sorry affair.

For those of you who haven’t seen it I cannot recommend enough this CNN interview with the family of Ms Giuffre. She was taken by a predator at Donald’s club. Searing stuff.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUEqfG0IkY

[Estragon]

“actual operative story”

And this story is so stupid and damaging that they are having a dinner party at Vance’s house tonight to figure out what to do next!

Trump is losing it— he doesn’t have the filter he once did. Plus there isn’t enough Bondo in the world to cover up that rotting right hand. Something’s up with him.

[Kazinski]

It would be interesting to find out how a teenaged Virginia Giuffre came to be working at Mar-a-Lago.

Oh, we actually know that, her father who worked there as a maintenance supervisor got her the job.

Virginia Giuffre also said in a deposition that she has no information about Trump behaving inappropriately or flirting with her, or anyone else.

And Maxwell herself said she had absolutely no information on Trump acting inappropriately, in her interview with the DOJ.

https://x.com/rawsalerts/status/1953110267002335298

[Estragon]

You should take a good long look at yourself in the mirror before defending what is going on here. I cannot wait to hear what you have to say when Ms Maxwell is released. Because that is coming. She is going to live out her days on the French Riveria and you will have defended it.

[Riva]

NG, I didn’t specifically reference the thug Smith in reference to other criminal investigations, you did. I simply noted other criminal investigations. The recent criminal referral to the DOJ stems from the report released by Tulsi in July relating to the weaponization of intelligence to undermine the Trump campaign and presidency. That would be the evidence you and other hack media pretend doesn’t exist. We’ll see if a Grand Jury agrees with you.

Now, it may very well be Smith is implicated as part of an ongoing coverup or on other charges, as well as Michael Colangelo (the #3 Biden DOJ guy who quit his office to take a job a new law graduate would take to prosecute President Trump under the fat slob Bragg) and Nathan Wade (Fanni’s boyfriend and family lawyer she named as special counsel, who happened to bill time for several hours meeting at the WH). Who knows? I would suggest all lawfare slime lawyer up.

[not guilty]

Riva, in responding to my original post about the investigation of Jack Smith in regard to the Hatch Act, your words were:

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.

No matter whether Jack Smith is alleged to be a conspirator or not, my questions about the conspiracy charge you fantasize about remain germane:

(1) Who are the 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?

I would also ask as to item (3), what authority existing at the time of the offense indicates that the right(s) intended to be violated were clearly established as that phrase is used in United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997)?

Please stop dancing around the maypole and support your speculative claims. Or in the alternative, acknowledge that you are unable to do so and shut your pie hole.

[Riva]

You misrepresented my comment and won’t honestly acknowledge your own distortion. But more to the point, you ignore the volume of recently declassified information, although I have repeatedly provided links. And I, and others, have gone over potentially charges many time. You pretend to forget that too. Now with a Grand Jury, we’ll have real charges and won’t have to play these stupid games anymore. In the meantime, with all due respect, shut your pie hole and review the evidence before posting another jackass comment.

[not guilty]

I "misrepresented [your] comment and won’t honestly acknowledge [my] own distortion" by quoting your comment verbatim??

That is ridiculous.

You haven't done a damn thing so far as identifying how the government can prove up a conspiracy charge against Barack Obama, Jack Smith, "Michael" Colangelo -- I surmise that you meant Matthew Colangelo -- Nathan Wade or any other person. To the extent you claim to have done so, you are simply lying.

"Now with a Grand Jury, we’ll have real charges and won’t have to play these stupid games anymore."

Uh, John Durham had access to grand juries and ample prosecutorial resources. His work yielded a single guilty plea on a collateral matter and one acquittal by a jury.

As I have said, the burden of proof can be a bitch.

[tylertusta]

In the past I've posited that the goal was to violate Trump and Page's 4th Amendment right to privacy because Trump was running for President. The goal was to dig up dirt on Trump and then release it to the public to destroy him.

However, after the recent document releases under the current Trump administration, I've become increasingly convinced that obstruction of Congressional proceedings was the goal. Senior officials in the Obama administration got caught spying on a Presidential campaign and then attempted to cover it up by concealing documents from Congress. Funnily enough, these notional violations would be under 18 USC § 1512(c)(2) and (k).

Whether overt acts that furthered the conspiracy reset the statute of limitations is something that will have to be found during an investigation. I think there's enough in what's been publicly released to warrant an investigation to find out for sure.

[Malika the Maiz]

Stop beclowning yourself. It’s one thing to be foolish but another to let Tulsi freaking Gabbard make you a fool.

When Trump showed up with Paul Mannafort as his campaign manager that alone was enough to put our officials in a very tough spot: you shouldn’t use the office against political opponents (like Trump tried in his Zelensky call) but you don’t want foreign influence in a major candidate.

[tylertusta]

Stop beclowning yourself

Pot, meet kettle.

The rest of your comment is yawn-worthy.

[not guilty]

You posit that a candidate for president has a Fourth Amendment right to privacy stemming from his status as a candidate? Really??

I will give you props for attempting to address questions from which your fellow MAGAts have scurried away from.

"However, after the recent document releases under the current Trump administration, I've become increasingly convinced that obstruction of Congressional proceedings was the goal. Senior officials in the Obama administration got caught spying on a Presidential campaign and then attempted to cover it up by concealing documents from Congress. Funnily enough, these notional violations would be under 18 USC § 1512(c)(2) and (k)."

To what particular official proceeding of Congress do you refer?

What document(s) do you posit were concealed, and by whom?

Tulsi Gabbard has fecklessly alleged a "treasonous conspiracy" involving President Obama. Never mind that that simply didn't happen, how do you surmise the Department of Justice would adduce admissible evidence against the former president? The POTUS consulting with intelligence officials is undoubtedly an official act within the meaning of Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024). Under that execrable decision, evidence of any such discussions are inadmissible in a criminal prosecution of a former president.

It looks like the Trumpian clowns are hoist with their own petard. W. Shakespeare, Hamlet, act 3, scene 4.

[tylertusta]

I will give you props for attempting to address questions from which your fellow MAGAts have scurried away from.

A rare compliment from you.

You posit that a candidate for president has a Fourth Amendment right to privacy stemming from his status as a candidate?

No, I never said that. I said that he was targeted because he was a presidential candidate. He still had a 4th Amendment right to privacy as a private citizen. For this conversation, I am excluding things like FEC reporting requirements and focusing on internal communications within the campaign and with his friends, colleagues, and family members outside of the Trump campaign.

But beyond being a Presidential candidate- which I hope that our intelligence agencies don't try to surveil regularly- I think Trump was targeted because people in the Obama government didn't like him and the proposed policies of then-presidential candidate Trump.

As for which: there's much to dislike about Donald Trump. Take your pick.

To what particular official proceeding of Congress do you refer?

Congressional oversight proceedings of executive agencies.

What document(s) do you posit were concealed, and by whom?

Congressional Republicans put out subpoenas all the way back in 2017 that were only partly fulfilled in 2018. Evidently not everything was given to Congress.

For example, the IC initially gave Congress two versions of the ICA appendix regarding Russiagate. The IC also created a third version that was not given to Congress until years later (2020 at the earliest), and that third version significantly altered the meaning of the assessment from "Russia did a lot of bad stuff" to "Russia did some bad stuff, but also probably didn't do a lot of what we said in the first two versions."

Other things may have been done to prevent Congressional oversight, such as Mueller's team wiping their phones and their putting their files into "Prohibited Access" in the FBI file system. If it was done so they would not turn up on electronic searches for subpoenas, then that would run afoul of 1512.

Never mind that that simply didn't happen, how do you surmise the Department of Justice would adduce admissible evidence against the former president?

I personally don't care much about what Tulsi Gabbard has to say about much of anything, really.

You may recall that we've discussed this before: I'm of the opinion that Obama- if he was part of a conspiracy- was immune for any acts during his Presidency and was effectively automatically exited from any conspiracy upon January 20, 2017. I am unaware of any instance where Obama would have rejoined a conspiracy to conceal materials and frustrate Congressional oversight.

Others think that Obama didn't automatically withdraw and thus any overt act to conceal from Congress might make him personally culpable for a conspiracy and overt acts that occurred after his tenure as President.

I know you take a different view entirely, so let's just leave it at that.

It looks like the Trumpian clowns are hoist with their own petard. W. Shakespeare, Hamlet, act 3, scene 4.

Or, alternatively, people who defend the leftist narrative of the 2016-2017 surveillance of Trump & Co should be mindful that "all that glisters is not gold." W. Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, Act 2, Scene 7.

[David Nieporent]

But beyond being a Presidential candidate- which I hope that our intelligence agencies don't try to surveil regularly- I think Trump was targeted because people in the Obama government didn't like him and the proposed policies of then-presidential candidate Trump.

That's absurd. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Donald Trump was pure as the driven snow, and was just the unluckiest SOB in history to always be in the wrong place at the wrong time with poorly chosen associates, there was more smoke than generated by a Canadian wildfire. It would have been an utter dereliction of duty by our law enforcement and intelligence apparatus not to investigate Russian efforts and Trump's seeming association with them.

that third version significantly altered the meaning of the assessment from "Russia did a lot of bad stuff" to "Russia did some bad stuff, but also probably didn't do a lot of what we said in the first two versions."

No, it didn't. Again, that's just Gabbard spin. The IC did not change its assessment of what Russia did. Gabbard just tried to trick people into thinking it did, by conflating different forms of Russian efforts.

[tylertusta]

It would have been an utter dereliction of duty by our law enforcement and intelligence apparatus not to investigate Russian efforts and Trump's seeming association with them.

I missed the part of the 4th Amendment where federal police get to lie to a court in order to obtain PC. "Because we really really really want to know" is a bullshit excuse if it had happened to any of your clients.

And you know it's bullshit, too.

Again, that's just Gabbard spin. The IC did not change its assessment of what Russia did.

CIA's own analysts disputed the conclusion that Putin wanted Trump to win. That puts Russia's actions in a very different context than what was initially given to Congress and the public.

[not guilty]

Congressional Republicans put out subpoenas all the way back in 2017 that were only partly fulfilled in 2018. Evidently not everything was given to Congress.

For example, the IC initially gave Congress two versions of the ICA appendix regarding Russiagate. The IC also created a third version that was not given to Congress until years later (2020 at the earliest), and that third version significantly altered the meaning of the assessment from "Russia did a lot of bad stuff" to "Russia did some bad stuff, but also probably didn't do a lot of what we said in the first two versions."

Tylertusta, you conspicuously don't identify any overt acts in furtherance of your imagined conspiracy which have occurred since August 2020. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a).

Giving a revised report to Congress, even if that occurred within the past five years, is certainly not "in furtherance" of a supposed antecedent conspiracy. If anything, such a move would be antithetical to achieving any conspiratorial objective.

[David Nieporent]

Senior officials in the Obama administration got caught spying on a Presidential campaign

They did? When? Even if surveillance pursuant to a court-issued warrant could be legitimately described as "spying," the only such happened to a guy who wasn't working for the campaign.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, now we're pretending FISA warrants don't involve "hops"?

[tylertusta]

David evidently uses the Narcissists's Prayer as checklist:

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.

[David Nieporent]

You don't understand what that means.

[David Nieporent]

Ken White (Popehat) used to spend a large chunk of his time online discussing defamation cases. (Not in a specifically political context, though of course those too.) And he would routinely point out that one hallmark of legal thuggery was when someone sent an utterly vague cease & desist letter. Legitimate demands for retractions look like this: "On such-and-such date, you said/wrote A, B, and C about me. This is defamatory, because each of those things are untrue. I never said/did that. I actually said/did D and E. Please retract/stop saying this, to avoid legal action." Thuggery — a pure attempt to intimidate someone into shutting up — looks like this: "The stuff you've said about me is lies. Admit you're a liar or I'll sue you." In other words, the idea is not to set the record straight; it's to be deliberately vague so the other person will be too frightened to talk about you at all.

I bring this up because all the claims of "perjury" that MAGA keep raising sound like the second type. They never point to a specific statement by Obama/Biden/Clapper/Hillary/etc. that's false; they just vaguely gesture towards someone's testimony.

[Bored Lawyer]

Silly me. I thought the purpose of a grand jury investigation is to see whether a crime was committed, and if so by whom and what crime. Now I learn that unless the prosecutor can lay out a case in minute detail, an investigation cannot even be started.

Sure an interesting way to run a criminal justice system.

[Nelson]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you have to have some basis to try to get an indictment before you go to a grand jury. Not after.

[David Nieporent]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you have to have some basis to try to get an indictment before you go to a grand jury. Not after.

In this, you are mistaken. To quote SCOTUS: "the Grand Jury [] does not depend on a case or controversy for power to get evidence but can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not." United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 US 632, 642-43 (1950) (Emphasis added.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hey NG --- last I heard, perjury is still a crime.
Even lying under oath to a Congressional Committee...

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2, I am inquiring about the MAGAt commenters glibly claim to be conspiracy offenses.

While perjury is a substantive crime rather than an inchoate one. who do you contend has committed perjury? Before what tribunal? As to what material matter?

[LexAquilia]

Rawr goes the sea lion!

[not guilty]

Still unwilling to admit your ignorance, eh?

[Michael P]

He is pointing out your apparently feigned ignorance of the well-publicized evidence. I pointed you at some of it yesterday.

[not guilty]

"He is pointing out your apparently feigned ignorance of the well-publicized evidence. I pointed you at some of it yesterday."

Like hell you did, Michael P.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, it's not just ignorance, it's invincible ignorance.

[not guilty]

How do you surmise that that link supports your assertion, Brett?

[Brett Bellmore]

You didn't think it was enough evidence, but he DID point you at it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

So anti-racism is the real racism, and lying is the real truth?

Or are we merely expected to revert to, "alternative reality?"

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, "anti-racism" is real racism, even if it's not the only real racism.

[David Nieporent]

That doesn’t count as pointing to evidence.

Michael P: "I think that Obama killed JFK."
NG: "Do you have any evidence of that?"
Michael P: "Check the JFK files."

As I mentioned above, if someone is being accused of perjury, the accuser needs to identify a specific statement (or multiple such) that meets the criteria of being false, knowingly so, and under oath. At this point we're not even getting to the question of whether there's any proof a specific statement was false, because no specific statement has been identified..

[Malika the Maiz]

From Mikie P’s link:

The announcement, which came in an ambiguous, bare-bones statement on the department’s website

Lol

[LexAquilia]

Also

Mr. Gaetz: Just so the committee fully understands how you think about the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation, would you consider the Steele Dossier a Russian information operation?

Mr. Clapper: Could have been, yes. That's why we didn't use it in our intelligence community assessment.

---
Yikes, that sure looks like perjury now.

[Michael P]

It won't help. He knows there are dozens of statements like that. He doesn't care.

[not guilty]

The burden pf persuasion is on the accuser, doofus.

"Could have been" is weasel words. How does the statement that Michael P purports to quote evince a conspiratorial agreement with any other person(s)?

Who, if anyone, were the other conspirator(s)?

What was the object of the conspiracy?

When was the conspiratorial agreement formed?

[Brett Bellmore]

The "could have been" wouldn't be the perjury here. It would be the "we didn't use it".

But you should have known that already.

[Michael P]

Pointing out the obvious won't help. He knows there are dozens of statements like that. He doesn't care. He doesn't even engage with the fact that the perjury was emphasized in the comment he quoted from. He was just trying to distract with yet another red herring.

[LexAquilia]

I even bolded it for him. lol, he's worse than Sarcastr0 or DN. At least they don't try to act like serious people.

[not guilty]

Running away from my questions, Brett?

Why am I unsurprised?

As to the substantive offense of perjury. what is the alleged falsity, and what is the materiality thereof?

More importantly, as to any allegation of conspiracy, who, if anyone, were the other conspirator(s)? What was the object of the conspiracy? When was the conspiratorial agreement formed?

What conspiracy statute do you claim was violated?

[Michael P]

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

[Sarcastr0]

Congrats on learning the new term.

Alas for you, it does not apply to requiring posters to back up their breezy legal assertions that the other side are criminals.

[not guilty]

Southern folk wisdom teaches that the hit dog hollers.

Michael P, George Orwell said that "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were instinctively, to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink."

An insincere accusation of "sealioning" has become one such idiom.

In fact, I don't give a damn about politesse. I will call out ignorance, hypocrisy and fabrication when I see it. The same is true of an abject failure to offer evidence in support of an unfounded accusation.

[LexAquilia]

Mr. Gaetz: Just so the committee fully understands how you think about the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation, would you consider the Steele Dossier a Russian information operation?

Mr. Clapper: Could have been, yes. That's why we didn't use it in our intelligence community assessment.

Is the bolded statement true or false, ng?

Only answer that question. Do not obfuscate, deflect, or ignore. You have 60 minutes.

[not guilty]

"Is the bolded statement true or false, ng?"

I don't claim to know.

That is why I am not accusing Mr. Clapper of perjury.

Perjury is not an easy allegation to prove. The applicable federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § , provides:

Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

The government must prove the witness's willful intent to provide false testimony. "A witness testifying under oath or affirmation violates this statute if she gives false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory." United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94-95 (1993). The government must demonstrate the defendant voluntarily made the false statement with knowledge of its falsity. If the defendant believed his or her statement to be true when it was made, even though it was false, this essential element will not have been proven. When George Costanza said "It's not a lie if you believe it," the Seinfeld writers intended to be humorous, but it illustrates the difficulty of proving an accused person's subjective state of mind.

The false statement must be material to the proceedings. A false statement is material if it has "a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed." Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988). "[I]n order to constitute 'the crime of willful and corrupt perjury' the false statement "must be in some point material to the question in dispute; for if it only be in some trifling collateral circumstance, to which no regard is paid," it is not punishable." Ibid., quoting 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *137.

Once again, perjury under § 1621 and conspiracy under any federal statute are separate and distinct offenses. Conspiracy requires proof of additional elements. To the extent that the MAGAts seek to implicate President Obama, he is not vicariously liable for any crimes his underlings may have committed, and kvetching "beige man bad" doesn't feed the bulldog.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Perjury is not an easy allegation to prove. "

In this case, Mr. Clapper asserted that they didn't use the dossier in their intelligence community assessment. It was in fact used, so his defense would be, what? That he forgot, or didn't know in the first place?

The problem with that defense is that Mr. Clapper was responsible for it being used; Together with Brennan he overrode intelligence community opposition to using it. So persuading a court that he didn't know it had been used would be a real stretch.

[LexAquilia]

>I don't claim to know.

You still don't claim to know even after declassifications show it was used and you've been provided references, or instructions how to read them for yourself.

That's because you refuse to accept any evidence provided while you stubbornly insist others keep providing it to you.

[Michael P]

He doesn't "claim to know". But he also doesn't claim to not know. Typical.

[not guilty]

To correct a typo upthread, it should be 18 U.S.C. § 1621.

I inadvertently omitted the section number.

[not guilty]

Lex Aquila. Michael P and Brett, the burden of proof can be a bitch.

[Malika the Maiz]

“In this case, Mr. Clapper asserted that they didn't use the dossier in their intelligence community assessment. It was in fact used, so his defense would be, what? That he forgot, or didn't know in the first place?”

If I were his lawyer I might argue about the meaning of “use” here. Maybe he meant “it alerted us to an idea we then investigated independently,” that might not be used.

[Mr. Bumble]

Ah, the Clinton defense.

[Michael P]

I don't think either Clinton ever went quite so far as to deny the nose on their face in a bad-faith "burden of proof" stunt.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not saying it would be impossible to come up with SOME kind of defense, though it might not persuade a judge. (A DC jury, though? He'd probably be acquitted in minutes.)

I'm saying it's quite easy to come up with a perfectly legit case for a perjury prosecution.

[Michael P]

To preempt any nit-pickers, I should have said that I don't think that either Clinton went so far as to disclaim knowledge of the nose on their face, etc.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

" (A DC jury, though? He'd probably be acquitted in minutes.)"

Jury nullification. That's the way you think it should be, right? Why should we expect that juries be bound by either the law or the facts?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I DO think that if you're going to have a jury system, you need to allow for jury nullification. Even if I don't like what the jury decides to nullify in any given case.

I mean, do you only support having elections so long as your party wins?

The problem here isn't jury nullification, it's that cases involving the federal government automatically get heard in a district that is, politically, utterly unrepresentative of the nation as a whole.

Fortunately, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, gives us a solution to that: "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

Since DC is not a state, Congress can enact a law directing that juries for DC district trials be drawn from a larger, more representative area.

[David Nieporent]

Mr. Clapper: Could have been, yes. That's why we didn't use it in our intelligence community assessment.

Is the bolded statement true or false, ng?

Based on the released assessment, it's true. They mentioned it in the assessment, but kept it in the appendix because they weren't relying on it.

[Life of Brian]

They mentioned it in the assessment, but kept it in the appendix because they weren't relying on it.

Ah, the old "it depends on what the meaning of 'use' is" fallback.

I can't wait for your super-duper-carefully calibrated take on why in the world Brennan would dig in his heels and refuse to remove something from the assessment "they weren't relying on."

[David Nieporent]

Ah, the old "it depends on what the meaning of 'use' is" fallback.

Whether something is perjury depends on whether it is true, which indeed depends on the specific words uttered and the meaning of those words, yes.

[Life of Brian]

Wow, you couldn't run away from that steaming pile any faster, could you? "We included it in the assessment and in fact wouldn't remove it when asked, but by cracky we didn't USE it...."

[David Nieporent]

"Run away from?" Is that another phrase that you're inventing your own definition of?

[Life of Brian]

Is that another phrase that you're inventing your own definition of?

Ah, apparently it's projection day.

In any event, since supposedly against all appearances to the contrary you're NOT running away from it, pray do explain to the class what secret definition you ascribe to "use in the assessment" that somehow would plausibly exclude "deliberately choose to include in the assessment and fight tooth and nail against removing."

[jay.tee]

Good lord man, they’ve been out and proud with their perjury! How could you not have seen it?

For example, here’s two instances of just Brennan:
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

And yes, at least the last example is firmly within the statute of limitations.

[David Nieporent]

That is two instances of Brennan testifying, not two instances of Brennan committing perjury.

[jay.tee]

JORDAN: Who’d you learn it from? How’d you learn about the dossier in December?
BRENNAN: I received a copy of it from the FBI when they were wanting to have a summary of that document put into the — or, attached to the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done.
This was before Jim Comey — when we went to Trump Tower and briefed Donald Trump, when Jim Comey was going to talk to Donald Trump about the contents of that dossier.
And the CIA was very much opposed to having any reference or inclusion of the Steele dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment. And so they sent over a copy of the dossier to say that this was going to be separate from the rest of that assessment. And that’s when the CIA was given formal access to it.

Two easily discernible lies there:
1) “the CIA was very much opposed to having any reference or inclusion of the Steele dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment”

Brennan, despite repeated protests from the analysts, overruled everyone to include the dossier. When he was advised the dossier was false and possibly Russian intelligence, he remarked “yes, but it rings true.”

2) “was going to be separate from the rest of that assessment”

It was one of the four pieces of information cited, all of them outright false or twisted beyond original meaning, used to support the accusation that Russia aimed to interfere in the 2016 election to help Trump.

[David Nieporent]

Brennan, despite repeated protests from the analysts, overruled everyone to include the dossier. When he was advised the dossier was false and possibly Russian intelligence, he remarked “yes, but it rings true.”

Did he actually make that remark? Have you seen a video, or audio, or transcript, or email, where he said that?

[jb]

Remember when the Russia investigation was actually happening and it was declared not to have turned up anything because the only convictions Muller got was for financial crimes and perjury?

Seems weird to try to can the whole thing a criminal conspiracy and then turn around and say that the only plausible crime involved in that conspiracy was perjury.

[jay.tee]

Not sure I understand, jb. Mueller & Co were only focused on the actions Trump and his cronies, not the origins of RussiaGate.

[jb]

My point is that the MAGA folks apparently think perjury is no big deal when their team does it, but its treason if the other team does it.

[jay.tee]

Got it. I agree - government officials whether Republican, Democrat, or nominally nonpartisan should be held accountable. They skate, typically consequence free.

And I agree nothing revealed so far seems to justify a charge of treason.

[John F. Carr]

Feminists declare victory as Chile's birth rate drops to half of replacement rate.

Antonia Orellana, the minister of women and gender equity in Chile's progressive government, said rapid changes playing out in Chilean society are challenging but should be viewed less as a crisis and more as the result of hard-won progress.
"We have to discuss this [demographic shift] as a government who has a commitment with the feminist ideas," Orellana told NPR. "We have now more women studying in higher education, technical [schools] and universities, than ever. And we have almost erased the teen pregnancy within the last 20 years."

https://www.npr.org/2025/08/03/nx-s1-5476032/chiles-plunging-birth-rate-may-foreshadow-future-in-u-s

[Dr. Ed 2]

30-40 years from now, as this cadre of women enter old age, which women will have sons to look after them and protect them, and which ones won't....

[Dr. Ed 2]

And one other thing -- there is no statute of limitations for trials in the court of public opinion.

Remember that Richard Milhause Nixon -- who was never even formally charged with any crime, let alone convicted of one, is the only former President in memory to not lie in state in DC.

Appearing to be guilty without the opportunity of a trial to clear one's name will constitute punishment. It isn't libelous to say that the SOL is the only reason the person wasn't tried. And it will be the opposite of saying that Trump is a felon.

[not guilty]

Uh, Prick Nixon (whose middle name is not Milhause) didn't have to accept the damn pardon, and he didn't have to resign to avoid impeachment by the House and a trial by the Senate.

He had all the opportunity in the world to clear his name. He ran away from each such opportunity like a scalded dog.

[Frank Drackman]

Before William Juffuhson Clinton took Orifice in 1993, and realized he was a mediocre Governor from a mediocre Southern state, who did he call to get Foreign Policy Advice?
Hint: it wasn't Jimmuh Cartuh, an even more mediocre Governor from a not quite as mediocre Southern state (GA was pretty mediocre when Jimmuh was running it)
It was Tricky Penis Milhouse, who the closest he came to being a Governor was getting trounced in the 1962 CA Goober-natorial Erection, the "Fake News" of the time even ran a Special Program "The Political Obituary of Richard Nixon"
6 years later he beats Humbert Humphrey (Humphrey carried TX, Nixon carried CA, how times have changed) Humphrey, a Politician so crooked he had to have Richard Daley's SS crack heads outside the Convention Hall,
10 years later he carries 49 of Barry Hussein's 57 states, of course it was against George McGovern, who sucked so bad his VP went off to get Electric Shock Therapy, and couldn't even carry his home state of SD.

Frank

[tylertusta]

I thought that there was no criminal case in which Nixon had the opportunity to refuse the pardon.

[not guilty]

The pardon was preemptive in nature, The relevant text stated:

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

https://watergate.info/1974/09/08/text-of-ford-pardon-proclamation.html/

Nixon could have declined the pardon, in which case he in all likelihood would have been indicted by a grand jury (which had previously named him as an unindicted co-conspirator with other Defendants) and stood trial.

[tylertusta]

I don't agree. Pardons have to be presented in court in the course of a criminal case to have legal effect.

Nixon can deny a pardon in public but that has no legal meaning.

[Brett Bellmore]

I should think a prosecutor deciding that it's not worth going to a grand jury could be considered "legal effect".

[not guilty]

"Nixon can deny a pardon in public but that has no legal meaning."

Au contraire. If Nixon had declined the pardon, he could have been indicted, tried and convicted. After which the President could again have pardoned him.

[tylertusta]

The only process I'm aware of for declining a pardon is through a court of law. If there's another process, could you please provide a citation?

[Krayt]

And questioning why a prosecutor is wasting time when he knows there's a pardon waiting is something one would demand the prosecutor explain.

Anyway, a pardon obviates any government downsides, which should, logically, include new prosecutions for the pardoned crime.

[not guilty]

"30-40 years from now, as this cadre of women enter old age, which women will have sons to look after them and protect them, and which ones won't...."

Uh, the burden of looking after aging parents falls disproportionately on adult daughters.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They won't have adult daughters either, but I meant physically protect from street crime.

[David Nieporent]

I know that Amherst is a crime-ridden hellhole much like Caracas, but most elderly women in the rest of the United States do not rely on their sons physically protecting them from street crime to keep them safe.

[Malika the Maiz]

The idea that individuals have some duty to reproduce is pretty terrible.

[John F. Carr]

There are lots of jobs we want done that we don't want to force people to do.

The governor of Massachusetts just signed a bill increasing pay for public defenders. Most of them are on strike for higher pay. We don't force them to work. We have to make it worth their while.

On the other hand we do require people to shovel public sidewalks in front of their houses.

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you think government should be involved in such personal decisions as whether to have a kid or not?

[John F. Carr]

In America we've already decided "yes" and we're arguing about how much the incentive should be.

[not guilty]

It wasn't the public that decided that. It was five papists and one former papist in black robes that decided that government should be involved in that decision.

[William of Brooklyn]

NG --
To be accurate, Roe v Wade was decided by seven people in robes, but AT NO TIME was the government removed (under the Constitution and laws) from the power related to the decision process. Rather, the government had a range of powers that were scaled by the trimester of the pregnancy. Government power was also preserved in all subsequent decisions regarding pregnancy and abortion (i.e., Planned Parenthood v Casey, et al.). One can disagree, of course, that that is a valid governmental power. But let's reflect the history accurately.

[Bob from Ohio]

"papists and one former papist"

"The words Popery (adjective Popish) and Papism (adjective Papist, also used to refer to an individual) are mainly historical pejorative words in the English language for Roman Catholicism" wikipedia

Showing your bigotry there ng

[not guilty]

I make no apologies for condemning the Roman Catholic Church's intrusion into the processes of American government. The fruits of that vile institution are inquisition, corruption, misogyny and pederasty.

While there are virtuous individual Catholics, the collective body is evil.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

The problem is not that you condemn "evil", it is that by using the term "papist" you are accusing the Catholic justices (five of them) of divided loyalties, of skewing the decision making process based upon orders from the Vatican.

[not guilty]

Actually I didn't suggest divided loyalties or taking orders from the Vatican. I do however suspect that the religious sensibilities of five of the six Catholic justices gives context to their jurisprudence regarding the scope of what governmental interference in people's lives regarding sex and reproduction they regard as desirable.

And anyone who would take advice on sex from an institution that has paid out billions of dollars in settlements and judgments because it was unwilling to keep its priests out of its parishioners' children is devoid of either morality or common sense.

[Sarcastr0]

I hadn’t heard it was a slur but the term papist does make you sound like a 17th century demagogue.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"I hadn’t heard it was a slur but the term papist does make you sound like a 17th century demagogue."

It was a common slur in the 1960 presidential race used to denigrate Kennedy as a candidate. The allegation was quite explicit, that Kennedy would be taking orders from the Pope. How could a Catholic be expected to resist the command of he who is infallible?

Of course, this was rank anti-Catholic bigotry. That's why I found the attitude of some Catholics about Biden's position on abortion rights rather weird. It's my understanding that some in the Catholic hierarchy would deny him communion and that many Catholics called for his excommunication. Looks like an unsavory attempt to enforce Papism.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Here is the AI overview that google spits out when I search for Papist. It is how I have understood the term to be used since I was a child:

"A papist is an outdated and derogatory term for a Roman Catholic, historically used by those who opposed the Catholic Church. It implies that Catholics are overly devoted to the Pope and his authority, sometimes to the point of prioritizing it over other allegiances. The term is rooted in the Latin word "papa," meaning pope, and carries a historical context of religious and political conflict, particularly during the Reformation:

[John F. Carr]

I wasn't even thinking of abortion. There are many policies that aim to subsidize childbirth and children. Parental leave laws and tax deductions, for example. The law that the Biden administration construed to require employers to accomodate abortions was originally meant to make it easier for pregnant women to go to medical appointments.

[William of Brooklyn]

Yes, many nations do everything in their power to support maternity, and that is a good thing, so long as pregnancy is neither forced upon the unwilling nor forbidden à la Chine. What some of these discussions ignore, however, is how tied these government programs are to benefit-related pyramid schemes, which are dependent on ever-growing younger, working populations to cover the cost of the elderly or otherwise infirm. If government benefits were properly funded by working people, for themselves, throughout their working life, then birthrates would be irrelevant, and of course large-scale immigration would be unnecessary.

[Brett Bellmore]

While there's some truth to what you're saying, you're overlooking something important.

Let's say that, tomorrow, the birth rate dropped to zero. But, no worry, you're saving more than enough to support you in your old age. when you get old, who are you going to pay that money to, to get goods and services? Other retired geezers?

So long as people age and die, it's actually important that people continue to have children, regardless of saving rates.

[David Nieporent]

But, no worry, you're saving more than enough to support you in your old age. when you get old, who are you going to pay that money to, to get goods and services? Other retired geezers?

Robots?

[Brett Bellmore]

Ideally, sure. But that's kind of like saying, "Sure, the engine just conked out, and we're flying over open ocean, but we'll invent and build a new engine before we hit the water."

Maybe you will, maybe you won't.

[bernard11]

And who will design, build, and sell these robots? More robots?

Will it be robots all the way down?

[Malika the Maiz]

I asked if you think that should be a government thing.

Hitler and Stalin used to give medals to women who had lots of kids.

[jay.tee]

We’ve had tax policies to encourage just that for decades. So yes, “we” through our duly elected representatives believe government should encourage it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

John, I am of the opinion that if one wishes to be an attorney, one should be obligated to serve as a public defender FOR FREE a certain number of hours per year, or -- like the Civil War Draft -- pay for someone else to do so.

It is a privilege to have a bar card, and if you want to make six figures a year as a lawyer, you get to spend three weeks a year as an unpaid bar advocate. Or pay (out of your own pocket) enough to make it worthwhile for someone else to do it for you.

Or don't be a lawyer...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Malika, it has long been established that society can draft individuals for up to 4 years (WWII) and subject them to risk of injury and death against their will. Why can't we do the same thing to facilitate reproduction?

Forcibly inseminate women and restrict their liberty as they bear the resulting children. That would only be a year, but it could be extended to two years as they cared for the children, theirs and others.

How is this any different from requiring someone to go to Vietnam?
And if that was Constitutional, why wouldn't this be?

[Swede425]

The future belongs to those who show up for it.
If feminists/libs don't want kids, I'm here for it.
It's one of the reasons they fight so damn hard for public schools.
They're not having kids of their own, so they go after yours.
It's why they shit themselves over school vouchers.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Later today, some of the fugitive Texas Democrats will be on Eldredge Gerry's old stomping grounds, celebrating Gerrymandering.

Assuming that it could be done without the Massachusetts authorities noticing, exactly what would prevent a Texas bounty hunter from physically grabbing a half dozen of them and showing up in Austin with them next Monday morning?

Bounty hunters don't have to go through state extradition hearings -- they just kidnap and transport. So wouldn't the same rules apply here?

[John F. Carr]

Texas would be obliged to extradite the kidnappers on demand by Massachusetts. Massachusetts would not recognize "denying Republicans a quorum" as an excuse for kidnapping. The typical bounty hunter case has the fugitive agreeing to be returned home as a condition of bail. No bail here. Not even an extradition request.

If the Texas politicians fled to a red state they might be at risk of being returned home.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But one point -- the TX legislators arguably made the same agreement that the bailee did when they took their oath of office.

If they can be arrested in Texas for not showing up, how is that different from agreeing to being grabbed for not showing up for a court hearing?

And who is going to MAKE Texas extradite people whom Texas may not even have bothered to identify.

[John F. Carr]

The "arguably" part is why they shouldn't flee to a red state.

Bounty hunters are not going to be able to anonymously remove the Texas politicians from Massachusetts. Massachusetts will have some clue who to charge. The DA might throw in a conspiracy charge against some top Texas politicians in retaliation. Governor Abbott can come to Massachusetts to defend himself against a charge punishable by life in prison. Actual innocence is not a defense to extradition.

[Frank Drackman]

You obviously have never seen an episode of "Dog the Bounty Hunter"
Or "The Sopranos", Tony sent Silvio up to friggin Canada to "Bring Back" somebody

[Martinned]

The typical bounty hunter case has the fugitive agreeing to be returned home as a condition of bail.

I didn't know that, and that's very very disturbing. You can consent to be kidnapped by a private part in a contract?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's like you've forgotten that we have this whole parallel vocabulary for discussing things where the government is concerned. You know, like calling robbery "taxes" if it's the government threatening you to get money?

So, in the limited context of being out on bail, it's not "kidnapping" if you run and somebody drags you back.

[Martinned]

Not if the government drags you back. But the whole point of bounty hunters is that they are not the government.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do they (bounty hunters) exist in the UK or Netherlands?

[Martinned]

Of course not. That would be insane.

[Frank Drackman]

Only people who rat out Jews in hiding, like Patton said about the Roosh-uns, they dropped "Fat Man" on the wrong country

[John F. Carr]

They don't exist in all of the United States. Wikipedia says several states have outlawed bounty hunters. Massachusetts doesn't have them because courts eliminated the bail bondsman business several decades ago. Arrested people pay to the court a 10% refundable deposit of the bail amount. Show up and get the 10% back. Fail to appear and owe the remaining 90%. There is no room in the market for private financing of bail, which typically has a 10% nonrefundable payment.

Wikipedia points to Taylor v. Taylor 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 366 (1872) as the case allowing bounty hunters. Who knows if it is good law today.

[Krayt]

Massachusetts doesn't have them because courts eliminated the bail bondsman business several decades ago. Arrested people pay to the court a 10% refundable deposit of the bail amount. Show up and get the 10% back. Fail to appear and owe the remaining 90%.

Massachusetts should use bounty hunters get back the runner and the 90%.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let me be clear about this:

If you enter my store, ask where the chewing gum is, and I pull a gun on you and tell you to stand in the corner, that's the crime of "false arrest". I've forcibly detained you without legal cause.

If you enter my store, reach into your pocket, and say, "This is a holdup! Give me all your money!", and I pull a gun on you and tell you to stand in the corner, this is NOT the crime of "false arrest", because I have a legally valid basis for detaining you. Your actions provided me with it.

Police have the privilege to get away with detaining you for less cause than a regular citizen needs, and have been gifted with immunity in most cases if they commit false arrest, but aside from that, the legal basis for an officer of the law arresting you in the commission of a crime, and random citizen Joe Blow arresting you in the commission of a crime, is the same; It derives from the offense, not the person doing the arresting. Joe is just subject to a lot more liability if he screws up.

So, in the case of the person who jumps bail and becomes a fugitive, while a cop is on safer legal grounds arresting them and hauling them back to the jurisdiction they fled, it is not JUST cops who are legally entitled to do this. Anybody can.

It's not the bail contract that creates that entitlement, it's your status as a fugitive. The only relevant difference between a cop arresting a fugitive and a bounty hunter arresting a fugitive is that the latter doesn't enjoy unqualified immunity, and so has to be a LOT more careful.

Now, in the Netherlands this might not be the case, but here in the US we have not entirely given up on the concept of police as just people who do full time what every citizen is entitled to do.

[Malika the Maiz]

That last part goes too far, doesn’t it? Citizens don’t have the right to search people, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

Depending on the circumstances, yes, actually. But I said that we haven't entirely given up on the concept. The government IS hard at work abolishing it, though.

But I don't think they're in any hurry to abolish bounty hunters, because they're useful.

[John F. Carr]

If you enter Brett's store and act suspicious, he may have the right to detain you. I don't know if he gets to search for hidden merchandise or if he has to wait for a cop to come.

The shopkeeper's privilege is an exception to the general rule that a citizen's arrest may only be made of a person who is actually guilty.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The shopkeeper's privilege is an exception to the general rule that a citizen's arrest may only be made of a person who is actually guilty."

Yes, and my relevant point is that the fugitive who has skipped out on bail is actually guilty of skipping out on bail, and so is legally subject to citizen's arrest. Just make darned sure you arrest the right person!

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Yes, and my relevant point is that the fugitive who has skipped out on bail is actually guilty of skipping out on bail, and so is legally subject to citizen's arrest. "

Once again, this does not appear to be an accurate statement of the law which varies among the states.

See, for example: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/citizen%27s_arrest

[Brett Bellmore]

It's an accurate description of the law in states where you might encounter a bounty hunter. Which is, granted, not all of them.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"It's an accurate description of the law in states where you might encounter a bounty hunter. Which is, granted, not all of them."

It's not an accurate description of the law in Texas.

Laws regarding citizen's arrest privileges vary from state to state as do the laws about what we are calling bounty hunters. There is some overlap particularly in that a bounty hunter should be expected to have at least the same rights as a common citizen. But, bounty hunters have more. They can "arrest" bail jumpers whether or not the bail is for a felony where it is likely that a normal citizen may not. In many states, from what I can ascertain, a bounty hunter is able to arrest only when an arrest warrant is extant. I doubt that ordinary citizens have the authority to run around trying to enforce arrest warrants.

[Brett Bellmore]

But we're agreed that it's a long ways from legalized kidnapping, as Martinned would have it?

It's more like outsourced law enforcement.

[Ridgeway]

I went to a ball game on Sunday, and my wife's bag was subject to a mandatory search by a private citizen as a condition of entry.

[Malika the Maiz]

Good point, that is definitely a thing.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Brett says:
"So, in the case of the person who jumps bail and becomes a fugitive, while a cop is on safer legal grounds arresting them and hauling them back to the jurisdiction they fled, it is not JUST cops who are legally entitled to do this. Anybody can. "

This is not an accurate statement of the law, as far as I can tell. In Texas, for example, a citizen's arrest is only permissible, in general, if the arresting citizen observes the miscreant committing a felony or "an offense against the public peace." So, in Texas, it's arguably permissible to shoot someone repossessing your truck at night or knocking on your window in the middle of the night (particularly if it's a drunk Scottsman, but then, why wouldn't it be?) but not to make a citizen's arrest in either case.

Florida law seems to be similar which may have something to do with a famous case of the felon shot resisting citizen's arrest for the notorious crime of "jogging while black."

Brett also says:
"So, in the case of the person who jumps bail and becomes a fugitive, while a cop is on safer legal grounds arresting them and hauling them back to the jurisdiction they fled, it is not JUST cops who are legally entitled to do this. Anybody can. "

This is also not accurate. If the fugitive committed a felony in your presence, maybe. Otherwise, maybe not.

Cheap advice: don't rely on legal advice from clueless people

[Mr. Bumble]

"Cheap advice: don't rely on legal advice from clueless people"
Including you?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Are you suggesting that on the question of the legality of a citizen's arrest what I have written is as clueless as what Brett has written? Also note that the advice that I am offering is not "legal advice."

[John F. Carr]

In my state not even police can make an arrest for a misdemeanor that is not an ongoing breach of the peace, unless the law explicitly authorizes arrest without a warrant. For example, you can be arrested for DUI even if you are no longer driving. There is a law authorizing arrest without a warrant. If you're doing donuts in a busy parking lot they can't arrest you unless they catch you in the act. Once you stop there is no ongoing breach of the peace.

[Brett Bellmore]

Coming back around to the original topic,

Texas House issues arrest warrants for Democrats who left state to block congressional redistricting

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"The warrants apply only within state lines, making them largely symbolic as most of the legislators in question decamped to Illinois, New York and Massachusetts."

Yes, back to the original topic which was Mr Ed's question about Texas bounty hunters going out of state and arresting the Democratic elopers. The warrants are "civil warrants" not enforceable criminal warrants. As far as I can tell, the Democrats have not been accused of any actual crime and there is no bail involved. Unless we have some Fugitive Legislator Law in effect, the answer to Goofy's question is no, it would not be legal for Texas bounty hunters to arrest these Democrats and take them back to Texas. Besides, without bail money at issue, bounty hunters have no incentive.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I think they'd rather maintain some level of ambiguity about whether such arrest warrants were enforceable in other states, given the negative consequences of a federal court deciding that they aren't.

[David Nieporent]

Texas House issues arrest warrants for Democrats who left state to block congressional redistricting

No. As always, 150% of the time, you stop reading as soon as you find a statement that you think supports your position. These are not actual "arrest warrants." There's no crime, no judicial involvement. If there were actual arrest warrants, then all the talk of bounty hunters would be even more mental masturbation than it is, because the legislators could just be extradited.

These are "arrest warrants" in the same way ICE "administrative warrants" are, which is to say: not.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, I think they'd rather maintain some level of ambiguity about whether such arrest warrants were enforceable in other states, given the negative consequences of a federal court deciding that they aren't.

Sigh. There is no level of ambiguity. They are not arrest warrants and are not enforceable out of state. Period.

[hobie]

Why can't the Dem caucus do things the right way and send in a militia, beat the cops senseless and overthrow the government of Texas? As long as they keep running for political office they'll never face any legal repercussions

[LexAquilia]

I can't wait for when they release all the details on the Fedsurrection.

I guarantee that there will never be enough evidence to convince you or the other True Believers that it was a setup. Just like 2020.

[David Nieporent]

I too guarantee there will never be enough — or any — evidence of that.

[Frank Drackman]

You left out the part where the Government Police Officer murders one of the protesters.

[hobie]

Just think of it as the Rittenhouse Defense, Frankie. The cop's skipping around playfully in the middle of a riot going 'LaLaLaLaLa!"; he gets subjectively scared and then BOOM! no more tiny, microscopic Saint Ashtray Babbitt.

[Brett Bellmore]

This would be the rare case where I find myself agreeing with you. I've got Ashli Babbitt down as "suicide by cop", I'd have expected to have gotten shot doing that, myself.

This is not, however, the Rittenhouse defense, since Ashli wasn't chasing the cop while threatening to kill him, she was simply aggressively violating lawful orders.

[hobie]

We should look at the bright side, Brett. Taxpayers' $10M reimbursement for services rendered got past DOGE and into the Babbitt clan's trailer. Now they're movin' on up...to the East Side. Loading up the truck and move to Beverly

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Loading up the truck and move to Beverly"

I'm a Mark Knoffler fan so when I recently encountered this Weird Al parody, it broke me up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WPzFnZkZmI&ab_channel=alyankovicVEVO

I'm also a Dylan fan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUQDzj6R3p4&list=RDJUQDzj6R3p4&start_radio=1&ab_channel=alyankovicVEVO

I'm not sure why these things popped up as I've never been interested in Weird Al or watched any of his videos.

[not guilty]

The Weird Al clip is awesome!!

[jay.tee]

I have to disagree, Brett. Ignoring a lawful order from police does not give the police license to shoot and kill you.

She wasn’t in position to directly threaten anyone since she was unarmed, surrounded by other armed officers, and had to move into an incapacitating position to squeeze through the window. If she posed a threat, officers behind her could have detained her (they had numbers). Or, someone on the other side could easily have restrained her as she passed through. Byrd recklessly endangered many more people by discharging his firearm.

The standards for LE to discharge their weapons should be much higher. (For the peanut gallery, yes I take the same view of other officer-involved shootings. I’m incredibly circumspect when it comes to LE shootings, especially when the target is unarmed.)

[Frank Drackman]

Her "Crime" was her skin color.

[hobie]

You seem to imply that Babbitt was alone and didn't have a large angry mob right behind her. IIRC, there were only three officers behind the door.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Forgetting everything else, Byrd damn near killed OTHER COPS.

THAT is inexcusable. He hit her in the neck. With a handgun.
2-3 inches either way, it'd been a dead cop. The shooting should be evaluated in terms of THAT.

[jay.tee]

Agree, he endangered many more people than justified to eliminate the threat she posed.

Byrd has a history of endangering others with his handgun. Shooting at a car moving away from him, leaving his weapon unattended, etc. He should have been relieved of his badge and gun after the car incident.

[Brett Bellmore]

Two things can be true at the same time:

1. That in an ideal world, the cop shouldn't have shot Babbitt.

2. That in the real world, Babbitt should have expected to have been shot.

It's like, normatively, you should be able to walk down an alley in Detroit waving your wallet around, and come out the other end unmolested, but predictively, you should expect to get mugged.

[jay.tee]

I don’t agree with the “short skirt” justification. She shouldn’t expect to be shot and killed unless she was a direct, deadly threat to the people around her and no other alternative existed.

Thrown to the ground or tased and handcuffed, sure. Not executed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and whose expectations proved to be accurate, mine or yours?

This is the difference between predictive and normative expectations. Normatively, she should have been thrown to the ground and handcuffed. Normatively, I should be able to walk down an alley in Detroit waving around a wallet unmolested.

Predictably, neither normative expectation is wise.

[jay.tee]

Yes, unfortunately your expectations proved correct.

And, Officer Byrd should have been held appropriately accountable for his poor decision that took a life and endangered others. Like I mentioned above, he has a history of rash and careless behavior with his firearm.

She also she should have been held appropriately accountable, not shot (and not ultimately pardoned).

[David Nieporent]

unless she was a direct, deadly threat to the people around her and no other alternative existed.

She was. She was leading a mob assault against a fixed, defended position that was only thinly manned. If he fails to stop her, then either he retreats — which wasn't an option because he was guarding a door to a room full of protectees — or he risks getting overwhelmed, exposing said protectees.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and yet with all of those thousands of insurrectionists storm the Capitol the only one to discharge his weapon was one scaredy cat negro who had other officers with him and had officers behind Babbitt who might have been hit.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

His name was Elbridge Gerry, by the way.

[William of Brooklyn]

Yes, it was. And, pace Texas, in a continuous act of honoring his signal achievement, in the 2022 election, the Massachusetts Congressional delegation was 9-0 Democrats to Republicans, despite Republicans winning 30% of the House vote in that State. Just imagine what the scuttlebutt would be if the delegation were 100% White, and the voters 30% Black. California is similarly skewed (in 2024, 43-9 D to R, despite Rs winning 40% of the vote.) We need a nation-wide federal solution, rather than pointing fingers at the Ds or the Rs.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Massachusetts Congressional delegation was 9-0 Democrats to Republicans, despite Republicans winning 30% of the House vote "

" California is similarly skewed"

Those numbers seem suspicious, but whether nefarious intent is actually afoot depends very much on the distribution of Republicans throughout the states dominated by Democratic voters.

"We need a nation-wide federal solution, rather than pointing fingers at the Ds or the Rs."

My impression is that most fair minded contributors here agree in principle though whether the fair solution should be federal or state could be debated.

[William of Brooklyn]

SLG --

I took the numbers from Wikipedia. But yes, it's true that geographic location matters. But that is why we have "pack 'em and crack 'em" strategies used by legislatures everywhere, and bizarrely-shaped districts. With regard to federal vs State solutions, I think we need one, consistent national approach, or the problem doesn't go away. And as long as we have mandatory gerrymandering from the VRA, this cannot even begin to be addressed, except in places like Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming, which have but one district. Fascinating that we have to worry about racial vote dilution in North Carolina, but not Delaware, despite the fact that they have almost identical minority population percentages. I suspect the Supreme Court will end this by June 2026, but I guess we'll see.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In Massachusetts, the adjacent cities of New Bedford and Fall River are mostly of Portuguese ancestry. Very Catholic and VERY CONSERVATIVE.

They are in two different districts because a Republican would own any district with both of them in it.

[Kazinski]

Here is a red/blue precinct map of Massachusetts, there are a lot of contiguous red areas, but if you look at the county map they are all some shade of blue.

The Supreme Court has been very skeptical about a voting rights by political viewpoint theory, and is increasingly more skeptical about voting rights based on race. The Supreme Court is right that it should stay out of political questions that don't implicate enumerated constitutional rights.

Congress could settle the matter for congressional districts and they do have the constitutional authority to do it.

But if Congress did get involved it would turn into just one side or the other angling for political advantage.

[Brett Bellmore]

1) The primary beneficiaries of gerrymandering are incumbent office holders; Gerrymandering for partisan advantage, rather than incumbent advantage, is a second order problem.

2) Reforming things that benefit incumbent office holders is REALLY difficult.

The most obvious solution would be proportional representation, which is why the Uniform Congressional District Act of 1967 prohibits it in federal elections. See point 2.

[William of Brooklyn]

BB --

Given Congress's assertion of authority in the above Act, do you believe it is within Congress's power, without any further constitutional amendment, to mandate that all Congressional districts within a State will approximate the same numbers of citizens of voting age ("CVAP"), as opposed to mere population?

[Mr. Bumble]

How about just citizens?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Without a constitutional amendment, no.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know. On the one hand, there's an argument that non-citizens and illegal aliens have to count for apportionment purposes between states, "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

You can make an argument that illegal aliens and non-citizens are "Indians not taxed" for constitutional purposes, I wouldn't bet on it winning in the Supreme court.

But, that's for distributing seats between states. There isn't actually any constitutional text mandating that Congressional and state districts have identical populations. The Supreme court just took that as implied by the EPC. But the Court might allow Congress to mandate districts with equal populations of citizens, rather than equal populations of warm bodies, since this is based on "one person, one vote", and only citizens can vote.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

'You can make an argument that illegal aliens and non-citizens are "Indians not taxed" for constitutional purposes, I wouldn't bet on it winning in the Supreme court.'

You can argue anything you want including that rockets don't work in the "infinite vacuum of space" because there is nothing to push against, but it's a stupid argument.

"the Court might allow Congress to mandate districts with equal populations of citizens, rather than equal populations "

You are correct, I think, that the Constitution is not explicit about intrastate apportionment. Even if I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet against the Supreme Court allowing apportionment within states by counting citizens.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, the rockets don't work in a vacuum argument was just stupid in a way that would have had Newton giving the NYT editorial board a collective nuggie. Any physicist would have laughed at it.

The "illegal aliens are "indians not taxed" argument is the sort of quasi-legal political argument that works at the Court whenever the Court feels like letting it work. It's no more stupid than the arguments that converted the commerce clause into a general regulatory power are.

[Sarcastr0]

Bootstrapping resentment the Court doesn't agree with you into nihilistically deciding the Constitution no longer matters for anything.

At that point, just leave this country you now hate and are working to destroy.

[David Nieporent]

The "illegal aliens are "indians not taxed" argument is the sort of quasi-legal political argument that works at the Court whenever the Court feels like letting it work. It's no more stupid than the arguments that converted the commerce clause into a general regulatory power are.

Yes, it is. This is just you AreaManning again.

[bernard11]

As I’ve said before, the argument that people who are neither Indians nor untaxed should be considered, “Indians not taxed,” makes no sense whatsoever.

[Mr. Bumble]

Then how about citizens and legal residents?

[Kazinski]

Sure it is within Congressional authority to set procedures for redistricting and use citizenship as criteria:
Article 1 Section 4
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

I think the courts would apply rational basis review, unless it overtly violated the 14th or 15th amendments.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, I was thinking of the invisible destroyer.

[John F. Carr]

The Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments in a challenge to the federal ban on home distilling.

The government’s position “ticks me off,” Judge Edith Jones said during oral arguments before the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Monday, taking issue with the justification that the home distilling ban is “necessary and proper” and thus within the province of the federal government.
“The ‘necessary and proper’ power is not a fundamental source of authority, you have to go back to collection of revenue,” Jones told Caroline W. Tan, the Justice Department attorney representing the Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.
“You’re trying to not collect revenue by saying you can’t do alcohol distilling in your house, but you could do it 100 yards away,” she said. “I bet a whole lot of moonshiners could exist under the qualification that you now attach this to.”
A blanket ban might not be justified as falling within the “necessary and proper” powers of the government to ensure tax collection, the judge said.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/home-distilling-ban-raises-court-suspicion-for-weak-link-to-tax

[Martinned]

Interesting that they hooked it into the taxing power. I would have gone with some version of "alcohol is weird under the constitution" and argued that this ban is necessary and proper as part of the Federal Government's role in regulating interstate commerce in alcohol under the commerce clause and under section 2 of the 21st amendment.

[Brett Bellmore]

But alcohol is 'weird' under the Constitution in a sense of states being expressly delegated authority over it to the exclusion of the federal government. Not in a "the federal government can do extra things" sort of way. Section 2 isn't a grant of power to the federal government, it's a denial of power: If a state doesn't want alcohol imported, screw the 'dormant' commerce clause, the feds can't demand that it allow it.

[Martinned]

Indeed. That is why I didn't propose to rely on it alone. But in combination with the commerce clause you can see a legitimate federal role for protecting each state's ability to have its own alcohol policies. And therefore, the argument would go, the (federal) government needs to know who is producing alcohol in the first place. Getting from there to a home distilling ban is still quite a stretch, but at least you're not stuck trying to argue that Gonzalez v. Raich should be expanded still further.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, if the state itself bans home distilling, then the feds have a colorable excuse for knowing who is distilling alcohol in that state. If the state does not, they do not.

[Kazinski]

The 21st Amendment also seems to allow federal enforcement of state liquor laws, in fact it makes violating state liquor laws a constitutional violation:

"The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."

Might be a loophole if I'm distilling whiskey in Arkansas for use in Tennessee, that would not be a constitutional violation even if it were forbidden by state law.

[John F. Carr]

NBC News reports there are now 10 lawyers suing Tea Dating Advice Inc. over two leaks of personal information.

One of the suits lists the right-wing online discussion board 4chan and the social platform X as defendants, alleging that they allowed bad actors to spread users’ personal information. The day before the breach, users on 4chan had called for a “hack and leak” campaign. On the day of the leak, a 4chan user had posted a link that the suit alleges allowed people to download the database of images, some of which appeared to later circulate on X.https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/10-women-sued-tea-app-photos-hacked-leaked-online-rcna222880

Tea is said to have five employees. It was funded by its founder. I don't see a lot of blood in this stone.

I wonder if the terms of service prohibited lawsuits. If each claimant has to put up hundreds of dollars to go to arbitration these suits will fizzle out.

[John F. Carr]

Everything from "https" to the end should have been outside of the block quote. Too late to edit.

[Michael P]

They don't need to have deep pockets to violate rights or commit torts. Isn't preventing further harm (to the plaintiff and those similarly situated) a legitimate goal of a lawsuit?

[John F. Carr]

The wrong is the same whether or not the company is rich. Lawyers' interest in the case is not. As for preventing harm, this horse is already out of the barn. A prospective regulatory solution is to require companies to have sufficient insurance to pay full price for a data breach, not the 90+% discount price paid in class actions. In time insurance premiums will reflect the attention paid to security.

[Michael P]

How many people has Donald Trump gotten banks to debank?

https://nypost.com/2025/08/05/business/jpmorgan-and-bank-of-america-debanked-trump-under-pressure-from-biden-admin-sources/

All the claims that Trump is being authoritarian ring hollow compared to what the autopen administration did.

[Martinned]

How many people has Donald Trump gotten banks to debank?

I assume we are at no risk of finding out the answer to that question while Trump is still in office.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, where are the people claiming to have been debanked by Trump? Because there were no shortage of people publicly complaining of being debanked by Biden while it was going on.

I'm not even asking for fire here, I'm asking for you to point out the smoke.

[Martinned]

So, where are the people claiming to have been debanked by Trump?

In El Salvador, presumably. Or at least more worried about not ending up in El Salvador than about seeking publicity for their discussions with their bank.

[Brett Bellmore]

If the Biden administration had been debanking illegal immigrants, we might now be several months into the 2nd Biden administration, or maybe the Harris administration. Their problem is that they were doing it to citizens, not illegals.

Nobody gives a shit if, incident to being deported, you have trouble maintaining a bank account in the US.

[Michael P]

Lots of media would gladly cover those claims, to boot. They are, ironically, the same media that denied the Biden administration was pressuring banks to avoid customers like cryptocurrency companies (as recently as December 2024).

[Martinned]

Yes, if there's one thing we have seen recently it's a willingness of the media to robustly check what the Trump administration is up to! /s

[Michael P]

They call it "speaking truth to power", which is funny because they only do it to Republicans, and they do it even when Republicans are out of power.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, in fact, we actually have seen that, even if you don't like how often the media back down when they got things wrong.

[Armchair]

For all the claims of fascist behavior, this actually "was" fascist behavior by the Biden administration. Using the power of the state to "compel" support from private industry to damage political opponents.

[tylertusta]

Ugh. Smells like a sequel to Operation Choke Point, except this time it was against the political enemies of the then-current President.

[Malika the Maiz]

Yeah, it’s thinly supported conspiracy bs like the Choke Point thing.

[tylertusta]

Aww, shucks. I'm honored that you deigned to spend your time replying to my comment.

[Malika the Maiz]

I’d think you’d be used to people pointing out your being duped by now.

[Brett Bellmore]

Thinly supported conspiracies like things the government actually confessed to having done...

[tylertusta]

Nah, bro. We're just dupes!

[Malika the Maiz]

Cite.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do understand that the Obama administration didn't actually deny that Operation Choke Point existed, right? It was too well documented. They just claimed that it was innocent.

But,

FDIC Admits To Strangling Legal Gun Stores Banking Relationships

[Malika the Maiz]

NY Post, unnamed sources. Classic Mikie P!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"The exact reason for Trump and his tens of millions of dollars in holdings being kicked off the JPMorgan banking platform, and then denied access to Bank of America’s services has yet to be reported.

But sources at the banks — the No. 1 and No. 2 largest in the US in terms of assets — confirmed the cause stemmed from the controversy surrounding Trump’s actions that day, and threats from Biden’s bank regulators that banking the former president’s money put them at in danger of falling afoul of rule that prohibit financial institution from doing business with individuals and companies that present a “reputational risk.”"

Trump recently revised the guidelines under which banks' risk management efforts were evaluated by banking regulators, eliminating a specific examination of "reputational risk".

Apart from that, nothing has changed: Boards and senior management should still be very aware that reputational considerations remain important for overall bank strategy even if they are no longer part of the bank's formal risk management rating.

The anodyne spin on this change is that the revision reflects the Federal Reserve's "ongoing effort to refine its supervisory framework". By removing reputational risk from formal risk management ratings, the Fed appears to be focusing on risks that are more directly measurable and controllable through specific management processes and internal controls.

The notion that the federal government could be more concerned about a bank's reputational risk than the bank itself is simply absurd. Legal risk, regulatory risk, sure, but the whole point of identifying reputational risk as "something else" is because it is not a legal or regulatory risk.

No doubt there was pressure--even extreme pressure--to de-bank Trump as soon as possible, given his actions leading up to and including January 6, 2021, to unlawfully prevent the transfer of power to the Biden Administration. But is was almost certainly coming from "inside the house": The banks probably thought at that time that Trump was surely going down for insurrection (this time!), and they didn't want to be associated with him in any way.

You know, the same reason why Trump "kicked Epstein out" of Mar-a-Lago...

[Brett Bellmore]

"Reputational risk" doesn't refer to the bank's reputation with the public, or the industry, or potential customers, but instead it's reputation with the regulators themselves.

It doesn't mean anything more than, "Your doing business with these people pisses us regulators off. That's not smart."

[William of Brooklyn]

I was a regulatory expert in the banking industry for many years, and reputational risk is indeed a regulatory risk. I cannot tell you how many hours I have spent listening to OCC or Fed regulators talk about "the sanctity of the Bank charter," and until the recent removal of reputation risk from the Comptroller's Handbook, how much attention was paid to it.

My own view is that while banks unquestionably have an obligation to Know Your Customer, including the provenance of any funds, there is no excuse for, nor should it be legal, to debank or refuse to bank any person or business engaged in legal activities.

[Kazinski]

Apple has said that it has no plans to move production to the US in response to Trump's tariffs.

Coincidentally they reported earning for the 2nd quarter (their 3rd quarter) last week.

"The Company posted quarterly revenue of $94.0 billion, up 10 percent year over year", tariffs were 800 million, and their gross profit margin was 47%, unchanged from the first quarter. Net Income was 23.4 billion, and they announced a dividend increase.

So far they haven't announced any price increases, either due to tariffs, or just because they can.

So we can say 2 things, Apple is so far absorbing the tariff increases and so far it has very little effect on their bottom line.

[Commenter_XY]

AAPL is down ~20% this year, compared to S&P 500, up ~8%. That big cash pile is a lot less now (100B to 55B). I see uncertainty for AAPL for the next few years until Cook names a successor.

[Tilted]

Net of debt Apple's cash is around $30 billion now, down from around $100 billion 5 years ago. Not accounting for debt its cash is around $130 billion. Apple has had a goal of getting to net-cash neutral for many years and it's slowly closing in on that goal.

[Malika the Maiz]

Or they don’t want to risk the Mad King going after them.

[tylertusta]

My guess is that Apple is hoping that Trump's tariffs are tossed out in court. They have enough of a cushion and the market share to stand tall for now.

[Poxigah146]

Tariffs were never going to be passed on to consumers. That was just the media's lie to inflate stock prices.

[Mr. Bumble]

In the long run everything is passed on to the consumer.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"In the long run everything is passed on to the consumer."

Mostly true. Whether it's an increase in any sort of business tax or an increase in the minimum wage, or any other systemic wage increase, or, in general, any increase in the costs a business incurs, the costs get passed on to the consumer in one way or another. It not only affects consumers of the products taxed, but also the businesses' competitors' customers. As mentioned by someone around here (I think the REMF in a rare moment of lucidity), when taxes on imported motorcycles were increased, domestic producers (i.e. HD) raised prices.

[SRG2]

Tariffs were never going to be passed on to consumers.

What an utterly ignorant comment

[David Nieporent]

Apple rushed a ton of extra inventory to the U.S. in advance of any tariffs kicking in, so they'd have felt minimal impact from the tariffs so far.

[jay.tee]

Looks like Apple might have changed its mind. Allegedly, Trump will announce at 4:30pm today that Apple will invest $100B in US manufacturing.

Heavy emphasis on “might,” “allegedly,” etc.

[Kazinski]

Cover glass is all we are getting, and its not even Apple producing it.

"As part of the investment, Apple is making a $2.5 billion commitment to produce all of the cover glass for its iPhones and Apple Watches at Corning's Harrodsburg, Kentucky, manufacturing facility."

[Mr. Bumble]

$600 billion is a lot of glass.

[Tilted]

Apple has been sourcing most of its glass in the U.S., from Corning, for a long time.

[Tilted]

This is more or less business as usual for Apple, though the timing of the announcement probably isn't.

Every few years Apple announces how many hundreds of billions of dollars it expects to invest in the U.S. over the next few years. The estimates usually increase a little over time and are, frankly, typically fairly conservative. But they're including in those numbers all kinds of things - money paid to developers for app sells and subscriptions, money spent to source components, money loaned to various partners, employee pay, taxes, money used to build data centers and other facilities, investments in new manufacturing capabilities / capacities, etcetera. Here they seem to be updating their last estimate from $500 billion to $600 billion.

[Tilted]

Apple reported $800 million in tariff costs for the last quarter (its FY2025Q3 / CY2025Q2) and expects $1.1 Billion in tariff costs for the current quarter.

That said, most of the electronics which Apple is selling in the U.S. are temporarily exempted from tariffs in part because of the ongoing Section 232 investigation relating to semiconductors. Apple's able to take advantage of that exemption because the country of origin for most of the iPhones it sells in the U.S. is India, not China. The country of origin for most of the other electronics it sells in the U.S. is Vietnam. For the rest of the world (where the recently-imposed U.S. tariffs don't apply) China is the country of origin for most of the electronics Apple sells.

So, yeah, so far the tariff costs for Apple are relatively small. But more generally Apple is in a better position than most businesses when it comes to needing to adjust pricing in response to small-ish cost fluctuations. Its aggregate gross margin, even when just looking at products (i.e. not including services) is around 35%.

Apple often experiences cost fluctuations which other businesses would consider large but which it generally doesn't change pricing based on, preferring instead to make infrequent larger adjustments rather than frequent small adjustments. Often it has significant revenue impacts from currency movements but tries to minimize the frequency with which it changes product pricing in foreign countries in response. Instead of changing the price of an iPhone sold elsewhere by, e.g., €20 it would prefer to wait until it makes sense to change it by, e.g., €50 or €100.

The point is, a billion dollars a quarter in added tariff costs just isn't as meaningful to Apple as it would be to most other businesses, even those which are also generating very large revenues. Apple has probably gained nearly as much thus far this year from the dollar getting weaker versus the Euro as it has lost to new tariffs. It's still on the order of noise. But if the higher tariffs eventually kick in for much of what Apple imports from India (i.e. what is assembled there, even though most of the value add comes from other places like the U.S. and Japan), I'd expect it to adjust pricing. It may be willing to absorb the 60 basis point decline in its company-wide gross margin which it saw this last quarter, but it probably wouldn't be willing to absorb a 500 basis point decline for too long.

[Martinned]

At least Trumpists are as bad at covering up the Epstein scandal as they are at everything else.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/05/politics/trump-blanche-epstein-maxwell-vance-bondi-patel-meeting

Top Trump administration officials will gather at the vice president’s residence Wednesday evening as they continue to weigh whether to publish an audio recording and transcript of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s recent conversation with Jeffrey Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

The administration’s handling of the Epstein case, as well as the need to craft a unified response, is expected to be a main focus of the dinner, three sources familiar with the meeting told CNN. The meeting will include White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, Vice President JD Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and Blanche.

With the exception of Vance, the White House considers those officials the leaders of the administration’s ongoing strategy regarding the Epstein files, two of the sources said.

Yes, the Attorney General and the FBI Director should definitely be involved in discussions about how the accused can craft a "unified response"...

[Michael P]

Martinned now apparently believes governments should not work to sensibly handle significant events.

[Martinned]

Holy euphemism, Batman!

"Handle significant events" might be the worst euphemism for a cover up that I have ever seen.

[Michael P]

The fact that you want to characterize something as a cover up says much more about you than about the matter itself.

[Martinned]

Sure, Jan.

[Malika the Maiz]

The idea that Justice officials should act with some semblance of professional independence is, of course, a foreign one to Mikie P.

[Jazzizhep]

Hey, Trump didn’t learn his lesson from Obama, Holder, Clapper and Brennan. Trump put in Sessions, then Barr, who did exactly what Trump didn’t want. He put in Wray that Biden kept.

You keep defending what I presume you believe is the standard for Justice independence (see your above comments regarding the Obama regime). If you define Clinton meeting with Susan Rice and the FBI allowing a witness to sit in on FBI questioning of Clinton as independent, then you can’t possible say this is a a puppet DOJ with a straight face.

Well you can, but the mental gymnastics is Biles level.

[hobie]

We're not supposed to talk about these things anymore, Martin.

[Don Nico]

What is the scandal Martin? Epstein's murder under the guise of suicide? Or his well deserved conviction. Inquiring minds want to know.

[Malika the Maiz]

Could it be the promise to reveal everything by MAGAns that has not been followed through on?

[hobie]

Yesterday I saw an Epstein Venn diagram. The two data sets were:

People who don't want to release the files
People who are in the files

You'd never guess who is in the overlap!

[Don Nico]

That does not make a scandal however.
Releasing Maxwell,that would be a scandal.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

By refusing to release the Epstein files, of course, the Trump administration is also covering up Epstein's "murder", which happened in 2019, when Trump was president.

[hobie]

And which president had the greatest motive for silencing Epstein?

[Don Nico]

Bill Clinton?

[Mr. Bumble]

We have a winner.

[David Nieporent]

Bill Clinton isn't the president. HTH.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Martinned, there were some very damning documents about Epstein being a FBI source if they are legit.

If the FBI told the USA not to prosecute, that's an issue...

[Kazinski]

The FBI has an institutional bias towards ignoring sexual abuse of young women.

I say that not based on the Epstein case but the Larry Nassar case.

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/24/1246780923/doj-to-pay-nearly-138-million-over-fbi-failures-in-larry-nassar-case

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure you understand how to prove an institutional bias.

One example won't do it.

[Michael P]

Rep. Delia Ramirez caught a lot of criticism for saying recently "I'm a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American."

She recognizes that she let the mask slip, but her responses to the criticism show that she can't admit either her true allegiance or her error.

[Martinned]

What is the error, exactly?

[Michael P]

Her Kinsley gaffe. There's no plausible way to present what she said as a slip of the tongue.

[Martinned]

Why would it be? Are you suggesting that her voters in the Illinois 3rd would misunderstand what she meant, or object to it? The fact that some middle aged white guy living in his parents' basement in rural Kentucky objects to a comment like this doesn't really bother her, I'd think.

[Michael P]

She is supposed to represent her district in Illinois, but even if Hispanics make up a plurality of her district, she cannot do that faithfully if she is Guatemalan before being American. She would be representing Guatemala City instead of Avondale.

But I think you have an antisemite to white-knight below, champ.

[Martinned]

If you can put your loyalty to the white race above your loyalty to the US constitution, I really don't think you should complain about anyone else's loyalties. Leave that to her constituents to worry about.

[Michael P]

Yawn. You keep making shit up in attempts to defend people who put foreign countries before where they got elected, but it just makes you look ever more delusional.

[Bob from Ohio]

"loyalty to the white race"

Guatemalan is not a race

[Michael P]

He was hand-wavingly and vaguely accusing me of white supremacy or something as a way to distract from the (D-Guatemala) representative.

[Kazinski]

She may be in the clear because she was born here from undocumented parents. If she were naturalized it is a clear violation of the oath of citizenship:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state,...."

Now if a naturalized citizen like say Ilhan Omar made a similar statement about her native country it might be construed as a violation of that oath.

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/ilhan-omar-brags-about-advancing-somalia-first-agenda-congress

[hobie]

So? Lots of hayseeds have allegiance to Israel over America. (That's my one whatabout for the day)

[LexAquilia]

90% of Washington DC. How could you overlook that while being an anti-American bigot?

[Frank Drackman]

You left out that we murdered your Imaginary Saviour Zombie (which I still don't understand, because the whole point of His (OK, you Grammar Nazi's, I'm using "His" vs "his" because I respect peoples rights to believe in Imaginary Saviour Zombies) coming to Earth was to get murdered in place of us (and He did this for free? not even a 5% Vig? makes me wonder if He was really Jewish)
Oh, and we control your Banks, Entertainment, and meet every year in Zurich to plan the next year's Schemes.

Frank

[hobie]

Don't you blasphemy the King of Jews, Frankie. Did you not know Jeebus is your king?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Don't you blasphemy..."
And Queenie complains about Frank's English.

[Malika the Maiz]

Third grader has opinions!

[jay.tee]

Do you believe elected officials should be able to claim dual citizenship?

I’m a bit torn….

[Sarcastr0]

Fuck yeah lets get some dual loyalties accusations up in here.

Really bring that 1930s flavor to the fore.

[hobie]

Don't most of the hayseeds here rank Trump above God (but not higher than a pistol)?

[Frank Drackman]

Uziel Gal? Personal Hero, right up there with (Dr) Baruch Goldstein, Rabbi Meir Kahane, and Kinky Friedman (We even infiltrate your County Music), and remember "Juice" Newton?
OK, like the other "Juice" she's not Jewish but you know who was?
Glenn Campbell (a "Messianic" Jew, I'll take my friends where I can find them)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

You left out Whoopsie Goldberg. Oh wait, never mind.

[Malika the Maiz]

If only he could find English writing rules. Trump loves the poorly educated!

[Mr. Bumble]

argumentum ad nauseam

[Malika the Maiz]

Yes, the weirdo Trump supporter’s uneducated internet busking is tiresome.

[LexAquilia]

"Accusation"? You mean confession.

[Bob from Ohio]

"dual loyalties accusations"

She brought it up! talk to her

[Sarcastr0]

She didn’t say anything about loyalties.

You being okay with an antisemitic canard so long as it’s no longer directed at Jews is bad.

[Bob from Ohio]

If its "no longer directed at Jews", its not "antisemitic ", genius.

See, its a "canard" when its not true, when she publicly states it, its not a "canard".

[Sarcastr0]

She didn’t state it.

You are reading in a declaration of disloyalty.

Which is fucked up.

[Ridgeway]

??

From what I have read, she said: "Yo soy guatemalteca con mucho orgullo primero que soy americana."

Her meaning seems pretty clear.

It would be a canard to claim that because of what Rep Ramirez said, we should conclude that other hispanics regard their loyalty to their ancestral homelands above their loyalty to the USA, but not with respect to her personally.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, if the meaning is clear…!

Magic words are not disloyalty.
Heritage is not loyalty. You can’t see it any other way can you?

The right loves to otherize.
Birther nonsense rewarmed.

[Jazzizhep]

Accusations?

Problem understanding what she says? Let me help you.

“I am a proud Russian before an American.” An unarmed source quoted an unnamed Republican congressman and supporter of Trump in the NYT.

My bad. No need for concern. She wouldn’t possibly vote for a bill giving illegals the right to vote. She probably doesn’t know. I’ll give her that much. The people running the Biden Administration knew forgiving student debt was unconstitutional, said so, and did it anyway: twice.

[Armchair]

"Rep. Delia Ramirez caught a lot of criticism for saying recently "I'm a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American."

That's actually an interesting legal question. Article VI of the US Constitution reads "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;"

Now, is claiming to be a Guatemalan before an an American breaking that oath? And are there any legal consequences? Or is this only a "political question"?

Perhaps it's easiest to walk this backwards from most severe to least severe.

1. A Member of Congress refuses to take the oath of office. Regardless, they vote on a bill. It passes by a single vote (theirs). Is the law actually valid? If it comes before a court, is there a defense that the law is invalid?

2. Same as situation 1, but instead the member of Congress takes the oath of office, but then immediately renounces it.

3. Same as situation 1, but instead the member of Congress publically states their desire to destroy the US Constitution

4. Same as situation 1, but instead the member of Congress states their loyalty to a county the US is at formal war with.

In each of these cases, is there "any" legal case to be made that the law passed is invalid, as the member of Congress had broken or not taken their oath of office?

[Brett Bellmore]

Thanks to the Enrolled Bill doctrine, in all the above cases the courts will stick their fingers in their ears and go "neener neener, I can't hear you!". As they will in far less ambiguous cases of unconstitutionality.

[Armchair]

I think that may be a problem.

If Congressional members can simply refuse to take the Oath of Office, but vote on and pass bills into law. And there is "no" legal recourse or penalty...

What's the point in this provision in the Constitution?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a fair question, and I think the Enrolled Bill doctrine is a terrifying abdication of responsibility by the courts. It's got plenty of company, though.

[Malika the Maiz]

I for one would hate to see the US at war with a county.

[ducksalad]

Armchair, by the time you get near the bottom of your list it's more like violating of the oath of office, rather than formally renouncing it.

I believe you and I share the opinion that on any given day a few hundred congressmen are violating their oath of office in one way or another. We just disagree on which ones and how. Under the maxed out form of your proposed theory there hasn't been a valid act of Congress in living memory. So I don't think it's a viable theory below Item 1 or 2 on the list.

However, I think the answer to your question is that the constitution makes Congress the final judge of its own member's qualifications. If Congress says a member is still in good standing, they are by definition in good standing.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm also rather less "proud" of the current US shitshow than of my other nationalities. Ramirez specifically called out the US' current "imperialism, militarization, conquest, control, competition in its attempt at domination."

To be "proud" of such things, not to mention all the other illegal and immoral things this Administration is doing indicates a kind of mental illness. It's probably best referred to as "TDS" (unless there's a better term for it).

[Bob from Ohio]

"imperialism, militarization, conquest, control, competition in its attempt at domination."

So she's delusional too.

[Michael P]

Left-wing terrorism is on the rise, and it is costing money as well as lives: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/us-companies-spending-record-amounts-protect-executives-threats-rise-2025-08-05/

[Malika the Maiz]

The NFL shooter was a left wing terrorist?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump has targeted Brazil for especially high tariffs, explaining his purpose is to punish Brazil for its legal treatment of its former President Bolsonaro. To put that in a light most favorable to Trump, he is asserting that Congress delegated him a unilateral power to tax Americans for the purpose of effecting justice in Brazil.

1. When did Congress do that?

2. Has Congress ever done anything similar in the case of any other President?

3. What Constitutional provision empowers Congress to do that?

4. If no Constitutional provision empowers Congress to do that, what Constitutional provision empowers Trump to do it?

5. If Congress has no such powers of delegation for that purpose, why can't Trump be enjoined from abusing the power of taxation which does belong to Congress?

[hobie]

I still haven't seen a single sanction or tariff on Russia. What makes it so special?

[Michael P]

You should start paying attention one of these decades. There are so many sanctions against Russia that the US government can't even list them all in one place. A number of them were imposed in Trump's first term, before the 2022 re-invasion of Ukraine.

https://www.trade.gov/russia-sanctions-and-export-controls

[hobie]

Those are the Biden sanctions. Howsabout in 2025?

[Michael P]

Russian exports to the US are almost zero (in 2024, total trade in both directions was under $4B), so there's not much room for additional sanctions and almost no effect for additional tariffs -- although Trump is threatening them anyway. And as I said, there are too many sanctions to list in one place, which is why that page only listed some of the most recent ones.

https://theconversation.com/sanctioning-ghosts-why-us-plans-to-hit-russia-with-fresh-economic-penalties-will-have-little-effect-261208
https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/countering-americas-adversaries-through-sanctions-act-related-sanctions

[Martinned]

Russian exports to the US are almost zero

So is US trade with the Heard Island and McDonald Islands, but that didn't stop them from getting their own tariff.

[hobie]

Speaking of 'island'. I'm waiting for one journalist to ask Trump, 'Were you just not rich enough to get invited to the Island?' And then watch the confessions flow

[Malika the Maiz]

He said he never had the “privilege” of going to the island.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hmmm.... What did one have to do to earn the privilege?

[Joe_dallas]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

[SRG2]

Sitting your transparent attempt at deflection aside, on what legal basis can Trump impose such a tariff?

[Frank Drackman]

You left out that Brazil produces one of the most Racist Nuts in the entire Nut family, namely
The "Brazil Nut"
Don't make me tell you their other name.

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Trump loves the poorly educated!

[Frank Drackman]

He does, he'll gladly accept your poorly ed-jew-ma-cated vote in 2028

[Malika the Maiz]

Left out the period lol.

Trump loves the poorly educated!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sadly, the deafening response from the Trumperverse would suggest there are no approved answers to your questions.

[ducksalad]

Stephen, I fully agree that Trump has no legal authority to do that, and loses on Questions 1, 2, and 4, and should be enjoined from doing it. There is zero plausible case that charges against Bolsonaro are an emergency in the US, and Trump hasn't even tried to make the case.

But, sadly, I have to nitpick Questions 3. Art I, Sect. 8 gives Congress the power to lay tariffs with AFAICT no restriction on the motive, except that the motive can't violate the BoR. Even more sadly, the Federalist papers discuss, in favor, using tariffs to manipulate behavior both domestic and foreign. One is forced to the conclusion that *Congress* could slap tariffs on Brazil to influence a criminal case there.

[hobie]

I see ol' Bukele just got himself dictator for life. Does that mean that we not only drop any tariffs on El Salvador but, I don't know, like send them a bonus or something?

[Martinned]

That's an interesting case:

The European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR), in its recent judgment on 10 July 2025 in the case of Rodina and Borisova v. Latvia, examined the applicants’ complaints regarding the refusals of domestic authorities to authorize the assemblies they wished to hold on 9 May and 23 September 2014. The ECtHR analyzed the freedom of peaceful assembly within the context of the principle of self-defending democracy. It reaffirmed that no one should be permitted to invoke the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) to weaken or destroy the ideals and values of a democratic society.
(...)
On 9 May 2014, the first applicant wished to organize a demonstration and a “Russian march” from the Square of Latvian Riflemen to the Soviet Victory Monument. He wished to gather Russians living in Latvia and create a human chain among the participants. The Security Police advised against allowing the events for which the first applicant sought authorization. The Riga City Council (the City Council), relying on the report from the Security Police, refused to authorize the assemblies requested by the first applicant, concluding that the planned events were aimed at inciting national hatred.

On 5 September 2014, the second applicant requested authorization for a demonstration to be held on 23 September 2014 in front of the Ukrainian embassy in Riga. The stated aim of the demonstration was to call for an end to the war in southeastern Ukraine. In this regard, the Security Police issued a report stating that the second applicant had engaged in activities aimed against the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Ukraine. As a result, the City Council refused to authorize the demonstration. However, despite the prohibition of the planned event, a smaller demonstration (a picket) took place in front of the Ukrainian embassy.
(...)
Consequently, given the background information regarding both applicants and their actions, the Court concluded that the applicants acted as supporters of the “compatriots policy” and align with Russian interests. The Court noted that the ban on the planned demonstration and march of 9 May 2014 was mainly based on the view that the first applicant’s activities and the slogans used at its previous events were seen as promoting intolerance, societal tension and conflict, particularly by emphasizing the superiority of the Russian nation and implicitly rejecting the Latvian nation and language. As for the planned demonstration of 23 September 2014, the government, referring to the conclusions of the domestic courts, considered that it was intended to convey aggressive and provocative messages amounting to “war propaganda” and to express support for unrecognized separatist entities and their paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine (nos. 2623/16 and 2299/16, Rodina and Borisova v Latvia, § 106 and 109).
(...)
In this case, the ECtHR explicitly acknowledged that banning the events constituted an interference with the applicants’ rights under Article 11 of the Convention. However, this interference was found to be prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims-namely, the protection of public order, the prevention of disorder, and the protection of the rights of others-and was considered proportionate, meeting a “pressing social need.” Consequently, the ECtHR found no violation of Article 11 of the Convention in these specific circumstances (nos. 2623/16 and 2299/16, Rodina and Borisova v Latvia, §§101, 117, 119-122).

Links to the case and to other case law are in the original blog post: https://verfassungsblog.de/rodina-and-borisova-v-latvia-and-the-principle-of-self-defending-democracy/

[Jazzizhep]

Ahh yes. The right to free speech with the clause “unless we don’t like it.”

Sounds fascist, or any form of totalitarianism, with notes of whoever was running the Biden administration and the tempo of the modern progressive movement.

[Mr. Bumble]

Happy Hiroshima Day!.

[hobie]

Speaking of that: the Belgian air force published aerial photos taken of the Gazan landscape while dropping food.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and where is the link?
Is it like the photos NYT and Time published to show "starving" Gazanians?

[hobie]

Sometimes the antisemitic terrorists at Fox News let a photo slip by:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/huckabee-witkoff-slated-high-stakes-gaza-visit-address-dire-starvation-crisis

[Mr. Bumble]

Link shows debuncked photo of "starving" child. Not what you posted.

[Don Nico]

What landscape?

[Mr. Bumble]

"DOGE’s ‘Big Balls’ Savagely Beaten Saving Woman From Carjacking In DC"

https://dailycaller.com/2025/08/05/doge-staffer-severely-beaten-allegations-washington-dc-crime-donald-trump-elon-musk/

[Martinned]

Yes, I heard the president is very concerned. Clearly violence against (former) government employees in DC cannot be tolerated!

[Mr. Bumble]

"The death of Tarpinian-Jachym in June came on the heels of two Israeli Embassy staff members being gunned down and killed near the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C."
Just some of the recent, publicized murders.

[Martinned]

O, sorry, when I said "government employees" I meant "US government employees". But I can see how you would get confused and think that Israeli government employees should be protected by the US government in the same way as if they worked for the US.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/dc/washington/crime
Total Crime Index
2
(100 is safest)
Safer than 2% of U.S. cities.

[Frank Drackman]

Borrowing from the late great Flip Wilson
"The Moe-Saad's gonna getcha for that!"
I don't care if you're the Janitor for the Elbonian (get THAT reference) Embassy, you shouldn't be murdered on the streets of DC by Arab Terrorists. Didn't 9-11 teach you anything? Seriously, it's an accident of History you weren't drowned shortly after birth.

Frank

[hobie]

I see Tucker Carlson's quirky little supremacist tabloid now calls itself the Daily Caller News Foundation

[Frank Drackman]

You read Tucker a lot do you? Guess it's an improvement from your "Hard Hot Boys" subscription

[Malika the Maiz]

This person pretends to be a MD but doesn’t know basic English writing rules. Phonies for Trump!

[Frank Drackman]

You seen the way most MD's write? it actually makes my "MD Act" more believable, part of why I went into Anesthesia*, none of that stupid word writing, just check a bunch of boxes and scribble little dots and arrows for the pulse/BP, numbers for SaO2, FiO2, ETCO2, even the Intubation's described purely by acronym
"DLcMAC4, CV, 8.0 ETT TC UDV, BBS, + ETCO2"

* why do people go into Anesthesia
1: The Shekels
2: You get to wear Scrubs all the time (Dating myself, see, there was a time when only Medical People who worked in OR's or ER's wore Scrubs, not friggin Pediatricians)
3: Easy access to mild altering Drugs
4: Forget #3, but you do need to take a few inhalations from the Nitrous, make sure the Pop-off Valves functioning properly, and that there's actually Nitrous in the Tank (and for you Nattering Nabob's, Nitrous Oxide isn't a Controlled Substance)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Whippets for everyone.

[Malika the Maiz]

He admits it’s an act.

This is QAnon Shaman levels of disturbed.

Trump supporter, of course!

[Frank Drackman]

I put "MD Act" in what we call "Quotation Marks"
which is often done to denote Sarcasm, as in
"Queenie was known for his "Masculine" walk"
and it's nowhere near the "Smoking Gun" that Barry Hussein
thanking McCain for not taking advantage of BHO's "Muslim Faith" was

Frank

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure Tucker's involved any more, though he did found it. But in any case, no. There have always been two separate entities, the DCNF, a not-for-profit, and the Daily Caller, a for profit.

[Malika the Maiz]

D.C. police have arrested a 15-year-old boy and girl from Maryland and charged them with unarmed carjacking, the department said in a news release. Two people familiar with the details of the case, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said the suspects are being held at the city’s youth detention center.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/05/trump-doge-worker-washington-dc-crime/

[Frank Drackman]

Let me guess, they look like Barry Hussein Osama and his Husband

[Malika the Maiz]

This guy’s dad’s ritual humiliation at the hands of his mom’s black “friends” is so deep he’s literally verklempt over this!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bumble, the real problem is that there no longer is an active Klan.

Imagine if a bunch of WHITE teenaged thugs badly beat a Black man. We'd have cities burning.

But the converse, yawn...

[David Nieporent]

So in addition to supporting the rape and murder of sex workers and the mass murder of immigrants and Palestinians, Dr. Ed thinks it's a "problem" that the most prominent terrorist group in American history is no longer active.

[apedad]

On 22 July 2025, DOJ posted a proposed rule in the Federal Register that will allow some people to regain their federal firearm rights and people can post comments.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/ffrr

They've posted 277 comments which I'm a little surprised that the number is so low.

[Mr. Bumble]

Where was it publicized?

[apedad]

NRA let their membership know: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20250728/doj-issues-relief-from-disabilities-rulemaking-your-comments-urgently-needed

Although they are not completely happy with the proposal.

"While NRA-ILA agrees that transparency is beneficial, we are concerned that the rulemaking may, in fact, be too prescriptive. A certain degree of flexibility is meant to be part of the process, given the broad range of circumstances that can lead to federal firearm prohibitions, and the statute’s language reflects this."

[Longtobefree]

You are supposed to read the federal register every day.
Didn't they teach you that in school?

[hobie]

At the rate Trump's J6 militia members keep reoffending they could be in serious jeopardy of not regaining their bump stocks

[Brett Bellmore]

Up to 317 now, they've got until October 20th. I'll leave one myself tonight.

[apedad]

Yeah, it shows 317 comments but only 277 were actually posted.

[Brett Bellmore]

I suspect that the digital comments post immediately, but the mailed comments have to wait until somebody has the time to transcribe them.

[John F. Carr]

Applicants need three witnesses to swear that the applicant "Is a person of good character and has a good reputation in the community".

Relief is in the discretion of the Attorney General. There is a list of crimes which she considers likely to be permanently disqualifying. But she could in her discretion restore G. Gordon Liddy's gun rights (if he were still alive) despite his conviction for burglary. She could decline to restore Donald Trump's gun rights after the five year waiting period after a nonviolent felony conviction expires.

[Martinned]

In the category of "no, just because a story fits your priors, doesn't mean it's true":

Yesterday there was reporting that there had been a mysterious outbreak of Guillain-Barre syndrome in Gaza.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-08-06/ty-article/.premium/gaza-health-ministry-reports-spike-in-neurological-diseases-with-95-new-cases-in-past-day/00000198-7bbc-dba2-a9df-7ffcc0160000

In the Netherlands this story was widely reported, in part because a researcher at the Erasmus University Medical Centre sent out a press release about it from her work email address. It now turns out that she also works for Doctors without Borders, and might have failed to properly separate he work for them from her work as an academic.

Erasmus University Medical Centre has now made an official statement distancing itself from the report. A written statement will be released later, but so far what they told the press is that they have been asked by the WHO to consult on the health situation in Gaza, including Guillain-Barré, but that at this stage it is impossible to say whether there is an increase in any disease, including Guillain-Barré.

I guess that makes sense. Now that the Israeli army has bombed every single hospital in Gaza to smithereens, it's not just health care that suffers but also anyone's ability to understand what's going on.

[Armchair]

"Gaza health ministry says".

If Hamas is saying it, best to assume it's a lie.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Best to assume" nobody has been killed in Gaza, then...

[Frank Drackman]

Funny, there was a "Spike" in murders by Terrorists in Israel on October 7, 2023

[Bob from Ohio]

"mysterious outbreak of Guillain-Barre syndrome in Gaza"

Going to the Jews cause disease libel now I see.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or has the Guillain-Barre always been there?

If you screen a population for high blood pressure, what you find was always there, there is no sudden increase in it. If you are looking for things to blame Israel for, well, stuff the Gazians ignored comes to mind.

[Sarcastr0]

Well above my tech reequipment level, but unilaterally ending mRNA vaccine development in the US seems a terrible idea, in addition to the now very normal abuse of process this administration has pioneered.

RFK Jr. just going on weird pseudoscience seed oil vibes.

This will cause lots of unnecessary deaths.
Lysenkoism, basically.

[Martinned]

Let's hope that other countries pick up the slack. But coming at a time when we also have to pick up the slack in lots of other areas, I'm not optimistic.

[LexAquilia]

If it's so important and promising surely they would, no?

[Mr. Bumble]

"But coming at a time when we also have to pick up the slack in lots of other areas, I'm not optimistic."
Don't like paying your "fair share"?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Well above my tech reequipment level, ..."
"This will cause lots of unnecessary deaths."
Il Douche speaks.

[Don Nico]

The man has his vibes working once again. Of course, it is ipse dixit once again... par for the course

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe he should be called Hitachi Magic Wand.

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s vibes to point out HHS policy on mRNA development?

[Don Nico]

If so, the man has very strange "vibes."

[hobie]

That's a shame. mRNA was getting close to the fabled cancer cure.

"In unrelated news, Kennedy announced a $500M increase in funding for research into the therapeutics of bear and whale carcasses."

[Mr. Bumble]

...and stem cell research will let Christopher Reeves walk again (once they raise him from the dead).

[Frank Drackman]

Can you at least get the poor dead paralyzed guy's name right?
It's Christoper Reeve, REEVE, not "Reeves", save your "s" for a rainy day
and (this isn't a joke) he was allergic to Horses, reminds me of that "Far Side" Cartoon where Surgeons are standing around an Operating Table while a Kidney shoots skyward,
"Worst case of "Rejection" I've ever seen!"

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

My bad. Thinking of George Reeves from the TV series.
Great Caesar's ghost,

[Malika the Maiz]

You’re elderly, right? That might explain the not knowing about how blue jobs work and all the Fox News stories you tend to be duped by.

[Mr. Bumble]

An argumentum ad nauseam

[Malika the Maiz]

Bumble’s learned a new term. Doesn’t understand it but learned it to some extent nonetheless!

[Frank Drackman]

I think it's "Blow", not "Blue" and maybe he's not elderly, just not a (Redacted)

[Malika the Maiz]

Blue like your dad’s balls watching your mom and her “special friend” from the closet?

[Mr. Bumble]

Queenie was dreaming of doing Papa Smurf.

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you think getting a blow job is “doing” someone? Lol

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems Drackman isn't the only one with who needs remedial English.

[Malika the Maiz]

Do you need remedial sex education?

I mean, really, do you live in some religious commune or your mom’s basement with a V chip?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Any claims that I did that woman are absolutely false!

[Frank Drackman]

Good Deep Cut, George Reeves, of "The Adventures of Superman" fame and who had a bit part in "Gone with the Wind" (don't blink you'll miss it)
Back when he was funny (and alive) Richard Pryor had an album titled "Bicentennial Nigger" (Warner Bros 1976) in which he lampooned Hillbillies, White (and Black) Women, the Chinese (you have to admit, a stuttering waiter in a Chinese Restaurant is pretty funny)
Then in 1982 he released "Super Nigger" (Laff Records)
"Look in the Sky, it's a Crow, it's a Bat, it's Super Nigger!!!!!!!!!"
"Faster than a bowl of Chitlins, X-ray vision that enables him to see through everything except Whitey, and in his disguise as Clark Washington, mild mannered Custodian for the Daily Planet, shuffles into Perry White's office....."
it gets even funnier from there,
it's on AlGores Youtubes

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Hmm, and no one called him out for using the "n" word?

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, after he set himself on fire Pryor sort of called himself out, saying that he went to Africa and didn't see any N-words, of course long term Cocaine use does adversely affect Visual Acuity, and this was when he was going more mainstream and needed to make himself more palatable to the White audience, you know, like Bill Cosby.

[apedad]

My bad....

I saw "Reeves" and thought of the Time Warp song from Rocky Horror Picture Show.

[Frank Drackman]

That was Steve Reeves, who ironically had a longer and happier life than either Christopher or George (and a bit part in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" which I didn't know about)
and not to be a nit picker, but in (The) RHPS, Steve Reeves is referenced in "Sweet Transvestite" (from Transsexual Transylvania) NOT "The Time Warp"
Here's the verse
"So let me show you around, maybe play you a sound
You look like you're both pretty groovy
Or if you want something visual that's not too abysmal
We could take in an old Steve Reeves movie."
Of course I only saw RHPS like 500 times back in the 70's-80's

and "Glee" did a cover back in 2010 (second season, before they got all Homo-erotic and their Actors started killing themselves)
Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Looking it up, they haven't stopped work on the basic technology, just on the development of actual mRNA vaccines that were planned to be distributed. I don't think mRNA vaccine research should end, as such. It's a very promising tech. But there's increasing evidence that it wasn't yet ready for prime time, and it's use should probably be somewhat restricted until they solve some problems.

We're seeing the vaccine occasionally permanently convert cells into spike protein factories, instead of it just being a temporary thing. Possibly something that happens if the vaccine hits a cell with a retroviral infection? This is really hard on the immune system when it happens.

We're also seeing cases where the injection is accidentally IV rather than intramuscular, and the usual local inflammation ends up spread through the lining of the circulatory system and heart. That can cause heart damage.

To be clear, they're not reducing investment in vaccines in general, they're just diverting specifically mRNA vaccine development money to whole virus vaccines, and research into other novel vaccination techniques. This isn't anti-vax, it's putting on hold a specific approach to vaccines that the administration thinks wasn't really ready to roll out after all.

[Sarcastr0]

There is no such evidence. It’s been through a huge real world test.

We aren’t seeing unwanted spike proteins unexpectedly appear, what paper are you talking about?

When people accuse of of defending Trump for all things, this is why. Stopping the R&D is not supported by any robust scientific results but hey here you are.

FFS the safety regs are back in place on anything that comes out. This is bad and it’s wild how you can’t even admit it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, mindless denial of the easily confirmed is Nieporent's gig, it's impolite to invade his turf.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.064000

https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prp2.1218

In SOME people, for whatever reason, mRNA induced spike protein production doesn't cease nearly as fast as projected, and this has negative health consequences.

[Sarcastr0]

I said robust scientific results.

Your two links are to some random letter...
And to a paper from a year ago that has been cited *once*. AND WAS FUNDED BY COVID TRUTHER PETER MCCULLOUGH.

"Funding information: McCulloughFoundation,DallasTX,USA"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381375970_Long-lasting_biochemically_modified_mRNA_and_its_frameshifted_recombinant_spike_proteins_in_human_tissues_and_circulation_after_COVID-19_vaccination

You lose. Sit down.

[Life of Brian]

Of course, the "random letter" is, as it says in the first frickin sentence, a comment on the underlying AHA paper on the same topic. Footnote 1 even links to the paper!

But you knew all that, since you actually read at least the first sentence before just spouting off, right?

[Sarcastr0]

Keep reading. The paper's results don't support Brett's thesis, so paragraph 2 is where the excursion towards speculation by the two non-authors begins.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Vioxx was banned for far less.
Heck, Terpinhydrate was as well.

There are real questions as to if mRNA is both safe and effective.

[LexAquilia]

Why does just about every major Western political figure make a showy pilgrimage to the West Wall, wear a yarmulke, and kiss Jew ass, but no Jew political figure ever does the same to Christian religious places or institutions?

Mike Johnson just did this on the heels of all those Jew leaders talking about genociding Gaza.

[Frank Drackman]

Why? because "we're Smart" (HT D. Trump)
and I'm no Jew Political Figure (couldn't handle the pay cut) but I've been to the Vatican, the Church where your Imaginary Zombie Saviour was supposedly Executed, and Martin Lucifer's Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta (I was lost, and have you ever noticed in every city they put "Martin Luther King Avenue" in the most violent section of town?)
Oh, and MLK's church in Montgomery AL?? it's even worse than Atlanta.

Frank

[LexAquilia]

MLK was a phony commie plant from the get go, even the Left has abandoned that phony.

You think Jesus was executed at the Vatican? lmao wtf, I know you Jews hate Jesus and the real Israel, but holy moly almost everyone (except the low IQ types down in the Southern Hemispheres) knows the Jews killed Jesus outside of Jerusalem.

[Frank Drackman]

Man, you're onto all our schemes, I'm telling Moe-Saad, and we only executed Him because that Jew Pontius Pilate-Stein told us to.

[Malika the Maiz]

Clash of the Deranged!

[Frank Drackman]

Glad to see you're capitalizing your Nouns like a good German, now if we can just get you back in Men's clothing.

[Malika the Maiz]

Is being German your new act? Left handed and such gone?

[Frank Drackman]

as Morning Schmoe Scarborough likes to say
"2 Things can be true at the same time"
German-Jewish-Amurican, with the Amurican part being "Scotch-Irish" so I like to get drunk, get in fights, but I do it efficiently and feel bad about it afterwards (but still make a profit)
Lefthanded, as is some 10% of the Population (probably more, alot of Southpaws still "In the Closet" (which are designed for Righties BTW) we tend to be the more intelligent, good looking and gifted, Einstein, Da Vinci, Barry Bonds, and don't tell me about Manson or Bundy, as Adam Sandler said in "the Hannukah Song" about Ebenezer Scrooge being Jewish,
Well, Manson and Bundy weren't Lefties, but guess who was?
Barry Hussein, Bill Clinton, GHW Bush, and all 3 Stooges!!''
and while we're busting Balls, whats a "Malika" and what's a "Maiz"??
Is that what the Native Amuricans used to call Homos??

Frank

[Longtobefree]

Yep.
We are so stupid we can read, and are capable of rational thought.
Jesus was executed by Romans under Roman law.
The charges were brought by some Jewish leaders, and aided by a bit of perjury, but as the Jews themselves said, they had no law that allowed His execution.
Just for the record, I live in the northern hemisphere, but not in 'the north'.

[Dr. Ed 2]

MKL was not a commie plant, but the Soviets almost certainly were backing him and would have been damn fools not to have.

We did the same thing -- e.g. supporting the Solidarity union in Poland in the 1980s. The fact that the CIA was (amongst other things) funding Solidarity's book distributions, smuggling entire printing presses and tons of paper into Poland, does not detract from what the Polish people did with it.

[LexAquilia]

In LLM news, OpenAI released an open-weight reasoning model they say is comparable to o4-mini and can run on consumer hardware.

https://openai.com/open-models/

Also, if you're even the slightest technically inclined and have a reasonably recent machine, you can run this locally pretty easily with Ollama:

https://ollama.com/blog/gpt-oss

The smaller one is quite performant on my personal machine, although mine is a new build and spec'd for software development.

[apedad]

‘That’s Pretty Scary’: Texas White Supremacist Busted for Plotting Deadly Racist Attack Using Stockpile of Weapons Enough to Wipe Out a Neighborhood

A Texas man with white supremacist and Nazi ideologies was arrested on felony charges for allegedly plotting a massive, racist attack involving explosives against Black and Jewish people.

Authorities with the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office say 39-year-old Nathan James Henderson was taken into custody on July 12 after they received a “credible tip” about threats of mass violence and possession of illegal explosive components.

He described himself as a white supremacist and a Nazi, and expressed admiration for New York murder suspect Luigi Mangione, whom he wanted to emulate, the affidavit stated.

He also told his cousin that he would rather commit suicide than be taken into custody after the attack.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/that-s-pretty-scary-texas-white-supremacist-busted-for-plotting-deadly-racist-attack-using-stockpile-of-weapons-enough-to-wipe-out-a-neighborhood/ar-AA1JXX1l?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=68932e0f6de34d03b4f2ffe39a3e1383&ei=17

I don't recall Mangione having Nazi leanings.

[hobie]

Funnily, the only thing that got him in trouble (yet may not prevent adulation from MAGA) are the explosives

[Stephen Lathrop]

Credit where due: to the Bexar County Sheriff.

[hobie]

Along with Austin, San Antonio is the only Lib enclave in the state. Credit, possibly, liberal ethics. Were this MAGA in North Texas he would have gotten a parade.

[Frank Drackman]

I guess Bexar going 54-46 for Common-Law qualifies as a "Lib Enclave" Austin/Travis County 68-30 certainly is, give Joe Rogan some time,
Problem with "Turning Texas Blue" is you take out those 2 Counties and "45/47 48?" won by almost 2 million votes
Last DemoKKKrat to carry Te-jas was Jimmuh Cartuh in 1976 (and he lost it in 1980)

Frank

[Stella Link's Ghost]

In 2024, Harris took Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, and El Paso. In 2020, Biden took Fort Worth as well. Of course, one need not be a "Lib" to have voted for Harris, Biden. or even Clinton (shudder) considering the opposition.

[Joe_dallas]

hobie 7 hours ago
"Along with Austin, San Antonio is the only Lib enclave in the state."

harris, dallas county are both solid woke blue counties along with Bexar and travis county

[Frank Drackman]

Chuck Mangione's only been dead a few weeks, can you get the poor guy rest in peace already??

[Dr. Ed 2]

NaZi stood for "National Socialism" (in German, hence the "Zi."

[LexAquilia]

Can anyone speculate on why the would-be assassin Routh's records would be classified and kept secret for National Security reasons? Is it his ties to John Brennan and the State Department?

It's too bad Biden didn't quickly move to appoint a special prosecutor to cover up a deep state assassination attempt kinda like they did with the Mueller investigation and Mar-a-Lago raids.

[apedad]

Maybe the cover up is on the side of the people who classified the records perhaps?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Come on Apedad -- you really want to release records of how someone eluded security to everyone else who might want to do so?

Maybe the records actually do, maybe they don't, but he had to walk through multiple holes.

[hobie]

So you don't like the Deep State withholding important records to protect their own, eh?

[LexAquilia]

No. I know you're convinced the Epstein stuff is to protect Trump. But you're wrong. It's to protect ZOG and Israel.

D.C., and Trump especially, will never name The Jew. You're just gonna have to deal with it. It sickens me as much as it should sicken you.

[apedad]

Curious . . . how/why did you develop your feelings against "ZOG" and Israel, and Jews in general?

[hobie]

Lately MAGA says the quiet part out loud

[LexAquilia]

Empiricism and reasoning.

Basic human stuff.

hbu?

[Frank Drackman]

Probably because Lex's "Rap" with the Chicks is as dated as his Anti-Semitism (for the unwashed, "ZOG" stands for "Zionist Occupational Government" you know, how the US Government has been controlled by us E-vil Zionists since, well forever)
It was big around the time "Top Gun" came out
Seriously, I know guys like Testiculi Minuti/Lex Aquilla like every inch of my foot long (Redacted).
Growing up he was to unathletic to play any team sport, in individual sports he lost to guys named Rosenberg and Moses, at the Bus Stop the Retarded kids would cheat him out of his lunch money, he was routinely beaten up by the kids who failed a grade or 2 (in Testiculi's defense Girls do mature faster than Boys) and as an Adult he flunked out of Mortician College because he had unprofessional relationships with the Cadavers.
Now he's the guy replacing the soap cakes at Family Dollar (but he's hoping that Wal-mart gig comes his way) Only thing I like about him is he's a 3 Stooges Fan, (don't tell him)

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

His mom cheated on his dad with a Jewish guy(s). Similar to the cause of Frank Fakeman’s racism.

[Frank Drackman]

At least he knows who his dad is. Seriously, Queenie, when you try to match Dis's with me you're Gary Coleman going up against Rick Barry circa Golden State 1975 (when I was young I emulated his "Granny Shot" Free Throw technique, when I got older I emulated his "Male Pattern Baldness" Hairstyle) Before my reply even registers in that nappy hai'd of yours I've put up another bucket for the good guys. I do feel bad for you, being the Black Guy who sucks at Basketball, it's like the Jews who can't make money or tell a joke.

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

His dad’s humiliation really rocked this poor guy.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, I see your trap, I'm supposed to do another Black Illegitimacy Joke, I'll pass, I'm trying to come up with one where I ridicule your poor Hoops Skills at "21" because you couldn't count that high without taking off your pants. (You think Comedy's easy? Rodney D didn't come up with "No Respect" in a day)

[Malika the Maiz]

Why would you do a black illegitimacy joke? You’re too busy crying over the black baby holocaust.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, you're forcing my hand,
"Your Dad spent more on the condom he didn't use (redacted) your (redacted) Mammy than he has on your child support!"

Like I said, Comedy's a Science, Gallagher didn't come up with his material in a day (OK, maybe Gallagher did)

Frank

[hobie]

He's got you there, Frankie. You can't, on the one hand, wish for all these black babies, then simultaneously wish for their death on day one. It seems a bit at odds.

[Malika the Maiz]

At odds is typical, the Fakeman character is consistently poorly written.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think we can reasonably conclude that, if the Deep State is withholding records under Trump that they also withheld under Biden, it's not specifically to shield Trump. It might be ALSO to shield Trump, though.

[hobie]

Between Lex and you, you've covered Brennan (2013-2017), Mueller (2018) and Epstein (2025). Yet you still managed to slip in a Biden. I think this calls for a drink, Brett. Cheers!

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not entirely sure what you complaint is. That was just a general observation: If both parties have been concealing something, it probably isn't damaging to just one of them.

[LexAquilia]

BREAKING:

https://x.com/Techno_Fog/status/999708976936767488

Was pedophile Jeffrey Epstein an informant for Mueller's FBI?

From the 5/24/18 FBI Vault release: "Epstein has also provided information to the FBI as agreed upon."

Is that why he escaped serious charges for molesting over twenty girls?

Loki, hobie, Martinned and Sarcastr0 most hurt.

[hobie]

Bro, I'm totally MAGA now. Gotta keep talking about Epstein and release them files. I'm totally down.

[Malika the Maiz]

Trump’s keeping it secret to protect the FBI, of course!

[LexAquilia]

No. I know you're convinced the Epstein stuff is to protect Trump. But you're wrong. It's to protect ZOG and Israel.

D.C., and Trump especially, will never name The Jew. You're just gonna have to deal with it. It sickens me as much as it should sicken you.

[David Nieporent]

Why are you citing old news as if it were newly discovered? And why would it be surprising that someone who reached a plea agreement (in the case of the feds, a non-prosecution agreement) with the government would be required to cooperate with the government in providing any information he had?

[Stephen Lathrop]

The Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson has journeyed to Israel to meddle in the fraught politics of West Bank settlements. Or to meddle in the future of Judea and Samaria, in the pseudo-irredentist vocabulary chosen by the Israeli state. It already encompasses and controls that area.

Netanyahu uses misleading vocabulary to cover for advocacy of policies which amount to domestically-administered crimes against humanity. America's Johnson now joins publicly, as an abettor of those crimes.

It is past time for Democrats to speak clearly about criminal activities which abound among MAGA politicians and government office holders. And to use at least proper political rhetoric to rebuke by name senior political figures, and corrupt Supreme Court partisan justices who empower those activities.

If crimes, including international crimes, are being committed in the U.S. government, Democrats should be campaigning on promises to bring to trial and punish criminally the perpetrators. If the American people see fit to give Democrats political power to do it, they must not quail from responsibility to deliver accountability.

It is important that no such retributive justice come as a surprise, without a prolonged and massively public campaign to prepare voters to authorize doing that. It is equally important that it happen. And in fairness, any targets for criminal punishment ought to be put on notice now, to give opportunity to reform—by switching to personal policies of resistance to crime in American governance, even if that resistance amounts to no more than resignation to avoid participation.

As dreadful and politically inauspicious as such an accountability policy may appear, it has become necessary because the alternative is worse. Lax or actively complicit judicial conduct has made it necessary.

Without a judicial check, and lacking forthright counter-action in the political domain, the future will thus inevitably devolve in the governance domain. There will either be outright fascist autocracy, which ends electoral politics, or there will be something else equally bad—a shared norm among rivals, to seize and maximize use of tyrannical abuses as levers to empowerment.

Thus, the future threatens back-and-forth contests among rival gangs of criminal political opportunists. Of course bystanders with cynical tendencies already see American governance in exactly that light. That must not continue. Public cynicism empowers despotism.

The Democrats struggle as never before for political support, because their erstwhile constituents see and fear that corrosive tendency, and doubt Democrats intend to counter it. Whatever other objects of political aspiration might be hoped for, no one with sense expects to see them delivered by a Democratic regime out to adapt to its own use the criminal principles advanced so effectively by its MAGA rival. Reluctance to punish political crime appears all too close to approval of it.

Public insistence on criminal accountability remains the path out of that maze. Shirking that responsibility is a route to entanglement. To explain that distinction to an appalled and exhausted polity must be the first challenge Democrats master.

Nobody expects any such attempt at mastery from the Democratic Party's too-long-established leaders. Either younger challengers among the Democrats will rise to that challenge, or the nation will struggle under authoritarian rule until some better political vehicle can be organized—a process which may take a long time.

[hobie]

We don't kiss Arab leaders. We don't bow to kings. But we will get on our knees and suck circumcised dick. Ah yes, America First.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who cares what Queenie does?

[Malika the Maiz]

Remember, this is the guy who literally doesn’t know how blow jobs work!

[Mr. Bumble]

...a subject that Queenie holds a doctorate in.

[Malika the Maiz]

Yeah, I get a lot of blowjobs. Is your not knowing about them a religious conservative thing or what?

[Mr. Bumble]

An argumentum ad nauseam

[Malika the Maiz]

Maybe it’s your age?

[LexAquilia]

Let's unite and fight against ZOG together.

[Frank Drackman]

That line work a lot for you? C'mon Man, it's 2025! You want to suck a Dude's Cock you don't have to use Code Words, just show your "Pride" get on your knees, and take a big mouthful of "ZOG"

Frank

[LexAquilia]

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2016-03-22/ty-article/.premium/israel-becoming-a-refuge-for-pedophiles/0000017f-e11d-df7c-a5ff-e37f5a370000

Of course. That's what Canaanites do. Modern day Sodom.

[Frank Drackman]

Testiculi Minimi with a link to Pedophiles, who'd a thunk it? Sorry, TM, I'll take your word for it

[LexAquilia]

How dare you weaponize and use my Magnus Pilates username against me!

[Mr. Bumble]

Lex, please stop by and pick up your storm trooper uniform.
We have added the cod piece as you requested.

[LexAquilia]

Why are you not bothered by all the excessive loyalty and subjugation to Israel by our politicians? All the flags, all the AIPAC handlers, all the Wailing Wall pilgrimages?

Trump's out there punishing universities for anti-Israel speech!

How is that any different than Biden's ilk punishing people for not being sufficiently pro-gay, pro-tranny, or pro-State?

[Brett Bellmore]

This presumes it's excessive. As the only real democracy in the Middle East, I rather like Israel. They're a fine ally.

[LexAquilia]

What other allies have handlers assigned to 90% of our politicians?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's certainly the only "real democracy" which occupies territory on which the residents are not allowed to vote--such that if they were allowed to vote, said "democracy" could cease to be majority-Jewish by 2050.

Fortunately, Israel will never be that "real" of a democracy!

[hobie]

Haven't Brett and his ilk here been lambasting the concept of 'democracy' and are now calling ours a 'constitutional republic'?

The idea of democracy has been an impediment to all the election shenanigans they've been trying the past few years, so I think they just dropped it all together

[Frank Drackman]

Said by supposedly a Citizen of a Nation where the citizens of the Capitol City don't get a Representative in Congress

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"citizens of the Capitol City don't get a Representative in Congress"

We should change that. Likewise, Puerto Rico.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, give all but the 10 square miles back to Maryland.

[Frank Drackman]

Please use his actual Latin name, Testiculi Minimi, and he won't have any trouble finding his Uniform, it's the one with Velcro instead of Buttons and Zipper (have to look out for "Little" Testiculi Minimi)

Frank

[apedad]

Trump appears on White House roof amid talks of historic renovations

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-appears-white-house-roof-amid-talks-historic-renovations?msockid=3e68337abd2a602d3b372544bc4061c6

Can someone please come get their senile grampa off the roof.

[Mr. Bumble]

To boldly go where no President has gone before.

[hobie]

It ranks up there with the time he wheezed his way up the stairs to salute Marine One, or when he dragged his Secret Service detail into the line of fire to to mouth 'fight' when he got his ear thwicked

[Brett Bellmore]

Secret Service In Awe As Trump Walks On Moderately Sloped Roof

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That roof wasn't sloped at all, much less "moderately" sloped. Is it too much to ask for right wing humor to be funny these days?

[Mr. Bumble]

All roofs are sloped.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That was pretty funny.

But the Secret Service gave them some pretty good material to work with.

[Frank Drackman]

You ever go up on your roof? I did once, nearly busted my ass, it was a stroke of Political Genius, showing we have a POTUS who can walk on a roof (wait until his next trick, when he ascends to Heaven) compared to the last POTUS (who wasn't a Genius, but did have a Stroke) who had to have training wheels on his Bikie (and still fell over)

Frank

[Malika the Maiz]

Is weird capitalization, punctuation and such common results of a stroke?

[Brett Bellmore]

I try not to go up on the roof any more often than I have to, as walking around on asphalt shingles reduces their life. But, sure, I've been up on roofs steeper than the one the Secret Service said was too steep to post somebody on in Butler. A lot steeper.

Real political genius would have been visiting Butler, and walking around on the very same roof the SS said was too steep. But that would be gilding the lily, anybody who has seen a photo of that roof knows it wasn't dangerously steep.

[Frank Drackman]

It was steep, I guess "Dangerously steep" would depend on how many vertebrae you fracture falling from it.
You know when you take off in an Airliner how it feels like you're climbing very steeply?(at least it does from my First Class seat) and that's usually only a 15-20 degree climb angle, which is about the same slope angle as the roof Crooks shot from.
That being said, the SS should have had agents up there, like Jeff Spicoli, "Danger" is supposed to be their business

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Now, now, you know it's not the fall that gets you, it's the landing.

They didn't actually NEED an agent up on that roof, the location the assassin set up at was literally visible from the window of their command center. All they had to do was look out the window.

[Frank Drackman]

Or in Crook's Case the .300 Winchester Magnum window the SS put in his Skull

[Kazinski]

Last time I was up on my roof I was putting in a chimney for my woodstove about 2 years ago. Its 45 degrees and metal, a lot of fun. Probably 4 or 5 trips out cutting the hole, installing it, flashing it.

Loads of fun.

[hobie]

I heard he's selling the naming rights for the ballroom to himself: $TRUMP Crypto Arena.

BTW, who ballroom dances anymore? Do they seriously think they'll get the Arab League out on the floor for Strauss?

[Frank Drackman]

Who ballroom dances anymore?
Maybe if you lived in a City with an actual Airport you'd know it isn't all Boot Scoot Boogie down at Bob's Country Bunker (I know, they have both types, Country AND Western)
and maybe Queenie/Malika's onto something, because I've always been able to dance way better than your average (Redacted)
and just like how Latin went extinct gradually, just try to find a kid now a days who can do a decent "Moonwalk"
That being said, in the early 00's Mrs. Drackman got into (and dragged me into) Ballroom Dancing, if it wasn't for my daughter's Tennis Tournaments back then I'd still be doing the Mambo.

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"White House roof "

Sorta, it was the one of the wings.

[Malika the Maiz]

Donald Trump Inviting Sex Offender into White House Raises Eyebrows

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-inviting-sex-offender-white-house-2107403

[Mr. Bumble]

When did he invite Clinton?

[Malika the Maiz]

Remember when Bumble used to bring up Clinton’s association with Epstein when Trump’s relationship with him was being publicized, and when it was pointed out to the cave dweller his response was “sure he hung out with him and flew on his plane but he never went on the island!”

Up there with him saying Clinton “got on his knees” to get a blow job from Lewinsky.

[Mr. Bumble]

An argumentum ad nauseam.

[Malika the Maiz]

One proof he doesn’t get this is that he keeps bringing it up! Never change, Bumble!

[Frank Drackman]

The original title of Blondie's debut single "X-Offender"(Private Stock Records 1976) was "Sex Offender" and told the story of a teenage boy having sex with his underage girlfriend, Private Stock Records didn't want any part of that and changed it to a Hooker having the hots for the Cop arresting her, and the title to "X-Offender"
Still a great tune, and not surprisingly, popular with Cops, and Hookers (from what I'm told)

Frank

[Kazinski]

Who wouldn't invite Lawrence Taylor?

Trump has never been accused of being a Cowboy fan, so that shouldn't be a factor.

[Malika the Maiz]

Should government officials use their office to promote their business interests?

President Donald Trump has been on vacation to start the week and is enjoying one of his all-time favorite hobbies: Golf.

But while it's hardly uncommon for the President to be spending his R&R on golf courses, it's far more rare for the official White House account on X to be posting about it. That's exactly what happened when the President participated in the opening of his new golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/white-house-criticized-president-trump-173145625.html

[Martinned]

Let's see what Donald Jr. and Eric end up doing with their new SPAC. Top prize: merge it with Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac.

[Bob from Ohio]

"far more rare for the official White House account on X to be posting about it"

You should start impeachment proceedings.

[jay.tee]

No, government officials should not use their offices to promote their business interests. Nor should they be enriching themselves while in office.

I know you’re specifically calling out Trump here, and he deserves the opprobrium, but it seems to be a culture. How do some representatives and senators come into office with very little wealth yet manage to add millions of $$ each year to the pot?

[Martinned]

I guess Europe didn't promise to buy all its military hardware in the US after all.

Spain has shelved plans to purchase F-35 fighter aircraft, Spanish newspaper El País reported today.

Preliminary contacts for the purchase of the fifth-generation American stealth fighters have been suspended "indefinitely" and the government will seek European alternatives like the Eurofighter or the upcoming Future Combat Air System, the paper reported.

https://www.politico.eu/article/spain-scraps-plans-on-buying-f-35-fighter-jets-el-pais-reports/

https://elpais.com/espana/2025-08-06/el-gobierno-aparca-la-compra-de-cazas-f-35-estadounidenses-y-busca-alternativas-europeas.html?event_log=oklogin

[tylertusta]

Spain has been saying they weren't buying the F-35 for years now. This is just more of the same. There was never any serious "plan" to purchase them.

Spanish government in 2021:

Spain’s Defence Ministry denies interest in F-35

WASHINGTON — Spain has no interest in the American F-35 fighter jet and is solely committed to the Future Combat Air System that it is pursuing with France and Germany, a defense spokeswoman told Reuters.

The statement comes after Spanish officials at a defense exhibition in Madrid last week said the Lockheed Martin-made plane was a least a theoretical contender for the Spanish Navy and, if the sea service were to select it, the Air Force.

“The Spanish government has no budget to enter into any other jet project in addition to the one that is already in place. We rule out entering the F-35 project. Our investment commitment is in the FCAS,” Reuters quoted a defense ministry spokeswoman as saying in a Nov. 9 report.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/11/09/spains-ministry-of-defense-denies-interest-in-the-f-35/

Spain's current government has repeatedly said that they will not support spending on their military and will instead increase social spending, so buying hand-me-down Eurofighters is probably they best they can afford- if that!

I wouldn't be surprised if Spain ends up flying their Hornets/Harriers until their wings fall off and then replace those planes with nothing at all.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Our investment commitment is in the FCAS"

Your last para is spot on, according to wikipedia, the jet has an "entry into service around 2040."

Its the plane of the future, and always will be.

[John F. Carr]

A group named "Moms for Liberty" has been branded a hate group by the Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee. This designation is in training material for a course to teach officers to "Evaluate the limitations and protections of the First Amendment when differentiating free speech from hate speech using prevalent case law." Police are trained on some situations that are not crimes under Supreme Court precedent but should be written up anyway.

The full list is Nationalist Social Club, Patriot Front, Proud Boys, Antifa, Moms for Liberty, Super Happy Fun America, Extinction Rebellion, and No Coal No Gas. The list is based on designations by Massachusetts State Police, ADL, and SPLC.

https://nypost.com/2025/08/05/us-news/massachusetts-police-training-materials-classify-moms-for-liberty-as-hate-group-alongside-antifa/

(The source is right wing. The document the story is based on, linked from the article, is probably authentic.)

[loki13]

Interesting. Look, I'm not a fan of the "hate speech" designation since I think it's overused to tar speech people disagree with (I tend to be a free speech absolutist). Obviously, people calling for the genocide of ethnic groups (for example) ... that's pretty hateful speech. But then again, I see people here (I'm not going to name names, but .... da-yum) regularly talking about how happy they'd be if all the Palestinians were wiped out- that's seems pretty hateful to me, but not something that the government needs to deal with.

But I did have some experience with Moms for Liberty at the local level ... and wow, that is one messed-up group. I'm not going to say more, other than they portrayed themselves as grass-roots, but they weren't (not really - it was a few scattered homeschool moms that were fronting a massive support system from a regional and national organization) that tried to highjack the local schools with extremist ideology. Scary, scary people. Luckily, they were sussed out, and even the handful of homeschool moms that were part of it eventually came to their senses and it fizzled out.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ Look, I'm not a fan of the "hate speech" designation since I think it's overused to tar speech people disagree with (I tend to be a free speech absolutist),…But…”

lol.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Super Happy Fun America" is a hate speech group?

That just seems so wrong...

[John F. Carr]

I thought of Happy Fun Ball.

[loki13]

So when Trump was elected for a second term, I said that I would put my misgivings aside and hope that things would turn out well. It's been seven months since the inauguration. I'd say it's going worse than I had feared. Let's briefly recap!

1. He's asserted the ability to have a "dispensing power" (something that was done away with in England and that not even Mad King George had). A letter by Pam Bondi on behalf of Trump asserts that the President can set aside Congressional laws at his discretion, and may exempt allies from specific laws.

2. He has deployed federal troops on American soil.

3. He has nationalized state militias, over the consent of the state, for pretextual reasons.

4. The DOJ has (a) manufactured evidence to support 'investigations' that comport with his political desires; (b) lied to Courts; and (c) disobeyed or evaded Court orders.

5. Asserted the power to create unilateral tariffs (an Article I power) at any time, for any reason.

6. Used the immunity of the Executive as a shield, while prosecuting actions as a Plaintiff as a sword.

7. Used the power of the Executive to extort private companies (the examples are too numerous too list). The extortion has been for his political benefit and for his personal benefit.

8. Normalized the practice of having federal law enforcement operate with masks, in unmarked vehicles, with no requirement to identify themselves, and with impunity in communities.

9. This is just me ... but forced through an absolute deficit-exploding bill at a time when our interest payments alone cost us more than defense spending, and interest rates are likely to go up given the way markets have reacted to Trump's action so far.

10. Normalized the idea that working for the federal government is not a matter of competence, or EVEN competence and partisanship, but only loyalty to Trump.

11. Fired the head of BLS for simply relaying the current jobs numbers- not because they were wrong, but because he didn't like them. And packed a board and is trying to cause a sham investigation of Powell.

12. Epstein. I mean ... first, devoting all those AUSAs and FBI agents to reviewing the files (including flagging his name) and then saying "Nothing to see here. Stop being interested in it. Also, need to have my personal attorney talk to Maxwell and move her to a cushy prison. I mean, I could pardon her, right? I'm President!"

13. Combined the Presidency with his personal gain in a way that is ... unprecedented. He just went to Scotland for his own Golf Course. He is receiving donations (including the "new" Air Force 1 from Qatar) to his "Presidential Library" and we all know from the past how well he separates the personal from his charitable activities, right (if you don't, you can look it up- it's been in court). Memecoins. Etc. etc. etc.

14. And so on. Threatening to strip citizenship from people who criticize him (Elon Musk) or as a distraction (Rosie O'Donnell?). Firing any officials that provide any information that he disagrees with (remember when two intelligence officials were fired because they truthfully said that Tren de Aragua was not, in fact, operating under the command of Venezuela?). Following the direction of right-wing loons at the expense of our security (getting rid of one of our best cyber-security experts because of a Laura Loomer looney tune post).

This is banana republic stuff. If you're rooting for this because you're rooting for libtard tears, I have news for you- it doesn't end well. Because (as we are seeing with the gerrymadering mess playing out right now) .... most Americans are decent people, and they don't like this. So you either scheme to stay in power despite what the People want (and that's ... not America) ... or you understand that all the norms and values that are getting broken? That's not easy to re-establish. And the next President will be able to exercise it as well. It's why we have rules- because we understand that things don't last, and we keep the checks and balances in to avoid things going too far.

[EllaWilson]

^^^ This is what I voted for!

[Malika the Maiz]

Pathetic.

[SRG2]

Evidently you're one of those who would regard the line "Trump isn't Hitler" as a criticism of Trump.

[Poxigah146]

Regarding 9, you have a lot of nerve, given that Biden spent trillions to hand out free money to Democrat Party constituents.

[loki13]

Yes, I am very familiar with "But Biden," "But Obama," and "But Hillary."

I am not here to debate them. I am sure it feels comforting for you to argue the same things that you like to argue. But as I always try to remind people- none of the people you conjure up are actually in charge right now. Normally, the reason to elect someone you like is so that they DO NOT DO THE WRONG THINGS THAT YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT. Right?

Or, more succinctly, this is never a good argument-
"It's totally fine for me to molest kids, because some other guy did it."

If you want to say someone else is wrong, that's fine. But then you have a two-step problem. First, you have to actually show that the other person is wrong. Second, even if you prove your argument, you are just saying, "My guy is wrong, too, and I don't care. I don't have any principles."

[Frank Drackman]

from a simple political criticism to molesting children?
Wow! that certainly escalated quickly, I mean that really got out of hand fast!

[loki13]

Sixty percent of the time, I'm right every time.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, I am very familiar with "But Biden," "But Obama," and "But Hillary." . . . But as I always try to remind people- none of the people you conjure up are actually in charge right now. Normally, the reason to elect someone you like is so that they DO NOT DO THE WRONG THINGS THAT YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT. Right?

This seems rather conveniently discordant with your opening post, which explicitly contemplates a subsequent administration justifying its behavior with "But Trump destroyed muh normz and valuez...."

[Artifex]

Yes, his point is just a watered-down rehash of a typical Sarcastro theme. It’s the usual bad-faith argument that assumes its conclusions. The main sophistry here is framing principles as a binary choice—black or white—when in reality, most principles come with a full set of dependencies.

Regardless of what Team Idiot claims, I can be generally opposed to murder and violence while still defending myself with lethal force—and remain entirely principled. Most of civilized society is a kind of gentleman’s agreement: that a society governed by rules is better than one ruled by the sword and fist. I refrain from killing you and yours, and you refrain from killing me. In game-theoretic terms, it’s a prisoner's dilemma where we both strive for the optimal cooperative outcome. But the real danger isn’t when both parties defect—it’s when one defects and the other doesn’t. That’s why it’s crucial that defectors know they will face consequences.

Loki strikes me as the usual sophist—someone who, after defecting, turns around and says, “Let’s not talk about what I did. It’s morally right to choose cooperation. Clearly, you have no principles.” But cooperation requires trust. And guess what? You’ve already burned through that account.

[loki13]

It has to be hard being you. The mental contortions that you come up with.

It's the other people that are engaged in sophistry.
It's the other people that are engaged in bad faith discussion.
It's always someone else's fault, isn't it? Always. And if it's always someone else's fault, then ... well, that's a great place for you to be able to rationalize whatever it is you need to.

There are people that are sometimes worth engaging with here (even Frank!) and people that never are. As I always, I appreciate self-identification. Thank you.

[Artifex]

It has to be hard being you. The mental contortions that you come up with.

... and it must be very simple being you. The gentle sound of mental static in your ears coupled with the stream of drool while anticipating your pudding. Neither having the capacity or the need to respond to the actual point.

It's the other people that are engaged in sophistry.
It's the other people that are engaged in bad faith discussion.
It's always someone else's fault, isn't it? Always.

None of which I said. All of which is a masturbatory attempt to tell me what I am really thinking in an attempt to avoid the point. That argument was standard bad faith and sophistry, nothing more. If I make the argument of the excluded middle, feel free to call me on it.

and people that never are. As I always, I appreciate self-identification. Thank you.

That was a response to Life of Brian, dipstick. It was not my intention to engage with you. You are useful only as an indication of a standard error or pattern.

[LexAquilia]

BlueAnon whacko, lmao how shameful

[hobie]

Two things:

"8. Normalized the practice of having federal law enforcement operate with masks, in unmarked vehicles, with no requirement to identify themselves, and with impunity in communities."

This national police force also violates the Constitution in the following ways:

Fourth Amendment:
1. Warrantless arrests
2. Probable Cause standard
3. Excessive force
4. Racial profiling

Fifth Amendment:
1. Due Process

Equal Protection (see again discrimination based on race, ethnicity or nationality)

Punitive Conditions of Confinement:
"The government cannot subject individuals in civil immigration detention to punitive conditions, meaning conditions that are intended to punish rather than rationally related to a legitimate government objective. "

And number two, Loki:
"...my personal attorney talk to Maxwell and move her to a cushy prison"

It is a federal camp, not a prison. There is no razor wire. If Maxwell wanted to she could walk out the front gate this afternoon. Yes, the same Maxwell MAGA has touted as one of the worst sexual predators in America

[Frank Drackman]

Who are you? Woodrow Wilson with his 14 (Segregated) Points? The good Lord himself only has 10!

[loki13]

Moses dropped a few comin' down the mountain.

(h/t Mel Brooks)

[Frank Drackman]

+1

[John F. Carr]

Indeed, it's been much crazier than I expected.

I wouldn't put 2, 3, 6, 8, and 12 on my list. They are little. The essence of the craziness is the way he is trying to cut government contrary to law and his belief that the government exists to serve Trump and Trump's agenda.

[Kazinski]

Don't forget he's gotten rid of about 150,000 federal workers, although that must be counting the ones who accepted the buyout offer and will stay on the payroll until the end of September.

https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/08/least-148000-federal-employees-have-left-government-under-trump-good-government-group-reports/407171/

And he's ended 4 wars, but still has another one he is working with.

[LexAquilia]

Powerful. So powerful.

55.6% of Jewish Israelis say they are "not at all troubled" by the "reports of famine and suffering among the Palestinian population in Gaza".

Another 23.4% are "not so troubled".

Only 13.5% say "somewhat troubled".

Just 6.7% say "very troubled".

This is genocidal mania.

https://x.com/owenjonesjourno/status/1952846557126197389

Wow, I'm speechless.

[Frank Drackman]

100% of this Jew isn't troubled, Testiculi Minimi

[Bored Lawyer]

Since the reports are mostly lies, I am not at all troubled.

Any more than I am troubled by reports that Barack Obama is really a lizard-person from planet Zorbo.

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought he was from Kenya.

[LexAquilia]

There are videos of IDF bombing aid dispensing tents. Not that hard to find.

Caveat, I'm sure there's a lot of Pallywood Productions going on, but I don't think that explains all of them.

[Frank Drackman]

Tents are dispensing AIDS? They need to be bombed! There's enough of you (redacted) dispensing it already.

[Bored Lawyer]

The residents of Clayton, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis, were treated to three cars being set on fire and anti-semitic graffiti scrawled on the street.
This included "Death to the IDF" and the targeting of an individual.

https://www.firstalert4.com/2025/08/05/police-investigating-suspicious-fire-that-damaged-multiple-cars-overnight-clayton/

So now what will the fellow travelers here say?

(a) We don't agree with it, but don't condemn it, because we understand the fire-bomber's frustration with Israel.
(b) It's all a MAGA plot to politicize antisemitism, which does not exist, not on the left.
(c) Those Jew snowflakes should suck it up. Heck, haven't you heard of the First Amendment, you fascist!
(d) All of the above.

[hobie]

Deep red Missouri...'nuff said

[Bored Lawyer]

Ah yes, you choose (b).

[hobie]

When I see a synagogue firebombed in Mississippi, I don't immediately think 'Liberals'

[Mr. Bumble]

Because, as you've shown, you don't think, period.

[jb]

LOL, it just turns out there's plenty of MAGA antisemites, just like there's some liberal antisemites. Just look at Lex here as an obvious example. Doesn't need to be any sort of plot.

But as Malika notes below, regardless of who's responsible, hopefully they're caught and prosecuted.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, the Arabs have spread everywhere, like terminal Cancer

[hobie]

You haven't kept up with your MAGA messaging, Frankie. Major crpyto investors...er...Arabs, are now our besties

[Malika the Maiz]

Sounds like an awful hate crime that should be prosecuted to the fullest.

[Frank Drackman]

"Should" is the operative word there, but when it turns out to be Moe-hammad Jabal Kareem Ramadan-a-Ding-Dong and his band of thieves it'll get dropped faster than Ghislane dropping names with the DOJ Suits.

[Malika the Maiz]

Person who performs fake act here imagines fake outcome.

[loki13]

As always, I think anti-Semitism should be eradicated, root & branch, from society. But it's not a partisan issue.

The perpetrators of this should be found, tried, and (assuming they are guilty and the evidence supports it) convicted. Regardless of whether they are of "the left" or "the right."

That said, I do not have a knee-jerk reaction that anti-Semitic attacks are from "the left." Remember those "fine people" chanting "The Jews Will Not Replace Us?" They haven't disappeared. Heck, a lot of the overt anti-Semitism in these threads (as in ... the actual comments about Jews, as opposed to disagreements regarding Israel) come from commenters on the right.

I do think that anti-Semitism is spreading on "the left" since it is highjacking anti-Israeli sentiment, but you are a fool if you think that it is a partisan issue, or that it is mainly from "the left."

[Malika the Maiz]

Not a fool, a tool, and a happy one.

[Malika the Maiz]

Hulk Hogan died recently. I don’t know if there are any wrestling fans here, I was a fan in my younger years. Apart from his politics and lack of technical skill in the ring I have to admit to “marking out” on some of his matches. The War to Settle the Score was amazing. Also his match with the Rock. Anyone else have a favorite?

[loki13]

Eh .... so, Hulk Hogan. Look, I'll give him his props as a Reagan-era celebrity (and, of course, for his cameo in Rocky III). But he was never a great wrestler (technically) and he wasn't great on the mic.

And whatever lingering esteem I might have had for him disappeared completely between the audiotape thing (I won't go into it further, but if you know, you know) and the fact that he let himself be used by Peter Thiel.

Some people get everything in life, then turn around and find out that all of it .... well, if you spent your life pissing on all the people around you, then it really didn't mean much. There was a reason that he was booed so hard at his last wrestling appearance. And not just because he was trying to use the fans (again) for his own personal gain... but because in the end, no one liked him.

[Mr. Bumble]

If nothing else he deserves props for bringing down Gawker.

[loki13]

Hogan didn't bring down Gawker. Thiel did. Thiel was angry that Gawker media had accurately reported that he was gay.

So Thiel bankrolled hundreds of lawsuits against Gawker, and had them all pled in order to avoid insurance and required them to not settle. They were all dubious quality, but if you get enough lawsuits going, in enough jurisdictions, eventually ... well, eventually, you get a perfect storm of a bad judge, bad witness (not on the actual facts, but demeanor), and bad jury. And since a money judgment can't be stayed pending what would most likely have been a successful appeal unless you post that amount in bond, you destroy the company.

It didn't destroy Gawker- it destroyed the Gizmodo media empire. Which meant that all the related media sites went to another buyer and eventually destroyed numerous good sources of journalism (from cars at jalopnik to sports at deadspin to science fiction at gizmodo and kotaku) leading to them eventually becoming content mills.

And either you knew that, and you didn't care that Thiel was able to weaponize the legal system in a terrible fashion .... because a news outlet reported the truth ... or you didn't know that and you just like celebrating bad things happening to other people without thinking too deeply about stuff.

[Malika the Maiz]

or you didn't know that and you just like celebrating bad things happening to other people without thinking too deeply about stuff.

I see you’ve met Bumble!

[Estragon]

“you just like celebrating bad things happening to other people”

Uhhh that’s a bingo

[Bob from Ohio]

"celebrating bad things happening to other [bad] people "

You left out "bad" or "horrible" I just corrected it for you.

Gawker was a oozing sore. Thiel and Hogan did a great public service, no matter Thiel's motive.

[Kazinski]

I hope you aren't trying to defend what Gawker did with either Thiel or Hogan.

But maybe I am biased because Thiel is one of my heroes for a unique personal achievement totally unrelated to his politics. He has 5 billion totally tax In his Roth IRA, and that was as of 2021.

https://www.propublica.org/article/lord-of-the-roths-how-tech-mogul-peter-thiel-turned-a-retirement-account-for-the-middle-class-into-a-5-billion-dollar-tax-free-piggy-bank

[Life of Brian]

Thiel bankrolled hundreds of lawsuits against Gawker

Man, I'll take a cite on "hundreds" -- or anything vaguely close. Are you ok?

[Malika the Maiz]

Yay anti-free speech!

[Bob from Ohio]

"props for bringing down Gawker"

C'mon Bumble, it only "destroyed the Gizmodo media empire, which included Gawker", not Gawker. So sayeth the last reasonable man

Who knew loki liked a place which thought it ok to show a sex tape about a 5 year old.

"taped deposition where [former Gawker editor AJ ] Daulerio said that he would consider a celebrity sex tape non-newsworthy if the subject was under the age of four" wikipedia

loki is very concerned about Epsten but defends Gawker. Interesting.

[hobie]

I know he could vigorously shake his head back and forth...and say 'brother' a lot. Am I missing anything?

[Frank Drackman]

Like all of your teeth and probably your balls if you said that to his face.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eh, I was on the wrestling team in high school, so I have a hard time getting excited over professional fake wrestling, even if it is athletically demanding fake wrestling.

I'll admit I did enjoy Blue Demon's work in a Luchador film I saw as a double feature with Motel Hell back in the 80's. Does that count?

[Frank Drackman]

OK Queenie, not gonna play "Drop the Soap" but loved the Hulkster from his cameo as "Thunderlips" in "Rocky 3" he, Jesse the Body and of course, Goldberg, were my top 3, oh wait, Rowdy Roddy Piper, and JYD, how can you pick just 1??? Even the "Iron Shiek" got cheers from me (don't tell anyone but his real name was Rahm Rosenberg, fought in the IDF, then went Moe-Saad the whole "Iran #1! Russia #1!" was a diversion

Frank

[Estragon]

How do you think Usha Vance feels about her husband holding a dinner party at her house (with three kids under ten present!) to discuss with Todd Blanche how best to spring a convicted sex trafficker of underage girls from federal prison?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/05/politics/trump-blanche-epstein-maxwell-vance-bondi-patel-meeting

[Malika the Maiz]

Isn’t it interesting that Trump is married to an immigrant and Vance to a daughter of immigrants?

[loki13]

In fairness, Trump is consistent.

He loves to screw the immigrants.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Donald and Melania Trump have been together for over 25 years though it was a bit inconsistent in the early years. I guess that's sort of impressive on some level.

[Frank Drackman]

or some 25 years longer than Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopeckney were "together", I wonder if the rumors she was pregnant with Teddy's child were true? We don't know, because like John Brown, Mary Jo's corpse (and perhaps an unborn Kennedy??) lies a-mouldering in the grave. Funny that no Autopsy was performed to confirm MJK didn't die from drowning (she asphyxiated, there's a difference)
OK, I can tell Chess is way about your Cranial capacity, but didn't you ever play Tiddly Winks? Or with yourself, your lack of consciousness of possible counterpunches is amazing. Let me guess you're all for "Arming Ukaine"

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

"about" you mean above. Fixed it so Queenie wouldn't have to.

[loki13]

Frank,

I have to admit, while all the others are reaching for "But Biden," and "But Hillary," and "But Obama ...."

You ... you sir ... you bring it all back with ... "But Teddy Kennedy. He killed someone. Just like Phil Collins."

You're the bee's knees. Don't let anyone else tell ya to 23 skidoo, my friend.

[Frank Drackman]

and Michelle O's wife is one too!

[hobie]

Again, Maxwell was moved to a camp. She can walk out on her own any time she wishes. Vance needn't concern himself with springing her. And I'll bet you they hope she disappears herself

[Estragon]

Uh, no. They want her out and quiet and overseas. The day they started talking about her as a “victim” on Newsmax was the day a pardon or commutation became inevitable. My only question now is whether the Supremes (two of whom, BTW, were credibly accused of being sex pests themselves) will do Trump yet another solid and throw out her first conviction.

One of the more fascinating things about this whole affair is how the Q people are the dogs who finally caught the car. Shadowy international sex trafficking ring involving unaccountable elites protected at the highest levels? It’s all unfolding right in front of our eyes! I have to think that people not being paid 500k a year to push propaganda (Charlie Kirk) aren’t totally ok with this? But, maybe they are after all.

[hobie]

Haha! Did Newsmax really refer to her as a victim?!

[Estragon]

Yes. 7-10 days ago.

[hobie]

MAGA media know they can just say anything they please now. The rubes will accept it all. Ya hear that Rubes? Maxwell's a victim now. So adjust yourselves accordingly

[Estragon]

I mean, that’s clearly what the high-level Trump people believe. See the piece in WAPO the other day about how they (probably Susie Wiles?) believes this is all behind them now because the paid influencers like Charlie Kirk, catturd, etc., are on board.

I estimate 30% of the MAGA coalition to be full on pizza-parlor Q folks. Whether they will go along remains to be seen.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

She seems to have accepted the choices her husband made.

[not guilty]

Any parent of young children who joined the Roman Catholic Man-Boy Lust Association Church as an adult during this century is a moral idiot.

[Bob from Ohio]

"(with three kids under ten present!)"

Pathetic statement by you.

Its not a "party", its a dinner meeting. The kids are not going to be present, as you well know.

[Estragon]

Will the kids be on the property? How do you know one way or another?

You also didn’t answer. How do you think Usha feels about these people being around her kids? Blanche already had to admit in court they didn’t bother talking to the victims in deciding to try to release GJ materials. Where’s Paul Cassell?

[Estragon]

My deepest apologies to Prof Cassell. He’s on it!

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.518648/gov.uscourts.nysd.518648.73.0.pdf

[Bob from Ohio]

You are really being a piece of s**t lately. Its a business dinner, small kids are not going to be present. Neither will Mrs. Vance for that matter.

"How do you think Usha feels about these people being around her kids?"

The AG, Deputy Ag and FBI Director? Same as any other officials or official guests of her husband I guess.

[Estragon]

“The AG, Deputy Ag and FBI Director”

Yes, Bob, those are their titles. They are also coming to Usha’s house to discuss the least politically damaging way to release a convicted sex trafficker from prison because she has ties to their boss and knows where bodies are buried. These same people— by their own admission!— have little to no regard for the victims or the possibility that they might be re-traumatized by the ass covering release of GJ materials— their absolute priority is to protect Donald.

So if it were me, no— I don’t think I’d want these people at my house even if my 10 year old kid wasn’t “invited” to the dinner.

It is less than surprising you have no issues here because you are a sociopathic ghoul— as you have repeatedly and enthusiastically demonstrated.

[Bob from Ohio]

You don't have any issues either, just faux concern because you see it as a way to hurt Trump.

[Estragon]

Here are some of the victims you and Todd Blanche don’t give a fuck about. Watch the whole 17 minutes, I dare you:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUEqfG0IkY

[Estragon]

This is revealing— but not in the way that you think it is.

As an aside, hurting Trump is secondary to standing up for victims and KEEPING SEX TRAFFICKERS IN JAIL. My God, man! That Trump is wrapped up in this is entirely his own fault.

[Bob from Ohio]

"As an aside, hurting Trump is secondary to standing up for victims and KEEPING SEX TRAFFICKERS IN JAIL."

Lying in ALL CAPS is still lying.

You care only about hurting Trump.

[Estragon]

There is truly no bottom with you. But I repeat myself.

[Bob from Ohio]

Your concern for the victims is phony, expressed because you think you finally got Ol'Donnie. Same for loki and the rest of you.

Neither insulting me or bringing wives into the discussion changes that. in fact it proves my point.

Carry on though.

[Sarcastr0]

Your sense of outrage is so predictable it’s effectively nonexistent.

[Handle]

The version of the Constitution at Congress.gov was recently truncated and does not match the actual Constitution. Some of Article 2 Section 8 and all of Sections 9 and 10 now don't show up.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/
https://slrpnk.net/post/25696399

[hobie]

Huh. They removed Section 9 which had in it this:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

I'm sure that's a coincidence.
Kind reminds me of Animal Farm.

[Brett Bellmore]

Article 1 Section 9, you mean? It has a lot in it besides that, but I suppose nothing members of Congress particularly like.

[hobie]

Yes, Article I. Handle mistyped.

It also removes the mention of Habeas. Again, coincidence...

[loki13]

I mean, that is weird. At this time, I wouldn't chalk it up to evil intent- if I had to guess, they liklely screwed something up.

What's weirder is that if you click on the "explained" section, the explanations ALSO stop at Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 12- the same spot it was cut off in the text.

Weird.

[SRG2]

But as I note below they retain the link to the annotations.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I'd assume it's a screw-up, too.

[hobie]

You remember Animal Farm, don't you Brett? How in the middle of the night the pigs changed the wording of the laws? But all them red state farm animals were too stupid figure out what happened

[JoeFromtheBronx]

More than that. The whole sections.

[SRG2]

The relevant annotation pages are still there but only via a secondary link on the right of the main annotation page

[SRG2]

It's back up

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Today is ...

The 24th anniversary of a famous presidential briefing.

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

The 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act.

And the 80th anniversary of bomb dropping on Hiroshima.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-world-learned-the-wrong-lesson-from-hiroshima

[Frank Drackman]

There's an Anniversary on August 15th I bet you won't talk about

[Malika the Maiz]

Just finished the second season of Andor. Luther Real is the boss.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

News dropped that Alito is writing a book.

Kennedy and Barrett have books coming out. Kavanaugh has a book in the works. Other justices (including Breyer) have written books.

Roberts and Kagan have not. Roberts did write that little squib of a detective story in an early dissent. He has also shown some chops summarizing history in his opinions if not quite as notably as his old boss (Rehnquist) who wrote multiple historical books.

Both justices are very good writers so if they ever wrote a book, it very well might be worthwhile. Souter never wrote a book either. I wonder if anyone is writing a biography of Souter.

===

Note: I recently finished re-reading Rehnquist's book discussing civil liberties during wartime. He thanks some law clerks, including Ted Cruz, for helping him. I overall enjoyed WR's books.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've read books by more than one Justice, and found them to be well written, but I continue to think that if they have time to be writing books, they have time to be taking more cases.

They really need to get over the idea that Supreme court Justice is a part time job.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe they should ride circuit again.

[Zarniwoop]

Why? Being POTUS is a part time job for Trump, that he fits in between visits to his golf clubs.

[Frank Drackman]

and yet he's had more success in 6 months than Sleepy Joe had in 4 years.

[Estragon]

I predict a whiny list of grievances against perfidious liberals. I also predict Josh Blackman will love it. Has he built up enough suction in the MAGAverse to get asked to contribute a jacket blurb?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's hardly just the liberal members of the Court who treat it as a part time job.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I overall didn't figure Alito wanted to write a book, but he recently had a series of interviews with the Wall St Journal, so maybe he's getting more introspective about his career. Or it will be about baseball.

[Estragon]

“Or it will be about baseball.”

The Phillies. Ugh.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Alito wrote a prologue to an edition of The Vicar of Christ (which has a SCOTUS subplot). The author was his advisor when Alito was a student.

[Bob from Ohio]

In some good news, the pacemaker dude in Tennessee discussed last week finally got executed. After 36 years!

https://apnews.com/article/tennessee-execution-defibrillator

[SRG2]

Good to see that the person they executed was guilty.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Given the state of his health, it appears to be a form of euthanasia.

Another person executed recently was also guilty. The major flag there was the jury split 7-5 and 6-6 on the sentence.

I was checking out Payne v. Tennessee, a well-known capital case, largely for Justice Marshall's swan song dissent.

Payne was never executed. He was later give a life sentence.

[Frank Drackman]

Executed by Lethal Injection,
I wonder if they wiped off his arm with an Alcohol pad before starting the IV? Don't want to get an Infection!

[hobie]

Another really old black baby aborted from life into the arms of our lord and savior and Jew King Jeebus Christ

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought you supported late term abortion.

[LexAquilia]

Heads up, in a sure sign Trump 2.0 is serious about draining the swamp, the word is the grand jury to investigate the Russia Hoax Coup Plotters is being empaneled in Florida, NOT D.C.

[hobie]

I thought Florida was also swampy.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I see a message by a reporter on Bluesky about the two sections of Art. I left out on a congressional website. A thread above talks about it. The person notes:

‪Jacob Knutson‬
‪@jaknutson.bsky.social‬

I asked the Library of Congress about this today. One of its spokespeople said it's the result of a coding error and should be resolved soon.

That's a bit weird.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems quite plausible to me. Staffing levels are way low.

There is no agenda evident here.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I don't think it was a conspiracy. Just a bit weird. It's fixed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe they use the same IT staff as Reason does for their comment system.

[LexAquilia]

https://x.com/101tvGranada/status/1952369988787900584

Watch as patriotic Spaniards take justice into their own hands and stop the mass illegal migration happening on their shores.

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!

[Michael P]

https://x.com/TrueSlazac/status/1951613936446652727

One Third of Chinese Provinces Now Allocate Entire Revenue to Debt Repayments

I thought the US was bad in terms of debt, but spending even 65.8% of revenue on debt service will end poorly for those provinces. They can expect an eventually bailout from the central government, but the associated adjustments seem likely to spill over outside China.

[not guilty]

Associated Press reports that the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed the Justice Department on Tuesday for files in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation and is seeking depositions with Bill and Hillary Clinton and former law enforcement officials. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/house-committee-issues-subpoenas-epstein-142605264.html?.tsrc=1340&ncid=crm_-1285232-20250805-362--A&bt_user_id=jCUfSpWlVV3JRQIvdKhnhTtCaeUYdEUtRtQh%2BB3gBIG48W7WoV8fhjBotI7RixZzbcIDfNbzngoqNMoAf7UDtiiL2SYidajj8ili8Pd0jPgxgIyCFNDOoL5v%2BzE3JDTC&bt_ts=1754408936638

The Committee has issued deposition subpoenas for the Clintons. The committee is also demanding interviews under oath from former attorneys general spanning the last four presidential administrations: Merrick Garland, William Barr, Jeff Sessions, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder and Alberto Gonzales. Lawmakers also subpoenaed former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller.

[Mr. Bumble]

Good luck with getting Mueller to appear.

[loki13]

Look, if the House Oversight Committee can somehow try and do this correctly ... actually use this for investigation, then I am all for it. Get 'em all to testify. The Clintons. Former attorney generals and FBI Directors. All those rich jerks that were friends of Epstein (you know who a lot of them are).

But something tells me that it's just going to be a lot of grandstanding and partisan BS. I hope not, but ... we'll see.

That's the thing- if it's even remotely serious, then I think you can generate a lot of pressure to get people to take it seriously. If it's just the usual BS, then people will just retreat to defending "their people" from the BS and attacking "the other side" for not participating in the BS.

[jay.tee]

Interestingly, Alex Acosta was not among those summoned.

[loki13]

As this case should remind us- it's not partisan. Yeah, Acosta should testify... talk about why the DOJ found he used "poor judgment" in the plea deal.

But yes, Trump's former Secretary of Labor, Alex Acosta, should testify. Lifelong Republican Alex Acosta, who was appointed to as USA for S.D. Fla. by George W. Bush and was in that position when he let Epstein off the hook, should testify.

Current member of the Board of Directors of Newsmax, Alex Acosta, should testify.

...okay, I was just being funny. Mostly. But that's the thing about the Epstein files- being a rich jerk isn't a partisan issue. Heck, sometimes people just switch from party to party (*cough* Dershowitz) with the only constant being ... a connection with Epstein.

[Kazinski]

Sure have Acosta testify again, but it won't be the first time Congress has asked him about it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/watch-alex-acosta-defends-jeffrey-epstein-plea-deal-in-2017-2018-hearings-63537221811

[hobie]

"Merrick Garland, William Barr, Jeff Sessions, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder and Alberto Gonzales. Lawmakers also subpoenaed former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller."

With all the hoaxes Trump has been hoaxed into, he's finally gonna have all his hoaxers in one basket:

Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder and Alberto Gonzales: the Epstein Hoax

Jeff Sessions (what happened to him? He was the first under the bus), James Comey and Robert Mueller: the Mueller Hoax

William Barr: the Election Hoax

Merrick Garland: the Documents Hoax; the Hoaxy Electors Hoax

My pappy used to say to me: 'You know Little Hobie, where there's hoax there's fire."

[Kazinski]

I know you think this is a wedge issue, but it certainly doesn't appear like its having an impact.

The RCP Trump net approval rating has had him seesawing in a range between -7 and -2 since he announced his tariff policy beginning of April, right now its at -5.6. To put that in context CNN had Biden's net approval at -25 back in January right before he left office.

[Estragon]

“wedge issue”

The level of disregard for the people who were actually victimized here is truly stunning.

[Kazinski]

If that is your concern why are you the one bringing up Trump?

Your comment near the top of the page on Epstein, the first word is Trump.

[Estragon]

I realize you and Bob think this is a winner. I challenge you, later tonight, to watch this interview in its entirety:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUEqfG0IkY

I watched it. Maybe I care about these victims more than you.

Think about what you are defending here for like 2 seconds— I beg you. It is atrocious.

[LexAquilia]

Ghislaine Maxwell told DOJ Trump never did anything concerning around her: report

https://nypost.com/2025/08/06/us-news/ghislaine-maxwell-told-doj-trump-never-did-anything-concerning-around-her-report/

lol, Conspiratards most effected.

[jb]

Cool, then there should be no problem with just releasing the Epstein files, I guess.

[hobie]

From Epstein deposition 2010. https://twitter.com/i/status/1948178548998762586

"Q: Have you ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump?
A. What do you mean by "personal relationship," sir?
Q. Have you socialized with him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Yes?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of
18?
A: Though l'd like to answer that question, at least today l'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir."

[LexAquilia]

Woah!! That sure proves it! As we all know and agree to whenever asserts their 5th, they are essentially confessing.

[Kazinski]

You'd think if he had something he could use, he'd have used it before he found himself in that federal facility in Manhattan.

Maxwell too.

[Estragon]

“You'd think”

Appeal to incredulity is so weak.

Maybe Epstein thought at the outset he had enough dirt to get out of trouble… just like the first time!

Ms Maxwell clearly believes the same. See her “offer” to testify in front of Congress.

[Kazinski]

See her 9 hour interview with DOJ.

https://x.com/rawsalerts/status/1953110267002335298

[Estragon]

See what 9 hour interview? That appears to be a two sentence tweet.

[Estragon]

Again. Trump’s currently operative story is that there was a girl “stolen” from the MAL spa (Giuffre) after which he told Maxwell and Epstein to not do it again— at MAL(!!). Then, when they did again, he said “outta here” to Epstein. He said all of that on the way back from opening his new golf
Course and cheating at golf in Scotland. BTW this was years BEFORE he said publicly that Epstein very much enjoyed the company of young women. I wonder where he thought Ms Giuffre went.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This is possibly the least credible witness to ever exist. There was extensive testimony about her role in both trafficking people to Epstein and taking part in sex abuse herself. The appeals court affirmed her conviction and sentence. She’s in her 60s, she’s very likely going to die in prison based on her sentence. The courts aren’t going to bail her out. There is only one person on the planet who has ultimate un-reviewable power to free her completely and would actually do it. And he just so happens to need her to say he didn’t do anything wrong. And let’s be real: what the person who orchestrated a years long grooming and sex trafficking operation thinks is “concerning” behavior isn’t really very useful.

[Estragon]

Ghislane Maxwell “stole” a girl from Trumps spa and he told her and Epstein not to do it again— but continued to let them have access to the spa. Where do you figure Trump thought Ms Giuffre went?

[Ridgeway]

I propose that the term "MAGAt" be retired. I'd hope that we all recognize that referring to political opponents as insects (or vermin in the case of Trump and some of his more unhinged supporters) is a bad idea.

In its stead, "MAGAn" seems much nicer and, given the apotheosis of Trump by his acolytes, quite apt.

[apedad]

Yeah but the MAGAts won't get the MAGAn reference and they'll just think you're calling them a girl's name.

[hobie]

Here's a list of all the nasty, immature names Trump has called people. Which doesn't include all the foul, pornographic ones his supporters use. So you know what? I'll stick with MAGAt. We've earned it.

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

[Ridgeway]

As noted ethicist Arthur Fonzarelli relates, "Two wrongs do not a right make."

[SRG2]

No, but he who approves of the one wrong cannot reasonably protest the related other.

[loki13]

I agree. I don't use the term, and I don't think it adds anything of value.

[hobie]

I don't use the term either. I'm not in 5th grade. But with the avalanche of puerile names from the Right, I don't begrudge someone using it.

[Jmaie]

If every comment with a pejorative were to be automatically deleted, this blog might more resemble earlier days. I, for one, mourn those earlier days. I would also trust our host to determine on a whim what constituted a pejorative.

[Bwaaah]

It's all as nasty as the term "libtard." These are pejoratives that convey a sense of malice and jingoism in those who use them. Around here, they're often used to refer to the person being addressed (e.g. "a MAGAt like you"), and as such, it denigrates the listener.

It reminds me of when I was a kid (in the 1960s) and nasty (angry) people would call me a "faggot." Why not just open with, "Fuck you you lowlife piece of shit," and not waste effort with the rest?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Jen Pawol, a minor-league umpire since 2016, is set to make her major-league debut on Saturday, making her the first female umpire in regular-season MLB history.

Pawol is being called up for the Miami Marlins-Atlanta Braves doubleheader on Saturday, when she will work the bases for those two games. She is slated to be behind the plate for Sunday’s series finale.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6538637/2025/08/06/mlb-first-female-umpire-jen-pawol/

[Ridgeway]

Can she replace Angel Hernandez, please?

[Ridgeway]

Check that, Angel H retired. How about CB Bucknor?

[SRG2]

FWIW I instantly thought of the Jamaican cricket umpire Steve Bucknor. It turns out that the two Bucknors are unrelated. Steve went on for too long, sadly.

[Ridgeway]

So do cricket matches, or so I have heard

[SRG2]

LOL - it can happen, but the recent series England v India, with 5 matches of 5 days each, was fantastic and if anything too short

[SRG2]

I thought many of you would find this interesting: the guns of James Bond

[Frank Drackman]

ooohhh a Walther PPK?!?!? I'm terrified!

[ThePublius]

Thanks. That was interesting. I had read about that before. I'm a big Ian Fleming fan. I read all of the Bond novels, in order, not too long ago. One of the first handguns I purchased is a Walther PPK. I also have a Ruger Blackhawk in .44 Magnum, as shown in the video. Yes, it's a real cannon.

It saddens me to know what's happened in the U.K. with gun control since that video was made. Of course, Geoffrey Boothroyd would not even be allowed to possess those handguns today, and likely many of the other firearms in his gun rack in the video.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"One hit? That's all we got? One g*d-damned hit?"

"You can't say 'g*od-damned* on the air!"

"Don't worry; nobody's listening anyway."

Mets didn't have a good afternoon.

[Estragon]

I’m not stunned this was said on the broadcast today… I’m just surprised it was Ronnie and not Keith

[Estragon]

They dropped the bomb 80 years ago today. Here is a song that sums up my feelings:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lLecVaV7IPY

[pts]

Haven't seen any discussion of the Perdomo case involving Terry stops that may not have been based on reasonable suspicion (or perhaps impermissible race-based suspicion) I thought it was quite remarkable. The usual remedy for an unconstitutional search is the exclusionary rule. But the Supreme Court held in 1984 that the exclusionary rule did not apply in deportation cases because they were civil cases, not criminal. That leaves the aggrieved party only with the chance of a successful Bivens action, which ends up in a case by case adjudication and little chance for obtaining damages, particularly if the person is already deported. So the aggrieved parties sought an injunction barring unconstitutional future Terry stops, and got it, both from the district court and the 9th circuit. And the decision apples everywhere in the particular judicial district. I'm not sure this does anything to stop deportations, but it gives the district court the right to discipline any officer who conducts an illegal stop by way of contempt power. Is this a proper role for the judiciary? Heck, why not just enjoin all unconstitutional activity by the government and let the courts run everything.

[pts]

That gives me an idea. How about a defendant class action against all future criminals, enjoining all future criminal activity. Amazing, we now have a crime free country.

[yibibe7363]

The Democrats are the party that thinks a man should be allowed to insert his erect organ into another man's extra lubed up cornhole and thrust it back and forth until a massive load of HIV infected semen goes flying into his "husband's" colon, because after all, they're "consenting adults who love each other." Why should we care about what they think about immigration, tariffs, or anything else of import?

[Estragon]

“man should be allowed to insert his erect organ”

If it were “disallowed”— how would you prevent it? Just curious…

[Frank Drackman]

Ask John Wayne Bobbit, or better yet, his Ex

[Estragon]

Thanks, Frank. Just like Louis Tully— short and pointless.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

U.S. plans to ease human rights criticism of El Salvador, Israel, Russia

Leaked draft reports show the Trump administration is planning to eliminate or downplay accounts of prisoner abuse, corruption, LGBTQ+ discrimination and other alleged abuses. The administration says the reports are shorter for “readability.”

Sure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/08/06/trump-human-rights-el-salvador-israel-russia/

[Sarcastr0]

It's good to be the vice-king.

"JD Vance’s team had the army corps of engineers take the unusual step of changing the outflow of a lake in Ohio to accommodate a recent boating excursion on a family holiday, the Guardian has learned.

The request from the US Secret Service was made to “support safe navigation” of the US vice-president’s security detail for an August outing on the Little Miami River, according to a statement by the US army corps of engineers (USACE)."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/06/jd-vance-ohio-lake-water-levels

[Bwaaah]

That might explain why the water level went from 849.15" on August 1 to 849.00" on August 5...a drop of .15 inches.

It certainly explains you pissing yourself over inconsequential water management.