Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 8.11.2025 4:39 PM
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
NEXT: The University Presidents Who Want to Fix Universities Before They Get Fixed
Hide Comments (1067)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
President Trump is cementing his global reputation as a peacemaker.
Reuters is reporting about a peace march of 2500 Theraveda Buddhist monks* in Phnom Penh demonstrating for a permanent cease fire between Cambodia and Thailand.
As the monnks passed by the US embassy, they held up hundreds of signs with Trump's picture saying "Thank you Mr. President", at :24 of the embedded video. Surprisingly Reuters did not fact check the monks.
https://x.com/Reuters/status/1954633855660368227?t=4sP37qWU4c7cvUjGupOyKQ&s=19
* Both Thailand and Cambodia are Theravedist, the Thai adopted Therevada Buddhism from the Khmer when they migrated down from China to the then Khmer Empire 800-1000 years ago, Modern day Cambodia is the existing remnant of the Khmer Empire.
Heres the AP crying about how we're no longer spending (as much) taxpayer money attempting to force butt sex into Nepal. Talk about cultural imperialism.
https://archive.ph/s2NgV
They have a companion video which conveniently omits the USAID angle and makes it look like some feel good grassroots celebration. Which it was apparently until US tax dollars were spend to make it about buttsex.
"Heres the AP crying about how we're no longer spending (as much) taxpayer money attempting to force butt sex into Nepal. Talk about cultural imperialism."
The linked article says nothing of the sort. Why am I unsurprised?
This is yet another flagrant misuse of the word "force." If AmosArch wants to know about forcible butt sex, perhaps he can hire a sex worker to tie him up where he can't escape and peg him.
So, your dispute is that it actually says we're no longer spending as much taxpayer money attempting to strongly encourage butt sex in Nepal?
The article linked by AmosArch posits no nexus whatsoever between USAID and sexual activity of any kind, Brett. That was the gravamen of my comment.
The misuse of "force" is merely a collateral pet peeve.
Speaking of which, the late William Safire, who wrote speeches for Prick Nixon and later wrote the New York Times "On Language" column, once wrote that he was thinking of getting a dog and naming it Peeve, so that he could introduce it as "This is my pet, Peeve."
"The article linked by AmosArch posits no nexus whatsoever between USAID and sexual activity of any kind,"
Positing a complete disconnect between "LGBTQ+" and sexual activity of any kind seems a bridge too far...
Is there also a connection between “heterosexual” and sex?
The idea that LGBT issues are only about sex is absurd. The idea is that people who love people of the same sex should be treated exactly the same as people who love people of the opposite sex. It isn’t a radical, or even rationally objectionable, position.
"Is there also a connection between “heterosexual” and sex?"
Yes.
"The idea that LGBT issues are only about sex is absurd. " Not "only" about sex. But most would consider same sex intercourse a core component of LGB issues. And a law that banned same sex intercourse would, by definition, discriminate against LGB individuals.
There was a time when the only legitimate purpose of sexual intercourse was to create children.
Sodomy can not create children.
Well, sexual intercourse creates both legitimate and illegitimate children, Ed.
Fornication is still a crime in Massachusetts.
There was never such a time. Just because some random Christian nut 1600 years ago decided that sex wasn’t supposed to be fun doesn't make it so.
It is not.
David, it was until 2018.
"Yes, fornication is technically still considered a crime in Massachusetts, though it is rarely, if ever, enforced. Chapter 272, Section 18 of the Massachusetts General Laws defines fornication as sexual intercourse between an unmarried male and an unmarried female and prescribes a penalty of up to three months in jail or a fine of up to thirty dollars, according to Justia Law. However, this law is considered archaic and unenforced, and there have been efforts to repeal it. While the law remains on the books, the likelihood of someone being prosecuted for fornication is extremely low. Massachusetts has a number of laws on the books that are considered outdated and rarely enforced, including those related to blasphemy and fornication. There have been attempts to repeal these laws, but they have not yet been successful. Therefore, while fornication is technically a crime in Massachusetts, it is not a practical concern and is unlikely to be prosecuted."
“ There was a time when the only legitimate purpose of sexual intercourse was to create children.”
The legitimate purpose of intercourse is pleasure. Creating children is sometimes a side effect, but I guarantee that the number of times any given person has had sex outnumbers the number of children they have by a factor of hundreds, if not thousands.
There was never such a time. Just because some random Christian nut 1600 years ago decided that sex wasn’t supposed to be fun doesn't make it so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LOL tell us you're ignorant without telling us you are ignorant. Lets tell the precolumbian inca walling up their homosexuals or plato writing his critiques that christians invented the idea that homosexuality was wrong one day.
The truth is whether you agree or disagree with allowing it disgust for homosexuality is innate and biological. Like seeing a horse head on a bird.
Its common sense. Humans naturally find strange things offputting and nobody has a problem with the idea that homosexuals are probably disgusted by heterosexual sex. And this disgust can easily lead to hostility. So no idea where this myth that humans are naturally completely fine with gay sex came from.
My statement didn't mention homosexuality. My statement was about the claim that sex is only legitimately for procreation. That may be the weird idea invented by Augustine, but (for example) Judaism teaches that sex is about strengthening the bond between husband and wife, and is encouraged even when procreation is impossible.
And there was a time, for millions of years longer, that sex was about instinctually pursuing pleasure, like eating food when hungry, with pregnancy being a completely unpondered and unforseen consequence. It drove the evolution of the behavior.
“ nobody has a problem with the idea that homosexuals are probably disgusted by heterosexual sex.”
You are a weird dude.
Um, yeah. Obviously.
"The idea that LGBT issues are only about sex is absurd."
The issues are not only about sex, but "LGBT" is defined in terms of sexual attraction.
" The idea is that people who love people of the same sex"
I love my son, that's not how LGBT is defined. It's defined in terms of who you want to have sex with, not who you love.
Not for children it isn't. When you heard the story of Snow White when you were a kid, and then Prince Charming came and kissed her to wake her up, and then the story ended with, "And they loved each other and lived happily ever after," did you think to yourself, "And now they're going to go fuck?" Hell, when you hear the story as an adult, is that where your mind goes? Because if so, that's a bit… disturbing.
Snow White and Prince Charming presumably were not about to run off and bump uglies right then, but just as presumably they would have done so sooner rather than later.
“ but "LGBT" is defined in terms of sexual attraction.”
So heterosexual doesn’t reference sex, but homosexual does? Talking about a mommy and a daddy doesn’t reference sex, but talking about two mommies does? This is why one of the books targeted by the whack-a-doodle book banners like Moms For Liberty (ironic, right?) was a children’s book by an author named Gay.
Wingnuts believe talking about gay people is the same as talking about sex because they’re idiots. Hateful idiots, at that.
No, I'm saying that "LGBT" ITSELF, is defined in terms of sexual attraction. Just as heterosexuality is. The terms are, literally, defined in terms of what the object of your sexual attraction is.
This weird idea of the far right eplains so much. "You're reading the kids a book called Heather Has Two Mommies? Why are you teaching them about sex?" "The male teacher mentioned his husband!? Why is he bringing sex into the classroom?"
That's not really an idea of the "right". Many on the left have indicated that sexual activity with same sex partners is a core component of being Lesbian, Gay or Bi. And that a law that outlawed same sex intercourse would discriminate against LGB individuals because it is such a core component of their identity.
...and don't forget to fly that rainbow flag on your house.
Why do you care if someone flies a rainbow flag?
Saw a "Rainbow" Confederate Flag for sale at a Roadside Flea Market in Ali-bama. That's Ali-bama for you, no Lottery, no Major Professional Sports Teams (except for the Crimson Tide), they're so poor they couldn't pay their light bill and had to retire the Electric Chair (now they Execute Murderers with Fresh, Clean, Natural, Nitrogen!!!!, you're breathing it now actually) But they've got more Roadside Flea Markets than you can shake a stick at (don't actually shake a stick at one unless you want to get shot)
Frank
Sex is part of gay relationships, exactly the same was that sex is part of straight relationships.
Heather Has Two Mommies doesn’t talk about sex. At all. A gay person talking about their spouse isn’t talking about sex. At all. A story that has married gay people in it isn’t about sex.
It’s only the lunatic fringe of conservatives who can’t separate sex from love, sex from marriage, or sex from parenthood. Talking about love, marriage, and parenthood isn’t talking about sex.
Sex!, Sex!, Sex!, that's all it is with you people, Sex!, Sex!, Sex!. I've had it up to HERE with "Sex"!!!! not lately though,
"The male teacher mentioned his husband!?"
None of my (married) female teachers ever did.
Yes, they did. You just were oblivious.
David and the toxic lawyer profession support butt banging that killed 20 million people the rough way. They support proselytizing of butt banging down to the kindergarten year.
"David and the toxic lawyer profession support butt banging that killed 20 million people the rough way. They support proselytizing of butt banging down to the kindergarten year."
Supporting facts, Supremacy Claus? Buttsex is an option equally available to gay male dyads, male/female dyads, and (with the aid of toys) to lesbian dyads. Each couple is free to take it or leave it as they choose.
Who is "proselytizing" that to kindergarteners? Please name names and describe the relevant circumstances. If you can.
Still waiting, Supremacy Claus.
Who is "proselytizing . . . butt banging" to kindergarteners?
Your constant chest-thumping refrain reminds me of a classic commercial.
I promise that it won't break your keyboard to admit that you are full of shit.
Navin Johnson did something similar, naming his Dog “Shithead”
Obviously they don't use my exact words but....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nepal’s LGBTQ+ campaign has been hit after U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration began dismantling the U.S. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That sounds like Nepalis talking to other Nepalis about gay rights, which is in no way similar to what you were saying.
Do you have statistics on how many gay couples do not use anal intercourse ? A world-wide average may suffice.
Presumably about half of them.
Don’t know the exact breakdown, but I would guess more than half, since actual sexual orientation wiring seems stronger in one sex than the other, and the other sex thus being more susceptible to peer pressure when it comes to gay sex.
Which is maybe a roundabout way of saying that the bulk of the Lesbians I have met appear to have been wired bisexual, but almost all of the male gays I have known have been wired homosexual.
For gay men, anal sex is central to their identity.
If they want to talk to each other about gay rights they can open their own mouths and do it themselves without a boatload of US taxpayer money and an army of 'specialists', blue ribbon committees, think tanks, academics, and the tidal wave of associated salaries, facilities, business class flights, dinner parties, gifts, vacations, and discretionary expenses, kickbacks and bribes to tell them the 'right' way to do it.
That, exactly. Love this, hate it, why the hell is it something our government is spending money on?
Why do leftists insists on spending money on lgbtxxx
Because they want to cram their beliefs on others ie they demand conformity to their beliefs
We used to believe the soft power in being a reliable force for tolerance and good in the world was worthwhile.
Also the being good in the world was worthwhile.
HIV prevention seems good, regardless on if you like tolerance of gay people or not.
If you want HIV prevention maybe try doing it without wasting money on all the other cruft.
cruft???
Apart from guns, all these guys seem to think about is gay sex.
Guns and gay sex Guns and gay sex
What's the nexus here?
Happiness is a warm gun, bang bang shoot shoot
Prog Logic: Trying to prevent me from wasting millions of your dollars on x means you're obsessed with x!
I feel like no one on either side of this discussion actually read to the end of the article? (C'mon guys, it's really not that long!)
Over the years, USAID and others stepped in and partnered with help centers to support initiatives like HIV prevention and care, and safe-sex counselling. The U.S. funds were vital for running the centers and clinics that helped with distributing free condoms, screenings and follow-up treatment for people with HIV.
So on the one hand, there's definitely a nexus to sex. On the other hand, trying to prevent people from getting HIV or treating people who already have it seems very far from trying to force anyone to have sex.
Of course, I'm sure there's some people posting here still think abstinence-only sex education is a good idea that doesn't actually increase rates of teen pregnancy, or that being in the same room as a gay person "forces" them to be gay so the rest of the conversation is going to be pretty dumb.
Like the Death Penalty, Abstinence is 100% effective.
I thought it was pretty clear that the complaint wasn't forcing people to have the sex, but instead to adopt policies related to the sex.
But be it ever so vital to a minority in these countries, why are WE spending money on it? That's the question, and "It's vital! (To somebody else.)" isn't an answer.
"I thought it was pretty clear that the complaint wasn't forcing people to have the sex, but instead to adopt policies related to the sex."
That might be what normal people were discussing, but Amos originally claimed "Heres the AP crying about how we're no longer spending (as much) taxpayer money attempting to force butt sex into Nepal."
We used to spend money on foreign aid (and preventing unnecessary HIV deaths doesn't seem like a crazy form of foreign aid) because of some combination of altruism* and that we thought it was in our national interest to be seen as a global leader and to build goodwill across the world.
* You always talk about the role of charity. Why is this reserved for individuals and not for countries, at the geopolitical level? I propose it's roughly the same thing with the same rationale. We're helping people because we can and we're kind.
Worth pointing out that "HIV deaths" is a general term that applies to both opposite and same-sex interactions. The prevalence of HIV among homosexual men (but not women) in some countries should not be assumed to hold true in other parts of the world. Nor should the higher incidence of "butt sex" among heterosexuals in some countries as a form of birth control be assumed to hold true in other parts of the world.
POTUS Trump has proved adept at finding solutions to long running conflicts. I believe it is 5 conflicts this year, where POTUS Trump has helped to facilitate an end to fighting, and peace.
May: India, Pakistan June: Rwanda/Congo, Israel/Iran July: Thailand, Cambodia August: Armenia, Azerbaijan
A pity the UN can't do this.
He got cease fire agreements in the India-Pakistan and Israel-Iran confilicts. That's far short of peace. Quite possibly the Armenia-Azerbaijan agreement will lead to peace. Once Armenia releases claims to Artsakh they will have nothing serious to fight over.
Picky, picky, picky. The end of Korean war fighting is only the result of an armistice.
He (POTUS Trump) achieved what others were unable to, John F Carr.
I mean, given that the Thai-Cambodia fighting started because of him, it would've been hard for any other U.S. president to have ended it.
"The Thai-Cambodian conflict primarily revolves around a territorial dispute that has historical roots dating back to colonial times, particularly concerning the Preah Vihear temple area."
Yes, Trump is obviously responsible for all of that. David was clearly very convincing on this point.
Trump's also responsible for WW1 and the French-Indochina War.
So when random good things happen on his watch he gets credit, but when random bad things happen on his watch he doesn't get blame? (Whereas when random bad things happen on Biden's watch, he gets all the blame?) Weird.
"Weird." Yes, you can be.
As I've said before and will say again:
Presidents always blame the last guy for anything that went wrong, and Presidents will always take credit from their predecessor for anything that goes right.
Rightly or wrongly, this is how the world works.
That being said, to place blame on Trump for things that were long in the making- the land conflict between Cambodia and Thailand- is like blaming Biden for Russia's invasion of Crimea.
David Nieporent 2 hours ago Flag Comment Mute User "I mean, given that the Thai-Cambodia fighting started because of him,"
Just another leftists blaming things on trump.
David is a despicable Democrat demonic denier detailist dramatic diva.
He's as much responsible for the fighting stopping as for it starting.
And bookkeeper_joe still doesn't know what the word leftist means.
Still lying about not being a leftist
David Nieporent 2 hours ago Flag Comment Mute User "He's as much responsible for the fighting stopping as for it starting."
Typical leftists - Blaming trump with zero foundation
"He's as much responsible for the fighting stopping as for it starting."
Weird how it ended under him and nobody else could do it.
Yup, just a coincidence.
OK, we'll dig up Jimmuh Cartuh and have him build houses for them.
How about we give him the Nobel Peace prize in exchange for his resignation from the Presidency.
You sure you want to trade Trump for Vance?
Maybe after the midterms when Vance would be able to run for 2 full terms after he finishes out Trump's term would be a good time.
I'd happily Trump for Vance. Vance is not a nut case. He knows Trump is shit and he doesn't believe in the tariff nonsense (among other flawed Trump policies). Vance is putting on a show strictly for his political prospects.
Even if he continues all of Trump's policies (for his 2028 campaign), it would be without the man-baby whining, renaming everything, accepting bribes, retribution tour, etc. That alone will help the country. With any hope, he ditches the worst policies. Plus, Vance has no charisma and no base, making his 2028 prospects far worse than Trump's have ever been.
Its been over half a year on a second term now and the 'dictatorship' with SS legions goosestepping beneath UFOs, Dems have been promising us has failed to emerge. When the rightful authorities have chosen to rein in the Trump Admin and they have no more legal options they have obeyed, as Progs have gleefully pointed out slow progress on his agenda in between crying about its rapid progress. They even let back in that illegal gangbanger Abrego. A king we have not it appears.
Maybe you missed the news that Trump is planning to use the military to stop the nonexistent crime wave in DC.
"Compared to the 50-state average, the violent crime rate in 2023 in Washington, DC was 207.4% higher, and its rate of property crime was 124.7% higher." https://usafacts.org/answers/what-is-the-crime-rate-in-the-us/state/washington-dc/
Indeed. A longer view of the crime in DC is also important. The homicide rate in DC is considerably above its 20 year average. Homicides really spiked after 2020 (above 200 per year), all the way to 273 per year in 2023. Prior to 2020, there wasn't a single year with 200 homicides and generally the city was in the 100 - 150 range.
There is a minor drop 2023 to 2024...but the long term view here is important.
A longer view of the crime in DC is also important
Cherry picking so hard.
A longer view is precisely about NOT cherry picking.
The crime stat is down so now it's time to take the longer view.
Because crackdowns are famous for dealing with longer term issues.
Yeah, that's cherry picking. You've just made picking your facts based on your ideology as a lifestyle.
And here you ideology seems like it's supporting Trump just demonstrating his jackbooted thugs can jackboot.
The worst libertarian.
Yes. That's a large reason why so many undocumented people pick fruit.
The term "wave" was used to describe a multi-decade-long increases in crimes before. Even a year-over-year dip in the middle did not change how the term was used.
Example: NYC experienced a nearly 20-year increase in homicides. There was a three-year year-over-year dip from 1983 until 1986 before it rocketed back up again. However, the 1986 local minimum was far above the pre-68 and post-2000 homicide rate. The whole period was part of the wave.
https://criminaljustice.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2020-Shootings-and-Murder-factsheet_January-2021.pdf
It's fair to say that 2024 homicide rates in DC are still well above their pre-2020 levels even though they were slightly lower than 2023's. Once the homicide rate is at or below 2020's levels then the wave is over.
It's really only murder rate that is up. As I linked below, overall violent crime rate is actually at a 30 year low.
Not to say that murders don't matter, and there are indeed way too many of them, but it's important to contextualize the overall discussion. There's been a recent spike in murders, but I'm not sure this is a DC-specific problem. The murder rate still appears to be notably higher than before the Trump v1 spike in 2020.
I agree with your characterization- it's important to have proper context.
Different crime waves will require different solutions.
Boston has a population of 675,647, and 24 homicides in 2024.
DC has a population of 702,250 -- and 187 homicides of 2024.
Wait!!!
You mean there’s a major city, much reviled on the right, that is not a crime-infested shithole. (BTW, NYC is another).
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/violent-crime-dc-hits-30-year-low
There is a minor drop 2023 to 2024
And another drop from 2024 to 2025.
"And another drop from 2024 to 2025."
Having only preliminary data on a partial year will obviously make it look like there are less murders. In 2026 there are even less murders!
I can multiply, to project out to a full year. Is that an esoteric approach to you?
It’s not esoteric, just a completely wrong way to interpret data. Datasets tend to have trends, seasonality, etc embedded within them. Simply multiplying it to project a full year ignores that and won’t promote an accurate estimate.
For example, look at the monthly totals of Chicago homicides: https://chicago.suntimes.com/graphics/crime/violence-tracker/
It's not hard to find comparisons through the current month and day between 2024 and 2025, which show a decrease in almost every category of crime in Washington DC.
Sure, that can be a valid way to compare and removes seasonality. But just “multiply[ing], to project out to a full year” definitely isn’t valid in this case.
It's not a like for like comparison. You need to compare cities not states.
Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Crime rate in Washington, DC The 2023 crime rate in Washington, DC is 572 (City-Data.com crime index), which is 2.4 times higher than the U.S. average. It was higher than in 98.5% U.S. cities. The 2023 Washington crime rate rose by 33% compared to 2022. The number of homicides stood at 264 - an increase of 60 compared to 2022. In the last 5 years Washington has seen rise of violent crime and rise of property crime. Read more: https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Washington-District-of-Columbia.html
Out of interest, what is the long-term trend in D.C.? You know, over 20 or more years?
FWIW: https://cjcc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/cjcc/2008-2023%20Violent%20Crime%20Trends.pdf
Funny how you pick 2023 as your end date.
Did you read the comments about cherry-picking above?
“ Compared to the 50-state average”
Well, duh. There are 6.3 million people in the DC metro area. That’s more than Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Rhode Island, and half of Wyoming combined.
There are more crimes when people are close to each other. If you have to drive across the state to be near other people, it makes a difference.
"DC metro area"
DC only has 700,000, why are you using the "metro area" when discussing DC crime?
Probably because you are discussing crime IN Washington DC, not crime BY CITIZENS OF Washington DC. You can literally cross the street and be in DC along almost the entirety of the city limits.
There are over 6 million people living together in DC. Why should we ignore mist of them because the live down the street?
Woukd you like to compare apples to apples by comparing equivalent geographic areas or equivalent populations? Probably not, since the per-capita crime rate in rural red states is much higher than in cities.
Comparing the crime rate in DC to statewide averages is really dumb. It's actually shocking to me that states like New Mexico, Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee are anywhere near DC.
Having said that, DC is a somewhat high crime rate city, just nudging in to the top 20.. Of course, like in most cities, crime has been trending down since Biden helped get the Trump crime spike under control. So it's definitely ridiculous to talk about a crime wave.
https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Washington-District-of-Columbia.html
That site is so good it thinks DC is in Washington state, or something.
But maybe you were actually trying to make a point?
Guess they had DEI hires. The other stats are valid.
Okay, which of those stats do you think disagree with what I wrote?
Well then, of its Trump's crime spike then we can all agree its his special responsibility to get it under control.
And we should all be happy he is taking it seriously.
Except for the fact that the spike was nationwide and he's only trying to do something about DC. Everywhere else he's making it worse by retasking federal law enforcement to try to track down restaurant owners and Afghan interpreters to deport.
Sometimes just demonstrating effective solutions is enough.
Not being able to fix everything everywhere all at once is no reason not to act where he can.
“ Sometimes just demonstrating effective solutions is enough.”
Trump wouldn’t know. He’s never tried that. If he did, he would approach illegal immigration like Obama, who did it bigger, better, and more efficiently. But he prefers empty showmanship to actual results, so here we are.
“ Not being able to fix everything everywhere all at once is no reason not to act where he can.”
This won’t fix anything. Like most of what he does.
Compared to the 50-state average, the violent crime rate in 2023
Wow. So Trump is planning to time travel back two years?
David Nieporent 2 hours ago Flag Comment Mute User Maybe you missed the news that Trump is planning to use the military to stop the nonexistent crime wave in DC.
Yep - non existent crime wave in DC 2x the national average, A crime wave that has lasted for a few decades
"Maybe you missed the news that Trump is planning to use the military to stop the nonexistent crime wave in DC."
You mean the most violent national capital on Earth?
That is in the running with most of what Jesse says for most obviously idiotic thing ever said.
Trump cuts $800M in DOJ grants designed to fight crime, including in DC. Then Trump slams DC for doing nothing about crime in order to field an authoritarian takeover in his own back yard where there's no state governor or legislators to stand up to him.
Tissue Paper Dictator.
Which is what he's legally entitled to do. Are conservatives right to complain the SC stopping Trump from doing X is also authoritarian simply because they don't like it?
No, but they do it anyway. Constantly. Checks and balances are authoritarian, to the hard right.
Seems like the dictatorship is in the form of executive orders that have attempted to deport lawfully present people, target his enemies (universities, law firms, former government employees), end birthright citizenship, end funding to sanctuary cities, close the Department of Education and (oh yes) impose tariffs.
It's government by executive decree (dictators don't need Congress).
While Trump is doing all these things, it's important to note that he's doing it with the tacit support of the Republican Congress. They could convene and stop most of this in just one afternoon of voting. So while we're pointing at the Diddler on the Roof, we shouldn't forget the peanut gallery behind him providing support.
Hot enough for you? By some reckoning today marks the end of the dog days of summer.
Not just hot but wet also. The Wisconsin State Fair in Milwaukee was flooded out on its last day due to a 14 inch rain fall.
Our air conditioner had a leak, and was barely able to pull the house down by about 5 degrees relative to outside temperatures, which isn't really enough in South Carolina. It was reaching the upper 80's inside. We had some work done on it, and the temperature has cooled, and surprisingly, I'm finding 72 degrees kind of chilly.
If it were up to me, I'd turn the thing up to at least 75, but 72 is the highest my wife will permit.
hopefully - your system isnt one the newer systems that the refrigerant is part propane.
Bring back Freon-12!
r12 for auto (older pre 2005? or pre 2000?)
r22 for home (older pre 2000?) -
I dont recall the phase out dates.
FWIW. My son just bought his first home. Sellers left all the appliance including a top end GE refrigerator less than three years old. A week after moving in it crapped out. Cost to repair $1500-1600. Mostly due to the R600a refrigerant (it's flammable}.
R-410A, no propane, but being phased out in favor of one that has it.
It's not enough of a leak to be an explosion hazard, takes a year to drop low enough to compromise its function. Which is slow enough you can't find it with soapy water, darn it.
Refrigerators typically hold less than 60 g of refrigerant. That much butane if ejected all at once would likely not cause a fire. And leaks do tend to be much slower…
its the A/Cs that present the potential problem psi at 350ish vs 230ish for the high pressure line
If your refrigerator is seeing 230psi there is something very wrong. Not that there's an easy way for you to tell...
Regarding A/C pressures, I suppose you could be in some personal danger if you were a YouTube DIY'er who decided to poke around in extremely hot weather. 350psi likely requires 100F ambient temps. And you'd need to be doing something that would cause a line to split...
Cheers.
my reference was to the new formulation for refrigerant used in A/c's which contains some propane. The PSI on the high pressure line for 410 and the newer refrigerant is around 350psi, The high pressure line in an r22 system is in the range of 220-240psi.
the danger is the leak in a r454 system which under the higher psi will leak faster and being in proximity of electric sparks (fan motor) or the gas furnace (though partly closed system) increases risk of flame/fire.
I agreed with you that people don't need to set the AC to deep freeze. My major aim is to get the house just cool enough to bring the humidity level down.
When we lived in Florida, I routinely kept the house at 80 during the Summer. (100 year old house with 40 windows and all of them original wood paned.) The whole-house attic fan was a life-saver during power outages.
Is it time to end "home rule" for Washington, DC?
If that's what it takes to get them to stop electing Democrats, I guess that's fair. /s
No one cares about the FBI crime stats, of course.
Not even on the table.
Just will to power.
No its not.
It's time to devolve the DC back to Maryland, other than Capitol Hill, the Whitehouse, Supreme Court and the Capitol Mall, which has zero inhabitants, other than the president, and maybe a few homeless, which would include a few representatives sleeping in their offices.
That wouldn't work, because Maryland votes Democratic too.
It would work perfectly fine. The only drawback is that MD might get an extra congressional seat.
Yes, and hence it would defeat the purpose.
The purpose isn't political, it's about crime in D.C.
Again, look at the crime stats.
This isn’t actually about crime, it is about a demonstration of power.
yea - a demonstration of power the cuts crime. Cant have a solution that actually works - makes the progressives/democrats look bad
Sorry, what's that going to fix? Baltimore has a higher crime rate than DC.
It’ll be getting higher soon I’m guessing
Would work fine, Virginia reclaimed its territory that was part of DC back in the 1840's.
DC was actually originally created in order to keep the Capitol out of any state, so making DC a State while not actually unconstitutional would be counter to what the founding fathers envisioned. Devolving the residential parts to Maryland would give Maryland one more congressional seat.
It would also make sense -- there are parts of DC where the other side of the street is MD.
They never planned to have people living in DC.
And Kansas City is in two states. What’s your point?
Nelson - whats the relevancy?
KC MO & KC KS are two different cities separated by a major river.
Yes. It is a single metro area split by a river. And in two states.
Dr. Ed’s bizarre assertion that it was never intended for there to be residents in DC, “supported” by the fact that there are places (almost the entire city limit) where “there are parts of DC where the other side of the street is MD”, required an example of a metro area that existed in more than one jurisdiction to point out the absurdity of his logic. Hence Kansas City, a single metro area in two different states.
But it’s Dr. Ed, so thought, facts, and logic rarely enter into the equation.
you overlooked the part that kc ks and kc mo started out as separate and distinct towns.
your comment still lacks much relevancy to ed's comment
And there are parts of the US where the other side of the street is May-He-Co, that’s how borders work
The founding fathers were not gods.
What they envisioned is not inscribed on two (or even three, if we can find the shards) tablets.
Grouping like with like is a gerrymander. It's a compulsion the hayseed cannot help.
The catch is that we actually have a constitutional amendment giving DC electoral college votes equal to the least populous state. Devolving most of DC to Maryland wouldn't get rid of that amendment, it would just radically reduce the number of people voting on who got the EC votes.
So you could get a few homeless people living on the Mall determining the outcome of a Presidential election.
Let them (DC) stew in their own marinade.
Only the President and the First Lady. Sounds fine to me. /s
Plus VP and wife. Congresscritters living in their offices wouldn’t count, because they inevitably have their residences back in their districts or states. Indeed, that is one of the grounds for mortgage fraud being threatened against Adam Schifty right now, that he claimed his primary residence to be his DC suburban house. Which it apparently cannot legally be.
"Plus VP and wife."
The Naval Observatory is not near the White House. Seems several mile away from a quick look at the map.
Which might inject enough unpredictability into the system to someday break DC's perfect record voting for Team Blue? Pragmatically, I'm not quite seeing the concern.
"It's time to devolve the DC back to Maryland, other than Capitol Hill, the Whitehouse, Supreme Court and the Capitol Mall, which has zero inhabitants, other than the president, and maybe a few homeless, which would include a few representatives sleeping in their offices."
So that those few inhabitants would have the ability to determine three electoral votes, per the 23rd Amendment?
We could technically abolish the District altogether. We don't need a district to exercise exclusive jurisdiction - there are thousands of such places already within the US, in the form of military bases and federal prisons.
Great idea JS! “USP D.C.”
So the White House would be in Maryland but not subject to Maryland law.
Why is it bad if the White House is subject to Maryland law?
DC was created in the first place because they didn't want the capitol to be subject to the regulation of any one state, because states were much more powerful relative to the federal government at the time, and this might have resulted in the federal government being captured by that state.
Today the states have been dramatically weakened relative to the federal government, but it could still be a problem to some extent.
Congress has the power
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
Military facilities are ordinarily under exclusive federal jurisdiction. The Assimilative Crimes Act fills in any legislative gaps.
Don't pay much attention to that "by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be" bit these days, I've noticed.
The people of D.C. don't appear to want to be part of Maryland. That factors into making Puerto Rico a state (which some are firmly in support of) -- the people there are quite divided.
Anyway, the 23A gives Congress the power to determine how electors are allotted. They can be allotted by national popular vote.
Also, it's about time that we give territorial residents [citizens allowed to vote] the right to vote for president. At the very least, Puerto Rico is populous enough to provide a special rule ala the 23A.
"people of D.C. don't appear to want to be part of Maryland"
Because they want two US senators and other perks of being a state. Even if its just a crime ridden city.
Whatever the reason, they don't want to be part of Maryland, so using basic rules of self-government, it would be wrong to make it part of Maryland.
D.C. is less "crime-ridden" than various places, including certain cities in red states. I'm okay with D.C. not being a state and only having local home rule (more so than they do now) + a voting member in Congress [by constitutional amendment, if necessary, though Orin Hatch once argued it was not].
OTOH, its "non-state-worthiness" because it has less thinly populated land than a Dakota or Wyoming is somewhat unclear to me.
“ Because they want two US senators”
What?
https://www.americaexplained.org/does-washington-dc-have-a-governor-senators-and-representatives.htm
It's time to disburse the federal government into the other states and also create a dozen regional entities containing their own capitals.
*disperse
So the idea is to do that over the objections of Maryland and DC?
Well, DC's objections don't really matter, but retrocession over the objections of a state could be constitutionally problematic.
The consent of American people matters even if the people live in DC.
DC is literally small enough you can walk out of it in under an hour, and is a special governmental enclave, like a military base, it has home rule only as a privilege granted by Congress. So, cry me a river, I don't care.
It was a mistake letting people have their legal residence in DC to begin with.
'walk out of it' doesn't make sense; not sure what you're getting at there. I did a quick N-S boundary stone Google mapping and it's a 5 hours 20 minute walk.
But the main point is you seem to be arguing that the consent of US citizens who live in a geographically small area don't count.
No, I'm arguing that the consent of US citizens who chose to live in special federal enclaves doesn't count. DC has had its current status for generations longer than anybody currently living in it has been around, and if they chose to live there, tough nuggies.
They want the political rights of somebody living in a state? Move.
Why does choosing to live in DC mean that this group of people have uniquely given up their right to consent?
You're special pleading away the liberty of a group of people.
"Why does choosing to live in DC mean that this group of people have uniquely given up their right to consent?"
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution
Bellmore — I was born in DC. When I lived there, I did not want to move elsewhere. Why should I have to? My dad's family lived there. My mom had moved there from Minnesota before WW II, to go to work for the OSS, when it was just getting started. My mom, Dorothy Kododek was born in New Prague, MN, and Wild Bill Donovan was actively recruiting Americans of Polish and Czech descent.
For what it may be worth, I am also one of DC's longer-surviving violent crime victims. I was targeted there by a paranoid schizophrenic who shot at me with a pistol in 1968, but missed with several shots. He was trying to hit a highly motivated moving target.
The shooter was subsequently acquitted by a jury, for no reason prosecutors could explain. My guess is that it was jury nullification. He was so flagrantly insane jurors probably thought he should not have been charged. After I found out how crazy he was, I thought he should have been committed, not charged. That's what the prosecutors thought too. They said they had tried and failed to get him committed, and were mystified that it had not happened.
He had been the manager of the building I lived in. The action started when I discovered I had locked myself out. I buzzed his doorbell to ask to be admitted. That was all it took.
As the shooter raved to the cops that night, he knew I was an agent of the FBI and the CIA, following him around to ruin his life. He didn't mind, because God would judge me. God was going to judge the cops too.
While the cops disarmed him of his pistol, they also found a Bowie knife strapped to his belt. Its blade was inscribed using German gothic style letters: "Birth Control."
He had grown up in Montana, and went around sometimes in cowboy regalia, which was less usual then.
Turned out he had some famous friends. Lucille Ball. Charles Lindbergh. Burton K. Wheeler. The shooter had been a big band leader, and a bit of a celebrity before WW II. Then he did time as a draft dodger.
DC was a far more violent place in the 1960s than it has become subsequently, by the way. People who do not like living in DC now will probably be unhappy in any major American city. I have family and friends who live there, and they love it. If Trump were not trying to wreck the place, I would advise my son to move there.
[delete]
As witnessed by their election and re-election of Marion "Crack Head" Barry as mayor.
Nothing says reasonable like making decisions based on an event that happened over 30 years ago!
Sure, subsequent mayors have just been incompetent, not crack heads.
“ It was a mistake letting people have their legal residence in DC to begin with.”
Yes, the government allowing people to live in the homes they had on the land they owned was a mistake.
You suck at being a libertarian. Probably because of your outcome-based belief system.
“Let people do what they want unless it infringes the rights of others or results in them doing something I don’t like” is Brett’s libertarian lodestar.
No. It’s not like a military base.
Can anyone just buy a house on a military base and move in? I don’t think so.
Further, military bases are governed differently than non-military areas, for obvious reasons.
We do know you don’t care, because it’s a city. That’s enough for you.
Constitutionally it's the same as a military base:
Congress Shall Have the power ..."To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"
Disagree. There's a good reason for there to be federal control over DC. Look at the issues in California. If the court rules a different way, the governor of Maryland could just "look the other way" if there were large scale riots in DC or threats of riots...and it was politically advantageous.
And the Feds would be very limited in their response.
All of these comments, strictly about whether and how much crime there is. Thought the question was whether Trump could use the military to address…
Which issues in California are those and why are they driving a need for the President to run DC like his private fiefdom?
https://joinouramerica.org/what-no-one-wants-to-admit-about-the-2025-la-riots/
Oh, that doesn’t seem like a partisan hack site at all. LOL!
Listen that dude bothsided super hard. No way he’s not legit!
Stop me if you've heard this one before:
Anas al-Sharif, who was one of Al Jazeera’s most recognisable faces in Gaza, was killed while inside a tent for journalists [!] outside al-Shifa hospital [!] in Gaza City on Sunday night. Seven people in total were killed in the attack, including al-Sharif, Al Jazeera correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh and camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal and Moamen Aliwa, according to the Qatar-based broadcaster. The Israel Defense Force admitted the strike, claiming the reporter had “served as the head of a terrorist cell in the Hamas terrorist organisation and was responsible for advancing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF forces”.
Anas al-Sharif, who was one of Al Jazeera’s most recognisable faces in Gaza, was killed while inside a tent for journalists [!] outside al-Shifa hospital [!] in Gaza City on Sunday night.
Seven people in total were killed in the attack, including al-Sharif, Al Jazeera correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh and camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal and Moamen Aliwa, according to the Qatar-based broadcaster.
The Israel Defense Force admitted the strike, claiming the reporter had “served as the head of a terrorist cell in the Hamas terrorist organisation and was responsible for advancing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF forces”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/10/prominent-al-jazeera-journalist-killed-in-israeli-airstrike-on-gaza
Such a coincidence, that every civilian who is killed by the IDF turns out to have been a prominent member of Hamas.
Based on their coverage I'm not surprised.
There was a freelance "journalists" working for the AP that was an active participant in the October 7 massacre, so a few more journalists being active members of Hamas is not surprising.
Seeing as Hamas hadn't killed him....
Based on their coverage, eh?
Yes, I have seen this before. The net result is there are seven fewer hamas sympathizers to terminally address later this month.
Maybe if Ham-Ass would release the Hostages they’re holding since Oct 7, 2023
Quick question, if he was Hamas would you say the attack was justified? If not why not?
That depends. Historically Hamas had a civilian wing and a military wing, because they spent the last 20-odd years being the government of Gaza, providing social welfare, etc. I have no idea what the situation is now, but it is certainly not OK to kill a civilian member of Hamas, just like it's not OK for Hamas to kill Israeli civilians, like it did on October 7.
Hamas is the government of Gaza. Under international law being part of Hamas/ Gazan government makes that person a legitimate target during a time of war.
Under international law being part of Hamas/ Gazan government makes that person a legitimate target during a time of war.
I am not sure what gave you that idea. A civilian, non-combatant member of an enemy government (at least one outside the military chain of command) is not a legitimate target in wartime.
If you're a member of an int'l designated terror group (like hamas), you're fair game (a perfectly legitimate target in warfare).
Hamas is a terrorist organization. If a member of Hamas is killing and/or raping innocent women, saying the member can't be killed because they are "civilian" is incorrect.
"civilian wing and a military wing"
Terrorists are terrorists, even if some pretend not to be. The"wing" concept is beyond stupid, and always has been.
Stop me if you’ve heard this before but were you one of the execrable trolls spreading lies that Israel was starving the Gazan population? A lot of vile Hamas supporters were a tad upset that the NY Times begrudgingly admitted they promoted the lie using a photo of a baby with a neurological disorder as a victim. But you just get right back on the vile Hamas propaganda horse. That’s the spirit of a true antisemite.
Personally I believe if you start a war that famine is a potential consequence and the people starting the war ( in this case Hamas) are the ones to blame.
Personally I believe you're a terrible person.
Why? Is it because I believe that those that start wars should face the consequences of that war? By the way were your ancestors BSB during WW2?
I think Hamas is rather terrible stealing food and selling it back to the Gazan population. And starving Israel hostages and forcing them to dig their own graves is not very nice either.
The people we killed aren't feeding us!!!!!
"Such a coincidence, that every civilian who is killed by the IDF turns out to have been a prominent member of Hamas."
Such is life. Don't want none, don't start none.
IDF is the good guys here. Still.
This is apparently how the US does business in 2025:
Nvidia and AMD have reportedly agreed to share a portion of their revenue from China sales of certain chips as part of an unusual arrangement with the US administration to obtain export licenses to the Chinese market, the Financial Times (FT) reported on Monday.
I don't have access to the FT article, but I understand the number is 15%.
They are payments for export licenses for specific chips to CHN, eurotrash.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/10/nvidia-amd-15percent-of-china-chip-sales-revenues-to-us-ft-reports.html
Sure. Trump takes his cut. Extorting business, I'm sure that won't do harm to the US economy at all. /s
One man's extorting business is another man's making them pay their fair share. We need to see which side we are on before we reach into our wonderful bag of rhetoric.
You mean, when the Fed gov't receives billions in export license revenue from semiconductor manufacturers. No, it won't the harm the US economy.
The companies in question can avoid export license fees by building foundries here in the US, or, by not selling specific chipsets to CHN.
So it’s “That’s a nice business you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it”? No that doesn’t sound like extortion at all.
No, it's more like, "if you want to play (sell products to CHN), then you have to pay (export license revenue to USA).
The number of ways in which that is problematic are legion.
Was this a tax created by Congress? Is it for all companies in the sector, or just specific companies? Is it a requirement to do business abroad and, if so, what is the justification for imposing the tax? Are there other companies selling similar products without the tax and, if so, why aren’t they subject to the same treatment?
Congress sets taxes through legislation, not the President by whim, and laws require specificity.
This idea that the President can, on a whim and with malice aforethought, tax companies arbitrarily should make everyone, especially libertarians, very concerned.
The power that the Presidency gathered to itself before Trump was deeply concerning to those of us who see checks and balances as the ultimate protection of the citizenry against the government. The supercharged way that Trump has wielded the office is terrifying, not just because of what he is doing with it, but also because the wingnuts on the left will do the same thing when they take office. Granted, they won’t be as willing to flout judicial checks and balances, but this much power vested in one person is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent.
Gee. I thought the standard GOP/MAGA position was that taxes hurt business.
Not the ones Trump likes, apparently. They enjoy some sort of miraculous exemption.
Taxation and export/import licenses are "extorting business"
Taxation and import/export licensing on specific businesses? Nothing to see here!
I think you misspelled "specific classes of processors." The fact that those processors are largely manufactured by a duopoly is both garden-variety normal and beside the point.
So, since the problem obviously isn’t selling them at all, what is the justification for extorting profits from American companies, harming them and making them less competitive in the global market?
You do understand that American companies aren’t the only ones who make these processors, right?
So what is the logic in crippling the ability of American companies to compete in one of the largest markets in the world?
I welcome some specific examples, but in general it seems clear enough that if truly comparable processors were freely available elsewhere, Chinese companies would have had zero reason to desperately stockpile US chips before this deal emerged -- they just would have bought the alternatives.
The rest of your questions really collapse into this one, so let's start there.
"Trump takes his cut."
Its going to the US Treasury.
Oh, so that makes it OK? Extortion is fine if it doesn’t violate the Emoluments Clause?
It makes it not Trump taking "his" cut, at any rate.
That depends. Money that goes into some slush fund is properly described as Trump's cut. Given that we're talking about money that hasn't been properly appropriated by Congress, I see no reason to believe that it won't end up somewhere where Trump can spend it at his discretion. So yes, Trump's cut.
If it's a slush fund that Trump himself gets to spend on himself, sure.
"Given that we're talking about money that hasn't been properly appropriated by Congress, "
We're talking about money that hasn't been properly levied by Congress, it's still subject to the appropriations clause. Slush funds that administrations can spend on things Congress hasn't appropriated any money for aren't, constitutionally, supposed to be a thing.
That was what Iran-Contra was about, after all: Reagan raising funds off the books to give to the Contras despite Congress not having appropriated funds for the Contras; The funds were raised secretly, to circumvent the appropriations clause.
As the funds here are not off the books, they're not available for circumventing the appropriations clause.
I should say, bringing up Iran Contra, that my positive regard for Reagan has not aged well.
You say that as if that's a surprising thing for me to worry about.
Indeed. But lots of things that aren't supposed to be a thing are still happening, and I see no reason to believe that this backroom deal is on the up and up, at least not without some kind of additional evidence.
" But lots of things that aren't supposed to be a thing are still happening, "
Yeah, at BOTH ends of the political spectrum.
I was simply pointing out that money intended to be a slush fund is usually gotten in a less transparent manner, because the source doesn't legally get you around the appropriations clause, so you need the transactions to be happening out of sight.
You seem to be taking cues from Lathrop, a month or so ago he was speculating Trump was using tariff revenue off the books as a slush fund.
Try to stay a little more reality based.
We’ve all seen how rigorous Trump is about spending money only in strict accordance with Congressional approval.
IIRC, he was equally meticulous during his business career.
You've argued Trump breaking the law is normal Presidentin'. Now you claim Trump's actually honest?
Hah.
More taxes on American businesses.
Export taxes are unconstitutional as well.
No worries -- I have the utmost confidence in Roberts tying himself in pretzel knots justifying that it's a fine, not a tax. 😂
I'll see myself out.
That was actually kinda funny.
The NYT's "Unusual arrangement" for "revenue sharing" is probably better known as "taxes."
Taxes come from legislation passed by Congress. This isn’t that.
Constitutional taxes come from Congress. But outside of the Federal context "taxes" can come from various bodies from legislative to purely administrative.
You know, for someone who claims to hate taxes you sure like putting new weapons in the hands of future Democratic administrations.
Import and export licenses and their associated duties and fees are expressly authorized by the Constitution under Article I, and the management of such fees had been managed by the Executive, under Congressional authorization, since the Washington Administration. States are limited to fees and duties that are "absolutely necessary" and nothing further. They are currently managed, again by Congressional statutory authorization, as follows:
https://www.trade.gov/us-export-licenses-navigating-issues-and-resources#:~:text=For%20the%20majority%20of%20U.S.,Controls%20are%20the%20licensing%20agencies.
Speaking of the US government robbing society blind:
The Trump administration is warning Harvard University that it could take over its patents, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, if a review finds the university hasn’t complied with federal law, an escalation of the continuing negotiations between the White House and America’s oldest university.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/harvard-patents-trump-d4297409
"Speaking of the US government robbing society blind:"
...and just how is that so? Can Harvard continue to ignore the law in support of its racist policies?
Sure, go ahead, make stuff up to justify blatant criminality on the part of your beloved Donald.
Who is making stuff up? If the allegations prove true then Harvard's racist action should be punished as allowed by law. I have no sympathy for them.
Harvard was already proven to have racist policies (in SFFA v. Harvard). The only question is whether they fully expunged them or maintained them.
Most of the universities in the South are chocked full of racists and bigots. We could make a killing extorting them as well.
Going Stupid early this morning I see, but thanks, I'll take your BP Fastball and put it into Low Earth Orbit, Yes, many Southern Universities are "Chock" (It's "Chock", not "Chocked" but at least you didn't say "Chalk" (Have the Kids today ever seen Chalk?) full of Race-ists and Bigots, (Comedic Pause) "They're called HBCU's" (Rimshot) and extort them at your own risk, like Peter Blunt in "Caddyshack 2" (an underrated Flick, I enjoy it for Jackie Mason, the always great Randy Quaid, and easy on the eyes Chynna(!) Phillips) the HBCU's aren't into fancy TRO's and Lawsuits, they drive by and shoot your Dog.
That was too easy.
If the allegations prove true then Harvard's racist action should be punished as allowed by law.
Stealing their patents is not allowed by law.
If the patents were the result of US funding and Harvard did not comply with the terms of the grant they can be seized by the feds.
Martined, it's how we got rid of the Klan, and....
You can say it Godwin, the Nazis, I’ll bring the Rope
It’s not criminal. It’s purely contractual and statutory. It isn’t all Harvard patents, but patents resulting from federally funded research. And Harvard got the patents based on well specified criteria - including non discrimination. For most research, the funding party gets the patents. The federal government is different there - allowing the researchers or research institutions the patents if certain criteria are met. Arguably, they weren’t. If so, it’s not theft, but closer to replevin.
“ It’s purely contractual and statutory”
Let’s assume you are correct. What statute, and where is the penalty the government is threatening listed in that statute?
Harvard is like MS in the 1850's.
What a crazy go nuts guy you are.
The Federal government confiscates assets all the time from law breakers.
The Obama administration confiscated what was ultimately 5 billion dollars of bitcoin from a single individual, Ross Ulbrict, so I don't think it will be a record.
Is Harvard getting a criminal conviction for something? That's news to me.
It would take a legal process to take over the patents, unless Harvard wants to settle, which would also be an implicit admission of guilt.
Criminal or civil, its not unusual for people.breaking the law to dislodge illicit gains.
How is anything illicit here?
You don't even have to go past the paywall to see that:
"The Trump administration is warning Harvard University that it could take over its patents, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, if a review finds the university hasn’t complied with federal law, an escalation of the continuing negotiations between the White House and America’s oldest university. "
Which laws? And is the penalty the government seeking allowed under that law?
"Conduct a trial and convict them here in this comment thread or I'll deny you have any point" is not the killer argument you think it is.
If you break civil rights laws, which HU appears to have done, you face disgorgement. Not to worry, HU has 50B+ to pay up, they'll still have tea and crumpets in the faculty dining room.
The longer this drags out for HU, the worse it gets (the price tag goes up).
If it drags out until a Democrat is president, Harvard wins and probably gets reimbursed for lost funding during the Trump years.
It won't drag on past next year, John F Carr. HU will see their position is completely untenable, and that Judge Burroughs cannot save them. They'll settle, or become significantly smaller.
How is it untenable? Which laws are they supposedly breaking and where is the loss of patents listed as the penalty for such offenses.
If you allow for any penalty to be applied to anyone who breaks any law, you are opening a very ugly can of worms. It won’t end well for anyone.
So no illicit gains.
The patents were gained legally.
Trump's playing Alec Baldwin's character, sent from Mitch & Murray, telling those Hah-vahd (Redacteds) to get off their (Redacteds) and do their (Redacted) Job, which last time I checked, isn't being the US branch of Ham-Ass. I'd give them 1 week, winner gets a new Cadillac, second place gets a set of steakknives, third place hit the bricks, I hear Chattahoochee Community College in Phenix City AL has openings (Janitorial)
So, when you violate civil rights laws, which is illegal, one remedy is disgorgement of gains.
Not to worry, HU will settle and they'll still have their billions to go along with tea and crumpets in the faculty dining room.
Maybe Claudine Gay can teach a class on plagiarism techniques as a part of the equitable remedy. 😉
Efficient job you have convicted them already.
As for your issue with my construction Take it up with Kaz.
Nah, I go to the source = your construction
"Criminal or civil, its not unusual for people.breaking the law to dislodge illicit gains."
Take it up with Kaz.
As I noted above, it’s probably not really disgorgement, but closer to replevin, with Harvard arguably having violated the agreement under which it got the patents, instead of the funding entity, which is the standard practice.
You have now twice used the weasel word 'arguably.' And continue to argue for retroactive criterion changes. And pretended Bayh-Dole is some kind of contract when it's not.
Using legalish words doesn't make your legal analysis less nakedly bad.
This isn't about civil rights and I'd wager even you know that. It's just revenge shit by the mad king.
Like "vibes"?
"So, when you violate civil rights laws, which is illegal, one remedy is disgorgement of gains."
XY, what do you posit as the nexus between the patents at issue and any alleged violation of civil rights laws? (Especially where Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was controlling law until mid-2023.)
"Especially where Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was controlling law until mid-2023"
Remind me, is it before or after mid-2023?
TwelveInchPianist, do you posit any nexus between the patents at issue and any alleged violation of civil rights laws?
If so, based on what facts? Patents are not granted instantaneously.
This all smacks of Donny's revenge tour. Harvard must have done something to Donald in the past. But what?
Dunno - maybe didn't admit him?
Trump has always been stupid, but probably not stupid enough to have applied to Harvard.
The federal and state governments confiscate assets all the time from people who have not been convicted of crimes. In my state once reasonable suspicion is established the burden shifts to the former owner of the property to prove a right to keep it. Federal law is a little more generous since the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000.
That's a separate conversation. I don't think they should be doing that. The problem is that Trumpists think Obama shouldn't have been doing that, but are fine with Trump doing it regardless of the merit of the underlying case, as far as I can tell.
My understanding of the Harvard situation, is that Harvard has been violating civil rights laws in a gross and notorious manner, relying on the prosecutorial discretion of prior administrations to get away with it. And that they're probably continuing the violations even now, in a more covert manner. The Trump administration has no interest in continuing that discretion, and is telling them the terms on which they'll forgo prosecution.
I admit this looks very like a shakedown, and I don't like it. They should just go ahead and prosecute, no quarter offered. But it's not an unprecedented shakedown.
What is the precedent?
You left out "Kenneth" Lets see, Little Rock 1957, Ole Miss 1962, University of Alabama 1963, and it worked, Minorities are way safer on any of those Campi today than at Columbia or Hah-vahd.
Columbia and Harvard have Jewish undergrad populations of 23% and 10% respectively. https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/college-admissions/colleges-by-jewish-population/
The amount of Jewish faculty at each is also extraordinarily high. Which seems to imply that these heavily Jewish institutions are somehow antisemitic
That many Jews?, many with Tatoos, a little bit "Ironic" dontcha think? (Yes, I really do think) The Jewish faculty is high? Maybe they have a Medical Card. Funny how you have the Undergrad numbers down to single percentage points but the Faculty, which should be easier to check, is just "Extraordinarily High"
https://www.harvardfacultyforisrael.org/ shows a list of 453 faculty members. Apart from the sprinkling of Chinese names, most appear to be Jewish
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vSNULxEpfHXoMTnfZ6HHk-k5nyyr2-y9TriqRmp-NiOUsj26a0AX7hPpbb2XMXzlZIgILu7iImmk5No/pubhtml?gid=1336949560&single=true&pli=1
So is this more of MAGA's 'well, they're American Jews so they don't count' kind of thing again?
Way to lie with Statistics Hobie-Stank, almost all of the "Jewish" names (How about German Culture Minister Alfred Rosenberg? was he Jewish?) are Physicians with Harvard Med
That's right, Frankie...faculty
It's not that the institutions are inherently antisemitic, it's that they support, encourage, and promote an antisemitic atmosphere on campus; or, haven't you noticed?
So instead of being generally antisemitic, they instead 'promote' antisemitism? That largely sounds the same to me
The South has a really high percentage of blacks, would you care to generalize that reasoning?
Yeah, I'm not going to criminally convict the south of being racist and take their patents.
[When liberals generalize that the south is racist/irredeemable I do hate it.]
Harvard already has been adjudicated to be racist, Sarcastr0. They had their day in court and lost. And they have a long and storied history of antisemitism. And they first adopted discriminatory admissions criteria in the 1920's because they were finding that purely meritocratic criteria resulted in double digit percentages of Jews!
So, it's become difficult for them to discriminate against Jews as much in admissions as they used to, and the percentage of Jews has risen to levels in excess of the general population, but without a detailed look at the sort of admissions data they try to keep private, for all we know it would be even higher if they gave up and went pure meritocratic.
I mean, Asians are 'over-represented' at Harvard, and we know for a fact Harvard has been discriminating against them in admissions, it was that specific discrimination that was proved before the Supreme court.
Harvard already has been adjudicated to be racist
That is not actually what the Supreme Court said.
You just wanna convict them so you can move on to government sanction because you love to bind the outgroups.
"That is not actually what the Supreme Court said."
Denial not just being a river in Egypt...
Let’s assume you are right, Brett. Can you post the part of the decision that says what you are saying? Or is it just your interpretation?
The SC decision explicitly stated Harvard had been violating the Equal Protection Clause due to its use of race (i.e., racism) and had also been violating Grutter. So yes, the SC found Harvard had been violating multiple laws due to their racist admission policies.
“Because Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidable employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause.”
“Respondents’ admissions programs also lack a “logical end point” as Grutter required.”
"The Trump administration has no interest in continuing that discretion, and is telling them the terms on which they'll forgo prosecution."
Prosecution, Brett?
Based on what criminal statute(s), pray tell?
I suppose you're relying on most civil rights law being civil, not criminal law, and so "prosecute" being the wrong word.
But the DOJ is proposing to initiate criminal prosecutions under the False Claims act, and the Supreme court is on board with this.
So that's not the gotcha you think it is.
What do you posit was any false representation made by any grant applicant that resulted in issuance of the patents at issue? When, by whom and to whom were any such false representations made?
If you are kvetching about affirmative action in admission of students, keep in mind that that was lawful up until June 29, 2023, when six black robed clowns waved their magic wands.
The false representation would be compliance with those civil Civil rights act requirements.
Not so much lawful as improperly tolerated... But, in any event, they've had two years now to pile up liability.
If I were asked to look into a false claims action, I would study cases applying Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar. In that case the Supreme Court endorsed a narrow version of the "implied certification" theory of liability under the False Claims Act. Knowingly failing to disclose a material fact can be actionable. Did schools honestly believe their discrimination, now determined to be illegal, was legal? The old rule was not as simple as "racial discrimination against white and Asian students is legal." Their policies may have been illegal under former law but the Biden administration looked the other way. In that case you get to a question not reached by the Supreme Court in the False Claims Act case or the more recent fraud case: how does a trier of fact judge materiality in cases where the President's politics matters?
Brett, I asked for the nexus between what you claim to be any false representations and the issuance of the patents at issue. To no one's surprise, you completely ignore the latter.
Like it or not, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), and Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), were controlling law until mid-2023. The SCOTUS adjudication in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), does not mean that any representations made by Harvard prior thereto were false -- the District Court and the Court of Appeals had ruled in favor of the University.
You have not even attempted to identify any representation made subsequent to SFFA which was both: (1) objectively false, and (2) integral to the issuance of any patent.
The nexus is the certification as being in compliance with all federal laws, (Which SPECIFICALLY includes civil rights laws.) which is necessary to get the federal funding. The administration is currently proposing to pursue false claims acts on the basis of such false certifications.
Well yes. If you're a court and you want to change the interpretation of a statute, you can't really say anything else, can you?
Yeah, what did you think my references to always having been at war with EastAsia were about, anyway?
But in SFFA I think the Court actually did make a good case that Harvard's actions were not complying with Grutter. In Grutter the Court put forward some pretty stringent rules for when racial discrimination was permissible, along with a warning that they weren't going to tolerate it at all for much longer. Then institutions just went ahead and ignored those rules aside from a bit of handwaving.
The Supreme Court explicitly stated Harvard had been violating Grutter as well:
“ My understanding of the Harvard situation, is that Harvard has been violating civil rights laws in a gross and notorious manner, relying on the prosecutorial discretion of prior administrations to get away with it”
Your understanding is flawed. Harvard was conforming to SCOTUS decisions that had been made in the past. Expecting someone to follow SCOTUS decisions of the future (or face penalties) is patently ridiculous.
The Supreme court ruled in SFFA that Harvard was not, in fact, conforming to previous SCOTUS decisions.
You aren't describing an appellate decision, you are describing a finding of fact.
You got wrecked by multiple practitioners just last week for trying to argue that Supreme Court decisions reached back and recontextualized behavior.
I did not, in fact, say that Supreme court decisions reach back. I said that Harvard had been violating the law, and that the Supreme court had actually declared that in SFFA.
Harvard's actions were illegal at the time, not just retroactively, but in terms of existing precedent. And not just in the Orwellian sense of a court re-writing legal history. In its affirmative action rulings the Supreme court had actually given standards for when they'd allow racial discrimination, and Harvard, along with a lot of institutions, ignored those standards aside from a bit of handwaving.
If Harvard's actions were illegal at the time, this wouldn't have been a Supreme Court case.
Appellate decisions declare what the law is; they do not make final determinations like you are about Harvard.
You're wrong on the law, and making up facts about Harvard's behavior.
But hey the admin will probably lawlessly cause enough pain Harvard will give some concessions. Then you can declare vindicated as this country uses needlessly wrecks it's place as world intellectual leader to indulge MAGA's white resentment revenge fantasies.
No, it absolutely would be. Because a good deal of the judiciary was totally down with what was going on.
As stated above, the Supreme Court concluded Harvard had been violating Grutter. So yes, the SC stated Harvard’s actions were illegal at the time.
I don’t understand the denialism from certain people here. Is it just to be contrary? Troll? Or are you that mis- or uninformed?
"Is it just to be contrary? Troll? Or are you that mis- or uninformed?"
Regarding Sarcastr0? It's none of those things. He has been called "Il Douche." You won't find a more compelling explanation than that. If you do, I'm interested.
I think the Bayh-Dole Act is too generous. I also think Trump shouldn't unilaterally change the bargain.
How do academics view the root causes of their own precarious situation? Consider a recent gathering of professors across multiple disciplines for the annual meeting of Heterodox Academy in Brooklyn last month. HxA, as it is known, is a group devoted to fostering the necessary environment and tools for airing of conflicting and unpopular (“heterodox”) views—provided they are expressed civilly. And yet, even among this group, whose members are not prone to marching in lockstep, there was remarkable consensus that the public’s distrust and the government’s ire are directed primarily at faculty in the humanities, because of their often single-minded insistence on identity politics, equity of results over merit, and abandonment of the Western canon. The best argument I heard at the HxA conference in defense of the humanities in today’s university was: “We cannot afford to lose all of that important cancer research.” Come again? Translation: The humanities are going down and taking the rest of us—grant-funded scientists who focus on medical research or the physical sciences—with them.
How do academics view the root causes of their own precarious situation? Consider a recent gathering of professors across multiple disciplines for the annual meeting of Heterodox Academy in Brooklyn last month. HxA, as it is known, is a group devoted to fostering the necessary environment and tools for airing of conflicting and unpopular (“heterodox”) views—provided they are expressed civilly. And yet, even among this group, whose members are not prone to marching in lockstep, there was remarkable consensus that the public’s distrust and the government’s ire are directed primarily at faculty in the humanities, because of their often single-minded insistence on identity politics, equity of results over merit, and abandonment of the Western canon.
The best argument I heard at the HxA conference in defense of the humanities in today’s university was: “We cannot afford to lose all of that important cancer research.” Come again? Translation: The humanities are going down and taking the rest of us—grant-funded scientists who focus on medical research or the physical sciences—with them.
https://thedispatch.com/article/sciences-humanities-trump-faculty/
The problem is that the humanities' insistence on all that didn't stay confined to the humanities. It escaped into University management, and from there metastasized to, yes, cancer research, because University management got to decide who could do what research.
No proof that's happening; you just vibesed another conspiracy into life.
Geeze, more denial. Remember this?
Physician–patient racial concordance and newborn mortality
We did discuss it here, remember? Bullshit statistics designed to justify racial assignment of doctors, by pretending that black patients had worse outcomes if their doctors were white.
Or the researchers themselves being chosen on the basis of innate characteristics, rather than merit:
The National Cancer Institute’s DEI Obsession
DEI metastasizes, invades everything, once it hits an institution or field. It doesn't stay contained.
I don't think I'm going to convince someone who analogizes DEI to cancer that they're maybe not doing a full survey of the sciences in reaching their conclusion.
I will point out that your sources are getting more and more to be esoteric blogs with specific opinions.
Hey Martin, how is it going for Herr Starmtrooper in the UK? Minimal reporting here but it seems like the anti gang rape protests are heating up.
I don't know what you're talking about. Can you make this comment again in something other than 4Chan language?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO4xjkoS-7Y&t=833s "Yesterday (August 2), there were massive protests across the United Kingdom against the Uniparty’s immigration policies. This march took place in Manchester:" "The marchers are waving the Union Jack, the flag of the United Kingdom, and St. George’s Cross, the flag of England. It is generally considered “far right” to display the English flag in England. " https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/08/anti-migrant-protests-roil-the-u-k.php
Ah, I couldn't tell whether you were complaing about the arrests of people supporting Palestine Action, where you would have had a legitimate grievance. Those arrests are inexcusable.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/09/europe/protest-arrests-london-palestine-action-latam-intl
But no, of course you weren't worried about critics of Israel being arrested. Instead you're concerned about the "massive protests" (= three men and a donkey) of far right action groups.
It's the flag of St. George that's been adopted by the hayseeds there. Just like the hayseeds here cheapen our flag and patriotism with all their shenanigans
Like that “Hayseed” Barry Hussein, wore an Amurican Flag Lapel pin just like “45/47/48”
Can AI survive if it has to pay for copyrighted material it scrapes to "teach" itself? "AI industry groups are urging an appeals court to block what they say is the largest copyright class action ever certified. They've warned that a single lawsuit raised by three authors over Anthropic's AI training now threatens to "financially ruin" the entire AI industry if up to 7 million claimants end up joining the litigation and forcing a settlement."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/ai-industry-horrified-to-face-largest-copyright-class-action-ever-certified/
Most likely outcome is Congress establishing a statutory licensing scheme. Though given the scale of copyright owners, both domestic and international, distributing the royalties would be a nightmare.
Since copyright is statutory, (The Constitution merely permits it.) Congress COULD legislate in that way. However, if the result were to excuse previous copyright violations, mightn't there be something of a takings issue?
If Congress can remove works from the public domain Congress can also excuse past violations.
As I said, they can do it, but it could be found to be a taking, constitutionally.
Cory Doctorow says that the effect of the music licensing rules is to allow Spotify to keep most of the money that should be going to artists. Too many copyright owners to pay them all.
Huh? Spotify pays out 70% of its revenue in royalties. Most of the money already goes to artists.
As he explained it, and I haven't tried to confirm, royalties which can't easily be paid to the right person are effectively for the benefit of Spotify. Spotify's left hand collects the royalties. Spotify can not or does not decide which person deserves the royalties. Spotify moves the royalties to its right hand and calls that a payment.
I generally like Doctorow, but if that's what he's claiming that's egregiously incorrect.
Spotify gets a big pile of revenue. They take 70% of that and divide it across the total number of streams. Then they pay the rightsholder* by the number of streams. Here's an article on the topic:
https://variety.com/2025/digital/news/spotify-paid-4-billion-music-songwriters-struggling-1236334752/
The article also points to the sketchiest thing that Spotify has done, which is to start bundling subscriptions with audiobooks which allows them to decrease payouts to music artists. But we're talking about a $150M decrease as compared to a $10B total payouts, so quite a small percentage.
* This is actually the biggest problem because so much of the money goes to labels and not to the artists at all, but this is hardly Spotify's problem.
And then there is the electric bill...
The AI industry has an immense amount of money. It can afford to license copyrighted works. It can't afford statutory damages for each copyrighted work that it scrapes.
They could if it was only prospectively, not retrospectively.
The fact is, their business model is based on absolutely massive copyright violation, and people have been pointing this out to them for years. So it's not even innocent or inadvertent copyright violation. It's knowing, premeditated copyright violation.
I read that story the other day. The AI companies are right on the merits (generally); using copyrighted material merely for training is fair use. (At least one AI company used pirated material, which of course is not.) But they're wrong on their complaint here; they're just saying that they don't like class actions, but are not raising any specific issues about this case that makes the class action wrong.
Well, using copyrighted material for training of HUMANS is fair use. It's far from established that using it as data to train a computer program is.
The court issued an order on fair use that agrees: Training is fair use and therefore not infringing, but some of Anthropic's sources were alleged to be downloaded unauthorized copies of books from pirate websites and that infringement is not excused by the subsequent use of the material.
Another one joins the heavenly choir: Bobby Whitlock, the musician who co-founded Derek and the Dominos with Eric Clapton, has died, according to his manager. He was 77.
Whitlock died Sunday morning of cancer, manager Carol Kaye confirmed to CBS News. He was surrounded by his family in Texas, Kaye said.
The singer-songwriter was a keyboard player and vocalist for Derek and the Domino, the rock band best known for its 1971 album, “Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs.”
Deprivation of civil rights under color of law...Shortly, we will see several prosecutions citing this.
How hard is it to obtain a conviction, and what prison time, if any, goes with that? How does one even go about prosecuting that; what do you actually have to prove?
I like to remind people that it is what the cops who beat Rodney King actually were convicted of.
I like to remind people that Rodney King drowned (not asphyxiated, there’s a difference)
I like to remind people that was years later -- while the LAPD tried to kill him, they were unsuccessful.
If they were trying to kill him they'd have shot him, or even better, just let him keep driving.
Prosecution under that section is not rare, though I've only seen it used in excessive-force contexts.
"How hard is it to obtain a conviction?" In 2023, there were 8 guilty verdicts, 34 guilty pleas, 8 jury acquittals, 1 mistrial, and 2 dismissals, per FCCPS. The trend seems to be the same: both higher than average jury rate and acquittal rate.
"what prison time, if any, goes with that?" Misdemeanor if no bodily injury occurs. Up to 10 years for bodily injury or use of dangerous weapon. Up to life for sexual act, kidnapping, or attempt to kill. Also authorizes death penalty.
"How does one even go about prosecuting that; what do you actually have to prove?" that: 1) A person acting under color of law e.g. a police officer, prison guard 2) subjected any person 3) to the deprivation 4) of any rights secured by the Constitution e.g. right to be free from excessive force during an arrest (4A), right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment during imprisonment (8A) or pretrial custody (14A)
AJS....Looks like an open door to me =
1) A person acting under color of law e.g. a police officer, prison guard 2) subjected any person 3) to the deprivation 4) of any rights secured by the Constitution
Why don't we see more of these prosecutions?
It's very rare for prosecutors to prosecute.
But it isn't a rare crime, usually people sue, and then the peep gets QI.
When it makes headlines then there is sometimes a prosecution.
QI is what happens when the courts make laws.
If I recall correctly that law requires proof of criminal intent, essentially providing a qualified immunity defense to criminal liability.
If it were enforced we would need more prisons. I posted recently about a case where a police officer pulled over a motorist for no reason and lied about the reason. The customary remedy is to suppress the evidence, not to jail the police officer for an unconstitutional seizure.
"Deprivation of civil rights under color of law...Shortly, we will see several prosecutions citing this."
Think so? The relevant statute is 18 U.S.C. § 242, which states in full:
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
The essential elements include:
Action under color of law; "Willful" deprivation -- that is, "a specific intent to deprive a person of a federal right made definite by decision or other rule of law". Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 103 (1945) (plurality opinion). In this regard, "the presence of a bad purpose or evil intent alone may not be sufficient." Ibid.; Subjecting a person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District (no extraterritorial operation); To the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States; or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens; And resulting injury, with enhanced penalties for the occurrence of bodily injury or the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire. If death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Action under color of law;
"Willful" deprivation -- that is, "a specific intent to deprive a person of a federal right made definite by decision or other rule of law". Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 103 (1945) (plurality opinion). In this regard, "the presence of a bad purpose or evil intent alone may not be sufficient." Ibid.;
Subjecting a person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District (no extraterritorial operation);
To the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States; or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens;
To the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States;
or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens;
And resulting injury, with enhanced penalties for the occurrence of bodily injury or the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire. If death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
An important caveat is that § 242 criminal liability may be imposed only if prior decisions gave reasonable warning that the conduct at issue violated constitutional rights. criminal liability under § 242 is that it may be imposed for deprivation of a constitutional right if, but only if, in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness under the Constitution is apparent. Where it is, the constitutional requirement of fair warning is satisfied. United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 271-272 (1997).
This is why I've said that, if the Supreme court really wanted the 2nd amendment respected, they'd simply announce that in a variety of contexts they have made the right sufficiently clear that UQI isn't applicable, state actors ARE on notice.
I think it’s fairly obvious that the repugnant trash weaponizing intelligence and prosecutorial powers against their main political opponent knew exactly what they were doing regardless of the status of any potential criminal charges, But that being said, the Obama national security team and the One himself would be wise to lawyer up.
Riva, have you read Lanier? Yes or no?
Who do you propose should be prosecuted under § 242, and for what conduct?
It's time for you to break out your track shoes and run away.
No, it's time for you to get another source besides the execrable NY Times or whatever other hack media outlet is also actively engaged in trying to convince the American public that the recently declassified evidence doesn't really exist. Doubt that'll work as a defense but what the hell, there's not much else.
And regarding any potential charges, yeah conspiracy against rights may be implicated but let’s not forget seditious conspiracy. I suspect we may see this as well, in addition to perjury.
You can suspect what you will, Riva.
How are your suspicions supported by relevant facts, though?
Per 18 U.S.C. § 2384:
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
The intended use of force as a conspiratorial objective is a sine qua non of this statute.
Who do you claim conspired to use force or levy war against the Government of the United States?
Who do you claim conspired to use force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States?
Who do you claim conspired to use force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof?
When was any such conspiracy formed?
What was the specific conspiratorial objective?
Which conspirator(s) committed any overt act(s) in furtherance of the conspiratorial objective?
When did each such overt act occur?
Since when do you care or know anything at all about the facts regarding the Russian collusion fraud? You go out of your way to ignore the evidence.
"Since when do you care or know anything at all about the facts regarding the Russian collusion fraud? You go out of your way to ignore the evidence."
IOW, you've got nothing (including integrity enough to admit that you've got nothing).
The burden of persuasion is on the accuser, Riva, even if it harelips the devil.
Here it is again, and some others. Just to anticipate the inevitable idiotic response that will ensue, the press releases link to underlying documents. I wonder if you have the integrity to admit you're wrong. No, actually I don't wonder at all because you already know, and your ignorance is feigned and motivated by who knows what, your childish politics?
NEW EVIDENCE OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CONSPIRACY TO SUBVERT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S 2016 VICTORY AND PRESIDENCY https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2025/4086-pr-15-25
NEW EVIDENCE UNCOVERS OBAMA-DIRECTED CREATION OF FALSE INTELLIGENCE REPORT USED TO LAUNCH YEARS-LONG COUP TO UNDERMINE PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2025/4090-pr-18-25
Russia Hoax Whistleblower Threatened, Multiple Attempts to Report Wrongdoing Were Ignored. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2025/4093-pr-19-25
Once again, those are just political press releases which link to document dumps. They identify no specific document as reflecting any criminal activity by anyone.
That's the best you can do when the releases summarize and cite specific relevant material from the declassified files (and link to the same)? Just some advice, the gaslighting is probably not your best recourse when directly confronted with, well, just a shit load of evidence exposing the fraud. Even poor NG, I guess at some level understands this, hence he has seen it prudent to at least shut the hell up for now. But on the other hand, he'll probably just rehash the same bullshit tomorrow.
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." Proverbs 26:4-5 (RSV).
Conflating partisan press releases with actual facts fits the first category of folly, Riva, for the reasons that David identifies.
And FWIW, a simple Ctrl-f search shows that not even Tulsi Gabbard's silly press releases refers to any proposed use of force as a conspiratorial objective.
Now please try to answer my specific questions about application of 18 U.S.C. § 2384 to your fanciful "seditious conspiracy:
Who do you claim conspired to use force or levy war against the Government of the United States? Who do you claim conspired to use force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States? Who do you claim conspired to use force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof? When was any such conspiracy formed? What was the specific conspiratorial objective? Which conspirator(s) committed any overt act(s) in furtherance of the conspiratorial objective? When did each such overt act occur?
But, crazy Dave, maybe I'm giving you too much credit? Maybe you really are so deluded as to believe the Russian collusion fraud? I mean, you are deranged. And stupid. And a bit of an asshole. Well more than a bit actually, The combination of the preceding does not lend itself to reasoned analysis.
NG, what is this group gaslighting bullshit? Even after I pointed out quite clearly that the releases cite evidence and link to the same you persist with the same garbage. I don't even have to add anything. The evidence speaks for itself. What is it with you bullshitters?
Is someone paying you to embarrass yourselves? Or are you really this fundamentally stupid? Or maybe you're both just a little insane? Are either of you two currently hospitalized?
Riva, not even Tulsi Gabbard claims that the seditious conspiracy statute applies. That nonsense is yours, and yours alone.
So it is up to you to show the (arguable) applicability thereof.
And if my "gaslighting" commentary has led you to question your own sanity, memories or perception of reality, I'm damned proud of that! It's high time somebody did that.
It's entirely obvious that none of this ever happened.
Maybe all the recently released declassified files that expose further details of the fraud bear the hallmarks of Russian disinformation? Maybe time for the democrats to hire some more intel hacks to write another letter?
There were no files exposing any fraud, and indeed Durham himself concluded that the Hillary-related emails (which, to be clear, do not reveal anything illegal) were likely Russian fakes.
The emails, two of them, were concluded to be composites of other communications.
However, you’re attacking a nonessential piece of evidence to establish your denialism while at the same time completely ignoring the huge corpus of damning information.
Brennan’s notes from his brief to Obama is enough to establish Hillary Clinton devised the Trump/Russia collusion lie in an effort to distract from her legal and public perception issues stemming from her knowingly reckless behavior (and the resulting national security implications).
Brennan’s notes from his brief to Obama is enough to establish Hillary Clinton devised the Trump/Russia collusion lie in an effort to distract from her legal and public perception issues stemming from her knowingly reckless behavior
No. Again, that was something Russia made up.
And again: Trump's collusion with Russia was bolstered by, but not based on, anything Hillary said. It was based on what Trump and his various hangers-on (and of course Russia itself) were saying and doing.
Proof the Russians made up Brennan’s handwritten notes?
And again, you’re flat out lying about RussiaGate. The Trump-Russia collusion fantasy was a figment of Hillary Clinton’s concocted narrative to detract from her own corrupt conduct. It quickly gained conspirators in the leadership of the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.
And you have no evidence of such collusion. Your pathetic attempts have been repeatedly debunked here and elsewhere.
What? No. Brennan's notes were about things that Russia made up. Brennan did not tell Obama, "This is true." Brennan told Obama, "This is what the Russians are saying."
And again, you’re flat out lying about RussiaGate. The Trump-Russia collusion fantasy was a figment of Hillary Clinton’s concocted narrative to detract from her own corrupt conduct.
Again, you're just repeating Russian propaganda here. The Trump-Russia collusion story did not come from Hillary Clinton. It came from the actions of Trump (and his people) and Russia.
Whether there was a smoking gun that proved there was an explicit quid pro quo between Trump and Russia is an entirely separate question from whether there was objective evidence not originating from Hillary that would lead any rational adult to conclude that the issue needed to be investigated.
Again , you’re so deep in denialism. Even John Brennan disagrees with you!
Brennan said in an interview with CNN that there was "nothing illegal" about stirring up the scandal, rather that it was a campaign tactic aimed to "vilify Trump."
"John Ratcliffe and others are trying to portray this as unlawful activity that deserves follow-up investigation by the FBI," Brennan told CNN. "No. It was a campaign activity."
https://www.chathamstartribune.com/state_and_national/article_c83744d0-0968-11eb-9354-bf4878aae96b.html
And now you’re trying to move the goalposts: before, it was we had evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. Now, you’ve retreated to claiming we merely had evidence that justified investigation.
But again, you’re wrong there too. The FISA debacle was completely concocted, the ICA was a political move to overturn true but inconvenient IC consensus, and so forth.
And we haven’t even yet touched on the active collusion of the mainstream media.
And, let’s not leave out this nugget:
“On 07 September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Corney and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding "U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server."
Too bad FBI leadership was so completely corrupt at that juncture.
Brennan said in an interview with CNN that there was "nothing illegal" about stirring up the scandal, rather that it was a campaign tactic aimed to "vilify Trump." "John Ratcliffe and others are trying to portray this as unlawful activity that deserves follow-up investigation by the FBI," Brennan told CNN. "No. It was a campaign activity."
I've literally made that point multiple times. I have never argued that Hillary didn't try to convince people that Trump was in Putin's pocket. That's not even a scandal; that's just ordinary politics.
The effort by Gabbard and the other MAGA loons to try to turn it into a scandal required a couple of additional elements:
1) That Hillary made it up. (She did not.) 2) That Hillary's motive in doing so was to distract people from the email "scandal." (Fake Russian claim.) 3) That the IC knew #1 and #2, but the Obama administration pretended it was real in order to illegally investigate/prosecute Trump, either to defeat him or undermine him. (Fake Trump claim.)
We do have evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, but it wasn't sufficient to prosecute. But that's irrelevant. As I noted a moment ago, the supposed "scandal" is that the investigation of Trump was unjustified because everyone knew that Hillary had made it up and there was no truth to it. But if there was a legitimate basis for the investigation, then the entire "scandal" is not one.
Haha, you’re so full of it David!
1) You lied about the origins of the Trump/Russia collusion fable. You claimed it originated with the Russians when it clearly came from Hillary Clinton. Even John Brennan admits this. On CNN nonetheless.
2) The IC all knew the Steele dossier was commissioned by the Clinton campaign to impugn Trump and sway the election.
3) The evidence to obtain the FISA warrants was knowingly fabricated to allow the IC to spy on the Trump campaign.
4) You’ve tried this line before, but no evidence exists that Trump colluded with the Russian government. Some members had contact with Russian people, but no collusion occurred.
5) No valid, factual information existed to justify the actions the IC leadership, President Obama, Clinton, et al ultimately took. They knew very early on that Clinton concocted it and proceded anyway.
Intentionally or not, you seem to have very little understanding of what went on the last 10 years. It all started with Hillary Clinton and mushroomed from there.
Jay.tee, assuming arguendo that John Brennan in fact said every word of what your comment attributes to him, how is he wrong?
What federal statute(s) do you contend that that violated?
Nope. You've (to be charitable) misinterpreted both what I said and what Brennan said. Probably because you completely misunderstand all the events of 2016, and have invented an imaginary "collusion hoax" and therefore have to work it into your narrative. There was no collusion hoax. Assuming, arguendo, that Trump didn't collude with Russia, that does not make it a "hoax." And nothing"originated" with Hillary.
Hillary did indeed make accusations against Trump. I don't and have never denied that. But she seized on a notion that was already out there. Her accusations were neither the source of public suspicions about Trump nor the impetus for the investigation of Trump.
Still wrong. The Steele dossier was opposition research. It was commissioned, like all opposition research, to find any issues in Trump's background (relating to Russia). And for the record it was commissioned by Fusion, not by the Clinton campaign. Obviously when a campaign hires someone to produce opposition research it hopes it will dig up things that can be used against a candidate.
Still utterly false. There was only one fabrication, a single sentence in an email for the third warrant renewal by one guy, and of course it was to surveil (not "spy on") Carter Page, not the Trump campaign.
You've read neither the nonpartisan Mueller report nor the bipartisan SSCI report.
Clinton concocted nothing. And Horowitz found that in fact the actions were justified. (And while Durham disagreed with Horowitz on that point, he found nothing wrong that anybody but Clinesmith did.)
Utterly wrong. Nothing at all started with Hillary Clinton. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. You're going to have to try this gaslighting with someone too young to remember the 2016 election.
David, let’s start with #3, the FISA warrants, to show how you’re not being truthful. Just like we did to debunk your absurd claim the Obama admin and senior Democrats never claimed the election was hacked.
1) The Obama administration tried to spy on the Trump campaign with a July 2016 FISA application that alleged garden-variety communications constituted suspicious activity. The FISA court rejected it.
2) Not to be deterred, in October 2016 the Obama administration fabricated a premise for a FISA warrant, Papadopoulos’ conversation with Alexander Downer. The discussion was completely misrepresented to the FISA court according to Durham, the FBI, and Downer himself. They made up the reference to Russian-hacked emails. They excluded exculpatory information, including discussions with FBI informant Stefan Halper. The warrant enabled them to spy on (“surveil” implies a legitimate function, which this clearly was not) the Trump campaign.
The Downer conversation lie exposes the Mueller report as an under-researched political piece. After all, how difficult would it have been for Mueller’s team to authenticate the alleged discussion? Not very, yet they didn’t.
3) Subsequent warrants targeting Carter Page were likewise bunk as explained by Judge Boasberg. Even then, Boasberg was kept in the dark by the FBI in some key areas. For instance, Boasberg was unaware Page did not have contacts with Russians as alleged by the Steele dossier. The FBI did not disclose to Boasberg the origins of the Steele dossier: that it was paid opposition fiction commissioned by the Clinton campaign, that Steele was a fired, disgraced former FBI informant, that Steele had significant animus for Trump, and so forth.
There’s plenty more that proves the FISA warrants should never have been issued, but the above is plenty sufficient and completely undermines the pretextual justifications to investigate the Trump campaign.
He most certainly made no such conclusion. That's another lie regurgitated by the vile NY Times. His report concluded: “there is evidence to believe the Clinton Plan intelligence was authentic and that the Clinton campaign did carry out such a dirty trick.” That he was unable to authenticate some evidence did not affect that conclusion. And this lack of access was, due in large part to the hack masquerading as federal judge, Beryl Howell (as noted in post by Hans Mahncke):
It’s absolutely enraging that every corner of Trump world—every phone call, every text message, every email—was dissected, re-dissected, and put under a microscope for years, from Russiagate to the post-election legal challenges. Meanwhile, Durham wasn’t even allowed to access the Soros Foundation emails tied to the Hillary email cover-up and the scheme to smear Trump because the disgraceful partisan hack Beryl Howell, masquerading as a judge, blocked him. One side had their entire lives strip-searched. The other side didn’t even get a pat-down.
As always, the bot is programmed to repeat false talking points. Durham was allowed to access everything. He wanted a warrant from Howell but had insufficient probable cause, because — even if Russia hadn't fabricated the emails, which it had — there was no crime to which they were relevant. But then he used a grand jury subpoena to get all of the Soros Foundation emails.
Just some advice you deranged asshole, you lost all credibility when you parroted The NY Times lie that Durham concluded the emails were Russian fakes.
Still waiting, Riva. Have you read Lanier? Yes or no?
NG, you fundamentally misunderstand my comment above. Your error (I'll be nice and say it's just ignorance) is to define accountability for the conspiracy to target President Trump, undermine his presidency and defraud the public only in terms of eventual criminal charges. Yes, the grand jury investigation ordered by the AG may ultimately charge Brennan, Clapper and others with crimes stemming from their efforts to interfere with the 2018 election and the new Trump presidency (and there's just a shitload of evidence for that). But it's even more important for the civic health of our government to expose these scunges and maybe reform the institutions corrupted by their abuses so future democrats can't repeat the fraud.
Riva, Commenter_XY brought up criminal prosecution for deprivation of civil rights under color of law. You have been yapping and yammering for weeks now about criminal prosecutions for conspiracy to deprive rights (a separate offense governed by 18 U.S.C. § 241).
If you are now conceding that criminal prosecution is a nonstarter, I am pleased that the scales have fallen from your eyes. But in that case, say so without going sideways by asserting that "the grand jury investigation ordered by the AG may ultimately charge Brennan, Clapper and others with crimes stemming from their efforts to interfere with the 2018 election and the new Trump presidency".
Once again, with regard to Clapper and Brennan (and as you have previously insinuated, as to President Obama):
(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?
(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?
You've got bupkis so far as factual or legal support. And innuendo is where one puts an Italian suppository.
NG, i am NOT and have NEVER conceded that criminal prosecution is a “nonstarter.” Not in my comments above and not in any other of the multiple exchanges we have had. And you might want to actually read my comments before making another ridiculous book length response. And some additional advice, you also should probably try to familiarize yourself with what we call facts before spouting off on your amateurish speculation on the law. Something else you appear never to have done. Again hard to understand your rants on Watergate when you have no issues with corruption and abuse of power on a scale that dwarfs that petty, largely exaggerated event. Is there anything in the Russian collusion hoax creation, implementation and coverup that gives you any pause?
Is there anything in the Russian collusion hoax creation, implementation and coverup that gives you any pause?
Since what you describe never happened, why would it?
I rarely mention Watergate, Riva, and I don't recall having ranted about it. (I do refer to Prick Nixon, but he earned that sobriquet long before Watergate.)
If you are enamored with facts about what you label "the Russian collusion hoax creation, implementation and coverup," why are you utterly unable to identify any such facts?
Honest question: Why are you in such denial? Are you that mis- or uninformed? Or do you not want to admit the genesis and perpetuation of RussiaGate?
For instance, do you not know about Brennan’s notes from when he informed Obama about Hillary’s plot?
I do know about them. For example, I know that he never "informed Obama about Hillary's plot." Rather, he informed Obama what the Russians were claiming about Hillary's alleged plot.
What do you think you know about them?
Yes, the Russians knew about her plans too. After Brennan became aware, he made a call to his Russian counterpart and, all the sudden, we lost access to the Russian intercepts. Apparently, Brennan burned a source to keep a lid on things.
And once again you’re mischaracterizing the Brennan Obama briefing. Brennan briefed Obama on what he knew, not Russian propaganda.
Yes, the Russians knew about her plans too.
Yes, they certainly were aware of the thing they made up.
As mentioned above, John Brennan disagrees with you:
So NG, you bear some contempt for Nixon in sympathy with Sen. McCarthy and not related to your conception of Watergate? Yeah, that's believable.
And, weird I provided multiple links to the DNI timeline memo and volume of declassified files, which would contain what we call facts. Many of the same facts will be shared with the grand jury ordered by the AG. And even before the Russian collusion fraud had been thoroughly debunked. This feigned ignorance is pathetic, But more to the point, how the __ can you be so frigging opinionated on legal consequences when you admittedly don't know jack shit about the facts here? Or maybe I should note that you've got bupkis so far as factual or legal support.
And, weird I provided multiple links to the DNI timeline memo and volume of declassified files, which would contain what we call facts.
Yes; wikipedia contains what we call facts too. Doesn’t mean that one can legitimately say, "Here's a random accusation. See https://www.wikipedia.org/ for proof."
One has to point to actual facts, not a pile of documents and then say, "The supporting ones are in there somewhere."
"So NG, you bear some contempt for Nixon in sympathy with Sen. McCarthy and not related to your conception of Watergate? Yeah, that's believable."
Riva, my contempt for Richard Nixon was formed prior to the Watergate burglary, based primarily on his conduct of the war in Southeast Asia. The revelations about Watergate and its aftermath did certainly reinforce that contempt.
And no matter which Senator McCarthy you are referring to, I regard each as a blithering idiot (despite Senator Eugene McCarthy's criticisms of the Vietnam War being spot on).
Ok so you have an opinion on Watergate, presumably negative. Yet you have no issue with the Russian collusion fraud? Let's call it Russiagate. Not very intellectually consistent or honest.
And NG, I should note, you seem to know a lot about suppositories. Where does one put a seditious conspiracy?
Riva, it's plain to see where your "seditious conspiracy" came from.
The volumes of declassified evidence thoroughly summarized in the DNI timeline memo. Would you like another copy of the memo? Another link the underlying declasifed files?
I'd like someone to reprogram the Rivabot to grasp that evidence is a specific document, not a random collection of them, that a prosecutor cannot say to a jury, "The defendant is obviously guilty. Our proof? Here's a box of documents. It's somewhere in there."
NG, thx for the excellent explainer.
So you really need to establish a clear pattern of behavior, a documented animus, knowledge that the perp knowingly took actions to deprive the victim of rights, and an actual injury.
That is a very high hurdle. And then there is QI, everyone's favorite.
A year in the slammer, plus a fine. Sounds about right.
It doesn't need to be a "clear pattern of behavior." A one time incident can be punishable, but it requires proving the accused's specific intent to violate the victim's federal rights which, at the time of the offending conduct, had been clearly established by then-existing law.
How hard is it to obtain a conviction, and what prison time, if any, goes with that?
That depends. Is the accusation against a Trumpist or against someone else?
A lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court seeks an injunction requiring Microsoft to continue free support for Windows 10. The imminent termination of free support is said to violate California's Unfair Competition and False Advertising laws and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2025/08/10/microsoft-sued-for-killing-windows-10-all-users-must-act-now/
As a matter of policy there should be stricter rules for support of computers used as consumer goods. Some number of years of free no strings attached security fixes. No "click to agree to terms of service to get this emergency security fix for our broken software." If you have to click to agree then it's not bundled with the original purchase.
Sounds like a classic case of laches. When was this filed?
The complaint is dated August 7, 2025.
October is the end date IIRC. What makes this particular end of product life different is that Microsoft does not allow Windows 11 upgrades on many computers as they don't have some chipping of the latest and greatest anti-hackery hardware.
Your computer doesn't die with only Windows 10, you just risk getting hacked as the months and years go by as Microsoft has abandoned it.
So you have to buy a new computer.
Linux
Though the Windows 10 to 11 upgrades officially have strict requirements, almost all of those requirements are soft. There are widely published methods to force the upgrade despite a machine not meeting the requirements. I've successfully upgraded some pretty old Windows 10 machines, and not only has the upgrade always worked (so far), but Windows 11 seems to perform reasonably well.
My Dad's Windows 95 works just fine on his Gateway Pentium 90 He says it's still good for tracking his Portfolio, but every time it freezes up on him (he had >3,000 hrs in B-52's and he can't do Control-Alt-Delete??) it's stuck on "Leisure Suit Larry"
Haven’t seen Leisure Suit Larry in decades.
But then, Windows 95 is 30 years old now.
Funny, I was playing Caves of Qud this past weekend and I just kept thinking about 1992-1994 playing The Pit on BBS boards. Which then made me think of Trade Wars and Space Trader, which then made me think of Santa Paravia and Fiumaccio.
I play a lot of current releases but you always have to remember the classics.
In general, leaving aside the Windows 10 to 11 transition, some software updates depend on new hardware. Soon Apple will no longer support computers without the T2 security chip. Or with non-Apple CPUs.
If a law requires supporting old hardware companies are going to have to change the way they release software. A lawsuit against Microsoft is not the way to decide what old computers are supported. That decision requires cost-benefit tradeoffs rather than finding the expert witness with the most intelligent sounding voice.
...and not just computers. I have Canon Pixma copiers that I can't use because Canon no longer supports the drivers.
Typically they'll still operate with reduced functionality using generic printer drivers. As I know because we were confronted with exactly that situation not so long ago.
When Saint George Floyd overdosed, we were told that we DESERVED to be terrorized, to have our cities burnt flat and to have cops killed.
Well, now it is Saint Patrick Joseph White and what, EXACTLY, is the difference????????????????????
The CDC was far more fascist than the Minneapolis Police ever dreamed of being, and if we encouraged this by saying the CDC should be abolished (and it deserves to be) then the Never Trumpers have actual blood on their hands. Innocent third parties died in Butler, PA, and how many cops did BLM kill?
All I want is a level playing field.
And as to Saint Patrick Joseph White, notice how we haven't seen all the sympathetic coverage like we did for Saint George Floyd? We haven't even seen his picture.
Why do I suspect he was Black?
Wow, American white people have it tough...
But not tougher than in the UK.
We do, at least in getting killed by Blacks. and they keep this info more hidden than Barry Hussein's Law School Grades, but..... What's this simple Ratio? Whites murdered by Blacks/Blacks murdered by Whites and I'll even accept that Floyd George was murdered by a Cop (he wasn't) Oh, the answer? like all good Shysters, I never ask questions I don't already know the answer to, and also, as a MOTT, I've got Hollywood in my Genes (get it?) and that's what is known as a "Cliffhanger"
Chris Rock affected a white person voice and said, 'We're losing our country! We're losing our country'
[returning to Chris Rock voice] 'Man! If you losing...who's winning?!'
Chris Rock could be the Poster Child for "Black on Black" Violence
LOL, Dr. Ed thinks antivax murderer won't count as being antivax if he's black.
What is the difference between a guy who was assaulted and killed for the crime of lying on the ground, and a guy who shot at a bunch of people and killed one of them, for nothing?
How many times did your parents drop you on your head as a child?
Why would there be sympathetic coverage of a guy who shot up the CDC because he was a nutjob?
I don't think there is anyone capable of fathoming why you think the things you do.
“Why do I suspect he was Black?”
Any reflection on that, Ed, in the last 24 hours?
Psych drugs are dangerous. Why don't people realize this?
People do, it's why there's a "Black Box" warning on most of them. For Prozac (No, A-holes, it's not mine) it's
"WARNING: SUICIDALITY AND ANTIDEPRESSANT DRUGS See full prescribing information for complete boxed warning. Increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children, adolescents, and young adults taking antidepressants for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. When using PROZAC and olanzapine in combination, also refer to Boxed Warning section of the package insert for Symbyax."
and it's not unusual for Psychiatrists and even FP's and Nurse Practitioners to prescribe multiple of these medications, (I get it with the Shrinks, because they're Idiots, but FP's and NP's are supposed to be more holistic)
I always wondered if the drugs inherently increased suicide attempts, or, by functioning properly in clearing various brain fogs, folks were now able to get out and do things, accomplish things, goals!
My own personal experience is that it's the latter: Depression tends to go hand in hand with apathy, and unfortunately these drugs clear up the apathy a lot faster than they do the suicidal impulses. (Which once they get started tend to become something of a habit that takes a while to extinguish.)
It was a real challenge not acting on those impulses when I started coming out of my funk!
You'd think by now they'd be on notice that when you put a depressed person on them, they need to be monitored closely for a month or two.
People kill themselves in jails all the time, where they should be able to be "monitored closely" (Yes, by Idiots, but still)
Epstein did not commit suicide.
No, actually hanging yourself is a risk in what he was doing.
Yes, and I think that's legally problematic, deliberate negligence that effectively has become outsourced violations of the 8th amendment.
Well, get Kennedy to ban them all. And then watch most of DC collapse.
Jen Pawol made history as the first XX to Umpire a MLB Regular Season game (Yes, hard as it is to believe, the Braves are still in the National League) And while I didn't check under the hood, it appears she's an actual XX and not Dr. Richard Levine looking for a new Gig. I kid Jen, former Hofstra Softball Star, she's in better shape than 90% of the XY Umpires and unlike CB Bucknor, isn't legally blind (like with "Bingo" you just say "legally blind", NOT "legally blind without their glasses" the definition of legally blind is best CORRECTED Vision < 20/400, so saying "legally blind without glasses" marks one as an Idiot, like saying "Basicially"
XX?; OH! As opposed to XY.
I thought it was the first XXL umpire. I thought, that can't possibly be right!
There's plenty of XXL, and XXXL MLB Umpires, they're like friggin Superbowls
Governor Newsom proposes to make California's Congressional districts explicitly depend on Texas' Congressional districts. "We’re working with the legislature on a trigger that if they do move forward, California will not sit by idly." A few years ago he backed a law that made California gun law depend on Texas abortion law. A federal judge shot that down.
Newsom should move to Texas and run for governor there. Here's a wacky sitcom premise: Abbott and Newsom trade places. "Governor Abbott, you forgot your Secretary of Equity's pronouns are they/them." "Governor Newsom, you forgot to wear your gun to the ribbon cutting ceremony."
Never underestimate the ability of Governor New-Scum to (redacted) something up, and don't forget inviting Parkinsonian Joe so he can yell "Let's hear it for Governor Abbott, Stand up Greg!!!
They do have a bit of a problem, in that California's constitution expressly prohibits midterm redistricting. So they're constitutionally required to just sit by idly, at least until 2030.
Citation?
Article XXI.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&division=&title=&part=&chapter=&article=XXI
Thanks.
This part of the California constitution was enacted by Prop 20 in 2010. I believe Newsom is calling for an initiative on the 2025 ballot to amend it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu_hCThhzWU
The correct response would have been to advocate for a constitutional amendment outlawing gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering has it's good points, it's why all of the "Yellow Dog" DemoKKKrats have been replaced with Jasmine Crockets and Hank Johnsons (the Genius who was concerned Guam would capsize)
Democrats have had a bit of a problem.
1) They're just as guilty of gerrymandering as Republicans, maybe more so, so they have a lot to lose if it's flatly prohibited. 2) Real world distribution of voters tends to disadvantage Democrats in most states even without gerrymandering. Getting 90%+ of the vote in urban areas isn't terribly efficient! 3) They really like their minority-majority districts, which are themselves gerrymandering.
Their answer to that was to come up with a 'definition' of gerrymandering that was designed to favor them, by identifying as "gerrymandering" any failure to reproduce the results of proportional representation: "Vote efficiency". That would mandate an outcome much more favorable to Democrats than simply banning gerrymandering as it is conventionally defined.
While I think you could have gotten bipartisan agreement to ban gerrymandering altogether, obviously Republicans weren't going to support any measure that only prohibited Republican gerrymandering.
The correct answer is to live with it = gerrymandering
It is not going away, ever.
Actually, I think that it might. The thing is, is that the primary standard for districting is compactness. Except that compactness goes out the window, when minority-majority redistricting is imposed. Remove minority-majority districting, you remove the justification for non compact, non contiguous districts.
And that very issue may be in play in Louisiana v. Callais before the Supreme Court. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/01/supreme-court-louisiana-redistricting-order-00490390 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3490002/supreme-court-examine-racial-redistricting-law-voting-rights-act-new-maps/
Right. The usual suspects are currently freaking out over the prospect of the VRA no longer being read as mandating racial gerrymandering, but, really, only getting rid of court mandated racial gerrymandering of 'minority-majority' districts would allow us to finally get rid of gerrymandering entirely.
The Supreme court just couldn't square the circle of simultaneously mandating and prohibiting gerrymandering.
Democrats are at a disadvantage because some populous blue states have laws restricting gerrymandering.
They're at a disadvantage because they typically get very high percentages in urban areas, and every vote past 50%+1 is wasted.
It's impossible to eliminate this problem without gerrymandering or some form of PR.
Martinned: "The correct response would have been to advocate for a constitutional amendment outlawing gerrymandering."
How can you assure the presence of "black" majority voting districts without gerrymandering? Would you get rid of that initiative? Would you change the definition of the term?
The intentional creation of "majority minority" congressional districts through gerrymandering is a racist practice.
I have no desire to ensure the presence of any sort of voting district.
Nor do I. But it's a more than an accepted practice for both parties. Neither shows an inclination to back away from seeking their preferences there.
It's humorous to know that gerrymandering, on the basis of race (most particularly "the black race"), is an almost religious matter of justice for the Democratic party. That which you propose, outlawing gerrymandering, would be manifestly unfair to them.
There appears to be nine Republican congressmen from California. Surely you hayseeds support California's effort to give them nine a little old gerrymander?
There'd be substantially more than nine if California weren't already gerrymandered.
California outlawed gerrymandering 18 years ago. We went over this last week, Brett.
and the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870 and everything was hunky-dory, now take an Aspirin, call 9-11, have someone cogent tell them you're having a TIA. "Time is Brain!"
Yeah, and we all know that outlawing something means it doesn't happen, right?
If you look at the Texas maps, you'll see the districts are nice and compact out in the sticks where all the reliable hayseeds are. But metro maps is where all the negroes and meskins get sliced and diced. Democracy, baby!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Texas_Congressional_Districts%2C_118th_Congress.svg
Which is where the (currently) CRA mandated minority-majority gerrymandering is located.
https://independentvoterproject.org/voter-stats/ca
Using major party registration numbers, the split is 64%D to 36%R. State has 52 reps so if completely ungerrymandered we'd expect the R's to hold double the number of seats. (19 if we round up from 18.8...)
So no independents in California? Weird, that.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/08/08/friday-open-thread-32/?comments=true#comments
shawn_dude:
"California has 9 GOP congresspersons. Wyoming has 1. It also has the honor of being the "most Republican" state by percentage of registered voters. (80+%)
California has 5.4 million registered Republicans representing roughly 25% of voters. Wyoming has 227,881 registered Republicans.
With California having 52 members in the House, 43 of them are Democrats and 9 are Republican. Most of the Republicans represent the sparsely populated Northern part of the state and the less-populated inland deserts."
Good news!
It took a while but (part of) Mississippi has finally been recognized as having joined the 21st century.
"The Copiah County School District, (the “District”), submits this memorandum in support of its joint motion for a declaration of unitary status. The District has complied in good faith with this Court’s desegregation orders and has eliminated, to the extent practicable, all vestiges of discrimination resulting from the former racially dual system.
The District has worked diligently to ensure faculty and staff who work directly with children are distributed throughout the District’s schools so that the racial makeup of faculty at each school substantially approximates the racial makeup of the faculty in the District and in no way indicates that a school is intended for black students or white students."
https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1410656/dl?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Not sure about this statement though, "racial makeup of faculty at each school substantially approximates the racial makeup of the faculty in the District . . . . "
Maybe instead say staff are hired based on qualifications and not race-blind criteria.
Yeah, the problem is that there's a longstanding tendency to treat any failure to meet the quota as itself being evidence of discrimination, which even if not dispositive, requires you to go to great trouble to rebut.
While if you have a quota and achieve it, the burden falls on others to prove you're discriminating.
So, while civil rights law doesn't technically mandate quotas, the way it has typically been enforced has really strongly encouraged them.
Isn't that what you're claiming Harvard did?
That Harvard was maintaining an illegal quota system has already been established, in Students for Fair Admissions. That they are still maintaining an illegal quota system seems a pretty safe bet based on various whistleblower accounts and exposed documents.
I'll grant you that they were in somewhat of a hard place, given that for years the only reliable way to avoid civil rights charges was to actually violate civil rights laws. But it's not like they did it only to the degree necessary to be safe, they were and are really leaning into the discrimination, seemingly with the intent to drive the percentage of white males as low as possible, rather than just reproducing population statistics.
Vibes is not due process, even if you believe them super duper hard.
Il Douche (AKA Mr. Hitachi Magic Wand) speaks.
Indeed, fighting vibes with quivering vibes.
Brett, until Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was overruled in mid-2023, affirmative action in higher education was lawful. An admissions process that favored "underrepresented minority groups" did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so long as it took into account other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant.
But the law hasn't changed, only the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law. The Biden administration made a mistake in applying the law, or used its enforcement discretion.
I'm assuming the Biden administration never authoritatively construed Title VI in a way that conflicts with SFA v. Harvard. I mean a Federal Register notice or similar proclamation, not a "Dear Colleague" letter which is insufficiently final to be taken to court. If it did then retroactive application of the decision in litigation by the United States would be unfair.
No. Applying the law as the Court has said it is to be applied is not a mistake. As even Trump has formally admitted — though honored only in the breach — the administration must comport its actions with SCOTUS rulings, even if it disagrees with them.
Applying the law EXACTLY on point as the Court has said it is to be applied is typically pretty safe even if they change their minds later, but you'd better be darned sure there's no way to distinguish what you've been doing from what they had approved of.
Fortunately for Harvard, they followed the law as it existed at the time, and now conforms to the latest interpretation of the activist Supreme Court.
No, they didn't.
SFFA found Harvard in violation of Grutter as well. Harvard had been violating established law for decades per the Supreme Court.
The usual suspects insist that the majority on the Court were wrong, and therefore their finding that Harvard had been violating existing precedents doesn't establish that... Harvard had been violating existing precedents.
No, Brett, you're the one who likes to insist the majority of the Court is wrong. See, e.g. Rahimi.
Hypocrisy and strawmanning together at last.
No, Brett. People here are pointing out YOU have the majority opinion wrong.
But he doesn’t have the majority opinion in SFFA incorrect. If anything, he understated its conclusions slightly: Harvard had been violating Grutter for decades and violated the Equal Protection Clause with its racist admission policies.
So *both* lower courts both got it 100% wrong not just on the law but on the facts. And yet the Supreme Court still decided to do a whole new opinion rather than summarily reverse.
'Harvard had been violating Grutter for decades' is quite the assertion. You got a quote for that? I note neither you nor Brett has brought quotes for your assertion. I'd call it a thesis but so far all you got is assertion.
Look up further for the direct quotes. Or, maybe, read the opinion yourself?
Yeah, so the Court did not say "Harvard had been violating Grutter for decades."
And you don't understand what the Supreme Court does as compared to lower courts.
As a pedant, this whole mini-thread really bothers me.
1) Harvard's policies did not violate the equal protection clause. They could not, because it's not a state actor. This claim derives from an admittedly badly written part of the SCOTUS opinion. There were two consolidated cases, one against UNC and one against Harvard. Harvard only violated Title VI, because that's the only provision that applies to it, while UNC violated the EPC. But because SCOTUS previously ruled in Bakke that Title VI would be interpreted to mean the same thing as the EPC with respect to racial preferences, the Court was using it as shorthand.
2. There's no such thing as "violating Grutter". Grutter is a court case, not a law. It by definition could issue no commands to Harvard or UNC (since they weren't parties). It would be more precise to say that these schools' policies violated the EPC/Title VI as interpreted by Grutter. Note that neither of my complaints here address the substance of this discussion, one way or the other; they're merely about terminology.
Thank you for the background and clarification, David.
And Sarcastr0: I know you’re trying to deflect from your misrepresentations about Harvard’s actions, but the court makes clear Harvard employed unlawful, racist admissions policies.
“ That Harvard was maintaining an illegal quota system has already been established”
Only in your head, Brett. Can you explain how we can expect someone to follow a Supreme Court precedent that doesn’t exist yet?
In Grutter the Court allowed limited use of racial preferences, but Harvard went well beyond what the Court had permitted. That was what the Court found in SFFA, and I think persuasively.
So you want the Faculty to be 95% Black like the Students? The one High School in the Copiah County District, "Crystal Springs" has a 92% Grad-jew-ma-cation rate, which sounds great, until you see on the next line they have a 27% "Reading Proficiency" rate and 37% "Mathematics Proficiency" (In Mississippi it means you can count to 21 without taking off your pants) Good thing they have that one Asian Student or their numbers would really suck. OK, it's Mississippi, I get it, there's even an old Alabama saying "Thank God for Mississippi" (See, they're behind Alabama in everything, Income, Football, wearing Shoes, only thing they beat us in was joining the Confederacy, beat us by a whole 2 days) Funny, the County's only 50% Black, almost like there's another Screw-el kids might be going to.
This sounds to me like the hoops to jump through to CLOSE a desegregation case.
...and in news from Sgt. Preston (and his dog Yukon King) country, it is now illegal in several provinces to take a "walk in the woods".
Apparently it's a fire safety rule, and only applicable during periods of high fire risk. Here in the US, of course, we seem to get by just prohibiting lighting fires.
The subtext is that it's not really aimed at campers and hikers, but instead homeless people, who are less inclined to observe such prohibitions. (Since they're already breaking the law to begin with.)
Here in the US, of course, we seem to get by just prohibiting lighting fires.
Are you?
https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/nfn
I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, I'm saying that we don't go to the extremes Canada is starting to. Sure, we have an arson problem, but we're not responding to it by making large swaths of the country no-go zones.
But, like I said, the reason for that is that Alberta isn't responding the hikers and campers lighting fires, which usually can be adequately discouraged by just telling them not to. They're actually responding to homeless people who don't care what the law says about lighting fires.
So making just being present a crime is their answer.
"So making just being present a crime is their answer." See below.
"It’s come to this: from the Toronto Sun,
Veteran ignites debate by challenging Nova Scotia’s $25G fine for woods walk. The retired warrant officer and combat veteran, Jeff Evely, is challenging a law in Nova Scotia prohibiting people from walking amidst trees. I’m not kidding. For his challenge, he faces a total fine approaching C$29,000.
The law purports to be a measure to prevent forest fires. But it comes across as something medieval, where commoners are prevented from entering the King’s forest."
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/08/a-walk-in-the-woods.php
"Are you? "
Nothing on the linked page "prohibits" anything. Its just an info page, it asks you to consider stuff, it doesn't require anything.
The linked page shows how many forest fires there are in the US. (Unless the link doesn't work as intended.)
I thought you were commenting on "prohibiting lighting fires" but you were referring to "get by". Homer nods.
We are a big country, we have lots of forests, so lots of fires. Not tiny Netherlands
"Apparently it's a fire safety rule, and only applicable during periods of high fire risk." Of course it is, just like gun control laws are about "safety".
Well, it is a fire safety regulation, but I think it's actually aimed at the homeless, they just don't want to admit it. And it DOES only apply during periods of high fire risk.
It might eventually evolve into something worse, but there's where it stands right now.
Quoting the Nova Scotia provincial web site: "Private landowners are free to use their own properties but cannot host others to use wooded areas of their properties."
This rule is like 2020's pandemic restrictions. You don't have to wear a mask in your house. A visitor has to wear a mask in your house.
Unless you are a prominent Dem politician, like Gavin Newsome.
Not to get morbid here, but who's going to die first, Sleepy Joe or Hunter? OK, maybe a little morbid, the obvious answer is Joe, but after seeing Hunter's interview (did anyone ever do a better commercial for Cocaine?) I changed my mind, Hunter's got a positive "Frank's Sign" (No Joke, it's an actual Physical Finding) a diagonal earlobe crease that's a reliable marker for Coronary Artery Disease, you mix with some Colombian Nose Candy and you get Chris Farley's Syndrome
I'm still betting Joe, with Hunter following shortly afterwards.
Based on that interview, I'd guess that Hunter is hitting the drugs again, and losing your father is pretty traumatic.
When will Joe be joining Robert Mueller in a "memory care" facility?
Since Jill can afford live in private care, not at all would be my expectation.
OK, so Jill's taken care of, what about Joe?
I be willing to guess that Joe and Hunter Biden outlive Donald Trump. Trump obviously has health issues, maybe a failing heart, yet we are not getting the story from the administration. Cover-up material for Jake Tapper's next book.
You must have serious TDS to believe that. You can watch both Trump and Biden and think Biden will outlive Trump?
I saw Trump recently hit a 210 yard tee shot to within a couple of feet of the cup and hole out, for an eagle. Biden can barely get a spoon of tapioca pudding into his own mouth without help.
You people are delusional.
Since Trump keeps getting caught cheating at golf, maybe not the best example to use?
The video doesn't lie. But even if he cheats, he's still out there hitting balls.
You have an example of him cheating?
As you say, the video doesn't lie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynmxiMXkAm8
Barely a year ago, we saw Trump at their hotel in Las Vegas. He was walking very quickly, then saw us (my wife claims that it was she whom he recognized). He stopped, waved at us, then resumed his exit. He had just spent 20 minutes or so in the lobby talking to people and getting photographed with them. My wife always knew when he was going to be in town in advance (recognizing his USSS Advance Team, who all knew her) and some of his schedule. She just never told anyone, including me, until afterwards. So, I think that she knew about his lobby visit in advance, was hurrying me down, and I dawdled, not knowing anything was afoot. So, we were corralled in the elevator area, by hotel security, while he was working the lobby.
In any case, have seen him personally maybe a half dozen times over the last two years (living there) and there was never any evidence that he wasn’t sharp, alert, engaged, and vigorous. I know I couldn’t have kept up with him walking by the elevator bay that day.
there was never any evidence that he wasn’t sharp, alert, engaged, and vigorous.
As long as he doesn't open his mouth, perhaps.
Advice you should take to heart for yourself.
DMN: "As long as he doesn't open his mouth, perhaps."
Nope. That would just mean he was talking shit in addition to being "sharp, alert, engaged, and vigorous."
210 yards? That's a ridiculously short par 4!
It’s not even a particularly beefy par 3!
You're not taking into account the windmill obstacle.
“delusional”
Um, no, that would be the people who believe Don shot 69 at bedminster to win the senior club championship.
“210 yard tee shot to within a couple of feet of the cup and hole out, for an eagle”
Where was this 210 yard par 4?
I like to point out that Frank is the guy setting up the dead pool here. The fact is that both Trump and Biden are well into the danger zone where they could die at any time. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009 but lived 11 years and outlived her colleague Anthony Scalia by 4 years.
I like to point out your active interest in Frank's dead pool. You might want to work on your Voldemort protocols.
As a certified M.D. (Mentally Deranged) Passer of Gas, allow me to retort, In the Gas Passing Biz we classify patients from "ASA*1" to "ASA 6" ASA 1 is a Normal Healthy Patient, like umm, Syndney Sweeney ASA 5 is JFK in Trauma 1 at Parkland ASA 6 is a Brain Dead Patient, like Judge Kagrungy Jackson Brown and 2-4 are increasing levels of medical problems
While it's a bit subjective, most would Classify DJT (using the SEC Foo-bawl practice of referring to Head Ball Coaches by their initials) as an ASA 1, as his only medications are for Hyperlipidemia, Eczema, and the daily 81 mg ASA everyone should take for Heart Attack (and Colon Cancer) prevention,
Sleepy Joe is at minimum an ASA 3, defined as "Substantive functional limitations; One or more moderate to severe diseases." I'd call Parkinsons, Stage 4 Prostrate Cancer, and those Aneurysm Clips (from 1988, why he can't have an MRI) "Severe Diseases"
Oh, and for you H8-ers, DJT at 6'3" 224 lbs, has a BMI of 28, in the "Overweight" category But hey, what was Hilary Rodman's BMI? nobody knows because they didn't release her height/weight when she ran in 2016. You know, one of those "woman things" Part of being a Gas-Passer is also being a Weight-Guesser, it plays a role in calculating dosages, and when Ja'delirious comes in at 3am with his 27 GSW's we can't just have him jump on the scale, So I'll be diplomatic and guess HRC is 5'4" 160lbs which gives a BMI of 27.5
Frank * Amurican Society of Anesthesiologists
I've pretty much given up on pointing out your stupid mistakes, but since you castigated someone this morning for making a trivial mistake I will ask you: Who the fuck is Jackson Brown?
You know, PBJ the wanna be actress on the SC.
Oops, got me there. I was thinking of Jackson Browne. Give my apologies to the REMF. I thought he was being stupid and it turns out he was just being an asshole.
I love when Stella gets her feathers all ruffled!
Isn't it peculiar that the commenters who got the vapors when I (formerly) referred to Clarence Uncle Thomas are silent when their own kind utter slurs and invective about Katanji Brown Jackson?
I suppose that, as Tommy Duncan sang with Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys, I guess that it's true, for me and for you, that time changes everything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT3o2NrW6Es&list=RDFT3o2NrW6Es&start_radio=1
So borrowing from “Otter” in Animal House, we can’t make fun of Surpreme Judges, only you can make fun of Surpreme Judges? Fat, Drunk, and Stupid, seems to be working for you
Sorry, Frank's just a gray box to me. If he's being a fucking racist, I appreciate you calling him out for it.
Appreciate you also recognizing that some of your references for Justice Thomas were out of bounds.
Frank said she was "Brain Dead Patient, like Judge Kagrungy Jackson Brown"
Is that racist? Seems like his usual creative naming.
Calling a black man a Uncle Tom is on a different level. ng is just whatabouting.
Not even clear that's a racial slur. If it is, it's weak sauce. I will wag my finger in the the box's direction for referring to Justice Brown Jackson's color, albeit indirectly.
White supremacist leader to plead guilty to soliciting hate crimes
A California leader of the far-right white supremacist Terrorgram Collective on Friday agreed to plead guilty to soliciting hate crimes and soliciting the murders of federal officials, among other charges.
Dallas Humber, 35, of Elk Grove faces 25–30 years in prison under her plea agreement, the U.S. attorney's office in Sacramento said in a statement.
The group is linked to an October 2022 shooting outside of an LGBTQ bar in Slovakia in which two people were killed, a planned attack on energy facilities in New Jersey in July of last year, and the stabbing of five people near a mosque in Turkey in August of last year.
The Terrorgram belief system recalls that of Islamic jihadists. Its members celebrate "saints" — white supremacists who died while carrying out attacks against people of color and LGBTQ people, an ethos used to inspire future attacks.
https://www.courthousenews.com/white-supremacist-leader-to-plead-guilty-to-soliciting-hate-crimes/
Celebrate "saints" — white supremacists who died while carrying out attacks?
That's an odd twist.
I like to celebrate things like rabbits with eggs and a jolly guy delivering presents.
We have a long tradition of celebrating people who died in battle.
While Donald Trump is busy giving away parts of other people's countries, I'm glad to see his envoy is on top of things.
Trump’s envoy ‘misunderstood’ Putin’s territorial demands as concessions, media report (...) What is more, Witkoff appears to have misinterpreted some statements made by Putin as concessions. One example cited by BILD was the Russian leader’s demand for a “peaceful withdrawal” of Ukrainian forces from Russian-claimed territory. Witkoff reportedly understood this as an offer of a “peaceful withdrawal” of Russian forces.
https://tvpworld.com/88256509/trumps-envoy-witkoff-misunderstood-putins-territorial-demands-as-concessions-media-report
So this is what Ukraine got for giving up its minerals to Donnie? I think they got conned.
I saw this on X, can't remember where:
PBS is broke. The DNC is broke. USAID got defunded. Planned Parenthood is broke. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, the NYT and the WAPO are all laying people off.
This is what I voted for. ------
So very powerful. Trump should go on Rushmore.
For years the Atlanta National Pubic Radio Station ("WABE" the "ABE" is for Atlanta Board of Ed-jew-ma-cation, which owns the Station (I thought it was supposed to be "Public"?) Crowed about how little funding then got from Uncle Sammy, it was all from their stupid Tote bags and Towing your old Subaru. Now everyday is like 9-11, Dealey Plaza, and Pearl Harbor, can't you shell out more, before we go to "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross!!
PBS and NPR have been getting more one-sided. They no longer attempt any balance.
Like "Bob's Country Bunker" they have Country AND Western!
On a different topic...
Article VII of the US Constitution reads "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
Some people have read this to mean that the "states" needed to ratify the Constitution. However, other people have read this to indicate that the "people"...not the states...needed to ratify the Constitution. And that this article deliberately avoids the "states" needing to ratify the Constitution.
And yet....Rhode Island ratified the US Constitution on May 29th, 1790, by a vote of 34 to 32...in the Rhode Island general assembly. IE...the state legislature. Notably, all the previous conventions in Rhode Island failed to ratify the US Constitution.
If Article VI really means that the state governments can't ratify the US Constitution, and that a convention of the people is needed....has Rhode Island actually ratified the US Constitution?
That pesky Constitution of ours has been a pernicious impediment to MAGA. I was wondering when you boys would get to it next.
Yeah, you gotta love how a few years ago Republicans were carrying around their little pocket Constitutions but now they move is apparently "maybe we don't actually have a Constitution at all?!?"
The public in RI didn't WANT the Constitution, repeatedly rejected it. The legislature had to ratify it to avert a naval blockade threatened by the other states.
It's not widely reported in history books that RI's ratification of the Constitution was involuntary...
The bigger question is...was RI's ratification "legitimate" if it wasn't the convention of the people that did the ratification?
This is the sort of concern over logical formalities that ends with you being a sovereign citizen obsessing over gold fringes on flags.
The answer is that, just like splitting up Virginia to create West Virginia, the powers that be don't give a damn whether it was constitutional.
The law only pretends to be about logic, it's mostly about power.
This is the sort of concern over logical formalities that ends with you being a sovereign citizen
You're not wrong.
But you should also apply this to yourself.
I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing where the logic leads from how the courts will rule, Sarcastr0. The 'Sovereign citizens' are the people who can't keep that difference in mind, and assume that the courts will follow the logic to places they don't want to go.
They actually did the ruling on Virginia - West Virginia.
Both Congress and the "legitimate" government of Virginia agreed to form a new state out of the old state of Virginia.
Yeah, I'm not saying that they don't engage in sophistry during such violations. Just that they don't shy at violations.
Coercion of sovereigns is not generally sufficient to vitiate concords, agreements, etc. - else every surrender document in history would be invalid.
If they never ratified, and were never admitted by Congress as a state, then they must be independent as the sole remaining member of the Articles of Confederation.
Too bad they control the nuclear submarines.
How's that?
The nuclear sub base is in Groton, CT. Not Rhode Island.
Yes, that's what I was thinking.
My bad and you win. I knew subs were built in CT but somehow thought something was based in "Newport", but even then I had the wrong Newport.
However, Electric Boat does have a facility in RI.
So the fact that there's another Newport is news to you, eh?
ISWYDT.
You're not reading correctly; you're stopping halfway through:
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
By the time it got to Rhode Island, the Constitution had already been ratified by 9 state conventions and had been established.
True, it was only "Rogue Island"'s ratification that was coerced.
David, you're actually the one not reading correctly. You're stopping halfway through.
The question isn't if the Constitution was ratified by 9 states. That question wasn't asked.
The question is, did Rhode Island properly ratify the US Constitution? And if RI didn't (because a convention of the people didn't ratify it, the state legislature did)...is Rhode Island a proper member of the United States under the US Constitution?
It has all sorts of implications. For one, there are two representatives and two senators in Congress "voting" on bills for a state which isn't actually part of the Union.
The Constitution only required conventions for the first 9 states. Once 9 conventions had ratified, the Constitution went into effect. No state afterwards needed to ratify by convention to be a valid state. To be a valid state from #10 onwards they simply had to be accepted as states by Congress. If Congress accepted them as states because they ratified the Constitution by convention, fine. If Congress accepted them because their legislature ratified the Constitution, fine. Puerto Rico could send delegates to Congress tomorrow asking to be admitted to the Union, and if Congress agreed, PR would be the 51st state.
So, yes, Rhode Island is a valid state.
"The Constitution only required conventions for the first 9 states. Once 9 conventions had ratified, the Constitution went into effect. No state afterwards needed to ratify by convention to be a valid state."
That's an extremely convoluted reading of the article. The article is a single sentence.
""The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same"
To argue that the same word type (Ratification/ratifying) would have different requirements for who was doing the ratification/ratifying makes little sense.
A more natural reading is that the "states" needed to ratify the Constitution (not the people), and that a state convention was one way the state could ratify the constitution, in addition to other ways (IE, by vote in the general assembly).
Nope. Once 9 state conventions ratified, the Constitution went into effect in those states. Part of that Constitution was Article IV, sec. 3, which allowed Congress to admit new states as it saw fit. It could do that by recognizing their convention results, or the votes of the state legislature, or popular votes in those states, etc. It was not bound by any particular method. The only requirement was that Congress accepted the new state as a member of the Union, which it did after Rhode Island's legislature ratified the Constitution. Pretty simple and in keeping with the language of the Constitution.
+100
"The only requirement was that Congress accepted the new state as a member of the Union, which it did after Rhode Island's legislature ratified the Constitution."
It did? Do you have a cite?
The fact that RI’s congressional delegation is allowed to sit in Congress is proof that Congress accepted it as a state. This is just getting dumb(er).
which it did after Rhode Island's legislature ratified the Constitution
The legislature called a convention to ratify the Constitution. The convention ratified the Constitution.
https://archive.csac.history.wisc.edu/3.%20Rhode%20Island.pdf
The importance of states ratifying by convention of the people is discussed in McCulloch v. Maryland.
Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island ratified after the ninth state. Each did so by convention. Congress did not admit any of them "as states" under Art. IV.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2021/02/the-admission-of-north-carolina-and-rhode-island-into-the-union/
The first
Huh. I was assuming he wasn't making up his facts.
And he believed what was written.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_United_States_Constitution_by_Rhode_Island
"The Rhode Island General Assembly capitulated 11 days later and ratified the Constitution, before the proposed embargo could be acted on by the United States House of Representatives.[1][6] However, the General Assembly's ratification included a lengthy list of caveats, including that "the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary."
"The legislature called a convention to ratify the Constitution. The convention ratified the Constitution."
Was there any practical difference between the legislature and the convention? Were they all the same people? Or did the legislature simply call itself a convention, and proceed to vote?
If the question is one about the "State" versus the "people" voting on the Constitution, a convention that is also simultaneously the legislature is in essence just the State deciding. (It's worth pointing out that in a referendum in RI, the Constitution was overwhelmingly voted down).
"Congress did not admit any of them "as states" under Art. IV" As your article points out, it seems that RI may not "formally" be part of the United States, unless its via article VII.
Congress admitted them by allowing them to sit in Congress. It doesn’t have to be a formal admission. In reality, it was always going to accept the convention results of the remaining states. But, technically, it didn’t have to.
I’ll admit, too, that I just assumed the RI legislature ratified the Constitution without a convention because that’s what Armchair said above. In any event, I stand by my assertion that at that point a convention was not necessary to ratify, but nonetheless Congress considered it sufficient, which it was allowed to do.
"In reality, it was always going to accept the convention results of the remaining states. But, technically, it didn’t have to."
I don't think that's true. It says that 9 is a sufficient number, not the maximum.
In any event, I don't think it's clear that seating congresscritters is sufficient to admit a state under Art IV. It's not completely out of left field, but it's not obvious.
Do you have any evidence Congress did this with regards to RI? An act, resolution, etc? For example https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/louisiana-statehood/louisiana-bill.html
"Trump Administration to Put F.B.I. Agents on Night Patrol in Washington
The Trump administration plans to temporarily reassign 120 F.B.I. agents in Washington to nighttime patrol duties as part of President Trump’s crackdown on the city’s street crime, according to people familiar with the matter."
Federal agents policing civilians
Hmmm: "Washington, DC, Democrat Mayor Muriel Bowser is seeking the DC National Guard to be deployed to help the city contend with the invasion of migrants arriving in her city. A past request by the mayor for National Guard troops was denied.
“The District of Columbia writes to provide additional information to support our July 19 request to deploy the DC National Guard (DCNG) to help prevent a prolonged humanitarian crisis in our nation’s capital resulting from the daily arrival of migrants in need of assistance,” Bowser wrote in an August 11 letter to U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin." https://rpwmedia.com/muriel-bowser-asks-again-for-national-guard-troops-to-help-with-invasion-of-illegal-aliens-after-being-declined-last-week/
[rubbing chin] Where have I heard of a party in power adopting a national police force before?
You're exceptionally stupid this morning.
Trump: "IT'S MIDNIGHT!!! BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TARIFFS ARE NOW FLOWING INTO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!"
Flowing into?
Clearly meaning into the coffers of the US government, to all except the Trump deranged.
Tariffs as causing onshoring AND raising revenue AND acting as negotiating leverage can't all be true.
It's amazing, but they are.
I didn't think thepublius could contort into this pretzel. But look! He did it!
Do tariffs cause onshoring? Yes.
"Trump's tariffs, aimed at boosting domestic manufacturing, have indeed incentivized some companies to increase their U.S. investments or consider shifting production to the U.S. Here's a breakdown of some companies and sectors involved: Companies Apple (AAPL): Pledged a new $100 billion investment in the U.S., potentially in exchange for exemptions from chip tariffs. Samsung and LG: Considering moving some plants from Mexico to the U.S. to avoid tariffs on electronics and appliances. Hyundai Motor Company: Announced a $21 billion commitment to U.S. manufacturing from 2025-2028, expanding automobile production. Honda: Expected to produce its next-generation Civic hybrid model in Indiana. Stellantis: Announced it will reopen its Belvidere, Illinois assembly plant and build its next-generation Dodge Durango in Detroit, Michigan. Nissan: Considering moving production from Mexico to the U.S. due to tariffs. IBM: Pledged to invest $150 billion in U.S. manufacturing over five years, including in computer manufacturing research and development. Nvidia (NVDA): Pledged to produce $500 billion in AI infrastructure in the U.S. over the next four years through partners like Foxconn. TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company): Announced a $165 billion investment in the U.S.. AccuRounds: This Massachusetts-based company has seen orders increase, adding customers that had previously shifted business to suppliers in Singapore and China. Walker Forge: This Wisconsin-based company, which manufactures steel forgings, cites the tariffs as beneficial for American manufacturing. Franchino Mold & Engineering: This Michigan-based company notes that tariffs help level the playing field against foreign competitors with lower labor and environmental standards. Legacy Precision Molds, Inc.: This Michigan-based company reports a significant increase in quote activity and growing interest in reshoring opportunities. Westminster Tool, Inc.: This Connecticut-based company has seen a 25% increase in quote requests in one month since the tariffs were announced. Sectors Steel, aluminum, and copper: These industries are thriving due to high tariffs shielding domestic producers from cheaper imports. Automotive: Several foreign automakers are increasing investments and considering shifting production to the U.S.. Electronics/Semiconductors: Companies like Apple, Nvidia, TSMC, Samsung, and LG are investing more in the U.S. to mitigate the impact of potential tariffs. Energy (Oil & Gas): Tariffs on Canadian oil and gas imports are bolstering domestic producers like ExxonMobil and Chevron. Manufacturing: Manufacturers' share of industrial space demand in the U.S. has significantly increased since 2018, according to CRE Daily."
Like Trump, you seem to miss the fact that “plan to” and announcements of previously planned or ongoing spending (like Apple’s) are all hot air with no actual change in reality.
By the time Trump leaves office, nothing will have happened.
Trump is so easily fooled, it’s not surprising his sycophants share the same weakness.
Have Trump's tariffs raised revenue? Yes.
Tariff revenue has "skyrocketed" since Trump took office, from $9B to $29B
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/11/g-s1-81934/trump-tariffs-record-revenue
And in return for that extra $20 billion, provided by American companies and consumers, we’re getting what?
The point is that the three outcomes (onshoring, revenue, and leverage) require three different and mutually exclusive strategies.
To force onshoring of businesses, the tariffs must be very high and permanent, otherwise companies will just offshore again when they disappear.
To generate revenue, they need to be low (so as to avoid decreasing trade) and permanent to generate a consistent revenue stream.
To be used as leverage they need to be very high and temporary, since reducing (or, ideally, eliminating) them would be a necessary element of the ensuing negotiations.
So which is it? Large and permanent, small and permanent, or large and temporary? You can’t have all three.
Are Trump's tariffs a negotiating lever? Yes.
Google it yourself, if it's not obvious to you.
You're the only pretzel around here, hobie.
You mean Trump himself is Trump deranged? Yes, I suppose that's true.
Trump said foreign countries would ‘eat’ tariffs—but U.S. consumers and businesses will actually pay 75% at best
https://fortune.com/2025/08/11/trump-foreign-countries-eat-tariffs-pass-through-consumers/
Read it and weep Pubs.
That article is mostly speculative, virtually none of what they are talking about has actually happened.
That said, no one expected tariffs would not have any impact on prices.
It's amazing that people are still confused about what a tariff is and who is responsible for paying it.
I've been paying 50% tariffs on electronic components for several months now. The overseas vendors' prices have not changed. The overseas vendors do not pay any tariff. That's not how it works, Pubs.
The path for the money was me ---> US based customs broker --> US treasury. Vendor not involved. I also have to pay the customs broker (DHL) a fee, fortunately their rates are reasonable.
I can see the lines on my credit card statement, MAGA lies are not going to fool me.
And you won't pay 50% when you buy American-made.
Dr. Ed, the entire short-run/medium-run non-defense PCB fab business has moved offshore. The remaining US PCB shops cater to the only sector that can't move offshore - defense/aerospace - and price their services accordingly.
You just can't get 10 pieces of a PCB for a test production run (or for students learning engineering) made for less than about $1000 in the US. From China it was about $50 before the tariff and it's $75 now.
If the tariffs get to where China also costs $1000, I won't be buying American. I'll have quit doing PCB designs long before that.
“ And you won't pay 50% when you buy American-made”
True. American labor would cause more like a multiple, not a percentage, increase.
When I was working, the cost of American production of our mass market goods was between 4x and 5x. And that was landed cost, so a straight apples-to-apples comparison.
No need to school me, duck, I have actually done some importing and paid duty and broker's fees. I also understand the value chain, and if sales and/or profits drop to zero the seller may adjust, either by absorbing some of it, or onshoring.
Two things about the potential onshoring via tariffs:
1. Ultimately, what you're saying is "we are going to tax Americans heavily to fulfill the government's industrial production goals". It's like something an 1950-60's Euro-socialist would have said, but they were too embarrassed to say it out loud by 1970.
2. Even if you think (1) is a good thing, foreign investment in onshoring based on tariffs is only a sensible risk if rates are stable for longer than the 5+ years it takes to build a semiconductor fab or an auto plant. As it is, tariffs are the daily whim of a petulant man in his second childhood and everyone knows it. They could, quite literally, drop dramatically and overnight based on something like one low-ranking judge in Brazil dismissing charges against Bolsonaro, or some Chinese politician nominating Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize.
“ either by absorbing some of it, or onshoring.”
And if the absorbing the cost made things unprofitable and onshoring raised costs more than the tariff cost (almost a certainty)? Where would the company generate the revenue to offset the unnecessary added costs? Maybe by raising prices?
You seem to be under the delusion that onshoring would be less, not more, costly than paying the tariff.
“ That said, no one expected tariffs would not have any impact on prices.”
Jesse and his paleocon brigade would like a word with you.
Pretty much every Trumpkin has claimed exactly that.
"A Vision for Welcoming Western Canada into the United States by Senator Joseph E. Martin from Maine
...For too long, Canadian citizens have been subjected to an illusion of freedom administered through bureaucratic means. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while lofty in rhetoric, provides no absolute protection - it is entirely subject to be overwritten through legislative action and court interpretation..."
it is entirely subject to be overwritten through legislative action and court interpretation
That's awful. Everyone knows that in a free country, rights are overwritten by executive action.
"it is entirely subject to be overwritten through legislative action and court interpretation"
Isn't that pretty much how we have always done things in America? [legislature legislates, courts interpret]
The focus here should be on "subject to be overwritten". No branch of government should go around overwriting basic rights and freedom.
But in America I'd say both the legislative and executive branches have done their share of overwriting.
Senators from Maine are Collins & King...
Very good, Ed. Those are indeed Maine's US senators. Here's a lolipop for ya.
Anyone who opposes Trump's tariffs is a traitor who prioritizes the shylocks over regular Americans. It's that simple.
62% traitors according to the last Fox News Poll.
That's because they're being misled by the corporate owned media. Ask "Do you support tariffs that will increase consumer prices," and most people will answer no. Ask "Do you support tariffs which will serve as a tax big corporations who have been underpaying taxes for years, but will hurt Wall Street profits," and most people will answer yes.
Well, sure. I'm pretty sure Fox just asked if they supported the tariffs without trying to do a push poll one way or the other, though.
Fox New Poll
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling the following issues?" Tariffs"
Yeah, it would be hard to be more neutral than that.
Worse for him, tariffs are way, way down the list of reasons people approve of him, and at the top of the reasons people disapprove.
With that phrasing, it's possible that part of what people disapprove of if Trump's chaotic approach, as opposed to higher tariffs. Hard to tell!
But since the overall policy is terrible along a number of dimensions, it's not surprising that most people disapprove.
It's terrible for Wall Street and big corporations. Not for Americans.
Repeating your ignorance doesn’t make it less ignorant. You and Jesse obviously went to the same substandard school.
The point is that the media is been hammering lies about bullshit about the tariffs for months now. People believe what they hear from the shylock media.
You mean the lies that have been borne out by reality?
I'd answer "no" to either form of the question.
Do you support tariffs which will serve as a tax big corporations who will simply pass the "tax" on to consumers?
FTFY
"Corporate owned", "big corporations", "profits".... I don't see that the business structure, size, or profit margin is especially relevant to this issue.
It used to be mainly socialists that had a compulsion to throw those phrases into their speech regardless of topic. Now it's the MAGAs.
"Do you support tariffs which will serve as a tax big corporations who will simply pass the "tax" on to consumers?
FTFY"
That is, literally, every single corporate tax. Yet Dems always call to increase the corporate tax rate et al.
If they have this pricing power, why not raise their profits now? The market-setting price is not dependent on inputs.
I'd also ask why they ever lower prices as well. I know the Left says the increases are due to greed. What is the purpose of reductions, in their eyes?
Ask "Do you support tariffs which will serve as a tax big corporations who have been underpaying taxes for years, but will hurt Wall Street profits," and most people will answer yes.
Yes, if you lie in your framing of a question, you can push poll an answer.
Small US Firms Paying Trump Tariffs Face a $202 Billion Hit
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/small-us-firms-paying-trump-tariffs-face-a-202-billion-hit/ar-AA1Kixti?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=c3da227f9ef144399b571ef165d806b5&ei=149
That proves my point you fool!
What, that they can’t absorb the cost and will pass it on to consumers? Oh, wait. You said the opposite.
Small businesses buying local don't.
No, they pay a lot more.
Lost your Dentures to Pawn again?
Your trolling is getting less rational by the minute - and it's not as though you started off with a high baseline.
President Donald Trump’s 401(k) reform: How this new executive order opens doors to crypto, private equity (Fox News, 8/8/2025)
Trump family crypto business announces $1.5 billion treasury company for World Liberty token (Fortune, 8/11/2025)
Tell me again how Trump is working for ANYONE else besides himself?
401k should be open to private equity, as public equities have no value left. Most of my investments are in private equity vehicles. No reason I shouldn't be allowed to do it in a tax advantaged way.
Wait a second. If the Trump Clan is running a crypto racket, wouldn't this amount to self-dealing?
I do sometimes regret not acting on that impulse to mine some bitcoin years ago, (Or even invest my son's allowance in dogecoin, as he demanded.) but while it's possible to make money off a tulip frenzy, (If you get in early and out at the right time!) you probably don't want to invest your retirement savings in tulip bulbs.
Faytuks Network@FaytuksNetwork Iranian President Pezeshkian: "We have no water. We are in a severe and unimaginable crisis. If anyone has a suggestion of what to do, they should come and tell us what actions to take. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to cut off water."
Seems like they should spend less money on nukes and supporting terrorism. Perhaps they can ask the Israelis to build them desalination plants.
How are they going to build nuke power plants without coolant water?
Same way they make cooling water on nuclear ships and submarines: desalination.
How do they make cooling water in Deserts? which is a major part of Pock-E-Stan's topography
The nuclear ships and subs are IN their cooling water.
Cooling tower loses a lot of water to evaporation.
Once-through cooling systems don't require cooling towers.
"Iranians main water expert Mohsen Arbabian:
U.S. and Israel are manipulating the weather by redirecting rain clouds away from Iran to deliberately trigger drought."
https://x.com/Osint613/status/1951178202488963166?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1951178202488963166%7Ctwgr%5E45da0cdbe680bb23827c76bbd7c64f6eaa749bbd%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F737636%2F
Who knew that MTG and Iran had such a confluence of beliefs? Both think the global Jewish conspiracies are real.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has filed suit against Secretary of State Marco Rubio and secretary of Homeland Security Kristy Noem seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the Stanford Daily student run newspaper and two other plaintiffs identified by the pseudonyms John Doe and Jane Doe. The complaint, https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2025/08/Complaint%20-%20The%20Stanford%20Daily%20et%20al.%20v.%20Rubio%20et%20al..pdf , seeks to to preclude deportations or revocation of visas under two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) which purport to allow the Secretary of State to render a noncitizen deportable if he “personally determines” the noncitizen's lawful “beliefs, statements, or associations” “compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest” and to allow the Secretary to “at any time, in his discretion, revoke” a “visa or other documentation.”
The plaintiffs claim that these provisions will be used to deport noncitizens who are here lawfully or revoke their visas based on their pro-Palestinian speech or advocacy, which would render the challenged statutory provisions unconstitutional as applied under the First Amendment, among other claims.
This link actually works: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/complaint-stanford-daily-publishing-corporation-et-al-v-rubio-et-al
Thank you very much. I had trouble posting the comment earlier.
The challenged provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) which purport to allow the Secretary of State to render a noncitizen deportable if he “personally determines” the noncitizen's lawful “beliefs, statements, or associations” “compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(3)(C)(iii), 1227(a)(4)(C)(i) (the “Deportation Provision”) and to allow the Secretary to “at any time, in his discretion, revoke” a “visa or other documentation.” Id. § 1201(i) (the “Revocation Provision”).
In my opinion, a facial challenge language to § 1201(i) is certainly a bold move. If this was filed outside of NDCA I'd say that odds were against it prevailing at the district court. But it was filed in unicorn fart land, and the judges in that courthouse will eat up anything that gets put in front of them so long as it's adverse to Trump and his administration.
Anyways, I think this one probably is going to go to SCOTUS.
Where do you get that this lawsuit is a facial challenge, tylertusta?
Strawmanning much? Paragraph 134 states "As applied to protected speech, the Deportation Provision is facially viewpoint based and content based because it applies solely to speech the government believes adversely affects its foreign policy." Paragraph 137 recites, "The Deportation Provision is facially viewpoint discriminatory as applied to protected speech for two reasons. First, it affords the Secretary of State unbounded discretion to render lawfully present noncitizens deportable on the basis of protected speech. Second, opinions the Secretary deems in his sole discretion adverse to America’s foreign policy subject noncitizens to potential deportation, while those he views as aligning with or praising American foreign policy do not. [Emphasis added.]
"A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid." United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987). The Stanford Daily plaintiffs make no such claim here.
The 'where' matters here, meaning the case was filed in ND-CA. The ND-CA tilts left. The Ninth circuit leans left.
This will go to SCOTUS b/c the Executive branch will fight to keep its prerogatives.
The phrase "as applied to protected speech" is a situation where 'the lady doth protest too much (W. Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, Sc II).'
Rather than applying the law to the specific circumstances of the plaintiffs, the challengers are attacking the categorical nature of the law through their wording of their complaint. One of the giveaways that this is really a facial challenge in disguise is that the plaintiffs aren't even being threatened directly with enforcement under § 1201(i) yet are asking for incredibly broad preemptive relief under an incredibly begging-the-question criteria of "protected speech."
Furthermore, a facial attack doesn't necessarily require the 'no set of circumstances' test. As SCOTUS said in US v Stevens (United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010)), "To succeed in a typical facial attack, Stevens would have to establish “that no set of circumstances exists under which would be valid,” United States v. Salerno or that the statute lacks any “plainly legitimate sweep" Washington v. Glucksberg (emphasis mine)."
Indeed, in Stevens recognized that a law merely being overbroad constituted a second type of facial attack if '“a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.”' (citing favorably Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party)
It has been my observation that many lawyers- including you, Mr. Guilty- will try to sneak such things into their arguments to frame an argument in an advantageous way. As you yourself noted, facial challenges are harder to succeed while as-applied challenges are not, and you'd rather be arguing on the latter than the former.
You couldn't be more wrong, tylertusta. Have you read the Stanford Daily complaint or not? Nothing therein seeks a declaration of facial invalidity of any provision or any statute. No plaintiff seeks injunctive relief as to any person apart from the party plaintiffs and their noncitizen members. There is no claim of unconstitutional overbreadth whatsoever.*
Have you read the prayer for relief? (Pp. 31-32):
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment against Defendants in their official capacities and issue the following relief: A. Declare that the First Amendment prohibits deporting Plaintiffs and/or their noncitizen members under the Deportation Provision for engaging in protected speech; B. Declare that, as to Plaintiffs and/or their noncitizen members, the Deportation Provision is void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment as applied to deportations based on protected speech; C. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Secretary Rubio from rendering Plaintiffs and/or their noncitizen members deportable under the Deportation Provision based on protected speech; D. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Secretary Noem from initiating deportation proceedings or otherwise invoking the Deportation Provision against Plaintiffs and/or their noncitizen members based on protected speech; E. Declare that the First Amendment prohibits revoking the visas or other documentation of Plaintiffs and/or their noncitizen members under the Revocation Provision based on protected speech; F. Declare that as to Plaintiffs and/or their noncitizen members, the Revocation Provision is void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment as applied to revocations of visas or other documentation based on protected speech; G. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Secretary Rubio from revoking the visas or other documentation of Plaintiffs and/or their noncitizens members under the Revocation Provision for engaging in protected speech; H. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Secretary Noem from initiating deportation proceedings against Plaintiffs and/or their noncitizen members based on visas revoked under the Revocation Provision for engaging in protected speech; I. Award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b) and any other applicable law; and J. Award such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment against Defendants in their official capacities and issue the following relief:
A. Declare that the First Amendment prohibits deporting Plaintiffs and/or their noncitizen members under the Deportation Provision for engaging in protected speech;
B. Declare that, as to Plaintiffs and/or their noncitizen members, the Deportation Provision is void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment as applied to deportations based on protected speech;
C. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Secretary Rubio from rendering Plaintiffs and/or their noncitizen members deportable under the Deportation Provision based on protected speech;
D. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Secretary Noem from initiating deportation proceedings or otherwise invoking the Deportation Provision against Plaintiffs and/or their noncitizen members based on protected speech;
E. Declare that the First Amendment prohibits revoking the visas or other documentation of Plaintiffs and/or their noncitizen members under the Revocation Provision based on protected speech;
F. Declare that as to Plaintiffs and/or their noncitizen members, the Revocation Provision is void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment as applied to revocations of visas or other documentation based on protected speech;
G. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Secretary Rubio from revoking the visas or other documentation of Plaintiffs and/or their noncitizens members under the Revocation Provision for engaging in protected speech;
H. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Secretary Noem from initiating deportation proceedings against Plaintiffs and/or their noncitizen members based on visas revoked under the Revocation Provision for engaging in protected speech;
I. Award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b) and any other applicable law; and
J. Award such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
[Footnotes omitted; emphasis added.]
The requested declaratory and injunctive relief, if granted by the Court, would not prohibit enforcement of the challenged statutory provisions as to any person other than the party plaintiffs and/or their noncitizen members. It would not prohibit revocation of visas or deportation of any person on grounds other than having engaged in First Amendment protected speech or expression.
The issues in a civil lawsuit are framed by the pleadings. A search for indicia that this complaint presents a facial challenge is as fruitless as the search of a blind man, sitting in a dark room, looking for a black cat, that isn't there.
______________________ * Ctrl-F is your friend.
Kim Jong-un introduced his daughter to the world in November 2022 with a show of affection and menace, holding her hand in front of an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Since then, state media has shown Kim Ju-ae more and more prominently next to her father, the leader of North Korea.
She is believed to be just 12, and Dear Leader is in his early 40s. But, DL is also known to be unhealthy.
https://archive.ph/Z5ESz#selection-4413.0-4416.0
Asia has not done well with female leaders.
A woman being an umpire in an MLB game (including behind the plate) was a nice "first," though it should not have taken this long.
Has anyone thrown a green dildo yet?
Mike Piazza retired almost 20 years ago.
HEYYYOOOO
She badly blew her first ball/strike call! She'll fit right in.
With what those Minor League Umpires make (Triple A $4,500/month (during the season only of course) she probably blows alot of things, stealing from the Late Great Andrew Dice Dice Clay, "Little Boy Blue, He needed the money!!!" Even the Rookie MLB Umpires only make $150,000, prorated for the 3 games she worked, that's maybe $3,000 (before taxes) and she was only a fill-in, this week she's back to calling Rochester at Toledo.
$150,000 is twice the median income in MA, close to 3 times it.
MA median income is $48,593, so, yea, triple plus.
so she'll make 1/2 that with her Minor League pay
Trump has seized control of the DC Police.
Let the lawsuits fly!
Maybe he can stop the illegal drag racing with Hellfire missiles. So you have to repave a few streets... 🙂
I hear Donnie wants to send our troops on some foreign adventures into narco-states. So to be fair, he doesn't just use the military on Americans.
The Trump Administration has found a source of funding: use discretion over licenses to shake businesses down for cash. He is agreeing to give business export licenses if they agree to give him a cut of the revenue.
Nobody should believe Trump’s claim that he has negotiated “taxes” that represent revenue for the United States. The Constitution expressly prohibits taxes on exports. This is not and constitutionally cannot be money for the United States. The United States cannot constitutionally accept it.
This is graft, a pure bribe. This is money that can only go to Mr. Trump personally.
Mr. Trump is shaking down companies, extorting them for bribes in exchange for government favors like licenses. These companies are publicly announcing they are agreeing to pay bribes in exchange for favor.
Every autocrat needs a slush fund to fund extralegal activities. Mr. Trump has found a way to get his.
Yeah, but in defence of Trump, he's not nearly as rich as Putin or MBS, and how can he expect to be respected by other kleptocrats if he doesn't have comparable scratch?
"give him"
Stop lying. The fee will go to the US treasury.
"The United States cannot constitutionally accept it. "
Its a fee for an export license Hate to break it to you but fees are currently collected on some such licenses.
Import, export — one way or the other, the government’s going to get its cut. “It don’t matter — Upgrayedd gonna get his money!”
DOJ bid to unseal Epstein GJ materials denied
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.809.0.pdf
MAGA: Alex, I'll take attorneys general for 800.
Alex: The answer is: 'She watched hours of 11 year olds being molested, yet still chose to protect dozens of powerful men'
MAGA: What is Obama.
Shocker. Something that didn't satisfy the legal standard didn't work.
Oh agreed. There were some tart words about Mr. Blanche in there.
"tart words"
That will show him!
Yeah; it basically said what we already knew: this is just a diversion. It's not meant to reveal anything; it's just meant to relieve the pressure on Trump to release information.
Thank you for the link, Estragon. The District Judge took 31 pages to say, in essence, there's no there, there.
Can the DOJ appeal to the 2nd circuit? I seem to recall reading that there was a circuit split on the conditions needed to release GJ information. Might this be a test case?
“Circuit split”
Yes, if you look at p. 12-14 that is discussed.
“Test case”
I doubt that. This case is about Maxwell, Epstein, their misdeeds, and DOJ’s attempt to misdirect (as the opinion discusses). I seriously doubt this administration has some larger independent position on Rule 6(e).
It’s also not really a sensible vehicle to “test” in the sense that the 2nd and 7th would be the MOST FAVORABLE to disclosure because of their view that there are, at times “special circumstances” that would justify disclose beyond the factors laid out in 6(e). In other words— this was probably already the most favorable forum for DOJ to achieve disclosure.
You are an experienced shooter, have all the necessary permits, etc., and carry a large and threatening revolver which you can use rapidly and accurately.
You see a friend of yours known to you with total certainty as a citizen by birth being seized by two masked ICE operatives, and when your friend asks you for help, one of the ICE operatives says, he can't help you, off to Alligator Alcatraz you go.
Would the NRA support your using your revolver to get ICE to release your friend and depart? Would Stephen Halbrook?
If they are wearing masks and don’t identify themselves, you have no basis for thinking them to be ICE agents.
Aside from military style uniform, caps, etc. and large ICE lettering on their chest...
"Would the NRA support your using your revolver to get ICE to release your friend and depart? "
Certainly not.
What if the guy with the revolver was Kyle Rittenhouse? And he became scared watching the incident?
Kyle was chased down - yes, he was running away - and attacked, pushed to the ground, and assaulted.
And if he'd been black, he'd have been shot dead by the cops the moment they saw him carrying his gun.
Hypothetical racism is the best type!
Just reasoning from history.
Probably by Black Cops
Was he doing anything that would cause people to be scared that he could kill them...like, flashing a gun?
Since when does the NRA have anything to do with this?
The NRA hasn't been relevant in years.
The NRA hasn't been principled in years.
I still don't see what the NRA has to do with your example.
Of course you don't.
"Of course you don't. Since I'm just here to vent my spleen about an organization that, while not relevant in years, I still don't like for historical reasons, so I'll treat it as if it matters even though it doesn't."
If you get in a gunfight with Federal agents, no matter the outcome at the time, you will eventually lose.
Is Mr. Trump even claiming he has any legal basis for taking direct control of the DC police etc.? Or are the Constitution, laws, court orders, etc. simply pieces of paper he wipes his ass with?
e cultists don't care. 90% believe that "Führer macht rechts" and the other 10% are lying when they say they don't.
He's invoking the D.C. Home Rule Act.
Maybe you're just ignorant? Your news sources seem to have misled you.
"any legal basis for taking direct control of the DC police "
Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. Looks like for 30 days so long as he writes a letter to Congress within 48 hours.
Does your knee hurt from the constant jerking?
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-87/pdf/STATUTE-87-Pg774.pdf
Sec. 740 starts on the bottom of pg. 57.
It only discusses when the President, " . . . may direct the Mayor to provide him, and the Mayor shall provide, such services of the Metropolitan Police force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate."
Exactly. There’s a huge difference between providing police coverage to (say) protect a controversial ambassador or something and a complete takeover of the department. The President can ask for specific services, not even specific personnel of his choice (he can ask for specific people, but the Mayor is under no obligation to oblige). Under Section 740 the Mayor, like any other service provider, remains of the boss of the people who actually provide the services at all times while the services are being provided.
The law speaks entirely of the President ordering and the mayor providing police services to the President as an independent-contractor service provider to a customer. The President has to say what he wants through the Mayor. The individual police officers remain department employees subject to the ordinary chain of command.
And of course, the President waking up one morning and deciding he doesn’t like a situation isn’t an emergency. An emergency involves things that happen in the real world, not entirely in the President’s head. And so far as the real world is concerned, there’s been crime and homelessness in DC for decades. Nothing new has emerged. Nothing in the slightest.
Note: Only the title even contains the word “contol.” Interpretation in any event follows the text, not the title.
You can't make this shit up:
"This is a safe city, but overhearing and witnessing gang threats and then watching the camera footage of the thuggery is disturbing," one D.C. resident told the Washington Post on Sunday. But — and I'm not making this up, so I'll quote WaPo reporters Olivia George, John D. Harden, and Jenny Gathright precisely — the resident who told them the city was safe was "speaking on the condition of anonymity over concerns of personal safety." [emphasis mine]
You are aware that death threats are not limited to the city of domicile, right? Do you think that when a Democratic representative, for example, receives a death threat, the FBI only needs to investigate within their district?
Are you kidding? The chances a DC resident will be harmed by someone outside DC is just about zero.
FBI is rolling pretty heavy round there right now. That's the biggest risk of violence right now, and I don't think they're all DC residents.
Just cover your gang tats.
You're saying FBI agents are a bigger threat of violence against D.C. residents or visitors than the huge population of criminals there? If so, you are truly deranged.
Right now? Yes.
The heavily armed people here to do a crackdown on the residents of DC represent a higher risk of violence to the residents of DC than any criminals currently residing in DC.
Though you strike me as someone who thinks all police shoots are good shoots.
"The heavily armed people here to do a crackdown on the residents of DC represent a higher risk of violence to the residents of DC than any criminals currently residing in DC."
This is an amazingly dumb statement. Hysterical as well.
You are deranged.
You pretend that law enforcement officers are a greater threat to the populace than violent criminals?
The data strongly indicate otherwise. And people aren't stupid.
Sarcastr0, for the Democratic take on reality. Good luck with that.
You're the same person who told us there was no border problem during The Cauliflower's term. Pardon us if we think you are full of brown stuff.
I said the border wasn’t wide open.
It wasn’t.
Didn’t stop people from lying about it then nor you lying about what I said now.
So, if it wasn't "wide" open, you're admitting that it was open to a deliberate, calibrated extent?
Or are you still sticking to the line that illegal immigration went up several fold when Biden took office, and then dropped precipitously when Trump came back, purely by coincidence?
Turning your country into a hellscape is definitely a way to make sure foreigners don't want to come.
As hellscapes go, this is rather like the first circle of Dante's Inferno.
I suppose he's making it pretty unpleasant to be an illegal alien, but I'm cool with that.
Not sure how your gotcha is supposed to work here. This is not an if-then; these two things have nothing to do with one another.
Do you think there's some magic dimmer switched that lets one set the exact number of immigrants that will come to the border, and the exact number that are intercepted?
Autoritarian mindset. The government controls everything.
The light goes on and off when you throw the switch, but only an authoritarian would think you control the light?
Exactly, Brett. You didn't even realize you've assumed there's a switch because you so reflexively assume the government controls everything.
So, you actually ARE sticking with the absurd claim that huge step changes in levels of illegal immigration when Biden entered and left office were not a result of deliberate policy decisions! No, the rate of illegal immigration wasn't controlled by the administration, it was purely a coincidence that it abruptly changes when Presidents with different policies enter office.
Wow, you really are doubling down on that stupid claim.
We’ve been over this a lot.
You need to do the work to prove causation.
And the timeline was nearly instant with the change of admin. More aligned with reputational and rumor effects than the effect of a policy change.
You appeal to incredulity because number big a lot. You should know better. But you have never been able to resist believing something you want to believe.
Sarc: "I said the border wasn’t wide open. It wasn’t."
Yes, it was. All you had to do was fill out an application-for-asylum (Biden gave the Border Patrol tablets to make that easier), and you were immediately "paroled" to live freely and legally in the U.S. with a known backlog of years before the government would be able to even consider your application.
The Biden administration surely made the border wide open that way. Your disagreement is a lame quibble.
As typical, you are unable to speak up for the policies you endorse. You should ask yourself why your conscience doesn't permit you a full-throated endorsement of the practices you purport to defend. The Democratic party manifests your problem of a deeply conflicted identity.
No. First was a credible fear interview.
Yes. An asylum seeker must make credible fear claims. An overwhelming majority easily make such claims and obtain parole, even though many (at times, most) will ultimately be denied asylum after serious review. In fact, it's a highly subjective determination that is substantially more or less restrictive based on the leanings of the President.
In the same way that the Biden administration substantially eased border crossings for almost the whole of its term, it unilaterally (without change in law or legislative action) raised the bar and dramatically lowered border crossings in Mid 2024. At that time, the administration "closed" borders in the same way that it had "opened" them. The administration did so in anticipation of angry prospective voters who were expressing deep skepticism of the administration's claims that border entries were beyond its legal control.
You're not wrong. But you're acting as if the legal questions and answers drive the "porousness" of the border. They don't. Political sentiments drive that porousness, and laws are interpreted so as to support those political sentiments.
Actually harmed, possibly. In receipt of death threats? Somewhat more likely.
Some thugs carry guns, knives, and stun guns. Others carry briefcases and laptops.
Others work for the CDC.
Really? Like who?
Are we referring to what black people say in most southern towns? Oh, wait, you're just referring to DC.
D.C. has been a hell hole for a long time. I remember a business trip there in 1990 when we were told by our travel people to not walk around at night. One colleague of mine went for a jog after work, in the dark, and saw a guy get stabbed in the head! I had warned him not to go, and when he returned he said "you were right!"
Oh, so if I have my head in the oven at 350º and I turn it down to 250º, that's better?
It's still 10 times higher than the NYC crime rate.
Not if you don't count events in the Oval office.
I'm definitely certain that Hunter Biden was not the cause of or associated with drug crimes discovered on the White House grounds.
I was just curious whether you were aware of that, and if it might cause you to examine your assumptions.
“10 times higher than the NYC crime rate”
That doesn’t seem right. But I’m sure you wouldn’t say something like that without backup, so let’s have it!
2024: NYC: 3.8/100,000 D.C. 26.4/100,000
So, I was wrong, it's only 7 times.
https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-in-u-s-cities-year-end-2024-update/
“I was wrong”
That’s ok… people are wrong all the time. Where’d you get the idea it was 10x?
“I read it somewhere”
Where? Don’t be shy. I’d like to check it out.
Wherever it was from— do you think you’ll be less, more, or just as willing to accept assertions uncritically from this source in the future?
Ya know, you are not supposed to turn the heat on at all....
Isn't a commander of the DC police being investigated for cooking the numbers on crime in the district?
Yes
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/dc-police-commander-suspended-crime-statistics
D.C. has been a hell hole for a long time. I remember a business trip there in 1990
See, citing this kind of info - anecdotal and from 30 years ago - is a sign you don't know what you're talking about.
I said we got a warning from the travel department.
You said your friend saw someone get stabbed in the head 30+ years ago as well.
Yes, that was an example. Do you know what an example is?
The only support for your 'DC is a hellhole' has been those examples, and a '10X higher rate than NYC' stat that you appear to have pulled from your ass.
I read it somewhere. In fact, 2024: NYC: 3.8/100,000 D.C. 26.4/100,000
The carjacking rate in DC is 12 times that of NYC.
Maybe this person just didn’t want a bunch of pizzas delivered to their house.
Haha! Yes, Publius keeps talking about DC like it's Escape from New York, when it's all just MAGA hyperbole for pizza doxing their favorite justices. If MAGA were really concerned about DC crime, they could eliminate most of it by firebombing the White House
DC is a hell hole. There are teen kids committing carjackings, muggers, armed robbers, and so forth. I would never walk around there at night.
You're wrong. I lived there for a decade until a few years ago. When I first moved there the metro ran till 2am, to date myself.
There are bad neighborhoods like any city, but *generally* being afraid to walk around at night is pretty ridiculous of you!
Even if I'm armed I avoid neighborhoods and situations where something bad might happen. But you can't carry in D.C., so there's that.
As I mentioned, the D.C. crime rate is 10 times that of NYC.
the D.C. crime rate is 10 times that of NYC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
What are you talking about?
Violent crime/100,000 DC: 948.74 NYC: 538.90
Property crime/100,000 DC: 4,156.22 NYC: 1,448.59
2 times the violent crime and 3 times the property crime.
ThePublius exaggerated but you are not proving your safe city point.
Your data are from 2019. Mine are from 2024.
How about all crime?
Remarkably, NYC and D.C. both had 496 carjackings in 2024.
The population of NYC is 8.5 million The population of D.C. is 702 thousand.
That's 12 times the rate of carjackings in D.C. versus NYC.
...and what would you gentlemen expect from Il Douche? By the way, up thread he expresses anxiety over the FBI presence making him feel less safe.
1. Your rate is for *homicide* not every crime, or even every violent crime.
2. NYC is an outlier for being low; Washington DC looks middling in the broad scheme. So your choice for one-point-of-comparison is deceitful.
3. Even so you exaggerated the multiple.
4. Your comparison is not well related with whether DC is safe or not, which refers to an absolute value.
Here again, DC crime stats from 2008 to 2023: https://cjcc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/cjcc/2008-2023%20Violent%20Crime%20Trends.pdf
Still unclear why you think Trump is going to travel back in time two years and bring down crime from those rates, as opposed to from the current ones.
Don't let this clown forget that the DC police just got busted cooking the crime stats.
Shutting down Washington Metro PD would put a serious crimp on Crime, seriously, when I worked there (Old Walter Reed, NW DC, the “Nice” part of town) it was hard to tell an off duty cop from your basic hood rat, except the cops weren’t as well armed
Three years ago I spent a week in DC walking the entire city. All I saw were fancy walking districts, fancy homes and super high prices. If there were black people there I didn't see them.
So, hobie plans his trips to specifically avoid minorities.
This is not a surprise.
He’s just following John Derbyshires rules
So, let's sum this up. SRG2, hobie, and Sarcastr0 say there's no crime problem in D.C., nothing to see here. Right?
Stop lying, there's a good chap.
So what do you think, is there a crime problem in DC?
Yes, but not so bad as to require a Trumpist occupation.
It's been like this a long time, and the current mayor and PD are not making any progress on it, even backsliding.
Still doesn't justify what Trump is doing.
It’s the National Guard, our “Citizen Soldiers”!
You came in with 'DC is a hell hole' and you were afraid to go anywhere in DC at night.
Saying that's bullshit doesn't mean there is no crime in DC.
Gonna reject that fraught language.
Any crime is a problem. It's a bit before my time, but as I recall there was a crime problem in Mayberry, too.
Is it a problem worthy of a federal crackdown? No. That's needless authoritarian dick swinging that manages to both silly and dangerous.
I completely disagree. You're downplaying an extremely crime-ridden and dangerous city (district) that also happens to be the nation's capital.
You're weaseling very hard.
TP number 1: DC is a hell hole TP number 2: Disagree with me and you must think there's no crime problem in D.C. TP number 3: extremely crime-ridden and dangerous city
You've changed your goalposts enough times it's clear you're just here to lie.
The numbers don't bear out what you want to be true, so you repeat it over and over and try and change your thesis when people call you on it.
It'd be shameful, if you weren't so laughably bad at it.
I haven't moved any goalposts, you're the one who's lying.
I laid out the 3 goalposts you've had. And how you're bucking the stats.
Your response to every objection is just repeating your old statements, now revealed to be wrong. So you are now lying about crime so you can justify a federal crackdown.
I'm not lying. There is a serious crime problem in DC that local authorities have failed to address.
Actually Sarc, I disagree slightly with you.
Here's how I see what Publius is doing:
1. While DC's crime stats are not top in the country, they are bad enough that one could legitimately complain. (After all, one murder is too many.) 2. They've been that bad for many decades, it had a bad rep even was I a small child. 3. More importantly, the crime stats were bad every single day of Trump's first term. 4. Neither Trump nor Publius cared even a tiny bit about crime in DC from January 2017 to January 2021. 5. One concludes they still don't care about crime in DC. Trump doesn't, Publius doesn't. It's fake. They don't even particularly care about doing a federal crackdown, or justifying a crackdown. 6. The whole thing is an intentional *distraction*.
What you and I need to be worried about is whatever they are trying to distract us from, because it must be pretty bad.
"4. Neither Trump nor Publius cared even a tiny bit about crime in DC from January 2017 to January 2021. 5. One concludes they still don't care about crime in DC. Trump doesn't, Publius doesn't. It's fake. They don't even particularly care about doing a federal crackdown, or justifying a crackdown."
That's bullshit. You don't know what I care about or when I did. I've cared about DC crime for 30+ years. I had no hope that Biden would ever be able to do anything about it. If Trump didn't care he wouldn't be doing anything about it.
Publius, you should probably call it a night. Now everybody is schooling you on your hypocrisy
Didn't you live in DC and move out to Whitelandia in VA?
I never said there wasn't a crime problem in DC...you also made that up
You poo-poohed it with this:
"Haha! Yes, Publius keeps talking about DC like it's Escape from New York, when it's all just MAGA hyperbole for pizza doxing their favorite justices. If MAGA were really concerned about DC crime, they could eliminate most of it by firebombing the White House."
Pizza doxing? Are you kidding?
Yes. Pizza doxxing. As far as I know the term was coined by erstwhile USA for DC, Ed Martin.
Have you ever sent anyone a pizza in the name of Daniel Anderl?
I guess that went right over your head.
Possibly. It could also be what you were trying to say sounded more clever in your head. Anyways, I think we’re all glad to clear up the apparent contradiction in what the anonymous interviewee had to say for you!
I've been listening to AM talk today, looks like DC crime is your instructions du jour. And here you are dutifully asserting. Taking the 2019 crime statistics, the highest murder rates are largely in red state cities, with DC at #19. IF you are truly interested in crime and human welfare and are not in making political warfare, then I would expect you to trash them red cities first. But that ain't what you're doing...is it?
Missouri St. Louis 66.07 Maryland Baltimore 55.77 Michigan Detroit 39.8 Louisiana New Orleans 39.5 Louisiana Baton Rouge 38.26 Missouri Kansas City 30.93 Ohio Cleveland 27.77 Tennessee Memphis 27.73 New Jersey Newark 27.14 Ohio Cincinnati 23.4 Alabama Mobile 20.13
So, hobie --- all those cities you listed. How many are led by Republicans? Have been led by them any time in the recent past? Seems like even in safe red states, the blue cities are crime-laden shitholes.
Also, are you aware that DC has the highest murder rate of any capital city on Earth. Almost double the murder rate of Bogota.
What a neato new subject you've discovered! It's not only bullshit, but when put here it's a deflection from hobie wrecking TP's shit.
I’m almost agreeing with you, the ridiculously high Black Crime Rate isn’t exactly “News” Someone trying to do something about it is
Missouri, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee, and Alabama are all red states. Why can’t those Republicans control crime?
When you look at just murders, the Red states are dominant. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/murder-rate-by-state
They're not red cities! All but two mayors in the cities you list are democrats.
Why do you lie? Do you think no one will check?
I'm merely noting the trend, Publius: Cities in blue states = hell on earth; Cities in red states with much higher crime rates = crickets. So until you apply some sense of objectivity, I will continue to victimize you.
Don't make up quotes about me, I didn't say that. States don't matter in this context, it's the city that does. Tell me about red cities with high crime rates, and I will listen.
In Texas (where I used to live) when any liberal city got out of line and tried to implement rules they preferred, the state crushed it. The state has ultimate power over its towns. You know how when anything bad happens in California (hayseed area or otherwise) you guys blame Newsome and the state gov (and often you blame the victims themselves)? So which is it? The governments in blue states control everything, but the governments in red states are just helpless bystanders?
You're full of it.
At the Yankee's old-timers game this past weekend, Mariano Rivera showed he is versatile. He did not pitch, but he had the hardest hit batted ball and then tore his Achilles tendon playing the OF.
Dwight Gooden showed up. And while it appeared Strawberry did not, Gooden was so fat might have eaten him.
Poor Mariano. I tore mine in Feb— it’s not the most fun in the world.
Maybe I’m just more sensitive to it now but it seems like there’s been a rash of these injuries in the sporting world:
Mariano Damian lillard Jayson Tatum Tyrese Halliburton Tiger woods Griffin canning
These all happened since February!
E, I hope you recover fully (body and spirit) from your injury. It is a long rehab; get well.
Thank you for that very gracious sentiment
“Gooden was so fat”
This seems unnecessarily gratuitous especially given this is a franchise that employed at least two pitchers in recent memory who were about as fat as gooden was yesterday when they were still playing…
And one threw a perfect game hungover (or so the story goes).
Seeing Wells standing next to Cone was good for a laugh.
From what I could tell, Wells was not that fat. Nor Sabathia. But maybe it was just by comparison to his younger days.
When the Mets celebrated the 1986 championship team Dykstra was notably in bad shape. Paul O'Neill wins the award for being in the best shape on Saturday. Willie Randolph gets a special nod for being in fine shape at 71.
I dunno, CC was like 315 when he was playing. Doc looked heavy admittedly but not 315 to my eye.
That last part is a tad mean.
Was Ron Guidry there? Steve Garvey’s still trying to catch up with that heater in the 77 Series
Guidry pitched in the game! I think he faced Homer Bush who lined out to right.
Former youth organizer for AOC busted after urging ‘attack’ on Jewish students at Brooklyn public high school
A Brooklyn woman who worked as a youth organizer for “Squad” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was arrested Friday on charges she urged her 25,000 social media followers to “attack” a public high school because Jewish students attend it. Iman Abdul, 27, is accused of posting a screenshot on Thursday of the location of Leon M. Goldstein High School for the Sciences in Manhattan Beach on Google Maps and a chilling caption. “If anyone needs a public school in NYC to attack for whatever reason … Lexus driving Israhell (sic) loving Zionisits (sic) all attend here,” the since-deleted post read.
https://nypost.com/2025/08/09/us-news/hateful-call-to-attack-nyc-jewish-high-school-probed-by-nypd/
So what will the fellow travelers here say about this: (a) She's really a MAGA plant. Left wingers never express anti-semitism or violence. (b) It's freedom of speech. (c) We don't agree with her tactics, but understand her frustration at the Judeo-Nazi support for the state of Israel. And that those kids drive Lexus's. (d) All of the above.
How about: (e)
That sounds bad. She was already arrested. Good.
This youth organizer...you think she is the only one who thinks and feels that way? That it is an AOC supporter is not surprising at all.
Last Friday, a synagogue in Rutherford NJ was burned to the ground. It had been previously firebombed a dozen years ago. The Rabbi and his family narrowly escaped death.
Jews are increasingly under attack in America simply for being Jews. The security budget for a shul I am familiar with has more than doubled in the last 5 years. They have armed guards every day for services, and the school. Can you imagine...we must have armed guards to pray to God, and for our children to attend school; and, we practice evacuating the synagogue in case of emergency with some frequency. I never would have thought that irrational Jew hatred would take root here, in America, but it has. And it is undeniable.
If you are not armed at home, get a permit. And join a club.
“ That it is an AOC supporter is not surprising at all.”
Horseshoe theory at work. The lunatic right and the lunatic left have more in common with each other than they do with the moderates of their side of the ideological spectrum. White supremacists are just as likely as radical leftists to be violently antisemitic.
“ Jews are increasingly under attack in America simply for being Jews”
Much like Muslims after 9/11. Right now the high-profile brutal foreign governments are Israel and Russia, so antisemitism is the flavor du jour of the lunatic fringes. That’s not in any way an excuse for the hatred and violence directed at Jews (you know where I stand vis-a-vis antisemitism, violent and otherwise), but it is an acknowledgement of Americans’ willingness to engage in religious (and anti-religious) violence.
Perhaps I am too much of an optimist, but I believe that Americans, by and large, are accepting of Jews and repulsed by violence and hatred directed at them. The “your side is antisemitic” crew is just playing the “I see yours, but refuse to see mine” game that all dishonest partisans play.
“ we practice evacuating the synagogue in case of emergency with some frequency”
This is one of the more heartbreaking things I have read here. FWIW, I disagree with you on a wide variety of issues, but am glad you and yours are part of our country. Don’t let the bastards grind you down.
“ I never would have thought that irrational Jew hatred would take root here, in America, but it has”
Unfortunately it’s been that way for my entire lifetime. The profile of the high-profile antisemites has shifted from the white supremacist conservatives of the American South and WASPs of the Northeast up through the 1970s to the hard left today, but if you think any of them have stopped you are fooling yourself. Antisemitism (violent and otherwise) has been in America since we began.
People, especially on the fringes, crave someone or something to hate. I’ve never understood it, but it seems baked into our species. And hating a minority group (especially a minority religious group) is easy. A successful minority religious group like Jews just rolls envy into religious bigotry.
It’s a virulent form of hatred. And it’s what people who believe in American ideals should oppose, vocally and constantly.
"(((Harry Enten)))@ForecasterEnten 3h "The Epstein saga is becoming a political dud & nothingburger. -Google searches for Epstein are down 89% from just 3 weeks ago. -Trump's approval rating is holding steady & much higher than term 1 at this point in his presidency -Less than 1% say it's the nation's top issue"
Estrogen and Loki hardest hit.
The electoral risk in the Epstein case has never been about Trump's popularity (he could shoot someone on 5th avenue). Instead, the risk is some MAGA voters sit out 2026 because they don't like Trump defending the deep state (they believe the deep state is refusing to release the files).
That's the angle that isn't getting enough play, because that's where the frustration is.
And Deep State really equals Deep State + Israel. Oh apparently, they're calling themselves the Steady State now. FYSA
As long as he keeps feeding us red meat, like the DC police takeover, or fires another 100k bureaucrats then I think we'll stay engaged.
We? You think there is a deep state?
You dont?
Of course there is a deep state, but it's getting smaller.
Ask Chuck Schumer, he'll tell there is a deep state and it shouldn't be messed with:
“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
“So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-trump-being-really-dumb-by-going-after-intelligence-community/
And by 'we' I mean Trump coalition voters.
I don't mean Trump's coalition. I mean the hard-core conspiracists who think Democrats and the deep state run pedophilia rings.
If by “deep state” you mean a bureaucratic conspiracy against conservatives, no there isn’t.
Apparently, some of us haven’t learned a thing from the blatantly partisan and illegal FISA debacle….
You appear to be admitting you're easily-manipulated by demonstrations of authoritarianism.
Weird flex.
Well I am easily manipulated by politicians giving me what they promised when I voted for them.
“In a political context, the term "red meat" generally refers to inflammatory or emotionally charged rhetoric, issues, or policy positions specifically designed to appeal to a politician's core supporters or base, often by stoking anger, fear, or resentment towards opposing groups or ideologies.“
Red meat is not something you boast about getting fed.
"risk is some MAGA voters sit out 2026 "
So no risk.
A few hundred screamers on twitter are not going to matter.
When Bannon, Rogan, Kirk and Carlson complain, it could easily be much more than a hew hundred.
The best way to make Trump voters stay home in the midterms is to back off on his agenda.
As it is now I feel confident he is accomplishing as much of his agenda that can reasonably expected, in fact actually a lot more than I expected in some areas.
And I expect the vast majority of his voters feel the same, that will probably be enough to survive the midterms with majorities.
If the economy goes south, the GOP loses the House.
I disagree; Team R is falling behind on enacting POTUS Trump's agenda into law. Meaning, there are just not enough legislative days to get it over the finish Congressional finish line. This (2025) was the year to cut summer and winter recess, next year (2026) everyone is campaigning.
POTUS Trump can always do better. And he should.
Domestic scorecard: B+ (good partnership with Speaker Johnson and Sen Thune, OBBB was very significant policy-wise, so were 200 exec orders, 200K+ headcount reduction, USAID elimination, but deportations nowhere near enough, and too few judges confirmed so step on it)
Intl scorecard: A (NATO contribs, peace deals, re-ordered trade r'ships in our favor, repatriated illegal aliens, Iran nuke capability gone for now)
So far, good grades. So what...he is a billionaire, I think we expected him to do well. But time is already running out. We should not see even a hint of complacency from anyone. If anything, focus more on desired outcome and just make that happen ASAP. There are fewer bureaucritters, so the process should be a lot quicker.
Team R is falling behind on enacting POTUS Trump's agenda into law.
Such as?
Bob, part of the reason that interest is down is because the House is adjured. At some point Speaker Johnson has to bring the House back and I expect interest to increase at that time.
Can someone take all the DemoKKKrats down to May-He-Co so they don’t have a Quorum?
Hobie and Malika are inconsolable.
I pointed out Epstein was mentioned 52 times in last Wednesday thread, and 9 times Friday, 8 by Hobie and Malika.
Yeah, I kinda dropped off busting balls about Epstein. But Trump won't shut up about it.
Epstein was the coolest character on “Welcome Back Kotter”
I liked Horshak.
That laugh was horrible, and he talked like a Homo
It's like he said--he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his supporters wouldn't care. If a little pedophilia is the price you gotta pay to own the libs, MAGA is happy to offer our children up!
Really the whole thing has been masterfully timed and manipulated.
1. January, Bondi sets up the play by overpromising. 2. Let the darker parts of the net stew in anticipation. 3. Early July, go public with an utterly fake fight between Bondi and Bongino to get everyone's attention focused. 4. July: Make an open, taunting show of not releasing anything. Top it off by moving Maxwell to a comfy prison like you're buying her silence. 5. Result: MAGA anger about the issue, which was actually somewhat dangerous, is all burned up a full six months before primary season really gets going.
The key statistic in their planning was the mean attention span of their supporters.
I know this is a mistake, but where is Queenie? Vacationing at Race Point beach in Provincetown?
He’s had a rough day, started doing morning pushups, didn’t see the mouse trap!
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2025/08/11/dc-police-commander-was-cooking-the-books-on-crime-n2661676
>D.C. Police Commander Was Cooking the Books on Crime
Of course. Democrats always have to lie or deflect to cover up the failures of their ideology.
Your argument is that a high-ranked police officer was … a Democrat? And that the Democrats should be blamed, not the person who did wrong?
So you start from “It’s the Democrats’ fault” and work backwards from there.
Sixth Circuit says Second Amendment doesn’t cover machine guns
A federal appeals panel on Thursday upheld the conviction of Jaquan Bridges for possessing an unregistered machine gun, setting the precedent that the weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment.
Bridges, 22, was arrested with a Glock .40 caliber pistol with an attachment that converted the handgun into a machine gun after he nearly struck a police vehicle on a highway in Memphis and shot at the officers while he fled the scene.
https://www.courthousenews.com/sixth-circuit-says-second-amendment-doesnt-cover-machine-guns/
I think it should cover fully automatic weapons. If that's what they're issuing to U.S. troops, the populace should be able to possess them as well. Simple.
"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."
States under Art. I, sec. 10, cannot, without congressional consent, "keep troops."
States can have a militia. The militia is different from "troops." So, the militia not having the same arms as troops is reasonable enough.
Fine, substitute militia for troops in Publius's statement and he's still got a point: Militia equals National Guard and the National Guard has machine guns.
"Militia equals National Guard"
That's not so. The militia is composed of able-bodied males aged 17-45, and also includes female members of the National Guard, according to U.S. code.
Neither the US nor the states equip the unorganized militia, though. They equip the organized militia, which is the National Guard. And that equipment includes machine guns (plus various arguably non-"arms" weaponry such as light artillery).
Yes, and U.S. code requires the militia, when called up, to present themselves with the arms in common use by the army. The would - should - include an M16.
Has Trumps deployed tanks in front of The White House yet?
"substitute militia for troops"
I comment enough without responding to things not said.
The 2A speaks of "militia" and not "troops." I focused my comment specifically on the reference to "troops."
"Shock Probation" is an interesting concept:
"That is the argument that a person was so "shocked" by their short time in prison that they will not reoffend when released."
In this instance you had someone sentenced for 14 years for a series of armed robberies at ATMs, then the judge let them out sfter 5 months and they were "shocked" into going straight.
"Judge Jessica Green granted Langford and his attorney's request for "shock probation" in July 2024."
Well going straight until he invaded a home, made the woman and her two kids, go to the ATM with her, where he stabbed the woman, fled and now is back in jail.
I'm shocked.
https://www.whas11.com/article/news/local/someone-dropped-the-ball-legal-expert-discusses-2024-release-of-alleged-bank-robber-armond-langford/417-dcbf420c-d139-48ec-9038-dba39be32065
I don't know if this is a good policy or a bad one. I do know an anecdote doesn't prove anything on that front.
Emotionalism is really tempting when it comes to criminal justice policy. That makes it all the more important to resist that call.
That means mass shootings and gun control laws as well.
They gave him 14 years for a reason.
The judge let him loose for no reason at all.
That is of course why Congress set up sentencing guidelines and sharply restricted Federal judges from pulling crap.like this, and it wouldn't surprise me if cases like this became an issue in Kentucky's Senate and Gubernatorial races.
I think the GOP can work with that.
If anecdotes is why Congress set up sentencing guidelines, that seems an indictment of the guidelines.
Luckily I happen to have studied the matter in school, and know it was to address statistically observed inequities and was supported by plenty of judges who saw it as a harmonization exercise, not some constraint on their bleeding heart ways.
It's a pretty interesting example of a really well-coordinated policy and how you can get broad buy-in if your methods are good.
Or could 50 years ago. Nowadays for a sizeable segment, thoughtful and deliberate methodology is bad, actually. Shows you don't feel deeply enough to act in haste.
Except, the policy you advocate was in fact a failure in this instance.
"I don't know if this is a good policy or a bad one. I do know an anecdote doesn't prove anything on that front."
You are a perfect example of what I posted about Friday:
"Nobody can control random, insane, [judges]. But many liberals are desperate to cover for them using the ignore/deny/deflect playbook rather than just saying "yeah, that's dumb" and move on."
Here is a 90-10 issue, should someone convicted of string pf 23 felonies be let put of their prison sentence after 4 months? Then you reflexively ignore/deny/deflect, and of course now rather than disowning the judge like every right thinking individual, now you and progressives as a whole own the judge.
Please, don't ever change.
You provided an anecdote as support for a policy.
I like good policy You don’t seem to care about that.
Being emotionally manipulated is not something to embrace. Glad you enjoyed your hate on for this one dude and this one judges one opinion. Kinda dark for me but a lot on here like it. It’s no way to make policy though.
Embracing how emotionalism short circuits procedure is how you instantiate righteous shittiness of all sorts.
Torturing bad guys sure feels righteous as well! And then we’re does it end.
Wow, that sure sounds like deflection. You say you like good policy, but can't come out and say if releasing this guy is or isn't good policy.
Then you start remarking about people who disagree with you, (Only you have avoided stating your own position, so, who IS that?) being all about emotion, and into torture.
The OP isn't just about releasing this one guy.
It's an incredible misread to think I support releasing this one guy in particular. What the hell would I be talking about anecdotal evidence for then?
Maybe go out, come back in, and try again.
Do you support releasing this guy?
he invaded a home, made the woman and her two kids, go to the ATM with her, where he stabbed the woman, fled and now is back in jail.
Obviously not.
Asshole.
Well, it took long enough for you to finally say it.
With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, Gaslight0 can say that he does not now, and never has, supported this particular recidivist.
But all the others, sure.
Yeah. it's my fault you think I may be pro-crime and it's my responsibility to go out of my way to explain that I'm not or else you'll persist in that ridiculous notion.
Again: asshole.
It's your fault that you quoted the 20/20-hindsight basis for your position rather than the -- more sensible but contrary to your actual policy preferences -- a priori indicators that his release was unwise.
And you, just like that guy last Friday, seem to be running into assholes all day.
Yes, it will make 2026 and 2028 that much more hilarious.
Well, that story sure flipped fast: The Sig-Sauer unintentional discharge?
They're now charging the guy who "dropped" it with manslaughter and obstruction of justice... Apparently not an unintentional discharge at all.
1. it's "uncommanded discharge;" 2. despite this incident, there still is a problem with the M17/M18/P320.
Which made it a great story.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/sig-sauer-defends-p320-safety-amid-lawsuits/ https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/gunsite-academy-bans-the-sig-p320-from-its-courses/
"1. it's "uncommanded discharge;""
Whoop. Dee. Doo. Same thing.
No, they are not. An unintentional discharge can be one where the shooter's finger is on the trigger. An uncommanded discharge is where the gun goes off by itself.
Let me know when 2 Jews are murdered in Evansville
2017 "Gunshot Fired at Indiana Synagogue; FBI Reportedly Suspects Hate Crime"...Red state, so must have been liberals
2023 "The Rise in Antisemitism Throughout Indiana" Jewish Federation of Greater Indianapolis https://www.jewishindianapolis.org/jfgi-connections-blog/the-rise-in-antisemitism-throughout-indiana
Did I Stutter?
I couldn't find any story on these murdered Jews, Frankie. Could you be...making things up?
The murdered Jews were in DC, surely you heard about it, even in your Ghetto. I was being sarcastic in saying that Jews are safer in Evansville (or Des Moines, Sioux City, Bismarck, Topeka) than our nations capitol
Wasn't Yarón Lischinsky a Zionist, evangelical Christian, though?
Teach the Holocaust — without mentioning Jews — says NEA.
Holy cow!
https://www.joannejacobs.com/post/teach-the-holocaust-without-mentioning-jews-says-nea
Have to admit when the “Holocaust” mini series came on when I was in High Screw-el, I had never heard it called that. Had to read “the Diary of a Young Girl” the same year, hated how it ended like the finale of “The Sopranos”
How come teaching the Holocaust doesn't hurt the feelings Aryan MAGA children, but teaching slavery does?
That's because people generally aren't telling the children that they bear personal guilt for the gas chambers. (Well, maybe in Germany they do that.) while the people who claim to be just teaching slavery are doing exactly that.
Because if you pass a law saying that they CAN'T do exactly that, they say it's attacking them, and how could that be if they weren't doing exactly that?
It remains a MAGA fantasy that white kids are being taught to be personally guilty for anything.
I stand by my reasoning: If you pass a law prohibiting the schools from teaching that "A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex." and teachers object, the reasonable conclusion is that they were teaching exactly that.
That doesn't establish anything. You need to jump through a lot of assumptions and suppositions still.
But wild speculation you mistake for truth is your specialty.
So yes, it remains a MAGA fantasy that white kids are being taught to be personally guilty for anything. And you've just shown how much you love that fantasy.
It sure does help you rationalize authoritarianism. Anything to stop the evil anti-white oppression going on entirely in your head.
Apparently you think it's authoritarian for the government to dictate that its own schools not teach collective racial guilt.
That's not happening.
But if you insist it is happening, you get solve the nonexistent problem by overbroad ideological policing.
Whether it's happening or not, it seems like a good idea to limit the government's authority to teach those things.
"So yes, it remains a MAGA fantasy that white kids are being taught to be personally guilty for anything."
That's bullshit. Many, many schools incorporate CRT into their curricula, and require students to reflect on and write about their white privilege, and how whiteness has oppressed POC, and it often even has an impact on grades.
Remember, we're still at the "deny it is being done" stage, we haven't yet reached the "And you deserved it!" stage.
Many, many schools!
I'd call this the argument from incredulity, but it doesn't even rise to that level.
Pointing out an ipse dixit is not an argument from incredulity.
I said it didn't rise to that level, didn't I? Not rising to the level of an actual argument, I meant.
An actual argument would be something like asking for an example, not simply mocking by repetition.
Just as I engage in actual argument by pointing out that advocates of CRT in schools object as anti-CRT laws that simply prohibit the teaching of odious doctrines such as, yes, that whites should feel guilty for things they didn't personally do. Which quite naturally leads to the conclusion that they understand those laws to prohibit what they're defending.
I cannot formulate an argument against an ipse dixit.
That law is a great example of solving this problem that doesn't exist with a law that has no shortage of ways to cause authoritarian mischief.
It is also a great example of you making up facts to create evil so that this law is needed.
Which is awful behavior for a libertarian, but pretty common for authoritarians.
Your reasoning sucks. "If you oppose a law to ban X, you must be doing/want to do X" is not valid. You would never accept that "reasonable conclusion" in other contexts: "If you oppose mandatory background checks for gun purchases, it must be because you're a felon who wants to acquire a gun."
Maybe it's just on principle. Maybe it's because you think there will be unintended consequences. Maybe it's because you don't trust the people in charge to fairly or narrowly apply it.
Yes, I suppose somebody could on principle defend deliberately teaching racism in our schools as outside the reach of the very government whose schools they are. I'd like to see somebody attempt that argument, because I haven't seen it.
Instead I've seen people who treat prohibitions on teaching racism in schools as an attack on critical race theory. Which I think does amount to an unintended admission that critical race theory actually IS racist, as those laws define racism.
Did you even read DMN's post?
His point is that one can oppose that law without defending 'deliberately teaching racism in our schools.'
Obviously it's possible to read a DMN post and disagree with it, people do that all the time.
I'd like to see somebody attempt that argument, because I haven't seen it.
You haven't seen arguments — whether you're convinced by them or not — about academic freedom?
What history could be taught under the law you described? I suppose you could resort to bad AI picture generators to pretend that races were equally represented among slaves before the Civil War. Teaching that Nazi Germany killed a lot of people in the Holocaust might make German-Americans feel bad, so take the Holocaust off the table. You call this teaching racism, but you're someone who wants to entrench white advantage by pretending that ignoring racism would mean there is no racism.
You're claiming that teaching that slaves were disproportionally black or teaching the Germany killed a lot of people in the Holocaust teaches that "A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex."?
That's just flat wrong.
It would likely require more elaboration than those bare facts ("teacher, why were some people enslaved or killed and not others?" -- we had a hypothetical of white supremacist students harassing a black teacher by insisting on being addressed as "Sir" or "Massah"), but yes, that seems to be the snowflake response from the right wing, that teachers have to both sides anything that makes conservatives feel bad.
So, can't conceive of teaching the Holocaust or slavery from a "Long dead people did horrible things." perspective, that understands that people are responsible for what THEY did, not what long dead people who might look a little like them did?
Again, nothing in the criteria you cited would be violated by teaching that people were enslaved because they were black.
OK, now go on to Reconstruction, Jim Crow, lynching, the Civil Rights era and the very observable amount of racism and its consequences today, and at some point the teacher commits a crime. (There were school textbooks already that whitewash that history to a shameful degree, even without a law.)
Sarc: "It remains a MAGA fantasy that white kids are being taught to be personally guilty for anything."
2020 didn't happen. There weren't screams about the continuing scourge of "institutional racism." The New York Times, in its 1619 Project, didn't try to teach us that slavery was the founding and enduring purpose of the United States. Millions of people weren't called "white supremacists" millions of times for merely being unwilling to admit their white supremacy. Millions of homes and businesses and stores didn't display "Black Lives Matter" signs as symbols of fealty to a virulent "anti-racist" ideology that taught that white people can't get rid of their white racist ways; they can only be aware of them and try to pay back their victims.
The Democratic party's reputation wasn't severely tarnished with the stain of all that massive foolishness that you continue to simultaneously support and deny today.
That "fantasy," as you call it.
AP: "Nvidia and AMD have agreed to share 15% of their revenues from chip sales to China with the U.S. government, as part of a deal to secure export licenses for the semiconductors." ... "President Trump confirmed the terms of the unusual arrangement in a Monday press conference while noting that he originally wanted 20% of the sales revenue when Nvidia asked to sell the “obsolete” H20 chip to China. The president credited Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang for negotiating him down to 15%.
“So we negotiated a little deal. So he’s selling a essentially old chip,” Trump said."
Three comments:
1. Article I, Section 9, Clause 5: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
2. Export controls are supposed to be about national security and critical technologies. Whether something is a risk doesn't depend on whether the company is willing to share revenue.
3. Which law authorizes this tax/duty/"fee"? (IANAL, maybe there is one...)
It is a contract between the government and the chip makers. The chip makers were not obliged to enter it and retain the option to not be able to export their chips at all. These are regulations under the Export Administration Act of 1979, passed pursuant to Congress' constitutional power to regulate foreign commerce. The regulations provide for a complete ban on export of certain chips, but a manufacturer may obtain a license to export chips below a certain threshold of computing power.
I wasn't asking about export controls.
I was asking what law allows Trump to sell export licenses at a percentage of revenue, which is utterly indistinguishable from a tax.
To put in another way: Can Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 evaded by the simple expedient of pretending to ban some export prior to imposing the tax, and then calling it a contract?
The Export Reform Control Act of 2018, 50 USC sec. 4813 provides:
§4813. Additional authorities (a) In general In carrying out this subchapter on behalf of the President, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, and the heads of other Federal agencies as appropriate, shall— (1) establish and maintain a list of items that are controlled under this subchapter; (2) establish and maintain a list of foreign persons and end-uses that are determined to be a threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States pursuant to the policy set forth in section 4811(2)(A) of this title; (3) prohibit unauthorized exports, reexports, and in-country transfers of controlled items, including to foreign persons in the United States or outside the United States; (4) restrict exports, reexports, and in-country transfers of any controlled items to any foreign person or end-use listed under paragraph (2); (5) require licenses or other authorizations, as appropriate, for exports, reexports, and in-country transfers of controlled items, including— (A) imposing conditions or restrictions on United States persons and foreign persons with respect to such licenses or other authorizations; and (B) suspending or revoking such licenses or authorizations;
§4813. Additional authorities
(a) In general In carrying out this subchapter on behalf of the President, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, and the heads of other Federal agencies as appropriate, shall—
(1) establish and maintain a list of items that are controlled under this subchapter;
(2) establish and maintain a list of foreign persons and end-uses that are determined to be a threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States pursuant to the policy set forth in section 4811(2)(A) of this title;
(3) prohibit unauthorized exports, reexports, and in-country transfers of controlled items, including to foreign persons in the United States or outside the United States;
(4) restrict exports, reexports, and in-country transfers of any controlled items to any foreign person or end-use listed under paragraph (2);
(5) require licenses or other authorizations, as appropriate, for exports, reexports, and in-country transfers of controlled items, including—
(A) imposing conditions or restrictions on United States persons and foreign persons with respect to such licenses or other authorizations; and
(B) suspending or revoking such licenses or authorizations;
Whether that violates the Export Clause, I won't pretend to know how a court might rule. But who would sue? The parties to the contract they voluntarily entered? Would they prefer to be unable to export at all?
Sorry, that's the "Export Control Reform Act".
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter58&edition=prelim
The government was not required to permit the exports, but what provision of the statute authorizes the government to accept a bribe in exchange for such permission?
This is phenomenal news! Next time I embark on a home improvement project I'll just tell the municipal permits department to get stuffed and give me the permit for free since a Really Smart employment lawyer declared permit fees to be "bribes."
If it were entirely discretionary whether to grant you a building permit, and the town clerk said, "Pay an arbitrary amount of money I decide without reference to any statutory provision, and I'll grant you said permit," then it would indeed be reasonable for you to take that position.
You think the specific amounts of building code permit fees are inked into statutes? How cute.
I mean… in my jurisdiction there is a publicly available fee schedule that is published every year
Mayor Pete today on 'taking over the policing of a major American city: The president is doing this not to make the city safer, that's the job of local law enforcement, but to solve his own political problems. He needs to get his base to stop talking and thinking aside of his refusal to release the Epstein files...'
Well, Pete keeps rattling on, but you get the picture
I'm sure you hayseeds must admit that no matter how gay Pete is, he still commands the respect of Lib and Hayseed alike
So, because it's the job of local law enforcement, you just have to let the city burn if local law enforcement don't do it?
"Have to let the city burn"
Do you even hear yourself?
DC is not burning.
MAGA is trying to make Big Balls getting assaulted some kind of Reichstag fire situation.
Wow, you don't understand the concept of a Reichstag fire, do you?
A "Reichstag fire" is "an event that is strategically exploited to create a crisis atmosphere, justify a crackdown on dissent, and consolidate power, often by falsely blaming a political opponent."
It's Hobie who's claiming that 'Big Balls' getting assaulted is a Reichstag fire. We're claiming that it was just another assault, and the only people Trump is cracking down on in DC are career criminals.
Haha are you that oblivious, or do you want to try that again?
And it's just another assault that does not justify an armed occupation.
It's not an armed occupation! Ha, ha, you are ridiculous.
Sure it is. The NG are armed, and are occupying DC under Trump's orders to police it.
and the only people Trump is cracking down on in DC are career criminals.
I don't think that is quite right. An awful lot of other carjacking suspects are in their mid- or even early teens. If their rap sheets are already long enough to qualify them as career criminals, DC is in truly piteous shape.
Don't forget the criminals who inconvenienced the Dear Leader by being homeless while he was driving by.
Oh, shut up. Talk about TDS!
He took pictures from his car and everything. Do you seriously think he cares about Big Balls enough to start this entire mess?
D.C. has been a crime hell hole for decades.
1992. Joe Biden talking about how he runs red lights when driving out of DC to avoid being carjacked.
https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1955101983620116845?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1955101983620116845%7Ctwgr%5E81fc83fa1fffe240deb2ad56b0c669e1f011b8a9%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F737851%2F
Increasingly authoritarian leader sends army into capital
People were begging for that just 4.5 years ago.
More trade barriers
In a landmark decision, the federal court has today ruled against tech giants Apple and Google in a major win for consumers, finding that the companies engaged in anti-competitive conduct. Judge Jonathan Beach found that both companies had broken the law by misusing their market power in the way they run their app stores which sell everything from smartphone apps to computer games. It clears the way for two class actions covering millions of Australian consumers and developers to pursue substantial compensation for the price and commissions they paid for digital content — which according to legal representatives for the class actions were heavily inflated on the app stores. Justice Beach also ruled on two cases brought by Epic Games, the developer of blockbuster online game Fortnite.
In a landmark decision, the federal court has today ruled against tech giants Apple and Google in a major win for consumers, finding that the companies engaged in anti-competitive conduct.
Judge Jonathan Beach found that both companies had broken the law by misusing their market power in the way they run their app stores which sell everything from smartphone apps to computer games.
It clears the way for two class actions covering millions of Australian consumers and developers to pursue substantial compensation for the price and commissions they paid for digital content — which according to legal representatives for the class actions were heavily inflated on the app stores.
Justice Beach also ruled on two cases brought by Epic Games, the developer of blockbuster online game Fortnite.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-12/epic-games-fortnite-v-apple-google-federal-court-case/105641794
Chart of murder rate in DC:
"DC police commander suspended, accused of changing crime statistics"
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/dc-police-commander-suspended-crime-statistics/3959566/
So, how can you believe that chart?
Also, homicide is not murder. D.C. experienced its highest-ever number of murders in 2022, 394.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/crime/washington-state-2022-crime-report/281-86b18130-c66d-40e7-8acf-c48548562b11
Because it's from the FBI not the police chief.
Look, we know that crime long term has dropped in DC, that there is no emergency required a military occupation, etc. It's just that cultists support Dear Leader, particularly when he's exercising power over "those people".
It's craven, it's despicable - and it's expected.
Where do you think the FBI sources its data? Local police departments!
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-is-crime-measured-in-the-us/
And here’s information on how DC implemented the FBI’s NIBRS in 2021: https://dccouncil.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/JPS-Performance-Oversight-Responses-2021-OVSJG.pdf
So yes, local police leadership corruption in DC affects the accuracy of the FBI’s crime data.
"Thanks to the leadership of President Trump and the efforts of our 'Make D.C. Safe Again' initiative, the District has seen a significant decline in violent crime," said U.S. Attorney Edward R. Martin Jr.
"We are proving that strong enforcement and smart policies can make our communities safer,” he said.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-attorney-ed-martin-jr-credits-president-trumps-first-100-days-25-drop-dc-violent
Also, homicide is not murder. D.C. experienced its highest-ever number of murders in 2022, 394. https://www.king5.com/article/news/crime/washington-state-2022-crime-report/281-86b18130-c66d-40e7-8acf-c48548562b11
Hey, Siri, are Georgia the state and Georgia the country the same place?
Here's the chart:
https://media.king5.com/assets/KING/images/b0fdf2a2-1b50-4227-92b5-ee059190d6c7/b0fdf2a2-1b50-4227-92b5-ee059190d6c7_1920x1080.jpg
That's Washington state, not Washington D.C.
Whoops, my mistake, thanks for pointing that out.
Could be worse - recall that one of the professional liars who alleged theft of the 2020 election used a county from the wrong state to make his argument.
SRG2...Your "chart of the murder rate" is actually a chart of the homicide rate. And it shows that it has steadily risen and doubled over the past 12 years.
Are you waiting for a trend?
The rise was not steady - and indeed from 2015 to 2025 there was only a marginal increase. But the very long term trend is clear and obvious no matter who you try to avoid it.
Why don't you have the integrity to say, "I approve of Trump's military occupation of DC because I hate DC because of the politics and its demographics"?
"Why don't you have the integrity to say, "I approve of Trump's military occupation of DC because I hate DC because of the politics and its demographics"?"
Maybe because that's not what he believes? You and some others here are constantly assigning thoughts and words to others they never held or uttered.
How do you know he doesn't believe that? And it's not unreasonable to deduce someone's opinions on a specific event given their posting history. Bwaaah is one of the more obviously hateful posters here.
How do you know he said or believes these things? You're just inferring it to suit your narrative.
BTW, it's not a military occupation.
What have I ever said that would give you reason to believe that "I approve of Trump's military occupation of DC because I hate DC because of the politics and its demographics"?
Did you attend "Hobie's School of Understanding Others"?
You should try to distinguish people from the stereotyped, bigoted narratives within which you place them.
You fit the stereotype often enough. But by all means prove me wrong in this case. All you have to do is express disapproval of Trump's military action in DC.
Prove you wrong? Prove yourself right. Copy/paste anything I've ever written that supports your theory that "I hate DC because of the politics and its demographics."
Nonsense. Utter nonsense.
Yesterday President Trump extended for a further 90 days the imposition of higher tariffs on China.
It's TACO time!
The Environment Agency’s Director of Water and NDG chair, Helen Wakeham said: The current situation is nationally significant, and we are calling on everyone to play their part and help reduce the pressure on our water environment.
Water companies must continue to quickly fix leaks and lead the way in saving water. We know the challenges farmers are facing and will continue to work with them, other land users, and businesses to ensure everyone acts sustainably.
We are grateful to the public for following the restrictions, where in place, to conserve water in these dry conditions. Simple, everyday choices – such as turning off a tap or deleting old emails – also really helps the collective effort to reduce demand and help preserve the health of our rivers and wildlife." [emphasis mine]
Deleting old emails? What could that possibly mean?
Data centres use water.
Emails are tiny and "cold" storage is pretty cheap, though. The compute required to find and delete them probably uses more energy than ignoring them, although now I'd like someone to actually do the analysis on this.
I'd assume it's really just mindless boilerplate, but if you don't delete emails, eventually more storage must be manufactured, and manufacturing storage does use water, I suppose. So there's SOME impact, even if it's pretty trivial.
Yea, as if they make anything in the U.K. anymore, no less data storage devices and servers. Ha, ha!
If you were trying to decrease your "data center water footprint", it seems like you'd want to do things cut down on your streaming video consumption. That would still have a much smaller effect than, say, taking shorter showers. The amount of water consumed by an e-mail, old or new, is going to be minuscule compared to basically any other thing you do in terms of water consumption.
You could distribute your data center, and use it to heat people's hot water, if you really wanted a reduced footprint...
This has actually been proposed a few times:
https://www.techradar.com/pro/a-data-center-in-every-home-energy-company-wants-to-heat-your-water-for-almost-free-but-theres-a-catch
The efficiencies of scale in a big data center almost certainly overcome the advantages of being able to benefit from waste heat, which is why no one has actually done this in a meaningful way. Just as a for example: how do you fix a broken server?
Finding and deleting is a discrete event best measured in energy units; keeping in storage is an ongoing process measured in units of average power.
But probably the biggest energy (and water) hit is making the SSD drive itself.
So, wouldn't deleting an email use more, not less power, than just leaving it be? And how could that conceivably make a difference?
Could our leftist friends explain to us how staffers leaking classified materials to the media is protected by the Speech and Debate Clause?
FBI Director Patel has released a 302 from a Congressional staffer who informed the FBI that then-Representative Adam Schiff directed his staffers to leak classified information to the press. The FBI then told the staffer that they would not pursue the matter because it was protected by the Speech and Debate Clause:
[Staffer] was eventually informed that the issue would not be investigated further by the DOJ, as Congressmen have immunity to all speech and actions made on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. [Staffer] did not believe that the activity he witnessed would be protected by this legal provision.
I am very curious to learn about this part of the Speech and Debate Clause, especially since Schiff wasn't on the floor of the House.
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2025-08/Democratic%20HPSCI%20Staffer%20-%20FBI%20Interview%20Notes.pdf
Well, yeah, I'd interpret it more literally than the DOJ and courts typically do.
This isn't even remotely near what's protected by immunity and reeks of a double standard. The unauthorized disclosure of classified material is not within the scope duties of Congresscritters or their staffers. If then-Rep Schiff had read the Page FISA warrants into the Congressional record that would be one thing, but he didn't. He had staffers use their spouses as conduits to get select information to the press.
Indeed, these sorts of leaks were the basis of the FBI's dragnet collection of metadata on HPSCI staffers. Similar leaks from other staffers resulted in search warrants and criminal prosecution (see James Wolfe from SSCI).
I think it's fitting that Director Patel, who was subjected to these collections under Comey, is now in a position to release additional details on what the FBI knew and why they made certain decisions.
Here, the FBI knew that the leaking was going on, and they knew whom was leaking it. Given the state of the DOJ and FBI at the time, my guess is that it was tacitly condoned provided the leaks didn't blow back onto the FBI's misconduct during the Page FISA kerfluffle- which it did, reportedly prompting the FBI to tell Schiff to tamper down the leaks a bit.
I don't think the speech and debate clause gives a bucket of warm spit about classified information; It's designed to protect the legislature and individual legislators to have absolutely and categorically unrestricted debate. If it's speech or debate, and it happens in the legislature's chambers, nobody BUT the legislature can sanction them, or demand testimony of them:
"and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
You are mistaken. The private publication of classified material by a Senator under nearly identical circumstances was explicitly found by the Supreme Court to not be protected by the Clause in Gravel v United States:
"If republication of these classified papers would be a crime under an Act of Congress, it would not be entitled to immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause."
You want leftists to explain a decision made by the Trump DOJ and FBI?
That Trump 1.0 DOJ isn't the same as Trump 2.0 DOJ. You may pretend otherwise, but you'll be the only one.
You may pretend otherwise, but Trump was still President from 2017-2019 and appointed the Republicans in charge of both the FBI and the DOJ by the time any of these investigations were happening. So it remains pretty unclear why you think leftists would have any special insights into what his administration was doing.
Speaking of pretending, the memory hole is not that deep, my friend.
If there's one scrap of evidence that this rose to the attention of Trump or anyone in FBI/DOJ aligned with him, I'm happy to read it. Barring that and given the nearly 10-year loud and proud track record of Le Resistance, this sort of administration-level handwaving is just silly.
If there's one shred of evidence that this was part of some resistance plot instead of just the FBI/DOJ making a routine judgment about the claim here, I'm happy to hear that. But barring that, attempting to hand wave every action that you don't like to the Deep State is just silly.
Nah, we're just not in coin-flip territory here. If you have a theory on what would have suddenly changed in the relationship between Trump and Schiff that would have made Trump inclined to just shrug this off back then but now ~8 years later suddenly surface it and nail Schiff to the wall, I'm all ears.
I suspect you just never read the link, rather than that you forgot it. The key graph:
To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.
We want the administration to succeed [as we define that term and see fit]
Passive-aggressive saboteurs pretending to be on your team are far worse than the openly rebellious, for reasons I know you're smart enough to understand even if you can't admit it here.
People who want you to succeed are not "pretending" to be on your team.
It may come as a shock to you, but Trump wasn't on the best of terms with the DOJ or the FBI in 2017.
Whose fault was that?
“I am very curious to learn about this part of the Speech and Debate Clause”
It is indeed puzzling, unless you have forgotten about Scott Perry, of course.
I don't recall hearing about Scott Perry's staffers leaking classified materials to the press.
No, those were Devin Nunes staffers.
Scott Perry was texting with electoral vote fraudsters. Also off the house floor, as it turns out. Might be an instructive comparison for you as you contemplate the outer contours of speech and debate— your original question.
No, Nunes staffers weren't leaking to the press. The FBI knew exactly who was- it was Schiff's staff.
Might be an instructive comparison for you as you contemplate the outer contours of speech and debate— your original question.
I'm still waiting for an answer:
Staffers. Unauthorized disclosure of classified material to the press.
Unless Scott Perry was doing that, it's not relevant.
“especially since Schiff wasn't on the floor of the House.”
It’s relevant to this, isn’t it?
Not even remotely in the same ballpark of what I'm talking about.
You may take your whataboutism elsewhere.
Scott Perry is relevant in 2 ways. When you started talking about Speech and Debate, you threw in this comment:
That at least implies to me that you believe that the location of the conduct is relevant. Pointing out that Scott Perry was also not on the house floor might inform that view.
“not remotely in the same ballpark of what I'm talking about.”
Here it seems like you want to compare the alleged conduct of Perry and Schiff. And you are quite correct of course that their alleged conduct is not identical. But then again, at a certain level of granularity, no two sets of conduct could be exactly the same. So I don’t think the appropriate inquiry is really if the two courses of conduct are identical but rather what might be the outer bounds of the speech and debate clause in a general sense, and how does this alleged conduct fall within or without?
And luckily for us, we just got a really fresh decision on this subject thanks to…….. Scott Perry!! So he and his conduct are doubly relevant.
Here it is for your perusal:
https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/22-sc-2144%20-%20Opinion.pdf
My apologies. This is the district court opinion. The appeals court decision is here:
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/23-3001/23-3001-2023-09-13.pdf
If Schiff was on the floor of the House when he released classified records, then it would arguably be protected under the Clause.
That's the difference.
Can you point out to me the part of In re: Sealed Case (linked above) that suggests that the location of the conduct is dispositive?
I thought attempting to smear Devin Nunes (and Kash Patel) for exposing the corruption of the IC and outright, sanctimonious lies of Schiff and others had finally gone out of style. Guess not….
Indeed, Devin Nunes and Kash Patel are certainly capable of smearing themselves.
I guess this is what you get for exposing corruption…bootlickers come out of the woodwork.
"especially since Schiff wasn't on the floor of the House."
The same clause that the left claimed didn't apply to Jeff Sessions for speech he made on the floor of the Senate.
If they didn't have double standards then they'd have no standards at all.
I'm not a fan of Trump, but he got this one right all of the way back in 2018:
Trump: ‘Little Adam Schiff’ one of the ‘biggest liars and leakers in Washington’
You are "not a fan of Trump," tylertusta?
Is that as true as everything else you have said?
If you ever paid attention to anything I've written on the topic, you would know the answer.
But you don't pay attention to what I've written.
And the court hasn't yet applied means-end scrutiny to the speech or debate clause, but that doesn't mean that it won't in the future.
Intermediate scrutiny seems reasonable.
I don't think the Court will because it's already established that this kind of conduct isn't protected under the Clause nor is it protected speech.
Al Jazeera "journalist" killed by IDF posted this on Oct. 7, 2023:
"9 hours and the heroes are still roaming the country killing and capturing...God, God, how great you are."
He was both an Al Jazeera "journalist" AND a Hamas terrorist. Good riddance.
https://x.com/HilzFuld/status/1954982119454765253
Bloodlust noted
Yea, on the part of the so-called journalist.
Agreed.
Okay, around two years ago, he said something horrible.
Doesn't make him a terrorist. If someone here says they are glad a cop was killed, they aren't a cop killer either.
[Depending on the situation, people on the left and right have cheered for violence against police.]
Israel says Sharif was "the head of a Hamas terrorist cell" but has produced little evidence to support that. Sharif previously denied it, and Al Jazeera and media rights groups have rejected the allegation. The IDF has said nothing about the other journalists it killed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6200wnez73o
That's ridiculous. He gave aid and comfort to terrorists, and some of his Al Jazeera colleagues even participated in the atrocities of Oct. 7. Wow.
You're saying he's a good guy?
You're saying he's a good guy? Quit excluding the middle; no one said that.
I asked a question.
He gave aid and comfort to terrorists, and some of his Al Jazeera colleagues even participated in the atrocities of Oct. 7.
The only thing you provided is a quote from a couple of years ago where he praised the terrorists.
Again, people on the left and right here have praised violence in certain cases. It doesn't make them criminals.
If you have other evidence, fine, but you didn't provide it. Guilt by association is also of limited value. And, the article I linked to noted other journalists who were killed were left uncommented upon.
I did not say he is a "good" guy. I don't know him. He very well might have been a bad dude. I limited myself to narrower issues.
“This is my will and my final message. If these words of mine reach you, know that Israel has succeeded in killing me and silencing my voice.
Peace be upon you, and the mercy and blessings of Allah. Allah knows that I exerted every effort and strength I had to be a support and a voice for my people, from the moment I opened my eyes to life in the alleys and streets of the Jabalia refugee camp. My hope was that Allah would prolong my life until I could return with my family and loved ones to our original hometown, the occupied Ascalon “Majdal.” But Allah’s will prevailed, and His decree was fulfilled.
I lived pain in all its details and tasted loss and grief time and again. Yet, I never hesitated for a single day to convey the truth as it is, without distortion or falsification, hoping that Allah would bear witness to those who remained silent, those who accepted our killing, and those who besieged our breaths, unmoved by the remains of our children and women, and who did not stop the massacre that our people have been enduring for over a year and a half.
I entrust you with Palestine, the jewel in the crown of Muslims, the beating heart of every free person in this world. I entrust you with its people, with its oppressed young children who were not given the chance to dream or live in safety and peace, whose pure bodies were crushed by thousands of tons of Israeli bombs and missiles, torn apart, their remains scattered on the walls. I urge you not to let chains silence you or borders hold you back. Be bridges toward the liberation of the land and its people, until the sun of dignity and freedom rises over our plundered homeland.
I entrust you to take care of my family, I entrust you with the apple of my eye, my beloved daughter Sham, whom time did not grant me to see grow as I had dreamed. I entrust you with my dear son Salah, whom I wished to support and be a companion for until he grew strong, to carry the burden from me and continue the mission.
I entrust you with my beloved mother, whose prayers blessed me to reach where I did. Her supplications were my fortress, and her light was my path. I pray to Allah to grant her heart patience and to reward her on my behalf with the best reward.
I also entrust you with my lifelong companion, my beloved wife, Umm Salah Bayan, whom war separated from me for long days and months. Yet she remained steadfast, like an unyielding olive tree trunk, patient and trusting in Allah, carrying the responsibility in my absence with all strength and faith. I urge you to rally around them and be their support after Allah, the Mighty and Exalted.
If I die, I die steadfast in my principles, bearing witness before Allah that I am content with His decree, faithful in meeting Him, and certain that what is with Allah is better and everlasting. O Allah, accept me among the martyrs, forgive my past and future sins, and make my blood a light that illuminates the path to freedom for my people and my family.
Forgive me if I fell short, and pray for me for mercy, for I have kept my pledge and neither changed nor wavered. Do not forget Gaza… And do not forget me in your righteous prayers for forgiveness and acceptance.
Anas Jamal Al-Sharif 06.04.2025”
What a load of self-serving happy horseshit. Hope he's enjoying his 72 virgins or whatever he was promised. As Mom's Mabley said: He's dead, good!
The POS hamas terrorist is on the one-way Paradise Train
So he must have forgotten to call for the death of Israel and the massacre of all Jews, etc.?
Strange oversight for an alleged "head of a Hamas terrorist cell"...
"Teach the Holocaust -- without mentioning Jews -- says NEA"
Sounds bad. Follows the link. Follow another link ("Remember the Holocaust, but forget the Jews").
Okay. It goes to the Washington Beacon. Among a bunch of commentary we are told:
The handbook says the union will "promote the celebration of International Holocaust Remembrance Day" by "recognizing more than 12 million victims of the Holocaust from different faiths, ethnicities, races, political beliefs, genders, and gender identification, abilities/disabilities, and other targeted characteristics." The description does not mention the attempted extermination of the Jewish people by the Nazis.
Okay. Those Evil Nazis killed loads of people. A cited critic agrees:
“Should the NEA mention that the Nazis killed many more people in addition to Jews? Of course,” Libit said. But it’s appalling to see that [the NEA] would be pushing a Holocaust education concept that doesn’t mention Jewish victims."
Let's try the link to the NEA handbook. Doesn't work. I see separately that it was taken down for some reason.
Is the NEA tyring to "minimize Jewish suffering" by citing the breadth of the Holocaust? I have my doubts. The paragraph summarizes what is to be taught.
How can you adequately "recognize" the victims without discussing the Jews targeted and murdered?
The original discussion ends this way:
"In the total absence of any education about Jews alive today, teaching about the Holocaust might even be making anti-Semitism worse," writes Dara Horn in The Atlantic. The only thing students learn about Jews is that they're hated. Some think they must have deserved it.
Does the NEA say we should not have any education about Jews alive today? Are students only learning that Jews are hated?
A separate article notes people are upset about this:
Another promotes the use of media outlets to “defend educators’ and students’ academic freedom and free speech in defense of Palestine at K-12 schools, colleges, and universities.”
Also, teaching about Nakba. A complete history of the region should include a discussion of that concept.
There is a concern this all will lead to a "one-sided" view of things. How about if the complete story is discussed? Not talking about the other stuff is more likely to be "one-sided."
https://archive.ph/n9Txr#selection-1939.67-1939.247
The term "Holocaust" was coined specifically to refer to the Nazi genocide of the Jews. The terms "genocide" or "mass murder" may usefully be used for other groups.
(The justification for the distinction is that the Nazis intended the actual elimination of European Jews, not subjugation. Other victim groups were considered "merely" inferiors. But we were considered to be The Enemy.)
So the NEA can fuck themselves
The United Nations General Assembly designated January 27—the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau—as International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a time to remember the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust and the millions of other victims of Nazi persecution.
https://www.ushmm.org/remember/international-holocaust-remembrance-day
To quote again:
The handbook says the union will "promote the celebration of International Holocaust Remembrance Day" by "recognizing more than 12 million victims of the Holocaust from different faiths, ethnicities, races, political beliefs, genders, and gender identification, abilities/disabilities, and other targeted characteristics."
Here is an archived copy of the 2025 NEA Handbook.
Indeed, they have sanitized their language surrounding the Holocaust so as not allude to, you know, the Jews. But they do a hat tip for the Nazi victims of "gender identification."
Nothing intentional there, I'm sure. Anyway, fuck the Jews.
B-66. The Holocaust The National Education Association believes that the historical events of the Holocaust must be taught to provide insight into how atrocities of this magnitude develop. The Association also believes that Holocaust education promotes human rights, prevents future genocides, and reduces doubt that these horrifying events occurred. (1981, 2019) 83. International Holocaust Remembrance Day NEA shall promote the celebration of International Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27 annually on its website and through other appropriate media to recognize the more than 12 million victims of the Holocaust from different faiths, ethnicities, races, political beliefs, genders, and gender identification, abilities/disabilities, and other targeted characteristics.
B-66. The Holocaust The National Education Association believes that the historical events of the Holocaust must be taught to provide insight into how atrocities of this magnitude develop. The Association also believes that Holocaust education promotes human rights, prevents future genocides, and reduces doubt that these horrifying events occurred. (1981, 2019)
83. International Holocaust Remembrance Day NEA shall promote the celebration of International Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27 annually on its website and through other appropriate media to recognize the more than 12 million victims of the Holocaust from different faiths, ethnicities, races, political beliefs, genders, and gender identification, abilities/disabilities, and other targeted characteristics.
Some people are trying too hard.
The term "Holocaust" is commonly understood to refer to what the Nazis did (primarily) to the Jews under their jurisdiction. That the Nazis also did horrible things to non-Jews is less well known.
And yet, the NEA used that very term no less than three times in one paragraph. Clearly, if the NEA had truly been attempting to "minimize Jewish suffering", it would have found a way to use the term "Holocaust" only twice, once, or even zero times. Perhaps they should have referred to "WWII troubles" or something of that sort?
Oddly, the "right wing concern coalition" expressed exactly zero concern about the NEA's despicable minimizing of Nazi war crimes: nowhere in their Handbook do they mention Nazis at all.
Trump's trial run at a police state
Normalizing military intervention for domestic policing is the beginning of the end of American democracy
And the cultists cheer.
(Lest any of your are stupid enough to bring up Eisenhower's use of the NG - that was because the Southern police were supporting the constitutional violations, not failing to prevent them.)
How many NG troops were in DC during President Autopen's inauguration?
"DEIA" stands for diversity, equity, inclusion, and access.
I think those are good things. Conservatives sometimes promote those things. For instance, they want to have religious accommodations so that certain religious groups can be included.
They are upset when conservatives are mistreated and demand equity. They don't mind if disabled people are assisted to provide access. Blind people listening to books on tape to get their degree at a conservative college would not be an issue.
"DEI" is not the problem. Certain forms of it might be, though we will have disagreements about that. I said this before but DEI keeps on being targeted so repetition does not seem unwarranted.
Motte and bailey.
It's so overused by the Left that no one believes it anymore.
It is common to use terminology that sounds good to mask other things. (I am old enough to remember when communist countries called themselves the "Democratic Republic of ______")
DEI in theory sounds good, but it has been used as a mask for racial discrimination and disparaging American history. So, sorry, your simplistic defense might have worked a decade ago. Now we know better.
Specific aspects of DEI, at least in your eyes, were used as "a mask." DEI is not just used for racial issues.
As to "disparaging American history," that's an empty term. U.S. history has good and bad things in it. Conservatives are quite vocal in complaining about the history of certain presidents. Are they "disparaging" American history in the process?
The overall principle is acceptable.
Diversity, equity, inclusion, and access are good things. Conservatives support them in multiple cases.
We should focus on specific problems, not empty labels.
Except that DEI has a commonly accepted public meaning. Trying to rebrand it is not going to help you.
The well has been truly poisoned. Best if you moved on and accept that while conservatives generally don't mind wheelchair ramps, ramps are also very different than what people refer to as "DEI."
Senator Whitehouse’s letter to Bureau of Prisons requesting information about Maxwell’s transfer to a minimum security facility.
https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/2025-08-07-Letter-to-BOP-Maxwell-Transfer.pdf
It appears this is against standard BOP guidelines, and Maxwell’s status was administratively altered to facilitate her transfer.
https://www.muellershewrote.com/p/exclusive-i-have-ghislaine-maxwells
She also apparently offered dirt on Trump to the Biden administration, and the Biden DOJ turned her down. It would be very interesting to hear from Maurene Comey about this.
>She also apparently offered dirt on Trump to the Biden administration, and the Biden DOJ turned her down.
That doesn't pass the sniff test.
Haha, ok— which part? That Maxwell offered dirt or DOJ turned her down?
Both?
I mean, she’s currently offering dirt in a bid to get out. Is it so inconceivable she tried that with the previous administration? Maurene Comey knows the truth…
I'd say she's currently offering TO COVER UP dirt in a bid to get out.
Could it be that Maxwell might even be willing to say ANYTHING to hasten her release before extreme old age??
Just spitballing but could that be a reason Biden DOJ wasn’t interested? Another possibility was that they viewed keeping a sex trafficker in prison as more important than getting political dirt. Not everyone feels that way, it seems.
Please log in to post comments
Mute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?
Autumn Billings | 10.14.2025 3:32 PM
Jack Nicastro | 10.14.2025 2:45 PM
Christian Britschgi | 10.14.2025 1:51 PM
Jason Russell | 10.14.2025 10:45 AM
Amy Peikoff | 10.14.2025 10:25 AM
