Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Stephen Lathrop]

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?

[Kazinski]

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.

[Stephen Lathrop]

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?

[Brett Bellmore]

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".

[Stephen Lathrop]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — You neglected to answer the last question.

[Brett Bellmore]

I answered it up front: We have two ways of exerting control: Elections, and revolution.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, contradiction is not question answering.

Here is the question again:

By what acts, if not elections, does Wilson posit the people's control?

Note that you did not so much as mention Wilson, or anything he said. You are running from history because you do not like what happened in the past, and wish it were otherwise.

In what I am about to tell you, I am relating events and understandings which happened at the time of the American founding, then exerted strong national influence for an interval of decades, but afterwards slowly and incrementally declined in salience.

Confusions such as your own have become widespread, and thus detracted from the founders' influence. A question whether that has been a good thing or a bad one is currently worth close attention.

In that context, I asked for some basis other than ipse dixit bullshit for your rebuttals of Wilson. So far, you have just repeated bullshit, without even pretending reference to Wilson, or his remarks.

Please try that again, this time citing founding era sources. Direct your remarks specifically to Wilson's assertions, while critiquing them by reference to other founding era sources which match his topics, but say otherwise. Or just concede you are incapable to do that.

While your are at it, note that your contention that the American people can take back, "the sovereignty we have delegated to the federal and state governments," is nonsense. In every modern nation state, every government operates on the basis of power delegated from a sovereign, and all government powers claimed to be legitimate have been thus delegated. So your remark distinguishes nothing. Democracies work that way. Dictatorships work that way. Despotisims work that way.

Even in modern nation states, a sovereign of some kind remains the source of all government power. Where personal rights are cherished and meaningful, a sovereign wielding power greater than government's typically remains the only useful vindicator of personal rights against government abuse.

A definitional difference between a sovereign and its government is that when the sovereign exercises a power it does so at pleasure, and without constraint. Ability to do that defines legitimate sovereignty. A government submits to sovereign will, or ceases to be a legitimate government.

Thus, governments, unless they are also sovereigns—as in the cases of dictatorships—operate under constraints which do not apply to sovereigns. If for any modern nation state you seek to identify the active sovereign, look for the source of government constraint—the entity which enjoys actual power to set aside or prohibit government action at pleasure.

Also, a notion of delegated sovereignty becomes meaningless if it creates a rival for the sovereign doing the delegation. A sovereign which permits a rival to endure ceases to be sovereign, by definition. Whatever power can achieve an ability to constrain an erstwhile sovereign has all-but-deposed the sovereign by doing so. A sovereign powerless to act at pleasure is no sovereign at all.

To posit a sovereign government is also meaningless, unless it confers full power to create a replacement government at the pleasure of the sovereign. Nobody supposes the U.S. government has ever enjoyed any such legitimate power. Thus, it has never been sovereign.

MAGA seems to aspire to that, but has not yet accomplished it. The jointly-sovereign power of the American people is for the moment so attenuated by political division as to call into question what will happen. If MAGA achieves what it seeks—and what you appear to support—American constitutionalism will likely cease to function, and pass into history.

[Jack Jordan]

Stephen, at first, Wilson, himself, was not entirely correct about the sovereignty of the people. Initially, Wilson made the fundamental mistake of believing that the pre-revolutionary definition of sovereignty continued to have force in America. For example, in his Nov. 26, 1787, Speech to Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention he said:

“There necessarily exists in every government a power, from which there is no appeal; and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable. Where does this power reside?” “The truth is, that, in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our constitutions are superiour to our legislatures; so the people are superiour to our constitutions.”

The truth is that Wilson clearly was wrong on the extent of power implicit in sovereignty in America. No person has and no group of people have "absolute, and uncontrollable power." That kind of power is fatal. So SCOTUS precedent sometimes refers to our more limited sovereignty by the concepts "self-government" or "ordered liberty." Recall also the oaths of office in Articles II and VI and federal law (e.g., 5 U.S.C. 3331). The Constitution is king, not the people.

Madison (who had much experience with people in Virginia abusing power) wrote much better about our sovereignty. Madison's experience and concerns with abuses of popular power famously drove the constitution of a large republic under our Constitution. It drove the design of federalism (division of powers between state and federal governments) and separation of powers (between branches of federal government). Read Madison's writing in, e.g., The Federalist Papers (some of which I quoted in this thread). See Federalist No. 47:

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." "In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct. The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu." "From these facts, by which Montesquieu was guided, it may clearly be inferred that, in saying 'There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates,' or, 'if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.' "

See Federalist No. 48:
“The founders of our republics” (the people of the 13 original states) “never for a moment [ ] turned their eyes from the danger to liberty from the overgrown and all-grasping prerogative of” any would-be ruler. They knew and deeply feared that any powerful center will always be “drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” They knew and deeply feared that any “assembling” of “all power in the same hands must lead” to “tyranny.” For such reasons, in our “representative republic” the “executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power,” including by Congress’s exercise of “the legislative power” to protect the people by making abuses or usurpations of power criminal.

[Jack Jordan]

Brett, the people don't merely "reserve the right to take back the sovereignty" and we never "delegated" our sovereignty "to the federal and state governments."

The point of Amendment X was to emphasize that 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.”

We the People always retain our sovereignty, and we exercise it by exercising the rights and freedoms secured by the First Amendment (which include the right and power to choose and remove our representatives (by voting or impeachment) and to publicly praise or criticize them for their public service).

In United States Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) SCOTUS emphasized “the critical postulate” of our Constitution is “that sovereignty is vested in the people” and that such “sovereignty confers on the people the right to choose freely their representatives to the National Government.” A “critical idea” in our Constitution is that “the right of the people to vote for whom they wish” is “an [essential] aspect of [our] sovereignty.” Any “restrictions upon the people to choose their own representatives must be limited to those” that are “absolutely necessary for the safety of the society.”

More recently, in Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), SCOTUS addressed protections for speech about public issues, and such speech clearly and necessarily includes voting.

Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say. The legislators are their spokesmen. The people determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore important—vitally important—that . . . no point of view be [even] restrained [much less] barred.

Speech [which clearly and necessarily includes voting] is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. In [our] republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make [our own] choices among candidates for office is essential. The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office. Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.

For these reasons, political speech [including voting] must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. Laws that burden political speech [including voting] are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

[Krayt]

"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.

[Jack Jordan]

Krayt, "The people are always superior to their constitutions." The word "always" is an allusion to the power to change (amend) our Constitution. "The People" also clearly aren't limited to "a brief 51% majority," nor can any percentage "authorize[ ] infinite power by the demagogue."

As Congressman Madison put it to the First Congress on August 15, 1789, “the sovereignty of the people” means, in part, “that the people can change the constitution if they please, but while the constitution exists, they must conform themselves to its dictates.” That's very much the point of Article III insulating federal judges from popular sentiment (by guaranteeing their pay and allowing them to "hold their Offices during good Behaviour"). That's also very much the point of the oaths of office in Article VI ("to support" our "Constitution") and Article II (to " preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution").

Nobody in any state or federal government ever swears to follow or support any person or party. They all swear to support our Constitution. Even more emphatically, federal law (5 U.S.C. 3331) requires every "individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services" to promise to "support and defend" our "Constitution" against absolutely "all enemies, foreign and domestic" (including any demagogue) and to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our "Constitution."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Krayt — "This only has meaning in creating a constitution."

Not, "only."

It also has meaning when administering a constitution; when changing a constitution; when replacing a constitution; when interpreting a constitution; when ignoring a constitution; when choosing to act extra-constitutionally; and also and especially, when positing and vindicating personal rights pursuant to constitutional terms.

A constitution is not a document to constrain its own sovereign authors. A constitution is its own sovereign authors' decree to constrain government.

That difference is a crucially important distinction, important for anyone concerned to find practical answers to the questions:

1. How can government by a few come to reign over many?;

2. What empowers government?;

3. What constrains government?;

4. What are personal rights?;

5. Why is government abuse the usual source of threats to personal rights?;

6. Why are some personal rights protected, while others are not?;

7. How can private persons—who typically do not command power commensurate with a government's power—avail themselves of power sufficient to vindicate rights which come under government attack?

Confusions about answers to those questions abound. For large state-like organizations, it is impossible to answer them coherently, and without paradoxical contradictions, except in reference to some notion at least closely akin to sovereignty.

[Jack Jordan]

Stephen, our Constitution actually does (and was designed to) "constrain its own sovereign authors," albeit indirectly. To properly see how our Constitution constrains the sovereign people, it's necessary to first see that our Constitution establishes that the people are sovereign. Our Constitution constrains us by (1) empowering our public servants to govern us for the benefit of society and (2) restraining our public servants exercises of power contrary to the interests of society.

As Congressman Madison put it to the First Congress on August 15, 1789, “the sovereignty of the people” means, in part, “that the people can change the constitution if they please, but while the constitution exists, they must conform themselves to its dictates.” That's very much the point of Article III insulating federal judges from popular sentiment (by guaranteeing their pay and allowing them to "hold their Offices during good Behaviour"). That's also very much the point of the oaths of office in Article VI ("to support" our "Constitution") and Article II (to " preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution").

Madison (as a member of the First Congress) presented to Congress on June 8, 1789, his proposals on how to improve on our original Constitution. Crucially, Madison emphasized that “whatever may be [the] form which the several states have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights” (and whatever form our Bill of Rights takes) “the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against [abuses by] the legislative,” (sometimes against abuses by the judicial branch) “and, in some cases, against [abuses by] the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority [of the people to protect the rights of some] minority.” Madison emphasized that “in a government” such as was constituted by our Constitution, “the great danger lies” in “the abuse of the community” even more “than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty [in the Bill of Rights], ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.”

[Stephen Lathrop]

Jack Jordan — This may not be a disagreement, but it does I think reflect a difference worth mentioning. When you write: "Stephen, our Constitution actually does (and was designed to) "constrain its own sovereign authors," albeit indirectly," I agree that is so.

What I think it leaves out—or maybe just puts differently than I would put it—is the dual character assigned to each citizen by the notion of joint popular sovereignty. Each citizen remains in his individual capacity a subject of government. But when acting jointly with other citizens in their joint capacity, not a subject, but instead a sovereign party with a share of government mastery. Elections, of course, are the most obvious examples of that latter empowerment, but by no means the only examples.

Thus the citizen acting singly and privately is always subject to law, properly responsive to legitimate government rules and policies, and emphatically is governed by the terms of the Constitution. But citizens do not always act singly and privately. They at times act jointly and publicly. In those latter cases joint popular sovereignty empowers them to act at pleasure, without constraint by government, or by the Constitution. The Constitution was never intended to constrain its own sovereign author, but only to constrain government.

If that were not so, then government would wield actual sovereignty. Members of government could settle every question under their purview at pleasure, without constraint. Personal rights would be defenseless against government caprice, and Hobbes' war of each against all would be the rule of the land. An actually deadly politics would become the principal weapon of that war, just as it had become during the era of monarchs claiming rule by divine right—which is to say during the interval which inspired Hobbes to write, Leviathan.

It is on the basis of that distinction that I insist that it is a mistake to refer to voting as a right. There is a circularity to that which strikes me amiss. I think that in American constitutionalism, voting is far more than a right, it is a sovereign power—meaning a power which no government, nor any oath-sworn member of government, can properly constrain. When governments administer elections in America, members of government act properly only if they act with an eye to maximize the power of voters to decide election outcomes.

As I think we all understand, that is not the America we live in now.

[Jack Jordan]

Stephen, you're not thinking about this the right way. To see how our Constitution constrains us collectively as the sovereign people, think about the sovereign people as a single sovereign. Think about the people as, e.g., the king or queen of England before The Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Before those events, the king or queen had pretty much unfettered powers as sovereign. But because of those events, the king could be king only by agreeing to be bound by the laws enacted by Parliament. We the People are in the same position now, except that instead of our sovereignty being subject to Congress, it is subject to the Constitution. Congress makes laws that constrain us as individuals. Our Constitution constrains "the People" as the sovereign.

To put it another way, even if the people elected a president and Congress of a particular party and even if they, together appointed many judges of the same party, they still could not do anything that violated our Constitution. That was exactly the point of Marbury v. Madison. Every branch of the government was overwhelmingly dominated by the Federalists, and they purported to make and implement a law that was unconstitutional. SCOTUS said it can't be done. The Federalists did the same thing with Section 2 of the Sedition Act of 1798 (purporting to make and enforce a law that made criticism of government criminal). SCOTUS never adjudicated the unconstitutionality of that law because it simply expired in March 1801. The People, via our representatives, had spoken. But it was no less clearly unconstitutional.

[Jack Jordan]

Stephen, it's not true that it's necessarily "a mistake to refer to voting as a right." It is a right. Voting necessarily is part of "the freedom of speech" and "the right of the people" to "assemble" secured by the First Amendment. The right to vote is one of the most important (and most obvious) rights addressed by the Ninth Amendment (unenumerated but clearly retained by the people). Voting also is a "privilege" secured by Art. IV and Amend. XIV. Voting also is, as you said, "a sovereign power." Voting is the quintessential speech of sovereigns in our republic. It is how we manifest our will, including by giving, withholding or withdrawing consent for any particular elected representative to represent us.

None of the foregoing means voting is "a power which no government, nor any oath-sworn member of government, can properly constrain." Clearly, our Constitution says quite a lot about how voting can be regulated (by state or federal governments) and how and by whom voting can have a legal effect.

But you're headed in the right direction. The fact that it is our sovereign power to give, withhold or withdraw consent for any particular elected representative to represent us is (or should be) the primary constitutional argument against gerrymandering for reasons that violate our Constitution, e.g., based on race or based on the content of prior speech, i.e., voting (partisan gerrymandering).

[Jack Jordan]

Stephen, I don't understand your desire to allude to "joint popular sovereignty." Why make up a new label when the label that worked for the Founders and Framers works just as well for us now? What's wrong with simply saying "the sovereign people" or "the sovereignty of the people"? Not only was such language employed by the Founders and Framers, but it also is employed in many SCOTUS opinions construing and implementing our Constitution. Making up a new label ("joint popular sovereignty"), as far as I can see, serves no beneficial purpose and it's even counterproductive. It leads people away from (instead of toward) important prior discussions of the same subject. But am I missing something?

[Jack Jordan]

The sovereign people exercise our 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 our 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 expressly 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.”

[David Nieporent]

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 always, you confuse philosophy with reality. Wilson is making an abstract point, not describing the way the the world actually works. There is no "the people" to "act directly." They are a theoretical construct.

Also, all of your questions were already answered.

[Jack Jordan]

David, it's not true that Wilson was addressing mere philosophy or theory. The sovereign people exercise our 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 our 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).

Multiple SCOTUS opinions emphasize and enforce the real world implications of Wilson's emphasis on the sovereignty of the people. See, e.g., my comment below quoting Thornton and Citizens United.

[Jack Jordan]

David, you might like to know that Wilson was officially a constitutional law professor, and he even directly taught other Founders and Framers, including President Washington (when he was president). See https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/james-wilson-1742-1798.

Wilson was largely responsible for starting our Constitution with its three most important words, "We the People." As a SCOTUS justice, Wilson subsequently explained the point of doing so. Justice Wilson in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) emphasized that “the term SOVEREIGN” was not even used anywhere in our “Constitution.” It still has not been included in our Constitution.

Next, Justice Wilson showed how to prove the sovereignty of the people. The Preamble is the “one place where [the word sovereign] could have been used with propriety.” Only those “who ordained and established” our “Constitution” could “have announced themselves ‘SOVEREIGN’ people of the United States." Next, Wilson showed how to prove the sovereignty of the people with more of the text and structure of our Constitution.

In our Constitution " 'The PEOPLE of the United States’ are the first personages introduced” (by the Preamble). The structure of Articles I, II and III further emphasize the sovereignty and supremacy of the people. Our Constitution introduced, first, the People, second, our directly-elected representatives (Congress), third, our indirectly-elected representative (the president), and, last, our unelected representatives (judges). The first sentences of Articles I, II and III expressly emphasize the sovereignty of the people by stating that the people "vested" particular limited powers in each branch of federal government.

In 1999, SCOTUS re-emphasized the principles articulated by Justice Wilson in Chisholm. In Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999), the majority and dissenting opinions discussed Wilson and two other Framers involved in Chisholm.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — No one engaged in a project to enable a few to reign over many has ever accomplished that aim without reliance on theoretical constructs. Perhaps more tellingly, that objective is typically accomplished by persuading the many of the utility to believe in benign myths. Or sometimes in malignant ones.

The notion of personal fealty owed from birth to a lord is a myth.

The notion of a reign justly founded on military conquest is a myth.

A notion to justify group reign justified by shared religious belief is a myth.

The notion of an aristocracy justly perched atop an enslaved underclass is a myth.

The notion of reign by divine right is a myth.

The notion of constitutional monarchy is a myth.

The notion of personal leadership informed by supernatural inspiration is a myth.

The notion of kinship forged by ties of blood and land is a myth.

The notion of preexisting rights is a myth.

"Myth," in this usage does not connote falsehood. It connotes story, story persuasively useful to encourage agreement. So of course, the notion of joint popular sovereignty is likewise a myth. That does nothing to make it less credible, or less useful, as a foundation for government than any of the others mentioned above, or doubtless some not mentioned.

Experience seems to have shown the contrary. The notion of joint popular sovereignty has proved a more useful principle around which to organize government than the others. There are at least plausible explanations to account for that distinction.

Perhaps in time we can hope for its replacement by something yet better. Until then, critique of joint popular sovereignty on grounds that is not one of the less-successful systems which preceded it—or which never coalesced to command much following—seems unwise.

[Jack Jordan]

Stephen, the people's sovereignty is not a myth in America. I write to show how SCOTUS, James Wilson and James Madison (and John Locke and Montesquieu) showed us how to prove the people's sovereignty de jure and de facto. The sovereignty of the people in the U.S. is a fact that was established by the supreme law of the land (our Constitution).

[Jack Jordan]

Stephen, my comment re: Wilson and Chisholm shows how they and our Constitution and even SCOTUS precedent very strongly support your position. Actually, multiple comments by me in this thread support your position.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Jack Jordan — I get it, of course. And thank you for your well-reasoned, well-supported contributions.

I confess that after long labor in this less-than-hospitable precinct, your contributions took me by happy surprise. I suspect you may have considerable insight from which I might profit, and possibly that I have a bit or two to share to your benefit. I hope you can find time to keep sharing your views.

[Jack Jordan]

Stephen, I publish on Substack to address these issues more fully. A considerable part of my writing addresses the sovereignty of the people. Sometimes, I identify sovereignty in the caption, but sometimes I do not (e.g., in my criticisms of SCOTUS's decisions in Dobbs or re: presidential immunity or re: partisan gerrymandering). I started thinking about our sovereignty to better understand the rights and freedoms secured by the First Amendment (which I mentioned in multiple comments in this thread). James Madison (and SCOTUS in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964 quoting Madison) showed me how to see these issues in their true light. See, e.g., "American Sovereignty: Madison's Many Excellent Elaborations" https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/american-sovereignty-madisons-many?r=30ufvh. See also "A Tale of Two Sovereignties (or Two Tales of Sovereignty)" https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/a-tale-of-two-sovereignties-or-two?r=30ufvh

I was surprised to find SCOTUS decisions (e.g., Term Limits and Citizens United, which I quoted in my comments in this thread) emphasizing that First Amendment rights (esp. right to assemble and petition) and freedoms (freedom of thought, expression, communication, association) flow from our sovereignty.

If you ever see anything related, please feel free to share.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Jack Jordan, what you noticed in Citizens United took me by surprise when you mentioned it. I had overlooked that part. Thank you for pointing it out.

If sovereignty interests you, I suspect you have already found historian Edmund Morgan's, Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America.

If you have not read that, I recommend it.

[Jack Jordan]

Thank you, Stephen. Btw, one reason I shy away from the expression "popular sovereignty" is that Senator Douglas campaigned under that concept as a euphemism for slavery (like "state's rights"). https://www.history.com/articles/stephen-a-douglas

[Joe_dallas]

SL - Why should anyone answer your questions? They all are based on delusional fiction.

[Kazinski]

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?

[Martinned]

What does the Republican Form of Government clause have to do with federal elections?

[Kazinski]

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.

[Jack Jordan]

Kazinski, please see my reply to Martinned.

[Jack Jordan]

Martinned, federalism is a crucial aspect of a republican form of government. James Madison in The Federalist No. 51 emphasized that our nation was constituted as a “compound republic” with the people as sovereign. Madison clarified how and for what purpose our public servants represent us and how we govern them as much as they govern us:

"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 (a.k.a., federalism], and then the portion allotted to each [is] subdivided among distinct and separate departments [legislative, executive and judicial (a.k.a. separation of powers). By means of federalism and separation of powers] a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other [federalism], at the same time that each will be controlled by itself [separation of powers]."

One of the primary principles secured by Amendment X is federalism: 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.”

Powers reserved to the states include re: voting (except to the extent that we delegated power to Congress (not the president) to regulate voting and except to the extent to which the Constitution prohibited unconstitutional discrimination re: the right to vote in Amendments XIV, XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI).

[Martinned]

federalism is a crucial aspect of a republican form of government

Even if that was true, it would be an aspect of a republican form of government *of the United States*, not of the individual states, none of which have their own federal system, as far as I know. And so the republican form of government clause, which only protects the republican form of government of the states, does not speak to federalism. Lots of other bits of the constitution do.

[Jack Jordan]

Martinned, your assertion that "the republican form of government clause [ ] only protects the republican form of government of the states" is a tautology. It begs the question. How does the U.S. government guarantee a republican form of government? The text and structure of our Constitution tell us. Our Constitution wasn't designed to function as a collection of clauses. It was designed to function like a sophisticated timepiece.

Per Article VI, every public servant (state and federal) is "bound" to "support" our "Constitution." So every branch of the U.S. government has the duty to give effect to the duty of the U.S. to "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

Per Article VI, every public servant (state and federal) is "bound" to "support" our "Constitution." So all public officials (state and federal) must support the apportionment of powers in our Constitution (summarized in Amendment X), including the sovereignty of the people, federalism and separation of powers. Every state is an essential part of our republican system, and each branch of the federal government has the power (within its delegated powers) to ensure that every state public servant actually does exercise their powers to support our Constitution.

Most fundamentally in our republican form of government, our public servants act by the consent of the governed. The people are sovereign, so the people have the power to choose (at the very least) our representatives (legislators) who make laws pursuant to our Constitution to protect and serve us. That principle (that rule of law) governs states as much as the federal government. In states, the people also chose the chief executive, and in many states the people choose judges in elections.

In state elections, the people directly choose federal legislators and vote for president and vice president. So state elections are essential to federalism and to our republican form of government. So the people delegated to Congress some power to regulate such elections.

All the foregoing (and more) guarantees to each state--and all the states together--a republican form of government.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
You are so hung-up on the phrase "jointly sovereign people" (a phrase that no one else uses) that you lose sight of what Brett called the mechanisms of representative government. Monday you justified you mantra by claiming the the People have the right to direct action against government authorities. That view disappeared during the administration of George Washington, with one notable exception. Thomas Jefferson after returning from Paris during the French Revolution espoused that view.
In the 20th and 21st century only the right-wing "mountain men" take that extreme position. Clearly you are not a member of that crowd.
The US is not a "people's republic" nor is it the colonies of the 1760's. It is a representative democracy. Yet you called that idea "bullshit." Was that just because Brett said that "The people have CHOSEN to work through mechanisms, by creating a constitution in the first place."
Below, you ask
"What legal means?" Injections issued by the Federal Courts. "What if SCOTUS does not act?" The injunctions issued by lower courts will stand.
"Does the chaos allow a military takeover?" No. Soldiers are not compelled to obey unlawful orders.
You're being hysterical for no good reason.
The US survived Pearl Harbor and the Civil War. It will survive this Presidency and the next.

[Jack Jordan]

Don Nico, "the People" clearly do "have the right to direct action against government authorities." The First Amendment secures such direct action by expressly securing and encouraging exercises of multiple rights and freedoms (including voting or seeking impeachment and other speech to support or remove or criticize public servants).

Regarding the election of 1800, first John Adams (the outgoing president) and later Thomas Jefferson (the president-elect) rightly referred to the election as a "revolution." A primary principle underlying the First Amendment is that it secures the right to overthrow a government in the U.S. by exercising the rights and freedoms secured by the First Amendment. That also is a significant part of the meaning of Article IV securing the "Privileges and Immunities of Citizens" and "a Republican Form of Government."

[Don Nico]

Jack,
By "direct action" Mr Jefferson was referring to insurrection as in the French Revolution. What you describe are the normal actions foreseen in the Constitution handled through elected representative; in tha sense only voting and speech ar direct action.

[Jack Jordan]

Don Nico, Jefferson said and believed some crazy things, so (you're right) I'm not speaking to anything Jefferson said or implied about physical violence, nullification or secession.

[Jack Jordan]

Don Nico, I do, agree with Jefferson that people with power are worse than wolves because "man is the only animal which devours his own kind."

The people of the founding generations (including those who wrote or ratified our Constitution and Bill of Rights) did not trust people with power. They did not trust even each other. As Jefferson shows, many knew better than to trust even themselves. That is why, Jefferson emphasized, the First Amendment expressly secures "the freedom of speech" and "press." That freedom (flowing from the sovereignty of the people) necessarily includes the power to vote and to criticize any public servant's public service.

"The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep [public servants] to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro' the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people."

The most important principle in our Constitution and in state constitutions is that "[t]he basis of our governments" is "the opinion" (consent (i.e., speech, including votes)) "of the people," so "the very first object" all public servants "should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

The truth about people in power is that "under pretence of governing" many public officials "have divided" people "into two classes, wolves and sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture[, for example,] of Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to [some so-called] governments [ ], and to the general prey of the rich on the poor."

[Dr. Ed 2]

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."

[Kazinski]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Krayt]

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.

[David Nieporent]

No. We know for a fact that he has no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election.

[Frank Drackman]

Keep saying that to yourself Rumplestiltskin

[Mr. Bumble]

How about "evidence" of irregularities?
In any event Trump pulled an Obi-Wan coming back stronger after being cut down in 2020.

[Martinned]

He doesn't have that either, not even if you put it in scare quotes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Depends on what you accept as "evidence". That there were irregularities is beyond question.

[Martinned]

It is if you get all your news from Newsmaxxx.

[loki13]

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).

[Mr. Bumble]

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%.

[Magister]

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.

[loki13]

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.

[ThePublius]

loki, thank you for owning it. You're a gentleman.

[Krayt]

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.

[Magister]

Krayt, the evidence from exit polling is that more Perot voters would have voted for Clinton than for Bush, so the only effect was to reduce Clinton from a majority to a plurality in the popular vote, and with no effect on his robust 370 to 168 electoral college victory.

[ThePublius]

""*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.

[Krayt]

The "modern presidency" is usually defined as TR onward.

[David Nieporent]

*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).

What? No, that isn't right. Even setting aside that 2000, 2016, and 2024 cannot actually be described as "only two times." Unless "modern history" is defined very narrowly. Bill Clinton for example did so twice. Only twice in modern history has someone won without at least a plurality, which is 2000 and 2016. But Trump did manage a plurality in 2024.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Scrolling down further, I see this was corrected. But I can't let all my typing go to waste – waste not, want not — so I'm just adding this note to the bottom of my comment.

[Commenter_XY]

The pandemic had an impact on the 2020 election. That was irregular. And analogous to what happened a century before (another pandemic).

[David Nieporent]

Depends on what you accept as "evidence". That there were irregularities is beyond question.

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.

[jay.tee]

“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.”

You seem to forget that 51 former intelligence officials deliberately seeded disinformation in a compliant and uncritical media. Multiple polls show a not insignificant number of people would have voted differently had they known the truth. This isn’t a claim Trump really won the 2020 election; we have no way of knowing the actual impact. Rather, it debunks the claim of no “deliberate ‘irregularities’” that could have affected the election.

[loki13]

Oh lord. It's always something, isn't it.

The election was rigged. Because Trump couldn't force anyone to find more votes for him. Ahem.

Sorry, there was evidence that the election was rigged, because Trump won. Except there wasn't any evidence, and anyone who has actually looked into this (and there are court cases, and actual, you know ... examinations of this) knows this.

So there isn't evidence as in ... facts. Instead, there's ... irregularities. Which, as DMN points out, is a meaningless statement. Because there weren't any systemic irregularities in the 2020 election. There's no there, there.

Except except, now we have claims that it wasn't rigged, but Trump was still robbed. Because Tulsi Gabbard is making claims that are easily debunked if you actually look at the source material. Anyway, now the claim is that if you believe what Tulsi Gabbard is claiming (which again, isn't true and you can easily check the actual source documents), then there was information out there, information that swayed voters into voting differently, which we know because of "multiple polls" (which are not cited because ex-post polls can't reveal it, and OF COURSE there weren't contemporaneous polls of something that's not true, and any single critical thought for even a second can tell you that this is an incorrect claim) ... and then ...

It never ends, does it? I mean, could it actually be possible that Trump (who again, is a very polarizing and unpopular figure, and was presiding over the country ... remember this ... during COVID and a battered economy .... and had lost the popular vote against Hillary "I'm not Ms. Popularity" Clinton in the prior election) ... simply lost an election? Just maybe?

Ugh. We need a new phrase. The opposite of Occam's Razor:

MAGA's RAZOR: Whenever there is a simple explanation, MAGA will instead suggest a vast-reaching conspiracy of multiple players, unbelievable coincidences, things that could not happen temporally or physically, and then refer to something else.

[jay.tee]

Not sure how your reply is even remotely responsive to what I posted…and it has nothing to do with Tulsi Gabbard’s release of previously undisclosed documents.

We’ve known the “51 former intelligence officials” scheme was fraudulent for quite a while.

David’s assertion of “no irregularities” is clearly false. And I find your contention that my desire to publicize government corruption, media collusion, etc. means I’m “MAGA” is…cute! Just imagine if the shoe is on the other foot - and you can bet every Republican is taking notes - and your candidate is hit with this crap. You’re going to scream bloody murder or insurrection or whatever you left-wingers like to screech these days.

[David Nieporent]

You seem to forget that 51 former intelligence officials deliberately seeded disinformation in a compliant and uncritical media.

I don't "forget" that. It's neither true nor relevant.

Multiple polls show a not insignificant number of people would have voted differently had they known the truth.

No polls show that, because no poll can legitimately answer a counterfactual about how someone would have acted months or years earlier if they had different information. Also, since you apparently still don't know the truth, it's sort of ironic for you to talk about that.

Rather, it debunks the claim of no “deliberate ‘irregularities’” that could have affected the election.

Even if your facts were correct, "Supporters of one candidate made public statements misleading people about that candidate" (or the other candidate) is not an irregularity about the election. It's, like, the way all elections work.

[jay.tee]

“I don't "forget" that. It's neither true nor relevant.”

From your struthious reply (h/t Judge Higginbotham for expanding my vocab), it seems you’re either not in full command of the facts or in denial. Here’s a quick recap:

1) A Biden campaign surrogate, Antony Blinken, hatched a plan to falsely attribute Hunter Biden’s laptop to Russian interference to insulate Joe Biden from its unflattering content and boost his electoral chances. Blinken asked Micheal Morell to coordinate and enlist people in the scheme.

If it ended here, I agree we could chalk it up to usual, though untrue, campaign tactics. But of course, it didn’t end here.

2) Morell enlisted an active CIA employee on the Prepublication Classification Review Board to reach out to former IC officials to solicit signatures.

Now, we have crossover into current CIA employees assisting with a deliberately misleading press release designed to benefit Biden’s campaign.

3) Morell admitted, in an email to John Brennan, that he was “trying to give the campaign, particularly during the debate on Thursday, a talking point to push back on Trump on this issue.” Brennan agrees, calling it a “[g]ood initiative.” Morell later admits he did it “[b]ecause [he] wanted [Biden] to win the election.” After the debate, he emailed the signatories “[n]ow, it is our democracy and the Constitution that are on the ballot. We all, of course, took an oath to ‘preserve, protect, and defend’ the Constitution. I think all of you did that yesterday by signing this letter.” You know, save democracy by destroying it.

These guys never even attempted to establish a legitimate pretext for the letter. Again, with active CIA help.

4) The CIA Prepublication Classification Review Board accommodated Morell’s request to review and approve the letter on Oct 18. Something that usually takes weeks or months occurred in less than a day. Here again we have active crossover of the CIA into a political activity designed to influence an election.

5) The FBI authenticated the laptop in Nov 2019. Before the debate, Biden himself knew it was genuine as did most, if not all of the signatories.

6) After the release of the letter, the DNI and FBI refuted it.

7) The compliant and incurious media twisted “hallmarks of a Russian information operation” into labeling the laptop as Russian disinformation. Tellingly, not a single signatory corrected the media disinformation.

Hopefully, that refreshes your memory and explains why it’s far more than a dirty campaign trick especially with CIA involvement.

[David Nieporent]

Once again, who gives a fuck about any of this? Even if virtually everything you wrote wasn't wrong — and it is, as is typical for you — exactly 100% of everything you wrote is not an irregularity in the election. But—just for the sake of procrastination—taking these one by one.

1. Okay, so you're forced to admit that this first thing is actually just ordinary politics. And so you've tendentiously misdescribed it — Blinken did not hatch a plan to "falsely" do anything — and still have nothing.

2. I'm not going to even try to figure out what you're twisting here.

3. And this explains why it's not worth my time to figure out things you don't bother to identify: because when you do, we can see how you're just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. The first part of this claim is utterly meaningless. Of course they were trying to help Biden. So what? There's literally nothing wrong with that. And the second part of your claim is a lie that in no way follows from the first part. (Combined with a delusional claim about "destroying democracy," which just seems like a random macro that you accidentally cut-and-pasted into your comment.)

4. Did the letter contain classified information? No.

5. This manages to combine lies with irrelevancies. So what if the FBI had authenticated the laptop? Note that this is a MAGA talking point that is not correct and also misleading, because the issue wasn't a laptop that the FBI had in its possession, but some emails that the New York Post had that came from a drive image that purportedly came from a laptop. But even if the FBI had authenticated each one of those emails — it had not — what does that have to do with what private citizens who didn't work for the FBI said?

6. Not sure what the relevance of that would be, but it is false. At no point has the letter ever been refuted. Nobody has identified a single false statement in the letter at any point.

7. And? The media is often not good at reporting nuances. (For example, how many times have they reported that Trump imposed tariffs on foreign countries, when tariffs are actually imposed on Americans, not on foreign countries, which do not pay tariffs?) What does that have to do with this discussion?

[jay.tee]

“Once again, who gives a fuck about any of this?”

As I’ve posted before, a lot of people care deeply about the integrity of our elections, the IC, the press, etc. Some of us want the corruption to end, and not have the abuses of the last decade propagated to election after election.

“Even if virtually everything you wrote wasn't wrong — and it is, as is typical for you”

This is rich coming from you; as is typical of your posts, this one is heavy on vibes and lacking any factual backing. Just like virtually every other facet of Russiagate, you seem to have relapsed into fanboy-ish when presented with actual events, data, emails, videos, etc.

[David Nieporent]

As I’ve posted before, a lot of people care deeply about the integrity of our elections, the IC, the press, etc. Some of us want the corruption to end, and not have the abuses of the last decade propagated to election after election.

None of this has anything to do with the integrity of elections.

[jay.tee]

“None of this has anything to do with the integrity of elections.”

Now I finally understand why you’re not disturbed by the IC’s interference in elections nor by the media’s collusion with partisan aims.

[David Nieporent]

Now I finally understand why you’re not disturbed by the IC’s interference in elections nor by the media’s collusion with partisan aims.

I'm not disturbed by the IC's interference in elections because it didn't happen.

And, as for the rest of the FUD you're slinging: people telling lies about political candidates (positive or negative lies) is not desirable, but it has nothing at all to do with whether the election results are legitimate or not.

[jay.tee]

“because it didn't happen.”

We have your vibes vs sworn testimony, Boasberg’s court filing, FBI reports, Congressional reports, witnesses, and much more. So yeah, your vibes are credible (/s).

“And, as for the rest of the FUD you're slinging”

Aside I mention above, I’ve cited everything. Your vibes are just that - unsubstantiated rants of someone upset his team has been exposed as utterly corrupt.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Always good to cite the actual letter, isn't it?

"We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case." https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000

[JoeFromtheBronx]

In every election that has ever been held in the history of homo sapiens,

Ballot marking has long had problems. See, for example, the story of the "mark of Cain."

[jb]

Trump has such good evidence of fraud, but somehow completely forgot to present it in any of the court cases on matter.

[Krayt]

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 anywhere 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.

And also irrelevant. Again, he was the president and could completely bypass a 100% corrupt FBI and present his case directly to the people. This never happened beyond "FRAUD AT POLLS! talking head innuendo.

[SRG2]

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.

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

I like how you remain ignorant even here along woth the rest of the wapo idiots that followed volokh here.

None of you will even admit the judicial cases where judges ruled illegal election changes were made lol.

[jb]

Maybe people are ignorant because folks like you never bother to bring any citations or evidence for their claims.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You missed the classic JesseAZ goalpost-moving exercise: he doesn't speak of "election fraud", he speaks of "illegal election changes".

[Brett Bellmore]

You're right, there IS goalpost moving: We keep complaining about illegal changes to election administration, you keep protesting that there's no evidence of fraud. But fraud isn't the only way to rig an election.

For instance, if state law requires the polls to close at 7PM, and only people in line at that time get to vote, suppose in one area they allow people to keep joining the line and voting until 10PM? That's illegal, it can swing an election, even if not one of the added votes is "fraud".

[Sarcastr0]

If you want to bring in a new goalpost, don't do it in the middle of a discussion.

Your new goalpost is BrettLaw as applied to some state court opinions you don't like, but we can open that can of worms elsewhere without deflecting from the other stupid thesis people are pushing.

[Brett Bellmore]

The point is, it's NOT bringing in a goalpost, this is the sort of thing we were consistently complaining about, all those ad hoc 'emergency' changes to election procedures you were defending back in '20. Sure, our complaint about some of them was that they would enable fraud to go undetected, but the fundamental problem with them was that they were illegal changes to election procedures.

[Sarcastr0]

Holy shit you don't know what new goalposts means.

It doesn't mean 'you haven't mentioned this ever before' it means 'you're suddenly changing the subject *in this discussion thread* without resolving the previous one.'

Jumping theses every time you get challenged is not how you have a discussion.

cf Gish Gallop. That's bad not because the arguments are novel, but because they claim Internet victory by never finishing a discussion point.

[David Nieporent]

1) You have never shown that any changes were "illegal." Not surprisingly, because you're not a lawyer, and your entire methodology of legal analysis involves vibes.

2) Who is "we"?

3) The actual MAGA complaint — not your retroactive invented fairy tale — was that fraud had actually occurred. Not that "theoretically it could have occurred without having been detected." Not that "Trump could've won with different rules that made it harder for his opponents to vote." But that Trump actually did win.

[Brett Bellmore]

A good example would be Pennsylvania: The legislature adopted Act 77, introducing no excuse absentee voting. The act included an anti-severability clause stating that if any part of it were not upheld by the courts, the entire act was void, and election laws would revert to their prior state.

So, naturally, the state courts permitted parts of this law to be violated, and refused to invoke the anti-severability clause. Thus creating election administration rules that the legislature had expressly rejected.

[Martinned]

Trump did win. Putin told him, so it must be true.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, if you want to relitigate how the PA decision must be wrong because you've studied it our, drop a new thread for that new goalpost.

[David Nieporent]

A good example would be Pennsylvania: The legislature adopted Act 77, introducing no excuse absentee voting. The act included an anti-severability clause stating that if any part of it were not upheld by the courts, the entire act was void, and election laws would revert to their prior state.

So, naturally, the state courts permitted parts of this law to be violated, and refused to invoke the anti-severability clause. Thus creating election administration rules that the legislature had expressly rejected.

That would indeed be a good example of you substituting BrettLaw for actual law. First, you're mistaken about what happened; the court upheld an as applied challenge to one provision of the law; it did not rule that provision unconstitutional.

Second, the effects of a severability clause in Pennsylvania are determined by Pennsylvania law, not by Brett's feelings about how the clause should be applied.

[Brett Bellmore]

"First, you're mistaken about what happened; the court upheld an as applied challenge to one provision of the law; it did not rule that provision unconstitutional."

I am entirely aware of the procedural approach the Pennsylvania judiciary used to render the anti-severability clause futile. My complaint is that they DID render it futile, not the details of how they accomplished it.

[David Nieporent]

I am entirely aware of the procedural approach the Pennsylvania judiciary used to render the anti-severability clause futile. My complaint is that they DID render it futile, not the details of how they accomplished it.

The details are what matter in law.

[jb]

You're right, there IS goalpost moving: We keep complaining about illegal changes to election administration, you keep protesting that there's no evidence of fraud. But fraud isn't the only way to rig an election.

C'mon, this is tiresome. Here's what Dr. Ed 2 wrote above and that people were initially responding to:

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...

That is not Dr. Ed 2 complaining about illegal changes to election administration, that's him talking about fraud. Now you and JesseAZ may want to talk about changes in election administration, but that's absolutely not the original claim that was being rebutted.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm sorry, do you have me confused with Dr. Ed?

[jb]

No, but you apparently seem to have this conversation confused with one about a different topic. You can't argue that anyone else was "moving the goalposts" by talking about election fraud instead of illegal election administration, when the whole discussion up to that point was, in fact, about election fraud.

[SRG2]

We keep complaining about illegal changes to election administration

Nope. Trump and the cultists keep complaining about fraud, and only when that is challenged do some of you retreat to complaining about alleged illegal changes - i.e., moving the goalposts.

As someone brought up JesseAz - he is a classic instance of goalpost mover because if you ever mention all the post-election cases Trump lost, he'll deflect to pre-election cases Trump won.

But I deduce that Brett must not believe that there was material fraud in the 2020 election.

[Moderation4ever]

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.

[JesseAz (Prime Meanster of Sarcasia)]

Multiple courts ruled on illegal rule changes dumdum. Since then we have seen 3 different elections overturned due to the same criticized mail in ballots mechanisms from 2020; this includes many convictions of fraud dumdum.

It is amazing how in denial you idiots are.

[Moderation4ever]

Still waiting for evidence. Perhaps you should take a few minutes and read up on evidence and what is and what is not evidences. Or perhaps you are like President Trump and unable to read? Seem a little bit that way from your posts.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe he will just not let candidates appear on the ballot, like Colorado tried to do to him.

[Riva]

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?

[EllaWilson]

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

[ReaderY]

Here we have another example of Poe’s law at work. Is this intended seriously, or as satire? We can’t tell.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"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.

[shawn_dude]

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?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why wouldn't he attempt to throw out "illegal" election results? It almost goes without saying.

[Stephen Lathrop]

TwelveInchPianist — An executive order directed to election-related activity is itself an enforcement. It directs government officials to act according to the EO's terms. Such government actors could achieve power to alter election outcomes in ways courts will prove incapable to redress, except perhaps while such activities are ongoing.

That reality puts any question of judicial foot dragging into a fraught category with potentially epochal consequences.

[Gasman]

Interesting that the issue of 'states rights' will once again be invoked not just by southern democrats but the rest of the democrats too.

[ReaderY]

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.

[Jack Jordan]

ReaderY, point taken. But it's not good to encourage anyone to think (and it's not true that) any president "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." Article II expressly emphasizes that every president has an overarching constitutional duty: to "preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution" to "the best" of his "Ability," and that includes the duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." And at some point, Trump's madness might warrant the conclusion in Amendment XXV that "the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."

[ReaderY]

This President doesn’t give a shit what Article II says, and more importantly he’s learned his lesson from last term and carefully selected people who don’t give a shit either, and he’s confident won’t invoke Amendment XXV on him, for his cabinet. That train has long, long ago left the station.

[Jack Jordan]

ReaderY, all the more reason for the rest of us to care.

[ReaderY]

As to your concern, I think this situation has some analogoes to the one the Supreme Court faced in Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997), involving the doings of Thomas J. Maloney, a Chicago judge who took bribes to fix murder cases. Although public officials are presumed to act zealously to perform their duties in the public interest, and based on that presumption the court would ordinarily have denied a petition claiming a judge was biased based on conduct entirely outside his case, in Judge Maloney’s case the presumption had been thoroughly rebutted.

So here Presidents are entitled to a strong presumption of honest and zealous conduct in the public interest. But when the presumption is rebutted, and thoroughly, the standard to apply is different.

That does not, however, mean the presumption disappears for the next guy.

[Jack Jordan]

ReaderY, there's a world of difference between a presumption in litigation and a mere general presumption. In litigation, a presumption serves the particular purpose of re-emphasizing the opposing party's burden of proof. Presuming a public official acted properly emphasizes the government's burden to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a presumption (or any other litigation-related presumption) is not relevant and it isn't even legitimate regarding public officials generally.

Anybody with any common sense would presume that people with power will abuse it. That's actually the presumption underlying our Constitution (and every state constitution). See, e.g., James Madison in Federalist No. 51:

"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 [exercising their sovereignty 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 [via federalism and separation of powers 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."

[ReaderY]

I had interpreted your prior comment, perhaps incorrectly, as expressing a concern that if people flatly ignore Trump’s pronouncements, they will tend to ignore future presidents’ proclamations etc., which I agree wouldn’t be good for the country. My reply was that this President is different from others. He has dissipated the goodwill that normally applies. Any presumption he acts lawfully has been rebutted.

That’s all I’m saying.

[Jack Jordan]

ReaderY, I agree with you about Trump's conduct. But I disagree that any such presumption is appropriate regarding any public servant. Madison and many other people who wrote or ratified state or federal constitutions knew better than to presume anyone should be trusted not to abuse any power. That is the primary point of going to the trouble of writing a constitution with separation of powers (among branches) and federalism (dividing power between states and federal government) and declaring rights of the people.

I'm also not concerned about people (states) ignoring Trump or any other president. I think there's very little cause to fear that ignoring Trump will start a trend of people or states ignoring presidents, generally, In many ways, the president wields the power of the sword and even the power of the purse.

[not guilty]

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.

[Kazinski]

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.

[Michael P]

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.

[not guilty]

"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.]

[not guilty]

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.

[Kazinski]

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.

[not guilty]

"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

[Stephen Lathrop]

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?

[bernard11]

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?

[Kazinski]

Don't beclown yourself Bernard. The bodycam video from TN state police is admissible in court, and he clearly says he is driving the people across the country at the behest of his boss.

There are procedures and a chain of custody for bodycam video, plus the testimony of the officers that it is true and accurate representation, as the officers have stated in news reports.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Gang member"?

Is this because of the "M-S-1-3" Trump says is tattooed on his hand?

[Commenter_XY]

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. 😉

[Martinned]

Why do you hate non-white people so much? Did someone touch you where they shouldn't have when you were little?

[Mr. Bumble]

What makes Killmore (H/T/ FD) non-white. Why isn't he a white/hispanic like George Zimmerman?

[Martinned]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

You're the one who describes him as non-white.

[Martinned]

It's literally the only thing Commenter actually knows about him.

[CountmontyC]

Commenter doesn't mention his race at all.

[Frank Drackman]

Since you're so good at reading minds, you should already know.

[Joe_dallas]

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.

[Martinned]

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned 6 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!

Exactly correct - you interjected race is response to comments that had nothing to do with race.

[Martinned]

Sure, Commenter and you are salivating at the prospect of kicking lots of people out of the country and it's pure coincidence that they're all non-white.

[David Nieporent]

All stuff about immigration has to do with race.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"All stuff about immigration has to do with race."

As usual wrong again!

[not guilty]

Joe_dallas, how many Canadians is the Trump administration trying to deport?

[David Nieporent]

As usual wrong again!

Sure, Jan.

[EllaWilson]

obamma's mother was white. his father was arab. I'm more black than he is.

[Mr. Bumble]

Say it loud, I'm black I'm proud!

[David Nieporent]

his father was arab.

He was not.

[Frank Drackman]

Why do you want to cut off children's sexual organs?

[SRG2]

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

[not guilty]

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"?

[jay.tee]

He should 1) testify against Garcia, then 2) be deported.

[shawn_dude]

What would his incentive be to testify if he'll be deported regardless? Given his ability to re-enter on a whim (5 times so far), being deported sooner just means he can get back to doing whatever it was he was doing before this minor inconvenience.

[Bob from Ohio]

"What would his incentive be to testify if he'll be deported regardless? "

His residence in the "halfway house in which he currently resides following his early release from prison" probably.

[Joe_dallas]

NG 's question - "Yes or no? Do you endorse whorehouse "justice"?"

NG - do you endorse keeping a criminal and illegal alien in the US ?
If So , Why?

[bernard11]

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.

[jay.tee]

To clarify: deporting him was not illegal. But, deporting him to his home country did violate a court order.

[shawn_dude]

Then there's the matter of sending him to a US-funded, foreign prison, which as you note was in a country a court had ruled he could not be sent to, without due process. If the US is paying the Salvadorian dictator to imprison US residents without trial, that's problematic.

[David Nieporent]

"Since I could have driven on the righthand side of the road, driving on the lefthand side of the road was not illegal."

[jay.tee]

Huh? Are you contending Garcia didn’t have a valid deportation order?

[David Nieporent]

No more than I'm claiming the guy driving on the lefthand side of the road didn't have a valid driver's license.

[Riva]

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.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Don't forget the Epstein files!

[John F. Carr]

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.

[Martinned]

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.)

[Mr. Bumble]

All prosecution is selective.

[CountmontyC]

You wanted due process so you are getting due proccess. Be careful what you wish for.

[not guilty]

"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."

Actually, that is a textbook vindictive prosecution claim. The accused there does not need to show comparators who were not prosecuted to establish that claim.

[John F. Carr]

It's vindictive prosecution when there are two criminal proceedings and the second one could have been brought at the same time as the first. Viewing the facts favorably to the government, there were two mutually exclusive courses of action: deport Garcia now or try Garcia now. A judge said "deport Garcia now" was illegal so the government went to plan B.

[not guilty]

"It's vindictive prosecution when there are two criminal proceedings and the second one could have been brought at the same time as the first. Viewing the facts favorably to the government, there were two mutually exclusive courses of action: deport Garcia now or try Garcia now. A judge said 'deport Garcia now' was illegal so the government went to plan B."

That is one variety of vindictive prosecution, not an exclusive one. A prosecution which would not have been initiated but for governmental "vindictiveness" — a prosecution, that is, which has an "actual retaliatory motivation" — is constitutionally impermissible. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 27-28 (1974); United States v. Adams. 870 F.2d 1140, 1145 (6th Cir. 1989). See also, Bragan v. Poindexter, 249 F.3d 476, 481 (6th Cir. 2001). For the government to pursue a course of action whose objective is to penalize a person's reliance on his protected statutory or constitutional rights is "patently unconstitutional." United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 372 n.4 (1982); Bragan, at 481.

A prosecution undertaken in retaliation for the accused's having previously filed a civil suit can give rise to a vindictiveness claim. As the Sixth Circuit opined in United States v. Adams, supra:

Each situation of this sort will necessarily turn on its own facts, United States v.] Andrews, 633 F.2d [449,] 453 [(6th Cir. 1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 927 (1981),] but where there has been a prima facie showing of "a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness," it is incumbent upon the district court to "conduct an evidentiary hearing where the government's explanations can be formally presented and tested." Id. at 457. And a criminal defendant "may . . . be entitled to discovery on the issue of selective prosecution if he introduces `"some evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of the defense."'" United States v. Schmucker, 815 F.2d 413, 418 (6th Cir. 1987), quoting United States v. Mitchell, 778 F.2d 1271, 1277 (7th Cir. 1985), and United States v. Berrios, 501 F.2d 1207, 1211 (2d Cir. 1974).

870 F.2d at 1146 (conviction reversed and remanded for discovery as to whether prosecution was brought in unlawful retaliation for one defendant's having filed a sex discrimination lawsuit against EEOC).

[Sarcastr0]

This seems overly formalistic.
he motive you set out is still vindictive, no matter how you slice the timeline.

Not that I'm optimistic about such a claim here, but I don't think the government saying 'this is what we have to do to meet our commitment to deport this guy' is doing the legitimacy of their proceedings any favors.

[Kazinski]

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?

[Michael P]

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.

[not guilty]

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.

[Kazinski]

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.

[not guilty]

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.

[Kazinski]

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.

[not guilty]

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?

[Mr. Bumble]

It isn't "hidden". It's just a pop-up that you can close.

[Michael P]

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.

[not guilty]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course you neglected to answer Kaz's question and ignored the link.

[Michael P]

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.

[Kazinski]

Where did I claim it violated a federal statute? I asked three questions, none of them involved federal statutes. Now obviously the perp violated a federal statute, but the college had nothing to do with that.

Reed college likely only violates Oregon civil law. I mean you might be able to come up with theory that someone has a civil right to report crimes, and Reed college officials are conspiring to deprive employees of their civil right to report criminal activity, but that's a stretch.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"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?

[Nelson]

“ it was a Quaker throwing a rock at an ICE agent”

A Quaker? Seriously? They need to spend more time at a meeting. Quakers are pacifists and oppose violence.

https://quaker.org/peace/

Quakerism is the only religion I have ever looked into that takes their beliefs seriously. Most other Christian denominations are more of the “honored in the breach” kind, with unlimited, automatic, repeatable forgiveness for any and all sins. Just look at the pedophiles in the Catholic Church. Every one of them gets to go to heaven, as do the priests who took repeated confessions from the serial predators. But if you live a virtuous life, but haven’t been baptized, you go to hell. Moral leaders, my ass.

[Sarcastr0]

Nixon was a quaker.

[jb]

Was it a public university? If not, the first amendment doesn't constrain the university very much.

[Kazinski]

Oregon Employment law does: "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."

[CountmontyC]

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.

[ReaderY]

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.

[shawn_dude]

In addition to points and issues already brought up, there's the question of the "trans activist," whom I'll just refer to as the "victim" of the assault, and whether they were a student. If the victim is a student, that fully engages the campus police and they are obligated to respond.

As to the person who committed the assault, since they were a former student and, according to your scenario, campus security used a "database he had access to," that implicates a potential FERPA violation. If all he used was directory information, then no big deal. It depends on what he looked at and what he gave to the police. It's very plausible he didn't violate FERPA since university employees are well-trained on these things.

So, assuming he did his job and helped identify a criminal suspect for a crime committed on campus and he did so without violating FERPA, then no, he should not be disciplined. The campus community needs to have confidence in their security while on campus.

It should not matter what the religion of either person is, nor should it matter what their race, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity is. Crime is crime, right? We don't want to live in a country where some crimes are overlooked because the victims are disfavored, right?

[Kazinski]

Neither the perp or the victim were current students, the perp is a former student.

The "database" was not an official college data repository. Oregon Public Radio describes it so:
"Students and alumni have already started removing personal details from the private database, which acts much like a social network, they said. It’s password-protected and can help students find work opportunities and help alumni stay in touch."

https://www.opb.org/article/2025/08/01/reed-college-portland-oregon-fbi-arrest-private-information-alumni-website/

And I agree with your analysis, it shouldn't matter if the victim were a trans activist in my hypothetical, or an ICE officer in the actual case, people shouldn't have rocks thrown at them by Quakers or Muslims.

[Dr. Ed 2]

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.

[Dr. Ed 2]

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...

[Kazinski]

I actually favor gunpoint K-12 psych exams, and they are long overdue.

We are talking about teachers, right?

[not guilty]

"Gunpoint psych exams"?? Really?

The linked article makes no mention of guns or firearms, Dr. Ed 2. (Ctrl-F is your friend.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

School resource officers are armed.

[Frank Drackman]

In Georgia so are many of the teachers, some even legally.

[not guilty]

Has any school resource officer been involved in administering psych exams? If so, has (s)he pointed a gun at anyone?

[Dr. Ed 2]

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.

[David Nieporent]

If there's one person who demonstrates the need for psych exams, it's Dr. Ed.

[Frank Drackman]

I can think of one more

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dr. Ed is a K-12 student?!?

[David Nieporent]

It's more plausible than Dr Ed being an academic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

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.

[Martinned]

Is crime down or is reporting of crime with the police down?

[Mr. Bumble]

If crime is in fact down, wouldn't that lead to a decrease in the reporting of crime?

[Frank Drackman]

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

[Martinned]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

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/

[Martinned]

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?

[Frank Drackman]

in DC White Peoples are the "Ethnic Minorities"

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems that white people are the ethnic minority in DC.
(Missed Frank's comment)

[Frank Drackman]

You'll always be Buzz Aldrin to my Neil Armstrong

[Mr. Bumble]

More like Iron Man Mike Collins going all that way and stuck in orbit waiting to take Armstrong and Aldrin home.

[Kazinski]

You two are a little behind the times, DC has been so gentrified, that the Black population has dropped from 70% in 1980 to 40% in 2020, and White people are now roughly equal at 38%.

[Bob from Ohio]

"harrassing [sic] someone"

A traffic stop is not harassing someone.

The picture shows the cop was "Metropolitan Police", so not the "army" either.

[Joe_dallas]

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.

[Martinned]

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.

[Joe_dallas]

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.

[Joe_dallas]

Martinned

Quite telling that you changed the topic

[David Nieporent]

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.

I don't find it odd that you'd bullshit about something you know absolutely nothing about. (Mostly because every single word out of your mouth is bullshit about something you know absolutely nothing about.)

https://x.com/GregTSargent/status/1958219710497009949

New WaPo poll:

79% of DC residents oppose Trump's takeover of DC police and dispatching of National Guard. 80% of blacks and 67% of Hispanics oppose it, too.

[Joe_dallas]

DN - if the poll was valid, then there would have been quite a few african american DC residents participating in the protests. There were not.

You are simply parroting a bogus left wing poll. You are either so far leftist parroting a bogus poll or far too stupid to recognize that the poll is junk.

[David Nieporent]

There were not.

So (Tina Fey as) Sarah Palin could see Russia from her front porch, and you can see protests in Washington D.C. from your Dallas trailer park?

[Joe_dallas]

DN knows the WP poll is bogus - yet repeats it as gospel knowing it is junk

[Sarcastr0]

You came back 45 minutes later to accuse DMN of agreeing with you and lying about it?

Dude, you're countermanding a poll with some take on about how many blacks should be protesting, based on nothing more than your vibes.
That's dumb as hell.

[Joe_dallas]

Sardumbo - The poll is bogus. Everyone with any analytical ability knows it is bogus.
The phrasing of the questions makes it obvious the poll was designed to get the result it got. Its a very common trick with polling.

Either DN knows its bogus or is too stupid or too far left to recognize that it is a junk poll. In your case its the later two

[Sarcastr0]

Everyone with any analytical ability
obvious

You're sweating.

[David Nieporent]

Everyone with any analytical ability knows it is bogus.

Well, that leaves you out, then.

But I'm glad you took time away from teaching actual scientists about microbiology and actual economists about economics and actual climatologists about climate change and actual lawyers about law to tell actual pollsters how to design polls.

The best part of your entirely unearned sense of intelligence is that you can't even fake any of it well, so you just handwave about "analytical ability" or high school biology or the like while claiming that things you've never read are wrong. "The framing of the questions" without citing any such framing, for instance.

[Joe_dallas]

The poll is bogus -
DMN you are far too dishonest to admit it

[ThePublius]

Funny how you didn't ask that when people were saying, before Trump's MPD takeover, that D.C. crime was down 30%.

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[Bwaaah]

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.

[Bob from Ohio]

He thinks LEOs are worse than criminals.

He also fled DC and lives in Whitelandia.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean the problem is that LEOs will sometimes do illegal things, including acts that constitute crimes, and then get away with it due to the support of other LEOs.

[Bwaaah]

This is about crime, and Sarc's simplistic vilification of LEO's (which you affirmatively reinforce). That anti-cop, silent-about-crime voice has become characteristic of the Democratic party.

With respect to crime, bad cops are *a* problem, not *the* problem. Try to focus more on the problem, and miss an opportunity to glaze over the central concern.

"Yeah. Crime. Freakin' cops ruinin' it for everybody. It's a freakin' police state."

Maybe you can let that shit ride in the back seat for a bit?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Having unprofessional and anti-social cops get away with crimes tends to make it harder for people to work with them to prevent and solve crime.

The guy who gave a kid back to Dahmer due to racism and homophobia…became the police union president and was honored by the department on the way out.

Or take for example the Cleveland Police in years prior to the consent decree that supposedly hamstrung them. They let Anthony Sowell murder 11 people and bury them in his backyard and Ariel Castro kidnap people for years! People don’t trust cops for good reason, even when given free rein they don’t prevent and don’t solve crime.

I’d say shitty police behavior is actually the problem to solve if you want to actually do something about lowering crime long term.

[Bob from Ohio]

"They let Anthony Sowell murder 11 people and bury them in his backyard and Ariel Castro kidnap people for years! "

"let"?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Are you fucking kidding me right now? This was you Monday:

“The California government just killed thre [sic] in Florida”

You blamed an entire state government for an accident because they issued a CDL!

The Cleveland police did not investigate 14 disappearances (11 of which resulted in murders) in their own city, despite some potential clues as to what was going on, so that these guys could basically act with impunity for years! Thats a much closer connection between to government failure than your drivers license example. So under your own standards they definitely let those crimes happen.

So which is it? Are you going to retract your statement form
Monday? Or agree with me now that under your own standard Cleveland PD let them commit crimes?

Or are you just gonna puss out as usual and not respond?

[Bwaaah]

Yeah. He seriously emphasizes a theory that crimes, ones committed by people unrelated to police, reflect the malfeasance of police who, in LTG's eyes, are responsible for *preventing* the malicious acts of others.

Police LET those crimes happen. (So did LTG and the rest of us.) Brilliant.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If police aren’t responsible for preventing crime, what are they responsible for?

[Bwaaah]

LTG: "If police aren’t responsible for preventing crime, what are they responsible for?"

They are responsible for the duties of their jobs. They try to prevent crime. They are not responsible for preventing crime.

"If police did their jobs, we wouldn't have crime."

Seriously, like dentists are responsible for cavities? The TV manufacturer for the death of my 15 year old TV? The snow plow guy for the blocked roads?

Grow up.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“They are responsible for the duties of their jobs. They try to prevent crime. They are not responsible for preventing crime.”

Under this line of reasoning police can never fail or be responsible for anything. So again, what’s the point of having them if they’re not responsible for any bad results?

“"If police did their jobs, we wouldn't have crime."

I didn’t say this. So you’re attacking a strawman.

“Seriously, like dentists are responsible for cavities?”

No, but they ARE responsible for instilling good dental hygiene in their patients and monitoring tooth decay to prevent cavities early on! I recently avoided a cavity because they noticed a divot and they placed a sealant before it opened up.

“The TV manufacturer for the death of my 15 year old TV?”

Was the TV designed to last longer 15 years under normal use? If so then the manufacturer may have been responsible for not building a more durable product!

“The snow plow guy for the blocked roads?”

If don’t plow them? Yes obviously!

“Grow up”

Pretending that people tasked with certain jobs don’t have responsibilities or causal relationship to related bad things happening isn’t exactly a mature worldview.

My clients have a responsibility to show up to court and I can’t control everything they do. But if I don’t call them to remind them of their obligations and make sure they’re prepared I’m also partly responsible for the negative consequences they face!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yeah, but that was Monday's considered, principled argument...

[Nelson]

“ act as if they are the criminals.”

If they commit crimes, they are criminals. If they help other cops cover up crimes, they are criminals. If they see or have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed (or covered up) and don’t report it, they are criminals.

The number of cops who aren’t implicated in any of the above crimes is definitely below 50%.

The police are just the biggest gang with the biggest guns and the most friends in high places. Between a cop not being a participant in crime and a coin flip, you have better odds calling heads.

[Dr. Ed 2]

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.

[John F. Carr]

The police union where I used to live won a lawsuit against ticket quotas. The chief left a few months later.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The UMass Amherst police union sued over illegal audio recording in the police station, including the officer's restroom.

[Sarcastr0]

You understand the Trump admin has long ago given up any sense that who they investigate denotes anything more than MAGA spite?

You endorsed revenge prosecutions. So you are not going to validate jack shit with what a US attorney is investigating.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, I believe it's called "lawfare".

(Wasn't that Bwaah's virtual catch phrase for a while? Or was it someone else's?)

[Nelson]

All of them. Until Trump 2: Electric Boogaloo, when suddenly their detectors went on the fritz.

[Martinned]

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.

[Bob from Ohio]

"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.

[jay.tee]

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.

[Dr. Ed 2]

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.

[Martinned]

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?

[jb]

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.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is also a time delay, i.e. perps in jail for something else aren't on the streets to murder someone.

[jb]

Yes, that's not unique to murder, though. And AFAIK, arrests still haven't increased over baseline.

One possible explanation for what we're seeing is that law enforcement has predominantly shifted to tourist-y areas where crime was already low, so we're just not seeing as much reporting. Another possibility is that there's enough extra law enforcement (or better-targeted?) that we're seeing a durable decrease in crime rates. Will be interesting to see this evolve with a little more time and for people to be able to dig into the data some more to understand what's going on.

[shawn_dude]

I'd also be curious as to whether legal activity is also being curtailed by the threat of roving groups of armed military looking for troublemakers.

[Life of Brian]

(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.)

You can drill down to DC homicides here (not wed to this particular source -- just the first non-annualized breakout I could find). Even on a monthly basis they're fairly noisy.

[jb]

Yeah, homicides are such a small number in total that I'm sure the data is very noisy. I think the page you link to show a pretty big variation month-to-month across most of the crimes that they're tracking, so it seems like it's going to take a while to get a reasonable trendline for what's happening in DC one way or the other.

[SRG2]

Crime is low in Saudi Arabia too. There is always a trade-off between crime and freedom.

[bernard11]

Do you have a link to the report?

Why is homicide mysteriously missing from your list?

My understanding is that homicide statistics are the most accurate crime statistics, simply because virtually all get reported. In fact, some use homicides as a proxy for the overall crime rate.

[Michael P]

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

[jb]

Some of the article is paywalled. The part I can read doesn't seem to rebut Bash's report saying there was no politically-motivated unmasking; it just says some people hope that now they'll be able to find some dirt.

Although a Trump-appointed Special Counsel, John Bash, issued a report finding no evidence of misuse of unmasking procedures for political purposes, Trump-Russia investigators in both the Senate and the House have long believed there was more to the story, and that Bash’s report ignored significant evidence of corruption. “Not gonna lie. The Bash thing was a gut punch for us,” is how one former Republican Senate aide put it. “It sucked.”

Now the unmasking story is back in the investigative picture. According to a Justice Department spokesperson, the FISA court in June unsealed more Carter Page materials for oversight purposes, giving Russiagate investigators new documents to examine. Along with last week’s FBI whistleblower release, hopes have been reignited that the issue of using FISA to spy on Americans for political reasons will finally be re-examined, after a nearly decade-long delay.

[Nelson]

“ Will people here apologize for their off-base criticisms of Nunes?”

Devin Nunes was a hack, a sellout, and a creep. Also, probably, a criminal but he has friends in high places.

The guy is a scumbag. Hunter Biden level sleaze.

[not guilty]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sort of like having Dr. Ed in The White House?

[Brett Bellmore]

Evidence of the Smithsonian being out of control

[Sarcastr0]

Yup, this internal document shows slavery wasn’t bad so it’s woke to talk about that.

[Frank Drackman]

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.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The 13th Amendment didn't apply to the slaves owned by the Creek Indians.

[Martinned]

Where does it say that?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Article 2 of this 1866 treaty:
https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-creeks-1866-0931

[Magister]

That treaty ended slavery in the Creek Nation, and if there was a treaty between the United States and the Creek Nation then of course United States constitutional amendments would not apply to the Creek Nation. The treaty was ratified within 8 months after the 13th amendment, so less of a delay than compliance with the Emancipation Proclamation.

[Martinned]

You can't create exceptions to the Constitution by treaty.

(Those treaties with indigenous tribes are all sorts of fascinating to me, by the way. For the life of me I can't understand how they can continue to have legal effect, other than because Congress says so.)

[Nelson]

Indian sovereignty is still a unique thing.

They were forced out of their land (Trump’s hero Andrew Jackson was virtually a one-man genocide squad. The Trail of Tears was an abomination) onto reservations and given sovereign nation status (so they weren’t governed by the Constitution and could make binding treaties with the US.

As the US started stealing that land, they sorta, kinda became part of the US, but as a “sorry for killing and raping and stealing your land” gift they retained quasi-sovereign status.

It’s the fig leaf that the America Does No Wrong crowd use to ignore our past atrocities as a nation. They do the same thing with slavery and the Confederacy, but that has been roundly rejected by all but the most abhorrent Lost Cause adherents like Brett Bellmore.

[Jack Jordan]

Frank, your facts clearly don't support your inference. Nor did Congress nor does our Constitution. President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was issued to support Congress's resolution re: the war (https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/congress-declares-civil-wars-aims-july-25-1861-005095). More fundamentally, President Lincoln was doing what Article II requires every president to do: "preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution" to "the best of" the president's "Ability." President Lincoln was opposing the greatest internal threat to our Constitution (see Article III: "Treason against the United States," i.e., "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."). It's irrational to infer from President Lincoln's efforts to counter such a great threat that anything he didn't counter at that time "wasn't bad."

[Frank Drackman]

Tell yourself why a “War to make men Free” didn’t make men Free in the nation persecuting the Wah?
Of course I was borned at Crawford Wong Hospital (Noted Chinese Anesthesiologist) so I’m a bit prejudiced about General Sherman’s march.

Frank

[Jack Jordan]

Frank, your question answers itself. By definition, any war to make men free cannot make all men free. To win any war, many people must sacrifice and suffer much. In pretty much every war (and many battles), the question always will be "how far can we go without exposing ourselves to defeat." To achieve success in any battle or war, compromises must be made by many. The people who remained slaves were far from the only ones who suffered and sacrificed in connection with the multiple wars that eventually culminated in the liberty of the enslaved. The compromises made in 1776 and 1787 and for some time afterward were necessary to accomplish everything in the Preamble to our Constitution.

John Adams once told his son John Quincy Adams that studying the Peloponnesian War was essential to preparing for American politics. Athens was a democracy. Sparta was an authoritarian state. They co-existed and sometimes supported each other until one eventually destroyed the other. Many of the people who founded our nation and wrote and ratified our Constitution learned the lessons of ancient Greece. They understood that, first, independence from Britain and, second, an indissoluble union were essential to achieving a more perfect union. America wouldn't be what it is--and the world likely wouldn't be what it is--if Americans hadn't compromised enough to work together toward a more perfect union.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"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?

[Sarcastr0]

Read the Trump quote Brett is defending.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[bernard11]

Could we have the context of that particular display? Rather odd that none is given.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd kind of assumed we were all familiar with it, since it's been gone over before here.

Here's your context.

[shawn_dude]

That's not the full context. Where is this placed in the museum? What other exhibits are adjacent to it? How does it fit into the narrative in that area of the museum?

Nothing on that display, as linked, is particularly shocking or objectionable.

[Brett Bellmore]

Who the hell needs this "full context"? Unless the context were an exhibit of batshit crazy raving, there's no context that makes the Smithsonian originating that document look good.

"Nothing on that display, as linked, is particularly shocking or objectionable."

And your photo would be on the wall in such an exhibit.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Read the Trump quote Brett is defending."

You first.

[Krayt]

Why does opposition always have to come down to the asinine "slavery was more or less the same as indentured servitude"? You don't need that inanity to minimize the transparent attempts to obviate the Constitution.

Why can't we have a rational discusssion about how slavery was in fact a prime evil, but that America can be proud for ending it by declaring it wrong on a philosophical level?

We need to fight against the attempts to recast America as guilty of original sin, and therefore all downstream over the centuries is rotten and in need of overturning. That America is great because it made this change, it is not a forever poisoned, rotten thing because Eve ate the Apple, so you, 1000th gen great grandchildren, must go to Hell, too.

One of the many famed rotten things modern politics adoped from rotten religion, because it works.

All the constitutional guarantees are deliberate impediments to easy power agglomeration by the power hungry.

Buddy, dear reader, if the Constitution is an impediment to you, you are the historical, mass murdering, dictatorial evil we fight against. The same who fought against slavery.

And we'll fight you, too.

And "indentured servant" yappers, shut the hell up. We the lovers of freedom will fight you, too!

[Jack Jordan]

Krayt, I think we have very good reason not to limit "rational discussion about how slavery" to acknowledging that it "was in fact a prime evil, but that America can be proud for ending it by declaring it wrong on a philosophical level."

Hegseth (who swore to "support and defend" our "Constitution" against absolutely "all enemies, foreign and domestic") is, in fact, egregiously abusing his position to support domestic enemies of our Constitution. He recently blatantly misrepresented that Confederate monuments or memorials "recognize the service of Americans of all chapters."

Union soldiers swore oaths similar to Hegseth's in 5 U.S.C. 3331 (quoted above), and many sacrificed their lives (and many more sacrificed their health and happiness) to fulfill their oaths.

Confederate soldiers swore an oath to swore to “bear true faith and yield obedience to the Confederate States of America and observe the orders of the President of the Confederate States and of the officers appointed” by him. See, e.g., https://teva.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15138coll9/id/21/. So Confederates necessarily swore to fight to support and defend the Constitution of the Confederate States.

Before southerners committed treason by physically attacking the U.S. and U.S. installations, they committed treason by writing the Constitution of the Confederate States dated March 11, 1861 (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp) and swearing oaths to support the Confederacy and its president. So we can see for ourselves the causes for which Confederates fought. The word “slave” or a variation of it is mentioned 10 times in the Confederate Constitution.

Article I (governing the legislature) emphasizes the following:

“No [ ] law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

Article IV (governing all states and territories under Confederate control) emphasized the following:

“The Confederate States may acquire new territory” and “[i]n all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and [ALL] the inhabitants of [ALL] Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”

“The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.”

“No slave [ ] held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.”

Everyone who fought for the Confederacy de facto and de jure fought to support and defend slavery. They necessarily fought to support and defend the constitution and laws that purported to empower some people to enslave other people.

Some say many Confederate soldiers fought "for states' rights and for free trade.” I’ll give them that much. They certainly did fight for certain states’ so-called right to treat people as property and they fought for free trade in people as property. Confederates did not fight for our rights. They fought for the "right" of people in power to abuse other people. In striking contrast, those who fulfilled their oaths to support and defend our Constitution fought for all "the People" that our Constitution now expressly protects.

[Frank Drackman]

Blather on much?

[Mr. Bumble]

He's worse than Lathrop.

[bernard11]

Because he's right?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Give Bumble a break. Open threads consume his life. His neglected grandchildren wonder why he's in the computer room Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays calling Sarcastr0 a douche-bag a dozen times a day (also posts longer than 2 paragraphs seem to tax his brain).

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. You add so much to these threads.
By the way I refer to SarcastrO as a douche, not a douche bag because he is one.

Douche
someone who is more than a jerk, tends to think he's top notch, does stuff that is pretty brainless, thinks he is so much better than he really is, and is normally pretty good at ticking people off in an immature way.
"Wow he's such a Douche"
"That was a Douche move"
by solvingworldproblemsoneatatime October 21, 2013
As for bernard11, not because he is right but solely on the lengths of his comments which tend to outdo even Lathrop.

[Jack Jordan]

Frank, anytime you would like to suggest how I could make my point more concisely or more compellingly, please do so. I'm always interested in learning how to think or write better.

[bernard11]

It wasn't philosophy that ended slavery in the US.

It's not like all Americans sat down and talked about it, and concluded that slavery was wrong and should be immediately abolished.

I do not believe in original sin, so I don't think America is a "poisoned, rotten thing," because of slavery, but I do think taking pride in ending slavery is a bit of a stretch, sort of like taking pride in no longer beating your wife.

Besides, the post-Civil War treatment of blacks is hardly a source of pride, so we didn't really finish the job in 1865.

[not guilty]

Brett, how does that link relate even remotely to the Smithsonian Institution?

[Mr. Bumble]

Believe it was part of a Smithsonian display.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's too oppressed as a white man to offer context.

[Frank Drackman]

How do you know Brett's a "White Man"?? you Psychic??

[Mr. Bumble]

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.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe he's got an Indian in the Cupboard, like Senator Poke-a-hontas?

[Swede425]

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.

[SRG2]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

Brett's an Afrikaaner?

[SRG2]

Are you intentionally missing the point, or just being stupid?

[ThePublius]

Fuck you, you fucking fuck.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow so original

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

THIS is why we love the VC's moderation policy.

[ThePublius]

I usually don't resort to that, but someone saying such an awful, racist thing so close to home put me over the edge. The civility ended with SRG2's comment.

[Sarcastr0]

Ignoring how TP got the poster wrong, it is notable that racism against Afrikaaners is where ThePublius draws the line.

[SRG2]

What was racist about what I said? It's 100% accurate.

Of course, racist right-wingers just lurv accusing others of racism to conceal their own racism.

[Sarcastr0]

eh, I'd say Afrikaaners spend their weekends off fucking black hoes is a negative stereotype.

[SRG2]

https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20120814-south-africas-kitsch-casino

With more relaxed laws than neighbouring South Africa under the Calvinistic National Party, homelands were popular destinations for gambling, strip shows and prostitution.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

Given how our lineage grows exponentially the further back we go it is hard to rule out any possibility.

[hobie]

“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?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"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?

[not guilty]

No, I am not claiming that at all. Why would you ask?

[hobie]

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!

[TwelveInchPianist]

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.

[not guilty]

TwelveInch, that is by no means a claim "that there's nothing else in American history worth discussing." Give me a break.

Separately and independent of any other topic, trivializing the horror of human chattel slavery is reprehensible.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...trivializing the horror of human chattel slavery is reprehensible."

OK. Did someone do that?

[Sarcastr0]

Speaking of strawmen. Not even Trump claimed that.

[Bwaaah]

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.

[not guilty]

I was born in the South in 1955. The struggle for racial equality has been the preeminent domestic political/social issue of my lifetime.

Part of that issue has involved recognizing America's sordid history of treatment of black and other nonwhite people. I have never paid much attention to what the Smithsonian Institution has said on race. That horrific history speaks for itself, and Trump trivializing "how bad slavery was" shows him to be a moral idiot.

That speaks badly of his MAGAt followers as well.

[GreenLanternCorps]

The problem with the Smithsonian is not that it discusses slavery, or even race relations, it is dragging the topic into EVERYTHING...

Including topics where it is unrelated, or a secondary consideration.

I like my history straight, up warts and all. I do not like history that only covers the warts and ignores the rest.

[shawn_dude]

The Smithsonian has numerous museums, each with their own focus. So while the Air and Space museum isn't going to go deep into African American history, it might surface a blurb on a few African Americans who were part of that effort--not a wart at all, but clearly "woke" for those looking for evidence that they "drag[] the topic into EVERYTHING."

[Sarcastr0]

Spoken like someone who has never been in a Smithsonian.

Philistines against culture!

[Dr. Ed 2]

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?!?

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Frank Drackman]

What effect will gamma rays have on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds??

[Brett Bellmore]

I found that play about as disappointing as that movie Pi, which turned out to have diddly squat to do with math.

[Frank Drackman]

it's "Cs" BTW

[Mr. Bumble]

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 "

[Martinned]

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

[Martinned]

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

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Instant classic.

[Martinned]

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.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Trump can do whatever he likes."

But your cite just says that the courts can't do whatever they like.

[Joe_dallas]

Looks like the lower court got it correct. Simply denied the motion to dismiss and denied the PI.

[Martinned]

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?

[Mr. Bumble]

A good question and one nobody (including the press) seems to care about.

[hobie]

The Chicoms now own a significant amount of $TRUMP coin. So expect Trump to act accordingly

[Malika the Maiz]

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

[ThePublius]

See Dr. Ed2's post on this above, two hours before you posted.

[Sarcastr0]

Maybe not everyone reads that guy's posts.

[Frank Drackman]

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??'

Frank

[LawTalkingGuy]

“I am Special Attorney”

You sure are buddy!

https://x.com/annabower/status/1957943984606834749?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA

[LawTalkingGuy]

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.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

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

[Mr. Bumble]

"Attorney Who Likes To Feel Special"
Isn't that all of them?

[Mr. Bumble]

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

[Dr. Ed 2]

I want to know what provoked that.

[Bob from Ohio]

"what provoked that"

I'd say about 8 drinks.

[LawTalkingGuy]

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.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'm open to workshopping.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I would probably return it with proofing marks with a request to resend once revisions are made.

[David Nieporent]

Martin: "You should resign as an act of good faith."

I believe the correct response is, "You first."

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah but wouldn’t you sleep more soundly knowing that you were be investigated by Eagle Ed? It’s got to be like how Fat Tony feels knowing his investigator is Chief Wiggum.

[Mr. Bumble]

"What's on your mind?"
Doesn't seem like too much is today.

[Jazzizhep]

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

[hobie]

Silence! We no longer speak of the sexual exploitation of children.

[Jazzizhep]

Telling a girl to get out of the boys locker room is now sexual exploitation?

Got it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

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.

[shawn_dude]

For people who are wondering what's really going on here:

A trans male student was being harassed in the locker room for being trans and recorded the incident for their protection. The other boys in the room were fully dressed and it was determined the video did not compromise their privacy in this instance. The harassing students were punished. Some parents are worried that their sons will carry this mark on their school record but don't appear worried about their Sons' harassment of another student.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Thanks for the factual context, but the underlying problem is the typical one of MAGA trying to re-order reality according to nothing but their strongly felt desires.

Oh, wait, this is the other side! How funny is that?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Saying that a girl is a girl is harassment? Why do you people hate facts?

[Jazzizhep]

"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.

[not guilty]

When content is put within quotation marks, it is bad form not to identify the purportedly quoted source material, Jazzizhep.

[Jazzizhep]

FOX News

[Martinned]

Why are you spreading leftist propaganda on this blog?

[Joe_dallas]

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.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Overall, we rate Fox News right biased based on editorial positions that align with the right and Questionable due to the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, the use of poor sources, and numerous false claims and failed fact checks. Straight news reporting from beat reporters is generally fact-based and accurate, which earns them a Mixed factual rating." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news-bias/

[Joe_dallas]

media bias fact check is certainly unbiased - it rates npr as center. in other words, media bias fact check is a joke

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Oh, really?

"Overall, we rate NPR (National Public Radio) Left-Center Biased based on story selection that leans slightly left and High for factual reporting due to thorough sourcing and accurate news reporting." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/

Trust Joe, but verify...

[Joe_dallas]

NPR is frequently far left
Quit fooling yourself. You and the mediabias are so extreme far leftists

[Sarcastr0]

Your vibes beat all, eh?

[Joe_dallas]

vibes that are factually accurate

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What the hell was in that red pill?

"it rates npr as center"

You misrepresented what it said, because reasons...

[David Nieporent]

vibes that are factually accurate

You claimed it rated NPR as center, when it did not. So that was just a lie on your part.

[Jazzizhep]

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.

[ThePublius]

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

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, you and your UN Data, I'm going to tell Ayatollah Mandami!

[Sarcastr0]

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?

[hobie]

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

[Jazzizhep]

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

[hobie]

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???

[Jazzizhep]

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.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Texas is a wee bit bigger than Gaza.

[Jazzizhep]

If it helps you conceptualize my point, substitute Rhode Island for Texas.

[hobie]

"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?

[Jazzizhep]

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.

UN Destination

Now don’t you look like a fool. Hell, I’m embarrassed for you.

[hobie]

See my response above

[Jazzizhep]

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.

[hobie]

And Hamas was verified as the takers of all these pallets...where exactly?

[Jazzizhep]

Moving the goal posts.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Non-Hamas terrorists?

[Jazzizhep]

Non-Hamas looters. I did say terrorists and hungry groups.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Take it up with ThePublius.

His quote said, "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."

[hobie]

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.

[Commenter_XY]

The only people intentionally starved in gaza are the Jewish hostages.

[Frank Drackman]

So seriously, nobody has a problem with a Ugandan Citizen running the Big Apple???

[hobie]

Show us the birth certificate!

[ThePublius]

"Mamdani is a dual citizen of Uganda and the United States; he was naturalized in the latter country in 2018." wikipedia.

[Frank Drackman]

Sharia law would be an improvement from the current DA

[Bwaaah]

I give a pass on the Ugandan part. The Marxist part is a showstopper for me.

[Sarcastr0]

What do you mean by Marxist?

To many MAGA types, it’s become an empty insult for anyone to their left.

Have you read his platform?

[David Nieporent]

He is absolutely a Marxist. He's calling for the government to own stakes in U.S. Steel, and Intel, and TikTok.

[Frank Drackman]

Is that you John Wayne? Is this me?

[Mr. Bumble]

Wouldn't that be fascist?

[Bwaaah]

A little bit. A little bit. Not so little.

[Bob from Ohio]

"What do you mean by Marxist?"

He's a self proclaimed socialist, a Marxist ideology.

[Sarcastr0]

So England elected a Marxist government in 1945?

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "What do you mean by Marxist?"

I would be surprised if you haven't read Marx's "Communist Manifesto." If you have, and you've listened to Mamadani's public policy strategies, you'll see significant similarity in social, economic and power-arranging predilections. It is notable that Mamdani has used direct quotes from Marx's phrasing in order clarify his own positions for the public.

I'm not saying he's Karl Marx. I'm not saying there's some doctrinal definition of a Marxist. I'm saying he represents himself as having clearly Marxist inclinations by my reading of that book. I call him a "Marxist."

But don't get stuck on what we call him, Sarc. We agree in large measure on what he wants to do, and how he wants to do it. Getting him a right name won't change any of that.

[Sarcastr0]

Bwaah, I have, actually. I got interested from people on this blog invoking Marx, so I did a dive into his works and analysis therof. He's absolutely wrong about a ton of stuff, and his later writings reveal him to be a terrible coldblooded sociopath to boot.

But I did the work. So I know you're full of shit.

Marx's version of socialism has very little to do with the any modern policy. Classless society? The withering away of the state?

You seem to have implied you've read The Communist Manifesto. You get the title wrong, and have no idea what it said. That's why you go with a weak-ass "direct quotes from Marx's phrasing" (which is some pretty weird phrasing by yourself!)

It is, of course crap.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/jul/03/seizing-means-production-Zohran-Mamdani/

So it very much appears you lied to front you have the intellectual foundation to call someone Marxist.

What a terrible performance. I expect you to do a frantic wikipedia dive to try and save some face.
Instead, I've found this is a very good critique that actually engages with Marx's writings; start there - it's really interesting, and not pro-Marx at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD163Nr_tOk&list=PL2FD48CE33DFBEA7E&index=9&ab_channel=YaleCourses

If you want to read him as a primary source, Das Kapital lays out his argument much more clearly and with less utopian twaddle.

[Bwaaah]

LOL. I have read the Communist Manifesto. And as I said, what we call Mamdani doesn't matter.

If successful, he'll deliver policies I believe are bad for most people. You're so busy trying to win arguments you can't even get to our differences. I lack your interest in the Mamdani-is-or-isn't-a-Marxist debate. It's beside the point of what he'll do, if permitted, according to his own words.

[Krayt]

If you feel the mayorship of New York is of such importance you need to dodge the chance of foreign interlopers coming in "with purpose of evasion", agitate for a change to the New York constitution to require native birth, like the presidency.

Otherwise this is just another case of "dammit, democracy!" Aren't you currently the beneficiary of dammit democracy at the national level?

[John F. Carr]

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.

[Krayt]

That's a two step process. First assert, pardon the adverb, assininnily, that inanimate objects are people for legal reasons. Then declare them a protected class.

We skip part 3 for now: collect kickbacks and legal donations for getting in the way, 1/3 cuts of hyperbolated damage lawsuits, and the like.

But as the SC made clear in Citizens United, the free speech does not come from corporate personhood, but from the rights of the actual people who own the company, who take their rights with them where e're they go.

If you want to protect rivers, contact your elected representatives. Lovers of Democracy like to sidestep democracy whenever it gets in their way of getting in the way.

[John F. Carr]

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/

[Bwaaah]

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

[tylertusta]

For once the plaintiffs didn't sue Trump. That's a refreshing and almost quaint notion these days.

[hobie]

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?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"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.

[hobie]

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

[Dr. Ed 2]

Quiet enjoyment?

WHAT were they yelling?
"Let's go Red Sox"?
or
"I'm goinna kill you, Niggah!"

[hobie]

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!

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's breach of "quiet enjoyment" in my book.

[ducksalad]

Lack of quiet enjoyment isn't the same as a security concern. Since the complaint was a mixture of possible facts about an annoyance with probable bullshit about being "safe", hobie is justified in denying the refund until they phrase it honestly and believably.

I don't have much respect for phony "emotional safety" arguments.

[ThePublius]

Some more context would help. What time was this supposed to have happened?

[ducksalad]

Why is that important? Does loud music change from an annoyance to a security concern after hours?

[Bwaaah]

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.

[ducksalad]

Thanks for finding out that information. Actually, every single person here already knew that, but thanks anyway.

Now stop avoiding hobie's point: the women converted their annoyance into a false safety claim.

[hobie]

It was around 8-9pm

[Frank Drackman]

I’m in Stage 4 by then (REM Sleep, like with Cancer, there’s no Stage 5)

[Sarcastr0]

Wow the expected people sure are walking in and snowing their ass!

Yeah? It’s an underdetermined anecdote. Which makes the assumption you all are making all the more telling.

[Mr. Bumble]

Do you have ANY self awareness?

[SRG2]

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."

[hobie]

The return of the Manchurian Candidate!

[LexAquilia]

Do you have any idea what US controlled Kiev was doing to the ethnic Russians in those regions since 2014?

[bernard11]

Another post from a demented individual.

Or maybe he was just kissing Putin's ass.

[Zarniwoop]

Trump is astonishingly easy to manipulate, and Putin has him dialed in:

“You know, Vladimir Putin said something — one of the most interesting things. He said, ‘Your election was rigged because you have mail-in voting.’ He said, ‘It’s impossible to have mail-in voting and have honest elections,” Trump told Sean Hannity on Fox News immediately after the summit.

Trump said Putin told him that he won the 2020 by “so much” and that there would have been no war in Ukraine had Trump held office in 2022. “And he said, ‘And you lost it because of mail-in voting.’ … Vladimir Putin, smart guy, said you can’t have an honest election with mail-in voting.”

Trump is so beta that he would probably offer Melania to Putin for a night if he thought it would get him a Nobel Peace Prize.

And Melania would probably be upset that it was only one night.

[Bob from Ohio]

No need to bring his wife into your hatred obsession.

[Sarcastr0]

You dish out insults but basically go full Fedora m’lady when a famous right wing woman is insulted.

Tone policing here is tilting at windmills. Hypocritical tone policing is just another flavor of concern trolling.
Gender disparities in tone policing is even more impotent somehow.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You dish out insults"

Take the beam out of your eye.

[Sarcastr0]

I’ve got no problem with your tone,

I gave up tilting at that windmill around here in like 2016.

But your hypocrisy and white knight sexism is bad.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

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.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I imagine there were also Japanese war brides, and she's been late 30s in the early 60s.

[Krayt]

Fast forward 60 years, and woe be to the feminist who stands against oppressive control of muslim women via hijabs.

"That's different! They are voluntarily covering up so as to not tempt their men!"

"But Amish and areas of Mormon also require women to cover up lest they also tempt their men. That is no stranger to feminist hatred, evidence of oppression in the literature."

Stylized Soyjack with blank expression.jpg
Stylized Soyjack with blank expression.jpg
Stylized Soyjack with blank expression.jpg
Stylized Soyjack with angry eyebrows expression.jpg

[Frank Drackman]

I was more of a Patty Duke fan (I appreciate any Chick that loses control over a Hot Dog) but watched me some DRS on the old N@N.
Remember her hubby was a Pediatrician and was always scuffling to get by,
Sort of like Pediatricians today, but he never prescribed his patients Ritalin or Puberty Blockers.

Frank

[hobie]

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."

[LexAquilia]

Omg, that's proof he's a Kompromot! He wanted to normalize relations with Russia!!

SPY SPY SPY!!!! HE'S A SPY!!!!

[hobie]

I'm afraid Trump being a spy or not is not really the gist of Putin's comment.

[jay.tee]

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

[jb]

Regardless, it seems to argue pretty strongly against the "Putin didn't care who won" narrative.

[jay.tee]

That wasn’t really the question though…it’s if Russia interfered to help either candidate. And the answer is clearly “no” despite the efforts of Democrats and former IC leadership.

But let’s not lose sight that hobie posted a dishonest, selectively edited quote in an effort to revive debunked RussiaGate conspiracies.

[jb]

That wasn’t really the question though…it’s if Russia interfered to help either candidate. And the answer is clearly “no” despite the efforts of Democrats and former IC leadership.

The fact that Putin preferred one candidate over the other at least creates a pretty strong inference that if Russia was messing with the election they'd want to do it in a way that favors that candidate. I'm waiting for any single person to point out where/how the Senate report on this topic got it wrong, since it agreed with the conclusion that Russia intended to help Trump.

But let’s not lose sight that hobie posted a dishonest, selectively edited quote in an effort to revive debunked RussiaGate conspiracies.

If all we were going to do is remind each other of when people have posted intentionally misleading, out-of-context quotes, we'd never be able to have any other discussion. I find this to actually be a lot more common from right-leaning posters, but I did think the context you provided was useful.

[shawn_dude]

I don't think Putin's response can be used to indicate anything regarding Russian interference in the election.

[tylertusta]

No, I don't think it does. Putin, as you may have noticed, is a liar.

Putin may have said that in 2018 as way of currying favor with President Trump who was literally standing next to him in a press conference when he said it. Trump is fickle and likes to be flattered.

In 2016, CIA analysts looked at this and found that Putin probably favored Clinton to win. Director Brennan overruled them and now it's an article of faith that Putin tried to steal the election for Trump.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

US intelligence officials, as confirmed by the US Senate's comprehensive report on the 2016 election, have detailed exactly how Putin interfered in the election. (In the following excerpt, "IRA" refers the the Russian Internet Research Agency.)

"II. (U) Findings

1. (U) The Committee found, that the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin.

(U) The Committee found that the IRA' s information warfare campaign was broad in scope and entailed objectives beyond the result of the 2016 presidential election. Further, the Committee's analysis of the IRA's activities on social media supports the key judgments of the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections," that "Russia's, goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton,· and harm her electability and potential presidency."5

However, where the Intelligence Community assessed that the Russian government "aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him," the Committee found that IRA social media activity was overtly and almost invariably supportive of then-candidate Trump, and to the detriment .of Secretary Clinton's campaign.6"

Somehow, you have twisted that in your mind into "Putin probably favored Clinton to win"...

[David Nieporent]

While all of this is true, the hacking of the DNC — yeah, I know, that was actually Seth Rich, who Hillary then had murdered — and Podesta were much bigger factors than the Russian IRA's efforts. And much more illegal.

[jay.tee]

We have no proof the Russians hacked the DNC.

No, the FBI doesn’t know because the DNC didn’t permit it to examine the server.

No, CrowdStrike doesn’t know because as its president, Shawn Henry, testified before the House:
"There’s not evidence that [the emails] were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."

[David Nieporent]

Siri, is circumstantial evidence a kind of evidence?

No, the FBI doesn’t know because the DNC didn’t permit it to examine the server.

No; you're just repeating dumb MAGA talking points you don't understand. There is no "the server" — there's not some individual device out there to unplug and hand over to them — and even if there were, it wouldn't be something to "examine." That's not how a forensic analysis works; they don't take the machine and dust it for fingerprints or something. They analyze an image of the relevant data. Which is what was given, and — as Comey expressly testified — what the FBI needed.

[jay.tee]

You’re showing your (uninformed) ass.

Yes, the DNC had a physical server. Yes, access to the specific hacked server is required to perform a proper forensic investigation (we’re not talking about the current ubiquitous cloud services). An image captures most, but not all of the relevant information. For example, any OOB management, advanced BIOS or firmware, etc. will not be captured.

And Comey is hardly an expert nor a trustworthy source given his corruption.

[tylertusta]

The Intelligence Community Assessment's conclusion that Putin wanted Trump to win was bullshit pushed by Brennan. Actual career analysts disagreed with Brennan's own assessment but he overruled them.

The Senate Intel Committee's report was in turn based on the faulty ICA conclusion.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What is this based on?

"Putin probably favored Clinton to win"...

[hobie]

"Yes, I did. Yes, I did."

Said it twice.

Had he not sent his apparatus to interfere for Trump he would have responded:

"Yes, I did. No, I didn't."

[jay.tee]

Doubling-down on wrong, I see. No one who actually witnessed the exchange, including the reporter who posed the question, agrees with you.

For context, Trump and Putin were repeatedly asked about interference and collusion earlier in the press conference. Both responded with unequivocal denials. During the exchange in question, Putin’s translator started speaking before Mason finished his question, meaning neither Putin nor his translator likely even heard the second part.

Your interpretation of the answer is incorrect in isolation, but doubly so when in context of consistent, repeated earlier denials.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You were right the first time: "Putin very clearly answered the first part of the question - the part you conveniently left out - and ignored the second part."

Ignoring the second part was not, by any stretch of the imagination, an "unequivocal denial".

But even if it were, we now know that it was a false one: Putin did in fact "direct ... [his] officials to help [Trump win the election]". The US Senate report explicitly found that Putin "sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin."

(The above Putin denial was uttered in 2018; the Senate report was issued in 2019.)

[jay.tee]

As mentioned below, the Senate used the same hand-picked analysts and intelligence corrupted by Brennan for the 2017 ICA. Even then, the analysts pushed back heavily on Brennan’s manufactured claims.

[David Nieporent]

Putin very clearly answered the first part of the question - the part you conveniently left out - and ignored the second part.

As we've established from other discussions on the general subject of Russiagate, "very clearly" means something different in your world than in the real world.

So my suspicion is he heard the first part of my question and may not have heard the second part.”

If that's merely his "suspicion," then it wasn't "very clearly."

But note that even if you're correct in your inferences, this contradicts the MAGA talking point that Russia didn't care who won.

[jay.tee]

I don’t give a damn about MAGA talking points. As I’ve explained, my concerns reside with the corruption over the past decade especially the way the US IC involved itself in politics and elections. I want it uncovered, publicized, and prevented from happening again - to either party.

You’ve shown time and again you’re playing for your team, no matter how corrupt. That’s fine, just be honest.

“As we've established from other discussions on the general subject of Russiagate, "very clearly" means something different in your world than in the real world.”

You’ve been debunked on Russiagate repeatedly:
- You lied about Democrats not claiming Russia “hacked the election”; I posted a video showing clip after clip of them doing exactly that.
-You claimed the FISA warrants used to spy on Trump’s campaign only had one defect, an email; I posted Durham’s report, FBI statements, Boasberg’s statements, testimony, and Alexander Downer’s confirmation that they were all fraudulent and rife with lies and omissions.
-You claimed Brennan didn’t commit perjury; I posted direct quotes from his sworn testimony that, in fact, he lied under oath.
-You claimed the NYT won a Pulitzer based on truthful reporting that no one had proven false; I posted how the article on the Papadopoulos-Downer conversation wasn’t just unsourced, it was flat-out wrong.
-You claimed the “51 former officials” letter about HB’s laptop was merely a dirty campaign trick; I posted evidence the CIA played a role in facilitating the letter in an effort to assist the Biden campaign.

In this case, as I explained above, the corrupt IC manufactured the narrative Russia intervened on Trump’s behalf in the 2016 election. It did not. That’s very different than Russia publicly stating they preferred the non-warmonger candidate.

As far as the actual press conference, I didn’t make any assumptions. I relayed the understanding of people actually there including the reporter who badgered Trump and Putin and asked the question. But I suppose you, who has been woefully under informed on virtually ever other Russiagate facet, know better. That your Russian is good enough to translate and understand nuance better than the translators themselves.

[Michael P]

He's just super upset that his guy won in 2020, leading to both a hugely destructive and unneeded invasion of Ukraine, and to the revelation of most of his idols as gaslighters who abuse elders and autopens with equal enthusiasm.

[David Nieporent]

"My guy" in 2020 was Jo Jorgensen (who is not a guy).

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

(Have you changed your name? I don't remember anyone using the name "jay.tee" saying anything of that nature, certainly over a long period. I do come and go, so maybe I missed all of it...or you used to post under another name.)

"In this case, as I explained above, the corrupt IC manufactured the narrative Russia intervened on Trump’s behalf in the 2016 election. It did not."

False. The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee found unequivocally in 2019 that Putin "sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin."

[jay.tee]

“The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee found…”

They did, but only because they relied on Brennan’s same hand-picked analysts and the four pieces of contorted or discredited intelligence that invalidates the 2017 ICA.

[David Nieporent]

-You claimed the “51 former officials” letter about HB’s laptop was merely a dirty campaign trick; I posted evidence the CIA played a role in facilitating the letter in an effort to assist the Biden campaign.

I don't have the energy to point out again how everything you said above is a lie, but since this one is about me, I will respond: I did not claim that it was a dirty campaign trick. And if you can't even get things right that were said directly to you just a day ago, that makes it pretty implausible you could get right any of the other stuff based on half-assed selective misreading. Maybe you should read the Mueller report on Downer, and look up who Erika Thompson is.

In this case, as I explained above, the corrupt IC manufactured the narrative Russia intervened on Trump’s behalf in the 2016 election. It did not. That’s very different than Russia publicly stating they preferred the non-warmonger candidate.

1. Russia interfered. That's not disputed by anyone.
2. Russia wanted Trump to win. That's also not disputed.

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can put two and two together and figure out that if someone takes action to affect the results of something, and if that person desires one particular result, that the action was taken for the purpose of achieving that result. Do you have an IQ above room temperature?

As far as the actual press conference, I didn’t make any assumptions.

Is English your first language? You absolutely did. If someone else also made that assumption — by the way, whether Putin heard the first part of the question has nothing to do with "translation" — does not change the fact that you did.

[jay.tee]

Thanks for the reply, David. It’s unfortunate you’ve devolved to insults and mere vibes.

I’ll take the hit on my substitute of “I think” for the views of the people at that press conference. It’s my error and in no way alters the meaning of Putin’s response.

Other than that, you didn’t add anything of substance. It’s all insults and vibes, really highlighting your strident, but baseless, Russiagate advocacy.

To close, in my experience people with, as you put it, “an IQ above room temperature” don’t rely on vibes and insults.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They probably also infiltrated the computers of the local sewerage treatment plant...

[Krayt]

That Russia wants to normalize relations is given. Understand that to mean back off the sanctions on the kleptocrat oligarchs there.

If Putin wants to normalize relations, he can do it tomorrow by abandoning the war.

Meanwhile, we have a president curiously supportive of him, so much so he demands Zelinski wear a suit to a negotiation, where by all rights he should wear his war garb, as his country is still being attacked and citizens, not just soldiers, being murdered by the other side of the table, including being murdered literally at that exact moment.

Reminiscent of Nelson holding down Bart Simpson, holding his wrist and hitting him with his own fist. President of the US: Quit hitting yourself! Quit hitting yourself!

[Bob from Ohio]

"war garb"

I don't care what he wears but those outfits are designer stuff, not any sort of actual "war garb".

https://www.jpost.com/international/article

[loki13]

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.

[hobie]

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.

[ducksalad]

"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/

[loki13]

...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.

[ducksalad]

Since we're being "fair", I should say that Trump probably wouldn't have made this error in his first term. Not that he was a geography whiz but he would have learned and remembered the names before bragging about it.

[loki13]

Maybe? I think that anyone who is reasonably unbiased would notice that this time around, Trump is definitely seeming ... let's say ... a lot more Biden-esque.

But Trump is a New York (former) Democratic Real Estate Developer. He isn't a foreign policy guy. Now, does he have more knowledge of the world that Joe Sickpax? Sure. He's licensed his name from Saudi Arabia to Russia. But do I think that Trump has an understanding of, say, the real differences between Alawites and Druze, and why neither of them are Sunnis (or the differences between an Ibadi in Oman and a Salafist in Saudi Arabia)? Nope.

Or the finer points of Moldova's interest in the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Nope. And so on.

Not that this is a prerequisite- that's why Presidents have advisors. But when the President is determined to stock all of the positions with loyalists that are afraid to provide accurate information, there can be issues. IMO, YMMV, etc.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You do realize that some of this may be classified...

[loki13]

Dr. Ed- Do you stop and think for a second before typing? Or do you simply throw random words up?

Think this through for a second. Just try.

First, this is the list of the seven conflicts. Verified by the White House (that's why Serbia .... SERBIA is in there). So it's not like you can say that there is some ... um .... classified conflicts that have been ended. This is, in the best possible light to Trump, the conflicts that he has claimed to end.

Of the seven, three can't possibly qualify (Serbia, Ethiopia, Congo).

That leaves four. Of those four, I gave him credit for 1.5 (Cambodia, Azerbaijan) by taking everything in the light most favorable to him.

So explain to me, like I'm a slightly dumb golden retriever, what "classified" material would change the analysis in either Iran or India.

In India, we have confirmation that the the US was not involved in any way, shape, or form. Now, it is always possible that India is lying to us, because all countries know that it's terrible to give Trump flattery ... but there is no evidence- none- that the US did anything. And the US has not even tried to explain what role it played. It's just taking credit for a conflict that flared up and resolved while Trump was in office- and if you follow the news (ahem), you know that Pakistan and India have these flareups very regularly.

That leaves Iran. I will repeat- there is no ceasefire. There is no peace deal. While the reality might be that Iran got its butt kicked, Iran declared that it won a decisive victory, and it reserves the right to strike back any time. Iran's proxies and Israel have continued to engage in warfare- Israel striking against Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis (you remember that attack from four days ago, right?) and vice versa (you remember that attack from three days ago, right?). And so on.

Feel free to explain to me what your objection is. Go on.

[Frank Drackman]

You left out WW3 Common-Law, Sleepy Joe, and a lot of the Repubiclowns would like to start.
Seriously, this is like 1969 (which I actually remember unfortunately) the “Lights at the end of the Tunnel! You-Crane just needs a few more Amurican Troops, and Bombers, no way North Vietnam can continue with their huge losses!!!
Don’t make me spoil it North Vietnam Wins for you
And was it so horrible? Now you can get great Vietnamese food in Albany GA

Frank

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

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.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” is said by people who in fact very very mad about the imitation.

[Frank Drackman]

I’m still pissed Brad Pitt has copied my look for the last 30 years

[Mr. Bumble]

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.”

[hobie]

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. "

[jay.tee]

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.

[hobie]

I allow myself one whatabout a day

[LawTalkingGuy]

Why do online right-wingers struggle so much with spelling people’s names correctly?

[Mr. Bumble]

If that was directed at me you should realize it was intentional;
associating her with that well known poisoner.

[loki13]

And you think that is helpful ... how? Seriously, and I want you to consider this.

Other than signalling to other members of your in-group, what purpose do you think it serves? If you remember, I was on record in another thread as opposing a "clever" (derogatory) term for MAGA. And I've done the same for Trump (admittedly, I sometime refer to him as "That Guy," which ... maybe that makes me a hypocrite, but I own it and it's usually when I'm exasperated and/or referencing my disbelief that people don't remember who he is*) and other Republicans.

Do you think people are more, or less, likely to take you and your opinions seriously? Serious question.

*I still remember thinking how weird it was that Trump seemed to love telling "the scorpion story" when he was campaigning. You know- the one that ends with the scorpion stinging the frog, because its his nature. Because ... sometimes you want to tear your hair out. In fairness, Trump could not have made it more obvious. He was literally giving them the exact metaphor for what would happen if we (the frog) voted him (the scorpion) in. So I guess that was on us.

[Mr. Bumble]

loki13. Do you take ng less seriously when he refers to "prick Nixon", Blondi (AG Bondi as a peroxide blond) or comments on whether Ashleigh Merchant had breast implants?

[loki13]

I wouldn't refer to the AG other than by Bondi.
I don't think it's appropriate to comment on breast implants.

I probably have referred to Nixon as "Tricky Dick" at some point or another, but I wouldn't call him a prick. I've definitely thought it at times, but .... Nixon was a really complicated figure, in all senses of the word.

[Life of Brian]

Refreshed before posting and saw you beat me to it. Funny how he suddenly shifted from chin-stroking remonstration mode to "I wouldn't," huh?

[Mr. Bumble]

....but he has as have so many others.

[jb]

FWIW, I've called ng out on some of his childish names before. I think the way he talks about women he disagrees with is often misogynistic, and in general those sorts of names make it harder to take the speaker seriously.

In general, though, I find that right-leaning commenters on this site tend to use these sorts of derogatory nicknames than left-leaning commenters, with ng being the glaring exception.

[Mr. Bumble]

Look harder.

[loki13]

Well, we had the discussion. You can either choose to be better, or continue on your current path, and keep saying to yourself "It's okay for me to do this, so long as I can think of one person on the opposite side doing it."

As I repeatedly point out- you don't become a better person in life by doing bad things, and then saying, "It's okay, because I think other people I don't like do it too!"

But sure, Bumble. If you want me to say, "Bumble, you're as bad as some of the people you despise on the Other Side," I'll cop to it. Good?

[Sarcastr0]

Fwiw I was surprised myself, but bumble has been a top 3 block to make the VC more pleasant.

If blocking is a thing you do, try it out!

[Frank Drackman]

Top 3?? You’re the friggin Top 40!
I don’t block anyone, I always loved watching the Retards Drool

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Il Douche, the new Capt. Dan.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Blocking them makes this blog much less fun, but does save time.

You only get so much time...

[hobie]

I call all these hillbillies here 'hayseeds'. Does that count? But I don't call Trump or politicians names

[Frank Drackman]

And ironically you’ve likely got the most “Hayseed” accent of anyone. (I was cursed with growing up as a Military Brat we’re from “Everywhere and Nowhere” no discernible accent, and I blend in less noticeably in Frankfurt Germany than Frankfort KY, and Somalian Bartenders here for 10 years ask me “You not from here?” When I try to order an Old Fashioned at KATL

Frank

[Life of Brian]

But I don't call Trump or politicians names

So, just strictly for example, you've never referred to Trump as the Orange Caligula?

[Bwaaah]

A bit of credit to Hobie...he trolls. He's mistakenly wrong about almost half of what he says, and intentionally wrong about almost all the rest. Neither cause him any dissonance. He remains whole.

He's like a pile of something.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If that was directed at me you should realize it was intentional;
associating her with that well known poisoner."

You have used it for years. We have had the discussion here multiple times..

You have disappointed loki though.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

To be fair, some white people have weird names.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Even when they’re Tragedeighs I try and spell them right.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

But with nothin' to consider they forget my name (ame, ame, same)

They call me hell
They call me Stacey
They call me Her
They call me Jane

That's not my name
That's not my name
That's not my name
That's not my name

They call me quiet
But I'm a riot
Mary-Jo-Lisa
Always the same

[Frank Drackman]

Joe FTB breaking out the Ting Tings! (Is that how you say it? “Ting Tings”??)

Frank

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Always enjoy hearing that song. The Ting Tings. 2009 British indie band. I was living in the UK at the time. You must have rather eclectic musical taste to have those lyrics at the tips of your fingers in the US in 2025...

[Kazinski]

Problem is even when you spell it right spellcheck will change it on you when you aren't paying attention.

[hobie]

Their hostility to education eventually reflects in their grammar

[Frank Drackman]

What’s incorrect about Floyd George?

[loki13]

I was (unfortunately) curious, so I bothered to look up the story.

Some background-
1. Trump has been trying to pressure Jerome Powell (chair) and other governors of the Fed to resign in order to control the Fed.

2. This has led to some pretty outlandish investigations, including stocking an obscure agency with Trump loyalists in order to try and gin up a bogus investigation into the Fed's remodelling. Despite the big announcements, this seems to have died down after the whole caught-on-camera flop where Trump made bogus accusations and Powell actually reviewed the documents and pointed out Trump was lying. That was fun, if sad.

3. Pulte has been using his post to make criminal referrals to the DOJ for Trump to tweet about ... weirdly, all of them seem to have a common theme! So far, they are-
Adam Schiff
Letitia James
And now Cook.

A prosecutor who successfully prosecuted Trump. A congressman who is a vocal opponent of Trump. And a governor of the Fed that Trump wants to remove to control the Fed.

I certainly don't condone mortgage fraud, but ... does seem weird, doesn't it? Also, no charges. To paraphrase a movie, "Forget it, Jake. It's Trumptown."

[LawTalkingGuy]

Trump 2.0 is going to have a really hard time with "lawfare" when it comes to individual criminal investigations of their political opponents. At a certain point, they can't just rely on dipshit loyalists to do the work. They actually need smart career lawyers and investigators. Even if the courts are in the tank for them on generalized policy matters, there is a bare minimum of competent lawyering that is going to be needed to make investigations happen and charges stick in some way. Especially because courts are predisposed to be sympathetic to high profile politicians in all parties and those politicians are going to have really good lawyers who the courts actually respect (or at least are good enough to make them pay attention to certain things). And that's even before we get to convincing a jury. But the loyalists are incompetent, alienate and force out staff, and interfere in the least helpful ways.

They're not going to get anywhere with Eagle Ed Martin taking "referrals" from other dipshit loyalists.

[Kazinski]

Well, I have to tell you Loki, mortgage fraud is definitely against the law and is not a victimless crime.

I got licensed as a mortgage broker after I retired as a side gig, and the mortgage industry is heavily federally regulated. And the training and testing emphasizes the penalties for residence fraud. Even if the person who writes the mortgage knows, most mortgages are securitized and sold on the secondary market and insured by FannieMae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government had to bail out during the Obama administration. I think you should remember the Great Recession, and world financial crises which was mainly precipitated by securitization of low quality mortgages.

What the federal governor did was lie so her lower quality mortgage would be securitized with higher quality mortgages, not only defrauding investors but also increasing the risk of another bailout.

There is no doubt I would lose my Federal Mortgage Loan Originator license, and be fined by CFPB, and of course be "fired", even though I am an independent contractor,if I wrote a mortgage I knew was fraudulent. Her alleged conduct is certainly adequate "for cause" to fire her.

Usually it is not prosecuted, but I don't see why I would almost certainly lose my job for the same conduct and she would not.

[loki13]

I think I was clear ... I don't condone mortgage fraud. I also don't condone cheating on your taxes. I don't condone a lot of things.

I was just pointing out that ... I mean ... it does seem odd that we have had three really interesting referrals from the same person (who is completely not a partisan tool) to the DOJ for mortgage fraud! I can't comment on the charges, because there aren't any yet, but it sure does seem like this person has spent six months doing diligent work uncovering THREE (3) cases of mortgage fraud, all of which seem to have only one thing in common.

But hey, what do I know?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and doesn't the DOJ like to prosecute prominent people as an example?
Ask Martha Stewart.

[Keldonric]

Ken Paxton has been accused of listing multiple homes as his “primary residence” on mortgage documents, but I haven’t seen anything about a DOJ referral in his case.

[David Nieporent]

Well, I have to tell you Loki, mortgage fraud is definitely against the law and is not a victimless crime.

Weird. That's not what the apologists for Trump said; they claimed that as long as one's loans were all paid back, it's a nothingburger to lie to a bank to get said loans.

[Kazinski]

Well there is a big difference in this case, because Trump's commercial mortgage was not a federally insured conforming mortgage so there was definitely no federal crime.

Like I said residential mortgages are heavily regulated by the feds, not so commercial mortgages or non-conforming mortgages, which means they can't be bought and securitized by FannieMae or FreddieMac.

[bernard11]

Well there is a big difference in this case, because Trump's commercial mortgage was not a federally insured conforming mortgage so there was definitely no federal crime.

You mean lying to a bank to get more favorable terms is OK if the mortgage was non-conforming? In any event, wasn't Trump convicted of state crimes?

[damikesc]

How can one lie about the potential value of real estate before it is sold?

The banks did their own due diligence, you realize.

[David Nieporent]

How can one lie about the potential value of real estate before it is sold?

I'm going to assume you were drunk when you asked that question.

The banks did their own due diligence, you realize.

They didn't, and in any case that's not a defense.

[damikesc]

The banks said they did. I guess you would certainly know better. The banks had no problem with the loans and were paid back with interest and would loan again to him.

And the value of unsold real estate is, by definition, subjective.

[Magister]

Some bank official said they did, but some other said they did not and should not have given those favorable rates. Of course they would be more motivated to say the former, since they wouldn't want to get hurt their reputation with their other customers.

[David Nieporent]

1) The banks did not say they did. If you weren't going to follow any of the trial, as you evidently didn't, you could at least read today's opinions:

For most of the assets, Deutsche Bank did not conduct due diligence but merely applied a standardized, across-the-board “haircut,” typically 50%.

2. The banks did not say the other things you said, either.

3. "Subjective" does not mean what you seem to think it means. Yes, there is more than one way to legitimately assess the value of a property. That does not mean that the whole effort is just "subjective" and one can just pick any number one wants. (Of course, if one is trying to sell a property, one can pick whatever listing price one wants. But that's not the same thing as its value.)

[David Nieporent]

A prosecutor who successfully prosecuted Trump. A congressman who is a vocal opponent of Trump. And a governor of the Fed that Trump wants to remove to control the Fed.

FTR, James is the AG, not a prosecutor, and hence did not prosecute Trump. Alvin Bragg was the one who prosecuted Trump. James successfully sued Trump.

Also, Abbe Lowell confronted and refuted the silly allegations against James. Obviously, he's biased being her lawyer and all, but given that Ed Martin's response was to have a tantrum rather than to contradict anything Lowell said, I think it's safe to say that they've got nothing.

[damikesc]

"James successfully sued Trump."

Not really.

https://nypost.com/2025/08/21/us-news/trumps-massive-500m-civil-fraud-fine-in-ag-tish-james-case-thrown-out-by-ny-appeals-court/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nypost

He should demand interest on the money taken illegally.

[Bob from Ohio]

"FHFA Director Pulte Sends Criminal Referral to DOJ "

Loki is very upset that Trump is targeting his enemies. He was not upset when Trump was targeted though.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I don't know if putting Eagle Ed Martin, Trumps' Special Attorney for Investigating Many Matters, on the case can fairly be called "targeting."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Mr. [Edward] Martin’s choice of attire on the trip was also rooted in his history.

The wrinkled tan trench coat with epaulets that he wore in the stifling heat in Brooklyn is his signature garment, donned in homage to another family member who staked out a career as a notable supporting player — the character actor Thomas Mitchell, best known for portraying the bumbling Uncle Billy in the Christmas classic “It’s a Wonderful Life.”

Mr. Martin was born in New York City seven-plus years after Mr. Mitchell died in 1962.

But he idolizes his famous forebear and wears the coat to honor one of Mr. Mitchell’s final appearances onstage as Detective Columbo, a role later made famous by Peter Falk in the 1970s television series.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/19/us/politics/trump-letitia-james-weaponization-czar.html

[LawTalkingGuy]

DOJ must have absolutely nothing on James if Eagle Ed is making a field trip to her house and sending typo-filled letters instead of indictments or criminal complaints. If there was an actual crime, career DOJ staff wouldn't let that dipshit anywhere near it.

[LexAquilia]

What is it with Democrats and committing mortgage fraud? Now a Fed Governor is accused of committing fraud to lower her own rates while punishing the rest of us.

Why are Democrats so fucking vile and evil and gross?

[loki13]

By the way, here's your regular reminder-

The Epstein Files, the things that are COMPLETELY WITHIN THE CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, and that the DOJ and FBI spent thousands and thousands of hours reviewing in the spring (and flagged Trump's name while doing it) already ...

Still have not been released. But you know who has been released? Maxwell, to a no-fences work camp. After a long conversation with Trump's attorney that he put into the DOJ.

For people who see conspiracies at every pizza store, I guess some things are too obvious.

[Mr. Bumble]

I am not trying to be contentious but just what do you think constitutes the "Epstein files"?

[loki13]

I think that the Epstein Files constitutes the files (documents, using the broad term which includes electronic media, call logs, etc.) compiled within the DOJ during its investigation of Jeffrey Epstein.

This is primarily documents resulting from two criminal investigations- which includes, but is not limited to, the transcripts of witness and victim interviews and financial documents. It also includes numerous tangible objects seized during the raids of his properties.

It also includes additional documents and things from other investigations into Epstein, such as the investigation into his death in custody.

I would be fine releasing the entire Epstein File (see above) with the following exceptions:
A. Redactions of the names of victims.
B. Removal of any images of child pornography, to be replaced with a description of the media.
C. Sequestration of the Maxwell file until all her appeals are finished (HA! until Trump pardons her or orders the DOJ to somehow dismiss a criminal conviction for reasons ....).

Again, this is not hard to identify because the DOJ and FBI already reviewed all of this ... during the first months of Trump's presidency. It's been done.

[Mr. Bumble]

First, thanks and for clarity are you including the Florida case (can't remember if that was federal or state).

[jb]

Not to try to answer on Loki's behalf, but the Florida case (and ridiculous plea deal) was federal. So presumably the DOJ has those files as well.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks but I though there was a state case involved.

[jb]

Epstein pleaded guilty to Florida state charges in exchange for the federal charges being dropped at the time, so presumably you're right that there was a state investigation as well.

But there was definitely a federal investigation and hence federal files at the time.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Maybe U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta worked entirely without notes?

[loki13]

The Florida case was a federal prosecution (by Trump's first Secretary of Labor) ... and yes.

Look, I hope you can get my frustration. The "Epstein Files" is a shorthand for an identifiable collection of material that is within the possession, custody, and control of the DOJ.

We were promised it would be released.
The Trump administration even had a photo op with conservative influencers to hype it.
We know that they can release it. It's within their power.
We know that they pulled AUSAs and FBI agents to review it- thousands and thousands of hours.
We even know that they were specifically instructed to flag Trump's name.

This isn't a hard issue. I'm having trouble believing, after all of this, that anyone would be like, "Hey, the Epstein Files that we were all talking about for so long, and that we all knew what we were talking about .... and that the DOJ reviewed ... what are they, anyway?"

And I get that this administration loves to BS and misdirect- for example, the whole grand jury charade. Anyone with half a brain knew that grand jury testimony was something that they had to go to Court - AND WOULD GET DENIED ON - in order to kick up confusion. "Look, we tried. We just couldn't!"

But that was a play for the rubes. They can release the Epstein Files whenever they want to. They just don't want to.

Finally, I will point out that while I think it will be damaging for Trump, I assume it will be very damaging for a lot of other people too. Sure, Clinton. Prince Andrew. But here's the thing- it's not just (or mainly) Democrats or foreigners. It's going to have a lot of people with a lot of money. And those people ... well, let's just say that they often vote in the interest of their money.

But sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let the chips fall where they may. Because that is heinous behavior. No more coverup.

[shawn_dude]

The guy that can declassify defense secrets with his mind (apparently) and store them in his bathroom at a private club cannot release the Epstein Files?

[Commenter_XY]

I agree completely = sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let the chips fall where they may. Because that is heinous behavior. No more coverup.

Re exception B...I would specifically name the adults.

There are many, many bad and disgusting people who need to be publicly named, and face earthly justice.

[David Nieporent]

I can specifically name the adults: Jeffrey Epstein. Ghislaine Maxwell. There. Done.

[Life of Brian]

Since we're talking about a body of information that hasn't yet been released, I can't wait to hear your basis for conclusively knowing exactly who was involved without having been involved yourself.

[David Nieporent]

What, don't you believe Trump's own AG? She already announced that.

But the sane among us have known for years that there aren't others. In addition to the general implausibility of the widespread ring of famous pedophiles thing, it would have required a massive coverup, involving hundreds of members of law enforcement/prosecutors. It would have required complicity by the victims themselves. And their lawyers, all of whom stood to make tens of millions of dollars if this ring existed. Occam's Razor alone says that there aren't any others.

[Life of Brian]

In addition to the general implausibility of the widespread ring of famous pedophiles thing, it would have required a massive coverup, involving hundreds of members of law enforcement/prosecutors. . . . Occam's Razor alone says that there aren't any others.

Wow, no excluded middle there at all!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It is public knowledge that they used teenage girls to entice victims. They didn't just act alone.

It would not shock me that other adults were involved who did things that can be civilly and/or criminally addressed.

They acted over a span over over a decade. They didn't just do things alone. Others could have helped. It need not just be that these people sexually abused children.

I don't know, but it is unclear why someone would be so firmly sure otherwise.

[hobie]

The client list Bondi said she had on her desk

[Krayt]

Clearly those underage prostitutes weren't used because Epstein was Madame to the Blue Collar Workers.

[Bob from Ohio]

ICC sanctions are being expanded:

"The Department is designating the following individuals pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of E.O. 14203, for having directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person’s country of nationality:

KIMBERLY PROST, Judge, Trial Division, International Criminal Court
NICOLAS YANN GUILLOU, Judge, Trial Division, International Criminal Court
NAZHAT SHAMEEM KHAN, Deputy Prosecutor, International Criminal Court
MAME MANDIAYE NIANG, Deputy Prosecutor, International Criminal Court"

https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/08/imposing-further-sanctions-in-response-to-the-iccs-ongoing-threat-to-americans-and-israelis

[hobie]

That slapped a warrant on Vladimir for kidnapping 20,000 children. So, yeah, kill the messenger, not the bestie kidnapper.

[Frank Drackman]

20,000 dead? That’s a week of Abortions in the US of A

[Commenter_XY]

I hope we keep going, and expand that list further.

[Mhxekszj]

today, judge richard berman denied the trump administration's request to unseal the epstein proceedings. last week, judge paul engelmayer did the same. one was appointed by the white trash pervert, and the other by the jogger kenyan.

congress needs to pass an emergency law that no judge belonging to a demonic tribe who wears little hats twice a year may hear any case that trump brings.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Guess the guy in charge of the DHS twitter account is on a break.

[loki13]

And .... literally, right above this, I wrote a long piece including the following:

"And I get that this administration loves to BS and misdirect- for example, the whole grand jury charade. Anyone with half a brain knew that grand jury testimony was something that they had to go to Court - AND WOULD GET DENIED ON - in order to kick up confusion. 'Look, we tried. We just couldn't!'

But that was a play for the rubes. They can release the Epstein Files whenever they want to. They just don't want to."

It's great when the rubes self-identify.

For the people who still don't seem to get it-

1. Grand Jury proceedings are NOT the Epstein Files.

2. The Trump Administration can release the Epstein Files whenever it wants to, and it chooses not to.

3. Grand Jury proceedings are incredibly hard to get released- but more importantly ... they won't have nearly the information that is in the Epstein files. Not. Even. Close.

All together now. Why did the DOJ do this? So that the Rubes would think that they were being prevented from releasing information.

But they aren't. These aren't the Epstein files. You are being lied to. It's up to you if you want to continue to believe the lies.

The Epstein files were reviewed in the spring. They can be released. They aren't grand jury proceedings.

[hobie]

I guess that client list on Bondi's desk is under seal as well.

[hobie]

I wouldn't necessarily call Trump white trash.

[Frank Drackman]

Look in the mirror if you want to see it

[bernard11]

Fuck you, idiot.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He's back. Not back in black, but back in gray...

[Bwaaah]

I'm about to head out for some "back country" backpacking in the Northeast U.S. It has long been a pleasure for me to return to the woods. It's exciting once again.

I always carry a small AM/FM radio (single AAA battery), and tune in to whatever's being broadcast along the way. Particularly in more remote areas, local public radio stations were always companions along the trail...weather forecasts, local and national news briefings, culture and entertainment from near and far. (And sponsors from near and far.)

With the greatest of hope and the lowest of expectations, I'm going to give 'em another try out there on the trail. But just the thought has a cringiness to it that has so accumulated over the past 10 years.

How long before the first finger-wagging lament? Oh God, please release them from that, if only just for the next week. The wilderness is too beautiful. I can't let it be sullied that way. It's too easy to flip the OFF switch and hear the birds and the breeze instead.

Wish me luck.

[hobie]

Can't discern if this is a backhander against NPR, or a praise of them.

In unrelated news I hear constantly on AM Talk:

"AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act of 2025

This bill requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to issue a rule requiring AM radio capabilities to be standard in all new passenger vehicles. (AM radio is often used to deliver emergency alerts and news and entertainment programming; some newer vehicles do not include AM equipment.)"

Government propping up NPR = bad
Government propping up Glenn Beck = good

[Brett Bellmore]

Government propping up that road conditions station up in the mountains where you can't get Glenn Beck anyway, you mean?

[Commenter_XY]

Good luck. And come back safe.

[SRG2]

Texas blocked from implementing idiotic and unconstitutional 10 Commandments law

Performative B/S halted by judge, but the crook Paxton says he will appeal.

[Krayt]

And yet the case where it was ok to require grade school recital of some Muslem prayer, to foster understanding.

The correct answer is none of this should be done. Motivated hacks argue for or ag'in it, according to political expediency.

[jb]

I don't know about the details of the muslim prayer case. I imagine it would be reasonable to teach the Ten Commandments in some contexts where it was relevant to the curriculum (e.g., a segment on religious studies) just as it might be reasonable to teach a Muslim prayer in a segment on the Middle East.

What wouldn't be reasonable in either case would generally requiring the display or recital of a religious text in a context unrelated to the curriculum.

[SRG2]

Yes, but Krayt is intentionally too stupid to recognise the difference.

[Krayt]

There is no difference. That is the difference. One facetes a difference depending on one's political goals.

[SRG2]

In Kraytland there is no difference between covering a religious text in a class on religion, and having a permanent religious display in the front of the classroom. In that non-pathological environment we call "reality", there is a difference.

[hobie]

Aren't Jews allowed to have prayer and dogma in Texas public schools? Oh wait, that's just in private yeshivas

[hobie]

Isn't Ken Paxton the same insurrectionist who tried to rig the election by nullifying all the votes in Pennsylvania via Texas v. Pennsylvania?

[not guilty]

The District Court order is here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26066008/federal-judge-blocks-ten-commandments-law-in-texas.pdf

There is surprisingly little discussion of the continuing validity of Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), which is on all fours here as to unconstitutionality of the Texas law.

[tylertusta]

I'm very pleased that Russiagate is back in the news as the Trump administration declassifies and releases more and more materials about the misconduct of officials during the Obama and early-Trump presidencies.

I came across a Matt Taibi article talking about the new public revelations about the unmasking of Trump officials:

After a post-Congressional sojourn as the CEO of Truth Social, Nunes is back in government, heading Trump’s Intelligence Advisory Board. If he’s vindicated on unmasking, it wouldn’t be his first belated victory. In February 2018, after release of the so-called “Nunes memo” put together by then-investigator Kash Patel accusing the FBI of lying to the FISA court, Patel and especially Nunes were denounced as conspiracist rogues in the most abject terms. Nancy Pelosi claimed his “dishonest” actions and “bogus memo” so “disgraced” the House that he needed to step down. The Washington Post agreed, calling the memo’s release “Trump’s most unethical act.” Former CIA chief John Brennan, who set historic standards for cherry-picking in his construction of the 2017 Intelligence Assessment on Russian meddling, railed against the “cherry-picked” document, saying the “appalling” Nunes “abused the office of the Chairman.”

A little over a year later, though, the Barack Obama-appointed Inspector General of the Justice Department, Michael Horowitz, published a 400-page report supporting all of Nunes’ major claims, forcing even the Washington Post to admit there was “vindication.” Will a similar adjustment to conventional wisdom now take place with regard to the requests by Obama White House officials like former National Security Adviser Susan Rice to unmask the identities of Trump figures for dubious reasons? There are new reasons to believe that’s the case.

https://www.racket.news/p/nearly-a-decade-later-the-unmasking?triedRedirect=true

We're at the point where the Trump-Russian collusion conspiracy has now been shown- directly and indirectly- to be a house of cards build on a foundation of lies.

It really is the biggest scandal in American history, which is why Trump foes are fighting even acknowledging it tooth-and-nail.

[jb]

Michael P already posted this above so I won't rehash my response except to say that the new "evidence" presented here is indeed just about as meaningful as everything else that purports to somehow show a "Russian hoax" scandal, i.e. it doesn't do that at all.

[hobie]

I'm with you, tyler. Getting everyone to remember what happened is indeed highly desirable. Slavery may not have happened, but Trump's collusion most definitely did. Like Epstein, this is another own goal

[M L]

Is the collusion in the room with us now?

[jay.tee]

“but Trump's collusion most definitely did”

Your vibes are showing again.

[damikesc]

Don't let reality slow you down.

[Commenter_XY]

It will be documented for the historical record. That had to happen.

tylertusta, the wheels of justice turn slowly. But they do turn.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This "collusion" of which you speak...is it separate from the evidence that Putin interfered in the 2016 election on Trump's behalf, as found in 2019 by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee's report on "Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election"?

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf

[tylertusta]

The idea that Trump was involved in a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government is a fantasy. People continuing to make such claims in the face of facts that flatly disprove those claims are unserious people worthy of scorn. Alternatively, they are mentally ill deserving of pity.

Given the mentality of modern day leftists, it could easily be both.

[John F. Carr]

An example about how review of indictments is much more liberal in Massachusetts than in federal court, the case of Brian Walshe:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/08/20/metro/brian-walshe-dismissal-motion-denied/

Back in 2023 the local media had a "missing white girl" freakout. Reporters kept writing stories about how she was dead and the husband must have done it until he was finally charged with murder. As far as I know police never found the body, only an unidentified bone fragment that might or might not be hers. There is good evidence that the husband disposed of her body. To charge murder the prosecution needs evidence of his mental state before her death.

So the judge reviewed the evidence presented to the grand jury to see if there was evidence of motive. The defendant knew his wife was having an affair. They were having money problems and he was the beneficiary of her life insurance. He had learned from online searches that men get screwed in Massachusetts divorce court. And from the time she disappeared he was already trying to cover up, which might be consistent with an accidental death but looks more like a planned murder. Good enough for an indictment.

His trial is scheduled for October. Since it's a first degree murder case with media attention the trial will probably happen. Facing a mandatory sentence of life without parole the defendant has nothing to lose by going to trial. When nobody is paying attention and the evidence isn't great prosecutors occasionally let a defendant plead guilty to manslaughter instead.

Towards the end of the media frenzy some stations belatedly noticed that there were other missing people in Massachusetts who weren't upper middle class white women.

[Frank Drackman]

Watching CT vs NV in LLWS,
CT Pitcher is 5’10” snapping off nasty Uncle Charlie’s, but just got taken deep by a smaller NV hitter, not sure why he’s just not throwing fastballs, 75mph from 46 feet has the same reaction time as 95mph from 60 feet 6 inches(Cue for Dr Ed 2 to say it’s actually 93.7mph)

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

I’m just a Hen in the Fox House, and my knowledge of Grand Jury Procedures is based on that “Quincy M.E.” (Or was it Rockford Files?) “Very Special Episode” where they showed how Grand Jury Witnesses don’t get to have their Attorney present, no 5th Amendment privilege, Hearsay permitted and yes….
Grand Jury Records were kept sealed because of the large amount of irrelevant/hearsay testimony,

Is that funny? Like I’m a Clown?? Tell me how I’m so (redacted) funny!!!!!

[not guilty]

That was Rockford Files. William Daniels (of Captain Nice fame, later on St. Elsewhere) played the truculent Assistant United States Attorney.

[Jack Jordan]

Following up on the discussions re: sovereignty of the people, above, partisan gerrymandering is one of the greatest threats to us and our Constitution today and perhaps the one threat we can most effectively combat.

The Texas legislature's partisan gerrymandering is egregiously unconstitutional and criminal. See, e.g., https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/the-criminal-conspiracy-between-scotus?r=30ufvh

https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/the-criminal-conspiracy-between-scotus-21b?r=30ufvh

[loki13]

I agree that as a policy matter, what Texas is doing in deplorable. In general, the idea that politicians get to choose their voters should make everyone sick.

Unfortunately, because of a recent SCOTUS decision, what they are doing isn't unlawful or unconstitutional.

And if they go through with it, as it looks like they will, it means that we will see other states follow as retaliation - undoing the meager good governance gains that we have seen.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why is it "deplorable" if it isn't "unlawful or unconstitutional"?
Texas was one of the six states under counted in the 2020 census.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why is it "deplorable" "

Because it hurts democrats, duh.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

California's retaliatory plans to (temporarily) abandon its supposedly non-partisan redistricting process are also deplorable. Two wrongs don't make a right...

[David Nieporent]

I disagree with your premise. Violence is never desirable, but self-defense is not a "wrong" just because it involves violence. (Here the violence is metaphorical, but the analogy holds.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Unless you're a pacifist, violence is neither right nor wrong; it is a means to an end.

Your analogy needs work.

[Mr. Bumble]

So tit for tat and the law be damned? And yes I know Newsom is trying to change the law because it is necessary to save democracy.
I might ask, is there something wrong with the law as it now stands?

[Jack Jordan]

Bumble, the Federalist No. 59 speaks to this issue of you think of Texas legislators rigging elections to maintain the power of Trump supporters in Congress and Trump being influenced by Putin.

"With so effectual a weapon in their hands as the exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, a combination of a few such men, in a few of the most considerable States, where the temptation will always be the strongest, might accomplish the destruction of the Union, by seizing the opportunity of some casual dissatisfaction among the people (and which perhaps they may themselves have excited), to discontinue the choice of members for the federal House of Representatives. It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this country, under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can be avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful and vigilant performance of the trust."

[Martinned]

That's a ridiculous question. Lots of things are deplorable but not unlawful. That's pretty much the theme of every single episode of Last Week Tonight: Things that are terrible but inexplicably legal.

[Jack Jordan]

Loki, the mere conduct of six judges violating our Constitution cannot mean that their conduct isn't unconstitutional. The point of having a written constitution is that We the People can read it and understand it as well as any judge can. Like any jury in any criminal case, we can judge for ourselves that their conduct was criminal.

[Michael P]

A bunch of dumb assertions that the Constitution prohibits things you don't like ... do not become true just because you cite yourself.

[Jack Jordan]

Of course, Michael. You have to read and think about the text and structure of our Constitution to see what it means. Article III requires a fair trial with criminal guilt determined by an impartial jury of the people. For good reason, it also permits judges to "hold their Offices [only] during good Behaviour."

You have to read and think about the text and purpose of criminal law. And then, like any jury in any criminal case, you have to consider the material facts under the controlling law.

For good reason, juries, not judges, have the power to determine criminal guilt. Judges weren't in the late 1700's (and shouldn't be now) trusted not to care too much about supporting their own power or other people in power.

Ours is “a republic, where every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in office.” Federalist No. 70 (Hamilton). Having “courts composed of judges holding their offices” only “during good behavior” is a “powerful means” for ensuring “the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided.” Federalist No. 9 (Hamilton). “The tenure by which the judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behavior.” Federalist No. 39 (James Madison). Only federal “judges” who “behave properly, will be secured in their places for life.” Federalist No. 79 (Hamilton).

“[T]here can be no room to doubt that” the failure to establish “GOOD BEHAVIOR as the tenure” of “judicial offices” “would have been inexcusably defective.” Federalist No. 78 (Hamilton). Absolutely “all judges” appointed to federal courts “are to hold their offices” only “DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR.” Id. “The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government.” Id. It was included in the Constitution to be an “excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of [every] representative [authority, including judges]. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.” Id.

[Martinned]

Article III requires a fair trial with criminal guilt determined by an impartial jury of the people.

Does it? Where does it say that?

[Jack Jordan]

Martinned, in all seriousness, have you even bothered to look at or think about anything in our Constitution?
Preamble: “We the People” did “ordain and establish this Constitution” to “establish Justice” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves.”
Amendment V: "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."
Article III: "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed . . . ."
Amendment VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

[David Nieporent]

Notably, neither the Preamble, nor Amendment V, nor Amendment VI, are in Article III.

[Jack Jordan]

David, think about how amendments to any document work. At the very least, the quoted language from Amendment VI necessarily and clearly amends the quoted language in Article III. Moreover, it should be obvious from the outset that "fair" was implicit in "trial" and "impartial" was implicit in "jury." But to further emphasize those very points, criminal trials must be "public" and "speedy."

Remember also the admonition of Chief Justice Marshall writing for SCOTUS: "we must never forget that it is a constitution" (of a nation and its system of government) that "we are expounding." McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 407 (1819) (Marshall, C.J.). You cannot hope to understand our Constitution by focusing myopically on any particular part.

Consider also guidance from SCOTUS re: how to construe our Constitution. “When seeking to discern the meaning of a word in the Constitution, there is no better dictionary than the rest of the Constitution itself.” Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U. S. 787, 829 (2015) (Roberts, C. J., dissenting).

[Jack Jordan]

Martinned, you often can easily find the most relevant language in our Constitution by searching on-line, e.g., at https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/

[Martinned]

The point of having a written constitution is that We the People can read it and understand it as well as any judge can.

Yeah, no. That wasn't even the point of Rome's 12 Tables.

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

[Jack Jordan]

Martinned, we're not talking about Rome 2000 years ago where people were placated with bread and circus. We're talking about our Constitution, written and published with the aid of the printing press for a people who could read. Our Constitution (like our Declaration of Independence) was written to be read (or read to) and understood and ratified by the voters. That's the point of Article V providing for conventions. That's the point of providing for voting (the sovereign people choosing public servants) and the broad freedom of speech and press (to discuss public people and public measures), both of which vastly exceeds any such right or freedom in Rome.

[Jack Jordan]

Martinned, if you haven't read it, I highly recommend Benson Bobrick's book, Angel in the Whirlwind: The Triumph of the American Revolution (1997). It's entertaining and enlightening. The following is from pp. 46-50:

The literacy rate in America was extraordinarily high. Although there was no public education system as such, almost every community had a church or parish school, and most towns had elementary schools for those of artisan stock, who attended until the age of thirteen, when their apprenticeship began. Those destined for higher education usually attended Latin or grammar schools, which could be found in every sizable town throughout New England. Private tutors were also engaged by the well-to-do for most levels of instruction, particularly in the rural South. Many colonists sent their sons to Britain for university training—to Scottish universities for medicine, to the Inns of Court for law, to Oxford or Cambridge for mathematics, rhetoric, philosophy, and languages; but America had a number of outstanding universities of her own—Harvard, Yale, and William and Mary being the oldest.

Almost everyone in America read a newspaper. In 1725, there were only two or three in the country … [but b]y the time of the Revolution, the colonies had twenty-five papers or more.

Bookshops also multiplied…. By 1771, however, Boston had at least ten and Philadelphia fifty, and by the Revolution, both Boston and New York had twenty and Philadelphia seventy-five…. Along with bookselling, a library system had also grown up. The first subscription library in America emerged out of “a club for mutual improvement” formed by Benjamin Franklin, which met at a Philadelphia alehouse every Friday evening. … The ideas soon spread, and by 1775 perhaps seventy such libraries had been formed throughout the colonies. “These libraries,” wrote Franklin, “have improved the general conversation of the Americans, made the common tradesmen and farmers as intelligent as most gentlemen from other countries, and contributed in some degree” by such enlightenment (he ventured) to the determination of Americans to stand up for their rights.

Some private libraries also were substantial. In the great manor houses of the South, a prosperous planter might accumulate up to four thousand volumes…. Some of the libraries owned by prominent divines were still larger, and the largest and most impressive of these by far was that begun by Cotton Mather, who had collected as many as eight thousand volumes. …

The development of literacy was furthermore accelerated by the growth of the postal service by which the colonies were joined…. Eventually, “mile-stones” were set at mile-long intervals along all the principal post roads to measure the distance from town to town. The ubiquitously useful Benjamin Franklin started this by traveling from Boston to Philadelphia [ ] with a kind of cyclometer of his own invention attached to it that measured the miles has he rode…. In 1753, he also established the penny post in Philadelphia; this later expanded into a system that stretched from the Carolinas to Maine.

The broad literacy and political involvement of the people in their democratic institutions helped turn the average American into a kind of citizen-lawyer. “In no country perhaps in the world,” Edmund Burke observed in his speech On Conciliation with the American Colonies (1775), “is the law so generally a study … all who read, and most do read, endeavor to obtain some smattering in that science.”

The first English play actually printed in America—in Boston in 1767—was Joseph Addison’s Cato. This overtly political drama, known to colonial audiences since 1735, had tremendous resonance for the contemporary scene. The setting was classical, like much of colonial political theory, and told the story of a self-sacrificing republican martyr who perished in his opposition to Roman tyrannical rule. By the 1760’s, it seemed to hold up a mirror to the developing struggle between British imperial prerogative and colonial rights. The language of the play became part of the language of political debate, and some of the mighty affirmations of the heroes of the Revolution were inspired by its lines. “Gods, can a Roman senate long debate / Which of the two to choose, slavery or death!” (II, i) anticipated Patrick Henry’s famous speech (“Give me liberty, or give me death!”) delivered on March 23, 1775; and “What pity is it / That we can die but once to serve our country!” (IV, iv) helped give immortal voice to Nathan Hale in the final moments of his martyred life.

[Jack Jordan]

Martinned, consider also the impact of the famous “Penny Universities” (and taverns) on education. See, e.g., See https://www.history.com/news/coffee-houses-revolutions. See also https://bigthink.com/the-past/penny-universities-coffeehouse/

See https://www.pennyuniversity.org/ which included the following:

The name "Penny University" is a reference to the early coffeehouses in Oxford, England. These coffeehouses held an important association with the European Age of Enlightenment. For the price of a penny, scholars and laypeople alike would be given admittance to the coffeehouse, enjoy an endless supply of coffee, and more importantly enjoy learning through conversations with their peers. Thus these coffeehouses came to be called "Penny Universities".

[Jack Jordan]

Martinned,

Consider this common pronouncement by SCOTUS in Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165 (1958): “As this Court has often observed, ‘The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.’ " See also info about publishing the Constitution in newspapers: https://davidrubensteinforum.uchicago.edu/us-constitution-newspaper-printing/

[M L]

James Comey says Taylor Swift inspires him to stand up to bullies

Wasn't this idiot the head of the FBI or something kind of important like that? What an embarrassment.

Beware any male calling themselves a "Swiftie." Huge red flag.

[hobie]

He got Trump elected, so why be down on the guy?

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie, no Homo (in the future I’ll just abbreviate it “HNH”)
You’re Ab-so-2-lute-ly Right,
When Comey made his announcement in 0-16, I said “it’s over”
OK hundreds of millions of others did too.

So…….Mr Hobie (I’ll forget the “Stank” none of these Nutless Shysters get my references anyway, Swine, behold your Pearls)
Were you one of the ones surprised on Post-Erection mornings in 2016 and 2024? Or like Chris Rock, you expected it?
I was surprised with both

Frank

[damikesc]

The same guy who did not investigate, at all, what he said the problem was?

[Mr. Bumble]

FWIW:
Dems hemorrhaging voters. (per the NYT story)
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/1958141592734511599

[Kazinski]

Bed Bath and Beyond is attempting to do a reboot and come back from bankruptcy, but the chairman says they won't open anymore brick and mortar stores in California, and will only operate online there"
"Official statement regarding
@BedBathBeyond

We will not open retail stores in California.

This isn’t about politics — it’s about reality.
California’s system makes it nearly impossible for businesses to succeed, and I won’t put our company, our employees, or our customers in that position.
See attachment."

Governor Newsom's Press Office issued a three word statement explaining their regulatory stance:

"FUCK YOU. BYE."

https://x.com/magills_/status/1958190202058396011

Of course that also explains why Valero and Chevron are closing their refineries and leaving the state, because of the regulatory environment.

[Mr. Bumble]

If this keeps up even Mexico wouldn't want California back.

[Jazzizhep]

Community notes added the post from the Governor’s Office is fake. The BB&B tweet is authentic.

[Kazinski]

That's nice to know they aren't that stupid, but Valero and Phillips76 are still shutting down their refineries, and Chevron is moving its headquarters to Texas, which is stupid enough.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why do you keep falling for this shit?

Have you ever wondered?

[David Nieporent]

It is amazing how gullible MAGA is.

Though to be fair maybe their logic is, "Our guy would be that lunatic, so we assume other people would be, too."

[bernard11]

California’s system makes it nearly impossible for businesses to succeed,

There are no successful businesses in CA? No restaurants, retail stores, manufacturers, wineries, professional sports teams? Silicon Valley is a fantasy? All are:

like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind.

[Frank Drackman]

LLWS update
CT came back for the win, 5’10” Pitcher went the distance (7 Innings in Little League) 88 pitches (still throwing that Curve to the end, what do I know? He won)
Noted in passing
No Black Players (lots of Hispanics, Yay! They count as “Minority” even if they’re 12 yr Ricardo Montalbans)
And no Lefties, not pitching, First Base, or Outfield (only positions we’re allowed to play in the Righty’s Righthanded Society)

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Hope his elbow lasts at least through HS.

[Frank Drackman]

Oh it’s gone,
OK even in 1974, we weren’t supposed to throw breaking balls, I threw Curves, Slurves, Knuckle Curves, what I thought was a Slider but would be called a “Cutter” today, Knuckle Balls, Fast Balls of course, and I experimented with K-Y (Hey now!) and using the frequently damaged balls we used (huhhuh, “Damaged Balls”) I could throw a pretty wicked “Cut ball”
Who taught me the curveball? My left handed Jewish-German-Amurican Mom, from some 1950’s library book “Like you’re unscrewing a light bulb(and tearing your Ulnar Collateral Ligament)”

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/nih-director/statements/advancing-nihs-mission-through-unified-strategy

"In accordance with these data, there are clearly more promising avenues of research that can be taken to improve the health of these populations than to conduct studies that involve the use of puberty suppression, hormone therapy, or surgical intervention to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence in minors.

By contrast, research that aims to identify and treat the harms these therapies and procedures have potentially caused to minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence, and how to best address the needs of these individuals so that they may live long, healthy lives is more promising."

That's not the only example of 'fund this viewpoint not that one.'

This is what having no scientific integrity looks like. Political agendas dictating scientific outcomes a priori.
The thing the right has been accusing scientists of doing in secret, these awful fucking people are doing in the open.

It even drops a 'clearly.'

This is on top of the science kommisars approving all awards and solicitations.
Terrible stuff for science worldwide, and what Americans believe in honest research.

We're not going to be able to trust anything out of the NIH for the next 3 years at least. Probably other agencies soon as well.

Stalin and Lysenko wasn't an instruction manual.

[ThePublius]

Why is it that the "mainstream's" response to gender dysphoria, for example, is almost universally to support their dysphoria and treat with so-called gender transitioning therapy, rather than psychological counseling? These people need therapy, not surgery.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure you know what science means.

I can tell you have no idea what integrity means.

[ThePublius]

Both of those comments are jerky. Your only responses are to attack and mock those who disagree with you.

Gender dysphoria is a psychological disorder. It should be treated psychologically, not with hormones and surgery.

[Sarcastr0]

I was writing about integrity in the performance of science.

You came in and called trans people crazy via ipse dixit.

I'm responded to your comment because it was ignorant, hateful, and worst of all *lazy*.

Which are all very common themes for you.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem here is that blood sugar regulation is a fairly objective matter, so you can objectively say "diabetes is a disease", and science works in a normal fashion. You can say, "This level of blood sugar puts you in a coma, that level will cause tissue damage over time, in this range you're fairly safe." You might have some arguments about where to draw the lines, but they're reason and fact based arguments.

When you get into psychology, once you're past the really gross pathologies, it becomes more a matter of opinion or groupthink. Alien limb syndrome or anorexia? Shrinks feel comfortable calling those mental illness. Some guy claims he's really a woman and wants his dick cut off? 20 years ago, it was the same thing, today you're a bigot if you call them nuts. Maybe 20 years from now the fad will change, and they'll be back to being nutcases.

Psychology has largely abandoned objective criteria for mental illness in favor of group think and shunning dissenters.

[Sarcastr0]

So you don't believe the science is legit in places where you want your values to prevail. And fuck the experts.

That's a category error. It's also your usual 'I have telepathied liberal bad faith in a thing I don't like.'

Go after the bad faith if you think that's the issue. (see: my issues with EvoPsych).
Don't top-down impose your preferred outcome. No matter how self-confident you are, that's authoritarian bullshit.

So many MAGAs on here love to pull an 'I'm the real expert and all the so-called experts are wrong.' You, Kaz, Joe...Ed kinda, but he's crazy.

Have some fucking humility.

[Brett Bellmore]

Give me one good reason why one conviction that the objectively false is true should be treated differently from another. Why should we give gender dysphorics sex change surgery, and deny tummy tucks to anorexics? Why should the guy who thinks his hand is an alien growth get counseled to accept that it's part of him, but the guy who thinks he should have a vagina instead of a penis gets surgery to turn it inside out?

[Sarcastr0]

Process is not the same as outcome.

You are unhappy about the process, so you want to impose an outcome.

When I call you on it, you don't even understand the distinction, and fall back on how the outcome is bad.

How are you failing to understand this elementary distinction?!

[jay.tee]

I think you’re misunderstanding the use of some of the terminology and confusing medical vs spiteful, immature usages.

For example, medically speaking, we consider depression, anxiety, bipolar, ADHD, and the like mental illnesses. Of course, some people - the spiteful and immature I referenced above - use term “mental illness” to denigrate and insult.

Back to gender dysmorphia…the DSM IV classified it as a mental illness. The DSM V changed that classification to a condition, primarily because of the stigma a “mental illness” may bring.

To me, that seems unscientific and more a political statement. After all, does that imply it’s ok to stigmatize someone with depression since they’re still considered to have a mental illness?

In short, when (some) people refer to gender dysmorphia as a mental illness, it’s not because they’re trying to belittle trans people.

[David Nieporent]

No, it absolutely is because they're trying to belittle trans people. We know that, because we know who is describing it that way and what else they're saying about trans people.

[jay.tee]

And yet, just in this very thread, Sarcastr0 uses the emotional “bigotry” defense to claim TB’ question is out of bounds.

So no, you’re absolutely wrong; not everyone who describes it that way is trying to belittle trans people.

[apedad]

"20 years ago, it was the same thing, today you're a bigot if you call them nuts."

Oooorrrrrrr......

We've had decades of research and are more knowledgable of the situation.

You know . . . science.

[tylertusta]

Trust the science because scientists aren't capable of advancing a political agenda!

[apedad]

No, test and verify the science all you want.

People have political agendas that can be discussed.

[tylertusta]

"Test and verify" isn't how science works in the real world, bud. That's why it's better referred to as "science" with scare quotes.

Who is going to fund studies that challenges 'scientific' orthodoxy on a contentious issue like the transgender dogma?

Which IRB- staffed by True Believer leftists, naturally- is going to approve that research?

Which peers- staffed by True Believer leftists, naturally- are going to review the study for publication?

Which reputable journal- run by True Believer leftists, naturally- is going to publish the findings?

Academia has shown it is utterly incapable of performing neutral science that challenges its faculty's most favored, most radical social agendas. On top of that, there remains the problems of statistical warping that continue to plague the sciences.

[tylertusta]

They've even coined a term to try to normalize people being mentally ill: "neurodivergence"

[bernard11]

Psychology has largely abandoned objective criteria for mental illness in favor of group think and shunning dissenters.

Sheer ignorance.

[ThePublius]

You know, Sarcastr0, you're just lashing out, in a very insulting and mean spirited way, without substantiating any of your claims or rebuttals, while you accuse me of what you are being: ignorant, hateful, and worst of all *lazy*.

Why are you such an angry person? Why do you apparently take these things personally, and then launch personal attacks? So we disagree. O.K. So what?

[Sarcastr0]

I care about science being done well.
You care about science agreeing with your priors.

That's very bad. I'm angry about bad things happening to science, which I care deeply about.

I am amused you don't see how angry you come off all the time. I presume your life isn't all like how you pose. If this place proved no longer fun or a good pressure valve, I'd leave.
Given you assume my posting here reflects my life in general, I wonder about you now.

[jb]

This is a weird comment on a couple of fronts. First, the fact that mainstream science consistently thinks something isn't unusual--it just means that essentially all of the evidence is pointing in one direction. The mainstream thinks, almost universally at this point, stuff like nothing can go faster than the speed of light, viruses and bacteria cause diseases, and the Earth is round. The fact that there's some flat-Earthers disagree with the latter doesn't mean that therefore the mainstream is involved in some Big Orb conspiracy theory.

Second (and ignoring for the moment your attempt to pre-decide the discussion through your use of language) I don't think it's actually the case that there's a mainstream consensus that gender transition therapy is always the right answer for trans people. There's a fair amount of controversy on this topic even within the scientific community, but people trying to score political points tend to try to dumb down the debate rather than engaging with it.

[ThePublius]

"First, the fact that mainstream science consistently thinks something isn't unusual--it just means that essentially all of the evidence is pointing in one direction."

That's historically inaccurate. There have been times in history, many times, when mainstream thought was completely wrong, such as bleeding people to cure illnesses, recommended beards for throat health, smoking to calm one's nerves, and more recently, covid vaccines for infants, and so on. I can link a paper by the worlds aeronautical experts saying man would never exceed the speed of sound.

You're attempting to refute my assertions by using ridiculous, extreme examples, kind of ridiculing me. That doesn't fly.

I stand by what I said. Number 1., that the mainstream response to gender dysphoria is "gender affirming care," which is to affirm the person's dysphoria. Number 2., that the issue is in the patient's head, not their body or soul. There is no such thing as gender transitioning: you can't make a man into a woman, a woman into a man. Period. They would be much better off, and ultimately happier and healthier, if they received good psychological treatment rather than hormones and surgery.

[apedad]

"There have been times in history, many times, when mainstream thought was completely wrong . . . . "

And yet it was scientific research and discovery which changed those ways.

[ThePublius]

"And yet it was scientific research and discovery which changed those ways."

Oh, and it's all over now, and we should "trust the science?" Knowledge evolves all the time, and things that "science" has asserted today may well be disproven in time to come.

[apedad]

"Knowledge evolves all the time, and things that 'science' has asserted today may well be disproven in time to come by science."

FTFY

Or what ways do you think knowledge is improved?

[Sarcastr0]

Science is our best guess. Sometimes it's wrong.

Not the best guess is laypeople coming in and saying they're right because of vibes.

In this discussion, you are the Catholic Church going after Galileo. Galileo wasn't right about everything, so I guess that means the Church was right to correct him, eh?

[ThePublius]

"In this discussion, you are the Catholic Church going after Galileo. Galileo wasn't right about everything, so I guess that means the Church was right to correct him, eh?"

I don't get that. Are you implying that it is possible to make a man into a woman, a woman into a man?

[ThePublius]

"Science is our best guess. Sometimes it's wrong."

You haven't made a scientific argument or taken a position based on science regarding gender dysphoria or gender transitioning. You're just arguing with me. What is your view, and how does science support it?

Science isn't necessary in this case. It is self evident that gender transitioning is impossible.

[Sarcastr0]

Did you read the OP? It basically dictates 'only study the efficacy and effects therapies for gender dysphoria if you're looking for them to be bad.'

Your semantic difficulties between sex, gender, and gender identity are completely off topic.

Science should not come in looking for a politician-dictated outcome. On any topic.

[jb]

That's historically inaccurate. There have been times in history, many times, when mainstream thought was completely wrong

That's true*, but also completely irrelevant to my point. It's not that the consensus is always right, just that the fact that there is a consensus isn't evidence the consensus is wrong or has been reached through some nefarious mechanism. The good news is that the whole point of science is to have hypotheses we can test rather than just imposing our "facts" on the world.

* And in fact I intentionally chose examples that were controversial at some point in history.

[ThePublius]

There's no consensus in the scientific method. People don't vote on what the truth is. This is the leading fallacy of the so-called climate science community and argument, that there's a scientific consensus about something.

[apedad]

So what "method" do you use to reveal the truth?

Just your self-evident point of view?

[jb]

Of course you're right that the scientific method doesn't have a consensus mechanism, but also:

1) In many cases, perfect experiments don't exist so we end up with results in terms of probabilities rather than binaries, and data can be noisy. So you can do good science and come up with different conclusions. One thing that some scientists do therefore is look across results that a bunch of other scientists did and try to summarize all of the results and figure out what the "correct" answer actually is. This is something that I would say resembles determening consensus in a scientific context.

2) Even beyond that, though, people don't have the time or the resources or the expertise to reproduce all of the science that they may care about. So it's useful to be able to discover that some particular bit of science is well understood, has been looked at by other scientists, and ideally reproduced. So the method of producing science may not be consensus-based, but it is pretty useful to rely on the consensus of a bunch of scientists so you don't have to figure everything out yourself from first principles. Yes, there's some risk in this approach in terms of idealogical bias and/or groupthink, but it's way better than everyone deciding that they should just use their kids as experiments as to whether the measles vaccine is actually useful or not.

[bernard11]

Experts are sometimes wrong. That does not mean any of:

1. Experts are always wrong.
2. The opinions of the average layman are better and more likely to be correct.
3. The consensus of experts is not generally the best view to act on.

("The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.")

It's a common fallacy to believe these things.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is, here we're dealing with something that doesn't really have an objective answer. What prediction hinges on the question of whether gender dysphoria is a mental illness or a different sort of normal? Is there a meter that reads that?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The Trump Administration is nearly always wrong about everything, but the trans medical controversy is one of the few exceptions proving the rule.

The Administration's suspect motivations aside, there is no question that the US medical establishment has/had been completely captured by the "mainstream consensus" on transimagination. The UK has since pulled back from its similarly doctrinaire approach, and is again engaging in science, rather than simply stridently enforcing an ideology.

[Sarcastr0]

I found the UK report on trans therapies for minors to be persuasive, but it was a policy document and rested it's analysis very much on how many unknowns remain for the science to nail down.

That's how you do it - science informs, but does not dictate, policy.

You offer no support for your take that the US medical establishment isn't doing good science; you seem to be insisting on an outcome yourself.
But even if there is a problem, the solution is never ever to dictate the research outcome going in.

Saying 'there is no question' is a flag. The use of empty intensifiers like that means you yourself are sufficiently confident to let your argument stand on it's own.

[ThePublius]

"You offer no support for your take that the US medical establishment isn't doing good science;"

And you offer no support that the US medical establishment is doing good science. In fact, there appears to be no science at all regarding the notion that a person can be trapped in a wrong-gender body, and that the medical establishment can correct that through hormones and surgery. It's utter nonsense! Show me the science.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I am not a scientist; I am an observer (with an interest).

However, I do trust the science will survive this assault, as it has previous ones. Good luck to us all.

[ThePublius]

Judge Caprio, "the nicest judge in the world," in Rhode Island, has passed.

R.I.P.

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/nicest-judge-frank-caprio-dies/3793798/

[Martinned]

Even a drug addicted loose cannon like Elon Musk understands that in Trump's America annoying the Great Leader is bad for business. The only difference is that he's had to learn that lesson at least three times already this year. So yeah, shockingly the America Party is dead.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/elon-musk-third-political-party-69bf9bd8?mod=hp_lead_pos3

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That was quick. He really is a genius!

[Martinned]

Peace in our time. Thanks to Donald Trump there will be no hostilities between Aberbaijan and Albania! Give the man a Nobel Prize!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-peace-deal-armenia-azerbaijan-b2811556.html

[Sarcastr0]

Trump being disconnected and/or pudding-headed aside, this seems like a good thing with this country being important in making this peace deal happen.

[Martinned]

This peace deal is basically the consequence of Azerbaijan rolling up Nagorno-Krabakh in 2023. Since then, the only thing that might have derailed peace would have been some kind of external shock, like Turkey giving the Azerbaijani regime the impression that they could get away with annexing Armenia's Syunik Province. (Which sits between Azerbaijan's Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic exclave and the rest of Azerbaijan.)

Between Ukraine, Syria, and Russia's (former) adventures in Africa there has been plenty of geopolitical uncertainty, so this peace deal was by no means a done deal, but it mostly required 3rd countries to stay out. Armenia is weak, Azerbaijan is worried about Russia, so neither one has an incentive to stay on a war footing indefinitely. (Although Aliyev has an incentive to sound tough, because that's how strongmen stay in power.)

See this analysis piece from March: https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/03/armenia-azerbaijan-peace-deal-next-steps?lang=en

[Sarcastr0]

Appreciate the link.

[apedad]

No, it's Algeria. Or Angola?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not to mention Oceania and Eastasia...

[Martinned]

Speaking of peace deals, this one isn't going so well.

M23 rebels suspend peace talks with DR Congo government

[damikesc]

https://nypost.com/2025/08/21/us-news/trumps-massive-500m-civil-fraud-fine-in-ag-tish-james-case-thrown-out-by-ny-appeals-court/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nypost

Letitia James smacked down. Her fine is reversed. Should be given to Trump with interest.

[David Nieporent]

It's not "her fine," but anyway, unlike some here, I will wait to discuss the decision until I've actually read it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Will you having read it make a difference?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's a good day for Trump, anyway.

Appeals court throws out Trump's $454 million civil fraud judgment

Approaching $0.6B with interest. Thrown out as a violation of the 8th amendment.

Of the 5 judges on the panel, two said it was an excessive fine, two that Trump was wrongly convicted, and one that the charges never should have been brought in the first place...

I wonder if the state will bother appealing?

[David Nieporent]

two that Trump was wrongly convicted,

I hope that judges know the difference between a criminal prosecution and a civil trial.

[bernard11]

And yet,

Four judges agreed that the lower state court correctly found Trump and the other defendants liable for fraud and agreed that James had the right to bring the civil action under New York’s Executive Law 63(12) – a long-debated interpretation of the statute.

“We agree with Supreme Court that the Attorney General acted well within her lawful power in bringing this action, and that she vindicated a public interest in doing so,” the opinion says.

The prevailing decision supported Judge Arthur Engoron’s finding that Trump and others engaged in years of fraud by issuing falsified financial statements that inflated the value of his properties and misled insurers and lenders.

So, a big financial win, but he's still a fraudster.

[tylertusta]

A split opinion. This isn't over by a long shot.

Link to opinion:

https://nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/calendar/AppsMots/2025/apps/20250821/2023-04925,%20et%20ano..pdf

[Mr. Bumble]

Anybody bothered to figure out ng's average for calling outcomes of Trump related cases?

[tylertusta]

I actually gave this some thought the other day:

Our friend Mr. Guilty has been pretty good at predicting outcomes when the case lands in front of a judge that's outwardly hostile to Trump and his administration. Given the forum shopping that's been done by plaintiffs, that basically means most of the cases are landing on front of hostile judge.

It's on appeal that our friend's predictions no longer pan out, either at the appellate level or at SCOTUS.

[tylertusta]

It has now been 7 days since the last homicide in DC. Usually there are 3-4 a week.

[ducksalad]

https://mpdc.dc.gov/

So yes, it's been 7 days. It certainly could mean the takeover is having an effect, countries that police heavily often do have lower crime rates. Saudi Arabia, Singapore, etc.

On the other hand if you click through the items in the link you'll see that the MPDC often announce the homicide investigation some days or weeks after the death. There are plenty of good reasons to delay, but it also means someone decides when to post a death as a homicide. That person is now under a different chain of command headed by a person who wants the number to go down and isn't particular about accuracy.

And anyway we sometimes have seven days in a row over 100F even though our summer average is 3-4 days a week under 100F. There's randomness in crime and in weather.

[David Nieporent]

Judge rules that parking garage lawyer Habba is not validly serving as USA for the District of New Jersey. I do not think this ruling will be the last word on the subject.

[David Nieporent]

Link to the court's decision: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.557842/gov.uscourts.njd.557842.144.0.pdf