Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 8.20.2025 11:08 AM
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: Court Strikes Down W.Va. "Doxing" Law Banning Publishing Home Addresses and Phone Numbers of Certain Officials
Hide Comments (251)
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.
What legal means are available to prevent Trump executive orders from disrupting the mid-term election. Trump has asserted he will order an end to mail voting, and hinted at other intrusions into states' prerogatives to conduct elections according to their own laws. What if the U.S. Supreme Court cannot be persuaded to act quickly on behalf of the states? Does the resulting election outcome chaos open the way to militarized takeovers by Trump?
What happens if the U.S. Supreme Court does act quickly, affirms states' election law powers, and Trump defies the Court? What will VC commenters recommend as proper response, if Trump asserts a federal power to take over state election counts, maybe only here or there, after allegations of irregularities?
You are just confused about how the law and government as a whole works.
The governors and state and local elected officials are to are free to ignore Trump and enforce state law how they see fit until a court orders them to implement Trumps executive order.
Now of course Trump is also free to coerce them into complying with his executive order by withholding funds and other actions until a court orders him to restore the funds or desist, which probably would not take too long.
If Congress acts we're in for some more serious court fights , but I think Congress wins in the end.
Kazinski — Can you say more? I interpret your comment above to mean you suppose the power of the jointly sovereign people to determine the election outcome is properly subject to government caprice, with various branches of government competing for dominance.
I think the oaths government officials swear, including judges and justices, preclude any electoral actions by them, except actions to maximize the electoral power of voters to determine the outcome. Do you disagree?
Stephen, your 'jointly sovereign people' are not some 'brooding omnipresence' that can act directly. The people require mechanisms to act through. The people have CHOSEN to work through mechanisms, by creating a constitution in the first place.
Even if you chose to call those mechanisms "government caprice".
Bellmore — So you think the founder James Wilson, who wrote the report of the Committee of Detail, got American Constitutionalism all wrong? He explicitly, in so many words, contradicted each of your bullshit assertions in the comment above. Wilson said the people can always act directly. Wilson said the people are always superior to their constitutions. Wilson said the Constitution itself constrains government, but not the people. Here he is saying those things:
As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitution, control in act, as well as right. The consequence is, the people may change constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.
What is your authority to say otherwise?
Bellmore and Kazinski, in my comment to start today's open thread I asked five specific questions. You have both dodged all 5. Please supply answers. Here are the questions again:
1. What legal means are available to prevent Trump executive orders from disrupting the mid-term election?
2. What if the U.S. Supreme Court cannot be persuaded to act quickly on behalf of the states?
3. Does the resulting election outcome chaos open the way to militarized takeovers by Trump?
4. What happens if the U.S. Supreme Court does act quickly, affirms states' election law powers, and Trump defies the Court?
5. What will VC commenters recommend as proper response, if Trump asserts a federal power to take over state election counts, maybe only here or there, after allegations of irregularities?
To those 5, I add now, by what acts, if not elections, does Wilson posit the people's control? Please answer that one too.
Yes, the people ultimately reserve the right to take back the sovereignty we have delegated to the federal and state governments. Either peacefully by working through the mechanisms we created for them, or in extremity, by overthrowing them.
But, outside those latter revolutionary circumstances, we exert our will through the mechanisms we put in place for representative government. NOT directly as the ultimate sovereigns. There is no way for the people to exert their ultimate sovereignty unintermediated, save revolution. So intermediated it will be, until that revolution.
1. You haven't made clear exactly what the heck you mean by "disrupt", but as a general matter, since the states are given primary responsibility and authority over the conduct of elections, and Congress, NOT the President, are authorized to regulate "time, place, and manner" if they don't like what the states are doing, you'd expect an ordinary legal proceeding to determine if whatever Trump was doing was consistent with existing statutory authority granted by Congress.
2. What if the Supreme court doesn't agree with you about what Trump does constituting 'disrupting the election', IOW? Well, the people created the Supreme court to make those calls, I don't recall us assigning that call to you, so your opinion means precisely squat.
3. I don't anticipate election outcome chaos. Frankly, if Trump got his way about write in ballots, there would be LESS election chaos, their late counting is a large source of that in our current system.
4. Then, by past behavior, Trump throws in the towel. He doesn't have a history of defying the Supreme court, after all.
5. Ordinary litigation of the sort that doesn't constitute a constitutional crisis.
Bellmore — You neglected to answer the last question.
I answered it up front: We have two ways of exerting control: Elections, and revolution.
"The people are always superior to their constitutions."
This only has meaning in creating a constitution. And you transparently love the phrase "the people" in the sense of them being wielded by a charismatic demagogue skilled in the one and only true super power to exist, the power to sway the transient winds of political passion.
Your "jointly" soverign people is always in the context of vox populi vox dei, a brief 51% majority authorizes infinite power by the demagogue.
None of this has worked out well for humanity. If you seek to see a planet of it, look about you.
The sovereign people exercise their sovereignty most democratically by exercising the rights and freedoms secured by the First Amendment. Even non-citizens may exercise the freedom of thought, expression, communication and association and rights to assemble and petition. One exercise of such rights and freedoms should be limited to citizens--voting--because that is how citizens most clearly manifest their sovereignty. Citizens can exert our sovereignty by seeking to change our Constitution. But that process requires voting for and election of state or federal legislators who support such change(s).
States are free to ignore Trump's efforts to undermine federalism, which was designed to secure the liberty of the people. See, e.g., Madison in Federalist No. 51: about how and why power was arranged and allocated the way it was in our Constitution:
In the compound republic of America,” the supreme power is in the sovereign people and only “the [portions of] power surrendered [vested] by the people is first divided between two distinct governments [national and state (aka, “federalism”], and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments [legislative, executive and judicial (aka “separation of powers”)]. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.
Madison explained the reason powers were allocated as they were in our Constitution (the people governing public servants and public servants governing the people):
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige [government] to control itself. A dependence on the people [e.g. via elections and the freedom of speech and press] is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of [ensuring] opposite and rival interests [by constitutional] distributions of power [has a profoundly important purpose:] the constant aim is to divide and arrange the [power of various] offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every [public servant] may be a sentinel over the public rights.
We don't need SCOTUS to say anything. Our Constitution says enough. It reserved to states the power to regulate voting, except where Congress (not the president) was delegated particular powers to regulate voting. In fact, emphasizing such reservation of powers was part of the point of Amendment X: We the People “by the Constitution” merely “delegated to the United States” certain limited “powers;” We “prohibited by it” (our Constitution) “to the States” certain “powers;” We “reserved to the States respectively” certain “powers;” and We “reserved” to “the people” all residual “powers.”
Article II: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors” to choose the president and vice president. Only “Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”
Amendment XII: “The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President” and “[t]he person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President” and “[t]he person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President.”
State electors (meeting in their respective states) “shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate [the Vice President];–the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.”
Article I: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof” and Only Congress has any contrary power. Only Congress may “by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
But that contradicts the explicit text of the constitution, not only Art. Sec 4 above which say specifically Legislatures and Congress, but also this part:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,"
And I don't think they meant "People's Republic" which is an Oxymoron, but however that is closer to what you have in mind, but would probably be best described as a Peoples Tribunal, right?
What does the Republican Form of Government clause have to do with federal elections?
Nothing other than the fact that the "power of the jointly sovereign people" does not seem like a Republican form of government, as muddled a concept as it is, but the legislature sure is.
You are assuming that the state officials will fight Trump, and that Trump does not have real evidence of fraud in the 2020 election.
It's entirely possible that he does have evidence -- there's too much third party (disinterested) smoke out there for there not to be some fire -- and quietly saying "if you make me, I'll release the evidence."
Ed you are just as confused as Lathrop, Article 1 section 4 leaves election regulations to State Legislators, and the final word to Congress, I don't see any mention od f the President there:
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations"
Even if he had reams of evidence about 2020, which he doesn't, he would have to present it to Congres, or the State legislatures and wait for them to act. If Congress acted, then of course it would be his duty to enforce the law, but no chance they will act.
Right, aside from enforcing existing law, and suggesting changes to the law to Congress, Presidents have no role here. They're not policy makers when it comes to election rules.
The Ohio legislature even had time to ponder drop boxes, declined, and the judicial and executive state branches ganged up on them, in direct violation of the federal constitution.
Touches on oh-my-god-emergency-problem, bad enough to violate the constitution, but when the legislature has time to ponder the emergency and does something, or chooses not to, that's it. Emergency over, as far as any "quick draw needed" rationale goes.
Having said all this, by the same reasoning, the federal president has no power in this arena, either.
No. We know for a fact that he has no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election.
Keep saying that to yourself Rumplestiltskin
How about "evidence" of irregularities? In any event Trump pulled an Obi-Wan coming back stronger after being cut down in 2020.
He doesn't have that either, not even if you put it in scare quotes.
Depends on what you accept as "evidence". That there were irregularities is beyond question.
It is if you get all your news from Newsmaxxx.
At this point, soon Bumble is going to go Full Clinton.
Depends on what "is" evidence of irregularities, amirite?
Look, it's the big lie. You just keep repeating it, and then when people point out that there is no evidence (in scare quotes or otherwise), you just point out to the fact the "other people say" ... and where there's smoke, there's fire, etc.
Trump's lackeys brought cases (so ... many ... cases). They had the opportunity to present evidence (no scare quotes). Every single time they couldn't. Because there wasn't.
And when this is brought up, there is just continual goalpost shifting. Somehow, the fact that this guy, who in three elections- 1. Lost the national popular vote (but won the EC). 2. Lost the national popular vote and lost the EC. 3. Won the popular vote, and won the EC, but received less than 50% of the popular vote* ...
Somehow, this guy, this is the one time that despite all evidence, we have someone getting screwed. And you believe it. You can't believe that anyone else got screwed, despite that truly bizarre set of circumstances. Nope.
What an amazing fantasyland you live in.
*Only two times in modern history has someone won the Presidency with less than 50% of the popular vote. GWB (2000) and ... Trump twice (2016 and 2024).
Let me start with this: "10 Presidents Who Won with Less Than 50% of the Vote" https://www.toptenz.net/10-presidents-who-won-with-less-than-50-of-the-vote.php You don't define "modern history" so I felt free to include all candidates who won with less than 50%.
Clinton would be the obvious counterexample for loki13's claim, but he also prevailed by 5% and 9% despite a significant third candidate. Probably Richard Nixon in 1968 is modern history, but that election also featured a lot of upheaval from the civil rights movement, the Robert Kennedy assassination and the Vietnam war and segregationist George Wallace actually scored electoral votes. loki13's assertion could perhaps be salvaged with the qualification of no significant third candidate, but it still seems a stretch to me.
Eh, I brainfarted. I was thinking of something else, and ... I was wrong. The footnote part - which wasn't really essential to what I was saying, and probably why I was told to avoid footnotes, but whatever. KANT TELL ME WUT TO DO!
It happens. Here's the thing- if you make a mistake, own it. It's fine. Life goes on. I'd rather have someone point out the error, acknowledge it, and move on, than double down on my wrongness. It's a good life lesson.
Anyway, on that specific point, I was wrong in what I stated, and Bumble was correct.
loki, thank you for owning it. You're a gentleman.
Clinton would be the obvious counterexample for loki13's claim, but he also prevailed by 5% and 9% despite a significant third candidate
Point of order, "because of a third party candidate", not "in spite of". Perot's goal was to get Bush to lose. He even dropped out the day of Clinton's nomination acceptance speech, saying, yay, the Democratic party is re-invigored. All eyes turn to watch Clinton.
He later gets back in half heartedly, just in case.
These are the behaviors of a ticket-splitting spoiler.
""*Only two times in modern history has someone won the Presidency with less than 50% of the popular vote. GWB (2000) and ... Trump twice (2016 and 2024)."
I guess you mean 21st century? I would count modern history as including all U.S. presidents, in which case the number is something like 11, not counting two terms for some.
The "modern presidency" is usually defined as TR onward.
I mean, since "irregularities" is not a defined term, it can't really be debated one way or the other. In every election that has ever been held in the history of homo sapiens, there are precincts that run out of blank ballots, machines that don't work, poll workers who count 4,718 votes for a candidate but accidentally write down 4,178, a poll worker who mistakenly tells a voter that his precinct is at the library when it's actually at the elementary school, etc. Those could be deemed "irregularities," but on the other hand, since they happen regularly that's a misleading word choice.
There's no evidence of any deliberate "irregularity" in 2020, no evidence of anything systematic, and no evidence that anything affected the outcome of the election.
Trump has such good evidence of fraud, but somehow completely forgot to present it in any of the court cases on matter.
This. When he first blabbed it back in 2020, I thought, Ok, everyone gets their day in court. Let's see.
Not likely, but let's see what he has to say.
Nothing. It never moved past the hot air innuendo "FRAUD AT POLLS!" stage.
"But he never got to present it in court!"
This is a lie and irrelevant.
1. A Lie: In at least one case, the judge said, Ok, I'll bite. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, Trump's lawyers?
"We do."
"Ok, what happened. Remember, you are under oath."
"Mmmmmm...not much."
2. Court case is irrelevant: He was the President of the United States. He had the FBI working for him. He could have sat down with the nation in the Oval Office and laid out in detail all the evidence and the insidious goings on.
No. This never happened. Again, it never left the talking head innuendo "FRAUD AT POLLS!" stage.
"But the FBI is 100% Deep State!"
Really? 100%? Not one guy anywherr who's a patriot to defend democracy from insideous behavior? Not one who wants to be a hero? Hell, not one who wants to get a book and movie deal as the hero? None?
Please.
It's entirely possible that he does have evidence
It isn't. You have to explain why Trump produced no evidence of fraud that withstood any scrutiny in all his court cases, why his lawyers in two different cases explicitly denied they were claiming fraud, and why in the Texas SC case, Trump only claimed that the system made fraud more difficult to detect, not that there had been any.
there's too much third party (disinterested) smoke out there for there not to be some fire
There isn't.
I don't have to assume that Trump has no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election because he have never shown the evidence. Accusations are not evidence and that is all Trump has ever done is make accusations.
Maybe he will just not let candidates appear on the ballot, like Colorado tried to do to him.
Yeah, I see your point, Steve. Unverified mail in ballots, drop boxes, and a month long election “day,”followed by endless recounts to achieve the preferred result have been useful for democrats. Why mess things up with fair and honest elections?
President Trump was given to the world by God. He has ended five wars and prevented three more. He has fed over a billion people every day and will continue every day. He has cleaned the air and the water and has stopped the rise of the oceans. Amen
Here we have another example of Poe’s law at work. Is this intended seriously, or as satire? We can’t tell.
"What legal means are available to prevent Trump executive orders from disrupting the mid-term election[?]"
Ignore them, at least until he attempts to enforce them somehow.
Unless he issues one that has some sort of basis.
If there's no court ruling on his edicts and the election goes badly for him, as he seems to expect it to based on his push to gerrymander Texas, could he declare that the election isn't valid and the GOP majorities in Congress move to obstruct seating the newly elected legislators?
Interesting that the issue of 'states rights' will once again be invoked not just by southern democrats but the rest of the democrats too.
President Trump has a First Amendment right to scribble anything he wants on paper, and it’s a perk of his office to use government stationary to do so. If he wants to engage in the delusion that he is all-powerful and can order anyone to do anything, and if he gets a rise about publishing documents ordering the sun to stand still or a state to abolish voting machines or whatever else turns him on, I don’t see why his doing so affects, let alone harms, anyone else.
If Trump believes his scribblings are more than personal doodlings, he can go to court and try to get a judge a judge to enforce them. Unless and until he does so, the less attention paid to them, the better. I see no reason for lawyers or courts to involve themselves in his hobbies unless and until he does so.
Counsel for Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia in the Middle District of Tennessee have filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him for vindictive and selective prosecution, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.104621/gov.uscourts.tnmd.104621.104.0.pdf , along with a supporting memorandum of law. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.104621/gov.uscourts.tnmd.104621.105.0_3.pdf
In the Sixth Circuit, where a court has found the existence of a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness the burden of disproving it is on the government. Only objective, on-the-record explanations can suffice to rebut a finding of realistic likelihood of vindictiveness. United States v. Andrews, 633 F.2d 449, 456 (6th Cir. 1980) (en banc).
I expect that Judge Crenshaw will schedule an evidentiary hearing on the motion, after which DOJ lawyers will first shit their pants and then move to dismiss the indictment in order to avoid having to actually introduce evidence regarding how this corrupt prosecution came to be.
Selective how?
I think almost any case where the feds have a wife beating gang member in custody for even jaywalking and they suddenly find through news reports and state police spokespersons they have an open and shut case for a felony then they will prosecute.
If that's what selective means you will get them every time.
Hasn't not guilty pointed out in the past that claims of selective prosecution are extraordinarily hard to sustain, under precedent such as United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996)? From the syllabus thereof:
For a defendant to be entitled to discovery on a claim that he was singled out for prosecution on the basis of his race, he must make a threshold showing that the Government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races. [....] In order to prove a selective-prosecution claim, the claimant must demonstrate that the prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect and was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.
Selective prosecution means the prosecution was discriminatory on the basis of some protected class, and obviously illegal presence in the United States is not such a class. Similarly, vindictive prosecution means adverse treatment of a defendant in retaliation for exercising constitutional or statutory rights that violates his right to due process. This is also a very high hurdle to clear. As someone -- possibly writing under the alias "not guilty" -- has pointed out here, a prosecutor's discretion in prioritizing and prosecuting cases is extremely broad and subject to very little in the way of oversight.
https://kmlawfirm.com/2025/03/11/selective-vindictive-prosecution-defenses-to-political-criminal-charges-looks-are-deceiving/ discusses both defenses in greater length, from a somewhat different perspective.
"Selective prosecution means the prosecution was discriminatory on the basis of some protected class, and obviously illegal presence in the United States is not such a class."
Selective prosecution can mean that. It can also mean discriminatory prosecution based on the accused's having exercised constitutional or statutory rights, as recognized by SCOTUS in Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985):
[A]lthough prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not " 'unfettered.' Selectivity in the enforcement of criminal laws is . . . subject to constitutional constraints." United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 125 (1979) (footnote omitted). In particular, the decision to prosecute may not be " 'deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification,' " Bordenkircher v. Hayes, supra, 434 U.S. [357,] 364 [(1978),] quoting Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962), including the exercise of protected statutory and constitutional rights, see United States v. Goodwin, supra, 457 U.S. [368,] 372 [(1982).] [Emphasis added.]
The other alleged co-conspirators, who have not criticized the Trump administration, have not been prosecuted for conspiracy. In fact, the Department of Justice is mollycoddling the ringleader, allowing him to remain in the United States despite having been deported five times previously.
Selective prosecution is damn near impossible to prove. This, however, is the rare case where the facts make out a due process violation for initiating this sham prosecution.
Moreover, selective and vindictive prosecution are different doctrines. A defendant asserting vindictive prosecution need not show comparators who were not prosecuted. The vindictive institution of the instant prosecution, in retaliation for Abrego Garcia's exercise of his legal rights, is a slam dunk for the defense.
But his co-conspritors have indeed been prosecuted, and served their time right?
I was in a jury once trying the participant in a murder for hire, and the chief witness recruited all the participants, except the wife of the victim, provided the murder weapon and planned the murder. But he wasn't prosecuted, the guy we were trying was in the car "feeling sick" when they took the victim out of the car and shot him. The jury convicted the defendent we were trying. Good luck claiming that was selective even though the uncharged witness was much more culpable than the defendant.
"But his co-conspritors [sic] have indeed been prosecuted, and served their time right?"
Wrong. One of the alleged co-conspirators, Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes, who provided interview statements and grand jury testimony, is the government's star witness against Abrego Garcia. He has two prior felony convictions, has previously been deported five times, and was released early from a 30-month federal prison sentence for human smuggling as part of his cooperation in this case. He is the purported domestic leader of the human smuggling organization in which Abrego is accused of participating. He has been granted deferred action on deportation in exchange for his testimony. He will likely be granted work release as part of the conditions of the halfway house in which he currently resides following his early release from prison. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.104621/gov.uscourts.tnmd.104621.43.0.pdf
Hernandez-Reyes was initially charged with conspiracy to smuggle illegal aliens in the Southern District of Mississippi, but the conspiracy count was dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement in June 2020. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdms/pr/illegal-alien-sentenced-regarding-smuggling-illegal-aliens On February 1, 2024, Hernandez-Reyes pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry by a previously deported felon after an aggravated felony conviction. He was there sentenced to 30 months imprisonment. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1927546/gov.uscourts.txsd.1927546.24.0.pdf
not guilty — Can you help me out? I sometimes suppose I understand what, "doctrine," means as a legal term, but find I can never use it without wondering if I am misusing the term. I try to Google the term, and get back stuff so expansive it makes it look like I cannot use the term mistakenly. Is that possibly correct?
a wife beating gang member in custody for even jaywalking and they suddenly find through news reports and state police spokespersons they have an open and shut case for a felony then they will prosecute.
WTF are you talking about? Photoshop is powerful software, but it can't turn a photograph into (legitimate) evidence. And what felony? The one where the TN cops just let him go after a traffic stop?
NG, this story ends one way: St Abrego, the wife beating, human trafficking, gang-banging POS will be deported.
But go ahead, keep hope alive. 😉
Why do you hate non-white people so much? Did someone touch you where they shouldn't have when you were little?
What makes Killmore (H/T/ FD) non-white. Why isn't he a white/hispanic like George Zimmerman?
The question isn't what I think the answer to that question is. The question is whether Commenter thinks he's white. And I very much doubt that.
You're the one who describes him as non-white.
It's literally the only thing Commenter actually knows about him.
Commenter doesn't mention his race at all.
Since you're so good at reading minds, you should already know.
Martinned 6 hours ago Flag Comment Mute User Why do you hate non-white people so much?
Martinned - that is the third or 4th time this morning that you interjected race in a response to a comment discussing a topic unrelated to race. Accusing non-racists of racism to hide your racism.
obamma's mother was white. his father was arab. I'm more black than he is.
Say it loud, I'm black I'm proud!
Why do you want to cut off children's sexual organs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews
XY, I have asked you before, and you have declined to answer. In your opinion, should the government's star witness against Abrego Garcia, Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes, be deported? He has two prior felony convictions, has previously been deported five times, and was released early from a 30-month federal prison sentence for human smuggling as part of his cooperation in this case. He is the purported domestic leader of the human smuggling organization in which Abrego is accused of participating. He has been granted deferred action on deportation in exchange for his testimony. He will likely be granted work release as part of the conditions of the halfway house in which he currently resides following his early release from prison. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.104621/gov.uscourts.tnmd.104621.43.0.pdf
Yes or no? Do you endorse whorehouse "justice"?
He should 1) testify against Garcia, then 2) be deported.
You're previous predictions about the matter haven't proven accurate, so maybe this one is wrong too.
Trump might, of course, decide to deport him illegally, like he did last time, and that would make your prediction accurate, but in a particularly sleazy way.
To clarify: deporting him was not illegal. But, deporting him to his home country did violate a court order.
Yeah. What an affront. An illegal alien gangbanger human trafficker charged? Shouldn’t the federal government be devoting more time and resources prosecuting the political opponents of democrats, people praying in the vicinity of abortion mills, and anyone who happened to look at the Capitol on Jan 6? Not to mention all the new Russian collusion frauds they could be furthering with just a modicum of manufactured intelligence.
Whoops. Let’s also not forget intimidating parents who think they can question school boards and Catholics attending Mass. Those citizens aren’t going to intimidate themselves.
The government has a plausible explanation that can distinguish this case from ordinary prosecutions: We wanted to deport the defendant instead of prosecuting him. When a judge ruled against deportation we reopened the investigation.
Or if there is no evidence of an investigation before his removal: The prosecution is in response to numerous media reports brought to our attention after he was removed.
The former doesn't seem like a valid response to a charge of selective prosecution. ("We wanted to do something illegal but we didn't get away with it, so we went looking for something to pin on him." That's pretty much the definition of selective prosecution.)
All prosecution is selective.
You wanted due process so you are getting due proccess. Be careful what you wish for.
Just hypothetically, if a private university security director reviewed footage from a recent campus incident and saw a former student assaulting a Trans activist on campus with a weapon capable of causing serious bodily injury, or death, and the security director using a campus database he had authorized access to, identified the perp who assaulted 'them', should he be displined for providing identifying information about the perp to authorities who were already aware of the assault and seeking further information?
Should it matter that he didn't receive a subpoena, requesting the information?
Should it matter if the former student is a Muslim immigrant who's religion abhors homosexuality?
I assume you mean discipline by the university in the form of some adverse employment action?
I think the university would be within its rights to have a policy against disclosing that kind of information (in the absence of compulsory legal process), and to enforce such a policy against the security director in those cases. Normatively, the university should not have a policy that prevents someone in a leadership position from disclosing details about crime to public law enforcement officials who are investigating that crime.
Kazinski, does your hypothetical set of facts occur in an employment at will jurisdiction?
If so, then s.o.l. doesn't stand for statute of limitations, and the private employer is free to "displin[]" the security guard.
Helpful AI, overview:
In Oregon, "at-will employment" generally means an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, or no reason at all, as long as it's not discriminatory or retaliatory. However, employees in Oregon also have certain rights related to free speech in the workplace, particularly when it comes to reporting safety concerns or illegal activities. "
I don't think there was any doubt that the Security director was performing his job duties when he reviewed the security footage and identified the suspect of an on campus assault.
After that he did have a free speech right to convey the information to proper legal authorities, that should put him in the clear from being retaliated against once he became aware of the identity of the perp.
One minor correction, it wasn't a campus database he accessed, it was a privately operated networking database he accessed, for which he had credentials to access it.
So this wasn't a damn "hypothetical" at all, Kazinski? Why didn't you say so to begin with?
And it is noteworthy that you cite only an AI overview that cites no legal authority (or at least none that you have quoted). An employee typically does not enjoy First Amendment rights vis-a-vis a non-governmental employer.
No that was a hypothetical, this one isn't, but it wasn't a Muslim attacking a trans activist, it was a Quaker throwing a rock at an ICE agent:
"Reed College’s director of community safety is under internal investigation for helping the FBI locate a recent graduate who allegedly threw a rock at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, according to an open letter from its president to the campus community."
https://www.thecollegefix.com/reed-college-investigates-security-chief-for-giving-fbi-info-on-anti-ice-alum/
Would that change the legal analysis? Other than making it a federal crime? It might change the length of the sentence.
Your link is hidden behind an invitation to subscribe to a website I am unfamiliar with and have no desire to support.
How would the private college's investigation of, or even disciplinary action, should it occur, against an employee arguably implicate a federal crime? Which statute do you claim that could potentially violate?
It isn't "hidden". It's just a pop-up that you can close.
If you bothered to click the "X" button on the pop-up, you would see that the recent graduate in question has been charged with the federal crimes of "aggravated assault of a federal officer with a dangerous weapon" and "depredation of federal property in an amount exceeding $1,000". Kazinski was presumably referring to the first as the predicate federal crime.
Michael P, I was asking Kazinski about how the college's investigation and disciplinary action, if any, against the director of community safety arguably violates any federal statute(s).
If you had bothered to parse my comment, you would have eventually figured that out, or so I hope.
Of course you neglected to answer Kaz's question and ignored the link.
Kaz's original description didn't specify whether the assault in the "recent campus incident" qualified as a state or local offense. I thought the context (specifying that the target of the assault was a federal official) made it obvious that he was referring to that crime, not to a potential FERPA or labor law violation.
"a Quaker throwing a rock at an ICE agent"
Am I the only one noticing that 21st Century Quakers are a whole lot less "nonviolent" than their forebears?
Was it a public university? If not, the first amendment doesn't constrain the university very much.
I would need to know what the rules were about turning over that information before the incident occurred. So if the rules forbade the sharing of the information ( sans sunpoena of course) existed before the incident the security director is in trouble but if there were no clear guidelines or if the rules stated that helping law enforcement with criminal investigations was the standard before the incident occurred the university could be in trouble if they punish the security director.
This type of policy has a long history. There has been a long history of university administrators protecting students from police involvement. Liberal universities protected students from state morals laws. Conservative universities tended to protect students from well-donating familes from the consequences of their escapades, even burying rape accusations.
In states that prosecuted sexual morality laws like fornication and sodomy, in the 2nd half of the 20th century there actually were university policies prohibiting reporting such conduct to the police. I suspect some may have had similar policies - certainly many had unwritten ones - regarding alcohol and drugs like marijuana.
And some had at least unwritten policies for things like rape. The Title IX controversy represents a backlash against an earlier tendency of University administrators to take a “boys will be boys” attitude about sex (consenual or otherwise), alcohol, drugs, and more, especially where students were from powerful and well-donating families.
It would depend on if the "private university security director' had police powers because the relevant law would be FERPA and the relevant section would be the law enforcement exception.
It would also be relevant what his employment contract and/or the institution's employment policies were.
And as I am not an attorney, you can pay $$$$ to be told that he/she/it doesn't know either because you have omitted too many relevant facts.
Gunpoint psych exams have now expanded into K-12: https://edreporteronline.org/documents/august2025_article_2.cfm?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email%20marketing
For all of you complaining about Trump's excesses, this is exponentially worse...
I actually favor gunpoint K-12 psych exams, and they are long overdue.
We are talking about teachers, right?
"Gunpoint psych exams"?? Really?
The linked article makes no mention of guns or firearms, Dr. Ed 2. (Ctrl-F is your friend.)
School resource officers are armed.
In Georgia so are many of the teachers, some even legally.
Has any school resource officer been involved in administering psych exams? If so, has (s)he pointed a gun at anyone?
Here are some sentence examples that use figures of speech without the word figuratively.
My neighbor’s plants are begging to be watered. It’s raining cats and dogs. Swim like a fish.
If there's one person who demonstrates the need for psych exams, it's Dr. Ed.
I can think of one more
Dr. Ed is a K-12 student?!?
The DC Police Union reports that: Robbery ⬇️46% ADW ⬇️6% Carjacking ⬇️83% Car Theft ⬇️21% Violent Crime ⬇️22% Property Crime ⬇️6% All Crimes⬇️8%
In 1980, Reagan asked "are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" I think an intrepid Republican candidate for DC Mayor (or even City Council) could win by asking "are you safer than you were under the Democrats?"
Carjacking is what was scaring the average DC voter, and that's already down 87% -- and what's not mentioned in these statistics is the closure rate, i.e. the percentage of the crimes committed where the perp is in jail, and someone arrested and being prosecuted for carjacking isn't out doing it again tonite.
So Trump has roadblocks -- that river was crossed in the 1980s when people cheered them as an approach to address drunk driving, which had become pandemic in the late '70s.
Is crime down or is reporting of crime with the police down?
If crime is in fact down, wouldn't that lead to a decrease in the reporting of crime?
With a tip of the cap to Billy Beane. "If Crime in DC is down, why isn't Crime in DC down?"
OK, you need to have seen "Moneyball"
Frank
Yes, but the reverse isn't necessarily true. And one might plausibly suspect that Trump sending the army in to harrass ethnic minorities might make those ethnic minorities (who make up the majority of the population in DC) less likely to go anywhere near the cops.
Who knew Brett Baier was an "ethnic minority"? https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2025/08/19/bret-baier-fox-news-dc-traffic-stop/85726894007/
Your defence to the charge that Trump sent the army to harrass ethnic minorities is to show an example of them harrassing someone who is not an ethnic minority? Gee, with friends like that, why would Trump need enemies?
in DC White Peoples are the "Ethnic Minorities"
Seems that white people are the ethnic minority in DC. (Missed Frank's comment)
You'll always be Buzz Aldrin to my Neil Armstrong
More like Iron Man Mike Collins going all that way and stuck in orbit waiting to take Armstrong and Aldrin home.
Martinned 3 hours ago Flag Comment Mute User "Yes, but the reverse isn't necessarily true. And one might plausibly suspect that Trump sending the army in to harrass ethnic minorities might make those ethnic minorities (who make up the majority of the population in DC) less likely to go anywhere near the cops."
Martinned - do you not find it odd that very few of the actual minority residents in the affected communities are involved in the protests?
Whereas the vast majority of protesters are white yet non residents of the communities affected?
perhaps its because the actual minority residents want more police protection precisely because they are the ones harmed by the crime.
No, I find that an entirely predictable result of the Trump administration's policies. Any and all people who have a skin colour darker than an average sheet of A4 paper are well advised to avoid doing anything that might irritate Trump, ICE, or any other three-letter agency. It doesn't take much these days to end up in a Central American gulag, and while being white might be a defence, having a US passport certainly isn't.
Martinned 4 minutes ago Flag Comment Mute User No, I find that an entirely predictable result of the Trump administration's policies.
in other words - you dont actually care about the people harmed by crime. You create a strawman that isnt actually affected by the increased police presence in DC. Like Soros and most other leftists, you prefer a policy that negatively affects the people you pretend to care about.
Martinned
Quite telling that you changed the topic
Funny how you didn't ask that when people were saying, before Trump's MPD takeover, that D.C. crime was down 30%.
I mean, this MAGA police union account that posted unsourced crime stats is about like the District's actual crime statistics.
But hey, maybe they're right. Crime might be down thanks to roving gangs in military uniforms menacing people.
Along with every other activity.
Hey, at least you didn't push black crime stats this time.
They're not "MAGA police unions" or "roving gangs menacing people."
They're law enforcement officers who have been maligned and vilified for years by fucked up Democrats like you who act as if they are the criminals.
Just keep making your points, Sarc.
The USA is now investigating the story Alana Goodman broke -- that the MPD was cooking the books. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/justice-department-to-investigate-whether-dc-police-manipulated-crime-data/3977022/
And while I am not a fan of unions, in theory they speak for the bargaining unit, in this case the patrolmen.
The police union where I used to live won a lawsuit against ticket quotas. The chief left a few months later.
Those statements were based on longer term crime stats, which I took to be of actual crime rather than reported crime. If someone is showing me stats of crime *this week*, it can only be based on police reports.
"actual crime rather than reported crime"
Actual crime always exceeds reported crime because some [or many] crimes are just not reported
Crime stats are completely complied from reported crimes.
The DOJ also compiles crime stats from victims:
https://bjs.ojp.gov/programs/ncvs
Though not really applicable here yet, the results can yield some very interesting takeaways.
If anything, reporting of crime is actually UP because now the police are interested in taking reports, and people believe that reporting crimes will actually accomplish something.
now the police are interested in taking reports
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!
people believe that reporting crimes will actually accomplish something
Are any of these people here with you right now?
Interestingly, murder isn't reported as being down. Not sure if that's because the data sample is too small or because it doesn't tell the right story. (It's probably the case that the data sample is too small for this whole discussion after one week; I'd be curious to see what week to week variances generally look like.)
There is also a time delay, i.e. perps in jail for something else aren't on the streets to murder someone.
Crime is low in Saudi Arabia too. There is always a trade-off between crime and freedom.
Devin Nunes waa right about the Obama administration's abusive use of unmasking, as he was on so many other topics. Will people here apologize for their off-base criticisms of Nunes?
https://open.substack.com/pub/taibbi/p/nearly-a-decade-later-the-unmasking
President Trump accused the Smithsonian Institution on Tuesday of focusing too much on “how bad slavery was." Trump wrote on Truth Social:
“The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future,” Mr. Trump said in a social media post. “This Country cannot be WOKE, because WOKE IS BROKE. We have the ‘HOTTEST’ Country in the World, and we want people to talk about it, including in our Museums.”
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115056914674717313
If one of Trump's critics had accused him of this kind of garbage, it would likely be dismissed as over-the-top hyperbole. Some things defy parody.
Sort of like having Dr. Ed in The White House?
Evidence of the Smithsonian being out of control
Yup, this internal document shows slavery wasn’t bad so it’s woke to talk about that.
Apparently the Slavery in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, DC and Delaware "wasn't bad" as the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to the Slaves in those areas.
The 13th Amendment didn't apply to the slaves owned by the Creek Indians.
Where does it say that?
"Yup, this internal document shows slavery wasn’t bad so it’s woke to talk about that."
Why the need to resort to dishonest strawmen if you think you have a case worth making?
Read the Trump quote Brett is defending.
I am defending the proposition that the Smithsonian was going down a crazy rabbit hole. The display I linked to is adequate evidence of that, in that no sane institution would have published it.
Could we have the context of that particular display? Rather odd that none is given.
I'd kind of assumed we were all familiar with it, since it's been gone over before here.
Here's your context.
"Read the Trump quote Brett is defending."
You first.
Brett, how does that link relate even remotely to the Smithsonian Institution?
Believe it was part of a Smithsonian display.
Brett's too oppressed as a white man to offer context.
How do you know Brett's a "White Man"?? you Psychic??
Well, based on a picture he posted a while ago, Brett is passably white, married to a brown woman and has a half brown son. Obviously an oppressed white man with racist tendencies.
Maybe he's got an Indian in the Cupboard, like Senator Poke-a-hontas?
IKR? My Finnish grandmother looked Asian. We're the whitest whiteys that ever whited a white, but I've had people ask me about my eyes before. They've been described as "interesting". Both my sons, too. Not my daughters though.
Afrikaaners were very happy to go off to Sun City for weekends of fucking black hoes.
And Fritz Kreisler's wife was known to be antisemitic.
Brett's an Afrikaaner?
Are you intentionally missing the point, or just being stupid?
Except for the freckles, (Which by the end of summer have grown to the point where they often overlap.) I'm so white I glow in the dark. Though I can't completely rule out your Indian, I'm French Canadian a ways back on my father's side.
Given how our lineage grows exponentially the further back we go it is hard to rule out any possibility.
“My sight is failing,” she [Clover] said finally. “Even when I was young I could not have read what was written there. But it appears to me that that wall looks different. Are the Seven Commandments the same as they used to be, Benjamin?”
For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran:
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"
Ah yes, Project 1938 is heading along nicely. Who will even notice little history rewrite?
"President Trump accused the Smithsonian Institution on Tuesday of focusing too much on 'how bad slavery was.'"
Slavery was bad, but are you claiming that there's nothing else in American history worth discussing?
No, I am not claiming that at all. Why would you ask?
Shhh! Between the raising of confederate monuments, import of white apartheidists from South Africa, the abolition of teaching slavery, Vance declaring confederate ancestry makes one more American than naturalized citizens, the selective federal policing of black areas etc...it is becoming harder for people like Pianist to ignore that his beloved MAGA is just one, gigantic white supremacist takeover. Or....maybe he is aware!
Well, at the top of the thread you posted a quote complaining about how the Smithsonian focused on slavery and adjacent topics to the exclusion of more positive topics.
Speaking of strawmen. Not even Trump claimed that.
NG: I note the careful formatting of your comment, including the proper spelling and capitalization and grammar. Those are all aspects of your "whiteness," as taught to us by the Smithsonian Institution.
Unsurprisingly, you are hung up on race, reflecting some of the success of the Institution's educational initiatives.
Two things jump out about WalMart's radioactive shrimp (beyond being careful about what you buy at WalMart):
1: "U.S. Customs & Border Protection alerted the FDA about possible Cesium-137 (Cs-137) detected in shipping containers at four U.S. ports."
I think credit is due here to catch this because this was below the intervention level (1200 Bq/kg) -- they weren't glowing in the dark. And yes, the concern is a dirty bomb, which isn't that hard to make, and would create one bleeping mess. (The panic would kill far more people than the actual radiation.)
"In conjunction with other information, FDA says that product from PT. Bahari Makmur Sejati violates the Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act, saying that it appears to have been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions, which may have contributed to it possibly being contaminated with Cs-137, posing a safety concern."
OK, that's their authority to act, but how the heck do you accidentally contaminate anything with Cs-137?!?
Well, it's a liquid at room temperature, water soluble, and highly chemically reactive, which means that, if your container breaks, it's gonna get around. And, relevantly, it's used as a source of gamma radiation for food sterilization.
So the idea that you might have food and CS-137 in the same facility isn't that crazy. You actually legitimately might have CS-137 in a food processing facility.
What effect will gamma rays have on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds??
I found that play about as disappointing as that movie Pi, which turned out to have diddly squat to do with math.
it's "Cs" BTW
Has there been an awakening in the UK? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/19/epping-hotel-migrant-court-ruling/ "Labour asylum plans in turmoil after court orders migrant hotel closure "
Feel free to read the judgment instead of the Telegraph: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Epping-Forest-DC-v-Somani-Hotels-Final-Judgment-2.pdf
From a manual for teaching pre-K:
Never assume you know what [he] is going to do or say next because it is unlikely he does. Take seriously what he says at any time because that probably accurately reflects what he is thinking, but some of his thoughts can be very transitory and are soon replaced by others. If you don’t like the positions being held on one day, push back because he might be convinced to hold a different position the next. Equally, when satisfied with today’s position do not assume it will last.
https://samf.substack.com/p/europe-pushes-back
It looks like the lower courts are starting to get the message: Trump can do whatever he likes.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578848/gov.uscourts.mdd.578848.86.0.pdf
Indeed, as the Supreme Court recently reiterated in the context of ongoing challenges to the Executive’s exercise of authority: “[F]ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.” Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. —, 145 S. Ct. 2540, 2562 (2025). The relief requested here raises a serious risk of doing precisely what the Court has cautioned the court to avoid. Ultimately, this court may not overreach its authority to order the Executive to act within the confines of its own.
"Trump can do whatever he likes."
But your cite just says that the courts can't do whatever they like.
Looks like the lower court got it correct. Simply denied the motion to dismiss and denied the PI.
Good news! The White House now has a Tiktok account.
https://www.tiktok.com/@whitehouse/video/7540412027907362062
Whatever happened to that idea of selling (US) Tiktok to whichever one of Trump's friends paid him the most money for the privilege?
A good question and one nobody (including the press) seems to care about.
The Chicoms now own a significant amount of $TRUMP coin. So expect Trump to act accordingly
FDA warns public not to eat possibly radioactive shrimp sold at Walmart
https://abcnews.go.com/US/fda-warns-public-eat-possibly-radioactive-shrimp-sold/story?id=124780934&cid=social_twitter_abcn
See Dr. Ed2's post on this above, two hours before you posted.
Maybe not everyone reads that guy's posts.
Queenie only reads mine, just watch, He'll "respond" to this one. "What do (Dr) MLK Jr, Malcom the Xth, and Floyd George have in common??'
“I am Special Attorney”
You sure are buddy!
https://x.com/annabower/status/1957943984606834749?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA
Also LOL at the idea that the letters he sends are confidential and he could go to court to stop them from being “leaked.” But he does at least have the self-awareness to know that publishing his poorly written letters is in fact “personally insulting” because they make him look like an unprofessional moron.
Dear Special Attorney,
Attached is a letter dated August 12, 2025. I feel that you should be aware that some asshole is signing your name to stupid letters.
Very truly yours,
Attorney Who Likes To Feel Special
"Attorney Who Likes To Feel Special" Isn't that all of them?
Here is another special attorney (general): "Why do some people think they can get away with anything?
The law is the law is the law. If you break the law, you have to answer for it. That’s how it works. You can’t brush it aside and ask officers to do what you wish to continue breaking the rules. That’s ridiculous. Advertisement
But that’s exactly what Rhode Island Special Assistant Attorney General Devon Flanagan attempted to do last Thursday evening." https://pjmedia.com/michael-a-letts/2025/08/19/the-on-camera-arrest-of-a-rhode-island-prosecutor-serves-as-a-stark-reminder-no-one-is-above-the-law-n4942844
Hahaha I feel like this classic comeback only works on a person who has only sent one stupid letter and had a momentary lapse into assholery.
Less stinging when the person’s MO is being an asshole who sends many stupid letters.
I'm open to workshopping.
I would probably return it with proofing marks with a request to resend once revisions are made.
"What's on your mind?" Doesn't seem like too much is today.
Imagine, if you will, a girl in the boys locker room filming the boys. The boys get suspended ten days for questioning why she is in there; being accused of sexual harassment and sex based discrimination.
She was not punished for filming in a locker room.
Loudoun again
Silence! We no longer speak of the sexual exploitation of children.
Telling a girl to get out of the boys locker room is now sexual exploitation?
Got it.
With all the self-proclaiming free-speech absolutists on this blog, surely there will be a chorus of voices chiming in to defend these boys' free speech rights. Or maybe this is differen(t).
And let's not forget that this was the county that covered up a rape in a girls' room by a boy in a skirt because they thought it might threaten their trans restroom policy. And they transferred the boy to a different school where he was allowed to rape again.
"It’s clear that Donald Trump and his MAGA allies will continue weaponizing the justice process to attack Senator Schiff for holding this corrupt administration accountable“
I think I ripped my appendix loose from laughing so hard.
When content is put within quotation marks, it is bad form not to identify the purportedly quoted source material, Jazzizhep.
FOX News
Why are you spreading leftist propaganda on this blog?
You need to distinquish Fox news from Fox commentary.
Fox news reporting is ever so slightly left of center (just without the woke that dominates the rest of the media) whereas the fox commentary is right to far right.
I wasn’t spreading it. I was laughing at it. Well, I guess by posting it I am spreading it—even to mock it. My apologies.
Although I don’t why you wish to chastise me when you are one of the largest purveyors of leftist agitprop here.
For all you folk who assert that Israel is intentionally starving Gazans:
"According to the United Nations, nearly 90 percent of all aid trucks entering Gaza since mid-May have been looted or hijacked by Palestinian terrorists."
Nearly 90% of Gaza Aid Trucks Looted or Hijacked Since Mid-May, UN Data Shows
Yeah, you and your UN Data, I'm going to tell Ayatollah Mandami!
Good lord that website is an eyesore. I looked them up and Israel isn't their beat. It seems a terrible thing to attack aid into Gaza to begin with, and this...this is so poorly done one can only conclude they just hate Gazans getting food.
1) They link to this as a source: https://app.un2720.org/tracking/offloaded I'm having some trouble reading it, but don't see any number that looks like nearly 90%, except the percentage of trucks that carry food being 86.2%.
2) Palestinian terrorists? I thought it was all Hamas. That's some stinky labeling creep. And, of course, the terrorist label is unsourced. Hungry civilians also stop food trucks!
3) So what's been happening to aid in the past months? Israel set up their own org and turned everyone else away, as I recall. Is this their failure?
Heh...according to the data, all the pallets were successfully offloaded to their respective relief organizations. It takes a special kind of belief system to make that read 90% were taken by terrorists. Young, master Publius has such a belief system
You have to work for it. The second tab from the bottom shows how much supplies reached its destination. 9,000 reached destination from over 74k offloaded.
UN Destination
It was a bad link in the article. The other tabs show how much was offloaded and how much was collected
So a lot of the pallets never made it into GAZA? Or got into GAZA but disappeared? And I'm supposed to believe that Santa Claus or Godzilla or Hamas or bureaucracy or Israeli munitions are responsible...how exactly???
You really don’t read too well. I didn’t say the pallets never made it to Gaza. I said they didn’t reach their destination.
I know it may be hard for you to grasp, but there are many locations inside Gaza. A shipment’s destination is a location inside Gaza—not destination Gaza.
It would be like UPS telling me they delivered my package when they sent it to Texas, not specifically my address, but somewhere in Texas. Not how it works, cupcake.
"Since May 19, 2025, close to 90 percent of trucks entering Gaza were either looted or hijacked by the terrorists, the latest data released by the United Nations indicates."
And the UN data page the article refers to is here: https://app.un2720.org/tracking/offloaded
Haha! Looks like your article just straight up lied to you. I thought only my preferred MSM did that. Why do you make things so easy for me, Publius?
Nope. You have to work for the numbers. Offloaded is supplies that were left in Gaza. The numbers include any hijackings and food taken by hungry people. It is “what we started with and what we returned with.”
You have to go to the second from bottom tab on the left hand side (a package with a check mark) to see how much supplies reached the destination.
74k pallets were offloaded in Gaza (second tab form top under home). Only 9,000 pallets reached the destination.
Now don’t you look like a fool. Hell, I’m embarrassed for you.
See my response above
The article didn’t lie. The article stated 88% didn’t reach its destination.
Divide 9000 (pallets arrived at destination) by 74000 (pallets left in Gaza—at original destination or not). The percentage of packages arriving at their location is 12%.
Time to buck and admit your foolishness.
Yeah, there is whole heaping pile of context missing, but it is fact.
And Hamas was verified as the takers of all these pallets...where exactly?
Moving the goal posts.
Lately I've been listening to AM Christian radio for entertainment. It's like the 4chan of talk radio. You know how all you hayseeds here thrive on fear and conspiracies? Well, amp that up by a factor of ten you have Christian talk. Jeebus would be lucky to even get a mention once a day there. (BTW, the next thing you hayseeds need to be fearing is AI...FYI)
Anyway, since it's Christian, it must be true. So last week they had on a Catholic charity honcho who was saying that their entire GAZA warehouse of food and two workers were blown to bits by an untraceable, precision-guided munition. Hamas, of course.
So seriously, nobody has a problem with a Ugandan Citizen running the Big Apple???
Show us the birth certificate!
"Mamdani is a dual citizen of Uganda and the United States; he was naturalized in the latter country in 2018." wikipedia.
I give a pass on the Ugandan part. The Marxist part is a showstopper for me.
Wisconsin Republicans propose to ban municipal ordinances granting legal rights to natural resources.
https://www.wisbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/LRB-4346-prohibiting-rights-of-nature-ordinances.pdf
Proponents of such ordinances will have to look for a judge willing to strike the bill down under Romer v. Evans. You can't pick out a group to exclude from civil rights legislation, if a judge likes the group.
In the human context, there were threats to sue over the recent removal of gender identity from Iowa's civil rights law. I have seen no reports of a lawsuit.
Judge Gallagher (D. Maryland) set aside a "Dear Colleague" letter from the Department of Education to schools warning of types of discrimination prohibited by federal law. I think other judges blocked the memo and the Maryland case is the first to go to judgment. Two observations.
1. The Obama administration's "Dear Colleague" letter telling schools to expel more men survived until it was voluntarily withdrawn by Trump. Like the Trump memo, Obama's memo purported to explain the administration's position on federal funding rules schools already had to obey. There was no rush to judgment back then. Now everybody wants to strike down a Trump rule with opposite political valence.
2. Judge Gallagher followed the Administrative Procedure Act. She postponed the effective date of agency action under 5 USC 705. Ruling on summary judgment motions she vacated the action under 5 USC 706.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69672728/american-federation-of-teachers-v-us-department-of-education/
Dear Colleague:
We're doing Black, Brown and Trans All people now. Your failure to cooperate will put you and your institution at risk.
Respectfully,
Mr. Moneybags
For once the plaintiffs didn't sue Trump. That's a refreshing and almost quaint notion these days.
Last Friday had two white girls in one of my Airbnb rooms. They abruptly left some time that evening. A couple of days ago they ask for a refund. I asked why. And she wrote:
"There was a party going on on the left side of your house and there was a party going on on the right side and the people on the left side were yelling. It did not seem like a very safe neighborhood."
And I wrote back:
"I don't consider black people enjoying themselves to be much of a security concern"
A. I'm not giving these dixie chicks (BTW they were in town from Kentucky to see a Morgan Wallen concert) a refund just because you hayseeds have convinced them that black people entertaining themselves is a danger.
B. This Emmet-Tills-Where-The-White-Women-At provocation is just the kind of pretext that got DC. So where's my marshal law here in Cleveland?
"You see, the neighbors are black, so they couldn't possibly have been disturbing you."
The leftist mindset really boggles the mind sometimes.
And I guess I'm really glad I don't use Air B&B. Too many sleazy property owners.
Yep. Part of the sign-up for Airbnb requires us to check a box verifying that we're woke. You should make AirBnB your next Bud Light
Quiet enjoyment?
WHAT were they yelling? "Let's go Red Sox"? or "I'm goinna kill you, Niggah!"
I'm sure many a 'nigga' was exclaimed that night. But no one, including them chicks, would know it because the jams being pumped were very loud!
Some more context would help. What time was this supposed to have happened?
Why is that important? Does loud music change from an annoyance to a security concern after hours?
As a noise concern, most municipalities of which I am aware have time-specific noise ordinances. For example, many have a 10PM to 7AM (I believe) quiet period where excessive noise is a violation.
So that's why time is likely quite relevant.
It was around 8-9pm
Krasnov blaming Ukraine for starting the war.
https://x.com/i/status/1957781374116491310
"Russia is a powerful military nation whether people like it or not. It's a much bigger nation. It's not a war that should have been started, you don't do that. You don't take on a nation that's 10x your size."
The return of the Manchurian Candidate!
Do you have any idea what US controlled Kiev was doing to the ethnic Russians in those regions since 2014?
Another post from a demented individual.
Or maybe he was just kissing Putin's ass.
The Donna Reed Show is on one of the retro stations.
This is a curious show. Some of the episodes seem more like a look at a 1960s family than sitcom material.
There was an interesting episode recently involving one of the husband's colleagues' mystery wife. She and her friends have never seen her. Donna goes to meet her, and it turns out she is an immigrant from Japan.
This is in the early 1960s in the Midwest. Donna's husband alludes to the possibility of racism (rather obliquely) while noting it was not overall a problem around there.
The husband, however, thinks something is wrong when his colleagues don't come to a dinner party. Only Donna and her husband showed up for a second meeting.
The wives, it turns out, had a problem with him. They felt the husband let his wife be too submissive. Donna talks with her, and the wife (who was also in the film Sayonara ) tells her she was just following traditional family custom.
Donna tells her about American customs, and she starts to act more like an independent American wife. The husband is fine with that. I wonder how that Japanese eggplant with rice wine tasted.
I believe reviving the Obama/Comey conspiracy is a good thing. Like with Epstein, it gives us a chance to remember things:
Helsinki, 2018
"Q And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that [win the election]?
PRESIDENT PUTIN: (As interpreted.) Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal."
From Politico https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/16/putin-trump-win-election-2016-722486
"Putin’s comments in Helsinki about Trump’s campaign come days after special counsel Robert Mueller offered the latest salvo in his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, indicting 12 Russian military intelligence officers accused of infiltrating Democratic Party computer servers."
Omg, that's proof he's a Kompromot! He wanted to normalize relations with Russia!!
SPY SPY SPY!!!! HE'S A SPY!!!!
I'm afraid Trump being a spy or not is not really the gist of Putin's comment.
You’re (intentionally like Bill Maher the other day?) misquoting the question Mason, the reporter, asked and ignoring the Mason’s own explanation.
The ACTUAL question Mason asked of Putin:
MASON: President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election. And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that? PUTIN: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.
Putin very clearly answered the first part of the question - the part you conveniently left out - and ignored the second part.
Here’s Mason himself explaining in an NPR interview:
“I think if you look critically at it and, in particular, listen to what he was saying earlier, he as well as President Trump were denying any kind of collusion. So my suspicion is he heard the first part of my question and may not have heard the second part.”
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/18/630246513/collusion-question-from-helsinki-summit-varies-by-transcript
Regardless, it seems to argue pretty strongly against the "Putin didn't care who won" narrative.
A week or two ago, I read someone in the comments say that Trump is the great peacemaker because he has ended seven wars! And I was like ... wow. I didn't realize we had descended into innumeracy. Anyway, I keep seeing this getting trotted out without any, um, actual basis.
So I was reasonably happy to see this repeated again recently by Trump (although he isn't sure if it's six, or seven, or 1500% because numbers are for nerds I guess?). And so I was gratified to see the BBC try to figure out (and contact the White House for their replies) what exact wars he was claiming credit for!
So here's the list, and my take on them- Israel / Iran: HA! Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Nope. If this has to be explained to you, you truly don't have any idea.
Pakistan / India: Nope. While Trump did tweet and try to claim credit (and Pakistan did the usual bootlicking), India confirmed that he had no involvement.
Rwanda / Congo: Nope. Still fighting.
Thailand / Cambodia: Eh, there's a lot of complicated background on this, and the US wasn't responsible or did anything for the peace talks. But in the spirit of generosity I'll give partial credit for initiating pressure for a ceasefire that led to an agreement (the agreement that the US had no involvement in).
Egypt / Ethiopia: Nope.
Serbia / Kosovo: HA! I can't even.
Armenia / Azerbaijan: Yes. Credit where it's due. No notes.
And this is the usual to expect from this administration. Look, it should take credit for brokering a peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan. A grinch might say that ... it's easier when they haven't had serious fighting since 2023, and Azerbaijan is now trying to distance itself from Russia, but still- that's a big deal! Good for Trump.
But no. Instead, it just makes up stuff and spreads it out. It tweets incessantly and most of the time, it's ignored. And sometimes, the tweets might do something - and then it tries to take credit for the hard work other people put in (see, e.g., Cambodia/Thailand). Or it just throws random stuff in (Serbia????) in case people aren't paying attention. It's just complete BS, all the way down.
Or, for that matter, Iran / Israel. Look, if Trump wants to take credit for knowing about Israel's plans to attack Iran and allowing it (and helping reduce Iran's power), that's fine. If Trump wants to take credit for finally doing what Israel wanted (B2s) after Israel accomplished most of its goals, that's fine. But ... there was never a ceasefire. There isn't a peace. There are no agreements, and if you think that either Israel or Iran won't be attacking each other (and have already) directly and through proxies, your mental acuity is worse than ... well, Trump's.
EDIT- so the full count is 1.5 ... rounded up to two. Which is far from six, or seven.
I think the Nobel committee is also well aware of Trump's antipathy towards most of humanity except for white Christians and will take that into consideration.
"Armenia / Azerbaijan: Yes. Credit where it's due. No notes."
Perhaps you mean Albania vs Aberbaijan?
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump/trump-proudly-declares-end-of-hostilities-between-aberbaijan-and-albania/
...I can't even. Look, I seriously doubt Trump had much to do with that one, and I would be surprised if he could find them on a world map. Even if the map had the country names.
But as much as Trump doesn't seem to believe that "the buck stops here," (I think his version is, "The credit always goes to me, the blame goes ... to the Biden/Obama/Hillary conspiracy.") ... it was his administration that hosted and (AFAIK) allowed the backchanneling for the final discussions that ended in a peace agreement. If I'm being fair (and I do try to be fair, sometimes successfully), that has to go in the win column.
Even if he can't name either country.
Jake Charles has an interesting critique on Bluesky of the waiting period ruling covered in a separate entry.
He is but one of many critics of the current 2A law that can't reasonably be tarred as just hating guns.
“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” is said by people who in fact very very mad about the imitation.
Seems as if Lucretia James isn't the only one who lies on mortgage applications. BREAKING: Trump Calls on Biden-Appointed Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to Resign After FHFA Director Pulte Sends Criminal Referral to DOJ for Mortgage Fraud
"...According to Pulte’s criminal referral, Lisa Cook committed mortgage fraud by lying on her mortgage application and falsifying bank statements when she designated her out-of-state Atlanta condo as her “primary residence”—just two weeks after taking a loan on her Michigan home, which she also claimed as her “primary residence.”
So are you saying this is a hoax, or that it is real and you condemn the conduct?
"Falsifying Business Records: The charges stemmed from allegations that Trump then falsified New York business records to cover up this payment by mislabeling the reimbursement of his former lawyer Michael Cohen for the payment as legal expenses."
Also Trump:
"The New York civil trial against Donald Trump stemmed from a lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James in September 2022. James alleged that Donald Trump, his companies, and his eldest sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, engaged in years of financial fraud and illegal conduct.
Specifically, the lawsuit accused the defendants of fraudulently inflating the value of parts of Trump's real estate empire to obtain financial benefits, primarily lower-interest loans and favorable insurance deals. The court found that Trump and his company manipulated spreadsheets provided to accountants to inflate valuations of properties like Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago, leading to more favorable terms than they would have otherwise received. "
Whew, the whataboutism is thick. Never mind Lisa Cook allegedly violated a completely different law when she - again allegedly - lied on mortgage documents regarding her primary residence. So in other words, nothing like the lawfare of Laticia James.
I allow myself one whatabout a day
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?
Reem Ibrahim | 8.20.2025 11:20 AM
Emma Camp | 8.20.2025 10:40 AM
John Stossel | 8.20.2025 10:15 AM
Liz Wolfe | 8.20.2025 9:37 AM
J.D. Tuccille | 8.20.2025 7:00 AM
