Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Well I think the controversial question of "what is a woman" has been decided, at least in Fairfax County Virginia:

"Right now, registered sex offender Richard Cox is in an Arlington court hearing where women are testifying that they saw Cox naked in Arlington high school girls locker rooms.

Cox says he’s a woman and asked the judge to tell the prosecutor to stop misgendering him. The judge said no.

One woman testified when she walked in an Arlington girls high school locker room after swim class for her young daughter she saw Cox masturbating in a shower stall with the curtain open. She said her young daughter was with her when she saw Cox touching his erect penis.

Arlington Public Schools allows people to use locker rooms and bathrooms based on their gender identity."

Cox (heh), is being charged in Arlington, but Fairfax County, that conduct doesn't meet probable cause, according to the Police Chief, as you can see in the embedded news video at the link.

https://x.com/NickMinock/status/1971247626755752396

"WATCH: New video shows a registered sex offender visiting a water park for kids with disabilities and a playground at a Fairfax County rec center, a place that also has a preschool.

Fairfax County police knew about it, but didn’t file charges."

[Dr. Ed 2]

"One woman testified when she walked in an Arlington girls high school locker room after swim class for her young daughter"

A lot of states wouldn't allow this, i.e, non-school-employee adult in locker room.

[Frank Drackman]

Learned that the hard way did you?

[bernard11]

Good one, Frank.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, I was a district employee.

[Frank Drackman]

Jeez, I need to get me one of those jobs.

[Michael P]

The court is in Arlington County, not Fairfax County, although as you mention he may have offended in both (and FFX officials are cool with him hanging around children).

We were assured that this kind of thing never happened by All The Best Minds Of The Left. What went wrong?

[Martinned]

It's always nice to come to the comments section of the Volokh Conspiracy and see a discussion free of silly strawmen.

[Frank Drackman]

They can’t compete with the Eurotrash (Redacteds)

[Michael P]

Do the anklebiters ever say anything of substance, or are they still all limited to ad hominem attacks and empty assertions?

[Malika la Maize]

Mikie has to ask because he’s in his safe space.

I mean, what more needs to be said about Mikie than that he’s replying to Frank about unserious anklebiting commenters? He’s just an insanely partisan nut.

[Kazinski]

Arlington county did charge him for offenses in Arlington County, but Arlington schools still let's him roam free.

Fairfax County didn't charge him, even though there is clear video evidence he has violated registered sex offender restrictions.

[Frank Drackman]

He clearly can’t get a fair trial in Fairfax, change of Venue to Danville.

[Michael P]

It's even worse than that:

Cox was accused of exposing himself in the women’s locker room at a Fairfax County Planet Fitness in June 2024. [Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve] Descano didn’t prosecute him. In that case, Descano’s office told 7News they do not prosecute cases when a defendant chooses not to have an attorney. A judge ultimately dismissed the case.

https://wjla.com/news/local/registered-sex-offender-richard-cox-fairfax-arlington-county-virginia-timeline-case-history-exposed-rec-center-womens-locker-washington-liberty-wakefield-high

Several of the convictions listed towards the end of that article are "Sex offenses prohibiting proximity to children".

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter8/section18.2-370.2/

[LexAquilia]

In the UK, those children and mom's would be arrested for being intolerant.

[jb]

Descano’s office told 7News they do not prosecute cases when a defendant chooses not to have an attorney.

That's a cool get out of jail free card.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its insane.

[David Nieporent]

In that case, Descano’s office told 7News they do not prosecute cases when a defendant chooses not to have an attorney.

Wait, what? I've got to imagine/hope that something got garbled in translation, because otherwise, WTF?

[Mr. Bumble]

It's on the video at about 2:23.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kIfqeub7Xw&t=153s

[David Nieporent]

Right, but that's not this Descano person saying it; that's the news outlet claiming Descano told them that. And I'm saying that I think the news outlet likely misunderstood, because that's an insane policy.

[Kazinski]

Descano is one of the mythical Soros prosecutors.

This seems quite a large campaign contribution for a county prosecutorsr's race, even over 2 campaign cycles:

"PAC Funding: According to the Virginia Public Access Project, Descano's campaigns in 2019 and 2023 received over $627,000 from the Justice and Public Safety PAC. News outlets, including Fox News Digital, have reported that the super PAC receives significant funding from Soros."

And now you can accuse me of antisemitism because I said Soros.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"because otherwise, WTF?"

I know, right? Wouldn't that mean that someone could avoid prosecution just by refusing to hire an attourn...

Oh.

[Swede425]

SOME WOMEN HAVE ERECT PENISES, YOU SCIENCE DENYING BIGOT!

[Martinned]

Yes. But that doesn't mean they get to commit sex crimes. Or are you somehow under the impression that those laws only apply to men.

I'm not sure why any of this is confusing.

[Swede425]

You're not sure about a lot of things, Dutch.
But, to help clarify it for you, that dude pretending to be a chick is actually still a dude.
Disney lied to him. Wishing upon a star doesn't work.

[Martinned]

that dude pretending to be a chick is actually still a dude

Because some rando on the internet says so? I know nothing about this case, but I do know that Swede425 isn't in charge of anyone's gender identity except their own.

[Joe_dallas]

His sex is male
His gender is male

His delusion of his gender or sex may be different. The reality is both his sex and his gender remain male.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yes. But that doesn't mean they get to commit sex crimes. Or are you somehow under the impression that those laws only apply to men."

Just to be clear, are you maintaining the view that people who self-identify as women should be allowed in women and girl's spaces like this, unless and until they touch their erect penises in a masturbatory manner? Is that you position?

[Jazzizhep]

No, I don’t think that is his position. I think his position is it’s fine to touch one’s erect penis in a girl’s locker room as long as the erect penis-toucher isn’t a convicted sex offender. At least that seems to be the only thing with which he has a problem.

[Jazzizhep]

I know you live in the Tulip Kingdom, but I don’t really know your nationality or native tongue. You get a pass for not grasping the sarcasm.

You don’t get a pass for agreeing with a woman having an erect penis. FFS.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"SOME WOMEN HAVE ERECT PENISES, YOU SCIENCE DENYING BIGOT!"

Wait, what if a man identifies as a woman with a flaccid penis? Or for that matter, as a woman with a vagina? That could explain a lot about this case.

[wvattorney13]

I don't view this as a gender identity issue. Even if you concede that the defendant is a "woman" by whatever modern definition you would like to use, the individual is still present in a high school bathroom as a registered sex offender and masturbating in the shower stalls. That is going to be a violation no matter what gender he claims.

[myself]

Agreed. I have no idea if this person sincerely identifies as a woman or not and I don't think it matters.

[TwelveInchPianist]

According to the video, the case was dismissed due to lack of PC for indecent exposure.

[jb]

Right. Imagine they did this in the boys' bathroom instead of the girls'. This behavior would be equally awful/illegal, so the gender identity question is a red herring.

[Jazzizhep]

If you told me at 16 years old I could be in the girl’s locker room and see all the cheerleaders naked (I only got to see two as it was—missed out on Missy and not for a lack of trying), my teachers would praise me for being brave and different, I could read books in the library telling me how wonderful I am, I would have an entire month dedicated to my choices, and the only drawback was getting the snot beat out of me by my dad*, I just might do it. As a middle aged man now, it’s just creepy.

*My dad is a wonderful man. The belt stopped coming off when I told him “that didn’t hurt” around 12 or so. He wasn’t willing to go further to make it really hurt. To this day I don’t cuss around my mother.

[John F. Carr]

X says I am not mature enough to open the link.

If this is a followup to Cox's arrest in March, most of the criminal charges relate to being a listed sex offender in proximity to children. There are also four counts of indecent exposure. Given the state's pro-transgender law I wouldn't expect showing a penis to be enough for a conviction. Playing with the penis, maybe.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Much simpler to get him for being there...

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Cox (heh), is being charged in Arlington..."

Yeah, a lot of people are really critical of the policies that allow Cox in the women's changing room.

[Poxigah146]

This is why I say that transgenders belong in concentration camps.

[not guilty]

Poxigah146, how would you determine who is trangender? X-ray vision is a DC Comics fiction.

[Lee Moore]

You've heard of MRI, right ? Which can identify even undescended testes.

And then there's old technology - the naked eye.

[Magister]

So you're proposing MRI scans of ... everybody? Or at least naked eye inspection of every naked body? That sounds dystopian, if not as much as the concentration camp part.

[Lee Moore]

Don’t be dim.

If a jurisdiction has a law limiting bathroom access by sex (in the biological realidad sense) you may be suspected of using the wrong one merely by being eyeballed fully clothed.

If it gets to a court case there are lots of ways to identify your sex before it gets to MRI scans. Including your birth certificate which is highly persuasive if not conclusive. Then there’s a karotype test. If you claim you’re one of those rare XX males or XY females then and only then do we need to get to things like MRI scans.

The dystopia you are describing is what is known as ordinary court procedure. Each side offers evidence. If you know the evidence is going to be against you, you plead guilty and pay the fine.

[not guilty]

"If a jurisdiction has a law limiting bathroom access by sex (in the biological realidad [sic] sense) you may be suspected of using the wrong one merely by being eyeballed fully clothed."

Mere suspicion doesn't feed the bulldog. What would you put in an affidavit of probable cause seeking a warrant for an unclothed visual inspection or more intrusive measures, such as chromosome testing or an MRI?

[Joe_dallas]

NG & Mag - you are using extreme and rare examples in a delusionary rational to justify perverted behavior.

[Lee Moore]

A birth certificate ?

[Magister]

Welcome to Lee Moore World, which is totally not dystopian even though it has bathroom guards demanding your papers.

[Magister]

That's ignoring naturally occurring chimeras who can test with both XX and XY. MRI scans would incorrectly identify the few women who are XY but were assigned female at birth and may never have suspected they are not female.

This sounds like an endorsement of transvestigation. Plenty of people have been accused of being transgender with little to no basis, including women who are very tall or have some facial hair or have greater athletic ability or otherwise transgress some marker of gender identity. Or maybe women who look too feminine and must therefore be skilled female impersonators! You propose a nightmare world of people going into restrooms and being detained and examined intrusively because somebody thinks they don't look gendered correctly.

In any case, this has zero relevance to putting all transgender people in concentration camps.

[Lee Moore]

That's ignoring naturally occurring chimeras who can test with both XX and XY.

Such extreme rarities (a) do not disturb probable cause and (b) will be acquitted. Once in a thousand years, as that's how often they're going to be accused.

MRI scans would incorrectly identify the few women who are XY but were assigned female at birth and may never have suspected they are not female.

Logic fail. If they are women they were correcly identified as such at birth and are female. I suspect you're trying to say "the few men who are XY but were assigned female at birth and may never have suspected they are not female." Who would be correctly identified as male both by karotype test and MRI scan.

If you meant "the few women who are XY but were assigned female at birth and are in fact female" then an MRI scan will not reveal internal testes and they will be confirmed as women. Indeed further genetic testing beyond the basic karotype test would probably reveal that too.

[Magister]

I refer you to Commenter_XY, who tells us "the process is the punishment"; acquittal is better late than never, but it's still punishment. You don't even have a consistent view of who you're trying to round up for the concentration camps.

[Lee Moore]

I think you are mistaking me for Poxigah. Understandable in a guy/ gal /they who struggles with the notion of evidence.

[Magister]

You defended the concentration camp remark, and this is the most you've done to distance yourself from it. Nor have you distanced yourself from the consequences of your advocacy for requiring people to submit to such intrusive examination.

[Lee Moore]

You should work on your reading skills. I said precisely zip about concentration camps, I merely pointed out not guilty’s error in pretending that identifying sex require fictional comic book technology.

It is easily done with current technology in most cases with a simple piece of paper called a birth certificate.

You’re perhaps unaware that the cops confirm people’s identity from documents every day of the week, and DNA is used routinely for forensic purposes. Your “dystopia” has been in place for decades, and in the case of fingerprints for a century.

Time to wake up Sleeping Beauty.

[Magister]

You responded to comments about concentration camps, and I mentioned it repeatedly. You waited only to claim there was a failure of reading comprehension until you thought I wouldn't see your reply. You clearly need to work on reading skills, since you failed when reading all those comments about concentration camps and promised only acquittal to those who could disprove being transgender.

I pointed out that determining transgender status TO PUT ALL TRANSGENDER PEOPLE IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS would require a dystopian level of surveillance, and you did nothing to deny that was what you were talking about.

[Lee Moore]

On a tangentially related subject, I came across this on Scotusblog :

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/the-strange-case-of-the-superfluous-sentence/

which is kremlinologizing a sentence in a SCOTUS order. But the article contains this much more extraordinary sentence :

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit – traditionally among the more conservative courts of appeals – ordered South Carolina to allow Doe to use the boys’ bathroom while litigation proceeds.

As everyone knows, the 4th Circuit is easily the most hard line left wing Appeals Court in the land. So what is the point of the insertion "– traditionally among the more conservative courts of appeals –" ?

Even if, long ago, the 4th Circuit was conservative, it isn't now. The point of course is to insinuate that the 4th Circuit's judgement in this case is a conservative one. Which of course it isn't.

Another illustration that Scotusblog is not what it was.

If it ever was.

[Magister]

I am pretty sure that the 9th Circuit is more left wing, and the word "traditionally" has a meaning which you downplay but easily covers 20 years ago. The point seems little more than an observation on how times have changed. From 2015:

The Fourth Circuit has changed.
What was, a few short years ago, the most stridently conservative Court of Appeals in the country, has become-since 2010-a moderate, if not slightly liberal, court. Both the anecdotal and the empirical evidence bear out the Fourth Circuit's ideological shift. Further, based on the empirical evidence, the cause of this ideological shift appears to be the influx of President Obama's successful nominees to the Fourth Circuit bench beginning in 2010.

I am a little surprised that Republicans in the Senate did not seek to block more of Obama's nominees to prevent that shift.

[Joe_dallas]

the point of lee's comment was to show how traditional media , misrepresents facts for the purposes of giving false impressions. It this case Scotusblog statement was factually correct, but intentionally misleading since CA4 presently is not a conservative leaning court, in fact in many cases is borderline leftist.

[Lee Moore]

No, not borderline leftist. Here's a commentary from 2017

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/12/how_liberal_is_your_federal_circuit_court.html

concluding on the 4th Circuit :

"This will be a hard left Circuit for some time to come."

While the 9th got an influx of Trump appointments since 2017 so that a conservative panel judgement is now not that rare, the 4th has continued to plow on down that left furrow.

One of the points that distinguishes the 4th Circuit from other lefty Circuits is that it routinely nixes unlucky (ie conservative majority) panels with an en banc. It's basically impossible for lefties to lose in the 4th Circuit.

As you say, nobody disputes that the 4th is a lefty Circuit, the point is - why bring up its ancient history as a conservative Circuit ? The question only needs to be asked to be answered.

Scotusblog's lefty bias is usually better concealed, but it's always there.

[Magister]

SCOTUSblog is now owned by The Dispatch, which is right of center. So, a lefty conspiracy under every bed! You live in a very sad world that does not comport with actual reality.

[Brett Bellmore]

SCOTUSblog is now owned by The Dispatch, which is TDS central. They may be sorta right on the issues, but if it has anything to do with Trump, that goes out the window.

[Magister]

Comments about the 4th Circuit would not have anything to do with Trump, especially when it's a comment on a largely superfluous SCOTUS sentence in a non-stay of a rather narrow injunction from the 4th Circuit in a case that doesn't involve girls' school sports or girls' bathrooms.

[Joe_dallas]

Mag - Scotusblog's actual statement which Lee cited was definitely written to deceive. I am making my judgement based on what was written by Scotusblog. Why would you make a judgement based on what someone else told you to believe.

[Magister]

You usually have to look elsewhere to know if what somebody said about a third party is deceptive. Nobody would trust joe_dallas judgement on anything at all based on a long history of comments (which may be why joe_dallas resorted to a sock puppet account). Lee Moore said

As everyone knows, the 4th Circuit is easily the most hard line left wing Appeals Court in the land.

which is wrong in several ways. Defend that statement directly if you want further discussion.

[Joe_dallas]

Mag - you shift the discussion to hide your distortions

the substance of lee's statement is correct which is that A - CA4 is a very left wing court at this time, maybe not the most left wing, but definitely left wing.
B - That Scotusblog statement while true was intentionally misleading to falsely imply that CA4 was a conservative court.

It doesnt enhance your argument when you raise non relevant facts that do not refute the substance of Lee's comment, Brett's comment or my comment.

[Magister]

So, you agree that Lee Moore's statement was wrong. My original comment was based entirely on that extreme characterization.

The relevance of SCOTUSblog's comment may be disputed; the reputation of the 4th Circuit from before 2010 might be relevant given that five current Justices were on the Supreme Court by 2010 and two more were federal judges before that.

The SCOTUSblog point was that the Supreme Court explicitly saying that not staying this injunction meant nothing on the merits (which normally goes without saying) is not what you would expect said to a relatively sober Circuit (9th and 5th get overturned way more, for pretty much opposite reasons). Far from Josh Blackman level of palmistry and tea leaf reading.

Still waiting for anyone who is not as questionable a source as americanthinker.com to weigh in on the hard leftness of the 4th Circuit. (For some reason, that link, which uses only which party appointed judges, is particularly harsh toward the 4th Circuit.)

[Lee Moore]

Still waiting for anyone who is not as questionable a source as americanthinker.com to weigh in on the hard leftness of the 4th Circuit. (For some reason, that link, which uses only which party appointed judges, is particularly harsh toward the 4th Circuit.)

Why do you think the American Thinker would be harsher about the 4th Circuit than it is about other Circuits with a lefty majority of judges ? So you think it's a biased source - but why is it extra biased about the 4th ? Other than that the 4th deserves it ?

The 9th is the only Circuit, apart from the 4th which gets a "hard left" mark, and since 2017 when the article was written, the 9th has gone from having eleven more Dem appointed judges than GOP ones, to only three. Which means there are many more conservative panels in the 9th, and the 9th does not routinely en banc any ruling by a conservative panel that goes the "wrong way." The 4th is - these days - significantly more lefty than the 9th.

[Magister]

I don't know why it's more biased about the 4th Circuit; if it had other evidence for "hard left" it did not present it, even though the 11th Circuit has the same proportion of Democratic appointed judges. Given that it's a questionable source to start with and that the 4th Circuit includes states with Democratic senators and the "blue slip" process which leads to more moderate judges, it seems a conclusion as stupid as Lee Moore.

[Lee Moore]

I hate to break it to you, but the 11th has a majority of GOP appointed judges 🙂

[Magister]

Eleventh Circuit (Ala., Ga., Fla.): This court has four Rs and eight Ds and no vacancies. Trump appointed one of the Rs. It's surprising that Alabama and Georgia, very conservative states, are ruled by such a leftist circuit court.

From the americanthinker.com link; another reason not to trust anything posted by (checking notes) Lee Moore. That it's shifted since then does not suddenly make their evaluation of the Fourth Circuit more convincing.

[wvattorney13]

Right. The impression that is given is that, "Look, even a conservative court allows boys to use girls restrooms based on gender identity. So you hayseeds need to get with the program!"

That's why the term "fake news media" has taken hold. They report a literal truth knowing that people will not see through the nuance and take away the impression that the writer wants taken away.

[damikesc]

Republicans made the mistake of allowing Obama to fill vacancies. You are correct --- they should not have.

Then again, those Republicans were happy playing the role of the Washington Generals.

[Magister]

I did not assert that they should have; I expressed surprise that they did not, given how much they blocked even bland appointments (leading Harry Reid to implement the nuclear option). I cannot recall any Republican ever playing the role of the Washington Generals; certainly not in the Obama years. Where do these shared delusions come from?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"leading Harry Reid to implement the nuclear option"

Leading to the current state of the court, the fall of Roe v. Wade, etc.

[Magister]

Totally incompatible with portraying the Republicans as the Washington Generals. You really believe that the Republicans wouldn't have invoked the nuclear option for the Supreme Court in 2017 without Reid invoking it for lower courts? Why so many delusional people here today?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wow. Uh, yeah, that's how the nuclear option works. The Repubs told Reid at the time that if he did it for the lower nominees they would do it for SCOTUS judges when the time came.

[Brett Bellmore]

"You really believe that the Republicans wouldn't have invoked the nuclear option for the Supreme Court in 2017 without Reid invoking it for lower courts? "

You seem to forget the Democrats, prior to the election, saying THEY would invoke it for the Court after the election.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/liberals-supreme-court-filibuster-220806

[Sarcastr0]

Only Dems have agency. Republicans are only reacting as they must to those evil Dems.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Magister]

Murc's Law.

[TwelveInchPianist]

In any event, if you have an intact filibuster, you probably don't even get to Gorsuch because you have a Justice Garland.

[Kazinski]

2nd quarter GDP was revised up by .5% to 3.8% in the final revision, it seems the Trump recession hasn't materialized and we may have fallen into an expansion.

Probably a good thing the number came out after the Fed lowered the fed rate last week, but a I'm not sure if they might have already known at the time. Jobless claims were down too, which also might have caused the Fed to wait longer.

CNBC has the whole roundup of economic news:

"Key Points:
Jobless claims totaled a seasonally adjusted 218,000, down 14,000 from the prior week’s upwardly revised figure and significantly less than the consensus estimate for 235,000.

Gross domestic product posted a gain of 3.8% in the second quarter, up half a percentage point from the prior estimate due to an upward revision to consumer spending.

Spending on long-lasting items such as airplanes, appliances and computers increased 2.9% in August, compared with the forecast for a decline of 0.4%"

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/25/jobless-claims-tumble-to-218000-well-below-estimate-despite-fears-of-labor-market-weakness.html .

[Commenter_XY]

Not to worry Kaz, the resident economic geniuses will be along shortly to tell us how the upward growth revision is a bad thing. That is because they know so many things that just aren't so.

[jb]

Not to worry Kaz, the resident economic geniuses will be along shortly to tell us how the upward growth revision is a bad thing

This is one of the more serious cases of projection I've seen recently. All of the kvetching about economic data revisions I've seen for the past couple of years have come from the MAGA crowd. I guess this one is cool, though?

[Lee Moore]

It's that with a Democrat administration the revisions are always downwards - ie big headline for overstated growth, little bottom of page 7 story on downward revision later. But for Republican administrations it's the other way around.

But a simpler and more straightforward approach is to disbelieve all government statistics about everything.

We should adopt the policy of the late great Sir John Cowperthwaite, Financial Secretary of Hong Kong during its free market glory days, and ban the collection of all economic statistics by any part of the government.

[Magister]

You likely want this only because your political preferences elevate ignorance to a saintly virtue. There is no statistical bias in revisions correlating with Republican and Democratic administrations.

[Martinned]

I thought all the economic numbers were rigged?

[Kazinski]

Be pretty hard to do for more than a quarter or so, there are too many private economic indicators that the government doesn't control.

Things like consumer confidence, ADP payroll report, existing home sales, etc.

[Malika la Maize]

When they’re good for Trump they’re right and when they’re bad they’re rigged.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I thought all the economic numbers were rigged?"
Just imaginary. A survey, or sampling.

The government, nor anyone really, does not have any way to tell how much growth there was.

We all just agree to pretend these are actual statistics.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob comes out against statistical methods.

[Bob from Ohio]

“There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics” — British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli [maybe]

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Uh, that means the Biden economy was very strong even though Republicans whined for 3 years that a recession was imminent. The issue for 4 years has been inflation and Trump’s tariffs have exacerbated inflation and yet you don’t care?!? So weird.

[Kazinski]

How much did they increase inflation?

[Kazinski]

Well since you didn't answer, and PCE came out this morning, then I will answer, it hasn't changed at all:

"From the preceding month, the PCE price index for August increased 0.3 percent. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index increased 0.2 percent."

And the Y/Y values are virtually unchanged from 1 year ago:
August 31, 2025 2.91%
July 31, 2025 2.85%
June 30, 2025 2.81%
May 31, 2025 2.78%
April 30, 2025 2.61%
March 31, 2025 2.67%
February 28, 2025 2.97%
January 31, 2025 2.78%
December 31, 2024 2.99%
November 30, 2024 2.98%
October 31, 2024 2.99%
September 30, 2024 2.84%
August 31, 2024 2.87%

https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_core_pce_price_index_yoy

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

2020 was a dumpster fire…we had no business being in such great shape by 2024. Biden did a great job and Trump is very lucky that he lost in 2020. But had Kamala won we would be seeing more Fed rate cuts and the deficit would be under 4% ratio next year.

[Poxigah146]

Biden did a horrible job, handing out money to people who didn't need it, clearing death row, appointing semi-retarded blax to the judiciary and executive positions, and a long list of other transgressions against nature

[Commenter_XY]

Dear Senator Schumer and Congressman Jeffries....Please shut down the government so we lose tens of thousands more non-essential bureaucrats and don't have to pay for them anymore. Go ahead, make our day. 😉

Signed,
The American Taxpayer

[Kazinski]

I hope President Trump accepts Schumer and Jeffries proposal for a bipartisan government shutdown.

And I am very disappointed in Majority Leader Thune and Speaker Johnson's partisan efforts to fund the government until November.

Shutting down government will provide a needed opportunity to identify nonessential government employees and help them find more productive employment.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

No. That's just as chaotic and stupid a way to "identify nonessential government employees" as the DOGE approach. And it negatively impacts those who are essential. Of course you don't care about that, since it wouldn't affect you.

[Martinned]

FAFO

[Commenter_XY]

I will happily FAFO, in the case of getting rid of non-essential federal bureaucrats.

[Martinned]

Talk is cheap. Don't come crying to me when your social security checks stop coming.

[Mr. Bumble]

You've learned Dem scare tactics well.

[Martinned]

Since the Republicans somehow do and don't control both houses of Congress, I guess we might find out.

[Frank Drackman]

It’s been all Direct Deposit for umm 20 years or so, Idiot.

[Malika la Maize]

Person who doesn’t know how English capitalization works calls other person idiot.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your one trick pony is lame.

[Malika la Maize]

You’re an incredibly stupid person. I mean, let’s put aside your routine falling for right wing outlet nonsense (“there is no 10 year old who needed an abortion,” “110% of voters!, etc) or your saying insanely stupid things like Bill Clinton was “on his knees” getting a blow job from Lewinsky, but as to this Francis Fakeman is one of *many* commenters here I mock, so “one trick pony” is, well, really dumb. You do know you’re dumb, right?

[Bwaaah]

Does that work for you?

[Frank Drackman]

Just a heads up, Queenie
Done lost my job, how I sposed to get money to pay dis Rent? You think you can let me slide it on?? I'll have it for you tomorrow, next week, I don't know

Frank

[Life of Brian]

or your saying insanely stupid things like Bill Clinton was “on his knees” getting a blow job from Lewinsky

You throw around this implausibility so much, I figured I'd check out what actually happened. The exchange was here:

Sonja T 1 year ago
. . .

Santamonica - What was your position with Clinton?

Mr. Bumble 1 year ago

On his knees?

Maybe it's time to retire this one.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks for doing the job Queenie couldn't be bothered to do.
Of course, being a Queen means never having to say you're wrong.

[Malika la Maize]

So Bri Bri also thinks men get on their knees to get blow jobs?

MAGA is full of sexless uncles.

[Life of Brian]

Qualika is going down with this ship, it appears....

[Bwaaah]

...but with good spelling.

[Jazzizhep]

Malika, I have been on my knees more than once getting serviced. Typically occurs after doggy style or missionary as she finishes me off.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Malika: As everybody knows, a person gets on their knees to give a blowjob, not to get a blowjob.

Malika's Buddy: OK, tell you what. You get on your knees and suck my dick, then I'll get on my knees and you suck my dick.

Malika: Sounds good, that way we both get blowjobs!

[Kazinski]

Social security checks are essential services unaffected by a shutdown.

[Sarcastr0]

They require a sufficient and competent staff to get them out.

The kind that won't be there if everything is burned down.

You haven't through things through at all, eh?

[Mr. Bumble]

So you're saying if there is a "shut down" next week SS checks won't be going out?

[LexAquilia]

He knows better than to say it, so he just insinuates and suggests.

[Don Nico]

more argument by dishonest distortion

[Life of Brian]

Shorter Sarc: Gotta be a firemen first argument in here somewhere....

[Bob from Ohio]

"sufficient and competent staff to get them out. "

Are you under the impression there is a SSA employee hitting a button for each deposit? "here you go, Emily in NY"

Its automatic. Like the money taken out of your account for a mortgage.

[Sarcastr0]

Don't troll.

You know any large and tracked undertaking requires manpower. More so when they involve large outlays of federal moneys.

Lower the staff and things will take longer, have more fraud, accidentally cut off more people, etc. etc.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Lower the staff and things will take longer, have more fraud, accidentally cut off more people, etc. etc."

Maybe long term but not during a "shut down" where nothing is really shut down.

[Kazinski]

Only non-funded nonessential workers are furloughed, it's projected to be only 2% of Treasury employees.

46% of Health and Human services.

It's Treasury that sends out the checks.

[Sarcastr0]

By your logic, Treasury is the one with all the nonessential people. Anyone can send out a check.

You need some expertise to figure out who the checks go to.

Are you so committed to being a housecat, caring only about what effects you, and even then not really thinking too hard about how it works?

[Commenter_XY]

Open questions on Comey indictment:

Does Jim Comey do a perp walk?
Does Jim Comey get a mugshot?
Does Jim Comey get bankrupted?
Does Jim Comey get jail time?

Now he will experience the judicial process from the other side. One sympathizes, almost.

[Martinned]

One sympathizes, almost.

In your case I don't think there is any risk of that. (Much less of you worrying about a politicised criminal justice system.)

[Commenter_XY]

Team D made the rules, eurotrash. Now the rules are being enforced by Team R.

[Martinned]

Now the rules are being enforced by Team R.

LOOOOLLL!!!

[Malika la Maize]

We know you don’t have any principles, you don’t have to keep reminding us.

[LexAquilia]

Principle:

Hold Democrat Supremacist feet to the fire today so they won't mass murder us tomorrow.

[Malika la Maize]

White supremacist who has often talked about gassing opponents .

You have to realize nothing these people say is serious.

[Bob from Ohio]

"don’t have any principles,"

Tit for tat and revenge are both principles.

[David Nieporent]

No; they're tactics.

[Bob from Ohio]

prin·ci·ple
/ˈprin(t)səp(ə)l/
noun
noun: principle; plural noun: principles
1.
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

Revenge fits. Shooting someone in revenge would be a tactic.

[Riva]

Not entirely the same thing. This is justice. Admittedly something that may confuse democrats.

[Riva]

Is Comey above the law?

[not guilty]

I dislike James Comey -- his shenanigans in October 2016 regarding Anthony Weiner's laptop likely resulted in Donald Trump's election --but the indictment against him is weak sauce. A pdf is here: https://www.newsnationnow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/108/2025/09/COMEY-INDICTMENT.pdf

Count One of the indictment avers:

1. On or about September 30, 2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, JAMES B. COMEY JR., did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, Fictitious, and fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the Government of the United Stales, by falsely stating to a U.S. Senator during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he, JAMES B. COMEY JR., had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports" regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.
2. That statement was false, because, as JAMES B. COMEY JR. then and there knew, he in fact had authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.
3. All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).

The transcript of testimony indicates that "PERSON 3" is Andrew McCabe, formerly the Deputy Director of the FBI.

Count Two alleges:

4. On or about September 30,2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, JAMES B. COMEY JR. did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which an investigation was being had before the Senate Judiciary Committee by making false and misleading statements before that committee.
5. All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505.

In fact Comey never gave the kind of unequivocal testimony suggested by the indictment. Comey had the following exchange with Senator Cruz:

CRUZ: All right. Let's shift to another topic. On May 3rd, 2017, in this committee, Chairman Grassley asked you point blank, "Have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?" You responded under oath, "Never." He then asked you, "Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration?" You responded again under oath, "No." Now, as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it. Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true. One or the other is false. Who's telling the truth?

COMEY: I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.

CRUZ: So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak? And Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth, is that correct?

COMEY: Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today.

https://www.rev.com/transcripts/james-comey-testimony-on-russia-investigation-transcript-september-30

That exchange -- Senator Cruz trying unsuccessfully to put words in Comey's mouth -- hardly arises to Comey having willfully and knowingly made a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement before the Judiciary Committee.

[Bob from Ohio]

"indictment against him is weak sauce"

Based on your prediction track record , he's going to prison.

[not guilty]

Bob, have you ever tried a case to a jury or an appeal to its conclusion, whether criminal or civil? As the first President Roosevelt famously stated:

It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

You are a snide little sniveler.

[Life of Brian]

Legend in his own mind does his old, tired routine of insecurely thumping his chest whenever his endless steam of nakedly partisan and gobstoppingly unrealistic analysis and predictions is called out for what it is. News at 11.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You are a snide little sniveler."

LOL Hit paydirt I see. My experience has nothing to do with your terrible track record.

You are an arrogant pretender. Consistently wrong on your predictions, yet always confidently making more.

How is the RICO case in Atlanta coming? I bet Fani is next up for indictment.

[Sarcastr0]

You really do get your jollies being an asshole online, eh?

[not guilty]

I suspect that Bob goes to a proctologist for his complete physical.

[Riva]

Projection on this level almost merits its own indictment, little communist girl that never smiled. One cannot scan through any open threads without encountering the usual posts from you and your parrot troll buddies being assholes. Whether they get sick thrills out of it, or just do it for a few bucks, is a matter for their own consciences.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, what will Comey have to spend out of pocket for legal counsel? This could be a lengthy judicial process with lots of motions (eg: billable time). EDVA? Lawyers cannot be cheap in that part of the country.

Does Comey do a perp walk?

[not guilty]

Comey is represented by former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who is retired from Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom. I have no idea what the fee arrangement is.

Fitzgerald reportedly is godfather to one of Comey's children, and I have previously read -- I can't recall where -- that one of them served as best man at the other's wedding. I wouldn't be surprised if Fitzgerald is offering his services pro bono. If so, I have no idea whether that would include litigation support services or not.

[Commenter_XY]

I bet that support service is expensive, month after month. Ouch.

[not guilty]

Bob, I realize that your federal court experience is likely comparable to that of Lindsley Halligan, but try to think like a litigator. (If the suggestion gives you the heebie jeebies, just take several deep breaths and focus.)

What evidence can you adduce to show that James Comey's September 30, 2025 testimony in fact was false? What witness(es) and document(s), if any, would you present?

And if you could overcome that hurdle, what witness(es) and document(s), if any, would you present to establish willfulness and materiality?

Please address each issue separately.

[Bob from Ohio]

More distraction from your terrible prediction record about case results.

I'm starting to think Tennessee criminals are lucky you retired.

[not guilty]

IOW, you have no clue whatsoever. Why am I unsurprised?

[not guilty]

In that Bob from Ohio has struck out more prominently that the Mighty Casey, I will pose the same questions to other MAGAts:

What evidence can you adduce to show that James Comey's September 30, 2020 testimony in fact was false? What witness(es) and document(s), if any, would you present? [I mistakenly wrote "September 30, 2025" upthread. Mea culpa.]

And if you could overcome that hurdle, what witness(es) and document(s), if any, would you present to establish willfulness and materiality?

Please address each issue separately.

[Life of Brian]

Thump... thump... thump.

Since you apparently already have secured a copy of the prosecution's witness list and potential trial documents, please do share those so we can give your clearly sincere request exactly the level of attention it deserves.

[not guilty]

That is just plain dumb, Life of Brian. My request is indeed sincere.

I sincerely cannot figure out how the prosecution here can show falsity without live testimony from Andrew McCabe, who is the farthest thing in the world from a Trump fanboy.

If you don't know something, there is no shame in saying so.

[Life of Brian]

Thump... thump... thump.

The prosecution has access to plenty of material you and I don't. As you probably at least used to know, that's why it doesn't matter a hill of beans whether you, I, or the cabbie that took you to the airport last week can or cannot articulate a theory based solely on publicly-available information.

Asking the wrong question smugly doesn't suddenly make it the right question.

Thanks for playing.

[not guilty]

Life of Brain, how inclined are you to take litigation advice from some internet rando who has never tried a lawsuit? Why are you any more inclined to credit the judgment of a Trump cult member who also has never tried a federal lawsuit?

[Life of Brian]

Of course, that's not what's happening here.

What's happening here is you're doing your usual routine where your ability to fathom a potential criminal or civil case against an actor can be predicted solely from the tribal jersey worn by that actor.

It's transparent and tiresome.

[damikesc]

I like the assumption that MORE charges won't be added at a later date.

[not guilty]

How about it, other MAGAts:

What evidence can you adduce to show that James Comey's September 30, 2020 testimony in fact was false? What witness(es) and document(s), if any, would you present?

And if you could overcome that hurdle, what witness(es) and document(s), if any, would you present to establish willfulness and materiality?

Please address each issue separately.

[Life of Brian]

Asked and answered:

The prosecution has access to plenty of material you and I don't. As you probably at least used to know, that's why it doesn't matter a hill of beans whether you, I, or the cabbie that took you to the airport last week can or cannot articulate a theory based solely on publicly-available information.

Asking the wrong question smugly doesn't suddenly make it the right question.

Thanks for playing.

[not guilty]

The questions have been asked, but they damn sure haven't been answered, Life of Brian.

There is a dearth of commenters here who can actually think like litigators. Far be it from me to fault anyone for being partisan, but there comes a time to stop singing it and start bringing it.

[Riva]

Comey’s problem is not Senator Cruz, NG. Comey’s problem is reaffirming his own lies. The indictment is short, to the point and quite damning. And there’s no auto pen pardon to save the creep.

[not guilty]

Riva, how would you show that James Comey's September 30, 2020 testimony is false?

What witness(es) and document(s), if any, would you present?

And if you could overcome that hurdle, what witness(es) and document(s), if any, would you present to establish willfulness and materiality?

The prosecution cannot call Comey as a prosecution witness.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Riva.

[Riva]

This is silly. Did I or anyone insinuate that the government would not have to prove its case? The grand jury returned an indictment against Comey accusing him of making a false statement before Congress and obstruction. The matter involves an investigation concerning “Person 1” and it is alleged that Comey lied because he authorized “Person 3” to be a source. Who is Person 1? Hilldabeast? Who is “Person 3”? Andrew McCabe? I frankly don’t know. Tell me, NG, when did you gain access to the grand jury materials? Has the government disclosed all its investigatory materials to you? Not sure why they’d confide in you if they read your posts.

Who will they call as witnesses? They’ll probably call Person 3 as a witness. Will that do for a start? And did I or anyone insinuate that proof requires calling Comey himself as a witness? Does anything in the history of criminal prosecutions for false statements and obstruction suggest that Comey must be called as a witness or there’s no case? That’s fucking absurd. No one has made that an issue but you. As noted Comey is not above the law. He’s welcome to present any defense legally available. Am I to write that for him here? I’m not in the mood.

[not guilty]

The transcript of the September 30, 2020 hearing indicates that Senator Ted Crude was referring to Andrew McCabe, whom the indictment labels as PERSON 3. The context suggests that the topic of the leak "regarding an FBI
investigation concerning PERSON 1" refers to an investigation of Hillary Clinton.

Andrew McCabe has been treated very shabbily by Donald Trump. He is unlikely to be a friendly prosecution witness. If he testifies, some or all of the FBI Office of Inspector General's findings that McCabe lacked candor in statements to investigators regarding his dealings with Comey could become available for impeachment pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 803(8)(A)(iii). https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/2018-04/o20180413.pdf

Calling McCabe as a prosecution witness would be fraught with peril.

[Joe_dallas]

Calling mccabe is likely bad for the prosecution - though it does show highlight the corruption the national office of the fbi. An honest person would applaud the sunlight.

[Riva]

If you say so, NG. Since you have thoroughly and objectively reviewed all materials and testimony presented to the grand jury and all government files, you sure must know. Wait a second...that's not right. You don't actually know jack or even his cousin shit do you? So, what exactly is the point of your bs? Frankly, I don't care. Whatever it is, it sure as fuck isn't going to help Comey.

[Riva]

And, NG, remember all those recently declassified files you have gone out of your way to ignore? That material, including "Arctic Haze" investigative files and Comey’s own memos and communications, reveals Comey authorized leak campaigns and knowingly allowed classified information to be disclosed to the media. More food for thought.

[Riva]

No response NG? Still waiting.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Hillary has apparently popped open a bottle of champagne to go with her vodka!! Unfortunately the case against Comey is weaker than the Durham prosecutions which pissed off judges because they were so weak. So Durham wanted Biden to fire him before he started the prosecutions but Biden wisely allowed them to go forward…I think Trump wants a judge to dismiss the case before it gets to trial so he can blame an Obama judge for undermining justice.

[Riva]

Not that I agree with your assessment but it is rather difficult these days to find a federal judge who isn’t undermining justice, in certain jurisdictions at least.

[Moderation4ever]

How about this;

Does Jim Comey use this opportunity to put Trump on trial with him?

[LawTalkingGuy]

No.
Yes.
No.
No.

So the new US Atty who has never prosecuted any case, let alone a federal case, and is apparently on her own on this one within the office. Comey is being represented by Patrick Fitzgerald. She’s going to be in way over her head with no support and no federal criminal trial experience.

[myself]

Does Jim Comey regret breaking DOJ policy to get Trump elected in 2016?

[damikesc]

Was the violation never actually investigating at all? Because he did not investigate a thing and the FBI agents forced him to announce what he did or else they'd release it whether he liked it or not.

[Jazzizhep]

My two questions are if he refuses to plead guilty, will they go after his children?

Did the investigating agents decide Flynn Comey didn’t intend to mislead investigators Congress only to be overruled by Comey Patel and referred for criminal prosecution?

If so, yeah it’s politically motivated.

[David Nieporent]

Did the investigating agents decide Flynn Comey didn’t intend to mislead investigators Congress only to be overruled by Comey Patel and referred for criminal prosecution?

To be clear, the investigating agents never decided that Flynn didn't intend to mislead investigators, and so nobody "overruled" them. What they said was that he didn't show signs of deception — i.e., that he's a good liar. Having a good poker face does not mean one doesn't intend to mislead.

[Jazzizhep]

I see your point. Can we agree that showing no signs of deception means he showed no signs of intent to deceive? Which, as I understand it, is an essential part of proving perjury. The state must prove he intended to deceive. Well, that or threaten his children with prosecution while they bankrupt the defendant and get a plea.

2nd attempt; Did the investigating agents decide Flynn Comey showed no signs of deception while intending to mislead investigators Congress only for the 7th floor to decide Flynn Comey did intend to deceive and referred the decorated soldier and war hero career politician for criminal prosecution?

Yeah, that makes all the difference in the world!! Thanks for setting me straight. No way was the Flynn prosecution politically motivated.

P.S. The original investigators didn’t recommend a criminal referral.

[not guilty]

James Comey is not charged with perjury, which would require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he willfully and contrary to his oath stated or subscribed any material matter which he then did not believe to be true. 18 U.S.C. § 1621(a).

[Jazzizhep]

Also, the investigators into Hillary’s server used language that would warrant a criminal referral only for Comey the 7th Floor to change it. The big picture matters.

Although I agree with the decision to not go after a current presidential candidate, and did at the time (thinking voters should decide), the Dems aren’t quite as principled.

[not guilty]

Open questions on Comey indictment:

Does Jim Comey do a perp walk?
Does Jim Comey get a mugshot?
Does Jim Comey get bankrupted?
Does Jim Comey get jail time?

Now he will experience the judicial process from the other side. One sympathizes, almost.

I can picture Commenter_XY twirling his mustache like Snidely Whiplash.

Comey will get a mugshot. He may voluntarily surrender in order to avoid a perp walk. I have no idea what his financial condition is. He will not get jail time.

On the merits -- which still matter -- this case will be problematic for the government. What in fact occurred is that Comey resisted Ted Crude's attempt to trip him up on a wholly collateral matter. SCOTUS has opined as to the materiality requirement of § 1001:

Deciding whether a statement is "material" requires the determination of at least two subsidiary questions of purely historical fact: (a) "what statement was made?" and (b) "what decision was the agency trying to make?" The ultimate question: (c) "whether the statement was material to the decision," requires applying the legal standard of materiality (quoted above) to these historical facts.

United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 512 (1995). In order to be "material," the statement must have "a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed." Id., at 509, quoting Kungys v. United States, 485 U. S. 759, 770 (1988). The Court in Kungys observed as to materiality:
Blackstone used the same term, writing that, in order to constitute "the crime of willful and corrupt perjury" the false statement "must be in some point material to the question in dispute; for if it only be in some trifling collateral circumstance, to which no regard is paid," it is not punishable. 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *137.

Should the indictment of Comey actually come to trial, the jury will need to consider what (hypothetically) could have been the effect of Comey agreeing that he in fact had authorized Andrew McCabe to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1. Could that have been "capable of influencing, the decision" of any question that the Judiciary Committee was considering? How was Crude's questions or Comey's equivocal response germane to any Committee inquiry?

That brings up another weakness in the prosecution's case: what in fact was the question under consideration by the Committee? A transcript of Comey's testimony is here: https://www.rev.com/transcripts/james-comey-testimony-on-russia-investigation-transcript-september-30

Per § 1001(c)(2):

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—

* * *

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

As SCOTUS has opined in Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957):

The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws, as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste. But, broad as is this power of inquiry, it is not unlimited. There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress. This was freely conceded by the Solicitor General in his argument of this case. Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or trial agency. These are functions of the executive and judicial departments of government. No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress. Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to "punish" those investigated are indefensible. [Footnote omitted.]

Chief Justice Warren wrote in Watkins, "We have no doubt that there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure." Id., at 200. What was the legitimate scope of an authorized investigation by the committee here? The Watkins> court elaborated:

An essential premise in this situation is that the House or Senate shall have instructed the committee members on what they are to do with the power delegated to them. It is the responsibility of the Congress, in the first instance, to insure that compulsory process is used only in furtherance of a legislative purpose. That requires that the instructions to an investigating committee spell out that group's jurisdiction and purpose with sufficient particularity. Those instructions are embodied in the authorizing resolution. That document is the committee's charter. Broadly drafted and loosely worded, however, such resolutions can leave tremendous latitude to the discretion of the investigators. The more vague the committee's charter is, the greater becomes the possibility that the committee's specific actions are not in conformity with the will of the parent House of Congress.

Id. at 201 [footnotes omitted.]
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a party may raise by pretrial motion any defense, objection, or request that the court can determine without a trial on the merits. A determination of whether Comey's testimony was materially false according to 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) is a jury question, per United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995). I would submit, however, that whether § 1001(c) excludes Senator Crude's questions from the scope of § 1001(a) as being outside the ambit of an authorized Judiciary Committee investigation can be determined on a pretrial motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(3)(B).

[not guilty]

Sorry for not closing all italics tags.

[Commenter_XY]

You really ought to start thinking about who is next. 😉

[Commenter_XY]

Poland is a NATO member that has just explicitly threatened to shoot down RUS drones and airplanes in their airspace.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/poland-russia-karol-nawrocki/2025/09/25/id/1227864/

My understanding is Congress declares war. If Poland shoots down a RUS aircraft, RUS responds and Poland in turn invokes article 5, what is the role of the Congress?

The war would have started, and we're in it w/o a Congressional vote.

From a legal perspective, what is Congresses role in declaring war when America has treaty obligations like NATO? Can they say, 'Nope'.

[Martinned]

1. The Senate ratified the NATO Treaty.

2. What each NATO member state does, exactly, when art. 5 is invoked is still up to them. Which is exactly why the Polish will avoid doing anything if they can avoid it, because they don't want Russia to see that the American security guarantee is dead letter. Better to leave Russia in doubt.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I am genuinely surprised that Putin is still alive.

[Frank Drackman]

I’m surprised you are.
Are you? I mean besides your Brain.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Looks like Trump's vicious prosecution of Former FBI Director James Comey will likely blow up even worse than Trump's feckless persecution of Jimmy Kimmel did. MSNBC has reported that the Justice Department had evidence of Comey's innocence when it got him indicted. If so, it is hard to imagine the grand jury saw that evidence

Comey had been previously investigated with regard to the same subject—allegedly lying to Ted Cruz during a Congressional investigation—and that previous investigation not the Congressional investigation) allegedly turned up proof the charges were false. The charges involved Cruz questions about whether Comey had authorized a subordinate to leak information to the Wall Street Journal, which Comey denied in sworn testimony.

Lawrence O'Donnell and other MSNBC commenters asserted on air yesterday that during a previous investigation Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was identified in a 2018 Department of Justice Inspector General (IG) report as having made an unauthorized disclosure to a Wall Street Journal reporter, and confessed he had done it, McCabe further denied to the IG that Comey had authorized the leak.

Taking that history as information already in possession of the Justice Department, and accepted by it, it looks as if Trump and AG Bondi can only be predicating Comey's prosecution on a likely evidence-free assertion that McCabe lied. Or maybe McCabe has now been extorted, to change his story.

Trump has previously made evidence-free public demands for Bondi to prosecute Comey not for this alleged offense, but for anything, especially including the Russia investigation. It is hard for me to see how a judge could conclude that a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on that history is even legally possible.

However, if I were a journalist covering the case, I would start rummaging among the various former Justice Department employees whom Trump fired for not indicting Comey. I would want to know whether McCabe might have been secretly indicted, and if so when.

[santamonica811]

1. Comey's legacy is that he gift-wrapped the election for Trump when he (a) broke protocol and publicly announced a bullshit investigation of Hillary on the eve of the election, while ALSO (b) deliberately deciding to hide from the American voters that there was already an ongoing investigation of Trump for possibly colluding with Russia. So...fuck him.
2. In spite of my general "fuck him" sentiment, above, this prosecution is, of course, simply obscene, and deserves all the scorn it's getting.
3. Comey will have the chance to go to court and get the case bounced. So, we'll see what we'll see; I'll hold off on full outrage until I see what hidden evidence the govt might actually have. (I agree with the legal commentators that the evidence that's been shown so far is less than nothing. But that does *not* mean that prosecutors do not have undisclosed evidence that the media and the public have not yet been given access to.)
4. Is there anything Trump does where he does not bend over backwards to look as awful as humanly possible?

[Brett Bellmore]

See, this sums up his mistake.

After Lynch was caught holding a secret meeting with Clinton's hubby, she delegated the (non) prosecution decision to Comey, to create the appearance that she had insulated the decision from her publicly compromised judgement.

Comey was tasked with white-washing Clinton, but he had a self-image of somebody principled to maintain. How to square that?

Well, he could have done the genuinely principled thing, and just gone ahead under normal procedures and prosecuted Clinton. Maybe held a press conference to explain what Lynch had directed him to do.

He could have done the job he knew he'd been given, and properly whitewashed her, announcing that she was innocent, and the DOJ wasn't in the habit of prosecuting innocent people. But, self-image as principled!

So he split the difference. She wouldn't be prosecuted, but he'd let the public know that she was, none the less, guilty, it wasn't innocence that was sparing her prosecution.

And as a result, nobody likes him. My side doesn't like his corruption, your side doesn't like that he couldn't be reliably corrupt.

It's an object lesson: Sometimes you really need to pick sides instead of splitting the difference.

[Sarcastr0]

None of this matters.

This is a targeted prosecution , commanded by Trump, with insufficient factual predicate.
The DoJ after Nixon created a manual of practice basically about not doing this.
It’s a new low.

You’ve found a combo of delusions and cynicism that allows you to ignore the open corruption of important civic institutions.

For the rest of us, those who believe in America, this is tragic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslighto, Justice shredded the rules going after Trump, and now the devil turned.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, what's your basis for assuming insufficient factual predicate? You were on the grand jury, maybe?

[OpinionsVary]

The fact that Trump had to force out the career prosecutor who said there wasn't enough evidence and install his former defence lawyer all the way posting messages on social media that directly point to his goal to pervert justice.

As the saying goes, a grand jury will indite a ham sandwich. The fact that other trumped up charges have failed even that near impossibly low bar isn't a reason to think highly of this attempt.

[Sarcastr0]

Also, too,
https://abcnews.go.com/US/prosecutors-memo-new-us-attorney-recommended-plans-charge/story?id=125925246

[Brett Bellmore]

We've actually recently seen that juries in this particular area will not, in fact, indict a ham sandwich. Repeatedly. So I'd have to say that there is at least SOME factual predicate.

And indeed we know that Comey and McCabe's statements under oath conflict on this exact point, and when you have two people testifying to the opposite under oath, you've got the factual predicate for prosecuting at least one of them for perjury.

Sure, he had to force out a career prosecutor to get it done. Maybe the career prosecutor was too reluctant to prosecute this particular sort of crime, lying to Congress under oath being regarded within the DOJ as a job perk?

[Malika la Maize]

Lynch met with a former President, compromised! Trump demands prosecutions and fires career prosecutors who won’t, okey dokey!

Anything to keep those Confederate statues up!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, Lynch secretly met with a former President in a third party's jet parked on the tarmac at an airport, and nobody would have known if somebody hadn't spotted them going out to it, and tipped off a reporter. She went out of the way to secretly meet with the husband of somebody under investigation.

It's not like they ran into each other in the VIP lounge and chatted briefly. They did everything but break out the portable cone of silence to keep the discussion secret, because the meeting was an ethics violation.

And that's why she had to, at least for public purposes, recuse herself from the decision.

[jb]

Woosh!

[Malika la Maize]

She met with someone connected to someone under investigation. That certainly compromised her! I mean, what if a President openly demanded a prosecutorial action, even firing people if they didn’t give it? Would that “compromise” the prosecution?

Again, I leave it for others to decide if these operate this blind or being disingenuous.

[Malika la Maize]

These people

[jb]

But it doesn't even matter if she met with him, secretly or otherwise. Maybe (private citizen) Clinton even told her to stop the investigation.

But Brett's just going to focus on that instead of paying attention to the fact that the sitting President just demanded an indictment of his political enemy, and fired the career prosecutor who he himself had selected to be US Attorney for failing to follow his orders. Or he'll somehow justify it while continuing to hand wring about this other meeting.

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus your standards are so openly partisan.

I'd say have some dignity, but you seem to have no idea you're doing it.

Which may be sadder than the bomb-throwing emptyheads like Commenter and Michael.

[bernard11]

Maybe the career prosecutor was too reluctant to prosecute this particular sort of crime, lying to Congress under oath being regarded within the DOJ as a job perk?

This from the guy who never assumes good faith on the part of his opponents (yet occasionally delivers a lecture about what a terrible practice that is).

Maybe there really isn't a case there, do you think, Brett? Is that remotely possible.

You need to stop wasting your talents as an engineer and start writing fiction. You sure can invent a plot.

[Riva]

The difference is that this is justice. Comey isn’t above the law. (Now where I have I heard that before?)

By the way, the “targeted prosecution” bullshit would play better if you hadn’t cheered on the Obama and Biden corruption and weaponization of the DOJ. And their weaponization of intelligence of course. Just wait until we get some accountability for that.

[Malika la Maize]

Whataboutism as predicted. Bots be bots.

[Riva]

Truth. And justice. 2 concepts completely foreign to your average parrot troll, especially the jv parrot trolls. You get what you pay for I guess.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

None of that is correct. Lynch didn’t have a secret meeting with Clinton and she didn’t delegate anything to an individual that had no prosecutorial powers. Obama made 3 major mistakes as president—he appointed the 3 Bush Republicans Comey, Bernanke, and Gates to placate Republicans and they turned out to be incompetent although Bernanke’s incompetence happened under Bush.

[Joe_dallas]

It was a secret meeting until they got caught

[Sarcastr0]

How could it have been kept secret?

[Joe_dallas]

They attempted to keep it secret -
What part of basic logic and common sense are you unable to comprehend?

[Sarcastr0]

Low-key meetings are not hard to set up.

A meeting on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport is not the way you do that.

basic logic and common sense
Do you have some kind of verbal tic?

[Joe_dallas]

your deflection shows you have not grasped the basic logic

[Sarcastr0]

OK, just for fun - what basic logic?

[Joe_dallas]

ex president trying to influence the doj - of course he is trying to keep it secret

basic logic duh -

[Sarcastr0]

So pise dixit that the meeting was nefarious, and use that to logic out the meeting that looked public as all hell must have been secret.

That's about what I expected.

[Riva]

This meeting was secret. Consult the deep recesses of your lying gaslighting mind, Sarcastr0. Certain aggressive efforts were undertaken to prevent any photos. No press allowed, behind closed doors, so to speak. No transcripts. No public disclosure whatsoever. How the fuck was this not secret?

[Brett Bellmore]

"And use that to logic out the meeting that looked public as all hell must have been secret."

At this point you're really phoning your lies in. They snuck out to a plane out on the tarmac to talk in it. Like I said, that's about as not public as you can get without the Cone of Silence. Which they would totally have used if they'd had one...

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey, Il Douche. Did you mean pissy dixit?

[Sarcastr0]

If you want it secret, do a phone call. Or meet in any of the many places in DC set up for such things. Or meet at one of their workplaces. Or Green Room of the Tonight Show

The tarmac of an International Airport in a big city doesn't seem anywhere near the top of the list if secrecy is your actual goal.

I'm not saying it was good practice; I'm saying your narrative of nefarious secret meeting is way overdone on the drama side.

[Riva]

That the fact that there was a meeting was discovered despite the best effort of some (including preventing photos) does NOT mean it, and the subject thereof, was not intended to be secret. And what exactly transpired has in fact remained a secret. They sure don't make gaslighting clowns like they used to.

[Randal]

Wow Brett, you should win the Hugo Award for fantasy! Your storytelling has become so baroque, just throw in a little sexual intrigue and you'll have a hit on your hands rivalling Game of Thrones.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ha. I've tried writing fiction. Can you say "expository lump"? Yes, I thought you could.

[David Nieporent]

After Lynch was caught holding a secret meeting with Clinton's hubby,

And by "caught holding a secret meeting" you mean "seen holding a public meeting."

Well, he could have done the genuinely principled thing, and just gone ahead under normal procedures and prosecuted Clinton.

Setting aside everything else you said that was wrong, the FBI director doesn't prosecute people.

[Kazinski]

Comey didn't announce a the investigation right on the Eve of the election, it had been going on for months.

And he publicly cleared her about July 6, 4 months before the election, even though it was the DOJ's responsibility, but AG Loretta Lynch had compromised herself, so it was kind of a stealth recusal.

What Comey announced right before the election was that Hillary's top secret emails had been found on Anthony Weiner's laptop just a week before the election, the same laptop that he had been sexting a 15 year old girl.

Comey decided because he had previously publicly cleared Clinton, even though he determined she had broken the law he had an ethical obligation to disclose the additional information uncovered, and wrote a letter to Congress 2 days before the election.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Hillary didn’t break any laws and we know from Trump’s impeachment that use of unofficial digital messaging was commonplace by 2017…which makes perfect sense for State because their job involves communicating with foreigners that don’t want to communicate via official email. Now Defense communications should always be via official email and so Hegseth according to you broke the law.

[Kazinski]

The issue was not just the use of her own email and server, it was having top secret data in those in securely stored emails, emails we later determined were hacked by the Chinese.

[Randal]

Wait it's Hillary's fault that the Chinese hacked her email but not Hegseth's fault that he actually sent his top-secret info to the Atlantic himself? How does that work?

[LexAquilia]

Well those are two different things at two different times.
Did you realize that?

[Malika la Maize]

lol, analogies, how do they work!

[Kazinski]

It's Hillary's fault for ordering an email server to be set up in her home closet, and using that email address for official state department work, in violation of the law.

So it was her fault the Chinese hacked her server in her closet if she used the official State Department server it would have been someone else's fault if the Chinese hacked it.

[Randal]

So it's Hegseth's fault for holding top-secret defense meetings on Signal. Or what am I missing.

[damikesc]

Is this "whataboutism"? I'm curious.

[Randal]

Close, but not quite. It's not an attempt to excuse Hillary by saying "you do it too!" It's more of an "I know you are but what am I" attempt to bring Hegseth down alongside Hillary.

[David Nieporent]

emails we later determined were hacked by the Chinese.

Nobody determined any such thing.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Her server was never successfully hacked. In fact being a private server it was easy to stop a hack because they could simply unplug it. State servers were successfully hacked though.

[Joe_dallas]

Sam Bankman-Fried 2 hours ago
"Hillary didn’t break any laws ..."

Repeating an obvious and discredited lie doesnt make it true no matter how often it gets repeated in the leftist echo chambers.

[David Nieporent]

Pretending you understand the law is an obvious and discredited lie.

[Joe_dallas]

using the personal server for classified info is illegal
using the personal server to circumvent the FOIA is illegal
destroying evidence is also illegal, bleachbit, hammer to blackberry

Of course DN understands the law. pretending those actions didnt happen is a lie. Pretending those actions were legal is also a lie.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Nope, none of that is correct.

[Joe_dallas]

All of what I stated is correct.

[David Nieporent]

1. No. Knowingly using the personal server for classified info would be illegal. Just like knowingly using the mailbox at the bottom of your driveway for classified info would be illegal. But if someone drops an envelope with such information through your mail slot, you haven't broken the law; the person who did it has.

2. No. And I don't know what "to circumvent the FOIA" even means.

3. No. Destroying evidence with the intent to impede an investigation is illegal. Simply destroying evidence is not.

[Joe_dallas]

DN - your characterization of what happened is not what happened

Yes you know - your statement neither reflect what happened nor do the reflect the applicable law to the actual facts.

Distortions / misrepresentations and flat out lies is ND's forte

[Absaroka]

"I don't know what "to circumvent the FOIA" even means."

It seems that Secretaries of State like to talk, via email, with various people without having the conversation published after a FOIA request. While there is an obvious potential for abuse,I kinda think they have a point ... you can't do diplomacy with the world listening. (I'll leave opinions about the legality under current law to the lawyers)

SecStates prior to Hillary did it. Opinions differ on how comparable the situations were:
Example of one side of the debate
Example from the other side

...

[Absaroka]

...

Powell's version
The email in question so folks can decide for themselves

(as an aside on taking PDAs/phones into secure places ... I think they (Powell, Hillary, Obama, Trump, ...) are wrong. Those devices are a risk, IMHO)

[Absaroka]

Let's try that first link again: Example of one side of the debate

[Joe_dallas]

dn - likes to argue the law based on non relevant facts and/or only a sliver of the facts while omitting the bad facts that undercut his legal analysis.

[Malika la Maize]

Comey went out of his way to tarnish Clinton when it was found the case anger was a big nothingburger. Meanwhile the FBI was tight lipped about all the Russia ties in Trump’s campaign.

The MAGAns got a gift with a career GOP leading the investigation (imagine if it had been a career Democrat appointee) and still cry sour grapes. Now Trump is clearly pushing this politically motivated prosecution and the MAGAns here are still talking about Lynch “compromising” herself. Disingenuous or ignorant, you decide.

[Kazinski]

They were a nothing burger for Clinton, anyone else would be in jail:

From Comey's report:
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time;"

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

[Malika la Maize]

They were a nothingburger. A career GOPer had to conclude there was nothing there. He went on to break FBI protocol to harm his political opponents side (of course the FBI had been leaking damaging stuff about Clinton for a while as they were sitting on damaging stuff about Trump).

I don’t actually think you’re this dumb, you know this but eggs have to be broken to end DEI and keep those Confederate statues up, amirite?

[Joe_dallas]

What comey omitted was the 30k emails that could not be retrieved because they had been destroyed, bleachbitted, etc.

of course the extensive destruction of evidence is not evidence of a crime! sarc

[Malika la Maize]

I’m curious, is this like claiming the recent shooter was trans and then coming back days later and saying you’d never heard of anyone claiming he was trans?

[Joe_dallas]

A - Repetitively distorting my statement - even after being corrected
B - nor does your repetitive distortion address the key point made regarding comey's omission.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not expert, but I have read DMN walking through the whole butter emails thing, and the 'anyone else would be in jail' is not true.

This was a case of bad server etiquette, not suborning top secret files (as some current Presidents have done)

Your excerpt ignores when and how those e-mails got classified.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's worth remembering that, while she WAS permitted to use private email, even to maintain her own server, a condition of this was echoing all her emails to the official system for archiving and indexing. Which she did NOT do.

So she'd have been in violation of the relevant rules even if she'd used it for nothing classified.

This, specifically to avoid what DID happen, which is that none of her work related emails showed up in a FOIA search, (Which is how this was exposed in the first time.) and when the feds needed to review them, they had to get them from her, and she had an opportunity to 'curate' them before handing them over.

Having a private server was, and I expect you understand it, a pain in the ass that Hillary undertook for exactly the purpose it eventually served: It could be wiped when a subpoena showed up.

[Sarcastr0]

It's worth nothing how CAPS doesn't change how in the weeds you are, and how that contrasts with the Trump admin's behavior off the break with personal phones and Signal chat and hiding secret docs.

No one claims she did nothing wrong, just that it wasn't the huge blowup that the right made it out to be.

Which is underscored by the right just straight up ignoring constant, obvious, easy to understand, much much larger violations up and down the current administration.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, it was sufficiently bad that even Democrats had to admit it was bad. Just not bad enough to have any consequences, of course.

[Sarcastr0]

Given how evil and bad faith the Dems who live in your head are, that’s really bad!!

[Joe_dallas]

She was secretary of State. I have had two clients that worked at State/foggy bottom.
Both have told me that there are extensive and frequent discussions regarding obligations, duties, requirements, etc on protecting classified info. Including signing documents acknowledging the classified document protection rules.

Only an extremely partisan idiot would believe she did not know she was intentionally violating those rules.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know what trainings and certifications the actual cabinet-level official goes through, and neither do you.

She should have known better. But given how little you care about vastly worst stuff this admin has done, MAGA has made it clear y'all do not care about the facts, or the law.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - you are full of BS -

Its well known that State has extensive protocols , procedures etc to ensure that every state employee knows the rules and what constitutes violation of those rules associated with classified info. That was confirmed to me by my contacts with State.

Your response shows you to be nothing more than a completely dishonest partisan hack

[Mr. Bumble]

...and they sign to acknowledge that they understand the rules.

[Joe_dallas]

Mr. Bumble 27 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
...and they sign to acknowledge that they understand the rules.

Yet defenders of HRC ignore clear and obvious facts.

[Sarcastr0]

"every state employee" is a set that does not evidently include the Secretary of State.

I do find it cute you for once talked to someone other than your own ass and are very excited about it. But alas your info is as relevant as you think.

[Joe_dallas]

your continued deflection trying to absolve HRC from knowing the classified info rules is beyond stupidity.

Demonstrate some level of intelligence.

[Sarcastr0]

I've said a number of times Hillary is not absolved.

My point is that the training given to State employees may not be given to the Secretary of State.

Your insults don't really change that baseline issue.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcaastro
pointing out your complete lack of honesty is not an insult.

You are attempting to claim she should be absolved of intentionally violating the classified info rules and protocols simply because it is possible that she did not know the rules.

That is simply inane and demonstrating you dont care about being honest.

it shows you lack any intellectual integrity.

[Sarcastr0]

When you end up just with the namecalling and appeals to incredulity, it shows you kinda have an inkling why you've not met your burden.

[Brett Bellmore]

"My point is that the training given to State employees may not be given to the Secretary of State."

Look, set aside that she went to great difficulty in order to retain the ability to wipe her server after it was subpoenaed.

She signed the SF 312 form attesting to having gotten that training.

[Sarcastr0]

She signed the SF 312 form

Did she?
Because I can tell you've not worked much with political appointees if you just assume she did.

[Joe_dallas]

Sacastro - you are well past the stale age of trying to absolve the possibility of Hillary not knowing the rules.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastro proves my original point

"Only an extremely partisan idiot would believe she did not know she was intentionally violating those rules."

[Brett Bellmore]

"She signed the SF 312 form

Did she?
Because I can tell you've not worked much with political appointees if you just assume she did."

They published the form with her signature back when this was in the news, moron.

[David Nieporent]

That was confirmed to me by my contacts with State.

LOL.

[Sarcastr0]

I made a point; a pretty clear one. And I made it repeatedly.

Joe just danced around and insulted me; never once getting close to addressing the point.

Brett figured out what the point was, and engaged via an unsupported assumption that he's not yet backed up.

They aren't sending their best.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 5 minutes ago
"I made a point; a pretty clear one. And I made it repeatedly."

Yes you made a point repetitively - a point that is incredibly stupid, even by your standards. There is absolutely no possible way an attorney , wife of a governor, first lady, US senator, Secretary of State was not knowledgeable on the rules associated with classified government information. Close to 30 years, from the late 1980's through 2010 during which she either worked in government or closely associated with government documents.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Oh come on. Everybody knows that people in her position delegate the more mundane tasks to staff or interns.

[Sarcastr0]

OK then. I Googled and found some stuff that said the State Department had no such record of the form, or the separation agreement. But your link looks pretty legit.

I would note that form is not the training Joe_dallas is going on about.

[Absaroka]

"..that form is not the training..."

FWIW it seems to acknowledge getting training: "I hereby acknowledge I have received a security indoctrination concerning..."

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastro -
As Brett stated - They published the form with her signature back when this was in the news, moron.

His description of your intelligence is not an insult

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRC_NDAS/1/DOC_0C05833708/C05833708.pdf

[TwelveInchPianist]

"His description of your intelligence is not an insult."

It's pretty much a compliment.

[Michael P]

There was also this:

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

Amy normal person who got caught doing something like that would have been fired and debarred. Clinton only escaped prosecution because she was so connected.

[Randal]

So when is the Hegseth indictment expected to land?

[Malika la Maize]

You have to realize Mikie is just being disingenuous. Gotta keep those Confession statues up!

[Mr. Bumble]

Confession statues?

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Queenie, your Autocorrect is showing.
And "Confession" shouldn't be capitalized.

Frank

[Michael P]

Like they say, from these people, every accusation is a Confederate.

[Joe_dallas]

randal - do you understand the difference between accidental vs intentional?

[Randal]

Uh... are you suggesting Hegseth accidentally used Signal for his top-secret comms? Like, the "Signal" icon is right next to the "Top-Secret DOD Messaging App" icon on his PentaPhone and he just fat-fingered it? Or what are you talking about Mr. Dallas?

[Life of Brian]

for his top-secret comms

You're doing that thing again.

[Randal]

Oh I didn't realize we were pretending that battle plans are public info now.

[Life of Brian]

Likewise, I didn't realize we were pretending the only two choices for information sensitivity are public and top-secret.

[Randal]

I see, so you've stooped to picking irrelevant nits. Fun.

[Life of Brian]

Irrelevant to you, I'm sure, since you've already armchair-quarterbacked the rest of the fact pattern to make it irrelevant.

For the rest of us, it's going to be a hard sell that information that can be moved around via US Mail can't be moved around via 256-bit end-to-end encryption.

[Randal]

Well now you've just switched to a totally different argument, being I guess that... Signal is fine for military secrets? That's really where you're landing?

Hillary's email was also 256-bit end-to-end encrypted so I'm not sure how far that bizarre data point even gets you.

[Life of Brian]

Well now you've just switched to a totally different argument,

Not at all. You said he was using Signal for top-secret comms; I questioned that; you asked why that mattered; I stated the obvious.

Hillary's email was also 256-bit end-to-end encrypted

LOL, you're not going to do well just winging this one. There are plenty of places to verify this stone-cold undisputed fact, but here's alt-right Politico for a start:

[Hillary's whiz kid tech genius] also never installed what was known as Transport Layer Security, which would have encrypted messages as they passed between the Clinton server and the State Department’s servers, telling the FBI that he figured there wasn’t a need for encryption on a “personal” server.

That particular detail was what personally tipped me over the edge on this back in the day. They didn't even try to make it secure, and it ran unencrypted for at least two months of her tenure before someone with even vaguely proper technical chops took the helm and fixed at least that particular gaping security hole.

[Life of Brian]

Oh, and one other not-really-nit. When they finally got their heads out of their asses and turned on TLS on Hillary's server, that only encrypted the data traveling across the open internet between the two servers. Once the server receives an email it's stored on the server unencrypted. So if the server is compromised, the entire mailbox is readable.

In true end-to-end encryption like Signal, the endpoint devices are the only ones with the proper cryptographic keys to decrypt and read the received messages. So even if Signal stored messages on an intermediate server (they don't), a hacker that compromised the server wouldn't be able to read them.

[Randal]

You think it's easier to hack a bathroom server than it is to hack a phone? Sorry mate, you lose on that one. This turns out to be one of the few advantages of using a personal server, there's no "intermediate server" in that topology either.

[Life of Brian]

You think it's easier to hack a bathroom server than it is to hack a phone?

LOL - that's all you're going to throw over your shoulder as you move on? So much for that "256-bit end to end encryption." I did mention that wasn't going to go particularly well for you.

This turns out to be one of the few advantages of using a personal server, there's no "intermediate server" in that topology either.

Love you and all, but this is pure gibberish. Hillary's server hanging off the internet was running Exchange and serving emails to client end devices connected to it just like any other Exchange server. Read the Politico article I sent, or feel free to look around on your own.

[Randal]

Um... I see you've reached the limit of your technical knowledge. Hillary's Exchange server was an "end." Hegseth's phone was an "end." That's where the decryption happens, hence that's where the vulnerabilities are.

Phones are so much less secure than Exchange servers it's comical that you're even trying to defend Hegseth here.

[Life of Brian]

Um... I see you've reached the limit of your technical knowledge.

Projection is a hell of a drug. I've been in this game since before RS-485 and IEEE 802.3 were even standards. You can keep embarrassing yourself as long as you wish.

Hillary's Exchange server was an "end." Hegseth's phone was an "end."

Hegseth was the only one who could possibly read encrypted messages sent to him, so yes. Hillary was not the only one who could possibly read messages send to and (eventually, after the dipshits thought to actually activate TLS) decrypted by her Exchange server, so no.

"End-to-end encryption" is a term of art. There are plenty of ways for you, the intellectually honest and curious person I know you are, to verify that, but as a start the 'Pedia sums it up thusly, with copious examples and sources:

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a method of implementing a secure communication system where only the sender and intended recipient can read the messages. No one else, including the system provider, telecom providers, Internet providers or malicious actors, can access the cryptographic keys needed to read or send messages.

Oh, and just as an aside, it mentions this a bit further down:

Meanwhile, Signal with an estimated 70 million users, is regarded as the current gold standard in secure messaging by cryptographers, protestors, and journalists.

TLS between servers is not considered end-to-end encryption, for reasons that by now should be obvious.

I'll absolutely read and respond to whatever genuine technical material you manage to scrape up that appears to you to contradict the above notoriously well-understood definition of end-to-end encryption. But I'm not going to entertain any further hopeful parsing of individual words.

[Randal]

As many people had access to Hillary's email as had access to the bathroom server or hacked the bathroom server. As many people had access to Hegseth's battle plans as had access to his phone or hacked his phone. Yes?

It the world of security, that makes Hillary's bathroom emails much more secure than Hegseth's battle plans.

Since it's a bathroom server and not, say, a gmail server, that makes Hillary the "system provider." There's no third-party e.g. Google (or even State Department staff) who have access. (Maybe she has some technical staff that helps her with the server, but Hegseth probably has people who help him with his phone.) So this element is a wash.

Next we have physical security. A bathroom server at the Secretary of State's house is obviously more physically secure than Hegseth's phone. Big win for Hillary on this one.

Finally digital security. An Exchange server is designed for digital security. Unless they fucked up setting it up, it's not getting remotely hacked. Phones on the other hand are client devices. There's all kinds of garbage running on phones that can intercept keystrokes, read the screen, and read storage. One bad app and Hegseth is pwned. Or, in the case of what actually happened, one careless oversight managing what happens to be a very complex and interconnected computing environment - a smartphone - and Hegseth is pwned. (Hillary has to read her email from somewhere too, so some of these attacks would be possible on her client device, but not all, since the emails aren't actually stored there.) Hillary for the win.

So that's 0:2:1 for Hegseth's security posture compared to Hillary's.

[Bwaaah]

Randal: You know (and use) just enough of the terms related to telecom security to demonstrate your amorphous, shallow grasp of that which you pretend to be quite familiar. To an expert, you're a big mouth who is obviously talking outside his domain of expertise (if you have one).

[Life of Brian]

I was going to say this is like debating a flat earther, but it really isn't: it's like debating someone who knows full well the earth isn't flat, but is taking that position anyway just to try to muddle their way out of a debate where they're clearly in over their head.

You're hopelessly (and at this point, I'm quite comfortable, deliberately) conflating 1) someone compromising someone else's device and gaining the ability to read a cryptographically secure message sent to it with 2) someone else also separately receiving their own cryptographically secure copy of that message because it was also addressed to them.

The former scenario isn't even possible with Signal, for reasons the designers and others are more than happy to explain if you care to take a 30-second look. The latter scenario no more calls into question the integrity of the transport system than does me asking your permission to use U.S. mail to send secure information to a set of parties and then surreptitiously adding one of my buds to the list of mailing labels to sabotage you.

So arguing device security is 100% missing the point, but your arguments there are hopeful media-level baloney as well:

Next we have physical security. A bathroom server at the Secretary of State's house is obviously more physically secure than Hegseth's phone. Big win for Hillary on this one.

Well, yes, duh -- something you can and generally do keep with you 24/7 is Obviously! less physically secure than something that always stays in your house while you're gone. Again, at this point you're just throwing out ridiculous chaff you don't even really believe as you work your way to the exit.

An Exchange server is designed for digital security. Unless they fucked up setting it up, it's not getting remotely hacked.

Even setting aside the fact that you're now just squeezing your eyes shut and pretending to forget that we just got through discussing a specific and massive way in which "they fucked up setting it up," this is more wishful thinking. Microsoft's infamous "Patch Tuesday" became a thing way earlier than Hillary's debacle. There was a time that the average time between connection of an unpatched Windows computer to the internet and its compromise was measured in small numbers of minutes.

Phones on the other hand are client devices. There's all kinds of garbage running on phones that can intercept keystrokes, read the screen, and read storage.

Not without you the user explicitly granting those permissions, due to multiple layers of explicit architectural safeguards built into those devices (backed by the deliberate difficulty, even if you were so inclined, to even install rando potential malware on them). If you really believed what you're saying here, you'd still be using a flip phone.

[Randal]

I don't really see a lot of counterarguments in there, just a lot of fud. For instance:

The former scenario isn't even possible with Signal, for reasons the designers and others are more than happy to explain if you care to take a 30-second look.

False. Phones are hackable. If someone got ahold of Hegseth's phone, they can just pop open the Signal app and read the messages as if they were Hegseth. Yes, we all wish phones were magically totally secure, but we aren't there yet. Anyway, Exchange servers are the same way. If someone got ahold of the physical server, it's just as hard to hack as a phone.

I agree with you on two points though:

1. I'm conflating a lot of different things. But... that's intentional. There are a lot of different dimensions to security. One of the easiest security pitfalls is to forget that. If you myopically focus on just one aspect of security - end-to-end encryption, say - then you're almost certainly leaving yourself vulnerable. You can spend $1,000,000 on the most uncrackable safe ever, but if you keep the code written on a note in your wallet, it's all for nothing.

2. The devil's in the details. Yes, it depends a lot on Hillary configuring and patching the server correctly, and Hegseth avoiding malware and patching his phone correctly, and how permissions are set up, and how credentials are set up, and how Exchange and Signal are configured. I have no idea how Hegseth and Hillary each did all of those things.

But the proof is in the pudding. Hegseth's battle plans leaked and Hillary's emails did not.

[Joe_dallas]

Randal -
you only got two things correct in your analysis and several wrong
A - hegseth mistake was a one time accident.
B - Hillary's set up was intentional and lasted a couple of years.
C - Hillary's emails were likely leaked, you may have heard of jn6, purple , magic, etc. that is only a 4-5 year time frame. Its gotten a whole more sophisticated since.

but you are happy to distort the facts

[Randal]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/hegseth-had-a-second-signal-chat-where-he-shared-details-of-yemen-strike-new-york-times-reports

[David Nieporent]

Next we have physical security. A bathroom server at the Secretary of State's house is obviously more physically secure than Hegseth's phone. Big win for Hillary on this one.

For the record, there is not and was not ever a server in any bathroom, in Hillary's home or otherwise. It was in Hillary's basement originally. Then she contracted with an IT management company that operated out of an old house in Denver. That company did have a server room located in a closet and adjacent room that used to be a bathroom when the place was a residence. However, Hillary's data was always stored at a data center in NJ, not in the Denver house.

[David Nieporent]

They were a nothing burger for Clinton, anyone else would be in jail:

Nobody goes to jail because someone else improperly sent them classified material.

[Joe_dallas]

DN distorts - again

You are correct - The first receipt would be okay,

It was the other actions that were illegal
sending / receiving / resending , etc

[Mr. Bumble]

Comey/ethics Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[Sarcastr0]

It's very hard to disentangle effects during an election, but the polling makes a very good case Comey did cost her the election:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

[Brett Bellmore]

More accurately, Hillary cost herself the election, Comey merely failed to sufficiently shield her from the public being aware of her own actions.

After all, it's not like he invented anything, he just told the public what she'd done. Was she somehow entitled to have them ignorant of it?

[Sarcastr0]

You and Kaz should get on the same page, but MAGA's never cared about a consistent story. Just chaff from all angles will do.

[Bwaaah]

Look at Sarc touting the importance of groupthink and everybody in their group telling the same story. That explains his life as a Partisan Zombie Clone.

[Malika la Maize]

Hey Bwaaah, what’s become of your “I’m just a disaffected honest to God liberal” act? I mean, it wasn’t some pathetic performance you were doing was it? What liberal values are you worried about under Trump?

[Kazinski]

There is no contradiction between Brett and I.

How did Comey cost her the election?

Did he set up her email server?

I have heard that storing classified information in insecure facility or system where it can be compromised is very serious.

[David Nieporent]

How did Comey cost her the election?

The argument is that Comey (improperly) made an announcement two weeks before the election about reopening the investigation into the emails. (Whether it actually did cost her the election is impossible to say, but given how close the outcome was, any small thing could've made the difference.)

[Sarcastr0]

You: How did Comey cost her the election?

Brett: Hillary cost herself the election, Comey merely failed to sufficiently shield her from the public being aware of her own actions.

Those 2 narratives are not reconcilable.

If you want, I replied to your comment above with a link that includes polling that makes a very good case.

[Kazinski]

You are the one who said Comey cost her the election, I asked how. You didn't answer.

Brett is right: "Comey merely failed to sufficiently shield her from the public being aware of her own actions."

And the reason for that is Comey promised Congress he would keep them appraised if there were any further developments, and there was.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz, I replied to this comment of yours:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/09/26/friday-open-thread-39/?comments=true#comment-11222939

That's making the case Comey had nothing to do with the election.

Did you forget you posted that?

[Sarcastr0]

So your thesis is Comey's investigation wasn't the issue.

It was some deep well of integrity in Comey that forced him to come forward.

And also Weiner sex penis.

Is that your point?

[Kazinski]

Comey was going to affect the election whatever he did. If he covered up the facts then he would be putting a finger on the scale, if he disclosed the facts he would be putting a finger on the scale.

I wasn't claiming he had no effect, I was refuting Santa Monica claiming Comey" (a) broke protocol and publicly announced a bullshit investigation of Hillary on the eve of the election"

The Hillary email story broke on March of 2015 in the NY times, and it required an investigation. And it wasn't Comey who dragged the investigation out to July 2016, it was Hillary "bleachbitting" the server and sand bagging at every turn and not cooperating, which of course was her right, but still that's why it wasn't resolved by end of 2015.

Nor was it Comey that ran a honey pot operation to entrap Weiner, Weiner ran his own op.

[Joe_dallas]

At the point of comey's disclosure, there was already public info on the use of the unsecured server. Better explanation was that comey was trying to get the cover up out early to let the matter cool off instead of becoming an "october surprise".

The damage was already circulating, thus an effort to quell it via exposing it and giving her absolvement.

[Randal]

Comey basically admitted in his book that he did it to throw the election to Trump.

[Kazinski]

Got a cite Randal?

[Randal]

“I had assumed from media polling that Hillary Clinton was going to win,” Comey writes after discussing the Clinton investigation and his decision-making at length. “I have asked myself many times since if I was influenced by that assumption. I don’t know. Certainly not consciously but I would be a fool to say it couldn’t have had an impact on me.

It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the polls. But I don’t know.”

Ok "throw the election to Trump" is my own spin but definitely "influence the election based on Hillary's lead in the polls."

[Randal]

Was she somehow entitled to have them ignorant of it?

Yes, just as Trump is entitled to have us ignorant of whatever's in the Epstein files. Just as Homan was entitled to have us ignorant of Biden's bribery sting. (Note how Biden's FBI leaked neither. It's not hard to be principled and competent, if you're a Democrat )

It's bad fascist news to have a law enforcement agency with subpoena power also be in the habit of leaking those investigations for political gain. So yes, people are entitled not to have the FBI dig up dirt about them and then leak it.

[Martinned]

When I used to have the power to demand information with the power of the UK government behind me, leaking information carried a prison sentence of 2 years...

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/40/section/245

[Joe_dallas]

leaking info - Which is why comey should be subject to similar prosecution, albeit the statute of limitations has expired (5 year sol?)

[Life of Brian]

Yes, just as Trump is entitled to have us ignorant of whatever's in the Epstein files. Just as Homan was entitled to have us ignorant of Biden's bribery sting.

Great Scott, Marty -- it's FORWARD-looking whatabouts!

[Randal]

And, you overreached. Not any kind of whatabout.

[Life of Brian]

Oh, you were being serious this time. Nathan Poe remains a genius.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The true wild card here is the No Such Agency and what it may have.

Comey's been dirty for a very long time, and people say the damnedest things on cell phones, somehow thinking that they are secure,

My guess: they've got something....

[Brett Bellmore]

The NSA, even if they had audio of every second Comey was on the phone, are not going to release it for use in a trial.

First, because it would be inadmissible.

Second, because they'd be admitting to illegally spying on Americans.

At MOST they might slip it into the right hands for a bit of parallel construction, but I think you're a little optimistic about which side they'd pick if they picked sides.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's sure got the number of those leftists at the NSA.

[ah....Clem]

The full indictment is here.

IANAL, and haven't read all that many actual indictments, but it looks awfully thin, and seems to take the same tone as the suit recently filed (and quickly dismissed) against the NYT. That said, at least it is brief and to the point.

Anyone with significant legal experience care to comment?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it's pretty minimalist. Doesn't stop them from adding detail if it goes to trial, and it's enough to get the job done, but it's not exactly riveting stuff.

[John F. Carr]

Or here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71459120/united-states-v-comey/.

The indictments in Trump's cases were quite verbose. Comey's indictment gives enough information for him to understand what he allegedly did and why the alleged act is criminal.

[ah....Clem]

Here's a take from the wild-eyed, radical, leftist Andrew C. McCarthy in that socialist rag The National Review:

The vindictive indictment the Trump Justice Department barely managed to get a grand jury to approve on Thursday is so ill-conceived and incompetently drafted, he should be able to get it thrown out on a pretrial motion to dismiss.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/09/the-indictment-against-comey-should-be-dismissed/

[wvattorney13]

It is extraordinarily bare bones. Something like one would see in state court---just the date and the elements of the charge. Usually federal indictments are dozens of pages with intricate details.

I'm not sure how Comey would be able to get this dismissed. Selective prosecution is almost impossible to prove.

[Joe_dallas]

SL - are you trying to argue that Comey did not commit perjury?

[Sarcastr0]

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to TRUMP these days.

[Joe_dallas]

As usual, we see you are unable to coherently address the point made

[Sarcastr0]

What point did your question above make?

It looks to me like an appeal to incredulity. Which is a fallacy.

[David Nieporent]

SL - are you trying to argue that Comey did not commit perjury?

That's the safe bet. The U.S. Attorney who actually investigated the matter found there was no evidence Comey committed perjury. So Trump fired him, ordered someone else who has never prosecuted a case to indict Comey, and she rushed to do it in a few days' time.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...and she rushed to do it in a few days' time."
Well, given that the statute of limitation clock ran out on Tuesday was there an option if charges were to be brought?

[ah....Clem]

The gist of the government's case is that McCabe said Comey authorized the leak. But McCabe said no such thing - he claimed that he (McCabe) authorized the leak and told Comey about it later.

On the one hand, this sounds like a rookie mistake on the prosecutor, or if you are conspiracy-minded it's an intentional "own goal" so that they can complain about the judge when the case gets tossed.

[not guilty]

Joe_dallas, James Comey is not charged with perjury.

Have you read the exchange between Comey and Senator Ted Crude which is the subject of the prosecution? Yes or no?

[Joe_dallas]

BBC reported it as perjury
though making false statements under oath is quite similar to perjury.

I omitted the obstruction charge

[Jazzizhep]

Now do Gen. Flynn.

As I’ve said before, Trump learned about lawfare and what he can and can’t do from you guys. It will stop when everybody, starting with your team, decides it is bad governance.

[David Nieporent]

Not only was the evidence against Flynn overwhelming, but he admitted his guilt.

[Bob from Ohio]

"he admitted his guilt"

Oh, plea bargains are good now! Situational libertarianism.

They threatened to charge his son. A tried and true authoritarian tactic.

[not guilty]

Not only did Flynn admit his guilt multiple times, he was under oath when making such admissions.

As for the DOJ threatening prosecution of family members in order to obtain a plea agreement, that is unfortunately routine. As the late Johnny Cash sand, I don't like it but I guess things happen that way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpImlSRSTBQ&list=RDhpImlSRSTBQ&start_radio=1

Ba doo ba doo.

[David Nieporent]

Oh, plea bargains are good now! Situational libertarianism.

So your defense that Flynn is innocent of lying to the government is that he perjured himself while allocuting?

[Joe_dallas]

did you forget the prosecution misconduct associated with obtaining that guilty plea

did you forget the DOJ sought dismissal of the charges once the prosecution misconduct came to light

Nope DN did not forget - he is happy to push the partisan lie

[David Nieporent]

I did not "forget" that, because it is a lie. There was no prosecutorial misconduct. There was no admission of prosecutorial misconduct. There was no finding of prosecutorial misconduct.

[not guilty]

Here is the February 2018 report of the FBI Office of Inspector General which concluded that Andrew McCabe lacked candor in regard to the leak to the Wall Street Journal reporter: https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/2018-04/o20180413.pdf

How does a novice prosecutor, who has never before tried a federal case, hope to persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt with Mr. McCabe as the star witness? Anything he said out of court, if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is inadmissible hearsay. The defense, however, could offer the OIG findings to impeach McCabe (if he should testify) pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 803(8)(A)(iii).

In any event, I don't foresee Andrew McCabe as offering much cooperation to the Trump/Bondi DOJ.

[wvattorney13]

That's easy for a prosecutor. Indict half the world for conspiracy and then everyone's statements come in under a hearsay exception for co-conspirator testimony. It's done all the time.

[not guilty]

"That's easy for a prosecutor. Indict half the world for conspiracy and then everyone's statements come in under a hearsay exception for co-conspirator testimony. It's done all the time."

More than an indictment alleging a conspiracy is required to lay an evidentiary foundation under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) for the admission of one alleged coconspirator's statement against another conspirator. When the preliminary facts relevant there -- the existence of a conspiracy and the nonoffering party's involvement in it -- are disputed, the offering party must prove them by a preponderance of the evidence before the declarant's out of court statement can be admitted as nonhearsay. Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175-176 (1987).

[Kenneth Almquist]

That OIG report is really damning to the prosecution. It concludes that McCabe, not Comey, authorized the leak. Worse, McCabe told INSD, under oath, that he knew nothing about how the information had been leaked. (The interview with INSD was not recorded; we have the interviewers notes and McCabe’s initials on a copy of the WSJ article.) McCabe later told the OIG, again under oath, that he had authorized the leak. Even assuming, hypothetically, that McCabe told yet another story under oath to the grand jury, why should anyone believe him?

[not guilty]

I haven't seen anything suggesting that Andrew McCabe testified before the grand jury here. Hearsay is routinely considered by grand juries. See, Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 (1956).

[Martinned]

There was a time when the US was trying to contain Chinese expansionist policies. And it might have done so by supporting the attempts of its ally Australia to make a defence treaty with Papua New Guinea.

Today, on the other hand, the Australian PM can't even get a meeting with the US president. So stuff like this happens: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/17/australia-png-defence-treaty-delayed-anthony-albanese-papua-new-guinea

Here's a map for the geographically challenged, to understand why an Australia-Papua New Guinea defence treaty might be in the US interest: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Japanese_expansion_april_1942.svg

[Dr. Ed 2]

I want t know why all the Generals and Admirals are being told to show up in Virginia next week. That's unprecedented.

[Martinned]

Presumably to make it easier for the Russians or the Chinese to blow them all up.

[Paladin_44]

Surprised that there haven't been comments on this topic, Ed. Kind of "night of the long knives" vibe, IMO.

[Michael P]

I know it is fashionable among idiots to compare everything a conservative does to the Nazis, but you apparently have no clue what the Night of the Long Knives was: who perpetrated it, how it was planned, who the victims were, or what the effects were.

What the Nazis did was kill a bunch of paramilitary (SA and SA-aligned) Nazis to reduce stem street fights with communist front groups like Antifa, and to keep the military proper from straying.

Unless you think Hegseth is planning on summarily executing a bunch of these generals and admirals for some reason, there's nothing here that is even remotely reminiscent of the Night of the Long Knives. And of you think that, you need psychiatric help.

[Martinned]

What the Nazis did was kill a bunch of paramilitary (SA and SA-aligned) Nazis to reduce stem street fights with communist front groups like Antifa, and to keep the military proper from straying.

O, look, Michael thinks Hitler did the right thing during the night of the long knives, and he makes his case by magically distorting everything that happened. Swell!

[SRG2]

I thought this was particularly funny: "street fights with communist front groups like Antifa".

[Brett Bellmore]

What's funny about that? Antifa WERE communists. They weren't fighting for freedom, they were fighting the fascists over who would get to take everybody's freedom away.

[SRG2]

Because Antifa was not a front group but were explicitly communist, and further, they were opposed to fighting the Nazis, thinking that they'd benefit from picking up the pieces after everyone else fought.

[not guilty]

Brett, do you posit that Antifa existed in Germany in 1934? Isn't it a bit early in the day to be drinking?

[SRG2]

For once Brett is right - click on his link

[not guilty]

Fair enough. My bad.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So what are you drinking?

[Brett Bellmore]

These days it's common place to observe that revolutionaries securing their power kill off their most fervent followers, because they know that they're the people who'd actually be willing to overthrow the government, and THEY are now the government. But it was a new enough practice to blindside the paramilitary in Hitler's day.

You should probably admit, though, that Hitler actually WAS killing Nazis, which IS supposed to be a Good Thing. Pity he didn't do a more comprehensive job of it, would have saved everybody a lot of trouble.

But the relevant point is that on the night of long knives, people actually got killed. It's a bit melodramatic to refer to a staff meeting where somebody might get fired by that phrase. Even if it has become cliche.

[Martinned]

Yes, Hitler killed a bunch of Nazi's who might have turned out as insufficiently loyal to his personal rule. Which is some way away from what Michael P said.

[Brett Bellmore]

And Trump, as Commander in Chief, has issued some orders to the military, and some of those generals have been a bit lax, shall we say, in actually following those orders.

That IS ordinarily considered job ending in the military, or at least expected to result in an unpleasant posting

[Martinned]

How did we get from Michael P glorifying Hitler to this?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, by starting with Michael P not glorifying Hitler, actually.

[Michael P]

I gather that eurotrash doesn't understand that "perpetrate" has a strong negative connotation in English.

[Both Sides]

Say what you will about Hitler, at least he killed Hitler. . . .

[David Nieporent]

I mean, I suppose Katyn Forest might be a better analogy.

[Brett Bellmore]

To see which ones won't bother showing up?

[Kazinski]

My guess is he is going to publicly relieve some of them of command for flouting the new DEI prohibition and make an example of them.

[Armchair]

Pretty poor understanding of geopolitics there...

From your post, there's nothing about the US President,

In terms of defense agreements, seems like Papua New Guinea is playing off China versus Australia, to see what it can get a better deal from. As it well should. Seems Australia's deal isn't good enough.

[Martinned]

Seems Australia's deal isn't good enough.

And if the US throws Australia under the bus, you can see how Papua New Guinea might think that.

But then who needs allies anyway?

[Armchair]

"And if the US throws Australia under the bus,"

No evidence for that.

[Martinned]

You mean other than Australia's inability to even get a meeting, or its inability to convince it's next door neighbour that it's better to have an alliance with (notional) US-ally Australia than with a communist tyranny?

[Don Nico]

The meeting business is irrelevant.

[Martinned]

It speaks volumes about Trump's interest in parts of the world where people don't buy him airplanes.

[Don Nico]

Martin,
Why does being snubbed by Trump, prevent Albo from making treaty with Papua New Guinea?
Trump did not need Albo for getting snap-back imposed, so no meeting. Trump does need Macron for snap-back, hence,Macron gets a meeting.

[Martinned]

Because presumably Albo's argument to Papua New Guinea is "We, with our US-supplied weapons and our access to Five Eyes, will help you in case you get in trouble with the Chinese". If Papua New Guinea thinks that the US isn't really interested in fighting off the Chinese, that offer becomes a lot less appealing.

[damikesc]

It is not the US interests to get involved.

Sorry, it ain't.

Why can Europe not act like adults for once and help Australia instead of demanding the US do so?

[Magister]

The US already got involved with the region under ANZUS when the US took a larger role everywhere after World War II; acting like adults would be sticking with your commitments in this rather trivial way, and opposing Chinese expansion seems very much a US interest. (The Trump doctrine of "nobody knows what I'm going to do!" should encourage everybody to seek help from anyone but the US.)

It's reasonable to think that Europe should take more responsibility than the US for Ukraine, but Australia/Papua New Guinea seems too remote; way closer to US territory (Guam) than to Europe.

[Joe_dallas]

As opposed to the obama and biden policy toward china?

Oh wait - never mind - you know the answer
.

[Magister]

Yes, I do know the answer. Pivot to Asia, Trans-Pacific Partnership, strengthening alliances in the region, sanctions against China, and more.

[David Nieporent]

Not only is this a whatabout, but it's a sad, lazy one, not actually containing any content because bookkeeper_joe doesn't have any relevant subject matter knowledge.

[John F. Carr]

Another lawsuit claims racial bias and other illegal actions in immigration enforcement. This one is in D.C. Plaintiffs' lawyers have read the tea leaves and attempted to plead around the Supreme Court's recent orders. Their request for relief includes vacatur of the government's "policy and practice of making warrantless immigration arrests without making a pre-arrest, individualized assessment of probable cause that the person poses a flight risk."

If the policy in D.C. is sufficiently concrete to be subject to the APA, vacatur is a statutory remedy and there is no doubt that a court can grant it. I have my doubts about the applicability of the APA here.

The lawsuit also seeks injunctions on behalf of defined classes of people who "have been or will be arrested in this District for alleged immigration violations without a warrant and without a pre-arrest, individualized assessment of probable cause that the person is in the United States unlawfully and that the person poses a flight risk."

The lawsuit conspicuously does not allege Fourth Amendment violations. Injunctions requiring obedience to the Fourth Amendment are disfavored. Plaintiffs' lawyers think that the statutory requirement of probable cause ("reason to believe") will do the job.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71452519/escobar-molina-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/

[Martinned]

Shockingly, it turns out those Trump bibles that the state of Oklahoma bought for all of its public schools only contain half the constitution. They left out the bits about ending slavery, women voting, term limits for presidents, etc.

https://www.news9.com/story/68d4bddb5cea03f8db8ee0f6/why-is-an-oklahoma-teacher-concerned-about-state-approved-bibles-

[Malika la Maize]

Do any of the MAGA chuckleheads want to defend what Oklahoma is doing here? I mean other than a XY “the bad side made the rules so now we gets to do the things we complained about when they did so!!!”?

[Brett Bellmore]

The account makes it sound as though specific amendments were nefariously missing. But it's actually everything after the 10th amendment, it's a founding era Constitution. It's also got the Declaration of Independence.

It's not "burying history" to only include documents from the founding era when studying the founding.

Still, while any even vaguely comprehensive school library should have a Bible, and a Koran, too, a combined Bible and founding era Constitution seems a bit odd to me. The claim is that it's for studying the influence of religious texts on the founding, and it's true that if you're doing that you hardly need to include the Koran or Torah, because they didn't have any influence.

But I think they'd have been better off with the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

[OpinionsVary]

Why would you use a bible to study founder era documents? It's just a little bit older than that. It might provide some context but many of the Founders had rather hetrorthox religious views (see Jefferson Bible). And either way, if you want to study the Founders, wouldn't it make more sense to start with Founder documents and then includes explanatory biblical material as appropriate? Not start with the bible and then add some founding era documents into it?

[Malika la Maize]

Again, these people can’t be this dumb. This is an attempt to insert Christianity into public schools. They get this, they just need those transgenders put in place and those Confederate statues maintained.

[Brett Bellmore]

The argument is that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were influenced by the Bible. While I'm sure that's true to SOME extent, realistically this is just an excuse to put Bibles in the classrooms, and have students read them.

Like I said, if you want students to understand the founding, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers would actually be a lot better.

[Martinned]

It would probably also be good to teach students about *the entire* constitution at some point.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, but why would you do that while studying the founding era? That would be more appropriate for civics class, or maybe cover each of the amendments as you cover that period in American history.

For instance, it would be appropriate to bring the 22nd amendment into the mix when studying FDR, as he was the reason it got adopted. You'd study the 18th and 21st amendments in the section on Prohibition.

[Martinned]

Why would you study the founding era anywhere other than in history class? And why would you need a bible for that? You're reaching...

[Brett Bellmore]

Did you miss up above where I stated that this was realistically just an excuse to have kids reading the Bible in class? Don't mistake me for supporting this, my only quibble is that there was nothing nefarious about omitting all the amendments after the original 10 if you are presenting students with the founding era Constitution.

[Krayt]

The later amendments are useful in a study of the original Constitution to highlight changes in it later generations felt necessary.

Even for this intended purpose, the reasoning to leave it out seems lacking.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's a pedagogical judgement call, falls well short of "nefarious".

[LawTalkingGuy]

Funnily enough the passage of the Reconstruction Amendments are arguably the most directly influenced by and related to Christian fervor.

“As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.”

[LawTalkingGuy]

“John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see—Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be,

And soon throughout the Sunny South the slaves shall all be free,
For his soul is marching on.”

It’s just such a funny window into the right-wing mind that they’d rather prop-up Confederate losers than promote the greatest thing American Christianity ever achieved.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look up why slavery ended in Massachusetts and you will understand.

[Riva]

They’re not technically legal textbooks or case digests, although the real law is fundamentally spelled out there.

[Michael P]

Fortunately, we will not be subjected to bad dystopian fiction about ICE holding five-year-olds hostage.

https://freebeacon.com/media/nbc-said-ice-held-a-5-year-old-autistic-girl-to-pressure-her-father-to-surrender-he-actually-abandoned-her-while-fleeing-law-enforcement/

[Dr. Ed 2]

You'd think Maura Healey, a former AG, wouldn't have fallen for this.

[Malika la Maize]

Free Beacon, TownHall, can we get a Brietbart to get Mikie Nutty Conservative Outlet Tic Tac Toe?

[Sarcastr0]

This media outlet seems to be acting as a stenographer for ICE.

[Randal]

Oh please turn your brain on Pichael. That doesn't even make sense.

[Life of Brian]

Which part doesn't make sense?

The part where NBC admitted through gritted teeth that: "An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the activities of ICE agents in the video"?

The part where they scrubbed the original bloodbath headline that said "ICE held 5-year-old autistic girl in Massachusetts to pressure father to surrender" and replaced it with "Video shows ICE with 5-year-old girl while agents attempt to arrest her father"?

The part where the wife's quote mysteriously was cut back from "Her husband, Edward Hip, drove home and 'managed to run back into the parking lot of my house, but they grabbed' their daughter, she added" to "Her husband, Edward Hip Mejia, drove home and “managed to run back into the parking lot of my house,” she said, and her daughter as a result was left with the agents"

Go ahead, please please please try to cobble something together in defense of this brazen journalistic malpractice.

[Randal]

I'm not defending NBC. Seems like they de-sensationalized it, which is always appreciated.

I'm picking on Pichael (and the Free Beacon) for their counter-sensationaliem. "Held hostage" wtf?

The part that "doesn't even make sense" though is that neither NBC's take nor Pichael's take really change the story. The spins don't create a contradiction. The same facts can be called "abandoned" or "held hostage." Congratulations for learning about journalistic slant, The Free Beacon!

[Life of Brian]

Seems like they de-sensationalized it,

What a pleasantly Orwellian way to say "deleted words they had explicitly put in the mother's mouth to support their outrageously incorrect theme, after the initial bloodbath headline made the rounds."

Since this is a Super Trusted Media Outlet™ we're talking about here, perhaps they shouldn't be in the business of such "sensationalizing" in the first place?

"Held hostage" wtf?

I quoted the original headline above. Once again: "ICE held 5-year-old autistic girl in Massachusetts to pressure father to surrender"

Sure, they didn't ACTUALLY use the word "hostage." But are you seriously seeing a different message in that headline?

The spins don't create a contradiction. The same facts can be called "abandoned" or "held hostage."

Ah, but it's not the "same facts" at all. They had to change the headline because the entire punchline of the story -- that "poor Daddy tried to get away, but the ICE meanies GRABBED HIS DAUGHTER to PRESSURE HIM TO SURRENDER" -- actually turned out to be made up by the activist journalist.

[Randal]

I'm sure she actually said "grabbed." NBC decided to edit out the mother's exasperated language and replaced it with something... less sensational, as I said. Doesn't that make way more sense than they made up a quote?

Pichael, who I was originally mocking, said "hostage."

poor Daddy tried to get away, but the ICE meanies GRABBED HIS DAUGHTER to PRESSURE HIM TO SURRENDER

Yeah. That characterization fits the facts. It's sensationalized. I agree it's unprofessional spin like you'd expect from schlocky right-wing media aka Fox, but it's just spin.

[Brett Bellmore]

You see, the original retracted language has worked: It planted the opinion, which you could be relied upon to rationalize retaining even after the original basis for it vanished.

[Randal]

Whoa, the media spins stories. Metatastically, here we've got you, Brian, and Pichael all spinning this story as some sort of unimaginable sin on NBC's part. Oh they posted an unedited quote and then later thought better of it... let's see, how about we call that

deleted words they had explicitly put in the mother's mouth to support their outrageously incorrect theme, after the initial bloodbath headline made the rounds

There, that sounds totally nefarious!

[Brett Bellmore]

Massachusetts police chief backs DHS’ claim that news video of ICE interaction fell short

"A Massachusetts police chief is backing the Department of Homeland Security's claim that a video aired by a news outlet fails to reflect that an illegal immigrant locked his 5-year old daughter alone in a car as he tried to evade ICE.

Leominster Police Chief Ryan D. Malatos has said his department received a call last Tuesday from a man who reported that he was “inside his home, being ‘hunted’ by people outside.” The man, later identified as Edwards Hip Mejia, also “confirmed that his child was outside, locked in the car alone.”

“While the officers were arriving at this call for service, we received a call from ICE, who was requesting assistance with the child,” Malatos said in a statement on Wednesday. “ICE advised that they attempted a motor vehicle stop pursuit to this address, at which time he fled into the home.”

“ICE further advised us that when the suspect fled into the home,” the chief added, “he left the child behind in the car.”

Malatos broke his silence on a dispute between federal authorities and Hip Mejia’s wife, who has accused agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of holding their young autistic daughter to pressure Hip Mejia to surrender.

The Department of Homeland Security slammed NBC News on Tuesday for its coverage of the interaction between Hip Mejia, ICE and local law enforcement. The outlet later issued a correction, stating that it “mischaracterized the activities of ICE agents in the video.”"

[Randal]

Yeah, Brian and Pichael already posted all this info.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"“While the officers were arriving at this call for service, we received a call from ICE, who was requesting assistance with the child,” Malatos said in a statement on Wednesday. “ICE advised that they attempted a motor vehicle stop pursuit to this address, at which time he fled into the home.”

“ICE further advised us that when the suspect fled into the home,” the chief added, “he left the child behind in the car.”

What's ICE supposed to do -- walk away and leave a 5-year-old without adult supervision?

[Life of Brian]

I'm sure she actually said "grabbed." NBC decided to edit out the mother's exasperated language

Wow. Just wow. So they started by boldly telling the truth but then retracted the truth for some inexplicable reason, while at the same time incorrectly confessing that they were editing the article because they had mischaracterized ICE's activities.

Blind faith exists in many spheres indeed.

[Randal]

Um.... yes? Even Brett's press release from the chief of police backs up that narrative.

... a dispute between federal authorities and Hip Mejia’s wife, who has accused agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of holding their young autistic daughter to pressure Hip Mejia to surrender.

It seems the original NBC article leaned too heavily on the mother's side of the story. Including the "grabbed" quote.

[Life of Brian]

Look, it's a respectable effort to play the hand you've been dealt -- er, the hand you've chosen to dig in and defend at all cost.

But here's the problem. The original article said "family says" right in the headline. They attributed "grabbed" to the mother, in quotation marks.

Then they backed off all of it, and said THEY -- not the family -- had mischaracterized ICE's actions.

You don't make that crisp of an admission if you've just decided to add in some more of the he-said-she-said. If that's in fact what they were doing, there are other very unambiguous words in the English language to describe that sort of edit.

[Randal]

Sure you do, if you aspire to be a reputable news source rather than a gossip rag. They're not trying to be he-said-she-said - that's not where they landed. They're trying to report the objective facts. Random hearsay doesn't further that objective, even if it's balanced, but especially if it's unbalanced.

Good for them for recognizing that one-sided hearsay can count as a mischaracterization, especially if you expect your readers to trust your objectivity.

[Life of Brian]

They're trying to report the objective facts. Random hearsay doesn't further that objective, even if it's balanced, but especially if it's unbalanced.

OK, if you're going to start waxing rhapsodic on NBC's super-duper-objective journalistic integrity and quest for balance, you first need to deal with the super-pesky inconvenient fact that they cleared the original article for publication.

If they only start pretending to have standards after their first round of dreck gets picked up and passed around as fact by the screemie meemie contingent, they have no standards at all.

[Randal]

As far as I can tell, the only screemie meemie contingent it was passed around was the far-right whine-o-sphere, where Pichael picked it up.

[Life of Brian]

It's all over the place. Here are three that took about 38 seconds to gather -- I'm sure you can find plenty more if you're actually intellectually curious.

https://seattlered.com/seattle-red/opinion/rantz-jayapal-ice/4114406

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ice-agents-held-five-old-191919174.html

https://x.com/johnastoehr/status/1971206609855824210 -- this one was written the day after the NBC correction. You'll note that the linked NY Daily News article was corrected AFTER he posted, as the title embedded in the X post still says "held hostage" but the article no longer does.

[Randal]

So you have one right-wing whine-o-sphere of the kind I was talking about, one with a one-sided headline but basically balanced story, and one that got corrected? You did a better job of proving my point than yours!

[VinniUSMC]

The same facts can be called "abandoned" or "held hostage."

No, Randy, they cannot. Only one of those statements would be a fact.

[Randal]

"The man was abandoned by the side of the road, then picked up and held hostage by bandits."

[Life of Brian]

Umwut? Those are two different labels for two different activities.

[Randal]

"The father abandoned his daughter in the car, at which point the ICE agents grabbed her and held her hostage."

Time is a continuum, you know. Multiple things can happen over the course of events.

[Michael P]

What doesn't make sense?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/massachusetts-police-chief-backs-dhs-claim-that-news-video-of-ice-interaction-fell-short/ar-AA1Nfav4

The chief of the department that arrived to make sure the child was safe agrees with ICE about what happened.

[Life of Brian]

Forget it, he's rolling.

[Randal]

"ICE didn't detain a 5-year-old, actually her father abandoned her" doesn't make sense because two things can be true.

For example, "Pichael's not an idiot, actually he's fond of liverwurst" would be a nonsense thing to say. You're an idiot and fond of liverwurst.

[Michael P]

I objected to the characterization -- which some people really made -- that ICE took the kid hostage. That is incompatible with her being abandoned by her father. You're a piece of shit *and* a liar.

[Randal]

How is it incompatible?

[John F. Carr]

A lawsuit against the National Shooting Sports Foundation alleges that the organization improperly used personal information from warranty cards in its lobbying efforts.

The data initially came from decades of warranty cards filled out by customers and returned to gun manufacturers for rebates and repair or replacement programs. A ProPublica review of dozens of warranty cards from the 1970s through today found that some promised customers their information would be kept strictly confidential. Others said some information could be shared with third parties for marketing and sales. None of the cards informed buyers their details would be used by lobbyists and consultants to help win elections.

The lawsuit does not seek damages from sellers of guns. The only claim is unjust enrichment by NSSF.

https://www.propublica.org/article/gun-owners-privacy-lawsuit-nssf
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71422703/cocanour-v-national-shooting-sports-foundation-inc/

[Brett Bellmore]

"Others said some information could be shared with third parties for marketing and sales. None of the cards informed buyers their details would be used by lobbyists and consultants to help win elections."

I think marketing and sales is easily broad enough to cover lobbying. And if the manufacturers violated a promise on the warrantee card, that's clearly on the manufacturer, not the NSSF.

But this probably isn't one of those "filed to win in court" lawsuits, anyway.

[dwb68]

A left leaning org tries to put a gun org out of business with a frivolous lawsuit. In other news...

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

What "left leaning org" are you talking about? Pro Publica? They aren't a party in this suit, as far as I can tell.

[jb]

That was a convenient edit! What about the previous sentence?

A ProPublica review of dozens of warranty cards from the 1970s through today found that some promised customers their information would be kept strictly confidential.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wasn't trying to hide anything.

As far as the earlier warranty cards are concerned, the manufacturers don't have a leg to stand on. I think they DO at least have a leg to stand on in regards to the later ones.

But my chief point is that the promise was between the manufacturers and the customers, NOT the NSSF and the customers. They're suing the wrong people.

And doing it deliberately.

[dwb68]

My limited NYPD Smith and Wesson revolver (they only made 3000) came with a tiny little warranty card.

Most of these cards pre date Big Lobbying anyway.

[jb]

Why are they suing the wrong people deliberately?

In any case, here's their claim against NSSF:

91. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all allegations contained elsewhere in this complaint as if fully set forth herein.

92. NSSF received Plaintiffs’ personal information and used it for political purposes—and benefited from doing so.

93. NSSF unjustly did not pay Plaintiffs for the receipt and use of their personal information because Plaintiffs had no knowledge of, and did not authorize, NSSF’s receipt or use of Plaintiffs’ personal information for political purposes.

94. The failure of NSSF to pay Plaintiffs for use of their personal information was to Plaintiffs’ detriment.

I'll leave it to those with expertise in this area of the law to comment on the sufficiency of the claim. I agree that it seems like most of the responsibility should be with the firearms companies; probably they're not being sued because of statute of limitations problems, whereas the NSSF has continued to update/operate the database so it gives the plaintiffs a more recent hook.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because it's the NSSF they have it in for.

And my point is that the NSSF owed the plaintiffs no duty in this regard. So it flatly does not matter if 92-94 were true or not.

The breach of duty was by the manufacturers, not the NSSF.

[jb]

Who is "they"? Why do they have it in for NSSF and not gun manufacturers?

And my point is that the NSSF owed the plaintiffs no duty in this regard. So it flatly does not matter if 92-94 were true or not.

The breach of duty was by the manufacturers, not the NSSF.

It's an unjust enrichment claim, not a breach of duty claim. And like I said, I'll wait for someone familiar with this area of law to comment. Your vibes (or mine) aren't really relevant to what the law says.

[Brett Bellmore]

"They" would be whoever is footing the bill, and recruited the nominal plaintiffs for this exercise.

And since gun controllers don't typically want to disarm the government, they don't really have it in that much for the manufacturers, mostly for their political opponents.

Per Cornell's Legal Information Institute, "To recover on a claim of unjust enrichment, the plaintiff must show that the defendant was unjustly enriched at the plaintiff's expense."

Setting aside for the moment that the NSSF is a non-profit, the plaintiff's expense here was solely in the form of a privacy violation, and it wasn't the defendant who committed it, it was the manufacturers.

[jb]

It's a class action suit. The "they" is lawyers who think they can make some money! No nefarious anti-gun conspiracy required.

And it seems like you're adding a requirement to the unjust enrichment claim. Nothing in your Cornell definition says that a necessary part of the claim is that the beneficiary is doing anything other than benefiting unfairly (at the plaintiff's expense).

[Brett Bellmore]

In the case of legally dubious lawsuits against pro-gun organizations, the smart money is always on a nefarious anti-gun conspiracy, because, frankly, there are softer targets if you're just doing it for the money.

I'm questioning the "at the plaintiff's expense" part; The only expense was a loss of privacy, and that happened when the manufacturer violated their promise of privacy.

[Krayt]

A lawsuit against the National Shooting Sports Foundation alleges that the organization improperly used personal information from warranty cards in its lobbying efforts.

Now whoever do "we need your phone number to confirm you are you" false concern for security.

[Frank Drackman]

The “Punishment” is the Indictment, although maybe a few hours in the DC jail would wipe that shit-eating smirk off Comey’s face. Don’t really want him to go to Prison, he’ll write another book.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's the same issue as with Trump -- where could he serve time???

[Frank Drackman]

Same place that Wetback Judge was gonna send Trump.

[Michael P]

Hillary Clinton would like us to know that we need to stop all the finger pointing, scape-goating and demonization, which has always mostly come from baskets of deplorables.

https://x.com/townhallcom/status/1970827219712012564

[Martinned]

Yes. Are you suggesting she is wrong? Deplorables like you are fucking up the country, and she would like you to stop. Frankly she's being pretty polite about it.

[Malika la Maize]

He prefers his “I hate my opponents” stuff straight up. What a phoney Mikie is.

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought Trump was confessing that Kirk was a better man than himself?

[Sarcastr0]

Thank goodness Brett is here to parse Trump's seeming promises of political retribution against his enemies and find it's actually virtue and humility.

[damikesc]

He quoted Trump's statement at the memorial.

[Dr. Ed 2]

See: https://vortex.plymouth.edu/tropical/AL/2025/08/track.png

And there are possibly two more behind it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Click bait Ed?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, Ed is serious. Maybe wrong but North of Cuba and West of Bermuda is a bad place, and the front that would push it offshore is going through today, i.e. too early.

[Mr. Bumble]

Pssst. It's hurricane season. Something that happens every year.
No need to be "afraid, very afraid. Just be prepared.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Computers starting to agree with Dr. Ed.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey Dr. Ed. More click bait for you:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15136765/Hurricane-Humberto-East-Coast-double-storm-millions.html
The last storm they warned about (Gabrielle) is somewhere off the Azores.

[Nelson]

Fortunately it doesn’t look like they are going to be hurricanes. Unfortunately I’m at Oceans Calling and those two are going to make it a very wet festival today and tomorrow. The lineup is good, though, so it’ll be worth it.

[VinniUSMC]

What is clickbait about posting a hurricane tracker in the Open Thread?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not posting it, falling for it.

[Martinned]

There's something I didn't have on my bingo card.

Microsoft cuts services to Israel Defense Ministry over Gaza surveillance fears

Microsoft has cut off services it was supplying to Israel's Defense Ministry, after finding that they were being used for mass surveillance of Palestinians.

In August, The Guardian reported that the Israeli military is conducting mass surveillance of Palestinians, by gathering troves of phone call data from civilians in Gaza and the West Bank, and storing it on Microsoft servers in Europe.

In a blog post Thursday, Microsoft President Brad Smith said that an internal review has "found evidence that supports elements of The Guardian’s reporting," including details relating to Israel's use of Azure storage in the Netherlands and use of AI services.

Smith said that Microsoft's terms of service prohibit the use of its tech for mass surveillance of civilians. He said the company has therefore ceased and disabled certain subscriptions and services it was supplying to Israel's Defense Ministry, including their use of specific cloud storage, and AI services and technologies.

https://www.politico.eu/article/microsoft-cuts-services-israel-defense-ministry-gaza-surveillance-concerns-brad-smith/

https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2025/09/25/update-on-ongoing-microsoft-review/

[John F. Carr]

Microsoft caved to last month's worker intifada.

[VinniUSMC]

Shit. It's going to be really hard to boycott Microsoft. 🙁

[Frank Drackman]

They haven’t cut my service, maybe I’m a Moe-Saad.

[Malika la Maize]

Along with basic English, this guy doesn’t know how the reply button works. Conservative populism, folks!

[Bwaaah]

Great post!

[Malika la Maize]

Disaffected liberal, indeed folks!

Imagine people so depraved they go on political websites and perform some false backstory. This is MAGA folks.

[dwb68]

If you work in a large corporation, your annual performance is graded on a bell curve. 68% of employees will get "meets expectations," or 3 of 5. Less than 16% get higher rating. About 16% get a lower of 1 or 2. Senior managers hold calibration sessions to ensure this distribution is enforced.

Most people work just hard enough to keep their 3, there's no upside in doing any extra effort or being innovative.

Last year zero out of the 200 people in my department got promoted. There was one woman who very much deserved to be promoted, but she was denied. Because costs.

The latest group think in management is AI. Talk about reversion to the mean...

AI produces below average results for analysis and reports. So if you are in the bottom 40% of the Bell curve, in management's eye, you can be replaced with AI.

I think all we are exposing here is that management was never managing talent for innovation in the first place.

Will that change? I got my first employee performance review written by Copilot, and my first batch of resumes written with AI. I very much doubt it.

The other new group think is return to office 4 days and make sure people are in their cube 8 hours a day. If that is all you manage, That is all you will get from your employees.

[Sarcastr0]

Your indictment of capitalism is pretty on point.

[Bwaaah]

That's a dumbass post that says that all large corporations have similar review processes. They don't.-

But your contempt for capitalism is noted. You usually try to hide that. (Remember: you're ashamed of your strongest political inclinations and need to keep them on the downlow. You want to win elections.)

[Michael P]

The advantage of large organizations -- businesses or government or whatever -- is economy of scale. The major disadvantage is coordination overhead, to minimize principal/agent disconnects. There are always compromises in the trade between them, and big organizations will usually fail in different ways, as they try to avoid making the mistakes that were publicized the last ten times in their peer group.

"There are no solutions, only trade-offs." - Thomas Sowell

(Yes, occasionally a situation is far from the Pareto frontier or a Nash equilibrium or whatever term one wishes to use, but that situation usually doesn't last long.)

[Bwaaah]

While still a generalization, yours (unlike dwb68's) is a salient description of a predicament of large corporations.

[Sarcastr0]

I was being flippant, but look at the type of failure here. What was incentivized, and what the reaction was.

1. In the interests of efficiency, short-term cost savings were elevated above long-term investments in talent retention.

2. In the interests of evidence-based management, blind application of metrics, arbitrarily normalized, resulted in a lack of incentives to excel.

3. In the interests of keeping their own job, management evinces zero loyalty or buy-in to the organization, and gave no thought to reform or systemic improvement.

4. In the interests of looking like you're doing reform, but not taking risks or doing any effort, they're going to uncritically deploy AI, like it's fairy dust.

Needing to pit up good profit numbers for the shareholders is responsible for part of the bad incentives in all those but 2).

Lord knows government has government-specific incentive issues. But private businesses, both big and small, don't lack for similar misalignments. Markets are not magical, and have their own special ways to fail.

[dwb68]

Well, maybe. But most large corporations have a similar review process for the simple reason that they dont want to be sued. Its absurdly hard to fire people for cause. I can cite more than a few cases of employees simply being shuffled around departments so HR could avoid the tough conversations. By the time they got to me (in a reorg) the problem had festered too long and the employee had received mixed signals ("but no one told me that before")

[Sarcastr0]

"Everybody does it" is a bad argument, when the issue is bad reactions to bad incentives.

"Employees simply being shuffled around departments so HR could avoid the tough conversations" seems like another case of bad incentives, though not a market-driven one. And not one I have an easy solution to - I've seen it as applied to at-will employees as well.

[Kenneth Almquist]

At the large corporation where I worked, higher ranking translated into significantly higher pay. What you describe may be common in large corporations, but it’s not universal.

[John F. Carr]

District Judge Margaret Garnett is upset by public statements from the Justice Department related to the prosecution of Luigi Mangione. The Trump administration is suggesting he is part of vast left-wing conspiracy. Judge Garnett ordered

The Government is also directed to advise the Deputy Attorney General, for dissemination within the Department as appropriate, that future violations may result in sanctions, which could include personal financial penalties, contempt of court findings, or relief specific to the prosecution of this matter.

My understanding is, the comments about how Mangione is a guilty antifa terrorist do not come from people who have signed papers in the case or appeared in court. The rest of the government is making inappropriate statements.

[Martinned]

US rules (and habits) around public officials talking their mouths off about pending criminal cases are incredibly lax, so it makes sense that at least occasionally a judge loses their patience and tries to enforce what little rules there are.

[Dr. Ed 2]

does not the rest of the gov't have free speech rights?

[Armchair]

Republicans: Let's just pass a clean continuing resolution for 7 weeks to fund the government. Shouldn't be a problem, this happened like 13 times under the Biden Administration. Keeps government funding at current levels, while we negotiate and figure out the budget. Entirely reasonable.

Democrats: Uh uh. We're going to fillibuster that. Add a trillion dollars plus of spending or else we shut down the government.

Republicans: What? You're the minority party. You're demanding more than a trillion dollar of new spending to just keep the government open? For 7 weeks?

Democrats: Yes. And it's your fault if the government shuts down. Because you won't negotiate

Republicans: But the entire point of the CR is to give time to negotiate,....

Democrats: It's your fault if the government shuts down. Because we're mad about other things you did in the past. We want this fight.

Republicans: So "we're" shutting down the government because we won't give in to your demand for more than a trillion in new funding for 7 weeks of government normal operations? 7 Weeks that are meant to negotiate?

Democrats: Yes.

[dwb68]

Democrats: you want to shut down the government!!!

Republicans: yes. yes we do.

[Michael P]

Democrats are the ones filibustering budget bills and now the continuing resolution. Republicans are trying to fund government.

[Malika la Maize]

Look at this pathetic dance. These guys have celebrated shutdowns forever but are in some lizard like way aware it’s a bad look so now they want to do this “the Dems are going to shut down the government (which I’ve long favored!) dance. It’s pathetically disingenuous. And this guy cries about “trolls!”

[Brett Bellmore]

I agree, it IS pathetically disingenuous to claim Republicans are shutting down the government, when it literally is the case that the only reason it would shut down is that Democrats are filibustering the continuing resolution.

[bernard11]

Try a course in logic, Brett.

You offer me a deal I don't like, and I reject it. So the failure of the deal is my fault. That's your "logic" in a nutshell, Mr. Know Everything.

[Absaroka]

I dunno if this is a formal logic thing. You advert your old couch on craigslist for $100.

1)I offer to buy it for $100, but can't pick it up for a month. No deal, your fault or mine?
2)I offer to buy it for $100, and you say you will only accept payment in pennies. No deal, your fault or mine?

ISTM we assign the concept of fault based on some gut feel about who is being unreasonable; it's not anything formal logic can explain.

As far as congress, my sense is that the minority parties don't seem to realize the other side actually won a majority, and expect too much compromise. This has been true for a while, with both parties when they are in the minority.

I say this as someone who devoutly wish the Dems controlled either the House or Senate right now. I have long liked me some divided government, because it makes people compromise.

[bernard11]

ISTM we assign the concept of fault based on some gut feel about who is being unreasonable; it's not anything formal logic can explain.ISTM we assign the concept of fault based on some gut feel about who is being unreasonable; it's not anything formal logic can explain.

But your analogy only works if you can demonstrate that one side is demanding payment in pennies, so to speak.

That the Republicans have the majority doesn't mean the Democrats are being unreasonable, while the R's are champions of good sense.

[Absaroka]

"That the Republicans have the majority doesn't mean the Democrats are being unreasonable, while the R's are champions of good sense."

My point is that whether the R's or D's are being unreasonable for any or the last 47 government shutdown budget fights is an eye of the beholder thing. It's not something where a course on formal logic is applicable.

(and yes, I have had courses in formal logic. Great for computers, not so great for people.)

(in recent years, neither party have been exemplars of sober statesmanship)

[Armchair]

Malika....

Imagine the situation was reversed.

Dems held majorities in the Senate, House, and the Presidency. Dems tried to pass a 7 week CR. Republicans said "Unless you cut a trillion dollars worth of spending, we're not doing it, fillibustering, and shutting down the government"

What would you say?

[Martinned]

That they should negotiate. That's what you do if people who control veto points disagree.

[Armchair]

LOL. Sure. If the GOP demanded a trillion dollars worth of cuts, in the minority, just to keep the government open, you would say.. "yeah, the Democrats should negotiate. This CR (which gives time to negotiate) is a bad idea.

Sure... Tell another stinker.

[Martinned]

That's what the Democrats have done literally every time this has come up before.

[Magister]

In that situation, the Democrats would (both because it's sensible without regard to politics, and because it's good politics) ask the Republicans to specify what they want to cut, and require them to take ownership of those cuts. How many times did Republicans since Reagan propose budgets with magic asterisks to hide the unpopular details of what they want?

Democrats are willing to say where they want the spending, to achieve things other than the only Republican goals, holding power and cutting taxes for the rich.

[Commenter_XY]

Fine, we can negotiate the number of non-essential bureaucritters to fire during the govt shutdown. By all means, do go on.

[Sarcastr0]

You keep skipping over what the spending is.

Hell I don’t know where you got the number from even. It’s just big number.

Don’t be such a tool.

[Armchair]

"Hell I don’t know"

Because you haven't looked up the easily available information, and don't know anything. You're just blathering on. Facts don't matter to you.

[Mr. Bumble]

In the case of Il Douche, "If ignorance is bliss, ti's folly to be wise".

[Malika la Maize]

I would say everything you say on this subject is disingenuous. You champion shutdowns. Full stop.

[LexAquilia]

Oh my gosh! Whatever you say, don't say he champions shutdowns!! That's the most horrific and vile insult one can say!!!

Oh noes, the world will come crashing if 20% of the federal government doesn't open up tomorrow!!! THIS IS THE END AND HE IS A VILE CHAMPION OF IMMORAL SHUTDOWNS!!! THE END IS NIGH!

[Brett Bellmore]

Two things can be true at the same time:

1. The minority party wants a trillion dollars in new spending as the price of not shutting down the government. And, yes, it IS the minority party shutting things down.

2. A large faction of the majority party aren't terribly upset about being thrown into that briar patch.

[Martinned]

Why do you need the Democrats to vote in favour of anything? They are the opposition! (theoretically) If the Trumpists have a budget they want to pass, just pass it. At least that's a heck of a lot more democratic and legal than Trump just summarily abolishing government departments.

And yes, if you need one or more Democratic votes to pass something, the Trumpists should make (serious) concessions to buy those votes. That's how negotiating works.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because, and I'm fairly certain you know this, in order to end debate and actually hold the vote to pass the spending bill, the Senate requires a 60 vote supermajority if anybody objects to ending debate. Which means that the minority CAN block passage of something the majority supports, at least until the majority get ticked off enough to abolish the fillibuster.

Which I think is where this is going.

They don't need Democratic votes to pass anything, but they need Democrats to not object to holding a vote.

[Martinned]

No they don't. The rules about the filibuster can be changed with a simple majority.

And if the Trumpists don't want to do that, I already noted what they can do instead: negotiate and offer concessions. It's not the Democrats' job to make the Regime's life easy.

[Armchair]

"It's not the Democrats' job to make the Regime's life easy."

It's the Democrats job to ensure the government works. Debate on bills is important. If Democrats are willing to throw away that privilege over something so minor....when in the minority. It's unwise for them to do so.

[Martinned]

It's the Democrats job to ensure the government works.

With Trump as president there's very little risk of that. Given his unwillingness to be told what to do by either lawmakers or courts, the only appropriate approach is to vote against everything the Regime wants unless there's a very good reason to do otherwise.

[Armchair]

See, you really need a basic education in American politics, and not the MSNBC education.

[Martinned]

It seems to me that your education about American politics is a lot more urgent. For one thing, you're an American voter, so you can do more damage than I can. (And have already done more damage.)

[Malika la Maize]

It's the Democrats job to ensure the government works.

There is no better testament to this guy’s disingenuousness.

I do like that he’s self-identified as Armchair. A completely unserious person. Gotta keep those Cionfederate statues up!

[Brett Bellmore]

Concessions in return for not shutting down the government.

But you're right, the filibuster can be eliminated with a simple majority vote, and I think that's probably where this is going.

But possibly not before the Democrat forced shutdown provides an excuse to let go of, not just lay off, a large part of the bloated federal workforce.

[Martinned]

If the Republicans want to abolish more government departments, all they need to do is legislate. That way America can find out the hard way how bloated the federal workforce may or may not be.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." - H.L. Mencken.

[Brett Bellmore]

You will not find me defending the GOP. They're pathetic.

I may understand why they're pathetic, but that they're pathetic IS the bottom line.

I just happen to think the Democratic party is worse than pathetic.

[Martinned]

When in doubt, back the people who at least try to uphold US democracy and civil liberties.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, then, repeal about 50 years of "campaign reforms", so that third parties can be viable again. Because that's not a valid description of EITHER major party.

What Democrats mean by "democracy", on a good day, is "Democrats winning elections", and their concern for civil liberties is actually more selective than the Republicans'.

[Mr. Bumble]

Martinned (does Marinned2 have the day off?).
Why do you think Mencken's comment applies here but not when I used it to describe the possibility of Zardoz Madmani winning in NYC?

[Martinned]

It applies in both cases.

And, for the record, Mamdani is way to the left of my position on most issues.

[VinniUSMC]

Yeah, you're not a Communist, you're a Nazi. So, only mostly Left.

[Sarcastr0]

So from what I understand the rules to be, this is VinniUSMC is doing an indirect violence on Martinned.

[Randal]

Please! Abolish the filibuster! Throw us into that briar patch, if you dare.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The votes in the Senate were 44–48 for the Republican CR (continuing resolution), and 47–45 for the Democratic alternative. So it’s less significant that Democrats filibustered the Republican CR (which didn’t have the votes to pass anyway), and more significant that Republicans filibustered the Democratic alternative.

https://www.fedsmith.com/2025/09/19/government-shutdown-approaches/

[Armchair]

"Why do you need the Democrats to vote in favour of anything?"

1. This is 'Merica. "Favor". Not favour.
2. Because this is 'Merica, one of the long-standing rules in the Senate is the right to discuss bills. Even for the minority party. And in order to stop debate on a bill, it requires a supermajority. Typically 60 Senators. They don't need to vote in FAVOR of the bill. But they do need to vote to end debate on the bill.

[Martinned]

No they don't. The Regime has already wiped its ass with all other "long-standing rules" in the US, so why not this one?

[Armchair]

You really don't know much about the US, do you...

[Martinned]

Tell me why I'm wrong.

[VinniUSMC]

Why you're wrong? Probably because you're a retarded Nazi piece of shit.

[Frank Drackman]

I never forget a retarded Nazi piece of shit, but in Martinned I'd make an exception.

[Sarcastr0]

So we had this discussion 2 days ago, and it turned out you didn't know what you were talking about.

Here you are back again, with zero new info. Do you have the Memento memory issue or something?

[Armchair]

I mean...you can lie if you have no actual good arguments. I suppose that's your last resort now.

[Sarcastr0]

I had them 2 days ago. They were very effective.
You shut up pretty quick try at time.

Why would I bother redemolishing your bare and wrong assertions again?

[Bwaaah]

A link to your brilliant winning argument? (This I'd like to see.)

[LexAquilia]

He's like that South Park episode where they huff their own farts come to life.

[Armchair]

10 hours later....no link. Huh, imagine that.

[Sarcastr0]

You're not helpless, you can go back to the Wed Open thread all by yourself.

[Bwaaah]

Chase down your alleged cite? They're almost never what you say they are. There's typically no "there" there where you say there is.

I won't waste my time, like that. Not for the Nth time, Sarc.

But if you'll provide me a link, I'll follow up and read it. I'm interested in seeing your "very effective arguments that shut Armchair down pretty quick."

[SRG2]

IT's the XY playnook. Because the GOP used to do this, it's ok for the Democrats to do it. Except XY only reasons like this when the parties are reversed, of course.

IF the Democrats scent political advantage from a shutdown, absolutely they should let the shutdown happen. This is completely obvious, because that's how the game has been played for 30 years.,

Whether I think it's a good idea for the US is a separate issue.

[Malika la Maize]

XY is a purely tribal person, no principles. Perfect MAGA.

[SRG2]

Unfair. He has principles. But they're not the principles he espouses. His principles are fealty to Trump and to MAGA.

[Bunny495]

I am seeing reports that Trump claims that if there is a shutdown he will fire lots of federal workers he can deem non-essential. He has basically dared the dems to allow the shutdown to happen so he can tell a bunch of federal workers to bend over and take it with no lube.

[Martinned]

He can do that anyway. Since when has he needed an excuse?

[David Nieporent]

Republicans: Let's just pass a clean continuing resolution for 7 weeks to fund the government. Shouldn't be a problem, this happened like 13 times under the Biden Administration. Keeps government funding at current levels, while we negotiate and figure out the budget. Entirely reasonable.

Again, please stop pretending you don't know about rescissions.

[Armchair]

Tell us more about how these supposed rescissions justify more than a trillion dollars in extra spending...

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure where the trillion dollar figure comes from, but whether extra spending is "justified" is a policy question, and not what we're discussing. We expect the GOP and Democrats to have different views on how much money should be spent and on what, and that's perfectly reasonable. The issue here is that once having agreed to a given spending the GOP then backs out of the deal, Democrats are justified in not working with them a second time.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Your notion that Democrats will be blamed when Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress is pretty hilarious. But keep spinning.

[Martinned]

Thank god for Tyler Cowen who can explain to us that Milei doesn't need a bailout because Tyler Cowen was wrong, but only because Milei didn't follow Tyler Cowen's advice and/or because the Argentinian people didn't.

Why is Milei begging for a bailout?

There are two primary reasons.

First, he pegged Argentina’s real exchange rate too high, hoping this would appease voters by getting inflation down more quickly. That was a miscalculation. It also was a violation of market or libertarian principles. The problems here are not an instance of market failure, rather Milei forgot his own principles.

Second, the opposition did very well in a recent election. So everyone is afraid the reign of Milei, or like-minded leaders, is not going to last for so long. That precipitated a crisis in the markets. But that is hardly an argument against Milei, even though it happened on his watch. It is an argument against the likely alternatives to Milei.

So it is a mistake to read recent events as somehow a repudiation of market or libertarian principles.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/09/why-is-milei-begging-for-a-bailout.html

[Malika la Maize]

Tyler Cowen is only to be listened to when he is attacking DEI.

[Armchair]

So, California's recently passed a couple of...interesting...laws. It's no surprise that CA doesn't like some of the recent federal actions.

These laws that purport to mandate that ICE agents cannot arrest suspects in State Courthouses, nor legally wear masks. Seems interesting...state laws that directly impede the ability of federal law enforcement agents to do their jobs.

Do the legally minded people see any issue with this? Any potential obstruction of justice claims?

Would there be any difference if CA passed a law that prohibited federal excise agents from collecting tariffs from goods going through California's ports?

[SRG2]

.state laws that directly impede the ability of federal law enforcement agents to do their jobs.

How are ICE agents stopped from doing their jobs if they can't wear masks? Police seem to have no problem, nor the FBI.

[hobie]

For 50 years the Supreme Court kept telling states that abortion was legal, but the states kept passing bills restricting it anyway

[Frank Drackman]

Like they did with Slavery, people eventually see the Evil of their ways.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Armchair happily jettisons federalism when it doesn't cut in his direction. It's almost as if nothing he says is in good faith.

[Longtobefree]

Could California pass a law saying ICE agents can't use guns?
Can't wear body armor?
Can't arrest anyone?
Can't go into the state?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Poxigah146]

California's highest property is ensuring transgender illegal aliens get to erupt in another man's butthole.

[Frank Drackman]

The US has a Federal Law saying peoples can't use Marriage-a-Juan-a.
Doesn't seem to be working.
Oh it does with me, at least after I started having to do random Drug Screens, I mean my Glaucoma got better.

Frank

[jb]

"recently" is doing some work here, as the law about courthouses was passed during the first Trump administration.

AIUI, that only applies to ICE arresting people using administrative warrants. California can exclude ICE from their property in those cases just like any other landowner could. If ICE has a judicial warrant they can still arrest people.

Not sure why anyone think that the ICE goon squad needs to mask up to do their jobs. The rest of law enforcement seems to do fine without them and with some notion of accountability.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because there's a faction on the left who are encouraging people to physically attack ICE, (You know, by calling them "goon squads", and such...) which is not usually the case for law enforcement enforcing laws Democrats approve of.

[jb]

You have the causality backwards. People are calling them "goon squads" because they wear masks and attempt to evade norms of police responsibility and accountability and seem to delight in making people suffer.

And no, calling a group a "goon squad" is not encouraging people to physically attack them. As an obvious example, these hillbilly cops down in Mississippi called themselves the goon squad because they had so much fun torturing people:

https://mississippitoday.org/2024/03/21/final-two-goon-squad-officers-sentenced-in-mississippi-torture-case/

[Sarcastr0]

Hey remember the thing that pissed me off about saying speech is violence?

You're still doing it.

Calling ICE names is not encouraging violence, you awful excuse for a libertarian.

[LexAquilia]

Woah, he better self-censor or The Great Sarcastr0 will be pissed off!!

Everyone, RIGHT NOW SELF CENSOR! Before Sacastr0 gets ANGRY!! We wouldn't like him when he's angry!!

[LawTalkingGuy]

So I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you don't actually believe that people calling ICE agents goons is "encouraging people to physically attack them."

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I was exaggerating a bit, the encouragement is more in the "and such" part. But it's definitely going on.

[bernard11]

Oh stop, Brett.

You're being ridiculous and beclowning yourself.

And that's a polite description. Guess what, there are people who dislike the police. But the police still don't wear masks and do wear badges.

Leo's that try to remain anonymous are thugs, pure and simple. Stop demonizing "the Left," your favorite bogeyman, to defend the unconscionable.

Yeah, I know you don't like Trump. Fucking joke.

[Bob from Ohio]

"ICE goon squad needs to mask up to do their jobs"

IDK, maybe you guys have placed a target on their backs.

Like this:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/multiple-people-shot-dallas-ice-field-office

[LawTalkingGuy]

"IDK, maybe you guys have placed a target on their backs."

Does this mean "you guys" placed a target on the backs of these people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_Walmart_shooting

[Bob from Ohio]

No, talk to a white nationalist and ask them.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I am.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yawn. The race card doesn't work anymore.

But you be you.

[LawTalkingGuy]

…because you’ve become comfortable with your more open racism?

[Armchair]

A bombshell report has come out about the January 6th incident at the Capitol.

The FBI had 274 plainclothes agents there within the crown. 274.

Supposedly 2000 - 2500 people made it inside the capital. The FBI undercover agents within the crowd represent more than 10% of that number.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/fbi-bombshell-274-agents-sent-capitol-j6-many-later-complained-they-were-political

[LexAquilia]

As they always say: "Last year's rightwing conspiracy theory is this year's headline."

[SRG2]

Curious that the words undercover and the number 274 do not occur in the document, and the word plain only once.

Almost as if "just the news" was planning on people not actually reading the document....

[LexAquilia]

You should go in there and read at how sickened the rank & file were at the politicization of the FBI under Democrats.

It's genuinely sickening.

[Kazinski]

See the table on page 46 of 50 which shows 274 "Agent", 14 " IA" and another 75 "other" for a total of 363. Along with a brief explanation of what that encompasses.

You should apply for a fact checking job at politifact.

Here is the PDF of the actual FBI document.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2025-09/FBI-HJC119-J6IG-000001-000050.pdf

[SRG2]

I searched the doc and for some reason 274 didn't hit.

[Absaroka]

"for some reason 274 didn't hit"

That table seems to be an image, so a text search will miss it. Bit of a needle in a haystack without the page number.

[Malika la Maize]

Just The News!!!

[LexAquilia]

And this is why no one kowtows to your demands for links.

There is no link with enough authority for you to believe any fact that's counter to your narrative programming.

No video. No audio. No reporting. No website. Literally nothing come overcome your programming.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s a ridiculous website by a ridiculous person. Like you.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fbi-embedded-275-plainclothes-agents-111534839.html

[jb]

Haha, a Yahoo article that regurgitates a Blaze article without any independent reporting doesn't exactly bring a lot of rigor to the conversation.

I don't really like ad hominem attacks on sources, but the reason these rags are hard to take seriously is because basically every time you look at the underlying evidence for their claims it turns out they're making wild misrepresentations. As Bwaaah notes below, the 274 is the total number of FBI agents that responded that day, including to bomb threats not actually on the Capitol grounds. I don't believe the underlying report supports the notion that they were all plainclothes, either.

It's fine to have some skepticism of mainstream media sources, but if you take that approach, why are you so credulous as to blindly repeat claims from sources that are so frequently debunked?

[Malika la Maize]

You have to know Bumble is incredibly stupid. But motivated!

[Mr. Bumble]

So you have to read it in the NYT for it to be true?

[LexAquilia]

Yes.

[jb]

Bumble ignores the criticism of the actual claim and instead wants to double down on his shitty reading material, I guess.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does that include the agents who "investigated" the "bombs" planted on Jan. 5/6 and who built the stage prop gallows?
Still waiting for answers.

[jb]

Do you think it somehow bolsters your case if it does? If not, why bring it up? Listing other weird conspiracies you read about on The Blaze or Just The News doesn't make this one more credible.

[Mr. Bumble]

What weird conspiracies?
You're saying those things didn't happen?

[jb]

Did the FBI investigate those things? Yes they did. The fact you're putting various words in scare quotes seems like you might have some doubts, though.

In any case, it doesn't make the original claim of there being 274 plainclothes FBI agents in the J6 crowd more credible so not sure why we're talking about.

[Kazinski]

Its ridiculous to complain about the source when the actual FBI document is provided.

And the FBI doesn't have standard "uniforms", unless they were wearing tactical jackets they were all plainclothes. With all the images and video from that day can you point to any photos of identifiable FBI agents?

[jb]

You guys little to argue so much that at some point you don't realize you're arguing against your own dumb conspiracies.

Yeah, FBI agents generally don't wear uniforms so the idea of a bunch of "plainclothes agents" suddenly doesn't sound so nefarious does it? And when we go look at the FBI document instead of the shitty MAGA blogs you see they were responding to the insurrection, not "embedded" as we were breathtakingly told earlier today.

[Bwaaah]

"274" is shown in the report as the total number of "agents" who "responded to the Capitol grounds as well as inside the Capitol" on January 6. As with all attending law enforcement agencies that day, I would expect the number who responded to be much larger than the number who were initially there.

[David Nieporent]

Supposedly 2000 - 2500 people made it inside the capital. The FBI undercover agents within the crowd represent more than 10% of that number.

When you're even more dishonest than disgraced ex-journalist John Solomon, that's pretty special. Even Solomon doesn't claim anything like what you said. You're pretending that this says that they were "within the crowd," but it does not. This says exactly the opposite: that they were sent as part of the FBI's response to the attack.

[Armchair]

"FBI Embedded 275 Plainclothes Agents In Jan. 6 Crowds, Blaze Reports, As House Panel Probes Informants’ Roles"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fbi-embedded-275-plainclothes-agents-111534839.html

[David Nieporent]

Once again, who cares what "Blaze" reports? Why do you MAGA people have trouble with the difference between what a random person claims and what the facts are? This is like six levels of hearsay. Nobody anywhere with firsthand knowledge has said there were any plainclothes agents embedded in the crowd.

[David Nieporent]

Here's Kash Patel himself confirming that you idiot conspiracy theorists are idiot conspiracy theorists:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbis-patel-clarifies-role-hundreds-agents-jan-6-says-wray-lied-congress

[Bwaaah]

The count of 274 includes both agents engaged before the breach of the Capitol and agents engaged in response(see page 46 here). Though that somewhat contradicts Armchair's characterization, it doesn't say the "opposite" of what Amchair is saying. It is YOU who says the OPPOSITE of what Armchair is saying.

Why, whenever they say "ON," do you have to say "OFF?" That's imprudent, and too often wrong.

[David Nieporent]

I have no idea what document you are reading, because page 46 of the linked PDF doesn't say anything about any agents "before the breach of the Capitol."

The figure 274 is described on that page as "This number includes agents that responded to the Capitol grounds as well as inside the Capitol, the pipe bombs, and the red truck that was believed to contain explosive devices as well as CDC/ADCs."

[Bwaaah]

That phrasing appears to me to indicate the total number of agents on site, "including agents that responded." You interpret that phrasing as negating any other officers who may have been there? That "including agents that responded" means "exclusively and only including agents that responded?"

[David Nieporent]

No, of course it doesn’t mean that. It means — and says — that the figure includes agents that responded to (1) the Capitol; (2) the pipe bombs; and (3) the red truck.

[Moderation4ever]

I find it interesting that so much of HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. time is spent on investigating autism links to medications and vaccines while ignoring one specific area, the environment. The rise in autism is mostly affected by better information and diagnosis techniques. But if you are going to look for minor agents of causation I would think that environmental pollution should be high on the list. For many years coal fired power plants emitted heavy metals into the air. Cars and truck continue to emit organic PAHs into the air and inner cities have increasingly high concentrations. Medication and vaccine have been cleared and the Trump administration is simply tracking over old ground, and wasting money doing this. If you want to research minor agents of autism I think the research dollar would be far better spent in environmental studies. I suspect this is an road the administration does want to travel down.

[Martinned]

Cui bono?

[Don Nico]

If the causative factors are environmental, then a multivariate correlation study of rates in say 100 countries ought to reveal the plausibility of that hypothesis.
That approach work for SARS-CoV-2 and debunked a number of claims of public health officials and suggested others that had not been noted by the CDC or EU agencies.

[Moderation4ever]

The approach might work and is simple enough using existing data. The problem is are their 100 countries with consistent tools for diagnosing autism? Any thoughts?

[Don Nico]

That is a good point. I don't know. When I did that kind of analysis for SARS-CoV-2, such a large number was easy. There are rates for that many country, but one would have to investigate the extent to which the criteria are consistent.

[LexAquilia]

Look at how gently and carefully you're willing to stick your foot into 'no-no' thoughts.

The rise in autism is mostly affected by better information and diagnosis techniques. But if...

That hedging won't save you from retribution if the Democrat Supremacists ever gain social power again.

[Moderation4ever]

The is pretty much a consensus that improvements in diagnosis is the major cause for the identification of more autism. ONly the crazies are on the outside of that consensus.

[Frank Drackman]

I was never diagnosed, in Residency I was called "Rainman" for my ability to recall obscure medical/sports/TV trivia and tell you what day of the week any particular date fell/will fall on(OK, there's a method for that one anybody who can "Count Cards" can master) now I'm called "Dr. Ass-Burger" (along with other names that are too vile to be mentioned in this August company)

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Oh, this guy is autistic for sure. Too much Tylenol his mom took, pains in the rear from her “man friends” frequent visits!

[Frank Drackman]

Well, Queenie, if you weren't subletting your Cranium you'd know Tylenol didn't come into wide use until the 1970's, and even if Mom took it, it'd come in way behind her smoking and nightly glass of Wine ("For her heart" she's in her 80's with no signs of heart disease, seemed to work for her)
Oh yeah, they still used Ether for childbirth in 1962.
But enough about me, what explains your Pathology??

Frank

[LexAquilia]

So you think the 3,500% increase in autism diagnoses are because of new ways to identify it and that all these kids have been mentally ill at the same, constant rate, forever and just that all these parents didn't know their children were mentally ill because there weren't any labels for it?

That's fucking crazy AND retarded.

[jb]

https://www.facebook.com/amii.illustrates/photos/autism-didnt-exist-back-in-my-day-youve-been-collecting-miniature-locomotives-fo/1246475640813017/?_rdr

[LexAquilia]

haha yeah, all those aspies were just playing with trains!

People's hobbies were really autism! Because that's what we see now! All the Asperger kids playing with trains and having totally normal hobbies!!!!

How can you let a narrative overpower your own eyes?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, actually, kind of like AHDH went up enormously because the former diagnosis was "He's a boy".

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know from ADHD; it does seem a mess but part of that is our pop-culture at the moment.

But I know a little something about the field because my late father was a psychiatrist, and had opinions.
It is important to note the change in the mental health culture from 'can you function? Then you're fine!' to 'are you miserable? Well maybe we can deal with that.'

I don't know that it's changed diagnostic criteria formally, but it has changed when psychiatrists reach for medication.

[Brett Bellmore]

Where "improvements" doesn't necessarily mean anything but, "We lowered the threshold for declaring somebody autistic, while sweeping into "autism" a bunch of stuff that used to be separate diagnosis."

[Sarcastr0]

Saying the threshold got lowered is really reductive, Brett. As you specifically should know.

[David Nieporent]

Improvements in diagnosis, or changes in diagnostic criteria?

[Don Nico]

That is the general consensus. Having said that there is extreme variability in rates from country to country.
In 2025 in Japan and S. Korea it is 1450 per 100k; in Canada 1070, Chile 1060, the US 1050, Denmark 890, Germany 831, and the UK 710. India is 710 although dung is still widely burned in homes for heating and cooking.
I did not look at historical data, but that exists. The next difficulty is finding an adequate set of well characterized environmental data. My suspicion is that such data will be harder to find and characterize for consistency.

[Joe_dallas]

mod - the level of toxic pollution has decreased dramatically over the last 50 or so years, while autism rates have increased. Its unlikely that environmental pollution is the cause of the increase in autism.

[Sarcastr0]

Or we're not tracking all the potentially toxic substances that are hanging around.

Toxicology is one of those disciplines that turns out to be very much in its infancy. Still in if-then levels; some methodology foundational work.

Nothing systematic or predictive.

There's probably gonna be a ton of stuff we aren't tracking that in 30 years will be the new age's lead in gasoline.

[Don Nico]

Joe,
On an averaged level in the US that may be true, but I suggest that one would need relevant data about the most common toxic substance. The amounts of various substance are also likely to be quite diverse between urban and rural areas.
Also one cannot discount foodstuffs.

[Joe_dallas]

Don - fwiw - you are the only one commenting here that shows any competency in math or science, as such I appreciate your comments. comments from others are typically a joke.

The highest correlation in autism rates seem to the older the parent at birth, the higher the rate of autism. While several studies exist showing that correlation, I have not seen any studies of autism rates by age of the parent in periods prior to 1990 (ish). I would like to see a comparison of autism rates sorted by age of parent at birth from the early 1900 decades. Discounting for the expansion of the definition of autism, it would be interesting to see if autism rates have increased in each age of parent category. It would be a much better metric that total increase.

[Martinned]

Ah, OK, FEMA is still working hard to keep America going:

The records show that Noem quickly expedited more than $11 million of federal money to rebuild a historic pier in Naples, Florida, after she was contacted by a major financial supporter last month. The pier is a tourist attraction in the wealthy Gulf Coast enclave and was badly damaged by Hurricane Ian in 2022.

Frustrated city officials had been laboring for months, without success, to get disaster assistance. But just two weeks after the donor stepped in, they were celebrating their sudden change of fortune. “We are now at warp speed with FEMA,” one city official wrote in an email. A FEMA representative wrote: “Per leadership instruction, pushing project immediately.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/kristi-noem-fema-florida-naples-sinan-gursoy

It's almost as if electing the most corrupt president in US history has consequences...

[Krayt]

Why does a wealthy enclave need federal money to rebuild a profitable tourist attraction?

[Martinned]

Because bribing the Regime to fix this is cheaper than paying for the repairs yourself?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and everybody loves other people's money.

[LexAquilia]

Yesterday we had some MSNBC analysis say the way to stop the Democrat Supremacist reign of terror is to give them what they want.

That's no different than the Democrat Supremacist in Congress saying give us a trillion dollars for illegals and trannies and our donors or we're shutting down the government and harming tens of millions of people.

[Frank Drackman]

Is it too late to Indict Hillary Rodman for the murder of Vince Foster??
I'm not saying she did it, but is it to late to indict her?
I know there's no Statue of Limitations (I know it's "Statute" but I love the image of a "Statue" of Limitations running) for Murder, but is that even correct??
Sounds like one of those things that everybody ass-umes is true but isn't.
Would have been a great Perry Mason or Columbo episode (would love to see Perry or Lt Columbo spar with the haughty Hillary)
Asking for a "Friend"

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the worst she did in the case of Foster was fake a suicide note. And while that might technically have been a crime, it's a bit late to prosecute it.

[Frank Drackman]

Ah, the old "Consciousness of Guilt", of course for a Perry Mason episode you need a Mexican Divorce to be revealed so Bill can testify against her.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

We all have better things to do with our time.

[Martinned]

Given that cancelling people is apparently OK again, here are some people everyone might like to cancel:

Participating comedians [at the Riyadh Comedy Festival include], among others: Aziz Ansari, Hannibal Buress, Bill Burr, Jimmy Carr, Dave Chappelle, Pete Davidson, Maz Jobrani, Sam Morril, Mark Normand, Nimesh Patel, and Tom Segura. Tim Dillon was scheduled to perform but said he was fired after he joked on his podcast about Saudi Arabia’s poor human rights record.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/09/23/saudi-arabia-riyadh-comedy-festival-whitewashes-abuses

[Martinned]

For the record, others are on the right side on this one.

“I’m not doing it,” Shane Gillis told the Secret Podcast. “Then they doubled the bag,” Gillis said. “It was a significant bag. But I’d already said no. I took a principled stand.”

“You don’t 9/11 your friends,” he added.

[Sarcastr0]

Vance: So I think in a lot of ways the Democrats and the media, because they so hate the idea of a real border, are engaging in a kind of blood libel against ICE agents.
——-
The cheapening of blood libel continues.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This statement came out around the time a video showing a large ICE agent just throwing a crying woman into a wall and onto the ground was circulating.

One of the more traditional stances is that men who use brute force against women are insecure assholes and thugs. JD can say what he wants but res ipsa Ioquitur.

[ducksalad]

Off topic, but has anyone noticed that Usha Vance seems less than completely pleased with her husband's personality change?

[Mr. Bumble]

Based on?

[ducksalad]

The look on her face at public appearances, combined with the reduced number of such appearances.

Of course I'm aware that's subjective and I'm biased. That's why I'm asking if anyone else noticed. Amanda Marcotte says she sees it but I suppose that's not a very reliable authority.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe she's busy raising her kids.

[ducksalad]

Exactly. After being humiliated in the Greenland fiasco she decided to spend more time at home with the family.

[Estragon]

Just spitballing but maybe she wasn’t thrilled when JD invited some work colleagues over to discuss the least politically damaging way to pardon a child sex trafficker in the same house she lives in with her two young kids.

[M L]

Oh my gosh, somebody shoved someone. I'm calling the principal.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Oh my gosh, somebody shoved someone. I'm calling the principal."

An officer used disproportionate force on a non-threatening person. Yeah that should result in review and appropriate sanctions. ICE has to follow the law too (theoretically)

"If you don't want to be deported, maybe don't illegally immigrate?"

The woman wasn't the one being taken into custody. Also notable: they were at immigration court, following the procedures our law sets out. Finally: what does someone's legal status and eligibility for deportation have to do with whether its appropriate for agents to throw non-threatening women to the ground?

And at any rate: DHS doesn't even agree with you (at least right now).

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-officer-relieved-of-duties-video/

Congrats in your desire to vicariously feel like a big tough guy who thinks violence against women is cool, you've managed to be more depraved than the puppy killer.

[M L]

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Somebody shoved someone. Call the principal, then, alert the media - this is a national news story!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Keep downplaying fake tough guys throwing women to the ground. Normal people love that kind of behavior and it will definitely benefit your political movement.

[John 4]

I think you broke him

[hobie]

'Blood Libel'

More antisemitic tropes from the MAGAverse

[Kazinski]

JD Vance is calling for both sides to end the violence:

"I call upon all of our supporters to stop the violence against innocent beer cans.

And I call upon all left wing radicals to stop inciting violence against innocent people."

https://x.com/JDVance/status/1971585928935448777

[LawTalkingGuy]

Pete Hegseth has declared that the soldiers who earned medals of honor for the Wounded Knee Massacre will keep them. Here are some of his comments:

“ Such careless inaction has allowed for their distinguished recognition to remain in limbo until now. Under my direction, we're making it clear without hesitation that the soldiers who fought in the Battle of Wounded Knee in 1890 will keep their medals, and we're making it clear that they deserve those medals.”

They deserved them. lol.

“This decision is now final, and their place in our nation's history is no longer up for debate.”

Not how history works.

“We salute their memory, we honor their service, and we will never forget what they did.”

What they did was murder a bunch of unarmed people as part of an ethnic cleansing campaign and get themselves killed in friendly fire.

So I’ve long been concerned that Trump would pardon Robert Bales. I think that is absolutely coming as the administration is getting way more comfortable justifying civilian deaths. But now I’m wondering if he’ll get a medal.

[ReaderY]

I’m afraid professional historians not only aren’t always in charge of history, but authoritarian governments have ways of marginalizing them and keeping their views from having any influence at all on society generally. And these means include methods well short of outright killing them, which the nastier authoritarian regimes have been known to do.

[Frank Drackman]

If you're living in the US of A, you're living on land "taken" from the In-juns.
Oh wait, are you Lizzie "Poke-a-Hontas" Warren?? 1/1,024th full blooded Cherokee??
My Bad (I know I'm "appropriating" an Ebonics Phrase)
Of course you're just Law "Talking" Guy and not Law "Practicing" Guy

Frank

[LexAquilia]

Welp, Comey will be free and clear of any accountability or justice. He "randomly" drew a Democrat judge. So we can go ahead and wrap up the case now. Clear and indisputable evidence of felonies be damned. We got a Democracy to Save!

[ReaderY]

The previous prosecutor, a Trump appointee with solid conservative credentials, wrote a memo arguinng there was no evidence Comey committed a crime despite knowing he would be fired as a consequence. Moreover, Trump had to appoint his personal attorney, with no prosecution experience, as a replacement, because no experienced or knowledgable prosecutor was willing to take the job and follow Trump’s orders to prosecute evidence be damned.

Please help me understand why none of this makes Comey’s guilt disputable. Or why we should believe you over knowledgeable and experienced prosecutors who have actually looked at the evidence.

[LexAquilia]

He testified that he didn't leak or authorize a leak, and then they found a memo of his authorizing someone to leak.

Slam dunk.

[ReaderY]

If it’s really the slam dunk you are claiming it is, perhaps you can enlighten us as to why all these experienced prosecutors, after having looked at the matter carefully, disagree with with your interpretation and concluded that his testimony and his conduct were not in fact inconsistent?

[LexAquilia]

The experienced prosecutors who were so unbiased they wrote then leaked a memo just before the indictment to undermine other prosecutors in their department?

Those guys?

[ReaderY]

Your Honor, I would like to thank the witness for kindly providing Exhibit A on how the criminal mindset not only assumes everyone is a criminal, it is incapable of fathoming how honest people think. The whole concept of disinterested public service and serving justice as an end in its own right is simply incomprehensible to it. Knowing only crime, it is not capable of conceiving of a non-criminal purpose for an action.

“For the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.” John 1:5

This failure to comprehend Mr. Seibert and what he did puts him in a light that is only all the more glorious to behold.

[LexAquilia]

They were just so honest they wrote a memo and leaked it to undermine their liar peers!!

That makes so much sense, that's what honest principled people do!

[ReaderY]

Your reactions are very understandable.

Only honest and principled people grasp concepts like a prosecutor’s job is to effect justice including protecting the innocent, not just put in jail whoever the boss wants put in jail. Only honest and principled people regard telling people the truth (as they see it) as helping them, not undermining them.

So it’s totally understandable why such things make absolutely no sense to you.

[David Nieporent]

then they found a memo of his authorizing someone to leak.

This appears to be something published in Neo Nazi News Weekly, or 4chan, or whatever they call it nowadays.

[not guilty]

He testified that he didn't leak or authorize a leak, and then they found a memo of his authorizing someone to leak.

Slam dunk.

Wrong. What is at issue is Comey's answers to two questions posed by Senator Ted Crude. His verbatim responses to these questions were "I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017" and "Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today."

LexAquilia, what is your factual basis for asserting, "then they found a memo of his authorizing someone to leak"?

[LawTalkingGuy]

How do you think cases are assigned in the Eastern District of Virginia?

[LexAquilia]

My understanding is that cases are supposed to be assigned randomly.

What a lucky coincidence!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah, that's why I am asking. How do you think assignment works such that you are immediately suspicious of the randomness? What do you think happened here?

[Mr. Bumble]

Reminds me of this:
https://newjerseyglobe.com/judiciary/the-man-with-the-golden-arm-3/
Nicholas V. Caputo was the Man With The Golden Arm.

As the Essex County Clerk from 1961 to 1991, Caputo was legendary for drawing Line A for the Essex County Democratic organization in every primary and in every general, except for once. The odds of that happening were calculated at 1 in 50 billion.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So you have evidence that something similar is happening in this case?

[jb]

If it's the clerk who does the random assignment who benefits from the not-so-randomness, you're right to be suspicious.

I'm pretty sure Comey didn't do the assignment here, though, so what's the theory?

[LexAquilia]

Political tribalism? TDS?

Why is the concept of political ideology motivating this so foreign to you?

[jb]

LOL, nine out of eighteen judges in the district were appointed by Democrats. It's literally a 50/50 proposition, but Lex has conspiracy on the brain.

[LexAquilia]

Do people regularly assume a trial outcome based upon a judge selection, or is me doing it today the first time you've ever read this?

[jb]

It's certainly not the first time you've responded with a non-sequiter.

[LexAquilia]

There are two implications/assertions in my original comment.
1.) Judges are biased and will rule in partisan manner.
2.) Judge assignment is politically charged cases is corrupt.

My comment that you believe is a non-sequitur directly follows from 1.

HTH

[LawTalkingGuy]

Motivating what? What do you think the Clerk's office did here, and how do you think they did it?

[LexAquilia]

Empiricism, you know, observation of past assignments. And then drawing inferences from observed patterns.

You know, basic human stuff.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What aspects of the mechanisms for case assignment in EDVA are you basing your inferences on?

[LexAquilia]

On the outcomes. You know, kinda like how disparate impact theory works. Do you reject disparate impact theory?

[LawTalkingGuy]

"On the outcomes."

So how long have you been tracking case assignment in the federal judiciary generally and EDVA in particular? Do you also think that case assignment in MDFA is not random when Trump cases were assigned to Aileen Cannon?

It seems like you're spouting bullshit and you simply believe any unfavorable event is part of a conspiracy against you. Or you know its bullshit and you're trolling for whatever pathetic reason.

[LexAquilia]

Do you think forum shopping exists?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Do you know what the vicinage clause is?

(Also DOJ wanted to do EDVA (where apparently Comey testified from) rather than DDC (where it would be natural for lying to Congress to be charged) to get a more favorable grand jury.

[LexAquilia]

Now you even deny forum shopping.

How can we reasonably discuss a topic when you're so divorced from reality?

[LawTalkingGuy]

There were two forum choices in this case: DDC or EDVA.

Defendants have no choice in what district they are charged in, and don't do forum shopping.

So what you are saying has nothing to do with your conspiracy theory about assignments.

But I think you know this and again, are just a pathetic troll.

[LexAquilia]

You deny the concept of forum shopping.

It's pathetic.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“You deny the concept of forum shopping.”

LOL. 1) no. 2) WTF does this have to do with Comey?

[LexAquilia]

I'm establishing facts.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What facts? WTF are you talking about? Do you even know at this point?

[LexAquilia]

It would be nice if you were LawThinkingGuy instead of LawTalkingGuy. This is tedious.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes. Because you obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Based on this thread you:

1) don't know how case assignment works and have no evidence other than your feels that something wasn't random;
2) don't know how the vicinage clause is;
3) don't know what forum shopping is because you think it somehow relates to the assignment of a Biden appointee you believe is favorable to a criminal defendant as if the defendant has any say in where a criminal case is initially filed.

You are the one making this tedious by your own paranoia, ignorance, and trolling.

[David Nieporent]

It seems like you're spouting bullshit and you simply believe any unfavorable event is part of a conspiracy against you. Or you know its bullshit and you're trolling for whatever pathetic reason.

¿Por qué no los dos?

[MoreCurious]

Well, Mr. Legal Eagle, I don't suppose you'd care to share with us the "Clear and indisputable evidence of felonies" that you're so certain of.

[ReaderY]

In Bracey v. Gramley (1997), the Supreme Court allowed a prisoner convicted by a judge who was later convicted of taking bribes to fix murder cases to argue that the judge came down harder on no -bribe givers both to deflect suspicion from cases where he accepted bribes,and to advertise the consequences of not paying up.

As the Trump administration openly targets its critics, openly fires prosecutors who claim there is no evidence to prosecute, openly orders their replacements to find something, anything, to charge them with, and openly replaces grand juries that refuse to indict until it finds one that will, should the defense bar in the applicable jurisdictions start raising Bracy defenses?

A similar argument could be made. In order to deflect suspicion from the political prosecutions, these prosecutors have an incentive to handle the non-political prosecutions differently.

[Frank Drackman]

So now ABC is threatening the stations that don't televise Kimmel that they'll block their Monday Night Foo-bawl.
I'd take that offer.

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

His Name is Charlie Kirk.
Why hasn't his killer been tried and executed yet? it's been 2 weeks.
OK, it took 7 months to hang Wild Bill Hickok's killer, but that was after a quick trial in Deadwood that found him not guilty, and he (Smartly) absconded to the Wyoming Territory, where he (Stupidly) bragged about the murder, was returned to the Dakota Territory (they only had one back then) where the Federal Court said Double Jeopardy didn't apply, as Deadwood didn't have a formal Law Enforcement or Court System.
Trial took 2 days to convict him, "Necktie Party" was a few months later.

Frank

[ducksalad]

Any speculation on why Hegseth is calling virtually all generals and admirals to a single meeting?

In order of likelihood:

1. Just an empty suit pretending he has important things to say.
2. Trying to unnerve Putin.
3. In-person mass firing of officers perceived as unreliable.
4. WW3!

[M L]

Hopefully 3. But probably 1-2.

[OpinionsVary]

Combination of 1 and 3 - that is, the reason is really 1 and he'll do some 3 just to make himself feel better.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You forgot 5: host the biggest rager the DoD (sorry DoW lol) has ever seen.

[Estragon]

Axe throwing contest

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pMrVdFnjEjs&pp=0gcJCRsBo7VqN5tD

[Bunny495]

Obligatory axe throwing vid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L5QC9ZJkM8

[Voize of Reazon]

5. To complain to Dr. Strangelove that the Radical Left is draining Our Precious Essence.

[Ska]

NO FIGHTING IN THE WAR DEPAR... er, WAR ROOM.

[John F. Carr]

Musical chairs doesn't work so well over a video link.

[Michael P]

According to Very Reasonable Leftists up-thread,

5. He's going to murder them all. Or maybe murder all of someone else (??TPUSA??) in order to win the generals' loyalty.

[Frank Drackman]

Like to see that Al Capone Baseball Bat scene from "The Untouchables"

[M L]

As we all know, under Biden millions and millions of illegal immigrants poured into this country. And now under Trump there is virtually zero coming in, the caminante routes have dried up.

Will the next Democrat President bring back open borders again? Perhaps even bigger and better/worse than predecessors, like Biden did? Or will it be different?

[LexAquilia]

They're going to bring it back. Their number one priority is White replacement.

Democrats won't stop until the only Whites left are in their wealthy elite circles that rule over all the poor, working class browns.

[M L]

Ok, but illegal immigration and open borders is unpopular across the board. In fact, many surveys show Hispanic and black Americans are even more supportive of restrictive immigration policies than whites are. And this makes sense, since mass immigration policies disproportionately harm the working class, and overall constitute a $500 billion annual government wealth redistribution from working class Americans to wealthy Americans.

Anyway, while there's different levels of public opinion on specific immigration issues, the idea of letting millions and millions of illegals pour in has virtually no support, regardless of race. So how can Democrats get away with it?

The answer is they try to (a) hide and cover it up, (b) lie and claim they are powerless to do anything about it, (c) set up legal and institutional structures and impediments to ensure the continued flow of massive amounts of illegal immigration and block efforts to do anything about it.

But it seems like these strategies aren't as viable as they once were, in that it's more obvious now that illegal immigration can be stopped. Of course, they may well be viable enough still, and Democrats may still manage to get elected and do this stuff. (Is the general population getting dumber and more apathetic and ignorant? I don't know but if so - that would help).

But is there a chance Democrats get more sane, and put forward more sane representatives? That's what I would hope for, maybe it's naive and foolish to think it's even possible but I hope it is.

Some 1990s Democrats would be great right now, that's all you need. But that is basically what Trump is on immigration and most issues, a 1990s Democrat, and the loonies call him Hitler. So what they need to do is get a little bit more sane and forget the lunatics. I know it's a one way ratchet effect toward leftism and all that but I guess we'll see.

[Randal]

Illegal immigration is down about 80% under Trump. Which is great in isolation. But like Biden, his immigration policies are unpopular.

The main factor is that Trump totally suspended asylum. Biden had mostly suspended it, if you recall, and that suspension was being challenged in court. Trump's is as well. In fact, individual plaintiffs have won their challenges against the suspension, but no judge has enjoined the policy entirely. Yet.

The second factor is just the circumstantial cost / benefit of crossing the border illegally. That is, do immigrants think the effort will be worth it? This is driven by a lot of factors, not least of all rhetorical ones. Border encounters shot up immediately when Biden took office, much faster than any policy effects could have played out. That's because of the Republicans' election rhetoric promising "open borders" under the Democrats. Democrats aren't for open borders and didn't campaign that way, but the Republicans created a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. Why risk coming under Trump when you can wait a few weeks and come in under "open borders" Biden? The news of raids and deportations of course also affects the calculus. And lastly, there's a snowball effect. It's like jaywalking... I'm much more likely to jaywalk in a crowd of jaywalkers than to strike out by myself. There's safety in numbers, which amplifies any swings in illegal immigration.

The third factor is Congress. The Republican Congress under Biden followed Trump's advice not to help Biden out with this problem at all. They've helped Trump out enormously, with billions of extra dollars and powers.

So what does all that mean for the next Democrat? If Congress keeps supplying the means, no Democratic president is going to turn them down. They'll keep patrolling and deporting, but legally and with less bombast. If the courts haven't already invalidated Trump's suspension of asylum, I suspect a Democrat would lift the suspension, but with a low ceiling. (If Congress changes how asylum works entirely, then who knows.) Finally... on one hand, Democrats will do more to combat illegal immigration at the source i.e. helping Central- and South-American populations to govern themselves better. On the other hand, even if the policies were to remain the same, the inevitable change in tone between Trump and the next Democrat will be read by immigrants as a reason to come, just like it was with Biden.

One last point. Trump has shown a willingness to futz with the numbers, and these numbers are especially vulnerable to futzing. There's no good way to double-check. And they look shockingly... stable, since Trump took over. Every month since February they've reported the same number of border encounters +/- 2500. Sadly, that possibility is something we have to think about with this moron President.

[Roger S]

Welcome to the MAGA club.

[Randal]

Welcome to realizing you're in a real-life Phantom Menace scenario.

[M L]

No Randal, Republican rhetoric didn't create hordes of illegal immigrants. Democrat open border policies did. Nice try, though.

As you know, Biden's "border bill" was a ploy by Biden and the Democrats to try and pin blame on the Republicans. Democrats knew that their deliberate open border policies, and the massive waves of illegal immigration they were creating, were deeply unpopular, and would hurt them politically. Yet, they had no intention of reversing course or actually stopping it (i.e., just turn away people at the border, detain, don't let them into the country).

So what did they do? First, for four years they presided over the most ridiculous illegal immigrant invasion ever seen in human history. Then in the last year of Biden's term (the election year), after most of this was said and done, they introduced a bill and lied to the public that it was a "big tough border bill." In reality, the bill expanded and preserved the open border loopholes (e.g. expanded catch and release) while making empty promises, or just implications really, that Biden would suddenly and finally get tough on immigration. This came in the form of granting new "authority" on the border - authority which was temporary, unnecessary and superfluous, and which would be in the discretion of open borders freak Mayorkas.

So what does all this mean for the next Democrat? Well, nothing necessarily, all that has to do with the past and we are asking about the future. But back to the question at hand. Will the next wave of Democrats to hold the levers of power be as fervently devoted to open borders as the last wave? I think we have to say, most likely yes. On the other hand, if there are some vestiges of republican/democratic functionality still viable, maybe voters will put forth more sane Democrats (or more to the point, ones that are actually honest when it comes to this issue. And that's tough - even Republicans have a hard time with it, after many years of double crossing by Republican politicians).

[Randal]

It is somewhat flattering that you guys think Democrats are that smart and disciplined that we could pull off all these super-complex conspiracies involving hundreds of thousands or in some cases millions of people. Obviously you've never met any actual Democrats. Smart, yes. Disciplined, not so much.

[M L]

Not sure what you mean. I am objectively describing public facts, such as the contents of Biden's border bill, and the public acts of Democrats. What does that have to do with conspiracies?

[Randal]

Let's just start with

Biden's "border bill" was a ploy by Biden and the Democrats to try and pin blame on the Republicans.

I mean...

[M L]

That is a description of mundane everyday politics, not a conspiracy.

Given their publicly known actions and the publicly known contents of the border bill, I doubt any other reasonable characterization is possible, but maybe.

[Sarcastr0]

ML: " I am objectively describing public facts."

Also ML: "I doubt any other reasonable characterization is possible."

It makes a lot of sense that 'Breitbart all day erry day' ML lives in a world where facts and opinion are indistinguishable.

[Randal]

What S0 and DMN said. But also, since enquiring minds want to know... exactly how was the "border bill" a ploy to pin blame on Republicans? You never really explained that part. You mean because we never intended it to pass? Or somehow because if it did pass, we'd blame Republicans for passing the bill we said we wanted...?

[David Nieporent]

As you know, Biden's "border bill" was a ploy by Biden and the Democrats to try and pin blame on the Republicans.

As I know, but you apparently do not, it was a bipartisan bill spearheaded by conservative Republican Senator James Lankford, not a ploy by Biden or the Democrats.

[jb]

They're going to bring it back. Their number one priority is White replacement.

Just two weeks ago we were being lectured about how this whole claim was made up by the left.

[M L]

The element on the left that is legitimately anti-white and has a whole racial grievance/animosity element to their ideology on immigration and everything else is, I believe, a very small minority. I'm not going to paint Democrats with that broad brush. But I think it does exist - no?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, a small minority if you're talking the left leaning electorate. As you move up the food chain, they get to being a larger and larger fraction.

[Sarcastr0]

A larger and larger fraction of the Democratic leadership is anti-white?

That's what you're gonna go with?

[Voize of Reazon]

Just like how Republicans are pedophiles. Not at the grass-roots level, but as you move up the food chain all the way to the Epstein client list it is 100%.

[ducksalad]

Despite being an openish-borders guy, I don't think we'd see a full return to the Biden level numbers even if Biden policies were revived.

A big part of the draw was the idea that the process is the reward: you claim asylum and then get to stay for years waiting for your case to get resolved. During those years you can set up a household, find ways to earn money, and then by the time your case comes up maybe you've found an alternate claim to legal status, or you can ignore the letter and hope they don't come after you. And - this is the important part - that system seemed to last across multiple administrations, and people who properly filed for asylum using the legal process weren't treated like criminals.

Now people considering the asylum path know even if the path reopens, they'll always be - for life - one election away from being hunted down as a national spectator sport, with guys like you pretending they're all cat-eating Laken-killing fentanyl-spouting terrorists.

So that will seriously cut down the number of people President AOC could realistically import.

[Brett Bellmore]

OTOH, a President AOC who had a congressional majority could promise to mass naturalize all illegal aliens, maybe on an annual basis.

[ducksalad]

Sounds radical.....except that I've got a relative who didn't leave when his student visa expired, but then got his green card and eventually his citizenship under the 1986 blanket amnesty that covered 2.7 million people. Signed by that open borders extremist Ronald Reagan.

At one bizarre point in the proceedings, he had to search for some visa condition that he could plausibly insist that he'd *violated*, because the INS wanted to say he was legal until 1983 and the amnesty cutoff was for those illegal prior to 1982.

[Longtobefree]

Gee, that's a real tough one.
If only the democrats would right down what they believe, like in a party platform or something.

[Sarcastr0]

No need.
MAGA just tells us what we think.

[MoreCurious]

I came across the following list, but the list contained no title:

Hegseth, Kennedy, Bondi, Patel, Miller, Burgum, Gabbard, Musk, Carr, Halligan.

Does anyone have any suggestions for an appropriate title for the list?

[Mr. Bumble]

Justice League Of America?

[Riva]

That works.

[ducksalad]

Future Residents of Hungary and Argentina?

[LexAquilia]

The Good Guys

[LawTalkingGuy]

So if Ted Cruz refuses to testify on speech or debate clause grounds, does that violate Comey’s confrontation rights?

[John F. Carr]

Based on a quick search there is a circuit split on whether the "speech and debate" clause protects a member of Congress from compelled production of evidence to be used against somebody else.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45043

[ducksalad]

One has to separate whether a challenged subpoena is upheld by a court from whether anyone will send out armed officers to enforce it.

Seems like plenty of high-level officials have blown off valid subpoenas and nothing happened to them. Looking at the names that pop up when googling "list of officials who have ignored subpoenas" it seems like the cutoff is cabinet-level and congressmen. Lower ranking assistant/deputy whatevers sometimes do go to jail.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Let's assume it does and Cruz declines to waive the privilege. Is this case capable of being proven without a confrontation clause violation? I would assume that most false testimony to congress cases do not require the Congressional questioner or anyone taking the testimony to testify regardless of the speech or debate clause. But this case is giving me a little pause because much of it appears to depend on Cruz's understanding of Comey's testimony and McCabe's testimony.

[John F. Carr]

Comey can be convicted even if nobody was actually deceived. There are two crimes charged

1. Materially false statements.
2. Attempt to mislead Congress.

He is not charged with successfully misleading Congress.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Is it relevant if Cruz wasn’t telling the truth about McCabe in the set up of the question to Comey?

[Bored Lawyer]

Why would Cruz have to testify? The questions and answers are recorded and a matter of public record. Doesn't seem to me that he adds anything.

[Bob from Ohio]

Do judges later have to testify when someone perjures during a trial?

[not guilty]

Since the judge before whom the perjury was offered would be disqualified from presiding at the subsequent perjury trial for having personal knowledge of facts which may be disputed, I know of no impediment to the judge testifying if he is subpoenaed by either party.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Cruz was the one who construed the testimony of McCabe as saying something opposed to what Comey said.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, Cruz is supposed to testify as to his grasp of English grammar?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Cruz will testify so long as it’s not feezing and it doesn’t interfere with his margarita happy hour. ????

[Bored Lawyer]

So what? The question is what did Comey say and whether it's false. I don't see what Cruz's testimony adds to the transcript.

[Voize of Reazon]

What did he say, whether it's demonstrably false, and whether it was material to the proceeding. Cruz may have relevant testimony on the last question.

[not guilty]

During the Judiciary Committee hearing of September 30, 2020, Senator Crude did not refer to testimony that Andrew McCabe had previously given in any judicial proceeding. Crude's question included the language, "Now, as you know, Mr. McCabe, who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it. Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true."

If the government plans to offer what McCabe said for the truth of the matter asserted, I know of no way to avoid confrontation/hearsay problems other than to present McCabe as a witness in open court, subject to cross-examination.

I doubt seriously that McCabe, whom Donald Trump treated quite shabbily, will be a government-friendly witness.

[LexAquilia]

Going viral on X:

Caden Speight was wearing a MAGA hat when he was kidnapped.

White Van pulled up 4 Hispanic males began shooting at him.

Democrats need to be arrested for their calls to violence against children.

[DeAnnP]

https://www.wftv.com/news/local/abduction-story-falls-apart-after-missing-teen-triggers-amber-alert-deputies-say/DLXXDO4J7JHKRAESBL77VOMSA4/

[DeAnnP]

https://www.wcjb.com/2025/09/26/missing-17-year-old-marion-county-found-safe-no-abduction-occurred/

[Estragon]

Fake story from voltage guy=overdetermined.

[M L]

People are on heightened alert against violent leftism right now.

We all saw it - millions and millions of freak shows in this country, celebrating Charlie Kirk's death on social media. And plenty more minimizing it in some way.

And why, because he held the mainstream conservative opinions that 30-40% of this country share.

Kind of a wake-up to see that all these people right in your own country would celebrate YOUR death.

[jb]

We all saw it - millions and millions of freak shows in this country, celebrating Charlie Kirk's death on social media.

Millions?? More like tens.

[Estragon]

“People are on heightened alert against violent leftism right now”

So, admittedly false but directionally true? Scott Adams, is that you?

[John 4]

“My story was 100% bullshit, but it’s actually the fault of the people who I constantly try to demonize with fake stories.”

If you’re dumb enough to fall for every obviously fake story, maybe you should rethink your assumptions on life.

[Sarcastr0]

One wonders what he plans to do to those "millions and millions of freak shows in this country."

Nah, we don't wonder. ML has made his ease in dehumanizing pretty fucking clear.

[Sarcastr0]

"Oh my gosh, somebody shoved someone. I'm calling the principal."

Yeah, we all know what you are ML.

Impotent to do what you want, and very frustrated about it.

[bernard11]

We all saw it - millions and millions of freak shows in this country, celebrating Charlie Kirk's death on social media. And plenty more minimizing it in some way.

Oh fuck you, ML. You'er nothing but a giant liar. Worthless POS.

[Riva]

Will Comey get to listen to his Taylor Swift Kelce while in jail? And, even if so, given it's a prison, would that be advisable?

[ThePublius]

Pregnant liberal women are popping Tylenol to protest Trump and RFY, Jr.

Note that Tylenol 8 years ago said this isn't recommended.

In my opinion, this could be prosecutable child abuse. Someone should track these women who've made selfie videos of themselves eating handfuls of Tylenol to see how their kids make out.

Reuters:

2013: "Too much Tylenol during pregnancy could affect development."

2025: "Trump links autism to Tylenol and vaccines, claims not back by science."

What changed?

[Roger S]

Trump derangement.

[Sarcastr0]

Pregnant liberal women are popping Tylenol to protest Trump and RFK, Jr.
Smells like bullshit. My speclation is that Daily Mail found some Tiktokers taking white pills from a Tylenol bottle and ran with it.

this could be prosecutable child abuse If you take Trump and RFK Jr.'s ramblings as gospel, maybe. They have like 1 study. From an NIH initiative that includes over 30 potential autism links they're investigating. (Way to suck all the funding out of the room way to early, dipshits)

Someone should track these women
You just yearn for the boot, eh?

[ThePublius]

I don't know what that means, other than it's yet another shallow, snarky comment from Sarcastr0.

[Sarcastr0]

Let’s start here.

Link your source.

[LexAquilia]

https://www.newsweek.com/pregnant-women-tylenol-videos-trump-10478949

[Bob from Ohio]

"Tiktokers taking white pills from a Tylenol bottle"

LOL No way those pills could be Tylenol of course. Could be anything.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, Bob. It is an observed thing that some people on Tiktok stage stuff to look like something it's not to get engagement.

Wild, I know.

Go back to bed now, grandpa.

[Riva]

Suppose this is a stunt, little communist girl that never smiled. You approve of this sick display? What if some vulnerable pregnant women are manipulated into taking Tylenol to emulate this “resistance”? This irresponsible bullshit, stunt or not, can cause real harm. The left is beyond contempt.

[jb]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Depends on if they're in pain and/or have a fever or not. If yes, Trump's new findings don't actually discourage the use of acetaminophen when it's called for.

If not, there's definitely a bit of TDS going on and it's dumb.

On the other hand, "prosecutable child abuse" is absurd if we're talking about a couple of pills.

[damikesc]

"Trump's new findings"?

Did not know Trump was part of Harvard or Johns Hopkins.

[jb]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/09/fact-evidence-suggests-link-between-acetaminophen-autism/

Today, President Donald J. Trump joined Administration officials to announce major progress in understanding the root causes of autism, which has exploded in diagnoses over the past two decades, and unveil bold new initiatives to tackle the autism epidemic.

I love how you guys engage in dumb nit picking as opposed to engaging in the substance of the conversation, though. Regardless of whose findings they are, the point remains: no one is recommending for women to completely avoid Tylenol when its use is appropriate.

[santamonica811]

jb,
Wasn't the point of the press conference for TRUMP to say that women *should* completely avoid Tylenol? And my impression was that he said it about a gajillion times, for good measure.

If your point was: No one who is not a senile and fucking idiot is suggesting that women avoid taking Tylenol in moderation . . . then I'd probably agree with you. 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

Does Queenie post comments while out on work release?
Asking for a friend.

[Randal]

Your "friend" realizes that Queenie is a dude, right? With a penis. Fully penile. Just so you know, "Mr." Bumble. Knowing is half the battle. The other half is your coming out party. I expect an invite.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your first hand knowledge of Queenie's anatomy says a lot about you and has nothing to do with the question.

[M L]

So Comey is being indicted for lying to Congress? What was the alleged lie?

I distinctly remember observing that Comey lied. But, I thought nobody actually ever gets prosecuted for that? Or at least, it's the sort of thing that only the politically targeted get charged for, and never the politically connected. In practice.

My sense was Brennan and Clapper were even worse on this.

[M L]

Ok, found this Reason story on the main page which . . . . seems to say that Comey is guilty, but at the same time the case is just lawfare and shouldn't be brought? How do you square that circle? Hm. This is that famous "rule of law" we have, folks.

https://reason.com/2025/09/26/james-comey-indicted-in-a-case-prosecutors-dont-seem-excited-about/

"The indictment claims Comey lied during Senate testimony on September 30, 2020. At a hearing on that day, Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) asked if Comey stood by a previous claim that he had never "been an anonymous source in news reports" about investigations related to the 2016 election; Comey said he had not.
.....
After Trump fired him, Comey shared memos with others about his interactions with the president, with instructions to give them to the press—violating FBI policy. While not an earth-shattering scandal, lesser mortals have gone to prison for far less. In fact, in one of the memos, Comey recalls telling Trump he "was eager to find leakers and would like to nail one to the door as a message.""

[Roger S]

In particular, Comey prosecuted Martha Stewart and Mike Flynn for petty crimes.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

This has to do with McCabe leaking to the WSJ that Hillary was likely to be indicted over the Clinton Foundation investigation. Baier also reported it and the Trump campaign amplified it and then it turned out to be #fakenews and Baier apologized at some point later but the damage to Hillary had been done. So the Trump White House has always characterized the leak as something harmful to Trump when it helped Trump. But anyway, Comey was asked in Congress if he authorized the leak when he didn’t but McCabe did inform him after the #fakenews went around. McCabe made the leak because the WSJ reported his wife received campaign funds from the DNC and so the implication he was corrupt and so he wanted to prove he wasn’t corrupt with this leak. Like everything involving politics it was all super dumb.

[M L]

No, it has to do with Comey leaking, as part of perpetuating the Russia hoax to bring down Trump.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

No, it has to do with McCabe leaking to harm Hillary’s campaign.

[Estragon]

Sinclair folds like a taco, Kimmel is back on those affiliates. I have seen no indications that Kimmel complied with their original demands.

https://nypost.com/2025/09/26/media/sinclairs-abc-stations-will-end-its-preemption-of-jimmy-kimmel-live-and-put-it-back-on-air-tonight/

[Brett Bellmore]

Having everybody know that some of the guys on your side don't mind killing people gives you amazing negotiating power.

[Bob from Ohio]

Not to mention Sanders and Fauxahontus and others threatening them.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Maybe they just learned from Brendan Carr. Isn't that the way you believe things should work?

[Sarcastr0]

Everybody who was already insisting it was true now claims to know it's true, yeah.

MAGA did find a way to inch yet closer to rationalizing a crackdown on liberals, through delusional fears.

Way to go, shitty libertarian.

[LexAquilia]

Wait until you see the leaked Pentagon slides that show liberals being declared domestic terrorists and the greatest threat facing this country.

You know, like a few years ago.

[John 4]

TOO FUCKING RICH

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Crooks was a bitter clinger MAGA Republican…a true Deplorable!!! Good riddance!

[Estragon]

“Having everybody know that some of the guys on your side don't mind killing people gives you amazing negotiating power.”

Pathetic sniveling.

[John F. Carr]

From the forfeiture files:

Commonwealth vs. One (1) check in the amount of $480.00 for 1,600 pieces of wild oysters (Crassostrea virginica) (Massachusetts Appeals Court case 24-P-507)

Is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts entitled to forfeiture of a check for $480, that check being the proceeds of commercial sale of oysters illegally taken by a Native American on a Wednesday? The court answered three questions:

1. Does a Native American have a right to sell oysters? No, he has the right to feed himself but dealing in shellfish makes him a commercial fisherman subject to all the rules for commercial fishing. Like no fishing on a Wednesday.
2. Is probable cause sufficient to forefeit the money? No, oysters aren't drugs. Drug money is forefeit based on probable cause, oyster money is forefeit based on preponderance of the evidence.
3. Are oyster tickets traffic tickets? No.

The court left three questions unanswered:

After six years of litigation over a $480 check, is the check now stale and worthless?

Over six years of litigation, how much did it cost to set this precedent?

The $480 check lost under either standard, reasonable suspicion or preponderance of the evidence, so isn't the precedent on the standard of proof just dicta?

https://www.mass.gov/doc/commonwealth-v-one-check-in-the-amount-of-480-ac-q24p507/download

[Bored Lawyer]

Basic question. The Sixth Amendment provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . ." The last phrase is known as the vicinage clause, and gives the defendant the right to be tried where the crime allegedly was committed.

The Comey indictment states that alleged crimes took places in the E.D.Va. The crimes consisted of testimony before a Senate committee. Don't Senate committees hear testimony in the District of Columbia? How is this case brought in Virginia?

Maybe there is a simple answer, but something seems missing here. Otherwise, I would expect Comey to move for a transfer to DC.

[John F. Carr]

He testified from home during the pandemic. I think venue would have been proper in D.C. as well.

[Bored Lawyer]

Interesting. One might still argue that the crime was committed in DC, where the testimony was received. But that is likely a loser.

[not guilty]

Per 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a):

Except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, any offense against the United States begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed. Any offense involving the use of the mails, transportation in interstate or foreign commerce, or the importation of an object or person into the United States is a continuing offense and, except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district from, through, or into which such commerce, mail matter, or imported object or person moves.

I don't know whether the U. S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (who has met resistance from some grand juries there who refused to indict) wanted to prosecute this case or not. I doubt that the jury venire in the District of Columbia and in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia are considerably different, although the latter may be a bit whiter.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Alvin Bragg declines to prosecute someone who punched a woman for disagreeing with her about abortion.

Tolerating political violence is not a good look.

[ThePublius]

https://x.com/AGHamilton29/status/1971588577755853139

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That was my exact sentiment when Trump pardoned all the J6 lawbreakers.

[TwelveInchPianist]

But not in this case?

[Brett Bellmore]

After they'd been wrung out in the legal system, in many cases held for trial for longer than the sentences the charges could result in? Oh, yeah, they got off easy. [/sarc]

Sure, go ahead and pardon Rivers... after locking her up in prison for a decade or so.

[Sarcastr0]

We need to reinstitute a public debt for anti-social and subversive behavior. In my opinion, some of this cost needs to be summary and ultra-violent.

Is this a call for violence? Yes. Explicitly it is.

The law is not enough. Or, it’s non-existent. Somewhere deep down inside we’ve always known no one is coming to help us. We need to help ourselves.

https://tinyurl.com/5n83dt8k

[LexAquilia]

Virus detected at the link. Be careful clicking links that use link shorteners.

[TwelveInchPianist]

More nutpicking?

[Sarcastr0]

It's the Daily Caller. The writer is their Editor at Large.

[Brett Bellmore]

You do understand, I hope, that in a society of declining trust, choosing to bury your links inside a tinyurl so that people can't see where they go without following them, (or using a link expander like I did.) is asking people to not follow your links.

It's impolite to demand that people take a leap in the dark like that just to see your evidence.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So yes?

[Brett Bellmore]

Daily Caller Opinion: INGERSOLL: Enough Is Enough … I Choose VIOLENCE!

"Editor’s Note: We’ve received a lot of feedback about this newsletter. At the Daily Caller, we publish a wide range of strongly-worded opinions. Robust debate matters, and the values of free expression require that we host voices with which readers may strongly disagree. That said, the Daily Caller does not condone violence in any form, especially political violence. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not represent the position of the Daily Caller. The examples outlined in the piece refer to hypothetical instances of self-defense, not political violence or extrajudicial mob action. We’ve spoken with the author, who reiterated that is his position, and explicitly rejects any incitement to violence."

"Moving past the legal “violence,” let’s get to the actual violence, shall we?

Alvin Bragg’s office dismissed a felony assault charge yesterday. That shouldn’t be a shock to anyone — nobody is more renowned for soft on violent crime prosecutions than Bragg. What is shocking though is in this particular case the act was caught on film. What’s more, the assailant then went on social media and bragged about doing it.

Pro-life advocate Savannah Craven Antao was doing a man-on-the-street video in Harlem, New York, when she was abruptly and viciously assaulted by a woman she was interviewing.

Brianna J. Rivers, a brutish, hulking woman, socked Antao in the face twice the moment she was distracted.

This is dead-to-rights felony aggravated assault. It should result in prison time and probation.

Prosecutors initially downgraded the charge to a misdemeanor, then dismissed the charges altogether.

And the message couldn’t be clearer."

OK, Sarcastr0: Let's hear it. You can watch the video of Brianna Rivers punching Antao twice, without the slightest trace of legal provocation. Caught on video, then she openly confessed (If you can call bragging a 'confession'.) it's an open and shut conviction.

Go ahead, justify Bragg dropping all charges. Let's hear it.

Look, a major purpose of having a legal system is so that people won't HAVE to engage in private justice to GET justice. You don't have to hunt down Rivers and ambush her with a lead pipe to get some measure of payback, the government has that handled.

Looks to me, to a lot of people, like Bragg has decided that people whose politics he doesn't like aren't entitled to that. That there should be open season on them.

So, if the local government decides that people can assault you for free, what exactly is left besides that lead pipe ambush? Care to explain?

[Kazinski]

Supreme Court has allowed Trump's pocket rescission 6-3:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-supreme-court-foreign-aid/

Big win.

We know who the 6 are and who the 3 are without even looking.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, the legal luminaries will be along shortly to denigrate SCOTUS.

[SRG2]

As they should. From Kagan's dissent:

We have done so [stayed] with scant briefing, no oral argument, and no opportunity to deliberate in conference. Because of how this case came to us, we likewise do not have the benefit of a pertinent court of appeals decision, much less a set of decisions expressing different views. In a few weeks’ time—when we turn to our regular docket—we will decide cases of far less import with far more process and reflection.

[Joe_dallas]

Kagan omitted one key point from her dissent. Why?

Because there was specific congressional authorization for the spending that was rescinded.

[SRG2]

The passage I quoted concerned the egregious use of the Fermat Docket, and is of broader application than the instant case.

[yolox16213]

the nigger alvin bragg, along with his boss, the nigger letitia james, announced they won't prosecute a woman who punched a pro-life woman in the face, caught on camera.

these two simians should be swinging from trees with bananas stuffed in their mouths.

[Kazinski]

Sounds familiar.

Where have I muted them before?

[hobie]

Nice reminder of Kazinski & Co. proclivities

[Frank Drackman]

Could be a "Carnac the Magnificent" from 1977
Oh, except in 1977 we didn't have millions of Ham-Ass Moose-lums in our midst.
"Mahmood Abdelsalam Rababah, Ahmad Mawed, Mohammad Matalgah"
"Name the 3 Moose-lums arrested for shooting a Little League Coach praying before the game"

Frank "Hey-Yoooooooooo!!!!!!!!!"

[not guilty]

The New York Times is reporting:

The Department of Justice has issued a subpoena for records related to the travel history of Fani T. Willis, the Georgia district attorney who charged President Trump in a sweeping election interference case, according to a federal grand jury subpoena reviewed by The New York Times.

The scope of the investigation is not yet clear. Also unclear is whether Ms. Willis is the target of the inquiry and whether she will ultimately face charges. Grand jury proceedings are secretive by law.

* * *

In Georgia, federal investigators are seeking records related to travel they believe Ms. Willis took abroad around the time of last year’s election, but it was not immediately clear why. The inquiry is being led by the office of Theodore S. Hertzberg, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia.

Jeff DiSantis, a spokesman for Ms. Willis, said Friday that “we have no comment beyond the fact we have no knowledge of any investigation.”

Mr. Hertzberg’s office did not have any immediate comment.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/09/26/us/trump-news?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20250927&instance_id=163357&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=206694&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f

The Times story observes that Ms. Willis's travels with Nathan Wade (which formed part of the basis for defense lawyers' disqualification motions) took place in 2022 and 2023. But the current subpoena is seeking details of travel in the fall of 2024, around the time of last year’s election.

I am at a loss to understand how this is potentially a federal matter, whether civil or criminal. Can anyone help me out?

[LexAquilia]

They suspect she was coordinating indictments with the Biden WH.

[not guilty]

"They suspect she was coordinating indictments with the Biden WH."

So what if she was? Why would that be any concern of the federal prosecutor in Georgia?

But that would not fit the time frame that the NYT is reporting. The Georgia indictment was found by the grand jury on August 14, 2023. The current subpoena (which the Times apparently has seen a copy of) is seeking details of travel in the fall of 2024.

[bernard11]

So Kimmel is back on the air.

I guess all those comments about what a financial disaster he is are inoperative, right, MAGA's?

[Bunny495]

Broadcast TV is losing eyeballs and Kimmel's show is no exception. The most recent accounting is that his show loses around $US40,000,000 a year and since its highest rating years ago has far fewer viewers. The recent overnights for the last two days show what appears to be a short-lived bump. A week from now his ratings will most likely be back in the toilet.

[damikesc]

He lost nearly 70% of his big return audience the next night.

They are bleeding money with him.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The second entry on the docket in the Comey case is a “Report of a Grand Jury's Failure to Concur in an Indictment by USA.” Does that mean that Halligan had to present the case to two grand juries to get an indictment?

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71459121/united-states-v-comey/

[Estragon]

There is something very odd going on with this. It’s almost as if Ms Halligan doesn’t quite know what she’s doing.

“There was some confusion in the courtroom and from Judge Lindsey Vaala, who appeared puzzled by the multiple charging documents filed for one case. Vaala asked why there were two documents in the same case. Halligan told her, “I did not see,” to which Vaala replied, “It has your signature on it.”

Vaala then had Halligan make handwritten changes to one of the documents and said both documents would be uploaded to the docket for the record.”

I also question whether Ms Halligan can even act here in light of the decision regarding Ms Habba. This thing is already a dogs breakfast.

[not guilty]

As I understand it, a single grand jury was asked to return a three count indictment. The grand jurors found a true bill as to two charges, but a no bill as to a requested perjury charge.

Perjury and false statements to federal officials are distinct federal offenses, with different elements.

[Kenneth Almquist]

That makes sense. The “failure to concur” document has the handwritten words “count 1 only.” That would be a reference to the perjury charge, count 1 in the proposed indictment. Count 1 in the indictment filed against Comey was count 2 of the indictment proposed to the grand jury. Thanks.

[Michael P]

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-oregon-jury-convicts-violent-portland-antifa-ringleader-alissa-azar-of-felony-over-2021-attack

I wonder how many Antifa members and sympathizers will claim to be in Portland right now, doing journalism and totally not rioting, and assert that having cases dropped by a radical-left DA proves that Antifa isn't an organization, doesn't riot and doesn't make the city a hellhole.

[Estragon]

Truly pathetic.

“Rioting”

Point it out:

https://www.oregonlive.com/

https://katu.com/

https://www.kptv.com/

https://www.wweek.com/

[LexAquilia]

I can't believe your mad at an ANTIFA domestic terrorist being convicted by a jury.

Well, actually I can believe it. You're a Democrat Supremacist yourself.

[Estragon]

That is not what I am objecting to.

[Estragon]

Any update on your pal Caden?

[LexAquilia]

Yes, he was last seen yelling "THIS IS MAGA COUNTRY", and getting all charges dropped by a friendly MAGA DA and then getting a Presential Medal of Freedom.

[Estragon]

So not actually kidnapped by 4 Hispanic gentlemen?

[Michael P]

I can believe it, too. Estrogen claims a suspicious level of familiarity with the Antifa rioting in Portland, and recently claimed to be in the city (and IIRC, closer to the downtown riot areas than my new program manager).

The local Antifa cell has elaborate processes for joining and verifying membership. While we could check, I'm sure they would deny that any identifiable person is actually a member...

[Estragon]

“downtown riot areas”

Again, risible and false, no matter how many times you say it.

Point it out:

https://www.oregonlive.com/

https://katu.com/

https://www.kptv.com/

https://www.wweek.com/

[Michael P]

https://nypost.com/2025/09/27/us-news/trump-orders-troop-deployment-to-war-ravaged-portland-to-protect-ice-facilities-authorizing-full-force/

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2025/09/federal-cops-instigating-confrontations-with-protesters-outside-ice-building-portland-police-official-says-in-court.html

https://www.foxnews.com/us/anti-ice-portland-rioters-guillotine-clash-police-burn-flag-war-like-scenes

Meanwhile, the only kind of law that state and local officials bother to enforce:

https://www.theblaze.com/news/portland-to-issue-violation-against-ice-facility-under-siege-by-antifa-extremists

[Estragon]

LOL you didn’t even read past the headlines of any of these articles.

NY Post regurgitating Trump claims from this morning. Fox News reporting on the dozens, yes dozens, of people protesting the ICE facility in SW Portland, as has been consistently happening for months, which I stated. Fox News chose this particular evening, but what was the upshot? No arrests, crowd dispersed.

The only local news source you COULD come up with also says exactly what I said: the police bureau thinks that federal officers are instigating confrontations with protesters.

I’m still waiting for you to identify the “riot zones.” I was literally just downtown— must have missed them!

And our blessed President comes out this morning and calls Portland “war-ravaged.” The level of delusional mania to refer to the Rose City in that manner (despite admittedly not having been here) when we are getting daily pictures of truly war-ravaged cities, like for example I don’t know… GAZA… is off the charts.

And you spend your free time coming here to excuse it all! Sad, and a complete waste.

[Michael P]

Antifa bootlicker denialists gonna denialist. I think you're not even convincing yourself.

[Estragon]

So very pathetic. Again, I am waiting for you to identify “riot zones” that I can go check out later today. Anytime, gobshite!

[Estragon]

War ravaged!

https://www.camscape.com/webcam/pioneer-square-webcam-in-portland/

https://katu.com/weather/cameras

[Estragon]

“bootlicker”

One really has to wonder about the mindset of a person cheering on domestic military deployment calling other people bootlickers.

[Sarcastr0]

a suspicious level of familiarity with the Antifa rioting in Portland

Haha you suck so hard, dude.

[Sarcastr0]

Remember how I said Andy Ngo doesn't report, he lies?

This takes a legit criminal who did legit crimes and tries to turn it into an Antifa operation or something.

Her tweets from 2021 are evidence she sucks, they're not really proof of more than Antifa was a brand 4 years ago. There's nothing indicating an organization.

Though Ngo works very hard to make it seem otherwise. Calling her a leader of Antifa, talking about her 'comrades' and generally rambling a great deal to try and turn this legit bad lady who did bad things into a much sider situation.

It's a mix of facts, opinion, and assertion, meant to create a false impression of some currently active vast evil leftist organization.

It's propaganda.

[Estragon]

They are surging federal agents in an attempt to engineer a confrontation. Federal officers have been instigating confrontations, PPD said as much in open court this week. Local and federal electeds had a press conference yesterday pointing out the obvious attempt to create conflict. This is escalatory. They were driving around in a massive armored vehicle yesterday attempting to rile people up. I detect the hand of Steven Miller.

[Sarcastr0]

Agree with all.

Since Kirk's death, can see the MAGA here, as everywhere else, are burning with hate and eager for some anti-liberal violence.

But that level of bloodlust is only sustainable for so long.

[LexAquilia]

Y'all have managed to keep it up for quite a while now...

[Estragon]

Hey did they find Caden yet?

[Brett Bellmore]

Speaking of, care to respond?

[Sarcastr0]

I think Ingersoll, pretending that the words wrote wrote aren't the words he wrote, immediately in the exact same article went right back on his bullshit.

Not liking a charging decision is not a conspiracy by prosecutors to let liberals off easy so conservatives live in fear.
Even if it's "a brutish, hulking woman" (Ingersoll has issues).

By the end he's right back to laying the bullshit predicate that the right's gotta do violence to stop the left, who control the courts.

It remains a rationale to violence. Or maybe just lynching judges. Do you approve?

[Brett Bellmore]

The words he wrote are, in fact, the words he wrote, and I linked to them, and you're the one pretending.

So, you have no comment on the decision to let off the hook somebody who, open and shut, committed aggravated assault? Right in front of a camera? Then bragged about doing it?

Nothing to see here, move along?

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t know the facts. But I also know that the vast majority of punches are not prosecuted.
I also know single examples don’t mean shit, even if you really want them to.

He’s trying to pretend his call for violence was hypothetical when he said nothing to indicate such. And when is follow-up makes it clear his attitude has not changed.

[Mr. Bumble]

"I don’t know the facts."
...and you never want to. That's one of your problems.

[Joe_dallas]

Note - only one of his many problems

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But I also know that the vast majority of punches are not prosecuted."

The vast majority of punches are not on video.

[Michael P]

They're also usually instigated by mutual escalation, which I gather wasn't the case here, because the woman who got punched was being interviewed at the time.

It's no wonder Gaslight0 doesn't want to know the facts, because he'd have to come up with some better rationalization of this violence than pretending it's like a bar fight.

[ThePublius]

"the woman who got punched was being interviewed at the time."

No, the woman who got punched was conducting the interview. But I got what you meant.

[damikesc]

Weird how the Right has NOT engaged in violence while the Left STILL is doing so.

[ThePublius]

That's bullshit. The same actors have been spotted and apprehended in diverse geographical locations, right on time to sow unrest and commit violence and mayhem. I mean, they even have flags and uniforms, of sort. Just because their organization hasn't been cracked, due to a "look the other way" previous administration and FBI, doesn't mean that no organization exists.

Someone. or some group if funding and coordinating these characters, that is for certain. Now that the FBI is being turned around perhaps we'll get to the bottom of it.

[Sarcastr0]

I like how you slip into leaglish copish speak with this bullshit.

OMG the branding includes a flag! And violent radicals are repeat offenders!
None of that is proof of an organization.

Brett tried the uniform bit and came up with 'wears black and a mask.' Which is not a uniform, it's clothes at a protest.

Just because their organization hasn't been cracked
The absence of evidence!!

You're playing all the hits.

But your tin foil is evident to all, and Ngo is still a liar.

[Absaroka]

Disagree.

Some organized crime is really organized. Some of the outlaw biker gangs are incorporated, for goodness sake. They publish bylaws, have corporate lawyers, trademark stuff, elect officers, keep meeting minutes and etc.

Some isn't. Just ask the mafia ... they will tell you there is no mafia, it's just a slur on Italian-American business people. You can believe that if you want.

Lots of others - Crips, Bloods, what have you. They aren't carrying membership cards either.

I dunno why there is such denial on the left about Antifa. It's not a good look, right or left, to deny the hoodlums on your side.

[Sarcastr0]

Some organized crime is really organized
That's not evidence of anything about Antifa.

Just ask the mafia ... they will tell you there is no mafia
That's not evidence of anything about Antifa.

Crips, Bloods, what have you. They aren't carrying membership cards
That's not evidence of anything about Antifa.

I'm denying stuff about Antifa because it's right-wing fan fiction. If something comes out to the contrary, I'll eat my words. But so far it's just hunger for a villain.

[Absaroka]

We're gonna have to disagree on this one.

[Brett Bellmore]

And all those other groups that would tell you they're not groups, you're not seeing a pattern, because you don't want to.

"If something comes out to the contrary, I'll eat my words."

If something comes out to the contrary, it will be reported someplace you don't respect, because the sources you DO respect wouldn't report something like that.

"But so far it's just hunger for a villain."

We're not arguing about whether there are villains, that's already established. We're arguing over how organized the villains are.

[ThePublius]

Sarc is just in deep denial on this, due to his near-religious devotion to progressivism and liberalism.

"Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntifə/) is a left-wing anti-fascist and anti-racist political movement. It is sometimes described as a highly decentralized array of autonomous groups in the United States.[1][2] Antifa political activism includes nonviolent methods of direct action such as poster and flyer campaigns, mutual aid, speeches, protest marches, and community organizing.[3][4][5] Some who identify as antifa also use tactics involving digital activism, doxing, harassment, physical violence, and property damage. Supporters of the movement aim to combat far-right extremists, including neo-Nazis and white supremacists.[6]

Individuals involved in the movement subscribe to a range of left-wing ideologies, and tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-state views. A majority of individuals involved are anarchists, communists, and socialists,[7] although some social democrats also participate in the antifa movement.[5][8][9] The name antifa and the logo with two flags representing anarchism and communism are derived from the German antifa movement.[10] Dartmouth College historian Mark Bray, author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, credits Anti-Racist Action (ARA) as the precursor of modern antifa groups in the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)#:~:text=A%20majority%20of%20individuals%20involved,from%20the%20German%20antifa%20movement.

[Magister]

There is a long history and plenty of testimony from disaffected mafiosos regarding the Mafia. The Crips and Bloods are both loosely connected associations of individual gangs also with a long history. Antifa doesn't have any of that history of organization or the same amount of identifying signs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Antifa has as long a history, and its defectors, too. It's just that if you defect from Antifa, no source Sarcastr0 would be willing to read will report what you have to say.

[Magister]

Another Brett Bellmore conspiracy; omerta is stronger with antifa than with the Mafia. Sarcastr0 seems perfectly willing to read opinions in court cases, so apparently the conspiracy extends to the entire justice system.

[ThePublius]

This is an interesting story. Remember back in 2008 or so, the mortgage-backed securities fiasco? Well, here we go again:

"Tricolor Auto Group, the nation’s seventh largest used car dealer (and 3rd biggest in Texas and California), just filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy – e.g. liquidation. Its target customer had been illegal aliens, and with President Trump deciding to start enforcing the nation’s immigration laws, there has suddenly been a major “market correction” in that market segment. Not only has the customer base largely evaporated, but so have loan repayments, which Tricolor also serviced.

The “tri colors” that the name references are the colors of the Mexican flag – red, white, and green.

While the sudden loss of customers and loan repayments was the catalyst that caused the final collapse of Tricolor, its failure has revealed so much more, including securities fraud, Wall Street ESG gimmickry, race-based federal programs, etc.

Tricolor has securitized more than $2 billion of its very high risk auto loans over the past seven years. The most recent issuance was in June of this year, with JP Morgan Chase and other money center banks peddling more than $200 million of “social bonds” to credulous investors. These securities are certified as “social bonds” by the US Treasury’s CDFI (“Community Development Financial Institution”) program because Tricolor focuses on selling its cars and financial services to underserved communities, specifically Spanish-speaking non-citizens. Tricolor’s CEO, Daniel Chu, was quoted by Barron’s in 2022 as stating, “No one else is providing meaningful dollar credit to an illegal immigrant.”"

And it gets worse.

https://ace.mu.nu/archives/416621.php

[Michael P]

No one else is providing meaningful dollar credit to an illegal immigrant.

I daresay he has Found Out why that is.

[Estragon]

Sounds like the “credulous investors” chasing high returns were the ones who found out, no?

I am curious as to the basis for the “securities fraud” claim, however.

[ThePublius]

I guess you didn't read the linked article. You just assume a particular good guy/bad guy scenario without knowing the facts. Here's another excerpt:

"Per Car Dealership Guy, Tricolor’s bonds have collapsed to a value of 12 cents on the dollar, virtually wiping out the investors who bought those bonds. But as bad as this all sounds so far, it’s actually worse. There was massive fraud by Tricolor, which is causing losses to all parties who did business with it.

The banks who were packaging Tricolor’s securities also had lines of credit extended to Tricolor. There was a recent regulatory filing by Fifth Third Bank revealing that it was booking a $200 million impairment (loss) for fraud involving one of its customers. In this filing, Fifth Third disclosed that there was “recently discovered alleged external fraudulent activity at a commercial borrower,” and that it “is working with the appropriate law enforcement authorities in connection with this matter.” Barron’s confirmed that this commercial borrower was Tricolor. JP Morgan Chase also has about $200 million in loans outstanding to Tricolor, so it too will almost certainly be booking a massive impairment charge for this unrecoverable debt.

Some of the news reports about the Tricolor fraud state that collateral was “double pledged,” meaning that unbeknownst to the banks lending money to Tricolor, the collateral they thought was backing up their loans was also pledged to other banks."

[emphasis mine]

[Estragon]

“good guy/bad guy scenario”

No…. That sort of seemed like what you were doing in focusing on the lendees. I happen to know something about securitization from a former life. It’s curious to me that your impression of the bad actors in 2008 seems to be that it was the originators, because you are making that comparison here. It may be true that this particular originator was a bad actor (the primary evidence seems to be “news reports”), but I think you might be surprised the degree to which the banks selling these securitized products do not actually care about the quality and state of the collateral. They don’t hold these securities, and in my experience, will still close these deals even with significant impairments in the collateral already evident even at the time of closing. You should also ask yourself if this originator would act in the same way without JPM being eager to buy, securitize, and sell to stuffees. When I was working in this industry, the demand from our client for home loans to securitize was definitely driving the issuance of increasingly dodgy home loans until it all blew up in their face.

[Mr. Bumble]

As always Caveat Emptor.

[Estragon]

I mean, I should think so if you’re going around buying securitized pools of subprime car loans…

[ThePublius]

There's enough "bad guy" to go around. I'm not absolving the lenders at all, as they should have done due dilligence and not foisted these garbage securities upon their clients. And Tricolor is guilty, too, of kiting and something of a ponzi scheme, along with double-pledging assets, and probably more if we look under the hood.

[Estragon]

“There's enough "bad guy" to go around”

I am glad you now agree with me but that wasn’t the thrust of your original comment.

[ThePublius]

You misinterpreted my original comment. The crime, the fraud, started with Tricolor. The banks, et.al., were ultimately co-conspirators.

[Estragon]

No. You tried to make it about perfidious immigrants.

[ThePublius]

No I didn't! I did no such thing.

[Mr. Bumble]

One SarcastrO is enough. Do better Estro.

[Estragon]

Oh ok. So what was it about this that interested you so?

[Sarcastr0]

Don’t piss on our legs and tell us it’s raining TP. Your OP was 4 paragraphs 3 of which mention illegal immigration or nationalism.

Plus, anyone familiar with Ace of Spades knows his beat isn’t double pledged auto groups.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is a public service announcement.

Harbor Freight drill bits are STILL made of Chinesium. Yeah, even the ones that say "HSS" on the label.

[Estragon]

“Chinesium”

Charming.

[Mr. Bumble]

Chinkesium?

[Estragon]

Vice signaling

[Mr. Bumble]

Certainly not virtue signalling.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, go pound sand. It's actually a pretty standard term in machinist circles. And justifiably so.

[ducksalad]

Harbor Freight generally has three (or more) brand levels for each product. The trick is to buy the one of the middle ones.

Mine have held up very well but I admit to rarely drilling anything harder than mild steel.

[Mr. Bumble]

Generally speaking, you get what you pay for.

[Brett Bellmore]

The GM transmission we are rebuilding has the bell housing held on by M10 Torx plus bolts. Which are,

1. Steel threaded into aluminum.
2. Locktighted.
3. Over-torqued.

All three, mind you, and one would be enough to cause trouble.

It took a special bit, heat, and a cheater bar to break most of them free, the head just stripped out on 3 of them. Just as it did for the professional mechanic who made the video we were following!

At that point what you do is drill out the head with an M10 or thereabouts drill, then you can remove the body with a big vise grip once the housing is off. But the heads are hardened... The first one worked fine, the next the drill was already dull. So I had to start small and work my way up.

By the time the job was done, I had at least 5 dull drills. And I don't own a Drill Doctor. But they were cheap, so I'm just regarding them as disposable.

[santamonica811]

I bought their circular saw for light use. It's been holding up splendidly for years and years. I got my mom one of their electric chainsaws--also for occasional light use. Again, it's been working like a dream for years. As duck alluded to; if you use their products in the way they seem to be intended for (ie, fairly light use), they are an incredible value. Or, at least in my experience, have been, in product after product after product.

(As Bumble says downthread, we tend to get what we pay for. But if I paid double, for a more sturdy chainsaw, I'd never actually see the benefit, because I [or my mum] will never have occasion to use the chainsaw in a way to "stress" the machine and thereby take advantage of the better quality. Or, to put it another way; to expose the inferior quality of the HF models.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Changes in grading standards are a bitch.

Same thing happened to beef under Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz. Grading standards prior to the Butz makeover gave plenty of consumers access to prime grade beef, and it was prime. Butz changed fat content standards, basically sliding the scale upward one notch, with the prime grade for some reason all but disappearing from most supermarkets. Either, "prime," got sold abroad, or the new standards for, "choice," made too-lean-to-be-tasty beef so easy to sell that little if any, "prime," remained to be found in ordinary markets.

That happened during the Nixon administration, and we are still stuck with it today. Sometimes I see prime rib roasts of beef for sale around Christmas time, at 3-digit prices per-roast. I remember when that was ordinary table fare for the middle class.

[ThePublius]

"Massachusetts' natural gas costs were 64.9% higher than the national average in December 2024, costing $2.510 per therm compared to the national average of $1.522 per therm, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). This significant increase follows a decade where Massachusetts natural gas prices rose 93%, compared to a national average increase of 25%."

And now we're getting an increase:

"Eversource requested a significant natural gas delivery rate increase in Massachusetts for the 2025 winter season, with approvals from state regulators leading to substantial bill hikes for customers starting November 1, 2025, and increasing their overall winter bills by approximately 13% or more. This increase combines higher delivery charges with the rising cost of the gas commodity itself, a factor driven by market forces and increased demand."

What the heck is going on here?

[Armchair]

"What the heck is going on here?"

The crux here is, why are prices in New England so much higher. The answer is, NE doesn't have the massive pipelines the rest of the country has. It has "some" pipelines, but the much of the natural gas for New England comes in as liquified natural gas. That of course, is a more expensive process.

NE has resisted building new major pipelines for years. And now, the bill is coming due.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Chicago Teachers Union memorializes a terrorist murderer.

We should eliminate public employee unions.

[ThePublius]

Yea, what on earth are those people thinking?

[Joe_dallas]

Teachers union activity tries to destroy the quality of education
from eliminating phonics, pushing social advocacy , covid school policies, etc.

As Twelve notes, they are praising a police killer .

[Daddyhill]

What's the difference between speaking to a reporter (e.g. from Politico) with a grant of anonymity, and leaking? Why not just give out a press release, since people are obviously talking about it anyhow?

[David Nieporent]

There's no formal official definition of those terms, so there are two possible responses I can come up with:

1) There's no difference.
2) Speaking to a reporter anonymously just means one's name can't be used; the term "leak" could be reserved for unauthorized disclosures to reporters.