Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 8.27.2025 3:00 AM
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
NEXT: Did Collins v. Yellen Lead Trump To Fire Lisa Cook?
Hide Comments (359)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
The New York Times is reporting:
Pursuing a theory promoted by Trump loyalists, the Justice Department is investigating whether F.B.I. officials during and after the Biden administration tried to hide or secretly destroy documents that might cast doubt on the earlier inquiry into Russia’s attempt to tilt the 2016 election in President Trump’s favor, two people with knowledge of the matter said. The steps taken by the Justice Department are the latest in a series of efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to impugn the Russia investigation, which the president sees as having been a partisan witch hunt that unfairly dogged him throughout his first term. The new inquiry seeks to determine if senior F.B.I. officials spent years working to cover up the supposed misdeeds of James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director at the time of the Russia investigation, and John O. Brennan, who was then the C.I.A. director, after the two men left government by squirreling away potentially damaging classified documents.
Pursuing a theory promoted by Trump loyalists, the Justice Department is investigating whether F.B.I. officials during and after the Biden administration tried to hide or secretly destroy documents that might cast doubt on the earlier inquiry into Russia’s attempt to tilt the 2016 election in President Trump’s favor, two people with knowledge of the matter said.
The steps taken by the Justice Department are the latest in a series of efforts by Mr. Trump and his allies to impugn the Russia investigation, which the president sees as having been a partisan witch hunt that unfairly dogged him throughout his first term.
The new inquiry seeks to determine if senior F.B.I. officials spent years working to cover up the supposed misdeeds of James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director at the time of the Russia investigation, and John O. Brennan, who was then the C.I.A. director, after the two men left government by squirreling away potentially damaging classified documents.
How is this not ground that has already been plowed in John Durham's $6.5 million Special Counsel investigation? Or is Donald Trump merely channeling Captain Ahab, in pursuit of what he characterizes as the Russia "hoax" as the Great White Whale?
The Times reports:
The premise of the investigation is that classified documents related to the F.B.I.’s investigation into possible ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian agents, known as Crossfire Hurricane, were mishandled on the 7th floor of the J. Edgar Hoover building in downtown Washington, where the director and his senior aides work.
I wonder whether this "investigation" is looking at acts or omissions which may have occurred since August of 2020. If not, any prosecution would in all likelihood be time barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a).
While they're hunting for those documents, who knows, maybe they'll come across the Epstein files?
NG...Sunshine is the best disinfectant, is it not?
How does a likely fruitless investigation "disinfect" anything, XY?
I'm not sure why you think it's likely fruitless. Figure they'd have destroyed all the evidence by now?
What criminal conduct do you fancy is currently being investigated, Brett? John Durham and his minions spent multiple millions of dollars, only to yield one guilty plea with a sentence of probation and two jury acquittals. What do you surmise that Durham missed that will now be uncovered? I strongly suspect that there's no there, there.
The investigation of Russian election interference that vexes Donald Trump occurred during Trump's first term of office. Federal prosecution of events occurring more than five years ago is time barred.
I guess it comes down to whether these "burn bags" and other squirreled away documents Gabbard was talking about are real and consequential. I think it's quite possible that Durham was met with obstruction, and simply lacked the resources to overcome it.
If you're hoping for 'burn bags' to be a breakthrough, then you can quit hoping. The physical materials are supposed to be destroyed at the end of a case as standard procedure.
There's supposed to be an electronic file, which is why they can destroy physical copies.
I realize that burn bags are supposed to be "burned", but these weren't. Why? Because somebody screwed up? Or because somebody was reluctant to destroy evidence? I frankly don't know.
"There's supposed to be an electronic file, which is why they can destroy physical copies."
"Supposed to be" is doing a lot of work here, you realize.
"Supposed to" is lifting the exact amount that it says it's lifting. No more and no less.
If something was supposed to be destroyed but wasn't, that is indeed a crime of negligence. But that isn't a conspiracy to conceal.
If material was never entered into electronic records, then that is a problem. But having things burned (and some things forgotten to be burned) isn't as big of a proble..
Thinking that things exist in burn bags that didn't exist electronically is wishful thinking.
For starters, a conspiracy within the government working as you're thinking of it wouldn't have written down things to begin with, physical or otherwise.
I can't help but think back to the IRS targeting scandal, all those bricked phones, smashed hard drives, and finding out that the IRS 'data preservation' system focused heavily on making sure backups got destroyed on schedule.
There may be a presumption of innocence, but for the federal bureaucracy it starts out largely rebutted. They've been caught at too much already.
That and Durham remarked on the political sensitivities that prevented him from more aggressively pursuing charges. I know he lived it and that jibes with my perceptions of DC, but feels weak given the gravity of the offenses.
"That and Durham remarked on the political sensitivities that prevented him from more aggressively pursuing charges."
When and in what context did Mr. Durham deliver any such remarks as you attribute to him, jay.tee?
He discusses it starting on the last two paragraphs on page 5 of his report to Congress.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf
While too much to paste it all, here are a few salient excerpts:
There are also reasons why, in examining politically-charged [sic] and high-profile issues such as these, the Office must exercise — and has exercised — special care.
The decision of whether to bring criminal charges in any given matter thus is a complicated one that is neither entirely subjective nor mechanistic. If this report and the outcome of the Special Counsel's investigation leave some with the impression that injustices or misconduct have gone unaddressed, it is not because the Office concluded that no such injustices or misconduct occurred. It is, rather, because not every injustice or transgression amounts to a criminal offense, and criminal prosecutors are tasked exclusively with investigating and prosecuting violations of U.S. criminal laws. And even where prosecutors believe a crime occurred based on all of the facts and information they have gathered, it is their duty only to bring criminal charges when the evidence that the government reasonably believes is admissible in court proves the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
So, as with every other document you've cited on this topic, you find words in it that aren't there. He says literally nothing about anyone or anything "prevent[ing] him from more aggressively pursuing charges." Unless you think that not bringing charges he doesn't think he can prove is somehow a bad thing.
John Durham had plenty of resources, Brett, along with the full inquisitorial powers of the grand jury.
The New York Times article that I linked above said this about the "burn bags":
One person familiar with the investigation said that prosecutors and agents appeared to be investigating claims in an article published in July by Fox News that said thousands of pages of documents related to the Russia investigation had been found in burn bags at the F.B.I. The suggestion that placing paper documents in any containers could amount to hiding or destroying classified information struck current and former national security officials as odd, given that such data has been maintained on computer servers for many years. * * * The Fox News article in July about the material found in the burn bags said that among the documents discovered in them was a classified annex to the report by Mr. Durham into the bureau’s handling of the Russia investigation. Shortly after, Mr. Patel confirmed on social media that “we just uncovered burn bags/room filled with hidden Russia Gate files.” * * * “You’ve also found many bags of information,” the president said, “having to do with how corrupt the 2020 election was. And when will that come out?” Ms. Gabbard said she would brief him as soon as she could, adding, “We are finding documents literally tucked away in the back of safes, in random offices.” The discovery, she said, “speaks to the intent of those trying to hide the truth from the American people.”
One person familiar with the investigation said that prosecutors and agents appeared to be investigating claims in an article published in July by Fox News that said thousands of pages of documents related to the Russia investigation had been found in burn bags at the F.B.I.
The suggestion that placing paper documents in any containers could amount to hiding or destroying classified information struck current and former national security officials as odd, given that such data has been maintained on computer servers for many years.
* * *
The Fox News article in July about the material found in the burn bags said that among the documents discovered in them was a classified annex to the report by Mr. Durham into the bureau’s handling of the Russia investigation.
Shortly after, Mr. Patel confirmed on social media that “we just uncovered burn bags/room filled with hidden Russia Gate files.”
“You’ve also found many bags of information,” the president said, “having to do with how corrupt the 2020 election was. And when will that come out?”
Ms. Gabbard said she would brief him as soon as she could, adding, “We are finding documents literally tucked away in the back of safes, in random offices.” The discovery, she said, “speaks to the intent of those trying to hide the truth from the American people.”
Assuming this information to be true, the fact that the records were preserved -- not destroyed -- actually exculpates those who handled the records. An actor who intended to hide or conceal the records' content would have seen to it that the documents were destroyed.
As the late Clara Peller said in the Wendy's commercials, "Where's the beef?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U80ebi4AKgs
No need to lie, Mr. 'the shoe is now on the other foot and the process is the punishment.'
Transparency isn't your agenda; revenge for imagined wrongs is.
Oh look! More mind-reading vibes from Sarcastr0! Shocked I am!
In all seriousness though, some of us do in fact want all misdeeds documented in the public record to prevent it from happening again to any candidate or administration - whether that be a Republican or a Democratic one.
Second goal is justice, which may be challenging given statute of limitations, complexity of the crimes, jury nullification, etc.
OK chief. You sure do seem evenhanded, and Trump sure seems interested in documentation and justice.
Your noble rhetoric would be great except for the actual facts on the ground of who Trump goes after. And Commenter's commenting history.
It may seem like a foreign concept, but some of us are able to separate misdeeds and corruption from political party and ideology.
And given the ideological leanings of a number of the most prolific posters here, rarely is a Trump deed or misdeed not addressed. Would you rather I post a Me Too! every time I agree with a criticism of what Trump does? I generally prefer not to post unless I have something substantive to add to the discussion.
Sunshine indeed. We all get to be reminded how Trump colluded with Russia. Vlad even admitted it. Hopefully they will stupidly bring up the 2020 election too.
Lies, the real life vampires and zombies.
Pretty funny to be talking about zombies as Trump tries to resurrect a case that he already had the DOJ investigate during his first administration. Maybe at some point we'll have to call this the Trump Effect as he keeps bringing attention back to the very topic he wants to avoid being associated with.
".Sunshine is the best disinfectant, is it not?" Hillary thought it was bleach(bit).
I thought that was Trump's idea for how to cure Covid?
The trouble is when the sunshine consists of a spotlight on your political opponents while you throw blackout curtains up around your allies.
Investigations seem to bother you a lot. The underlying fabrication of the Russian collusion? Not so much.
This was the contours of the conspiracy I suggested previously. I'm pleased to see the Trump DOJ is pursuing it, and I hope they get to the bottom of it. Comey, McCabe, Mueller's prosecutors, Brennan, and the rest: they can burn in hell.
Even if prosecutions are time-barred, having the truth made public will do much to prevent it from happening again.
A reminder from the last time you and I spoke about this: in a conspiracy in which concealment was the objective, the statute of limitations resets for any overt act that furthers that concealment.
"A reminder from the last time you and I spoke about this: in a conspiracy in which concealment was the objective, the statute of limitations resets for any overt act that furthers that concealment."
In the meantime, have you read Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (1957)? Or as Charles Maurice de Talleyrand said of the Bourbons of France, have you learned nothing and forgotten nothing?
As to your fanciful conspiracy:
Who are the conspirators? What was the conspiratorial objective? If the conspiracy was to commit a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 371, what was/is the object offense? When was the conspiracy formed? When, if at all, was the conspiratorial objective accomplished or the conspiracy abandoned? What overt act(s) in furtherance of the conspiracy, if any, has any conspirator committed since August 2020? As to each such overt act within the past five years, which conspirator committed the act, and when?
Who are the conspirators?
What was the conspiratorial objective?
If the conspiracy was to commit a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 371, what was/is the object offense?
When was the conspiracy formed?
When, if at all, was the conspiratorial objective accomplished or the conspiracy abandoned?
What overt act(s) in furtherance of the conspiracy, if any, has any conspirator committed since August 2020?
As to each such overt act within the past five years, which conspirator committed the act, and when?
More obfuscatory commentary and a quote to sound witty. It wouldn't be you if you did anything else.
Have you read Gruneweld, counselor? The last time we spoke about this I cited the relevant section of the opinion, yet you conveniently ignored it. For someone who insists people answer on his own timetables, you're unable to live up to the standards with which you judge others.
Here it is again:
We hold, therefore, that, considering the main objective of the conspiracy [in this case] to have been the obtaining of "no prosecution" rulings, prosecution was barred by the three-year statute of limitations, since no agreement to conceal the conspiracy after its accomplishment was shown or can be implied on the evidence before us to have been part of the conspiratorial agreement".
If I had to take on the job I would investigate
1. Equitable tolling of the statute of limitations when the President is part of the conspiracy. It has been suggested that cases against Trump could be revived in 2029, exluding his second term from the limitations period because he can't be prosecuted.
2. Any affirmative acts related to the conspiracy within the statute of limitations. People whose active involvement ended in 2017 could still be prosecuted if they did not affirmatively withdraw from the conspiracy.
Extension, suspension or tolling of a criminal statute of limitations is a legislative matter addressed to Congress. When Congress intends to do so, it knows what kind of language to write into a statute. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 3283 (tolling as to certain offenses against children), 3284 (concealment of bankrupt’s assets), 3287 (wartime suspension of limitations as to some offenses), 3288 (saving statute as to indictments and information dismissed after period of limitations), 3289 (extension as to indictments and information dismissed before period of limitations), 3290 (tolling as to fugitives from justice).
Nothing authorizes the Executive Branch to unilaterally extend or deem tolled any period of limitation fixed by Congress.
Equitable tolling by its very nature concerns circumstances outside the four corners of the statute, and is of course a determination made by a court, not "unilaterally extended or deemed tolled" by a party.
I have the right to do anything I want to do. I'm the president of the United States.
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lxdalfrxrt2z
Fighting words from Merriam Webster the other day:
Does Not Rhyme -through -cough -though -rough -bough Does Rhyme -pony -bologna
Does Not Rhyme -through -cough -though -rough -bough
Does Rhyme -pony -bologna
What's the timeline on SCOTUS declaring an executive order unconstitutional?
That depends on whether Trump loses in the District Court.
I don't think any of Trump's EO's can be "unconstitutional", in as much as they all include "to the extent consistent with the law and constitution" boilerplate.
Those aren't magic words.
You tell people to do what you tell them to do, not what your political foes like to imagine you told them to do.
You tell people to do unconstitutional things, saying 'to the extent consistent with law' doesn't make them constitutional.
It's adorable you think the administration is carefully tailoring their activities based on that language.
Trump does not generally issue EOs ordering things that are facially unconstitutional. He orders things that may be unconstitutional as applied, which is commonly true of Presidential EOs.
Directing that they only be done to the extent that is constitutional actually is relevant in that "as applied" context, though I understand it won't look that way if you start from the presumption of guilt, as so many of his political foes do.
Incredible finding of good faith despite all available evidence.
You talk a lot about words, not about actions. I think even you, with your amazing lack of self-regard when it comes to your Trump-defending contortions, see why you're sticking to the words.
Words do not magically change actions to legal if they are not legal. But they do deflect, a bit, if you don't want to defend actual activities.
>Incredible finding of good faith despite all available evidence.
And there boils down every Lefty argument and belief.
Their masters have the presumption of golden hearts, their enemies have the presumption of evil hearts.
Everything a Lefty leader or civil servant does, well they're just trying to save democracy, save the planet, or be on The Right Side of History, so who cares if a few eggs get cracked!?!?
President Trump's EO? Doesn't matter the language of the order, we just know in our golden pure hearts that his heart is BLACK and therefore his EO MUST be unconstitutional.
--- Lefty's have been groomed to think like children while sticking their noses up in their air as if they're demi-gods.
Trump and his acolytes are strong believers in magic words. Trump tells people to wink wink nudge nudge go attack the capitol, but then tacks on a perfunctory "Oh, but act peacefully," and he and they pretend the tack-on are magic words that mean the first part didn't happen.
Trump announces that KKK members/white supremacists/neo-Nazis were fine people, but then tacks on a perfunctory "Oh, I'm not talking about neo-Nazis; they're bad," and he and they pretend the tack-on are magic words that mean the first part didn't happen.
And Trump issues EOs that order bad/illegal/unconstitutional things, but then tacks on a perfunctory "But do it consistent with the law," and he and they pretend the tack-on are magic words that mean the first part didn't happen.
David Notsoimportant up-thread: "...you find words in it that aren't there." "Trump tells people to wink wink nudge nudge go attack the capitol, but then tacks on a perfunctory "Oh, but act peacefully," Words that aren't there?
"I don't think any of Trump's EO's can be 'unconstitutional', in as much as they all include 'to the extent consistent with the law and constitution' boilerplate."
Sewing fig leaves together to hide their nakedness didn't work for Adam and Eve. (Genesis 3:7.) What makes you think it will work for Donald Trump and his cult?
The problem Adam and Eve had was that they'd violated a direct command of God. The fig leaves were just a consequence of that, not an attempt to, impossibly, hide that they'd violated it.
This comes down, I think, to the difference between facial and as applied unconstitutionality. Trump has not ordered anything, so far as I know, which is facially unconstitutional. If he did, the boilerplate would be unavailing, I agree.
But when he orders something with the capacity to be unconstitutional as applied? Here the boilerplate does save the EO itself from being unconstitutional, because no action complying with the EO would be unconstitutional.
Bellmore, SCOUTS has decreed that it is the Constitution itself which requires Trump be protected from criminal liability. Others here have instructed me that that does not mean what SCOTUS immunizes for Trump thereby becomes Constitutional. You seem to believe the opposite. I think you are begging the question worse than the others, but less so than SCOTUS.
Bellmore, SCOUTS [sic] has decreed that it is the Constitution itself which requires Trump be protected from criminal liability.
SCOTUS did not decree Trump is immune from criminal liability unless the action is within his core Constitutional powers.
Seems the former journalist needs a proofreader.
That is not true. He's automatically immune in that case. But if it has anything at all to do with his (alleged) constitutional powers, then there's a squishy balancing test under which he's immune, and also none of anything he did can even be used as evidence against him.
"Trump has not ordered anything, so far as I know, which is facially unconstitutional."
That's horseshit, Brett. The January 20, 2025 birthright citizenship order is facially unconstitutional. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202500127/pdf/DCPD-202500127.pdf
Every jot and tittle.
As determined by whom? You, Somin or the other usual suspects?
Barring an act pursued under an EO or law what authority is able to state it to be unconstitutional (other than a Somin OP)?
Oh, look, now we're just going to abolish facial challenges against things Trump does altogether. Who could have seen that coming?
Nobody (here, anyway) is talking about abolishing facial challenges against things Trump does.
We're talking about trying to declare an EO unconstitutional, where it at most orders something that could be unconstitutional as applied, and expressly says not to do it in such cases.
Bellmore, Trump's administration has been on a rampage doing unconstitutional things Trump decreed by executive orders, however qualified. Trump has done nothing noticeable to discipline those subordinates for what they did, or to rein them in. That makes malicious nonsense of your advocacy about some fig leaf clause nobody believes applies in practice.
So try this on for size: can Congress pass a law that says "to the extent consistent with the Constitution, no private ownership of guns is allowed from now on" and therefore avoid all facial challenges?
I am sure this is another one of those video clips that needs context to be properly understood.
A 14 year old girl brandishing a knife and a hatchet while telling the migrant filming her to stay away from her and her friend.
The clip says they later arrested the girl.
But I've also seen reports the migrant groped one of the girls and asked for their phone numbers before the clip started.
https://x.com/Rightanglenews/status/1959972631555297540
But nothing from official sources.
Girls that age shouldn't need to carry hardware like that to feel safe.
More details here: https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/axe-wielding-dundee-teen-who-35797170
Maybe don't rely on a website for news that is owned by someone who thinks Nigel Farage is too far to the left?
https://bsky.app/profile/alexofbrown.bsky.social/post/3lxei5x76m22e
I'm 98% relying on the video.
When young girls are screaming at someone to stay away from them then and they keep coming closer, that's plenty of the context.
Is this the other 2%?
Here is further context:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283100/recorded-rape-offences-in-england-and-wales/
What does that have to do with anything?
Leaving to one side that statistics don't tell you whether your assumption about what happened "before the clip started" are accurate, you realise that Dundee is not in England or Wales, right?
Must be in Australia right? I was just thinking about 80s movies...
Huh? The little girl can be seen saying the guy groped her in the video. You people are fucking sick.
agreed - except the term sick is an understatement
"When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross." – "Dirty Harry" Callahan
Eurotrash, that you take the side of reprobate migrant rapists is a surprise to no one.
I am beginning to think he might not be Eurotrash but part of the Muslim invasion of Europe.
O look, the Great Replacement Theory in the VC comments section. Must be a day that ends in y.
https://press.un.org/en/2000/20000317.dev2234.doc.html
Don't forget it started at the UN.
Would this be like Global Warming theory?
If you're frothing at the mouth so early in the morning, you should probably seek medical attention.
Says the person with 22 comments in the thread already.
Different timezone for him, you see.
What time zone is Commenter XY in? Does it really matter?
EDT. Yes.
Are you stalking Commenter XY?
Why does it matter?
No. Because.
...none of them particularly frothy, I might add.
Just a little non-frothy rape apology from across the pond.
He's hoping they'll stone him last. Just kidding: he'll convert long before that.
"Girls that age shouldn't need to carry hardware like that to feel safe."
Of course not, they should carry AR 15s, as God intended.
Trump needs to activate the Scottish National Guard.
A small pistol is better for self-defense.
AR-15 has way less recoil.
Than a .22 or .25 cal. pistol?
Bart condemns the girls trying to protect themselves, but doesnt condemn the abuser. Why?
There's been a healthy online movement of doxxing MAGAs who are filmed calling blacks niggers and humiliating gay people and Jews. Their employers get shamed and they lose their jobs. It is a hopeful reminder that we still can and do revile MAGA think. Sometimes it can seem that we lost that ability.
Have you already forgotten the Battle of Shiloh? It was won by team Good Guys.
Hobie, forgetting the concept of deep fakes and just how easy it is to fabricate these allegations, what do you think the consequences of this will eventually lead to?
What are the consequences of having a subclass of unemployable persons?
Look into a man named Nathan Bedford Forrest and the little social club he founded -- the Klu Klux Klan.
Meanwhile, Trump doesn't seem to understand that if you're going to use the military to crush your opposition, you need to do whatever it takes to make sure the military actually likes you. (Or at least doesn't hate you to the point of not wanting to follow your orders.) So telling the National Guard to pick up trash by the side of the road does not seem smart strategy...
https://bsky.app/profile/onestpress.onestnetwork.com/post/3lxdkimse6k2f
Surely the don't mind, long as they're armed.
Are they? As far as I can tell they're not even armed with those grippers that they give people who are convicted of DUI. This is strictly picking up garbage by bending over, which is presumably not anyone's idea of heroically serving their country against evil Democrats and black people.
It's called police call and is SOP in the military.
Tell me you've never been in the military...
I was 4-F vision, but I have friends who were in the Guard & Reserve and as I understand it, there are three kinds of duty -- (a) routine drill -- weekend a month and two weeks in the summer. (B) Whole unit activation --- mandatory, you gotta go. (C) Partial -- where it is volunteers.
Remember you get paid for every day you are active -- and credit toward promotion, retirement, etc. There are people who turn this into a full-time job -- e.g ME ANG tanker crews. Many employers, particularly public sector, give you your regular pay AND your Guard pay. There's money to be made here.
A lot of folk would be glad to be activated to pick up trash -- there's a lot worse duty, and some REALLY NEED the money...
That is actually a regular task for the Guard when they are assigned to patrol areas like this. It is part of getting the area organized.
I'm sure it is, but it can't be good for morale.
I don't know, every year I take part in our local community clean up, basically the same thing, and it's actually a pretty friendly, cheerful event.
Yes, if you volunteer specifically to pick up trash, I'm sure that's pretty cheerful.
Does it involve bending over to pick up the trash by hand, by the way?
You're way too interested in men bending over.
Not generally, but then, we're not soldiers who are expected to stay physically fit. We're mostly senior citizens, and HS kids in need of volunteer hours.
Might as well pick trash up while doing your toe touches...
Toe touches are horrible, good way to herniate your Nucleus Pulposus (did you even know you have a Nucleus Pulposus? you do, a whole bunch of them, it'd be more accurate to call them "Nuclei Pulposi"
Frank
I have hypermobility syndrome, in college I'd do my toe touches standing on the stairs, and instead touch the next tread down. Never herniated a disk, even once. (I did lose count of how many joints I sprained, though. I'm now haunted by the ghosts of ligaments past.)
I'd worry more about pulling a hamstring, personally. Very easy to do touching your toes, if you bounce while doing them.
I repeat, it is part of their regular duties when in control of an area. It is simply a task that must be done. It will not hurt morale.
If I was Trump I would go out of my way to flatter them, for example by having them round up some of the local black hoodlums and having *them* clean the park. But you do you.
"I'm sure it is, but it can't be good for morale."
Actually, it is -- it's a way of claiming ownership of an area, and then that going to unit pride and pride in being a member of the unit.
A lot of Guard officers have been going online explaining to their brothers that following unconstitutional orders is illegal.
Oh, I know. Tons.
But the cultists' response is that if Trump orders it, it's not unconstitutional.
Yup, and that's fine, but they better not omit the "And you'd better be damned certain the order is unconstitutional or you're going to be in deep shit." part.
And the people posting on line can also get into trouble.
Problem is you have to go to the Surpreme Court to prove the orders are Unconstitutional, and even then, the Court has historically given POTUS's wide latitude in Military matters, by that time your fellow Soldiers/Sailors/Marines have given you a "Blanket Party" ala Private Pyle in "Full Metal Jacket" In the Air Farce the Mean Girls just spread nasty rumors about you.
LOL! Talking about "doesn't seem to understand". That act is called a "police call". That's picking up trash for the simple-minded or the Dutch. And it's an act that occurs every day in the military. More than once if the CSM doesn't think its met his standards. That's why it "does not seem a smart strategy" to you. Because you couldn't fathom what the military does, day in and day out. Being retarded probably doesn't help you much, either.
Citation?
I wanted to verify your claims, so I contacted my local recruiting office, and the recruiter assured me that military members were never asked to pick up trash.
Mine said I would be a jet fighter pilot navy seal ranger delta force. If I ever find that guy again...
Did they tell you that FTA meant fun, travel and adventure.
I love seeing commentary like this from foreigners or leftists who never served a day in the military. They think it's some huge scandal but they're so culturally disconnected they dont understand they look like fools.
The number one activity that the US military does in peacetime (and during most modern wars, too) is cleaning.
Look up "Okinawa Field Day."
During Trump's J6 coup attempt, he crucially failed in advance to mobilize military support. Thus, when he needed muscle to block vote counting, and declare martial law, Trump became personally vulnerable to control by administration insiders trying to keep him in check, and his attempt failed.
Trump is now openly drilling the military in advance, in LA and DC, and has announced plans to similarly prepare the military to practice street deployments in at least Baltimore, Chicago, and Boston. If this were in fact Trump in process of correcting his previous omission, and getting the military ready to impose martial law during the upcoming mid-term elections, how would it look any different than what we see now?
I am unable to grasp the posture of various legal cases in process to resist Trump's lawless domestic military deployment plans. There seems to be no engagement yet at the Supreme Court level. On the basis of this Supreme Court's ongoing evasions by use of the shadow docket, it seems unlikely that any action by SCOTUS will be forthcoming to rule against martial law interference with an election if it comes to that.
Usually when I fantasize to make my old age more pleasant, it's about winning the lotto and buying a mountain valley in NC.
But you do you, whatever it takes to lift your spirits in your own declining years.
Brett Bellmore: Pride and Credulousness
You're writing an autobiography? Tell me when it comes out.
"During Trump's J6 coup attempt, ...."
There was no coup attempt.
Was there an effort to keep Trump in power even though he lost the election? If yes then it’s a coup attempt. If no…what exactly were they doing?
You don't seem to quite understand what the word "coup" means. It doesn't generally mean ALL attempts to legitimately gain/retain power. It only refers to violent attempts to do so.
So, when Gore attempted to illegitimately gain the office of the Presidency by illegally recounting votes in Florida until they could be by hook or crook made to show him the 'winner', it wasn't a coup, and neither was what Trump was doing back then, though it was largely improper.
“It only refers to violent attempts to do so.”
So what was he doing when he decided to let January 6th violence proceed for a few hours before addressing it?
What was the mob attempting to do? What was their ultimate goal?
Challenging election results as others have done?
Also, I'm done. Sh!t or get off the pot.
Over the years watching D's and R's go back and forth over scandals committed by the other side (real or perceived) I am pretty good at tuning them out. Folks that get excited about Wiener's wiener or McConnell's fading in and out can still get excited. I don't care.
But this absolute bullshit going on between Gaza and Israel needs to effing stop. Why? *****PEOPLE are DYING***** Full stop. Whether your on team G or team I your tit for tat excuse making, justifications for criminal behavior so you can sleep at night, countless numbers of folks from this country that are slow to understand that yes, we are actually providing weapons that kill folks on both sides... Knock that shit off. You can spend the rest of your lives justifying all of the behaviors over the past two years but folks dont need to be dying daily. Get it done.
I know its elementary level thinking on my part without the benefit of knowing who's lying and who's telling the truth. But maybe one or more of the following needs to happen: -We stop giving $ -Israel just stops shooting for a month. Show us its possible. -Gazans have to decide to fully go down with the ship, or start paying for goodwill from Israel by presenting heads of Hamas guys. I'm not just saying leaders, I'm saying decapitation. -The world follows through on this "Recognizing Statehood" immediately, not with a time in the future for any other military objectives to be fulfilled first.
I guess seeing intelligent folks, some of whom I respect, posting and/or retweeting some of the "SEE? SEE WHAT THEY DID? AND YOU WANT US TO STOP?" messages from both sides is sadness. Knock that shit off.
My message to Israel: You have the best armed, best equipped, best trained military in the region. You have an intelligence service that can do whatever you desire (pagers anyone?) You are facing an enemy in a fenced off yard where the standard weapon is a stone... get it the eff done. From day one my thoughts have related very much to the following quote by a friend: "...and another thing. There's a big stink about how the Israeli response was 'out of proportion' to the repeated rocket attacks coming from Gaza. If my next door neighbor routinely lobbed rocks over the fence and onto the play structure that the boys play on, occasionally hitting them and continuing even after strong verbal warnings, I'm not going to count how many times the boys were hit and then throw that many rocks back. I'm jumping the fence and kicking ass. And, with no regard for his humanitarian plight, I will continue to kick ass until I am firmly satisfied that he will no longer throw rocks." - D.W. early 2000's
In some ways I still feel this way. But cant you effing get it done? What are you waiting for?
As my mother was fond of saying, "Shit or get off the pot."
Oh, and without engaging in any discussion of "the whole thing would stop if side A or side B did this..." if you've got an idea, lets have it. Simplistic ideas are just as welcome as researched thoughtful ones but pronouncements that say that everything will be fine if such and such happens will be duly ignored.
(I realize I'm mostly hear for humor's sake but occasionally I type up a serious diatribe that I don't delete out of fear over the heated reactions. I want to see if this brings out the 'sanes' here in greater numbers... not just the trolls or folks I've reluctantly blocked.)
Okay! I'm stopping now!
Somewhere a Village is missing its Idiot.
Both the Netherlands and Belgium have a conservative government at the moment, and they both had a major political crisis this week because the different conservative parties couldn't agree on whether to impose sanctions on Israel. This is not a left-wing issue anymore.
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2025/08/27/response-to-gaza-war-divides-belgian-governments/
https://www.dutchnews.nl/2025/08/no-extra-measures-against-israel-dutch-foreign-minister-resigns/
It is by American standards, since our political center is well to the right of Europe's.
Anyway, when was it ever a left-wing issue? It's an antisemitism issue, that just has a long association with the left, but there are regrettably some right-wing antisemites, too.
Relevantly:
DNC Chair Withdraws Resolution Recognizing Israel’s Right to Exist
Israel != Jews.
That is itself kind of antisemetic.
It none the less remains that almost all anti-Zionism is, in practice, antisemitism.
How again are the millions of Israeli Jews opposed to Zionism...antisemites?
Are you under the impression that almost all anti-Zionism is to be found in Israel?
In March 2024, 62% of U.S. Jews say the way Israel is carrying out its war in Gaza is acceptable. https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/majority-in-u-s-say-israel-has-valid-reasons-for-fighting-fewer-say-the-same-about-hamas/
You're calling a lot of American Jews antisemetic.
What? Oh no!! That's HORRIBLE!!!
Everyone call the police!!! Some one said something negative about a Jew!!! In the US that's illegal, in the UK it's muslims who are protected from illegal opinions.
Brett: I don’t think that’s a fair and honest accounting of anti-Zionism.
Though it was recorded in 2020, this Open to Debate (née Intelligence Squared) debate, Is Anti-Zionism the New Anti-Semitism, is still relevant:
https://opentodebate.org/debate/anti-zionism-new-anti-semitism/
The Intelligence Squared US debates in general were quite good. I’m not a fan of the new format.
I think it is certainly possible to be an anti-Zionist, and not be an anti-Semite, and some people do pull it off.
But I also think "I'm just an anti-Zionist" is a cheap refuge for anti-Semites, and that anti-Semites account for most of the world's "anti-Zionists".
The fact is that Israel was created for relatively unique reasons after the Holocaust, as a refuge for Jews, and the now essentially complete genocide of Jews elsewhere in the Middle East, coupled with a rising tide of open anti-Semitism elsewhere in the world, just underscores the necessity of it.
Too many people find Israel an annoyance, and would like to just hand the entire Middle East over to Islam and be done with it.
Again, condemning a lot of American Jews as antisemites with your stark position on this.
And if you're going to say the Jews were genocided everywhere else in the middle east, that definition is not flattering re: Israel (and the US's) ambitions for Gaza right now.
This issue is one where bright lines will do much more than reveal you as either a zealot or a hypocrite.
Many people say!
He's condemning me as well. I'm against Zionism, but I'm not an antisemite. Nor do I have any affection for the Jewish people or any other group of people.
Like all the gay bashing and black racism Brett and his ilk employ. We would certainly imply that Brett appears to be racist. But perhaps Brett's cover story that he's just for protecting kids and ensuring equality is true. If so Brett, you need to extend us the same courtesy on Zionism.
Brett, my opinion (for what it’s worth), is that Israel rightfully receives a great deal of latitude due to its unique history and its necessary position as a refuge for Jews.
That said, at times I believe the Israeli government abuses that latitude. That includes some of the actions taken against Palestinians, journalists, and even the US (when it bites the hand that feeds it).
I think the debate should be centered on where that latitude should end and culpability should begin.
Israel is merely Christianity's useful idiot. Culpability will only be assigned when Jeebus murders them at the Rapture (unless and of course if they accept Jeebus as their true messiah...which I don't see how that would work, because to have the prophesies fulfilled...all the Jews must die anyway). I mean, how else can you explain a group of misanthropes (MAGA) having such bizarre, cultish affection for this little slice of humanity?
It's more like the enemy of my enemy, Hobie, with the added realization that, while they're not the nicest folks around, they live in an absurdly tough neighborhood, and are probably about as nice as is survivable there.
Now do “from the river to the sea.” Any antisemitism there in your view?
The Palestinians are a semitic people, Riva. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/
Strictly speaking, they are not; "semitic" refers to a language grouping rather than an ethnicity. But in any case, that nitpickery is irrelevant, because antisemitism means hatred of Jews, not hatred of semitic people.
Challenge accepted:
All right. So trying to understand what was happening on the West Bank, there's this kind of remarkable document that I learned about. It was written by the Israeli government minister who was called the Overlord of the West Bank by one Israeli publication because, basically, he calls the shots there for the current government.
His name is Bezalel Smotrich. And before he got this job, back in 2017, when he was a member of the Israeli parliament, he published a manifesto whose title roughly translates to "The Decisive Plan," in which he argues that as long as Palestinians continue to hope for their own homeland, the conflict between Jews and Palestinians is going to continue forever. They'll always be at war.
And so he says Israel's first goal should be to destroy hope, destroy Palestinians' hopes of ever getting their own state or homeland. And he says Israel can do that by claiming more land and building more homes for Jews, by changing the facts on the ground until, for Palestinians, quote, "The point will come when frustration will cross the threshold of despair and will lead to acceptance and understanding that their cause stands no chance. It simply isn't going to happen."
At that point, he says Israel should offer them a choice-- leave and go elsewhere, or stay as second-class residents, not full citizens. And Israel will be a Jewish state, quote, "from the river to the sea."
Martin, Even right-leaning politicians can be duped by Muslim Brotherhood propaganda. The EU is living in the 90s when many people thought that land-for-peace was a realistic course in the Middle East. At least the Emirati know that the Brotherhood is a terrorist organization.
A couple of notes.
One, Israel will defeat hamas on the field of battle. Two, the prospect of two-state is dead. No Israeli gov't will agree to it. Three, voluntary incentivized immigration will solve much of the problem.
Two, the prospect of two-state is dead. No Israeli gov't will agree to it.
True. Eventually there will be a state, name TBD, where all current Israeli and Palestinian citizens have citizenship. The more the Israel far right makes a two-state solution impossible, the more they promote that inevitable result.
A "Two-State Solution" was murdered October 7, 2023
There is a state where all current Israeli and Palestinian citizens have citizenship. It's name is "Israel".
Israel is one of the few democracies with no formal mention of the principle of equality. The Nation-State Law of 2018 declares that only Jewish citizens have the right to self-determination. Them 3/5's Palestinians can kick rocks
Is it? How do you figure? Last I checked, Palestinian citizens are being shot to pieces by the IDF without the opportunity to vote Bibi out of office.
They're not Palestinian citizens of Israel, though.
I think you're doing magic words again.
Brett keeps slinging it this morning. But he sure has been avoiding tough answers like the plague. Sarcastr0, I learned to accept the non-answers here as debate success. None of us are gonna be saying outright, 'I'm sowwy' 🙁
No, I'm saying there's a country that meets the specs and it's Israel, and there's no good reason to deliberately incorporate enough Palestinians into Israel to make sure they become the majority and democratically vote to make Israel just another Islamic country.
'the specs.'
And your specs appear to be driven by the use of magic words - in this case 'citizens.'
I mean, consider the upshot of your postulate...oh wait, there isn't one.
'the specs' don't seem to have a lot of utility except for fluffery.
Palestinian citizens of Israel
No, because then they'd be *Israeli* citizens. I didn't think my sentence above was particularly complex. I clearly distinguished between "current Israeli and Palestinian citizens". It seems difficult to parse that other than as two mutually exclusive categories.
Yeah, getting shot is generally what happens to you when you start a Wah with a Nation that's better armed than you.
Finally, you get it. The state is Eretz Israel.
It might be, although I suspect the eventual peace deal will insist on a different name.
The eventual peace deal will involve Hamas and anybody allied with them having to utterly surrender and have no say in what follows. Because if the past few decades have taught us anything, there's not going to be any peace so long as Hamas has any input into what happens.
Hopefully. But then there are still millions of Palestinians who have a right to self-determination.
You want a state that is barely majority Jewish and won't be for too much longer?
In geological time, there may be such an entity. In human time, there will not be. The only people who support such an idea are people who don't live there. (That is, assuming you are not predicting that all residents of the WB/Gaza will be expelled first.)
The Court of Appeals in The Hague has ordered the government to seek the transfer of a Dutch-Surinamese prisoner who was sentenced to 56 years to life in California in 1984. The judgment hasn't been published yet (or at least I can't find it), so I can't tell whether the alleged iffyness of his trial and/or the California prison conditions played a role. But the main reason that was reported in the media was that he is old and should be able to die near his family.
And the main reason for saying "no" is, "It's called punishment for a reason, if you liked it it would be a reward."
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Convicted with your own stupid words
it's "nor cruel AND unusual punishments" "AND" means something, and it's not "OR". So punishments can be Cruel, punishments can be Unusual, they just can't be Cruel AND Unusual.
Yeah, and life in prison is not, by US standards, considered cruel and unusual punishment for a double murder.
It isn't. But it is the most succinct reason why your previous comment was nonsense.
It wasn't nonsense. The simple fact is that we don't CARE if the double murderer would prefer to die in the company of his family. He double murdered his way out of having any input into that.
Now do Ghislaine Maxwell!
I have trouble calling her a "sex offender."
Have anyone else ever been convicted of recruiting?
I've heard of Canadians being sent to Canada to complete sentences imposed by an American court. Being in an overcrowded, violent California prison is not a formal part of the sentence.
That's true, but with a life sentence, you want to be sure that they don't end up just being released as soon as they're transferred. And that sounds like what is on offer here.
It is not. The Netherlands has life sentences too, and nobody is suggesting that this guy should be released. (Although, under the relevant US-NL treaty, that would be for a Dutch court to decide, just like there is currently a California parole board that decides about his release every few years.)
Well the current POTUS will simply tell the International Court to fuck off and that they have zero authority in the matter.
Reading comprehension zero, I guess...
No I understand completely. The IC decision bears no weight in the USA and even if the Danish government surrenders to tje IC decision and asks for a murderer's release it amounts to the same thing. FOAD.
Read, dumbass!!
The case I'm talking about has nothing to do with the ICC except that it's about a court that sits in the same city.
The judgment has now been published. Only in Dutch, but modern translation plug-ins should be fine to sort that out.
https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2025:1719
The key issue was that the US authorities asked the Dutch whether they would mind it if they sent this guy back to the Netherlands to serve out his sentence (because he applied to be transferred), and then the Dutch government said that he had insufficient ties to the Netherlands, and that they would therefore not take him. That approach has now been rejected by the court.
Is Lisa Cook's goose cooked? She done been busted by Pulte. /smh
I don't see how you get around documentary evidence of lying on loan doc forms to obtain better mortgage rates.
Does the cooked goose.... 1. Fight for her rights (to lie on loan docs, presumably), and refuse to resign 2. Resign by Rosh Hashana
"to obtain better mortgage rates."
I would have thought it would be more of a tax fraud thing; You get different tax status on your primary dwelling.
The tax treatment is mostly similar until you sell a secondary residence, as long as it's an actual secondary residence rather than a rental property. The mortgage rate difference kicks in at the point of applying for a mortgage, and as a New York state court ruled, that's a form of fraud that is a legitimate basis to prosecute someone for primarily political reasons.
The mortgage-fraudster plagiarist is going to go with option 1 even though she is cooked.
Yes, we all know fraud is bad. No one who has been convicted of fraud must be allowed to hold any sort of public office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_business_fraud_lawsuit_against_the_Trump_Organization
Even people who are only suspected of fraud, etc. etc.
Unless, of course, he can convince the voters to elect him anyway. We are still a democracy after all.
If Lisa Cook wants to run for president, nothing is stopping her .
Yeah, but no one would be stupid to vote for a convicted serial fraudster, right? You wouldn’t do that, because fraud is bad. Right???
On the contrary. Now that Trump wants to get rid of her the Fed can under no circumstances allow that to happen. If Cook loses her job now, for whatever reason, the entire world will draw the conclusion that the era of central bank independence in the US is over. And that would be bad.
This is yet another example of Trump's incompetence saving the day. A more classically trained Project 2025 president would have been rid of her by now.
I'm not sure how the Fed is supposed to have the power to not allow it to happen.
If it's for cause, Trump needs to wait for there to be a process to establish his cause.
If it's not for cause, the Supreme Court did a special carve-out for the Fed, based on it's unique structure, and that it occupies a standalone place in US history, and therefore the president can only fire a Fed official “for cause.”
Seems inconsistent to me, but that's the law.
In most contexts, firing for cause is immediate, followed by some kind of appeal process where you can contest the cause after you've already been fired.
But, really, I'm asking what actual power the Fed has to "not allow" this.
I don't understand your question about authorities here. An illegitimate action by the President doesn't require special authority to contest.
Yeah, "contest" in court, sure. But the phrase was, "the Fed can under no circumstances allow that to happen."
Losing in court is a circumstance, isn't it? Sure, they can contest this in court, but they have no power to see to it that it doesn't happen under any circumstances, they are not remotely guaranteed to win that contest in court.
I don't see why the order has to be acquiesce and then sue, versus not acquiesce and then get sued.
I'm not nearly as confident as Martinned what decision will be made, but I'm also sure you have no idea what's right or wrong, just you want Trump to win.
Man, for a guy you claim not to like you sure work hard to argue that even the littlest things go to him.
Trump has already purported to fire her for cause, and is in the process of nominating a replacement.
If anyone wants to challenge the firing, as Cook said she would do, they are free to do so.
Purported to!
Well then lets move along, nothing to see here.
Sigh. That's how the system works. The Federal Act says members serve a fixed term unless removed sooner for cause by the President.
The President says he has fired her for cause. If anyone, including her, wants to challenge this, they are free to do so.
The lies on the mortgage applications are the "for cause".
How the fuck do you not know this?
How the fuck can that be a cause to fire her when Trump's position is that lying to banks is perfectly legitimate, as long you make all your payments?!
Well maybe not the Fed, but Cook is being represented by Abbe Lowell. Who knew she could afford such pricey representation.
She's a prominent Democrat government official so of course she's super mega rich.
...or has rich "friends". I doubt she is footing the bill herself.
You can always count on a liberal Jewish lawyer to defend a criminal schvartze.
Next time there's a meeting of the Fed Board or the FOMC the chair, Jerome Powell, will recognise her as a voting member or not. And because of this Trump nonsense, it is practically inevitable that she'll be sitting there as a voting member.
And that will give President Trump cause to fire Powell.
Does somebody want to take a crack a what "for cause" entails?
OK, explain how it is wrong for the state to yank your driver's license for OUI even if the criminal case gets tossed out.
I don't know the validity of the charges against Cook, or how often behaviour like that would be pursued criminally, but I do know this didn't surprise me:
But while Pulte has sent referrals for Schiff, James and Cook, he has not apparently taken any steps in response to a July report from the Associated Press that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed three primary residences in mortgage documents — which James’ attorney claimed in a letter was evidence the investigations were politically motivated.
Probably not, she's the right color.
The District Court in Wisconsin had denied Judge Hannah Dugan's motion to dismiss the indictment against here based on a claim of judicial immunity from prosecution. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.111896/gov.uscourts.wied.111896.48.0.pdf
No surprise there. The immunity claim was a nonstarter, as I have said all along. Judge Dugan's defense is on the facts, and she is likely to be acquitted, whether by the jury of by the judge.
I look forward to laughing at you when her MTD is rejected, and again when she is convicted, sentenced and loses her appeals (all because she is plainly guilty on the facts).
Well yes, in Trump's American any and all sympathy for brown people must be punished to the full extent of the law!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Court_(Germany)
I'm pretty sure that, given the facts, we'd be all in for punishing her if she were an albino.
Of course. Albinos who show sympathy to ethnic minorities must also be punished!
Look, "sympathy to ethnic minorities" and "sympathy to people who happen to be present in the country illegally" are two distinct things, even if a lot of the latter people happen to be ethnic minorities. Laws don't cease to be valid laws just because some of the people who violate them are "brown".
You're forgetting he lives in the UK. If you're brown you can rape and murder all you want, but if you're White it's 2 years in prison if you complain about your White daughter getting raped by a brown.
Talk about Bizarro World, where Floyd George, a Wife-Beating-Drug-Addict is elevated to MLK Jr. Status.
"I look forward to laughing at you when her MTD is rejected, and again when she is convicted, sentenced and loses her appeals (all because she is plainly guilty on the facts).
Michael P, the motion to dismiss has been rejected (as I predicted it would be when it was filed). I even linked the District Court's order denying the motion.
If the government's proof tracks what the FBI agent swore to in the criminal complaint, https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ice-affidavit-arrest-judge-dugan.pdf , the judge should grant a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's case in chief on Count One. The gravamen of the offense defined at 18 U.S.C. § 1071 is not mere concealment, but instead is concealment so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of the person named in the warrant. Judge Dugan's conduct did not prevent discovery of Eduardo Flores-Ruiz -- the feds knew where he was, and a DEA agent even rode down with him in the elevator -- and they in fact effected his arrest.
As for Count Two, I am not at all sure that the issuance of an administrative warrant by an ICE official institutes a "pending proceeding [which] is being had before any department or agency of the United States" as that phrase is used in 18 U.S.C. § 1505. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/209638/ In any event, the facts recited in the affidavit of complaint do not evince Judge Dugan's acting "corruptly" within the meaning of § 1515(b), which states:
As used in section 1505, the term “corruptly” means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.
The fact that Judge Dugan's attempt was not fully successful does not save her from liability under 18 USC section 1071. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1828-18-usc-1071-elements-offense
The deportation proceedings for Eduardo Flores-Ruiz absolutely were before a department or agency of the United States, and she willfully acted to obstruct those. She's liable under 18 USC section 1505 as well.
There is no general attempt statute under federal criminal law, and 18 U.S.C. § 1071 simply does not criminalize an attempt. The conduct prohibited by the statute is not merely harboring or concealment, it is harboring or concealment so as to prevent discovery and arrest of the person named in the warrant. Every verb in the damn statute describes conduct which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
When Congress intends to criminalize an attempt to harbor or conceal an illegal alien, it knows what language to employ in order to do so. Compare and contrast, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), which provides that any person who:
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation [emphasis added]
commits an offense.
Judge Dugan is stone cold innocent.
I don't think the offense is succeeding at preventing the discovery and arrest, it's attempting preventing the discovery and arrest. The goal doesn't have to be achieved to have committed the crime.
And isn't preventing the execution of a warrant itself an improper purpose?
People explained those things to him before, he just doesn't want to listen.
"I don't think the offense is succeeding at preventing the discovery and arrest, it's attempting preventing the discovery and arrest. The goal doesn't have to be achieved to have committed the crime."
Brett, in the absence of nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate, what you think does or does not constitute a crime means diddley squat.
Congress could have written § 1071 to criminalize attempts, as it did with 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), but Congress did not do so.
Swings & roundabouts, as they say in England.
A federal judge on Tuesday threw out an aggressive, unusual lawsuit the Trump administration brought earlier this year against all 15 federal judges in Maryland, rejecting a bid by the Justice Department to limit court power in fast-moving immigration cases. The opinion on Tuesday framed the lawsuit as a major constitutional standoff, with Judge Thomas Cullen writing the Justice Department couldn’t pursue a “constitutional free-for-all.” Cullen, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, also wrote a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration, saying it is intentionally trying to smear the justice system. “Over the past several months, principal officers of the Executive (and their spokespersons) have described federal district judges across the country as ‘left-wing,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘activists,’ ‘radical,’ ‘politically minded,’ ‘rogue,’ ‘unhinged,’ ‘outrageous, overzealous, [and] unconstitutional,’ ‘[c]rooked,’ and worse,” Cullen wrote.
A federal judge on Tuesday threw out an aggressive, unusual lawsuit the Trump administration brought earlier this year against all 15 federal judges in Maryland, rejecting a bid by the Justice Department to limit court power in fast-moving immigration cases.
The opinion on Tuesday framed the lawsuit as a major constitutional standoff, with Judge Thomas Cullen writing the Justice Department couldn’t pursue a “constitutional free-for-all.”
Cullen, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, also wrote a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration, saying it is intentionally trying to smear the justice system.
“Over the past several months, principal officers of the Executive (and their spokespersons) have described federal district judges across the country as ‘left-wing,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘activists,’ ‘radical,’ ‘politically minded,’ ‘rogue,’ ‘unhinged,’ ‘outrageous, overzealous, [and] unconstitutional,’ ‘[c]rooked,’ and worse,” Cullen wrote.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/26/politics/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-maryland-immigration
And now, as expected when the suit was filed, it will be appealed. You see the first step was to get a ruling, and this ruling was expected, then take it to a higher court.
Yes, we can't let those leftist [checks notes] Trump-appointed judges run roughshod over the nice bit of authoritarianism you've got going on!
I wish the court system had a way to determine the legality of the standing order in advance of a violation. My state's courts could do it because the state Supreme Court has a general supervisory power over lower courts.
The Trump administration wants a ruling on whether injunctions entered by a clerk rather than a judge are binding. (And it wants the answer to be "no.")
The administration's option now is to ignore any orders not in the name of a judge. The courts definitely have jurisdiction to decide whether executive officials are in contempt. And then we will know if the policy is legal. Possibly in a few years. Possibly in a few weeks.
1) The court system does have such a way; read the opinion. 2) That is not what the administration wants a ruling on. (All</b court orders are entered by a clerk. The judge issues it and the clerk enters it.)
"scathing rebuke"
I'm sure Trump will cry over that.
Judges making political statements in their opinions is really "rule of law".
Currently reading 'The Tyranny of Metrics' by Jerry Z. Muller. How the obsession with quantifying human performance threatens our schools, medical care, businesses, and government.
...and ruined sports?
I'm a bit more concerned about how avoiding quantifying human performance is doing that. It's an old, old principle that you can't control the output of a system if you don't measure it.
But I'll grant that Goodhart's law is about as old.
That's why you need to avoid proxies, and to the greatest extent possible measure the actual desired output.
Everything is gameable. That perverse incentive is a baked in cost of using metrics to evaluate performance, proxies or no.
The history of metrics is driven by a couple of things. 1) A distrust of experts, leading to a need for transparency and objectivity. 2) Management moving from subject matter expertise into a 'general manager' focused on generalizable management skills. That was driven by McNamara, when he was the youngest prof ever at Harvard Business School. Hired shortly after his graduation in 1939.
I've only just started the book. It's short, though.
Everything is gameable, but if you set things up right, you can make delivering the desired outcome easier than gaming the system, so that people just throw up their hands and do what they should.
I don't think that's generally true, Brett. You're oversimplifying again.
Even without finishing the book, I can tell you there are some places where metrics are not the way, no matter how hard you work them.
Idaho Murderer Bryan Kohberger has asked for a transfer to a different Prison, apparently the Mean Girls are making his life a Broadway Musical (Mise'rables). I have a feeling he'll be getting a "transfer" of the Celestial variety.
Because Congress has made bank fraud a 30-year felony, and defined it broadly enough to include Lisa Cook’s reported conduct, courts will very likely uphold the firing of Lisa Cook as a firing for cause. The sorts of broad laws discussed in Three Felonies A Day, in which even conduct socially regarded as a “white lie” becomes a federal felony, come home to roost.
So you want to skip over the question of whether Cook actually engaged in bank fraud?
Isn't it pretty clear and well documented that she claimed two places as her primary residence, and received more favorable mortgage interest rates as a result? What's the mystery here? Isn't that bank fraud?
Is stating on your mortgage application that it's for your primary residence when it's really not your primary residence engaging in bank fraud in your mind?
Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice— (1)to defraud a financial institution; or (2)to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises; shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
I'm sure that someone will be along very shortly to explain that New York English isn't the same as United States English.
I think your question needs to be split into two:
1) Did Lisa Cook commit a felony of bank fraud? 2) Did Lisa Cook commit a fireable offense of bank fraud?
#1 needs to wait for a trial. #2 doesn’t require a trial but is probably subject to some sort of workplace protections and right of appeal (purely a guess on my part)
EXACTLY!
No, I answered it. Given how broadly the statute is worded, I don’t think there’s even a serious question. It covers it.
Will they uphold it on the word of the president or will she be entitled to notice and a hearing before a neutral decider on the issue? Because requiring “for cause” before a firing but then saying the President’s determination that there is cause cannot be questioned…essentially eliminates the requirement. And of course there is zero incentive not to lie about a cause if needed because the president and his officials are immune to defamation suits, and can just blatantly lie.
Does The Fed have an established “for cause” procedure to deal with situations like this? Do any court precedents apply? Or is it really down to “the president alleges it; it must be so”?
I asked the same above. Seems no one is willing to jump in with an answer.
Because the courts have repeatedly struck down past attempts to add additional conditions to monies appropriated by Congress, they need to start imposing sanctions on lawyers who defend the current effort. At some point, the game of wack-a-mole has to stop and conduct that has been declared indefensible multiple times in the past should stop being defended.
Now do guns.
You're forgetting. All there is is Trumplaw now.
Ranking the US Presidents.
Always a fun affair, but we're going to split this into 4 tiers in an attempt to be more impartial than current historians, and see if anything unexpected pops up. Then I'll do an evaluation, especially against the current rankings, and offer some criticism.
Tier A: Two-term Presidents who had their party/VP follow them as President: These Presidents were so good, that the people said "We want more of that" Tier A-: Presidents who served "most" of two terms (but weren't elected twice), then had their party/VP follow them. Tier B: Two-term Presidents who didn't have their VP/Party follow them. The people said "eh, we want a change" after two terms. Tier B-: Two-term Presidents who served "most" of two terms and didn't have their VP/Party follow them. Tier C+: One term Presidents who had their VP/Party follow them in the next election. These indivuals left after one term, for various reasons. But the people said "we want more of that". Tier C: One term Presidents who didn't have their VP/Party follow them.
With that said:
Tier A: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, T. Roosevelt, FDR, Reagan. --This list obviously includes the greats. The surprise there is McKinley. But he is underrated at 24 in the most recent APSA poll. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States) Both McKinley and Grant are probably at the bottom of tier A, but nonetheless deserve it. Jackson deserves higher than 21.
Tier A-: Coolidge. -Is he #12? Probably not. Does he deserve better than 34? Probably.
Tier B: Cleveland, Wilson, Eisenhower, Clinton, W. Bush, Obama, Trump. --This is average to above average tier. They got two terms. But the people didn't want more. Eisenhower is likely on top of this tier, followed by Wilson. Obama is too highly rated at 7, and really comes around 14-16.
Tier B-: Truman, LBJ, Nixon --Well, that's an interesting Trio. Nixon was a crook. He was also a good politician. Truman was the opposite in many ways.
Tier C+: Pierce, Hayes, Kennedy --Another interesting trio.
Tier C: Adams, Quincy Adams, Harrison/Tyler, Polk, Taylor/Fillmore, Buchanan, Johnson, Garfield/Arthur, Harrison, Taft, Harding, Hoover, Ford, Carter, H.W. Bush, Biden
--Well, that's a list. The latest ASPA poll puts Adams at 13, Biden at 14, and Quincy Adams at 20. Yeah.... Honestly, all of them should drop.
I guess Trump's still got time to manage Tier A.
Only if he bothers with elections at all.
So much ridiculous fearmongering.
A third term will give him a distinct advantage
A++
I rate presidents on three criteria:
Are they a good person? Are they a good speaker? Are they a good politician?
For the last 30 years:
Clinton: Bad man, great speaker, great politician Bush: Good man, bad speaker, bad politician Obama: Good man, good speaker, terrible politician Biden: Good man, bad speaker bad politician
And Trump?
Those are subjective, based on your own values and judgements. And for presidents you don't have modern knowledge of, it doesn't serve well. Where do you put McKinley for example?
Put in a broader context, it's better to see how they performed at the time with the broader population of the US.
When you say "bad politician", do you mean bad at BEING a politician?
Because all those guys got elected to the highest office in the land, which by definition makes them great politicians. It's like there are no bad athletes on the podium at the Olympics; Even the guy getting the Bronze medal is a superb athlete.
Though I would argue that Clinton, by himself, was not a very good politician. The team of him and Hillary together made for a very good politician, with Hillary providing the technical chops, and Clinton the charisma. But by himself, I frankly doubt he'd have made it past small town mayor. And she by herself couldn't win any office she wasn't handed on a silver platter on account of having a terrible lack of charisma.
As people, I'd say they were all bad people. (As is Trump.) We tend to grade politicians on a curve, with an unspoken, "for a politician", because politicians are, as a group, personally horrible people.
For the past 30 years we generally vote in whomever most reflects the mood of the country. How else can you explain the generally awful people who became our last few presidents? I'm looking at 'political instincts'. Obama was the most ineffectual president I can remember. He got nothing done in eight years. A better politician would have done more. In that respect, Trump is a great politician
I would explain this in terms of the campaign 'reforms' that we saw in the latter part of the 20th century. It's always worth remembering that "reform" just means "change", and "reforms" are perfectly capable of making things worse.
These "reforms" had a number of negative effects.
1. Elimination of the 'smoke filled rooms', which had the result that Presidents had to be REALLY good at politics and fund raising. Which are not the same skills as, you know, being President.
2. Favoring grass roots funding over large donors. Guess what: Turns out the grass roots donors are actually more radical than the large donors! And grass roots fund raising consumes more time.
3. Erecting barriers to third parties. This meant that neither party particularly had to make people LIKE them, they could get elected by making people hate the other guy more. Eliminating any third choice trapped us in this lesser of two evils cycle, which keeps getting worse.
Because all those guys got elected to the highest office in the land, which by definition makes them great politicians. It's like there are no bad athletes on the podium at the Olympics; Even the guy getting the Bronze medal is a superb athlete. Though I would argue that Clinton, by himself, was not a very good politician. The team of him and Hillary together made for a very good politician, with Hillary providing the technical chops, and Clinton the charisma. But by himself, I frankly doubt he'd have made it past small town mayor. And she by herself couldn't win any office she wasn't handed on a silver platter on account of having a terrible lack of charisma.
Truly, the mental gymnastics required to be Brett are amazing. Trump's great because he won, but Clinton's not great even though he won because actually someone else deserves the credit.
He said Trump's a great politician, not that he's great in general.
And he's got a point. Trump managed to win when by any measure of qualifications, decency, or common sense he should've got <10% of the vote. There was no conceivable valid reason to vote for him and yet he pulled it off. Impressive in it's own evil way.
Biden was a good man? The serial liar and child & daughter groper who raised an incestuous child molester, brother-wife banging, crackhead?
lol wtf, you need to recalibrate your moral standards beyond just party affiliation.
Exactly. And you left out grifter, plagiarist, and a host of other things.
Ha, ha, a good man who took showers with his teenage daughter, and cavorted around naked before female secret service agents.
This will be good: how do you know Hunter Biden is a child molester?
Wait, you think George "let's torture all those randos with beards until someone tells us where Bin Laden is" Bush was a "good person"???
hobie:
Nice [useless] criteria. Did you ever consider including something like, "Are the people better off now than they were four years ago?"
That objective doesn't always capture the good performers, but at least it makes performance an issue. Unsurprisingly, the objective of actually making life better for people escapes you.
Unsurprisingly, the objective of actually making life better for people escapes you.
Why are you like this?
The roaring Obama economy lasted until the pandemic, but that still doesn't make him a good politician in my eyes. The Trump recession lasted until about 2022, but that doesn't change that he is a good politician.
I think Bush43 had goodness in him.
For instance, we are attacked by terrorists motivated by their brand of Islam & he gives a speech praising Islam. No travel ban.
Overall, he has his issues on the personal front though I assume he's a good father and so forth. I strongly opposed his policies.
Biden got a lot accomplished during his presidency in part because he was a good politician. He was no wordsmith but had his moments speech-wise including one or more SOTUs.
I don't think Obama was a 'terrible' politician.
Ranking presidents is a mix of subjective and objective. Those aren't bad criteria. I would add their accomplishments and overall skills as president too.
You're very right on Bush II - we could have very easily had full out pogroms on US soil in September 2001, and he did his best to prevent that.
However, he forfeited any claim to being called a good man by his later actions.
Clinton - agreed Bush II - Establishing torture camps and starting a war of aggression disqualify anyone from being a good man. Obama - Bad politician is sufficient. No need to go to terrible. Biden - Bad man personally, who many years prior to becoming president had been a tolerable speaker and quite effective politician as senator. By the time he got elected it was bad across the board.
If it wasn't for Harlan Thomas and a hanging chad, Clinton would be on the A-Team
Lincoln almost lost in 1864 and Johnson was impeached. And Teddy R so disagreed with his VeeP that he went Bull Moose.
Fliers Beware
According to the two lawsuits, Delta and United each operate hundreds of Boeing 737, Boeing 757 or Airbus A321 aircraft in which at least one wall-adjacent seat has an air-conditioning duct, electrical conduit or other internal component in place of a window.
While other carriers alert potential passengers that these seats are windowless, the lawsuits contend that Delta and United advertise every wall-adjacent seat on the aircraft as a “window” seat
https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2025/08/20/window-seat-fee-delta-united-lawsuit/
Who will be the first to file a class action suit against the airlines?
Nice! In what year of law school do they teach you how to scour for BS so you can funnel 6 figures or more into your pocker, while the victims all get a free fries with their next meal drink on their next flight?
Probably won't be free alcohol though, lest they get sued for a car crash, or some AA guy relapse from the temptation, the rest of his life is wrecked. Oh, man. I could teach that class!
I disagree here, if they’re advertising and charging for a window seat when there isn’t one they deserve to get sued.
He's not saying they don't deserve to get sued, he's saying that the lawyer bringing the suit will capture essentially all the proceeds, and the victims essentially none.
On the one hand, this is definitely an anti-feature of class action suits. It does seem like some judges are being a bit more diligent about making sure that class members get more benefit from some settlements, but I wish there was some more robust check on this.
On the other hand, a likely outcome is that the airlines will probably start warning people that there's no actual window at these seats and/or charge less money for them. This probably wouldn't happen if the only recourse of people was small claim suits for individual seating fees, so the class action is probably strictly better than not having it.
This case might possibly give the customers something. The damages are on the order of $50 per person who chose a windowless window seat. One award per person; the second time shouldn't be a surprise. If there are 10,000 class members there may be some money left after legal fees.
My class action reform plan will set a floor of per-plaintiff compensation. For example, the lawyers' award is based on the amount each plaintiff gets over $50 (or $25, or $250).
It's already been done, which is why there's been press coverage:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2025/08/21/delta-united-windowless-window-seat-lawsuit/85756729007/
Should have known. Like flies on s fresh dog pile.
If only there was some kind of safety regulator who could look into that...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-doges-cutbacks-at-the-faa-could-affect-aviation-safety
What does the lack of a promised window seat have to do with safety?
Trump.
Windows, safety, planes, FAA, DOGE, Trump.
TDS. This is how stupid the logic gets.
Here are the lawsuits, including screenshots:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71148009/meyer-v-delta-air-lines-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71147227/brenman-v-united-airlines-inc/
All seats are designated "aisle", "middle", or "window" based on position. Typically one of the "window" seats on a 737 does not have a view.
The people who designed the software likely had no idea they were calling windowless seats window seats. This is why you sue the company and not its employees.
I've just come across an academic who is maintaining a systematic tracker of all of the authoritarian actions of the Trump/Project 2025 administration. As of the 21st the count stood at exactly 1,000, and it was speeding up:
https://christinapagel.substack.com/p/grand-designs-the-loss-of-american
At the time of writing it's 1,064: https://www.trumpactiontracker.info/
Define "authoritarian actions".
Presumably authoritarian is defined by the 1,064 examples.
Based on what I've seen, the only common feature is that the academic doesn't approve of the action for some reason or other.
For instance, Trump agencies team up to review offshore wind, Kennedy says
What the heck is authoritarian about reviewing a prior administration's actions, to see if they should be continued?
"Each action is mapped to one or more of five broad domains of authoritarianism" and then the first domain includes "[d]ismantling federal government."
Look, I want Congress to be the one repealing the statutes that created the administrative agencies rather than Trump doing it in seemingly random ways, but dismantling the authority is not authoritarian. I'd even go so daringly far to say that expanding the federal government is more authoritarian.
Apparently seeking the death penalty for murder cases is "undermining democracy" to his trusted expert.
These people are demented idiots.
US still fucking around in Greenland, it seems.
Denmark summons top US diplomat over alleged Greenland influence operation
Denmark's foreign minister has summoned the top US diplomat in Copenhagen, following a report that American citizens have been conducting covert operations in Greenland.
Define "covert operations".
Define "define"
define /dĭ-fīn′/ intransitive verb
To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example). To describe the nature or basic qualities of; explain. "define the properties of a new drug; a study that defines people according to their median incomes." To make clear the outline or form of; delineate. "gentle hills that were defined against the sky."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik
Are these American citizens working at anyone else's behest? Denmark and the report cited by the BBC can't seem to say.
It's also funny that Mette Frederiksen (a) thinks Greenland itself is "another country" and (b) isn't aware that the US has historically annexed other countries or parts thereof -- the Republic of Texas and Hawaiian Kingdom most obviously as entire countries; the California Republic arguably; and everything from the Louisiana Purchase to Puerto Rico as annexations of territory. The US is far from alone in that respect.
"Before jumping into the history of Greenland's ownership, it is important to clear up misconceptions about its status. Greenland is a self-governing territory, not a colony of Denmark, and according to NPR, Denmark does not own it. It has its own prime minister, parliament, and governing institutions. However, it frequently appears on maps as "part" of Denmark.
Read More: https://www.grunge.com/427478/the-real-reason-denmark-owns-greenland/"
The map is not the territory, and the territory is not a country. Lots of countries -- Denmark, Spain and the UK among others -- devolve some autonomy and self-government to regions or territories, but each remains part of the parent country.
"Lars Lokke Rasmussen has already summoned the US charge d'affaires in Denmark this year in response to a separate report in May suggesting US spy agencies had been told to focus their efforts on Greenland."
Pretty strong circumstantial evidence, eh?
NO!
"Pretty strong circumstantial evidence, eh?"
There are "reports" that Elvis has been seen recently.
ttps://www.ft.com/content/c067d901-7acf-4b5b-8aa7-5673a2891b71
The latest report by DR, the Danish public broadcaster, said Danish authorities were aware of at least three US citizens with alleged links to the Trump administration gathering information in Greenland and conducting influence operations.
And doing so covertly
"...with alleged links ..." Allegations, is there anything they can't do?
Apparently they let you fire someone you aren't actually allowed to fire.
If you're referring to Cook the President is allowed to remove a Fed governor "for cause" (whatever that is).
Are those American citizens in the room with the foreign minister
James Comer - “It is our understanding that the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein is in custody and control of documents that may further the Committee’s investigation and legislative goals."
What legislative goals would that be? And what's with the MAGA performative requests for documents they know are not available? I mean, according to Bondi, the list is literally right there on her desk.
That recent 3rd Circuit Court ruling where they claim the physical ballot is sacred and that their is no possible way fraud could be connected to a spoiled ballot therefore all ballots are constitutional and must be counted no matter their state or their timeliness seems a little whacko doesn't it? Even for you die-hard election stealing Lefties, no?
Do you have a link to the decision?
Best I can find in a few minutes: https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-election-mail-ballots-voting-envelope-dates-dab83b55ad456f5d049cb751f6584739
I presume he is talking about this:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/26/mail-ballots-ruling-00526896
Which of course doesn't say any of the things in his "summary". What it does say is that mail in ballots can be counted even if the voter messes up handwriting the date on the outside.
Should an undated ballot be counted if it arrived after election day?
Irrelevant. The decision does not say that ballots have to be counted even if they're received late. Pennsylvania requires votes to arrive by 8 PM on election day and the decision doesn't effect that. In fact, part of the rationale for the decision is that the election office already date stamps the ballots as they arrive, so the handwritten date requirement doesn't add any value and causes thousands of votes to be discarded.
First I disagree that this is a spoiled ballot issue. A spoiled ballot is typically a reference to the ballot itself where the voter may have over voted or made a stray mark on the ballot. The issue here is can a ballot be included in the count and the lack of a date with the signature should be enough to exclude the ballot which should be left in the unopened envelope. If possible the voter should be contacted and asked to correct the error. Dates with signatures are a common feature of documents and this should be expected. I do have issues with critics who get too picky with addresses on the envelope. The standard I as a poll worker was taught to use is the address does not have to be complete, but it have to provide enough information to find the voter were that necessary.
Seems like a reasonable standard. At what level was that established (statute, regulation, policy, etc.)? What I’m getting at: is that standard replicable and able to be consistently applied state-wide?
It's a statewide law.
Both the District Court and the Appeals Court found that the requirement was only minimally burdensome, but that the state had not justified even minimally burdening the right to vote with the handwritten date requirement. The last few pages (starting on page 46) of the decision get to this analysis. The analysis seems correct to me in that you don't need a handwritten date to achieve any of the goals that the state advances.
Various things inspire musicals, including American history.
The film Legally Blonde was made into a musical. You can find it on YouTube, including multiple high school versions, which change a few lines. I think the musical is better than the movie, which was better than the book.
Back to the Future was made into a musical. I checked some of the music on YouTube. I have my doubts.
Alanis Morissette made a musical using her songs.
The comic strip Doonesbury was made into a musical in the 1980s. A few familiar faces, including the co-star of the sitcom Perfect Strangers (playing "Mark").
The soundtrack is on YouTube. I like the duet of Honey/Boopsie about their complicated men.
Speaking of Boopsie (sort of), they made a Bettie Boop musical earlier this year. I thought it was pretty bad and left at intermission. A lot of people liked it, though, and the lead was nominated for a Tony.
So, anybody else watch the Starship test launch last night?
Everything went well, even the heat shield burn-throughs were in areas they deliberately compromised the heat shield to measure performance with a damaged shield. They DID have one engine out on the booster through part of the flight, but with 33 engines on the booster, it's actually designed to fly with a few dead ones, it has deliberate engine redundancy.
It's expected that, starting with the next test flight, they'll be using it to carry paying payloads into orbit, the new generation of Starlink satellites. Even being used in fully expendable mode, it's only 1/5th the cost per Kg to orbit of Falcon. Just reusing the boosters a few times would get them down to 1/10th the cost to orbit of Falcon, and when the whole system is reusable, maybe 1/20th?
So, likely starting this year, Starship stops being a money pit, and becomes a money source for SpaceX. And everybody else in the launch industry becomes that much less competitive.
Their plan to go to Mars is looking more realistic, with that cash flow to fuel it.
Sorry I disagree with the last statement going to Mars is never realistic. It is vanity project and nothing elese.
Did you feel that way about going to the moon?
I was a young person and thoroughly enjoyed the effort. Older now I realize that the effort crowded out a lot of really important work. For the money needed to put a person on the moon or Mars we could explore the whole solar system and beyond with robots and space telescopes.
Guess you don't follow the news much. Voyagers are still sending back information. Hubble and James Webb telescopes are sending back more information than can be processed. There is a Rover on Mars. Sending humans to Mars will be quite a feat but so was sailing west and stumbling upon the Americas. It is what humans have being doing since we became human.
SpaceX is indeed pretty cool.
It is indeed hard to be mad at Space X.
I disagree with Jack Goldsmith in various ways, but I also respect his knowledge and judgment. Contributors have cited him as a must-read. So, maybe they can focus a bit more on this part.
“No, she’s not,” he said. “In fact, I would say it’s even worse than Ruth described. It’s basically like an atomic bomb dropped on the Justice Department.”
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation--so-much-worse-than-you-thought
For once I agree with Ben Wittes and others at Lawfare. The lawfare needs to stop. It should not have been done under Biden because Trump would definitely retaliate. Trump should not be conducting lawcare either, but he wont stop it after what hr went through.
The next administration will be the one who can make the call to end it.
Will the next Dem administration say "enough is enough," or will they bend to calls to attack their enemies and continue the cycle of revenge?
"enough is enough" needs to suddenly kick in somewhere around Jan 2029, eh?
For the record, I believe that if anyone has committed a crime they should be prosecuted. That they happen to be in office or running for office doesn't magically make their prosecution lawfare.
I have never committed fraud either accidentally or intentionally. I would need to take deliberate and conscious affirmative steps to commit fraud. So in respect to fraud, if James or Smith or Bolton or Trump have been given a true bill by a grand jury for fraud, then they should be tried for it and I will label none of them as lawfare.
I wonder if we’ll start seeing noticeable dip in the DOJ trial win rate?
The WH and Bondi can issue all the EOs and policy guidance and tough-on-crime rhetoric they want, but as our system is currently set up, they’ll need competent career prosecutors to advance those goals in courts.
The question is whether DOJ adjusts to reality or they just start using extra-judicial violence more.
Two interesting observations from my point of view.
1. The Solicitor General still has the ability to say "no" to the President.
2. We are headed back to the "spoils" system of the 19th century where the winning party installed its loyalists or favored people. I can add, with the Supreme Court having a broad view of the President's ability to manage the executive branch it will be hard to make the civil service laws stick.
Robert Kennedy Jr. has signaled he may go after Al used in vaccines to boost immune response. Before trying to sell his gullible followers on the dangers of Al and trying to tie it to autism he might look around at how common Al really is in our environment. From cookware, in most glass, and in hygiene products. If Al were a cause of autism the rate of increase would be flat.
I was reading Al as AI and was tilting my head back and forth like a confused dog.
Sorry I am lazy chemist and should have spelled out aluminum.
Disclaimer: I have not read any of RFK Jr’s opinions on the topic.
The prevalence of Al in our environment needs to be put into context of its bioavailability. In other words, how much Al actually enters our bodies and dissociates into Al from its original compound (e.g., NaCl is relatively harmless but Na and Cl isolated are not).
I know at one point Al, largely from antiperspirants, was considered a prime candidate for the cause of Alzheimer’s, though that seems to be out now. Point being that it’s a pretty complex and lengthy process to scientifically prove cause and effect like RFK Jr claims.
in the Monday thread there was discussion of the fact that Jeanine Pirro had failed three times to get a grand jury indictment in the case of Sidney Reid for supposedly assaulting federal officers as they tried to enforce immigration laws.
Further putting a lie to the notion that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich, Pirro's office has now failed to get an indictment against the sandwich thrower, Sean Dunn. Trying to charge the guy with a felony for throwing a sandwich is embarrassing enough, but it's got to be hard to realize maybe they would have had more success charging the sandwich instead of the thrower.
Indeed. However, if the thrower or if Pirro were conservative Republicans, they would have gotten indicted.
All hail the Team Blue protection racket!
So you don't like it when federal officials are attacked, eh?
Never did.
How do you figure? The prosecution gets to decide what facts they share with the grand jury. They can just say "this guy threw a sandwich at a federal agent", they don't need to call out his political views. So how would the grand jury even know if the accused is a Democrat or a Republican?
They know 1) 90% of DC residents vote Democrat and 2) only a Democrat would do such a thing
Most big metro areas are democratic and their grand juries still indict on stupid state level felonies. I think at some point it’s a DOJ competence problem.
This does not bode well for Trump’s plan to make every murder case in DC a capital offense.
Not a bad way to start a judgment:
1. This is a case about the meaning of life. 2. Specifically, it is a case about the meaning of the word ‘life’ for the purposes of s 201(1)(d) Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (“IHTA”).
1. This is a case about the meaning of life.
2. Specifically, it is a case about the meaning of the word ‘life’ for the purposes of s 201(1)(d) Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (“IHTA”).
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2025/1019
Gabbard: “Mr. President, I will be the first to brief you once we have that information collected.” “But you’re right - we are finding documents literally tucked away in the back of safes, in random offices, in these bags and in other areas, which, again, speaks to the intent of those who are trying to hide the truth from the American people and trying to cover up the politicization that was led by people like John Brennan and James Clapper and others that have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to our country.
Gabbard:
“Mr. President, I will be the first to brief you once we have that information collected.”
“But you’re right - we are finding documents literally tucked away in the back of safes, in random offices, in these bags and in other areas, which, again, speaks to the intent of those who are trying to hide the truth from the American people and trying to cover up the politicization that was led by people like John Brennan and James Clapper and others that have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to our country.
Wow
Any word about boxes of papers left in a bathroom?
Leaving evidence scattered around everywhere doesn't seem like much of an attempt to hide anything.
Newsom's trolling is raising his numbers into the stratosphere. I think he could safely add Buttigieg as his VP. This will get Pete back on track for his own presidency. Pete should be a guy you MAGA could get behind (pun intended). He's white, stable marriage, and a practicing Christian.
Please log in to post comments
Mute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?
C.J. Ciaramella | 8.27.2025 11:15 AM
Matthew Petti | 8.27.2025 10:30 AM
Jesse Walker | 8.27.2025 10:00 AM
Jack Nicastro | 8.27.2025 9:45 AM
Liz Wolfe | 8.27.2025 9:30 AM
