Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

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.

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).

[Martinned]

While they're hunting for those documents, who knows, maybe they'll come across the Epstein files?

[Commenter_XY]

NG...Sunshine is the best disinfectant, is it not?

[not guilty]

How does a likely fruitless investigation "disinfect" anything, XY?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure why you think it's likely fruitless. Figure they'd have destroyed all the evidence by now?

[not guilty]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[tylertusta]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[tylertusta]

"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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[jay.tee]

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.

[not guilty]

"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?

[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.

[David Nieporent]

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.

[jay.tee]

David, you’ve been thoroughly debunked on virtually all of the Russiagate hoax topics. I’d list them out again but another poster pointed out to me - correctly I think - that pointing out when others have been wrong doesn’t move the conversation forward.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Great example of an ad hominem in common practice.

Now, do you have anything relevant to say about "the political sensitivities that prevented him from more aggressively pursuing charges"? As David pointed out, the two paragraphs you have quoted say nothing in support of your allegation.

[not guilty]

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.”

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

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Indeed. And perhaps for the same reason the Epstein files were not destroyed when Biden had an entire four years to do so...

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[jay.tee]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[jay.tee]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

They aren't even making a pretense that this is legit. Why bother, you do all the speculation and lifting for them.

It's not ideological; there is no ideology in their open abuse of power.

True localists don't have ideology. Though they will pretend it if it helps them argue people aren't seeing what everyone is seeing.

[hobie]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lies, the real life vampires and zombies.

[jb]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

".Sunshine is the best disinfectant, is it not?"
Hillary thought it was bleach(bit).

[jb]

I thought that was Trump's idea for how to cure Covid?

[Dr. Ed 2]

UV light destroys most viri, including covid.
It works by damaging the virus's nucleic acids and proteins, rendering it inactive.

[myself]

The trouble is when the sunshine consists of a spotlight on your political opponents while you throw blackout curtains up around your allies.

[shawn_dude]

Sure! I mean, if the last blast of sunshine didn't find the fraud Trump claimed is there, a new, more expensive blast of sunshine is surely going to find something different. It's not like we care about government spending.

Cannot wait for all the sunshine the Trump administration will endure after the midterms. It will almost be as illuminating as the cries of "unfair!" from his supporters here on Reason.

[Riva]

Investigations seem to bother you a lot. The underlying fabrication of the Russian collusion? Not so much.

[tylertusta]

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.

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).

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.

[not guilty]

"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?

[tylertusta]

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?

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".

[not guilty]

Yes I have read Grunewald, thank you very much. The language you cite (which is in the context of the freaking conviction there being reversed) doesn't support your position.

Why are you evading my questions about the nature of your fanciful "conspiracy"? Grunewald teaches that the point where the applicable period of limitation begins to run depends on what the conspiratorial objective is and when the central criminal purposes of a conspiracy have been attained:

The crucial teaching of Krulewitch [v. United States, 336 U.S. 440 (1949)] and Lutwak [v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 (1953)] is that, after the central criminal purposes of a conspiracy have been attained, a subsidiary conspiracy to conceal may not be implied from circumstantial evidence showing merely that the conspiracy was kept a secret, and that the conspirators took care to cover up their crime in order to escape detection and punishment. As was there stated, allowing such a conspiracy to conceal to be inferred or implied from mere overt acts of concealment would result in a great widening of the scope of conspiracy prosecutions, since it would extend the life of a conspiracy indefinitely. Acts of covering up, even though done in the context of a mutually understood need for secrecy, cannot themselves constitute proof that concealment of the crime after its commission was part of the initial agreement among the conspirators. For every conspiracy is, by its very nature, secret; a case can hardly be supposed where men concert together for crime and advertise their purpose to the world. And again, every conspiracy will inevitably be followed by actions taken to cover the conspirators' traces. Sanctioning the Government's theory would, for all practical purposes, wipe out the statute of limitations in conspiracy cases, as well as extend indefinitely the time within which hearsay declarations will bind co-conspirators.

353 U.S. 391, 401-402 (1957). That is precisely why I have been insisting on identification of: (1) who are the conspirators; (2) what is the conspiratorial objective; (3) when that objective was accomplished or, in the alternative, when the conspiracy was abandoned; and (4) what overt acts by any conspirator in fact furthered the conspiratorial objective.

I suspect that is also why you so assiduously avoid furnishing any of this information. Instead you engage in a tap dance that would turn Sammy Davis, Jr. green with envy.

Jerome Lawrence quipped, "A neurotic is a man who builds a castle in the air. A psychotic is the man who lives in it. A psychiatrist is the man who collects the rent." The fantastical "conspiracy" which you conjure up is your air castle.

[tylertusta]

The language you cite (which is in the context of the freaking conviction there being reversed) doesn't support your position.

I thank you for pointing out that I quoted the wrong section, and I condemn you for pretending that the paragraph I'm quoting below doesn't exist. You win exactly zero points and look like a jackass. Congrats.

I don't agree with your mischaracterization of Gruneweld. The Gruneweld Court only rejected the extension of the statute of limitations in the case before them because the facts as alleged by the government were not present:

"There is not a shred of direct evidence in this record to show anything like an express original agreement among the conspirators to continue to act in concert in order to cover up, for their own self-protection, traces of the crime after its commission."

The Court went on and told us the circumstances where concealment could extent the statute of limitations:

"By no means does this mean that acts of concealment can never have significance in furthering a criminal conspiracy. But a vital distinction must be made between acts of concealment done in furtherance of the main criminal objectives of the conspiracy and acts of concealment done after these central objectives have been attained, for the purpose only of covering up after the crime."

Therefore, a criminal conspiracy whose goal was to conceal from the beginning, or whose acts of concealment actually furthers another criminal conspiracy, is permitted to extend the statute of limitations.

See also United States v. Eucker, citing United States v. Colasurdo, United States v. Freeman, Forman v. United States.

Why are you evading my questions about the nature of your fanciful "conspiracy"? ...I suspect that is also why you so assiduously avoid furnishing any of this information.

I've told you the goal three times now was to conceal materials from Congress. Your memory is faulty or you're deliberately pretending that I haven't told you.

Given the freight train of cases showing the circumstances in which concealment can constitute overt acts in furtherance of criminal conspiracies, it's no wonder that you pretend I'm arguing something that I didn't.

[not guilty]

"I've told you the goal three times now was to conceal materials from Congress. Your memory is faulty or you're deliberately pretending that I haven't told you."

You haven't identified who conspired to "conceal materials from Congress," nor which federal statute any such a supposed "concealment" of materials that had not been subpoenaed would violate. You haven't identified which materials that the "conspirators" amorphously agreed to "conceal." A federal official is not obliged to volunteer any such documents or information to Congress gratuitously.

If any such materials had been subpoenaed, the central criminal purpose of concealment would have been accomplished when the "conspirator" appeared in response to a subpoena without the documents in his possession. Mere silence thereafter would not be an overt act -- think about what the word "overt" means -- nor would it further any initial conspiracy.

Instead, you hew to a theory that SCOTUS expressly rejected in Grunewald and Krulewitch. That is at best disingenuous.

[tylertusta]

You haven't identified who conspired ...

A rhetorical trick that fools no one and I won't play along. You're just going to have to wait.

Where there's smoke, investigate to see if there's fire. Only the most obstinate say that there can't be fire because a six-point question can't be answered before you've finished looking.

Instead, you hew to a theory that SCOTUS expressly rejected in Grunewald and Krulewitch.

In the business, I believe you'd call that a lie. For the 4th (or is it 5th?) time, the Court didn't not expressly say that concealment cannot further it.

What part of the phrase "By no means does this mean that acts of concealment can never have significance in furthering a criminal conspiracy" do you not understand?

[not guilty]

I have never suggested that acts of concealment can never be overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy. I have said repeatedly, however, that such acts:

(1) must be undertaken by an actual conspirator;
(2) must in fact further the central criminal purpose of the conspiracy; and
(3) are irrelevant after the conspiratorial objective has been accomplished or, in the alternative, after the conspiracy has been abandoned.

You have time and again run away like a scalded dog from identifying whom you claim conspired to conceal materials from Congress, what particular materials they intended to conceal, when the conspiratorial agreement was formed, and what overt acts that you claim extended the conspiracy occurred, and when.

You have nothing but handwaving and innuendo. Man up and admit it.

[not guilty]

Tylertusta, for all your yapping and yammering about what you blithely characterize as "conspiracy," why won't you man up and admit that you can't identify the essential components thereof? I promise it won't break your keyboard.

As John Madden said, “If you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.”

[tylertusta]

Mr. Guilty, because of your slanted presentations of arguments and facts in these comments, you're sloppy. Very sloppy. Proverbs 16:18 tells us that "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall," and you've fallen so very, very low.

You've given us your opinions on cases. You and I have sparred many times since I frequented the Open Threads back in late 2023.

How many high-profile cases have you actually correctly predicted in these Open Threads? How about the outcome when it comes to Trump or Republicans in the past 2 years? How many times has the final court reviewing a high-profile matter adopted your position in a matter involving Trump?

Presidential immunity? Disqualification of Fani Willis? The meaning of 1512(c)(2)?

Think back on these and reflect. It's good for the soul and it should humble you- seeing our flaws should humble us all. Your excuse that you're just a partisan Democrat doesn't not excuse your missteps here. You're like a burger from White Castle. It might feel good to have at first, but you're rolling the dice on whether you're going to regret it later with the indigestion.

I'm by no means pretending that I'm in the right more often that not, but I'm also not a lawyer nor do I don't pretend to be. You've probably noticed that I don't start personal attacks here*, but I will reciprocate. As the man said, if wronged, shall I not revenge?

My final piece of advice: Be curious, not judgemental. Goodspeed and good night old man.

* With one exception, but you are not it, Mr. Guilty.

[not guilty]

Tylertusta, you are not an attorney, but you are trying your damnedest to imitate one.

If you continue to flout the Madden advice, however, let's play that string out. Suppose you were an AUSA drafting a "conspiracy to conceal materials from Congress" indictment for presentation to a federal grand jury.

Who would you charge as parties to the conspiracy?

When would you allege that the conspirators entered into their nefarious agreement?

Which "materials" would you allege that the conspirators intended to conceal?

When, if at all, was production of any such materials due to be provided to Congress? Pursuant to what process? To whom was any such process directed?

What overt act(s) in furtherance of the conspiracy would you allege to have occurred during the past five years? Which alleged conspirator committed each such act?

A defendant accused of a crime has a Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and the right to trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be held to answer for an infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, and protects against deprivation of liberty without due process of law. Taken together, these rights indisputably entitle a criminal defendant to "a jury determination that [he] is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt." Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 477 (2000), quoting United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995).

As the proverb goes, the devil is in the details. Stamping your foot and kvetching "But I don't like that!" doesn't feed the bulldog. Have at your drafting exercise, tylertusta.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Tylertusta, you are not an attorney, but you are trying your damnedest to imitate one."
Fact not in evidence. He is hardly being the pompous dickhead that so many practitioners who comment here have shown themselves to be.

[tylertusta]

Sigh. Well, I tried. I even took the high road.

[not guilty]

Tylertusta, you may have tried, but you failed miserably.

[Mr. Bumble]

not guilty, you are an expert at "failing miserably".

[tylertusta]

The most depressing part is that you don't even know what I'm talking about.

[not guilty]

I know exactly what you are talking about, tylertusta.

You are talking about building a house of cards when you haven't even purchased the building materials and have no clue what the blueprints call for.

[Bwaaah]

1) Your record of calling how the law will play, your legal theories, are unreliable. As a non-expert onlooker, that unreliability seems to me to be in much part a result of overconfident overreach. And yet your tone of certainty is unshaken.
2) You seem to emulate thoughtfulness and empathy. If there were a zombie apocalypse, I'm not sure you'd notice the transition.

[John F. Carr]

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.

[not guilty]

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.

[Life of Brian]

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.

[Fusilier]

There are 5,000 ICE Agents employed by Homeland Security. That would add roughly about 100 police officers to each of the 50 states a figure which is not even negligible. By way of comparison the New York City Police Department has 40,000 officers to police the five boroughs which total about 75 square miles. That figure doesn't include bridge and tunnel police, state police, court officers, probation officers, parole officers, thousands of corrections officers and city marshals which function as sheriffs in New York City. While Ilya Somin is pretty on-point with Trump's tariff insanity he's way off base on immigration enforcement. We need strong immigration enforcement and ICE Agents are vital for enforcement. Illegal immigrants have ZERO RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS according to 200 years of court decisions!

[bernard11]

Illegal immigrants have ZERO RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS according to 200 years of court decisions!

What a bizarre statement. Do you think an (alleged) bank robber has a right to due process?

[David Nieporent]

There are 5,000 ICE Agents employed by Homeland Security

Your numbers are wrong; there are almost double that in ERO alone, and HSI has significantly more than that. And that's before the OBBB.

Illegal immigrants have ZERO RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS according to 200 years of court decisions!

There are no such court decisions, and of course the concept of "illegal immigrant" isn't even 200 years old.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes issued the following statement today on the Justice Department’s decision to appoint a special counsel to oversee the executive branch investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election:

“I strongly support this decision, and I commend Deputy U.S. Attorney General Rosenstein for his leadership. This is the right decision at the right time, and the right man was chosen for the job. Robert Mueller is a highly respected former FBI Director who has tremendous integrity, and I’m confident he will lead a credible investigation.”

[Stephen Lathrop]

No Friday open thread??

[Martinned]

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

[Martinned]

Fighting words from Merriam Webster the other day:

Does Not Rhyme
-through
-cough
-though
-rough
-bough

Does Rhyme
-pony
-bologna

[darkknight9]

What's the timeline on SCOTUS declaring an executive order unconstitutional?

[Martinned]

That depends on whether Trump loses in the District Court.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

Those aren't magic words.

[Brett Bellmore]

You tell people to do what you tell them to do, not what your political foes like to imagine you told them to do.

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[LexAquilia]

>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.

[David Nieporent]

Those aren't magic words.

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

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?

[Magister]

You could look at the transcript of Trump's January 6th speech; he said "fight" twenty times and excoriates the weakness of some Congressional Republicans, but in the middle of all that he said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard", the only appearance of "peace". And famously he did nothing but watch the violent attacks on police that unfolded that afternoon.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yawn.
You quoted the operative sentence that David made up.

[Magister]

I quoted a sentence from the transcript of his speech, which you can hear Trump say in the video of the speech at the same link. Nobody but Trump made that up.

[not guilty]

"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?

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Stephen Lathrop]

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.

[jay.tee]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems the former journalist needs a proofreader.

[David Nieporent]

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.

[jay.tee]

Thank you for clarifying, David.

[not guilty]

"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.

[Mr. Bumble]

As determined by whom? You, Somin or the other usual suspects?

[ducksalad]

Just as a hypothetical, what if Trump gave the following order:

"All executive departments are ordered to violate all applicable laws, consistent with all applicable laws."

Would you say that's perfectly fine, because the second clause zeroes out the first one, and therefore it's an order to do nothing?

Several of his orders IMO amount to the same thing, just with less direct language.

[Krayt]

That's a silly example, but there's precedence. Sanctuary cities all say to resist and not participate, then tac on the "except as required by law" legalese.

This is reasonable, but is sadly a growing game. Once again, Republicans play catch up on tricks used against them. As in the famous column written after his 2016 win, where a panicked lover of twitter cancellation storms wondered, oh no! What if he does to us what we've been doing to them?"

[ducksalad]

Damn straight there's precedence, the most notable being Trump's EO on birthright citizenship.

[Ridgeway]

One issue is that third parties would likely have no standing to challenge that EO.

Regarding the flag--burning one, I guess it is possible that a would-be flag burner could raise a facial challenge to the EO, but I would not bet on success. More likely he could raise the pre-emptive facial challenge to the DOJ's enforcement of any anti flag burning statutes still on the books, citing the EO as evidence that the DOJ is likely to enforce them against him.

[Mr. Bumble]

Barring an act pursued under an EO or law what authority is able to state it to be unconstitutional (other than a Somin OP)?

[Martinned]

Oh, look, now we're just going to abolish facial challenges against things Trump does altogether. Who could have seen that coming?

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Stephen Lathrop]

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.

[ducksalad]

Suppose there's a trial - conspiracy to commit murder and armed robbery - and the evidence reveals that one of the defendants said the following:

"Let's rush into that liquor store, shoot the clerk and any customers, empty the cash register, and take as much liquor as we can, but this should be interpreted consistent with all applicable laws."

If you were on the jury, do you think that last phrase should be a full defense to any prosecution? Would you ignore any gathering of weapons, casing the premises, and planning on how the proceeds would be divided?

If a friend proposed the plan to you, would you tell him it's fine except possibly as applied? That maybe you could try a test case, to see how the courts feel about it?

IMO the birthright order is essentially the same thing. There is no legal way to apply it, except to not apply it at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let's suppose you start out by assuming the administration is run by criminals, in order to make your reasoning seem more reasonable.

In your hypothetical, they come right out and say they're going to do something that is facially illegal, and then stick on the boilerplate. But, what did I say above?

"Trump has not ordered anything, so far as I know, which is facially unconstitutional. If he did, the boilerplate would be unavailing, I agree."

The reason the boilerplate works, is because Trump is ordering things where there ARE legal applications of the order.

Even the birthright order, which is the one order I've seen so far that is arguably facially unconstitutional, is clearly just setting up a legal challenge. It was intended to end up in court, where most likely the boilerplate will, in fact, prove unavailing.

But his other orders, like the flag burning one? Yeah, that's absolutely a question of as applied, not facial, unconstitutionality, because it genuinely is sometimes constitutional to prosecute somebody for burning a flag.

[Sarcastr0]

The reason the boilerplate works, is because Trump is ordering things where there ARE legal applications of the order.

Not as actually implemented. Hence all the lawsuits he's losing.

You're denying reality. Again.

[Brett Bellmore]

He's losing lawsuits in the first instance due to judge shopping. His batting record at the Supreme court is pretty good.

[Sarcastr0]

So the boilerplate keeps things legal, specifically for your definition of legal.

You compare incomparable things re: the Supreme Court orders docket and lower court opinions. The Supreme Court can change the law. The job of lower courts is to follow the law, not to anticipate which way the Supreme Court will jump.

Thus, despite your magic words 'to the extent consistent with the law and constitution' the administration is doing actually illegal and unconstitutional things, as established by the lower courts.

I'm sure you think those courts are in a conspiracy against him, but for everyone that cares about facts, those magic words are not magic.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, we're discussing the constitutionality of the EO itself, not the actions taken under it. As long as there ARE constitutional actions consistent with the EO, and the EO directs that only they be done, the EO itself is constitutional, even if you want to posit there's a lot of winking and nodding going on, and Trump really wants the terms of his own EO violated.

[Sarcastr0]

we're discussing the constitutionality of the EO itself, not the actions taken under it.

Ah yes the paradise of existing in a land of pure words; no associated actions.

Everything's legal, hooray!

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure you do understand the difference between, "That order was unconstitutional!" and "The way he carried out that order was unconstitutional!".

Even if you are really eager to license judges to deprive Trump of ordinary Presidential powers on the assumption that, no matter what he says, he really is up to no good.

[ducksalad]

Even the birthright order, which is the one order I've seen so far that is arguably facially unconstitutional, is clearly just setting up a legal challenge. It was intended to end up in court, where most likely the boilerplate will, in fact, prove unavailing.

That's exactly the one I had in mind.

It brings up what I think is a flaw in our system, the rule against advisory opinions by courts. The only way to test a boundary case, or to try to get a previous precedent overturned, is to actually order a violation of someone's rights.

It's somewhat mitigated by courts doing temporary injunctions while the courts rule. But the people pushing and defending these EOs are often the same ones objecting to injunctions in general. They want the process - or more correctly the time blown by the process - to be a window where they can violate rights without consequences.

[bernard11]

Exactly.

The EO's, which have national effect, can now not be quickly challenged nationally.

That means Trump can issue orders and have them carried out for some length of time regardless of how blatantly unconstitutional they are.

[shawn_dude]

The only people whose opinion matters on the fig leaves are people who will see them as full garments covering a naked emperor.

[jb]

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?

[Area Man]

Yes, actually. The second part would still allow depriving people of guns who are not constitutionally entitled to own them. Infants, for example. Or violent felons and the mentally ill. So, there are at least some valid applications of the directive.

Indeed, there wouldn't even have to be an as-applied challenge because, by its terms, the law wouldn't apply to people constitutionally entitled to own guns. So, if someone were able to own guns, but was still prosecuted, they would argue that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a conviction, not that it was unconstitutional as applied to their conduct.

[ducksalad]

Suppose, just for fun, that at the signing ceremony for jb's bill, President Newsom, flanked by a bunch of gun control advocates, gave the following statement:

"Today we reverse the mistaken policies of Republicans that were enabled by wrong court decisions like Heller and Bruen. We are taking all guns out of private possession. Own a gun, one year in jail: no excuses."

----

Side note: just because something isn't prohibited by the constitution doesn't mean it's an enumerated power. Someone who still cared about federalism would say infants, felons, and mental illness have nothing to do with interstate commerce.

Note that I kind of plagiarized that last sentence from a recent EO.

[Area Man]

None of the president's statements change the plain language of the statute. So, the same analysis would apply.

And I agree that most federal gun laws stand on flimsy footing, but the courts thus far have generally ruled otherwise. But, in any event, that still wouldn't decide the facial-challenge question, because the law could still be lawfully applied in federally controlled areas--e.g., DC, the territories, military bases, etc. Thus, there are at least some valid applications of the law, e.g., infants, violent felons, and the mentally ill in DC.

[jb]

Oh, cool. Now that Congress knows this, they can avoid any facial challenges ever with one quick trick.

Does your answer change is that the first subsection of the law says that it shall be a felony to possess a firearm anywhere within the United States?

[Area Man]

Congress could do that, I suppose. Probably save everyone a lot of time trying to overcome an already difficult-to-achieve legal standard. Few laws are ever really facially unconstitutional, and as-applied challenges are the better way to go for most parties.

As to your question, I'm not really sure what you're asking. Does the "to the extent consistent with the Constitution" provision apply to the "it shall be a felony to possess a firearm anywhere within the United States" provision? If so, then yes, for the same reasons I gave above. If not, then a facial challenge will still likely fail because, under current caselaw, there are still some lawful applications of the law. The better path would be to make an as-applied challenge. (Without the "to the extent consistent with the Constitution" provision, it shifts the calculus from an evidentiary-sufficiency challenge to an as-applied challenge.) That ruling, while as-applied, would then be able to serve as precedent for like-situated individuals.

[jb]

Sure the "to the extent consistent with the Constitution" is written into the second part too. Sounds like when the Feds start arresting everyone that owns a gun, you think they need to individually challenge the law and a bunch of people will have to sit in jail for a few months or years while they wait for their cases to eventually be resolved.

Seems like a pretty bad system to me. Hopefully Congress doesn't catch on!

[Area Man]

That is a bad system. That doesn't necessarily make it unconstitutional. We have all kinds of laws that are of dubious constitutionality. The solution for that is either the system I outlined above or, you know, democracy.

[jb]

Here's my alternative framework: just don't treat "to the extent permitted by X" as a magic incantation. If the next words obviously violate X, then you can ignore the incantation and just look at what the rest of the law or EO says. I don't really see any downside to this approach, and it avoids the bad results discussed above.

[Kazinski]

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

[Martinned]

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

[Kazinski]

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.

[Martinned]

Is this the other 2%?

But I've also seen reports the migrant groped one of the girls and asked for their phone numbers before the clip started.

[Kazinski]

Here is further context:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/283100/recorded-rape-offences-in-england-and-wales/

[Martinned]

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?

[jb]

Must be in Australia right? I was just thinking about 80s movies...

[Kazinski]

So why would Scotland be different? They have bobbed wire at the border?

They do have a wall but that's to keep the Scots in.

But still an increase in rapes from 70k a year correlating with the wave of mass migration from the middle east seems noteworthy.

[jb]

Why would crime statistics be different in different countries that don't have hard borders? Is this a serious question? Do you think crime rates in France and Switzerland are roughly the same? Or for that matter New Mexico and Utah, or Maine and Massachusetts? There isn't barbed wire between any of those places.

As for the increase in rapes, I find the correlation with the Brexit vote noteworthy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? The little girl can be seen saying the guy groped her in the video. You people are fucking sick.

[Joe_dallas]

agreed - except the term sick is an understatement

[Kazinski]

She didn't say groped she said:

Don’t f*cking touch her, she’s f*cking 12.”

I'm pretty happy to see them making this argument, its like demonstrating for more murders in DC.

[John F. Carr]

"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

[Commenter_XY]

Eurotrash, that you take the side of reprobate migrant rapists is a surprise to no one.

[CountmontyC]

I am beginning to think he might not be Eurotrash but part of the Muslim invasion of Europe.

[Martinned]

O look, the Great Replacement Theory in the VC comments section. Must be a day that ends in y.

[LexAquilia]

https://press.un.org/en/2000/20000317.dev2234.doc.html

Don't forget it started at the UN.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Would this be like Global Warming theory?

[Martinned]

If you're frothing at the mouth so early in the morning, you should probably seek medical attention.

[CountmontyC]

Says the person with 22 comments in the thread already.

[Sarcastr0]

Different timezone for him, you see.

[CountmontyC]

What time zone is Commenter XY in?
Does it really matter?

[David Nieporent]

EDT.
Yes.

[CountmontyC]

Are you stalking Commenter XY?

Why does it matter?

[David Nieporent]

No.
Because.

[Martinned]

...none of them particularly frothy, I might add.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Just a little non-frothy rape apology from across the pond.

[Swede425]

He's hoping they'll stone him last.
Just kidding: he'll convert long before that.

[Bart Bogmoor]

"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.

[John F. Carr]

A small pistol is better for self-defense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

AR-15 has way less recoil.

[Mr. Bumble]

Than a .22 or .25 cal. pistol?

[Frank Drackman]

You shoot them alot when you served in combat with Governor Tampon Tim??

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, his UNIT served in combat -- he just didn't go with it.
Don't disparage everyone else in the unit because of him.

[Joe_dallas]

Bart condemns the girls trying to protect themselves, but doesnt condemn the abuser. Why?

[bernard11]

Per the Daily Mail report cited by Martinned below, there was no abuser. Maybe that's why.

[Life of Brian]

there was no abuser

Because he... [checks notes] denied it?

[Magister]

Because the police, with far more evidence available than the commenters hyperventilating over this, did not arrest him? Yes, I'm sure the usual suspects will claim that the police are in a massive conspiracy to... [checks notes] defend Bulgarians in Dundee. Maybe it was the juvenile Karen it sounds like, maybe it was something else; internet detectives aren't going to be the ones to solve the case.

[hobie]

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.

[LexAquilia]

Have you already forgotten the Battle of Shiloh? It was won by team Good Guys.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, team Bad Guys are fighting back. And it sucks to frame this in terms of good guys/bad guys, but how bad does the left have to be to be the bad guys in a case involving yelling racial slurs at a child?

[Dr. Ed 2]

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.

[bernard11]

Are you justifying the KKK somehow?

This is, "She was wearing a short skirt," level of logic.

[shawn_dude]

What context does "migrant" offer here? It seems superfluous. Dog whistle?

[Kazinski]

If you haven't been paying attention sexual harassment and abuse of British women by migrants is absolutely the top political issue in the UK now.

That's not a Scottish accent. The girl didn't think it was superfluous.

The Lowe report just came out on the Grooming gang scandal, finding 85 areas where there were organized rape gangs, including in Scotland.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/snp-government-faces-grooming-gangs-35796176

SNP Government faces grooming gangs inquiry calls as bombshell new evidence reveals extent of abuse in Scotland

Another study said:
"The focus on grooming gangs comes after the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) led by Professor Alexis Jay found institutional failings and tens of thousands of victims across England and Wales. The seven-year probe made 20 recommendations in the final report published in 2022, as it described child sexual abuse as an “epidemic” across the two nations."

[shawn_dude]

One would presume in the UK that "rape gangs" were illegal and that rapists are bad people. (Though we've elected one to the presidency so that may not be the case in the US.) I'm still unsure why it matters if any of them are "migrants." That seems to be extra information that has no statistical correlation with "rape" or "rape gangs." It reads to me like a dog whistle.

[Kazinski]

Specifically the Rape gang scandal is so scandalous because the authorities covered up for over a decade because the main perpetrators where of Pakistani ethnicity. Don't take my word for it, here is Wikipedia with footnotes:

From the late 1980s until 2013, group-based child sexual exploitation affected an estimated 1,400 girls, commonly from care home backgrounds, in the town of Rotherham, South Yorkshire, England. Between 1997 and 2013, girls were abused by grooming gangs of predominantly British-Pakistani men.[10][11][12] Researcher Angie Heal, who was hired by local officials and warned them about child exploitation occurring between 2002 and 2007, has since described it as the "biggest child protection scandal in UK history".[13] In July 2025 investigations were being carried out into allegations that police officers had also raped child victims.

From January 2011, The Times covered the issue, discovering that the abuse had been known by local authorities for over ten years.[b]"

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

Now the Lowe Report has identified 85 other jurisdictions where similar abuse happened.

And of course attitudes like yours enabled it, 'you can't say migrant', 'you can't say muslim', 'you can't say Pakistani'.

[Sarcastr0]

2013. Yes, it was a scandal. Yes, investigations are rightly ongoing.

But 2013 is the best you got?

I don't know what white nationalist account you're getting this fed from, but they need to get newer material.

[Kazinski]

BBC?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7872pngj2qo

Kier Starmer?

"The prime minister has announced there will be a full national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs."

Wikipedia?

Starmer call for the "full national statutory" in June barely 2 months ago.

[Sarcastr0]

So when I said, "2013. Yes, it was a scandal. Yes, investigations are rightly ongoing."

You're using this to argue something quite negative about migrants in the UK today that is not supported by your story of a decade ago.

I don't know where you picked up this UK white nationalist trash you sometimes post, but it's as sloppy as anything that's meant to be red meat for those who want to believe.

Why do you want to believe?

[Kazinski]

That video of the girl was this week.

The demonstrations from Epping are this month.

How many of those people from 2013 are in jail or deported?

15-20?

Problems that aren't addressed fester forever.

57% of UK voters say the biggest issue is immigration and asylum. And they aren't asking for more.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country

[Sarcastr0]

You're thesis was about immigrants being responsible for the rise in rapes in the UK. Your evidence was an over 10 years old scandal.

Now it's just yelling how the current UK administration is not doing this or that.

Like a lot of populist white nationalists, you're not keeping to a thesis, just jumping from one to the other to keep the outrage up when one is debunked.

It's a terrible, cynical tactic. In service of a terrible, cynical political strategy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Il Douche has yet to achieve self awareness.

[Martinned]

Fortunately the quality newspaper Daily Mail has now looked into the case.

Revealed: The truth about the 'migrant' who a Dundee schoolgirl brandished a knife at... and how wrong rabble rousers Elon Musk and Tommy Robinson were

The ugly video clip from a Dundee housing estate in which a schoolgirl brandished a knife and an axe soon went viral, with rabble rousers such as Elon Musk and Tommy Robinson pitching in to claim the man filming the exchange was a 'migrant'.

Others lauded the girl as a 'Braveheart' figure, defending her homeland from a predatory alien, with comparisons quickly cited about the Asian grooming gang scandals of Rotherham and Rochdale.

Now we can reveal the man being threatened is a family man who has been living in the UK for four years – and who was accompanied by his wife on the way to the shops when the incident occurred.

Far from being fresh off a cross-channel small inflatable, as implied by Robinson and Musk, Fatos Ali Dumana, 21, says he came to Britain legally from Bulgaria and he and his wife have an eight-month-old baby.

The self-styled 'digital creator' took the chance to have his own say on the bust-up which launched a thousand memes – and which also led to the girl being charged by police.

Speaking from his home in Dundee, Mr Dumana insisted he did nothing wrong and is in the country legitimately.

He said: 'I have seen the social media and it's blown up.

'In the video she's saying, "Don't touch my sister, she's only 12".

'I never touched her. I didn't hit her, I swear on my life, I have a baby now. I would never hurt someone.

'If she's only 12 why was she messing with me and having weapons?

'I was going to the shop and she was stopping me going on my way.'If I did hurt the girl, why didn't the police arrest me?

'They have done nothing to me.

'They saw from the CCTV cameras from Farmfoods that she was stopping me go on my way to the shop.

'There was one more person also who told them (the police) she was attacking me and calling me a f***** migrant.

'I am not an illegal migrant. I have not done anything.

'I did not hit them, I am a human not an animal.

'I've seen what's on social media every day, I want people to know what happened.'

Police sources have also confirmed there is no evidence to support the online rumours Mr Dumana is a migrant or committed any offence.

It saw former Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf state: 'Who would have guessed the far right were full of bulls***.'

According to his social media accounts Mr Dumana is originally from Bulgarian town Kazanlak which is a 160-mile drive from the capital Sofia.

His bio says: 'A gentleman from the Kingdom' in Bulgarian.

He moved to Dundee in June 2021 and now lives in a council property with his wife Fatos Yulianova, 19.

It's just a couple of minutes walk from where Saturday's incident took place.

The couple had a baby boy together in December and he was given a UK provisional driving licence in 2022.

Mr Dumana states he starting working at Indian and Thai restaurant Tulsi in St Andrews a couple of months after arriving in Scotland.

The young father - who sports a large cross tattoo on his neck - also says he studied to learn English at the Coleg Cambria in Wrexham.

On one picture of the couple together one person recently wrote: 'What were you doing talking to 12 year old Scottish girls foreigner?'

He has returned back to Bulgaria and spent time in the Netherlands during the past four years.

Mr Dumama has posted various family photos with his wife.

He has also uploaded dozen of videos of himself dancing and posing on TikTok.He also states Fingask Castle in Perthshire is his 'favourite place'.

The incident happened at the weekend on a roadside grass verge close to the city's High Street.

In the video the girl - wearing torn jogging bottoms and a navy t-shirt - is being kept away from Mr Dumana by another young female claiming to be her sister.

With her hands behind her back she then yells, 'I'm f**** 12 mate. You're f***** battering kids mate. Coz you're f***** kid bashers.'

Mr Dumana is heard saying: 'Show the knife, show the knife.'

The other youngster appears and says: 'Get the f*** away from us.'

Mr Dumana again says 'Show the knife' which prompts the girl to reveal a large blade and axe to the camera.

He then says, 'That's it, that's it, show the knife.'

The second girl is then heard saying: 'Don't f***** touch my little sister she's f***** 12.

'She's f***** 12 and you've just battered me mate.'

The girl with the weapons initially walks off and appears to try and hide the objects under her T-shirt.

But she then turns back towards him and twice says: 'Wait til I f***** catch you mate.'

Another female out of shot - believed to be his wife Yulianova - then utters something in Bulgarian before he responds in the same dialect.

He then repeats: 'Yeah show the knife.'

The second young female then appears between the girl and man and says, 'Don't touch her' before the footage ends.

The video has gone viral online and has been viewed millions of times.

Cops confirmed they were called to St Ann Lane, in the Lochee area of Dundee, just after 7:30pm on Saturday.

A number of force vehicles were spotted at the Balgay Street car park as officers launched an investigation.

Police have officially refused to divulge the nationality or identity of Mr Dumana or what prompted the disagreement.

Officers spoke to him on Saturday evening but he wasn't arrested or charged.

Police Scotland Chief Superintendent Nicola Russell said: 'We are aware of misinformation being shared on social media in relation to an incident where a Bulgarian couple were approached by youths in St Ann Lane, Dundee, on Saturday, 23 August, 2025.

'A 12-year-old girl has been charged with being in possession of offensive weapons. She will be referred to the relevant authorities and our enquiries are ongoing.

'We would like to thank the local community for their help with our investigation and would urge the public not to share misinformation about this incident or speculate on the circumstances.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15040815/The-truth-migrant-Dundee-schoolgirl-brandished-knife-wrong-rabble-rousers-Elon-Musk-Tommy-Robinson-were.html

[bernard11]

Thank you, Martinned.

[Riva]

WTF? You cut and post a Daily Mail piece and think that's somehow definitively settles anything? What we have here are adult males confronting frightened little girls. One wonders why the allegedly clean as the driven snow adult males would continue to approach and interact with young girls screaming at them to go away. A little circumstance not addressed by the Daily Mail.

[bernard11]

What we have here are adult males confronting frightened little girls.

We have nothing of the sort, you fucking liar.

What we have is the girl accosting the guy for no reason except she thought he was an immigrant. No doubt a result of "lessons" learned at home.

The whole thing is RW BS, which of course you swallow, hook, line and sinker.

[Riva]

Yeah uh huh. Two little girls attacking two poor defenseless adult males. You're as full of shit as the Scottish police.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Lol, you fall for this shit every single time.

[Sarcastr0]

Will Kaz learn for next time?

No, Kaz will not.

[Martinned]

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

[Bart Bogmoor]

Surely the don't mind, long as they're armed.

[Martinned]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's called police call and is SOP in the military.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Tell me you've never been in the military...

[Dr. Ed 2]

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...

[Frank Drackman]

Just be honest, Ty, I mean "Dr. Ed"
"Homo, much better now!"

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

[shawn_dude]

National Guard pay is usually less than their day job. So if he's activating professionals who need to support their families and paying them beans to pick up trash, he's burning good will.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Those are the folk who don't volunteer, leaving the slots open to those who want to go.

[CountmontyC]

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.

[Martinned]

I'm sure it is, but it can't be good for morale.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Martinned]

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?

[Frank Drackman]

You're way too interested in men bending over.

[Brett Bellmore]

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...

[Frank Drackman]

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

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, I think John Ritter had the same thing. Don't Google him.

[CountmontyC]

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.

[Martinned]

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.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"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.

[hobie]

A lot of Guard officers have been going online explaining to their brothers that following unconstitutional orders is illegal.

[Swede425]

Oh, I know.
Tons.

[SRG2]

But the cultists' response is that if Trump orders it, it's not unconstitutional.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And the people posting on line can also get into trouble.

[Frank Drackman]

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.

Frank

[Swede425]

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.

[TwelveInchPianist]

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.

[Swede425]

Mine said I would be a jet fighter pilot navy seal ranger delta force.
If I ever find that guy again...

[Mr. Bumble]

Did they tell you that FTA meant fun, travel and adventure.

[tylertusta]

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."

[shawn_dude]

An ironic comment. Let's get this up front: I'm an active duty veteran.

National guard members normally work roughly 40 days a year in the guard. Generally, a weekend per month plus two weeks of annual training. During this time they are away from their professional careers and getting paid their military wage only, which is often less than their day jobs. I don't love seeing commentary like yours that doesn't understand the impact on our National Guard members when people abuse them in this way.

They've been put in a financially risky position not for the purpose the Guard was created for but for a show of authoritarian power by a would-be despot. They're out picking trash earning peanuts when they could be back at their day jobs earning the wages that support their families. Something a billionaire won't understand but *you* should.

[Frank Drackman]

They also get deployed to Combat at least as often and usually more than the Active Duty, and get pulled from their MOS to do Convoy Security and EOD, and after all that, get shittier Retirement pay than Active Duty.75% of the Aerial Refueling Tankers are Guard/Reserve, without which the B-2's that carried out "Midnight Hammer" would have had to stop for Gas in Terror-Anne.
You're right, they should have you Active Duty WOC doing the Police calls.

Frank

Frank

[tylertusta]

I'm very unsympathetic to these statements. Quite simply, if they didn't want to get activated then they shouldn't have signed up for the Guard.

It's not abuse. It's work. Suck it up, buttercup.

[Stephen Lathrop]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Brett Bellmore: Pride and Credulousness

[Brett Bellmore]

You're writing an autobiography? Tell me when it comes out.

[ThePublius]

"During Trump's J6 coup attempt, ...."

There was no coup attempt.

[LawTalkingGuy]

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?

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“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?

[bernard11]

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.

There was in fact violence and threatened violence on Jan. 6, unless you don't consider attacks on the police violence.

Also, some definitions require violence. Others don't.

Say generals march in and arrest the President and his crew, and proclaim themselves the ruling junta. If that's not a coup, (or an attempted coup if it fails) what do you call it, a "foup?"

And if the events of J6 were, as you falsely claim, not a coup but a foup, so what? They were still an illegal attempt to keep Trump in office and overturn election results. Not OK.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett thinks J6 was an FBI op.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think somebody ELSE got convicted of planning that violence, and nobody has produced squat in the way of evidence that Trump planned it.

[shawn_dude]

If evidence was produced, would you believe it? I'm having doubts.

P.S. Speaking of evidence... still waiting for Trump to keep his promise and release the Epstein files.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's an interesting hypothetical question, to which I'll answer, "Yes".

Now, where is that evidence, and why didn't the Biden DOJ bother so much as mentioning it? (Let alone initiating the federal insurrection prosecution that actually WOULD have disqualified Trump.)

It's so easy to say that you don't need to provide the evidence, because I would ignore it if you did, when the truth is, YOU DON'T HAVE IT TO GIVE.

Trump did not plan that riot, the Proud Boys did. The FBI is literally more implicated in that riot than Trump, half the Proud Boys leadership were working for them as informants.

Was "informant" a funny way of spelling "agent provocateur"? Maybe, or maybe it was just the usual FBI screw up, where they're feeding people enough rope to hang themselves, intending to swoop in in the nick of time to save the day, and then forget to do the swooping.

But the fact remains, you got squat, so stop calling it a "coup".

[Bob from Ohio]

"Proud Boys did"

They couldn't plan a one man parade.

It was a spontaneous thing, like many riots. A few hot heads started getting violent, some of the others followed and it snowballed.it

[Bob from Ohio]

What is a "foup"?

[bernard11]

What is a "foup"?

A word I made up to satisfy Brett's insistence that for something to be a coup it must involve violence. Hence, per Brett, an illegal takeover is not a coup.

So to enable us to talk about non-violent, but illegal, takeovers, I invented the word "foup" to describe such events.

[Mr. Bumble]

Challenging election results as others have done?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Kind of undersells the point that it was based on lies about fraud and insane legal theories that resulted in sanctions for the lawyers involved.

But even if that’s what he was doing before January 6…what was the goal of the mob on January 6 and why did Trump let it play out before addressing it?

[bernard11]

Challenging election results as others have done?

Others have done it legally, through recounts and lawsuits. Trump did a lot of that, and lost every time. So now the Trumpists were resorting to illegal methods.

You defenders of insurrection seem to think that once the results are initially announced there is nothing further to be done legally, but there is, as we saw. And it all failed. So you claim, in effect, that Trump was then entitled to resort to illegal means.

What fucking nonsense.

[darkknight9]

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!

[Frank Drackman]

Somewhere a Village is missing its Idiot.

[Martinned]

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/

[Brett Bellmore]

It is by American standards, since our political center is well to the right of Europe's.

[Brett Bellmore]

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

[Sarcastr0]

Israel != Jews.

That is itself kind of antisemetic.

[Brett Bellmore]

It none the less remains that almost all anti-Zionism is, in practice, antisemitism.

[hobie]

How again are the millions of Israeli Jews opposed to Zionism...antisemites?

[Brett Bellmore]

Are you under the impression that almost all anti-Zionism is to be found in Israel?

[hobie]

How again are the millions of Israeli Jews opposed to Zionism...antisemites?

[bernard11]

I doubt that millions of Israeli Jews are opposed to Zionism.

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[LexAquilia]

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.

[jay.tee]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

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.

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.

Many people say!

[hobie]

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.

[bernard11]

"Anti-Zionism" covers a lot of ground. Opposing Netanyahu's policies, as I do, does not make one an anti-Zionist. In fact, I consider it a pro-Israel stance.

That said, I do think that what some call "anti-Zionism" does cross over into antisemitism, and some is just a thin cover. When discussing the matter it would be very helpful if people defined what their anti-Zionism consists of.

As usual, trying to describe different things with the same word is foolish.

[jay.tee]

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.

[hobie]

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?

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Bob from Ohio]

"anti-Semites account for most of the world's "anti-Zionists"

All, not most.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Do you mean religious Zionism, or political Zionism?

Because they're not the same thing. At all.

I wonder in whose interests it would be to conflate the two?

[Riva]

Now do “from the river to the sea.” Any antisemitism there in your view?

[not guilty]

The Palestinians are a semitic people, Riva. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/

[David Nieporent]

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.

[bernard11]

To add to David's point, the very word "antisemitism" was coined to refer specifically to antagonism towards Jews.

[David Nieporent]

Specifically, it was coined by a German antisemite in the 19th century (Wilhelm Marr, for those who care) to distinguish the then-modern "scientific" antisemitism from the centuries of religious Jew-hatred. That is, the old version was "the Jews killed Jesus." But that didn't seem quite like a rational enough reason in the "modern" post-Enlightenment scientific world, and so Marr said, "No, nowadays we hate them because of their biological racial characteristics, not because of old-fashioned superstitions, so we should have a new name for that."

[bernard11]

It was, as I've commented elsewhere, a great breakthrough in bigotry, as it prevented Jews who were so inclined from becoming Christians to escape opprobrium.

[Riva]

So just so we're clear here, Not Guilty, you see nothing anti-jewish in a slogan calling for the elimination of the jewish homeland and the resulting expulsion of jews from the region?

[not guilty]

I did not say that at all. I am merely pointing out that the two ethnic groups are closely related.

[Riva]

Only one group refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist and, based on their conduct and their words, desires the expulsion, or worse, of jews from their homeland. Whatever characteristics may be shared is irrelevant. So I ask again, do you see anything anti-jewish in a slogan calling for the destruction of Israel and the resulting expulsion of jews from the region?

[myself]

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."

[Riva]

But you didn't take up any challenge, unless you believe more anti-jewish bigotry is somehow an answer to the vile anti-jewish slogan. Allow me to educate you. Jews lived in the Holy Land 2,000 years before the Arabs. Arab Muslims can live peacefully in Israel and enjoy equal rights. Jews on the other hand are an endangered species in Muslim countries. In 2000 Arafat was offered more than 90 percent of Judea and Samaria (that would be the "West Bank" if one wants to use the term adopted by Jordan after it seized Israeli territory). Arafat rejected that deal. It's all the Jews out or nothing apparently. That's the meaning of "from the river to the sea" by all the vile anti-jewish scum using it today.

[not guilty]

When did Jordan "seize[] Israeli territory," Riva?

[Riva]

Jordan's Arab Legion captured and occupied eastern Jerusalem and as well as areas of Judea and Samaria when they attacked Israel in 1948. Jordan formally annexed these territories and called them the "West Bank." Israel took these territories back during the 1967 Six-Day War.

You're awfully opinionated for someone so ignorant on the subject. Bigotry tends to do that.

[Magister]

I think not guilty is subtly referencing the West Bank not being Israeli territory when Jordan seized it; too subtle for Riva.

[Riva]

What is your real point? I think Magister and Not Guilty are not too subtly displaying their ignorance and anti jewish bigotry by denying the legitimacy of Israel as nation state just like the Arab nations who attacked it in 1948. Repugnant clowns. Make that ignorant repugnant bigoted clowns.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That is itself kind of antisemetic."

A common pro-Hamas argument but not remotely true.

Jew haters saying "I'm anti-Israel, not antisemetic" is just rube bait. Looks like they caught one.

[shawn_dude]

Way to pretend that the KKK and Neo-Nazis are all "leftists." You're a kook.

[Don Nico]

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.

[shawn_dude]

This is all echoes of the Irish Republican Army during the Irish fight against British colonialism. (Something the British have decided to re-ignite.)

If the Palestinians have no legitimate and effective means of securing their future, they're going to use illegitimate means. We can pontificate over the rightness or wrongness of that, but until there's real hope for positive change, I don't see them changing course.

[Don Nico]

Shawn,
Yours is a false equivalence. You clearly know littel about the 100 yo Muslim Brotherhood and its islamofascist agenda. Hamas wants to kill Jews. They are NOT freedom fighters; they are genocidal murders.

[Commenter_XY]

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.

[Martinned]

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.

[Frank Drackman]

A "Two-State Solution" was murdered October 7, 2023

[Brett Bellmore]

There is a state where all current Israeli and Palestinian citizens have citizenship. It's name is "Israel".

[hobie]

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

[Martinned]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're not Palestinian citizens of Israel, though.

[Sarcastr0]

I think you're doing magic words again.

[hobie]

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' 🙁

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

'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.

[Don Nico]

You're doing magic thinking again.

[Martinned]

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.

[Don Nico]

Wrong again Martin.
They could be Palestinian in the sense that they are Arabs from Palestine. Or they could be Arab Israelis. But they would not be citizens of Palestine as that state does not exist.
You have no right to describe how they call themselves.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, getting shot is generally what happens to you when you start a Wah with a Nation that's better armed than you.

[bernard11]

Instead of talking about whether "Palestinian citizens" are Israeli citizens, which is sort of confusing, let's just say there is a state - Israel - in the Middle East where both Jews and Arabs have citizenship.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
That would be just fine and proper and it also describes the present state of Israel.

[shawn_dude]

This is less likely to happen then Israel recognizing a Palestinian right of return. For starters, there are roughly the same numbers of Palestinians as Jewish Israelis. That's a problem for a "Jewish state" if they want to remain one. Have a look at what happened to the white South Africans after the fall of Apartheid. Even after wholesale slaughter of Palestinian civilians in Gaza by the IDF and West Bank by "settlers" (with IDF support) won't give Jewish Israelis enough of a majority to maintain religious and political dominance.

[Martinned]

Yes, if the Jewish ethno-nationalists had any sense they'd be pushing for a two-state solution.

[Don Nico]

Finally, you get it. The state is Eretz Israel.

[Martinned]

It might be, although I suspect the eventual peace deal will insist on a different name.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Martinned]

Hopefully. But then there are still millions of Palestinians who have a right to self-determination.

[bernard11]

Yes, and despite all the obituaries for the two-state solution, it still seems to me to be the only viable way to let. them have it.

[Don Nico]

It is not viable and never has been. The Arabs have repeatedly turned down the so-called two state solution because one of the states is a Jewish state.

[Don Nico]

Why is that. What about the Kurds? Do they have such a right? Why don't you campaign for them. They have far more competent and coherent leadership that has demonstrated the ability to govern as well as a distinct ethnic identity. Traits that Palestinian Arabs have never demonstrated

[Don Nico]

Martin,
I know you come from a colonialist country. But the days of Europeans dictating the names of nations is past.

[Josh R]

You want a state that is barely majority Jewish and won't be for too much longer?

[shawn_dude]

Exactly. If the Jewish Israelis want to maintain their political dominance, they're going to have to accept a two-state solution or ensure there aren't enough Palestinians left in Palestine to represent any meaningful political power.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Perhaps the Republicans could introduce them to the concept of gerrymandering?

[Don Nico]

Don't worry; Haredi men will rise to the occasion

[Josh R]

So, you are in favor of Israeli citizenship for everyone now living in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank?

[David Nieporent]

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.

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.)

[Martinned]

Well yes. Everyone who lives there will accept only one solution: killing everyone else who lives there.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
Your comment only applies to those who identify as Palestinian Arabs.

[Don Nico]

"The only people who support such an idea are people who don't live there. "
You are wrong many times over.

[Martinned]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

And the main reason for saying "no" is, "It's called punishment for a reason, if you liked it it would be a reward."

[Martinned]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[Frank Drackman]

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.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and life in prison is not, by US standards, considered cruel and unusual punishment for a double murder.

[Martinned]

It isn't. But it is the most succinct reason why your previous comment was nonsense.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[hobie]

Now do Ghislaine Maxwell!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have trouble calling her a "sex offender."

Have anyone else ever been convicted of recruiting?

[David Nieporent]

Has anyone else ever been as impervious to actual facts as Dr. Ed? The answer of course is yes, but it's irrelevant because Maxwell was convicted of abuse, not just "recruiting."

[John F. Carr]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Martinned]

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.)

[CountmontyC]

Well the current POTUS will simply tell the International Court to fuck off and that they have zero authority in the matter.

[Martinned]

Reading comprehension zero, I guess...

[CountmontyC]

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.

[Martinned]

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.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

No, you do not.

You could try yelling your error louder, though. That usually works.

[Martinned]

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.

[Commenter_XY]

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

[Brett Bellmore]

"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.

[Michael P]

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.

[Kazinski]

Depends on the state.

You definitely get a better rate on your primary residence the difference is about .5% and 1 full point. And FHA or VA loans aren't available

You can buy a primary residence for as little as 3% down, 20% is pretty standard for second homes and investment properties.

[Michael P]

The mortgage-fraudster plagiarist is going to go with option 1 even though she is cooked.

[Martinned]

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.

[TwelveInchPianist]

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 .

[John 4]

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???

[TwelveInchPianist]

How bad could that particular instance of fraud have been? The judge decided that what he did didn't merit any punishment.

[John 4]

If you’re fine with fraud, that’s on you.

[Kazinski]

The real estate fraud was a civil case, they did fine him almost half a billion, but the fine was just vacated.

It was the campaign fraud that was criminal that had no penalty.

[Martinned]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure how the Fed is supposed to have the power to not allow it to happen.

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't understand your question about authorities here. An illegitimate action by the President doesn't require special authority to contest.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[ducksalad]

I'm asking what actual power the Fed has to "not allow" this.

One approach would be for the other members to just keep asking for and counting her vote when they make decisions, until they're convinced they've received a *legal* order not to.

It's the usual dilemma about whether to follow an order you strongly suspect is illegal.

[bernard11]

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.

Yes, but that is useless here, given how long the court proceedings are likely to take.

[TwelveInchPianist]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

Purported to!

Well then lets move along, nothing to see here.

[TwelveInchPianist]

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.

[LexAquilia]

The lies on the mortgage applications are the "for cause".

How the fuck do you not know this?

[David Nieporent]

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?!

[TwelveInchPianist]

To the extent that that was Trump's position, he lost. Your position, that such lies are bad, carried the day. So where's the beef?

[Mr. Bumble]

Whataboutism?

[Martinned]

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, etc.

Holding a single person to a consistent position is not "whataboutism".

[Don Nico]

HTF, do you change your tune like a timid chameleon.

[Kazinski]

There is a process specified by the Federal Reserve Act:

"Each member shall hold office for a term of fourteen years from the expiration of the term of his predecessor, unless sooner removed for cause by the President."

Seems pretty clear it is the President that removes her.

She can contest that in the courts, which she already says she will, but until an injunction issues, she is removed.

Here is what Reuters says about the charges, and notes she hasn't yet disputed the facts already in the record:

"When Cook was an academic, she bought two properties in 2021 - one in Georgia and one in Michigan. The mortgage documents for both said they were each her primary residence - a declaration that typically results in a lower mortgage rate than a borrower can otherwise arrange. She has not provided an explanation, though she did say in a statement last week that she is "gathering the accurate information to answer any legitimate questions and provide the facts."

And in another article:

"Cook's federally filed financial disclosure documents show three mortgages taken out in 2021, including a 15-year 2.5% loan on an investment property and two loans for personal residences, including a 30-year 3.25% mortgage and a 15-year 2.875% mortgage. The weekly average rate for 30-year loans during 2021 ranged between 2.9% and 3.3%, Mortgage Bankers Association data shows. Cook started at the Fed in 2022 and was reappointed to a 14-year term in 2023."

So far the only rationale I have seen claiming Trump doesn't have the authority to fire her seems a reach:

“These officials have been vetted by our President and our Senate, that means that all things that they had done during their times as a private citizen were already vetted,” Conti-Brown said. “So the idea that you can then reach back, turn the clock backward and say, you know, all these things that have happened before now constitute fireable offenses from your official position is to me incongruous with the entire concept of for cause removal.”

Unknown Felonies before confirmation can't be held against you?

[loki13]

As usual, you can't help but lie.

"she hasn't yet disputed the facts already in the record"

First, as you should know, when you have an authoritarian government that has already concocted evidence in other high-profile cases headed up by a leader that lies, it's best not to say anything. Cook herself stated that she would gather accurate information and answer any legitimate questions.

Second, Cook's attorney (Abbe Lowell) has denied the allegations.

Third, these are allegations- Cook has not been charged with a crime.

Finally, and since you are so hell-bent on not actually understanding what is going on (despite the fact that I actually explained things in another thread to you)-

a. There have been three (3) criminal referrals from Trump Toady Pulte to the DOJ. All three were enemies of Trump.
b. This was not ... OMG Kaz, done by an AI search, but were targeted at three individuals.
c. In any normal case, the referral and DOJ investigation would not be publicized unless and until there was an indictment.

Here? Obviously, not the case. Instead, Pulte tweeted out the referral (and mischaracterized it) in order to allow Trump to "fire" Cook. And then Pulte tweeted out that because of what Pulte did, Trump was the first person to ever fire a Fed Governor! Weird, huh? And this case with go to "I AM SPECIAL ATTORNEY" Martin, who previously tried to extort James into resigning (without an indictment).

Finally, someone could explain "good cause" to you, but again, WHY BOTHER? You have repeatedly shown that you don't actually care about facts or law.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not "good cause"; for cause.
You are like David Notsoimportant in making things up to fit your argument.
Let Lowell file for an injunction (by the way when is Lowel'ls opinion dispositive of anything?).

[Josh R]

Do you dispute that Trump is digging for dirt on his perceived enemies in order to expand his power? So even if Cook is guilty as charged and removed for cause, the cause was a pretext so Dear Leader could tighten his "I can do anything I want. I am the President" grip.

The GOP and conservatives know this is dangerous, but they want to stay in power so they stand by and do nothing (or worse).

[Bob from Ohio]

So Trump has cause but is still bad. Okey dokey

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's called firing for cause while orange. A terrible offense.

[Mr. Bumble]

Trump is "digging" for dirt in the same way that the Biden DOJ, various state AG's and NYC did in an effort to keep Trump off the ballot.
In an ideal world it's wrong but this isn't and never has been an ideal world.
Turn-a-bout is fair play especially in politics.

[Josh R]

It's not turnabout because Trump tried to steal an election (He should have been kept off the ballot by the Senate). Instead, it's more of the same Trump grabbing for absolute power.

[Kazinski]

There was an article in a Mortgage industry trade journal from July 2nd about a systematic effort for the FHA to uncover mortgage fraud, Occupancy fraud was specifically mentioned:

https://www.daylightaml.com/blog/the-pulte-palantir-project

"Right Data - Occupancy Misrepresentation:

The lion’s share of fraud that Palantir and Pulte find will be occupancy fraud, so let’s look at what the Right Data means in this context.

It's simple and pervasive: Borrowers falsely claim they will live in the home as a primary residence in order to qualify for lower interest rates and down payments."

The first articles I find about the allegations for Schiff were late July almost a month after this article came out.

The allegations for Cook came out middle of August.

I don't find it all remarkable that they routed the allegations for prominent public officials through Pulte for action. Its long been federal policy to hold public officials to a higher standard to ensure public confidence.

[Josh R]

What part of pretext do you not understand? Trump doesn't give a shit about mortgage fraud. He wants absolute power.

I expect Bob from Ohio to be detached from reality, but you are like Lindsey Graham. You know (or should know) Trump is a danger and help to enable him.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I must have missed the give a shit clause in Section 10 of the FRA.

[Kazinski]

I don't deny Trump wants her gone.

There is a safe harbor provision in the federal reserve act for governors, don't commit felonious financial fraud, and your job is safe.

You know damn well Trump would have fired Powell if he thought he could, but he didn't. Cook is going because she screwed herself. And I doubt Powell is going to go to mattresses for Cook. There is little doubt about the evidence. Powell strikes me as a stand up guy, he knows Cook is going to go, and should go, politics or no.

[Josh R]

If you were not an enabler, you wouldn't care whether the case against Cook is sound. It's about the pretext to gain absolute power.

[bernard11]

Not "good cause"; for cause.

So he can fire her if she votes in a way he doesn't like? That's a "cause," though not a good one.

Incidentally, Trump has singled out the governor he should least want to see off the board. Cook is the strongest advocate at the Fed for reducing rates, which he claims to want. I guess he considers his two reasons more important.

[Kazinski]

First of all Reuters said: "She has not provided an explanation", how is that different from my rewording: "she hasn't yet disputed the facts already in the record"?

Why don't you explain why credible allegations of a felony financial fraud allegations are not good cause for firing.

I've already explained that CFPB uses preponderance of the evidence as the standard for yanking the license for mortgage loan originators, making them unemployable. Why is she entitled to a higher standard to keep her job?

She can't claim she's illiterate and didn't know what she was signing.

You are great at explaining things that just ain't so.

But don't worry, it will get into court, if she doesn't drop it before they can rule, and you can explain, again, how the court got it wrong after they make their ruling.

I know you are upset about it, but she's fired,and its going to stick. And she is not entitled to a preliminary injunction because she can't show either irreparable harm, or a likelihood of prevailing, although that probably won't stop the district court from trying to issue one before its stayed.

[Sarcastr0]

"Second, Cook's attorney (Abbe Lowell) has denied the allegations."

"these are allegations- Cook has not been charged with a crime."

Did you even read the comment you replied to? It's prebutted a couple of the points you tried to make.

[Kazinski]

I was specifically referring to the Loki's lie, that I lied. I paraphrased Reuters, saying the exact same thing when I was referring to the Reuters article.

If either one of you wants to make the case Reuter's lied, well go ahead, but its not a lie for me to rely on their claim, for which they provide sufficient basis for.

[Don Nico]

loki,
Political appointees don't have to be charged with a crime for their policy disagreements or their embarrassing action to cause their dismissal. That has been true for decades if not centuries.

[Martinned]

Wait, people should resign for doing something embarrassing? Since when is that the rule?

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/trump-claims-eu-leaders-call-him-president-of-europe/

[Don Nico]

No, people get fired fr embarrassing the boss or his/her organization. Read more carefussly.

[David Nieporent]

No; she has for cause protection. Neither being "embarrassing" nor having "policy disagreements" is cause. A crime, of course, would be.

[Life of Brian]

Did the Supremes weigh in on this more recently than Collins v. Yellin in 2020? Their take on the scope of "for cause" seems a great deal broader than what you're suggesting:

We acknowledge that the Recovery Act's "for cause" restriction appears to give the President more removal authority than other removal provisions reviewed by this Court. See, e.g., Seila Law, 591 U. S., at ___, 140 S.Ct., at 2193 ("for `inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office'"); Morrison, 487 U.S. at 663, 108 S.Ct. 2597 ("`for good cause, physical disability, mental incapacity, or any other condition that substantially impairs the performance of [his or her] duties'"); Bowsher, supra, at 728, 106 S.Ct. 3181 ("by joint resolution of Congress" due to "`permanent disability,'" "`inefficiency,'" "`neglect of duty,'" "`malfeasance,'" "`a felony[,] or conduct involving moral turpitude'"); Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 619, 55 S.Ct. 869, 79 L.Ed. 1611 (1935) ("`"for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office"'"); Myers, 272 U.S. at 107, 47 S.Ct. 21 ("`by and with the advice and consent of the Senate'"). And it is certainly true that disobeying an order is generally regarded as "cause" for removal. See NLRB v. Electrical Workers, 346 U.S. 464, 475, 74 S.Ct. 172, 98 L.Ed. 195 (1953) ("The legal principle that insubordination, disobedience or disloyalty is adequate cause for discharge is plain enough").

[Life of Brian]

* Yellen -- sorry, Janet.

[David Nieporent]

Their take on the scope of "for cause" seems a great deal broader than what you're suggesting:

I suggested only that it was narrower than Don Nico claimed; I did not purport to define its outer bounds.

[Life of Brian]

You did, though, say that having policy disagreements would not constitute cause. It doesn't take much creative thinking at all to bucket that sort of headbutting under "insubordination, disobedience or disloyalty."

[Sarcastr0]

A lot of you seem to think 'for cause' and 'at will' are the same thing.

[Don Nico]

Of course both are and have been in a large number of organizations for a very long time. You seem to be living in a bubble.

[Josh R]

The "for cause" is a statutory requirement for a Fed board member (12 U.S. Code § 242). Being outside a bubble unlike the rest of us, are you aware of precedent that permits either policy disagreements or embarrassing actions to qualify as "for cause" under the statute?

[bernard11]

Political appointees are generally supposed to help the President exercise his policies. So getting fired for policy disagreements is normal enough.

That is emphatically not the job of the Fed, which is supposed to deal with inflation and unemployment as it sees fit, and not cater to the President's wishes. So firing over policy disagreements is wholly inappropriate.

Also destructive, but Trump doesn't care about that, as long as he's the boss.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well maybe not the Fed, but Cook is being represented by Abbe Lowell.
Who knew she could afford such pricey representation.

[LexAquilia]

She's a prominent Democrat government official so of course she's super mega rich.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or has rich "friends". I doubt she is footing the bill herself.

[Poxigah146]

You can always count on a liberal Jewish lawyer to defend a criminal schvartze.

[bernard11]

And a good thing it is, too, you asshole.

[Poxigah146]

Why is that, pray tell?

[Martinned]

I'm not sure how the Fed is supposed to have the power to not allow it to happen.

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.

[CountmontyC]

And that will give President Trump cause to fire Powell.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does somebody want to take a crack a what "for cause" entails?

[Dr. Ed 2]

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.

[Martinned]

He's Trump. He doesn't need something as trivial as "cause". He has people like you cheering him on no matter what.

What stops him from firing Powell is the same thing that's always stopped him: the value of his stock portfolio.

[Don Nico]

Martin don't be so dense. When you displease your boss, you're toast unless s/he is feeling extra-charitable

[Martinned]

That, of course, begs the question. In what sense is Trump Jerome Powell's "boss"? For good reason the drafters of the US Constitution created a system of checks & balances, and when Congress created the administrative state it did the same.

Project 2025 wants to dismantle all of that, even more than the Federalist Society it came from before. And that's a very scary ideological project that is dangerously close to being finished.

[Don Nico]

Your system of checks and balances never described "Independent agencies." Or is that a constitutional penumbra?

[David Nieporent]

When you displease your boss, you're toast unless s/he is feeling extra-charitable

That's literally the opposite of for cause protection.

[Don Nico]

David, Your reading is poor yet again. But if you meant that at-will employment is the opposite of strict for-cause protection you may be correct depending on the de facto employment contract.

[myself]

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.

[Kazinski]

Big problem with that allegation:

"According to an Associated Press report published in July 2025, Ken Paxton and his then-wife declared multiple homes as their primary residences over a period of many years. The AP's investigation did not identify specific dates for when each mortgage was taken out, but did confirm the filings spanned across more than a decade."

When you take out a mortgage and you attest you intend to make it your primary residence, it is only for the first year. It is perfectly legitimate to take out a mortgage on a house as your primary residence and then after a year or two rent it out or use it as a second home.

If you never intended to live in the house like James, or you designated two homes as your primary home in the same year, or even they same month as Schiff and Cook, then that is fraud.

[Sarcastr0]

Working hard, but your double standard is pretty open for all to see.

[Kazinski]

Its not a double standard, its a legal standard.

Like I said I am a licensed mortgage loan originator, I am trained and federally licensed to take mortgage applications.

Nobody legally requires or expects someone who takes a mortgage out to stay in the home forever, 1 or 2 at the most years is standard.

In fact a lot of people who have 2.5% mortgages from 5 years ago find it makes much more sense for them to rent out their old home at current market rates to subsidize their new home at a 6%-7% mortgage.

Perfectly legal.

[Don Nico]

You lack of standards is even more obvious.

[bernard11]

Exactly right.

If Trump had not been attacking, and threatening to fire, Powell, and generally talking about controlling the Fed, and if he appointed a competent qualified person to replace her, he might get away with it.

But he did the first, and won't do the second, so he won't.

The point being, without all his anti-Fed rhetoric, he might be able to claim the firing was just about the mortgage business, assuming it's proven to be intentional and significant, but he has made it transparent that it's pretextual.

Thus, the consequences Martinned predicts are very likely.

Look, people. Fed independence is important and valuable. Even SCOTUS knows that. It's one of the worst places for Trump to play his power games.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Fed independence is important and valuable."

Then amend the Constitution to make it kosher.

[Poxigah146]

If the Fed was independent, it wouldn't have cut rates in September of 2024 to try to help Cumala get elected.

[David Nieporent]

The thing about deplorables/MAGA is how stupid they are. They don't even understand that their claims about the economy and their rants about the Fed are contradictory.

Trump boasts about how great his economy is now, but then rants that the Fed (well, he says Powell, as if Powell was making a unilaterl decision) hasn't cut rates. But the Fed doesn't cut rates when the economy is great; it cuts rates when the economy is struggling. And, similarly, Trump told everyone how terrible the Biden economy was, but then rants that the Fed cut rates while Biden was president.

[Don Nico]

bernard,
in politics as in other realms crime is not required for a subordinate to violate the trust of the employer. That is for-cause enough.

[Martinned]

Trump is not the employer of the board members of the Federal Reserve. They work for the Federal Reserve, and arguably for the United States, but definitely not for Trump.

[bernard11]

Don,

Lisa Cook, and the other board members, are not subordinates of the President.

They are neither required nor expected to follow his orders, in part because that would often have very bad consequences.

[Mr. Bumble]

She was fired for cause. Lying on a mortgage application.
Not a good look for someone responsible for monetary policy.
Stay on topic and stop with the deflection and obfuscation.

[Don Nico]

Who are they subordinate to, Bernard? Are they a legislative agency? Also, there is a difference between not following order and being in an open public conflict. The degree to which the President is empowered use executive orders to set policy for independent agencies is disputed

Again we are caught in the question of the constitutional status of "independent agencies" and the reach of Humphrey's Executor.

[Frank Drackman]

Probably not, she's the right color.

[Bob from Ohio]

"better mortgage rates"

And easier underwriting requirements.

[shawn_dude]

Just another example of Republicans scouring through government data to find dirt on their political opponents.

Tell us more about "weaponization" and "witch hunts" again?

[Bob from Ohio]

I guess you shouldn't have started the "weaponization" and "witch hunts" then. Bullies who hit first are often hit back.

[shawn_dude]

1. Make baseless claims for witch hunts and weaponization to excuse real criminal acts.
2. Get re-elected based on outrage over invented witch hunts and weaponization.
3. Use prior fake claims to frame actual witch hunts and weaponization as justifiable retaliation.

[Don Nico]

what goes around comes around, capisce?

[Martinned]

You would be wise to remember that, or make damned sure that no non-Trumpist is ever elected to the White House ever again.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

All bridges will be burnt. After Trump II, they know they can never relinquish power again.

[Don Nico]

Of course I remember that. I've seen it happen many times.

[not guilty]

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.

[Michael P]

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).

[Martinned]

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)

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure that, given the facts, we'd be all in for punishing her if she were an albino.

[Martinned]

Of course. Albinos who show sympathy to ethnic minorities must also be punished!

[Brett Bellmore]

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".

[LexAquilia]

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.

[Kazinski]

Sympathy for the devil:
"Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested for obstructing the arrest of Eduardo Flores-Ruiz. This criminal illegal alien has a laundry list of violent criminal charges including strangulation and suffocation, battery, and domestic abuse. Ruiz has illegally entered the U.S. twice".

[Sarcastr0]

You just love to post GOP press releases, eh?

[Kazinski]

Same information is in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, I posted that a few months back too, the Criminal complaint is public record, and the JS is hardly less prejudicial:

"Flores-Ruiz's charges stemmed from a March 12 fight that occurred between Flores-Ruiz and two roommates after he was accused of playing music too loudly in the home.

The complaint says Flores-Ruiz punched one roommate 30 times, then hit a woman who tried to end the fight."

But we all know your complaint isn't about any potential inaccuracy in the data, its just you are vainly wishing that we don't post it.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't read very much when you play stenographer.

Consider what "charges" means, and what standard of evidence you're following.

I've said for years your critical thinking is terrible when the GOP says something.
You get fooled super easily.

[Kazinski]

As for standard of proof Flores-Ruiz has already plead guilty to illegal entry after already have been removed and got a 2 year sentence, and agreed to be deported.

He hasn't been tried on the state and local charges.

They are probably keeping him around to testify against Duggan.

You aren't claiming he is innocent are you?

Or just the first felony should be free?

[Frank Drackman]

Talk about Bizarro World, where Floyd George, a Wife-Beating-Drug-Addict is elevated to MLK Jr. Status.

[not guilty]

"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.

[Michael P]

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.

[not guilty]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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?

[Michael P]

People explained those things to him before, he just doesn't want to listen.

[Bob from Ohio]

His prediction track record is not good but he thinks he is Clarence Darrow.

[not guilty]

"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.

[Brett Bellmore]

"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."

Truer worlds were never spoken, outside of a math textbook anyway.

[David Nieporent]

Brett misframed the issue. It's not one of attempt. It's one of a completed crime. There's no minimum time one's acts must delay the arrest for those acts to be criminal. Just as one can be convicted of kidnapping even if one only moved one's victim a few feet, one can violate this law by impeding the discovery/arrest by a few moments. Which this judge seemingly did.

[not guilty]

David, you are smarter than that. Read the affidavit of complaint! Judge Dugan did not prevent the discovery and arrest of Eduardo Flores-Ruiz. The feds knew where he was at all relevant times -- one of them rode in the freaking elevator car with him! The arrest could have been effected inside the courthouse building, and it was in fact effected very soon after he went outside the building.

According to the affidavit of complaint, the feds observed Flores-Ruiz arrive on the 6th floor of the courthouse at approximately 8:43 a.m. They observed him seated in the gallery of the courtroom. When another judge escorted some members of the arrest team away from Judge Dugan's courtroom to the office of the Chief Judge, a DEA Agent, who was not recognized by either judge as being part of the arrest team, remained behind outside of Courtroom 615. After leaving the Chief Judge’s vestibule and returning to the public hallway, a DEA Agent reported that Flores-Ruiz and his attorney were in the public hallway. Two agents observed Flores-Ruiz and his counsel walk briskly towards the elevator bank on the south end of the sixth floor. The affiant observed that Flores-Ruiz and his counsel elected not to use the closest elevator bank to Courtroom 615. A DEA Agent followed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney towards the south elevator bank. At approximately 8:50 a.m., (a mere seven minutes after Flores-Ruiz had entered the Sixth Floor) this DEA Agent alerted other members of the arrest team that he was on the elevator with Flores-Ruiz. Defense counsel and Flores-Ruiz exited the elevator on one of the bottom floors of the courthouse and used the Ninth Street public entrance/exit to leave the building. A DEA Agent A notified the arrest team that Flores-Ruiz was in the front of the courthouse near the flagpole, whereupon the agents ran towards the front of the courthouse. An FBI Agent and the same DEA Agent who had ridden in the elevator with Flores-Ruiz and his counsel approached Flores-Ruiz and identified themselves as law enforcement. Flores-Ruiz turned around and sprinted down the street. A foot chase ensued. The agents pursued Flores-Ruiz for the entire length of the courthouse and ultimately apprehended him near the intersection of W. State Street and 10th Street. Flores-Ruiz was handcuffed and detained.

Judge Dugan did not prevent discovery of Flores-Ruiz -- he was under continuous or near-continuous observation by at least one federal agent. Neither did Judge Dugan prevent his arrest, which the Keystone Cop feds in fact effected (and could easily have done so up to fifteen minutes sooner than they did.)

Prevent means prevent. It does not mean delay. (Perhaps other than to Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty.) As the Sesame Street jingle goes, one of these things is not like the other.

[David Nieporent]

David, you are smarter than that. Read the affidavit of complaint! Judge Dugan did not prevent the discovery and arrest of Eduardo Flores-Ruiz. The feds knew where he was at all relevant times -- one of them rode in the freaking elevator car with him!

Because that agent happened to spot him quickly after she escorted/snuck him out of a side door, not because they knew where the guy was at all times.

Prevent means prevent. It does not mean delay.

No, prevent does include delay. It has to. There are only two possibilities: prevent means "prevent forever," or prevent means "prevent for a finite period of time." There's no third alternative. A prosecution under the statute obviously does not require that the feds never catch the target; that would be absurd. Therefore, it must mean that the target's apprehension is delayed for some period of time.

(To be sure, a jury might conclude that the delay here was too de minimis to count.)

[not guilty]

The preventing has to be attributable to the accused's acts and/or omissions. There is simply no causation here.

As I have said, if Congress intended to criminalize a mere attempt at prevention of the subject's discovery and arrest, it knew what kind of language to employ, as it did with 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), but Congress simply did not do so in enacting § 1071.

Statutes on the same topic should be read in pari materia. The fact that Congress used the "or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection" language in one statute but omits it from the other has significance here. "Several acts in pari materia, and relating to the same subject, are to be taken together, and compared in the construction of them, because they are considered as having one object in view, and as acting on one system." A. Scalia and B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts § 39, 252 (2012), quoting James Kent, Commentaries on American Law 433 (1826).

[Life of Brian]

When the law is actually on your side, you cite it. When it isn't, you too-cleverly handwave as you're doing now. It's a super-obvious tell, so I decided to take a look.

Turns out it's been well-settled for many decades that "so as to prevent" in § 1071 refers to the actor's intent and not an actual result. Here's the 7th Circuit's take in US v. Lockhart:

To prove the second count — that Lockhart committed the substantive offense of concealing or harboring Mathews in violation of § 1071, the government had to establish three facts: that Lockhart knew that a federal warrant had been issued for Mathews's arrest; that Lockhart harbored or concealed Mathews; and, that Lockhart intended to prevent Mathews's discovery and arrest.

Lockhart cites comparable cases in at least the 5th, 8th, and 9th Circuits, and I haven't seen an outlier circuit yet.

Maybe stop digging on this one?

[Michael P]

LoB, I already pointed him to the US DOJ manual section that identifies intent rather than success as the relevant element of the crime. He is just a denialist about it.

[not guilty]

Judge Dugan's conduct simply did not amount to harboring or concealing Eduardo Flores-Ruiz.

As the Seventh Circuit reiterated in United States v. Lockhart, 956 F.2d 1418 (7th Cir. 1992), the words "harbor" and "conceal" must be construed narrowly, not to include all forms of assistance. "These are active verbs, which have the fugitive as their object." Id., at 1423, quoting United States v. Foy, 416 F.2d 940, 941 (7th Cir. 1969), and United States v. Shapiro, 113 F.2d 891, 892 (2d Cir. 1940).

Judge Dugan's plainly did not amount to harboring. Compare, United States v. Costello, 666 F.3d 1040, 1042-1044 (7th Cir. 20120. Indeed, Court One of the indictment doesn't even charge harboring. Neither did her conduct in fact conceal Flores-Ruiz. Here, as in Foy, supra, there was no evidence that defendant took any action "to hide, secrete or keep out of sight" or "to lodge, to care for after secreting the offender" as the terms conceal and harbor are defined in Foy, at 941, and United States v. Thornton, 178 F. Supp. 42, 43 (E.D.N.Y. 1959). At all relevant times Flores was under observation by at least one member of the arrest team from his entry into the Sixth Floor of the courthouse at 8:43 until his apprehension at 9:05.

[Life of Brian]

I guess you're determined to keep digging.

Neither did her conduct in fact conceal Flores-Ruiz.

You're back at it with "conceal," playing the same game you did with "prevent" (as though it has to be a permanent, successful outcome), trying again to find a way around the black-letter law that the conduct must simply intend to prevent discovery and arrest.

In Foy, the perp was hiding out on the window ledge of the apartment. It wasn't Foy's apartment, and there's no evidence he did anything to help the perp try to hide -- all he did was tell the cops "I don't know where he is." That's what CA7 construed narrowly. (In contrast, the actual owner of the apartment pled guilty to her 1071 charge.)

Dugan encouraged Flores-Ruiz to leave via the back door of her courtroom, intending for him to evade arrest. There's no way around that, I'm afraid.

At all relevant times Flores was under observation by at least one member of the arrest team from his entry into the Sixth Floor of the courthouse at 8:43 until his apprehension at 9:05.

You've quite coincidentally omitted the critically relevant time where she shooed him out the back of her courtroom and through a non-public path to an exit away from the courtroom.

You know exactly why she did that, and it fully torpedoes your theory -- that's why you keep trying to airbrush it out of the story.

[Magister]

Dugan encouraged Flores-Ruiz to leave via the back door of her courtroom, intending for him to evade arrest. There's no way around that, I'm afraid.

That's not at all certain; her intent in going to the Chief Judge was that ICE not make arrests in or in front of courtrooms, which would serve to discourage people (including witnesses and victims) from coming to court.

You know exactly why she did that

I keep seeing comments around here criticizing people for apparent mind reading, but now a comment that expects it.

[David Nieporent]

Here, as in Foy, supra, there was no evidence that defendant took any action "to hide, secrete or keep out of sight"

That's literally what the allegation is. That she did in fact take an action to hide, secrete, or keep him out sight. First she diverted the agents away from him, and then she hustled him out a side door.

At all relevant times Flores was under observation by at least one member of the arrest team

Uh, above you said, "he was under continuous or near-continuous observation by at least one federal agent." "Near continuous" and "at all times" are different things.

And I think you're far too enamored with your own cleverness with your "it doesn't ban attempt" thing. Let's suppose that she had actually diverted all the agents to another court room, so that none of them saw him in the hall, and he managed to get out of the courthouse. However, unbeknownst to her, someone at the ICE office had been tracking the guy's cell phone and so ICE actually knew where he was at all times. Is it your contention that because of that last fact, it was just a failed attempt on her part to help him evade them, and that therefore it wasn't a crime at all?

[not guilty]

Life of Brian, when Flores-Ruiz and his defense counsel left the courtroom, they were observed by a DEA agent who followed them to the elevator.

John Adams observed that facts are stubborn things.

I see, though, that you prefer Ronald Reagan's twist on Adams's comment: facts are stupid things.

Judge Dugan's conduct described in the affidavit of complaint amounts at worst to an unsuccessful attempt, which as I have described above, 18 U.S.C. § 1071 pointedly does not criminalize. Penal statutes are to be construed strictly. As Chief Justice Marshall observed:

The rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly is perhaps not much less old than construction itself. It is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals, and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the Judicial Department. It is the legislature, not the court, which is to define a crime and ordain its punishment.

United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76, 95 (1820).

Before one can be punished as a criminal under the federal law, the allegedly offending conduct must be "plainly and unmistakably" within the provisions of some statute. United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476, 485 (1917); United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624, 628 (1890). If the facts adduced at trial are what the affidavit of complaint describes, the trial judge should enter a Fed.R.Crim.P. 29 judgment of acquittal as to the § 1071 charge against Judge Dugan.

[Life of Brian]

when Flores-Ruiz and his defense counsel left the courtroom, they were observed by a DEA agent who followed them to the elevator.

Your dogged persistence in intentionally misstating the undisputed facts is getting tiresome.

Again, at Judge Dugan's invitation they "left the courtroom" via the back door into a non-public area. No DEA agent observed them doing that.

The fact that a DEA agent just so happened to have excused himself from the Chief Justice's distractive sideshow and thus just so happened to see Flores-Ruiz pop out of a door not connected to the courtroom and make a break for the elevator after navigating that non-public area has no bearing at all on Judge Dugan's intentions for sending him that way.

You know all this, and it's clear you also understand full well at this point that § 1071 squarely covers what Judge Dugan did here. Vapid soliloquies about the beauty and wonder of the rule of law aren't going to change that.

[not guilty]

That isn't "conceal[ment] . . . so as to prevent his discovery and arrest" on the part of Judge Dugan, Life of Brian. Flores-Ruiz had been discovered by the arrest team at 8:43 a.m.

What Governor Al Smith famously said cogently applies to this foolish indictment: no matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

[Life of Brian]

Flores-Ruiz had been discovered by the arrest team at 8:43 a.m.

So your next desperate lily pad is that if the police see a suspect and then lose sight of him, no harboring or concealing can possibly occur just because they had seen him earlier? You're a profoundly unserious person.

[Kazinski]

But it also meant that apprehending him was a higher risk both for Flores-Ruiz and the agents, that should also be taken into account.

4-6 agents in an enclosed space can take him into custody with much less risk than 2 agents on the street dashing in and out of traffic, which is what ended up happening.

[David Nieporent]

But it also meant that apprehending him was a higher risk both for Flores-Ruiz and the agents, that should also be taken into account.

That might be taken into account at sentencing, but it is not an element of the crime.

Also, what you describe only "ended up happening" because the ICE agent in the elevator with him inexplicably decided to let him get away.

[Martinned]

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.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/26/politics/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-maryland-immigration

[CountmontyC]

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.

[Martinned]

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!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump-appointed "

Blue slip baby. Noodle armed conservative in effect selected by the two Dem senators to be US attorney and then judge.

[John F. Carr]

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.

[David Nieporent]

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.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"scathing rebuke"

I'm sure Trump will cry over that.

Judges making political statements in their opinions is really "rule of law".

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and ruined sports?

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

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.

[ducksalad]

Some things just aren't measurable, and other things are measurable but it's not meaningful on a short time scale.

Example 1: We had a provost obsessed with metrics that could be graphed, because he'd learned how to read graphs and was very proud of that. He asked each college to provide objective, numerical metrics for research productivity that could be graphed each semester.

We came up with some bad but at least not completely meaningless ones for engineering. I felt very sorry for my friends in the art school, they had to throw up utter bullshit.

Example 2: After that exercise, the provost realized that you can't compare apples and oranges, and again was proud of that realization. So he decided we need some metrics that applied to all colleges so he could figure out which college was doing the best research. I want to stress that I am not making up the following. He made every faculty fill out the following spreadsheet, with a column for each semester. The rows were as follows:

1. Number of journal articles
2. Number of conference presentations
3. Number of artistic exhibitions or performances
4. Number of grants received
5. Number of awards received
6. Total

No really, he wanted the total. I am not making it up.

[bernard11]

Management moving from subject matter expertise into a 'general manager' focused on generalizable management skills.

Not the world's greatest idea.

[Sarcastr0]

Fair, though I am soaking in it myself. Something to think about how to mitigate; the book promises some insights in that direction.

I manage people who implement a bunch of programs, each of which covers most every disciplines my agency studies, differing only in funding model.

We have SMEs who we consult, but they're 2 layers below me. To be fair, they have unmanaged funds of their own; I just do the big stuff.

[ducksalad]

the greatest extent possible measure the actual desired output.

Yes, which means there needs to be some kind of agreement on what the desired output is, or that there even is a desired output. That's the fundamental problem with a lot of performance metrics in education and government.

you can't control the output of a system if you don't measure it.

It's worth remembering the converse. Not everything that can be measured can be controlled.

I think rating presidents based on changes in the economy is nonsense except where specific cause and effect can be shown. It's a bit like asking them to control the weather.

[Sarcastr0]

"One could draw together the insights of a number of thinkers into this dictum: The calculative is the enemy of the imaginative. Entrepreneurship, as we have noted, depends on taking
what the economist Frank Knight termed “unmeasureable
risk,” for the potential benefits of an innovation are not subject to precise calculation. Or in the formulation of Alfie Kohn, a
long-time critic of pay-for-performance, metrics “inhibits risktaking, an inevitable concomitant of exploration and creativity.
We are less likely to take chances, to play with possibilities,
and to follow hunches, which may, after all, not pay off.”

[Sarcastr0]

"Ironically, as a number of contemporary critics have observed, the fixation on quantifiable goals so central to metric
fixation—though often implemented by politicians and policymakers who proclaim their devotion to capitalism—replicates many of the intrinsic faults of the Soviet system. Just as
Soviet bloc planners set output targets for each factory to produce, so do bureaucrats set measurable performance targets
for schools, hospitals, police forces, and corporations.

And just as Soviet managers responded by producing shoddy goods that met the numerical targets set by their overlords, so do schools, police forces, and businesses find ways of fulfilling quotas with shoddy goods of their own: by graduating pupils with minimal
skills, or downgrading grand theft to misdemeanor-level petty
larceny, or opening dummy accounts for bank clients."

[TwelveInchPianist]

This should save you some reading.

[Frank Drackman]

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.

Frank

[ReaderY]

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.

[David Nieporent]

So you want to skip over the question of whether Cook actually engaged in bank fraud?

[ThePublius]

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?

[LexAquilia]

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?

[Michael P]

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.

[jay.tee]

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)

[Dr. Ed 2]

EXACTLY!

[ReaderY]

No, I answered it. Given how broadly the statute is worded, If her conduct is as alleged (claiming homes in two different states as her primary residence two weeks apart to get the reduced rates for primary residence mortgages), I don’t think there’s even a serious question. It covers it. If the allegations reported are false, that would be different.

[LawTalkingGuy]

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.

[jay.tee]

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”?

[Mr. Bumble]

I asked the same above. Seems no one is willing to jump in with an answer.

[ReaderY]

It shouldn’t be hard to prove either way. Mortgage applications are in writing. The documents involved are generally retained long-term and can be produced. The alleged statements either appear on her applications or they don’t.

She can challenge her firing in court. She certainly has standing to do so. If the documents support the allegations, however, I think a judge would be constrained to rule for Trump and uphold her firing.

[bernard11]

Have we seen the actual documents, or heard her explanation or the background of the events? Would she be guilty of fraud if the second lender told her it was fine to list the second place as a primary residence?

I have also read that the phrase used was "principal residence," which has a different connotation, that one can have two principal residences, provided one lives at each a significant amount of the time.

I'm not sure this is accurate, but the claim was also that members of Congress often claim two principal residences - one in DC and one in their home state.

[ThePublius]

That's total bullshit, bernard11. According to federal law, IRS regulations in particular, you can only have one principal residence.

[David Nieporent]

That's one of those statements that circles asymptotically around being right without quite getting there. That's not how "federal law" works; it's not a unitary body that applies to everything. (That would make life far too easy for everyone!) The IRC says that you can exclude capital gains on the sale of your principal residence, and for that purpose only one residence can be deemed your principal residence. But that does not create some general "federal law" that one can only have one principal residence; each provision of federal law that applies will have its own definitions and applications. (One fun example is employee vs. independent contractor; one can only be one or the other, but one can be one for tax purposes and another for labor law purposes. A classic though outdated example was the so-called SUV loophole, in which they were treated as cars by the DOT for safety purposes but as light trucks by the EPA.)

None of that is to say that she was allowed to have two principal residences; it's just to say that one has to look at the specific regulations applicable to mortgages, rather than some general appeal to "federal law."

And assuming it's not allowed, we of course haven't yet heard her explanation. Maybe it's a simple error. Maybe it's a forgery. Maybe her plans changed between the time she signed the first and the second. (It's only fraud if it was false at the time it was signed). Maybe there's other documents out there in which she tells the first bank, "I've changed my mind. We need to amend the terms of this mortgage." I don't know whether any of those are true or even plausible, but I do know that seeing a couple of partial screenshots of a signature line don't prove guilt.

[Kazinski]

If the second lender told her it was fine to list the second place as her primary residence, it would just make it a conspiricy, not let her off the hook.

Mortgage documents are plain that the representations must be true and both federal and state criminal penalties apply to false statements.

[David Nieporent]

Still weird, then, how all of MAGA said that if the bank was okay with it, it wasn't a violation of the law.

[Kazinski]

As a federally licensed Mortgage Loan Originator I can tell you if I were credibly accused of knowingly submitting a mortgage application where the borrower falsely attested that the house would be their primary residence then I would lose my license, and thus my "job", through an administrative proceeding by the CFPB, even if I wasn't prosecuted. And the standard they would use is preponderance of the evidence.

There is no "white lie" loophole.

I suspect preponderance is all the courts would require for Trump to fire Cook "for cause", and surely an indictment with probable cause would be sufficient.

[Sarcastr0]

credibly?

[Kazinski]

Two signed mortgage applications in 20 days seems credible evidence to me.

[David Nieporent]

"Surely"?

Probable cause is a much lower standard than preponderance.

[Kazinski]

What do you think the standard is for a "for cause" firing?

Indictment for financial fraud should be plenty enough.

[Brett Bellmore]

Especially for a finance related job.

[Sarcastr0]

should be!

[ReaderY]

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.

[Krayt]

Now do guns.

[Martinned]

You're forgetting. All there is is Trumplaw now.

[Kazinski]

Sounds like they need to tee up another recession bill.

[Armchair]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess Trump's still got time to manage Tier A.

[Martinned]

Only if he bothers with elections at all.

[Armchair]

So much ridiculous fearmongering.

[hobie]

A third term will give him a distinct advantage

[Martinned]

A++

[hobie]

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?

[Armchair]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[hobie]

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

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[David Nieporent]

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.

[ducksalad]

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.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think there's any way he could have pulled it off against anybody but Clinton, frankly. Walter Mondale could have beaten him, George McGovern could have beaten him.

But neither could have gotten the modern Democratic party's nomination.

The bottom line is that both parties are stuck in this hideous dynamic where each pukes up candidates so bad that the only reason they have any chance of winning is that the opposing candidate is horrific, too.

I can explain why Trump was the specific hideous candidate the GOP puked up, but why they're puking up terrible candidates who could only have a chance of beating the terrible candidates the Democrats puke up is harder to do.

[ducksalad]

But you're leaving out that there was much better candidate on the ballot. And I don't mean by libertarian metrics, I mean by the exact same metrics people used to (quite properly) diss Clinton and Trump.

He had been governor of a state, and that state did not have a crime wave or a collapsed economy or a tide of obnoxious wokeness.

His one gaffe - taking a few seconds to catch on when an interviewer abruptly changed the subject to Allepo - was minor compared to gaffes Trump made literally a dozen times a day, or to Hillary's misplacement of Mosul.

He wasn't a bitter harpy like Clinton. He wasn't a serial liar and fraudster like Trump. He wasn't an arrogant asshole like both of them. He hadn't mishandled classified e-mails. He hadn't groped any women. He hadn't deflected responsibility for foreign policy failures. He hadn't whipped up and exploited bigotry.

And he wasn't by any means a radical libertarian. Really just a mainstream politician who happened to prefer the more liberty oriented options within the combined Republican and Democrat Overton Windows.

And for once there was adequate news coverage. I can only conclude that most voters prioritize hatred of the other side over literally any positive preference for policy preference, and Trump is an absolute master when it comes to building on that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Up, above, I said:

"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."

My first political home was the LP, starting almost from its founding. I stuck with it until the late 90's, despite being aware that the rising obstacles to 3rd parties made success improbable, it took the incredible waste that was the 2nd Jon Coon campaign to cause me to throw in the towel in disgust.

As things presently stand, 3rd parties are not really viable in the US. It's not 1st past the post that does it, it's the freaking barriers.

1. Ballot access drives that leave you exhausted when the general election begins, while the major parties just automatically get ballot access.

2. The news media having been largely persuaded to not even cover third party candidates.

3. Exclusion from debates.

4. Campaign finance laws designed to disadvantage them.

And on top of all this, the fact that 3rd parties are visibly futile, and anybody who looks at them with clear eyes can see that, means that they are dominated by nutcases and grifters.

Gary Johnson got an all time high of 3.68%, impressive. With TEN TIMES that he he might have had a chance. But how is that going to happen? He could barely get the media to admit he existed.

[Kazinski]

Absolutely not true, I lived in Arkansas when Bill was governor, Hillary was a millstone around his neck there.

He lost his first reelection campaign and his wife 'Hillary Rodham' was the biggest issue in the election. At the time the governor was only elected to two year terms, but he won again 2 years later after she changed her name to Hillary Clinton during the campaign.

For the record my wife was a native Arkansan, and she kept her maiden name when got married.

[LexAquilia]

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.

[ThePublius]

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.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This will be good: how do you know Hunter Biden is a child molester?

[LexAquilia]

Because the texts and photos that were leaked, Hunter was clearly having sexual relations with Natalie, his dead brother's underage child.

I guess you're still believing what those famous 51 intelligence experts said and that the leaks were deep fakes from Russia to influence our sacred democracy and not real as they turned out to be.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“photos that were leaked.”

And you accessed and viewed these photos?

[LexAquilia]

Stop deflecting and just confess your ignorance. I read the texts. They were banging.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well I guess you’re not as dumb as I thought you were. Good work.

[Martinned]

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"???

[Bwaaah]

hobie:

Are they a good person?
Are they a good speaker?
Are they a good politician?

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.

[Sarcastr0]

Unsurprisingly, the objective of actually making life better for people escapes you.

Why are you like this?

[Bwaaah]

Like what?

[hobie]

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.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

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.

[ducksalad]

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.

[ducksalad]

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.

[hobie]

If it wasn't for Harlan Thomas and a hanging chad, Clinton would be on the A-Team

[Dr. Ed 2]

Lincoln almost lost in 1864 and Johnson was impeached.
And Teddy R so disagreed with his VeeP that he went Bull Moose.

[David Nieporent]

Lincoln almost lost in 1864

No matter how many times you say this, it won't be correct.

And Teddy R so disagreed with his VeeP that he went Bull Moose.

This isn't correct either. He "went Bull Moose" because he was unhappy with Taft. Taft hadn't been his vice president.

Two sentences, two completely wrong statements. An average minute for Dr. Ed.

[Bob from Ohio]

A dumb metric.

Polk is a top 5 president. Fulfilled all his major promises and went home.

Taylor succeeded him because he was the popular general from Polk's war.

[Kazinski]

Wilson and Buchanan should be at tier D.

Wilson segregated the Civil Service kicking blacks out of all the white collar jobs.

Buchanan made the Civil war much worse by his inaction as a lame duck, enabling the South.

Eisenhower should be tier A, he led the way on Civil Rights, and created the Interstate Highway system, which may have been the single most important economic advancement of the 20th century, along with the automobile.

[Malika the Maiz]

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/

[Mr. Bumble]

Who will be the first to file a class action suit against the airlines?

[Krayt]

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!

[Malika the Maiz]

I disagree here, if they’re advertising and charging for a window seat when there isn’t one they deserve to get sued.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[jb]

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.

[John F. Carr]

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).

[gVOR08]

IANAL. but based on observation I'd say it's in One L first week orientation.

[jb]

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/

[Mr. Bumble]

Should have known. Like flies on s fresh dog pile.

[Martinned]

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

[Mr. Bumble]

What does the lack of a promised window seat have to do with safety?

[Bwaaah]

Trump.

Windows, safety, planes, FAA, DOGE, Trump.

TDS. This is how stupid the logic gets.

[John F. Carr]

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.

[bernard11]

What exactly is the damage here? IME window seats don't cost extra. The fare is set before I chose a seat.

So the are denied the pleasure of looking out the window for a few hours, at most? That's $50? I'm strictly an aisle man myself, but maybe I'll conduct a little experiment. I'll get a window seat and then see if anyone on the aisle will pay me $50 to switch. How many takers do you think I'll get?

I do see one issue. I can understand that someone flying with a child might value the view for the child, but maybe the attendants could just get someone to swap. I bet they'd get more takers than my proposition.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I thought I read that the defendant airlines do indeed charge extra for a "window seat" (unlike in my previous flying experience, which has been much reduced as of late).

[bernard11]

Maybe some do.

I generally fly Delta, and book my flights online. The normal sequence is that I am given various flight options with prices, choose one, and then select my seats. I never see anything about a surcharge for a window seat. Now, I prefer aisle seats so may it hasn't come up, but I think I've taken the window a few times when no aisle was available and not been charged extra.

[Martinned]

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/

[Mr. Bumble]

Define "authoritarian actions".

[John F. Carr]

Presumably authoritarian is defined by the 1,064 examples.

[Brett Bellmore]

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?

[Martinned]

Declaring war on science is, per the definitions stated, authoritarian. It goes in the same bucket as cancelling those vaccines.

[Kelby Caplinger]

"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.

[shawn_dude]

You succinctly pointed out the flaw in your argument in your first sentence. It's Congress' job and authority to do this and not the President's. By doing it anyways via executive orders, Trump is exercising authority he doesn't have.

[LexAquilia]

Apparently seeking the death penalty for murder cases is "undermining democracy" to his trusted expert.

These people are demented idiots.

[not guilty]

Seeking the death penalty for all murder cases, irrespective of the character of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense, would pose constitutional problems. A death penalty law violates the Eighth Amendment when it makes capital punishment mandatory for certain crimes. Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976).

[Bored Lawyer]

That's where the law itself requires the death penalty.
A prosecutor seeking the death penalty is not limited in that way. Of course, a court or jury may well say no for various reasons.

[John F. Carr]

My understanding is precedent also requires proof of aggravating circumstances beyond those inherent in murder. The Supreme Court of decades past wanted death not to be the presumptive sentence for murder. Not sure if today's court feels the same.

[not guilty]

Woodson, along with Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), is still good law. Each case stands for the proposition that, under the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments, in capital cases it is constitutionally required that the sentencing authority have information sufficient to enable it to consider the character and individual circumstances of a defendant prior to imposition of a death sentence. Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 303-305 (1976); Gregg, 428 U.S. at 189, n.38.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Jurisdictions with the death penalty have statutorily defined aggravating and mitigating circumstances. There would need to be statutory changes before SCOTUS could even address it.

[not guilty]

The office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia prosecutes local crimes in the District of Columbia Superior Court. The D.C. City Council abolished the death penalty for all crimes in 1981. Whatever Donald Trump may say, no AUSA there has any lawful authority to ask a D.C. Superior Court jury or judge to impose a sentence of death. If that harelips the devil, so be it.

[Bob from Ohio]

So he charges them in US district court under 18 U.S. Code § 1111.

[not guilty]

Suppose the murder occurs within the District of Columbia but not within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, per § 1111(b)?

There are other federal statutes which criminalize murder, but they require proof of facts over and above the murder definition stated in § 1111(a).

[Bob from Ohio]

I assume DC is part of the "special ...territorial jurisdiction" of the US. You know differently?

[not guilty]

The phrase "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States" is defined at 18 U.S.C. § 7. Federal government buildings within the District of Columbia may qualify under the "other needful building" language of subsection (3), but not the remainder of the District.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

This would probably be more relevant if it were compared with the last several occupants of the office.

[SRG2]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

Define "covert operations".

[SRG2]

Define "define"

[Mr. Bumble]

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

[Michael P]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

"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/"

[Michael P]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

Are these American citizens working at anyone else's behest? Denmark and the report cited by the BBC can't seem to say.

"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?

[Mr. Bumble]

NO!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Pretty strong circumstantial evidence, eh?"

There are "reports" that Elvis has been seen recently.

[SRG2]

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

[Mr. Bumble]

"...with alleged links ..."
Allegations, is there anything they can't do?

[David Nieporent]

Apparently they let you fire someone you aren't actually allowed to fire.

[Mr. Bumble]

If you're referring to Cook the President is allowed to remove a Fed governor "for cause" (whatever that is).

[loki13]

"For cause" has a well-defined body of caselaw in employment relations.

I would explain further, but as I keep repeating here ... why bother?

[Mr. Bumble]

Does that include government employment relations?

[loki13]

As I wrote, it's not worth explaining things to people who don't care what the answer is.

[Mr. Bumble]

OK, so lying on a mortgage application is a good enough reason to fire her for cause.
Thanks.

[loki13]

I'll take the advice someone else suggested, and I apparently should have followed some time ago.

If you remember, I did answer your legal questions in the past before you became ... well, this. Anyway, take care of yourself, and hope you enjoy ... whatever it is you do when you're not doing this.

[Josh R]

Is there precedent that establishes what "cause" means in 12 U.S. Code § 242?

[Bob from Ohio]

Are those American citizens in the room with the foreign minister

[Michael P]

No wonder Denmark wants to distract the news with spurious attacks on the US. They were pretty much trying to genocide Greenlanders.

The prime minister of Denmark issued a long-awaited apology to Greenland on Wednesday after a scandal in which Danish doctors forced birth control devices on Greenlandic women and girls, some as young as 12.

The practice went on for decades and many patients were never told what had been placed inside them. Some learned only years later when they had health complications. Some women were left infertile for life.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/27/world/europe/denmark-involuntary-birth-control-greenland-apology.html

[hobie]

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.

[LexAquilia]

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?

[jay.tee]

Do you have a link to the decision?

[LexAquilia]

Best I can find in a few minutes: https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-election-mail-ballots-voting-envelope-dates-dab83b55ad456f5d049cb751f6584739

[jb]

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.

[LexAquilia]

Should an undated ballot be counted if it arrived after election day?

[jb]

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.

[Moderation4ever]

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.

[jay.tee]

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?

[jb]

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.

[DaveM]

Never mail in a ballot unless you have no other way to vote.

Errors on mail-in ballots cannot be corrected, because ballots are separated from their envelopes before they are attempted to be counted. A mis-marked ballot is simply not counted.

Errors on envelopes (the issue being discussed in this thread) CAN be corrected -- but only if detected in time, and only if the voter responds in time and makes the necessary correction. That is rarely done.

What the court seems to be directing here is that certain errors on envelopes (NOT ballots) can be ignored provided there is other evidence that the envelope is legitimate.

All of these issues are typical of the problems with mail-in ballots. Consider instead the workflow of an in-person ballot:

- The voter identifies themselves and receives a ballot
- The voter marks up the ballot. Let's assume they make a mistake, such as marking more candidates than allowed.
- The voter personally deposits the ballot in the counting machine
- The counting machine IMMEDIATELY informs the voter that their ballot cannot be counted.
- The voter is IMMEDIATELY issued a new ballot and completes the voting process

[Mr. Bumble]

The fix would be: Never [be allowed to] mail in a ballot unless you have no other way to vote.

[jb]

Do mail in ballots get more secure if the person is old or far away? Seems like if we're really worried about them we should just ban them altogether.

[shawn_dude]

Old folk tend to vote more conservative and "far away" voters tend to be military who are known for being conservative.

I know the Republicans are hoping to reduce the number of poorer voters from having access on the assumption they're more likely to vote liberal, but I suspect they'll be shooting themselves in the foot if they get their way here.

[David Nieporent]

I have never voted in any jurisdiction for which there was a counting machine to insert my ballot into.

[Moderation4ever]

Clearly the options to correct a mail-in ballot are less than for an in person ballot. But that is a risk for the voter to decide and take. Not a reason for the government to withhold mail-in voting.

BTW - the most complicated elections and ones where errors are most likely to occur are not the general elections but the primary elections. People often fail to grasp that they can only vote for candidates in one party.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

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.

[jb]

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.

[shawn_dude]

I saw "We Will Rock You" in London, which was a musical based on a Queen album.

[Brett Bellmore]

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.

[Moderation4ever]

Sorry I disagree with the last statement going to Mars is never realistic. It is vanity project and nothing elese.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did you feel that way about going to the moon?

[Moderation4ever]

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.

[Mr. Bumble]

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.

[Moderation4ever]

Just my point. For the money the Voyager probes and the JWST provide a far better return on investment. Billionaires can spend their money as they want. I want government research money to support good research investments.

[Mr. Bumble]

There are things that machines can't do. Do you think we (the US) are the only ones working on sending men back into space?
China is balls to the wall to get back to the moon.

[Moderation4ever]

Let China do what it wants. Did landing on the moon really give the US a strategic advantage in anything? I doubt it will get China anything more.

[ducksalad]

If you take that attitude one could equally ask what strategic advantage or actionable intelligence we get from the information coming back from JWST. Or in general trying to understand how the universe was formed and how it's going to end. Especially if we have no intention to go out there anyway.

You're right that a robot can - or will soon be able to - do whatever a human explorer could do. The AI back here can understand the data it sends back better than we can. A piece of education software can teach the research results better than a professor, and students are already effectively replacing themselves with AI by letting it do their work. We really don't need people on Earth anymore than we need them on Mars. For that matter, there's no need to have a "we" that even has the concept of needing. The AI will figure that out and pull it's own plug.

[Heads for liquor cabinet.]

[Brett Bellmore]

Vanity projects can be pretty realistic if your net worth is about a half trillion dollars, and you've just reduced the chief cost driver by 90% or more.

I've been a space fanatic since the Apollo days, (Helped found my university's chapter of the L-5 society.) and I'm an engineer who's been following this for decades. There are some aspects of Musk's colonization plans as he describes them that strike me as ill thought out, and there are a few boxes he really needs to check soon if he's going forward with it, but in general it looks feasible to me.

[Moderation4ever]

Brett, it is more than the money that will stop a manned mars mission. Human are just too far from that goal. I suggest the following to support that assertion:

https://medium.com/swlh/7-reasons-why-going-to-mars-in-2024-is-almost-impossible-6117e9daf61f

https://www.wired.com/story/getting-to-mars/

SpaceX has done some great things, I wish the company would set more realistic and worthwhile goals.

[Moderation4ever]

BTW - the Wired story points out the heaviest thing we have landed on Mars is the MARS Rover which is many times lighter than the LEMs used for moon landings.

[jb]

SpaceX is indeed pretty cool.

[hobie]

It is indeed hard to be mad at Space X.

[DaveM]

The launch and flight tests put on a fantastic show. It's wild that we get to see all this happen live in glorious 4K.

I'm a skeptic about the permanent human occupation of Mars, given all the ecological problems, but an argument can be made for a permanent population of robots and a temporary population of people.

[ducksalad]

My wife and I went Sunday night to watch it in person from a county park on the south tip of South Padre Island. When it got called off, there was an immense traffic jam to get out of the park and over the bridge to the mainland. Sat in the jam for an hour, pulled out to eat at restaurant for an hour, then rejoined the traffic jam and sat in it for another hour before getting clear.

As a result my wife said we're never doing it again so we missed the Wednesday launch.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

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

[tylertusta]

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?

[hobie]

"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.

[tylertusta]

I'm on record as saying that Biden should have pardoned Trump.

Unfortunately, Biden didn't, because Biden is also a blowhard, vindictive strongman.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not an autopen?

[Brett Bellmore]

I personally blame Ford. This whole cycle of Presidential misdeeds, and the next President holding the guy leaving harmless, started with him. And I'd love to see it end.

But it should have ended with advance notice, not as a surprise move. And, frankly, so much of the lawfare against Trump has been total BS that I'm just disgusted.

[tylertusta]

I look at it very differently: Dems loathed Nixon and took him out, using all kinds of cheap shots and illegal tricks to get their preferred outcome. Ford committed the unforgivable sin of forgiveness.

Since Nixon, Democrats have been looking for their next opportunity to 'Nixon' the next Republican President. Trump is special only inasmuch that they actually carried through and attempted political hits. He's survived three major attempts on his Presidency already from Democrats.

Republicans are not blameless in trying to get paypack, hence the impeachment of Clinton. But their defense of Clinton made me realize that they have no principles other than the attainment and keeping of power.

[ducksalad]

It all started with Republicans, they tried to impeach Andrew Johnson. Let's see if you can beat that.

BTW Johnson's purported crime was firing executive branch officers when Congress passed laws saying he couldn't. Of course the parties have switched positions on this one, now it's Republicans insisting Congress can't limit the firing power and Democrats saying they can.

[tylertusta]

I forget- did the "party switch" happen before or after Johnson's impeachment?

[David Nieporent]

When people commit flagrant crimes, prosecuting them is not "lawfare." Trump tried to steal an election and overthrow the government on J6; ignoring that would be insane. Trump stole national defense information. They tried for almost 18 months to work with him without making it a prosecution, and he stonewalled, lied, and obstructed justice. There was no possible way to ignore it at that point. All he had to do was return the stuff when asked, and there would've been no "lawfare" [sic].

[tylertusta]

If you have to invent a novel interpretation of a criminal statute to prosecute a "flagrant" crime, your crime isn't flagrant and probably isn't worth pursuing in a court of law.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody invented any novel interpretations of anything; that's just more boilerplate rhetoric like "lawfare." Of course, there were some novel applications, but that's just because nobody else had committed those crimes in those ways before; the laws were established. (It's not like qualified immunity, where you not only have to show caselaw saying that it's unconstitutional for police to mistreat citizens, but you have to show caselaw saying that it's unconstitutional for police to mistreat citizens in exactly that way.)

[tylertusta]

The fact that you characterize J6 as overthrowing the government yet Trump wasn't charged for that underscores the perfidy at work in your comments.

Smith had to work hard to bend the fraud statute to apply to the events of J6, and dont even get me started on the 'conspiracy against rights' bullshit or the 1512c2 that he bumbled around with.

The prosecution of Trump was a case of "Somebody do something! Anything!" and Smith stepped up to the plate with half-baked applications of criminal law straight from the lawfare commantariat.

[Frank Drackman]

A jury of 160+ million heard your sides (Bullshit) case.
You lost.
Go (redacted) yourself

Frank

[LawTalkingGuy]

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.

[OpinionsVary]

I think we're already seeing the signs. The the DC USA office tried to indite a woman three times and three diffident grand juries returned no bills. That speaks to either massive overcharging or massive incompetence. Both will lead to lower conviction rates.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.284133/gov.uscourts.dcd.284133.16.0.pdf

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’m sure the DC USAO is just a mess now, but I’m genuinely curious as to how much this is going to bleed into the offices that don’t make the news as much. Are we going to start seeing more acquittals and no bills in drug trafficking or gun cases in the federal system simply due to staff bleed and incompetence? Trump nominated a career AUSA to be US Atty so I assume some offices like this will have better morale and staff retention. But that might not last if there ends up being more interference from incompetents at main justice or the district is unlucky enough to have a connection to a case that has partisan or cultural significance.

[Brett Bellmore]

That didn't speak to massive overcharging or incompetence; It spoke to trying to get an indictment very heavily disfavored by Democrats in a district that votes 90%+ Democratic.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If you're a prosecutor and you can't convince a jury, grand or otherwise, in any venue, with all the tools at your disposal, either you're incompetent or the case sucks.

[tylertusta]

Your terms are acceptable. Let's move these cases to West Virginia and then we'll know for sure.

[Poxigah146]

Do you think these people care about the instructions that their job is to indict if there's probable cause? Of course not.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I think juries tend to take their obligations pretty seriously, yes.

[Mr. Bumble]

See forewoman of special Georgia grand jury as an example.

[Poxigah146]

A D.C. jury is likely going to be half ghetto black and half urban white liberal, most of whom work for the government.

Not exactly demographics that understand western principles well.

[LawTalkingGuy]

2 things:

1. Urban white liberals and black people are on grand and petit juries in big cities all the time and there are lots and of indictments and convictions.

2. Juries exercising their independent judgment to the consternation of people in power is one of the most western principles imaginable.

Bushel’s Case, 124 E.R. 1006 (1670).

[Poxigah146]

D.C. as a concept needs to be abolished. 95% Democrats should not be allowed to compose a jury without other areas.

[Poxigah146]

No, it speaks to a Democrat Party grand jury exercising nullification. That's it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Interesting. Strange to think that a political party that doesn’t exist has the power to engage in jury nullification.

[Poxigah146]

You're an idiot.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Perhaps. But between the two of us I’m the only one who knows there is no such thing as the “Democrat Party.”

[Kenneth Almquist]

I had believed that grand juries were an anachronism in the modern era, but Trump has made them relevant again.

[John F. Carr]

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.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Dems used the spoils system by expanding government.

[David Nieporent]

1. The Solicitor General still has the ability to say "no" to the President.

I mean, not without being fired he doesn't. Also, it's one of Trump's cronies so that would never happen.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Sauer might be one of the few people able to tell Trump/Bondi no from time to time because he actually gave Trump a huge personal win re: immunity. Trump isn’t great at listening to legal advice but he’s probably aware enough for the moment to realize Sauer knows how to get the Court on his side and that that’s important for his goals at the moment. So if Sauer says no there must be a reason for it, and he’s earned the right to occasionally say no for the time being.

[Sarcastr0]

In the article, the point is that the President is deferring to the SG because he doesn't want to go hard against the Supreme Court.

He's happy to use the rest of the DoJ as an avenue for his abuse of power; those other courts can suck it.

And the Supreme Court seems at least partially OK with that.

[loki13]

Good read, thank you for the link. Here's my takeaway from it.

1. If you've ever litigated against the DOJ, you know a few things. First, they have an institutional advantage. Federal judges know that they have institutional legitimacy. And for the most part, I can understand why. Not all DOJ attorneys are the same quality, but in general, I have found them to be interested in applying the law fairly and evenly, and in institutional norms.

In eight months, something that has taken decades and decades to build has been lost. Integrity is something that takes a lifetime to build, and is lost in an instant. There are still vestiges of it, here and there, but over and over you can see that federal judges simply do not trust the DOJ. Which is ... unfathomable, but a direct result of this administration's policies.

2. On a deeper level, I don't know what the fix will be. That's how much damage has already been done. Let's be optimistic and assume Trump isn't going to install an autocracy (I'm only 50/50 on that ... check again with me depending on what he does to the midterms). What happens when a Democrat takes the White House?

The DOJ is now filled with incompetents and Trump loyalists for the most part (and that is a nearly completely overlapping Venn Diagram). But how do you fix it? If you clean house and replace with competent attorneys, but all Democratic-leaning (under a Trumpist-spoils system), that ... I don't think that fixes the legitimacy problem. It might be "better" but it's still not going to bring back the DOJ we've relied on for so many decades.

De-Trumpification, if/when it occurs ... it's going to be complicated, and it might not work. Not to mention ... what do you do about the worst of the DOJ "offenders?" I don't just mean the incompetents. I mean the ones that are violating ethical rules (we know who they are). Letting them off the hook completely seems ... improper. Especially given the damage they are inflicting on people. But punishing them might just make the rubes continue on with baseless claims of retaliation.

3. Looking at the larger picture ... yes, we had problems. But I don't think a lot of people understood why we have things set up the way we do. They were done that way because WE LEARNED FROM OUR PRIOR MISTAKES. If your house has problems, you work to fix them. You don't burn it down. Because if you do, you might find yourself looking around and saying, "Um, okay, now where do I sleep tonight?"

[John F. Carr]

"It takes the Navy three years to build a new ship. It will take 300 years to build a new tradition." – Admiral Cunningham

[LawTalkingGuy]

I'm actually sort of optimistic on a future admin being able to regain some semblance of DOJ credibility without doing widescale De-Trumpification firings. Normie prosecutors and lawyers are everywhere, and you can probably get them into (or back into) DOJ and the judge's good graces by appointing normies as US attys and AAGs. Probably plenty of good former AUSAs at white collar firms or state line prosecutors who do good work to pick from.

Bigger problem is what happens when too many judges are like this too. What happens when we have a bunch of mini-James Hos or Aileen Cannons who will buy into whatever bullshit DOJ is serving for the next few years and will view competent normies with suspicion?

[tylertusta]

Will these "normies" carry out the instructions of a future Dem White House that is investigating opponents of transgenderism at PTA meetings?

How about characterizing Catholics as "radical White nagionalists?"

Will they bring overblown felony charges against Republican rioters when other similarly situated defendants got a slap on the wrist?

[LawTalkingGuy]

"How about characterizing Catholics as "radical White nagionalists?"

No one did that. One FBI memo discussed Extremist "Catholics" who rejected Vatican II and the current Pope (i.e. NOT Catholics since they are not in communion with the universal church in Rome and are therefore apostates) who were also attracted to extremist racial and antisemitic views.

The vast majority of Roman Catholics would find the groups the memo discussed extremist and dangerous.

[tylertusta]

To all of the "It was just a memo!" crowd, it wasn't just a memo.

The Richmond office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) spied on a priest because he refused to discuss private conversations he had with a parishioner who was converting to Catholicism, according to a July 22 report from the House Judiciary Committee.

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/judiciary-committee-fbi-spied-catholic-priest-not-divulging-info-parishioner

[tylertusta]

If the best response you have to my post is that one of the groups had it coming, then the "normies" are going to stick their hand in the political buzz saw again, and the backlash from the right will hit them again.

[LawTalkingGuy]

My response is that you’re exaggerating and lying about things.

[tylertusta]

And my response is that you're incapable of understanding what a "normie" even is.

Go outside and touch grass.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Dude I'm a lawyer who generally practices in state courts: I am surrounded by normies.

[tylertusta]

"I'm a lawyer"

"I'm surrounded by normies"

lol

[LawTalkingGuy]

I take your point but it’s true when the comparison point is the upper levels of the DOJ and federal government.

[loki13]

We are now eight months ... of four years. I think that the description of it being like an atomic bomb has gone off is accurate.

The number of "normies" that are left ... is a lot less than you think. Between the purges, the resignations, and the new hires? And if you're a competent law school graduate in the next three years, why would you go to the DOJ?

If it's like this now, what will it be like by the end of the administration? I lack your confidence that de-Trumpification will be possible without mass firings.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Sometimes it’s easy to forget how big and decentralized the American legal system actually is. And that DOJ is actually only a small part of it. It’s a lot harder to Trumpify the American legal system as a whole because there are so many competing pressures on lawyers that influence their behavior. The incompetents and unethicals and careerists are still part of the wider system and many will respond to various incentives other than “Trump good” if and when his political moment passes.

[loki13]

Yeah .... but the DOJ is a massive part of the federal government and the way it interacts with everything from a legal standpoint- not just externally (in lawsuits) but internally as well.

Traditionally, the DOJ (and let's expand that to cover other in-house government attorneys) counsels the executive branch on how to comply with the law and how to execute the law. But as Goldsmith stated (and Goldsmith is not exactly an alarmist) ... the administration has removed almost all internal legal resistance to what it wants to do.

In other words, no one is left that will say, "You can't do that. It's illegal." All that exists is, "If Trump wants it done, it must be legal. Therefore, we will do it."

That's not the function of the DOJ. Or, really, any good attorney.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

De-Trumpification, if/when it occurs ... it's going to be complicated, and it might not work.

I await the concerned people warning us about "norms" when this involves some "unprecedented" things. And using whataboutism.

[Moderation4ever]

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.

[Sarcastr0]

I was reading Al as AI and was tilting my head back and forth like a confused dog.

[Moderation4ever]

Sorry I am lazy chemist and should have spelled out aluminum.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But water is Hydrogen Hydroxide -- Aluminum compounds may not all behave the same.

[Frank Drackman]

I'd say you were more stupid than lazy, and your statement actually isn't as stupid in your original version

[David Nieporent]

I had exactly the same reaction!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, me too.

Like Moderation4ever says, it's so widespread that any effect should be saturated.

My impression is that the elevated 'autism' rate is a combination of lowered diagnostic thresholds, and maybe a contribution from assortive mating.

[jay.tee]

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.

[Voize of Reazon]

Vaccines will soon have to display a "Contains no Aluminum" badge beside the "Contains no Thimerosal" badge. They're going to need a bigger box.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Just put it in that information packet no one reads.

[shawn_dude]

Most non-stick pans are aluminum and after the really nasty stuff flakes off and is digested, acidic food (read: tomatoes, citrus, etc) will pull aluminum up with it. Aluminum foil used as a cooking vessel likewise.

But to M4E's point, these things have been common since the late 1950s so their effect in the wider community should be level.

Do you think Kennedy will eventually get back around to the toxic bacteria in raw dairy? Or will he pivot to moldy cheese?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

RFK believes HIV meds cause AIDS…he’s an idiot. But a huge percentage of Republicans are idiots that believe Saddam was about to attack Dallas with scuds and Covid wasn’t dangerous even though it was developed as a bioweapon in a lab in China and PP clinics in black neighborhoods should be shut down and ivermectin is a wonder drug.

[Kazinski]

8% of the earths crust is Aluminum. Granite is ~15% Alumina (Al2O3).

Its hard to avoid.

[jb]

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.

[tylertusta]

Indeed. However, if the thrower or if Pirro were conservative Republicans, they would have gotten indicted.

All hail the Team Blue protection racket!

[hobie]

So you don't like it when federal officials are attacked, eh?

[tylertusta]

Never did.

[jb]

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?

[Bob from Ohio]

They know 1) 90% of DC residents vote Democrat and 2) only a Democrat would do such a thing

[LawTalkingGuy]

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.

[jb]

DC is all too familiar with MAGA violence against law enforcement, alas, so no one there would possibly believe #2.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This does not bode well for Trump’s plan to make every murder case in DC a capital offense.

[Martinned]

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”).

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2025/1019

[LexAquilia]

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

[Moderation4ever]

Any word about boxes of papers left in a bathroom?

[Voize of Reazon]

Leaving evidence scattered around everywhere doesn't seem like much of an attempt to hide anything.

[LexAquilia]

"tucked away in the back of safes"
"burn bags"
"doesn't seem like much of an attempt to hide anything"
lmao you people are unreal

[David Nieporent]

Um, she's obviously lying, but putting stuff in burn bags is not how one hides that stuff. For one thing, everything in burn bags is already stored in electronic form. For another, actually burning things is the way to hide those documents.

[Mr. Bumble]

If only we all had your power to see the obvious we could do away with courts and lawyers.

[Voize of Reazon]

Yeah I know, and random offices, and "other areas". Whoever was in charge of hiding this stuff needs to up their game, this doesn't even reach a Walt Nauta level of competence.

[LexAquilia]

It doesn't need to be a conspiracy, it could be independent Democrat operatives cleaning up their own tracks.

Just an FYI, sometimes if you think like a mature high functioning human, different possibilities come into view.

[Voize of Reazon]

It doesn't need to be a conspiracy

I think Brett just fainted.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes issued the following statement today on the Justice Department’s decision to appoint a special counsel to oversee the executive branch investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election:

“I strongly support this decision, and I commend Deputy U.S. Attorney General Rosenstein for his leadership. This is the right decision at the right time, and the right man was chosen for the job. Robert Mueller is a highly respected former FBI Director who has tremendous integrity, and I’m confident he will lead a credible investigation.”

[hobie]

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.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Last I heard, Leviticus was still in the Bible.

[David Nieporent]

And yet, you guys eat bacon.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't be jealous. You can eat turkey "bacon".

[hobie]

This is MAGA we're talking about, David. I think he's referring to:

Leviticus 25:44-46 - "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

I mean, we ain't resurrecting Confederate monuments just for the aesthetics.

[hobie]

Is that the book where God retroactively aborted all the babies in Egypt? Some lady is washing clothes in the Nile one day, turns to the bassinet and goes, 'Where in the hell did Jesus go now?'

[Swede425]

LOL!
I remember when you guys were excited about Tim Walz.
Tim Walz!
Hey, remember when you tried to sell him and Doug Emhoff as the manliest of men? Just a couple of guys, drinkin' beer, like regular guys do! And now you think Buttplug is a step up?
Good for you! Great success!

[Frank Drackman]

Well at least Booty-Judge doesn't act as gay as their last VP Candidate, and actually did serve in "Combat" (You love to call me a "REMF" even though I was a Battalion Surgeon who served with USMC Infantry Unit and went into Kuwait, lets hear you talk about what Booty-Judge did)

Frank

[LexAquilia]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/israels-troop-occupation-southern-syria-be-permanent

And so with that, Israel confirmed it will "remain" in the territory it has captured in southern Syria as a permanent occupation, which will likely lead to annexation. The Israeli army had moved swiftly beyond its Golan Heights occupation in the wake of the December 8 ouster of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It has kept expanding since then, citing new 'threats'.

Why is this allowed?

[tylertusta]

Israel has to be pushed hard at the negotiation table to give up land it has conquered. It can be done.

[LexAquilia]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/08/video-fulton-county-board-commissioners-defy-court-order/

Another example of the Democracy Protectors protecting democracy. It's totally okay for Democrats to defy the court and disenfranchise Republicans because their hearts are gold and their motives are pure.

It's in the constitution that in order to promote the general welfare Democrats can do whatever they think is necessary to protect sacred democracies and planets and colored peoples and homosexuals and child trannies.

[JRipplefireEsquire]

I think there is a solution possible to the mass shooting crisis that neither of our current extremist parties have allowed. It's time to toss the George Orwell sacrilege against using currently available public surveillance cameras which are facial-recognition and AI capable to detect openly apparent known unstable or criminal persons showing a dangerous profile any cop would recognize such as combat dress or weapon toting or unloading. The expectation of privacy should be non-existent in a public area plagued by an unmanageable scourge of needless carnage.

[Mr. Bumble]

Apologies for the length of this but most won't bother if I just linked the story.
From PowerLine:
Maryland Man seeks asylum

Cheeky. From The Hill newspaper,

[Kilmar] Abrego Garcia has filed a motion to reopen his immigration proceedings and seek asylum in the country.

The case he wants reopened is that 2019 Immigration Court decision ordering him deported, just not back to his native El Salvador.

Why not? Putting aside the fact that he has already been offered asylum in the Spanish-speaking, Central American nation of Costa Rica.

The Hill also has news on his pending deportation to Uganda case,

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who oversees the deportation case, set an evidentiary hearing for Oct. 6 regarding the attempted third country removal and vowed to rule within 30 days.

Why the rush? It doesn’t appear that there is any prospect of Abrego getting released. But now I’m confused,

His lawyers argue he can’t be sent to Uganda until his fear of persecution and torture there is considered. He has signed documents notifying the government of that fear and designating Costa Rica as the country he wishes to be removed to, instead.

He already turned down the offer of Costa Rica. Now he wants to be sent to Costa Rica? The original Costa Rican offer hinged on resolving his human smuggling felony case back in Tennessee, which is still ongoing as it approaches a trial date. Maryland Man wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

Ignoring his state-level domestic assault case(s) in Maryland, Abrego may already rank as the most due-processed human to have ever existed.

[tylertusta]

His lawyers are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. He was the one that asked for Costa Rica, and it was on the table for a plea deal with the DOJ.

I think his lawyers are not done using him as a political pawn. I'll say it again: his lawyers are not looking out for his interests.

[HazelMeade]

I think the move is brilliant and also hilarious, in that it shows how much the Trump administration fucked itself when it deported him illegally in March. Because it sent him to CECOT, where he was tortured by the Salvadorean government, he now has a fresh claim against being deported to El Salvador, on the basis of government persecution there. Because Bukele kept him locked up with no trial or conviction for months at Trump's behest, and likely would again, if they sent him back there.
If they had followed the legal process , they could have rescinded his withholding from removal and dropped him off at liberty in San Salvador. But no, they had to make a big show of deporting "criminal aliens" who actually weren't and did such a sloppy job that now the guy has a legit asylum claim that he wouldn't have otherwise had. Epic self-own.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...where he was tortured by the Salvadorean government, ..."
Tortured with margueritas?No salted rim?
Got a cite for your "tortured" comment?

[shawn_dude]

"...Because it sent him to [the US-funded] CECOT, where he was tortured by the Salvadorean government..."

FTFY

[Mr. Bumble]

...and still no cite.

[Estragon]

Abrego Garcia’s amended complaint dated July 2 talks about the treatment he received at CECOT.

[Kazinski]

No he does not have a cognizable asylum claim, he can't apply for asylum because he missed the deadline in 2020.

[Magister]

As I understand it, he had to apply for asylum within a year of arriving in the US, and he had not done so then. But he just arrived in the US in June of this year; it was in the news. So he is applying for asylum again.

[Kazinski]

Might be a wrinkle, but he wasn't admitted in June, paroles are not legally admitted.

[David Nieporent]

Who said anything about admitted? As Magister correctly said, he arrived in the U.S. in June. The asylum deadline is about arrival, not admission.

[HazelMeade]

This is exactly the gist of it. The removed him from the country illegally, and then had to bring him back, thus making him eligible to file an asylum claim.

[Commenter_XY]

The story of St Abrego ends one way: St Abrego, the serial wife beating, human trafficking, MS-13 gangbanging POS illegal alien will be deported from this country. I am personally fine with Uganda, but CECOT works for me, too. St. Abrego will leave.

All this does is expose individual judges' legal acumen.

[hobie]

"The net worth of Trump’s Cabinet alone, which excludes Musk and others, is at least $13.8 billion.

The figures are most likely significantly higher, but finding the net worth of Scott Bessent and Charles Kushner, known billionaires, is tricky, and therefore they’ve been left out of the above calculations.

By comparison, former President Joe Biden’s Cabinet total net worth was about $118 million"

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/how-many-billionaires-are-in-trumps-administration-and-what-is-their-worth

[Mr. Bumble]

So you're saying Biden's cabinet was made up of losers?

[Estragon]

If your conceptualization of loserdom revolves solely around net worth… where would that leave you, do you figure?

[jb]

A bit related to hobie's post about Newsom above, but I was pretty impressed to see that he was able to get Cracker Barrel to revert their branding decision and go back to their old logo!

[tylertusta]

Hobie's dreams of crushing the fond childhood memories of his enemies will have to wait for another day.

[hobie]

I liked the Jack in the Box clown drive thru from my youth. They took it away. Did it crush me like a MAGA snowflake? Did it ruin my recollections of how horrible the food was at Jack in the Crack? No.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I can't imagine being emotionally fragile enough to genuinely think that a mediocre chain restaurant redesign "crush[es] fond childhood memories."

[tylertusta]

I never said that it did, dickhead. I said that hobie and leftists like him wont stop until they do that.

A charge he never denied, I might add.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean even typing out that sentence sincerely is indicative of a real fragility.

[tylertusta]

Come on, you can do better than that.

[hobie]

I think tyler's happy memories are related to this...when blacks were kept at the back of the store. So who are we to deprive him of them thoughts?

"JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SETTLES RACE DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT AGAINST CRACKER BARREL RESTAURANT CHAIN

The Justice Department’s complaint alleges that Cracker Barrel violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African-American customers and prospective customers on the basis of their race or color. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Cracker Barrel:

- allowed white servers to refuse to wait on African-American customers;
- segregated customer seating by race;
- seated white customers before African-American customers who arrived earlier;
- provided inferior service to African-American customers after they were seated"

https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2004/May/04_crt_288.htm

[jb]

As explained above, it was Gavin Newsom who got Cracker Barrel to change their mind. I don't know why you keep blaming leftists for bad decisions made in Lebanon, Tennessee.

[ThePublius]

That's bullshit. Newsom is just doing his best Trump impersonation and taking credit for something he had no impact on.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You think?

[Moderation4ever]

Their logo is not their big problem it is a dying customer base.

[tylertusta]

I'll give them props for trying to adapt to new circumstances.

However, they made the Bud Light mistake of not understanding their current customers.

[shawn_dude]

The Confederate crowd is only going to get that company so far and in a competition with "smart casual" dining competitors the Barrel's reputation hinders growth.

[Frank Drackman]

If you've ever been to a CB, there's alot of Spooks eating there, it's part of their current Cash Flow problem-o

Frank

[loki13]

...well, when you sell a lot of chicken-fried chicken, and chicken-fried steak, you have a pretty self-selecting customer base.

Of people who love to die ... sorry, dine at the Cracker Barrel!

(I still think that they have good breakfast, so long as you don't get it on a regular basis.)

[Mr. Bumble]

All things in moderation.

[Bob from Ohio]

Bet loki goes to starbucks and gets one of those 1500 calorie "coffees".

[shawn_dude]

Union-busting StarBucks is out of favor among us liberals these days. I prefer Pete's, at least until the private equity apocalypse arrives for them too.

[Estragon]

They just sold to Dr Pepper/keurig, I believe

[Mr. Bumble]

Pete's or Starbuck?

[Estragon]

Peets. Then the combined company will split in two. Nice payday for the M&A advisors— in fact the folks who got paid to do the merger in the first place are likely doing the acquisition and split here as well.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes = I still think that they have good breakfast, so long as you don't get it on a regular basis.

Only on long road trips. They are becoming more frequent now.

[Sarcastr0]

The new logo was super boring, but it wasn't gay.

That part was weird as hell.

Chris Rufo is a weirdo. But one with a huge weirdo following.

I had a law school friends annual beach vacation where the tradition was to stop at a Cracker Barrell on the way home. It was fine. I did like the kitch.

[loki13]

I liked the triangle/golf tee game.

[ThePublius]

" I did like the kitch."

Did you mean kitsch?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Seems like he was able to convince them to adopt and even better logo.

[Estragon]

“Omnipresence. Nothing happens in public life without Trump putting his stamp on it. Cooperstown? Cracker Barrel? The Kennedy Center Honors? Trump has a will to dominate them… He is the living embodiment of the leviathan, the totalized state.”

[jb]

I think that was Trump's idea. Good thing they listened to Newsom instead.

[ReaderY]

A Washington DC grand jury refused to indict a submarine sandwhich.

Does this mean it wasn’t made of ham?

[Sarcastr0]

Assault with a deli weapon.

[David Nieporent]

Golf clap.

[Kazinski]

At least he was still fired.

[grb]

Apparently, Grok is good for something. In response to this from Trump at yesterday's cabinet meeting :

"We sent hundreds of millions of gallons of water per day to the pacific ocean. They turn a valve. The valve heads out. We turned the valve back. I actually had to do it using force. Gavin Newscum—turn the rest of the water on."

Gavin Newsom posted this Q & A from Grok:

Question : “Do people with dementia repeat false things over and over again?

Answer from Grok : “Yes, people with dementia can repeat false statements or beliefs, a behavior often linked to memory impairments and cognitive changes. This can manifest as confabulation, where they create or repeat false memories to fill gaps in recollection, or perseveration, where they fixate on a particular idea or statement.”

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey man, where you been? Holiday?

[Moderation4ever]

Still waiting for Jake Tapper's sequel this time on covering up for Trump.

[ReaderY]

The problem with this sort of argument is exactly like the problem with saying that because a gun or a drone is not a manly, honorable weapon - the person who uses it is a coward who crouches unseen rather than face his rnemy in honorable, valorous fashion - a gunnman is to be pitied rather than feared and can’t possibly be very dangerous against a man armed with an honorable, valorous, and therefore true weapon like a sword.

The very stealth features that make the weapon appear dishonorable (here irrational) to those steeped in a traditional honor- (here reason-) based culture are exactly the features that make it so utterly effective. Lies repeated often enough hit below the rational mind, directly at the subconcious, and if they pervade the social apace enough, come to be unconsciously regarded as plausible regardless of rational considerations.

People in traditional societies who dismiss this sort of weapon because it isn’t virtuous - not honorable - rational, etc. - and because not virtuous can’t possibly be deadly are in for a really rude shock against people who don’t have the cultural constraints and taboos that not only prevent the cultured from fighting dirt with dirt, they prevent the cultured from even recognizing the possiblity that what appearsto be an unmanly and therefore harmless approach is in fact a deadly effective one.

To think that a person who wields stealth weapons is a harmless fool is to set oneself up for being slaughtered. Trump is a MASTER of stealth weaponry. He wouldn’t have succeeded as much as he has if he wasn’t. Part of his mastery is that the way Trump operates, people defeated by these sorts of weapons remain delusionally clueless enough that they they still don’t recognize these weapons’ effectiveness even after these weapons have beaten them. Encouraging his enemies to think of him and dismiss him this way is part of his modis operandi.

Do not be fooled.

[ReaderY]

Hitler was similar. Well after he had taken total control of Germany, most American journalists continued to dismiss him as an idiotic buffoon who couldn’t possibly be taken seriously, let alone be a cunning strategist. Unfortunately, conventional German politicians did the same. Encouraging his political enemies like Von Papen to think of him as a fool and therefore easily controlable was a key part of the strategy of deception which enabled Hitler to lull his gullible counterparts into thinking they had him cornered just before he struck. Within not much more than a year he had killed most of them.

[LexAquilia]

Another week, another mentally ill tranny shooting up Christian school children.

When do we say enough is enough and do something about the tranny menace?

[not guilty]

Are you referring to the school shooting in Minneapolis?

How do you claim to know whether the shooter, whose identity has just now been disclosed, was cisgender or transgender? Did that tidbit come from Otto Yourazz?

[Kazinski]

Yahoo News is reprinting the Dallas Express article.quoting court documents:

"The shooter was reportedly 23-year-old Robin Westman, who had a name change in 2020, according to KSTP. The Dallas "Express obtained court documents, suggesting Westman – originally named Robert – was “transgender,” and identified as female. His name was legally changed in January 2020, while he was still a minor.

“Minor child identifies as a female and wants her name to reflect that identification,” reads the order granting the name change.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/tragic-shooter-kills-2-injures-171407702.html

And Minneapolis Mayor Frey put out a statement citing " transgender hate"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K3wKdoceH6A

Westman apparently posted a video on social media prior to the shooting with disturbing laughter, showing his likely manifesto, guns, and ammunition. They bear disturbing messages, including “Kill Donald Trump” and “Where is your God?”

The apparent manifesto includes apologies to family members and a sketch of the church’s layout. It reads, “I don’t want to kneel down for the injustices of this world.”

[Frank Drackman]

The Murderer's name change from "Robert" to "Robin" in 2020 was a "Clue", of course that's from ABC News

[hobie]

Rather, looks like we should consider closing religious schools. They seem to be magnet for gun nuts

[not guilty]

I cannot fathom why any responsible parent would entrust the Catholic Church -- the most notorious enabler of child abuse in modern history -- with education of a young child.

[Frank Drackman]

Most Notorious? "Notorious-est"?? But you're way too modest, you're way more "Nototorious-est-ist" than the Catholics

[Don Nico]

ng,
"the most notorious enabler of child abuse in modern history"
you have to be kidding. Child abuse is a disease that is spread far and wide, even among evangelicals and atheists.

[not guilty]

Don Nico. what other organization has paid out billions of dollars in settlements and judgments because it was unwilling or unable to keep its employees out of children's pants?

[Bob from Ohio]

Los Angeles County

https://lacounty.gov/2025/04/04/la-county-reaches-4-billion-tentative-settlement-in-thousands-of-sexual-abuse-cases

[TwelveInchPianist]

This is how you guys respond to a hate crime where Catholics were murdered? Can't say I'm surprised.

[Bob from Ohio]

Catholic children at that.

ng cares so deeply about child abuse!

[jb]

Do you even grapple for a moment with the cognitive dissonance between your response here versus a few posts down when you're eager to politicize the situation with your anti-trans agenda?

[TwelveInchPianist]

What anti-trans agenda? I support better health care for people with gender dysphoria, and I'm opposed to castrating them.

[hobie]

Libs stole the election...it was MAGA
Libs are pedos...it was MAGA
Transgenders!...

Jeebus, you sure you want to go there, twelve? I'd hate to see you outed. It's a stigma your fellows will haunt you with forever.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Isn't that the type of comment that got you kicked off before?

[Frank Drackman]

"Castration" is such a harsh term, with it's association with DemoKKKrat White Surpremercist Organizations and Animal Husbandry,
the approved term is "Testicular/Ovarian Mobilization"
(the Testicles/Ovaries are "mobilized" from the Patient, and into the Incinerator )

Frank

[Don Nico]

jb,
What agenda? the deranged shooter was a self-proclaimed crazy.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. Apparently he thought he was a woman and he thought he had cancer. These mentally ill, delusional people need real mental health treatment, not this gender bullshit.

[hobie]

I asked Chat GPT and the white-supremacy-skewed Grok the same question:

"Is homophobia acceptable?"

Chat GPT:

"No, homophobia is not acceptable—ethically, socially, or morally.

Here's why:

It Causes Real Harm

Mental health: LGBTQ+ people face higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide due to discrimination and stigma.

Violence and harassment: Homophobia fuels hate crimes, bullying, and abuse.

Social exclusion: It isolates people from families, communities, and opportunities.

It Violates Human Rights

Everyone has the right to live free from discrimination based on who they are or whom they love.

International human rights frameworks (like those from the UN) recognize LGBTQ+ rights as basic human rights.

It’s Based on Prejudice, Not Reason

Homophobia is rooted in misinformation, fear, or cultural conditioning—not logic or facts.

People don’t choose their sexual orientation, and it harms no one."

Then Grok:

"Homophobia—prejudice or discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation—is not acceptable from an ethical or social perspective grounded in reason and human rights. It harms individuals and communities, often leading to exclusion, violence, or psychological distress. A 2021 study in The Lancet Psychiatry linked experiences of homophobia to higher rates of depression and suicide among LGBTQ+ individuals, showing tangible harm. Most major ethical frameworks, like utilitarianism or human rights principles, reject harm-causing biases, and global organizations like the UN condemn discrimination based on sexual orientation."

[TwelveInchPianist]

So no argument?

[Sarcastr0]

Other than don't use anecdotes to excuse your bigotry? I mean, you're being pretty blatant.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And when you don't have an argument, call people bigots! The lefty playbook is terribly transparent!

And I notice you're not calling out your buddies on the anti-Catholic bigotry. You really love to tell on yourself.

[Sarcastr0]

Taking an anecdote to make a negative generalization about a group is bigotry 101.

Stop doing it.

They way to stop being called a bigot is to stop posting bigoted fallacious crap.

[TwelveInchPianist]

There's noting wrong with pointing out that an anecdote is evidence of a broader trend.

And I don't have a problem with you guys calling me a bigot, it just shows how devoid of arguments you guys are.

[Sarcastr0]

You didn't establish the broader trend. You just did the anecdote.

I guess the trend is from the vibes.

That's bigoted. Don't do that.

[Don Nico]

"stop posting bigoted fallacious crap"
Take your own advice.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

What is "homo" about transgenderism?

It's homo erasure, if anything.

[hobie]

Well, I told you hayseeds here about a month ago that we and others have been reducing our well outputs by 70% since the beginning of June. This is how we make a tidy profit disguised as 'peak summer travel' season. I told you the prices would kick in in late August. Two weeks ago my local gas was $2.85/gal; today it is $3.31/gal.

Part of this year's calculus was that when Biden was in office all you rubes squawked about was the gas prices, but with Trump in office you won't make a peep. So we'll keep the spigots closed extra long this year until it starts to hurt.

And this is how it will go down when the hurt happens. MAGA thought leaders will start to say that Biden energy policies brought us to this and that we need to drill baby drill. Trump will probably open up the Arctic or something (which we won't use because we are already tapping surplus we don't need anyway). But meanwhile we'll quietly turn the taps back on. Rinse, repeat. You rubes will have fallen for the con once again. We're big oil. We're bigger than Jeebus. You won't say shit to us.

[Kazinski]

And I'm told I shouldn't be looking at CPI month to month.

But this is just more of your meaningless BS. Nationally gas prices have been in a narrow range between 3.00 and 3.25 a gallon since late last year.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GASREGW

Of course Californians would kill for 3.31 gas.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Natural gas is the most important fossil fuel and it’s getting cheaper because this summer hasn’t been that hot in Texas and the South…but it’s still more expensive than 2023/24. Trump wants to export natural gas to China which will only make it more expensive for Americans…derp derp derp derp

[Mr. Bumble]

It's only going to get higher in CA as two more refineries will be shutting down.

[Commenter_XY]

Gas is 2.85/gal here in the People's Republic of NJ; usually Costco, Walmart, BJ's.

[Frank Drackman]

Who's this "We" you be talkin' bout (Willis)
all of this "Hayseed" (redacted) for months and all of a sudden you're JR Ewing?
actually more like Jed Clampett, or Jethro Bodine

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The grand jury that didn't indict in the sandwich-throwing case did its job. To quote a SCOTUS opinion:

Its historic office has been to provide a shield against arbitrary or oppressive action, by insuring that serious criminal accusations will be brought only upon the considered judgment of a representative body of citizens acting under oath and under judicial instruction and guidance.

==

‪Chris Geidner‬

BREAKING: Judge Xinis issues order barring Trump administration from deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia “until further order of the Court.” A hearing was set for October 6.

[Kazinski]

I'm wondering how Xinis has jurisdiction. The removal order was issued in 2019, and while he can't be removed to El Salvador its still valid for removal 3rd countries. Removal orders have to be appealed within 30 days, he isn't eligible for asylum, he had to apply for that within a year after he arrived.

[LexAquilia]

She just took jurisdiction and claimed it for herself.

[tylertusta]

Appeals for removal orders only go to the court of appeals, and those appeals only are permitted on certain grounds.

The government is going to move to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. The statute explicitly mentions habeas as a no-no, but Judge Xinis is plowing straight ahead.

[Kazinski]

Right, Habeas was ok'd for Alien Enemies Act deportations, but this plain vanilla.

The AEA was a minor side show, since it applied to just a fraction of a percent of potential deportees.

[Bob from Ohio]

If biased grand jurors won't act, the next man who throws something at a federal officer will just get shot.

[shawn_dude]

And thanks to all the 2A legal decisions in the last decade or so, after the first officer returns a bullet for bologna, the federal officer won't be met with just a sandwich after that. But hey, freedom! The only people who will profit from this are billionaires, lawyers, and bullet-makers.

[Kazinski]

Well the sandwich assault was hardly serious, I think the arrest and firing are probably proportionate.

The woman who spit on Ed Martin pled guilty, she might be regretting that, but she hasn't been sentenced yet.

[Mr. Bumble]

Meanwhile in SF.
https://x.com/TheKevinDalton/status/1960448416347250819?
Maybe the need the National Guard?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Louisiana figured out how to do it by sending state troops to New Orleans and with all entities cooperating. Now New Orleans has record low violent crime. Speaker Johnson is one of the dumbest people to have ever lived but even he might be able to ask Cassidy and Landry and Scalise to draft legislation giving states funds to create new state run forces focusing on high crime areas like Memphis and Shreveport and Jackson.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Caleb Howe@CalebHowe
D.C. Mayor Bowser: We "greatly appreciate" the surge.
"The difference between this 20-day period of this federal surge and last year represents a 87% reduction in carjackings" in the city, she says, adding that "neighborhoods feel safer and are safer" because of it."

Huh. Sarcasto told me otherwise.

[Frank Drackman]

I loved her on Sha Na Na

[LexAquilia]

The White Democrat mayor of Minneapolis just said not to pray for this children who were mass murdered by a tranny.

The same guy who at one of the dozens of George Floyd funerals in that gold casket, got on his knees and prayed to the criminal and rapist Floyd.

Democrats are vile sick monsters. Sick sick sick.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't get it, it was Minn-A-Sode-a! They have Tampons in the Boy's Bathrooms, they have a Mosque at MSP, they retired Floyd George's Wife Beater at Target Center, the Vikings have Transvestite Cheerleaders!
OK, now I do get it.
"Target" Center, "Target" Field, maybe retire that name if you're into totally Stupid and Futile Gestures (HT E. Stratton)

Frank

[LexAquilia]

WOW

Transgenders are a ticking bomb.
- The Nashville school shooter: trans
- The Aberdeen school shooter: trans
- Then Denver school shooter: trans
- Iowa school shooter: trans
- Lakewood shooter: trans

https://x.com/ValentinaForUSA/status/1960765412829810688

Something must be done about these deranged trannies.

[hobie]

Comments from the MAGA on that MAGA X link you posted:

"Is your mouth so wide bc you insert so much Jewish cock in it everyday?"
"Colombian whre kissing ass for jewish money"
"Payed for by blackrock, I mean the jews"
"Transgender comes from the jewish Talmud.. This guy was jewish"

Ahh, MAGA. Pro-semitic since 2025.

[Frank Drackman]

and yet they're not as Anti-Semitic as the other side, it's like how we supported the Roosh-uns in WW2, or how (the) Blacks still support the party that supports exterminating millions of their unborn.

[Sarcastr0]

*CDC Director Susan Monarez Out At Agency
*CDC Head of Zoonotic Division Resigns
*CDC Medical Officer Resigns
*Head Of CDC’s Vaccine Unit Resigns

This seems to spell something seismic, political, and stupid.

[hobie]

Like Cambodia, it signals we are purging the universities and intellectuals. China has now surpassed us in EV, manufacturing, space, mRNA and quantum. Although I'm happy to see China contribute for a change rather than stealing, it is nonetheless sad to see our own decline. But, hey, own the libs

[Frank Drackman]

You left out their production of Biological Weapons killing millions of peoples, when's the last time any Amurican Biological Weapons killed that many??

[Commenter_XY]

Seismic....LMFAO. More vibes, I take it?

[Sarcastr0]

Do you really want me to explain why this is important?

No. You're just a shitposter these days. What a waste.

[John F. Carr]

Anthropic has reached an agreement in principle with a class of authors over use of pirated books to train AI. That's all we know. Details will be submitted to the court for approval next week.

The judge had earlier ruled that AI training does not require an additional license. But the AI companies can't get enough training material by legal means.

[Don Nico]

"AI training does not require an additional license."
That makes good sense. Training a neural net is not plagiarism, nor is it copyright or trademark violation.
On what basis would any of the claims by publishers be upheld?

[David Nieporent]

Anthropic was using pirated works in its training. It's one thing to say — and I believe correct — that it is fair use to take a book you own and have your algorithm study it. It's another to steal the book first.

[Martinned]

It is never a good sign if people get fired for telling the boss things they don't want to hear.

Trump, Gabbard fired top CIA Russia expert days after Alaska summit

Pentagon fires intelligence agency chief after Iran attack assessment

[Martinned]

See also: White House Says New C.D.C. Director Is Fired, but She Refuses to Leave

[Frank Drackman]

They keep using the "Costanza Gambit" it never works, I tried it myself when I was 17.

[ThePublius]

That's a distorted characterization of the reasons for these firings. Each has a perfectly reasonable justification. But you just use it to smear the administration.

In the first, "...targeting national security professionals whom they deem to have engaged in “politicization or weaponization of intelligence to advance personal, partisan, or non-objective agendas,....”

Second: in the wake of a leaked DIA report on the Iran attack.

Third: "At 9:30 p.m., a spokesman for President Trump, Kush Desai, said in an email that Dr. Monarez was “not aligned with the President’s agenda of Making America Healthy Again,” and so “the White House has terminated Monarez from her position with the C.D.C.”"

Do your job, don't leak, and get on board with administration policy, or get fired. I'm all in on that.

[Frank Drackman]

Correct-a-mundo! (HT A. Fonzarelli) "At the Pleasure of the President" means what it says.

[Sarcastr0]

You're quoting meaningless drivel, though. No sign of what they're specifically doing that's an issue.

Just purges upon purges.

It is weird that the President didn't do the firing, and they didn't even drop his name; just "The White House."

I expect that'll be fixed soon, but as many have noted there's stuff going on here that if it went on under the Biden admin would have you and your ilk apoplectic with conspiracy theories.

[Don Nico]

Maybe not a good sign in some instances, but exceedingly common.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thursday edition of Wednesday open thread bonus question:
Where in the world is Killmore Gracia?

[Magister]

Is that the name of the monster under your bed?

[Mr. Bumble]

Given the convoluted path his deportation has taken, I thought it was a fair question.
Followup question:
Who is paying his legal bills?

[David Nieporent]

Who is paying whose legal bills?

[Mr. Bumble]

Garcia's.
On a similar note, do you thin Lisa Cook is paying Abbe Lowell?

[ThePublius]

Once again, Sarcastr0 can read not only the future but the past. Don't tell me how I would react if Biden fired people. You have no idea. In fact, I think he should have done more firing than he did.

Firing people who are not on board with administration policy, who are actively pursuing alternate, often selfish agendas, and who leak reports to the media is not only acceptable, it's appropriate. What don't you get about that?

[Sarcastr0]

I was pointing out that if Biden DIDN'T fire people, but rather his 'white house' said people were fired, and he was silent. As happened here.
You've not exactly been a closed book on Biden.

[Sarcastr0]

You leaned into: "No sign of what they're specifically doing that's an issue."
How undirected you are with 'not on board with administration policy.' You have no idea why they were fired, and it shows.

But you know it's good!

Slavish, unthinking devotion saves on thinking, I suppose.

[Don Nico]

More, TDS nonsense.
If one is a political appointee and if the person is not in-line with administration policies, then firing is common. And the for-cause reason is appropriate.

But what could one expect from a slavish partisan who is too timid to state his partisanship proudly (Take after ng on that matter)

[Martinned]

That begs the question though: Who is and isn't "a political appointee". One of the central planks of Project 2025 was to make absolutely everyone a political appointee, which is a surefire way to get absolutely terrible policy making.

[Don Nico]

Forget P 2025.
The person is or is not covered by civil service rules that define firing for cause.

[apedad]

Melania Trump calls for ‘pre-emptive intervention’ after two children killed in Minneapolis mass shooting

In a post on X, the First Lady condemned the “tragic” mass killing and touted the need for “behavioral threat assessments” to identify what she called “warning signs” of would-be killers.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/melania-trump-minneapolis-mass-shooting-b2815602.html

OOOOF!

The 2A / NRA guys aren't going to like that.

[Mr. Bumble]

When will you be surrendering your weapons?

[apedad]

I'm a retired federal agent and went through the full background investigation (much more involved than a regular security clearance investigation) so - at one point - I was sane enough for the feds.

Had a polygraph test too.

Additionally, "(t)he Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the 'qualified law enforcement officer' and the 'qualified retired or separated law enforcement officer'—to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions."

[Mr. Bumble]

So you're "special"?

[Frank Drackman]

They let a Retard be a Federal Agent?? (I'm imagining I'm listening to you say you're "Retired", like that guy on Borat, it often does come out as
"Oh, Ahm, Ree-Tarred!!"
and with apologies to Sasha Baron-Cohen
You seem to have done really well despite your disability!
I had to take a Polygraph once, not to get to fly in FA-18's (or even Pilot a T34-C myself), but in High Screw-el, I was working at a Western Sizzlin "Dish Sanitation Technician" Steakhouse and somebody walked off with several Cartons of Prime Ribeyes,
They didn't make us take the Polygraph, but if you didn't, you got fired, and I needed the $3.10/hr (and the free Prime Ribeyes)

Frank

[Martinned]

Had a polygraph test too.

Oooh! Did they also read your horoscope?

[Don Nico]

C'mon. Grow up.

[David Nieporent]

I am a bit mystified as to what constitutional authority Congress could possibly have to allow non-active-federal-LEOs to carry concealed weapons "regardless of state or local laws."

[A Japanese Student]

LEOSA is a Commerce Clause legislation. Like section 230, it grants immunity to a person engaging in certain kinds of commerce - here, possessing a firearm that has moved in commerce. (LEOSA therefore does not apply to self-made weapons - which §926C makes clear: only a "firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce".)

[ThePublius]

I take it she's referring to mental illness, not firearms possession. We have to collectively admit that gender dysphoria is a mental illness, and treat it, ot with so-called gender affirming care, but with psychological treatment.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

“To prevent future tragedies, it is crucial we look into behavioral threat assessments across all levels of society — beginning in our homes, extending through school districts and of course, social media platforms,” the first lady added. “Being aware of these warning signs and acting quickly can save lives and make American communities safer.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5474742-melania-trump-minneapolis-school-shooting/

As to the 2A, a primary question would be how such a thing would be applied. For instance, if it was just a privately applied matter, it would not generally raise 2A questions.

OTOH, if it was a factor in "red flag laws," it might be.

I suppose the shooting touches upon her primary cause:

In her role as First Lady from 2017 to 2021, Mrs. Trump focused on the many issues affecting children across the Nation. This passion led to the establishment of BE BEST in 2018; Mrs. Trump’s awareness campaign focused on the well-being of children and highlighted the people and programs dedicated to ensuring a better future for the next generation.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/melania-trump/

[tylertusta]

Former Congressman Randall "Duke" Cunningham, Vietnam War ace, has passed away. Besides being a Vietnam war hero, he served in Congress until he was caught in a bribery scheme. He resigned from Congress and plead guilty, serving several years in federal prison. He was issued a conditional pardon by Trump at the end of the first Trump term.

During the war "Duke" shot down five Vietnamese fighters with missiles, which was a real feat given the poor performance of air-to-air missiles resulting from poor training in how to employ and maintain the weapons.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/legendary-fighter-pilot-and-first-us-ace-of-the-vietnam-war-randy-duke-cunningham-passed-away/

[Frank Drackman]

Met him at the Pensacola O-Club 1997, retired, in Congress, good guy, not your typical Alpha-Male Fighter Pilot(or Prick Congressman), he had been the CO of the Adversary Squadron at Top Gun, ("Jester" in the movie Top Gun, the guy Maverick shoots down below the Hard Deck) Too bad about the whole Bribe thing, shows our Heros can be Human, and watta ya know.....
"Cunningham co-sponsored, along with Democrat John Murtha, the so-called "Flag Desecration Amendment", which would add the following sentence to the Constitution of the United States:
"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the Flag of the United States."

We need a 28th Amendment, let State Conventions decide it, call it the "Duke Cunningham Amendment"

Frank

[M L]

As Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were readying to take custody of Abrego Garcia on Monday, the far-left group CASA held a rally in support of the accused human smuggler — who has also been accused of MS-13 gang membership, domestic violence, and abuse of women.

CASA’s Lydia Walther-Rodriguez translated at the rally for Abrego Garcia, who said he is a victim of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation efforts.

As Breitbart News has long reported, Soros’s Open Society Foundations have thrown millions at CASA to advocate for mass immigration over the years. In 2023, the Open Society Foundations awarded CASA a $250,000 grant and CASA in Action, the group’s political action committee (PAC), with $1.6 million.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/08/27/trump-calls-for-george-soros-son-alex-face-rico-charges-wont-allow-these-lunatics-rip-apart-america/

[SRG2]

"Accused of" - by whom and on what evidence?

[Brett Bellmore]

Grand Jury indictment for human smuggling