Sunday Open Thread

neurodoc 2 months ago

Would someone tell me how to go to a previous date of the VC. That would be much appreciated.

NvEric 2 months ago

Follow down to the bottom and click 'more'

Log in to Reply
Life of Brian 2 months ago

If you know the exact date you want, you can just type it into the address bar of your browser, e.g.: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/18/

Log in to Reply

AmosArch 2 months ago

Its kinda wild how the national dialogue has swung from Dems on the defensive about free speech with one of their own killing Charlie Kirk to Reps on the defensive about free speech for Trump (as most people seem to believe) picking up the red phone and ordering Iger to fire Jimmuh Kimmel.

And the people just a few days ago 'well but'ing an outright assassination over speech are now proudly marching with the no holds bar free speech banner held high for a guy actually disciplined over insubordination to his boss. And its as if its all happened in a vacuum. Its all about Kimmel, its always been about Kimmel and just Kimmel being bullied by drumpf out of nowhere in complete isolation, and you would think Kirk never existed from the way this was covered and talked about.

Gotta give the media manipulation wizards on the left their due. They really know how to work miracles.

Sarcastr0 2 months ago

“one of their own killing Charlie Kirk”

Kind of a shitty accusation. Luckily it seems the rest of the country isn’t buying. You all were just sooo eager out of the gate.

Your outrage is hard to credit when you specifically have been at maximum outrage based on dodgy versions of the facts for years and years.

There are no media manipulation experts at work. Vast left wing conspiracies are not as common as you think. I’m sure Kirk’s funeral will get wall to wall coverage, not that such would mollify your outrage addiction.

Log in to Reply
1. AmosArch 2 months ago
  
  >There are no media manipulation experts at work
  
  I'd say you're naive. But I know better...
  
  https://thefederalist.com/2024/10/29/busted-the-inside-story-of-how-the-kamala-harris-campaign-manipulates-reddit-and-breaks-the-rules-to-control-the-platform/
  
  https://thepostmillennial.com/dhs-leaks-starting-in-2020-dhs-began-meeting-with-twitter-facebook-wikipedia-and-more-monthly-to-coordinate-content-moderation-efforts
  
  https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/comments/1bkj0pl/comment/kw0yv2e/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Sarcastr0 2 months ago
    
    Note your sources. All of the, with not just bias but credibility issues.
    
    Of course you believe all sorts of weird false strawmany stuff - you seek it out, and then don’t check if it’s bullshit.
    
    As I said, outrage addict.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Riva 2 months ago
      
      Leftists complaining of "strawman" arguments. Bizarre. Next thing you'll decry projection.
      
      But back to reality. In their twisted minds the left apparently think they've found their new hero in Kimmel and, incredibly their new villain in a victim silenced by a political assassin. There has always been derangement on the left. But it has taken a sick darker turn in the age of President Trump.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. LexAquilia 2 months ago
        
        Wait until you ask him what sources aren't biased and don't have credibility issues.
        
        Log in to Reply
2. NvEric 2 months ago
  
  There are no conspiracies, just coincidences which pan out to real collusion and group-think.
  
  With the amount of technology today are you safe from being found out ?
  
  Log in to Reply
3. Commenter_XY 2 months ago
  
  Sarcastr0: If the shoe fits, wear it.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Sarcastr0 2 months ago
    
    You keep saying stuff that and not keeps revealing you as a broken angry man who needs therapy.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
      
      Broken Angry Men who need Therapy can still be correct.
      
      Log in to Reply
4. Brett Bellmore 2 months ago
  
  "There are no media manipulation experts at work. Vast left wing conspiracies are not as common as you think."
  
  And war really is peace, too!
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Malika la Maize 2 months ago
    
    Remember, Brett is so ready to believe in left wing conspiracies he fell for the Biden green screen one.
    
    Log in to Reply
  2. Sarcastr0 2 months ago
    
    Haha Brett being super into a massive inchoate liberal conspiracy was overdetermined.
    
    Log in to Reply
  3. not guilty 2 months ago
    
    No, Brett, most liberals are incapable of organizing a two car funeral.
    
    Log in to Reply
5. Riva 2 months ago
  
  What the F? Help me understand here, are you doubling down on Kimmel’s lie?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. not guilty 2 months ago
    
    Jimmy Kimmel did not lie, and his comments did not disrespect Charlie Kirk at all. He lampooned Donald Trump's response to hearing of the shooting, as well as the MAGA cult.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Riva 2 months ago
      
      “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”
      
      The poor "kid." Should I post an apology?
      
      And just to show his good faith, how did he respond to flags at half-staff in honor of the "kid's" victim: "This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he calls a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish," he said. I guess he thought he was honoring the good man murdered by this political assassin by comparing him to a goldfish.
      
      Yeah, what network CEO wouldn't want such a class act as the face of their company?
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. David Nieporent 2 months ago
        
        Riva is — as programmed to do — posting a lying talking point. Kimmel's comment about the goldfish was about Trump talking about his new ballroom, not about the flags being flown at half-staff.
        
        Also, Riva doesn't understand how analogies work. That is not comparing Kirk to a goldfish; that is comparing Trump's reaction to Kirk's death (bragging about his ballroom) to a kid's reaction to a pet goldfish's death.
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. Riva 2 months ago
        
        The leftist derangement on display across the country is really quite shocking. There are some really bad actors out there that should be held accountable. And there are some useful idiots like crazy Dave who really don’t merit any response at all when they have a tantrum.
        
        Log in to Reply
      3. not guilty 2 months ago
        
        See what I mean, Riva? You have reinforced every aspect of my comment above.
        
        Jimmy Kimmel did not lie. You have identified nothing that he said which constitutes a false statement of fact, made with intent to deceive.
        
        His comments did not disrespect Charlie Kirk at all. Indeed, the only thing he said directly referring at all to Kirk is that a kid shot him.
        
        As I said, Kimmel lampooned Donald Trump's response to hearing of the shooting, as well as the MAGA cult.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Riva 2 months ago
        
        No, he lied in the most repulsive way, exploiting a political assassination in his childish comment and seeking to humanize the assassin in the same stroke. And doubling down on stupid in subsequent comments showing zero respect for the victim of the political assassin. That you can't understand this is your own moral failing.
        
        Log in to Reply
6. Don Nico 2 months ago
  
  Kind of a shitty defense of Kimmel, AOC, etc.
  
  Log in to Reply
hobie 2 months ago

What a rant!

Log in to Reply
Malika la Maize 2 months ago

Trump overplayed his hand in the way petty authoritarians do.

It’s interesting that even the most Trump today’s here don’t try to defend the FCC and Trump’s overreach, it’s just whataboutism and versions of “Kimmel had crappy locks on his door and was gonna get broken into anyway.”

Trump’s an incredible coward. If his cult called him out on anything he’d reverse course. But cult’s don’t call out much.

Log in to Reply
1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
  
  No "Overreach" a Private Company decided to "86"(HT J. Comey) an underperforming Employee (Like Florida, and yes, my Auburn Tigers will likely be doing soon (Florida sooner, Damn Sooners!)
  I'm surprised that Kimmel and Colber are considered "Comedians", any random episode of "Beavis & Butthead" or "Jackass" has more laughs in 10 seconds than Kimmel and Colber's entire careers.
  
  Frank
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Malika la Maize 2 months ago
    
    Hi Francis. What’s your excuse today as to why you write like a retard?
    
    Log in to Reply
2. Riva 2 months ago
  
  "imagine being more upset about a canceled tv show than a political assassination and still thinking you're a decent human being." Ted Nugent, concise and to the point.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. David Nieporent 2 months ago
    
    I, too, remember Riva's tears over the dozen+ Venezuelans Trump has ordered murdered in the past month.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Riva 2 months ago
      
      Are you referring to the narco traffickers? Why don't you file some wrongful death actions on behalf of the personal representatives of the estates? I'm sure the lost earnings from future drug deals was in the millions. You could probably also bring in the Venezuelan government as a client. It's lost state business too.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. David Nieporent 2 months ago
        
        Are you referring to the narco traffickers?
        
        You have as much evidence they were "narco traffickers" as you do that Charlie Kirk was.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Riva 2 months ago
        
        Please don’t try to explain whatever confusion was trying to form itself into a coherent idea. You’ll just get a headache trying to think and I frankly really don’t give a shit anyway what you’re trying to write. So feel free to embarrass yourself elsewhere and we’ll call it day.
        
        Log in to Reply
Josh R 2 months ago

Dems on the defensive about free speech with one of their own killing Charlie Kirk

Robinson was a Democrat? Citation, please. From what I have read, he was an unaffiliated non-voter motivated by Kirk's remarks on trans people which Robinson took personally because of his romantic partner.

Its all about Kimmel, its always been about Kimmel and just Kimmel being bullied by drumpf out of nowhere in complete isolation

Trump called for Kimmel's firing well before Kirk was murdered. But saying this is just about Kimmel misses the point. Trump wants to shut down all dissent from lawyers to universities, to politicians, to the media, to anyone and everyone he can.

Log in to Reply
1. Harvey Mosley 2 months ago
  
  "Robinson was a Democrat? Citation, please. From what I have read, he was an unaffiliated non-voter motivated by Kirk's remarks on trans people which Robinson took personally because of his romantic partner."
  
  Is this the new talking point? Thanks. I was wondering what it was going to be.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Josh R 2 months ago
    
    The transcript of his post-murder Discord chat with his roommate/partner support this "talking point." You got anything to suggest otherwise?
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Riva 2 months ago
      
      Some might think carrying out the political assassination of a good man that is even now being viliifed by the left as somewhat suggestive that the assassin was not apolitical. But do carry on with this bullshit. You seem to enjoy it.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Josh R 2 months ago
        
        The reactions of others (unconnected to Robinson) after the murder have no bearing on what Robinson's motives were.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Riva 2 months ago
        
        The political assassination of target vilified by the left speaks to his "politics." And the disgraceful behavior of the left and prominent democrats in the aftermath also speaks volumes.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Josh R 2 months ago
        
        Other than support for his trans partner, what were Robinson's politics? With citations please, what were his positions on tariffs, taxes, healthcare, immigration, Ukraine, Gaza, abortion, ...?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Riva 2 months ago
        
        Apparently assassinating a prominent speaker to prevent him from inspiring more Americans to reject the sick, poisonous agenda of the left and live sincere lives of Christian values.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Josh R 2 months ago
        
        Only to the extent that the "sick, poisonous agenda of the left" was to accept trans people. You continue to make this out to be more than that one issue without evidence.
        
        wvattorney13 2 months ago
        
        Other than that one thing, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Josh R 2 months ago
        
        I was responding to Armchair's, "Dems on the defensive about free speech with one of their own killing Charlie Kirk." That claim is not supported by the evidence. Your comment is not relevant.
        
        Riva 2 months ago
        
        It's relevant to exposing the soulless stupidity of your responses Josh R.
2. Riva 2 months ago
  
  Jimmy Kimmel seemed awful eager to exploit the assassination to score political points. Remind me, was little Jimmy justified in characterizing a guy with a trans/furry lover and steeped in leftist rhetoric (were the inscriptions on the bullets conservative talking points?) as "MAGA"?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Josh R 2 months ago
    
    No, he wasn't. That doesn't alter anything I said above.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Riva 2 months ago
      
      Whether the political assassin was a card carrying democrat is not really all that consequential, although democrats and the left certainly seem aligned in their defamation of the victim. What is more troubling is that his actions are the inevitable result of the sick radicalization of the left in the age of President Trump.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. not guilty 2 months ago
        
        "Whether the political assassin was a card carrying democrat is not really all that consequential"
        
        Riva, it is consequential to evaluating an assertion, such as that upthread, of whether Tyler Robinson is "one of [Democrats'] own."
        
        Too many MAGAts care very little whether what they say is truthful or not.
        
        Log in to Reply
  2. not guilty 2 months ago
    
    "Remind me, was little Jimmy justified in characterizing a guy with a trans/furry lover and steeped in leftist rhetoric (were the inscriptions on the bullets conservative talking points?) as 'MAGA'?"
    
    Kimmel did not do that, Riva. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ATqJc2MjDY&t=28s
    
    Log in to Reply
not guilty 2 months ago

No, Armchair, one of Democrats' own did not kill Charlie Kirk. And I am unsurprised that you regard truth as such a precious commodity that you use it sparingly.

In fact, Tyler Robinson did not declare a party affiliation when he registered to vote in Utah on July 13, 2021, and he was also listed as an “inactive” voter and hadn't voted in the last election.

Log in to Reply

AmosArch 2 months ago

delete

Krenn 2 months ago

I keep wondering if we're ever going to have a serious discussion about whether or not NYT vs Sullivan may have gone a little bit too far.

Reading comparisons of the legal regimes before and after, if "before" was a zero, and "after" was one hundred, I keep thinking that maybe we should have set the needle to more like seventy-five or so.

One of these days, someone's going to propose implementing some sort of small claims court for social media libel, but NYT vs Sullivan is the biggest problem to overcome with that.

hobie 2 months ago

I would think Section 230 is the bigger impediment for social media platform liability. The hayseeds keep thinking that if they could get rid of Sullivan they could finally take down the NY Times. But it seems that Sullivan does far more to protect Fox and the supremacists' than it does the Times.

Log in to Reply
Malika la Maize 2 months ago

This guy is so worried that powerful public figures don’t have enough protection against speech.

Log in to Reply
1. Michael Ejercito 2 months ago
  
  Are there powerful public figures, who do not even exercise de facto police powers, who should be held to the Sullivan standard?
  
  I agree with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia when it wrote:
  
  Counsel for the defendants in this case urge the Court, however, to apply the principle of the Sullivan case to all public figures or public persons, including those in private life, and to abrogate the limitation to public officials. In effect, they seek to transform two specific exceptions carved out by a process of erosion into an extensive demolition and destruction of the law by an act of avulsion. This Court perceives no reason in principle or in justice for radically undermining the law of libel, in this manner, nor does it find any precedents for doing so. The law of libel, as has been shown, is a vital and important aspect of the law of torts. It is one of the branches of law that safeguard individual civil rights. It should not be whittled away.
  
  The basic philosophy underlying the doctrine of the Sullivan case is that the privilege of every citizen, no matter how well informed he may or may not be, to criticize his government freely, should be safeguarded, and that any obstacle or obstruction interfering with the exercise of this right should be removed as far as reasonably practicable. Such a right is regarded as indispensable in a popular form of government. It is deemed an essential element of the liberty of public debate. Manifestly this theory has no logical application to criticisms or attacks on private individuals. The fact that some persons are better known than some others should not lead to any far-reaching distinction in their civil rights. Consequently, there is no reasonable connection between a right to criticize one's Government and the right to disparage one's neighbors. To adopt the reasoning of defense counsel would not merely extend the rule of the Sullivan case unduly, but would introduce an entirely new and independent concept and inject an undesirable innovation into the law of defamation.
  
  Clark v. Pearson, 248 F. Supp. 188 (D.D.C. 1965)
  
  Clark was right, and to the extend that Curtis Publishing v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) held that actual malice was required from all public figure plaintiffs, was wrongly decided.
  
  Log in to Reply
Frank Drackman 2 months ago

Oh, we certainly should have a serious discussion on NYT v Sullivan, I can't sleep at night because of thinking about NVT v Sullivan, NYT v Sullivan has caused inestimable damage to the Republic.
Umm, tell me again, what was NTY v Sullivan??
I know, I can Wikipedia it, I want it from somebody who can explain it in simple words that I can understand, like "Duh" and "Yup"

Frank

Log in to Reply
1. Michael Ejercito 2 months ago
  
  It held that public officials who sued for libel or slander must prove actual malice.
  
  Sullivan itself was not problematic. What was problematic was Curtis Publishing v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), which extended the rule to all public figures. Cf. Clark v. Pearson, 248 F. Supp. 188, 195 (D.D.C. 1965) (rejecting the extension of Sullivan to public figures in general)
  
  Log in to Reply
Stephen Lathrop 2 months ago

Krenn — What NYT v. Sullivan needs is to go back to interpreting it as it was originally written. The decision's text makes an obvious distinction between knowing falsehood, and reckless disregard, with either one constituting actual malice.

That meant on its face that a publisher who did not at least deliver good-faith investigation of a potentially libelous claim could fail on the reckless disregard prong. At a minimum, a publisher had to call the person who might be libeled, and quote what he had to say.

Subsequent decisions so unwisely conflated the two prongs that they created an incentive for publishers to avoid investigating, to avoid liability. Rolling that back is the only corrective needed.

Log in to Reply
1. Krenn 2 months ago
  
  I would also add a rule saying that, if challenged in court, publishers must be prepared to show their work.
  
  Newspapers would not be able to rely on anonymous sources or promise anonymity to sources sharing defamatory details. If the defamed person swears in court, under penalty of perjury, that the alleged facts are not true, are not close to true, and could not reasonably have been believed to be true from any honest source...
  
  In order to defend itself from libel charges, the Newspaper would then actually have to show it's work in terms of who told it those defamatory details, why the newspaper chose to believe them, what steps the newspaper took to verify the information, whether or not the newspaper knew that the details would likely be reasonably viewed as harming the subject's reputation, etc.
  
  In that kind of standoff, the default expectation would be that at least one party would lose eventually... either the person who was alleging defamation would be facing perjury charges because it really was reasonable for the newspaper to believe those things about him, and that person knew that, or else the newspaper would be facing major civil damages.
  
  Also, bringing back an extremely limited version of 'criminal libel' might be a good idea too. For example, I could see an argument that it should be at least a misdemeanor to knowingly make false, baseless, unsubstantiated and legally illiterate accusations that the United States Government as a whole was intentionally committing specific war crimes, as defined in treaties signed by the US government.
  
  Carefully written accusations which showed your work and clearly distinguished between fact, opinion, suspicion, and the colloquial vs legal meanings of those accusations would probably still be protected.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. David Nieporent 2 months ago
    
    I would also add a rule saying that, if challenged in court, publishers must be prepared to show their work.
    
    Newspapers would not be able to rely on anonymous sources or promise anonymity to sources sharing defamatory details. If the defamed person swears in court, under penalty of perjury, that the alleged facts are not true, are not close to true, and could not reasonably have been believed to be true from any honest source...
    
    News reporting relies upon whistleblowers and others who are willing to provide information only as long as their names are kept out of the stories. If all the subject of a story has to do is to file a lawsuit, no matter how flimsy, to obtain the names of such individuals. then reporting will be severely hampered.
    
    either the person who was alleging defamation would be facing perjury charges
    
    Speaking of someone not understanding the real world. Perjury prosecutions are exceedingly rare, and in civil suits involving private parties virtually nonexistent. Nobody is going to refuse to deny an allegation because of a fear of being prosecuted for perjury, and in the meantime the damage from unmasking the source has been done.
    
    For example, I could see an argument that it should be at least a misdemeanor to knowingly make false, baseless, unsubstantiated and legally illiterate accusations that the United States Government as a whole was intentionally committing specific war crimes
    
    Speaking of "legally illiterate," it is a fundamental tenet in the U.S. that the government — any government, at any level — cannot be libeled. Only people can be defamed.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. not guilty 2 months ago
      
      "Speaking of 'legally illiterate,' it is a fundamental tenet in the U.S. that the government — any government, at any level — cannot be libeled. Only people can be defamed."
      
      A governmental unit qua governmental unit cannot be defamed. But criminal punishment of libel of a public official for official conduct, pursuant to a narrowly drawn statute which must incorporate Sullivan's actual malice standard, may be constitutionally permissible per Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74 (1964):
      
      We held in New York Times [v. Sullivan] that a public official might be allowed the civil remedy only if he establishes that the utterance was false, and that it was made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of whether it was false or true. The reasons which led us so to hold in New York Times, 376 U.S. at 376 U. S. 279-280, apply with no less force merely because the remedy is criminal. The constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression compel application of the same standard to the criminal remedy. Truth may not be the subject of either civil or criminal sanctions where discussion of public affairs is concerned. And since
      
      ". . . erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and . . . it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the 'breathing space' that they 'need . . . to survive' . . . ,"
      
      376 U.S. at 376 U.S. 271-272, only those false statements made with the high degree of awareness of their probable falsity demanded by New York Times may be the subject of either civil or criminal sanctions.
      
      Log in to Reply
  2. ducksalad 2 months ago
    
    "I could see an argument that it should be at least a misdemeanor to knowingly make false, baseless, unsubstantiated and legally illiterate accusations that the United States Government as a whole was intentionally committing specific war crimes"
    
    Hey Krenn, while this proposal is deeply offensive to principles of free speech, I'd be willing to compromise under certain conditions:
    
    1. One the charges are filed, the government may not withdraw them, and the judge may not dismiss them without the agreement of the defendant. It goes to full trial if the defendant wants to go to trial.
    2. The defendant is strictly entitled to discovery of any government documents that could prove or disprove his claims, with no national security exceptions at all.
    3. The trial is a jury trial, conducted 100% in public, and the defendant is strictly entitled to present his discovered evidence to the jury, with the public listening.
    
    Deal?
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Krenn 2 months ago
      
      Ah. To be fair, that probably is what it would take to hold a fair trial on such a subject.
      
      Log in to Reply
2. Michael Ejercito 2 months ago
  
  One other thing that the Supreme Court should do, in an appropriate case, is to overrule Curtis Publishing to the extent it extended the actual malice standard to all public officials, while expressly letting lower courts to decide on the first instance if it applies to candidates, nominees, official advisors, and de facto officials and advisors.
  
  Log in to Reply
3. Don Nico 2 months ago
  
  Stephen,
  You raise an interesting matter. The NYT multiple publication of falsified representations, especially photographic ones, of children starving in Gaza, children "shot by the IDF," and other propaganda direct from Hams or its agents does show at least reckless disregard for ground truth. That retractions, when made at all were buried, suggests though does not prove malicious intent.
  Somehow you've convinced me to assume that you had never done that when you had a small paper to run. I would not give the NYT that benefit of the doubt, although I am not ready to cancel my subscription as I did for WaPo.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Mr. Bumble 2 months ago
    
    Having a source of newsprint to line the bottom of a birdcage is not a good enough reason to continue receiving the NYT.
    
    Log in to Reply
  2. Stephen Lathrop 2 months ago
    
    Nico — My rule on retractions was that they went in the exact location of the newspaper where the offending original appeared. Above the name of the person responsible for the error, including me, if I had been at fault with the reporter.
    
    One happy result was that retractions were seldom needed, and never once on the basis of subject matter implicating possibility of libel.
    
    We did not shy from controversy. We thrived on it. So we were very careful about managing it. Story subjects disgruntled by publicity regularly wrote or called with informal threats of libel suits. That goes with the territory. In our case, none ever succeeded in persuading a lawyer to file a complaint .
    
    Once or twice a lawyer called to ask politely what backing we had for a story. My policy was nothing implicating potential libel would ever make the news unless I had proof of accuracy which would survive the death of my source. I explained that policy to anyone who cared to listen. That was my substitute for libel insurance. It worked wonders.
    
    I was a publisher who was a fierce advocate against libel, because I resented shoddy work by others which tended to bring public discredit on all publishers. I still feel that way today.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Don Nico 2 months ago
      
      "My rule on retractions ..."
      The practice of an honorable journalist. Bravo.
      
      Log in to Reply
4. David Nieporent 2 months ago
  
  Your misunderstanding of what Sullivan required continues to have never been the law. It is certainly good journalistic practice to contact the subject of a story and ask him for his response; one might even colloquially describe it as journalistic malpractice not to do so. But the 1A does not enact a journalistic code of ethics.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Stephen Lathrop 2 months ago
    
    Nieporent — That argument is less cogent than you suppose. You did a good job responding to Krenn above, but you are misfiring here.
    
    Libel is about damaging false allegations of fact. To avoid those is a matter worth a publisher's ethical consideration. But making it an ethical consideration does nothing to inflect whatever interpretations ought to govern legal questions about responsibility for falsehoods or factuality. Both legal and ethical questions matter; they can be considered separately.
    
    On the legal side, I concede cases subsequent to NYT v. Sullivan resulted in near-erasure of that opinion's textually unmistakable distinction between falsehood and reckless disregard. I do not understand how anyone can even purport to notice that happened without conceding that the original decision was different than today's canonical standard.
    
    Even if you intend to argue that the original always meant what the later cases said, an argument to assert no change remains at odds with the plain fact that to undertake clarification signaled existence of acknowledged disagreement.
    
    Log in to Reply
ducksalad 2 months ago

It didn't go nearly far enough. We are now seeing that meritless libel suits by public officials are used to launder bribes for unrelated permitting and licensing decisions.

Let's crank the needle to five hundred or so. In addition to the actual malice standard, here's some suggested additions:

1. Any official holding a position that is subject to bribery laws should be forbidden from receiving damages in a libel suit. The sole remedies should be a court declaration that the statements in question were false, and a required retraction by the defendant.
2. Once an official has filed a libel suit, out-of-court "settlements" are limited to the same remedies. Any money moving from the defendant to the plaintiff is presumed to be a bribe.
3. Restrictions apply to alleged libels occurring in the 12 months prior to taking office, as well as during the time in office. This is to prevent the Homan "I wasn't in office yet" dodge.
4. The restrictions need to extend beyond libel to things like claiming a media outlet falsely made your opponent look too good. I wasn't aware until the Paramount case that such lawsuits were even possible, but we need to shut down that path as well.

If one insists monetary damages are needed as a deterrent, then the damages should go to the US/state treasury as appropriate.

Log in to Reply

NvEric 2 months ago

To Somin and the CATO report ...
https://humanevents.com/2025/09/17/ari-hoffman-no-political-violence-is-not-primarily-a-right-wing-problem

SRG2 2 months ago

Motivated reasoning

Log in to Reply

David Nieporent 2 months ago

So yesterday we learned that (a) Trump fired his own U.S. Attorney nominee to the EDVA because the guy wouldn't prosecute people based on insufficient evidence; (b) Trump tried to secretly order Pam Bondi to prosecute his political enemies but accidentally did so publicly; and (c) Trump dropped the investigation into the corruption of his evil "border czar" for accepting a literal bag of cash as a bribe.

To quote the Simpsons, Trump has crossed the line from everyday villainy to cartoonish supervillainy.

Life of Brian 2 months ago

but accidentally did so publicly

Meant to send her an email, but somehow ended up posting it on Truth Social instead.

Bob's laser pointer comes to mind.

Log in to Reply
1. David Nieporent 2 months ago
  
  Meant to send her an email, but somehow ended up posting it on Truth Social instead.
  
  No; meant to send her a DM. Trump famously doesn't use email.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Life of Brian 2 months ago
    
    Utterly fascinating. Is there actual evidence out there that Trump runs his administration via DMs on Truth Social, or is this just the bespoke theory of the moment?
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Magister 2 months ago
      
      An exemplar of Life of Brian comments, demanding evidence for something that was not asserted.
      
      David Nieporent did not say that Trump runs his administration through DMs; only that he posted to Truth Social what was intended to be a private message (how many posts on Truth Social has he addressed to a single person? Or admitted that their reputation and credibility is being killed?). Since his sycophants insist that Trump can do no wrong, just joking or multidimensional chess excuses will be offered for this apparent mistake. In any case, Nieporent's statement does not imply that he runs his administration through DMs.
      
      Famously, courts ordered Donald Trump not to block users from his Twitter account in his first term because he used it for official business (the Supreme Court eventually dismissed the case as moot after Trump was no longer president and suspended from Twitter). So it would not be at all surprising if he does conduct business through DMs, but if so you'd think he'd be practiced enough not to post one publicly by accident. And of course the appropriate way for the administration to do business is to invite random outsiders into Signal groups discussing military plans.
      
      Log in to Reply
Riva 2 months ago

I guess he realized his error of nominating a compromise appointee that could make it past the democrat blue slips. Fortunately, he is correcting his mistake.

Log in to Reply
1. Glaucomatose 2 months ago
  
  I'm sure nominating someone who's laughably unqualified will go just as well in EDVA as it has in DC and New Jersey. I can't wait to see how grand juries respond.
  
  Log in to Reply
Keldonric 2 months ago

I’ll admit I’m a little concerned about the background of some of these prosecutor picks. From what I can see, Ms. Halligan comes out of property insurance law, not criminal prosecution — and I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t have a precise read on how that affects performance, but it seems unusual to put someone in a U.S. Attorney role without prosecutorial experience. And that Truth Social post — I’m not convinced it was really a mistake. It could just as easily have been a way to put public pressure on Ms. Bondi.

Log in to Reply
Kazinski 2 months ago

The evidence is overwhelming.

Exhibit A on its own is damning and plenty sufficient to go in front of a jury.

https://www.scribd.com/document/850643623/Letitia-James-Order

Any prosecutor who doesn't think that's sufficient evidence of guilt, absent any compelling evidence to the contrary, which James certainly hasn't presented, has other reasons than the evidence for their decision.

Log in to Reply
1. David Nieporent 2 months ago
  
  The "evidence to the contrary" is the fact that there is documentation that she repeatedly told the bank — in writing — that it was not intended to be her primary residence.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Magister 2 months ago
    
    Some of the evidence touted looks pretty dumb; a building permit saying "JAMES RESIDENCE" and "Remains Occupied" is not asserting anything about a primary residence. The first is used as a place holder or default under Business Name (but building inspectors would want to know whether the residential or commercial building codes apply, and whether there are occupants would probably matter for what sort of work is being approved).
    
    Log in to Reply
  2. Kazinski 2 months ago
    
    The affidavit she signed said:
    
    “I hereby declare I intend to occupy this property as my principal residence.” The document was witnessed by First Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Levy and a New York state secretary —
    
    That was weeks after her initial conversation with the mortgage broker, where she priced the mortgage as an nonresident co-borrower.
    
    That just provides more evidence she knew the lower rate she was obtaining by fraud.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. David Nieporent 2 months ago
      
      That just provides more evidence she knew the lower rate she was obtaining by fraud.
      
      No. Setting aside that (a) you have no evidence of a "lower rate" in the first place; and (b) it wouldn't be "more" evidence so much as the only evidence; it's actually evidence to the contrary: that there was no fraud. She couldn't be trying to trick the bank into giving her a lower residential rate by disclosing when she was applying for the loan that it was for the higher non-residential rate. You understand that mortgage rates aren't set at closing, right?
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Kazinski 2 months ago
        
        No they are set at the Good Faith Estimate, pending verification of credit, Income, and property appraisal.
        
        But what you need to understand occupancy status is an essential element of the application. If you change the occupancy status you need to get a new good faith estimate because it is an essential term of the loan.
        
        It is not something that can be changed at closing, because you can't price the loan without occupancy status.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        David Nieporent 2 months ago
        
        It is not something that can be changed at closing, because you can't price the loan without occupancy status.
        
        Um, yes, that's the point: an incorrect/false statement on a document signed at closing would have no effect on the rate she received.
        
        Log in to Reply
  3. wvattorney13 2 months ago
    
    Serious question: Is that a defense to these charges if at some points she told a falsehood and at other times she was accurate in her disclosures?
    
    In my mind that could be evidentiary support that her statements that it was her primary home was a mere mistake but I don't think you get a pass because you only lied part of the time.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. David Nieporent 2 months ago
      
      Of course it only takes one lie. But a prosecutable lie requires a knowing misrepresentation, and if someone disclosed the accurate facts multiple times on multiple occasions, it makes it far more likely that the one incorrect statement was an error rather than a deliberate lie.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Kazinski 2 months ago
        
        When you lie on a signed, witnessed affidavit its for keepsies, unless you repudiate it before it can be executed.
        
        An email you sent weeks before the loan is finalized won't doesn't absolve you.
        
        Log in to Reply

Absaroka 2 months ago

MSNBC is reporting:

"In an undercover operation last year, the FBI recorded Tom Homan, now the White House border czar, accepting $50,000 in cash after indicating he could help the agents — who were posing as business executives — win government contracts in a second Trump administration, according to multiple people familiar with the probe and internal documents reviewed by MSNBC.
...
Undercover FBI agents posing as contractors communicated and met several times last summer with a business colleague who introduced them to Homan, and with Homan himself, who indicated he would facilitate securing contracts for them in exchange for money once he was in office, according to documents and the people familiar with the case.

On Sept. 20, 2024, with hidden cameras recording the scene at a meeting spot in Texas, Homan accepted $50,000 in bills, according to an internal summary of the case and sources."

People have widely differing views on things, of course, but video showing $50K in cash changing hands seems pretty hard to explain.

hobie 2 months ago

Will the pardon be issued now or later?

Log in to Reply
1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
  
  I don’t see MSNBC even being around to accept a Pardon
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Malika la Maize 2 months ago
    
    Francis, why would you capitalize pardon? What’s today’s story? Is it that you failed to learn third grade English while supposedly being educated here for K-12, undergrad and medical school? Is it you are ESL? Left handed?
    
    I mean, it’s not that you’re doing some sad, pathetic Trump like act here is it?
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
      
      Same reasons the Germans do, languages change, whens the last time you heard someone say Nig-ra?(it was the “Darn” of Racial Epithets), and in spoken Engrish nobody can tell I’m capitalizing Nouns. OTOH you’ll never catch me saying “Chief” “Back in the Day” or my favorite your people use billions of times a day
      “Nome Sane”
      Nome Sane?
      
      Frank “what’s the longest word in Ebonics?”
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Malika la Maize 2 months ago
        
        But you don’t capitalize every improper noun. So what explains your derangement? Do you think deranged people like yourself are particularly attracted to Trump? You’ve said you had a weak, effeminate father who was regularly cuckolded by black guys in the neighborhood, does that make you think Trump is a type you’d have liked your father to be and you try to emulate his writing style as some type of sad, pathetic tribute?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Frank Drackman 2 months ago
        
        OK, now your Neurofibrillary Tangles are showing, whatever shortcomings my Dad might have (Narcissistic, Emotionally Repressed, Race-ist, Sex-ist, Homo-fobe-ist, Greedy, Sarcastic, Self Centered, Jeez, it's almost like I'm describing someone else I know) he certainly isn't (even at 85) "Weak or Effeminate" and he wasn't cuckolded by any black guys in the neighborhood, mainly because there weren't any black guys in our neighborhood.
        My Dad?, lets just say when he was a kid he didn't just pull the wings off of flies, he did it after 96 hrs of waterboarding, sensory deprivation, and then the "torture"
        While some kids Dad's drove a Bus, mine drove a B-52 over Hanoi, and he wasn't one of those pansies who was "Conflicted" about it, he still gets a little gleam in his eye (go ahead, that's an opening for one of your lame insults) whenever they show stock footage of B-52's dropping bombs on Hanoi.
        He doesn't like "The B-52's" though, strange.
        His favorite movie is Dr. Strangeglove, and when he retired from the Air Farce instead of taking an Airline job, he tought a new generation of Air Farce Pilots how to drop bombs on Yellow (OK, Brown) People.
        I think the saddest day in his life (other than my birth, I'm joking) was in 1968 when they stopped having B-52's on 24-7 Airborne Nuke-ular Alert, after several accidents where Bombs (The Bomb Queenie, the Hydrogen Bomb) were impolitely dropped in Spain and Greenland, after that only the Jets on Ground Alert had Nukes loaded.
        
        Frank
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Malika la Maize 2 months ago
        
        Look at this diatribe, hit a nerve with this sad weirdo!
        
        Your dad wasn’t much of a man and your mom took solace in the arms of many black guys. That explains the anti-trans and black rants as well as the deranged writing.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Don Nico 2 months ago
        
        "But you don’t capitalize every improper noun"
        Why do you want to be such a pedant about grammar?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Mr. Bumble 2 months ago
        
        Well, when you have nothing else....
        
        Log in to Reply
hobie 2 months ago

"Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, called the Homan case a “blatantly political investigation,” and said it showed the Biden administration “was using its resources to target President Trump’s allies rather than investigate real criminals and the millions of illegal aliens who flooded our country.”"

Log in to Reply
Longtobefree 2 months ago

Seriously?
A MSNBC story (and they are mostly stories) about an FBI undercover operations?
With anonymous sources "familiar with the probe"?
And the award for the most obvious con of the year goes to - - - - -

Log in to Reply
1. ducksalad 2 months ago
  
  And the NYT, CNN, USA Today, the National Review.
  
  The only thing that would make you believe it is Tom Homan boasting in a WH press conference that he took the $50,000 and kept his promise, and even then it would be OK because he was just doing it to troll and the libs don't get the joke.
  
  Log in to Reply
Life of Brian 2 months ago

It's a Sunday so I'm not going to go into my typical full-blown rant over the [ab]use of the word "indicating," but when someone won't show me the actual words exchanged and uses a squishy term like that to tell me what they supposedly meant, it's an immediate red flag.

The overall texture suggests to me they tried to lay the groundwork to entrap him and it ultimately didn't work, so now they're just dumping it in the media to try to get at least something out of it.

Log in to Reply
1. Malika la Maize 2 months ago
  
  Toady’s gonna toady!
  
  Log in to Reply
2. Absaroka 2 months ago
  
  "it ultimately didn't work"
  
  I'm seeing a close to binary solution set here:
  
  A)There isn't video of him taking $50k in cash
  B)There is video of him taking $50k in cash
  
  The third possibility C)He's a perfectly legit business man doing the perfectly normal businessman thing of taking a $50k cash payment, including filing the requisite Form 8300, seems like a low percentage option to me. If this is the case though, he should publish the Form 8300 and MSNBC will have egg all over their face.
  
  As far as situation A vs B, this is a very serious accusation. Either he is a crook, or FBI agents told lies to MSNBC, or MSNBC is committing libel or defamation or whatever (IANAL). People ought to be testifying under oath about what really happened, don't you think, so we-the-public know who the dishonest people are?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Longtobefree 2 months ago
    
    Known facts:
    MSNBC lies.
    The FBI behaves at times like a democrat operative.
    If a video actually exists, it can be shown.
    Ergo, ipso facto, henceforth thereunto - I call bullshit.
    
    Log in to Reply
  2. Life of Brian 2 months ago
    
    I'm sure there's a video. I'd also be fairly surprised if the video didn't also have audio associated with it. The fact that leaking of the video/audio stopped somewhere short of our eyes/ears makes me fairly comfortable that it's not particularly helpful to the story. Maybe it'll come out someday and we can have a much better informed discussion.
    
    And the Fibbies apparently "were posing as business executives," so I don't quite see how providing a Form 8300 showing those business executives gave him money by itself could dispel MSNBC's representation about what the money was for.
    
    But beyond that, I think it's important to keep an eye on the higher-level ball: though they carefully lay it out in a way that invites the reader to draw the conclusion, not even MSNBC is saying that accepting that initial payment (whatever it was for) itself constituted a crime. We can cross-check that against the pretty common-sense notion that if the Biden admin had actually nailed a big fish in the incoming admin, they would have taken him down before he even took office. So no, I don't particularly agree that hearings over people the FBI tried to set up but ultimately didn't play ball are a productive use of Congressional bandwidth.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Absaroka 2 months ago
      
      "Maybe it'll come out someday and we can have a much better informed discussion."
      
      Indeed! Is there any reason that, with Homan's permission, the tape couldn't be released by say tomorrow afternoon? That'll make MSNBC look like idiots, after all.
      
      "I don't quite see how providing a Form 8300 showing those business executives gave him money by itself could dispel MSNBC's representation about what the money was for..."
      
      Well, filing the 8300 is mandatory. If one was filed, that strongly argues that this was a perfectly above board transaction, because people don't want paper trails for improper payments (which is why ... cash).
      
      If the form wasn't filed, one wonders why not? Even I know you gotta report a >$10k cash transaction. You are getting so many bags of cash it's easy to oopsie on reporting one?
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Life of Brian 2 months ago
        
        Is there any reason that, with Homan's permission, the tape couldn't be released by say tomorrow afternoon? That'll make MSNBC look like idiots, after all.
        
        I don't know the answer to that question, but at a higher level I'm genuinely curious why you believe Tom Homan has achieved the special status of needing to conclusively prove his innocence just because someone wrote a "something's fishy" hit piece. As to MSNBC looking like idiots, they've already done a great job of that by playing spears-from-the-fog about what the recording "indicates." And if they're telling the truth (which seems particularly doubtful given ducksalad's NYT quote below) they certainly can release the source material.
        
        Well, filing the 8300 is mandatory. If one was filed, that strongly argues that this was a perfectly above board transaction, because people don't want paper trails for improper payments (which is why ... cash).
        
        Again, even the hit piece doesn't even suggest this payment itself was improper. If Homan didn't properly report the income, there are defined civil penalties for that. But that alone is not going to get people the scalp they want -- that ship sailed with Tim Geithner if not earlier.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        David Nieporent 2 months ago
        
        The news story — not "hit piece" — suggests that the payment was an attempted bribe. That may not be "improper" in your book.
        
        I find the "8300" thing kind of a roundabout approach, though. Isn't the more likely thing, if the story is true, that Homan didn't pay taxes on the money?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Life of Brian 2 months ago
        
        The news story — not "hit piece" — suggests that the payment was an attempted bribe.
        
        Welcome to our in-depth discussion of why the hit piece would have to "suggest" rather than simply show. And not to go full-on NG on you, but I'm exceptionally curious which "attempted bribery" statute you have in mind and how you might go about fitting these facts to its required elements.
        
        Isn't the more likely thing, if the story is true, that Homan didn't pay taxes on the money?
        
        I directly addressed that in the very last sentence of the post you responded to.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        not guilty 2 months ago
        
        As regards "attempted bribery" here, our blind hog Life of Brian may have found an acorn. There is not a general criminal attempt statute in the federal criminal code. During September 2024 Mr. Homan was not a public official or a person who has been selected to be a public official as 18 U.S.C. § 201(a) defines such terms.
        
        Had the payors not been government agents, all parties could have been chargeable with conspiracy to defraud under 18 U.S.C. § 371, but one cannot conspire with a law enforcement officer who lacks an intent to see the object of the "conspiracy" actually achieved.
        
        That having been said, it appears that there was fertile grounds for investigation, though. If the MSNBC report is accurate, Mr. Homan devised a “scheme or artifice to defraud” in order to deprive the general public of the intangible right of honest services, which included his receipt of a cash quid pro quo in exchange for his promise to help secure future government contracts. Such a kickback scheme can constitute a crime under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 or 1343 and 1346, none of which requires the fraudster to be a public official or person who has been selected to be a public official.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Life of Brian 2 months ago
        
        Such a kickback scheme can constitute a crime under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 or 1343 and 1346, none of which requires the fraudster to be a public official or person who has been selected to be a public official.
        
        This is a huge relief. I'm really glad to see that your sudden inability last week to be able to dream up something -- somewhere -- in the US criminal code to supposedly cover any fact pattern in front of you was only a temporary impairment.
        
        Now, as I've said before, your general pattern from several years of observations is that when you have the goods you grind out the details, and when you don't you just high-level handwave. Which of that handful of statutes do you think genuinely applies, and how are the individual elements satisfied even under absolutely-not-biased-at-all-MSNBC's rendition of the facts?
        
        not guilty 2 months ago
        
        Per 18 U.S.C. § 1346:
        
        For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.
        
        This statute was enacted by Congress in the wake of a contrary SCOTUS interpretation of the mail fraud statutes in McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987). As the Supreme Court opined in Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010):
        
        Congress responded [to McNally] swiftly. The following year, it enacted a new statute “specifically to cover one of the ‘intangible rights’ that lower courts had protected … prior to McNally: ‘the intangible right of honest services.’ ” Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12, 19–20 (2000). In full, the honest-services statute stated:
        
        <blockquoted“For the purposes of th[e] chapter [of the United States Code that prohibits, inter alia, mail fraud, §1341, and wire fraud, §1343], the term ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.”
        
        [Some bracketed materials in original.]
        
        While the Court in Skilling gave § 1346 a narrowing construction, it still applies to "the intangible right of intangible services" as related to bribery and kickbacks.
        
        While a bribery scheme requires the participation of a public official or a person who has been selected to be a public official, a kickback scheme does not. Mr. Homan devised a kickback “scheme or artifice to defraud” in order to deprive the general public of the intangible right of honest services, evinced by the delivery of a bag of cash to him.
        
        If he communicated by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce during execution of his scheme, that constitutes wire fraud under § 1343. If he did so by use of the Postal Service or by use of any private or commercial interstate carrier, that constitutes mail fraud under § 1346.
        
        Life of Brian 2 months ago
        
        Yeah, so just another one of your wastebasket statutes that you're interpreting to mean anything and to which you don't even bother to try to apply the facts.
        
        Brass tacks: who are you arguing Homan deprived of honest services, and how?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Absaroka 2 months ago
        
        "the special status of needing to conclusively prove his innocence"
        
        I don't think it's a special status at all. If Fox News reported there was FBI videotape of Hillary taking a $50k cash bribe, I'd be all "Show us the tape!" as well.
        
        These people are our employees, not defendants (at least for now). If someone told me they saw one of my cashiers pocketing cash out of the till, I'd count the till.
        
        He's not being asked to prove a negative - just to release the tape and Form 8300 that will exonerate him. Of course he wants us all to see those, like any falsely accused person would, so we can all dump on MSNBC.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Life of Brian 2 months ago
        
        These people are our employees
        
        This person wasn't an employee when the Biden FBI took it upon themselves to try to set him up. He was a consultant/lobbyist that the NYT quietly admits had helped other companies get border-related contracts during the Biden administration -- which, at risk of pointing out the obvious, was when this sting operation actually occurred.
        
        If someone told me they saw one of my cashiers pocketing cash out of the till, I'd count the till.
        
        What till? Again, if there's some concrete theory out there that this type of payment was per se illegal or improper, please point me to it. All I see is ominous murmurings about it being in cash.
        
        Of course he wants us all to see those, like any falsely accused person would, so we can all dump on MSNBC.
        
        That's not the advice we typically give to falsely accused people, though, is it? "Just sit down and explain yourself to the police and prosecutors, and they'll eventually understand you're completely innocent." I wouldn't have to throw a rock more than a few hundred posts around here to find plentiful discussions of what idiots people are for taking that approach.
        
        MSNBC, NYT,* and the other usual suspects have taken it upon themselves to assume the role of prosecutor here. They have the materials, and they and their bevy of in-house lawyers and legal consultants are perfectly capable of presenting them in a way to clearly make their case. They chose a different path, and I don't see how that somehow flips the burden to Homan to exonerate himself.
        
        * Props to NYT for at least coming close to admitting, albeit through gritted teeth and a lot of verbal gymnastics, that there's really not anything actionable.
        
        Log in to Reply
    2. ducksalad 2 months ago
      
      "they would have taken him down before he even took office."
      
      That's precisely what they were working on before the new administration came in and shut it down.
      
      NYT: After Mr. Trump took office this year, Justice Department officials shut down the case because of doubts about whether prosecutors could prove to a jury that Mr. Homan had agreed to do any specific acts in exchange for the money, and because he had not held an official government position at the time of the meeting with undercover agents, the people added.
      
      Of course prosecutors won't successfully prove anything when they don't even want to prove it. So yes, continuing the case would have been a pointless waste of tax dollars and court time.
      
      The statute of limitations runs out in September 2029. If the 2028 election goes the badly for them I expect we'll see Homan's name among the hundreds of names on the pardon list. Unless he pisses off Trump before then. Or Trump's gone full autopen by then and he pisses off whoever's running the machine.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Life of Brian 2 months ago
        
        because of doubts about whether prosecutors could prove to a jury that Mr. Homan had agreed to do any specific acts in exchange for the money, and because he had not held an official government position at the time of the meeting with undercover agents, the people added.
        
        So translating from NYTese to English, the tape didn't show a specific agreement and in any event he was a private citizen at the time, so there was no crime to charge.
        
        Another quiet concession further down in the article:
        
        It remains unclear whether the investigation into Mr. Homan would have been dropped regardless of which party controlled the White House, given recent Supreme Court rulings that delineated a high bar for what constitutes a bribe or other corrupt act.
        
        Look, we're all adults here: this didn't happen yesterday or anywhere remotely close, and after the past couple of weeks Team Blue really, really needed something big to try to reset the news cycle. It's pretty interesting that this apparently was the best candidate they had to pull out of their hip pocket and buff up on short notice.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Absaroka 2 months ago
        
        So, we get in the time machine and go back a few years, and there is video of Pete Buttigieg[1] taking a bag of cash and saying 'when I'm appointed Transportation Secretary I'll make this worth your while, wink, wink'. Then he becomes Transportation Secretary. There's nothing to see here? No hint of his character and fitness for office, even if he never delivers on the promise?
        
        There's the old saw "An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought". Saying 'Ha, I took the bribe, then never delivered!' just doesn't seem like it exemplifies the bright moral compass I like my employees to have.
        
        [1]to be clear, Mr. Buttigieg doesn't seem like a particularly effective executive to me, but I haven't heard any whiff of impropriety about him.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Life of Brian 2 months ago
        
        If we went back in that time machine and there was a video where the Trump FBI had spontaneously gone to Mayor Pete and tried to get him to take a bag of cash for any reason whatsoever, the howling about weaponizing the government against one's political adversaries would have drowned out any further discussion.
        
        That aside, "saying 'when I'm appointed Transportation Secretary I'll make this worth your while, wink, wink'" is exactly the missing link here, since to my knowledge the media has curiously opted not to place within quotation marks a single word in the exchange, much less a complete phrase like that. Coming full circle, I'm hard-pressed to understand why that wouldn't just crater whatever remains of their credibility with the average Josephine.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        David Nieporent 2 months ago
        
        Why would you think the media would have the exact wording?
        
        Oh, and while Trump believes that there's supposed to be a "Trump FBI" and has acted accordingly, pre-Trump it was understood that the FBI is independent and does not take specific direction from the president.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Absaroka 2 months ago
        
        "If we went back in that time machine and there was a video where the Trump FBI had spontaneously gone to Mayor Pete and tried to get him to take a bag of cash for any reason whatsoever, ..."
        
        1)'Spontaneously' is in error; the allegation here is someone went to the FBI and said 'Homan is soliciting bribes'. If, for example, someone goes to the FBI and says 'Absaroka is offering murder for hire services', I'm totes OK with the FBI sending an agent to offer me money for a supposed hit.
        
        2)I can't speak to what others might say if Pete B/Hunter/Billy Carter/Hillary was caught on camera taking bags of cash for future official favors, but I would be saying "He/she is unfit for office".
        
        Serious allegations have been raised. This is one of the fortunate times where the actual truth is easy to find - the video will or won't confirm the accusations. Either Homan or the media ends up looking bad. Why not stick it to the lying weasels at MSNBC by showing the video?
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        David Nieporent 2 months ago
        
        2)I can't speak to what others might say if Pete B/Hunter/Billy Carter/Hillary was caught on camera taking bags of cash for future official favors, but I would be saying "He/she is unfit for office".
        
        Indeed, I am pretty sure that the consensus here when this was extensively discussed over the last few years was that nobody would vote for Hunter Biden.
        
        Life of Brian 2 months ago
        
        'Spontaneously' is in error; the allegation here is someone went to the FBI and said 'Homan is soliciting bribes'.
        
        Can you shoot me the source for "someone went to the FBI"? Everything I see is that they overheard someone talking trash in passing while investigating something else. Obviously they can't just run down every tangential rabbit hole like that they hear in the course of an investigation or they'd get nothing done, and obviously not all people they overhear talking trash in the course of an investigation are equally (or perhaps even minimally) credible. Unless I've overlooked it, none of the articles say a word about whether this source was even vaguely connected to Homan--or any other basic credibility point. Apart from the current debate about Homan, are you seriously -- seriously -- OK with the FBI opening up an investigation on you and trying to trick you into saying something they can later use against you on the say-so of some rando they overheard in a bar? Someone who they're investigating? Someone who they're investigating and KNOWS they're being investigated? Where's the line, if any?
        
        Serious allegations have been raised. This is one of the fortunate times where the actual truth is easy to find - the video will or won't confirm the accusations. Either Homan or the media ends up looking bad. Why not stick it to the lying weasels at MSNBC by showing the video?
        
        I addressed the "if you don't have anything to hide, why don't you just freely talk" point in my longer post above from about 4 hours ago. I'm pretty sure no competent attorney would advise him differently.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Absaroka 2 months ago
        
        "Can you shoot me the source for "someone went to the FBI"?
        
        It's also in the previously linked articles, but for variety her's Reuters:
        
        "The probe into Homan started around August 2024 near the end of President Joe Biden's administration and stemmed from a separate national security investigation, one of the sources told Reuters.
        In that unrelated probe, the target repeatedly brought up Homan, saying he was collecting bribes in exchange for future government contracts, the two sources told Reuters.
        An undercover sting operation was set up, and Homan was caught on a recording accepting a $50,000 bribe in a bag from the restaurant chain Cava, the sources said."
        
        ========
        Remember when Bill and Loretta talked about their grandkids while Hillary was under investigation? Unfortunately for them, there wasn't a recording, and nasty suspicious people speculated they were engaging in an improper discussion about Hillary's case. While I'm sure right minded people pointed out there was absolutely no evidence they discussed anything but the grandkids, I bet they wished they had a recording so they could stick it to the people saying nasty things. Homan, happily, doesn't have to live under a cloud like they did.
        
        Life of Brian 2 months ago
        
        In that unrelated probe, the target repeatedly brought up Homan
        
        But that's what I said I had read in the other articles: that someone already under investigation was just randomly talking trash. Nor does this source break stride with any of the others and say anything at all about why that particular source's opinions about Homan might have any particular credibility, as opposed to some FBI supervisor seeing Homan's name and smelling red meat.
        
        Bottom line, I'd be tremendously relieved to know that the FBI had worked through all the really serious stuff in its backlog to be able to just put resources aside to jump down totally-not-politically-motivated rabbit holes like this, if I didn't look at the world around me each day and know that's so far from the case as to not be even a remotely funny joke.
        
        Absaroka 2 months ago
        
        I get that you are coming at this from the POV of a defense attorney - good for you.
        
        I'm coming at it from an employers POV: I find Cashier A with sticky fingers, and A says "well, Cashier B is palming from the till as well".
        
        What I'm going to do is look at the footage from the surveillance cameras, count the till, and talk to Cashier B, and "on the advice of my attorney I refuse to answer questions" isn't going to cut it.
        
        High government officials, with whom we deposit the public trust, should expect allegations of impropriety to be investigated. Maintaining the trust of the public requires it.
        
        Suspects fingering other people for leniency is a routine occurrence. You don't discard the allegations out of hand - crooks routinely know each others business, so you get lots of useful info that way. You also don't assume theallegations are true - crooks aren't the most truthful people. You investigate. For example, if someone says a soon-to-be public official is taking bribes for future contracts, you might pretend to be someone willing to make such a bribe. If they are honest, they tell you to get stuffed. If they are crooked, perhaps you set up a meeting where you hand them cash on videotape.
        
        Which result the investigation got is exactly what I am interested in finding out. I'm interested in that whether or not Mr. Homan wants the truth to be public or not. I'm less interested in a criminal case than whether Mr. Homan is of suitable character to continue in a position of public trust. Him stonewalling isn't a good look in that regard.
        
        Catching MSNBC in a Dan Rather type scandal would be the icing on the cake, wouldn't it? If they fabricated this story out of thin air, then the public should get to learn that, so we will know not to trust them in the future.
        
        David Nieporent 2 months ago
        
        talking trash
        
        That phrase does not mean whatever you seem to think it means.
        
        Life of Brian 2 months ago
        
        I'm coming at it from an employers POV
        
        I hear you. What I've been addressing is the drop-dead obvious answer (one you may notice "nuh uh Nieporent" isn't even contesting) as to why Homan isn't -- and shouldn't be -- jumping in front of the microphone to explain it all away.
        
        High government officials, with whom we deposit the public trust, should expect allegations of impropriety to be investigated.
        
        They were. Le Resistance just didn't like the result of that investigation, so they're now taking a second pass in the media where they can enjoy drastically lower burdens of proof and bypass pesky procedural limits.
        
        Which result the investigation got is exactly what I am interested in finding out.
        
        Well, the report of the investigation was reported by the horse's mouth as "no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing." Setting aside NG's expected wishcasting, I don't expect any of the lawyers around here to argue otherwise with a straight face. And making "legal but icky" the standard for throwing people out of office certainly has a facial allure, but in practice I don't see how that wouldn't just devolve into another subjective partisan weapon.
Riva 2 months ago

Yeah, the gross weaponization of law enforcement disclosed in this leak is not actually evidence of wrongdoing by the victim, it's just more evidence of the sick and corrupt tactics employed by the Biden administration against political opponent. Moving past the headlines we read:

FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said, “This matter originated under the previous administration and was subjected to a full review by FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors. They found no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing. The Department’s resources must remain focused on real threats to the American people, not baseless investigations. As a result, the investigation has been closed. White House Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson slammed the probe as a "blatantly political investigation, which found no evidence of illegal activity, is yet another example of how the Biden Department of Justice was using it’s resources to target President Trump’s allies rather than investigate real criminals and the millions of illegal aliens who flooded our country."

Log in to Reply
CountmontyC 2 months ago

So over a month before the election and well before Homan was a government official someone was offering to hire Homan to represent them before a potential Trump Administration? Do you see a major difficulty to charging bribery? Also why was the FBI conducting such an operation? Seems like entrapment

Log in to Reply
1. Absaroka 2 months ago
  
  The allegation is "(Homan) indicated he would facilitate securing contracts for them in exchange for money **once he was in office**" (emphasis added).
  
  So, if the videotape transcript goes:
  
  "Homan: Thanks for the $50k! But understand I can only lobby on your behalf if I have no role in a new administration. OTOH, if, as I have been claiming, I am appointed to a government position, the $50k buys you nothing; I will treat you exactly like any other contractor, working only in the taxpayer's best interest"
  
  then Homan isn't taking a bribe. And if so, he has only to release the videotape showing this, and let MSNBC endure the resulting shame.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. CountmontyC 2 months ago
    
    And the possibility of entrapment? Because it looks like the FBI approached Homan with an offer out of the blue than he was soliciting offers.
    Edit to add
    Also wouldn't a bribery conviction under these circumstances require that Homan have taken official actions to further the requested actions? Taking the money without taking action doesn't quite qualify especially considering the other circumstances.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Absaroka 2 months ago
      
      1)From the National Review:
      
      "A suspect the FBI was investigating in Texas was overheard claiming that Homan was soliciting payments in exchange for border security business contracts to be awarded if Trump was elected president"
      
      2)In terms of ethics, and whether someone warrants the public trust, who cares? The Feebs, with malice aforethought, offer a bribe to previously pure as the driven snow Senator Smith, and he takes it. IANAL, maybe entrapment is a legal defense against the bribery charge, but it's not a defence against the charge he is someone willing to take a bribe.
      
      Log in to Reply
    2. David Nieporent 2 months ago
      
      And the possibility of entrapment? Because it looks like the FBI approached Homan with an offer out of the blue than he was soliciting offers.
      
      Your facts are incorrect, but even if they were right, that wouldn't be entrapment. That's just something Hollywood scriptwriters say for dramatic effect; in the real world, successful entrapment defenses are about as common as unassisted triple plays. For it to be entrapment, the government has to essentially trick or coerce the defendant into doing something he was previously unwilling to do. (It's not enough that the government proposed it or provided the means to do it.)
      
      Log in to Reply
F.D. Wolf 2 months ago

It's not hard to explain at all.

Tom Homan ran a consulting business. Someone approaches him and asks if he can help him get government contracts, which is what he is in the business of doing, and pays him a retainer. This was before the election. He had no idea whether Trump would win the election. He took money to do what he was in business to do.

It turns out it was an FBI sting. Why is the "Public Integrity Unit" running a sting operation on someone who isn't even a government employee? We all know why. Just the typical political garbage from the Biden administration.

Log in to Reply
1. David Nieporent 2 months ago
  
  Tom Homan ran a consulting business. Someone approaches him and asks if he can help him get government contracts, which is what he is in the business of doing, and pays him a retainer. This was before the election. He had no idea whether Trump would win the election. He took money to do what he was in business to do.
  
  Sure, and he accepted payment of $50,000 in cash in a bag from a fast food restaurant because that's how consulting businesses typically operate.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Mr. Bumble 2 months ago
    
    Never took cash from a client?
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. David Nieporent 2 months ago
      
      Correct.
      
      Log in to Reply
2. Absaroka 2 months ago
  
  again, "(Homan) indicated he would facilitate securing contracts for them in exchange for money **once he was in office**" (emphasis added)
  
  The allegation is that he took the $50k pre-election for corrupt official acts post-election (and appointment).
  
  That may prove to be a false allegation. Proving the allegation false is why I expect he is presently arranging for the immediate release of the video.
  
  (Just to recap, the allegation is he received the cash on 20Sep2024, and "Homan often accompanied Trump on the campaign trail in 2023 and 2024, and for months before the presidential election publicly touted that he expected to oversee implementation of Trump’s immigration policies.
  
  “Trump comes back in January, I’ll be on his heels coming back, and I will run the biggest deportation operation this country’s ever seen,” Homan said at the National Conservatism Conference in July 2024.")
  
  July precedes September.
  
  Log in to Reply
3. ducksalad 2 months ago
  
  We can certainly agree that "he took money to do what he was in business to do."
  
  Similarly, everything Hunter Biden did between January 2017 and January 2021 was just doing what he was in business to do. The influence he was selling was with a person who had been in office prior to 2017 and would be after 2021, contingent on winning the election.
  
  Hunter got off the hook, and so will Homan, for similar reasons. So I guess it's all square.
  
  Log in to Reply

Absaroka 2 months ago

Interesting article about America's prison population.

Commenter_XY 2 months ago

Too bad the murderers didn't get a date with Old Sparky.

Log in to Reply
1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
  
  With all the innovations in killing people a properly done long drop hanging is probably the most “Humane”. One of those Captive Bolt guns like they use with Cattle would be even better(ht A Chiguhr).
  
  Frank
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Commenter_XY 2 months ago
    
    There are acts committed that are so heinous toward human beings that the penalty for doing that is forfeiture of the murderers life. The murderers have placed themselves outside of humanity by their deliberate and depraved acts.
    
    The problem is swift and certain application. The needle works too, for the squeamish. The murderer is just as dead. Hanging is the preferred form of execution in Iran, I believe.
    
    Besides, who wants to support these murderers at 40K annually, for decades? Go ahead, raise your hands.
    
    The OP cited an interesting substack article. I was surprised at the high %-tage of violent offenders relative to prison population. When you do the math, it is sobering. Especially the 'dark crimes'.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. hobie 2 months ago
      
      WWJD
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
        
        He already did it
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. Krayt 2 months ago
        
        That snark might carry a little more weight if that same religious text didn't say things like an eye for an eye, and literally ordered the execution of gay men.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Frank Drackman 2 months ago
        
        Well, I'm not for executing gay men, at least not until they've had a fair trial first.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        hobie 2 months ago
        
        Gayness is never mentioned in the bible. Also, scholars have averred that, during biblical times, men would display dominance or debase other men by giving them a poke. Gayness wasn't recognized as a thing until the 19th century
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        ducksalad 2 months ago
        
        One school of thought - the better one- is that there was a new covenant, and as a result the New Testament overrules the Old Testament when they disagree. It's not that the Old Testament was wrong when it was written, but that we entered a new era.
        
        A second school of thought is that the Old Testament and New Testament are both fully valid for all eternity past and future, and as a result we'll be doing all kinds of hand waving, word tricks, and tendentious interpretation to resolve the huge number of glaring inconsistencies.
        
        The third school of thought isn't a really school of thought, it's just dishonest: We'll use the OT when going after them and the NT when forgiving one of us.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Frank Drackman 2 months ago
        
        There's a Fourth School of Thought that the whole Bible/Religion is just made up Superstitious (Redacted)
        
        Log in to Reply
  2. Malika la Maize 2 months ago
    
    It’s interesting that Francis mocks black people using Ebonics when he writes like a Third)grader on Crack
    .
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
      
      "Watchu be dissin on Holmes? I'ze beeze Krunk down an Rep-re-sent! Mo-Fo done be trippin! Shee-ittttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt"(Actual Ebonics dialogue overheard in TSA line at ATL (I love to mix with the Hoi Poilloi)
      
      Frank
      
      Log in to Reply

Commenter_XY 2 months ago

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/09/19/federal-judge-rules-for-parents-in-case-involving-concealment-of-childs-gender-changes/

What is the legal rationale for school officials to deliberately contravene the parents' instructions; specifically, the parents engaged mental health professionals to help their child and specifically asked the school not to interfere with those efforts.

From the article:
The parents were initially told only that their child was experiencing mental health difficulties, including depression. Silvestri (child's mother) said they would seek mental health support for their child and asked that administrators “not have any private conversations with (the Student) in regards to this matter.”

The parents later learned that the school’s staff had continued to meet with their child without their knowledge, implemented the change in gender identity and took active measures not to reveal the change to them (including using the student’s birth name in communications with the parents). The school, without the parents’ knowledge, arranged for changes in everything from the use of male bathrooms to the exclusive use of the child’s new name in class.

The upper middle class simple solution is to remove your child from the school. What if that is not an option?

What's the bright line that defines a violation of parental rights by the State?

Frank Drackman 2 months ago

All of the School staff who participated should be “Transitioned”

Log in to Reply
Longtobefree 2 months ago

Please provide an update when any of the school officials involved in this child abuse are convicted of anything.

Log in to Reply
1. David Nieporent 2 months ago
  
  Please provide a citation to any statute that would criminalize anything these school officials did.
  
  Log in to Reply

hobie 2 months ago

Yesterday on NPR, a psychologist that has studied hayseedism (Hasidism!) says that to a have a beneficial outcome in a debate with a hayseed without triggering their 'contemptuousness', I need to list five positive things about the subject before saying the mean thing I'm dying to say.

So I picked Charlie Kirk...and I'm struggling. The thing that makes Charlie Kirk a hero to the haysseds - like the bigotry and the white supremacy - I just don't find positive at all. So I switched to AI and asked:

"Name five positive things Charlie Kirk has accomplished"

First to Gemini, which answered:

"He co-founded Turning Point USA at the age of 18, which grew into a large conservative organization focused on engaging young people.

He was described as a "champion for common-sense values" who gave a platform to talk about various issues and championed countless people.

He inspired millions of young people to get involved in politics and advocated for what he believed was the truth through debate and persuasion on college campuses.

He was praised for his commitment to dialogue, being kind, respectful, and a dynamic thinker who listened to and engaged with his opponents.

He was an Eagle Scout and was recognized for his discipline and service, values that he later incorporated into his political philosophy."

Then to Grok:

"Founded Turning Point USA at age 18 in 2012, growing it into the largest conservative youth organization with chapters on over 2,000 college and high school campuses, empowering young people to advocate for free markets and limited government.

Mobilized youth voter turnout for Republican causes, including helping shift the youth vote toward Donald Trump in the 2024 election and launching a Get Out The Vote campaign that enlisted 1 million students for Trump in 2020.

Hosted "The Charlie Kirk Show," a daily radio and podcast program that reached 500,000 to 750,000 listeners monthly, providing a platform for conservative ideas and engaging a broad audience.
Authored multiple bestselling books on conservative principles, including "The MAGA Doctrine" (2020) and "Right Wing Revolution" (2024), contributing to political discourse and inspiring readers to engage in activism.

Received the Forbes 30 Under 30 recognition in Law & Policy in 2018 and an honorary Doctor of Humanities degree from Liberty University in 2019 for his leadership in conservative activism and youth engagement."

IDK, this all sounds like the resume of any run-of-the-mill podcaster

Brett Bellmore 2 months ago

Pretty sure run of the mill podcasters don't build anything as big as Turning Point.

Log in to Reply
1. hobie 2 months ago
  
  So he built a business that earned him over $500M. However, knowing the ultimate policy goals of Turning Point, how can I as a Lib spin that shit positively? Or should I just hold my nose and list its policy objectives since that's what excites the rubes?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
    
    Hold your nose, cross your legs and fart, you could clear out your mind.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Bwaaah 2 months ago
      
      Hobie under pressure; too much fart gas in his skull. Gives purpose to his ears: outgoing exhaust relief. "Wait! What was that whoosh sound? I'm losing substance." Nah. Recharge. Recycle. Whoosh.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Malika la Maize 2 months ago
        
        Remember when Bwaah’s act was “I’m an old kid school liberal but I just think liberalism has gone too far lately!”
        
        What a phony. What liberal values are you disaffected about today? Lol
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Bwaaah 2 months ago
        
        And yet, you fail to copy/paste anything I've ever posted that is contrary to traditional liberal values. (liberal != progressive)
        
        Remember when Queenie stood for liberal values? Never happened. She's a reactionary troll squatting under a right-wing bridge...her raison d'être.
        
        And I am, not proudly, a liberal.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Frank Drackman 2 months ago
        
        Queenie's about as much a "She" as "Iron" Mike Tyson.
        Oh, He'll bite off something, but it won't be your Ear.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Bwaaah 2 months ago
        
        They remind me of a Q+ passerby who happened to run into Lorena Bobbitt and said, "Hey...mind if I eat that?"
        
        Log in to Reply
2. Stephen Lathrop 2 months ago
  
  Bellmore — Getting rich in this country is pretty easy if all you want to accomplish is stuff rich people favor, and to get rich yourself. If you think that an admirable way to live a life, and don't get rich yourself, then that is kind of a disgrace. It bespeaks mediocrity at best.
  
  It's much harder to accomplish stuff rich people oppose, and still achieve even minimal financial security. Maybe that's why America's upper middle class is so full of folks who avoid being caught visibly in support of stuff rich people oppose.
  
  I offer no opinion about whether that result is attributable to natural selection, or meticulously tailored personal presentations. Probably some of both, but my hope would be more of the latter. Lying hypocrites seem better prospects for change than true believers.
  
  Log in to Reply
3. Sarcastr0 2 months ago
  
  He didn't turn up here at all.
  
  As DMN said, MAGA is more into having the martyr than the man.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Don Nico 2 months ago
    
    You really make a big effort to sound like scum with your perpetual dishonesty.
    
    Log in to Reply
4. Sarcastr0 2 months ago
  
  I'd also note that MAGA usual around here are all in on using Charlie Kirk of all people to do a massive cancel culture push.
  
  No; you lot don't care about him at all. It's all instrumental outrage because you want to go at the left in unprincipled authoritarian ways, and outrage helps cover the sting of being so hypocritical and anti-American.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Don Nico 2 months ago
    
    "No; you lot don't care about him at all."
    Is that from your mind-reading or crystal balls?
    "the sting of being so hypocritical" is on you
    
    Log in to Reply
5. Kazinski 2 months ago
  
  Kirk was in large part responsible for the shift of the 18-35 demographic from 36% Trump to 46%, that is from +24 D to +3 D.
  
  And erasing that Democratic margin was one of the keys to Trump's win. That is a major accomplishment, and hopefully its the beginning of a permanent realignment.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. David Nieporent 2 months ago
    
    Kirk was in large part responsible for the shift of the 18-35 demographic from 36% Trump to 46%, that is from +24 D to +3 D.
    
    [Citation needed.]
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Kazinski 2 months ago
      
      Well give Trump the credit if you insist.
      
      Log in to Reply
Krayt 2 months ago

Those are accomplishments, I don't know if they're good, maybe neutral if you squint hard.

The one thing I did like was his change my mind attitude, not afraid of open debate with others. Fear of this is more indicative of being an NPC surrounded by a safe echo chamber.

As for the content, I though Shapiro and Peterson had better ideas of his colleagues. They seemed to have some interesting things to say, but then again, I haven't seen much but the more neutral stuff Google AI seems to want to shove in front of me.

Then I told Google to stop that shit and show me music and physics videos, so it dried up.

Log in to Reply
1. David Nieporent 2 months ago
  
  The one thing I did like was his change my mind attitude, not afraid of open debate with others.
  
  You understand that this was a shtick, not an attitude, right?
  
  Log in to Reply
Riva 2 months ago

Truly little hobie, I have never seen you more energized than in this sick tirade defaming the character and memory of good man who was assassinated in the course of living his values. A needless waste of time to dismantle point by point the sick lies and distortions vomited out in your post. Suffice it to say again there here has always been derangement on the left but it has reached sick new levels in the age of President Trump.

Log in to Reply

hobie 2 months ago

"California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office could be investigated for a social media post that some Republicans perceived as a threat to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem amid a heightened threat environment for political figures.

“Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America,” Newsom’s press office said in a post on X on Saturday morning....

...Newsom’s press office said in a separate post hours later that the original post was referring to an immigration-related legislation that the governor was signing into law, that includes a ban on federal law enforcement wearing masks.

White House communications director Steven Cheung slammed Newsom’s press office for posting “a threat” ahead of Kirk’s memorial on Sunday...

...“To make a threat like this, especially on the memorial weekend for Charlie, is beyond the pale and totally disgusting,” Cheung said in a post on X. “This is what happens when Gavin Newsom lets deranged Leftist lunatics post messages on his behalf.”"

Stephen Lathrop 2 months ago

Nixon, Reagan, Haight-Ashbury, The Berkeley Free Speech Movement, The Black Panthers, Harvey Milk, the Watts riots, Silicon Valley, decrepitude of Democratic Party leadership—so many things which happened in California have had profound effects on American culture and politics. I wish I could remember any which proved beneficial long-long term. California seems to have become the nation's laboratory for backlash experiments. Not optimistic about a Newsom presidential bid.

Log in to Reply
1. hobie 2 months ago
  
  Just don't say, 'Have a bad day!' to any one in the administration.
  
  P.S..you DO seem depressed this morning. Cheer up. I'll victimize some of the rubes here this morning and you'll start to feel better
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Stephen Lathrop 2 months ago
    
    Hobie — Problem is, Chinatown is one of my favorite movies. What can you do about that? Or about LA Confidential, for that matter.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. hobie 2 months ago
      
      That's a bit cryptic, Stephen. Are you saying you want those movies to be more impactful than they were?
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Stephen Lathrop 2 months ago
        
        I'm saying they are good movies, and I like them, and they are anti-cheerful. For a person who prefers to live as an optimistic fatalist, that presents dilemmas.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Jmaie 2 months ago
        
        A good movie. Down the street and kitty corner from Golden Dragon is (or was) another restaurant run by the same folks, visited by locals. A Chinese girl took me here once, same food, just a quarter of the price.
        
        Log in to Reply
    2. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
      
      I love "Easy Rider", especially the ending.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Malika la Maize 2 months ago
        
        Shouldn’t you be crying over the “Black Baby Holocaust” wannabe edgelord?
        
        MAGAns are deeply weird.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Frank Drackman 2 months ago
        
        Since the Abortatoreums take a break on Sundays, so do I.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Mr. Bumble 2 months ago
        
        I think Kermit Gosnell was open for business on Sundays.
        
        Log in to Reply
2. Don Nico 2 months ago
  
  "Not optimistic about a Newsom presidential bid."
  I agree with you Stephen. There is so much damning video from this year's fire in LA that he will find hard to live down. Also he should lose the pete-hegseth-wethead look.
  
  Log in to Reply
Michael Ejercito 2 months ago

...Newsom’s press office said in a separate post hours later that the original post was referring to an immigration-related legislation that the governor was signing into law, that includes a ban on federal law enforcement wearing masks.
How did it even occur to them that it could possibly be constitutional?

Log in to Reply

Stephen Lathrop 2 months ago

Hegseth's bid to quash journalism about the U.S. military ought to get come consideration. But I can't remember perspective anymore. You get multiple government initiatives daily which would have been political death knells to previous administrations. They last in today's news as long as ripples on a tiny pond.

That seems the ultimate scandal, but somehow it gets little more traction than the ripples. Meanwhile, the nation's biggest publishers compete to see which can cave most convincingly to Trump, without being noticed doing it by the public.

Overall journalistic bandwidth continues in decline. Internet utopians applaud that, while a substantial balance of the rest are too young to have seen journalism practiced.

But that does not mean national public life will not affect politics going forward. It just means it will not be experienced as public discourse, but instead as personal pain.

ducksalad 2 months ago

"would have been political death knells"

The only actual political death knell at the POTUS level, in all of American history, was in 1973. Possibly Harding had one coming in 1923 but escaped it by dying early.

Other than that I don't disagree.

Log in to Reply
1. Stephen Lathrop 2 months ago
  
  Do you think Nixon would have resigned if he had a Nixon v. United States to match the one Trump got? I think Nixon got pressured out by Republicans who knew Nixon could not thwart legal demands to produce embarrassing evidence. Trump faces no such pressure.
  
  Log in to Reply

Frank Drackman 2 months ago

Fox is reporting Charlie Kirk’s killer found dead in his “Special Custody” Cell

Stephen Lathrop 2 months ago

If I seem pessimistic this morning, it's because I read the VC commentary.

Bwaaah 2 months ago

SL: "If I seem pessimistic this morning, it's because I read the VC commentary."

And reading The Guardian...that you find uplifting?

This in VC is just commentary. What's your excuse for relying on a purportedly authoritative source of a shit outlook on life?

If you seem pessimistic this morning, look no further than your pessimism. For how many years can that be a surprise to you? It is who you are, Stephen. You come here to dwell in it.

Log in to Reply

Stephen Lathrop 2 months ago

The Guardian today reports that Oklahoma Republicans have introduced legislation to require every state college to display a Charlie Kirk statue. Unexplained is why the Oklahoma Rs stopped at one statue per college.

My suggestion? A requirement for a central plaza at each campus, featuring a compass rose at least large enough to be visible from space, with a Charlie Kirk statue at each cardinal point. I suggest that because I am a moderate. To demand equestrian statues would be taking it too far.

Malika la Maize 2 months ago

It should be a statue of him holding the Ten Commandments.

Log in to Reply
1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
  
  Just don't put it near any of the millions of "MLK Jr. Blvd/Street/Avenue/Way" if you want them to stay standing.
  
  Frank
  
  Log in to Reply
hobie 2 months ago

Kirk statues should be horse mounted brandishing a sword. It would be a way to raise Confederate monuments without 'raising Confederate monuments'...if you catch my drift

Log in to Reply
1. Stephen Lathrop 2 months ago
  
  Hobie — Not bad. What would you inscribe on the plinth? My suggestion:
  
  "You Speak of Laws, To We Who Have Swords?"
  
  On the more general issue of Confederate monuments. I urge the next D president to issue an EO on day one. Round up all the Confederate monuments, and cart them to Stone Mountain, GA, for placement in an outdoor, "Museum of the Lost Cause." Each statue gets a detailed history, to say where it was originally emplaced, who sponsored it, and when. Viewing all that together in the same place ought to prove sobering. The sponsors ought to be honored with their full names.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
    
    I'll see your Stupid Proposal and raise you,
    Dig up all of the Dead DemoKKKrat Politicians who were actual KKK (Robert KKK Bird) or supported the KKK ( Lets See, President Woody Wilson, Governors George Wallace, Teddy Bilbo, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, Surpreme Court Judge Hugo Black, Senators Bird, John Stennis, William Fulbright, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge, Russell Long, AlGore (the one who didn't invent the Internets)
    Oh, and AlGore's son? he's the one who did the first "Willie Horton" Commercial in 1988.
    
    Frank "Nice Glass House you have here, be terrible if someone threw stones at it"
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Malika la Maize 2 months ago
      
      There’s one current party that loves the KKK!
      
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/10/tennessee-republicans-rally-to-preserve-statue--holiday-for-kkk-founder/
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
        
        I'll pass on clicking your link as it's almost certainly Furry Gay Anal Porn, but of the most recent DemoKKKrat POTUS's, one actually did the Eulogy at a Grand Kleagle's funeral, and the other was Butt-Buddies with several of the names on my list, and also bragged he was from a "Slave State"
        
        Frank
        
        Log in to Reply
  2. hobie 2 months ago
    
    There's a lot to choose from. The quotes are important; but statue placement will help bring context.
    
    "Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge." - place this statue in front of an all-girls prep school in South Dakota to remind the girls not to bother achieving anything.
    
    “The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered.” (Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape,) - place this statue in front of a childrens' hospital to remind the girls there that all the hemorrhages and fistulas formed by trying to birth a baby using a ten year old body was their fault.
    
    "“The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.” - place this statue in front of any synagogue.
    
    “If I see a black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.” - place this statue...I was gonna say in front of the more than 500 flight schools in Africa, or maybe in the quad at Howard University. What do you think?
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
      
      You know who questions the qualifications of Black Pilots/Lawyers/Doctors/Indian Chiefs???
      Black Peoples.
      What they may lack in Formal Ed-Jew-ma-Cation, Abstract Thinking, Impulse Control, they make up for in "Street Smarts"
      Oh, and Rhythm, and Vertical Leap (it's those "Fast Twitch" Muscles, and it's manifest most obviously in American Blacks, they were literally (used correctly for once) bred to promote those qualities (HT J.T. Greek)
      
      Frank
      
      Log in to Reply

Michael P 2 months ago

The failing New York Slimes:

There are limits to free speech, yes, but they involve edge cases, like falsely shouting “Fire!” in a theater

It's a shame that their layers and layers of fact checkers and editors didn't know that Holmes's line about shouting fire was dictum in an overruled case that upheld Charles Schenk's conviction for obstructing the draft.

Malika la Maize 2 months ago

OMG, you have to love how Mikie adopts Dear Leader’s “failing!” Not a cultist at all, lol!

Log in to Reply
1. hobie 2 months ago
  
  It's kinda ironic that he appears to read the NY Times
  
  Log in to Reply
Josh R 2 months ago

Don't you think under the controlling plurality opinion in United States v. Alvarez, a law which proscribed falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre would pass constitutional muster?

Log in to Reply
1. Josh R 2 months ago
  
  Correction: the controlling opinion in Alvarez was the two-justice (Breyer and Kagan) concurrence.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Michael P 2 months ago
    
    I disagree: The plurality opinion applied narrower grounds for the decision; the concurrence would have used a broader rule.
    
    I don't think either would support upholding a law about falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. The plurality gave more credence to government interests about the meaning of awards like the Medal of Honor and such awards being government speech. Shouting "fire" triggers less government interest.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Josh R 2 months ago
      
      The plurality (Kennedy's opinion) said strict scrutiny applies, the concurrence said intermediate scrutiny applies. Isn't intermediate scrutiny a narrower ground for invalidating the Stolen Valor Act (fewer laws will be invalidated under the concurrence).
      
      I would think the government has an interest in preventing the harm caused by the panic induced by falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
      
      Log in to Reply
2. David Nieporent 2 months ago
  
  a law which proscribed falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre
  
  A law which punished harms caused by falsely shouting fire in a theater (crowded or otherwise) would likely be constitutional.
  
  Log in to Reply

Sarcastr0 2 months ago

So Trump's wanking that he's gonna re-invade Afghanistan.

Peace prize here he comes!

What a silly man. Pitty he has all that power.

Frank Drackman 2 months ago

I'll believe that when I hear it from someone who's not an Invertebrate Liar (I know it's usually "Inveterate", I use words accurately).
Even if he did, He'd be "Re-Re-Invading" Afghanistan, as Barry Hussein Re-Invaded first, in 2009

Frank.

Log in to Reply
1. Malika la Maize 2 months ago
  
  “ I know it's usually "Inveterate", I use words accurately).”
  
  Just not any other basic third grade English!
  
  This is the kind of weirdo attracted to Trump.
  
  Log in to Reply
Don Nico 2 months ago

"Trump's wanking"
Hmm, I guess you are an expert on wanking.

Log in to Reply
1. Mr. Bumble 2 months ago
  
  ...and filling in for Queenie;
  pity not pitty.
  Pitty played drums in the Brazilian band Shes from 1997 to 1999.
  
  Log in to Reply

Frank Drackman 2 months ago

Just realized that Charlie Kirk was shot from the same distance, with the same Caliber, in the same spot as the Late/Great MLK Jr. an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice. MLK Jr/s killer fled the scene in a Ford Mustang, Kirks in a Dodge Challenger.

Michael P 2 months ago

MLK Jr. was hit in the cheek while standing on a motel balcony in Memphis, Tennessee. Kirk was hit in the neck while speaking on a college campus in Orem, Utah. That's not "the same spot" by any metric.

Log in to Reply
1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
  
  Yes, there's a difference between Orem Utah and Memphis TN, it's literally "Black and White" that wasn't what I meant by "Same Spot"(I'm supposed to be the one with Ass-Burgers)
  and you're questioning an actual M.D. (Mentally Deranged) M.D. over a question of Anatomy??
  Yes, MLK Jr was hit a little higher up in the neck, than Charlie, but it wasn't the "Cheek"
  It was the Mandible (or what you rubes call the "Jaw")
  and with the downward angle, it disrupted (Nice Bland Medical Term, your Neck wasn't blown apart, it was "disrupted") MLK's Internal Jugular Vein, Common Carotid Artery, both of which would have been fatal by themselves, and then transected the Spinal Cord at the C-2 level, the same area which gets transected in a properly done Judicial Hanging.
  From what I saw on the Video, Charlie was hit in the left neck, but with the same vascular and likely Spinal Cord injuries.
  and I was Riffing on those old Lincoln/JFK "Coincidences" (HT Ripley Believe it or Not) you remember?
  "Lincoln was shot in a Theater and his Killer was captured in a Warehouse, JFK was shot from a Warehouse and his Killer was captured in a Theater" "JFK had a Secretary named "Lincoln" Lincoln had a Secretary named "Kennedy"
  
  Frank
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
    
    For you "Ripley's Believe it or Not!" fans, (went to San Fran-Sissy Co when I was 13, all I remember was that Stupid "Believe it or Not" Museum)
    Here's the full list of "Lincoln/JFK Coincidences!!!!!!"
    1: "Lincoln" and "Kennedy" each have seven letters.
    2: Both presidents were elected to Congress in '46 (1846 and 1946) and later to the presidency in '60 (1860 and 1960).
    3: Both assassins, John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, were born in '39 and were known by their three names, composed of fifteen letters.
    4: Booth ran from a theater and was caught in a warehouse; Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.
    5: The assassins were both Southerners.
    6: Both of the presidents' successors were Democrats named Johnson (Andrew and Lyndon) with six-letter first names and born in '08.
    7: Both presidents were shot in the head on a Friday sitting next to their wives.
    8: Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy who told him not to go to Ford's Theatre. Kennedy had a secretary named Evelyn Lincoln and she warned him not to go to Dallas.
    9: Both Oswald and Booth were killed before they could be put on trial.
    
    Log in to Reply
2. Malika la Maize 2 months ago
  
  Mikie finally finds the gonads to call out a compatriot! Breaking news.
  
  Francis is an idiot on the QAnon Shaman level. He’s typical of MAGAns.
  
  Log in to Reply
hobie 2 months ago

I see the Kirk memorial is being held indoors. Looks like you rubes are finally getting the message. I also note that no bags or guns will be allowed, so I guess 100,000 glocks have to remain at the Motel 6.

Log in to Reply
1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
  
  Oh, there'll be guns there.
  
  Log in to Reply

LexAquilia 2 months ago

Two Democrat Supremacist assassination attempts this weekend.

The Democrat Supremacists are escalating their violence. Attacking people praying for Charlie hasn't been enough to cower us, so they are escalating to more Democrat violence.

Malika la Maize 2 months ago

Remember, this guy likes to joke about gassing political opponents. Nothing these people say is in the least bit serious, but they demonstrate how Trump supporters are deplorable indeed.

Log in to Reply
1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
  
  Speaking of Politicians with Gas, saw that Eric Balls-Smell (D, California) was back in the House for Kash Patel's testimony (am I only one who notices his resemblance to Kumar Patel of "Harold & Kumar go to White Castle"?? (New Line Cinema 2004)
  Balls-Smell had been out for some time due to "Personal Ish-yews" (Yeah, right, like John Belushi had "Personal Ish-yews")
  Wonder if the Congressman is angling for a future Pardon? He certainly gave Kash some BP Fastballs.
  
  Frank
  
  Log in to Reply
2. LexAquilia 2 months ago
  
  It is absolutely serious two mass shooting attempts by violent Democrat Supremacists.
  
  Democrat Supremacists assaulting people who had the telemetry to attend a Charlie vigil is also absolutely serious.
  
  Log in to Reply

LexAquilia 2 months ago

A 10,000 member-strong group called the Socialist Rifle Association has been conducting weapons training for transgender and Marxist-Leninist extremists, and its members have been linked to at least four major crimes, including the firebombing of Tesla dealerships, a Daily Wire investigation found.

Don't worry guys, since they aren't registered as a 501c and do not have an official published org chart, they don't exist and it's just a Rightwing conspiracy theory to say they do.

Sincerely,
Sarcastr0, hobie, David Neiropant, et al.

John F. Carr 2 months ago

We've had Pink Pistols for 25 years and they haven't shot me yet.

Log in to Reply

Bored Lawyer 2 months ago

So Sen. Ted Cruz sharply criticized the recent threats by FCC Chairman regarding the Kimmel incident. Called it mafioso tactics. And warned conservatives that such tactics will come back to bite them.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cruz-warns-conservatives-will-regret-fcc-censorship-push-against-abc-other-media-outlets

Good for him. And I particularly like the distinction he makes between government threats and public pressure. (Not that the idea is anything novel, but something many conservatives seem to forget.)

Public pressure is well within the First Amendment. Free speech does not mean freedom from criticism. It does mean the government stays out of the marketplace of ideas, absent very narrow categories, like threats.

Bwaaah 2 months ago

Short and on point and yes.

Log in to Reply
Frank Drackman 2 months ago

Rafael's a good "Weather Vane" like Jimmuh Cartuh used to be, whatever side he supports, take the other.

Log in to Reply
1. Bwaaah 2 months ago
  
  Jesus Christ, Frank. I held Jimmy as King of Loserville for 40 years until you said something positive about the guy.
  
  That got me thinking. What if there's a god? He will know how I forsook Jimmy. How could I not? I mean, I too have looked on a lot of women with lust. But I never managed to prostrate America before a bunch of [violent] snotty Persion college faggots.
  
  I'm hoping He gives me a pass. Loserville is not a place to be trifled with. And yeah, it gives me pause to be with Rafael.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
    
    Since Representative Jamie Raskin gratuitously accused the Late/Great J. Edgar Hoover of being a Homo, I'll do the same for Rafael.
    If he isn't a Homo (Fag-Hag Wife, Obsession with "Moral" Issues, Freddie Mercury Facial Hair (and I love Freddie, but umm, you can't say he wasn't at least "Flaming")
    He's doing a great job of portraying one.
    
    Frank
    
    Log in to Reply
John F. Carr 2 months ago

That distinction is why I don't accept the recent cries of "cancel culture!" about his situation. If he is taken off the air to appease a vocal fringe, that could be cancel culture. If Trump's team takes him down, that's government censorship.

And if his show is suspended because his appeal is becoming too selective, that's neither cancel culture nor censorship.

Log in to Reply
1. Bwaaah 2 months ago
  
  Listen to that guy's monologue from September 10. That's what's passing for humor.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Magister 2 months ago
    
    Thanks, that was funny.
    
    Log in to Reply

Frank Drackman 2 months ago

OK, I was mistaken, looks like Charlie Kirks Assassin didn't hang himself.
Dammit.
Almost be better if he doesn't get the Death Penalty, Life without Parole would put him in "General Pop" (Help a Brutha out here Queenie, is that what your People call it? "General Pop"??)
I'm thinking the Utah State Prison population isn't that "Socially Progressive" (Except for the Anal Sex, but you get a break for that (HT T. Soprano)
I hear the Prisoners have their own procedure for "Transitioning" those with "Gender Dysphoria", it's a Total Separation (of the) Package.

Frank

hobie 2 months ago

If you're out for blood today, Frankie, I think you'll be out of luck. Best wait for tomorrow when all the constitutionally protected abortion clinics in Ohio open their doors

Log in to Reply
1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
  
  So a woman doesn't get to "Choose" on Sunday? So Abortatoreums and Chick Fil-A, honoring the Lord, (I always get extra on Saturday)
  
  Frank
  
  Log in to Reply

Mr. Bumble 2 months ago

A federal judge ruled that Shenandoah County's decision to name a high school after Confederate General Stonewall Jackson violates students' free speech rights, characterizing the name as a 'symbol of racial exclusion.'
The Virginia NAACP, which filed the lawsuit, argued that requiring students to wear clothing emblazoned with the name constitutes compelled speech, thus infringing on their First Amendment rights.
Judge Urbanski emphasized that while community views on the name differ, the First Amendment protects against forcing individuals to promote a message they reject, especially one linked to pro-slavery and anti-black sentiments.

Bored Lawyer 2 months ago

"requiring students to wear clothing emblazoned with the name "

Is that required? My high school (which had a pretty generic name) never required us to do that. I don't think I had one article of clothing with that name on it.

Log in to Reply
1. ducksalad 2 months ago
  
  The lawsuit was about extracurricular activities, which generally do require wearing a uniform.
  
  While I understand why the students don't like it, it does seem like this 1st Amendment argument proves way too much. Many high schools are named after a person, anyone could decide to object to that person, and part of the 1st Amendment is that courts shouldn't be doing viewpoint based rulings (e.g. Stonewall Jackson HS is invalid, but Lyndon Johnson HS is OK.)
  
  Log in to Reply
2. Michael P 2 months ago
  
  I presume they're taking about team sports, marching band, and similar group activities.
  
  But I cannot imagine what kind of moron would understand that to be the students' speech rather than the school's.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Bored Lawyer 2 months ago
    
    "I presume they're taking about team sports, marching band, and similar group activities."
    
    Ok. Are those required? If you find the name so offensive, then don't join those groups.
    
    And yes, this is government speech, not student speech.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Michael P 2 months ago
      
      The school name is often on team jerseys. I don't think participation being optional is a strong argument; it would suggest that civil rights laws are diminished in those activities, which I think is neither the intent of those laws, nor precedent, nor good policy. I think it's just a case of the school name being government speech.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Bored Lawyer 2 months ago
        
        I thought this was a First Amendment case. Compelled speech and all that.
        
        Log in to Reply
    2. David Nieporent 2 months ago
      
      And yes, this is government speech, not student speech.
      
      Was it government speech in Wooley v. Maynard?
      
      Ok. Are those required? If you find the name so offensive, then don't join those groups.
      
      That's a rather weak argument. Could the school require students to publicly pledge allegiance to Donald Trump as a condition of joining an extracurricular activity? Or even recite the pledge of allegiance?
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. ducksalad 2 months ago
        
        . Could the school require students to publicly pledge allegiance to Donald Trump as a condition of joining an extracurricular activity?
        
        Sadly, not everyone would agree that the end point of your reductio ad absurdum is actually absurd.
        
        Those who wanted to do such a thing would probably start by pointing out that a student organized club could require such a pledge, and then trying to blur the distinction between a school sponsored athletics team and a student organized club. Stuff like having the team vote on it, or sticking "club" in the name, or having the team funded by donations rather than tax money; anything to get their foot in the door.
        
        Log in to Reply
  2. TwelveInchPianist 2 months ago
    
    "But I cannot imagine what kind of moron would understand that to be the students' speech rather than the school's."
    
    Does that matter? Generally, people can't be required to parrot the government's message, even if it's clear that it's the government's message.
    
    Log in to Reply
Josh R 2 months ago

The result is consistent with a Ninth Circuit case where Eugene won representing the plaintiffs.

Log in to Reply
1. Michael P 2 months ago
  
  The one that is trivially distinguished by this line?
  
  Critically, the shirts also include a written message above the logo stating “Tomorrow's Leaders.”
  
  Log in to Reply
2. ducksalad 2 months ago
  
  It seems like a very different case, because that was a uniform policy for all students, and if understand correctly the ruling was against the uniform policy, not the name itself.
  
  In this case the ruling strikes down the name, and the justification in the lawsuit is that extracurricular activities require uniforms.
  
  Previous cases have ruled that students can be required to waive some rights to join extracurricular activities, for example, schools can't require all students to take a piss quiz absent individualized suspicion, but they can require it of the sports teams.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Michael P 2 months ago
    
    ... and in Board of Education v. Earls (2002), the Supreme Court held that (passing) suspicionless drug testing could be a prerequisite for any or all extracurricular activities.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. ducksalad 2 months ago
      
      I didn't like that decision, which was part of Reagan's push to evade the Fourth Amendment completely by making damn near everything (sports, employment, driving a vehicle) conditional on "voluntary" waiving your rights.
      
      However, I do acknowledge that it is the current state of things.
      
      Log in to Reply
    2. David Nieporent 2 months ago
      
      That was based on the alleged compelling government interest in keeping extracurricular participants from using drugs.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
        
        Might have been beneficial to Len Bias
        
        Log in to Reply
  2. Josh R 2 months ago
    
    The relief granted (changing the name of the school) might have gone too far (having no school name on the unform for all students might suffice, assuming that makes sense). But, the compelled speech issues are comparable.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. ducksalad 2 months ago
      
      They could have granted relief just by saying a student could opt out of having the name of their uniform. I think objection to *other* students' wearing the name doesn't involve compelled speech.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. David Nieporent 2 months ago
        
        Agreed. In Wooley, the remedy was that the plaintiff could cover the motto on his license plate, not that the license plates couldn't have that motto on them.
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. Josh R 2 months ago
        
        Could be, although it would look weird having half a team with one jersey and the other half with another. Again though, that has no bearing on the compelled speech analysis.
        
        Log in to Reply
    2. TwelveInchPianist 2 months ago
      
      "having no school name on the unform for all students might suffice"
      
      You mean preventing the students who want to express the message from doing so? I don't think that would solve the purported 1A problem. People are correct that the remedy is to allow people to not display the name.
      
      But the notion that the name is uniquely expressive is complete BS. "Stonewall Jackson High School" is no more expressive than "MLK High School".
      
      The issue is that the judge disagrees with the message being expressed.
      
      Log in to Reply
Mr. Bumble 2 months ago

Link to story:
https://www.thecollegefix.com/judge-naming-school-stonewall-jackson-violates-students-free-speech-rights/

Log in to Reply
1. Bwaaah 2 months ago
  
  Opinion here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68845341/171/virginia-state-conference-naacp-v-county-school-board-of-shenandoah-county/
  
  Log in to Reply
Bored Lawyer 2 months ago

Now how far does this go?

There is a Malcom X school in Newark, NJ. Can a student demand the name be changed.

Or, Millard Fillmore, who is generally considered a mediocre president.

Here is a whole list of schools in NYC alone that are named after people. Many are private schools, but at least half are not.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Schools_in_New_York_City_named_after_people

Log in to Reply
1. wvattorney13 2 months ago
  
  A school near me is named Robert C. Byrd High School. And it was named that while he was still a U.S. Senator. I guess under this ruling that school should have been forced to change its name.
  
  The judge's ruling in wrong, IMHO, for an independent reason. If a kid wears "Stonewall Jackson High School" on his uniform, that is not a declaration that he supports the man, Stonewall Jackson, and everything he stood for. It is a declaration that he is a member of a team from Stonewall Jackson High School.
  
  As you said, that doesn't indicate support for Jackson the man anymore than Millard Fillmore the man.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Josh R 2 months ago
    
    Don't you think the name of the school indicates support? You don't see too many Benedict Arnold schools.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Davy C 2 months ago
      
      It indicates support by the community, but not by the students.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Josh R 2 months ago
        
        If a particular student objects to wearing the name, isn't he saying to him its support for the person?
        
        Log in to Reply
John F. Carr 2 months ago

Playing off an ad campaign of decades past, students should have a protest with the theme "I'd rather go naked than wear Stonewall."

As for the Volokh Precedent mentioned in an earlier reply, the situation is distinguishable. Students don't have to wear an inspirational slogan any more than a New Hampshire driver has to display "live free or die". But the New Hampshire driver does have to display the name of the state, even though it is a relic of Anglo-colonialism. And the student might have to wear the name of the school. It's a simple factual statement. Compelled display of indisputable statements like "it's illegal to sell liquor to minors" are less protected than compelled display of merely true statements like "the earth is round."

Log in to Reply
TwelveInchPianist 2 months ago

Wow. It looks like this is a lawless, legally indefensible, nakedly politically ruling.

When judges do stuff like this, they make it politically more defensible for Trump to defy courts.

Log in to Reply

Frank Drackman 2 months ago

Like to see the Judge tell that to the Millions of Afro-Amuricans (HT C. Powell) named "Jackson"

Frank

Bwaaah 2 months ago

Yeah. But that's not as in Stonewall. That's as in Action.

Log in to Reply

Mr. Bumble 2 months ago

Welcome to the mid-day lull.
Queenie and company will be back after their trip to the local steam & cream.

Michael P 2 months ago

I always thought it was a shift change.

Log in to Reply
Frank Drackman 2 months ago

Pretty Provincial their Bumble (don't you have a Snowman to hassle?) I'm on the Left-Coast, only 9am, I have not yet begun to Defile Mah-Suf, Suh! (HT J.H. Holliday DMD)

Frank

Log in to Reply

Michael Ejercito 2 months ago

Remember when these people were for masks?

https://nypost.com/2025/09/20/us-news/california-bans-all-masking-including-by-ice-agents/

Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a series of bills on Saturday banning masking statewide, as part of a concentrated effort to bar Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from concealing their identities during raids.

The five bills Newsom signed into law Saturday “make California the first state in the nation to prohibit federal law enforcement officers, including ICE, from hiding their identities,” according to a press release from his office.

How could he possibly think this is in any way constitutional?

Things would come to a head if a police officer attempted to arrest an ICE agent for wearing a mask while on duty.

Firing on Fort Sumter did not work out well for the Confederacy.

Bwaaah 2 months ago

The first shot was fired in defense, they [typically] say.

Log in to Reply
Bored Lawyer 2 months ago

How does the State of California pass a law regulating federal officers? Seems like a no-brainer that the Supremacy Clause trumps this law.

Log in to Reply
1. Mr. Bumble 2 months ago
  
  Because there is no liability for legislatures passing and governors signing un-Constitutional laws?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Z Crazy 2 months ago
    
    If some police officer tries to arrest an ICE agent for this exact reason, then Trump should declare martial law and send in the troops, like Lincoln did.
    
    These people are protecting illegals. Illegals are killing us. Now they want to go so far as to rebel against the lawful government to protect their precious illegals who kill those like Laken Riley.
    
    Log in to Reply
  2. Bwaaah 2 months ago
    
    It's aspirational gesturing (about you-know-who), and in substantive action, nothing.
    
    Toothless finger wagging. Shrill noise. Nothing.
    
    Log in to Reply
John F. Carr 2 months ago

In addition being on the mask-crazy side of the COVID response, California has strong protections for police officer privacy.

Log in to Reply

Mr. Bumble 2 months ago

Herr Starmtooper does it again.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/09/21/keir-starmer-announce-recognition-of-palestine-state/

LexAquilia 2 months ago

Newsome just issued in order banning Kid Rock from performing in California.

I looked up and down this thread and can't find a single Kimmel Free Speech Warrior criticizing Newsome.

Weird.

David Nieporent 2 months ago

"Hi, I'm LexAquilia. I'm too stupid to get jokes."

(N.B.: To be clear, I am not saying it was a good joke.)

Log in to Reply
1. LexAquilia 2 months ago
  
  Oh so now it's just a joke...
  
  Good one.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Magister 2 months ago
    
    It was from a fake account, but stupid conservatives ran with it.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. LexAquilia 2 months ago
      
      https://x.com/GovPressOffice/status/1969256868364095868
      
      Your opinion handler lied to you Magister.
      
      https://x.com/GovPressOffice <--- looks pretty official to me
      
      Will this shame you or cause you to self-reflect any?
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Magister 2 months ago
        
        Sorry, looking at a different fake from the past (GovNewsomPress). On GovPressOffice, they post all caps nonsense to troll Trump by spoofing his social media style.
        
        Log in to Reply
2. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
  
  "Ahm' too Stew-pid to get Jokes"??
  and what business is it of yours where I'm from.
  You still haven't called it, you have to call it, I can't call it for you,
  Dammit, I've been doing this bit for 3 weeks, it's like Andy Kaufman and the Wrestling, none of you Rubes (HT Hobie-Stank) gets it.
  
  Frank
  
  Log in to Reply
ducksalad 2 months ago

Well, I just found out because you posted it.

Here I'll say it: Newsom's order, assuming actually he made it and did not explicitly state it was a joke, is clearly unconstitutional. It is no defense that the order was made for purposes of trolling, and it is no defense that he doesn't really intend to enforce it.

Trump and his cabinet have been testing out real proposals to violate civil liberties by phrasing them as jokes and then seeing how they go down. As a result we can no longer trust politicians who claim to be joking.

Log in to Reply
1. ducksalad 2 months ago
  
  Meant to say we can't trust politicians who leave any ambiguity about whether they are joking.
  
  Log in to Reply
John F. Carr 2 months ago

For the record, I found this:

"BECAUSE OF HIS HORRIFIC MUSIC, CALIFORNIA WILL INDEFINITELY SUSPEND KID ROCK FROM PERFORMING IN THE GOLDEN STATE. YOU’RE WELCOME! — GCN"

The only possible response to this assault is a diss track from Kid Rock.

Log in to Reply
1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
  
  So will they keep him from
  "Packin' Up my game and I'ma Head out West"???
  
  "Cowboy"'s right up there with "California Dreaming", "Hotel California, "Goin to California(Gonna eat alot of Peaches)", "Dani California"
  
  Frank
  
  Log in to Reply

LexAquilia 2 months ago

I want to take a moment and recognize our security forces for keeping all those people safe in Arizona at Charlie's vigil. I'm sure there were several planned MCE's from violent Democrat Supremacists and party leaders. They're the greatest threat this country is facing.

Frank Drackman 2 months ago

Just an "Observation" and not a "Threat"
and how could it be a "Threat"?? Even with my Very/Very Large Brain, I'm not Telepathic (I know, I've tried).
Some 18,000 Recruits graduate from Marine Corpse Boot Camp every year, every one of them with better shooting skills than Charlie Kirk's (His name is Charlie Kirk) cowardly Killer.
You really want to open this Pandora's Box where Policy is decided by which side has the better shooters??
Both Vice President JD Vance and that Prancing Forest Sprite "Tampon" Tim Waltz had to qualify with the M-16.
Who would you rather be down range from?

Frank

LexAquilia 2 months ago

You know, the most terrifying thing about Charlie's assassination was the Democrat's response.

They've spent a week signaling to any would be Democrat terrorist that they will use all their considerable power to protect you, cover for you, blame the victim, and raise money for you if you act on their rhetoric.

A non-trivial amount of Americans will tacitly as well as openly cover for domestic terrorism if it's against conservatives.

ducksalad 2 months ago

Are you actually feeling terrified?

Log in to Reply
hobie 2 months ago

Have us Libs been covering for the MAGA Mormon? I don't think so. Exactly where are you getting your news from? One of the many pleasures in all this has been MAGA apoplectically trying to put that MAGA Mormon square peg into the round ANTIFA hole. It just don't fit...do it?

Log in to Reply
1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
  
  Hold your nose again
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. LexAquilia 2 months ago
    
    Frank, we get the opportunity to witness going crazy in real-time. It's kinda neat, but dude is two Obama tweets from shooting up a Christian elementary school
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
      
      OK, Lex, I get you mixed up with Magnus-Mini-Balls, but maybe we can come to a (No Homo) "Mutually Beneficial Relationship", I'm willing to "render unto Ceasar"
      
      Frank
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. LexAquilia 2 months ago
        
        You're not mixed up.
        
        Log in to Reply
David Nieporent 2 months ago

You know, the most terrifying thing about Charlie's assassination was the Democrat's response.

Not sure whether the most offensive thing about that sentence was the poor grammar or the fact that it's a bald-faced lie.

Log in to Reply
1. LexAquilia 2 months ago
  
  Let me guess, the hundreds of thousands of people mourning Charlie, praying, and attending vigils is the most terrifying thing... to you and the other terrorists?
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
    
    No, it's the easily 10,000-100,000 for each attendee who couldn't attend in person.
    
    Log in to Reply
2. damikesc 2 months ago
  
  Hmm, justification of the murder and multiple videos CELEBRATING the murder.
  
  Yup, nothing to worry about there.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. David Nieporent 2 months ago
    
    Which Democrats did either of those things?
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
      
      Call it, you have to call it,
      
      Log in to Reply
  2. hobie 2 months ago
    
    No one is celebrating Kirk's murder. But we're savaging his deplorable legacy of hate and misogyny. How do you think the little black kids in my neighborhood feel when they see this god-king say that no matter what they do, they are suspect.
    
    I'm sure if Kirk had lived long enough to get to the emergency room, and by sheer luck there was a black doctor in Utah, I would expect a consistent Kirk to say to the doctor that he doesn't trust his qualifications. And at that point I'd expect the doctor to leave the forceps in his neck and let him bleed out. When all you do is breed hate between groups for money, I have no sympathy for you.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
      
      Wow, that's repulsive and disgusting even for a repulsive and disgusting Shit-Stain such as yourself. I'd go on, but I'll do like I do with repulsive and disgusting Shit-Stains and flush you down the toilet.
      
      Log in to Reply
3. Kazinski 2 months ago
  
  The stupidest thing Democrats did was make it clear that they thought Charlie was responsible for his own death.
  
  Its the same old trap they always fall into, rather than unambiguously condemn what someone on the left has done, and move on, they equivocate, tell us why they don't care.
  
  Now they own Charlies death, and the people who are upset about Charlie's assassination, even if they aren't MAGA know there is no home for them on the left.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. David Nieporent 2 months ago
    
    Which Democrats did that?
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
      
      First of all, you have to call it, I can't call it for you.
      Which DemoKKKrats? Well most are suave enough to know it's not "Appropriate" to gloat at the death of a Hated Adversary.
      And you're right (for once) like his Cowardly Killer (please tell me why he's still alive) You Fucks are too Cowardly to Pubic-ly celebrate his Murder.
      
      Frank
      
      Log in to Reply
    2. Kazinski 2 months ago
      
      Well how about the 58 House Democrats who voted against the resolution honoring Charlie Kirk:
      "The House adopted a resolution honoring the life and legacy of Charlie Kirk and condemning political violence in a largely bipartisan vote Friday that appeared to prove difficult for Democrats.
      
      The vote was 310-58, with 95 Democrats supporting the resolution, which was brought forward by Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) nine days after Kirk, a conservative activi inst, was fatally shot during an open-air rally in Utah."
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. bernard11 2 months ago
        
        Don't be stupid, Kazinski.
        
        Not wishing to honor Kirk's "life and legacy" does not mean you think he was responsible for his own death.
        
        Not long ago - I think it was the Friday open thread - I listed some specific objections I had to the resolution. It went beyond condemning the murder and other political violence in general to putting Kirk and his activities and opinions on an undeserved pedestal.
        
        A partisan political operative is one thing, a saint is something else.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Kazinski 2 months ago
        
        Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
        
        Except Charlie Kirk, of course.
        
        Log in to Reply
    3. Kazinski 2 months ago
      
      Ilan Omar also said "his monster shot him through the neck".
      
      Seems to me that is victim blaming.
      
      Log in to Reply

CountmontyC 2 months ago

Btw a shooting in Nashua, New Hampshire 1 dead 2 wounded.
Reports have the shooter shouting "free Palestine."

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/20/us/nashua-new-hampshire-shooting

Frank Drackman 2 months ago

With modern Air Travel all of these Ham-Ass supporters could be in Gaza within a day or two (Hardest part is getting someone crazy enough to insert them into Gaza)
Strange that so few do.

Frank

Log in to Reply

Kazinski 2 months ago

Here is a clip of the UK police showing up at the home of a teenager and confronting her mother demanding to sieze the girls phone, or arrest jer and take her and the girls phone to the station for further investigation.

The crime? Viewing a social media post.

https://x.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/1969711283957035293?t=s_wxkTA8ur4KZQ_yhFOOqQ&s=19

Frank Drackman 2 months ago

That sound you heard was Churchill rolling over in his grave.

Log in to Reply
Frank Drackman 2 months ago

Love Constables Lizzie McGuire and Iman Ra-shit-a Ill-hand Omar Slap-a-Jap's taking control of the Crime Scene.

Log in to Reply
hobie 2 months ago

Was she protesting the war in Gaza? Because we arrest people here who do that.

Log in to Reply
1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
  
  No, she was watching that episode of "Homeland" where Quinn advises to turn Gaza into a Parking Lot.
  
  Log in to Reply
Kazinski 2 months ago

Community notes has updated the tweet with the video:

"The police are investigating a teenager who created a social media account impersonating another teenager, and using it to send indecent messages. Not "Viewing a social media post".

The video has been heavily altered to show only 1.20 of a 10 minute interaction."

That seems like its actually a crime, even here.

Log in to Reply
1. Don Nico 2 months ago
  
  That seems so.
  
  Log in to Reply

CountmontyC 2 months ago

There was also a shooting in Sacramento. No victims other than the ABC affiliate building. Peep's social media full of TDS posts.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/abc-television-station-sacramento-arrest/3781140/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/09/update-fbi-springs-action-arrests-trump-hating-leftist/

CountmontyC 2 months ago

Damn autocorrect peep's=perp's

Log in to Reply
TwelveInchPianist 2 months ago

Sounds like California let him out on bail (I guess so he could try again), and the Feds arrested him.

Log in to Reply

Frank Drackman 2 months ago

Take Arizona off the list of "Swing States" in 2028 (I thought the concept or "Swing" States was that they split between the Candidates)

Frank "Florida, Florida, Florida, (Repeat 1,445,396 times to recreate Trump's win in Florida)

CountmontyC 2 months ago

I would not take it off of the list of swing states but I would bring in people from Scott Presler's organization and start voter registration drives in Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada to try and turn them into red states.

Log in to Reply
1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
  
  Amazing thing is Arizona/Nevada weren't even close even with all of the Refugees from California (or maybe BECAUSE of all of the Refugees from California??)
  
  Frank
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. CountmontyC 2 months ago
    
    True but I would prefer to build a sizable and hopefully permanent edge. Basically I want to take away the Democrats hope of regaining either the White House or the House of Representatives for the next decade.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Frank Drackman 2 months ago
      
      Me too, patience, patience, Grasshopper, the Voting age's still 18.
      
      Log in to Reply

Frank Drackman 2 months ago

Charlie Kirk's Killer is still alive.
Why?

Frank

Frank Drackman 2 months ago

OK, I won't be the one to tell her, but Erika Kirk says Charlie had a "faint smile" on his face in death.
It's called "Risus Sardonicus" a spasm of the "Muscles of Facial Expression" resulting in what appears to be an exaggerated smile or grin, can occur in Tetanus, Poisoning, or any death in which the Upper Motor Neuron function persists for a brief period (i.e. most deaths).
Charlie would have had a "faint smile" whether he'd been shot by that (Redacted) or dropped dead of a Coronary like Andrew Breitbart.
Man, not saying Mrs. Drackman isn't hot, but if I had a piece of (Redacted) like Erika, I'd have had the friggin 82d Airborne as my Tour Security.

Frank

Frank Drackman 2 months ago

Erika Kirk just forgave her Husband's Killer.
Crowd (>100K but who's counting?) with a Standing "O"
Hmmm, will you hear that "Soundbite" on "All (Liberal) Things Considered"??
will Peter Sagal use it as one of his bits on "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me!" ??????

"So last week that Dead Nazi Fascist's Wife Erika Kirt forgave WHO for his justified Execution?"

Mo Rocca "Oh, I just loved Erika's "Elvira" Eye Shadow, MMM, "Tucker Carlson"???
OK, that's a Parody that could actually be a Transcript, only question is....
Is "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" still on?

Frank

neurodoc 2 months ago

Would someone kindly explain to me what was offensive in what Jimmie Kimmel said? Yes, he seems to have gotten the shooter's political orientation wrong as to left vs right (MAGA), but how is that such as to rile the right so greatly, or at least Trump et al.? Was the outrage a tad hyped?

What has surprised me is that we, or at least me, hasn't heard more about the transgen (or "transitioning") roommate/romantic interest. I should have that would have been HUGE, especially in conjunction with the etched bullet casings. (Does it take some effort to clearly etch all there was on those casings?)

And seriously, or at least semi-seriously, what marks the crossover point for those "transitioning"? Do they get counted by those who report such things as "women" as soon as they have embarked on the project?; when they announce feminine pronouns?; when they have been taking hormones for awhile and clearly manifest the changes?; when they have undergone reasonably definitive surgical alterations; when they proclaim it?; or what? Maybe someone could answer with regard to Lia Thomas of Penn, because that was so peculiar to me given how out of place he always appeared next to the women swimmers. (Did he share all the same facilities with them while he retained his original male genitalia?)

Don Nico 2 months ago

The week of Kristallnachten begins at the UN.
Seeing Macron caving today to France's Islamist immigration, it is easy to understand why the French surrendered after six weeks in 1940.

The Volokh Conspiracy

Sunday Open Thread

Latest

New Jersey Becomes First State To Bar 'Shaken Baby Syndrome' Testimony at Trial

Trump Says Legislators Committed Treason by Noting That Soldiers Are Not Obligated To Obey Unlawful Orders

Mike Johnson Wanted Congress To Reclaim Power Over Tariffs—in 2019

Trump's Venezuela Escalation Could Destroy MAGA, Warns Rand Paul

Guillermo del Toro's Frankenstein Comes Perilously Close to Opposing Human Flourishing

Recommended

Login Form

The Volokh Conspiracy

Latest

New Jersey Becomes First State To Bar 'Shaken Baby Syndrome' Testimony at Trial

Trump Says Legislators Committed Treason by Noting That Soldiers Are Not Obligated To Obey Unlawful Orders

Mike Johnson Wanted Congress To Reclaim Power Over Tariffs—in 2019

Trump's Venezuela Escalation Could Destroy MAGA, Warns Rand Paul

Guillermo del Toro's Frankenstein Comes Perilously Close to Opposing Human Flourishing

Recommended