Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Politics
Eugene Volokh | 9.7.2025 3:00 AM
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: September 6, 1983
Hide Comments (367)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Can't wait to see what the Department of War has in mind for Chicago.
Hopefully they have some IDF urban warfare experts as military advisors to give them pointers.
Yes, give it the Gaza treatment...
He’s so edgy!
Trump's gestapo, in action.
Did the Gestapo have 600 federal judges watching every move?
This is probably the most law abiding administration since Coolidge with the amount of scrutiny they are getting.
But it doesn't matter that ICE has 600 judges watching them. SCOTUS has given them a blank check.
Depends on your outlook. Let's do some math.
Through 8 months, there are ~280 homicides, on pace for ~420 for the year. If sending in the Nat Guard saves 25% of the remainder (roughly 35 lives), is that not enough for you?
ONS, I am reasonably sure you walk in a nice, upper middle class neighborhood, free of shootings and killing in the street daily. Why can't the people of Chicago walk their streets as you do? Free of daily shootings and killing?
Don't want to go full Malthusian, but 99% of the murdered in Chicago, DC, Atlanta, Memphis, etc, etc, are Human (questionable) Succus Entericus that the world is better off without, and as the Late Great Abraham Lincoln said, the world will little note, nor long remember
It appears Chicago isn’t on the top ten homicide rate by city list.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5482375-homicide-rates-major-cities/amp/
Wow, Jackson MS, Birmingham, Memphis, Detroit, St Louis, Louisville, Baltimore, Cleveland, trying to figure out what they all have in common Demographically?
They’re full of people that know demographically shouldn’t be capitalized?
The single best indicator of an area's crime rate is the percentage of the population that is black.
"Often, one obtains very different results depending on whether crime rates are measured for the city jurisdiction or the metropolitan area.[1][4]"
It's also easy to get relatively high rates due to random noise in cities with 150k or 200k people total. Single-year numbers from those cities are not comparable to Chicago's, which are based on a population of 2.6 million.
See also, for example, https://wirepoints.org/2024-homicide-rankings-chicago-st-louis-lead-nation-yet-again-a-wirepoints-survey-of-americas-75-largest-cities/
Notice this source has Chicago ranked 13th per capita.
Notice how the top 10 of that list is absolutely dominated by cities in red states. Seems like Republicans should get their own houses in order before worrying too much what's going on in Illinois.
(Yeah, yeah, the mayors are Democrats. So send some of the Ohio National Guard to fix St Louis instead of DC. Seems like that Democratic mayor needs more help than any of the places Trump is actually talking about.)
Notice how the top 10 of that list is absolutely dominated by [blue-stronghold] cities in red states.
FTFY, since apparently it has to be said each and every time we have this conversation.
You should maybe try reading to the end since your point is anticipated in the second paragraph.
The fact that you mention the huge hole in your argument doesn't fill that hole. The National Guard is going to places where they might make a difference in absolute numbers of murders.
I guess you could play off your second paragraph as serious, but after writing "seems like Republicans should get their own houses in order" it came across as fairly sarcastic. If you're truly shifting from the party line around here, kudos.
Since they're not doing that in DC — they're sending them to low-crime areas — it seems unlikely they'd do that elsewhere either.
One needs to count shooting victims which is about 5x the homicides. Labor Day weekend had 58 people shot and 8 died. So for ~500 Homicides, there are ~2,500 people shot. Some of those shot are bystanders. Additionally, there is property damage to include as a cost. I live 20 miles from Chicago and have been to the City once in the last five years.
“If it saves just one life” was the rationale behind every overreach during COVID. Funny how that doesn’t apply here. Note, I’m not in favor of a federal takeover of crime in non-federal areas. (Though I can support sending in federal forces to protect federal agents in their job duties and federal buildings that are threatened when the state and local governments aren’t doing enough to help.) But the rationale should either be the same as during COVID or should be denounced. Because I don’t believe “if it saves just one life” is a proper rationale behind government overreach, I denounce it.
“If it saves just one life” was the rationale behind every overreach during COVID
Citation needed. I'm sure there were people that said stupid stuff like that, just as Commenter_XY is doing above. But in general the rationale was about saving tens or hundreds of thousands of lives.
To put this in perspective, in early 2021, there were more people dying from Covid per week in the US than die from murders in a year. The difference between periods where Covid was surging versus relatively under control was thousands of people per day.
Which also isn't to say that there wasn't some overreach, but "you have to wear a mask on a plane" also really isn't in the same category as "we're going to illegally deploy the military into cities against the will of the mayors and governors" either.
"...in early 2021, there were more people dying from Covid per week ..." That should be "dying with Covid". The number dying from Covid will never be known.
The number dying from Covid will never be known.
Well, not by people with their heads in the sand, anyway.
So tell us how many people died as a result of getting COVID, your source, and that source's definition for the data point you purport to know.
1,234,781 as of about a week ago. Its definition is people for whom COVID was the underlying cause of death (87% of the total) or a contributing cause of death (13% of the total).
"1] Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19, coded to ICD–10 code U07.1." From your link. Does Not say FROM Covid.
It does in fact say from COVID, as I quoted: people for whom COVID was the underlying cause of death (87% of the total) or a contributing cause of death (13% of the total).
The thing you quote is about how they determined COVID was the cause, not whether COVID was the cause.
You have to call it
A reasonable estimate is something north of 1 million. Estimates of excess deaths, not a precisely known figure, run in that range.
As to "from Covid" vs. "with Covid," a few points are worth mentioning.
1. It is hard to know if an individual who dies "with Covid" would still have died if they hadn't had it. If someone who died from whatever, and had Covid, and wouldn't have died otherwise, that's part of the death count for Covid.
2. Hospitals, doctors, and medical facilities in general were greatly strained. Some people died of other causes because they couldn't get needed treatment.
3. Some Covid deaths were likely attributed to other causes.
The point here is that, to measure the effect of Covid on mortality it is neither necessary nor wise to attribute every death to a single cause. We are after the marginal impact of Covid - the number of people who died who wouldn't have had Covid never happened. Excess deaths is a good way to address that.
Better to have your head in the sand than up your ass as you do. So, how many died FROM Covid as opposed to dying with Covid?
Why were these measures not done during the swine flu pandemic?
Can everyone take a deep breath? More funding for more policing is a universal.
Uhhh, defund the police idiocy aside. That was ever only a feelgood meme that made legions of white women safely in suburbs feel like extra s00per good-o people.
So ask yourself: if gun violence is a known problem, then should the federal govt remove funds for gun violence prevention because the executive branch doesn't like the state's sanctuary policies?? What about its no cash bail policies??
Because that is what the Trump admin has done. There are joint fed/state task forces dedicated to firearms. They remove tens of thousands of guns from the streets. They prosecute gun running and straw purchasing rings in federal court. Remove the funding, reduce the prosecutions what do you expect to happen??? MORE FUCKING GUNS ON THE STREETS?
Nat;l guard isn't a federal police force. They are not going to be patrolling the ghetto, making traffic stops and seizing guns from those who cannot legally possess them.
Now that Trump is using fed dollars to punish his perceived political enemies... we will see the results and they will blame everybody but their own stupid decisions.
It’s going to get him that Noble (Witkoff) Prize!
It’s “Nobel” Officer Language Police watsa matter U? Don’t spell good?
Frink
Lol, you idiot, Witkoff pronounced it “Noble” when saying his one wish was Trump would get the prize (hence the Witkoff in parentheses).
If only democrats would be more concerned about fixing the corrupt crime hells the urban enclaves they control have become rather than childishly opposing the one political leader actually proposing and implementing measures to clean up the messes. But then they wouldn’t really be democrats anymore, the party of crime and corruption. The crime and corruption is a feature, not a bug. Especially in Chicago.
“the one political leader actually proposing and implementing measures to clean up the messes”
You don’t have to be a Democrat to know that sending in the national guard is not a viable solution to a national crime problem.
“the party of crime and corruption”
Which party’s leader is a multiple felon?
How is a crime problem concentrated in urban centers with a high concentration of a subset of the national demographics a "national crime problem"?
Because it happens in many cities and states across the nation? I mean, homelessness is “concentrated in urban centers with a high concentration of a subset of the national demographics” and your Dear Leader has referred to that as a national problem.
Not sure I understand the "your Dear Leader" nonsense. Are you a US citizen? If so, President Trump is your president as well. Maybe you're an election denier?
This is stupid on so many levels.
1) 80% of the US population lives in urban areas! 2) There are cities all over the country. 3) It's not even true. While it's generally the case that rural violent crime rates are lower than in urban areas, many of the counties with the highest crime rates are rural counties in red states:
https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/mikejohnsonjr/united-states-crime-rates-by-county
Yes, democrats do excel at criminally abusive lawfare against political opponents. Real law enforcement fighting crime? Not so much.
Trump's gold-bling decor for the Oval Office is a national disgrace. Much worse would be the 90,000 square-foot, "ballroom."
I got a Labor Day visit from one of my oldest friends—we met in the 60s. He is retired now, but had a career supplying industrial-scale roofing materials, and consulting on big projects. Union Station in DC, for instance. I mentioned the size of the ballroom. He of course got it immediately, "That's an especially large industrial warehouse," he said.
I don't understand why that story seems to have dropped out of sight. Seems like the Congress, or the Architect of the White House, ought to be able to intervene. Trump announced last month that he would break ground this month, using private funding. I don't understand how it can even be legal to modify the White House using private money without public supervision.
You dont understand a lot of (redacted) funny how when Jackie Kennedy remodeled the White House everyone thought it was great, just like her husband putting his brother in as AG and starting the Vietnam Wah
“You dont understand a lot of (redacted) funny how when”
Is the redacted English punctuation/ capitalization and this is about yourself?
At least I can spell “Nobel”
Keep digging, Francis!
You just made the list!
She’s a Filthy-delphia fan, the fan base that (in)famously booed Santa Claus
Wrong sub-thread. Francis is particularly deranged today.
Jackie Kennedy remodeled the White House everyone thought it was great,
She had taste, and she didn't add bling and a giant warehouse.
I have to say, if Congress chooses to provide oversight to the President’s activities, there are at least a hundred things I’d rather they spend their time on than this.
Trump comes up with symbolic culture-war distractions as a way to deflect attention from what he is really doing. If Congress follows your advice and chooses to focus on relative trivia like this, I’d count that as a big win for Trump. He will have successfully distracted them from paying attention to something I’d consider of real importance.
Well now we know what Trump was hiding and why he doesn't want the Epstein files released, he was an FBI informant.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-informant-fbi-b2821406.html
Being an FBI snitch is not going to go down well with the base. However it does explain why he thought he could get away murdering someone on 5th avenue.
"Mr Johnson added: “When he first heard the rumour, he kicked him out of Mar-a-Lago. He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down.”"
Which is a lie, of course. Trump probably did finger Epstein, but it had nothing to do with Epstein's affinity for women "on the younger side", as Trump had so eloquently put it in 2002, and alluded to in his alleged 2003 birthday wishes for Epstein.
The alleged "Mar-a-Lago rumor" and "kicking out" apparently occurred in the mid-2000s--shortly after Epstein crossed Trump on a Palm Beach real estate deal in 2004--and long, long after Virginia Guiffre had been "stolen" from Trump's Mar-a-Lago spa by Epstein in the summer of 2000.
You'd have to a very special kind of rube to believe that Trump's dramatic falling out with Epstein had anything to do with his "stealing" of employees in the early 2000s.
I have said before that Trump's reneging on his campaign (and later) promises to release the Epstein files is probably related to the fact that he does not want his role in Epstein's indictment to be revealed--but not for the reason you suggest ("being an FBI snitch is not going to go down well with the base").
It is probably because the timing of his cooperation would clarify why he snitched to the FBI: Not because of any moral objection to Epstein's activities (of which he was aware, but indifferent), but to get even with Epstein for crossing him in a real estate deal. Classic Trump.
Taking this argument on its face, and I do not, being "caught" ratting out Epstein to get back at him for business problems is embarrassing, but not illegal.
More importantly, it's wayyyyyyy better than being suspected of enjoying underage prostitutes.
So "doesn't want it released" for the reason you stated does not track. If that's all the files showed, he'd rush to release it at this point.
“business problems”
That’s one way of putting it. You should look into the real-estate deal in question if you’re truly curious.
Here’s a theory:
“A short time later Epstein found out that Trump had gone behind his back and placed a higher and ultimately successful bid on the property. He’d snatched it out from under him with a much higher bid. The problem was that Trump’s entire empire in 2004 was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. It made no sense that Trump was coming up with $41 million to buy this property. Epstein suspected that Trump was acting as a front for a Russian oligarch as a money-laundering scheme. And in fact Trump did purchase and flip the estate two years later to a Russian oligarch named Dmitry Rybolovlev for $95 million, or a profit of over $50 million dollars.”
That makes no sense.
Trump snatched the property with a much higher bid, which would have to be an overpay if Epstein was making a serious bid for the property. And then Trump flipped his overpay two years later for double the money?
And Russian Oligarchs will front the money for an overpay, then pay twice as much 2 years later for something they already bought once?
Not saying this is actually what happened, but "they" didn't buy it in the first place; Trump did. "They" then would have had to buy it from Trump in order to "have" it.
I don't know if you've been following the Epstein files story, but Trump doesn't want the files released for any reason.
Certainly, if he were to choose a reason to release them, it would be the one less damaging to himself, but that doesn't mean the less damaging reasons are not still sufficient for him to be blocking their release. Which he is still doing.
How else would you explain him not authorizing their release, if, as you suggest, doing so would destroy the much more damaging "enjoying underage prostitutes" theory?
We have and will release the files There are no files Dems made them up Trump got mad at Epstein for stealing the girls away from Mara Lago and never talked to him again Trump was heroically only pretending he was into Epstein to bring him down from the inside.
Y’all are a mess.
Like the “N-word” outsiders don’t get to use Y’all, do we go to Minn-a-Soda and talk like Jerry Lundergard?
^not a native English speaker btw.
One of his many stories.
Gaslight0 - Are you accusing trump of being a pedophile or are you on just one of your deranged rants?
I think the GOP and hangers on have told so many lies on this that they are a mess.
Gaslight0
That is non responsive to your accusation that trump is a pedophile.
Care to provide a coherent response or just another typical deranged comment.
Where did he say Trump was a pedophile?
Malika la Maize 3 hours ago Flag Comment Mute User Where did he say Trump was a pedophile?
Sarcastr0 6 hours ago
Trump got mad at Epstein for stealing the girls away from Mara Lago
"He took people, I say 'don't do it anymore', you know they work for me... beyond that, he took some others," Trump said. "Once he did that, that was the end of him."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyvn7ee3539o
Hey, he's allowed to rest of vibes.
It's his privilege as a Federal Better.
This guy supports broad immunity for the President and then complains “Federal Betters.” We deserve a better quality of white supremacist.
Being an FBI snitch is not going to go down well with the base.
Johnson is either really sneaky or really clueless; an "informant" isn't a mere witness. It's someone involved with the crimes who rats out his co-criminals.
How many years has it been since you were right about anything? Have you been tested for dementia (recently)?
According to the Confidential Informant Guidelines, a confidential informant or "CI" is "any individual who provides useful and credible information to a Justice Law Enforcement Agency (JLEA) regarding felonious criminal activities and from whom the JLEA expects or intends to obtain additional useful and credible information regarding such activities in the future.
https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/archive/special/0509/chapter3.htm
Later parts of that report identify "attorneys, clergy, or physicians" as being a particular kind of informant. It also gives the example of material supporters of terrorism, where the CI was described as having conversations with the suspects but not providing support for terrorism.
90% of the informants I am aware of got caught doing something and are working off their charges by giving the cops others to charge. This is not a mystery or unusual. The vast majority of informants are this type of informant. Physicians and others may be mandatory reporters required to inform. Trump in the 2000s does not fit any of the usual categories. But he does have an interesting relationship with Mr Epstein and Ms Maxwell. Who he made some special arrangements for when she praised him for being a 'perfect gentleman' and for his kindness. Hahahhaahhaahha.
You people have to have RFK's brain worm.
FYI, Johnson has now walked back the claim that Trump was an informant.
It's a total lie, but it does pass the smell test, in the sense that the FBI has a long, long history of using crooks and lowlifes as informants.
Wait. So, NOT a “Democrat hoax”?
The week to week cognitive dissonance of trying to be a Republican these days has got to be incredible.
A Ukrainian refugee was stabbed to death on the Charlotte light rail a few days ago.
There is a video floating around. But I have no desire to watch it, here is a picture of the assailant right before he stabbed her.
I'm not going to.speculate on the motive because the killer is obviously insane, what I will say is he should have been in jail or institutionalized.
There are also a photo of the 21 year old victim, and 14 previous booking shots of the killer.
https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1964384803274289559
I must be Psychic, the killer looks exactly like I thought he would.
...and not a fine person?
“I'm not going to.speculate on the motive”
Trying something new for September?
Here is a better shot of the context of the attack, you tell me what the motive was.
https://x.com/WallStreetMav/status/1964436214737695179
In a sane world, this animal would have already been swinging from a tree.
Thanks, now I can't get that "George of the Jungle" Theme song out of my head, "....and away he'll schlep on his Elephant Shep while Bella and Fella* will keep in step!......"
* "Fella" was a very curvaceous hottie, George wasn't too sharp.
What a Comment, this person Just made Here
enough from you, Ape!
At he got it on one line this time!
But he got the George of the Jungle theme song line wrong.
Which of his prior crimes do you think was deserving of the death penalty? Or are you just pro-lynching?
This one. In the Jim Crow South, he would have been lynched already after killing this woman.
"he should have been in jail or institutionalized"
Despite a very long criminal record, judge in latest case gave him gave him no cash bail. His PD files a motion to determine if he can stand trial because he is crazy. Second judge orders an exam but does NOT order him to jail.
Hope these two judges are proud. Bail reform for the win!
As far as I've seen, he did not in fact have a very long criminal record. He was convicted of a violent crime over a decade ago and served six years in prison. You are pretending that arrests are a "criminal record." They are not. And, again, fascists misunderstand bail. The purpose of bail is not to keep people in jail; it's to let them out. The "latest case" — before the train stabbing — was an arrest for making a crank call to 911. What judge would not let someone accused of that minor nonviolent crime out of jail? Finally: the people who opposed letting people like the victim into the U.S. in the first place should STFU and stop pretending to care about her.
And here we have DN defending the murderer in senseless black on White murder. Just like that mayor and the rest of the Democrats.
And here we have LexAquilia lying. I did not say one word "defending" the guy.
DN - For starters you denial of his long criminal record is the first lie
Secondly - your response with the usual deflection included an implied defense of the guy
My denial of his "long criminal record" is correct, and is not a defense of him. There was no "implied defense" of him. Pro tip: wait until after you learn to read what is explicit before you start trying to find implications.
You have to call it, I can’t call it for you
your deflection is your typical deflection - it was a subtle and discrete defense.
Kinda hard to belief your second dodge when you get material facts wrong in your first sentence of your original comment.
David Nieporent 1 hour ago My denial of his "long criminal record" is correct,
DN - repeating the same lie - doesnt make it true!
No, but the truth makes it true. A single set of convictions over a decade ago is not a long criminal record.
Heads or Tails? You have to call it, I can't call it for you.
The purpose of bail is neither to keep people in jail nor to let them out; The purpose of bail is to make sure they show up for trial.
People in jail have 100% trial attendance.
"No cash" bail is not bail, its just a release.
Don't know how it works where you live. Around here if you get a personal recognizance bond, that means no cash up front. But if you don't show up they'll (try to) take the stated amount by all the traditional methods used when you owe the government money. Agreed that it doesn't work for them if you're homeless and bankless.
Don't know about that 100% "trial" attendance. Only spent a few hours in courtrooms (thankfully) but overheard jailers offering various reasons for failing to bring the jailed defendant - sick, conflict with another court date, transferred to another jail, etc. And I thought the vast majority of people in jail never get to an actual trial anyway.
It's to make sure they show up for trial after you let them out, though.
We could make sure of that by not letting them out on bail. The purpose of setting bail is that so they can get out.
" fascists"
Yawn.
The purpose of the law is to protect the public. It failed here and a young woman is dead.
"As far as I've seen, he did not in fact have a very long criminal record. "
Get some glasses.
"Brown had been convicted of multiple offenses, including robbery with a dangerous weapon, breaking and entering, felony larceny, and misuse of the 911 system." wikipedia
Well, Wikipedia appears to be wrong, as — just for starters — he was just charged with misuse of the 911 system earlier this year; he had not been "convicted of" that. As for the rest, yes, there were convictions for several offenses, but they were all at the same time like 15 years ago. He was convicted and sent to prison for 5 years.
It's not the number of convictions that make it reasonable to describe a criminal record as long; if it were, Trump would have a much longer criminal record since he was convicted of 34 offenses. People are talking about this guy's "long criminal record" based on arrests that didn't result in convictions.
The fact that they kept dropping charges against him isn't necessarily the flex you think it is since if instead of just letting him walk away with no punishment he had served some time maybe he would have become less criminally inclined.
1) He spent 5 years in prison.
2) He appears to be mentally ill, not "criminally inclined."
3) If they dropped charges, that means he's innocent of those crimes.
I don't think that anything should be done wrt the pardons themselves that President Biden issued. Did Wilson issue pardons? Answer: he did, and they were never challenged, post-presidency, either. I do think that the circumstances and type of document signed by use of an Autopen must be re-examined. Ideally, Congress would legislate them. Can they?
https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/09/biden-autopen-scandal-widens-family-pardons-doj-objections/
Here is the problem with the scope of use of Autopen. Signing thousands of letters of routine foreign correspondence, Autopen seems a reasonable workplace accommodation (for any POTUS), no problem. Using Autopen to sign off on thousands of pardons, or military actions where US lives are at risk, or other sensitive foreign communication between leaders, not so much. I'd want a human being affixing that signature.
Is it wrong to think that way? That there are some presidential actions where Autopen must not be used; a human being (POTUS) must sign the legal document. What is out of bounds using an Autopen? Just as a citizen, I think I want that safeguard, there are some presidential actions that only a human being can sign off upon.
FTR, POTUS Trump uses the Autopen too. 😉
The ish-yew is that Sleepy Joe "the best Sleepy Joe ever! (HT Morning Schmoe) had Dementia (and Stage 4 Prostrate Cancer, tell me again about what a Quack Dr. Ronnie Jackson was)
...and in case you missed it, the Navy has restored Jackson's rank to Rear Admiral.
with back pay I hope.
A Rear Admiral with back pay? [schoolboy snicker]
Does dementia cause a loss of knowledge of basic rules of English punctuation, capitalization and other writing skills?
I guess knowing how to spell “Nobel Prize” is the first cognitive skill to go, and don’t bother with Prevagen, it’s (redacted)
Lol, dig, Francis, dig!
Why are you making the same dumb arguments that were discussed and debunked months ago? The. President. Doesn't. Need. To. Sign. Pardons. They were valid if Biden hand signed them. They were valid if signed by autopen. They were valid if nobody at all signed them.
Thanks Dr Seuss
They're only valid if Biden intended to issue them, and the evidence that has come to light suggests that he didn't know what his name was signed to, much less intend to issue those specific pardons.
No such evidence has come to light, and even if it had, that is entirely unrelated to the use of an autopen. If the pardons had been issued with no signatures on them, the same issue (of whether Biden had authorized them) would be in effect.
Heads or Tails? We're waiting!! (HT Judge E. Smails)
There's an early Biden admin memo, not even signed by Biden, that grants several people unlimited use of the autopen for Biden's signature.
Cite?
David Nieporent 5 hours ago Flag Comment Mute User No such evidence has come to light,"
DN - you are on a roll today - your response is absolute B---
Deniers are going to deny. They don't even have any good arguments to back up their denialism, just their shibboleths and professions of faith.
I guess crazy Dave didn’t get the memo that even Biden’s own staff churning out the pardons were unclear that Biden actually approved the autopen factory. I wonder when some legal masterminds will argue that nothing was Biden’s fault because he was incompetent and unable to approve anything. Then realizing, oh shit, that doesn’t really help the cause.
further note - Dishonest Dave's deflection of the substantive issue.
DN - the issue is whether Biden was aware or had actual knowledge or had actual intent of the pardons.
Based on the information that has been forthcoming, actual intent or actual knowledge is questionable.
Which information is that?
I hope I am not violating any blog rules by re-posting this a few weeks after the first time. I am a veteran and 28-year law enforcement officer, and I was prosecuted by the DC USAO (under both 46 and 47) for taking off-duty action in the Metro (subway). Even if you reject my affirmative defenses, do you really want the chilling effect on self-defense (libertarians) and proactive policing (conservatives) that comes from letting my conviction stand? Also, I was denied a jury trial because the maximum penalty in DC for simple assault is 180 days. No libertarian or conservative can possibly agree with that. Please take a look at my change.org petition, which has links to video:
https://www.change.org/p/pardon-combat-veteran-and-law-enforcement-officer-harold-christy
Like Derek Chauvin, you should have gotten a medal, if I absolutely had to convict either of you for a crime it'd be "littering"
Drackman, if you watch the tape, I didn’t even ‘litter.’ My opponent, like Bryan Ferry, danced away afterwards. I have lost my job and spent $200K on lawyers for pushing a man five feet without injury. And this Admin wants cops to be proactive….
You're the wrong skin color. D.C. juries will let blacks and white rioters off the hook, but will convict whites for anything (see J6 for example).
You're not violating any blog rules and you're nowhere close to being as repetitive as some other regulars here.
It's outrageous that the federal/DC government denies jury trials for criminal offenses and if you had a clean petition on that I'd sign.
But frankly, if that video you posted was the only evidence and I was on the jury, yeah, looks like simple assault. Nothing worth incarceration or ending a career if there's no additional story, but still.
The dancing was the simple assault - placed me in apprehension of imminent offensive contact. Remember this is a moving, swaying, stopping/starting train - since the camera is fixed to the ceiling, you don't really get a sense of the movement. The dancers were constantly going in and out of my personal space - at any given time they could have made offensive contact with me. Also, by keeping me in one place with their erratic movement (had I tried to move away, I probably would have bumped them anyway), they were committing false imprisonment. I was defending myself and others from these torts and crimes. Finally, per DC statute, any panhandling on the train is aggresive panhandling, itself a misdemeanor. And really that statute was created because the alternative offense is robbery by fear - a felony. So I was exercising my citizen's arrest and LE powers - pick whichever is more appropriate for the off-duty context.
So I was exercising my citizen's arrest and LE powers - pick whichever is more appropriate for the off-duty context.
After 28 years as an LEO you're not sure which is more appropriate? Also, I didn't see you do anything that looked like an arrest....which is maybe a good thing for you.
apprehension of imminent offensive contact
Video looked like (a) you made the first actual contact, not him, and (b) you intended to make contact, and he didn't.
Seriously man, I've ridden the DC metro during rush hour several times and contact is just something that happens. The dancer was taking up more than his fair share of space with his "performance" but that's about the extent of it.
If you can't take it, consider moving out here to the great state of Texas. Really. We have full up jury trials even for speeding tickets. We have no subways so there will definitely not be any subway dancers to bother you and no subway cameras to be used as evidence against you. And finally (don't ask me how I know) Texas lawyers only charge $15K to go to trial on a felony charge. You're getting ripped off if you really spent $200K.
Ducksalad, what "looks like an arrest?" And does failure to "look like an arrest" turn it into a crime? Now do it for Terry stops.
IANAL and IANALEO, but I thought Terry stops were brief investigatory detentions to ask some questions. I'd didn't see detention or investigation. Just an angry guy shoving someone.
Sometimes that's what arrests and Terry stops look like. It's not always the bobby doffing his helmet and asking "excuse me sir, what's all this then?".
Also, you can disagree with everything I did, and also disagree with everything the Transit Police and US Attorney's office did to me, as misuse of resources and two-tier justice against a (perceived) white cop. They put out a wanted poster for me, ffs! For pushing a man five feet. While subway stabbings were going unsolved. And, as you mentioned, the jury issue. The "heroes" of our landmark cases were not very heroic: Miranda, Mapp, Garner, Gideon, etc. If you want to equate me with them, fine.
We went over this last time: all of your legal analysis is garbage. (Which is probably why you quote neither a single statute nor court decision that adopts your laughable misunderstanding of the law. For example, incidental contact on a subway is not "assault.") The video makes clear that you attacked them without provocation because you didn't like their music. (Well, it doesn't establish your motive; your words here do that.)
Call it, you have to call it.
Careful, Frank, Sheriff Bob hates tedious stalking!
What is "calling the Quarter?" Is it like asking for quarter? Like the Zeppelin song "No Quarter?"
Nieporent, get out your hornbook or your Emanuel's. Assault is placing someone in apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. The dancer knew how close he was to people, and how herky-jerky the train can be. Therefore he knew that at any moment he could careen into me or anyone else. Ganja-reeking hair in one's face is offensive contact. I used reasonable force to prevent that and to liberate myself from false imprisonment.
I feel strongly that misdemeanors should be entitled to jury trials, and states should provide them even though the SC said they don't have to.
But if I were on a jury and we got to decide both guilt and penalty, your responses here are making it worse, not better. It's like you don't understand why you can't do what you did.
Ducksalad, educate me. Why can't I do what I did?
My fault, I was using obscure legal jargon I picked up by reading this blog for many years.
Obviously you can do what you did: you did in fact do it.
In the obscure jargon we use around here, "can't do that" means "you can do that but if you do you could be prosecuted and likely convicted". Hope that clears it up.
LOL ducksalad
okay, ducksalad, tell me in obscure legal jargon.
"The dancer knew how close he was to people, and how herky-jerky the train can be. Therefore he knew that at any moment he could careen into me or anyone else."
That is not an assault. The contact you fear must itself be a battery. That is, he must intend to make contact with you. The fact that a shifting train may cause unintentional contact is not sufficient to make out a case for assault.
"Ganja-reeking hair in one's face is offensive contact. "
There was no contact that he made with his hair. Whether you found his hair to smell unpleasant does not mean that he made contact with you.
"and to liberate myself from false imprisonment."
This was no false imprisonment. Mere obstruction of your path is not enough. He must totally confine you to a particular space.
You are not helping yourself by posting here. That being said, I think all of this is a nothingburger and the DA should have just told you to chill the hell out and don't do it again.
Wvatty: “ That is not an assault. The contact you fear must itself be a battery. That is, he must intend to make contact with you”
That is simply not true. Such a rule would criminalize, for example, putting out my hand to keep you from bumping into me if you are walking backwards, or tripping and falling on to me. I am at a concert right now with all kinds of small-bladdered people needing to get in and out of the row past me. If one of them stumbles and is about to spill their drink on me, or just fall into my lap, am I not allowed to stop them from completing that offensive contact, even though they don’t intend it? And some of these heifers, I would need to exert a great amount of force to keep off me.
If one of them stumbles and is about to spill their drink on me, or just fall into my lap, am I not allowed to stop them from completing that offensive contact, even though they don’t intend it?
You are not allowed to preemptively approach them and attack them because you are supposedly worried that they might bump into you, no.
Nieporent, the dancers approached me. They stayed in close proximity the whole time. They moved in an erratic manner that made predicting their next location impossible at any given time. Things happen quickly under those conditions. You've never played a contact sport or been in a fight, have you? And you probably watch pro sports and critique the hell out of the athletes, don't you?
Nieporent, the dancers approached me. They stayed in close proximity the whole time.
Um, we've seen the video. You didn't stick out your arm and nudge the guy away when he got too close to you. You crossed the subway car to assault him.
Mr. Mosby, just asking.....did the either the investigating officer or the DA make a suggestion like what WV posted: "chill the hell out and don't do it again"?
If so, did you accept the implied offer, or did you deploy this line of reasoning?
Duck, the investigating officer never talked to me. Probably afraid I would offer exculpatory evidence. The AUSAs would only offer what the DC Code calls a deferred sentencing agreement (DSA), which would have required me to allocute and would have cost me my job. I wouldn't allocute because I have nothing to allocute to - I did nothing wrong.
"Such a rule would criminalize, for example, putting out my hand to keep you from bumping into me if you are walking backwards."
Such contact would not be a battery because it is not harmful nor offensive to a reasonable person. What you did in the video was jack the guy up against the opposite door of the Metro car.
WV, you have dodged the issue. You said "The contact you fear must itself be a battery. That is, he must intend to make contact with you."
I replied there is no such requirement for intent on his part, and I offered a hypo where the person has no such intent.
You then switched from that person's intent to the level of force I use in response.
So does the other person need intent or not?
You simply refuse to acknowledge. Two issues:
1. You can repel an assault with reasonable force. What this guy did to you was not an assault. Regardless of whether you were in fear of the train shifting and him bumping into you, the contact that you fear must be a battery. In addition, assuming it was an assault (which it wasn't) the force you used was out of proportion to dispel the fear that he might accidentally bump into you.
2. De minimis contact---a hand being placed to guide someone who may accidentally bump into you, is not a battery at all in any event. No need to get into doctrines about assault and reasonable force. A guiding hand or a tap on the shoulder is not harmful nor would a reasonable person find it offensive.
Your force was at minimum offensive. The only way it is not criminal is if it is privileged. It is not. You were not repelling an assault. Even if you were, your force was disproportionate. You did not merely guide your hand into someone who was walking backwards and might bump into you.
I watched the video. Nothing that happened permitted you to shove this dude into the opposite door. Was he an annoying SOB? Yes, he was. That doesn't permit you to use force.
You are discussing torts, not the D.C. penal code. And creating some sort of made up crime of negligent assault.
You are assuming that self-defense is possible only against a crime.
No, I am responding to your claim that they were committing crimes.
Lesson learned. Don't be a White in a community governed by blacks or Democrats.
It’s clear Hillary Clinton’s deplorable label was such a groundless, nasty insult!
It wasn't the "Deplorable" bit as much as that she had to have a Basket to put them in (handcrafted by Non-Binary-Queer-Native-Amurican/Black/Autistic/Dwarfs) and her nasally pronunciation ("Sexxxxx-ist, Race-iiiiiiiist, Home-Oh-Fobeeeeeee-ic") that's right up there with BATF's recordings of slaughtering Rabbits on the Drackman "Please Kill me Now" Scale Which I thought the DemoKKKrats would never top until they nominated Cackling Comes-a-lot
What she should have highlighted is people who are either lacking in basic English writing skills and/or deranged people who purposely, randomly capitalize words, use improper spacing/indenting, don’t understand punctuation and such. The DemoKKKrats thing is even more pathetic give his regular racism.
A great deal of MAGAns are incredibly dumb and/or deranged.
Was Prince "Deranged"? umm, bad example, but do you have a problem with his "Lotusflow3R"? "20Ten"?, "N-E-W-S"?, "Rave Un2 the Joy Fantastic"? "HITnRun"? "I would die 4 U"?? "F.U.N.K:?? We Genei don't care about your Commoner's rules
Speaking of incredibly dumb and/or deranged, can you explain to everyone the science behind a man living his entire life as a man and then suddenly transforming into a real authentic woman just by the power of his thought alone.
Can you explain the science of people calling their adopted parents “mother” or “father?”
If you were 1/2 as smart as you think you are you'd still be dumb as a post. Did you believe your Mom when she told you all the men passing through were your Uncles?
There were no men passing through, you must be remembering something from your childhood. Good for the breakthrough!
Something wrong with the math on that insult....maybe you meant twice?
Kind of an illogical insult anyway.
It suggests that Bumble thinks Malika doesn't think he's very smart at all, especially if he meant "twice."
Twice as dumb, 1/2 as smart?
Why do you believe humans are the only mammals that can change sex by the power of thought alone?
I'm biracial.
I love cities too much. At my trial, I was the only DC resident/taxpayer/voter in the courtroom.
A fundraising appeal is not an appropriate use of these blog comments.
Go do your begging elsewhere.
It's a petition, not a fundraiser. Change.org asks for funds. Those don't go to me. You can sign the petition without contributing funds.
"Up to 450 "unlawful aliens" at a Hyundai Motor facility under construction in Georgia have been detained in a major raid by U.S. law enforcement and immigration authorities, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) said on Friday.
The site is a joint venture battery production facility of South Korean battery maker LG Energy Solution (LGES) and Hyundai Motor that is due to start operations at the end of this year, according to LGES.
An agent at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said multiple U.S. agencies "conducted a judicially authorized enforcement operation, as we are actively conducting an investigation into unlawful employment practices."
https://www.newsmax.com/us/hyundai-georgia-unlawful-aliens/2025/09/05/id/1225202/
A large portion of the illegal aliens busted were from South Korea. Not an accident. Glad it was exposed and addressed.
Now the illegal aliens go home. annyeonghi gaseyo!
Guess you guys really didn't want foreign investment n the U.S. after all.
it's only Sunday and already I'm going to make you call the Quarter. You have to call it, I can't call it for you.
"Guess you guys really didn't want foreign investment n the U.S. after all." Well, not if they're staffed by illegal aliens and foreign nationals.
Call it, you have to call it
I don’t get the impression they care about much outside of the cult.
If the foreign investment means a carte blanche to violate the laws of the United States?
No. Then we don't want it. Do you? Do you believe foreign investment means the company can ignore US laws?
I think the Koreans were there for a specific job and were going to go home when they were done anyway.
Now, if the tariffs get repealed by the courts which is more than possible; perhaps their employer tells the US to f off and just builds their cars at home and vacates the plant.
And nobody in Korea would blame them.
The company disputes that they were illegal.
And ICE rolled in military level heavy and shackled them. Like they were super dangerous.
Needless cruelty. An authoritarian flex that seems to tickle some people just right,
What the company disputes is that they were working for Hyundai. NOT that they were illegal.
475 people taken into ICE custody at Hyundai plant in Georgia
"“As of today, it is our understanding that none of those detained is directly employed by Hyundai Motor Company,” the company said."
Since none of them were directly employed by Hyundai, how would they even know their immigration status?
Look, we get that you don't want immigration laws enforced. You lost that decision, democratically, so just get used to the idea that they ARE going to be enforced, no matter how much you whine about it.
"LG Energy Solution, which operates the plant with Hyundai, says many of the LG employees arrested were on business trips with various visas or under a visa waiver programme.
The company has said it is suspending most business trips to the US and directing employees on assignment in the US to return home immediately." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj07jzgve45o
we get that you don't want immigration laws enforced Shut up with this, Brett. I'm not for open borders, but that doesn't mean I must favor ICE thuggery.
This is the same argument as if I don't favor a police state I must love crime.
"must favor ICE thuggery"
The flaw in this argument is that you consider every ICE action to be "thuggery".
They detained and arrested people. No one was beaten, no one was shot. What exactly was "thuggery"?
Sarcastr0 -- I agree that it is sophistry to argue that if you don't want a police state then you must love crime. But you say you are NOT for open borders. Okay, so...we have millions of illegals here; how do you suggest the law be enforced other than through arrests and swift processing through Immigration Court hearings (i.e., Did you arrive here illegally? Yes. Have you been granted asylum or any other status that affords you the ability to live here? No. Goodbye.). I agree that doesn't require "thuggery," but surely it requires mass arrests, no? In answering how you'd do it, please assume you want people not granted a legal reason to stay to be gone.
Your implicit assumption is entering illegally is a very serious crime.
To me this is the appropriate seriousness level: A house, like a person, is a tangible thing that affects infrastructure and cost of government. The government regulates house construction and in most places you need permission, and virtually everywhere there's a building code.
Some shocking news for you: We've got OMG millions of houses that were built or remodeled without the proper permits, or that aren't up to code.
One can understand why we have permits and codes. However: (a) We don't try to make all those houses "be gone", we don't do mass arrests or mass evictions, and we don't involve the military. (b) When someone does gets caught, if there really isn't anything irredeemably dangerous about the house, the most common penalty is a fine and requirement to bring the house up to code.
Also, when evaluating a city's permit structure, one can reasonably ask questions like: (a) are the rules about something valid like safety, or are they really about illegitimate things like keeping out undesired cultures, races, religions, etc, (b) does the city have an objective checklist of requirements leading to a shall-issue rule, or is it at the discretion of people that overly enjoy bossing others, and (c) does the city take an unreasonable time to process applications, or are they holding them up for years.
To me immigrating illegally is very much like building a house without a permit and the response should be similar. And if the permit regime has problems like those mentioned, I'm inclined to be much less severe with the violators than if they'd violated permit system was reasonable.
I guess the big difference is that building codes and permit requirements are, as you observe, at least nominally about protecting the homeowners themselves. And they're pretty obviously overriding the property rights of the homeowners, who'd normally have the right to do anything they wanted with their own property.
They impose a legally relevant cost on the very people they are (Again, nominally!) intended to benefit, and both factors militate against strict enforcement; The claim to be doing something for somebody's own sake is at its weakest where they disagree with it.
While immigration laws are decidedly NOT overriding any right of potential immigrants, who, contra Somin, actually have no legally cognizable right AT ALL to enter the country. Nor are they to protect those immigrants. The interest of the immigrants really doesn't enter into the analysis at all, US laws being adopted with the interest of Americans, not foreigners, in mind.
So, having immigration laws extending to foreigners the privilege,, not right, of coming to this country, on the basis of maximizing benefit, not to the immigrants, but to Americans, illegal immigration looks a lot like squatting. The illegal immigrant is taking a benefit they have no entitlement to at all, and at some significant cost, as they displace the more beneficial to Americans legal immigrants we'd otherwise be able to accommodate.
If the country were not so flooded with illegal immigrants, we could afford higher levels of legal immigration, where legal immigrants are substantially better: More law abiding, better educated, English literate, and so forth. Or, if WE so chose, we could simply enjoy the country being less crowded.
The point being that whether they get to come here is a choice that WE, not they, are entitled to exercise, and they're usurping that choice.
Just to be clear, I'm not making a constitutional rights argument. I'm stating a policy preference, and also denying that unwillingness to make mass arrests is equivalent to wanting zero immigration laws. I am willing to have an immigration system that is equivalent to a residential building permit system in a well-run business-friendly city that is not trying to artificially restrict growth, and to enforce it by means that are proportionate to the problem, which has been wildly exaggerated.
Two other points: Suppose some anti-immigrant politician also proposed that US have a one child policy, reasoning about costs, crowding, etc. He points out that someone who never existed and never will exist isn't entitled to any benefits, but if they are born they'd be diluting --usurping even- the benefits to which first born children are entitled. He points out that your second child would cost just as much food and infrastructure as an illegal immigrant so we shouldn't allow either. You'd splutter with rage, at least I hope you would. But that proves, doesn't it, that it's not really about costs or crowding or limited resources. I'd gently suggest it's really, and only, about maintaining boundaries between us and them.
Which brings up the second point. Sure, "We" get to make the decision. Who do anti-immigrants see as "We"? It seems you are claiming that "We" can't decide to let illegal immigrants stay. Or is your point nothing more than Trump won?
"He points out that someone who never existed and never will exist isn't entitled to any benefits,..."
The citizens that are here and have rights are entitled to have children. Illegal aliens are not entitled to live here.
Duck -- I'm not suggesting that the mere illegal entry if someone is a "very serious crime." Neither is shoplifting. But if you have 20 million people shoplifting, it becomes a larger issue for the society at large. Housing, policing, schooling, etc., etc., etc. are all materially affected by mass illegal entry. 200,000 a month mean another Birmingham AL every month, or another Jacksonville FL every year.
Shoplifting has victims.
Identity theft has victims, too.
So does dancing...
Let's assume that these people were in fact here in violation of the law. Given the circumstances, I assume these people did not sneak across the southern border; they presumably came here legally and overstayed visas, or maybe they were working when their visas didn't permit that (like Melania Knauss or Elon Musk), or the like. No reason that required a raid at all; ICE could've send them all notices that they were working here illegally and were required to leave within 30 days or they'd be arrested. Or could've sent a notice to the employer saying, "We have reason to believe that many of your workers are unauthorized. If you do not prove otherwise or rectify the situation within 30 days, you will be fined" or the like.
How would they know their names without the raid?
They could ask.
Ask how?
They can't ask or send notices if they don't know who they are.
And why are they entitled to special treatment when they know, and the people who hired them know they are breaking the law?
If I could craft the policy? If they're already here, a path to citizenship and no deportation unless they're convicted of a crime.
Deal with future illegal entrants by raising the penalties for paying them under the table - businesses are the villains here, not these people.
Though limiting to the art of the possible there are plenty of areas that would be politically viable - the administration lied that they would only go after criminal illegals for a reason. If they actually did that, that'd help. And less performance, and less cruelty. Treat ICE less as a jumped up independent force of masked purity police. It'd piss off the eternally pissed off, but based on opinions out there, that's actually the political path of least resistance.
I didn't vote for that.
"I won."
So when I say 'treat these people with humanity' you gloat that we are not.
Were you always a terrible person or did something happen to you that broke you morally?
You know, this whole, "Only doing as I want is treating people like humans" gag got tired the first day you pulled it.
How many were hospitalized?
"the administration lied that they would only go after criminal illegals for a reason"
The administration never said they were ONLY going after criminal aliens, so try again.
The worst of the worst.
Korean engineers building a new car plant is obviously the worst of the worst because the cars were going to be... environmentally friendly.
Can you believe they would try to build a car like that in Trump's 'Merica???
No sir. Not on his watch.
So if they manage to sneak across the border illegally but commit no other crimes poof their citizens? Btw would those crimes include working under the table or using fake ID?
Right, Korea is part of the visa waiver program so they do not need a visa to come to the United States.
But if you use the visa waiver program its illegal for you to work.
And of they had even half the number of illegal workers as alleged then the whole thing was a criminal enterprise. 2 or even 20 illegal workers could be inadvertent, 200 is a conspiracy.
We don't know what was going on - they could have been there for training.
Do you think chaining these people down before publicly deporting them is the right way to deal with a not yet established institutional (not individual) violation of visa policy?
And no, it wouldn't be a criminal enterprise that's insane.
Training is not allowed.
Here is a helpful AI overview:
"The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) allows for tourism, visiting friends or relatives, medical treatment, and certain business activities that do not involve working in the U.S. or receiving a salary from a U.S. source. Approved business activities include attending conferences, consulting with business associates, conducting independent research, or participating in scientific or educational seminars. Activities explicitly prohibited include studying for credit, employment, and working as a foreign press member. "
Of course you are just wildly speculating about things nobody is claiming anyway.
You're equating studying for credit with training.
We may never know the worker-by-worker facts. They didn't do anything wrong, so far as they knew.
What we do know is that the US needlessly blindsided a big company and caused a diplomatic incident, including on camera shackles.
It's bad for the US, bad for Korea, bad for trade...Bad for everyone except weirdos like you who seem to get off on this shit.
But if its training then that is employment, that requires a visa.
But of course it wasn't training was it?
"Consulting with business associates"?
Approved business activities include attending conferences, consulting with business associates, conducting independent research, or participating in scientific or educational seminars. Activities explicitly prohibited include studying for credit, employment,
So your Korean employer sends you to the U.S. to attend a conference, maybe, or for some special training. Presumably you don't get fired, or lose your salary. That's employment. So is it allowed because you are attending a conference, or prohibited because it is employment? And aren't you "working in the US?"
If all that is OK if your employer is Korean, what if it's a subsidiary of an American firm, or if you work at a Korean office of an American company?
Once again you are going with a scenario Sarcastro made up and then looking for loopholes.
In your hypo they are not being paid from a US source.
We don't know who was doing what, Kaz. The government said after the raid that "the identity of the actual company or contractor hiring the illegal aliens is currently unknown." So...
There's all sorts of facts flying around about the original warrant being for only 4 Latinos...early days yet so trust nothing.
Your assumptions about what's going on are no more valid than any other set of facts right now.
What we do know is that any visa or visa waiver violation issues could have been handled with a phone call and now we have a needless diplomatic incident with an ally. And we trussed up a lot of South Korean randos like they were violent criminals. So that's awesome.
Here is the woman who called ICE on the operation, she knows what's going on, listen to her explanation:
https://x.com/KimKatieUSA/status/1964123708366205319/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1964123708366205319¤tTweetUser=KimKatieUSA
No idea if she's actually the person. No idea if she's telling the truth.
I would note that the people she says were being victimized were the people ICE shackled and imprisoned.
Yeah, I know the rule, assume everything is false until it gets the Sarcastro seal of approval.
I make it a policy not to trust twitter randos. I don't think that's unreasonable, and neither should you.
You've got to love that someone claims — we don't have the foggiest idea whether it's true, and there's no reason to believe it is — that she had these people rounded up by the Gestapo for their own good, and the immediate reactions from MAGA commenters on twitter is not, "Sure; lady," but instead, "How dare she pretend to care about these people. We should only round these subhumans up to protect Americans."
of they had even half the number of illegal workers as alleged then the whole thing was a criminal enterprise.
And that would make it OK to arrest and deport the half who were here legally?
As incompetent as you guys think government is, why do you think ICE doesn't make mistakes?
Well, it seems South Korea has come to an agreement with the government and is chartering a plane to repatriate 300 of its citizens ("workers"?).
On one hand, I don't think large companies should be able to evade the law by hiring sub-contractors who will do their dirty work for them while the main company looks the other way.
On the other hand, does anyone from the government inform a visa holder's employer if the visa lapses? There is an obligation to check right to work status when you hire someone. Is there an affirmative ongoing obligation? This question is to immigration lawyers, as I have not practiced that.
Hey remember when Roger Stone got the military treatment amd those parents did too at those school boards and how Sarcastr0 was cheering those?
Illegals make him weep, doing it to Americans makes him cheer.
Sick. Subhuman. Evil.
Got a pointer to that? You guys really have active imaginations sometimes...
"And ICE rolled in military level heavy and shackled them." "Another worker told CNN affiliate Univision he hid in an air duct to evade capture. “Everyone came out running and told us immigration has arrived,” the unidentified man said. “We hid ourselves in an air duct and it was really hot.” During the raid, several people tried to flee, including some who “ran into a sewage pond located on the premises,” the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Georgia said. “Agents used a boat to fish them out of the water. One of the individuals swam under the boat and tried to flip it over to no avail,” the US Attorney’s Office said. “These people were captured and identified as illegal workers.”
Attempting to evade questioning and arrest by lawful authority? No wonder there was a large enforcement presence...
The time has come for us to say Sayonara.......
As a counterpoint to frequent commentator Martinned (AKA Martinned2) here is a hot Dutch info babe (H/T Rush Limbaugh). https://x.com/EvaVlaar/status/1962582716773482564?
PM Ishiba of Japan has declared his intent to resign.
He lost the LDP-Komei coalition majority in the two national elections (Oct 2024 lower house, July 2025 upper house). He wasn't getting enough support within the party - and just before LDP politicians were to vote whether to hold an election for its leader, he made the announcement.
Barring some very unexpected developments, the next prime minister is from the LDP. And ironically, Ishiba's resignation is probably not a good thing for the traditional, left-wing opposition parties - Ishiba was one of the most liberal figures you could get in the LDP, and the minority parties frequently used their leverage. If the next leader decides to instead deepen ties with, say, Sanseito, who knows what's gonna happen?
Do any of your Politicos ever do the Harry Carry exit?
Had to look up that word. (It's actually called "seppuku".)
No, politicians rarely commit suicide, and even if they do disembowelment has effectively ended in the samurai era.
Too bad
Tell that to Yukio Mishima
"Harry Carry exit"
LOL This is why Frank is Great!
[Capitalized Great for his tedious stalker's benefit.]
Little wonder most famous comedians are not MAGA conservatives.
Queenies boyfriend told him to come over, nobody was home. Queenie went over, nobody was home!
Reported yesterday that Canadian pro NHL goalie, commentator, lawyer, author and politician passed. What an amazing person.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Dryden
Day late, dollar short. The Publius had this up in Friday's open thread.
I read it reported yesterday, the story still stands.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2025/09/06/ken-dryden-dead-montreal-canadiens/
In a sport that Americans actually care about former Orioles/Braves Infielder, Mets/Reds manager Davey Johnson has died. I remember from 1969-1972 he hit for averages of .280, .281, and .282, what were the odds? Then in 72’ he hit 50 points lower, got traded to the Braves, in 1973 hit a career high over 40 home runs in Fulton County Stadium (AKA “the launching pad” which before the Rockies was the highest elevation in MLB, and also the only Stadium where its last game was a World Series game (Damn Yankees!) Not THATs how you report a sports death! Seriously, the 96’ Braves were better than the 95’ team that won the title, were up 2 games over the Yankees then blew it (that’s what Atlanta does!)
Frank
The Jim Leyritz series.
He got into a fair amount of trouble after his career.
I remember him with the Orioles (I grew up in Balto) for the 66, 69-71 series. I was fortunate to go to both the (first!) playoffs and the Series, in 69, 70, and 71.
A young Philadelphia Phillies fan has been given special baseball treats after a coveted home run ball was taken away from him during a dispute that has gone viral.
https://www.npr.org/2025/09/06/nx-s1-5532632/phillies-marlins-young-fan-home-run-ball-woman
What's wrong with these people? This followed an incident where a man snatched a hat from a child at the US Open.
But the Marlins staff, and the Phillies made it more than right.
https://notthebee.com/article/a-dad-tracked-down-a-home-run-ball-for-his-kid-but-the-lady-took-it-away-but-the-phillies-made-sure-the-story-had-a-happy-ending
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz seems to be reality-pilled lately, first admitting that Germany's welfare state is unaffordable and now declaring Vladimir Putin "perhaps the most serious war criminal of our time". Antisemites who want Benjamin Netanyahu to hole that spot will be disappointed.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/kremlin-says-merz-views-ukraine-talks-dont-matter-after-putin-war-criminal-2025-09-03/
I am shocked, shocked that a mail-in ballot state did not prevent someone from voting for their dog, and only caught the person after she confessed directly to the government -- not because she posted multiple times to social media about it.
Well, not that shocked.
https://orangecountyda.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Press-Release-9.5.25.pdf
Charged with five felonies, by the state government, and you're trying to insinuate that the state government was somehow on the wrong side.
The incident isn't evidence of state complicity in election fraud, in fact the opposite. However, your post is rock solid evidence that election deniers like yourself actually want the problem more than they want the solution.
They didn’t catch this one right away though, and this one case shows how terrible all mail voting is! Likewise, Mikie thinks the use of the Alien Enemies Act currently is terrible because Garcia was wrongly deported.
An write-in ballot for an invalid candidate is invalid. But a felony?
Rocky and Bullwinkle had longstanding joke political campaigns including Bullwinkle for President and statehood for Moosylvania, complete with campaign buttons and other paraphernalia. They were early adapters of show-related merch as an additional source of revenue. Could the show’s creators have been arrested for committing a felony? If you can make voting for Bullwinkle the Moose a felony, then the Bullwinkle for President campaign merch that got sold and the occassional joke campaign ads on the show would seem to come under the crime-facilitating speech exception to the First Amendment.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSRqwWbiq1oeVZ0VRySx-X8KzlTmIeLKAfz8aiCTPwuxA&s
Sorry, arrested for solicitation to commit a felony. It was a crime at common law and remains a crime in many states. In states that have it, whenever the legislator creates a new felony, solicitation to commit it automatically also becomes a new crime.
Only if the registered them to vote.
? I think you're misreading it. She cast a vote on behalf of her dog; she did not vote for her dog.
Proof of residence or identification is not required for citizens to register to vote in state elections nor is it required to cast a ballot in state elections. However, proof of residence and registration is required for firsttime voters to vote in a federal election. As a result, the 2022 primary ballot cast in Maya Jean’s name was challenged and rejected.
So at least for the federal election, she was "caught" in that she was not able to successfully vote on behalf of the dog. So if this is your big example of mail-in election fraud, it wouldn't even work for federal elections.
But was her dog the MAGA candidate?
Harvard doesn't care if someone is a terrorist sympathizer, but identifying someone as such can result in disciplinary action.
https://freebeacon.com/campus/harvard-tells-students-calling-someone-a-terrorist-sympathizer-can-violate-school-policy/
Will Harvard apply the same policy to students who accuse other students of supporting genocide?
No, they will not.
In addition to all the free-speech violations in the UK, mainland Europe is now censoring journalists for speaking truth to power and documenting European governments' previous censorship efforts. But useful idiots only complain about Donald Trump using his bully pulpit.
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/416364.php
See, you said it right there yourself; BULLY pulpit. Orange man bad uber alles.
Tell us that you don't know English without using those exact words.
("Bully" in "bully pulpit" is like in "bully for you", not "he's a bully".)
Tell us you don’t know when someone is using sarcasm in agreeing with you without using those exact words, lol.
Four posts in ten minutes, Mikie’s all worked up today.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WRu_-9MBpd4
...and like a fly on a dog pile you're there to comment.
Better watch your spelling. There's a new sheriff in town, and she has a dick and a PhD. It's Dr. Letters.
Yes, pointing out Fakeman’s regular weird disordered writing certainly means one must be a grammar sheriff! Good you white knighted that!
Remember when Bwaaah pretended he was just a suddenly disillusioned liberal? Of course he’s jumping to defend a performed persona here. Birds of a feather and such.
Its just tedious by you. Mute him and stop cluttering up my page with your dumb obsession.
Bob would like to ignore the many parts of his coalition that are demented, he’s conceded here his only principles are partisan.
Frank is not deranged, he is often funny.
You are worse than demented, you are boring.
Your thing is to put partisanship over any semblance of principle. We get it (heck your Trump worship alone would be convincing enough). You don’t have to keep proving it.
As to boring, from a Boomer who goes “LOL, he said Harry Carry about Japanese people”, I’m not going to take that to be very convincing.
Speaking of censoring journalists:
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/us-open-broadcasters-told-avoid-showing-disruptions-reactions-response-trumps-presence-report
Thanks for showing us another page from the "they can't be this stupid" file, but do you really think the European Parliament's internal server policies (i.e., those which only apply to people using the EP's own internet connection) are evidence of "Europe is now censoring journalists for speaking truth to power and documenting European governments' previous censorship efforts"?
(Or the other guy's heartbreaking experience of having an internet provider on a train block certain sites appearing on a suspicious websites list...)
OMG, wait 'till you hear how many times Reddit has blocked me for using a VPN!
"Weiss was a prolific author and journalist who bore witness to some of the 20th century's greatest crimes, from the antisemitism of Nazi Germany to the racism of apartheid South Africa."
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/obituary-ruth-weiss-centenarian-who-waged-war-with-her-typewriter-dies-101-2025-09-05/
She went to school with Henry Kissinger in Germany, but fled to South Africa instead of America.
The Trump Administration is going to start allowing prisons to jam cell phones.
https://x.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/1964048557553701125
Next up, schools.
That will be fun for the next school shooting when no one can call 911.
What, you don't think thoughts and prayers are enough?
I prefer the Moe-Saad's approach
So with one officer for every four prisoners, razor wire fences, grates locked over all windows, strip searches, pervasive surveillance cameras, and suspension of almost all everyday liberties, the government is unable to keep cell phones out of prisons.
But they claim that preventing fentanyl from crossing 6,000 miles of land border and 95,000 miles of shoreline is feasible, if only the sanctuary mayors and overreaching judges would stop resisting.
Well DUH, the "Correctional Officers" who are generally only marginally less criminal than the Prisoners, and certainly way stupider, bring the Contraband in.
Not just the guards. Prisons have a lot of employees. Like kitchen staff, for example. Pretty easy to slip someone in the chow line a phone.
Like those 2 guys at Dannemora, they had a friggin Home Depot in their Cells.
If all it took was executive action, it is frankly shocking that it took this long to do it. I don't think people appreciate what a huge problem this is and what a great crimp in crime this will make.
"A groundbreaking hybrid protocol using repurposed drugs and nutrients left one man cancer-free after Stage 4 prostate cancer—at a fraction of standard treatment costs." https://amgreatness.com/2025/09/05/new-cancer-treatment-protocol-a-success/ "Mr. Jeffrey Kramer of Shelby, Ohio, retired as a plaintiff’s civil fraud attorney in 2024 after he was diagnosed with metastasized Stage 4 prostate cancer that had spread into his hip bones, lumbar spine, and inguinal lymph nodes. His Cleveland Clinic oncologist had advised him that the cancer was incurable but probably manageable for a (short) time using testosterone suppressant drugs (leuprolide injections and apalutamide pills) until his body ceased being “hormone sensitive,” at which point he would decline from there." ..."Last fall, Mr. Kramer received information about a new cancer protocol that would change his life." The whole thing is worth a read.
Problem is, when a Cancer gets to 1 cubic centimeter size (pretty small) its (and you) are 90% of the way to it's end(well not necessarily its end, but certainly their Host's end, Henrietta Lacks Cervical Cancer Cells are still dividing merrily away 70+ years after they ungratefully killed her) and a 1cc Tumor contains about 100,000,000 cancer cells, which love to travel through blood vessels, lymph nodes, and some of the more adventurous ones will hop, skip, and jump around your abdomen (the "Transcoelomic" spread) and even if the radiation/chemo kills 99.9% of the bad cells, that leaves 100,000 left and that's with a small Tumor, your mileage (and life expectancy) may vary
One should definitely listen to a Person who Writes like this (about a Scientific Subject) with Full attention)
It's all in the doubling time. Taking off on your numbers: 1cc = 100,000,000 cells. Best chemo result = 100,000 cells. Let's say fatal load is 1000cc of cancer = 100,000,000,000 cells.
Time to get from 100,000 to 100,000,000,000 cells: With 1 year doubling time: 20 years, but more importantly you've got time to recover from the chemo and then try another round when it comes back. With 1 month doubling time: 20 months and you haven't really recovered from one round before you need the next one.
With the more aggressive cancers doubling time is a few months
But the more aggressive cancers are more vulnerable to chemo, since it primarily targets reproductive rate of cells.
Plus, you get to know very quickly whether or not you're cured!
But you're certainly right that going in for chemo every three weeks, I was NOT fully recovered from on session before the next. Every session I got sicker, and recovered less.
That's great if it pans out. But there's a lot of randomness in cancer, and usually once there's a large trial and some statistics, it turns out there's a distribution where most patients have some modest but valuable improvements, a few have a miraculous full cure, and a few just keep on dying.
The cumulative effect of all the new treatments is great - average lifespans get extended, maybe long enough to die of something else, and the number of outright cures increases. But it isn't like the discovery of antibiotics.
It’s hard to imagine a sentient human being getting there news from a source like this. I’m guessing this is why Bumble falls for so many demonstrably false things (there was no 10 year old who got an abortion, the over 100% vote totals, etc.). Highlights:
Its authors were prominent in oncology, and the published protocol was heavily footnoted
The authors of many of the referenced studies are at the top of their profession
In response to a question about when a clinical trial for this protocol would be approved, their answers were consistent: it typically would take ten to twenty years to get a clinical trial approved, especially where no Big Pharma company would have a profit interest to lobby for a clinical trial of a protocol involving repurposed/off-patent drugs.
Was this a one-time miracle or a repeatable protocol that may help other cancer sufferers who are without hope?
After all, what do they have to lose? Label this procedure as “experimental” if necessary, with the appropriate legal disclaimers, but the US government should not stand in the way of a potentially life-saving cancer protocol.
So you don't approve of the site and the story should be discounted?
All “Miracle Cure THEY Don’t Want You to Know About!!!” clickbait stories based on an N of one, not interviewing anyone questioning it, replete with “these were real experts, really, with footnotes!!!” should be discounted. Why you like falling for this stuff is beyond me.
Hmm. Orthomolecular medicine, including megavitamins and ivermectin. Not expecting an actual clinical trial will produce better results than Lourdes or shake anyone's faith, but terminal patients should be able to try whatever they want with their own bodies.
Trump wants his own gestapo. 86 47.
I don't think they'll tolerate death threats against Trump on this blog.
Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more eigh·ty-six /ˌādēˈsiks/ verbINFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN verb: 86 1. eject or bar (someone) from a restaurant, bar, etc. "they were accused of cheating, and eighty-sixed from their favorite casino" 2. reject, discard, or cancel. "the passwords will be 86ed by next October"
Just impeached, convinced, tried for his crimes, and put in jail. That's all.
So at 79 a death sentence, shit in one hand, hope for that in the other, I know which one will happen first
I don’t particularly like the Sunday open threads. Not so many people are reading and commenting. And when the Monday thread opens up, I suspect nobody looks at it any more. It seems to me that having too many comment threads can be a disadvantage because the space for discussion (which we occassionally still have amidst the verbal bomb-throwing) is very limited. Since the Sunday thread both has limited readership and gets replaced and ignored more quickly than the others, it doesn’t strike me as a place to write something that I’d actually like to bring to the attention of the few remaining notable readers who may still bother wading through the swamp that has become the comments for comments with something of value to say.
Your absence will not be missed you pompous dipwad. Get your own blog.
NP. Bomb throwers are welcome to throw their bombs elsewhere.
Bumble, Reread what Y wrote, and your response. Don't you think you were rather harsh for what was, after all, a pretty innocuous observation. Y was making a general point about the Sunday thread. Not a single comment about any particular poster on the Right or on the Left.
(I suspect that you regret your language. I've seen you post critical comments where you were much more measured, anyway.)
"it doesn’t strike me as a place to write something"
So you agree its a good idea.
"few remaining notable readers"
LOL
Y, please understand that some of have non-standard job schedules. We often need to avoid work on weekends as well as weekdays.
Bob, note this is what actually funny looks like to non-puerile Boomers.
Someone's feelings were hurt I see. Looks like your tedious stalking is expanding.
Yes, looks like I hurt your feelings. And to make it worse, the comrade your upset about me mocking is upthread doing what you accused me of doing. Is today the day Bob shows some principles over partisanship? Such suspense!
I'm just tired of you cluttering up my viewing with your homoerotic badgering of Frank.
So no principles, that was as suspenseful as will Lucy hold the football this time!
Should a non-profit that organizes political protests and busses in paid political protestors (like the astroturfed "Free DC (from low-crime and safety)" have to disclose any foreign donations?
Or should this continue to be a loophole for foreign interference into our election process?
Why don’t you just link to the story you want to share?
Why don't you stop trying to command others to do your own personal research.
Aint' that just like a filthy Democrat, unwilling to do his own work while demanding some black or brown to do it for him.
I get you’re touchy about people giving you orders as it happens so much in your life, but it’s very obvious you’ve got a story you want to post about, it’s pathetic, just post it.
Now you're a mind reader? lol wtf is wrong with libs? Is it their half-human brain and no soul? Do you even have an inner monologue? lmao wtf
You’d have to have a mind to read for that. It’s just obvious you’ve got a story you want to talk about.
But hey, there’s a simple way to prove me wrong, don’t post any story on this topic here.
Now you're doing juvenile school bus taunts?
lmao, how did you bitches ever make it out of the trees.
The trial of Ryan Routh, one of the men who tried to kill Trump, begins tomorrow. He is representing himself with court-appointed standby counsel.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-florida-shooting-attempt-routh-trial-7e33553c8243ea22cc5859016be6539c
There is no worse place to be than standby counsel in a criminal case. It shouldn't even exist. If you can't make the legal decisions and can't cross the witnesses or do opening or closing argument; what is the point? A defendant has a constitutional right to defend themselves [even if its a terrible idea almost 99% of the time]. They also have the right of assistance of counsel. But a standby lawyer is neither of those.
In my state, a pro se criminal defendant cannot argue ineffectiveness of [themselves as] counsel on appeal. Give them standby counsel and now they have an avenue to argue that person fkd something up. Its just silly really.
Los Angeles Unified School District agreed to a settlement over lack of education during COVID shutdowns. Plaintiffs' attorneys said the lack of education "disproportionately harmed Black and Latino students."
the agreement would require the nation’s second-largest school district to offer at least 45 hours of significant tutoring services a year to more than 100,000 of its most vulnerable students over the next three years in addition to teacher training and mandatory assessments
Those who were in high school in 2020, now past school age, are apparently out of luck.
https://apnews.com/article/los-angeles-distance-learning-covid19-lawsuit-0890998fe639213a4c4db7368c9713a5
Is it strange how if one Jew gets yelled at on a campus the entire government moves into action. Deporting people, sanctioning universities, and even passing speech censorship laws.
But some black murders a young White woman or a young White man and there's radio silence as the gofundme's for the perpetrators blossom and Whites get blamed.
Maybe when Bill Pulte is done going after with Lisa Cook he can look into Trump Cabinet members? Or, maybe even… his own dad?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bill-pulte-accused-fed-governor-lisa-cook-fraud-his-relatives-filed-housing-2025-09-05/
Oh, whataboutism.
I agree that Pulte's dad should not be a federal reserve governor.
Worth noting: Ken Paxton’s mortgage mess hit the news before Mr. Pulte went after Ms. Cook. If we’re serious about accountability, why the silence on the Texas AG whose job is literally to enforce mortgage fraud laws? Seems like a more natural place to start digging.
“whataboutism”
Maybe Pulte’s dad can use that as an excuse when they coming looking for all the back property taxes?
“Local tax officials in both states told Reuters that claiming more than one home as a primary residence isn’t generally allowed in their jurisdictions and could be punishable by fines or back taxes. After Reuters contacted tax officials in Bloomfield Township, Michigan, to inquire about the dual claims, Darrin Kraatz, director of assessing, on Thursday said the township “as of today” would revoke the exemption on the Pultes’ residence there.”
Oopsies!
Upon learning that the woman who repeatedly refuses to give all Americans a lower mortgage rate lied to lower her own mortgage rate, the Left's reaction is literally to attack the messenger.
Leftists believe their elites can do these things since they have such good, pure hearts. Their work is more important than their criminality.
They are totally fine with their leaders being corrupt crooks. They defend it. They protect it. They demand it.
Tribalists believe their elites can get away with anything, since they have such good, pure hearts. Their work is treated as more important than their criminality. They’re fine with leaders being corrupt crooks — they defend them, they protect them, they demand it.
FTFY
give all Americans a lower mortgage Monetary economics is so simple!
“attack the messenger”
Where did I do that? I am suggesting some other, similarly situated, targets to pursue.
Republicans are so used to having to constantly rationalize and explain away the illegal behavior of their leaders (particularly Trump) that they just assume that's what Democrats do as well.
Hard to take seriously someone who doesn't understand that the Fed doesn't set mortgage rates.
It's hard to take seriously anyone who doesn't know the relationship between the federal funds rate and US mortgage rates.
Could you explain it to us in a few simple sentences?
I think jb’s point was fair, but pointed. The Fed doesn’t directly set mortgage rates — they mostly follow the bond market (10-yr Treasuries, MBS spreads), with Fed policy nudging them through expectations. It’s easy to see why people link governors to mortgage rates, but the connection is more indirect than it sounds. An explanation would’ve been better, I think.
the woman who repeatedly refuses to give all Americans a lower mortgage rate lied to lower her own mortgage rate
That's idiotic. Even if she voted against rate cuts, she was not the ultimate decision-maker. In fact, the Fed board usually acts by consensus. And it is worth noting, which neither Trump nor his cult seem to be aware of, that Cook, is generally seen as having a more favorable attitude towards rate cuts than other governors. In a sense she is Trump's best ally, but he doesn't know or care.
That is an interesting point that Ms. Cook could be an ally. Mr. Trump does not appear to value policy alignment, alliance in substance, nearly as much as loyalty. For him it seems to be less about shared views and more about who’s seen as personally loyal.
Bill Pulte's job, and his referral of Lisa Cook, relate to mortgages. What federal matter within Pulte's remit do you think he should investigate his father for? Please be specific. From your own article:
No mortgage records exist for the Michigan and Florida properties, which suggests the Pultes likely paid for the homes in cash, real estate experts said.
You’re right, my mistake, his dad was merely cheating on his property taxes. As I suggested in the comment you are replying to, perhaps Ms Chavez-Deremer would be a more appropriate person to move on to next.
I'm glad you recovered from your long-term coma, but prosecutorial discretion is all the rage since Obama and Biden held office.
Mr. Paxton’s case is mortgages. He and his wife declared three different houses as “primary residences” to lock in lower rates — exactly the kind of thing Mr. Pulte says he’s chasing. That news came out in July, flagged by the NRSC (which I assume is more in Mr. Cornyn’s corner), but there’s been no follow-up. Seems like that’s squarely in his lane.
Paxton's three primary residences span what looks like three decades. I've claimed two houses as primary residences on mortgage paperwork, one in 2003 and my current home in 2011. Do you think the feds should be investigating me over that?
It sounds like you just moved — one house in 2003, then another in 2011. I’ve done the same, and that’s not unusual.
But according to news reports, Mr. Paxton didn’t simply move. He kept his Dallas home while also buying two Austin houses, and each mortgage listed that property as a “primary residence.” That’s overlapping primaries, not sequential moves.
It couldn’t hurt for Mr. Pulte to look into it. Maybe it’s nothing. But if it isn’t, it’s even worse than the flap over Ms. Cook — because Mr. Paxton is literally in charge of enforcing the very laws he may be skirting.
Wanna-be international law expert Twitter is all abuzz with the story of the Navy SEALs who killed some purported fisherman.
Wondering if the LOAC applies, or something else.
Universal structure of international law:
It is not legal for any country A to do X to citizens of another country B.
Universal response to international law:
Wait I'm confused. Is A us or them?
It's principals not principles all the way down.
We Americans, as you know, are notoriously bad at languages, so it would be best, mis amigos, if you learn a few useful English phrases before visiting us.
For your first lesson: un viaje por el caribe, "a trip on the Caribbean."
Just repeat after me: el barco se está hundiendo... "the boat is sinking." El mar esta frio... "the sea is cold." Muy frio... "very cold."
Now, I will give you a verb that should come in useful:
Me quemo... "I burn"
Te quemas... "you burn"
Él se quema... "he burns"
Nos estamos quemando... "we burn"
Tú te estás quemando... "you are burning"
(Yes, mis amigos, in English, a rather practical language, we use the same word "you" for both the singular and the plural)
Ellos se están quemando... "they burn"
And if I may be allowed to suggest a phrase: El barco de los narcotrafficantes explotó bastante bien... "the drug traffickers' boat exploded quite nicely!"
Chenga tu Madre!
Do you believe in Hell?
Please log in to post comments
Mute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?
Damon Root | 9.9.2025 7:00 AM
Jesse Walker | From the October 2025 issue
Charles Oliver | 9.9.2025 4:00 AM
Jeff Luse | 9.8.2025 5:06 PM
Matthew Petti | 9.8.2025 2:28 PM
