Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind? (Other than the thread was late, sorry about that.)

I'll also be experimenting with a Sunday Open Thread this weekend.

Comments

[Don Nico]

Fabrications concerning starvation in Gaza must be considered the Great Disinformation. The complicity of the UN is shameful.

[Joe_dallas]

Good observation - though not surprising the number of anti-semites parroting the talking point.

[Supremacy Claus]

Law in Failure: War, the Most Catastrophic Failure of the Lawyer Profession, the Biggest Lesson of the Holocaust

This self-evident lesson is never stated by our elite. This lawyer failure is in the service of the lawyer employer, the elites. This failure causes the deaths of millions of people, and $trillions in the destruction of infrastructure. This failure permits wars and democides with impunity for a small group of people. They usual greatly profit from war and from democide. Laws and rules prohibit the targeting of civilians in war. Exceptions must be added to these catastrophic rules. When people do not recognize the humanity of a group, scapegoat them falsely, and declare an intent to get rid of them, preemptive self defense is morally justified and mandatory. Naturally, the result of these orders is the mass slaughter of working class people of both sides. None has any beef with the other side, and most just want to go home.

This doctrine coincidentally generates income for the manufacturers of war products and services. A small elite protects the elites of the enemy, and makes $billions. Millions of military personnel are employed in government make work jobs. Could the Jews of Nazi Germany have taken on the Wehrmacht (German military) to defend themselves? Obviously, no. They did not have to. They could have tried to decapitate the Nazi hierarchy, instead. The civilian Nazi hierarchy was a softer and more accessible target. Obviously, the earlier this defense is started, the more likely it is to succeed. Today's technology provides better tools for locating them, and for dispatching them cheaply. No one is learning this biggest lesson of the Holocaust.

A few Nazi officials were hanged at the Nuremberg trials. The families that funded the election of the Nazis remained untouchable. For their $5000 Nazi election campaign donations, they made $millions from Nazi plunder, contracts, and slave labor. They escaped any accountability after the war. They were recruited by the Allies after the war to rebuild the economy of Germany. These elites made even more $millions under the Allies than under the Nazis. Several of these Nazi families were in the US, and could have been quite easily reached.

Here's an expanded list of financial contributors to Hitler's rise to power: Industrialists: 1. Alfried Krupp (Krupp AG) 2. Friedrich Flick (Flick Group) 3. Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach (Krupp AG) 4. Fritz Thyssen (Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG) 5. Emil Kirdorf (Gelsenkirchener Bergwerks-AG) 6. Hugo Stinnes (Stinnes AG) 7. Ernst von Borsig (Borsig AG) 8. Walther Funk (IG Farben) 9. Carl Bosch (IG Farben) 10. Georg von Schnitzler (IG Farben) Bankers: 1. Hjalmar Schacht (Reichsbankpräsident) 2. Emil Johann Wittenberg (Deutsche Bank) 3. Oswald Rösler (Dresdner Bank) 4. Karl Rasche (Dresdner Bank) 5. Hermann Abs (Deutsche Bank) Landowners: 1. Prince Franz von Hohenzollern (Hohenzollern family) 2. Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Ernest III, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld) 3. Prince von Maltzan (Maltzan family) 4. Count von Galen (Galen family) 5. Baron von Thyssen-Bornemisza (Thyssen-Bornemisza family) American Families with Ties to Nazi Germany: (Note: Some American families had business or personal connections with Nazi Germany, but not all supported Hitler's ideology.) 1. Ford Family (Henry Ford): Ford Motor Company had business ties with Nazi Germany. 2. DuPont Family (Éleuthère Paul du Pont): DuPont had business connections with IG Farben. 3. Rockefeller Family (John D. Rockefeller Jr.): Standard Oil had business ties with Nazi Germany. 4. Harriman Family (Averell Harriman): Union Banking Corporation had ties to Nazi Germany. 5. Bush Family (Prescott Bush): Union Banking Corporation had ties to Nazi Germany.

These are the people who propel wars and democides. From a utilitarian viewpoint, they should be the very first casualties of war and of planned democides. Give them notice. Attack the families. Then eradicate the persons. The hierarchy consists of the entire families, targeted for kidnapping and for assassination: Political leaders
Financiers
Top propagandists
Intellectuals providing justification for the democide
Religious leaders
Organizers and executive officials

Instead of being hanged, this elite was recruited by the Allies to rebuild the German economy and became even wealthier than under the Nazis government contract and plunder.

After World War II, the Allies, particularly the United States, recruited several prominent German families and individuals to help rebuild the German economy. Some of these families had previously supported the Nazi regime, while others had maintained neutral or even anti-Nazi stances.

Families Recruited by the Allies:

1. Krupp Family: Alfried Krupp, son of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, was recruited to rebuild the family's industrial empire.
2. Thyssen Family: Fritz Thyssen's son, Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, was involved in post-war German politics and business.
3. Flick Family: Friedrich Flick's son, Rudolf Flick, continued the family's business interests.
4. Borsig Family: Ernst von Borsig's son, Ernst Jr., helped rebuild the family's engineering company.
5. Deutsche Bank's Hermann Abs: Abs, a prominent banker, became a key figure in post-war German finance.
6. Hamburg-America Line's Ballin Family: The Ballin family, owners of the Hamburg-American Line shipping company, were recruited to rebuild Germany's maritime industry.
7. Siemens Family: The Siemens family, owners of the electronics company, continued to play a significant role in the post-war German industry.

Individuals Recruited by the Allies:

1. Ludwig Erhard: Economist and future German Chancellor, Erhard was instrumental in shaping Germany's post-war economic policy.
2. Konrad Adenauer: The first Chancellor of West Germany, Adenauer was a key figure in rebuilding the country.
3. Otto Wolff von Amerongen: A German industrialist and politician, Wolff von Amerongen helped rebuild Germany's economy.
4. Karl Blessing: A German economist and politician, Blessing served as Minister of Economics in the 1950s.

American Organizations Involved in Recruitment:

1. Office of Strategic Services (OSS): Precursor to the CIA, OSS recruited German experts for post-war reconstruction.
2. U.S. Military Government: The U.S. military government in Germany played a significant role in recruiting and working with German families and individuals.
3. European Recovery Program (ERP): Also known as the Marshall Plan, ERP provided economic assistance to war-torn Europe.

Their families should be the first targets. That allows the hierarchy to change its decisions. The same is justified by utilitarianism for all military conflict. It is an alternative to industrial grade slaughter of military people who come from the class of working people. The selection of the targets should follow a validated investigation, and evidence meeting standards of criminal prosecution. These rules prohibiting such targeting.

These rules must be modified with the above exceptions.
1. Geneva Conventions (1949) and Additional Protocols (1977 and 2005): Specifically, Protocol I, Article 51(2) and Protocol II, Article 13(2) prohibit attacks on civilians and civilian objects.
2. Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907): Article 25 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV prohibits attacks on undefended towns, villages, and buildings.
3. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002): Article 8(2)(b)(i) and (iv) criminalize intentionally directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects.
4. United Nations Charter (1945): Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, which implies protection for civilians.
5. Customary International Humanitarian Law (CIHL): Rule 1 prohibits the targeting of civilians, and Rule 7 prohibits attacks on civilian objects. 6. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Guidelines: The ICRC's Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law (2009) emphasizes the protection of civilians.

The United States has its own regulations.
1. War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441): Makes it a federal offense to commit war crimes, including intentionally targeting civilians.
2. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 118: Prohibits murder, including the killing of civilians.
3. UCMJ Article 119: Prohibits manslaughter, including the killing of civilians.
4. UCMJ Article 137: Prohibits conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, including targeting civilians.
5. Geneva Conventions Act (18 U.S.C. § 2241): Implements the Geneva Conventions in US law, prohibiting attacks on civilians.
6. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (implemented through Executive Order 12633): Prohibits attacks on civilians.
7. US Department of Defense Law of War Manual (2015): Emphasizes the protection of civilians and prohibits attacks on them. 8. US Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare (1956): Prohibits attacks on civilians.

Basically, in the US, only an executive order stands between ending catastrophic wars by targeting civilian leaders. Ford Executive Order 11905, issued on February 18, 1976, by President Gerald R. Ford. This executive order prohibited the targeting of foreign leaders, including civilians, for assassination. Specifically, Section 5(g) of the order states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination." Ford's executive order was later reinforced by Executive Order 12036, issued by President Jimmy Carter on January 24, 1978, which reiterated the ban on assassinations. Subsequent executive orders, including Executive Order 12333, issued by President Ronald Reagan on December 4, 1981, have continued to prohibit the targeting of foreign leaders, including civilians, for assassination. A future president can modify these orders, by including the exception of self defense.

The argument against this military doctrine is that they can do it to us. The reply is, yea, so. Let war starters and democide promoters live like hunted prey. They are doing it for profit. Let the risk of being the first target of war be included in their gambling with the lives and money of our own citizens. ChatGPT opposes this military target. Of course, AI is biased in favor of the financiers that would profit from war and from democide. It cites the example of Gaddafi and of Saddam Hussein. Both were targeted by foreign invaders. The result of their eliminations were unclear about any advantage to the invaders. The problem with the naive Chat GPT example is that they were targeted after the wars were over, not before they started. It failed to cite the time Reagan killed Qaddafis' bay, and ended all his plane hijackings.

[Supremacy Claus]

Someone accused me of this crime. He had banned me. I was in another state at the time. I did not even want to debate the schmuck. He talked in incomprehensible Yale deconstruction gibberish. He was an educated idiot speaking that shit talk. I was in the back of the room at his lecture. The other law profs were rolling their eyes at his extreme pedantry. I do not want any lawyer killed. I want them shunned by all product and service providers and cancelled. Replace them with algorithms that are effective. The 30000 members of the hierarchy get arrested for their attack on our nation and for their insurrection against the constitution. They are active, toxic traitors. Hard labor, gen pop. for 10 years. To deter.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/professor-s-wife-called-him-an-std-before-his-execution-style-killing-but-denies-she-was-involved-in-plot/ar-AA1Lv4Zq?uxmode=ruby&ocid=edgntpruby&pc=HCTS&cvid=68b2024cfdb24529b06f57016067abad&ei=14

[Martinned2]

Yes, so many antisemites.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-06-26/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/100-000-dead-what-we-know-about-gazas-true-death-toll/00000197-ad6b-d6b3-abf7-edfbb1e20000

https://english.tau.ac.il/presidents-letter-on-famine-in-gaza

[myself]

So that's how you're justifying it to yourself?

[Don Nico]

Is that how you justify lies? Why does the UN refuse to cooperate with the GHF for the distribution of many tonnes of food baking in the sun? Why does the world press publish deliberate misinformation without even a modicum of checking the source material?

[Bored Lawyer]

It has happened repeatedlyt that some poor emaciated child is found in Gaza, whose picture is splashed on the front page of every world newspaper to "prove" there is starvation in Gaza.

Then, it comes out that the child has some genetic disease that causes that appearance. And, in one case, the child's relatives standing nearby appeared well-fed, but were cropped out of the picture.

This is at least journalistic malpractice. In many cases, it's out-and-out lying. And done with no shame.

[Michael P]

Has that happened repeatedly? I remember heavily publicized pictures of two allegedly starved children, but one was in Italy at the time, getting treatment (facialitated by Israel) for his cystic fibrosis or whatever it was. Only one of those two children was found in Gaza.

[Bored Lawyer]

Fair enough. The lie was even worse in one case. The child was in Italy in a hospital.

[Don Nico]

That is exactly what we see nearly every day.

[Commenter_XY]

None of this This is at least journalistic malpractice. In many cases, it's out-and-out lying. And done with no shame. is accidental, Bored Lawyer; it is incidental to their beliefs. Where do you think this leads? It is not a good outcome.

The best possible outcome I see at this time: cities will not be safe for Jews in America, for a few years. Consequently, I now avoid meetings (or theater) in cities, and opt for surrounding towns; Teams is best.

[Sarcastr0]

Jews are quite safe in cities. My Jewish coworkers are going out and loving normal fear-free lives in the DC metro area.

If you feel too unsafe to go out you are unwell and should talk to someone.

[Frank Drackman]

Only ones starving are the Hostages.

[Martinned2]

I wonder, are you going to use all the "arguments" that Holocaust deniers have used for decades, or do you actually have a red line somewhere that even you won't cross?

As far as I can tell people on this blog frequently use all five of these "tropes", for example. (Although I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between 3 and 4.) https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/key-holocaust-denial-tropes

[Don Nico]

Martin,
Your protest is merely a weak justification for the use of human shields in war and in diplomacy by kidnapping outside of combat.
There is no "holocaust denial" going on concerning Gaza save the convenient forgetting by you and other of the genocidal doctrine of Hamas, the Ayatollah regime and the Muslim Brotherhood.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, do you think it never makes sense to put abiding evil on a back burner to clear the way to alleviate acute evil now? Or do you think so long as abiding evil exists, acute evil must be overlooked?

[Don Nico]

Why do you think that actions of Israel in the war in Gaza constitutes acute evil? I don't. What I see as acute evil is an ideology that wishes to drive every Jew out of the middle east and central asia and has perpetrated ethnic cleansing throughout that region.
I see the continuing use of human shields and hostages as an acute evil. Hamas persists in both.

Having said that I agree that the general population in Gaza does face a humanitarian crisis with respect to housing and routine medical care. I support efforts to mitigate their suffering. While I don't necessarily consider adult civilians to be "innocents," they re human and deserve our comparsion

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nothing in Martin's comment could be reasonably construed by a native speaker of English as a "justification for the use of human shields in war and in diplomacy by kidnapping outside of combat."

He merely asked (albeit rhetorically) why "Israel supporters" continue to use the traditional argumentation of Holocaust deniers, and whether there is a line they will not cross.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Perhaps Israel's prohibition on international media in Gaza might be enabling the very thing it is supposedly supposed to prevent?

[Bunny495]

https://www.aol.com/news/justice-gorsuch-fed-lower-courts-145908383.html

Interesting

[ThePublius]

Good! The lower courts must be held to heel.

[Sarcastr0]

When you type something that sounds like some badly written villain speech, how does that not give you pause?

"Fear will keep the local systems in line."
"Just stay in line and do as you're told"
"Them that don't listen have to be brought to heel someday."

[Mr. Bumble]

Douche!

[Riva]

How does it not concern you, little communist girl that never smiled, that lower courts are openly defying the Supreme Court? As noted by Justice Gorsuch:

If the district court’s failure to abide by California were a one-off, perhaps it would not be worth writing to address it. But two months ago another district court tried to “compel compliance” with a different “order that this Court ha[d] stayed.” Department of Homeland Security v. D. V. D., 606 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (KAGAN, J., concurring) (slip op., at 1). Still another district court recently diverged from one of this Court’s decisions even though the case at hand did not differ “in any pertinent respect” from the one this Court had decided. Boyle, 606 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1). So this is now the third time in a matter of weeks this Court has had to intercede in a case “squarely controlled” by one of its precedents. Ibid. All these interventions should have been unnecessary, but together they under score a basic tenet of our judicial system: Whatever their own views, judges are duty-bound to respect "the hierarchy of the federal court system created by the Constitution and Congress." Hutto, 454 U. S., at 375.

[ThePublius]

Don't put quotes around things people haven't said or written.

[Bwaaah]

Would anybody think he'd use them to delineate what people said?

Progressive language sublimation is not limited to terminology. It includes punctuation. While everybody knows by convention that quotes are to delineate things people actually said (and hopefully with accurate context), progressives commingle the use of quotes for completely different purposes, with completely different implications, without indicating that change in usage to their audience. By adding that ambiguity, they destroy the usefulness, the specificity, of language itself. And that's fine to them. (Destroying the clarity of language is fine to Sarcastr0.) Like, who cares what quotes are for?

They pretend they're saying things, when they're really *not* saying things.

In this case, Sarc uses quotes to delineate his straw men ... fabricated statements that he *wishes* you said. He doesn't actually disagree with much of what you say, but needs to never be identified as being like you. So he fabricates a "wrong you" through quoted implications and calls that a counter-argument.

It's just drivel.

[John 4]

Imagine being so stupid that you don’t understand analogies, to the extent you post a multi-paragraph rant that completely misunderstands the point.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Lol.

[Frank Drackman]

"Fuck You"

[Bwaaah]

Was that compliance or defiance?

[Magister]

The first was said by Grand Moff Tarkin in Star Wars and lots of people would recognize it; adding "Fear of this battle station" probably would make it even more recognizable. An interent search shows the last was said by Jeremiah Otto in Fear the Walking Dead; I didn't place the second exactly but all sound like things authoritarian villains say and decent analogues to "Good! The lower courts must be held to heel."

[Poxigah146]

The ordered shutdown of Alligator Alcatraz is a good example. WE all know full well the environmental arguments are bullshit. No one cares. It's a leftist group trying to intervene in something they don't like.

[Doug Heffernan]

That is interesting! (that aol still exists in some form)

[Life of Brian]

Heck, until next month, AOL dial-up still exists in some form.

[Doug Heffernan]

Those are special memories...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dudJjUU9Nhs

[ThePublius]

Better late than never.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is an article by Jack Marshall.

https://uk.legal.narkive.com/AdGkpN3j/finishing-wars-in-a-world-of-weenies#post14

Finishing Wars in a World of Weenies
August 28, 2025 / Jack Marshall

I don’t know when the United States began its disastrous slide toward
weenie-ism, but it’s just got to stop. Unfortunately there are so many
cultural pathogens running amuck that the Trump Presidency has to try to
solve—multiculturalism, transmania, gun-phobia, censorship, the death of
journalism, the corruption of the professions, “the good illegal
immigrant,” DEI, and on, and on—getting around to the weenie epidemic
will be a long shot at best. But I can dream…

The latest example of the Weenies making trouble is the Israel-Gaza war.
Israel’s situation could not be clearer: it has to eliminate Hamas once
and for all, or else resign itself to more attacks on citizens in
perpetuity. To eliminate Hamas, Israel will have to kill some citizens,
destroy some buildings, harm children. Hamas wants to make them do that.
But the responsibility for the war lies with Hamas, as does the
responsibility for ending it. Hamas can surrender.

Ah, but the Weenies are out in force, condemning Israel for doing what
nations that are attacked have to do: strike back decisively, and make
certain that the aggressors are never in a position to attack again. The
United States understood this in World War II, but a confluence of
factors that I have neither the time nor patience to expound on
now—though a major one is the ascendancy of women in politics, punditry
and the professions—has blurred the clarity of that principle, resulting
in such fiascos as the Vietnam War, the first Iraq war, the second Iraq
War, and Biden’s Afghanistan debacle.

Arguably, the situation facing Israel is even clearer than any of those,
but even in Israel itself, weenie-ism is rotting the moral and ethical
core of society. That is another nation, like the U.S., which one would
think would have the guts, determination, and courage to do the right
thing even when, as the poet said, all about them are losing their heads
and blaming it on Israel, and can trust itself when everyone doubts them.

I hope Israel does, but the Weenies are powerful in their weakness, and
people will die if they gain the upper hand.

[Sarcastr0]

At a certain age, certain men do develop masculinity issues.

[Z Crazy]

Someone tell me how what Israel is doing is worse than what the Allies did in World War II?

[jb]

After we took over Germany and killed Hitler, we didn't keep killing all the civilians.

HTH

[LexAquilia]

Led, of course, by angry Jews seeking revenge.

[CountmontyC]

Is Hamas still fighting? Until Hamas surrenders Israel has the same right to defend itself as any other country does.

[Joe_dallas]

hamas is still active in gaza - while partially incapacitated, they remain active.

[jb]

Here's Ehud Olmert's take on the topic:

After 20 months of fighting, after eliminating almost all of their leadership — Yahya Sinwar, Muhammad Deif, Muhammad Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh — and all the commanders — high-level and medium-level and low-level commanders — all were eliminated. The launchers were destroyed. The rockets were destroyed. The command positions were destroyed.

So to say that Gaza now poses a security for the existence of the state of Israel is nonsense. The only possible interpretation is the one you offer: They want to get rid of all the Gazans.

[Swede425]

Has whoever is left to run Hamas said "You win. We quit. Here's the rest of your hostages back"?
No?
Then Hamas isn't done being killed.
Some people may not like that.
Those people should rightly be ignored.

[myself]

Has Israel offered that? The last I heard is Israel offering a cease-fire in exchange for the remaining hostages, not a peace deal, a cease-fire.

And given that Israel broke the last cease-fire I can't imagine why Hamas would take that deal.

[mulched]

Israel has offered to take all their hostages back as part of a total Hamas surrender.

[myself]

And here is a Israeli cabinet minister:

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."

[Swede425]

Hamas has decided that they'd rather be dead.
And Israel has decided to accommodate them.
Seems like both sides are getting what they want.

[myself]

Lotta folks here seem real comfortable with genocide.

[Don Nico]

You mean that YOU are satisfied with the genocidal ideology of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Theirs is the only genocide that has gone on in the region.

[damikesc]

Losing a war you initiated and refuse to stop is not genocide.

[myself]

You missed that the Israeli minister is:
a) Talking about the West Bank
b) Talking about an explicit plan of ethnic cleansing / apartheid years BEFORE the Oct 7th attacks.
c) Using the "river to the sea" terminology that you always claim as proof of genocidal intent whenever Palestinians use it.

Of course, when you're a genocidal racist I guess those details don't matter. Every Palestinian is "Hamas" and a valid target for extermination.

[Joe_dallas]

myself 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Lotta folks here seem real comfortable with genocide."

yes - that is Quite true of the anti - semites posting here

[jb]

Ugh, I have no idea what Reason did to the formatting on the post above. Let's try again:
---
Here's Ehud Olmert's take on the topic:

After 20 months of fighting, after eliminating almost all of their leadership — Yahya Sinwar, Muhammad Deif, Muhammad Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh — and all the commanders — high-level and medium-level and low-level commanders — all were eliminated. The launchers were destroyed. The rockets were destroyed. The command positions were destroyed.

So to say that Gaza now poses a security for the existence of the state of Israel is nonsense. The only possible interpretation is the one you offer: They want to get rid of all the Gazans.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ex-con Olmert is still mad Bibi ended his career.

[Don Nico]

Olmert is a failed politician who actually thought that the PA/PLO were willing to live in peace with a Jewish state.

[ThePublius]

"After we took over Germany and killed Hitler, we didn't keep killing all the civilians."

Uh, we didn't "take over Germany" and kill Hitler, he committed suicide. But I guess historical accuracy doesn't matter to you.

Russia took control of large parts of Germany.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Do you think you might have missed his point?

(Hint: it was about the "killing all the civilians" part.)

[ThePublius]

No, I didn't miss the point. I was responding to the comment that we killed Hitler. That is untrue, As far as "killing all the civilians," there is no analogue that I know of, of Hitler to anyone in control of Hamas. Hamas hasn't been killed off, and the IDF is NOT trying to kill all the Gazan civilians. That is just a lie.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not "trying", of course!

It's just a coincidence.

[ThePublius]

You're parroting a fiction. If Israel was trying to kill off the civilians, they would be done by now. And they wouldn't be feeding them, either.

You're apparently brainwashed by the left/lib Israel hate.

What's your view of Hamas and Palestinian hatred of and violence against Israelis?

[Bored Lawyer]

So when Israel takes Gaza and kills all the Hamas, it will stop killing civilians.

[ducksalad]

They'll lower the rate at which they kill civilians to something like the rate at which they kill civilians in the West Bank, something on order of several hundred per year.

That's a level carefully engineered so that western governments can ignore it, but sufficient to prevent any level of trust from ever developing, and to provoke reactions that Israel supporters can advertise without mentioning the provocation.

[Bwaaah]

Ahh, yes...that steady, under-the-radar Kill Rate those Israelis have "carefully engineered" to sustain conflict rather than try to wind it down?

GMAFB.

Is it necessary to construe willful malice in peoples? Are you that cynical? That hurt?

[ducksalad]

Sorry, FB request denied.

And I neither said nor meant malice. Nor is it ethnic hatred. It's a political calculation of what is needed to avoid a one state solution (unacceptable electorate), two state solution (unacceptable loss of desired real estate), or genocide (unacceptable loss of international standing, and perhaps even some moral qualms).

[Don Nico]

The killing in Judea and Samaria is the pay-to-slay killing done by Palestinian Arabs and financed by the PA.

[ducksalad]

My estimate of several hundred excludes Arab on Arab violence, and comes from reading Israeli newspapers.

Don't make things up.

[GKHoff]

I hope Israeli newspapers are more reliable than American newspapers. But I doubt it.

[ducksalad]

That's fair.

[Don Nico]

You should examine the data cases behind your statistics.. Many cases of "settler violence" self-defence against active attacks by would be terrorists covered by the PA pay-to-slay program. Why do you deny this commitment to terrorism by the PA?
Don't make this up and don't white wash the facts.
In cases of unprovoked attacks by Jews on Arabs in Judea and Samaria, these should be treated as common violent crimes by the relevant authorities.

[Joe_dallas]

along with funding from PA and additional funding via Iran - of course that was "irans" money on those pallets obama had dropped off.

[Armchair]

"They'll lower the rate at which they kill civilians to something like the rate at which they kill civilians in the West Bank, something on order of several hundred per year."

What? That's absurd. They actually have statistics on this. From 2014 - 2024, 1,092 Palestinians in the West Bank and Israel have died due to conflict. That's ~110 per year. Not "several hundred per year".

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12193732/

Let's really put those numbers in context. Washington DC has a population significantly smaller than the West Bank. ~700,000 compared to ~4,000,000. Yet, DC has suffered over a hundred homicides every year between 2014 and 2024. (sometimes much higher...like 200). DC has a death rate 5 times higher.

What does that say about your claims?

[ducksalad]

My estimate of several hundred was based on numbers I've seen for the West Bank since 2023. That's a more accurate prediction assuming the current coalition stays in power.

The comparison to DC is very stupid on multiple levels. First, you are using the total homicide rate in DC. The discussion is about people killed by the Israeli army, police, and armed settlers operating with their protection. The correct comparison would be shootings by the DC police.

Second, aren't you with the team claiming DC is so ultraviolent that it's a national emergency requiring extraordinary intervention by the military?

What does that say about your claims?

Your grasping at false comparisons tells me my claims are making you nervous because they're hitting too close to the mark.

[Armchair]

So, you're basing off a single year?

And the comparison to DC's homicide rate is not ridiculous. You're in essence saying Israelis are killing Palestinians like crazy. But you are FAR FAR SAFER as a Palestinian in the West Bank than you are as a normal citizen in Washington DC. And you're with the team that's claiming that DC is super safe.

Those are the facts. Look at Figure 4. Then remember, DC has a homicide rate of 27.3 per 100,000 residents. Double the worst year seen in figure 4.

Really put that into your head. And think about it. DC's murder rate in a "normal" year is double what the worst year in over 10 years has in the West Bank. That doesn't even count "justified self defense" in DC.

[ducksalad]

Also, look at Figure 4 in your paper.

[Kazinski]

The Germans surrendered unconditionally, and didn't keep prisoners or hostages

And of course that was just on the US/UK side, on the Russian side things weren't as rosy:

"The exact number of German women and girls raped by Soviet troops during the war and occupation is uncertain, but historians estimate their numbers are likely in the hundreds of thousands, and possibly as many as two million"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany

[jb]

So Israel is only looks of as bad as Stalin's USSR? Is that the argument we're going with?

[Don Nico]

No, Hamas is as bad as Hitler. Don't put your lies in the mouth's of others

[Kazinski]

What I am saying is war gets messy, and your comparison is inapt.

[jb]

Er.. "Israel is only kind of as bad as Stalin's USSR..."

[Commenter_XY]

The way of religious war in the ME is not the same as secular Western way of war. The terms in the ME region have traditionally been: surrender, or die. If Israel needs to hunt down hamas and kill them, fine. It is Israel's war to fight; let them.

We received a 'refresher' on what these hamas human animals did on 10/7 just today, with the release of footage from 10/7, from Netiv Ha'asara.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/414090

What happens after hamas and anyone sharing their sick ideology are gone, is partly negotiable.

[Frank Drackman]

Israel hasn't taken over Gaza yet

HTH

[ducksalad]

Let's see. Did the Allies, in the 1920s, fund the Nazis with start up cash, for the purpose of undermining the more moderate Weimar government, so we could claim there are no reasonable Germans? No, we didn't. Did Israel fund Hamas back in the early 2000s to undermine the more moderate Palestinian Authority, so they could claim there are no reasonable Arabs? Yes, they did.

And by the way, right now, they are funding alternative armed Arab groups in Gaza, so that after they eliminate Hamas, they can point at those groups and say look the Arabs are doing it again.

As for the future, after the Nazis and military dictatorship in Japan were defeated the Allies rapidly took steps to organize and support democratic governments. The first steps were taken within months and they had full no-asterisk independence, with a military, in less than a decade. Germany had most of the land they'd started with, and Japan essentially all of it. There is no sign that any Israeli government will ever permit a Palestinian state with no asterisks or with anything close to what they had in 1967.

In the parts of Germany that we occupied prior to the final fall in May 1945, we were not AFAIK placing restrictions on food supplies. After May 1945 it was much the opposite.

[Don Nico]

The Arabs have had multiple chances to have a state that live alongside a Jewish state. They rejected the offer each and every time. There is no two state solution.

[Joe_dallas]

The jordains/palestinians have been rejecting the two state solutions since the british mandate circa 1930's.

[ducksalad]

You are absolutely correct there is no two state solution.

You first sentence is correct if one replaces "chances" with "proposals for an offer". But it leaves out some important facts:

(1) the Israelis have also done plenty of rejecting;
(2) the current coalition explicitly rejects it for nationalistic reasons independent of any Arab behavior;
(3) the offers made were not really for a state with no asterisks and full control over its imports and exports;
(4) frequent violations of past and current agreements cast doubt over whether any of the offers would really be honored.

Israel has mostly honored agreements with Egypt and Jordan. But (a) Egypt and Jordan retained their military, (b) the US has their backs, and (c) the land is of less interest to Israelis.

Also noted that you changed the subject from "are Israelis behaving worse than the Allies" to "the Arabs made them do it". Can I take that as a concession on the first subject?

[Don Nico]

"Chances" did indeed finalized offers negotiated under the auspices of a third party to which Israel finally agreed and which the Arab parties ultimately rejected.
All of your excepts are incorrect. In particular, number 3. You really wish to disregard that Palestinianism has always meant and continues to mean no Jews from the river to the sea. There is no Palestinian peace movement that accepts the idea of a Jewish state.
The agreements with Jordan and Egypt, which you try to discount, were to the mutual benefit of both countries and where part of the "land for peace" concept. Note that Egypt did not want Gaza back and Jordan did not want the West Bank returned because of the predominant Muslim Brotherhood presence in the Palestinian Arab population in both places.

[Riva]

If your ageism insult reflected anything other than your own delusions, it would be far more preferable a circumstance than trans radicals creating masculinity issues in children.

[GKHoff]

What is that certain age? I want to know how close I am.

[not guilty]

Michael Ejercito's link led to a 404 error message.

Who the hell is Jack Marshall, and why should anyone care what he has to say?

[Life of Brian]

Michael Ejercito's link led to a 404 error message.

Looks like that site is doing some sort of country-specific filtering. If you're traveling or using a VPN not homed in the US, that could explain it.

[not guilty]

I was sitting in my recliner at home in Middle Tennessee. I have no idea about any VPN location.

I still don't know who the Jack Marshall referenced upthread is, and I accordingly have no idea why anyone should take his bloodlust and misogyny seriously.

[Martinned2]

For me this open thread is an opportunity to find out why it's perfectly normal for the Regime to put the Great Leader's face on huge banners on the side of government departments. But I wonder what their purpose is for prof. Volokh.

[ThePublius]

You might want to rethink that last sentence, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

[gVOR08]

These Open Threads are a fascinating study in psychology, aren't they.

[Mr. Bumble]

Is EV conducting a new Stanford experiment?

[Bwaaah]

Yes, surreptitiously disguised as a geeky [former] 1A law professor who administers a blog that [mostly] permits comments.

That there is Dr. Cyclops.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Eugene Volokh is secretly providing these open threads for a fellow scholar who is using them for a psychological study.

[Mr. Bumble]

So that's why he's considering a Sunday open thread?

[Z Crazy]

I notice that many people complain only about shootings when they happen in schools, as if school is the only place where murders happen, or that people murdered there are somehow more dead.

And I think its cause they don't want to deal with society-wide issues behind the problem of murder. If you focus on schools, then you only need school-specific policies to deal with school murders, like how Eisenhauer sent the 101st airborne to protect Littlerock High from the Klan.

But stopping murder, PERIOD, requires tough questions about crime policy and social policy, not merely questions about school security.

[jb]

The US does have a lot of firearm deaths generally, it's true. It turns that other countries have figured out the solution to both are the same!

In fact, the Trump administration seems to have figured it out too with their massive gun crackdown in DC.

[Z Crazy]

Singapore is a role model for the world. Their criminal justice policy is perfect.

But people just want band-aids like sending troops to schools. Thats why they pretend murders only happen in schools.

[jb]

I think maybe you're onto something: https://www.police.gov.sg/e-Services/Police-Licences/Overview-of-Gun-Explosive-Weapon-Licences/Information-on-Gun-Licence-Matters

[Mr. Bumble]

"The punishment for any person found in unlawful possession of firearms or ammunition ranges in imprisonment of 5 – 20 years, including caning. Those trafficking in firearms may face the death penalty."
Wow, talk about authoritarian.
Fortunately we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights which in part states "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Unfortunately there exists a reading comprehension problem as to the meaning of "shall not be infringed" in the courts and multiple jurisdictions.

[Z Crazy]

I dont care about labels; I just want to save lives!

and we need to adopt the entirely of Singapore's crime policies, not just a few snippets.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure, beside caning, lets bring back hanging, draw and quartering.

[Bunny495]

Death penalty for selling/using drugs as well.

[hobie]

Good idea. Way more white hillbillies doing that than neegroes

[Life of Brian]

In fact, the Trump administration seems to have figured it out too with their massive gun crackdown in DC

What I'm seeing discusses the seizure of 100ish illegally-owned guns, apparently incident to arrests. If gun-related deaths in the area go down significantly in response to that sort of drop in the bucket, I'm not sure that exactly supports your guns-cause-deaths hypothesis.

[jb]

Pirro just had to drop charges against a guy whose guns they took after an illegal search while he was doing the big crime of shopping at Trader Joe's:

https://www.npr.org/2025/08/26/g-s1-85119/crime-washington-dc-judges-arrests

Of the arrests federal agents have been involved with over a third were for firearms charges.

[Life of Brian]

Pirro just had to drop charges against a guy whose guns they took after an illegal search while he was doing the big crime of shopping at Trader Joe's

Yes, it's unfortunate that Team Blue did its reflexive thing and sprang to the full-throated defense of this particular illegal gun possessor (who was not "shopping at Trader Joe's" at all but just dodged into it after a police car drove by where he was walking and he completely normally stared at the car multiple times and started acting very protective of the satchel that just strictly coincidentally turned out to have two guns in it that he as a convicted felon was incapable of legally possessing).

But in any event, I thought your opening thesis was that guns should be taken off the streets, so I'm a bit confused why you're pivoting to the one arrest and seizure to date where that wasn't ultimately allowed to happen.

Of the arrests federal agents have been involved with over a third were for firearms charges.

Your article says in so many words: "The White House said on Thursday that 135 guns had been recovered since Aug. 7." That's in the same range I mentioned, so your point isn't clear.

[jb]

Ooh, he stared at the cop car and moved his bag around and then went inside a store? Maybe soon cops can start searching people if they do suspicious stuff like getting in their car or keeping their wallets in their front pockets instead of back. Or, as Z Crazy suggests above, maybe we just need more of a police state overall.

Your article says in so many words: "The White House said on Thursday that 135 guns had been recovered since Aug. 7." That's in the same range I mentioned, so your point isn't clear.

My point is that the primary activity that the federal agents seem to be undertaking other than trying to find people to deport (regardless of whether or not they pose any danger) is to take away people's guns. You're right they'd probably have to do a lot more of it to really make the city much safer from gun violence, but they seem to have bought into the strategy.

[Life of Brian]

My point is that the primary activity that the federal agents seem to be undertaking other than trying to find people to deport (regardless of whether or not they pose any danger) is to take away people's guns.

135 guns over about 1000 arrests makes for a fairly imaginative definition of "primary activity."

And anyway, what exactly do you propose they do with firearms found in the possession of people they arrest? Toss them in the gutter?

[jb]

135 guns over about 1000 arrests makes for a fairly imaginative definition of "primary activity."

Most of those 1000 arrests are just the DC cops doing their normal thing day to day. They end up with gun charges at less than half the rate as arrests involving federal agents.

And anyway, what exactly do you propose they do with firearms found in the possession of people they arrest? Toss them in the gutter?

I think confiscating them is a good idea; I've never said otherwise. I'm just continuing to emphasize that taking these guns away seems to be one of the primary objectives of the federal crackdown.

[Life of Brian]

They end up with gun charges at less than half the rate as arrests involving federal agents.

DC cops are also doing a lot more generalized and reactive work, so I don't know why it would be surprising at all that their possession-related arrests would be diluted with a bunch of other issues that the generally proactive policing feds aren't dealing with. (Also note that the stats in the article only count the highest-charged crime, so if, for example, the DC cops arrest someone for murder and they're carrying an illegal firearm, that arrest would just be counted as a homicide.)

[Life of Brian]

Wordfence just isn't going to let me make my final point -- no idea what keywords are triggering it. Bottom line is your article is drawing the opposite conclusion to the one you're trying to eke out of the statistics: that the high-test Feds are wasting their time on ticky-tacky stuff like traffic stops and open container/drug busts.

[jay.tee]

I think confiscating them is a good idea; I've never said otherwise. I'm just continuing to emphasize that taking these guns away seems to be one of the primary objectives of the federal crackdown.

Confiscate if the individual is already prohibited or is convicted of an offense that leads to prohibition, sure (and even that criteria should be far more limited). Otherwise the police, local or federal, don’t have a basis to seize and retain someone’s property, much less firearms.

[not guilty]

Guns don't kill people.

But gunshot wounds can and do kill people.

[Life of Brian]

As do stab wounds; as do crushed windpipes; as do fractured skulls; etc. People kill people, using whatever means are at their disposal. Guns are the only example I'm aware of where criminals' unlawful use of them is used to attempt to justify removing them from circulation altogether.

[jb]

Lots of jurisdictions severely restrict other types of dangerous weapons. For example, many countries have strict rules around the ownership and/or use of swords. It's illegal to own strong toxins in the US and other countries. In general, it's more likely that governments will try to strictly regulate things that don't have a primary purpose other than killing.

[Life of Brian]

For example, many countries have strict rules around the ownership and/or use of swords.

I'll read any support you have, but from a quick look I suspect "many" and/or "strict" are doing a good deal of work in that sentence.

In general, it's more likely that governments will try to strictly regulate things that don't have a primary purpose other than killing.

As evidenced by the age-old tug-of-war in this country over gun laws, "strict regulation" is in the eye of the beholder. But we don't need to go down that rabbit hole, because what I said was: "Guns are the only example I'm aware of where criminals' unlawful use of them is used to attempt to justify removing them from circulation altogether."

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

However, very few of those jurisdictions are saddled with a constitution and bill of rights containing a "2d Amendment".

To not be aware of that critical fact is (or at least ought to be) rather embarrassing for you.

[jay.tee]

saddled with a constitution and bill of rights containing a "2d Amendment".

That sounds very authoritarian-y. What other civil rights would you subvert in the name of safety? Do you put scare quotes around 1st Amendment too?

[Magister]

Despite the 2nd amendment, in the United States there have been bans or restrictions on things that kill lots of people (weapons of mass destruction, machine guns) or that are more concealable (switchblades, sawed off shotguns) or occasionally that are not thought to have a non-violent purpose (nunchaku, shuriken). But I comment simply to include a link to this commercial.

[not guilty]

Stab wounds, crushed windpipes and fractured skulls each need to be delivered up close and personal, giving the intended victim an opportunity to fight back. But as Inspector Harry Callaghan said, "A man's got to know his limitations."

Weenies who lack the courage required to confront their victims much prefer popguns. You see, walking around unarmed requires a combination of brains and testicular fortitude that not everyone is blessed with.

[ThePublius]

"Weenies who lack the courage required to confront their victims much prefer popguns. You see, walking around unarmed requires a combination of brains and testicular fortitude that not everyone is blessed with."

If I understand you correctly, that is a despicable comment. That one may be confronted by someone of superior size and strength and younger age and criminal intent is a fact of life. I'm a senior citizen. I'm not going to go toe-to-toe unarmed with a much younger man whose intent is to assault and rob me.

As Sam Colt said "fear no man of any size, for hold me gently in your hand and I shall equalize."

That goes double for women, who are generally smaller and weaker than street thugs.

[not guilty]

As Southern folk wisdom teaches, the hit dog hollers!

[ThePublius]

I confess I don't get that.

[not guilty]

https://linguaholic.com/linguablog/a-hit-dog-will-holler/

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's Southern for "Kafka Trap"

[not guilty]

See what I mean, T.I.P.?

[TwelveInchPianist]

See what I mean? I haven't read upthread, so I don't even know what I'm hollerin' about.

[not guilty]

Thank you for your candor in admitting that you don't have a clue as to what you commented on.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I commented on the phrase "the hit dog hollers."

[not guilty]

"If I understand you correctly, that is a despicable comment. That one may be confronted by someone of superior size and strength and younger age and criminal intent is a fact of life. I'm a senior citizen. I'm not going to go toe-to-toe unarmed with a much younger man whose intent is to assault and rob me."

My comment was directed toward the cowardice of the assailant who shoots from a distance rather than engaging the intended victim up close and personal. Reliance on the popgun there does not evince manliness; it indicates the lack thereof.

Whom are you planning to assault, The Publius?

[jay.tee]

You see, walking around unarmed requires a combination of brains and testicular fortitude that not everyone is blessed with.

Sounds like you’ve lived life in an idyllic, crime-free environment. I wish everyone could be so privileged. For those of us in the real world, including those who are forced to use a firearm in self-defense, that’s not reality. It happens an estimated 500k to 2MM times a year in the US, far outnumbering murders (allegedly 16,924 in 2024).

[not guilty]

"Sounds like you’ve lived life in an idyllic, crime-free environment. I wish everyone could be so privileged. For those of us in the real world, including those who are forced to use a firearm in self-defense, that’s not reality. It happens an estimated 500k to 2MM times a year in the US, far outnumbering murders (allegedly 16,924 in 2024)."

Avoiding unnecessary dangerous situations is part of the brains component. As is treating people decently and avoiding association with criminals.

That having been said, I have been a crime victim before, including car theft and multiple home burglaries. But I am not arrogant enough to presume that I should decide who lives or dies.

[jay.tee]

Avoiding unnecessary dangerous situations is part of the brains component. As is treating people decently and avoiding association with criminals.

Again, I wish everyone was privileged to live in an environment where just this would prevent crime. However, it’s hopelessly naive and victim blame-y.

But I am not arrogant enough to presume that I should decide who lives or dies.

Self-defense by definition only occurs when someone else decides you should die or be otherwise injured. It is not a license to play god or indiscriminately kill, but a last resort to neutralize a threat.

I too have been a victim of crime, though of the random face-to-face variety (10 gang member assailants), so I was forced to act in self-defense due to their decision not my arrogance. It’s immoral to try to remove the ability of people to defend themselves.

[ThePublius]

"In fact, the Trump administration seems to have figured it out too with their massive gun crackdown in DC."

You libs are so duplicitous, so dishonest. Trump, et.al., are enforcing existing gun law in D.C. If he wasn't you'd be complaining about that.

Note: they are not seizing guns from legal gun owners.

[ducksalad]

I believe jb has nothing against legal guns in the same way Steven Miller has nothing against legal immigrants.

Conversely, Ilya Somin is against illegal immigration in the same way you are against illegal guns.

[ThePublius]

"Conversely, Ilya Somin is against illegal immigration in the same way you are against illegal guns."

I don't believe that's so. I believe Somin thinks there's no such thing as an illegal immigrant.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A lower court dissent that didn't get much attention, even from the dissenters in Heller (who supported equal application of the BOR), argued the 2A didn't apply to D.C.

[ "the District of Columbia is not a state within the meaning of the Second Amendment and therefore the Second Amendment's reach does not extend to it."]

[ReaderY]

A lot has been said about Trump being stupid, senile, etc. because of his tendency to mumble, insert seemingly out of context things in the middle of other statements, and repeat lies over and over again. This is not senility. It is strategy.

Trump is exploiting a cultural weakness intrinsic in people trained to operate according to a code of honor and to so associate honorable, culturally correct behavior with strength, effectiveness, and other positives, that they have been conditioned to mistakenly see those who do not observe cultural honor norms as weak and discountable. Trump relies on and exploits this false conditioning in his foes.

He is far from the first. During Hitler’s rise to power, his political opponents discounted him as a fool and a buffoon, as a stupid person, and believed that they could easily control him. Exploiting their gullibility and their culturally conditioned utterly false perception of him was a key reason Hitler was able to wrest power and gain complete control. It simply never occurred to his opponents that this obvious idiot, this nobody. could think up and pull th cunning strategic manouvres on them that he did. Even after he had become absolute dictator of Germany, American journalists mostly continued to describe him as a fool, a buffoon, and somebody who needn’t be taken seriously.

Trump is doing exactly the same thing. Even after he has taken over the Republican Party, gained enough control over the Senate to get practically any appointee he wants confirmed, set up the beginnings of a large-scale secret police force loyal to him alone and network of concentration camps in ICE, and made significant inroads into taking control over local police forces and imstituting undeclared martial law in a way that could enable him to simply take over the country and oust or render irrelevant its remaining institutions not personally loyal to him, I still see him regularly depicted as a senile, a fool, a buffoon, etc.

His irrational behavior is a strength, not a weakness. His propaganda methods use human psychology to go right under the conscious mind and influence the subconscious without people being aware of it. Like the gunfighter in a world of samarai trained to fight with swords, people trained to use reason as the only means of discourse see his conduct as unmanly and therefore discountable. But the underhandedness and stealth is exactly what makes his approach to propaganda as effective against people trained to regard reason as the only legitimate and therefore only effective method of verbal warfare, as a gun is against people trained to regard swords as the only legitimate and therefore only effective weapon of physical combat.

He relies on the fact that his opponents won’t know what’s hitting them until it’s too late. And even then they may still not know. Like the Samurai clueless about guns who remains steadfastly unaware of the cause of the bullet wound and simply doesn’t think to associate his wound with his cowardly and unmanly opponent, even after they’ve been defeated Trump’s opponents tend to remain steadfastly unaware of what hit them or why. Trump counts on this.

[David Nieporent]

But Hitler was a fool. That didn't make him at all easily controlled, but it did cause him to make lots of stupid, self-destructive (and, more to the point, Germany-destructive) decisions. The error was not in the assessment of his mental capabilities, but in thinking those meant he wasn't dangerous. I don't think anyone in the U.S. has made that error about Trump since the 2016 campaign, though.

[Mr. Bumble]

"anyone"?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hitler 1932 was not Hitler 1942 -- I'm not sure if it was syphilis, mental illness, or drugs -- but he was a mess and went downhill from there.

[tylertusta]

I always attributed Hitler's mental decline due to him seeing the writing on the wall: The (impending) defeat at Stalingrad, the stalled offensives elsewhere on the Eastern Front, Italy being a drain of German resources, defeats in North Africa, Germany's utter defeat in the Battle of the Atlantic, and so on.

He was heavily invested in the strategic and operational level, and everything turned to ash in his hands.

[ReaderY]

I think I don’t have any way of judging that. My concern is whether someone is a formidable opponent who is dangerous and should be taken seriously. In some respects, people who want to make the biggest possible splash while they’re around and don’t concern themselves overmuch about the future are the most dangerous. Whether their willingness to take huge risks others more concerned about their future would never take is “foolishness” or not is not, as I see it, mine to judge. If the risks had paid off, people would consider them geniuses. And probably everybody regarded today as a strategic genius took some sort of risk people regarded today as less smart wouldn’t take.

There were probably more people like Napoleon and Hitler whose huge risks eventually resulted in loss and defeat than there were people Alexander the Great whose equally huge risks all paid off and who died in their beds undefeated after conquering the known world. But I don’t see Alexander the Great as especially smarter than Napoleon or Hitler was.

[SRG2]

Trump, like any good grifter, was adept at exploiting the gullible. But that is a separate issue from his recent obvious decline. And because the gullible don't want to admit they've been gulled, they rationalise away everything the mentally failing Trump does or says.

[Bob from Ohio]

"set up the beginnings of a large-scale secret police force loyal to him alone and network of concentration camps in ICE, and made significant inroads into taking control over local police forces and imstituting undeclared martial law in a way that could enable him to simply take over the country and oust or render irrelevant its remaining institutions not personally loyal to him"

Paranoid and hysterical.

[tylertusta]

Yikes. He needs to unplug for a while.

[Bwaaah]

^THAT^...to everybody.

Don't forget to look outside your window, and take a walk around (if you can). What you'll see there is a slice of reality. It's an important sample.

[Swede425]

You left out delusional and violent, too.
These people are prepared to go much further than recent events because Trump.

[Commenter_XY]

And POTUS Trump is compared to what...The Cauliflower? That guy? The previous president? 🙂

You know what Team D hates? The standards and rules they made the previous decade are being enforced.

As for POTUS Trump, he speaks to the press daily. No other president I can recall ever has had this level of daily interaction with the press (taking questions extemporaneously). He is shaking up the status quo and getting results (economic growth, NATO at 5%, helped resolve a few conflicts, deporting illegal aliens, tax code codification, combatting DC urban crime). I don't think that is the product of senility.

[ah....Clem]

The easiest way to understand it is that Trump is an idiot savant, like Rain Man, but instead of counting cards or memorizing the phone book, his unusual talent is getting people to believe his bullshit.

He is incredibly talented at that, but like Rain Man basically dysfunctional otherwise with the emotional maturity of a seven-year old.

[Swede425]

That must have been what they were telling themselves when they tried (and failed) to keep Trump off the ballot.
You know, because of the Left's love of Democracy.
"It's not their fault! They're just too stupid to know that they're being bamboozled by Trump! Because he's super talented but also super stupid!"

[David Nieporent]

He's a con man. That's his only real skill. But it's even more useful in politics than in business.

[ducksalad]

Y, I respectfully disagree. SRG has it right.

What you say was quite true in 2016, and it might be true to today with respect to Trump's handlers. But not with the man himself.

Now he is in an actual mental decline, and is losing the ability to shift from what he calls "weave" into coherence. It's all weave now and he can't get out of it. His gaffes and self-contradictions are now starting to frustrate his own supporters. He's deteriorating physically as well, and even if he didn't have dementia it's hard to be effective at anything when the heart is not pumping enough blood and the veins are collapsing.

Having said that, we shouldn't underestimate people like Vance and Miller. They're at the height of their capabilities and are waiting for the right moment to move on the next stage, whatever that's going to be.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I assume, I hope mistakenly, that Trump’s otherwise pointless urban occupations using National Guard and other military forces prefigure trouble during upcoming mid-term elections. If Trump does act to federalize the election process by force, then a baleful threshold will be crossed. Conspiracy to use force to overthrow the election process meets the Constitutional definition of treason. The Constitutional status of treason cannot reasonably be put out of existence, even by the Supreme Court.

That would open the question whether the Supreme Court’s impunity decree in Trump v. United States extends to cases of Presidential treason. What happens if a federal grand jury finds on its own initiative that the law of treason does apply to a president, and indicts for treason Trump and other named co-conspirators, including key cabinet members, possibly including the Attorney General of the United States? Could the Supreme Court even opine in such a case without risking indictment of its own members as co-conspirators in treason?

Suppose a thoroughly alarmed Court majority did the right thing, and ruled against Trump. Chaotic prospects of such an evolution would all but guarantee that Trump would respond with general martial law, interrupt the election process, and simply purport to override the Supreme Court by his own decree.

What then? Would the fate of the nation lie in the hands of senior military figures, depending on nothing more than their own calculations whether or not such a coup attempt would succeed? Would rival military factions reckon differently, and contend against each other?

The nation seems closer to swift descent into chaos than most commenters here and elsewhere have been willing to admit publicly. It is past time to at least force such considerations into public debate. Aggressive Supreme Court action now, to thwart unambiguously Trump’s executive-order-driven march toward crisis would also prove wise—better than continuation of the Court’s shadow docket evasions.

If Trump intends open Court defiance, better to find out about it now, in some context less crucial than an electoral crisis Trump’s defiance promises to deliver later. If that kind of emergency spins out of control, American constitutionalism may prove unrecoverable. It is too dangerous to temporize now, only to risk catastrophe afterward.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Suppose a thoroughly alarmed Court majority did the right thing, and ruled against Trump."
As opposed to ruling based on the law and the Constitution?

[Michael Ejercito]

Here was a reply to Stephen Lathrop.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/13/supreme-court-rules-against-osha-large-employer-vaccine-mandate-but-upholds-mandate-for-health-care-workers/?comments=true#comment-9305377

Stephen, let’s make those decisions when confronted with that magnitude of emergency. This is not what that is, and you have the audacity to call us fools for not being inclined to destroy our system of checks and balances over THIS pandemic.

You’re just pissed that you didn’t get your way (entirely) and you’re spouting ridiculous crap because of it. And you’re foolish enough to believe that your hypothetical emperor-president would be guaranteed to rule in a way you approve of. You control freaks never consider that the powers you want to grant could come back and bite you in the ass even though it happens time and time again.

[tylertusta]

I have not forgotten that Mr. Lathrop wanted to deny Trump due process in his criminal trials.

I take him as seriously as my 5-year old niece when she tells me she hasn't had enough candy yet.

[Michael Ejercito]

When did he do that?

[tylertusta]

It happened sometime last summer when Trump's criminal cases started to get derailed on appeal.

Mr. Lathrop wanted Trump to get what he called "minimal" process which amounted to a perfunctory, immediate show trial engineered to convict Trump prior to the election.

[Life of Brian]

Sounds a lot like this exchange, where he was in one of the earlier stages of grief about the Florida documents case not getting to trial before the election and was calling for Judge Cannon to be removed.

[tylertusta]

Ah yes, that was it. There may have been other places where he spoke about it.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, you need a vacation.

[Michael Ejercito]

Was this you?

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/13/supreme-court-rules-against-osha-large-employer-vaccine-mandate-but-upholds-mandate-for-health-care-workers/?comments=true#comment-9304763

What the OSHA decision sets up is some moment in the future—how soon no one can tell—when the executive will tell the court to pound sand, and in defiance go ahead and exercise powers to protect public health. When that happens, there will be almost no one who will side with the Court, because the emergency will be such that they will discredit this decision utterly, and show that it was folly. It was not wise for the Court to put itself in that position.

[LexAquilia]

Of course it was. He's a Democrat. They don't have principles other than By Any Means Necessary ... subjugate and oppress free Whites.

[Krayt]

Some on both sides really need to go watch The Phantom Menace again. Executive uses an emergency, sometimes real, COVID, or "barbarians at the gate", sometimes faked or hyperbolated, to get the legislature to grant emergency power, which they never give up and use to consolidate power.

Resist in all cases. I see precious little of that, because "my side."

His opposition was instrumental in the current state of things. A second, but contiguous term, would have been just more of the same: overreaching, courts stuffing him, a Republican congress no way near as lap doggy as the current one.

His "free to do anything" BS was born of a thousand and one nights stories to get him arrested, jailed, removed from office, banned from ballots.

And it carried along with it a response to the disabling constant court cases to stuff every effort.

That wouldn't have happened in a second contiguous term, and it would be over by now.

Thanks!

[ducksalad]

What would you think about abolishing all "emergency" clauses from statutes and the constitution? That would include a prohibition on declaring emergencies by the legislature as well as the executive. At the micro-level, abolish all the so-called exigency exceptions to the 4th Amendment and other rights.

Of course there are real emergencies. In such cases, we go back to how men behaved when there was still such a thing as honor. You honorably break the law and take the consequences recognizing that the higher good is more important than yourself. Then prosecutors and a jury can decide whether to accept your sincere offer to go to prison or hang.

If it isn't worth that risk then it isn't really an emergency.

[Krayt]

History teaches to be severly cautious with the emergency rationale.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact!" Well, easy power arrogation in the presence of such immediate problems, thence going bad, leading to dictatorship is legion, lousy with sordid, sad examples.

I've said this before, the one and only thing I liked from Trump 1 was him refusing to become national Covid dictator, instead the feds recommend and leave the rest to the states.

(As an aside, nobody should think I endorse most oppositional Democrat positions.)

[Joe_dallas]

SL - The residents of those crime ridden cities would prefer less crime.

[Michael Ejercito]

This is the same SL who supported the use of dictatorial powers to fight a pandemic.

[David Nieporent]

Well, Lathrop was wrong about that, but at least the pandemic was real.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — I won't be wrong about that until the hypothetical I premised comes true, and results turn out different than I predict.

The hypothetical: A highly contagious pandemic which threatens to kill a notable fraction of everyone, without regard to demographic or age distinctions. Covid was nothing like that, so lacked power to command a national sense of emergency.

[Don Nico]

"Covid was nothing like that, so lacked power to command a national sense of emergency."
Stephen, I agree with that characterization with respect to the biomedical facts. Unfortunately, public health officials worldwide proclaimed that SARS-CoV-2 was your hypothetical. After a few months,when reliable statistics and demographic analysis started to be available the majority of public health officials in other countries backed off the scare rhetoric.
To the contrary the CDC dug in its heals in denial of mounting biomedical evidence to the contrary. The matter of "naturally acquired immunity" is a case in point. CDC misinformation help destroy its credibility which had to be replaced by government fiat.
As to a future pandemic, there is certainly much to fear, but there are also many efforts worldwide to develop strategies to cope with such a threat. No foolproof approach is at hand, but there is substantial progress.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Unfortunately, public health officials worldwide proclaimed that SARS-CoV-2 was your hypothetical. After a few months,when reliable statistics and demographic analysis started to be available the majority of public health officials in other countries backed off the scare rhetoric.

At the outset, what evolutionary course Covid would take was unknowable. It is in the nature of public health policy that when it works it encourages public deprecation.

The notion that the public health policies actually followed did not work remains an unprovable counter-factual. What was proved is that in this nation Covid inflicted on a narrow demographic more fatalities than were inflicted on the entire nation during the entire history of all its wars combined, including the Civil War, the nation's bloodiest, and World War II, which remains an epochal event in the memories of many still living.

Your comment unwisely minimizes what did happen.

[Don Nico]

"The notion that the public health policies actually followed did not work remains an unprovable counter-factual."
Stephen, that statement is completely incorrect. I have peer-reviewed published analysis that show what you claim is unprovable.

Let me explain, during the second half of the epidemic, Oxford University's Our World in Data developed and published every day a stringency index that measured the degree to with national public health authorities imposed stringent public health control measures such as mask mandates, lockdowns, vaccine mandates and other similar measures. One could (and I did) compute the correlation between stringency and both the infectiousness and morbidity of COVID-19 on a country by country basis. One could (and I did examine) whether introducing time delays in the disease response with respect to the imposition of stringency measures. Doing that kind of analysis one finds no significant correlation (<<10%) of government imposed stringency with the progression or severity of COVID-19 infections.
It is true that in some countries (but not all) vaccines did lower the morbidity of the disease; South Africa was a notable exception. Claims of reduction in infectiousness are far more dubious.

You say my comment was unwise. My response is that your criticism is uninformed. You cling to an emotional response to the fruits of bad health habits by the American public. Habits that were not actually aided by stringency measures.
As you might have told me, "follow the science." That is my respectful reply.

Have a relaxing labor Day weekend.

[Magister]

I have peer-reviewed published analysis that show what you claim is unprovable.

To add a third point of view, there are also articles that show that public health policies, even with reduced compliance, did work. For example:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-31709-2

[Don Nico]

It depends what you mean by work. If you mean decreased infectiousness, the evidence is weak (or the effect is weak). For some variants the morbidity was decreased by the MRNA vaccines.
For later variants morbidity was so low that measuring the efficacy is difficult or does not have strong statistical significance.
As for the stringent measures that crippled economies, the evidence is poor. Correlation between the measure and effect is very low and even then statistically not significant.

[Joe_dallas]

mag - As Don Nico noted, most of the studies showing effectiveness of mitigation compliance was limited. for example the nature article you cited placed higher effectiveness of masking over personal lockdowns. That conclusion is inane.
note also the study footnote #19. that masking study measured the reduction of the covid spread after mask mandate which started in april. April of course the natural seasonal start of the decline of almost every respiratory virus.

[Joe_dallas]

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Don N makes a very valid point on infectionous post vaccination. As noted in the World o meters graphs, almost no state had a reduction in case rates post vaccine introduction. Regarding mortality, in most states, the reduction in deaths post vaccine introduction was not commensurate with vaccination rates of 80%+ in the vulnerable population. In most states, the reduction in deaths rates post vaccine introduction was within the historical range. .

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, no doubt you are familiar with the nostrum that correlation is not cause. I wonder if you have given adequate thought to why that has proved such a durable notion. And why it matters so much in studies crucially implicating a notion of evolution over time.

Correlation of course posits a mutual association between data sets. It leaves aside analysis of the directional flow of any influences inferred from the data. Thus, correlation may serve well as a guide to further study on questions of causation, but fails as a substitute for that more-focused kind of study.

Causality, on the other hand, demands a unidirectional flow of influence, a flow which follows the direction of time's arrow. In a causality analysis, insight into which data are antecedents, and which data are subsequents, remains indispensable. And if cause is posited, then every posited subsequent must result reliably when a defined antecedent has occurred. There can be no muddle on that question, or purported insight into the anatomy of causal influence remains ambiguous, or even spurious.

I suggest you recheck the studies you referenced, with an eye to determine how rigorously they meet standards to be reliably informative, let alone standards of proof. For instance, given data sets assembled retrospectively, what means have been provided to assign each datum in each study a chronological place as an antecedent or as a subsequent? What means have been taken to assure that confounding unknown antecedents, or combinations of known antecedents, are not mistaken for causes, or ignored as causes. Likewise, what variable subsequents exist to show that posited antecedents do not always and reliably deliver the analytically expected outcomes, and thus invalidate the key premise of causality.

Please note, I did not tell you, "follow the science." But do you continue to suppose I, "cling to an emotional response?" If so, please show the work needed to deal with at least those most fundamental critiques of a method to aim the artillery of correlation at a target in motion through time.

[David Nieporent]

Everyone would prefer less crime; the question is the cost. There will always be those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety.

[Mr. Bumble]

See above comments on Singapore's gun and criminal laws.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Singapore would not tolerate BLM...

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently there would be no need to since Singapore seems not to tolerate the "B" in BLM.

[jb]

The national polling on the topic is a bit of a mess right now, but one thing that's pretty clear is that the residents of DC really really don't like Trump's occupation of the city:

The vast majority of residents, though, don’t want Trump controlling law enforcement efforts in the city. About 8 in 10 D.C. residents oppose Trump’s executive order to federalize law enforcement in the city, with about 7 in 10 opposing it “strongly.”

I'm sure everyone would prefer less crime, such as people in crime-ridden states like Arkansas and Alaska, but that doesn't mean they want masked federal agents roaming the streets, either.

[Mr. Bumble]

Link is pay-walled.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Mazlov's hierarchy of needs -- safety supersedes esoteric concepts of Federalism.

Gavin Newsom has noticed this -- notice how he is sending CHiPs into the cities to help with crime?

[Krayt]

He's at least consistent in taking the position of trying to deny Trump any talking points. Some months back it was pleading with protesters not to shut things down and destroy property. This had the expected opposite effect, but at least he tried.

All this current CHiPs thing does is prove Democrats can clean up crime if they want to, they just choose not to for some weird combo of saving money and kindness memery (to masses of white women living safely in suburbs).

But let a Superbowl or Olympics or World Cup appear, hold my beer! Suddenly there's plenty of motivation (and money!) to clean up streets, put hobos somewhere else, crush crime temporarily, repair roads.

[JRipplefireEsquire]

So it's now OK to fight unacceptable levels of crime when the rate is slightly down? Unless, of course, you are Trump.

[Michael Ejercito]

Or after a school shooting, the only shooting s they seem to care about.

[Joe_dallas]

JB - polling is easily manipulated by the formatting of the questions.

Its doubtful those poll results accurately reflect the true sentiments of DC residents.

[jb]

LOL. "The data disagrees with my opinion, so I shall ignore it."

You MAGAs manage hold a lot of cognitive dissonance in your head. The other day when we were talking about Pirro's repeated failure to get indictments against sandwich guy and others, the argument was that it was jury nullification by Democrats. Today, though, when there's some polling that says the residents really don't like the military occupation of their city, the response is "no they actually like it".

It's plausibly true that one of those two positions is true, but it's hard to understand how they both would be. If DC residents secretly really like the occupation, why are they protecting people pushing back against it? I guess if your worldview is "I must justify everything Trump does no matter what" you get used to the dissonance since he's about the least consistent person on Earth.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5469430-trump-crime-reduction-poll/
" 54 percent of voters say Trump’s actions in DC are justified: Poll
by Julia Manchester - 08/25/25 3:22 PM ET"
Not pay-walled.

[jb]

Two things:

1) I mentioned that the national polling was a mess. Here's a poll that shows the plurality of people disapproving of the DC takeover:

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2025/08/11/6372b/4

We're at the point right now that you can cherry pick national polls to tell you whatever you want to hear.

2) National polls aren't really relevant to the question of what people in DC think. Here's a link to a non-paywalled NPR article that mentions the Post poll: https://www.npr.org/2025/08/25/nx-s1-5508999/how-contrasting-neighborhoods-in-d-c-feel-about-the-national-guard-in-their-city

Notably, that article mentions that people in crime-y neighborhoods aren't even seeing an increased policy presence. Another finding from the poll: people in DC are actually feeling less safe, not more. 61% of people who noticed the federal presence said it made them feel less safe; only 18% said it made them feel more safe.

[Joe_dallas]

JB - you are dealing with imaginary facts.

did you fail to notice that almost all the protesters were elderly white protesters who did not live in the crime infested areas?

due some basic due diligence.

[David Nieporent]

did you fail to notice that almost all the protesters were elderly white protesters who did not live in the crime infested areas?

I did not fail to notice that bookkeeper_joe is pulling this 100% from his ass, that it is completely made up, that bookkeeper_joe could not notice it even if it were true because he's in dallas, not DC.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, television and the internet don't exist in Dallas.

[Joe_dallas]

D unimportant leftists N as usual cant provide any substantive comment - Same news source in dallas as in ny.
No reason to be honest when you are a leftist

[Bob from Ohio]

DC mayor likes it.

[Swede425]

An obvious Trump cultist.

[Life of Brian]

About 8 in 10 D.C. residents oppose Trump’s executive order to federalize law enforcement in the city

For a population that gave Trump 6.6% of their vote, 20% seems like a rather striking defection. I'm genuinely curious if there's any EO-driven initiative of Trump's where many more than that would admit to being in favor.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I can't believe you've missed the obvious explanation: illegals can't vote, but they can respond to poll questions!

[CountmontyC]

That would be this poll?

https://twitchy.com/amy-curtis/2025/08/27/drew-holden-dc-crime-poll-cross-tabs-thread-n2417981

So 90% of those polled said that they lived in "good" or "very good" neighborhoods and weren't from the areas where crime was a problem? Do you see a problem with this poll?

[Kenneth Almquist]

90% didn’t say that they “weren't from the areas where crime was a problem.” The poll included several questions about crime; the closest one was “These days, how safe from crime do you feel in your neighborhood? Would you say you feel very safe from crime, somewhat safe, not too safe, or not safe at all?” The answers:
39% very safe
39% somewhat safe
13% not too safe
8% not safe at all

Your basic claim is that the poll doesn’t match your preconceptions about Washington, D.C., so it must be wrong. You can’t accurately describe the contents of a poll; I doubt your beliefs about Washington, D.C. are any more based in reality.

Poll questions are here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/97620ad1-0767-4609-9edc-c72daaebd9f3.pdf

[Brett Bellmore]

So, a tiny district that voted 92%+ for the losing candidate is unhappy the winning candidate, instead, gets to govern. News, as they say, at eleven.

[Riva]

Perhaps you missed it in troll school but try to be a little more concise in your trolling. Less is more. For you, the emphasis on less. And, just so you know, no matter how long your rant, you're not going to get anywhere near the $8000 per month democrats are paying "influencers" to lie.

[Jmaie]

“meets the constitutional definition of treason”

How so?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Jamie — Often overlooked, but the definition of treason is two-fold, and conduct which offends either part completes the crime. You commit treason if you:

1. Give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States in time of war,

or, if you:

2. Conspire to levy war against the United States, and engage in some overt violent act to carry that conspiracy into effect.

The antique meaning of, "to levy war," trips up many modern commenters, but Chief Justice Marshall made that meaning unambiguously clear with detailed explanations and examples in the case of, Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout.

At least some of the J6 conspirators committed treason within Marshall's definition, and should have been charged with it. Whether that should have included Trump might be a close question, depending on production of evidence to tie Trump more closely to the violence he at times encouraged. An answer to that question may be destined to remain ambiguous for want of a trial.

[not guilty]

You commit treason if you:

1. Give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States in time of war,

or, if you:

2. Conspire to levy war against the United States, and engage in some overt violent act to carry that conspiracy into effect.

The antique meaning of, "to levy war," trips up many modern commenters, but Chief Justice Marshall made that meaning unambiguously clear with detailed explanations and examples in the case of, Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout.

No, Stephen. Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75 (1807), makes it clear that to conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, are distinct offenses. Only the latter amounts to treason:

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

To constitute that specific crime for which the prisoners now before the court have been committed, war must be actually levied against the United States. However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, the distinct offenses. The first must be brought into operation by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried that in a case reported by Ventris and mentioned in some modern treatises on criminal law, it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying war. It is true that in that case the soldiers enlisted were to serve without the realm, but they were enlisted within it, and if the enlistment for a treasonable purpose could amount to levying war, then war had been actually levied.

It is not the intention of the Court to say that no individual can be guilty of this crime who has not appeared in arms against his county. On the contrary, if war be actually levied -- that is if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose -- all those who perform any part, however minute or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual assembling of men for the treasonable purpose to constitute a levying of war.

Id., at 126.

[Jmaie]

I was just curious whether SL would double down, it's not like this is the first time he's had this particular error explained...

[Stephen Lathrop]

Jmaie — Not guilty misinterprets the very language he quotes. Marshall provided other examples that further clarify. But really, this ought to be enough (from not guilty's quote):

On the contrary, if war be actually levied -- that is if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose -- all those who perform any part, however minute or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors.

Please explain whether a body of men was actually assembled on J6? Please explain if they attempted to effect by force a halt to the vote counting in Congress. Please explain why halting by force an attempt to Count votes in Congress is not a treasonable purpose.

In short, please explain why you think I am wrong.

I remain baffled why not guilty thinks I am wrong, but it could be because treason cases following Marshall's decisions at the time of the Burr trials have focused on the other prong of the treason definition, the one about aid and comfort to the enemy. That makes a lot of folks suppose treason must always involve international conflict, with national armies and navies arrayed for battle.

Marshall explicitly denied that was required. He wrote that it took only a handful of men to levy war, so long as they actually leagued together for a treasonable purpose, and committed some overt act, however slight, to further a purpose to carry that intent to a violent conclusion.

What argument can you offer to say that did not happen on J6?

[Jmaie]

Look, I get that you hate Trump and want him removed by any means possible. I'd not shed a tear were he to keel over tomorrow. I think he has damaged the fabric of both political and polite society. But you've lost all sense of reason...you want the SC to take affirmative steps from their own authority to reign him in, despite that not being within their power. You've (repeatedly) claimed his acts treasonous, despite the Constitution being very very (VERY) specific defining that crime.

If you think that J6 was an act of war...well, I can't help you. It was many things, but it was not that. No matter how much you wish it to be so.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Jmaie — In short, you have no reply to the arguments advanced and extensively explained by Chief Justice Marshall. But you are willing to mischaracterize my commentary about Trump and the Supreme Court.

I get it. You are a MAGA apologist, and like so many others, unwilling to contend forthrightly with advocacy to the contrary. You should try to do better, if only to set yourself apart from the awful standards of advocacy used by those others.

[Jmaie]

Probably stale, but I'll try anyways. You want specific details why I think you're wrong? In Burr and Madison's time, we actually did have a declared enemy. Who is Trump giving aid and comfort to?

As to me being a MAGA apologist, well, in your mind, apparently, anything short of full throated "TRUMP IS THE ANTICHRIST" qualifies as MAGA. Seek professional help. Your anger has made you delusional.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — Of course those are distinct offenses, just as you say. And for that reason Bollman and Swartwout escaped charges, because though they seemed to have participated in recruitment of Burr's expedition, no violent action against the United States was proved against them, or against anyone they were involved with.

What has that got to do with J6, where all of: assembly of men, violent treasonable purpose, and violent action, were incontrovertibly in evidence presented to the public by Congress?

Your attempted distinction continues to baffle me, and I can think of no reason for it except misunderstanding of Marshall's meaning in his use of, "to levy war."

[not guilty]

I yield to no one in my disapproval of Donald Trump. The January 6, 2021 siege of the Capitol was reprehensible, and Trump was culpable for numerous crimes in regard thereto, but treason is not one of them. Even if, assuming arguendo that the rioters were levying war, Donald Trump was not doing so personally. He had conspired to do so.

Conspiracy to levy war against the United States, even if it is followed by some overt violent act to carry that conspiracy into effect, is not treason under Bollman/Swartwout. The conspiracy is a distinct offense, punishable according to 18 U.S.C. § 371 (which is one of the statutes that Jack Smith charged in the D.C. indictment).

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — you write: "Conspiracy to levy war against the United States, even if it is followed by some overt violent act to carry that conspiracy into effect, is not treason under Bollman/Swartwout."

Do you at least concede that it is treason if the violence is intended to accomplish a treasonable purpose? If you do concede that, how is the J6 attack on the Capitol—and on the ongoing election process—not a treasonable purpose?

If you do not concede that, how is your advocacy not tantamount to insistence that a preceding crime constituting conspiracy must always be read to obviate the, "levy war," prong of the treason definition? You seem to want to deny that part of the definition can ever be justly applied. Or maybe you just think it is too shocking to apply it to a President.

As for the question of Trump's involvement in the violence, there has been a nationally-televised recording of Trump goading the mob to further violence at the height of the Capitol attack. I do not think an argument that Trump was not always violent at every moment amounts to a sensible rebuttal. There remains evidence that Trump was violent at a critical moment, when the body of men and women he personally summoned to Washington was engaged in ongoing violent attack, with explicitly murderous intent publicly uttered, which Trump at that moment encouraged. The evidence for that seems incontrovertible.

But as I have said before, I would have been content had that question been put before a jury. And I would have remained content if Trump had been found not guilty. I would also have remained content if Trump were convicted, but pardoned.

I am not content with what did happen. I think it was a grave miscarriage of both justice, and of American constitutionalism, that the Supreme Court acted with unmistakable intent to thwart a timely trial for Trump—whether on a charge of treason which I think the evidence justified, or on a lesser charge of conspiracy.

[LexAquilia]

That rope-a-dope Trump pulled on Lisa Cook was genius.

They were sandbagging a third "clerical error" on one of her numerous homes that she made WHILE she was a Fed Governor.

I hope she sees jail time for committing these crimes.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who is footing the bill for Abbe Lowell to represent her (and now Susan Monarez ).

[TwelveInchPianist]

Isn't the lawyer for Letitia James and Hannah Dugan as well?

I know the NY taxpayers are footing the bill for James' personal legal bills.

[ReaderY]

I want to raise the real possibility that by massively expanding ICE, together with steep cuts for traditional law enforcement agencies like the FBI, the ATF, DEA, and funding to support local police, Trump is shifting resources from traditional law enforcement agencies with a culture of independence to one whose leadership he can control completely and whom he believes will be more likely to be personally loyal to him. He may be doing something similar within the military. The situation is arguably like Germany in the 1930s, where local police forces were stagnated but left in place, but resources were devoted to building up a new police agency, the Gestapo, and a new military force (far more disciplined than the old SA), the SS, that he could count on as being personally loyal to him.

We may not be past a point of no return where for example if Trump sends in forces to seize ballot boxes after an election for counting by people who can be trusted to find an additional 10,000 votes when needed to reach the patriotic, pro-America result, or if he fires or even has a Supreme Court justice assassinated by a mob, he has the muscle to prevent his will from being stopped. But we appear to be moving in that direction. And not so slowly either.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I suggest the exact opposite, when we de-Nazified West Germany and then set up replacement non-corrupt entities.

As to ICE -- wake me up when it becomes half the size of the NYPD.

Not ALL the legal entities in NYC, just the NYPD, and just HALF of that...

[tylertusta]

It wouldn't be a Trump discussion without someone trying to paint him as following in Hitler's footsteps.

No, the situation in the 1930's regarding German police changes has nothing in common with 2020's American law enforcement funding.

[ReaderY]

That’s an “It’s so because I say it’s so” comment if there ever was one.

[tylertusta]

You're welcome for my concise answer.

[SRG2]

To adapt Dreher's "Merited impossibility", "Trump wouldn't do that, and we'll support it when he does".

[ThePublius]

You are truly deranged.

[Bob from Ohio]

"situation is arguably like Germany in the 1930s,"

An idiot's argument. Paranoid and hysterical.

[ReaderY]

Problem with that one is that people said similar things about the more vocal of Hitler’s opponents pretty much right up to the point where he bumped them off.

You can’t actually say anything substantive that might tend to refute the argument, can you? All you can do is denounce it. And in hysterical terms, I might add. Which tends to support the argument, not refute it, in terms of its overall effect.

[SRG2]

The issue with comparing Trump to any dictator is that the defenders of Trump compare where Trump is now to where the dictator ended up in full control, not where the dictators were at onset.

As has been noted before, in 1932 even Hitler wasn't HITLER

[ReaderY]

A basic difference is that the Weimar constitution permitted a single individual, the Reich President, Paul von Hindenberg, to issue an emergency decree suspending civil liberties by the stroke of a pen. Hitler found (or instigated) a pretext for getting Hindenberg to do this in the Reichstag Fire, only 4 weeks after he became Chancellor. Once this was done, he could detain opposition politicians and oulaw parties to get the majority he needed to pass the Enabling Act.

But the US Constitution is made of tougher stuff than that, and has many more checks and balances. So Trump has to proceed ploddingly slowly in comparison, one institution at a time. He still hasn’t reached anywhere near the level of power Hitler did in just a month. But he has had major successes. The Senate is no longer a significant check on his appointees, enabling him to appoint people personally loyal to him. The courts have generally upheld his power to fire members of the executive branch at will. And limitations on the power of the courts have often worked in his favor. He has had significant success in taking over local police forces and militias. But nonetheless he has to infiltrate the Executive Branch somewhat gradually, and the Judicial Branch still commands respect and remains an obstacle. And he doesn’t yet have enough control over Congress to do things like pass a court-packing law. The Supreme Court has assigned itself enough power that a Supreme Court controlled by personal loyalists would likely be just as effective as an Enabling Act.

[Bob from Ohio]

"anything substantive"

Waste of time, you are a fanatic.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Artfully flounced, counsellor.

[Swede425]

But this has to happen!
Don't you understand? Trump has to line up ALL the ducks so that when he becomes Cyborg Trump and continues his presidency forever and ever the groundwork has all been laid out.
Once his plans reach fruition, he'll change his name to Cyborg Hitler and make your Handmaid's Tale fantasy a reality.
Because you know you've been a bad boy/girl and it's what you deserve. And Daddy will make that happen.

[ReaderY]

I don’t think Trump cares much about what happens after he’s gone. I think this lack of concern frees him. As Louis XIV put it, “apres moi, le deluge!” Which is pretty much what happened to the French monarchy. In the meanwhile, Louis XIV lived it up on borrowed money.

[Swede425]

So he's just going to be a Hitler-like dictator until his natural life passes?
Well, that's not very evil genius like.
Unless....he's doing it all for Barron!
ZOMG!
Sleep tight!

[M L]

How can he try to stop the open borders regime that was forced on the American people without their consent. What a Nazi!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Elections have consequences".

No?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Another day, another tranny trying to kill people, and this one used a Lexis.

Deputies from the Knox County Sheriff’s Department arrested Olivia G. Wilkins, 24, of Thomaston, also known as Stevie Wilkins, on Tuesday after he allegedly tried to run over a Border Patrol agent and a Maine State Police officer.

https://www.themainewire.com/2025/08/maine-man-arrested-after-trying-to-run-over-border-patrol-agents-taking-illegals-into-custody/

And then there was the latest tranny school shooting, which is like the sixth in the past few years. Is it the trannies -- or is it the mental health "professionals" and the psych drugs that they hand out like breath mints?

15 years ago, the AMA and APA clearly stated the latter was a problem, and it is worse now...

[ReaderY]

In pretty much any group of people, you’ll find some who commit crimes. Kristalnacht, after all, was allegedly triggered by the assassination of a German diplomat by a Jew, which enabled Hitler to portray Jews as an inherently criminal element and Kristalnacht as a spontaneous and natural response by the people to their crimes.

Similar things have happened in this country. While transvestism was a misdemeanor in many places in this country until recent times, transvestites have historically been thought of as engaging in immoral behavior, not violent conduct. I’ll say the same thing I have said on several other issues. While I think that in general the constitution perkits states to enforce conservative morals norms if they want to, traditionally immoral conduct is not violence and should not be portrayed or punished as crimes of violence just people find it convenient to do so.

I seem to recall you made some comments about the Gilgo Beach affair saying that you thought prostitutes were garbage people who deserve to die. Completely separate from the question of whether the constitution permits judges to impose atextual limits on a legislature’s ability to enforce traditional morals norms they think outdated or wrong, just because you or others strongly disapprove of certain conduct as immoral does not make the people who engage in it garbage people who deserve to die. Nor does it make them violent criminals.

[LexAquilia]

In pretty much any group of people, you’ll find some who commit crimes. Kristalnacht, after all, was allegedly triggered by the assassination of a German diplomat by a Jew, which enabled Hitler to portray Jews as an inherently criminal element and Kristalnacht as a spontaneous and natural response by the people to their crimes.

That's what the Jews today say about it, that's for sure.

[ReaderY]

No, the assassination of German diplomat Ernst von Rath by a 17-year-old Jewish youth in Paris on 9th November 1938 was the pretext Hitler and the Nazis gave at the time. It was they who pointed to the assassination as the cause. It was they who said that Kristalnacht was “spontaneous” retaliation for supposedly pervasive Jewish criminal behavior.

[SRG2]

just because you or others strongly disapprove of certain conduct as immoral does not make the people who engage in it garbage people who deserve to die.

But Dr Ed is a bigot, and so he does indeed think that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Assuming the risk of being murdered does not mean "deserve to die", it means "assuming the risk of death."

[SRG2]

You're still a bigot

[Michael P]

"For the unvaccinated, you're looking at a winter of severe illness and death for yourselves, your families and the hospitals you may soon overwhelm." - the Autopen administration

[Dr. Ed 2]

Assuming the risk does not mean "deserve to die", it means "assuming the risk of death."

And why don't we make people in cars wear helmets?

I'm saying there is a disproportionate number of tranny shooters relative to their numbers in the population

[Dr. Ed 2]

Here is another one:
https://thepostmillennial.com/massachusetts-trans-activist-arrested-in-fatal-shooting-of-father-after-school-drop-off-just-one-day-after-minneapolis-trans-massacre

[jb]

If you think trans people are up to a lot of murder, wait til I tell you how much pedophilia Republican elected officials are up to! Here's a couple of recent examples:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/south-carolina-lawmaker-in-jail-on-child-sex-abuse-material-charges-resigns-from-office

https://www.facebook.com/ABCNews/posts/a-minnesota-republican-state-senator-was-charged-on-wednesday-with-soliciting-a-/1057174019602811/

(And yes, this is pure whataboutism. My point is, though, roughly ReaderY's: it's pretty stupid to look at random examples of people in a certain category and try to extrapolate to general trends about them."

[LexAquilia]

Soliciting a 17 year old is pedophilia?

[jb]

Is your agreement that it's only attempted pedophilia? All those people from To Catch a Predator will be so relieved...

[JohnSmith97]

In what developed country is a 17 year old prepubescent?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If you're a "star", or if you're not a "star"?

[David Nieporent]

Another day, another tranny trying to kill people, and this one used a Lexis.

Are you sure it wasn't Westlaw?

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's Westman, and that was yesterday.

[Michael P]

I was right: making fun of that typo WOULD have made me look like an ass.

[David Nieporent]

You mean like more of an ass.

[John F. Carr]

Thailand's constitutional court removed the Prime Minister for allegedly putting her interests ahead of the country and thereby diminishing faith in the government.

https://apnews.com/article/thailand-politics-prime-minister-dismissed-7720be8eff0b9327fda88aa1285d86f7

My first reaction was, I'd love to have that process in America.

My second reaction was, the body with the ability to remove high officials for misconduct would be captured by political forces even if it was called a "court."

[tylertusta]

I see the temptation for "experts" to remove disliked politicians, but as you've identified, all you've done is created a new institution that concentrates political power which can be exploited for nefarious ends in the future.

I keep coming back to the conclusion that democracy is the solution, not soft dictatorships.

[Kazinski]

Except this is about the 5th time they've removed a Prime Minister since 2008.

What's going on is the peop!e keep voting for the populist Shinawatra family and their allies, and the Military Royalist oligarchy keeps removing them. Not only that the military purposely started the border war in Cambodia to gin up patriotic support to use in their political fight.

No I don't think it's a good thing.

"Here is a breakdown of the court-ordered removals:
1. Samak Sundaravej (2008):
Removed for violating the constitution by continuing to host a television cooking show and accepting payment for it while in office.
2. Somchai Wongsawat (2008):
Removed months after Samak, with the court also dissolving his political party for electoral fraud.
3. Yingluck Shinawatra (2014):
Removed on charges of abuse of power for unlawfully transferring the head of the National Security Council to an advisory role.
4. Srettha Thavisin (2024):
Removed for alleged ethical violations related to cabinet appointments.
5. Paetongtarn Shinawatra (2025):
The most recent removal, made after a ruling on a leaked phone call and other alleged ethical violations, making her the fifth prime minister ousted by the court since 2008. "

[tylertusta]

Not only that the military purposely started the border war in Cambodia to gin up patriotic support to use in their political fight.

To hear our friends from the left talk about it, it was Trump that started the conflict.

[Josh R]

Thaksin Shinawatra (the patriarch) is a faux populist. He catered to the poor while enriching himself and engaging in corruption. To be sure, the military royalists hated him (and ousted him), but the intelligentsia hates him (and the military royalists) too.

In the 2023 election, intelligentsia-backed reformist Pita Limjaroenrat won, formed a coalition with Thaksin's party, but was unable to become prime minister because of his stance on reforming lese majeste laws. Instead, Thaksin's party formed a different coalition with his daughter eventually becoming PM.

[Kazinski]

In terms of economics Shinawatra is Peronist, and I am not sympathetic, but in terms of the oligarchy deciding they won't let the people get away of voting for him whether it takes military or judicial coups to reverse it, then I am.

Besides the 5 judicial coups since 2008, there were also military coups in 2006 and 2014.

I was in Thailand in frequently 2010-17 including during the aftermath of Red Shirt occupation of Bangkok and the resulting crackdown.

[Josh R]

I agree the oligarchy is reprehensible including their treatment of Thaksin. But, don't make him out to be a hero. He is reprehensible in his own way.

[Kazinski]

His daughter was clearly the hottest prime minister until a few days ago though.

https://share.google/XNYQK4USkkOm9OTV8

Shintawara and his clan struck me as pretty much run of the mill Third world demagogue, except because he never had the deep state security apparatus on his side he could never use it to oppress or imprison his political opponents, they reserved that treatment for him and his supporters.

That seems like a pretty big distinction.

[Michael Ejercito]

Trump is shifting resources from traditional law enforcement agencies with a culture of independence to one whose leadership he can control completely and whom he believes will be more likely to be personally loyal to him.

Given what happened to Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI clearly had a culture of independence from the LAW- a culture Kash Patel is working on rooting out.

Care to guess which judge sentenced Kevin Clinesmith?

[Mr. Bumble]

Blowsburg?

[Mr. Bumble]

How was the tranny carrot top lookalike able to legally purchase guns in Dem controlled MN?

[Michael Ejercito]

You mean he did not buy his guns from some gangbanger in a Minneapolis back alley?

[John F. Carr]

Another sign that 2020 is over:

https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/08/28/boston-police-commissioner-officers-discipline

In 2020, when "defund the police" was the call of the left, Boston created a police oversight commission to make recommendations related to charges of police misconduct. The decision on discipline is made by the police chief, who ignores the oversight commission's recommendations. The mayor, who advocated for reform as a city councilor, is now on the side of the police union.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The twist to this story is the police commissioner is himself a victim of police misconduct. He was a plainclothes officer giving chase to a suspect when uniformed officers saw a black man running and decided he needed a beatdown. Not much came of that. The case got covered up as best the force could manage. The First Circuit killed the federal criminal cases.

[SRG2]

The canonisation of Ashli Babbitt continues. The USAF are now granting her full military funeral honours.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/28/ashli-babbitt-military-funeral-00534484

This is both laughable and vile.

[Mr. Bumble]

She served honorably, unlike her murderer.

[hobie]

We should erect a Confederate-style statue of her, with the plaque reading: 'Died honorably trying to attack a black-ass nigger policeman'

[Commenter_XY]

Really?

[Bob from Ohio]

"unlike her murderer."

He got a promotion. No dishonor there I guess.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Forget her -- it's the three cops behind her whom he nearly hit that bother me. Friendly fire ain't!

[SRG2]

"Nearly" as in "didn't". He took one shot, and it was accurate, which suggests a measure of training.

Her inscription should read, "She fucked around and found out"

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2 has made this false claim repeatedly. Looking at the video, you can see that Babbitt was climbing through a broken window in the door and the shoulder where she was shot was well above the gun, so nobody behind her was in danger.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Please don't handle a firearm anywhere near me. Thanks!

[Magister]

It's very obvious what outcome of that part of the January 6th insurrection you would have preferred, whatever pro forma denial you want to make now; a mob pouring into the House while Representatives were still there.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The mob consisting of at least 4 cops with assault rifles directly behind Babbit?

[Magister]

They didn't seem to be dissuading anyone; but maybe you wanted them to shoot the insurrectionists in the back after they climbed through the door?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Dissuade them from what? They didn't seem that concerned.

Why shoot anyone in the back? One of them could have grabbed her, had he thought it necessary and if he had the chance.

[Magister]

The crowd that was chanting "Hang Mike Pence"? The insurrectionists? And the first one was climbing through the broken door? Even a Republican representative who witnessed it said the officer who shot Babbitt "didn't have a choice".

[jay.tee]

Magister, I’m guessing it won’t change your (uninformed) opinion but every version of basic firearm safety contradicts you.

For example:
https://www.mass.gov/doc/ten-basic-rules-of-firearm-safety-handout-0/download

Babbitt received a punishment far out of proportion to her offense.

[Magister]

Right, of course the Division of Wildlife & Fisheries regularly puts down armed insurrections aiming to murder elected federal officials and overthrow the government, so police would follow the same rules in all situations.

She got what her actions earned her.

[David Nieporent]

I don't even know which aspect of that irrelevant poster he's referring to. It's all about rules to make sure people don't accidentally get shot, which has no bearing on this situation. Whether one thinks she deserved to get shot or not, he hit exactly what he was aiming for and only what he was aiming for.

[TwelveInchPianist]

There were at least four cops behind her.

But really, there couldn't have been any because I'm reliably assured that behind her was a mob of MAGA people ready to overwhelm the capitol police if the guy on the other side of the door didn't use deadly force immediately!

I mean, one of the cops on her side of the door pointed his rifle back through the door and almost returned fire before he figured out what happened.

[David Nieporent]

It's apparently true; she didn't commit treason until after she retired.

[Magister]

I am curious whether the same funeral honors would be received by another honorably serving airman who after retirement was shot by police while committing a felony.

[Martinned2]

Neither did Colonel Lee

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It would be dishonorable to take part in that ceremony.

[Estragon]

“After reviewing the circumstances of SrA Babbitt’s death, the Air Force has offered Military Funeral Honors to SrA Babbitt’s family”

I would be curious to see this review.

[Martinned2]

Someone I've known for a long time IRL and online had a correct observation:

Trump world does not want to honour Babbitt. It wants to dishonour military funerals in the same way it dishonoured the Congressional Medal of honour. No consecrated things can exist, no alternative sources of respect of authority, other than the Leader’s decision.

As in Bourdieu, consecrations also consecrate the consecrator (the Nobel Prize brings honour to the Swedish academy as well as recipients). Here, the desecration of the military funeral desecrates all military honours, and desecrates the power of the military to give honour. Only the Leader remains.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your friend is as big a douche as you are sometimes.

[Martinned2]

That seems like a pretty good example of what he was talking about to me. You will abide by no source of authority or sanctity except the Great Leader.

[A Japanese Student]

Apparently checking if the newly released Nintendo video game is really new now involves "national security".

That's what the patent examiners do - they just get loads of self-claimed "inventions", and search databases for any similar ones, so that they don't patent something in the public domain.

While patents sometimes do involve national security matters - in fact there's a whole subchapter of title 35 dedicated for that - most of the examiners only get the non-sensitive, regular, and probably boring applications, and only ones the specific examiner is familiar with. (And good luck arguing that trademark examination involves national security!)

[Michael P]

I don't follow why this would be surprising. I assume the (putative) inventor didn't claim the whole game as an invention, but rather some element of aspect of it. Depending on the element, that could veer into national security or export control areas; for example, US law restricts, or used to restrict, export of computer hardware that can perform Fourier transforms at some speed. The government had to limit the restriction that because general-purpose processors got to be so fast that a desktop computer would violate the law. (The Playstation 3 was export controlled for similar reasons, and the Switch 2's processor is almost certainly faster than the PS3's.) Encryption software used to be heavily controlled, but now the controls are so bounded that it's hard to understand when someone would end up violating them because most uses are only prohibited for a few end users. A lot of other software or hardware innovations would similarly fall into national security or export control areas.

[A Japanese Student]

Yes, but by the time they get to the hands of the examiners, they would have passed the clearance. And the review delay often means that during that period the patent is published already.

[Kazinski]

Lisa Cook filed her lawsuit against Trump removing her yesterday. There were two things that struck me.

First, she sued not only Trump, but Powell and the other Fed Board members as co-defendants too. This seems to indicate the are not going to support her and let her continue voting until there is an injunction ordering them to do so.

Second, she makes no attempt to deny the charges, other than calling them unsubstantiated. In fact her suit asserts repeatedly that it because the conduct happened before she was confirmed it can't be used to fire here, it also asserts that only misconduct related to her Fed duties can be grounds for for cause firing.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.284270/gov.uscourts.dcd.284270.1.0_17.pdf

Update: they already had the first hearing. NBC News reports:

"The Federal Reserve, in a filing, said it didn't plan to offer arguments in the case but sought a "prompt ruling" that would "remove the existing cloud of uncertainty."

The Trump administration, in turn, asked the court to deny Cook's temporary restraining order, saying she offered no defense of the charges in public or private. "Removal for 'cause' is a capacious standard, and one Congress has vested in the discretion of the President," the administration's filing said."

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/lisa-cook-sues-trump-administration-hearing-what-to-know-rcna227888

[pdshaw]

On the first comment, I think there is an alternative explanation. There are significant questions about whether injunctive relief is available against the President. Apparently, the D.C. Circuit avoided the issue once by enjoining the entire Executive Branch (but not the POTUS?) to treat the removed person as unremoved. Similarly, she may want to seek an injunction against the Federal Reserve to treat her as unremoved.

Second, I think her argument about a heightened standard for removal is going to fail based upon Collins v. Yellen (2021) He just have to have cause which is more than at-will.

[Kazinski]

The speculation in the Wednesday thread was the Federal Reserve could just ignore the firing and conduct business as usual.

I don't think Collins v Yellen applies, it is no more than an affirmation of Seila, and the court recently said that it does not apply to the Federal Reserve, at least not until they explicitly say so.

The issue with Cook isn't whether the firing is for cause, but whether "for cause" means allegations of personal felony financial fraud, or whether it only means misconduct in office, and whether a conviction or indictment (indicating probable cause) or some other standard is required.

[pdshaw]

She wants a declaratory judgment that "cause" means "efficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance in office, or comparable misconduct." SCOTUS said in Collins that a plain "cause" removal statute gives the POTUS more power than those restrictions:

"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 ___ (slip op., at 5) (“for ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office’”); Morrison, 487 U. S., at 663 (“‘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 (“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 (1935) (“‘“for inefficiency, neglect of duty,
or malfeasance in office”’”); Myers, 272 U. S., at 107 (“‘by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate’”)"

Six justices appear to believe that plain "cause" lies somewhere in between at-will and efficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance in office. Her lawyer's aren't really helping finding what that might mean.

A similar observation can be made about the hearing requirement she wants. Some removal statutes have hearing requirements, the Feds does not.

[Kazinski]

I just read the governments brief, it seems pretty devastating to me, although mere legal arguments are unlikely to change anyone's mind.

But the brief lays put a very practical reason as to why there should not be a TRO issued: it will have no effect.

The Federal Reserve Board will not be convened until its next meeting in the middle of September. TRO's are limited to 14 days, so any TRO would expire before Cook has any official responsibilities that an injunction could impact.

[Martinned2]

How about the Committee on Financial Stability, which governor Cook chairs, or the Committee on Consumer and Community Affairs, the Committee on Federal Reserve Bank Affairs, and the Subcommittee on Smaller Regional and Community Banking, that she is a member of? And what about her relations with the staff? Is her secretary still supposed to do what Cook tells them or not?

[Kazinski]

Well here is the paragraph from the brief:

"This recent precedent aside, Dr. Cook identifies no irreparable harm
that requires overnight relief, or even relief within the next 14 days. Indeed, the next meeting of the Board is not scheduled to occur until September 16, beyond the default date for expiration of a TRO."

[Bob from Ohio]

"Tommy Pigott@StateDeputySpox
2h
Today the Trump Administration is announcing it will deny and revoke visas from members of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) ahead of the upcoming UN General Assembly per U.S. law.
Before we take them seriously as partners in peace, the PA and PLO must completely reject terrorism and stop counterproductively pursuing the unilateral recognition of a hypothetical state."

Good Rubio!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Good boy!

[Martinned2]

Sure, who cares about treaties signed and ratified by the United States anyway?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=151816

Mr. Bove has continued to work at the Justice Department, appearing just last week at a department event to celebrate the crime-fighting takeover of the Washington police, according to video of the gathering. It was just one instance of Mr. Bove’s presence at the department, where he has also attended meetings, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the department’s inner workings.

It's okay. When they swear federal judges in, there is a switch pushed that puts them in "judge mode," though admittedly it's a bit faulty in some cases.

[John F. Carr]

From the article: "Others expressed worry that Mr. Bove could expose himself to potential conflicts"

Probably he should recuse from any cases involving the Trump administration, except the most routine minor crimes and tort claims cases. Even 15 years later Kagan still recuses from some cases based on prior government service.

[damikesc]

...except she did not about Obamacare, which she directly worked on the defense of in the admin.

[Kazinski]

He can't keep that up when he is on the bench.

But its worth noting Justice Brandeis was a political advisor to FDR, and Justice Fortas was an advisor to LBJ when he was on the bench.

That was the issue relating to the Fortas filibuster when LBJ wanted to raise him to Chief Justice, but not Fortas' resignation over getting a contract for 20k for life (200k adjusted for inflation) from a financier under federal investigation.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in case you missed it and need something else to hang on Trump, effective September 1, former VP Harris' SS protection will end.

[Bwaaah]

Who?

[A Japanese Student]

In other news: an immigration panic in Japan, spurred by miscommunication between Japanese officials and several African news media.

JICA, Japan's version of USAID (but more independent), announced at the end of the TICAD summit four "hometowns" in Japan. Of course it's symbolic; they likely don't have any visible African population.

Media reports from Africa saw this differently, exaggerating the news or making up claims (such as visa expansion). Tanzania Times' "Japan Dedicates Nagai City to Tanzania" was the most controversial. And because people here can't read English without a dictionary they're pulling the dictionary definition of "dedicate" and panicking that we somehow agreed to gift an entire city to a country thousands of miles away.

It's not just the media, though - Nigerian government has claimed (but since retracted) that young Africans can now get a special permanent resident visa.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I once got handed a call from a Chinese tenant who told me that "my dishes had fallen off the wall."

After having asked if it was every other room in the unit, I ask her if it was the bathroom.

"Yes", she said. "I was giving my baby a bath and they almost hit her."

"Oh", I say, "were they yellow or light brown and square?"

They were -- the porcelain tiles had fallen off the wall. As I understand, the word is the same in Mandarin, with the meaning coming from the other adjacent characters. Not so in English.

[John F. Carr]

Probably 瓦 (wǎ).

[Voize of Reazon]

Not 瓷 (cí)?
瓷砖 ceramic tile
瓷器 porcelain ware

[Estragon]

Anyone else slightly alarmed that the head of HHS is publicly claiming to be able to diagnose “mitochondrial challenges” in children by briefly glancing at them in an airport?

[bernard11]

I am more than slightly alarmed by the fact that the head of HHS is an utter loon.

Just how many important agencies is Trump going to try to destroy, after he gets rid of FEMA, dismantles the CDC, takes over the Fed, neuters the EPS, etc.

And aside from agencies he's also after university research.

[Ska]

Must be an observable cellular power outage.

[Bwaaah]

Reads loud and clear on a tricorder.

[John F. Carr]

Every few years I see a story in my news feed of the sort "X looked at Y and saw that she had an obscure condition that her doctor didn't notice."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Diagnose, no -- an expert can't without testing -- but suggest the child be tested?

K-8 teachers are expected to do that.

[Kazinski]

PCE came out this morning and PCE was at 2.6%, core PCE was at 3%.

Month to month the figures are:
PCE .2
Core PCE .3

Personal income .4%
Real Personal income .2%

And yesterday the 2nd Qtr GDP estimate was revised upward from 3% to 3.3%.

[bernard11]

Is that all according to E.J. Antoni?

Here are the changes in core PCE, year-over-year, since April:

Change From Month One Year Ago
July 2025 +2.9%
June 2025 +2.8%
May 2025 +2.7%
April 2025 +2.6%

[Kazinski]

If you think EJ is cooking the numbers wouldn't Core PCE be at 1.5% rather than 3%?

[bernard11]

Not yet.

And the numbers might end up wrong not because he cooks them but because he is an incompetent hack.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz...So much for the 'tariffs will crash the economy argument' we heard so much from the economic geniuses back in February.

[santamonica811]

XY,
Be fair. After a tsunami of critcism from the left and the right, Trump walked back 95% of the craziest of his tariff threats. So, the facts that the economy has not crashed is (a) true, and (b) probably/possibly due to Trump being unable/unwilling to enact most of what he wanted to actually do, in terms of tariffs. You and I can agree to disagree on if Trump deserves any credit for being willing to throw away the lit matches.

I'd rather see a President not even pull the pin on that grenade (to mix the metaphor) to begin with. But I am glad he did put the pin back in. Several times.

[JRipplefireEsquire]

Dems keep doubling down on their beloved Open Border lawless return. Newsom is the kingfish of sanctuary state lawlessness, indebting CA billions by rewarding illegal aliens with free, unearned healthcare. He has rooted on violent mobs to target federal police trying to enforce the laws he opposes and illegally invites aliens to break.

Newsom also undemocratically ditched CA capital punishment just months after it's voters ordered it stay in place. So convicted killers now stay in prison on the public dole, able to kill and injure again with impunity. In prison homicides have doubled this year.

He has closed 4 state prisons, dumping its dangerous criminals on unprepared counties.

He opposed the voters Proposition 36 reversal on wrist slaps for open bands of thieves looting stores. He continues not to fund it.

But he keeps politically staging himself as some kind of law enforcement hero using a few token CHP reassignments to pretend his mighty crime task force somehow makes up for his defiance of federal border law and his own state laws he disregards his voters on.

[Kazinski]

I was chastised in Wednesday's thread with this rather bizarre sentence:

"If you were not an enabler, you wouldn't care whether the case against Cook is sound."

Being the sensitive type I took it to heart, well once I deconstructed it to understand it. I had to take out the double negative for full comprehension:

""If you were an enabler, you would care whether the case against Cook is sound."

Well I have to say guilty as charged, I do care if the charges are sound, and not just about Cook.

The other recent instance of Trump supposedly weaponizing the justice system against political opponents is John Bolton. Further news came out about that this just came out.

The NYTimes reports:
John Bolton Inquiry Eyes Emails Obtained by Foreign Government

"It is not clear what country intercepted Mr. Bolton’s private emails, but the investigation into President Trump’s former national security adviser picked up momentum under the Biden administration."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/27/us/politics/bolton-trump-emails-fbi-investigation.html

So I guess the same thing applies, I am an enabler because I actually care whether Bolton actually was so carelessly handling classified intelligence that it ended up in the hands of a adversaries foreign intelligence agency.

I think I've figured it out:

'It shouldn't matter if Lisa Cook or John Bolton, or Adam Schiff shoot someone on 5th Avenue as long as they oppose Trump.'

[Josh R]

It shouldn't matter if Lisa Cook or John Bolton, or Adam Schiff shoot someone on 5th Avenue as long as they oppose Trump.

You've got it backasswards.

Whether Cook should be fired should have nothing to do with her support or opposition to Trump. If she shot someone on 5th avenue, out she goes. And perhaps that applies to mortgage fraud as well. But Trump fired her only because she isn't a loyalist. The mortgage fraud, even if true, is a pretext and one Trump would have overlooked had she been a loyalist.

Stop enabling him by not calling him out.

[damikesc]

So, he should ignore law breaking by high-up government officials?

So, Josh, who exactly is above the law in your eyes?

You named Cook, so there is one.

[Josh R]

I did not say she is above the law.

[Commenter_XY]

Sure you did, you rationalized it as pretext. You fool no one.

[Josh R]

It was a pretext. Firing Cook can be simultaneously be the right thing (because she is guilty of something that justifies the firing) and an egregious power grab by our authoritarian Mafia boss (because the boss would not have fired her for the exact same thing had she been loyal to him).

[TwelveInchPianist]

"because the boss would not have fired her for the exact same thing had she been loyal to him"

It sounds like you're using "loyal" as shorthand for her not doing the things he wants her to do.

So if your complaint is that the only reasons he is firing her is that the has legal cause to do so, and she isn't doing what he wants, then sure. But so what?

As I said elsewhere, he's not required to fire her just because he has cause.

[Josh R]

So what? He's a dictator (my way or the highway). I guess that's cool with you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? He's an elected President who is executing statutory authority that gives him discretion to fire a Fed Governer when he has cause to do so.

[Josh R]

A dictator will exercise that discretion (fire) only for those who aren't loyal to him.

[Mr. Bumble]

As Dan Aykroyd said to Jane Curtain:
[Josh] you ignorant slut (notwithstanding your male name).

[Kazinski]

Pro tip: if your boss is looking for an excuse to fire you for personal reasons then quit surfing for porn on your computer at work.

And if he catches you and fires you, don't think you can use the evidence he hate your guts to get your job back.

[Josh R]

Pro tip: don't use the fact that the employee surfed for porn as an excuse for not calling out the boss for his unethical conduct.

[Bob from Ohio]

Nothing "unethical " about Trump firing her.

Mortgage fraud, that is unethical

[Josh R]

What part of "But Trump fired her only because she isn't a loyalist. The mortgage fraud, even if true, is a pretext and one Trump would have overlooked had she been a loyalist" did you not understand?

[Commenter_XY]

Mortgage fraud is fraud.

And how about that....Cook done been busted a third time by Pulte for falsifying loan documents.

[Kazinski]

Ok so now he's been criticized, and he shouldn't do it again. What's next?

Oh, we need a new Fed Governor because the other one was a crook.

[Josh R]

Ok so now he's been criticized.

In the passive voice? Even if you change that to "I criticize him," that's a milquetoast sentiment. How about instead endorsing, "although the firing may be legally justified, it is clear Trump did so only because Cook is not loyal to him. That's the act of a wanna-be dictator who must be stopped at every turn."

[Kazinski]

I'm on the fence. I like Powell and don't want him fired, Cook I want fired. But I question the constitutionality of having executive officers that are insulated from the President's control.

I think the policy arguments for having an independent Fed are sound, but the courts job is not to decide policy.

Similarly the courts job isn't to decide whether Trump had other motives to fire Cook, but whether the stated cause is sufficient. If it was just disagreement on policy he would have fired Powell, but he didn't. He fired Cook because there was sufficient additional reason, and that is why she is going to stay fired.

[Josh R]

You are not on the fence if you don't realize Trump fired Cook only because of perceived disloyalty, and don't condemn him for doing so.

[Kazinski]

That's quite a confused take, why would Cook be disloyal to Trump?

She never had any loyalty to him in the first place, nor did he expect any, she was a Biden holdover.

He's the President of the United States and its his responsibility to do what he thinks is best for the economy and the people, and she was in the way, there is nothing personal about it.

I'm on the fence about whether Trump should be able to fire Fed governors for any reason whatsoever, not about whether he should be able to fire them when cause exists, that's a nobrainer.

[Josh R]

He's the President of the United States and its his responsibility to do what he thinks is best for the economy and the people, and she was in the way, there is nothing personal about it.

Phew! I needed a good laugh.

[Commenter_XY]

That's Ok Josh R, we are laughing too. 😉

[tylertusta]

This is how the real world works- at least in corporate America where HR doesn't like you firing someone without a good reason.

If your boss detests you and wants you gone, they will either make your life hell until you quit, or they will wait and find some excuse to fire you. And that excuse could be perfectly legitimate.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But Trump fired her only because she isn't a loyalist. The mortgage fraud, even if true, is a pretext and one Trump would have overlooked had she been a loyalist."

Even if true, so what? A President is permitted to fire a Fed Governor for cause. He's not required to fire her if there is cause.

So for a President to fire a Fed Governor:
1. He has to have cause to fire her.
2. He has to want to fire her.

[bernard11]

"If not X then not Y," is not equivalent to:

"If X then Y."

The statements are inverses of each other, thus one being true does not imply the other is.

"Those who don't graduate from high school won't go to college."

"Those who graduate from high school will go to college."

Not the same thing.

[Josh R]

Right. The correct equivalence is If Y then X (the contrapositive). But, let me add one thing into "Y" to make my claim more clear:

If you care whether the case against Cook is sound as a condition for calling out Trump, you are a Trump enabler.

[hobie]

John Bolton: Russia hawk. Investigated right after the Alaska summit. Probably a coincidence.

[damikesc]

Biden started the investigation, if literacy was something you were capable of achieving, you would know that.

Correction: His admin did. Biden was barely competent enough to eat ice cream.

[hobie]

Drink!

[Kazinski]

You should probably read the NYTimes article, they seem to think there is more than just political animus:

"The United States gathered data from an adversarial country’s spy service, including emails with sensitive information that Mr. Bolton, while still working in the first Trump administration, appeared to have sent to people close to him on an unclassified system, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive case that remains open.

The investigation of Mr. Bolton, who has become an ardent critic of the president, burst back into public view last week when federal agents searched his Maryland home and Washington office.

While those searches have raised fresh questions about the extent to which Mr. Trump may be using the Justice Department and F.B.I. to try to punish those he dislikes, the new details of the case present a more complex chain of events. The disclosures suggest that a long-running investigation into Mr. Bolton’s activities changed over time, with some of the issues echoing past inquiries into the handling of national security secrets."

Finding classified information in Bolton's emails that are in the possession of a foreign intelligence service seems worth an investigation even if he hates Trump.

[hobie]

"data from an adversarial country’s spy service, including emails with sensitive information that Mr. Bolton"

Gee, I wonder which adversarial country that routinely hacks American political email systems then routinely hands over the results to Trump could this be?

On a happier note, Kaz, you are the second MAGA in one week who has quoted/relied on the lying, failing NYTimes. I'll have to remember that.

[Kazinski]

The NY Times can and does do some great reporting.

They can also be political hacks that skew and and suppress news for political reasons.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yemen getting the Hezbollah treatment.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-strike-on-yemen-said-to-kill-houthi-prime-minister-other-top-officials

[Commenter_XY]

Just desserts.

[SRG2]

"Paging Albert Speer!"

President Trump issues 'MAKING FEDERAL ARCHITECTURE BEAUTIFUL AGAIN' executive order

Actually I don't mind having a plan to improve Federal architecture - but Trump is a vulgarian wrt his own construction (as opposed to buildings he's acquired, like 40 Wall).

[loki13]

It's all going to be white marble monstrosities on the outside (just like his friends and paymasters in the Middle East) adorned only with giant banners of his face.*

Inside? Cheap gold. How much gold? As much as you fear, and then more. Much more.

*Why does he put his face everywhere? So you'll always be reminded of who brought you the hellscape that used to be a Shining City on a Hill. Although you really can't blame him. He told you what he was. Repeatedly.

[Ska]

White marble and gold trim sounds like my friends in certain parts of Queens when I was growing up.

Ah, it does make sense then.

[SRG2]

I expect that this will shortly be followed up by Trump proposing some new Federal buildings to his design. He probably thinks the White House is too small - certainly compared to Erdogan's and Putin's palaces

[hobie]

White House: our new Versailles on the Potomac where all the billionaires can ball dance.

The dinner scene and last line of Animal Farm:

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

[Keldonric]

I usually don’t go in for this sort of commentary, but I honestly thought the “giant banners of his face” was just a figure of speech. Then I saw the photo — and heard Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer say: “Mr. President, I invite you to see your big beautiful face on a banner in front of the Department of Labor.”

That’s serious bootlicking. Mr. Trump may need to get his shoes repolished after that.

[Martinned]

Yes, I wasn't speaking metaphorically. They literally put up an enormous banner with his face on it on the side of the Labor Department. And before that on the Department of Agriculture too: https://www.washingtonian.com/2025/08/12/usda-banners-trump-lincoln-cost/

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Two different "Martinned" accounts commenting in one thread is a bit odd.

Is there an explanation I've missed?

[Martinned2]

In the past for some reason I couldn't log in with my old account, so I created a new one. Subsequently for some reason the old account started working again, so now I log in with whichever account pops up in the browser I'm using.

[Magister]

I have a vague recollection that he once commented that Martinned 2 was created because he didn' have the password for the original Martinned and created a new one in order to comment. I assume that he has the two accounts logged in on different devices.

I would have to do something similar if I were ever motivated enough to comment when I'm away from my desktop and can't remember my password.

[Ska]

[loki13]

Before Labor Day, I'm just going to point this out before taking the weekend off. I actually thought that America, despite its problems, was doing pretty well! You know, good economy (especially in comparison with the rest of the world post-COVID). Rule of law. Strong relations with allies. Global leadership position. And so on.

Now I look around. Federal troops deployed on American soil. Masked police are common. Federal agencies that can't possibly handle any crisis that might come up (sure hope we can get through four years without needing the CDC or FEMA). Can't trust what the government says ... or government attorneys. Expansion of a massive federal police force (ICE) to be used for ... well, deportations and/or stuff Trump wants. Our allies don't trust us at all, and I regularly see "unprecedented" diplomatic actions because of things that WE are doing. Normalization of things I couldn't imagine before (seriously, just letting the President and AG say that they can suspend laws to specific entities because "IMA PRESIDENT, BEACHES!"). Regularization of government extortion of the private sector.

Oh, not to mention the government turning over all of our information to various Trump cronies (mostly Thiel). That's awesome, too.

I guess that's the point, right? Break so much, so fast, that it quickly becomes overwhelming and you can't keep up with it all. How can you concentrate on A when B, C, D, E, F, G, H and letters that probably don't exist all happen that week too?

I had truly hoped it would be like the first term. Weird, but fundamentally okay. It's how the system works- people that want different things elect people to do those things, and you just have to deal with it. We all accept it because you know that in our system, if it doesn't work, then at the next election - the other side gets their shot. But that group buy-in assumes that all the players are repeat players, and that they agree on the system. If one of chooses to break the system, then things fall apart.

I hope y'all have a pleasant Labor Day. I'm hitting the beach and will unplug and hope that come Tuesday ... things will be different.

[Josh R]

This likely can only be stopped by Dems taking back the House. The people have to speak loud and clear. And yet, we now have gerrymandering attempting to rig the election (good for Newsom for fighting back) and Trump will attempt to trash the election as fraudulent if Dems win.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There can be no other explanation for Republicans losing elections!

[Commenter_XY]

Have a good time at the beach. The sand and the sun can help a lot.

[Poxigah146]

Maybe the sun can bake the nonsense fantasies out of his head.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Federal troops deployed on American soil."

News from Little Rock, 1957,

And I though reader Y was hysterical. I think someone need to get off line for more than a weekend.

[Kazinski]

Breaking stuff?

"We didn’t ask for any federal officers. We’re driving crime down, but while they’re here, how can we most strategically use them to accelerate the work that MPD has done. So that's our point," she added, referring to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department.

In her remarks Wednesday, Bowser noted that since the federal takeover, there has been an 87% drop in carjackings compared to the same period last year. The data cited also showed a 45% fall in violent crime and a 12% reduction in property-related offenses, for an average decrease of 15% in crime overall in the district from the same period last year.

“We know that when carjackings go down, when use of guns goes down, when homicide or robbery go down, neighborhoods feel safer and are safer, so this surge has been important to us,” she said."

Sure using the national guard is not a long term solution, but it certainly will help to try to set a new baseline for crime.

People shouldn't have to live like they were, and the reason they had to live like that is failure of local officials, and deliberate strategy to tolerate high crime levels in some sort of warped penance for perceived social injustice.

[hobie]

Yesterday, our next president Gavin Newsom held a presser - flanked by law enforcement - pointing out that the states of Louisiana and Mississippi had crime rates 180% greater than Los Angeles. He further trolled that he's sure that now that Trump is aware of this, he will send in the military

[Poxigah146]

Louisiana and Mississippi have higher crime rates because they are 40% black. I'm sure the white conservatives in those states would love soldiers forcing the negroes to behave.

[Kazinski]

Weird, Newsom also just announced he is surfing state law enforcement into multiple jurisdictions to fight crime that is too high:

"California Highway Patrol officers will surge their presence in the Bay Area, Los Angeles and San Diego, Central Valley and more. Their operations will be unannounced, acting on data-driven intelligence on crime.

MORE: Gov. Gavin Newsom extends CHP presence in Oakland, says city must change pursuit policy

"These crime suppression teams will provide critical support to our local partners by focusing on crime where it happens most. By combining resources, intelligence and personnel, we can better disrupt criminal activity and strengthen the safety and security of communities across California," said CHP Commissioner Sean Duryee.

It comes weeks after President Donald Trump sent the National Guard to combat crime in the nation's capital, threatening to send troops into other blue cities."

https://abc7news.com/post/gov-gavin-newsom-deploying-law-enforcement-several-california-cities-fight-crime-including-san-francisco-oakland/17675762/

[hobie]

I think Newsom should offer California Guard services to Louisiana and Mississippi.

[Frank Drackman]

That would get the Spooks in line!

[not guilty]

I see that Poxigah146's obnoxious, racist and incendiary reply is no longer posted.

Is there perhaps some active moderation going on?

[tylertusta]

I still see it.

[Martinned]

I'm still seeing it, though I'm muting them now.

[Kazinski]

I had you muted for your overt racism too for a while NG.

But you are right, Pox definitely went over a line.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, are you one of the fanboys who regards a mere refusal to genuflect at the mention of Clarence Thomas's name to be "overt racism"?

If so, that says much more about you than about me. I have made no secret of my pronounced antipathy to Justice Toady, but much of my distaste springs from his being a quisling in the struggle for racial equality -- the preeminent domestic political issue of my lifetime.

I first formed a negative impression of him in 1980 when he trashed his sister in order to suck up to wealthy Republicans. My concern about the man and his rank opportunism is the very antithesis of "overt racism".

[tylertusta]

It's learned helplessness among the urban dwellers. High crime is just something you live with because what can you do?

Your government is incompetent, the police are corrupt, the prosecutors are feckless, and the judges are looking to get reelected by their left-wing supporters.

Sometimes it really does take something to shake things up and force positive change. While the Guard is clearly unsustainable- and we don't want the Guard to be doing this normally- yet perhaps this will shake the people out of their complacency. Crime can be better, but the people need to elect a government that wants to make it better.

[Mr. Bumble]

Great that Feds involvement has helped reduce the incidence of many crimes, but the real problem is the lack of prosecution and certain punishment and I don't see how the Feds can change that.

[tylertusta]

The people who live in DC need to be the change that they need. It can't be forced from above like Trump is trying to do.

[David Nieporent]

All felonies in DC are prosecuted by the federal government. (i.e., the US Attorney's Office.)

[Kazinski]

Here is an update on the man who posted the video of the 14 year old Scottish girl brandishing bladed weapons and screaming at him to stay away from her and her sister:

"This is the man accused of harassing children & was threatened by the 14-year-old girl in Scotland.

Fatos Ali Dumana a self-described ‘gypsy gangster man’, who has posted saying he is “waiting for you whores to get in my super car” -

https://x.com/TPointUK/status/1961026913578958988

I suppose it might be hard to articulate any particular reason he shouldn't be allowed in the same postal code as any girls that age, but the idea does make me a little uncomfortable.

[Martinned]

I guess you missed the part where I pointed you at a Daily Mail (!) article explaining that this whole story was nonsense?

[Mr. Bumble]

Well if the Daily Mail says so it must be true.

[Martinned]

If the Daily Mail comes out on the non-racist side, it's probably true, yes. It's the UK equivalent of Fox reporting that Obama did something good.

[Riva]

I guess you missed the part where the actual facts as we know them show that the Daily Mail in this case and the Scottish police are both full of shit.

[Kazinski]

So that's his side of the story.

But that's also the same guy in the social media post linked to above calling himself 'gypsy gangster man’, and posting the picture saying he is “waiting for you whores to get in my super car” -

There is nothing definitive either way, and I'm believing her.

[Martinned]

Sure, why wouldn't you go with your racist priors?

[Kazinski]

Why would.I believe.his story over hers?

[Mr. Bumble]

Covering his ass so as not to upset his future immigrant overlords.

[CountmontyC]

I think there is a strong possibility that Martinned is a Muslim refugee himself.

[Magister]

Maybe because the police, with access to far more witnesses and evidence, believed his story over hers.

[JRipplefireEsquire]

Trump's proposed foray into Chicago with National Guard troops uninvited struck me as foolhardy initially because it seemed aimed at the homicide rate there and that isn't something we see legal authority for. But now that it seems more predicated on ICE enforcement in this Sanctuary City we see the Title 10 U.S. Code § 12406 rationales of putting down a "rebellion or danger of rebellion" and/or being unable "with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States".

And even if one is inclined to argue against either or both those predicates existence I would see increasing difficulty maintaining such opposition were the fine residents of Chicago to feel the urge to follow the fine residents of L.A.'s inclination to do combat with ICE using bricks, blockades or arson.

[Martinned]

It's authoritarian intimidation BS regardless. All just ramping up for more domestic use of the military in the run-up to next year's election, and the 2028 presidential election after that.

[JRipplefireEsquire]

But when rioters hand him his justification, the law seems to support him.

[John F. Carr]

Governor Abbott signed the Texas redistricting bill today. According to press reports racial affinity groups sued to block the bill before it was even law. It's not clear if the reports were accurate. I didn't find a new lawsuit. A four year old lawsuit against the 2020 districts saw new activity, including an amended complaint filed today:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60654982/league-of-united-latin-american-citizens-v-abbott/?page=8

Democrats were waiting for the bill to be signed to sue and I expect new filings from them very soon.

[ducksalad]

Democrats would be better advised to put their resources into finding serious challengers for the districts that moved from "certainly Republican" to "likely Republican" when Republican voters were moved into previously Democrat districts. In the unlikely but possible event that there's a 10% shift in the polls it would convert the gerrymander into a massive dummymander.

For us capital-L Libertarians the new map is excellent. The currently attainable goal is spoiling, and now more districts are spoilable.

[OpinionsVary]

Federal Circuit just ruled that Trump's IEEPA tariffs are illegal.
Haven't read the ruling yet but here it is.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105.159.0_1.pdf

[OpinionsVary]

Okay did a skim reading.

1) They say Trump's IEEPA tariff's are illegal.

2) They're ambiguous about whether the IEEPA can ever allow tariffs. Yoshida II ruled that a predecessor law to the IEEPA allowed tariffs. The government argued that Congress effectively ratified Yoshida II when it passed the IEEPA with the same language. But the Federal Circuit ruled that, even if that is true, Yoshida II also set limits on IEEPA-type tariffs that Trump failed to meet - specifically Yoshida II highlighted that the tariffs in question were temporary, limited in scope and still under an overall bound set by Congress.

3) They punted the question of injective relief back down to the CIT. First time round, the CIT gave a universal injunction, but the SCOTUS has given us CASA since.

I think this is an interesting theoretical question. For example, they US constitution is explicit that tariffs have to be uniform. How do you square that with relief for just that parties?

But I don't think it's going to be very important practically speaking. Several states were parties and while, say, Texas might be happy with the Tariffs hitting everyone's consumers to acheive some national benefit. They're not going to be happy for only red state people paying the tariffs, while blue states don't and happy resell into red states. So if the injunction does end up limited to just the states who sue (plus the private parties) I expect it will quickly expand to include more states as they sue too.

[Poxigah146]

Even if the states win, that doesn't mean they have individual standing to challenge the effect of the tariffs on everyone inside their states, do they?

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link.

I am not familiar enough with the statutes involved to comment intelligently on the merits,* but I look forward to reading comments from those who are.

I am however reminded of what Donald Trump's handmaid John Roberts wrote last summer:

No matter the context, the President's authority to act necessarily "stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself." Youngstown [Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579,] 585 [(1952),] 72 S.Ct. 863. . . .

If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere "individual will" and "authority without law," the courts may say so. Youngstown, 343 U.S., at 655, 72 S.Ct. 863 (Jackson, J., concurring)

Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, ___, 144 S.Ct. 2312, 2327, 219 L.Ed.2d 991 (2024).

________________________
* Oddly enough, my keyboard did not break when I typed that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TnkJ8_BmSI

[Poxigah146]

Judges in the majority:

Lourie - geriatric 90 year old appointed by Bush I
Dyk - geriatric appointed by Clinton
Reyna - Hispanic supremacist appointed by Obama
Hughes - homosexual appointed by Obama
Stoll - Hispanic appointed by Obama
Stark - Obama
Cunningham - black supremacist appointed by BIden

Dissenters:

Taranto - Obama
Moore - GWB
Prost - GWB
Chen - Obama

The real question is, why are 8 of the 11 judges on the circuit appointed by Demoncraps?

[not guilty]

"The real question is, why are 8 of the 11 judges on the circuit appointed by Demoncraps? [sic]"

Well, duh! I surmise that that is because Democratic presidents were in office when those vacancies occurred.

[Poxigah146]

Yes. And I'm sure all of the judges who held this wasn't an appropriate use of emergency powers would have upheld the CDC eviction ban, the FAA masking on planes rule, the student loan deferment, and everything else that Pedo Joe did in between pleasuring himself onto teenage girls' chests.

[A Japanese Student]

CAFC rarely hears partisan lawsuits like this - their main purpose is to adjudicate patent cases.

[Martinned]

You want to claim that Covid wasn't an emergency? That's certainly one view, I guess...

[Mr. Bumble]

The emergency was the reaction to Covid and the damage it did.

[Poxigah146]

It certainly wasn't by the end of 2022.

[Armchair]

Following up on Wednesday's post. Ranking the US Presidents, round 2. The top tier. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Reagan.

As a reminder, these were the presidents who were so good that they got two terms, then had their VP/Party follow them. The people wanted them, then wanted more of their party.

1. Washington. While it's fashionable these days to knock George down to 3, Washington really deserves the top spot. Because he very much had the weakest hand, and played it expertly. There was no room for error, and he had no playbook to go by. Major accomplishments: The Bill of Rights, which is underappreciated as an accomplishment. The Whiskey Rebellion, defeated with decisive action and limited casualties. Leaving after two terms. Very much underappreciated, many others on this list would have made the US Presidency a "Presidency for life" as has happened in so many other countries. It really helped define the democratic nature of the US

2. Lincoln. Civil war and slavery. Enough said.

3. Jefferson. Over FDR, as Jefferson expanded the US enormously, started the US's international exposure with the Barbary wars, and perhaps most importantly brought Jeffersonian Democracy into the fore. Where the people, not just the elites, were responsible for democracy.

4. FDR. FDR, to be frank, may rate lower. His claim to greatness here is based on the Great Depression and WWII. Still, he had an awful lot of authoritarian impulses, from court packing to Japanese internment. FDR here looks a lot like Wilson, and there's an honest question if he wins in 1940 if WWII wasn't going on. And WWII was going to be won by the Americans. Still...a win is a win. So FDR is here at 4.

5. Reagan. Underappreciated by many, Reagan "won" the Cold War without firing a shot at the Soviets and brought the US out of the 1970's malaise. The last of the Great Presidents.

6. Monroe. The Monroe Doctrine, taking Florida without a shot, and the Missouri Compromise. The Compromise is underappreciated...it's unlikely the union could've survived a Civil War in 1820.

7. Teddy Roosevelt. Panama Canal, and....Trust busting? Both Teddy (and Jackson, below) were in many ways better as non-Presidents than their Presidency was.

8. Jackson. Jacksonian Democracy and the Nullification Crisis. Could be above Teddy

9. McKinley. Spanish American War, a war the US could win, win easily, and expand the nation. Also, acquisition of Hawaii and the beginnings of the Panama Canal. Underappreciated, his assassination cut short his career.

10. Madison. Takes a hit primarily for the war of 1812, an unnecessary war that the US didn't win. Madison should've either negotiated out of it...or won it. But weak internal support and weak preparation meant the US didn't.

11. Grant. Did fine

[ducksalad]

You put Grant last, and he points out a weakness in your point system - it overrates presidents who had weak opponents.

In Grant's case, the Democrats were still in disarray and a large number of their states hadn't been readmitted. It was unlikely any Democrat could win under those conditions. I suppose you can say Grant was good enough to get renominated, but parties tend to do that regardless of merit.

[Armchair]

Any system has weaknesses. What's important is that a less purely subjective method of initially sorting the Presidents allows for a better analysis than just "what I think".

In terms of Grant. "As president, Grant stabilized the post-war national economy, supported congressional Reconstruction and the Fifteenth Amendment, and prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan. Under Grant, the Union was completely restored. An effective civil rights executive, Grant signed a bill to create the United States Department of Justice and worked with Radical Republicans to protect African Americans during Reconstruction. In 1871, he created the first Civil Service Commission, advancing the civil service more than any prior president."

[Martinned]

3. Jefferson invented populism in US politics, a poison that has only spread since then.

5. Don't be silly. The narrative of Reagan winning the Cold War in any meaningful sense has been debunked time and time again.

7. Theodore Roosevelt's trust busting was, like Trump's, suspiciously correlated with questions like "is this person my friend?" and "did this person give me money?"

There are others who belong in the top 11.

[Mr. Bumble]

So who would be your top pick/s?

[Martinned]

Making a list is a bit of a silly game unless you agree some criteria first, and start applying them second. But looking for some mix of "left the country in a better state than they found it", "sound moral character", and "didn't try to run the place on his own", you might mention, in addition to the above:

- Cleveland
- Wilson
- Truman
- Eisenhower
- Bush sr.
- Clinton

Some of these men tried to do the right thing but ended up pursuing profoundly ill-advised policies. I'm giving them credit under "their heart was in the right place". Which again points to the need for some criteria.

[Mr. Bumble]

Which Wilson? Woodrow or Edith (either would rank among the worst)?
Would add Coolidge and Taft, although Taft may have been better on the SC.

[Martinned]

Only one Wilson was president, and for better or worse he gets credit for the modern system of nation states, and domestically for the start of the administrative state.

Taft and Coolidge, like Harding and Hoover, seem too much like they were just minding the shop, allowing good and bad things to happen around them without really trying to take a leadership role to change things for the better. From tariffs and taxes to civil rights, they tended to just do whatever caused the least amount of inconvenience politically.

[not guilty]

Martinned, I like Bill Clinton. But I would never characterize him as being of "sound moral character".

I opposed Clinton's impeachment, but I said in the wake of the Lewinsky matter that he should resign from office. (My daughter was then a preteen, so that may have colored my opinion.)

I have long thought that Clinton survived impeachment largely because his critics focused on flaws that the electorate had already taken into consideration in both 1992 and 1996. His zipper problems were well known, and it was evident that he didn't always tell the truth -- think "I didn't inhale."

[Armchair]

"Jefferson invented populism "

That's a good thing in my book, representing the common man, and not just the Elites.

[Martinned2]

To the list of laws that the US Regime is now blatantly violating without even a pretence of an excuse we can add section 11 of the UN Headquarters Agreement: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2011/volume-11-I-147-English.pdf

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/29/us/politics/trump-palestinians-un.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Piss of, wanker.

[Martinned]

Shouldn't you be sleeping, fascist?

[Mr. Bumble]

Just my turn for guard duty.
How about we move the UN to the Hague?

[Martinned]

That may well be a good idea. You don't want it hosted by a pariah state. The World Bank and the IMF have rules about where their headquarters might be (= in the biggest shareholder country), but for the UN I don't think that there is anything in the UN Charter that dictates the choice. It's just that the US has always found it beneficial for its influence in the world to have the UN HQ in New York. But now that the US no longer cares about having influence in the world, the UN might as well come here, where the ICJ is.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe Qatar. "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy" would seem to fit for the UN.

[Frank Drackman]

Took me 60 years to figure it out, but the true sign of superiority is not giving a fuck what the huddles asses think of you. You want Somali Diplomats shitting on your sidewalks, more power to you, and if "having influence in the world" means saving you fucking faggots in another war, count me out (in),

Frank

[CountmontyC]

And the USA can cut funding to the UN.. Ultimately you and the other idiots don't understand the reality that the USA doesn't get influence from being in the UN, IMF or the World Bank. The UN, IMF and World Bank gain influence from the USA being part of their organizations and if the USA withdrew from those organizations and kicked them out of the USA they would quickly become irrelevant.

[Mr. Bumble]

More irrelevant.

[CountmontyC]

I stand corrected.

[Martinned2]

the USA doesn't get influence from being in the UN, IMF or the World Bank

Not like this it doesn't. Telling the rest of the world to go fuck themselves has consequences.

if the USA withdrew from those organizations and kicked them out of the USA they would quickly become irrelevant

Why don't you try and we'll find out...

[CountmontyC]

Fine by me. We already tell the ICC to fuck off and look how irrelevant it is.

[Martinned]

Reuters has decided that its journalists in Gaza, however many are left, are safer if the IDF *does not* know where they are. Apparently the assessment is that the risk of the IDF intentionally shooting at journalists is now greater than the risk of them being hit by accident, so Reuters has stopped sharing information about the location of its journalists with the IDF.

https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/israel-nachrichtenagentur-reuters-teilt-standorte-ihrer-journalisten-nicht-mehr-mit-israels-militaer-a-27c90050-c7bd-4473-afcb-4a3d9cd25472

[Frank Drackman]

Nice of Reuters to admit their journalists are just Ham-Ass Mouthpieces, and legitimate targets.

[Martinned]

Foreign affairs has an excellent article about the Weimar Republic. Key paragraphs:

This episode illustrates the dangerous logic of abdication: the belief that, faced with a rising threat to democracy, surrender is strategy, cooperating with an autocrat is survival, and sparing oneself or one’s party from immediate punishment is worth opening the door to long-term authoritarian rule. Kaas was not alone in this kind of thinking. In the years leading up to that moment, three catastrophic miscalculations—each rooted in short-term maneuvering and self-justification—paved the way for Hitler’s ascent.

Today, this chapter of the Weimar Republic’s history should be revisited. At a moment in which democracy is backsliding in places as varied as Hungary, India, Turkey, and the United States, it is a reminder that democracy often erodes slowly at first, via the gradual surrender of those entrusted to defend it. But with each concession, autocrats become bolder, defenses grow weaker, and reversal becomes harder. Responses that, early on, can feel pragmatic—waiting it out, remaining silent, cutting a deal—only embolden autocrats, leading ultimately to the demise of democracy itself.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/germany/hitler-warnings-weimar-democracy-daniel-ziblatt

[Mr. Bumble]

"This episode illustrates the dangerous logic of abdication: the belief that, faced with a rising threat to democracy, surrender is strategy, cooperating with an autocrat is survival, and sparing oneself or one’s party from immediate punishment is worth opening the door to long-term authoritarian rule."
Sounds like England and France's reaction to the rise of Hitler.

[Martinned]

Yes. They made the same mistake that many German politicians made. Let's try to learn the right lessons from history, shall we?

[Frank Drackman]

What was the German's mistake? using Cyanide instead of just shooting everyone? I would trust you (or any Frog-Eating French Faggot (FFFF) about as much as a Chicken trusts Colonel Sanders.

Frank

[ThePublius]

That's utter bullshit, democracy is not backsliding in the U.S., if anything, it is being strengthened via the dismantling of the deep state. This whole "existential threat to democracy" false narrative is a Democratic attempt to regain and retain power. If they are not in charge, democracy is in peril. Bullshit.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Let's talk again after the next "stolen election", shall we?

[ThePublius]

"Think about this for a second

The CDC is utterly useless if it is not seen as credible by the majority of the country, and yet they employed a guy with massive satanic tattoos who wore bondage gear during a photo shoot as their point person on immunization"

https://x.com/willchamberlain/status/1961504180310552841?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1961504180310552841%7Ctwgr%5Ece808e09c5bee26fafa0451cf41c65fc67da2619%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F741268%2F

[Estragon]

Circling back to a discussion from last week, I note with interest that Trump has no public events scheduled all weekend.

That appears to include no scheduled trips to the club to play golf on a three-day holiday weekend.

[Mr. Bumble]

Spending the holiday weekend planning more dirty deeds (done dirt cheap)?

[Mr. Bumble]

You'll be happy to know he is playing a round of golf with his granddaughter this morning.

[Frank Drackman]

As opposed to Parkinsonian Joe, who had no truly pubic events his entire Presidencty.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

[delete]

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Watching the Mets game and there is an ad for ICE.

I wonder how many viewers will fulfill "their destiny" and join.