Wednesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Good Morning!
Government still "shut down", gold breaks $4000/oz.

[Commenter_XY]

Silver doing quite nicely as well. In times of inflation or great uncertainty, commodities are the place to be.

Still not sold on BTC.

[Mr. Bumble]

Silver is just shy of its all time high of $49.95 (currently $48.82).
Of course that high was reached 45 years ago when the Hunt brothers tried to corner the market.

[Frank Drackman]

Did "45/47/48?" ever make that inspection of Fort Knox??

[Mr. Bumble]

NO! I don't think there has ever been a true audit of the Gold Reserve at Ft. Knox.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bumble, you get that high gold prices have not historically been predictors of good times to come, right?

[jb]

Secretary Noem made it to war-torn Portland and was able to see the devastating violence first hand:

https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1975662466874175498

LOL. To all of you posting about the city burning or the ICE facility being "under siege", do you feel kind of stupid now? Trump is trying to bring in the military to deal with a guy in a chicken suit...

[David Nieporent]

I mean, the thing is, we know what happened. Fox had, for whatever reason, aired some archival footage of what was happening in Portland in 2020. Trump saw this, and somehow got it into what passes for his mind that this was current, and so thought that Portland was a "war zone" and immediately ordered troops there, and everyone who works for him was too scared/sycophantic/sociopathic to tell him there was no need.

[Michael P]

As a reminder, this is what DaMN liars think is "archival footage of what was happening in Portland in 2020":

https://thepostmillennial.com/6-portland-antifa-militants-federally-charged-over-attacks-at-ice-facility
https://www.foxnews.com/us/anti-ice-portland-rioters-guillotine-clash-police-burn-flag-war-like-scenes
https://www.breitbart.com/border/2025/10/07/portland-dismisses-charges-against-journalist-arrested-while-covering-attack-on-ice-agents/

[David Nieporent]

Did you just hope nobody would click on those links?

[Michael P]

Get a real argument, liar.

[David Nieporent]

The "real argument" is that there was a court case over whether the National Guard's use here was legally appropriate. There was actual testimony, under oath, about the actual state of affairs on the ground. None of it matched the hysterical rantings of Donald Trump and his bootlickers like Michael P.

[Riva]

Actual testimony crazy Dave? As opposed to pretend testimony? But, and here’s the thing, pretend or actual, testimony doesn’t transform one judicial insurrectionist into the commander in chief. Outside of the deranged TDS wet dreams of crazy Dave.

It can’t be repeated enough. I know you’re an asshole, but do you have to be such a stupid asshole?

[Michael P]

He apparently doesn't have any choice in the matter.

[David Nieporent]

And being commander in chief doesn't transform the national guard into a game show host's personal militia.

[Riva]

No, that would be the commander in chief thing you witless ass.

[Bob from Ohio]

"game show host"

Twice elected President of the United States.

[David Nieporent]

Wow, so Bob has joined antifa in denying that Trump won the 2020 election!

[not guilty]

Riva, have you read Judge Immergut's October 4 order? https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.189270/gov.uscourts.ord.189270.56.0_1.pdf Yes or no?

Governing such part of the militia as may be employed in the Service of the United States is a function of Congress, per Article I, § 8 of the Constitution. Here Congress has done so by means of 10 U.S.C. § 12406. Inquiry into whether the President has or has not complied with that statute is properly within the judicial branch.

The Necessary and Proper clause of Article I, § 8 applies not only to the Congressional powers specified in Article I, but also to "all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." That includes the Commander in Chief power listed in Article II, § 2.

[Riva]

No, the judge is grossly abusing his power by playacting as commander in chief. It is by no means within the province of the judicial branch to determine if the United State is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; or if there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or if the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. Similar to the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, this is a determination that depends upon “matters of political judgment for which judges have neither technical competence nor official responsibility.” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 170 (1948).

The little judicial insurrectionist will be reversed. He and everyone furthering this disgrace of a case knows this. They don't care. The purpose is to undermine the administration with delaying tactics.

[not guilty]

"No, the judge is grossly abusing his power by playacting as commander in chief. It is by no means within the province of the judicial branch to determine if the United State is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; or if there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or if the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. Similar to the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, this is a determination that depends upon “matters of political judgment for which judges have neither technical competence nor official responsibility.” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 170 (1948)."

I doubt that Judge Karin Johanna Immergut " is grossly abusing his power." https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=karin+immergut+image&id=6694A90A8B3B65724DF3F7E46AE28992D45345A7&FORM=IACFIR And the term "insurrectionist" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, Riva.

A United States District Judge is fully capable of deciding, based on the evidentiary record presented, whether a plaintiff seeking a temporary restraining order has shown after an adversarial hearing, [1] that it is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest. Especially where, as here, the plaintiffs submit a boatload of evidence and the defendants submit nothing germane in response.

[Riva]

Wrong again. You’re confusing the President with an average civil litigant. All civil litigants are not vested with executive power, heading (embodying in fact) the executive branch, a coordinate branch of government, and the commander in chief. No other civil litigant is actually. And neither is any federal judge.

[Sarcastr0]

Michael -

Article 1 (by noted liar Andy Ngo) - 4 months ago, the FBI charged a total of 6 people in separate incidents with charges like failure to obey a lawful order and allegedly "using a drill and screws on plywood doors affixed to the building's exterior in an attempt to prevent federal officers from exiting the building."

Compare and contrast the January 06 charges. Michael reached way back to someone known to be dishonest about Antifa, and found this weak-ass not warzone stuff.

2. - "Footage that emerged overnight purportedly showed demonstrators burning a flag before law enforcement fired munitions to disperse a crowd that gathered outside the ICE field office. "
"Video then showed police clearing out the area, with the protesters yelling through loudspeakers "You are sad excuses for human beings!" and "You guys are violent, cowardly pigs!"

So the only guys that used force were ICE. Way to fail again, Michael!

3. Some right wing asshole had disorderly conduct charges dropped against him. Two other men will be prosecuted.

Not relevant to anything under discussion here, Michael!
-----------
So as DMN noted, you posted nothing on point for the 'Portland is a war zone' despite being quite willing to ignore credibility issues.

The right's working very hard to manufacture a reason to send troops into American cities. Michael is just the kinda servant to the police state to help them out. Luckily, he's too zealous to tell reality from fiction so he can't make good arguments.

[Sarcastr0]

Fox had, for whatever reason, aired some archival footage of what was happening in Portland in 2020. Trump saw this, and somehow got it into what passes for his mind that this was current,

Trump on Portland today:

"I don't know what could be worse than Portland. You don't even have stores anymore. They don't even put glass up. They put plywood on their windows."

"It's like the movies you see for the kids, I guess not only the kids, adults also, where you have these bombed out cities and these bombed out people. It's like, worse than that."

DMN is right.

[loki13]

Honestly, the trouble with Trump ... is that he lies so prolifically* that it's hard to tell if he is lying or if he genuinely believes what he is saying. Or if it's some weird combination.

Is he just doing his usual lying about what he wants to be true?
Or maybe he believes this because Fox can't be trusted to show what is happening, and he saw some 2020 footage?
Or maybe he saw some 2020 footage, and now he's combined it in his mind with something he saw about WW2 because, um, that's our Trump?

Who knows? But ... isn't that kind of a problem?

*The way you know he's lying is that his lips are moving.

[Sarcastr0]

It honestly doesn't matter in this case. Trump's following not leading.

This is a Miller push, and the MAGA media is following his lead. And Trump is following the MAGA media.

[Armchair]

Just curious...

Why are these protests happening "at night"?

If they aimed to gain attention to the cause, wouldn't daytime be more effective?

[Brett Bellmore]

When you're dressing all over in black, it's kind of uncomfortable being out in the sun at the hottest part of the day, would be my guess.

[Sarcastr0]

Step 1, check the facts.

They aren't all happening at night. There's a ton of footage during the day. Lots of costumes!

[Bob from Ohio]

No protest happens at night, just riots.

Left only riots.,

[Sarcastr0]

No one's allowed to protest at night! Bob decrees it!

Bob likes to perform as a nihilistic asshole, but every once in a while this unutterably boring lameo peeks out.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not a "decree", just an opinion.

You make Jovian pronouncements all the time so you ought to heal yourself.

[bernard11]

An opinion? About factual matters?

And a stupid one at that.

[Michael P]

https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2025/10/07/what-i-saw-at-the-ice-headquarters-n4944565

How many blocks of Portland are jb and other Antifa stans willing to cede to violent protesters who infringe other citizens' rights? The answer appears to be "at least five".

[Sarcastr0]

Your question is based on speculation. We have someone on the ground who posts here. He's linked to live cams. We have plenty of photos.

There are no blocks 'ceded to violent protestors' you lying handmaiden for authoritarianism.

[Brett Bellmore]

You seem to be confusing "there are blocks not" and "there are none". The link Michael (And I) provided is from someone on the ground, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Except if you actually read the article, the PJMedia content creator and right wing talk radio host who dressed herself in what she thought was an Antifa costume and took a quick spin around?

She didn't see anything. She just speculated a lot, and said Antifa a lot.

Your source is useless. Your 5 blocks is a lie.

[Estragon]

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2025/10/portland-leaders-seek-dialogue-while-kristi-noem-slams-local-electeds-as-pansies.html

Several blocks! It’s true! Oh, wait:

“Around noon, when Noem arrived at the ICE building in South Portland, about 20 people — most of whom were reporters — milled behind the police tape that Portland officers stretched across multiple intersections to block the building’s entrance for her visit.”

[Sarcastr0]

I saw the pics from the roof she was on.

Very menacing person in a chicken costume leaning violently and looking up at her with assaultivity.

[David Nieporent]

How many people are more gullible than Michael P.? The answer appears to be "None. None more gullible." There are no violent protesters infringing other citizens' rights — unless by that Michael P intends to refer to the gestapo who work there — and the "five blocks" in that fake news story came from noting that protesters met up at a park 4 blocks away and then walked to the ICE building.

Again, there's actual testimony under oath. The entire thing is lies by the Trump administration and its bootlickers.

[Zarniwoop]

How many people are more gullible than Michael P.? The answer appears to be "None. None more gullible."

I hope that's a Spinal Tap reference. Well played, sir.

[Reallynotbob]

Pulitzer Prize alert!
A blogger videotaped non-violent protesters during the daytime assembling food, blankets, and folding chairs on a sidewalk. Such devastation. What's MORE, she then encountered angry people who shouted at her not to film them... until law enforcement told the angry people she was in fact allowed to film. AND THEN THEY COMPLIED! Can you believe the trauma? War is indeed hell.

[Estragon]

One wonders why the Oregon GOP needs to use fake photos with all the real rioting going on:

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2025/10/the-oregon-gop-posted-about-federal-troops-coming-to-portland-using-stock-images-from-south-america.html

In happier news, the frog suit guy has returned. Note to Trumpists: be careful who you make a martyr.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oOQu4zQqiOY&t=39s&pp=2AEnkAIB

[Estragon]

“But we could easily create a new one with screen shots from Portland.”

Oh. They easily could— they’re just… busy.

[Mr. Bumble]

Where are all of the alphabet people celebrating the success of Bari Weiss now that Paramount has acquired the Free Press for $150 million and made Weiss editor-in-chief of CBS News?

[Bwaaah]

The world continues to evolve while the Democratic Party stands still. The 2020 awakening binds it to an intractable moral orthodoxy steeped, most essentially, in the ethos of "systemic racism." That ethos is the archetype for all the letters in their alphabet and more: race (but not white), religion (but not Christian or Jewish), sexual preference (but not heterosexual), nationality (but not American or Israeli or Russian), gender identity (but not unconfused people), political persuasions (but none to the right).

See the Journal of Free Black Thought if you're interested in a diversity of perspectives from "Black" people (and others). As one of its writers once said, "There is no 'black thought.' There are just black people with thoughts."

When all you have is systemic racism, everybody you care about looks like a pitiful Black dude. That's the [D]ifference. Bari Weiss and the FP don't come close to fitting their extremely narrow woke mold. Yes, woke. [D]emocratic ideology is still bound to that vibrant, living, crazy set of paradigms about history and power.

[John F. Carr]

Governor Newsom decided to appease Trump a little and position himself in the center for 2028 by signing a bill to combat antisemitism in schools. If you believe the ACLU and teachers' unions this is a terrible blow against Muslim students. Teachers also hate the requirement that their teaching material be "factually accurate." At the same time Newsom appealed to his ordinary base by creating a new bureaucracy to fight "LGBTQ discrimination".

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/10/07/governor-newsom-signs-bills-further-cracking-down-on-hate-and-antisemitism-in-california-schools/
https://apnews.com/article/california-gov-newsom-schools-antisemitism-law-c72f084e250e66b826dfefd883d3a99f

[John F. Carr]

We used to joke about the short lifetime of Italian governments. But the latest French government lasted less than a day. It may be too late to get a budget passed before the start of the new year. In America this is business as usual. In France it is considered a rare failure of government.

Le Monde opines: "France's political crisis shows leaders losing their sense of responsibility" (https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2025/10/07/france-s-political-crisis-shows-leaders-losing-their-sense-of-responsibility_6746187_23.html)

[OpinionsVary]

France is semi-presidential. That mean it has a president with actual powers but also a prime minster responsible to the legislature. Due to changes in 2000 normalising term lengths, the president and the legislature get elected at the same time and, as such, the president normally ends up with a majority of their own party in legislature. This is how the system is 'meant' to work.

The alternative is called Cohabitation - when the PM and the President come from alternate parties. The system still works here - at least mostly. And you sort of end up with a more US style system, with the PM leading on domestic stuff and the President leading on foreign affairs.

Unfortunately France doesn't have that either at the moment. Decades of de-facto two-party system have broken down, meaning there is no majority in the legislature for anyone. You have a left wing alliance ranging from far left to the more moderate Socialist Party. You have Macron's centralist faction sitting in the middle, unable to peel off enough support from either side. Then you have the right wing faction, ranging from the moderate rump of the Republicans all the way to the far right National Rally. And any attempt to build an actual majority from these groups just doesn't work.

So the entire system is completely breaking down, with PMs lasting weeks at most before being brought down. Macron has some reserve powers to force things through but he's already tried that and popular resentment is already growing. New elections aren't likely to help either. The entire situation is just stuck.

[Mr. Bumble]

So France is becoming the new Italy (or former Italy as they seem to be doing quite well currently)?

[Brett Bellmore]

I've often thought that, if you can't achieve a consensus that something ought to be done by government, perhaps this is a clue that it shouldn't be done.

Maybe governments, generally, should downscale themselves to the point where they're only doing things that there's a societal consensus about doing, and you'd find it easier to form a government to do them?

[David Nieporent]

Maybe governments, generally, should downscale themselves to the point where they're only doing things that there's a societal consensus about doing, and you'd find it easier to form a government to do them?

It would not, because you're pretending that the compromise position between the side that wants to do A, B, and C and the side that only wants to do A and is opposed to B and C is to adopt the second side's position and only do A. But that will not get the first side on board, for obvious reasons.

[Life of Brian]

I haven't had a ton of coffee yet this morning, but I was able to see that Brett said "consensus" and your response says "compromise." Those are rather different concepts.

I'm not sure there's a better example of consensus than doing A when that's what everyone wants to do.

[Bunny495]

David you seem to ignore the Thomas Jefferson famously wrote: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The key point being "consent of the governed". At the time America was formed there was consent that national defense and intra state commerce as well as no taxation without representation.

Fast forward to present day and there is not as much consent about representation with no taxation. Your consent on A but not on B and/or C is just plain silly. If there is consent on A then A is a big OK. If there is no consent on B and/or C then B and/or C and eat shit and die and not be used as a bargaining chip to ram B and/or C through.

Bottom line is there is way too much horse trading where bills can only pass if they are literally thousands of pages long and as Nancy famously said, 'we have to pass it to see what is in it'. It is way past time to have clean single-issue bills just like required of political petitions that can pass laws, require votes on laws, recall or get candidates on the ballot, and other stuff.

[David Nieporent]

I am not making any claims about which side is right, which side is wrong, which side is justified, etc. I am simply observing that if someone wants the government to do something, then a result that involves the government not doing that thing is not going to make it easier to form a government.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I'm simply observing that if you give up on the idea that you SHOULD be doing things that lack majority support, screw log rolling, you probably can form a government.

Just a much reduced government that only does popular things.

[Sarcastr0]

After the Articles of Confederation failed, the Founders set up a government as a mix between populist and elite institutions, set up to allow it to do things that lacked majority support.

[bernard11]

Are you now backtracking from "consensus" to "majority support?"

And then claiming that the government should only do things that have that support? And having it, that anything is legitimate?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't see it as backtracking. Is there a strict numerical threshold for "consensus" other than 50% plus 1? Not that I'm aware of.

Ideally, of course, consensus should require more than that, some weighting of intensity: Prudentially, if 51% of the public have a mild preference for a policy, and 49% hate it with a passion, it's probably not worth pursuing.

And legitimate is, in my view, the intersection of publicly supported and constitutionally permissible.

But the point is fundamental: Screw log rolling, tell people who try to hold popular measures hostage to get unpopular things to stuff it, the government should stick to doing no more than what a majority supports.

[David Nieporent]

Is there a strict numerical threshold for "consensus" other than 50% plus 1? Not that I'm aware of.

Well, strictly speaking, the threshold for consensus is 100%.

[Bunny495]

Currently I would say the de jure definition of consensus is 60 votes in the Senate. This is some where between 50%+1 and 100%. It also acknowledges that a minority of 40%+1 that feel strongly can stop 60%-1 that feels meh. While you can quibble about which numbers are best both of these concepts do exist with the current government.

I tend to favor at least a super majority to enact stuff since even a small change in positions can reverse things. Once the dems started the ball rolling with the nuclear option the pubs were quick to expand it and I have no doubt both sides will continue to expand it when they view it as an advantage.

[Bob from Ohio]

"So the entire system is completely breaking down"

the republican fantasy has failed again. Time for a restoration to the legitimate ruler of France!

"Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon, Prince of Montfort (born Jean-Christophe Louis Ferdinand Albéric Napoléon Bonaparte; 11 July 1986), is a French businessman and the disputed head of the Imperial House of France, and as such the heir of Napoleon Bonaparte, the first Emperor of the French. He would be known as Napoleon VIII. "

[Krayt]

Due to changes in 2000 normalising term lengths, the president and the legislature get elected at the same time

I dunno. Sounds like a power grab design. Staggering them does exactly the opposite of what the power mongers want: control. At least some of the time.

[OpinionsVary]

As I said, France is only semi presidential. Executive power is shared between the President and the PM, with the former directly elected and the late appointed based upon the ability to command a majority in parliament. Having two halves of not just government but *executive* government pulling against each other doesn't work very well. Hence the changes to reduce cohabitation.

I think cohabitation is a uniquely bad problem in semi-presidential systems. Full presidential and full parliamentary either don't have the problem or have it manifest in very different ways. In semi-presidential it manifests as a extreme degree of negative friction.

[John F. Carr]

Some legal hair-splitting from Sweden: "Swedish appeals court partially acquits far-right activist who burned copies of Koran." In Sweden it is illegal to criticize Muslims. It is legal to criticize Islam. What did the defendant mean when he burned a Koran? Maybe it was a legal attack on Islam.

For an American analogy, is an attack on Zionism distinguishable from an attack on Jews? This matters a lot when Title IX is in play.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/tommy-tuberville-biden-administration-fbi/2025/10/07/id/1229422/

Q: Will any DOJ/FBI staff involved with Arctic Frost see the inside of a jail cell?

Yes or no?

Should some? Yes.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Should some? Yes."
Like Jack Smith?

[Commenter_XY]

Thank God Senator McConnell blocked that snake, Merrick Garland, from SCOTUS. For that alone, he should get a medal of freedom.

[David Nieporent]

Q: Will any DOJ/FBI staff involved with Arctic Frost see the inside of a jail cell?

Yes or no?

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

Should some? Yes.

For what crime, exactly?

Hint: despite what a college football coach thinks, investigating Republicans for criminal activity is not actually a criminal offense.

[jay.tee]

You seem to be awfully comfortable with a politicized DOJ conducting fishing expeditions and spying on opposition politicians.

Or is that just when the “targets” - really victims - of such abuses are Republicans?

[David Nieporent]

I would not in fact be comfortable with a politicized DOJ conducting fishing expeditions and spying on opposition politicians.

[jay.tee]

That doesn’t at all comport with your history of defending, downplaying, or outright denying the Obama and Biden administrations flagrantly abused surveillance powers to continually spy on the opposition.

[Sarcastr0]

You have 5 comments here so far.

1. Attacking DMN for something he doesn't believe.
2. Clarifying that DMN totally believes the thing he doesn't believe because he was such a big Obama fan.

3. Accusing me of denying there was a CIA memo when I did nothing
4. Accusing me of the same thing again.

5. Asserting with no real argument that DMN has a 'denialist take' on the memo.
----
So you're not a guy who makes arguments, you're a guy who accuses people of things...

Are you another Joe_dallas sockpuppet?

[jay.tee]

Holy projection from the ascriber-in-chief himself!

[Riva]

Apparently, Crazy Dave wholeheartedly approves of the corrupt Biden administration using the thug Smith to spy on republican senators. Makes Watergate look like a prank.

Almost makes me think all the unhinged rants of fascism directed at the Trump administration are just more projection. No, actually it’s not “almost.”

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

What criminal activity did Graham, Blackburn, et al engage in?

[David Nieporent]

Well, they weren't charged (and certainly weren't convicted), so perhaps none. But that determination comes after an investigation, not before!

[Life of Brian]

But that determination comes after an investigation, not before!

Yes, how quickly we forget this was back in an era where you could just start investigating people to see if they did anything wrong. /semi-sarc

Looking around a bit, I don't see any sort of real attempt to articulate what the probable cause might have been to dig into that specific group of people. Anything tangible in your circles?

[David Nieporent]

Probable cause is the standard for a search warrant (or indictment), not for an investigation. Virtually definitionally, one will not have probable cause before one starts investigating. One investigates, develops probable cause or not, and — if the former — then one can proceed to obtaining a warrant.

[Life of Brian]

One investigates, develops probable cause or not, and — if the former — then one can proceed to obtaining a warrant.

Like, just strictly for example, a warrant to pull someone's phone call records?

[David Nieporent]

No, not like that, because law enforcement obtaining phone call logs does not in fact require a warrant. Smith v. Maryland 442 U.S. 735 (1979).

[Life of Brian]

This is feeling like a magic-word game. Are you actually taking the position that a prosecutor can obtain your call records at any time and for any reason whatsoever, just because they feel like it?

[not guilty]

The criterion for opening an investigation is adequate predication (according to Justice Department guidelines), not probable cause.

[bernard11]

back in an era where you could just start investigating people to see if they did anything wrong.

Are you delusional? That is going on today, and is heartily approved of by MAGA idiots.

[Life of Brian]

I mean, I did just take a ton of flack a day or two ago for suggesting that there might be a set of on-the-ground exigent circumstances where ICE could enter an apartment in a gang-controlled complex without holding out a warrant in front of them with that specific apartment number. But surely that's not the sort of thing you're referring to.

If you're aware of the current administration subpoenaing political enemies' phone records solely on the basis of having a nagging feeling they might have done something naughty, I'd like to read about that.

[ducksalad]

So you're saying they've reformed themselves and stopped doing it? It was going on during Trump's previous term.

https://www.npr.org/2024/12/10/g-s1-37644/justice-department-subpoenae-trump

[Life of Brian]

Well, I guess if all that's out there is a report by the Biden IG explicitly finding no evidence of political motivation for Trump-era prosecutors who subpoenaed communication records of a literally 50/50 bipartisan group of people who all had access to classified information right around the time it was leaked, that's a pretty solid answer to my question.

[windycityattorney]

The apartment complex referenced in your previous comment - if the one in Chicago - was a lot more than 'an apartment.' There was like 50. All entered, all without a warrant, everybody including little children zip tied. Some naked.

Its disgusting and a total violation of the 4th amendment.

[Life of Brian]

There was like 50.

Oh. So we're down to 50 out of 130 apartments rather than every apartment in the building?

Seriously: what's the source for this new estimate, and what reason is there to believe it's more reality-based than the first round of stories?

All entered, all without a warrant

Two days ago you at least admitted uncertainty on this. Same questions as above.

[not guilty]

XY, which federal statute(s) do you contend were violated during the
Arctic Frost investigation?

Please cite by number.

[bernard11]

WTF? The FBI, not Biden, conducted an investigation. That's part of their job.

Look, XY. Whether you an face facts or not, there were crimes committed on Jan. 6, including violent crimes. Should they not investigate?

The so-called "spying" took place in 2022, and consisted of looking at four days' worth of call records. But Grassley is calling it "worse than Watergate," and you think major felonies were committed.

Nutso.

[Stephen Lathrop]

With government shut down, time to enliven the tedium with a little political fantasy. But not complete fantasy. Start with a fact. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson continues to refuse to swear in Arizona special election winner Adelita Grijalva. CNN reported:

Speaker Mike Johnson is not planning to allow Democrats’ newest congresswoman-elect to be sworn-in until her party agrees to end the government shutdown, despite telling CNN earlier Tuesday that he would swear her in “as soon as she wants.”

“We will swear in Rep.-Elect [Adelita] Grijalva as soon as the House returns to session when Chuck Schumer, Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego decide to open up the government,” a leadership aide said.

With that conduct, Speaker Johnson remains in violation of his oath to support the Constitution. He has no legitimate power to tamper with an election outcome, nor to negate its effect in the slightest. Johnson is replaying on a smaller stage Trump's attempt to stop the vote counting in Congress.

Speaker Johnson would not be doing that if he could be called to account for his oath breaking, and tossed from his House seat as he ought to be.

A federal grand jury in DC ought to act on its own initiative, and hand down a presentment to Johnson for oath breaking. Assert in the presentment that the Constitutional oath requirement to hold office is self-enforcing, and thus the grand jury's finding that Johnson broke his oath disqualifies him from office.

Let the Supreme Court rule, if it wants to, that oaths of office are useless ceremony, and nobody can hold office holders to faithful performance of an oath. Then hand down federal grand jury presentments to each Justice who has broken his/her own oath with that ruling.

Or if doing that seems too much like Trump/MAGA political antics to be realistic, just start talking it up as a possibility. My guess is that Adelita Grijalva would get sworn in PDQ.

[Commenter_XY]

Keep dreaming, lathrop.

[Brett Bellmore]

"A federal grand jury in DC ought to act on its own initiative, and hand down a presentment to Johnson for oath breaking. ...

Let the Supreme Court rule, if it wants to, that oaths of office are useless ceremony, and nobody can hold office holders to faithful performance of an oath. Then hand down federal grand jury presentments to each Justice who has broken his/her own oath with that ruling."

Then, when the public reelect Republicans, your DC grand jury can hand down presentments for 51% of the electorate, too.

You're proposing that a grand jury in the most politically extreme city in the country, on its own initiative, set out to take over the country, and indict anyone who says "No". As revolutionary fantasies go, it's not the most realistic.

[Mr. Bumble]

"As revolutionary fantasies go, it's not the most realistic."
It's Lathrop. Realistic is not his style.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bumble — In this case, avowedly not.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — I worry that, "reelect Republicans," may not remain the honest yardstick you tout it to be. Given absence of complaint by you about Johnson's conduct, I doubt you care.

By the way, are you all-in with the military-style attack on a Chicago apartment building? American citizens' apartments got their doors bashed down. Warrants?

Residents, including children, got hauled out in zip ties, to let the government go through and trash their apartments.

It was theater of course, complete with assault forces rappelling down from Blackhawks.

Is that a style of governance you want established for the next D government to use? Or are you already fully committed to no more D governments ever?

[Mr. Bumble]

"By the way, are you all-in with the military-style attack on a Chicago apartment building? American citizens' apartments got their doors bashed down. Warrants?"
Do you have a cite or link for this?

[Brett Bellmore]

"By the way, are you all-in with the military-style attack on a Chicago apartment building?"

I am gradually disengaging from the news, as I prepare for my retirement, (Which I plan to devote to gardening and fishing and similar unstressful activities.) so I can't say I've been following the news out of Chicago closely.

A quick scan of the news reports shows what happened there to be deeply contested. The fog of war, really, and that's only barely metaphorical; Neither side in the fight between the Trump administration's efforts to maximally enforce immigration law, and open borders fanatics attempts to maximally frustrate enforcement, are showing much in the way of restraint or honesty. I think this issue might actually be the trigger for a civil war, if we have one soon.

I'd expect that the actual truth is somewhere in the middle between the administration's "we were just innocently enforcing the law" and the immigration law nullifiers' "it was an indiscriminant military raid". You seem to have picked the latter side and decided to believe everything they say.

Certainly the administration has not been exactly hewing to the straight and narrow, they've been cutting corners all over the place, and I think deliberately so, in order to achieve a high level of self-deportation by creating fear among illegal immigrants as to their fate if they stick around.

While I WANT immigration laws enforced, I'm not down with that approach. Like I've said before, the Trump administration seems determined to fulfill its campaign promises, but in the most obnoxious ways possible.

But, to put it bluntly, the other side in this conflict aren't exactly angels. They've been deliberately encouraging and facilitating massive violations of US law, and they're not above lying to help things along.

So, I don't really know what the objective reality in Chicago is, but I'm reasonably sure it's not as EITHER side wants us to believe.

[Brett Bellmore]

As an example, "Residents, including children, got hauled out in zip ties, to let the government go through and trash their apartments. "

Zip tying children

An old parody video, repurposed by the immigration law nullifiers.

[not guilty]

"A federal grand jury in DC ought to act on its own initiative, and hand down a presentment to Johnson for oath breaking. Assert in the presentment that the Constitutional oath requirement to hold office is self-enforcing, and thus the grand jury's finding that Johnson broke his oath disqualifies him from office."

There are at least a couple of problems there, rendering that proposed course of action ineffectual.

For one, Congress has not declared or defined "oath breaking" to be a federal crime. More importantly, though, per Article I, § 5 of the Constitution, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — Note that no crime has been alleged. Nor ought any crime be required to render a sworn federal officer unfit for office on the basis of violating an oath. The oath requirement stands apart as a separate Constitutional provision; it is not part of the criminal law.

But I think we all must concede that a successful candidate for office who refused the oath remains unqualified to be seated. Thus, acceptance of the oath is a legitimate qualification for office which a candidate must satisfy. I have taken the barely-perceptible extra step to assert that an office holder who is found in violation of his/her oath likewise becomes unqualified.

None of that contravenes or even weakens the Congressional rules provisions you cite. Oath requirements and Constitutional rules provisions are non-overlapping sets.

Of course you could argue that choice of a grand jury presentment as a means to accomplish all that looks sketchy. That would be a stronger argument than the one you made, I think.

But even that seems to lack persuasive power to prove: ". . . a couple of problems there, rendering that proposed course of action ineffectual." What renders political stuff ineffectual is legitimate government power exercised to the contrary. Or in the absence of that contrary power, simple political vacuity. Pure silliness tends to be politically ineffectual.

Knowing that, you have to estimate for yourself, case-by-case, whether some striking and perhaps unprecedented political action has potential to deliver political effect. My estimate is that a grand jury presentment for oath breaking handed down against the Speaker of the House, or against a Supreme Court Justice, would at least prove memorable. Even historically memorable, I think.

It might have whatever effect a shot fired across the bows of a naval adversary could be expected to have—meaning that a lot of other factors, contexts, relative forces of the adversaries, and future prospects, might all come into play. If firing a shot like that induced even a small cautious course change among Supreme Court justices, that would be a good thing.

Longer term, I will henceforth insist that action either to legislate, or to install by amendment, a means to charge oath breaking will prove necessary for American constitutionalism. Except for reliance on sworn oaths, Trump v. United States has demonstrably rendered ineffectual every other constraint on the Executive, short of the impeachment power. That latter being rendered almost ineffectual by historical experience, the nation is now ruled formally by an all-powerful Executive as unconstrained as any king-by-divine right in history.

But as a practical matter, a vain-hope sort of blessing still survives. That blessing is whatever Constitutional loyalty still prevails among the harrowed remnant of government office holders.

Alas, mere individual loyalty is no match for Executive targeting, and that loyal remnant are going down fast. The effect of an acknowledged means to enforce oaths for those who take them would weld sworn office holders together in common pro-Constitutional cause, and thus bulwark resistance. It would make the Constitution itself stronger.

[not guilty]

I did "Note that no crime has been alleged." That is part of what I am kvetching about. What you propose exceeds the authority of a federal grand jury.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — An assertion that anything exceeds the authority of a federal grand jury remains incoherent unless it posits a contrary higher authority. Given that a federal grand jury is not part of any of the 3 branches, no obvious line of formal authority appears to constrain the grand jury. Asserted authority, of course, may be another question.

If you rely instead on a notion of separation of powers as means of constraint, that runs contrary to a historical notion that the federal grand jury is a tribune of the jointly sovereign People. It thus exercises authority not only independent of all the branches, but in some ways superior to them.

If you look instead to history and tradition, and explore colonial American interpretations, you find precedents most modern legal observers would call surprisingly broad. I admit I am not aware of any among those precedents—which I have not studied—which touch directly on the question of oath breaking.

I do know that some colonies asserted a power of petition for grand juries. The aim was apparently to enable the grand juries not only to supplicate for relief from government on behalf of the people. It was also to impress on government directly an implication of power in the populace superior to the power wielded by the governors. Historian Edmund Morgan touched on that interesting question in his great review of the history of popular sovereignty in England and America, Inventing the People.

I get that the notion of a federal grand jury independent of judicial authority has for many decades been more contested than previously. Not sure this is the right time to leave it at that, given the shortage of other political tools still in the hands of the people themselves.

[Michael P]

Joe Biden blocked the release of a CIA report that the Ukrainian government thought that the US government exhibited a double standard on corruption in its treatment of the Biden family.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/emb8amvp-bidens-team-intervened-prevent-distribution-cia-report-his

[Malika la Maize]

Just The News!

When you’re too wacky for Fox!

An internal Fox News research briefing book warned that "John Solomon played an indispensable role in the collection and domestic publication" of parts of the Trump-Ukraine "disinformation campaign," The Daily Beast reported in February 2020.[51]
Solomon was no longer associated with the network by late 2020.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Solomon_(political_commentator)

[Brett Bellmore]

You do know that naming the source with an exclamation point doesn't actually constitute an argument, right?

[Malika la Maize]

I edited it for you, but it does actually given a long history of me and others pointing out that Solomon has a terrible journalistic history.

[Brett Bellmore]

Terrible journalistic histories are all over the place. The most common form of them is to simply avoid reporting anything that casts doubt upon the narrative, whatever the narrative might be.

As David Burge famously said, “Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.”

If you're not rather open minded about where you find your news, you wind up letting the MSM dictate what you can know, and they DO typically have an agenda.

It's not so much that I think Just the News is such a great source, IOW, as that I'm not impressed with the MSM being much better. Though maybe bad in different ways. You'll notice that Just the News routinely does something in that story the mainstream media are really bad about: They actually link to primary sources so that you could judge them for yourself!

[Malika la Maize]

“ The most common form of them is to simply avoid reporting anything that casts doubt upon the narrative, whatever the narrative might be.”

This is just your conspiracy theory tendency talking. It never occurs to you that the “MSM” does’t report on some things because there’s nothing reliable there yet to report on, confusing professional journalistic standards with a conspiracy theory that hundreds of outlets are involved in a “narrative.”

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that doesn't occur to me, because I've interacted too much with the media, I've been personally involved in one or two stories that got reported there, and I know better than that.

Back in the 70's and 80's, before the news media market radically changed and consolidated, you had enough ideological variety in the media that they kept each other honest. If you left out some important part of a story, your competitor would expose it.

That's not the case these days, once you exclude a few outlets like Fox, or the small fry like Just the News, it's an ideological monoculture, and they're not concerned about their omissions being exposed.

Because even if they're exposed, people like you won't believe it!

[Malika la Maize]

“Because even if they're exposed, people like you won't believe it!”

Projection is a heck of a drug.

“If you left out some important part of a story, your competitor would expose it.”

This still happens regularly. A lot of reporters might be “culturally” left-like most information class professionals-but they generally try to adhere to professional standards and profit seeking and regularly break stories critical of Democrats and other leftists. In fact, many conservative outlets do little “reporting,” instead they just collect, selectively choose and present “MSM” actual reporting. The idea that the hundreds of outlets and thousands of reporters are “in on” some conspiracy is the kind of thinking that had you duped for incredibly silly conservative stories such as the “Biden green screen” one.

[Brett Bellmore]

"but they generally try to adhere to professional standards"

My impression is that 'professional standards' in journalism have shifted away from "we report it, you decide" towards "We craft the narrative that it would be socially beneficial people believe".

Part of being in my 60's is remembering what actual professional standards in journalism used to look like. Today's media look nothing like 1970's newspaper coverage, in terms of casually running paraphrases in place of in context verbatim quotes, and the widespread use of anonymous sources.

Not that they were saints even in the 70's; I recall a couple of stories where I was actually acquainted with the on the ground truth, and even then there was a large component of forcing the story into the narrative. I recall in particular a newspaper article in the Detroit papers about the economic depression in Northern Michigan, and it's true the economy wasn't phenomenal, but they ran a photo of a ruined building in Calumet, and I lived in the area at the time attending college; It was being torn down to make room for a new store, and they'd had to crop that photo very carefully to hide the open shops on either side.

Again, in the 90's, I attended a gun rights/militia rally in Lansing Michigan, and I can tell you that the practice of cropping photos to hide the presence of black people at supposedly lily white events didn't start with The New York this year.

But, still, they were running quotes, not paraphrases, and in context quotes at that, most of the time. And almost never went with anonymous sources.

Having an entire industry almost exclusively populated by one end of the ideological spectrum, it's just not reasonable to expect that to not have an impact. And "We can't report EVERYTHING" is a great excuse to be selective about what gets reported, and omit mention of inconvenient facts. Omission of critical facts is widespread, actual falsification much less so.

I mean, look at that whole Nick Sandmann mess. Multiple media outlets just casually ran with a defamatory story, then took their time about backpedaling, though they almost instantly had proof the original reporting was wrong, and frankly should have been dubious about it even before they had that proof.

Would they have made the same mistakes if the political valance were flipped? Hardly.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its not a conspiracy, its group think.

[ThePublius]

"It never occurs to you that the “MSM” does’t report on some things because there’s nothing reliable there yet to report on, confusing professional journalistic standards with a conspiracy theory that hundreds of outlets are involved in a “narrative.”"

You mean like the NYT not reporting anything about Jay Jones? Like, there's nothing reliable there yet to report on? Really?

[Mr. Bumble]

It's not news that's "fit to print".

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/08/us/jay-jones-text-messages-va-attorney-general.html

[ThePublius]

@Sarcastr0, ah, I searched the other day and there was nothing.

[Sarcastr0]

The VA AG race doesn't strike me as of national import.

Even if the right wing media really really wants it to be.

But congrats, the incessant nutpicking made it national. Hoo ray.

[ThePublius]

It's newsworthy because his conduct is particularly egregious, especially for someone vying to be an attorney general. And, that Democrats are still standing beside him, despite them constantly calling for others to tone down the violent rhetoric. The story is now bigger than Jones.

I'm not the one who made it newsworthy, it's all over the news now.

[Sarcastr0]

Local politician says something in keeping with the right's false narrative that Dems love violence.

Would you feel better if we just called it locker room talk and left it at that?

[ThePublius]

No, let's not let him off the hook with the "locker room talk" rationalization. He made repeated and truly reprehensible comments wishing death on his opponent and his children's death, the former at his hand, and the latter so Gilbert's wife could watch her children die. This is inexcusable.

What false narrative? This guy is a Dem, and apparently loves violence, as many other Dems have expressed.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Think about the locker room talk reference, and what you've just conceded about your own side.

2. You're generalizing about Dems based on this one guy. Which is nutpicking, a kind of fallacy.

[ThePublius]

Democrats largely stand behind Jay Jones after violent texts

This is not nutpicking. The Democratic party is behind him, regardless of his calls for murder.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/08/jay-jones-texts-democrats-violence-republicans/

[Sarcastr0]

"Top Democrats have condemned the 2022 texts from Jay Jones but declined to join Republicans in calling for Jones to drop out"

I see you have yet again not read past the headline.

Again, this is a state AG race; Top Democrats don't need to take much of a position, no matter how much you demand they do.

And Trump just talked about jailing state officials he doesn't like. So the GOP lacks standing to object. So do you, but you've never been one to care when people point out you're inconsistent.

[David Nieporent]

Local politician says something in keeping with the right's false narrative that Dems love violence.

Would you feel better if we just called it locker room talk and left it at that?

I haven't followed the story too closely, but based on what I did see, the first comment that Jones made could be written off as just a tasteless spin on the old joke. ("You're in a room with Hitler, Stalin, and George Steinbrenner, but you only have two bullets. What do you do? Shoot Steinbrenner. Twice.") But Jones also talked about the other guy's kids being killed, which is beyond the pale.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh yeah, I'm not defending the guy. Condemned him 4 days ago:

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/10/05/sunday-open-thread-7/?nab=1&comments=true#comment-11233202

I'm just not giving TP's nutpicking any continence.

The locker room talk was a reference to the right blithely dismissing Trump saying beyond the pale stuff back in the day.

[Michael P]

Meanwhile, Fox News reports that CIA officials occasionally acknowledge the obvious. The original story is apparently paywalled, but:

A senior CIA official said it was “extremely rare and unusual” and “inappropriate to go outside of the intelligence community and inquire with the White House on the dissemination of a particular report for what appears to be political reasons,” according to Fox News Digital.

[Malika la Maize]

Trump supporter worried about administrations following intelligence community norms, lol. The disingenuousness continues.

[David Nieporent]

They actually link to primary sources so that you could judge them for yourself!

JTNy s actually links to primary sources to make their readers, including Brett, who will never actually read those primary sources, think that JTN is doing journalism. Because their links never actually support their stories.

[Michael P]

Denialist liars don't make actual arguments, they just shout their denialism without any facts or specific claims. They deserve to be banned from society.

[Armchair]

" Because their links never actually support their stories."

Really? "Never" support their stories?

Sounds like another Trump says Windex bad, so Democrats chug Windex case.

[Malika la Maize]

I would say generally.

[Michael P]

An ad hominem argument is an argument. It's a fallacious argument that reveals the absence of any valid argument, but it's an argument. (At least by the standards of Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch.)

[Malika la Maize]

Why is it allowed to impeach witnesses in a trial? Isn’t that an ad hominem?

It’s because it shows the unreliability of the witness. Deductive logic isn’t the only game in town.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ad Hominem is "You're a bad person, thus your position is false."

"You're a bad person, thus your testimony is unreliable." isn't ad hominem.

[Michael P]

Witness impeachment is different than reporting in a few ways. There are multiple ways to impeach a witness, for example based on prior inconsistent statement or criminal conviction. But the most relevant difference is that impeachment is relevant for fact witnesses, where the court is asked to rely on the witness's testimony to establish what happened. We're not relying on John Solomon to establish the underlying facts here.

[Malika la Maize]

Sure we are, we are relying on his history of non-credible reporting. And it’s bad. It’s called informal logic. His history of terrible reporting does t conclusively prove this report by him is terrible, it just means there’s a high probability it is. In a time of limited resources and many sources why go to him? It’s a waste of time, and the fact you continue to go to him demonstrates motivated reasoning which additionally warrants skepticism about your posts on his reporting.

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. Once again, someone on the Internet fails to understand the concept of the ad hominem fallacy. "You should ignore what this guy says about (e.g.) Hamas because he's fat" is an ad hominem fallacy. "You should ignore what this guy says about Hamas because he's unqualified" is not an ad hominem fallacy. Nor is "You should ignore what this guy says about Hamas because he's an established liar."

John Solomon was shown the door from multiple news organizations for unreliability; The Hill, which barely has editorial standards, first tried to salvage their relationship with him by moving him to the opinion side of their outlet, but eventually kicked him to the curb because even there he was unable to conform to basic journalistic standards. At that point he couldn't get any job and had to start his own blog.

[Michael P]

Elaborating an ad hominem argument doesn't change its essence, no matter how many words you type.

Bitter denialists want to make this about John Solomon because they know they can't defend what Joe Biden and the Obama administration did.

[David Nieporent]

There is nothing in there that appears to need any defense.

[Michael P]

Your denialist tic is firing on all cylinders this morning.

Joe Biden, as Obama's VP, blocked the release of a CIA report that would have pointed out that Ukraine's government made the same points that conservative critics would make repeatedly over the next decade, that Biden's trip to get his son's employer off the hook of a corruption case was transparently self-serving, hypocritically corrupt and counterproductive to the bilateral relationship.

[Malika la Maize]

Again, even if this story had legs consider the many times Trump has intervened in the federal intelligence (or other) community’s release of information for political reasons and the disingenuousness of Mikie’s pearl clutching here is palpable.

[David Nieporent]

Joe Biden, as Obama's VP, blocked the release of a CIA report

Joe Biden, as Obama's VP, couldn't order lemonade from a kid's roadside lemonade stand, let alone block the release of a CIA report. I love how you people flip between "Biden as president wasn't even mentally incompetent; other people were making all the decisions for him" and "Joe Biden, despite having no legal authority, was actually running the government as vice president."

And, as always, you've managed to get your facts wrong, in both small ways — it was not about "releasing" anything, but circulating it internally — and large (it was a request, not an order, and it was not Joe Biden who made the request).

Also, based on the tiny amount of the report that isn't redacted, it was not "the same points" at all, other than the banal observation that we've known for years that people didn't like the optics of Hunter Biden on the Burisma board.

It of course does not say anything at all about the Republican lie that Biden's trip was "to get his son's employer off the hook of a corruption case," and of course the exact opposite was true.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, no way Biden could call the CIA director up and ask for a favor. Nope, Nope.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, no way Biden could call the CIA director up and ask for a favor. Nope, Nope.

He might be able to, but (a) nothing in what was released said that this is what happened; and (b) doing so would not constitute Biden "blocking" anything, anyway.

And, as always, there's still no there there. Let's assume that Joe Biden called in his chits and used his influence to force a reluctant CIA to keep this report in a desk drawer somewhere. What exactly would be the significance of that? It would not be illegal for Biden to do that. Circulating the report in the IC would not have somehow exposed Biden to legal liability. It wouldn't even have exposed him to political liability, since this was 2016 when he had already announced his retirement from electoral office. At most, it would have saved him some embarrassment.

[Sarcastr0]

Saying denialist lot doesn’t change the fact that you post lies from liars, when you don’t post articles that don’t back up your claim.

Ad hominem (argument bad because person is bad) vs credibility (factual claim is wrong because person lies a lot).

You want to be fooled. And it frustrates you how many aren’t going along with that.

It says a lot when you prefer lying about the facts to making a policy argument based in reality.

[Malika la Maize]

I’m starting to doubt he wants to be fooled, he wants others to be fooled. It’s disingenuousness all the way down.

[Sarcastr0]

Willful blindness is hard to tell from intent to deceive.

In the end, it doesn't matter.

Michael is really showing his ass here.

[jay.tee]

Willful blindness is hard to tell from intent to deceive.

In your case, it’s pretty straightforward: your willful blindness has historically and frequently been an intent to deceive.

Specifically in this case, you can simply address the actual declassified CIA memo. Instead, you and the others in this thread attempted to intentionally steer the conversation away from our ever-expanding knowledge of the abuses of the Biden administration, ironically under the auspices of media integrity.

[Sarcastr0]

No U is not the banger argument you think it is.

[Riva]

Says the idiotic parrot troll who relies on Wikipedia as authoritative.

[Sarcastr0]

You do love your sources with credibility issues. it’s not ad hom to say hey this guy lies a lot maybe find a better source.

And from what I can tell looking at other versions of the story it’s not the government it’s some random official idly speculating.

[jay.tee]

Are you asserting the actual CIA memo isn’t real?

Here it is for all to read:
https://www.cia.gov/static/Ukraine_Redacted_Final.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

I, of course, said nothing like the memo not being real.

I'd recommend you review the definition of "the Ukrainian government."

[jay.tee]

I’d recommend you review the CIA memo. The information came from officials within the administration of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and the CIA considered it the perspectives of [the] … Ukrainian Government.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not seeing "perspectives of [the] … Ukrainian Government" where do you see that?

[jay.tee]

Hence my recommendation to actually read the CIA memo instead of reflexively trying to shit on anything that further exposes Biden’s corruption.

Try page eight.

[Sarcastr0]

There is nothing like that on page 8, which is the final page.

[jay.tee]

I apologize - it’s the last unredacted line on page seven.

[Sarcastr0]

The redaction cuts off in the middle of a sentence, and has a superfluous 'a' that you full-on *changed out* to make it look like the sentence ended sentence there.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean to change the sentence you excerpted, but you sure did.

[ThePublius]

On page 7? I don't see the superfluous "a."

[Sarcastr0]

"perspectives of [the] … Ukrainian Government" is what jay.tee wrote.

Accurate would be "perspectives of a previous Ukrainian Government..."

The three changes of a->the, eliding the word pervious, and cutting off after government as though that's the end of the sentence all create a false impression that the intel is taken as the government position.

That's not actually established. In fact, decidedly the opposite - that's it's officials speaking informally with one another, not the government's position.

If you think about it, taking the crosstalk between officials in unguarded moments as the government position makes no sense at all - governmental positions are definitionally public.

[jay.tee]

You’re a dipshit, Sarcastr0.

I changed “a former” to “the” because in 2024, when that particular sentence was written, the Poroshenko administration was a former Ukrainian Government.

However, when the Ukrainian government officials expressed their concerns about VP Biden, the Poroshenko administration was the Ukrainian Government to which the CIA attributed the concerns. See the difference?

Seriously, are you just being deliberately obtuse? Or is it just another pathetic attempt to shit on anything that shines light on Biden corruption?

Either way, the vastly different levels of circumspection you apply to evidence is quite revealing.

[David Nieporent]

Seriously, are you just being deliberately obtuse? Or is it just another pathetic attempt to shit on anything that shines light on Biden corruption?

The unredacted portion of this report says nothing at all about Biden corruption.

[Sarcastr0]

I laid out how you leave the impression that the CIA took it as the Ukrainian government's position.

But it didn't.
That's not what the text says, and you had to do a bad paraphrase to get there.
Moreover such a position would make no sense in the context of this document.

[jay.tee]

The plain text of the memo states the CIA believed the opinions of Poroshenko administration officials were “the perspectives of a previous [Poroshenko’s] Ukrainian Government.”

I directly quoted the memo, refuting your feelz-driven assertion (you should really look up big words, like paraphrase, before you use them).

As I correctly observed, your administration-dependent circumspection is quite striking.

[David Nieporent]

While I certainly don't think the Trump administration would have any ethical qualms about fabricating a document, I doubt they would do so in a situation like this. Both because fabricating evidence might pose legal problems for them, and also they've learned that they don't need to fabricate evidence. They can just lie about what the evidence says, and their acolytes will just keep repeating it.

Take this report, for example. Like the last purported intel smoking gun that the GOP released and then hyped, there's no there there, and so it'll sink like the same lead balloon as the previous one.

The declassified portion of the report says nothing more than that the Ukrainian government was annoyed with Joe Biden. Drawing inferences against Joe Biden, we could conclude that he was embarrassed by this and so he hoped they wouldn't make this more widely known in the intelligence community. It doesn't reveal any criminal activity. It doesn't reveal any wrongdoing. It's — as always — a nothingburger.

[Michael P]

Speaking of lying about what the evidence says, apparently "nothing more than that the Ukrainian government was annoyed" is:
- "the Vice President of the United States [...] had no intention of discussing substantive matters" (contrary to what that were led to expect)
- "These officials viewed the alleged ties of the U. S. Vice President's family to corruption in Ukraine as evidence of a double-standard within the United States Government towards matters of corruption and political power."

At least the denialist idiots who didn't read the thing have shown their true colors.

[David Nieporent]

I am not sure how you think either of those quotes in any way refutes or is inconsistent with what I said.

[jay.tee]

Even without all the context that’s out in the open, that’s a very denialist take on the CIA memo.

Add in that context and it’s an outright fabrication.

[Michael P]

No, he's apparently just insisting that we should be talking about how awful a person John Solomon is, instead of talking about Joe Biden's corruption being exposed yet again.

[Sarcastr0]

Are you just not reading the comments, or what?

There's been quite a few substantive explanations of why Solomon's pattern of disingenuous reporting continues here. One is right above your comment.

[Bob from Ohio]

"disingenuous "

Um, well, you are an expert on that.

[jay.tee]

Not a single - much less “quite a few” - of the comments in this thread contain “substantive explanations” of “disingenuous reporting” on this topic.

I see denials and fabrications, but nothing substantive.

[Sarcastr0]

Bare negation is not an argument. Even if you bring a thesaurus.

I pointed to DMN's comment above. See also my own initial comment, and DMN goes into it again earlier as well.

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/10/08/wednesday-open-thread-37/?comments=true#comment-11236878
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/10/08/wednesday-open-thread-37/?comments=true#comment-11236544
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/10/08/wednesday-open-thread-37/?comments=true#comment-11236514

I don't expect you to engage, but there you are if you want to.

[jay.tee]

If that’s what you consider “substantive,” you’ve proven my point.

You and David (amongst others) attempted to redirect the conversation away from the actual CIA memo and its context by instead 1) focusing on the veracity of JtN, and 2) gaslighting the contents of the CIA memo and the history surrounding it.

Reflexively attacking anything that’s contrary to your narrative isn’t engaging.

[David Nieporent]

I have directly addressed the nothingburger contents of the CIA report. In contrast, you (and others) have just handwaved about JtN commentary on that report and chanted "corruption," without actually pointing to any.

[jay.tee]

Incorrect. I’ve said nothing to support or deny the veracity of JtN overall or specific to its commentary here.

Instead, I focused directly on the primary source evidence: the CIA memo.

You and Sarcastr0 have attempted to handwave away the contents of the memo itself, both the position of the Ukrainian Government on the Bidens’ corruption and Joe Biden’s attempt to minimize dissemination of that position.

Taken in context with contemporaneous events, the memo reinforces how corrupt the Bidens were/are. For instance, Joe Biden in contravention of Obama administration policies went rogue and threatened to withhold funds from the Ukrainian government unless it fired Viktor Shokin, a prosecutor pursuing corruption throughout Ukraine. Burisma, which employed Joe’s son, was a target of Shokin. Notably, the US and EU already approved of Shokin’s efforts and believed he was taking adequate steps to root out corruption.

But of course, you already knew all that.

[David Nieporent]

You and Sarcastr0 have attempted to handwave away the contents of the memo itself, both the position of the Ukrainian Government on the Bidens’ corruption and Joe Biden’s attempt to minimize dissemination of that position.

Nothing in the memo discusses "the Bidens' corruption." This is the one relevant sentence: "These officials viewed the alleged ties of the U.S. Vice President's family to corruption in Ukraine as evidence of a double-standard within the United States Government towards matters of corruption and political power." And we already know that the questionable optics of Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma were widely discussed at the time within the administration; the notion that Biden was trying to prevent dissemination of that image is implausible.

(And as a minor point, the email forwarding Biden's national security advisor's request was of course not part of the "contents of the memo itself.")

For instance, Joe Biden in contravention of Obama administration policies went rogue and threatened to withhold funds from the Ukrainian government unless it fired Viktor Shokin, a prosecutor pursuing corruption throughout Ukraine. Burisma, which employed Joe’s son, was a target of Shokin. Notably, the US and EU already approved of Shokin’s efforts and believed he was taking adequate steps to root out corruption.

None of that is remotely accurate.

1) Biden famously "called an audible" on the flight to Ukraine, but that in no way contravened U.S. policies or was going rogue. First, the audible was only about how to address Ukrainian corruption — linking it to the loan guarantees — rather than whether to do so, and second, Biden consulted with Washington before he presented his "ultimatum." That's not surprising, because — as I've pointed out repeatedly, Biden was vice president, and vice presidents do not have any legal authority to grant or withhold loan guarantees.

2) Shokin was the prosecutor not pursuing corruption in Ukraine; that was the whole point. Burisma was not a target of Shokin. Every bit of evidence — including the testimony of the GOP's would-be star witness Devon Archer — was that Burisma was not at all concerned about Shokin and never asked Hunter to do anything about him.

3) The US and EU notably did not approve of Shokin's efforts and wanted him fired. They thought that the Ukrainian government was making sufficient progress on corruption to give loan guarantees, not that Shokin was, and not that Ukraine had successfully rooted out corruption.

[David Nieporent]

And of course, you didn't know any of that because all you're doing is repeating talking points.

[David Nieporent]

Incorrect. I’ve said nothing to support or deny the veracity of JtN overall or specific to its commentary here.

Weird, then, how you're just setting forth Solomon's spin and not even bothering to quote the actual document.

[jay.tee]

Weird, then, how you're just setting forth Solomon's spin and not even bothering to quote the actual document.

Weird, then, how I had not and still have not read Solomon’s article (or any other on JtN).

Others reported on the CIA memo as well and, as I normally do, I sought out and read the source document first.

And contrary to your, ahem, misrepresentations, the CIA memo documents the Ukrainian’s legitimate concerns about the Bidens’ corruption:

Following the visit of the U.S. Vice President, [] officials within the Poroshenko administration privately mused at the U.S. media scrutiny of the alleged ties of the
U.S. Vice President's family to corrupt business practices in Ukraine. These officials viewed the alleged ties of the U.S. Vice President's family to corruption in Ukraine as evidence of a double-standard within the United States Government towards matters of corruption and political power.

[jay.tee]

None of that is remotely accurate.

Once again, like with all the other Russiagate and Biden corruption topics, you’re a fucking liar playing sea lion games.

I’ve debunked you each time with readily available sources. Likewise, readily available sources easily debunk your narrative this time as well.

Your denialism is well known here and honestly, I’m tired of digging up links to prove something any moderately well-informed person should already know.

[David Nieporent]

I’ve debunked you each time with readily available sources. Likewise, readily available sources easily debunk your narrative this time as well.

Sources that you never actually directly address because they never say what you pretend they say, because despite your false claims you only read and recite talking points rather than the actual sources.

[jay.tee]

Denying your denialism is especially pathetic.

As commenting history here clearly shows, your Russiagate and Biden corruption denialism has been debunked every time.

Your silence after each debunking belies your attempt to paper over your glaring ignorance, whether it’s intentional or not.

[David Nieporent]

I notice you were not in fact able to refute any of the points I raised. Indeed, you didn't even try.

[Malika la Maize]

A Palestinian woman whose son serves in the U.S. Navy was secretly evacuated from war-torn Gaza in recent weeks after an intervention by the Trump administration and the Israeli and Jordanian governments, according to people familiar with the matter and correspondence reviewed by The Washington Post.

The operation, entailing a coordinated pause in Israeli military strikes to safeguard the woman’s movements, illustrates the extreme difficulty of orchestrating a legal exit from the Gaza Strip without resources and influence. The unusual operation occurred as the Trump administration has, at turns, been accused of turning a blind eye to the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza — even, in some cases, when they are U.S. citizens.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/10/07/trump-gaza-rescue-us-sailor-mother/

[John F. Carr]

A complaint to the International Criminal Court accuses Italian Prime Minister Meloni of genocide because her government supplied arms to Israel. It looks like it's just some academics making noise, a highbrow version of a change.org petition. Which is not to say it's legally wrong, but in the words of Shania Twain, "that don't impress me much."

In other ICC news, the court has gotten around to the conflict in Darfur in 2003 and 2004. A Janjaweed leader has been convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity. https://apnews.com/article/icc-court-darfur-sudan-verdict-538055077897127929259e7515b7a40c

Maybe in 2040 a bunch of retired European prime ministers will be called to face justice.

[Armchair]

Court documents show that a New Jersey man arrested Oct. 5 outside of St. Matthew’s Cathedral just hours before the start of the annual Red Mass had a “fully functional” arsenal of explosives that he threatened to detonate. According to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, after officers took [the defendant] — a 41-year-old resident of Vineland, New Jersey — into custody, they discovered he had “multiple suspicious items, including vials of liquid and possible fireworks” inside a tent he erected on the steps of the cathedral.

[The defendant] had previously been barred from the cathedral premises and was encountered when authorities were making a security sweep several hours in advance of the annual Mass to mark the start of the Supreme Court’s new term.

Published reports indicate that [the defendant] had in his tent 200 incendiary devices including handmade grenades, bottle rockets, Molotov cocktails, and vials of nitromethane, the compound used in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. . . . Court documents show that [the defendant] had expressed hostility and disdain for the Supreme Court, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Catholic Church and Jewish people.

The Red Mass is an annual start-of-term Mass of prayer for the Supreme Court and the administration of law.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/molotov-cocktail-arrest-at-the-red-mass-another-ominous-sign

[Malika la Maize]

“a tent he erected on the steps of the cathedral.”

What the?

[Brett Bellmore]

I suspect that if he had 200 explosive articles inside a tent, most of them were no more than firecrackers. Not that that helps him legally.

Clearly a loon, but possibly a dangerous one.

[Armchair]

Wasn't a priority for DC police apparently...

[Sarcastr0]

Your story makes it look like it was a priority.

[not guilty]

"Wasn't a priority for DC police apparently..."

Who was it again that made the arrest?

[hobie]

One of these days a violent extremist will end up being left wing. I hope it's this one. You hayseeds really need a win on this front.

[dwb68]

100% of the potential new hires for next year that I'm interviewing are foreign students who need an hb1 Visa.

Mind you, they're good and they know their stuff. They all deserve a job.

But I can't help thinking that management at the bank I work for didn't get the memo. 100%? cmon.

[jb]

Sounds like maybe there's not that many Americans qualified for the role?

[dwb68]

"not many">> 0.0% one or two out of five is not many to me, and that I might believe. not 0%.

Meanwhile, All the banks want a piece of the Fannie and Freddie IPO. I can't help Wondering how much of that deal book they think they can offshore

[Malika la Maize]

Five is a pretty small n.

[dwb68]

The true pool is about 100 applicants, I only see my subset and then the results are aggregated.

What is a 90% confidence interval around the true proportion of foreign students?

What is the probability I am wasting my time, because none of these kids can be hired next year?

[Armchair]

"The true pool is about 100 applicants, I only see my subset and then the results are aggregated."

Seems like that's a recruiting and HR problem.

[ducksalad]

Don't know what line of work you're in.

For PhD-level engineering faculty positions at a non-famous university we'll typically have 98% to 100% foreign born applicants in the raw unfiltered pool. A good fraction of them are already naturalized or green carded, but that usually means some prior employer got them or their spouse a visa at some time in the past. This has been consistent for the last 5-10 years, there were more US born applicants in the past but never a majority in my lifetime. I'm the only remaining US-born out of 16 tenured faculty in the department, and getting old.

US born and raised PhDs get snapped up by the defense companies, national labs, and ranked universities. They don't even bother applying to us so we couldn't outbid if we wanted to.

And before you say we ought to pay more, consider that it's a state budget and you're paying for it. Bragging that we pay over market rate doesn't go over well with the legislature.

[dwb68]

"US born and raised PhDs get snapped up by the defense companies, national labs, and ranked universities. They don't even bother applying to us so we couldn't outbid if we wanted to."

yeah thats an interesting observation i hadn't considered. The applicants ive interviewed wouldnt get a security clearance.

[Armchair]

"US born and raised PhDs get snapped up by the defense companies, national labs, and ranked universities. They don't even bother applying to us so we couldn't outbid if we wanted to."

"And before you say we ought to pay more, consider that it's a state budget and you're paying for it"

---The honest answer is, you're not paying enough. They don't bother applying BECAUSE you have a history of not paying enough. You post an actually competitive salary, and you'd get applications. Engineering PhD....sheesh. You're probably going to offer something like $50 an hour for an assistant professor role, and you are "shocked...shocked..." when there are no local native applicants. For a challenging position which requires multiple years of post-secondary education.

Try offering a lawyer $50 an hour to take your case and see what happens. You won't get a single offer. And it's not because "there aren't any lawyers out there". It's because you aren't offering near enough. And lawyer is a far easier position intellectually than engineering doctorate.

[Sarcastr0]

Increasing entry level salaries isn't going to create more PhDs.

dwb68 and ducksalad are describing a supply issue, not a pricing issue.

I'm don't know the lay of the land of H-1B; those two could have the wrong end of the stick on this.
But they are bringing real info. And it seems to indicate that your prescription wouldn't be addressing the right problem.

[ducksalad]

Well, Armchair could be making the more basic argument that if it was widely known that the job paid more, more US students would go into the field to begin with. And if that's what he means, there's some truth to it.

Side note: We actually might get an upswing in US applicants due to Trump.

Part of the bargain when you went to a national lab or a federal agency was that it's a stable, low drama job. You stay technically competent, come to the office for 40 hours, work on what your boss tells you to work on, don't waste more than a couple hours a day posting at VC, and don't be too much of a jerk, and you had a career for life.

Now DOGE has made that less true. Maybe being a professor isn't so bad.

[Sarcastr0]

1. If that's what he means, I'd just point out that such pipeline is like 10 years before you get a productive engineer out of it.
And sucking more people into that pipeline has diminishing returns at some point.

2. I'll push back some on the 'federal job means less pay for more stability.' We don't do 40 hours where I'm at. Nor at the Labs.
My science policy office is full of people internally driven towards science policy and funding.
I should ask my friends at the labs what motivated them go go that rout; I don't know.

Hell, back in the day when I interned at the Administrative Office of the Federal Courts, most of those folks were in it for the passion not for the lack of drama.

I absolutely heard it like you say; but from what I've personally seen I wonder if there's been a generational shift.

[ducksalad]

Heh. Well, OK, now you know what we academics think you do at work.

[Armchair]

"Well, Armchair could be making the more basic argument that if it was widely known that the job paid more, more US students would go into the field to begin with. And if that's what he means, there's some truth to it."

Of course.

[Armchair]

"Increasing entry level salaries isn't going to create more PhDs."

Incorrect. Increasing entry level salaries creates more PhDs.

This is simple supply and demand. Increase the amount you're willing to pay for a given profession (with of course the openings for that profession), and you get more people to go into that field.

It's not instantaneous, it takes time, and of course there has to be proper information flow, but it's how all employment works. You want a lot of computer engineers? Offer lots of jobs for them and to pay them a lot. You think it's a surprise that the number of bachelors from US universities has doubled over the last 10 years? Of course not. They've been higher paying jobs with demand.

[ducksalad]

The problem with socialist and unionist arguments is the usual assumption that there's a big pool of cash that some greedy person is hoarding, and we could pay more if we wanted to.

The fact is teaching just doesn't bring in that much money.

The state gives us a teaching budget directly proportional to butts in seats. Not a stupid formula, either - it pays thirty times more for a student in an advanced pharmacy course than one in a freshman liberal arts course.

The formula gives us about $400-$500 per butt per course for engineering. That has to cover supplies as well as the instructor and any assistants.

You can do a pretty good estimate on the math yourself. Decide how big you want the classes, how many classes you want each instructor to teach, and much you want to pay.

But people are motivated by more than money. I can tell you that any decent STEM PhD holder looking for a tenure-track job is going to turn down even coming for the interview if we say the starting teaching load is more than about five courses per year.

[Armchair]

You're complaining about the budget. There "isn't enough money" to hire professors. Let's look at this on the other side though, with some back of the envelop numbers.

We'll be really generous with the numbers here. Tuition at a state school is $10K a year, or $5K a semester. A student takes 4 classes, so that's $1250 a class. Say a professor teaches just 2 classes of 30 students. You're at $75,000. But...that's a semester. Double that at you're at a salary of $150,000. That's before state aid, before hedging for the 300 student classes, before a whole bunch of other things.

Might want to ask where all the money is going.

"But people are motivated by more than money. I can tell you that any decent STEM PhD holder looking for a tenure-track job is going to turn down even coming for the interview"

Sure. They need to do other things. Research, advice, etc. If they just wanted money, they wouldn't be doing teaching. But a certain level...it's important.

[Michael P]

There are hundreds of sob stories in the media about American grads who are sitting in their parents' basements, filling out hundreds of applications without getting any traction for interviews. Are they all unqualified? If so, whose fault is it that so many recent graduates of US colleges and universities are not qualified to do entry-level professional work?

[ducksalad]

Are they all unqualified?

On the whole, technical ability and knowledge are comparable. Willingness to work for less revenue than they will generate, which of course is a legitimate job qualification, maybe not quite so much.

If so, whose fault is it that so many recent graduates of US colleges and universities are not qualified to do entry-level professional work?

Schools at all levels giving them unrealistic ideas about how hard one is expected to work and the ratio of necessary drudgery to inspiring creatively at real jobs.

[Armchair]

"100% of the potential new hires for next year that I'm interviewing are foreign students who need an hb1 Visa."
Sounds like you need a higher posted salary or better recruiting.

"Mind you, they're good and they know their stuff. They all deserve a job."
If that's so, they'll easily be able to get one in their home couuntry.

[Frank Drackman]

So which Family Medicine Residency do you work for?

[Bunny495]

Would be interesting to know what the job pays.

[dwb68]

$60/ hr for a masters

$67/hr phd
(initially)

+ 12k relo

~125k annually Plus benes If we convert you to full-time

[Armchair]

That is embarrassingly low for a doctorate in engineering. Not surprising you don't have any native applicants.

The median salary for a mechanical engineer in the US is over $100,000 a year. That's not PhD level. That's all combined.

Why would they stay in school an extra 4-7 years, for basically no increase in salary?

[dwb68]

"Why would they stay in school an extra 4-7 years,"-- many don't lol. Its not uncommon for PhDs in finance or econ to earn less than masters candidates because Phds are 1) academic and pedantic and 2) focused on teaching or policy or theoretical research. The technical term is "Ab.D." -- All but Dissertation lol. ABDs in finance and econ are where the salary curve peaks- they have all the coursework, none of the pedantry.

Also, these are not engineering jobs and these applicants are either graduating in the spring or fresh out of grad school, so most of them have little to no relevant experience. Almost 90% of people convert to full-time. So, 125k entry-level finance compared to 100k median for all mechanical engineers ... sounds about right to me.

[Armchair]

"many don't lol."

Exactly. You've set your work and experience expectations out of line with your salary expectations, and then are surprised when there are no local hires. It's like demanding a Ph.D. to drive a taxi and be reimbursed like a taxi driver....and then being surprised when all you have are foreign applicants.

[ducksalad]

Yes, and that's why we very explicitly tell our own students that it is a flat out numerical error to do a full-time PhD for the money.

A full-time MS degree is marginal.

Of course if you can get an accommodating employer to pay you while you work on it, the MS definitely pays off, maybe even the PhD.

[Bunny495]

"Of course if you can get an accommodating employer to pay you while you work on it, the MS definitely pays off, maybe even the PhD."

This is what I did but in a dual MS/JD degree. Thing is while it was suppose to take three years I started in 1975 but never finished up till 1985. Once the first two years (with summer internships) was over I got job offers with the state (of Florida where as a state employee I got free tuition). I could use my computer skills with Word Perfect to write DRIs and the like and testify in court if needed due to taking course in the college of law.

As an aside I have to agree a hundred K a year seems low for the job. As I posted in an early thread on this topic the pod cast "All In" had venture capitalist guy who said the minimum HB1 guy he had was getting $US650,000 and expected to get more as time passed or be shown the door. For this type of compensation the hundred thousand application fee is a no brainer; not so much when you are trying to cheap out with cut rate labor.

[Armchair]

"Yes, and that's why we very explicitly tell our own students that it is a flat out numerical error to do a full-time PhD for the money"

Because you've created a discrepancy in the market. If there was a shortage of PhDs, you'd end up having increased salaries to have more people go into it. OR you'd change the requirements. OR you'd substitute something else.

You've gone with option 3. Substitute cheaper imported labor.

[Malika la Maize]

The Grist reports that Atlanta has recently passed legislation that requires all new roofs to be more reflective. The changes won't be immediate; existing roofs don't have to be painted white just yet, but new buildings and replacement roofs are subject to the new law. The new roofs could cool the entire city by an average of 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit and as much as 6.3 degrees in the hottest neighborhoods.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/city-sparks-debate-passing-law-023000537.html

[Frank Drackman]

Saw the Stones at the Fox, Oct 1981, I think
thats when everything got painted black.
So you're saying being White makes things cooler??
Have you seen who mostly lives in Atlanta?
And almost nobody from Atlanta says they're from "Atlanta"
You're from Marietta, Roswell, Alpharetta, Duluth, Norcross, Dunwoody, Tucker, College Park, Forest Park, Smyrna, East Point (which is in West Atlanta, was supposed to fool Sherman into going the wrong way) Decatur, Stone Mountain, Lilburn, Doraville, Sandy Springs.....
I've got a better idea,
Give everyone a fan, and everybody fan really hard in sync.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Ah, memories. Back in the day we were arguing about global warming at Crooked Timber, and I suggested that if they were really concerned about it they'd start insisting on roofs being white, to reduce the urban heat island effect. I got such a mocking...

But the science was sound. Black roofs are just stupid, collectively, if you're in a densely populated area.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe not if you live in London 1940 (or Dresden 1945)

[Krayt]

Composting was born of 1970s innumeracy, so much garbage that landfills were gonna take over all the land area. The goalposts have shifted, but that there's some nobility in decomposing biomass to return CO2 to the atmosphere just won't die.

At this point, a kibitzer says it's not an important greenhouse gas anyway.

I'm sure there's a term for it, where the original impetus for a value behavior evaporates (running out ot landfill space, or mercury in vaccines causes autism), but that "it's bad y'all!" remains in peoples' minds, severed from even that sketchy causation, and the meme lifts off, now with a life of its own.

[Bob from Ohio]

The local commercial composting company keeps its gasoline powered trucks idling as they collect the trash.

[Reallynotbob]

Did you pause even two seconds to wonder if starting and stopping the truck engines repeatedly might be more or less efficient than idling?

Probably even chuckled smugly to yourself when you hit "submit."

[Life of Brian]

Given that this is the exact trick auto manufacturers have pulled out in their latest effort to attain increasingly unattainable fuel efficiency standards, I'm not sure why any pause at all would be in order.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's a keen (And highly annoying) trick for gasoline powered engines, but my guess would be that it's a terrible idea when it comes to diesels.

[Life of Brian]

At a quick glance, at least GMC is selling start-stop diesels. You're thinking about factors other than fuel economy?

[ducksalad]

Depends in part on whether the truck engine was designed for it.

Back in my youth starters tended to have maybe 1000 starts in them before needing a rebuild, pumping the gas pedal to get the carburetor ready wasted gasoline, and most importantly there was only a 50-50 chance or so that any given try at starting the engine would catch. It was impractical to start and stop unless it was several minutes, and outright irresponsible to risk it at a traffic light or while waiting to pull out onto a street.

They're past all that now. Did take months to get where I trusted it.

[Life of Brian]

pumping the gas pedal to get the carburetor ready

Now THERE'S a "kids these days" moment. They probably all think a three deuce is just a crappy blackjack hand....

[Bob from Ohio]

Well, my Honda's engine stops at every red light instead of idling to save gas..

You know more than Honda?

[Mr. Bumble]

Does it indicate how much you've saved?
The few times I've let the stop/start feature run for a full tank the total savings were no more than 2/10s of a gallon. Not worth the wear and tear on the starter and the battery plus it is un-nerving if you are old enough to remember when a "stall" meant a problem.
PS
I diasble it every time I get in the car (unfortunately it won't allow me to permanently disable).

[jay.tee]

It doesn’t create additional wear and tear on the starter or battery. The whole system is engineered specifically to support start/stop functionality.

That said, I’m not sure start/stop is an efficiency driven solution or a regulatory driven feel good.

[Bunny495]

Any mechanic I have ever talked to says the worst thing you can do to an ICE is start it. Even if it the stop/start situation some are describing allows for a warm engine it is still hard on the engine. Another consideration is the hot fluids are still in the engine while the cooler fluids are in the cooling system. Bottom line is when driving my deiseal Sprinter van I let the engine idle and also let it run for maybe five minutes after I arrive to let the fluid temperatures stabilize.

As an aside my Tesla Model Y can drive around town with impunity and the FSD self driving makes for a far more relaxing ride. YMMV

[Bwaaah]

My wife accumulates compostable table scraps in a bag in our freezer. She does that to keep the smells down until she's ready to take the scraps away and drop 'em off somewhere.

In theory, she's Saving The Environment. In reality, I'm fighting my way through her garbage in order to get to my food.

grrrrrrr

[Bob from Ohio]

Composting, like most recycling and bag bans, is mainly performative.

Edit: Forgot the straw bans, the most performative of al performative virtual signaling.

[Bwaaah]

As one person explained it to me, dolphins, many of which have been shown in studies to be gender dysphoric, push through the water with a sucking action seeking long hard things, even straws, to date their confused desires. And that kills all the turtles.

Wouldn't want to kill the turtles.

[ducksalad]

Meh. We don't care about being righteously green. But we toss scraps into the compost heap to avoid having stuff rot in the trash can, avoid having to pay for an upsized can, and finally to get some free fertilizer (not so much the cost of Lowe's fertilizer as the hassle of driving there and loading bags in summer heat).

[Bob from Ohio]

"avoid having stuff rot in the trash can"

That is what garbage disposals are for.

[ducksalad]

(a) No garbage disposal at our house. But even if we had one...
(b) When the slab got poured someone crushed the drain line from the kitchen, we'd have to cut the slab to fix it. So our kitchen sink drains directly out the wall and onto the lawn. But even if it didn't...
(c) We're on a septic tank rather than sewer and don't want to burden it more than necessary.

[Brett Bellmore]

We compost. Why not? We've got lawn clippings, garden wastes, and an absurd amount of leaves, and garden beds to fill the next year.

Beats hauling them out to the curb, and then having to buy the stuff at the garden center.

[Moderation4ever]

I read in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, that in a recent sale of coal mining leases a Navajo tribe related energy company bid less than one tenth of a cent per ton for rights to a coal field. And it was the only bid. The last successful coal leasing sale brought over a dollar a ton. While the Trump administration maybe bullish on coal the market seems to think otherwise. Coal is both dirty and expensive to use and it is not coming back.

[Brett Bellmore]

I won't miss coal for electricity, though replacing it for steel and cement production isn't the easiest thing in the world. It is indeed filthy.

But whatever replaces it has GOT to be comparably reliable. Not going away every time the Sun goes down, or the wind stops blowing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Thomaston, Maine plant didn't burn coal -- don't know what they did burn, but I never saw any coal going in there.

[ThePublius]

Modern coal fired electricity generation is very clean, as long as you don't count CO2 as a pollutant. I don't. It actually helps agriculture, and the tiny amount we produce this way has near zero effect on global warming.

Look at India and China: "China and India are constructing significant numbers of new coal-fired power plants to ensure energy security, with China approving the largest capacity of new coal plants in a decade and India also seeing substantial private sector interest. In the first half of 2025, China and India accounted for 87% of all new coal power proposals, construction starts, and capacity commissioned globally."

They are running away with cost effective electrical generation, while China funds global warming scare campaigns in the U.S.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Modern coal fired electricity generation is very clean, as long as you don't count CO2 as a pollutant."

I don't, either, but even if you're not putting it up into the air, coal power produces massive amounts of fly ash that's typically lousy with heavy metals, and just keeps piling up.

The only thing I can say in favor of fly ash is that it's SO full of heavy metals, that it might be a feasible ore for some of them.

[ThePublius]

The scrubbers prevent that stuff from piling up in the atmosphere or ground.

[Mr. Bumble]

Fly ash can be used as a partial substitute for Portland cement on concrete and is being examined as a source of rare earth elements.
https://www.usgs.gov/publications/rare-earth-elements-coal-fly-ash-and-their-potential-recovery

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

It’s how you make drywall (gypsum)

[Moderation4ever]

What modern coal fired plant? Most of the remaining US coal fired plants are on the order of 50 years old.

[Mr. Bumble]

...which have been upgraded to reduce pollution.
By the way, let me know how many solar panels and windmills will be producing power for 50 years.

[Michael P]

From the annals of "what do you call a thousand lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean"...

Of the $450,000 settlement, $305,000 goes to lawyers and fees. The sisters' former workers who were paid biweekly stand to collect less than $200 each.

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/long-island-dairy-queen-biweekly-paychecks-lawsuit/

[Brett Bellmore]

Some actual reportage from Portland:

My Shocking Undercover Experience at Portland's Antifa-Besieged ICE Building

[Sarcastr0]

Ignore the cameras, listen to this partisan lady.

It is in a style that Brett would like. Breathless speculation and fear of cities.

“There is an Antifa operator whom I've observed in many ICE videos and still photos, and whom I've seen for years at other leftist gatherings in Portland. He's violent. He's at ICE all the time, and I've told my friend who covers this story nearly every day to stay away from this guy. ”

“ Once I was in the zone, it took less than five minutes for me to ruffle the feathers of the willowy Antifa Karen”

She didn’t experience much, so she transitions into rumor and hearsay.
“ My friend HunnyBadgerMom (her X handle), C.K. Bouferrache, tells me that Antifa works in shifts. They go back to their safe house nearby, which is well known, and get a little R&R before they start their next shift at night, where the violence takes place. I caught the shift change in a photo. ”

No violence actually seen. Just breathless ‘reporting’ of how scared people seemed and speculation about how the protestors are organized.
Oh sorry I mean Antifa.

And then of course plenty of talk about 2020. Which could be a clue to those not as pickled as Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

Who the hell is ignoring the camera? It actually confirms what she's saying. She really was accosted by a guy with an umbrella who was trying to prevent her from documenting things.

Not the sort of thing you do if you understand yourself be be behaving legally...

[DDHarriman]

Ignore reality and listen to Sacastr0.

That way you won't be called a fascist by him.

[Sarcastr0]

YOU are ignoring the cameras. They do not confirm what she said.

She really was accosted by a guy with an umbrella
UMBRELLA ANTIFA.

You delude yourself about the violent left so you can justify state violence about the left.
Full on jackboot licking. The worst libertarian.
-----------------
There are plenty of live feeds that have been linked by our actual Portland resident:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/10/06/monday-open-thread-126/?comments=true#comment-11234769

You prefer reading hysterical accounts of ridiculous people who saw nothing, but speculate a lot.

'I talked to a neighbor and I could tell she was terrified of Antifa even if she didn't say so!'
'A fellow twitter journalist tells me Antifa's daily ops rhythm!'

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, literally a guy in head to toe black and goggles was accosting her with an umbrella in order to prevent her from legally taking pictures.

"Hur, hur, you said umbrella!"

Idiot.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not saying dude was being a model citizen, but your sense of what counts as violence is about the same as your sense of what counts as Antifa.

Drama first, facts second.

[David Nieporent]

Have you seen left wing protesters? They don't "accost" opponents with umbrellas in the sense of hitting them over the head with said umbrellas. They follow the opponents around and hold the umbrellas out in front of them so that those opponents can't video the protesters. It's aggressive and annoying and illiberal, but it is not fixing bayonets and charging.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's aggressive, annoying, illiberal, AND legally assault.

And they do it because they know they're up to illegal shit and don't want evidence to accumulate.

[David Nieporent]

AND legally assault.

Hitting someone with an umbrella is assault. Standing in front of them with an open umbrella to make it harder for them to photo/video is not assault.

And they do it because they know they're up to illegal shit and don't want evidence to accumulate.

Or maybe they're worried about right wingers firebombing their houses!

[Brett Bellmore]

No, hitting someone with an umbrella is battery Using an umbrella to restrict their freedom of movement and actions would be assault.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett - look up assault in Oregon before you start making assertions.

https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_163.160

[TwelveInchPianist]

Is criminal assault the only assault there is in Oregon, or is there civil assault?

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair enough, these definitions vary from state to state, and in Oregon it was probably "menacing", instead.

[Sarcastr0]

Now look a the camera feeds that Estragon linked.

Face it, none of the cities Trump claims are war zones are anything like that.

[Michael P]

It's like they have a script: "sure, two or more persons conspire[d] to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in Portland in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same -- and two or more persons went in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -- but it's not like a conspiracy against rights in this case should be a federal felony punishable by ten years in prison!"

[Sarcastr0]

What conspiracy, and rights are you talking about?

[Brett Bellmore]

She had a right to walk around taking photos, for one.

[Sarcastr0]

No sign of a conspiracy.
Nothing like injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate.
And the umbrella got put away pretty quickly, making the rights violation pretty ephemeral.

You and Michel keep reaching, and not finding.

[not guilty]

"She had a right to walk around taking photos, for one."

Taking photographs in a public place is a First Amendment right. That right even extends to photography of naked bodies that are on display in a public place. But a female private citizen wearing a burka is not an abridgement of my right to photograph nudity.

[not guilty]

Conspiracy to open an umbrella? Yeah, right!

As with all supposed "conspiracies," the devil is in the details.

Who were the conspirators? What was the conspiratorial objective? When was the conspiratorial agreement formed? When was the objective achieved or abandoned? Whose federal rights did the conspirators agree to violate? Which particular federal rights were targeted?

Inquiring minds want to know, Michael P.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Michael P. Put some flesh on the bones of your conspiracy to open an umbrella.

[not guilty]

STILL waiting, Michael P.

[bernard11]

head to toe black and goggles

Wow. Kind of makes you wonder how Ms. Taft could claim,

There is an Antifa operator whom I've observed in many ICE videos and still photos, and whom I've seen for years at other leftist gatherings in Portland. He's violent.

[Michael P]

She didn't come close to implying those two were the same Antifa goon, you goof.

[David Nieporent]

Not the sort of thing you do if you understand yourself be be behaving legally...

So now you agree with the libertarian criticism of ICE's behavior in the last 9 months?

[Brett Bellmore]

I agree that ICE should not be untraceable, yes. Automatically doxed, OTOH?

I think we could get the job done with numbered badges that allowed for official and judicial accountability without every yahoo rioter knowing whose house to firebomb.

[bernard11]

Brett,

The video doesn't prove anything. It's a jumble.

Nor does the photograph of the "shift change." It shows three people walking down the street, only one of whom is dressed all in black.

Ms. Taft, who is nothing if not a self-glorifying bloviator - did you read that BS -, apparently considers walking down the street to be "taking over" the block.

Since Antifa marches to their daily activities from their assembly spot at a nearby park, that makes at least four blocks they have taken over.

Fucking ridiculous. Of course it's largely what you expect from a lying RW radio blowhard.

[Michael P]

Sure, but denialists gonna denialist.

[Bwaaah]

Denialize?

[not guilty]

Brett, if your shocked undercover reporter's experience in Portland wasn't brought to the attention of Judge Immergut, it means diddley squat.

Here are the affidavits submitted by the Defendants in opposition to the request for a temporary restraining order:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.189270/gov.uscourts.ord.189270.37.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.189270/gov.uscourts.ord.189270.38.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ord.189270/gov.uscourts.ord.189270.40.0.pdf

Ctrl-F searches of these documents reveal no mention of any umbrellas.

In a United States District Court, facts actually offered into evidence matter.

[David Nieporent]

The MAGA case has gone from "war zone" to "someone held up an umbrella so I couldn't take his picture."

[apedad]

Grand Jury Declines to Indict Two Chicago-Area ICE Protesters

A federal grand jury declined to indict two people charged with assaulting law enforcement agents outside a suburban Chicago ICE facility, an attorney for one of the defendants said.

The rejection of charges by a grand jury, once extremely unusual, is growing more common in cities targeted by President Donald Trump with immigration raids, military deployments, and other federal resources to crack down on crime.

It’s extremely rare for grand juries not to return indictments. Grand jurors don’t hear defense arguments and prosecutors are asked to meet a much lower standard of proof—probable cause—than when proving a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/grand-jury-declines-to-indict-two-chicago-area-ice-protesters

The grand jury didn't even need to hear the defense side (couldn't anyway) to reject the indictment.

[Armchair]

Might be time to move the trials elsewhere. Downstate.

[apedad]

[apedad]

Cf. United States v. Cessa, 856 F.3d 370, 372 (5th Cir. 2017) ("[A] grand jury should return an indictment only in a district where venue lies.")

[Sarcastr0]

Man, DoJ has been really eating it lately.

Rather than a ton of grand juries across the country suddenly getting into nullification out of the blue, the simpler explanation is it arises from new events - staff cuts, and top-down insistence on overcharging.

[loki13]

I think that there are three intertwined issues (which you allude to, but I am breaking them out more particularly) that are leading to these results. You'd have to look at each case to see which of the three (or how they intersect) is affecting each instance:

1. Venue. This is the "facts on the ground" issue. In some areas, the grand jury is aware that ... the facts being presented to it in some cases are not the actual facts. This is also tied into the next factor ...

2. Overcharging. Think of this as the "sandwich" issue. It doesn't matter how much the prosecutor is presenting a skewed version of the facts, if the charges sound like preposterous overcharging ("He assaulted the ICE Officer and committed a terrorist act by leaping on his fist with the back of his head ten times!!!11!!!") they might not want to indict.

3. Incompetence. The trouble with gutting the DOJ and putting in loyalist morons ... is that they're not very good attorneys and have no actual experience. In other words, they are so bad that they couldn't indict a ham sandwich. Or indict someone for assault with a ham sandwich. In addition, you do have some instances when the few remaining competent attorneys don't want to participate (sign their names) to overcharging and/or frivolous (lack of predicate) charges, leading to only the loyalist moron ... with predictably disastrous results (see, e.g., Comey indictment).

1 & 2 is the grand jury functioning as intended. 3 is specifically Trumpian.

[Bob from Ohio]

"across the country"

Left wing cities.

They listen to all the "gestapo" garbage.

[SRG2]

Unconstitutional

[David Nieporent]

You might want to review the Sixth Amendment.

(For the pedants: strictly speaking, the Sixth Amendment doesn't say that the trial can't be held elsewhere. But the jurors themselves must be from the Chicago area, not downstate.)

[bernard11]

That's it. Keep trying until you find one that does what you want. Probably won't take more than three or four tries.

[John F. Carr]

Is the Chicago case like the sandwich case in D.C. where the conduct was technically a felony but a really stupid one? Charging a felony for that is like charging a felony for throwing glitter on the President of Harvard as a political protest. He is over 60 so assaulting him is a felony instead of a misdemeanor.

[Bob from Ohio]

They have no idea.

Look at loki, he knows nothing about the Chicago US attorney office but speculates its a gutted office.

From the USA's official bio:

"On July 24, 2025, the U.S. District Court in Chicago approved the appointment on a permanent basis after the full Court met in executive session."

U.S. District Court in Chicago has a Dem appointed majority. Yet they approved an incompetent MAGA loyalist. Its just vibes, as Sarcasto accuses other people of practicing.

[not guilty]

"Is the Chicago case like the sandwich case in D.C. where the conduct was technically a felony but a really stupid one? Charging a felony for that is like charging a felony for throwing glitter on the President of Harvard as a political protest. He is over 60 so assaulting him is a felony instead of a misdemeanor."

As another commenter here observed, the grand jury declined to indict for assault with a deli weapon.

I wish I had thought of that quip.

[Frank Drackman]

You know, Birmingham and Selma were "Mostly Peaceful" in the 1960's.
Way more peaceful than they are now.

Frank

[bernard11]

Birmingham and Selma were "Mostly Peaceful" in the 1960's.

"Bombingham" was not mostly peaceful. Mountain Brook, Vestavia, and Homewood were, but not the city, unless you don't count Klan violence and brutal police tactics.

And yeah. I was there.

[Michael P]

I am looking forward to the mass permanent firings of bureaucrats that will result from the Schumer shutdown. They won't be enough to balance the budget, but every bit helps.

[hobie]

They could start by eliminating the Department of Justice. I mean all it is effective at doing at the moment is blocking the Epstein inquiries

[DDHarriman]

The DOJ underlings are also insurrecting to protect criminal Democrats from being prosecuted too. Shitcan them all and replace with patriots, not Democrats.

[hobie]

All them Dems in DOJ keep blocking the Epstein files, eh?

[Sarcastr0]

The DOJ underlings are also insurrecting
Fascism can never fail it can only be failed.

[David Nieporent]

Is "DDHarriman" just Voltage guy?

[DDHarriman]

That's none of your fucking business David.

[Brett Bellmore]

He was The Man Who Sold The Moon! What are you, uncultured?

[Armchair]

In other news, the Ukraine war continues.

But as I had previously suggested, Ukraine may be getting Tomahawk missiles since Putin didn't come to the peace table.

Sounds like a gradual escalation of Tomahawk strikes is anticipated.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ukraine-prepares-delivery-tomahawk-missiles-203132782.html

[Swede425]

Got to tour a dental school and a distillery this weekend.
Also ate at a Waffle House, which isn't in Michigan (why?).
Yuengling just made it here so maybe in a few more decades WH will find it's way to this glorious peninsula.
Bought a new heater for the ice shanty.
All in all a great weekend.

[Brett Bellmore]

Where do you use your ice shanty? When I lived in Michigan, about 20 minutes out of Port Huron, I frequently drove by that "tip up town" in Anchor bay.

As a kid I tried my hand at ice fishing, but fishing through a tiny hole bored in 3' thick ice while standing around in freezing winds wasn't as fun as dropping a line from a boat in the summer.

Might have felt differently if I'd been using a shanty.

I'll soon start building one of these, for spending my weekends out on the water. I guess you could call it a "water" shanty instead of an ice one.

[ThePublius]

"I'll soon start building one of these, for spending my weekends out on the water. I guess you could call it a "water" shanty instead of an ice one."

Cool boat, I like it! But why just the weekends, are you not retired yet?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm going to go on SS in January, and continue working for a while. But my wife will still be working for decades yet, there's a big age gap between us, and I'd kind of like to have her along if I'm out on the lake.

[Swede425]

Portage Lake in Onekama for perch and sometimes walleye.

[Brett Bellmore]

I do miss those Michigan perch, though my favorite was always the pickerel. Down here in the South it's striped bass. OK, but they're not pickerel.

[bernard11]

For me it's pompano. Sadly, the only pompano available around here is farmed, and comes from China.

[Brett Bellmore]

They do grill nice, don't they?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Bought a new heater for the ice shanty."

To keep the hookers warm? That's nice of you.

[Swede425]

No, these are classy broads.
"Ladies Of The Evening", if you please.

[Krayt]

When the tip is up, it's showtime.

[loki13]

Way back in 1980, Ronald Reagan closed his campaign by asking, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

It was a different time. I mean, being a conservative was, um, different I guess. But I was thinking about that because I was just thinking ...

"Is the country better off than it was 10 months ago?"

Honestly. Ten months ago. Seems like ten years ago, doesn't it? Here's a few differences-
1. We have regular deployments of troops (national guard and otherwise) in American cities.
2. We have the military blowing up boats in the Gulf of Me... Whatever Trump is calling it today ... with no legal justification. Oh, and we're probably going to attack Venezuela without, um, any kind of AUMF (let alone a war, because we haven't done that for a while).
3. The Executive Branch operates most of the economy unilaterally- setting tariffs on any and all countries, striking deals, picking winners and losers, taking "a piece of the action" (and/or the corporation) when it wants under threat of force (economic or otherwise) and so on. In addition, it's not just for economic reasons- it's whenever the Executive chooses. "That's a nice country/company you have there. Be a shame if anything happens to it."
4. You know, I just heard that Trump's next birthday will have a UFC event (bestie Dana White) broadcast by CBS (bestie Ellison) at the White House (because that's where it should be?). Nothing to see, amirite?
5. Oh, remember that totally not-bribe by Qatar of a $400 million dollar jet to Trump ... sorry, to the Air Force that then goes to the Trump Foundation for his library and will completely not be used by Trump after he leaves office? We just agreed to use our military to defend Qatar! Gotta say, Qatar invests wisely.
6. I can't even talk about the DOJ. It makes me too sad.
7. We've pretty much given up on the idea that the government won't coerce companies and individuals on free speech, right?
8. Also, we have the President (and others) just openly saying that they intend to go after and punish people they disagree with. Which is kind of the antithesis of everything this country stands for.
9. And, finally, we have normalized the idea of "masked, unidentified, jack-booted thugs from the federal government" in our streets stopping people and taking them away with no reason, no probable cause, and no ability to contest it. Which, wow. That used to be at least one thing that united the crazy left and the crazy right and the middle of the country in opposition.

Ten months. Do you feel better about things? Not ANGRIER. Better? About the economy? About the direction and unity of the country? Do you believe that people are coming together? Do you think that there is any meaningful leadership that is appealing to people's better natures?

I get that some people might not care about many of the issues- after all, it's easy to pass over most of the things when you can simply be angry and allow spite and vindictiveness to drive you. You might be thinking, "Payback is a bitch!" But ... payback for what? Against whom?

Only you can answer that- but the problem is, once the Rubicon is crossed, you can't go back.

[Josh R]

Sadly, most people don't care about Trump's fascistic power grab until it affects them. But as you previously said, the immediate test for our democracy is whether we have free and fair elections in 2026 no matter who wins. At this point, it's likely the Democrats take back the House (even with gerrymandering) thanks to what people care about: inflation. On the other hand, I do not put it pass Trump to accelerate his emergency powers to attempt to delay the elections.

[loki13]

That's where I'm at. Mostly. I keep assuming that there will be a course correction with the 2026 midterms, but I'm also not blind. I assumed through the beginning of the summer that it wouldn't be an issue, but everything we've been seeing- from the mid-cycle gerrymandering to the trial runs of putting troops in cities- makes me believe that there is a strong possibility that this won't happen.

I mean, it's not like this President ever had frank discussions before about overturning an election, and using the military and the Insurrection Act to do so. ...oh, wait, he did? NVM.

Anyway, AFAIC, it's canary in the coal mine time. I assume that if you have the ability and means to do so, you've made plans. "It can't happen here," is what everyone says until it happens.

[ducksalad]

It's highly unlikely that Trump would even try to cancel elections via executive order, and it's virtually impossible that state officials who run elections would obey such an order. Any state that cancelled its own elections while other states went ahead would be shooting itself in the foot. There aren't enough "loyal" federal officers to forcibly shut down almost 100,000 polling locations.

What I do see as possible is frantic late election night claims that a steal is in progress in particular locations, leading Trump to send in federal officers to seize voting machines, ballot boxes, and rolls of who voted for "safe keeping" or to "preserve evidence". It sounds more plausible and is less obvious than a straight cancellation, and there is enough manpower to do it in a few dozen key locations.

[DDHarriman]

You only need to steal five counties to win any national election.

Fulton. Maricopa. Milwaukee. Wayne. and one in PA.

That's not that big of a lift, as we saw in 2020.

[ThePublius]

Without getting into it, point by point, and refuting several of your characterizations of the situation,

Yes! I am better off in the last 10 months compared to the Biden administration. The border is shut, tariffs are having the desired effect, ICE is rounding up illegal immigrants, including dangerous criminals: gangs, drug dealers, rapists, and so forth. He's blowing up boats moving deadly fentanyl to our shores. He's pursuing peace the world over, something Biden never did.

I like it. This is what I voted for.

[hobie]

I think Trump is doing better personally. He's inexplicably amassed $3.4B since inauguration.

[DDHarriman]

If you want an explanation, just read the analysis that led them to conclude the increase in net worth.

Surely they don't just go "b/c reasons ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

[David Nieporent]

You voted for pointless actions to harm harmless people and undermine the economy? Okay: but how does that make you better off, unless you're just a sadist who gets off on seeing people suffer?

[Sarcastr0]

This is all harm to people (with no or minimal process). It is not benefit to you.

This says a lot about you, I think.

At least you don't gloat about it like some, I suppose.

[John F. Carr]

Reagan was asking people who lived through stagflation how they felt. I am doing about as well as 10 months ago. The country is kind of crazy. Maybe some day the craziness will affect me. For now I do not get emotional over Trump. Not Trump the savior. Not Trump the instrument of our destruction.

[hobie]

Farmers are definitely not better off. But I think the welfare bailout will keep them loyal

[Mr. Bumble]

Know a lot of farmers, do you?

[DDHarriman]

Yes, his main home is in da hood, but his vacation home is right in the middle of 18 Iowa small farms. So he's an expert on blacks and on farming.

[hobie]

I was going to reply to you and say that I'm just relaying what I read on Fox News...then I went to Fox news and typed in soybean farmers in the search field...zero results. That's the news bubble you hayseeds live in. No wonder you don't know anything

[Bunny495]

"I get that some people might not care about many of the issues"

The real question is not just what issues voters care about but how the voters are informed about issues. I have often posted one of Turmp's super powers is making liberal's heads explode and truth be told this is a big OK for a lot of voters. While I am convinced a commie will be the next mayor of NYC I am just as convinced this will not play well in the wider country. There are several other what I will call silly but high profile issues that will help the pubs.

Bottom line is a lot of stuff you mentioned are really on the back burner to most voters.

[Keldonric]

That’s true — most people won’t dig deeply into issues that don’t touch them directly.
Even on politically charged topics, attention usually takes the form of monitoring information within one’s familiar bubble rather than actively researching details.
From a practical standpoint, that’s rational — time and energy are scarce, and for most voters, the payoff from mastering policy specifics is minimal.
So the people who do invest that effort — maybe a quarter of the population — end up shaping much of the public conversation for everyone else.

[Josh R]

Looks like Colorado's conversion therapy ban, at least applied to Chiles, will be struck down.

To me, the most telling moment during oral arguments was Colorado's solicitor general Shannon Stevenson answer to whether a hypothetical law that banned speech which affirmed one's sexual orientation would pass muster. Because her argument (which I agree with) is rational basis review applies to Colorado's law because it is a regulation of licensed medical practice rather than speech, it makes sense the mirror-image law would also be subject to rational-basis review. But she took the position the mirror-image law would be subject to strict scrutiny as viewpoint discrimination if it was not grounded in prevailing standards of medical care.

Neither Justice Gorsuch or Barrett seemed to be persuaded by that argument. Nor was I. Under Shannon's theory, judges de facto engage in heightened scrutiny when they determine whether laws are grounded in prevailing standards of medical care. She would have been better served if he just said rational basis applies in both cases.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" prevailing standards of medical care."

I'm not sure why the "prevailing standards of medical care" has anything to do with the case. The "medical community" doesn't have any particular constitutional standing, and there's no reason we can't reject their viewpoint even when there's a consensus.

For example, a psychologist should have a first amendment right to hell a gay patient that he's fine even if, as was recently the case, there is a consensus that it's a mental illness.

[DDHarriman]

Right, the Constitution gives no deference to the opinions of bureaucrats or technocrats or their current standards of care.

[Josh R]

I disagree (the state could ban a licensed therapist from using pure speech to affirm a gay person's identity back when being gay was considered a mental illness). But the good news is both of us are consistent when the shoe is on the other foot of our preferred policy outcomes even though we disagree in all cases. Shannon's problem is she wanted her policy outcome to always win.

[John F. Carr]

Suppose strict scrutiny applies. Colorado could parade a line of expert witnesses to testify that if a therapist says "don't be gay" the children will surely die. Everybody in the medical profession agrees except for the people who are wrong.

If the trier of fact thinks the consequences of speech are bad enough the speech can be banned even if strict scrutiny applies. In a normal case the trier of fact is the trial judge. In this case, probably not. One to three of the current Supreme Court members will buy the argument about catastrophic consequences. Several others will disregard the testimony of all the highly credentialed witnesses.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If the trier of fact thinks the consequences of speech are bad enough the speech can be banned..."

They're not talking about the court making findings of fact about the consequences of speech and using expert opinion as evidence, they're talking about applying different constitutional standards based on whether or not the legislation is consistent with a standard of care, or consensus in the medical community.

There's no reason a legislature should be bound by opinion, even consensus of the "medical community". They should be free to decide that a consensus of doctors is flat wrong.

[David Nieporent]

Neither Justice Gorsuch or Barrett seemed to be persuaded by that argument. Nor was I. Under Shannon's theory, judges de facto engage in heightened scrutiny when they determine whether laws are grounded in prevailing standards of medical care. She would have been better served if he just said rational basis applies in both cases.

Yes. That's a bizarre argument, assuming you're relaying it correctly. (I haven't yet read the transcript, but I will.) Why would prevailing standards of medical care affect the level of scrutiny? It might affect the application of test, but not what the test is.

[Josh R]

I said de facto heightened scrutiny. To be sure, Shannon says you first look to standards of medical care to decide whether rational basis or strict scrutiny applies, which is (as you put it) the application of the test. However, the effect of deciding which test applies (by looking at standards of medical care) is a form of heightened scrutiny because every law must survive that analysis.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The prevailing standards of medical care test is a way to determine if the law is neutral. If a law is not neutral, it would be a red flag, including perhaps as a sign of animus or viewpoint discrimination.

Shannon's problem is she wanted her policy outcome to always win.

I don't see how that is true. If the "shoe were on the other foot," that is, a law banned pro-trans counseling, the law under her test could be upheld (on free speech grounds) if it met prevailing standards of medical care.

A gotcha provided, for instance, was the old view that homosexuality was a psychological problem. A state that followed traditional medical thought on the question in the 1950s would be safe. It might be shown that the thought was tainted by animus, but that would be a separate concern.

And, the previous trans medical care had a low concern for that, anyhow. The oral argument suggests to me that the conservative majority is more concerned about free speech for certain things (not abortion related speech, which is artificially cabined) than equal protection concerns.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"previous trans medical care"

that should be "case"

[Bob from Ohio]

"licensed medical practice"

How is a non MD counselor practicing medicine?

[not guilty]

Colorado's solicitor general did a poor job of defending the statute.

Of course counsel for an appellee will ordinarily defend the reasoning of the court below, but I believe that the State should have argued in the alternative that, if the statute is a content-based regulation of speech as the plaintiff contends, it nevertheless can survive strict scrutiny review -- especially on the evidentiary record developed at the preliminary injunction stage.

Let me illustrate by means of a hypothetical. Suppose a state legislature enacts a statute declaring that it is unprofessional conduct for a licensed psychotherapist to recommend that a client who wishes to quit smoking do so by means of shooting a bullet into his temple, and any licensee who does so is subject to professional discipline. That would amount to a content-based prohibition of speech, but the state could easily show that it is supported by a compelling governmental interest in preserving the client's life, which interest could not be achieved by means less restrictive of the therapist's speech.

If SCOTUS decides that strict scrutiny applies to the challenged statute, the remedy here should be to remand to the District Court for a new evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction.

[TwelveInchPianist]

" I believe that the State should have argued in the alternative that, if the statute is a content-based regulation of speech as the plaintiff contends, it nevertheless can survive strict scrutiny review -- especially on the evidentiary record developed at the preliminary injunction stage."

How do you get narrow tailoring? You'd have to show that any speech-based treatment that desires a particular set of outcomes is harmful enough that the government has a compelling interest in preventing it, and I don't see how you can do that.

[not guilty]

Fair question. Do you mean narrow tailoring as to the Colorado statute or as to my hypothetical?

Per the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/22-1445/22-1445-2024-09-12.pdf?ts=1726162352 , under the MCTL a mental health professional may not engage in “[c]onversion therapy with a client who is under eighteen years of age.” That is one aspect of narrow tailoring -- adults who wish to voluntarily undergo conversion therapy can do so, and minors are more likely than adults to be subjected to unwanted therapy against their will.

“Conversion therapy” is defined in the MCTL as:

any practice or treatment by licensee, registrant, or certificate holder that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex. . . .

“Conversion therapy” does not include practices or treatments that provide . . . [a]cceptance, support, and understanding for the facilitation of an individual’s coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices, as long as the counseling does not seek to change sexual orientation or gender identity; or . . . [a]ssistance to a person undergoing gender transition.

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-245-202(3.5). Anyone “engaged in the practice of religious ministry” is exempt from complying with the Mental Health Practice Act—including the MCTL. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-245-217(1). Those definitions do not prohibit speech more broadly than what the legislature has identified as harmful, and the ministerial exception accommodates religious practitioners and religious clients who wish to seek out therapies that for licensed professionals are verboten. Also, unlicensed persons such as life coaches are available to nonreligious clients who wish to engage them. The statute is not a ban on conversion therapy; it is a targeted blocking thereof.

The Tenth Circuit observed that, since the 2019 statute has been on the books, the Defendants have never enforced the MCTL against anyone. That is further evidence of narrow tailoring.

"When a plausible, less restrictive alternative is offered to a content-based speech restriction, it is the Government's obligation to prove that the alternative will be ineffective to achieve its goals." United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 816 (2000). The Plaintiff here and her counsel, the Alliance Defending Fanatics, proffered no less restrictive alternative(s) that would prevent the harms that the Colorado legislature had identified.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The less restrictive alternative would be to ban specific practices that have been found to be harmful enough to create a compelling interest, and not any practice with a particular goal.

[not guilty]

Begging the question much, TwelveInchPianist?

[TwelveInchPianist]

How so?

[not guilty]

"The less restrictive alternative would be to ban specific practices that have been found to be harmful enough to create a compelling interest, and not any practice with a particular goal."

How has the state not done that here?

The governmental interest is in preventing harmful "therapy" administered by state-licensed mental health professionals. The legislature has targeted a so-called "therapeutic" approach that, based on evidence adduced at the preliminary injunction hearing, is highly likely to have that deleterious effect. Prohibiting additional therapeutic approaches would be the exact opposite of narrow tailoring.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, let's say a therapist has a gay client who wants to be straight, and has other issues. Prior to therapy sessions where they discuss other issues, the therapist hangs a tasteful portrait of an attractive woman on the wall, hoping that seeing the portrait will cause the client to like girls.

Such a practice would fall under the statute, no?

Why would the state have a compelling interest in preventing such a practice? What evidence is there that is highly likely to have that deleterious effect?

[not guilty]

I don't see how that innocuous behavior would fall within the statutory definition of conversion therapy.

And if it somehow did, it beggars belief that any professional disciplinary authority would seek sanctions therefor.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's a practice by a covered person that seeks to change a person's sexual orientation.

Whether any professional disciplinary authority would seek sanctions is relevant to standing.

The point is that you can't show that any practice with one of the specified purposes is likely to cause harm. You can only potentially show that some practices with some of the specified purposes might cause harm.

[Frank Drackman]

No sign of “Martinned”, maybe his Pedio King cut off the Internets.

[ThePublius]

He probably has a day off. I feel he only posts when he's in the office and supposed to be working.

[apedad]

Central witness undermines case against James Comey, prosecutors concluded: Sources

Federal prosecutors investigating former FBI Director James Comey for allegedly making false statements to Congress determined that a central witness in their probe would prove "problematic" and likely prevent them from establishing their case to a jury, sources familiar with their findings told ABC News.

Daniel Richman -- a law professor who prosecutors allege Comey authorized to leak information to the press -- told investigators that the former FBI director instructed him not to engage with the media on at least two occasions and unequivocally said Comey never authorized him to provide information to a reporter anonymously ahead of the 2016 election, the sources said.

Comey, who was indicted last month on charges of making a false statement and obstruction related to 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, is due to appear in a Virginia courtroom for the first time for his arraignment Wednesday -- but Justice Department officials have privately expressed that the case could quickly unravel under the scrutiny of a federal judge and defense lawyers.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/central-witness-undermines-case-james-comey-prosecutors-concluded/story?id=126311648

The Law and Constitution fight back!

Maybe things won't be so bad (see my note above about grand juries too).

[Mr. Bumble]

So Comey and his friend are both liars.

[David Nieporent]

Well, that's certain convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Sarcastr0]

The Justice Department has brought in two AUSAs from out of state to work the Comey prosecution, since no one else would sign off on that.

[Riva]

It’s wise not to rely on DC staff. Already Comey already gets special treatment. He gets to slither in and out of federal court. No pictures, no mug shot, no perp walk. A picture is worth a thousand words. Deep state slugs fully understand this.

[David Nieporent]

It's not DC, it's EDVA.

And Trump was indicted in four locales, and didn't have perp walks or mug shots in three of them. So, um, no: it's not "special treatment" for Comey.

[Riva]

Not DC? The Alexandria division of the EDVA? A distinction without a difference, except for dishonest witless trolls like crazy Dave.

And again, special, preferential treatment for Comey, no perp walk, no mug shot, no photo at all. Something all Trump associates endured in varying degrees, as well as President Trump himself (as crazy Dave concedes) in the lawfare abuses. Maybe Crazy Dave fails to grasp his admission? He’s not too bright.

[not guilty]

Mr. Comey testified by video hookup from his home in Virginia before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was meeting in D.C. The government accordingly had a choice of whether to seek an indictment in the District of Columbia or in the Eastern District of Virginia, per 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a).

[Riva]

That's not the point Clarence Darrow.

[hobie]

I for one want this trial to go forward. Comey will get lovely, lovely discovery and also the chance to go line-by-line how Trump colluded with Russia.

[DDHarriman]

lmao wtf, you still seriously believe that?

[hobie]

Putin, Helsinki 2018 joint press conference:

Putin was asked whether he directed any of his officials to help Trump’s presidential campaign...

“Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal,”

oops

[DDHarriman]

Woah! A confession from the Russian leader himself!!

Irrefutable!

lol good grief

[Michael P]

The actual transcript, which has been recently discussed to death:

REPORTER: Did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?

PUTIN: Yes, I wanted him to win. Because he talked about bringing the U.S. Russia relationship back to normal.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/16/629462401/transcript-president-trump-and-russian-president-putins-joint-press-conference

Putin was answering the first half of the question, and it wasn't clear that he even heard the second half before he answered the first half.

[Bob from Ohio]

Libs believe in Schrödinger's Putin.

A liar but a complete truth teller when it comes to Trump.

[not guilty]

"Putin was answering the first half of the question, and it wasn't clear that he even heard the second half before he answered the first half."

How do you claim to know that, Michael P?

[jay.tee]

Because, as we’ve already covered at length in debunking your assertion, every single person present at the press conference and observed the interaction who reported on it knew the interpreter spoke over the second half of the reporter’s question.

In other words, no informed, rational person believes what you believe.

[David Nieporent]

Do you not know how simultaneous translation works?

[jay.tee]

I’m glad you continue to demonstrate to everyone just how uninformed you really are.

Keep it up!

[Life of Brian]

Here's alt-right PBS's take back at the time:

Putin said it was “nonsense” to think Russia meddled in the 2016 election.

When asked whether he wanted Mr. Trump to win, President Putin smiled. “Yes I did. Yes I did,” he said. “Because he talked about bringing the US-Russia relationship back to normal.”

So even they recognized the question was compound and that Putin clearly included which part he was responding to in his answer. Seems really uncomplicated unless you're bending over backwards trying to manufacture a hot take (so hot it would also flatly contradict his extensive "nonsense" answer they reference above).

[hobie]

Trump June 2017 - "Just out: The Obama Administration knew far in advance of November 8th about election meddling by Russia. Did nothing about it. WHY?"

oops

[John F. Carr]

Nobody is fighting back right now. Comey is likely to claim vindictive prosecution. If the judge finds his claim plausible, only then will the Justice Department need to convince the judge that prosecutors thought the case was good. Otherwise the government's evidence can't be judged until trial.

If I had to bet, Comey won't be convicted.

[Zarniwoop]

Since I’m not up to speed on selective/vidictive prosecution arguments, I found this to be a useful read:

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-comey-indictment-and-selective-or-vindictive-prosecution

“ But it is notoriously difficult for defendants to prevail on selective and vindictive prosecution motions. The executive branch enjoys broad prosecutorial discretion under long-standing interpretations of the Constitution’s Take Care Clause. And under the presumption of regularity, a general principle applied to cases involving executive discretion, courts presume that “in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary,” officials “have properly discharged their official duties.”

Still, courts have recognized certain constitutional constraints on the executive branch’s power to prosecute individuals—specifically, the protections afforded to criminal defendants under the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. Selective prosecution motions invoke the former; vindictive prosecution motions invoke the latter. In practice, both kinds of claims are difficult to prove and involve burdensome doctrinal hoops. Whether Comey would succeed on either claim, then, is far from certain.”

[David Nieporent]

Whether Comey would succeed on either claim, then, is far from certain.”

It is very far from certain, but Trump has done everything in his power to help Comey along in that regard. You can't get much more obvious that there's no regularity when you rantingly tweet that someone should be prosecuted and fire the prosecutor who said that there wasn't evidence to support it, appointing one's personal insurance lawyer as the prosecutor to do it.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody is fighting back right now. Comey is likely to claim vindictive prosecution. If the judge finds his claim plausible, only then will the Justice Department need to convince the judge that prosecutors thought the case was good. Otherwise the government's evidence can't be judged until trial.

On his podcast, Ken White/Popehat has discussed the two possible strategies for Comey to take: one is to make a motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution, and the other is to skip that and force this to go to trial as quickly as possible, to win on the merits. Either one has benefits and risks.

[Zarniwoop]

Took a little while to find, so I’m dropping a link for others who might be interested.

https://www.serioustrouble.show/p/stop-making-us-defend-james-comey

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link, Zarniwoop. There is some trenchant commentary there.

James Comey deserved to be fired, for the reasons identified by Rod Rosenstein. But this prosecution is bullshit.

The potential vindictiveness claim here is strong as horseradish.

[Zarniwoop]

Thanks for the tip, the discussion starting at about 13:15 about vindictive prosecution is pretty good. For the reasons Ken White goes through, I personally suspect Comey will try the MtD for vindictive prosecution route, since that’s how that entire narrative comes out - it’s not relevant once a jury trial starts and wouldn’t be admissible.

Also, Ken White on the current administration (starting around 9:15):
“Josh, I think what we’re grappling with here is the sense that no prosecutor would do something this transparently bullshit. But I think that’s not 2025 thinking. So I think it’s completely plausible that this administration would bring a charge that’s knowingly false, that is knowingly meritless, in order to punish someone like James Comey. I think that’s something Lindsey Halligan would do, I think that’s something Pam Bondi would do, I think that’s something Donald Trump would do.”

No lies detected.

[Life of Brian]

No lies detected.

Nor could any really have been, given that every sentence (reflexively? protectively?) started with "I think."

[Zarniwoop]

I fully concede that Ken White was expressing an opinion.

What do you think of his opinion that

"it’s completely plausible that this administration would bring a charge that’s knowingly false, that is knowingly meritless, in order to punish someone like James Comey"

Let us know your thoughts, please! Or not, if you want to dodge the actual merits.

[Life of Brian]

Be thou not dismayed, my son. With TDS, all things are "plausible."

I'm not blinkered enough to say the probability is definitively zero. But as I know you know, knowingly false/meritless is a pretty high bar, particularly in situations with broad statutes and complex fact patterns. Even Comey himself weaseled his conclusion on Hillary that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case, not that bringing it would be per se improper. And some of the mile-long pretzel-twisting hopeful analyses on this very page strongly suggests this fact pattern (at least the facts the armchair quarterbacks are pretending to definitively be the ones the prosecution is relying on) is not even close to black and white acquittal territory.

And hey, if all that is wrong and the situation really is that clearcut, they should just file a MtD on the merits and start popping champagne corks rather than whining about vindictive prosecution, right?

[David Nieporent]

And hey, if all that is wrong and the situation really is that clearcut, they should just file a MtD on the merits and start popping champagne corks rather than whining about vindictive prosecution, right?

I mean, vindictive prosecution would be the basis of the MTD. You can't move to dismiss a criminal prosecution on the grounds that you're innocent.

[Life of Brian]

As I understand it, you can move to dismiss an indictment on the grounds that the grand jury didn't have evidence before it that the accused actually committed the crime charged. If the case truly is "knowingly false" and "knowingly meritless" then this shouldn't be a problem, right?

[not guilty]

Life of Brian, your understanding is deeply flawed. Whence did you get the impression that a criminal defendant "can move to dismiss an indictment on the grounds that the grand jury didn't have evidence before it that the accused actually committed the crime charged"?

"[T]he grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside[.]" United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 47 (1992). As SCOTUS opined in Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363 (1956):

If indictments were to be held open to challenge on the ground that there was inadequate or incompetent evidence before the grand jury, the resulting delay would be great indeed. The result of such a rule would be that, before trial on the merits, a defendant could always insist on a kind of preliminary trial to determine the competency and adequacy of the evidence before the grand jury. This is not required by the Fifth Amendment. An indictment returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, like an information drawn by the prosecutor, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits. The Fifth Amendment requires nothing more.

[Footnote omitted.] Accord: Williams, 504 U.S. at 54. The Williams Court approvingly quoted Justice Samuel Nelson's commentary while riding circuit in 1852:

"No case has been cited, nor have we been able to find any, furnishing an authority for looking into and revising the judgment of the grand jury upon the evidence, for the purpose of determining whether or not the finding was founded upon sufficient proof, or whether there was a deficiency in respect to any part of the complaint .... " United States v. Reed, 27 F. Cas. 727, 738 (No. 16,134) (CC NDNY 1852).

504 U.S. at 54.

[Life of Brian]

You're citing cases that appear to be more about splitting hairs over the quality of the evidence presented, whereas I'm discussing the claims of the naysayers that the prosecutors pursued a "knowingly false" and "knowingly meritless" case -- and thus by definition there could have been no legitimate evidence whatsoever presented to the grand jury that could have supported the indictment. And courts routinely look into grand jury proceedings to measure whether prosecutors manipulated the grand jury into indicting via phony evidence, and if they did whether the remaining evidence was enough to support the decision to indict. I'm a bit skeptical you didn't run across that phenomenon at least once or twice in your extensive career.

Given your notoriously well-established practice of spinning up super-thin and uber-creative arguments for those on your team, it's more than a bit surprising that here you're arguing that Comey isn't at all entitled to the benefit of what, based on the allegations higher up in this thread, appears to be a very straightforward defense indeed.

[not guilty]

There is another potential issue that can be raised by a defense motion to dismiss, which I have not seen discussed (except by me on a comment thread here several days ago).

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).

An actual transcript of the September 30, 2020 Judiciary Committee hearing shows that Mr. Comey did not in fact speak the words attributed in quotation marks to him:

Senator Cruz: (01:51:30) . . . 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?

Mr. Comey: (01:52:43) I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.

Senator Cruz: (01:52:50) 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?

Mr. Comey: (01:52:58) 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

Proving both falsity and materiality for purposes of § 1001(a) beyond a reasonable doubt as to the words that Mr. Comey actually spoke will be heavy lifts for the government, but that presents questions that can be determined only by the jury. See, United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 522-523 (1995). 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. I submit that whether § 1001(a) applies at all here is such an objection in light of § 1001(c), which provides:

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

(1)administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(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.

Whether Senator Crude's questions were propounded "pursuant to the authority of [the Judiciary] committee, . . . consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate" is a question of law which can be determined on a pretrial motion.

As SCOTUS 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.

The Court there opined, "We have no doubt that there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure. . . . The theory of a committee inquiry is that the committee members are serving as the representatives of the parent assembly in collecting information for a legislative purpose. Their function is to act as the eyes and ears of the Congress in obtaining facts upon which the full legislature can act." Id., at 200.

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. See also, United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 44 (1953) (The authorizing resolution "is the controlling charter of the committee's powers. Its right to exact testimony and to call for the production of documents must be found in this language.")

How were Senator Crude's questions of Mr. Comey germane to any scope of inquiry which the Senate had authorized the Judiciary to pursue? If not, the limitations imposed by § 1001(c) should serve to bar prosecution of Count One of the indictment. This can all be vetted in a pretrial motion hearing.

[Zarniwoop]

This lack of attention to detail seems exactly like what you'd expect from an utterly unqualified* Trump appointee with zero prosecution experience.

*well, I guess it does depend on what the qualifications are. USA Halligan appears to be "qualified" in the Trump sense of 1) slavishly loyal and 2) is a traditionally attractive woman. But not in the sense of, you know, legal skills and experience.

[David Nieporent]

But not in the sense of, you know, legal skills and experience.

She may be a perfectly good insurance lawyer.

[Zarniwoop]

Relatedly, a profile of the judge assigned to Comey’s case:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/08/politics/michael-nachmanoff-judge-overseeing-james-comey-case

Trump is already butthurt about it.

[DDHarriman]

Why shouldn't he be? Democrats don't hold other Democrats accountable. We're in the middle of a judicial coup, of course he's going to be upset.

[Bob from Ohio]

"appointee of former President Joe Biden"

Only question now is if its the MTD or Rule 29 motion that gets granted.

Rule of law baby!

[Zarniwoop]

Nah. If the only take you get from the article is "Oh noes but-but-Biden", then you haven't actually read or understood the article.

Or, for that matter, understand why some judges are cross-ideology respected for being no-nonsense, actually-good-judges as evidenced by their entire career, and why others (cough*Kacsmaryk, Cannon*cough) are regarded as "I know the result I want, I'll accept facts that support it" hacks.

[DDHarriman]

So far two recent events have surfaced a troubling trend. Political violence is becoming normalized for the Democrats.

We have that prominent VA AG candidate calling for horrific violence against conservatives, and now two Democrat career DOJ attorneys on their government phones doing the same.

Scary times, the Democrats have a blood lust and are foaming at their mouth seething with violent hatred for The Other.

One thing is for certain. If the Democrats steal another election and come into power again, there will be mass murder and oppression of Whites, conservatives, and Christians.

[hobie]

It's amusing to hear MAGA trying to convince people that a 'group' that tries to fight fascism is fascist.

That's all in the same foot-in-mouth failure vein of dems are pedophiles (turns out it was MAGA), and dems tried to steal election (yep, MAGA again)

That's part of the problem with trying to get everyone to believe that everyone that isn't MAGA are trans or antisemites. When you've been caught redhanded so many times practicing projection, it's pretty easy for everyone to figure out who's the real trannies.

[DDHarriman]

It's amusing to hear hobie trying to convince people that a person named 'Slim' is really fat! But then again, you are a Russian Collusion Truther.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It's amusing to hear MAGA trying to convince people that a 'group' that tries to fight fascism is fascist."

I know! Next they'll try to convince us that the guy who killed Hitler was a Nazi.

[not guilty]

"I know! Next they'll try to convince us that the guy who killed Hitler was a Nazi."

As a matter of fact, he was. (Which I surmise is your point.)

[Sarcastr0]

DC was a war zone.
Then Chicago.
Then Portland.
Now Chicago again.

At this point, it's clear to everyone what's going on.

MAGA is a combo of the too dumb to know and too zealous to care.

[SRG2]

Six surgeons general: It’s our duty to warn the nation about RFK Jr.

As former U.S. surgeons general appointed by every Republican and Democratic president since George H.W. Bush, we have collectively spent decades in service as the Nation’s Doctor. We took two sacred oaths in our lifetimes: first, as physicians who swore to care for our patients and, second, as public servants who committed to protecting the health of all Americans.

Today, in keeping with those oaths, we are compelled to speak with one voice to say that the actions of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are endangering the health of the nation. Never before have we issued a joint public warning like this. But the profound, immediate and unprecedented threat that Kennedy’s policies and positions pose to the nation’s health cannot be ignored.
----
Over recent months, we have watched with increasing alarm as the foundations of our nation’s public health system have been undermined. Science and expertise have taken a back seat to ideology and misinformation. Morale has plummeted in our health agencies, and talent is fleeing at a time when we face rising threats — from resurgent infectious diseases to worsening chronic illnesses.

Not that the cultists will care. RFKjr was appointed by Dear Leader, which is good enough for the cultists, who also adhere to the principle: "we don't want any stinking elites who think they know more than us, just because they know more than us"

[Sarcastr0]

Most of RFK Jr.'s bullshit so far is going after pregnant women and kids.

MAGA's demographics tend to not be much effected by that.

[DDHarriman]

haha yeah, MAGA doesn't have any wives or children. Great insight, and it matches reality to a T.

[John 4]

That’s not the implication, but you’re too stupid to know why.

[Bob from Ohio]

46% of women voted for Trump in 2024 {Pew]

The "implication" is stupid.

[John 4]

What do YOU think is the implication?

[DDHarriman]

I look at the trajectory of the nations health outcomes under their leadership and immediately discount their views.

Why listen to people whose beliefs have failed us miserably? Who wants more of the same loser bullshit that's killing all of us? Idiots do. That's who.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2025/press-release/

It's for metal–organic frameworks.

The write-up makes it sound super applied, but there's a ton of fundamental behavior yet to be sussed out.

It's a good one, IMO.

[David Nieporent]

I'll wait until I hear bookkeeper_joe's analysis.

[Brett Bellmore]

Low density organized structures like that have a huge number of potential applications. They're open enough to have flow through them, and yet the available surface area for chemical interactions is simply enormous.

Like zeolites, but better!

It's legitimately a big contribution.

[loki13]

I was curious to see the actual homicide rate in Chicago over time, since we all know that it is, quite literally, the WORST CITY EVER with the WORST MURDER RATES EVER. How does that claim hold up?

Historically, people talk about three waves of violence in Chicago. The early '20s (you might know why), the late '60s (this was a big problem around the nation), and the late '80s and early '90s (often attributed to the crack epidemic). I will try to be brief.

The '20s saw the rate spike (I will be using approximate numbers) from 10 (numbers are per 100k) to 20, before rapidly falling again in the '30s. The rate stayed pretty low through the beginning of the '60s before skyrocketing to 24 by 1970. The '70s and early '80s saw that same high rate (25-30) until it decreased slightly, only to shoot up above 30 as the decade closed.

From 1992 on, the rate went down, so that by the 2000s, it was below 20 again- but just barely below.

From there, we can see two separate spikes- a spike in 2016, and a separate spike in 2020-21 (the Covid Spike).

Let's start from 2019, so we can see the 2020 and 2021 Covid spike, using half-year numbers (total in parenthesis) since we can then use the 2025 half year:

2019: 9.4, 9.5 (18.9)
2020: 12.6, 16.4 (29.0)
2021: 12.8, 17.3 (30.1)
2022: 12.5, 15.2 (27.9)
2023: 12.0, 11.9 (23.9)
2024: 10.5, 11.6 (22.1)
2025: 7.0

Now, those numbers tell me a story. Do they tell you a story? See, normally an administration would be crowing about the overall decrease in the violent crime rate. And the opposition would be saying that it wasn't due to the administration, it was because the rate was already trending down after the unnatural structural shock from COVID. THAT'S THE DEBATE A NORMAL COUNTRY WOULD BE HAVING.

But that's not what we are talking about. Instead, the current administration is trying to tell us that what we are seeing- what we know to be true ... isn't true. That it's actually more dangerous and more violent than ever, and it's such an incredible and insane emergency that it justifies extraordinary action that the American people would not normally countenance- that the lawlessness is so great that we need to use troops.

I mean ... okay.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice.

Arguing against the fact-free does have the benefit of making you walk through the facts yourself.

[loki13]

Honestly, the problem really is "the feels."

A long time ago (way too long) I did a scholarly article on violence in the media, and how it impacts perceptions of crime. I'm going to really simplify here, but this is the gist.

Imagine "crime" is measure on a 10-point scale.

You live in a particularly nice place, so actual crime is a 2. You should perceive crime to be a 2, because that's your lived experience.
Statistically, the measure of overall crime is a 4.
But you get your news from OMG UR GOING TO DIE IF IT BLEEDS IT LEADS NEWS!!!, and it portrays the level of crime as an 8.

What do you think crime is? Well, even if you're told, and you know, crime is at a 4, and even if you tell other people that there isn't crime in your area (a 2) ... you will report that the overall crime level is 7. In other words, your perception of crime will be skewed to almost, but not quite, match what you feel to be crime is based on what your media diet consists of.

(I did this in, um, the '90s, but the research was pretty solid then. No idea what people have done since then.)

[Sarcastr0]

It's not the feels, it's the embracing of the feels above the facts.

We all shade the facts without realizing it. But that's something we can work to rise above, both by noticing and policing our impulses, and by instituting protocols.
That's why science is so full of protocols and math and checksums and peer review gates.

But MAGA here? They seem content to use feels above facts.

Reminds me of the old Thucydides quote:
"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness"

[Zarniwoop]

Reminds me of the old Thucydides quote:
"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness"

I can't think of a better summary of Sec. Hegseth's approach to life the universe, and everything ...

[jay.tee]

In your attempts to dunk on the Trump Administration, you both have revealed more about yourselves than you probably intended.

First, that you can’t properly cite and interpret data. Assuming your stats are correct - not a given since you provided no source - providing a single year of pre-COVID data renders any pre/post comparisons useless. Nonetheless, confining the analysis to the data provided, murder rates in Chicago still have not recovered from the Covid spike. Only one post-COVID data point, 1H25, shows a lower rate than the single provided pre-COVID data point, 1H19. Of course that’s preferable to an increase, but a single observation below “baseline” absolutely does not demonstrate a long-term pattern.

Second and more importantly, that you’re oblivious or intentionally ignorant of the state of violent crime in Chicago. I understand you’re trying to be flippant, but that just compounds the ignorance. The overall violent crime rate, especially murder rate, in Chicago was and still remains unacceptably high. Worse, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, it’s extremely concentrated leaving some neighborhoods virtually unaffected and others heavily afflicted. As I’m sure you can guess, wealthier and whiter neighborhoods are the former, poorer and more minority neighborhoods are the latter.

Is this acceptable to you? Are you content knowing that the status quo drives generational cycles of violence and poverty in the majority-minority communities of Chicago? Given how you downplay murder rates (!), it sure seems like it.

If you believe the Trump administration’s approach is not optimal, effective, or even legal, then argue precisely that. Instead, you’re arguing Chicago doesn’t even have a problem which is manifestly untrue and tone deaf - that is, unless you are merely endorsing the status quo, just like city and state leaders appear to be.

[Sarcastr0]

You put this comment in the wrong place, since it has nothing to do with anything I said.

[jay.tee]

Nope:

Sarcastr0 posted:

It's not the feels, it's the embracing of the feels above the facts.

Turns out, you’re embracing the feels of dunking on the Trump administration while misrepresenting or ignoring the facts of the real problem of violent crime in Chicago, who it impacts, and its long-term consequences.

[Sarcastr0]

"Assuming your stats are correct - not a given since you provided no source"
I have provided no stats.

"you’re oblivious or intentionally ignorant of the state of violent crime in Chicago"
I haven't said anything about the state of violent crime in Chicago.

"I understand you’re trying to be flippant"
Flippant about the crime rate in Chicago I didn't talk about?

"Given how you downplay murder rates (!)"
Where have I done that?

"you’re arguing Chicago doesn’t even have a problem"
Where has ANYONE here done that?

[jay.tee]

Sarcastr0 posted:

Nice.

Arguing against the fact-free does have the benefit of making you walk through the facts yourself.

You bought loki’s post that posited all the above.

Once again, the hyper-partisan (lack of) circumspection is a bad look.

[loki13]

Wow. See, you can't argue with true believers, can you.

I would just point out, for the record, the following:

1. I didn't just do the past few years. I actually looked at the murder rates in Chicago going back to the 1920s. Because I was trying to understand the issue, not score stupid internet points in service of a hack positions- like jay.tee always does.

2. If I was a worthless hack, like jay.tee, I would have said something like, "OMG this isn't nearly as bad as the rates when they peaked during the G.H.W. Bush Administration!!!" GOP SUCKS!" Or perhaps I could have pointed out that the rates today (the "murder and carnage era") are lower than they were during the Reagan '80s? No? Do you know why I didn't? Because I was trying to understand, not cast blame.

3. The entire point was to see what the trends were. We all understand trends, right? Go on, look at the date- you can see if I fairly presented it. As I described, there was a Chicago-specific spike in 2016, but the interesting comparison is from the pre-COVID year, to the COVID spike, to how the rates have been dropping dramatically since then.

Compare that to the blather from jay-tee. Remember- when you've already got your conclusion, all you have to do is try to figure out your argument.

Anyway, you do you. There is no cure for stupid.

[jay.tee]

The entire point was to see what the trends were

And you did no such thing. You’re doubling down on your ignorance of what constitutes a trend.

But of course, that didn’t stop your desperate attempt to whitewash Chicago’s violent crime issues to support a misdirected attack on the Trump administration.

In short: you’re using a real crime issue that locks people into generational poverty and violence in an attempt to score cheap political points. It’s as pathetic as it is racist.

[Bunny495]

Not the first time I have posted about the importance of the level of resolution. While I have only visited Chicago I am convinced that where I stayed at a friend's place was very safe and the murder rate was much lower than any of the numbers you posted. There seems to be lots MSM stories on a regular basis about how corner boys are shooting thing up and often innocent bystanders suffer for it and the murder rate is much higher there.

Point is you are using the wrong level of resolution.

[loki13]

Am I? Or did you literally just say, "I was in Chicago. It wasn't that bad. I even see the statistics. But I see the media hyping up all this violence, so it has to be terrible, AMIRITE???"

See the followup post that I did.

Look, I'm not going to pee on your leg and tell you it's raining. Of course you can always adjust your level of resolution- from nation to state, from state to city, from city to neighbourhood, and even (if you want to get more granular) down to individual streets.

And? Does that mean we need to deploy troops for a local (street?) law enforcement issue? Are there tons of innocent tourists getting killed by "cornermen" in Chicago? Can't you see just from the statistics that the problem is obviously abating? Can't you tell from your own experience that it isn't some massive, city-wide problem, but located in small areas and very much a law-enforcement issue - heck, can't you analogize it to your own experience (where you live, aren't the better and worse parts of town)?

That's the point. If you lived outside of the US, did you know that their media covers this country as a war-torn armageddon with constant mass shootings, tourists getting gunned down by trigger happy Americans, and troop deployments in the Cities? Do you think that its accurate and conveys a sense of daily life, or do you think that media coverage tends to overstate and amplify high-profile events and lead to a distortion in perception?

See also- shark attacks.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's something a lot of people don't appreciate: When you get down to the street level, crime rates vary from place to place by several orders of magnitude, and durably, too.

Then people try to attribute it to factors that vary from state to state!

[Kazinski]

Wrong demographic.

"In Chicago for 2025 (data through July 19), Black individuals made up the largest proportion of homicide victims, followed by White Hispanic individuals and White individuals. Specifically, there were 177 Black victims, 40 White Hispanic victims, and 9 White victims out of a total of 230 homicides."

That's the worse thing about pretending there is no crime problem in Chicago, it bypasses the middle and upper classes, and its mostly poor blacks on poor blacks.

And the city authorities think that keeping poor black criminals out of jail is siding with poor blacks, when its oppressing them.

[jay.tee]

Here’s a breakdown of Chicago’s murders by area:

https://heyjackass.com/2025-homicide-map/

As you posit, murders are very concentrated.

[Michael P]

See, normally an administration would be crowing about the overall decrease in the violent crime rate.

That's only if they are pandering to the ignorant and the unhinged. Most people would look, see that 2020 was a historic high to rival the legendary days of Al Capone and gangsters, and note that homicide rates are still above what they had been for the first part of the 21st century. (Based on the numbers you gave.) Most US localities would not boast that their homicide rates are above those of Brazil and Nigeria.

[Sarcastr0]

2020 was a historic high to rival the legendary days of Al Capone and gangsters

Any thoughts of what else might have changed in 100 years? Reporting rates? Urbanization?

What a disingenuous baselining attempt.
Just like comparing a city to a country, as you do right below.

You're being fed talking points that suck. And dutifully posting them. Do you have any internal critical thinking at all?

[jay.tee]

LOL, and there you are trying to transform a literal six-month baseline into a whitewashing of the violent crime problem in Chicago.

Please tell me you see the irony!

[Mr. Bumble]

Please don't feed the troll (or in this case the Douche).

[Sarcastr0]

I'm pointing out your flawed and deceitful baselining.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Bunny495]

Guilty pleasures. This is a movie I have rewatched more times than I can count.
https://archive.org/details/the-mighty-quinn_202408

[Ska]

Man, that must have been running on WHT (pre-cable NYC area subscription TV in the early 80s) - I remember my dad having it on a bunch of times. Good soundtrack.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I am currently re-reading (though I don't recall if I got through it the first time) Sex and the Constitution: Sex, Religion, and Law from America's Origins to the Twenty-First Century (2017) by Geoffrey R. Stone. It begins its discussion in ancient times.

It's an interesting and well-written book, if by necessity not comprehensive, especially given the reach of the material.

It supports a libertarian reading. It is also a book that might warrant an update.

[Frank Drackman]

Sex, Sex, Sex! that's all it is with you guys, Sex!
I've had it up the HERE with Sex!
Not lately though,

Frank

[John F. Carr]

Your comment prompted me to pull out a yellowed paperback from a bookshelf.

Morris Ploscowe, Sex and the Law, 1951 revised 1960, chapter 7 "Homosexuality, Sodomy, and Crimes Against Nature" begins

When an attendant in the New York City Magistrate's courts formally opens the hearing on a charge of overt homosexual behavior with the reading of the complaint in open court, his normally stentorian voice drops to a whisper.

He goes on to discuss the then-recent "purge of the perverts" ("Lavender Scare" on Wikipedia), the inability of a defendant to get a bill of particulars in such cases, and the refusal of judges to commit judicial activism by construing "crimes against nature" to include fellatio.

From Ploscowe's obituary in the New York Times, September 22, 1975:

In 1972, discussing legislation on rape, he observed that the victim's word was sufficient for a prosecutor to make out a prima facie case, enough to take to a jury, on assault, robbery, fraud and other crimes, but it was not enough for the crime of rape, because, he said, “ladies lie.”
New York's law on rape had required major corroboration of the purported victim's testimony, and the 1972 revision required somewhat less.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The administration counsel that took part in the conversion therapy case yesterday discussed the suicide hypo, explaining how there is a compelling interest in stopping therapists from counseling people to commit suicide. That is a telling acknowledgment.

"Conversion practices linked to depression, PTSD and suicide thoughts in LGBTQIA+ adults"

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2024/09/conversion-practices-lgbt.html

[DDHarriman]

Helping them become normal will drastically reduce their risk of suicide. Just look at the data.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, healthy acceptance by gay people of their homosexual orientation as normal would help.

[DDHarriman]

lol that's not true at all. Gays have the same horrible outcomes in San Francisco, CA & Atlanta, GA as they do in Moscow, ID or Pulaski, TN.

[SRG2]

You appear to be of the school, "we'll treat teh gays horribly, so that they convert to being straight, which they should do to avoid being treated horribly"

[DDHarriman]

Can you explain why gays who live highly accepting communities don't conform to the treatment hypothesis of acceptance = wellness?

[SRG2]

Can you provide data to support your initial claim?

[bernard11]

Got data?

[TwelveInchPianist]

The State of Colorado:

"...when you tell a young person you can change this innate thing about yourself, and they try and they try and they fail, and then they have shame and they're miserable, and then it ruins their relationships with their family or..."

No shit, Sherlock!

[DDHarriman]

It's the craziest thing. They talk about something that can and does change, sexual orientation, as if it is something they cannot change, like sex.

They talk about something that cannot and is impossible to change, sex, as it is something that can change, like sexual orientation.

They live in bizarro world.

[not guilty]

Sexual orientation and gender identity (whIch may be incongruous with biological sex) are hard wired -- notwithstanding that there is a passel of "ex-straights" out there.

[TwelveInchPianist]

1. Biological sex isn't "hard-wired"?
2. Gender Identity isn't a coherent concept. Most people who identify as men do so because they know that they are biologically male and are OK with that. That is not remotely comparable to someone who is really biologically female but has an ideation that they really should have been male.

[not guilty]

Of course biological sex is hard wired, and anatomy is sometimes incongruent with a person's internal sense of being male or female.

It happens. Grow up and acknowledge it, TwelveInchPeckerchecker.

[jay.tee]

… gender identity (whIch may be incongruous with biological sex) [is] hard wired

Can you share anything to support that? To be upfront, I don’t believe that’s true.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's not. There are plenty of people who desist and detransition.

[not guilty]

https://feinstein.northwell.edu/news/the-latest/sex-gender-identity-linked-to-human-brain-activity

https://www.healthcentral.com/mental-health/gender-identity

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/is-gender-identity-biologically-hard-wired

[jay.tee]

Please tell me you didn’t read your “sources”!

“Source” #2 has this gem:

the sex you’re assigned at birth

It also attempts to conflate intersex with a sex/gender mismatch.

Needless to say, it’s complete hackery. The other two likewise don’t establish gender dysphoria is a hardwired condition.

[DeAnnP]

Imagine thinking you can be "counseled" into being attracted to someone you aren't. As if straight persons could suddenly be attracted to the same sex by suggestion and coercion and verbal abuse. SMGDH

[John F. Carr]

It is said that forcing somebody to eat a bad food seven times will produce a taste tolerance.

[Sarcastr0]

Trump's said that the Mayor of Chicago and Governor of Illinois should be in jail for failing to protect ICE.

He's not really in control of much these days other than his social media; it's Miller time. But still, what a sign of the times.

1. That he said it,
2. That it doesn't matter
3. That no one cares.

[Kazinski]

I hear there is something going on in the middle east he's working on. He might be taking a trip there by the end of the week.

I haven't been following it too closely, but on the BBC a few hours ago they were saying he was the only one that could make it happen, through gritted teeth.

[ducksalad]

The only one that could make it happen is any US POTUS who could credibly threaten both sides with consequences. And by consequences for the Israeli side I only mean reduction of support and diplomatic cover, nothing actually hostile.

Despite all the neocon whining about Biden "betraying Israel", the Israelis knew there was never the slightest chance Biden would significantly cut arms shipments or recognize a Palestinian state. So no need to listen to him.

Trump's wildly erratic behavior means either could happen if they annoy him enough. And his over-the-top craving for adulation happened to settle on a Nobel Peace Prize as the one prize he still needs to win.

[Paladin_44]

A Nobel for Trump is about as likely as a World Series title for the Savannah Bananas.

[ducksalad]

Multiple European leaders have shown they're willing to publicly stroke his ego while more or less openly winking for the home audience. It works and Trump is no longer sharp enough to notice the winking.

The distinguished Norwegians running the committee, after careful analysis, might decide that stroking his ego a bit more could have positive results. And after all, it's not like the list of past winners establish some record of moral purity that has to be maintained. This is a practical matter of getting the most benefit to the world out of a modest lump of cash and a medal.

If there's a 10% chance the sense of accomplishment would lead Trump to relax, play more golf, and issue fewer executive orders, it's worth it to give him the prize.

If there's a 1% chance his pride in being called a peacemaker would lead him to order Rubio and Hegseth to stop poking Iran and Venezuela because it messes up his new Gandhi-like image, it's absolutely worth it to give him the prize. Almost a moral necessity.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz is just deflecting.

[Kazinski]

I suppose I am just a dupe.

Hamas fell for it too:

The terrorist organization Hamas announced in an official statement, "After responsible and serious negotiations conducted by the movement and the Palestinian resistance factions regarding President Trump’s proposal in Sharm el-Sheikh, with the aim of ending the war of extermination against our Palestinian people and the withdrawal of the occupation from the Gaza Strip, Hamas announces the reaching of an agreement that ends the war on Gaza, provides for the withdrawal of the occupation, allows the entry of aid and implements a prisoner exchange."

"We greatly appreciate the efforts of the mediators in Qatar, Egypt and Turkey, and thank U.S. President Donald Trump for his efforts to bring about a final end to the war and the full withdrawal of the occupation from the Gaza Strip. We call on President Trump, the guarantor states of the agreement, and all Arab, Islamic and international parties to oblige the government of the occupation to fulfill all the agreement’s commitments, and not to allow it to evade or delay implementation of the accords."

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course, we all know that Hamas is going to violate the agreement. Because they always violate agreements.

[Michael P]

I note that they don't say they're going to free the hostages.

[Brett Bellmore]

They probably tortured most of them to death, and CAN'T release them now.

[John F. Carr]

According to a TV report, the 20 or so living hostages will be released quickly and bodies will be released later if Hamas can find them.

[ThePublius]

They have agreed to a "prisoner exchange." Note that Hamas calls their hostages prisoners, as if they were enemy combatants and not innocent civilians.

[John F. Carr]

They are being kept as prisoners. Whether their detention is unjust is a separate question.

[ThePublius]

I disagree, John. I agree completely with this google AI overview:

"A prisoner is a person held in legal confinement, while a hostage is an individual seized illegally to compel a third party to act in a certain way. The key difference lies in the legality of their detention and the purpose of their captivity."

[Frank Drackman]

I have to disagree with "45/47/48?" on this one
They should be at the end of a rope (after a fair trial of course)
Might need a pretty thick one for Prick-zer (you know you're fat when Christ Christie tells you to lose weight)

Frank

[apedad]

White color may be soon added to traffic lights in one state — Here’s its proposed function

According to researchers from North Carolina State University, adding a white color traffic light to traffic lights found at intersections could help to accommodate the many autonomous vehicles (AVs) on the roads. As per the proposal put forward, these white lights won’t replace the normal red, green, and yellow lights, but complement them. In the process, AVs can communicate with traffic lights to control the flow at the intersection.

The white phase focuses on AVs approaching the intersection and provides a way for the AVs to communicate with the traffic signal and with each other. Distributed computing is key to this interaction between AVs and between AVs and the traffic lights. The white phase gets activated when the number of AVs at the intersection is rather high. At this phase, AVs will collaborate to ensure that traffic flow is well managed.

Instead of waiting for light cycles to change, AVs can move through intersections by utilizing real-time negotiation and real-time data. Human vehicles will then just have to follow the AV infront of it. When not many AVs are passing through the intersection, the system will automatically revert back to the default setting of red, yellow, and green lights. This will guarantee safety for human drivers as well.

https://www.ecoticias.com/en/white-color-may-be-added-traffic-lights/21154/

I guess it's a good thing to use new methods to meet technology.

Within 20 years, (most) everything will be autonomous and driver-cars like we have today will be museum pieces.

[Mr. Bumble]

Doubt I'll still be around for this and I'm kind of glad that I won't be.
Will that include flying cars?

[John F. Carr]

Federal DOT approval will be required.

I remember a panic over traffic light preemption devices about 15 years ago. A lot of traffic signals have sensors allowing emergency vehicles to request a green light. These can be programmed only to allow authorized emergency vehicles, essentially requiring a password. The emergency vehicles need to have the password programmed in. Emergency services are not good at password distribution. They can shoot, spray water, and transport to a hospital. Thinking is not part of their job. So the DPW doesn't enable passwords. Anybody who flashes a light of the right wavelength can request a green. Communicate with the signal in current terminology.

According to media reports anybody could buy a cheat device and get green lights. Congress responded to the panic by banning unauthorized traffic signal preemption devices. Congress didn't ban radar detectors. That tells you what the people think about the relative merits of traffic signals and speed limits.

[Bunny495]

As someone who bought a Tesla Model Y a couple of months ago I am all in on Tesla's FSD (supervised). Not saying it is perfect but it really makes driving a lot less stressful. I have little doubt it will be here sooner than later. I also have little doubt Tesla is light years ahead of everyone else. Basically Tesla uses cameras to get real time data while other vendors have programed this data in the system for limited geographical area (usually test cities of a reasonable size) and uses lidar to detect how close they are to obstructions/vehicles.

Another consideration is speed. In the first version of FSD there was a quick upgrade. The problem was FSD programmed the vehicle to drive the speed limit which proved a big mistake. Currently FSD has different modes (Chill, Standard, Hurry, Insane, and Drag Strip) with the limited release of v14 adding a Sloth mode). Tesla now advises setting the vehicle to allow a top speed of +40% of the existing speed limit so the vehicle travels with the traffic flow.

Bottom line for me is I can now relax in the Model Y and let FSD do most of the heavy lifting.

[Mr. Bumble]

Would you want the same features in your boat.
Seems sailing would be much more "stressful" than driving.

[Bunny495]

Actually most boats similar to mine have what is termed Auto Pilot. It is basically a GPS system where you enter a course direction and an electric motor controls the rudder to keep the boat on that course. While maritime law requires a lookout this is not always adhered to and accidents have happened. This is more common on what I will term credit card captains that have motorboats that often exceed 50mph.

Since my boat is a well-designed sailboat I can trim the sails and under most conditions the boat will track light a freight train. Even when I use the Auto Pilot well-trimmed sails will require much less power from the house battery bank. As for sailing being stressful this is more a function of the weather than anything else. In under 25 knots of a favorable wind with a reasonable sea state I tend to balance the boat and after maybe ten minutes at one of the steering stations to assure myself it is OK to do so I will retire to the salon and with a paddle to control the Auto Pilot recline and keep a lookout through the front window (think car windshield) listening to music on my top tier sound system. On the other hand if I see a line squall headed my way I disengage the Auto Pilot and move to the steering station where all the lines to control the sails are led to and deal with an elevated stress level, if that is what you want to call it, but I call it fun.

[Life of Brian]

Tesla now advises setting the vehicle to allow a top speed of +40% of the existing speed limit so the vehicle travels with the traffic flow.

So it could automatically hit nearly 100 in a 70mph zone? That's license-suspension territory in some states, and certainly not kind to your insurance premiums best case.

[Bunny495]

The 40% is the max but it does pay attention to both the speed limit and the flow of traffic. I tend to stay in Chill mode and this keeps the care in the right lane. If someone selects Hurry mode, or even Insane mode, the vehicle will move to the right lane and keep up with the traffic. You also have the option of setting the max speed but if you exceed 85mph for a max speed too often FSD can be turned off for a week. Same for not keeping your eyes on the road or in some cases hands on the wheel. You are allowed five strikes before FSD is turned off for a week.

[Life of Brian]

Thanks for that additional detail -- seems like the bottom line though is that if you set it to +40% and are in anything northward of chill, it'll cheerfully spool up to reckless driving speeds on its own if other drivers are setting that pace. Also still can't quite wrap my head around Tesla recommending you peg it out at +40%.

On a side note, I flipped by a discussion this morning about the latest release no longer supporting max speed (it was actually in the context of no longer being able to arbitrarily slow it down if it misjudged the current speed limit). Is that correct?

[Bunny495]

The 14.1 roll out is far from universal and only a few Teslas have it. From what I have seen it has gone to "influencers" first and there is an expectation that there will be a 14.2 before a widespread rollout. As others have noted when FSD first came out it adhered strictly to traffic laws but this was quickly changed since almost no drivers pay much attention to them.

I can remember a claim that the Vietnam War was only taken seriously when death exceeded the number of traffic yearly fatalities. I am convinced that if all vehicles had even the current level of FSD it would be much safer on the roads and like it or not that is coming sooner rather than later.

[Life of Brian]

How does it do in foul weather these days? I recall that being a fairly heated topic back in the initial rollout when I was more closely paying attention.

[John F. Carr]

Here is another difference in treatment of traffic laws. The government lets Teslas drive over the speed limit but wouldn't let Teslas roll through stop signs.

[Mr. Bumble]

If a self driving vehicle is pulled over for any infraction and the nominal driver is under the influence would a DUI be issued?

[ducksalad]

Interesting question. If an intoxicated bar patron called a Waymo taxi to take him home, it would be hard to imagine the cops charging him with DUI. It would also be really bad policy.

Does it hinge on who owns the car? I could see the argument that you're responsible for whatever your car does.

[John F. Carr]

In my state it is not necessary to control the movement of the car to be convicted of OUI, but a passenger in the traditional sense need not be sober. See Commonwealth v. Wurtzberger, SJC-13722 (Mass. 2025) for a review of what constitutes criminal operation.

This conclusion is bolstered by the purpose of the OUI statute to deter individuals from mixing intoxication and motor vehicles "for the protection of travellers upon highways," Clarke, 254 Mass. at 568; the OUI statute "must be read with reference to [this] manifest intent and spirit," Henry, 229 Mass. at 22. "[T]he public hazard contemplated by G. L. c. 90, § 24, extends beyond intoxicated drivers of moving vehicles. Commonwealth v. Sudderth, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 317, 321 (1994). "Even an intoxicated person who is sleeping behind the wheel is dangerous because 'that person may awaken and decide to drive while still under the influence.'" McGillivary, 78 Mass. App. Ct. at 647, quoting State v. Kelton, 168 Vt. 629, 630 (1998). The statute seeks "to deter individuals who have been drinking intoxicating liquor from getting into their vehicles, except as passengers." Sudderth, supra, at 320-321, quoting State v. Ghylin, 250 N.W.2d 252, 255 (N.D. 1977).

The law may be more or less strict in other states.

[ducksalad]

The distinction makes sense if safety is the top priority. There aren't many situations where other drivers are relying on you rolling through a stop sign and will themselves be forced to take avoidance action if you don't.

On the other hand driving a legal 55mph when more or less everyone else is moving at 70mph (common situation around here) is creates braking and lane changes for other cars, and is arguably less safe.

Of course one can argue it's everyone else creating the safety hazard by speeding. But Tesla FSD can't control what other drivers do.

[John F. Carr]

Tesla programmed its cars to drive like normal people, who roll through stop signs because almost all stop signs in America are too stupid to respect.

[Life of Brian]

Of course one can argue it's everyone else creating the safety hazard by speeding. But Tesla FSD can't control what other drivers do.

IMO, this is the sort of collective circular thinking that causes the average speed over the limit to keep creeping higher. At some point you're part of the solution, or you're part of the problem.

(I understand this is a complicated issue and am not suggesting I never drive over the limit, but I rarely go more than 5 over and certainly don't view a flow going 20-25 over as an invitation to join them. If traffic can safely flow faster than the speed limit, the limit should be raised. If not, the Autobahners are just unilaterally putting the rest of us at risk and should be left as the outliers that they are to increase the odds they'll actually be flagged and dealt with.)

[ducksalad]

just unilaterally

Well, if it's me alone versus 99 other people on the highway, I'm not quite arrogant enough to say they're the ones behaving unilaterally. But I do understand your point about creep, and that the few drivers at the upper end are driving the creep.

Tesla could use the Brett Bellmore Ticket-Avoidance Algorithm: never be the fastest car on the road and over the speed limit at the same time.

[David Nieporent]

I rarely go more than 5 over and certainly don't view a flow going 20-25 over as an invitation to join them.

You should. Within reason, minimizing speed differential is more important to safety than absolute speed. If everyone else is doing 80 on the highway and you're doing 55, you're creating a hazard.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's why you keep right. Tailgating on the crowded roads here in the east (and I assume in other more densely populated areas is my biggest concern.
I worder how Teslas are programmed in this regard.

[Bunny495]

The programing in a Tesla is very dependent on the parameters the driver chooses. My personal choice is Chill mode with 10% above the speed limit. As a rule if a car blasts up behind me and then quickly cuts in front of me the car will change lanes but will default to the right lane eventually. In Hurry mode it will default to the left lane and if it is set to +40% it will just speed up. As a rule it tends to pay way more attention to what is happing in the front and side cameras than the rear camera.

[Life of Brian]

Within reason, minimizing speed differential is more important to safety than absolute speed.

Which is exactly why the crazy speeders need to stay somewhere in the vicinity of the speed limit. You're either trying to rationalize your own desire to speed, or you're letting the terrorists win.

[Bunny495]

David I have to disagree about absolute speed being minimized as a factor. While Teslas are very well designed cars (and certainly not the only ones) there is a reason they set 85mph as a speed where functions of FSD are disabled. Human reactions as a rule are not good enough to deal with high speeds on crowded highways. I do understand the issue of 55 seeming like poking along and possibly causing problems but not all the big rigs are capable of maintaining 70mph if the road is not completely flat. There is also the issue of fuel consumption increasing dramatically as you start going over 70.

For me the lowering of the stress level when using FSD is a game changer and as long as I am staying close to the speed limit other drivers can learn to live with it. When you look at the difference between accidents in Teslas and other vehicles it is shocking.

[Bunny495]

Truth be told when I keep my Model Y in chill mode and 10% above the speed limit almost every vehicle I see blows past me like I am standing still.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, well, well...Queen Letitia just might go to the Big House. Bank fraud.

[Mr. Bumble]

Orange is the new black?

[Life of Brian]

Indictment here.

Reading both this and the nuttin' at all to see here letter from her attorney earlier this year, it looks like quite a series of oopsies that all mysteriously cut in her direction:
1. She said the home was going to be the primary residence for her niece.
2. The loan was written for a primary residence.
3. The indictment says James was the sole borrower, while the attorney letter claims James was listed on the mortgage as a "non-occupying co-borrower." If the latter is true, apparently the niece was on the application as well though I don't see anything that explicitly says that.
4. She then apparently RENTED the house (to the niece? unclear, but hopefully so or it just gets stickier) and claimed the rental income and expenses on her federal Schedule E.

So assuming James really was just a co-borrower, instead of her niece just paying the mortgage, the niece is paying James "rent" and James is paying the mortgage. The only reason that comes to mind why they would have done something so convoluted was because the niece still would have been better off with the standard deduction than itemizing and claiming the mortgage interest deduction, while James would be able to deduct the mortgage interest as a "rental expense."

So the bottom line appears to be James set it up to be a rental property and claimed it on her taxes that way, while telling the mortgage company a different story so she could get the loan at a primary residence interest rate.

And if that's what actually happened, it wouldn't surprise me if the IRS comes knocking as well.