Sunday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Nothing to see here move along, move your fucking National Guard along.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15183959/Trumps-control-National-Guard-restored-court-Illinois-deployment-blocked.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

Endangering aircraft is itself a serious Federal offense. More importantly, a UH-60 carries 360 gallons of kerosene (Jet Fuel) and what do these little darlings think is going to happen if they get splashed in that as one crashes??? Not to mention the four spinning blades that inevitably will slice & dice them, not to mention the weight of the aircraft itself.

I don't see why this is not at least as serious a crime as unauthorized presence in a government building -- and I don't see why we can't have mass arrests of everyone in a block that laser lights come from -- just like we did with Jan 6th.

Conversely they'd only have to shoot back once or twice (with live ammo) for this to stop being fun. FAFO....

[not guilty]

The Washington Post has published an article listing the likely next targets for criminal prosecution by the Trump/Blondie Department of Injustice. The list includes John Bolton in Maryland, California Senator Adam Schiff, also in Maryland, Lisa Cook in Georgia, John Brennan in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, former FBI director Christopher Wray in the Western District of Virginia and Fani Willis in the Northern District of Georgia.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like a good start. How many people can Abbe Lowell represent?

[not guilty]

Here is the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/10/11/trump-schiff-bolton-cook-brennan-prosecutions/

Sorry to have initially omitted it.

[John F. Carr]

I looked at the Georgia Bar's ethics and discipline rules. They do not mention discipline based on indictment for a felony. Fani Willis may keep her job. If convicted of a felony she would be subject to bar discipline.

[not guilty]

The reporting about Fani Willis puzzles me. The U.S. Attorney is reportedly looking into overseas travel around the time of the 2024 election. I don't know how that potentially involves a federal issue, unless perhaps there is a suggestion of public money being diverted for private use.

[Commenter_XY]

I personally wonder about separation of powers with Senator Schiff (investigated for potential mortgage fraud). Maybe the House rules allowed claiming two primary residences while he was in the House, I don't know. Did the House Ethics Committee ever consider it? Do they today?

[Armchair]

I can't see how House ethics rules overrule the IRS and lending rules. The House members need to pay taxes like the rest of us. No ethics rules can overrule that. (You would need a law)

You can't have "two" primary residences.

[Commenter_XY]

In the case of the House and Senate, I have wondered about this, meaning the primary residences question. I don't think we intended to penalize Congress-critters for getting elected to office, and now must support two households on a Congressional salary. Yes, many are independently wealthy and can easily afford to maintain two homes, some are not. Senator Schiff appears to be a man of modest (not great) wealth.

It isn't about fraud, per se, it is about the ability of individual Congress-critters to do the job they were elected to do if they are not of great financial means.

[Brett Bellmore]

They used to have a Congressional dormitory, they could go back to having one.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There was no income tax back then: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/5e.274-8

And remember the outcry when the newly-elected TEA Party reps were sleeping in their offices???

But what do state legislators do, particularly in geographically large states such as California, Texas, and Alaska? They manage.

[not guilty]

I don't see a separation of powers problem. Except for the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, the internal procedures of Congress are still subject to the federal criminal law. (Just ask the late Rep. Dan Rostenkowski.)

[Krayt]

Congress refused to adhere to the expensive ADA requirements for years, not living under the expensive rules they glibly applied to the rest of the nation, claiming enforcement would violate separation of powers, until finally shamed into "voluntarily" doing it.

[Armchair]

If these people have committed crimes, should they not be prosecuted? Or are they "above the law"?

[jb]

That's not really the question. Should the Justice Department be investigating certain people to see if they committed crimes, rather than believing there to be crimes and then figuring out if there were and who committed them?

For an administration that was supposedly going to end the weaponization of the Justice Department, this is exactly the opposite of that. But of course a lot of us knew this was Newspeak the whole time...

[Michael P]

These are people who went beyond the call of duty to contort the interpretation of laws and invent crimes when they investigated someone and didn't discover crimes that they could prosecute.

[jb]

Oh, do tell. What crimes did John Bolton and Lisa Cook contort the law to invent?

And even for the others, if what you're saying is true and they did that, the correct remedy should be to punish them for that specific behavior (you could go after them for depriving Trump of his Constitutional rights or some such), not go out and invent stunt some crimes in retaliation.

[Roger S]

Bolton wrote a book. Cook refused to resign.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't it more what he put in the book after signing an agreement to get prior approval?

[not guilty]

"Bolton wrote a book. Cook refused to resign."

And these actions violated what federal statutes? Please cite by number.

[Kazinski]

The investigation of Bolton goes back to the Biden Administration.

Pulte announced in May they were going to datamine mortgage records for fraud, it took until August for her, and Schiff's name to pop up.

[Armchair]

"Should the Justice Department be investigating certain people to see if they committed crimes"

That's not really what's going on though. From my recollection, motivated public citizens have been putting together evidence of the crime, and presenting it to the public and DoJ and saying "Look! There's a crime here this person is committing!"

Then what is the DoJ supposed to do. Just ignore what is in front of it? That starts to look like political favoritism. Ignoring obvious evidence of a crime BECAUSE of the person. Not selectively investigating the person.

Let's give you an analogy. The police aren't going to go around investigating every person for shoplifting. They don't have the resources. Nor are they going to devote intense resources to every incident of shoplifting. But, if the owner of the store has video footage that obviously shows the mayor's son going into the store, and dropping a bunch of stuff in his pockets, and leaving...then proceeds to release the video on the local news. What do the police do?

Do they say "well, that would be weaponization to investigate the mayor's son. Can't do it"? Of course not. That's actually the opposite...it's protecting people in power.

Likewise, many of these individuals in question are USED to getting away with these types of crimes. Because they "know" they won't be investigated. But faced with the public information, the DoJ almost has to investigate them. Else it looks biased the other direction.

[Sarcastr0]

motivated public citizens

This is an odd way to put the President of the United States, giving orders, with no associated evidentiary predicate.

[Armchair]

Here's a post from 2024 where people highlighted the initial issue. They noticed from public filings that Schiff had a potential issue. Note, well before Trump was President for his second term.

https://www.theohiopressnetwork.com/news/us/adam-schiff-s-conflicting-principal-residences-in-mortgage-election-papers-raise-fraud-concerns/article_5f630bda-8e82-11ef-a480-4370a02fc796.html

That in turn got the the Federal Housing Finance Agency interested in the issue, and they looked further into it, and those issues in the public filings were accurate. That federal agency then referred to the issue to the DoJ

THEN the DoJ looked into it. After a referral from the FHFA. It's not like Trump ordered the DoJ to investigate Schiff and "find something on him". Evidence for the crime was uncovered by motivated public citizens in 2024. It was confirmed by a federal agency in 2025. Then referred to the DoJ.

[Sarcastr0]

But that's not what's going on.

What's going on is the President ordering the DoJ to investigate, and if they turn up nothing firing the prosecutor till they find one willing to indict.

Your pretending this isn't what it is. Of course you are - you can't defend what it is so you'll just fool yourself.

[Armchair]

That's exactly what's going on. The evidence is there. In 2024. Before Trump was President.

Why didn't Biden prosecute? To protect his Democratic allies.

[Sarcastr0]

So you're going to ignore what Trump's doing and point to some old nonsense instead.

And below you make it pretty clear you know what Trump's doing and approve of it.

What a pathetic display.

[Armchair]

Trump isn't suppressing it, like Biden did.

[JohnSmith97]

It is truly awful when (D) get held to the same standards they hold (R) to when the (D) are in power.

Schiff could of been charged during a (D) admin. Why do you think the Biden admin didn't? Will you claim that someone going through public records forged them? How will you contort yourself to avoid saying the Biden admin was protecting him?

[Sarcastr0]

Dems never did anything like this. Biden didn't order the DoJ around, neither do Obama. Hell, Trump tried but took no for an answer his fist term.

You make up evil Dems so you can say your side can be as bad as they are, and thus rationalize being evil.

Don't be evil.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, gaslighto, they fire hacks unwilling to do their jobs...

[Krayt]

motivated public citizens

This is an odd way to put the President of the United States, giving orders, with no associated evidentiary predicate.

The odd thing was I thought he was putting on a defense of how the Denocrats went after Trump in initiative after initiative after initiative.

Thanks for clearing that up for me!

"Motivated public citizens" dump stuff off on the steps of the DOJ!

We specialize in narratives to provide public rationalizations to cover real motivations.

[jb]

This would be a cool theory if not for the fact we're discussing a hit list that the President drew up. Also quite the coincidence that the motivated citizens are only managing to dig up crimes on Trump's political enemies.

[Armchair]

"The motivated citizens are only managing to dig up crimes on Trump's political enemies."

Oh, don't fool yourself. The motivated citizens also manage to dig up issues with Trump's allies.

[jb]

So surely the Justice Department has no choice but to investigate those folks as well?

[Armchair]

And they did.

[Sarcastr0]

So your current attempt at deflection is that to DoJ has to follow up whenever 'motivated citizens' claim to have found something about a politician?

You're just shameless.

[jb]

Oh, please let us know about the tale of a motivated citizen digging up dirt on a Trump ally that forced this administration to launch an investigation against them.

[Armchair]

Who said "this administration"? Now you're just moving goalposts.

[jb]

We were talking about the Justice Department. It's part of the administration. For the purpose of entertaining your fantasy, I don't need an example where Trump personally demanded the investigation; any example of this Justice Department kicking off an investigation of a Trump ally in response to information from a motivated citizen will do.

[bernard11]

I must have missed it.

Got a cite?

[SRG2]

For an administration that was supposedly going to end the weaponization of the Justice Department,

Was anyone stupid or gullible enough to think that Trump wouldn't weaponise the DOJ - to the cheers of the cultist here and everywhere?

[Armchair]

"Was anyone stupid or gullible enough to think that Trump wouldn't weaponise the DOJ "

He didn't his first term. Then...something changed. Wonder what?

[Sarcastr0]

Well here's a tell. So you're not fooling yourself. You're just making excuses.

You know exactly what this is.

And you support it with lies.

[Armchair]

You can't weaponize something that's already been weaponized.

[Sarcastr0]

So your thing about 'interested citizens' was indeed bullshit.

What a shameless display of partisanship.

[Armchair]

The "interested citizens" thing is accurate.

The DoJ didn't specifically seek out and investigate these people. It's not like they went specifically got the phone records of 9 Democratic lawmakers based on limited to no evidence.

Issue is, these were previously brought up...and the Biden DoJ ignored it. It wasn't a "priority". Now, the de-prioritization of crimes isn't occurring.

[Sarcastr0]

The DoJ didn't specifically seek out and investigate these people

It did. At the orders of Trump. Which you admit above that you approve of.

How do you live, not caring about consistency? Have you no dignity?

[Armchair]

"At the orders of Trump. "

You have a written copy of these supposed orders? Signed and verified as executive orders? As opposed to just some tweets?

[Sarcastr0]

We do have a written copy of one of them. He tweeted out what he thought was a DM.

And he openly fired people who in their professional opinion didn't find sufficient evidence to indict his enemies.

It's amazing the things MAGA people don't hear about.

[Malika la Maize]

You can continue the weaponization, and if you denounced the former you’re obligated to denounce the latter if you care about consistent principles.

[Riva]

There is no inconsistency. Holding those accountable who have violated the law is justice, not “weaponization.” Weaponization was practiced by democrats who abused intelligence and law enforcement powers to harass, spy on, and prosecute the political opposition.

But it’s cute that you’re at least trying to think. The first time can be difficult. However, projecting democrat misconduct onto those who have been victimized by the democrats’ past weaponization is not a good start.

[David Nieporent]

He didn't his first term.

He tried his first term. He did order them to go after Hillary. The difference was that the GOP hadn't completely gone off the rails, so when real prosecutors told him there was nothing there, he didn't have the political capital to fire them, install his personal lawyers in their place, and order them to prosecute anyway.

[Armchair]

"He did order them to go after Hillary."

No he didn't. He specifically chose not to. "His adviser said Mr Trump would not appoint a special prosecutor to look into the former Secretary of State, as he had pledged during campaigning."

Your claim that Trump "ordered" an investigation lacks facts. If Trump, indeed, as President did "order" an investigation that didn't occur, that means that his subordinates violated a direct order from the President.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069585

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord the things you've decided to forget.

Trump fought Sessions and Barr about not going after Comey, and Brennan, McCabe, and of course Hillary.

It's public.
https://www.justsecurity.org/98703/chronology-trump-justice-department/

[wvattorney13]

That's certainly how I recall it. Trump thought that his threats to prosecute Hilary was just a campaign gimmick. Then the leftovers prosecuted members of his administration. After his term ended they prosecuted HIM.

Then I had hoped that Trump would end it all. It seems as if he is going forward.

But you are right. It is revisionist history to say that Trump prosecuted any of his "enemies" in his first term.

[DDHarriman]

How else do you think one ends weaponization of the Justice Department by holding those accountable who weaponized the Justice Department?

This is mind blowing. How else do you get reform? By letting lawbreakers go? That shit doesn't work, we see that all over Democrat districts. People just continue to get harmed and hurt.

[Bob from Ohio]

The weaponization is being ended by escalating it. Like Israel ending Hamas cross border attacks by destroying Gaza

Its up to your side to accept the end or continue it next Dem president. But now you know the weapon has two sides.

[Armchair]

Indeed. The weaponization started with Ted Stevens under Obama. It then dramatically escalated under Biden.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Will we have 4AM FBI raids and Fox News tipped off to get the perp walks?

Fair's fair.

[DDHarriman]

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, I always say.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Keep your eye on the sparrow...

[DDHarriman]

I haven't heard that before, I had to look it up. I like it.

[Poxigah146]

Lisa Cook is a fat beotch.

[Mr. Bumble]

One of the generals who needs to go?
"In testimony before an Oregon State Senate Veterans and Emergency Preparedness subcommittee last week, Brigadier General Alan R. Gronewold, the state’s top military official, told lawmakers that National Guard troops “will be protecting any protesters at the [Portland] ICE facility. That’s my desire.”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/10/oregons-top-military-official-testifies-national-guard-will-protect-protesters-at-ice-facility/

[Kazinski]

The state picks the leaders of the state national guard, if the get federalized then of course the federal government can alter the chain of command.

But really what would you expect the leader handpicked by Oregon politicians to say?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Saying nothing beyond a vague reference to complying with the UCMJ?

Can't the Pentagon yank his commission as an officer -- which was granted by the US Congress, not the state of Oregon.

[Frank Drackman]

POTUS can. You serve "at the pleasure" of him.

[Bwaaah]

"But really what would you expect the leader handpicked by Oregon politicians to say?"

"Shithole city? What shithole city? I love malicious people in gas masks who lunge at me. They're my peeps."

[jb]

Isn't the whole point of the state militias to defend its citizenry?

[Michael P]

No, that's the point of the Second Amendment.

[jb]

I know you guys like to ignore the militia part of the Second Amendment, but this seems like a particularly egregious example.

[Brett Bellmore]

It would be if the National Guard were the 2nd amendment's militia, but according to the Supreme court, (Perpich v. DOD, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)) they're actually a federal army at any time they're called up for federal service:

"Since 1933, federal law has provided that persons enlisting in a state National Guard unit simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of the United States, a part of the Army. The enlistees retain their status as state Guard members unless and until ordered to active federal duty, and revert to state status upon being relieved from federal service."

Realistically, today's national guard is NOT the militia system of the 2nd amendment, they're just a part of the Army that's farmed out to the states.

[jb]

That just says that the National Guard is both a state militia and can be called to be part of the national military. That's the way it's always been--the Continental Army was a hybrid of state militias and troops directly enlisting in the Army.

[Michael P]

Do you have some mutant version of the Militia Clause that says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a citizenry"?

[jb]

Hey man, you're the one who brought up the Second Amendment. It doesn't say anything about guns being necessary for the security of the citizenry either. So, as usual, really struggling to figure out what your argument is here other than that you're really keen to have an argument. At least Brett can keep up with the overall context instead of mindlessly responding to the last post.

[Michael P]

In short, yes: you think the Second Amendment says something even more different than a typical leftist.

The right to keep and bear arms is protected so that citizens can hunt and defend themselves. It's not protected because the militia's job is to protect the citizenry. To the extent the Second Amendment talks about the purpose of the militia, it teaches that the militia exists to protect the state rather than individual citizens.

[SRG2]

So you would have no problem with Oregon citizens shooting ICE or Trump-led NGs of that were necessary to defend their constitutional rights, correct? Yet why do I think that in reality you would not approve of such actions?

[Michael P]

I know you have insurrection fantasies, but you should at least bother to learn the basics of self-defense law, and how it generalizes to defense of others.

[SRG2]

I know you have insurrection fantasies,

Many people know things that aren't true.

you should at least bother to learn the basics of self-defense law, and how it generalizes to defense of others.

You must have missed the word "necessary" in my post. But enlighten me - under what circumstances is a citizen entitled to use arms against ICE agents or NG, and are they permitted to use lethal force to prevent a non-lethal threat? 2A strongly implies so.

[Michael P]

Dressing up your insurrection fantasies with the word "necessary" doesn't change their essence. Even Antifa goons have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but to a pretty thorough approximation, shooting police or military is never an allowed -- much less necessary -- way to defend that right.

[SRG2]

Dressing up your insurrection fantasies with the word "necessary" doesn't change their essence.

The fantasist here is clearly you. And "necessary" makes all the difference.

[not guilty]

"But enlighten me - under what circumstances is a citizen entitled to use arms against ICE agents or NG, and are they permitted to use lethal force to prevent a non-lethal threat? 2A strongly implies so."

At common law there was a privilege to forcibly resist an unlawful arrest. The modern trend is away from that. As a practical matter it's better (and safer) to comply and sue civilly if appropriate.

[SRG2]

The modern trend is away from that. As a practical matter it's better (and safer) to comply and sue civilly if appropriate.

Sure - though an originalist would not pay attention to a modern trend, and further, it would be reasonable to place before a jury the conditions we know that those seized by ICE can experience hence mere compliance would not be acceptable.

[DDHarriman]

An armed Democrat military commander is publicly announcing his plans for insurrection against federal authorities.

This could be 2025's Ft. Sumter moment, when Oregon state officials and military officials insurrect against federal authority... on the behalf of foreign nationals, no less.

This is how bad the Democrats want the Great Replacement, they're willing to go to war against the federal government. They hate us, they want us dead. They tell us this all the time and they act on it.

[Malika la Maize]

You used to regularly talk about gassing people. And think we all know where you’d have been at Fort Sumter. You’re transparently disingenuous.

[Life of Brian]

You used to regularly talk about gassing people.

I confess I don't exactly scour your generally bad-faith commentary for that very reason, so I'm sure it's possible I missed your earlier exposition on how you've decided this two-week-old account is a retread of a prior one, which one you think it replaced, and why.

[Malika la Maize]

Lex/Chuck/Harriman is constantly changing his handle, I’m not as naive as you and can see the wording is the same as Lex’s posts about ”Democratic supremacists” being a danger to conservatives (see the many right after Kirk’s murder).

[DDHarriman]

"Democrat supremacists"? I like it. I will adopt it and start using it.

That's brilliant.

[SRG2]

That's not the phrase he used, of course.

[Life of Brian]

The phrase Qualika mentioned hasn't ever been used here by anyone, much less LexAquilia.

[Mr. Bumble]

Qualika, Queenie + Malika. I like it.

[Life of Brian]

Naive? Just wondering if you had anything but vibez. Chuck P and Lex were around at the same time, and Lex doesn't appear to have been the one that started the term Democrat supremacist.

Other than all that, absolutely superb gumshoe work!

[Mr. Bumble]

Happy traditional Columbus day.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Happy Charlie Kirk Day...

[Kazinski]

The Phillies lost their division series to the Dodgers in the most devastating way possible, with two outs tied in the 11th inning, runners on 2nd and 3rd, the relief pitcher vapor locked on a come hacker back to the mound.

Despite a slight bobble he had plenty of time to throw to first and get the 3rd out and take it to the 12th still tied. Instead he uncorked a wild throw the catcher had no chance at, and of he had caught it very unlikely to get the tag down if the runner slid, and the winning run easily scored from 3rd.

It's no guarantee the Phillies would have managed to win the game and get back to Philly for game 5 but it had to be absolutely heartbreaking for the team and the fans, not to get the opportunity to keep playing at least one more inning.

[Commenter_XY]

How long before there are East Coast Japanese pitchers (or players), is my question. Will we see Taiwanese pitchers or players? It makes baseball a global melting pot, which is good. Americans see a positive role model of a team of players from different countries join together to achieve a common goal, playing a uniquely American game. It is good for business, too; an international audience.

Does that effect the locker room? Specifically, does the nature of locker room interactions change when a team has players from multiple countries (and multiple languages) on it? Do you lose the inspirational speech, b/c of language differences?

[Kazinski]

What's the difference between Dominican or Venezuelan players and Japanese or Taiwanese players?

[Commenter_XY]

None that I can see, it is just a bigger linguistic melting pot in the team locker room. A bigger coaching challenge, too. (How) Is the qualitative aspect of speech (i.e. an inspirational speech) affected when the team linguistic melting pot goes beyond three languages, versus two? Ohtani has an interpreter.

[Kazinski]

Having an interpreter can be a problem when they have a gambling addiction and access to the athletes accounts, but it shouldn't affect on field performance.

[jb]

First: there's been East Coast Japanese pitchers, going back as far as Irabu, Kashiwada and Yoshii in the late 90s. The Nats, Orioles, Mets and Yankees all had Japanese pitchers on their rosters in 2025.

Second: thanks for your discussion of the benefits of DEI to a business, with special emphasis on the diversity and inclusion portions.

[Sarcastr0]

Indeed - I was just reading an article last week about how nothing shows the benefits of a broad talent retention and inclusion program like baseball.

By targeting areas of the world for development and inclusion that were not traditionally big in baseball talent, they've got a more talented set of players than ever before. And more diverse.

It did take them about 100 years to build this network, so DEI takes some patience to pay dividends.

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/09/23/how-to-spot-a-genius?itm_source=parsely-api

[Frank Drackman]

Braves had Kenshin Kawakami in 2009-2010 (and spent 2011 at AA Mississippi)
Went 8-22 with 4.32 ERA
Braves paid him $22million, which works out to $2,750,000/win

Frank

[David Nieporent]

How long before there are East Coast Japanese pitchers (or players), is my question. Will we see Taiwanese pitchers or players?

Is this post from 30 years ago? We've had all of that.

[Roger S]

Pitchers are not hired based on their fielding skills.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The Phillies lost because they could only manage to score 1 run in 11 innings.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A morbid question about MAID -- the Canadian suicide law.

Can the US prevent an American from going to Canada to die?
Before answering, can Mississippi prevent a woman from coming to Massachusetts to murder her child? i.e. abortion.

[John F. Carr]

Congress has broad power to regulate foreign commerce. Congress can prevent people from having sex in a foreign country. A law banning overseas suicide would likely be upheld.

A different legal regime governs the abortion hypothetical. At least one judge has recently ruled in favor of abortion tourism.

The outcome of such cases depends on the preferences of judges. Judges generally don't care for sex tourism. A lot of judges feel strongly one way or the other about abortion and will find a way to make the decision come out for or against abortion. What do judges think about suicide?

[Commenter_XY]

CAN MAiD deaths (per NLRC - Nat Right Life Comm):
2021: 10, 092
2022: 13,241
2023: 15,343
2024: 16,500 (est)

The US has 9X larger population; those are potentially very big numbers when projected to the US. There is a truly ghoulish business opportunity there, meaning, assisted suicide. I understand there are clinics in Europe that charge big dollars to 'check out' in style. And some very interesting wealthy people have availed themselves of that service in Europe. Americans can do it better. Should they?

Longer term, I worry how it will be applied in an institutional setting here in the US. We currently have 11 states that allow it. I don't even know if the states themselves track this metric directly (the number of people in institutional setting vs MAiD chosen autonomously by individual).

[not guilty]

"Congress has broad power to regulate foreign commerce. Congress can prevent people from having sex in a foreign country. A law banning overseas suicide would likely be upheld."

Who would be prosecuted for committing suicide?

Although I agree that, if there is a conviction therefor, it is unlikely to be overturned on appeal.

[Armchair]

"Who would be prosecuted for committing suicide?"

It's the "assisted" part that gets the individuals in trouble. Since some may consider "assisted" suicide a form of murder, there may be US laws that address that.

For example, if the Canadian doctor was also a US National, 18 U.S.C. § 1119 may apply to any assisted suicides that doctor helped perform on US citizens.

18 U.S. Code § 2332 might apply to foreign nationals killing us nationals outside the us.

[not guilty]

Neither § 1119 nor § 2332 would apply to a true suicide, where the deceased died by his own hand and of his own volition.

In the case of assisted suicide, 18 U.S.C. § 2 could arguably apply if there were a federal statute prohibiting extraterritorial suicide (which there is not).

[Armchair]

"if there were a federal statute prohibiting extraterritorial suicide (which there is not)"

Wouldn't be so sure of that.
18 U.S. Code § 2332
(a)Homicide.—Whoever kills a national of the United States, while such national is outside the United States, shall—
(1)if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111(a)), be fined under this title, punished by death or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both;
(2)if the killing is a voluntary manslaughter as defined in section 1112(a) of this title, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and
(3)if the killing is an involuntary manslaughter as defined in section 1112(a) of this title, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

If you are pumping a lethal dose of a drug into a person...are you "killing" them? EVEN IF THEY ASK FOR IT?

[wvattorney13]

Read (d):

"(d)Limitation on Prosecution.—
No prosecution for any offense described in this section shall be undertaken by the United States except on written certification of the Attorney General or the highest ranking subordinate of the Attorney General with responsibility for criminal prosecutions that, in the judgment of the certifying official, such offense was intended to coerce, intimidate, or retaliate against a government or a civilian population."

It's an anti-terrorism law.

[Armchair]

"It's an anti-terrorism law."

It is. On the other hand, as written, is assisted suicide a form of coercion?

[not guilty]

Section 2332 has nothing to do with suicide.

Suicide is an entirely different category from murder or manslaughter.

[wvattorney13]

Not historically. Suicide was homicide and classified as murder. The fact that you consented to your own murder was not a defense.

Of course, you can't punish someone who successfully commits suicide. But if they fail, that was attempted murder. If you materially assist someone in committing suicide, then you (the general you) are guilty of that person's murder.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Who would be prosecuted for committing suicide? "

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVII/Chapter123/Section12

It's a grey area of the law, with civil rather than criminal prosecution, but the state has the power to prevent someone from attempting to commit suicide.

How does that balance against MAiD? See my question?

[not guilty]

"Before answering, can Mississippi prevent a woman from coming to Massachusetts to murder her child? i.e. abortion."

A murder and a lawful abortion are mutually exclusive. Like red and green or a circle and a rectangle, one cannot be the other.

The "born alive" rule applied to murder as far back as the common law.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, in MA you're just killing an unborn baby, not murdering he/she.

[Malika la Maize]

Don’t get Francis weeping about babies again, please!

[Frank Drackman]

I don't get it, your side cries about friggin Sea Turtles (OK, they're cute, I love them too) the Pope fellates a melting Ice Cube (next he'll fellate the actual "Ice Cube"), mourn Arab Terrorists,
But with actual unborn Humans you're friggin Alfred Rosenberg (Google that S***, and no, he wasn't Jewish) Or a reference your side uses (incorrectly I might add)
"Mengele"

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

What is the difference between what Candice Owens is saying now about Charlie Kirk and what Alex Jones said about Newtown?
https://freebeacon.com/america/ai-giant-perplexity-is-sponsor-of-candace-owens-podcast-suggesting-conservative-commentator-involved-in-kirk-assassination/

Kirk's own security was telling him he was likely to get assassinated, he didn't know that was a real possibility?

[John F. Carr]

One of these people has not yet been hit with a billion dollar sanction for annoying a judge.

[Commenter_XY]

Listening to what Candace Owen is saying today and seeing the legal impact it will eventually have on her is like listening to the controlled demolition of a 50-60 story building in a city.

[wvattorney13]

""I do not accept, and nor do you guys, that Charlie Kirk lost his life because he really pissed off the trans lobby," Owens said on the episode sponsored by Perplexity. While Owens said she "can't prove" that Israel killed Kirk, she did claim supporters of Israel are "not acting right" and her "gut [feeling] means something."

"I am uncomfortable with how many lies people that support Israel have been telling me in the wake of his death," she said. "That has been almost the only compelling argument that Israel had anything to do with it is the way they're acting right now.""

That sounds awful opinion-y to me. If I say that the local mayor is a crook, but I can't prove it, it's just that he seems like a weasel to me, I don't think that meets the test for a false statement of fact. At least it isn't one that anyone would rely upon to cause him harm.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, she's way brighter than Alex Jones, but are you saying he would have been OK had he merely said "In my opinion" before all the things he said?!?

[wvattorney13]

No. It's not that easy. You can't make a factual assertion an opinion just by using the magic words of "in my opinion" in front of it.

But many things blur the line between opinion and an assertion of fact. Most lawyers in the area of defamation do advise their clients to sprinkle i some "in my opinions" throughout their commentary. It works better than most magic word solutions, and IMHO for good reason.

By stating that it is only your opinion it takes away the harshness and definiteness of a message that is declaring something as fact.

[David Nieporent]

While you're right as a practical matter, as a legal matter the issue is whether it's an opinion based on disclosed facts, or an opinion that implies knowledge of undisclosed facts.

If I say, "Ben Shapiro tweeted a picture of a menorah the week before Charlie Kirk was murdered, so therefore my opinion is that he was involved in killing Charlie Kirk," that's not defamation, because it explains the basis of the opinion and any reader can see it's insane.

If I say, "There are lots of suspicious things Ben Shapiro was doing that make me think he was involved in killing Charlie Kirk," though, that may cross the line, because it implies I know facts that support the false accusation.

[Michael P]

I personally wouldn't want to put money on the hypothesis that "how many lies people that support Israel have been telling me" and "the way they're acting right now" do not imply undisclosed defamatory facts that underlie her conclusion.

Based on the limited bits that you two have quoted here (because I don't pay attention to her otherwise), she would have a better defense for not having identified anyone specifically enough to clear to the threshold from "group libel" to individual libel/defamation.

[wvattorney13]

How far do you take that, though? If I say that "Chevy trucks suck!" could someone claim that I am implying that I have undisclosed defamatory facts that suggest a particular manufacturing defect with GM?

[David Nieporent]

"Suck" isn't definite enough to be defamatory; it's not capable of being proven true or false. It could mean anything, from "they're ugly" to "I don't like the way they handle" to "they explode when you put them in reverse."

[Armchair]

Some considerations about the filibuster and the current continuing resolution.

One way out of the current government shutdown would be for the Senate to simply say that CR's can't be filibustered. Then pass it. While short and easy, it represents an erosion of norms. It represents a path for the next party in the senate to say that "their bill" can't be filibustered. And that's not necessarily ideal.

For these purposes. I believe we need to go to the filibuster and what it actually is, and the purpose it is truly meant to serve. The filibuster is really a motion to end debate on a bill. It is meant to give Senators more time to debate and think about a bill, without just "forcing it through" as quickly as possible. In these days where 1,000 page bills get thrown through, without being read...it's actually useful to have a device to be able to say..."wait, give us a day or 3 to actually read the bill".

So, how can we apply that to the current situation? Well, rather than just say "CR's can't be filibustered", consider an alternate solution. The goal is to give people time to think about the bill, and time to think about the consequences. So, I'd propose the following language in regards to debate in the senate.

-Regarding funding bills, at current funding levels, time is to be considered essential to deciding funding bills. Debate on the bill and only on this bill must be considered for at least 1 day for every 7 days the bill's funding takes effect, with a minimum of 2 days. The Senate must be in session during these days. No other bills can be voted on or debated by the senate during this time. Once this consideration for debate is complete, further debate will be considered unneeded, given the short time of funding needed.

In effect, such wording means that the Senate will need to debate a bill...and only the bill...for at least 1 day a week the bill is meant to take effect. The current period (12 days) would lead to at least 12 weeks of funding. And it meets the essential criteria on debate.

This means it will be far more difficult for more extreme measures to be passed.

[Commenter_XY]

Arm, I suggested an alternative model last Friday to address this. 🙂

We should consider the example of the Roman Catholic Curia and the rules they have in place to force compromise more quickly in picking a Pope. The physical conditions get grimmer over time for the College of Cardinals. So confine Congress to the Capital Building until they compromise and vote something out. Fed employees not getting paid? Neither do you, Congress. Sleep on a cot in your office. Congressional cafeteria has food. After 6-9 months, maybe the digital equivalent of 'bread and water only' = no amazon or uber deliveries, no cell coverage.

If it worked for the Curia (for hundreds of years now), it will certainly work for Congress. Make their personal environment increasingly inhospitable and that collective duress will help focus the Congressional mind and erode intransigence. And Congress would eventually compromise and pass legislation. I don't know how the country could actually do that, constitutionally, but there is a workable historical precedent to consider in addressing the problem, meaning, make Congress live with the consequences of deliberate inaction.

Each body makes it own rules. And I think it is a hugely bad idea to nuke the filibuster on partisan lines. I disagree with POTUS Trump (and others) about this. The minority part(ies) in the Congress must have strong protections. Why?

One day, Team R and Team D will both be the minority parties. Why do we continue to assume the House remains at 438 and the Senate 100, in perpetuity? The House could be expanded rather substantially to account for population growth. New states can be admitted (not looking at you at all, CAN and GL, heh), or subdivides (not looking at TX or OR at all, either). I'd want to be sure minority protections are in place, like the ability to filibuster.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ho about a return to actual filibusters?

Require an actual, continuous speech -- the reading of the phone book, etc.

[wvattorney13]

What would that accomplish other than to completely grind the Senate to a halt and require the minority party to work in shifts around the clock? Taking out the infirm, if you have 30 senators willing to filibuster, that isn't too much of a burden to have them take a couple of hours shift every couple of days.

[Michael P]

Under typical rules of order, there's an order of speakers, and a vote can be called by a speaker during their turn. Old school filibusters took advantage of a rule that you need a supermajority vote to interrupt whoever has the floor (to give the floor to the next speaker or to hear a motion for a vote), even if the current person has been speaking for 40 hours.

Now a filibuster doesn't require the person obstructing a vote to even get out of their seat.

[wvattorney13]

I'm not seeing this. A senator cannot be interrupted while he is speaking and there is no vote until nobody rises to debate the proposition. The exception to this is if someone files a cloture motion which requires 60 votes to pass--and what we are dealing with here.

Because there are not 60 votes, if the Senate remained in session, the a parade of Democrats could keep standing to seek recognition, yielding to each other for questions, making suggestions of a lack of a quorum, etc.

I just don't see why that is preferable than scrapping the idea for now and moving on with other business like confirming judges.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was one thing to read the phone book in the 1950s -- when there actually WERE phone books -- I haven't seen one in years -- how do you think either party would look if they were on C-Span doing that today?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not only what Michael P says (although I think they can yield to each other) but there are a LOT of Senators who might vote with Schumer but wouldn't want (now) 20 hours of video for right wing activists to play with. Same thing with Susan Collins -- General Mills is challenging her next year.

[Krayt]

How about the opposite direction, a constitutional amendment requiring a 60% small supermajority to pass a bill? Then bringing it to a floor vote is much less imporant!

The idea all-for-simple-majority is nothing inherently noble. It is an abstraction of might makes right, and suffers those dangers. The People can recognize this, and bind the power mongers accordingly, consciously.

[David Nieporent]

Why do we continue to assume the House remains at 438

435.

[Mr. Bumble]

435 voting members (currently 432) but there are 6 non-voting members who may:
Non-voting members of the House of Representatives can participate in debates, introduce legislation, and vote in House committees. However, they do not have the right to vote on the final passage of legislation in the full House.

[ducksalad]

No on the idea of a gigantic house, like the 3000 member one in China. Any member's contribution in a body that large is meaningless (and that's probably intentional).

It needs to be small enough that the average member can realistically be expected to submit bills, occasionally speak on the floor, speak daily in committees, and present constituents with a list of *personal* accomplishments when up for re-election.

It also needs to be small enough that informed people could in principle identify individual congressmen with individual positions, as opposed to assuming what they belief based on the party label.

[Brett Bellmore]

You have to consider whether or not a rule is generalizable, and what new abuses it might enable.

In this case, you would enable a minority to indirectly obstruct the passage of something widely popular by filibustering something minor and unrelated. (Maybe even some unpopular something they arranged for themselves!) Creating a new form of log rolling.

I'd suggest that instead, have several requirements:

1. Full text of bills must be published publicly a week in advance of any votes, unless this rule is waived by a 3/4 supermajority. To allow for genuine emergency legislation.

2. The maximum length of a filibuster should scale with the length of the bill, perhaps one day per page. You could filibuster an omnibus bill for years, a one page bill would be guaranteed almost immediate action.

3. Allow parallel action on different bills, again to prevent indirect filibusters. But if you're filibustering a bill, you're barred from introducing any legislation yourself; Obviously you're too busy with debate for that!

[Armchair]

1. "In this case, you would enable a minority to indirectly obstruct the passage of something widely popular by filibustering something minor and unrelated. "

If it's minor and unrelated, it can be pulled from debate. Then the popular bill can be passed

2. "The maximum length of a filibuster should scale with the length of the bill, perhaps one day per page."

That leads to too many shenangins.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just taking your comment literally: "In effect, such wording means that the Senate will need to debate a bill...and only the bill...for at least 1 day a week the bill is meant to take effect."

So if you had a minor bill of 7 years duration being filibustered, the Senate would need to debate that bill, and only that bill for at least a year. Preventing action on anything else. Or am I misunderstanding what you intended by "and only that bill"?

I think you need countervailing but limited powers, to limit use of the filibuster to actually forcing debate on a particular matter, but only an appropriate amount of debate.

Ideally we want to incentivize shorter single subject bills, by rendering them easier to pass, which is why I proposed that filibusters be limited to one day per page.

[Armchair]

"So if you had a minor bill of 7 years duration being filibustered, the Senate would need to debate that bill, and only that bill for at least a year. Preventing action on anything else. Or am I misunderstanding what you intended by "and only that bill"?"

So, here's the issue. They could do that now. They could filibuster that minor bill, and it would never get passed.

What I don't want is a system where on day 1 of Congress, a party puts up an extreme bill that obviously gets filibustered. Then the Senate goes, and does a bunch of other business for the next 200 days. Then, they come back and say "Well, it's been discussed for 200 days, we can pass it now, filibuster overcome".

[Brett Bellmore]

I understand the complaint, that filibusters under the modern system don't involve any actual debate. The problem is that Congress is just doing too damned much, there isn't time in the year to debate everything they do.

[Armchair]

And not everything necessarily needs a debate. That's why you have unanimous consent.

My issue is this. I don't want to get rid of the filibuster. It serves a purpose, slowing down certain law proposals for consideration.

I do think it can (and is) being abused as a way for a minority party to effectively veto legislation that is relatively non-controversial. And I think that just saying "well this type of law can't be filibustered" opens the door for the next party to say "that type of law can't be filibustered".

So, I want to keep the spirit of the concept (debate and filibustering) intact by giving the percentage of time a bill must be debated to time the law is in effect as a maximum requirement for debate.

[Michael P]

A day of debate for a week of funding seems excessive. That would imply a minimum of 52 in-session days dedicated to an annual budget, or 104 days for a two-year military budget.

The Senate has been "in session" eight days during this shutdown, because they don't work on weekends. They also don't work most Fridays.

Also, a filibuster is the way to extend debate on a bill when a majority wants to move it to a vote. Cloture is the name for "a motion to end debate on a bill".

[Armchair]

"A day of debate for a week of funding seems excessive."

It's designed as a maximum. Most (almost all) cases would be below it.

"The Senate has been "in session" eight days during this shutdown, because they don't work on weekends. They also don't work most Fridays."

8 * 7 = 56. That would basically get us to the current CR line.

[Bunny495]

"The Senate has been "in session" eight days during this shutdown, because they don't work on weekends. They also don't work most Fridays."

Why not?

[Jmaie]

Does anyone think that "time to think about the bill" is in any way connected to the current situation?

[wvattorney13]

That illustrates what gives me pause about the filibuster and potentially eliminating it.

I think the Senate should be a deliberative body. And if any senator wants to give a 3 hour speech on a bill, he should be able to do so. And he should be able to do so with other senators in attendance and during normal business hours.

But that should only apply to something substantive about the bill. No reading the phone book, no talking for simple delay.

If a rule could capture both of those, then I would have no trouble with the filibuster. But at some point, voting has to happen.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The Supreme Court has put itself in a pickle hard to get out of. What if it did this:

As soon as possible take an appeal of the Comey Case, if that does not get tossed first. Or any other of Trump's vengeful prosecution cases. Hear the case on the merits. Then announce it lacks jurisdiction to decide, because it is a case of impeachable Presidential misconduct, which lies within the jurisdiction of Congress.

Presto! SCOTUS off the hook. Do it again and again for various other Trump abuse-of-power cases. Clear the whole Trump docket that way.

That way the Roberts Court gets to be remembered for cowardice, and dereliction of duty, instead of for wrecking American Constitutionalism. Probably the best outcome they can hope for.

Then everybody's attention turns to a Congress which the Supreme Court has about 50 times said ought to consider impeachable misconduct by Trump. Presumably the Congress does nothing. Then Trump proceeds to wreck American constitutionalism by election tampering and suborning the military.

[Don Nico]

Stephen, you are trying too hard, too early on a Sunday.
Instead, make some pancakes or johnnycakes, turn off the computer, and chill before the nor'easter hits.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — I've got a bushel of still-ripening tomatoes to bring in during the next couple of hours. But don't worry; if I stop commenting, it will be a power outage, not a political pause.

Sometimes, when this jet stream pattern sets up firmly, New England can look for about one northeaster per week, for weeks on end. The last time that happened, I lived on the hardest-hit part of the coast. My neighborhood got about 250 inches of snow, in less than 10 weeks. I started to extrapolate, to guess how much longer that would have to continue, to get another ice age going.

Front-end loaders in town were picking up the smaller automobiles by accident, buried completely out of sight. To maximize snow storage, all the streets in town were redesignated, to make everything one-way only, with only a narrow lane open down the middle.

When I lived in the northern Rockies, at 6,000 feet elevation, I got accustomed to a bit of snow sticking around until June. That year in New England, we still had some in July, at sea level.

I might remember that year accurately as 2015, but exhaustion from snow shoveling may have fogged my brain. At times my snow blower was next to useless, because it was not equipped for tunnel discharge.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sounds a bit like Houghton, MI, where I went to college. Houghton was on the shore of the Portage lake, and was long and narrow, with a considerable slope towards the water. During the winter the town adopted a different traffic pattern, a one way circulating loop, with the North-South roads within the loop closed, only the East-West roads open.

This was because those N-S roads were all quite steep, and often a car going down them or even up, would end up sliding down hill and crashing.

Years later they got some funding, and actually roofed over some of those roads, so that they'd remain usable through the winter.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

One of my favorite places, the Keweenaw Peninsula! While there, did you get up to the Jam Pot and buy baked goods and preserves from the monks?

[Kazinski]

What would be the hook for the Supreme Court to expedite the Comey case?

I don't think there is much controversy over the idea that lying to Congress is a crime, so there is no issue of law to decide.

And once the jury decides the facts then I don't see that being something the Supreme Court would get excited about.

Obviously Comey's lawyers will look for a hook if he gets convicted, and an appeals court will definitely look at it, but it I don't know why the Supreme Court would care.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What would be the hook for the Supreme Court to expedite the Comey case?

Recognition that groundless criminal prosecutions of political opponents are fascist poison for a republic, and must be stopped fast.

[I here stipulate MAGA whatabout(s)]

Everyone is accustomed to mindless Trump/MAGA own-the-libs politics. Everyone understands they substitute for Trump/MAGA's abiding political void, so incapable to facilitate governance.

Your commentary, Kazinski, shows not only that same MAGA tendency, but also its mirror image: whatever political action you most fear, you pretend to denigrate as inconsequential. You would be enraged if the corruptly partisan right-wing Supreme Court suggested that impeachment of Trump was a duty Congress ought to consider.

Or you would feign solace, so long as protective right-wing congressional control promised inaction on impeachment. You would excuse election tampering to keep it that way. If domestic military interventions promised to facilitate election tampering, you would back those too, while conjuring rationalizations.

Your advocacy does not show you to be a passive fascist. It shows you to be the all-in kind. Show me any good reason to tender you an apology, and I will do it. But I am not going to apologize to a pseudonym. Include your real name.

[Roger S]

What if Comey really did what he is accused of? And documents prove it. And he lied to Congress about it. And when confronted with the lie, he lied to Congress again about it.

[ducksalad]

Agreed there's no particular reason why the SC would get involved, even if the prosecution is improper. Anyone who reads the daily Brickbat know that various levels of government do improper prosecutions from time to tome and lower level courts deal with it.

I do think Comey's case is very unlikely to result in a criminal sentence:

1. Utterly incompetent ADA Harriman has already demonstrated she will screw up things even a layman would understand. Example: trying to submit an indictment the grand jury rejected. She is very likely to make some kind of legally fatal error.

2. The DOJ staff above and around her compulsively run their mouths. There is a non-zero chance someone will openly boast that the prosecution is improper and FYTW, in a context the court can't ignore.

3. We're already seeing some jury nullification going on, and if the political temperature keeps rising I expect we'll see more. Only takes one holdout to get a hung jury, and only takes a couple hung juries to time out Trump's term.

[David Nieporent]

Utterly incompetent ADA Harriman

(1) She's a U.S. Attorney (interim), not an ADA.
(2) Her name is Halligan.

[ducksalad]

Thank you.

[Brett Bellmore]

"because it is a case of impeachable Presidential misconduct,"

They are NOT going to announce that, precisely because whether or not it is a case of impeachable Presidential misconduct lies within the jurisdiction of Congress, and they aren't Congress.

So they're not going to please you by advising the House that it should impeach a President you happen to dislike.

[Stephen Lathrop]

There is no, "whether or not," to it, Bellmore. A point the Supreme Court is particularly well-positioned to emphasize. It does currently seem to need emphasis.

I will put you down as a Kazinski-like pro-fascist, but give you a break for not hiding behind a pseudonym. Keep that up and I will always welcome your commentary.

[Brett Bellmore]

Lathrop, the House can impeach an officer subject to impeachment for literally ANYTHING, or refrain for literally anything, because "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not constitutionally defined, and is not subject to judicial review.

Whether some act is appropriate for impeachment is a political decision given over to the House, it is not a matter given to the judiciary to decide, and so the Supreme court will, predictably, not express an opinion on the matter.

[JohnSmith97]

I'm sure it will work out _this_ time.

[ducksalad]

Brett, do you think it's inconceivable that when the SC declines to take the case, one of the justices writes a "concurrence" saying that they agree with not taking the case because the alleged behavior, if true, would constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" and that's not within their jurisdiction?

Of course without *explicitly* suggesting that Congress do something.

It only takes one justice to do that, and we've now got multiple examples of justices issuing solo opinions on procedural stuff when the court as a whole said nothing other than we decline to take the case.

[not guilty]

The Supreme Court has put itself in a pickle hard to get out of. What if it did this:

As soon as possible take an appeal of the Comey Case, if that does not get tossed first. Or any other of Trump's vengeful prosecution cases. Hear the case on the merits. Then announce it lacks jurisdiction to decide, because it is a case of impeachable Presidential misconduct, which lies within the jurisdiction of Congress.

Take an appeal from what in the Comey case? If the indictment is dismissed in whole or in part, the Government can appeal as of right pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731. If a defense motion to dismiss is denied, there is no appeal from that denial unless the "collateral order" doctrine applies, which in criminal cases is extremely limited.

SCOTUS is a court of review, not a court of first view. It has no jurisdiction to hear the merits of a criminal case prior to trial in the district court.

And the suggestion that this "is a case of impeachable Presidential misconduct, which lies within the jurisdiction of Congress" is simply bizarre. Are you drunk?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Are you drunk?"
No, he's Lathrop.

[Stephen Lathrop]

not guilty — Arguments from incredulity are not cogent replies.

Try to keep in mind that I do not intend legal commentary. I write in terms of history, of politics, and of political philosophy (and on a few unrelated subjects where I have professional competence, or claim avocational insight).

Where I do offer remarks, constraints on reasonable commentary also exist, but may not match legal inhibitions. It can make sense to do that even on this legal blog, because history shows commonplace evolutions in legal norms, which arose outside then-governing legal constraints. This nation's history has been an especially fertile source of those.

Societies spiraling downward toward disorder, like ours now seems to be, ought to be on the lookout for change, because it is headed their way inevitably. I expect history will mark the era now unfolding as similar to other intervals of upheaval in this nation's affairs, some of which have proved especially worthy of world-wide attention.

Lifelong friendships with lawyers, some learned and distinguished, have taught me they resist by professional habit to recognize the surprises history teaches others to expect from time to time. It is a feature the profession inculcates. I am accustomed to it. In all that, I recognize strengths along with vulnerabilities. Commentary I offer now, in unsettled times, is quite different than my remarks would likely be during an interval of accustomed order, prosperity, and legal regularity.

Please understand that I value your contributions especially. I have no trouble to distinguish your expertise as outside my competence, and to defer appropriately. Do not expect that deference to extend to everything that happens, or might happen. That asks too much. You will hear my remarks more perceptively if you try a little more deference of your own.

[Kazinski]

So basically you have no idea what's going on.

We already knew that.

[wvattorney13]

"As soon as possible take an appeal of the Comey Case, if that does not get tossed first. Or any other of Trump's vengeful prosecution cases. Hear the case on the merits. Then announce it lacks jurisdiction to decide, because it is a case of impeachable Presidential misconduct, which lies within the jurisdiction of Congress."

None of this is possible. Nothing about the law works this way.

[Stephen Lathrop]

wvattorney13 — As Catch 22 should have taught us all, anything is possible, if you cannot prevent it from happening.

Almost nothing about the law of today works as it did work in these same regions 375 years ago. Why?

A nostrum, "Nothing about the law works this way," ignores that question. Of course we are all free to ignore that question, but given all the changes, maybe ought to ask ourselves what motivates wanting to ignore it.

[wvattorney13]

So the Court could step in now and say that Comey should be executed by firing squad at noon tomorrow prior to trial because "anything is possible, if you cannot prevent it from happening"?

[David Nieporent]

As soon as possible take an appeal of the Comey Case,

I don't even understand what this means. Appeal what? There's nothing to appeal. "As soon as possible" means "after he has been convicted."

Hear the case on the merits.

I don't know what you mean by this, either.

Then announce it lacks jurisdiction to decide, because it is a case of impeachable Presidential misconduct,

Lacks the jurisdiction to decide what? How is the issue of whether Comey committed perjury "a case of impeachable presidential misconduct"?

[wvattorney13]

"Lacks the jurisdiction to decide what? How is the issue of whether Comey committed perjury "a case of impeachable presidential misconduct"?"

If the Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from Comey (which it does lack) then it should dismiss its own action of reaching down to hear the case, right?

And since the Court would be acting grossly in excess of its jurisdiction anyways, why wouldn't it go ahead and impeach and removed Trump on its own? Order him exiled to Ft. Jefferson.

[Malika la Maize]

A federal judge Thursday temporarily blocked federal agents with the Department of Homeland Security from using riot control weapons against journalists covering protests and immigration enforcement operations in the Chicago area.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/10/09/judge-orders-halt-dhs-agents-targeting-journalists-chicago/

This should go without saying. Are the Andy Ngo defenders going to say this is wrong?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think whether people who call themselves journalists, (Who have no rights not shared by everybody else, it should go without saying.) get riot control weapons used on them should be dependent on their conduct, the same as for everybody else present at a riot.

[Sarcastr0]

I got bad news for you about ICE's practice in using those weapons.

Feel free to look up the many, many examples. Antifa is just so good at staging these, it sure looks like ICE just loves profligate use of nonlethal force against protestors!

The picture of the priest getting sprayed is Pulitzer-worthy, and the video shows nothing requiring that use of force.
Later, they shot him in the head from the roof.

[Riva]

Now Antifa exists? Well we’re making progress. But I agree that the terrorist organization is good at fomenting chaos.

[Riva]

The media here are as objective as the AP in Gaza.

[SRG2]

This does not make them legitimate targets for the use of force.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s a bot, says what’s programmed no matter how dumb a human is bound to find it to be.

[Brett Bellmore]

My point is that their status as "journalists" does not make them not legitimate targets, either.

They're subject to the use of force based on the same criteria literally anybody else is, because despite their pretensions to the contrary, they have no special constitutional status.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Journalists employed by an institutional press do have special constitutional status. With your repeated emphasis to just read the words, I am surprised you cannot discern the words of the Press Freedom clause, or note where you find it.

Do not misconstrue me as insisting such journalists enjoy legal impunity. But institutional deference to their mission? Yeah, that is in the Constitution. And there is no pretension about that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Journalists employed by an institutional press do have special constitutional status."

No, they don't, because the "institutional press" do not have special constitutional status, either.

This has been explained to you repeatedly: Freedom of the press refers to the freedom of ALL citizens to use the instrumentality, the printing press, and its technological analogs. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the profession which took to calling itself "the Press", and professional journalists have no special constitutional status in this country.

[Brett Bellmore]

A refresher you apparently need:

A freedom shared by all: Eugene Volokh on the Press Clause

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I still think Prof. Volokh isn't completely right about this. The founders often used the term "Press" to mean the general institution of newspapers and pamphlets. I've cited examples from the founders' letters at least twice here.

[ducksalad]

Regardless, can we agree that the best solution to any discrepancy would be to bring all our rights up to the journalist level, rather than to bring journalists' rights down to match some minimum common denominator?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Sure, sounds great to me. It's not how an ostensible "Originalist" would approach the issue, though. That's really my only point.

[wvattorney13]

"The founders often used the term "Press" to mean the general institution of newspapers and pamphlets."

That's unremarkable. At the time of the founding, what other methods of publication would there have been?

If we adopted such an approach, then the courts would have to determine that X number of subscribers or print issues are required before something is a "real" newspaper or pamphlet.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

There were no other methods of publication, but that's not really the point. For an originalist, the debate is over what the word "Press" meant when used by the founders. Originalists like Prof. Volokh make the argument that they meant the piece of equipment which can be used by anyone. I don't think that's necessarily true, historically.

What you say about current interpretation is true, which is why I have no problem interpreting it as a general right, although if so it seems like it would be included under general right to speech. Prof. Volokh does address that in his article, although I didn't find his explanation very convincing.

[Jazzizhep]

I’ve looked and can find tons of people saying the founders referred to the institution “of the press.” I can’t find any examples where the founders unambiguously used the term “press” to refer to an institution.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Look to original sources, rather than second hand. The best thing to do is look at online digitized collections of letters, where you can do a search on the word "Press."

[TwelveInchPianist]

Regardless of whether the conduct of the institutional press has special protections, the conduct of the protestors is also protected, so there's still no reason to treat the press any differently.

[Riva]

They're not being targeted. If you embed yourself among those engaged in violence, don't be surprised if you're caught in the cross-fire. Of course, it may be that some "journalists" are active participants playing their role in the organized violence, and not simply engaged in the usual propaganda.

[Malika la Maize]

Bot programmed for selective skepticism of government.

[Riva]

Not unexpected. The jv trolls always lapse into aping more insults when they don't actually have the wit to respond. You get what you pay for I guess. Nothing to do but let him play with himself. I advise moderation though because that could lead to blindness, just some friendly advice.

[Malika la Maize]

Like captcha bot doesn’t get implied arguments.

[Riva]

As witty and nuanced an argument as an antifa slogan. You may lose your jv status.

[Malika la Maize]

Bot not repaired, still doesn’t recognize implied argument.

[Riva]

I think you need to repeat that a few more times, just to prove that you really have a brilliant argument hidden somewhere are not simply incapable of expressing it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Have you questioned whether that demand for uniformity ought to lead to less riot control violence, if its use on journalists practicing their profession as bystanders has become a standard to extend violence to any and all?

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think it's clear that it would lead to either less or more, but possibly differently distributed.

[wvattorney13]

Can the state not interfere with a bank robbery in progress if a journalist has embedded herself with the robbers? Not to assist, but merely to document the robbery?

[ThePublius]

The problem here is that apparently many of the journalists at these events are also active participants in the often violent protests; like that female WGN 'journalist' who was throwing things are federal vehicles.

When they switch over to perpetrating violence they cease to be journalists.

[David Nieporent]

Where is the video of her throwing things at federal vehicles?

[Malika la Maize]

Protectionism, Europe-Style!

On Wednesday, the European Parliament voted to ban the use of meat-related terms for imitation-plant-based products, arguing that shoppers should never mistake tofu for tenderloin.

A majority of conservative and right-leaning lawmakers backed the move, adopting it with 355 votes in favor to 247 against, with 30 abstentions. The proposal still needs to be grilled by the E.U’s 27 member states before coming into effect.

The amendment follows an initiative by Europe’s largest center-right political family, the European People’s Party (EPP), that backers say aims to protect farmers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/10/08/imitation-meat-labeling-europe-vegetarian-vegan/

[ThePublius]

I'm not surprised. The EU has many, many regulations about food product descriptions and labeling, for example with cheese, wine, liquors, and so forth. I don't see it as protectionism, at all.

BTW, you should put that statement from WaPo in quotes.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s clearly protectionism for farmers, but slavers like you love that kind of thing, government force used to favor certain groups in the marketplace.

[ThePublius]

Where do you think the vegetables for those veggie patties come from, if not farms?

And do you really think that changing the names of these things is going to have a material effect on the market?

[Malika la Maize]

So government protectionism is ok with you as long as its effects are small?

See, silly me, unlike you, I think other than outright fraud government shouldn’t take sides amongst products in the marketplace.

[ThePublius]

So, zero food regulation, including truth in labeling, listing ingredients, truthful volumes and weights, sanitary requirements, and so forth?

If it's not meat, it's not meat, and deceptive labeling is wrong.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s not saying it’s meat (it’s about terms like steak-which btw comes from anything cooked on a stake back in the day), and the ingredients are already labeled. You’re as usual straining hard to defend it government force.

[David Nieporent]

And do you really think that changing the names of these things is going to have a material effect on the market?

The backers of these laws do!

[ThePublius]

I think we need something like that here. I just searched my local market's web page under the category of "vegetarian meat' (which is no pissible, of course), and the most egregious offender I found was "Gardein Ultimate Plant Based Frozen Ground Be'f." See what they did there with 'Be'f?' There are plenty of others, like "Field Roast Grain Meat Vegetarian Italian Sausage," "MorningStar Farms Vegetarian Bacon Strips Applewood Black Pepper Thick Cut Meatless," and so on. There's no meat or bacon in these things.

Whatever happened to the truth in labeling?

[Malika la Maize]

The truth is right there-Meatless, Be*f (not beef), etc. The use of words like “Be*f* indicate the flavoring. And every one of those packages has the ingredients listed on them.

You’re like a heroin addict when it comes to big government force, always jonesing for more!

[Malika la Maize]

This weekend, festivals celebrating Acadian and Creole culture will take over the Lafayette area, but some Canadians won’t be coming. Louisiana Lt. Gov. Billy Nungesser, a Republican, says their absence is because of rhetoric from the White House, and he’s asking President Donald Trump for an apology.

Since taking office in January for his second term, Trump has made several comments about Canada becoming the 51st state and has chastised the country in his ongoing international trade war. Just this week, in a meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Trump cracked a joke about a “merger” of the two countries.

During a recent trip to the country to promote Louisiana tourism, Nungesser said many Canadians upset by Trump’s remarks told him they’re staying away from the U.S. — and Louisiana. Nungesser is now asking the president to apologize to Canadians in hopes of stopping the loss of tourism and diplomatic relations.

https://www.wrkf.org/local-regional-news/2025-10-08/trumps-comments-are-hurting-canadian-tourism-in-louisiana-lt-gov-nungesser-wants-an-apology

[ThePublius]

Nungesser is deranged if he thinks that an apology from Trump will prompt a significant number of Canadians to make last minute travel plans to Louisiana.

Plus, there's nothing to apologize for. If they are such sensitive snowflakes nothing will make them happy.

[Frank Drackman]

Let me know when the Canadian NHL Players stop coming.

[Malika la Maize]

Pubes likes a President who acts like an unprofessional jackass alienating long time allies and harming Americans who would do business with them all to make a stupid joke.

[David Nieporent]

Nungesser is deranged if he thinks Donald Trump would apologize for anything, ever.

[Bob from Ohio]

"some Canadians won’t be coming"

Oh noes, how will we survive?

[Sarcastr0]

Trump said he deserved a cut for brokering the TikTok deal, and at once there was agreement that his son Baron would have a top executive slot... though he hasn't asked for it, and has no apparent qualifications to hold it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/10/10/barron-trump-tipped-top-tiktok-job/

No one on the right ever cared about corruption. There is no principle left in these people other than own the libs.

[ThePublius]

"No one on the right ever cared about corruption."

This is categorically untrue. Of course we care about corruption.

[Sarcastr0]

If you only care about corruption as an unsupported accusation against the other side, you don't care about corruption.

See also e-mails, security, and dodging FOIA/federal records retention laws.

[ThePublius]

"If" is doing a lot of work in that reply.

[Sarcastr0]

You're meeting that conditional handily right now.

So is the GOP Congress.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0 — You don't get it. Corruption cherished and thriving is demonstrably well cared for.

[ThePublius]

"See also e-mails, security, and dodging FOIA/federal records retention laws."

Or maybe the corruption of the FISA courts to get warrants to spy on your political opponents?

[Sarcastr0]

Or maybe you're deflecting.

Which shows you, too, don't care about corruption.

[ThePublius]

You're great at knowing what people care about.

[JohnSmith97]

Vibes man, vibes.

[Sarcastr0]

You're deflecting.

Your priorities are clear.

[Malika la Maize]

You don’t like officials targeting political opponents, you say?

[SRG2]

Of course we care about corruption.

Do you think there is a legitimate - non-corruption - explanation for Barron Trump to be on the board of TikTok?

[ThePublius]

Is he on the board of TikTok? Or is this pure speculation on the part of that pillar of journalistic integrity, The Telegraph?

[SRG2]

The Telegraph is a pretty decent newspaper - it's not the Mail or the Sun. Suppose the speculation is true. What then?

[ThePublius]

Suppose space aliens take over and make us all wear our pants backwards. What then?

[SRG2]

Stop being a fuckwit. Not all hypotheticals are of equal likelihood.

[Frank Drackman]

Wasn't there a Rap Group that wore their pants backwards??
Wait a minute...............
"Chris Cross"??
Got a memory like a Steel Trap.....

Frank

[ThePublius]

"Fuckwit?" What grade are you in, anyway, SRG2?

[Frank Drackman]

"Fuckwit"??
It's a curse word I've never heard in my 63+ years on this Moral Coral.
And I've heard them all, from Foobawl Coaches, Med School Attendings, Marines, and the most foul mouthed of all??
Nurses, my Mom (she uses her native Plattdeutsch for her most profane oaths) Mrs. Drackman (I'll put a gaggle of Emergency/ICU RN's doing shots after a rough shift against the best Ham-Ass, Roosh-a, CCP, Ear-Ron has to offer).
And while my Daughters aren't Nurses (close, they fly Supersonic Jets with guns, missiles, and bombs) when they curse they could make Vince Lombardi cry like Fredo in "1" (or was it "2" where he cried like a little girl?)
But "Fuckwit"?? that's the sound of a guy who's never touched a woman's breast describing it feeling like "A bag of sand" (HT "Andy" in "40 yr old Virgin")
That's Lizzie Poke-a-Hontas Warren trying to slam a Beer like she's John Blutarsky, Bill Clinton trying to Cannonball like Carl Spackler, Hillary Rodman trying to act Human,
Now "Fuck-wad" I've heard,
not "Fuck-wit"
OK I think I've pounded that pud with my Dick-Beaters (Marine Corpse slang for "Hands") as much as I can

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

If they’re your daughters they may have inherited your mental condition manifested as a form of Tourettes.

[Frank Drackman]

They have a touch of the Ass-Burgers, most Military Pilots/Doctors do, in Aviation/Medicine obsessive attention to trivial details is a good thing.

[SRG2]

It's more commonly a British insult, particularly since the advent of Viz and its recurring character Terry Fuckwitt ("he's a fuckwit!")

[John 4]

How embarrassing for you.

[Life of Brian]

and at once there was agreement that his son Baron would have a top executive slot

A few more words if you could, Guv, on how a social media jock saying "hey, wouldn't it be cool" constitutes an "agreement" that Barron "would" have a slot? His exact words from your article:

“I’m hopeful President Trump will consider appointing his son Barron and maybe other young Americans to TikTok’s board to help ensure it remains an app young people want to keep using.”

[Life of Brian]

The silence is deafening. Must be too busy over in the other subthreads trying to keep the flames fanned to address pesky foundational issues like whether his egregious misconstrual of the already breathless media piece was rooted in malice or incompetence.

[Bob from Ohio]

"at once there was agreement that his son Baron would have a top executive slot."

Read you own link. There is no "agreement", its some rando making a dumb suggestion.

Mr. No Nut Picking seemingly nut picking.

[Life of Brian]

If he deigns to reply at all, bet you a nickel he dives into a rabbit hole over "rando" and ignores the rest.

[Michael P]

The layers and layers of fact checkers and editors at the Washington Poo agree with a scribbler than "trimester" means a third of a month.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/10/11/weather-washington-drought-rain-fairfax/

We used to teach people English in elementary school, but apparently these "elites" missed out.

[Sarcastr0]

I got the meaning from context ('first trimester of October.')
Intended or not, I thought it a cute off-label use of the word.

Also, what a petty thing to care about.

[Riva]

In Friday’s open thread, you trolls obsessed over typos. Now it’s Meh? It must make things easier to be unprincipled.

[Michael P]

Their only standards are double standards. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody whatabouts bloggers in their pajamas occasionally getting things wrong. (But somehow still less wrong than, say, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes did.)

[ThePublius]

Last night I ate a trimester of a pizza.

[Frank Drackman]

Could you Diaphragm that sentence??

[Life of Brian]

OK, that made me spay my coffee.

[ThePublius]

We don't call them slices, we call them Caesarean sections.

[Mr. Bumble]

Only if the pizza comes from Little Caesars.

[Bored Lawyer]

Doesn't that depend on the toppings?

[Michael P]

In most states, you have the right to choose to stop eating any time before the final trimester of your pizza. After that, you have at least a moral obligation to see it through to the end.

[ThePublius]

More "nothing" happening in Portland:

Emergency flights diverted from Portland hospital amid 'laser party' threats at ICE facility: report
Air ambulance providers redirect to airports after anarchist group encourages laser strikes on aircraft

In part:
"A call to shine laser lights into the sky in an effort to disrupt federal helicopters flying over South Portland has prompted serious safety concerns and forced a key trauma hospital to reroute air ambulances.

The online flyer, posted on the homepage of Rose City Counter-Info, a self-described "anarchist counter-info platform in so-called Portland, Oregon," encourages participants to take part in a "laser tag" event aimed at federal aircraft.

The post urges individuals to mask up, coordinate with others, and take steps to avoid identification – including cleaning laser pointers with alcohol, wearing gloves, and removing potential DNA traces before disposal."

"As a result of the planned activity, Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) reported that multiple air ambulance providers declined to land at the hospital’s rooftop helipad on Saturday night, according to KGW.

"Instead, they redirected their helicopters to nearby airports, requiring patients to be transferred to OHSU by ground ambulance — a process estimated to add 45 to 60 minutes to travel time.

"For most patients, that will be an acceptable delay. However, for some sensitive situations, such as unstable trauma patients, STEMIs and strokes, the delay could have real impacts," OHSU said in an email to KGW. "

https://www.foxnews.com/us/emergency-flights-diverted-from-portland-hospital-amid-laser-party-threats-ice-facility-report

Oh, and this from an organization that doesn't exist, is just an idea:

https://rosecitycounterinfo.noblogs.org/

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure you know what planned activity is, but a post on a website, without more, isn't that.

Again, you need to get your story straight about is Antifa a vast and secret network covered for by judges and police, or is it public books and websites that people can read?

The second is more like MAGA. And, like MAGA, it's not an organization one can go after, it's just speech.

[Sarcastr0]

Note that y'all are absolutely going after speech. Because Trump's a fascist.

https://reason.com/2025/10/10/tennessee-man-arrested-gets-2-million-bond-for-posting-facebook-meme/?nab=1

[ThePublius]

What does that have to do with this discussion?

Are you trying to say that calling for violence is protected speech, i.e., the Rose City Counter-Info website?

[Sarcastr0]

It's going after Antifa, under the definition you seem to be using.

Does not not make you happy?

[Riva]

Looks like we neglected to read the article. Or is this just more pathetic gaslighting? I say the latter. “Antifa” is not actually mentioned in the article by the way. But this is:

According to Sheriff Nick Weems of nearby Perry County, "numerous…teachers, parents and students" somehow interpreted Bushart's meme—with its citation in fine print about a previous school shooting at Perry High School in Perry, Iowa—as a threat to carry out a similar shooting at nearby Perry County High School.

According to the Perry County Sheriff's Office website, Bushart was arrested the following morning on a charge of Threats of Mass Violence on School Property and Activities—a class E felony punishable by between one and six years in prison and up to a $3,000 fine.

[David Nieporent]

Are you trying to say that calling for violence is protected speech, i.e., the Rose City Counter-Info website?

Calling for violence is almost always protected speech, yes, and it's hard to imagine a website that would not be under the Brandenburg test.

[Frank Drackman]

When I'm Surpreme Leader, use of "Y'all" by a Yankee will be punishable by Lingchi.
Did you hear the one about the Roundeye who went into a Chinese Restaurant and ordered the Lingchi??

Frank

[ThePublius]

I don't know why you defend these people. They called for an illegal activity that threatens the life and safety of the pilots, their passengers, and the public. They have done this before, repeatedly. And you apparently deny that it's real and brush it aside as if it's some right wing fantasy.

Well, those hospital helicopters really did divert to airports under this threat, with the aforementioned consequences.

"The [Portland Police Bureau (PPB)] added it "regularly" arrests individuals for targeting police aircraft with lasers, including one arrest earlier this week."

"Federal officials cited a recent incident as evidence of the risks such actions pose. On September 30, DHS reported that four Mexican nationals living in the U.S. illegally were arrested in Portland after allegedly shining a laser at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) helicopter, endangering both the crew and people below."

[Michael P]

He probably defends Antifa and their plans to blind helicopter pilots -- even if they're air ambulance pilots -- because he's angry, and he's not geared to direct that anger at the Democrats in Congress who are responsible for him being angry (over being furloughed).

His entire commenting history is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[Sarcastr0]

What pop-sociological nonsense you deploy so you can yet again accuse Dems of doing the shutdown.

Gotta push the talking point, even if it's not playing.

[Sarcastr0]

You repeatedly demonstrate that you can't understand defending people you don't like out of principle.

Calling for illegal activity is protected.

[ThePublius]

Wrong. (I thought you were a lawyer?)

"The advocacy of illegal action is a category of speech not protected by the First Amendment. It is also sometimes referred to as the advocacy of illegal conduct."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/advocacy_of_illegal_action

[Sarcastr0]

You found the right thing, but were too lazy to read it past the headline.

The Brandenburg test is very hard to meet, and not met here.

[ThePublius]

No, I read it, and I think in this case the "the “Brandenburg Test,” which requires that in order to punish the speaker, the speech must be intended to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and likely to incite such action" is easily met.

To wit,
Incite lawless action: no doubt;
Imminent: "this Saturday, October 11th, at 9:00 p.m., you are invited..."
Likely to incite: yes. They did, indeed, force the helicopters to relocate.

What's your reasoning for "not met?"

[Malika la Maize]

You might want to actually read Brandenberg. The guy announced a future “revengement” march.

[wvattorney13]

Yes, at some indefinite time in the future, maybe. This flyer has the marks of imminence: a date and time certain in the very near future (now past).

[Michael P]

Beyond that, traditional conspiracy has never required satisfying the Brandenberg test.

[Malika la Maize]

So if the speaker in Brandenburg had given a date for his proposed march he would have been prosecutable?

[wvattorney13]

"So if the speaker in Brandenburg had given a date for his proposed march he would have been prosecutable?"

Not for a march; that's not illegal. If the march was for the expressly stated purpose of illegal activity in the imminent future, absolutely.

You can't get around the prohibition of inciting a bank robbery by adding a disclaimer that we will only do it tomorrow afternoon, and thereby arguing that the robbery is not imminent.

The purpose of Brandenburg was to allow the general and abstract advocacy of breaking the law, not as a linguistic game to be able to plan crimes by using magic words.

[ThePublius]

Oh, and by the way, you haven't conceded you were wrong about calling for illegal activity to be protected speech. Instead you pivot towards 'well, the Brandenburg test is very hard to meet....'

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, your linked article's summary is badly written. Too formalistic.

In real life, with a very narrow exception calling for illegal activity is protected speech.

[ThePublius]

In real life, I disagree. It's not a 'very narrow exception.'

Note that the very first paragraph of the article from Cornell is:
"The advocacy of illegal action is a category of speech not protected by the First Amendment. It is also sometimes referred to as the advocacy of illegal conduct."

It then goes on to describe the circumstances.

It doesn't start 'the advocacy of illegal action is a category of speech protected by the First Amendment,' as you assert.

[Sarcastr0]

You're wrong. The summary is badly written, as I said above.

Read the opinion, or read someone talking about the opinion.

But since you have a history of not doing any more research when you've reached a conclusion you like, so I'm going to assume we're done here.

[ThePublius]

No, you are wrong. No getting around it. You can squirm all you want, I don't care.

[Malika la Maize]

“Statutes affecting the right of assembly, like those touching on freedom of speech, must observe the established distinctions between mere advocacy and incitement to imminent lawless action”

Brandenburg

[ThePublius]

"incitement to imminent lawless action”

Yes, and I'm saying this was incitement to imminent lawless action.

[Bob from Ohio]

"(I thought you were a lawyer?)"

He passed the bar but gave it up to be a bureaucrat. Too hard I guess.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Was he at the law firm before or after he earned a graduate degree in physics?
What's your MS in again?

[Sarcastr0]

I was.

MS->JD->lawyer->MA in science policy->bureaucrat.

I was a lawyer for quite some years, to pay off those loans.

[Mr. Bumble]

The Peter Principle at work.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The online flyer, posted on the homepage of Rose City Counter-Info,"

The US Govt isn't able to identify and arrest the person(s) who did this?

And yes, this IS criminal...

[David Nieporent]

More "nothing" happening in Portland:

I mean, it literally says that someone was talking about it, not that it happened.

Oh, and this from an organization that doesn't exist, is just an idea:

Yes. Anyone can put up a web page.

[Michael P]

https://nypost.com/2025/10/11/us-news/conservative-nj-mom-board-member-targeted-by-vile-message/

Elected Democrats casually call for a Republican colleague's death while making sexist remarks. It's very on brand, sadly.

[jb]

"Elected Democrats" equals one random school board member who was then forced to withdraw from the race.

It's obviously gross and I'm glad he withdrew, but your attempt to generalize to a brand is pretty lame.

[ThePublius]

""Elected Democrats" equals one random school board member...."

Bullshit. It was a group chat. In case you didn't know, group means more than one person, and implies at least three (otherwise it would be a chat, not a group chat).

"The vicious chat group was believed to be composed of five men, and allegedly included Chad Hyett, current Marlboro school board vice president, according to a source. Many in the town of 41,000 are now calling for Hyett’s resignation."

Jerk.

[jb]

Since when does receiving a message in a group chat count as calling for someone's death?

[ThePublius]

Show me where any of them objected.

[jb]

This is a dumb game. Show me where they didn't. Neither of us has any idea because the only messages we the from the chat are the ones in the Post article.

[Michael P]

None of them objected on the screenshot that we have, dumbass.

Personally, I'd probably remove myself from any chat group labeled "This___NeedsToDie". But you do you.

[Malika la Maize]

Do you object to every post by, say, our resident white supremacist (Chuck/Lex/Harrimen) when he calls for killing people?

Down below Francis said illegals should be deported “in pieces.” Where’s your objection? Did you remove yourself from this site (obviously not).

[Malika la Maize]

Do you object to every post by, say, our resident white supremacist (Chuck/Lex/Harrimen) when he calls for killing people?

[Malika la Maize]

So six people two of which were local officials? Yeah, that’s solid grounds for a generalization about a large group!

[ThePublius]

Context matters. Saying 'Democrats' in this context doesn't mean all Democrats, it refers to the Dems in that race.

[Malika la Maize]

Two local officials? That’s the bare minimum for plural. Talk about context!

[ThePublius]

The group chat was five people.

[Malika la Maize]

The generalization was about “elected Democrats,” ya goof.

[Frank Drackman]

"Ya Goof"??
are you Wally from "Leave it to Beaver"?? because that's the only time I've heard that phrase used ("ya goof"). Love how on LITB the kids will actually say they're "Going to give someone the Business"
"Hey Beaver, lets go give (insert other character name here) the Business"
Now Eddie Haskel's insults have some style/wit, although certainly rooted in 1962 culture.
"Hey Boby Darin", "Who are you, an Astronaut??" "Who do you think you are, Charles de Gaulle?"

Frank

[jb]

The commentary about "on brand" seems to be trying to generalize it to other Democrats, no?

[Bob from Ohio]

"one random school board member "

I missed your criticism of Sarcasto up post picking some rando as revealing a tik tok "agreement".

[David Nieporent]

"Elected Democrats" equals one random school board member who was then forced to withdraw from the race.

The guy wasn't even a school board member. Michael P was just lying by calling him an "elected Democrat."

(Indeed, these are non-partisan offices in NJ.)

[Michael P]

Lol, Lieporent thinks the only way to be a Democrat is to be elected into office as a Democrat candidate in a partisan election.

[Malika la Maize]

Following the attack, Pelosi underwent surgery to treat a skull fracture at the Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.[34] He also received treatment for serious injuries to his hands and right arm.[31]

Some Republicans made jokes about the attack.[108][116] When taunting Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump, the 45th and 47th president of the United States, sarcastically asked, “How's her husband doing?” He then remarked, “She's against building a wall in our border, even though she has a wall around her house—which obviously didn't do a very good job.”[117]

[JohnSmith97]

Nearly the same thing as wishing that children of a political opponent died in their mothers arms.

To which VA dems say "it's bad, but" somehow can't bring themselves to call for him to drop out of the race.

[Armchair]

A question about federal troops and federal facilities

What is an acceptable use of federal troops to defend federal facilities? Let's highlight some sample examples.

1. Can federal troops defend the Pentagon from assailants who invade its grounds with firearms?

2. Can federal troops defend the Pentagon from assailants who invade its grounds with melee weapons?

3. Can federal troops defend the Pentagon from assailants who attack it with firearms, but don't invade the grounds?

4. Can federal troops defend the Pentagon from assailants who attack it with non-conventional attacks, but don't invade the grounds?

[wvattorney13]

These sanctuary states rightly argue that as immigrant enforcement is federal, they are under no obligation to devote state resources to it. They do not have to notify the feds before a release from jail, don't have to use state property to stage ICE raids, don't really have to do anything. On that, I agree.

But having done that, they cannot legally or morally be heard to complain that now the federal authorities are taking over their communities and have an increased presence in order to enforce these laws. Traditionally states would assist in enforcing federal law. By not doing so, they invite an increased federal presence.

[Michael P]

Some people are glad that the Autopen administration allowed in millions of illegal immigrants to pimp the children Americans won't pimp and to plan terror attacks on synagogue-schools that Americans won't plan.

I can't imagine why they are glad, but they're out there. And even commenting here.

https://x.com/Project_Veritas/status/1977095764007411966

[Sarcastr0]

"BREAKING NEWS: Following evidence uncovered by Project Veritas, the FBI and Florida police raided the hotel rooms of two illegal immigrants, Janaina Toledo (32) and Leonardo Corona Ramos (42), today.

The Brazilian nationals, linked to Tren de Aragua, face charges of underage sex trafficking and planning a terrorist attack on Chabad South Orlando, a Jewish synagogue and school."

Assuming Project Veritas is not shading the truth (Michael only seems to read propaganda these days) this isn't any kind of argument; there is nothing generalizable about this anecdote; and there is no causality here (hence the hand-waived 'let in millions')

It's just focusing hate. And there's a number of people on here who love to do it. Mostly about illegals, but also about cities or trans people.

Addicted to anecdotes about outgroups that make them mad.

[ThePublius]

Well, the FBI seemed to agree and arrested them.

[Armchair]

Trump weaponized the FBI to go after sex traffickers and antisemitic terrorists

[Malika la Maize]

And yet won’t release the Epstein files….

[Mr. Bumble]

Epstein, Epstein, Epstein.....

[Malika la Maize]

You guys were indeed doing that. Why the about face now?

[Armchair]

Your party could have released them anytime.

[Malika la Maize]

That’s nice. But your party called for it over and over but now they could make that happen they are not. What’s up?

[Armchair]

Why didn't your party release them?

[Malika la Maize]

But your party called for it over and over but now they could make that happen they are not. What’s up?

[JohnSmith97]

Yet you (or your programmer) can't even imagine why the Biden admin never released them. If there was any real dirt on Trump it would of dropped the second it was found.

[Michael P]

Trump weaponized the FBI to go after sex traffickers and antisemitic terrorists

Why do so many commenters here seem so upset about that?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Sounds good to me, when will they do that instead of going after Trump's perceived enemies?

[Dr. Ed 2]

And the Florida Police as well?

[Sarcastr0]

You're being an asshole again. Nowhere did I come anywhere near arguing those people were innocent.

What a shitty strawman to try and put on me.

[Riva]

No, it’s focusing on gang bangers engaging in human sex trafficking and planning a terrorist attack. Should foreign national (illegal?) gang bangers be entitled to engage in human sex trafficking and terrorist attacks?

[David Nieporent]

I believe Project Veritas's story — which appears in no actual news outlet — completely. Two Brazilian illegal immigrants texting in perfect English is obviously entirely credible.

[Riva]

I guess it never occurred to you, crazy one, that the texts may have been translated for the benefit of the non-Portuguese fluent reader?

Mas o louco do Dave nunca se preocupou em pensar nisso, porque uma resposta razoável nunca é o objetivo de um troll estúpido. Doesn’t read too well now does it asshole? Work it out yourself, it’ll be a good exercise for you.

[David Nieporent]

So the bot's claim is that Project Veritas somehow acquired private text messages, and then doctored their screenshots?

[Riva]

No, I'm not claiming anything asshole, other than that I didn't carefully read the Veritas post. You, however, have no such excuse and are just left with being an asshole troll.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wow. It used to be only 11 million. Damn Biden.

[Riva]

Actually my error. Not that i owe asshole an apology but in my haste I didn’t read the texts at issue carefully enough. They’re not texts between the illegals. The illegals were targeting underage US victims. So English here is to be expected. In fact, probably difficult to do that except in English, wouldn’t you agree asshole?

[David Nieporent]

The purported texts about the alleged attack on Chabad were not with "underage US victims," and the point wasn't the language that they were written in anyway, but the fact that they're written in much better English than the bot is capable of.

[Riva]

I was obviously referring to the below asshole. Should they be using a language other than English? Portuguese? Mandarin? Creole? Maybe German? Let me know when you decide:

"Today 7:29 AM Hi! How much do you pay per
session? And like I told you, I'm 16, is that a
problem?
+1 (773) 999- It's not a problem, our clients like younger women. You'll get 200 USD for each man you attend, and we keep the rest. To get started, you'll need to give me your ID
since you don't have a passport."

[Sarcastr0]

The right hates the charities (in the form of NGOs), and the CDC. And now I'm seeing articles and hearing commentary about the 'homeless industrial complex' being in bed with Antifa.

It's kind of amazing to watch a group of people turn away from any shred of humanity.

[SRG2]

It's kind of amazing to watch a group of people turn away from any shred of humanity.

Trump gave them permission to be psychopaths.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why should the federal government be providing any funding for NGOs?

[Malika la Maize]

It used to be a conservative idea that private groups use the money more efficiently than government would.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, in many (most) cases that has been shown to not be the case. Start with the salaries executives of many of these "charities" receive.

[Malika la Maize]

You think government agencies are more efficient than private entities? Interesting view Ms. Warren.

[Mr. Bumble]

No and I never said so. They both are happy to use other people's money.

[Riva]

You're confusing private entities engaged in real and needed public work projects with groups that misuse taxpayer dollars to promote left wing agendas and causes, sometimes even throwing a few dimes to various media and trolls to further the effort.

[Malika la Maize]

No true charity man!

[Riva]

I wouldn't concede that but I do agree that misusing taxpayer dollars to promote left wing agendas (too numerous and crazy to mention) is not actually "true charity."

[Malika la Maize]

Bot not programmed to get generalities.

[Riva]

is "No true charity man!" a generalization? Asking for a troll friend.

[Riva]

If I were not exchanging comments with a jv troll, it would erhaps better to ask how the response "I wouldn't concede that but I do agree that misusing taxpayer dollars to promote left wing agendas (too numerous and crazy to mention) is not actually "true charity" is not a rejection (admittedly sarcastic) of the sweeping illogic of the silly generalization.

But I am exchanging comments with a jv troll who will only continue to make an ass of himself. My error. So I will now let the troll get back to playing with himself. As always, I advise moderation because that isn't healthy in the long run.

[Malika la Maize]

Bot double posting now, and still not getting generalities (in general is government more efficient than private charities).

[Riva]

Regarding government efficiency, apparently the jv parrot troll never met the Obamacare exchange.

And how the parrot troll would define "charity" is anyone's guess. I suspect it somehow includes the word "bot."

[Malika la Maize]

Bot not programmed to answer, you see. Like captcha it doesn’t get the question.

[Riva]

Not even sure calling this "projection" would do this phenomenonal idiocy justice. I doubt the idiot could even define "bot."

[Riva]

I suspect that’s one method being used to fund the terrorist organization. Similar to the way Hamas is supported. Always follow the money.

Just speculating of course, little communist girl that never smiled, like you.

[Armchair]

"The right hates the charities"

Fun fact. Those who frequently attend religious services in the US, give more than 4 times as much to charity as those who don't attend religious services. They even give more to SECULAR charities than those who don't attend religious services.

https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics-on-u-s-generosity/

[Sarcastr0]

So charities count as charities when you want them to, but are SOROS/Antifa/Homeless-industrial-complex when you don't.

Your partisanship is a poor excuse for actual humanity.

[Armchair]

Seems to me, the liberals "hate" charities. They donate far less than conservatives, at every income level.

Perhaps you should donate more of your salary to charities. Find a nice animal shelter. Donate $10,000 or so.

[Sarcastr0]

What a lame deflection.

Address my point about the right going after charities and quit bullshitting around.

[Armchair]

Your "point" is false

[Sarcastr0]

You don't know a lot of things. I don't know what your media diet is, but it's amazingly awful.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-trump-administration-is-coming-for-nonprofits-theyre-getting-ready/

[ThePublius]

The right is statistically more charitable than the left. What many on the right object to is that NGOs are conduits to fund left causes - almost exclusively left. It's been corrupt, and we want it dismantled, which is what we voted for, and Trump is doing.

As for the CDC, they have become a highly politicized bureaucracy, and very ineffective, at that. See the 2020 covid pandemic.

Every now and then you have to flush the toilet.

[Sarcastr0]

You and Armchair chose the same irrelevant stat, I see.

It doesn't really matter who gives more to charity when the right's deciding charity is only stuff they like, and the rest are conspiracies to be prosecuted.

[Armchair]

"It doesn't really matter who gives more to charity"

I think it does...

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, you do.

Your idea of what matters is driven entirely by what allows you to attack the left.

It's you entire online persona.

I'm gonna go out and touch some grass.

[Armchair]

If you're going to argue about supporting charities and make it political, who actually donates more to charities matters quite a bit.

[Sarcastr0]

People are free to donate as much as they want to who they want to; that's living in a free country.

That's what Trump's attacking.

You are failing to understand easy distinctions today.

[Malika la Maize]

How was the CDC’s politicized? They basically followed the approach most world health organizations did. It was the response of some people that was politicized.

[ThePublius]

An example:
"Yet these same experts mostly stayed silent when the CDC, under pressure from teachers’ unions, kept children out of school for nearly two years — while Europe largely stayed open — or when public health authorities leaned on social-media platforms to censor medical voices that disagreed with them."

[Malika la Maize]

You should supply a link for quoted claims.

[Frank Drackman]

https://Life,GetOne.Com

[Malika la Maize]

It seems other large nations like India, Brazil, etc., had school closures equivalent or longer than ours. Those wacky US teacher unions!

[Frank Drackman]

Contributed to the "International Fellowship of Christians & Jews" for years (OK, it was Mrs. Drackman's idea, she's a sucker for Commercials with starving old Jewish women*)
Saw a few years ago much of the Geld was going to You-Crane, (does Zalenski look like he's missed many meals??)
Now we just contribute to "The Israeli Children's Fund Atufim B'Ahava"
Which supports the kids left Orphaned by the 10-7 Massacre, go ahead Haters, say something mean about Orphans.
That's 532 Orphans, who somehow, are never counted in the number of "Victims" of 10-7.

* they're in a wealthy "First World" Country, why are they starving??

Frank

[ThePublius]

My primary charity is St. Jude's Children's Hospital. Great mission, and super efficient wrt use of donations.

Other than that, Institute for Justice, and just recently, Turning Point, U.S.A.

[CountmontyC]

If a group receives most of it's funding from the government it is not a charity. It is merely another government agency.

[Sarcastr0]

MIT is a government agency.

[Mr. Bumble]

MIT receives most of it's funding from the government?
Cite.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Trump actually asked an NPR reporter If they were associated with Antifa. What a dipshit.

[Frank Drackman]

Is Congress still getting paid? Most of them aren't as rich as they should be. And what's with this "Have to maintain 2 Households" Bullshit? Real People get jobs where they have to move all the time, for the most part they don't maintain 2 Homes, I don't and I could actually afford it.

Frank

[ThePublius]

"In 2023, the Committee on House Administration changed the rules to designate a member's official duty station as their home district. This allows them to treat trips to D.C. for official business as official travel and claim expenses for hotels, or for rent, utilities, and insurance if they own or rent property in the area."

[Malika la Maize]

Can you imagine a person who supports a President getting gift luxury planes and hundreds of millions of his cryptocurrency from emirates complaining about this kind of d of Congressional perks? Motes and beams.

[ThePublius]

Who's complaining?

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, like everyone else, I don't know about you, but when I travel for work, I don't rent or buy a friggin house.

[Michael P]

I have had coworkers who rented a property close to work when their home was hours away. It's a reasonable compromise between being at work and going home on weekends or every Nth week.

Friends of family members have rented properties to actors for the duration of movie production.

[wvattorney13]

I don't understand the problem. First, they have to be a resident of their home state to eligible for Congress. Then second, while they are serving in Congress (approximately 9 months out of the year) they need a place to stay in D.C.

Perhaps they could stay in a hotel every night, but that would be far more expensive than maintaining a second home/apartment.

I think anyone with a similar work schedule would be permitted to write that off as a business expense. When you travel for work, you or your employer can claim it.

[ThePublius]

First, if you're a W-2 employee, you can't write it off. And even if you could, that's not getting reimbursed, the benefit would only be a fraction of what you spent, given your tax situation.

[Frank Drackman]

That's why I'm a 1099, both Boss AND Employee, so get to contribute to both sides of a 401-K at a much higher limit.
Makes "Performance Reviews" so much easier.
"Frank, You did a really great job today, congratulations! Thanks Me! and You're the best-est Boss ever!!!!!"
I only take the deductions I know are legit, and only if it's real money, drives my Accountant Sammy "The Nose" Lowenstein crazy.

Frank

[wvattorney13]

I was speaking more generally. If a private company hired a person for a job that required them to have two residences, they would reimburse them somehow or structure their pay to allow for it.

Likewise if Congress is making an allowance, however it is structured, for its members to be able to maintain two residences, I don't see it as a handout to itself. It is a real expense that members, many of whom are not remotely rich, have to contend with.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Congresscritters do better -- see below.

[Bunny495]

I bought what is sometimes called a "kiddie condo" (basically a residence in a college town where a student lives till they graduate and is then sold or rented out to other students) when I was a student at FSU. After graduation I did a lot of consulting work and a significant amount (but far from all) was out of town so I normally rented an apartment for a month or more. As a rule the employer I was contracting with often helped me with local knowledge about available lodging. After I retired and wound up traveling extensively in my Sprinter van or on my sailboat, I still kept the condo as a home base.

Point is there are folks who do maintain a home base and spend a significant amount of time working away from the home base. No question Congress members are in a situation like this and it is made more complicated by the crazy housing market in DC. Back in the day Congress had a boarding house, then a hotel, and now some members sleep in their office, and current law allows members to be reimbursed for their lodging expenses while fulfilling their official duties in Washington, D.C.

Thing is while the founding fathers viewed being in Congress as a part time job many members today view it as a career and some of them never expect to do anything else. Bottom line is this is just another reason for term limits.

[wvattorney13]

First, "back in the day" Congress wasn't in session year round. It is easier to stay in a hotel for a couple of months than to maintain a separate residence.

Second, I know we like to slam members of Congress and declare that they need only the basis necessities, the modern professional world doesn't work like that. I'm sure if you traveled for your job, you would not fancy the idea of staying in a dorm or a boarding house. Likewise it is unreasonable to expect grown and professional congressmen to live in 19th century arrangements or to live with Ramen and a hot pot.

[Bunny495]

"I'm sure if you traveled for your job, you would not fancy the idea of staying in a dorm or a boarding house."

As someone who actually ran a business I always tended to minimize expenses so I could maximize my profits. This is the problem with Congress. Same problem the Iron Lady described with socialism, 'soon or later you run out of other peoples' money'.

Do I enjoy staying in a five-star hotel and flying business class, sure. Am I willing to stay in a Motel Six and fly coach if it means more money in my pocket, absolutely.

The term "public service" use to be something that applied to "public servants" who were expected to serve the public, not to expect things like a gold parachute on leaving office and five star treatment when they were in office.

[Frank Drackman]

Love how the media can't understand why "Coach" Tuberville would go back to Alabama (umm, well me too, he actually moved from Florida TO Alabama to run for Senate) to run for Governor in 2026.
Being Governor's gotta be alot more fun than the Senate, you get to sign Death Warrants, have State Trooper Body Guards, while Senators just sit in boring Committee hearings.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Every few months, Mr. Palm, a 57-year-old freelance television producer who lives in Illinois, goes online and applies for a new credit card.

He opens only cards that come with a sign-up bonus: a reward of a few hundred dollars in points for new customers who reach a modest spending target.

Each sign-up bonus is small, so to make a decent income, Mr. Palm keeps applying. During the seven years he has been into this side hustle, he estimates, he and his wife have opened more than 50 cards.

The promotional bonuses have netted his family more than $40,000, he said.

Mr. Palm is a member of what is known as the churning community — people who regularly open credit cards to harvest lucrative promotional rewards. The churning logic is simple: Hundreds of credit cards come with sign-up bonuses. So why not apply for as many cards as possible?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/business/credit-cards-churners.html

[Frank Drackman]

Sounds like Bullshit.
Oh wait, the NY Times, of course it's Bullshit.
It's like in Junior High, all of the Bullshit that was supposed to be true.
"If you ask an Undercover Cop if he's an Undercover Cop he has to tell you!"
"If you write "Paid in Full" on a Check, and they cash it, you've "Paid in Full"
"Blood turns Red when it contacts the Oxygen in the Air"

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Queenie needs to turn on her bullshit detector.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Queenie needs to turn on her bullshit detector."

He can't, it would breakdown from al the BS he spews.

[wvattorney13]

That's rather common. What is bullshit about it?

[Mr. Bumble]

$40,000.00 for 50 cards? $800/card?
Most rewards also require that you make a certain amount of purchases to qualify.

[Malika la Maize]

You might want to spend a few bucks and read some real news such as the article.

[Mr. Bumble]

NYT, not worth my time or dollars.

[Malika la Maize]

You might look foolish a lot less, you’d think that would be worth a few bucks to you.

[wvattorney13]

That amount is likely not common, but it seems very reasonable if the couple make a lot of purchases. But the idea that you can't get several hundred dollars of cashback for opening a new card every few months, using the card for purchases, and then never using the card again, is wrong.

Many people play this game.

[ducksalad]

Most rewards also require that you make a certain amount of purchases to qualify.

Seven years. Over that time he and his wife were going to buy a lot of essentials one way or another. If they go on vacations that alone could clear the minimum on a couple cards each trip.

Agreed that for most of us the hassle and feeling of sleaziness would make it an unappealing option, but there are people into this stuff. Knew a guy back in college that got all his clothes, minor appliances, entertainment devices, etc 30 days at a time off of Walmart's no-questions-asked return policy. His personality was such that he could shrug off the open contempt of the person running the service counter.

[Frank Drackman]

You mean besides everything?

[John 4]

If half-literate Frank Drunkman hasn't heard of it, it can't possibly exist.

[Frank Drackman]

You just blew my mind there, as the great Zen philosopher, Basho, once said, "A flute with no holes, is not a flute" Descartes followed with "I think, therefore I am, I think", and finally the genius known only as "Butthead"
"Jobs suck, dude. Let’s just stay unemployed forever.”
OK, in High School I washed dishes at this Chain Steakhouse that's only got a few locations left (coincidence), the plates were 2 piece, a hard Plastic outer and a steel inner. At closing you'd stack them up 5-6 feet high.
One night the Manager said "If they fell when nobody was here it wouldn't make any noise"
So of course a few minutes later I knocked a stack of the Steel ones over (By accident, at least that was my story)
It made noise.

Frank

[Armchair]

Open poll:

Illegal immigrants who commit crimes should be deported.

Yes or no.

[Frank Drackman]

in pieces

[Malika la Maize]

Yes.

According to governmental data, the Obama administration has deported more people than any other president's administration in history.…

The administration made the first priority "threats to national security, border security, and public safety." That includes gang members, convicted felons or charged with "aggravated felony" and anyone apprehended at the border trying to enter the country illegally.

In 2015, 81 percent, or 113,385, of the removals were the priority one removals.

Priority two includes "misdemeanants and new immigration violators."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661#:~:text=The%20administration%20made%20the%20first,burglary%2C%20DUIs%20or%20drug%20trafficking.

[Mr. Bumble]

The linked article is 9 years old.

[Malika la Maize]

Of course, it’s about the Obama presidency, ya goof.

[Frank Drackman]

Barry Hussein Osama, whatever happened to him? I bet HE gets his PSA checked every year.

[Josh R]

Depends on the crime.

[ducksalad]

Serious crime where removal from society is a pressing safety need - NO, not until after their sentence is complete, because deportation isn't effective against keeping out serious criminals. We need to hold them in our prisons. Maybe an exception if we have an agreement with another democratic government to carry out each other's sentences. After the sentence, yeah, deport them.

Minor offense like speeding, marijuana possession - NO, it's not necessary. And of course IMO the immigration offense itself is also minor.

Which leaves medium grade offenses, say low level felonies or high level misdemeanors - MAYBE use deportation instead of a criminal sentence if we believe there's a good chance the offender intends to stay gone. Otherwise, criminal sentence, then deportation.

Bottom line - a hermetically sealed border is only achievable in a police state, and a less than hermetically sealed border only deters not-very-serious criminals. Any border compatible with a free society is not an effective crime control tool.

[ducksalad]

TLDR version: I'd consider deporting someone if I'd consider sentencing them to prison.

PS And note that what I outline is more or less what previous administrations did, including Trump Version 1.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, immediately.

[Michael P]

They should be deported regardless of having committed crimes.

In a lot of countries, having a recent criminal conviction on your record at all is sufficient to block you from even a short-term visit. For example, the UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/grounds-for-refusal-criminality/grounds-for-refusal-criminality-accessible) impose a lifetime ban for four-year sentences, a ten-year ban on one-year sentences, and a five-year ban on any shorter imprisonment. (It gets more nuanced for non-custodial sentences, and the bans are about 50% longer if someone wants to immigrate.)

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Convicted of crimes by a court, yes. Crimes claimed on Fox News by Pam Bondi, no.

[David Nieporent]

Illegal immigrants who commit crimes should be deported.

Yes or no.

If we're talking about real crimes, yes.

[Frank Drackman]

Anyone seen our resident Gauleiter "Martinned"???
I have the creeping suspicion he's been "Khasoggi'ed"
(FRANKIE TIP: when renewing Saudi Passport choose the "Renew Online" option, it's a few extra Shekels, but you keep your head)
He mentions how his King is exempt from his Nation's "Hate Speech" laws, I slander said King as a Pederaster (and a practicing Homo Sapiens) suddenly Martinned's quieter than the Phillies locker room Thursday night (Lefty would have made that throw)

Frank

[ThePublius]

It's a weekend. I think he only comments when he's in the office and supposed to be working.

[DDHarriman]

I am half afraid to even come out in public after how utterly embarrassing that mid-game collapse was last night. I've never seen anything like it.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, I know you're talking about the Auburn/Georgia Debacle. Yes, it took 39 minutes to play the last 2 minutes of the first 1/2, it's called "Time Dilation" look it up.
And only true Auburn fans will know this, but I hate UGA almost at the same level as Ham-Ass, Ear-Ron, Yasser-Arafat, Mullah Ill-hand Omar, their only redeeming feature is UGA has a cute mascot ("UGA" and each successive one has a shorter and shorter lifespan)
Yes, Alabama is our "Rival" (is it really a "Rivalry" when you win less often than Total Solar Eclipses??) but they're "Fambily" and I'll say a "Roll Tide" (silently of course) when they play an Ohio State, a Notre Dame, or yes, a Georgia.
Yes, that was a horrible "Collapse" and I can't blame it on the Refs, even if you give us the TD they stole, we still lose.
Like the Late/Great Meir Kahane said about the Palestinians, I'll say about Hugh Freeze (Hugh Hefner could coach better, and he's dead)
"He must go!!!!"

Frank

[DDHarriman]

When we got robbed of that touchdown and then all the bullshit help UGA got from the refs the team never recovered. That's the coach's fault.

Hugh must go.

[Frank Drackman]

Let me see, Georgia Play Clock runs to Zero, Kirby's calling for a Timeout,
Oh wait, he wasn't calling for a Timeout??, he was just making the "Timeout" signal with his hands and yelling "Timeout"
Oh sorry Coach Smart, and no, we won't penalize you for Delay of Game, our mistake!
Oh, and the "Targeting" Call? I bump into people harder than that at the Airport.
Seriously, you could take any random Intramural Flag Foo-bawl player out of the stands and he could make the throws Jackson Arnold misses.
Never understand it, we've got way way way more NIL money than Vanderbilt or Georgia Tech, and they get better Quarterbacks, Auburn hasn't had a decent one since Bo-Nix and we ran him off to Oregon.

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Must be a European Thang, when I work I actually work.

[Mr. Bumble]

No, not just a European thing. See Il Douche's posts.

[Frank Drackman]

Working on the Left Coast but can't get my Brain (Yes, I really do have a Brain, a very very large one) on board, so I get up at 2am instead of my usual 5,
But the hotels TCM Feed is East Coast, so I missed "House on Haunted Hill" and there's some "Noire" Flick with Broderick Crawford, and can that be? No, it can't be, it is!
a 23 year old Anne Bancroft??
Every bit as luscious as you imagine, even in Black & White.
Anne, not Broderick.
"New York Confidential"(1955 Warner Bros) makes me want to put on my Fedora, Double Breasted Suit, grab my Brass Knuckles and make some "Collections"

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

A very large one that just can’t write English as well as a third grader.

[John 4]

Frank, are you rooting around in dumpsters at 2am while hallucinating that you're a physician? It really feels like you may be a mentally ill, unhoused person.

[Malika la Maize]

They must have generous library computer use times where he’s at.

[John 4]

"Dad, why is that weirdo taking a bath in the sink with brass knuckles?"

[Frank Drackman]

It's actually healthier to NOT try and fool your body's internal clock when you travel so my (very sexy) body's clock is always set on Eastern(I don't change for Daylight Savings Time, and Tel Aviv is much more fun at 11pm than 11am)
That's how the NFL teams do it when they play in London, same with International Pilots (it's why they go by "Zulu" Time, which has nothing to do with Zulus).
Sorry if your Very Low IQ Cerebrum doesn't comprehend, it's why some people take Calculus, and some take "Remedial" Math.It's why they put warning labels on Mattresses, Refrigerators (Admit it, you've locked yourself in one) and why your Tylenol bottle has teeth marks on the lid.
and as the Late/Great Foghorn Leghorn would say,
"Ah Say Boy! go away! You're bothering me!"

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Give Francis a break about traveling, he has to push that grocery cart with his stuff in it and all.

[Frank Drackman]

Well most people would call it a "Suitcase" but thanks.

[John 4]

"It's actually healthier to NOT try and fool your body's internal clock when you travel so my (very sexy) body's clock is always set on Eastern(I don't change for Daylight Savings Time, and Tel Aviv is much more fun at 11pm than 11am)
That's how the NFL teams do it when they play in London, same with International Pilots (it's why they go by "Zulu" Time, which has nothing to do with Zulus).
Sorry if your Very Low IQ Cerebrum doesn't comprehend, it's why some people take Calculus, and some take "Remedial" Math.It's why they put warning labels on Mattresses, Refrigerators (Admit it, you've locked yourself in one) and why your Tylenol bottle has teeth marks on the lid.
and as the Late/Great Foghorn Leghorn would say,
"Ah Say Boy! go away! You're bothering me!""

Sorry, I don't carry cash. Good luck!

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, I get it, you're telling me you don't carry cash because I'm "Homeless" and shaking you down for cash, which you don't carry,
Wow, I haven't seen such a long trip for little to show for it since Columbus's 4th Voyage* (Columbus Day reference!)
What I don't get, is Queenie says I'm living in my Mom's Basement, and now all of a sudden I'm Homeless??
and talk about your Regional Bias showing, in the South most people don't have Basements, they flood, foundations crack, and they're really only useful during a Tornado, when any true Southerner would be outside anyway, recording it on their phone. Basements are a Yankee thang, like calling "Coca Cola" "Pop"
Oh yeah, do you routinely cut/paste/post on the ramblings of Homeless Peoples??
* I was going to say "Payne Stewart's Learjet" but realized it was Columbus Day

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Working on my "Kings of MAGA Comedy" material,
"so sad about Biden and the Prostrate Cancer, and it wasn't his fault, when his Doctor asked him to get a "PSA" Joe thought it was a Public Service Announcement, I can hear him right now...
"C'mon Man! Joe Biden don't do no PSA's unless he gets paid!!! no PSA!!!!!"
OK, it needs some work, you think Benny Goodman did all of those one liners off the cuff??

Frank

[ThePublius]

Don't you mean Jack Benny?

[Frank Drackman]

No, I know my Jewish Comedians, Benny Goodman was "King of the One Liners", Jack Benny's Schtick was being "Cheap", and a horrible Violin player (he was actually pretty good). Norm Crosby mangled the language with his Malaprop-jisms, Don Rickles was "Mr Warmth" and the best was "No Respect" Rodney the D.

Frank

[ThePublius]

"I know my Jewish Comedians"

No you don't. Benny Goodman was an American clarinetist and bandleader, known as the "King of Swing".

The king of the one liners was Henny Youngman.

[Frank Drackman]

I knew something wasn't right about that.

[ThePublius]

🙂

It happens.

[Mr. Bumble]

Take my Drackman. Please take my Drackman.

[ReaderY]

This is concerning Trump’s announcement of an “agreement” to let the Qataris have an airbase in Idaho.

For any permanent stationing of foreign troops on American soil to be lawful, a treaty approved by the Senate is needed. Otherwise these are simply foreigners in possession of illegal weapons.

1. Could local police simply arrest them for possessing illegal weapons and seize the contents of the base as contraband? Absent a treaty, foreigners would appear to have no legal right to bear arms on US soil (with certain exceptions like hunting with a valid local permit) , and certainly not possess advanced military-grade weapons like fighter planes and missiles. The fact that their clothes happen to match would bot appear to make any difference. The Cnstitution gives the President the right to receive ambassadors and other diplomats without Congress’ approval, but not armed soldiers, The President’s personal opinion or say- so written on White House stationary would appear to provide no more a lawful basis for federal interferance with local law enforcement prohibiting weapons than any one else’s personal opinion or say-so. Absent a lawful basis, they are simply aliens in fancy clothes possessing illegal weapons.

2. Would neighbors have standing to challenge in federal court due to e.g. the noise fighter jets make?

Will repeat this Monday.

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks for reminding us on the definition of Insanity.
With your definition of a "Base" the entire United Nations/every Foreign Embassy would qualify.
The US has been training foreign pilots to fly fighters (which duh, shoot guns/missiles and drop bombs) in the US since WW2.
What hasn't been does since recently is let Foreigners get US Commercial Drivers Licenses, those are the group who have actually killed Amuricans.

Frank

[DDHarriman]

They only know the narrative and nothing but the narrative.

[ReaderY]

Perhaps think a bit before replying? Everything you tried to make an analogy to is something that’s currently autjorized by Congress in one way or another. The US military is of course obviously authorized by Congress. And the United Nations, foreign soldiers guarding foreign embassies, etc. are alll authorized by treaties.

I’m talking about a foreign base that ISN’T authorized by Congress. That’s the difference. If Congress authorized it, it would be legal.

[Bob from Ohio]

Your entire comment is idiotic. Congrats, you agree with Laura Loomer

"But the facility being built at the Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho isn’t a separate base at all — it is a group of buildings that will be built to handle training and maintenance for Qatari troops — and the agreement with Qatar has been in the works for years. "

"n fact, on-site training agreements with allies are common in the U.S. The Republic of Singapore 428th Fighter Squadron Buccaneers have been hosted at the base since 2008. German forces trained at the Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico for decades. New facilities to train international F-35 fighter pilots were completed at Ebbing Air Force Base in Arkansas last year. "

https://wtop.com/national/2025/10/things-to-know-about-the-qatar-training-facility-planned-for-an-idaho-air-force-base

[ReaderY]

We have treaties with these countries that authorize this. What treaty do we have with Qatar?

A bank robber could just as plausibly argue that there’s nothing unusual about people making withdrawals, so why all the fuss?

[DDHarriman]

>We have treaties with these countries that authorize this. What treaty do we have with Qatar?

I seriously doubt you know what treaties authorize what, as well as the details of any treaty with Qatar.

You're working backwards from your belief and inventing facts to try and keep it propped up.

[Bob from Ohio]

They are flying obsolescent planes we sold them you dolt. No "armed soldiers".

Your TDS is really warping you.

[DDHarriman]

https://thedispatch.com/article/do-foreign-countries-have-military-bases-in-the-united-states/

This isn't novel.

[ReaderY]

Again, a bank robber could just as plausibly argue that making withdrawals from banks isn’t novel.

[DDHarriman]

Do you think the 70 years of history of similar arrangements has been unlawful as well?

[ducksalad]

Well, you've got a theory. Under a strict and literal reading of the constitution maybe it would be plausible, but you know how strictly and literally it's been taken for the last 150 years or so.

My dad told me he did rifle training jointly with newly-rehabilitated German troops in the mid 1950's. So this kind of thing has been going on a long time.

I imagine if called on it, previous administrations would have said joint training is a "necessary and proper" part of having an effective military, and that's an enumerated power. Once that's conceded, stuff like the foreign government having permanent offices and personnel to receive and orient the troops getting trained follows as also necessary and proper.

As for the police and the lawsuits, no. Enclave clause of the constitution.

Honestly, the only things really objectionable about this Qatar agreement are the side deals that are at a minimum conflict-of-interest and likely outright corruption. Is that what you're really upset about?

[ReaderY]

The NATO treaty permits joint exercises etc.

Again, using legally authorized cases to justify doing something that isn’t legally authorized is making a bank robber’s sort of argument. Surely there’s nothing unusual, the bank robber would say, about people making withdrawals from banks. So why all this fuss about me? I’ve done nothing the least bit unusual. How can my telling the teller to give me money be illegal when it’s just fine when all these other people do it?

[wvattorney13]

In this hypo, the bank robber is selectively using words to state what he is doing while deliberately leaving out the words that make his actions materially and indisputably dissimilar to what has been done legally in the past.

By contrast, posters here have pointed out that materially similar, if not the exact same, things have been done in the past, so why not this one?

[Bob from Ohio]

"things have been done in the past"

Currently even!

"so why not this one?"

Because its Trump

Personally, I wish we broke with Qatar. Until we do, letting them buy and learn to fly obsolescent planes doesn't bother me.

[ReaderY]

The key material difference is that in one case the withdrawal is legally authorized and in the other case it isn’t. That’s why Congressional authorization matters.

[tylertusta]

Qatar was designated a Major Non-NATO Ally in 2022 by President Joe Biden under 22 USC §2321k. Any country designated a MNNA is given certain benefits, such as increased military aid and training as spelled out in §2314.

No treaty or ratification by the Senate is required.

As others have noted, foreign countries regularly set up permanent training missions on US military installations inside of the continental United States. Saudi Arabia has a bilateral training unit that has been in operation since the Eisenhower administration. Saudi Air Force pilots go through aviator training in Pensacola, FL along with our own aviators. You may recall a terrorist attack in Pensacola back in 2019 where a Saudi pilot shot up the base, killing three US military service members.

Besides permanent training facilities, the US military regularly invites foreign, non-NATO, and even non-major allies to participate in various joint exercises. These are an important component of diplomacy and creates positive experiences with foreign nations who get to see how the US military does things. This is a way of 'keeping up foreign relations' that doesn't require Tom Cruise to fly inverted.

One example is Red Flag. Several times a year the US military hosts a large military exercise called Red Flag out in Nevada in the NTTR. Described as the hardest, most realistic war game that has ever existed, it's an important part of the US Air Force's post-Vietnam comeback success story.

I bring up Red Flag because for each exercise the US military invites foreign nations to participate. Many of these are not NATO allies, and some are not even MNNAs.

Countries that have participated in past Red Flag events include:
Qatar (pre-MNNA status)
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Pakistan
Singapore
Venezuela
Jordan
Israel
India
Finland (pre-NATO)
Sweden (pre-NATO)
Columbia
Brazil
Chile

As for your questions, I think the answer to both is going to be "No." They're generally immune from lawsuits and prosecutions under sovereign immunity.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-IV/chapter-97

[tylertusta]

US Air Force press release for Red Flag 25-2, which took place earlier this year:

https://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4134356/red-flag-25-2-expands-international-collaboration-and-multi-domain-integration/

Red Flag 25-2 Expands International Collaboration and Multi-Domain Integration

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. -- Red Flag 25-2 wrapped up recently, providing realistic, high-end training to its participants from the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Air National Guard, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, United Arab Emirates Air Force, Royal Saudi Air Force and Turkish Air Force, March 10-21, 2025.

It’s been awesome for the new crews to experience a high-tempo environment'' Col. Benjamin Jensen, 5th Bomb Wing deputy commander

One of the defining features of this iteration of Red Flag was the participation of foreign allies and partners. The multinational nature of this exercise provided mutually beneficial educational and operational opportunities while promoting long-term relationships.

[ThePublius]

Yea, repeat if Monday, it will be equally ignorant and idiotic.

[Michael P]

the republican nominee in Virginia believes solar panels don’t work when it’s dark outside and windmills don’t work when “there’s no wind”.

Stunning levels of incompetence and garbage.

This Demfluencer seems to have misidentified the source of those stunning levels of incompetence and garbage. (Most people who can identify nominees in Virginia also know that there are three state-wide races this year with a Republican nominee in each one.)

https://x.com/chrisdmowrey/status/1976426819235741905

[DDHarriman]

lol wtf, Democrats actually believe solar panels work without sun and windmills work with no wind.

His handlers should be fired. wtf, that's embarrassing for Democrats if they had a soul and were human.

[ThePublius]

"lol wtf, Democrats actually believe solar panels work without sun and windmills work with no wind."

And that islands can capsize if they get too populated.

[ThePublius]

On a much lighter note, are any of you guys (and I assume this is almost all guys) into tailoring, or sewing of any kind?

I am. I got tired of long waits and unsatisfactory results from tailors I had available to me, and learned to do it myself. It's actually quite gratifying. I always need to shorten suit and sport coat sleeves, and when I do, I implement functional surgeon's cuffs (functional buttons). (One rarely sees people in public or even on TV or in movies with proper length jacket sleeves, save James Bond and some other notables.) I restored the kilt I inherited from my Dad, making a new lining, leather straps, and various other things. I hem pants, and make general repairs on things: seams, buttons, etc. Tailored my tux.

OCD as I am, I have three sewing machines, and a dedicated sewing room, and I just acquired a serger - a super deal, older but you'd never know, barely used, with all of the original accessories plus manual, for only $80.

Upcoming projects include tailoring a new suit, repairing the dodger for my boat [1], restoring a couple of high end camera bags whose partition padding has turned to dust (after 30 years), curtains for the sewing room and perhaps a couple of other bedrooms. And, maybe an old school medieval-style canopy for my bed; I'm always so cold lately, and I don't care to heat the entire second floor (only two zones in the house), so I thought this would be nice and warm. (I have the canopy framework.)

Anyway, it's an endless, limitless hobby. Curious if there are any others here into it.

[1] one machine is a heavy-duty, walking foot machine for canvas and leather, same as a Sail-Rite.

[Brett Bellmore]

I did a lot of sewing when I was in college, because I was a genuinely poor college student, and had to repair my clothes where that was possible. Darned a lot of socks, stitched patches on jeans.

And occasionally some costumes, as I was a big SF con goer at the time. I learned that Elmer's glue works better than pins, you never break a needle on it, and it washes out in the laundry.

I haven't done much sewing lately, it mixes badly with peripheral neuropathy. "When did I get this cut, anyway?" is becoming a disturbingly common question. I might have to just give up and start wearing gloves.

[DDHarriman]

And occasionally some costumes, as I was a big SF con goer at the time. I learned that Elmer's glue works better than pins, you never break a needle on it, and it washes out in the laundry.

That's a great tip, thank you for sharing.

[ThePublius]

I'm sorry about your infirmity. But, yea, I want to do some hand repairs, too. I have some nice woolen socks that need darning. I just researched that yesterday. Would be a shame to throw out a $30 pair of socks for a toe-nail hole. 🙂

There are special fabric adhesives that set faster than Elmer's. I find I'm using fabric clips even more often than pins, lately.

My mother made a lot of stuff. I have her 1951 Singer, a model 66-6, I think; straight stitch only, but built like a battleship. Beautiful cabinet. Still have the manual and all of the accessories. Plus, all of her threads and notions.

[Bunny495]

"[1] one machine is a heavy-duty, walking foot machine for canvas and leather, same as a Sail-Rite."

I took the easy way out and just got a Sail-Right. The Sail-Right Youtube channel has great DIY videos that have helped me do lots of stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/@SailriteDIY

[ThePublius]

Yes, excellent support from Sail-Rite. Mine is the exact same machine as the basis of the straight stitch Sail-Rite, made in China and branded Alpha Sew. I use the Sail-Rite manual, which is available online. Plus, the price was right - it was given to me by a friend who upgraded to a Juki. He also had upgraded the Alpha to a heavier flywheel and some other stuff. It's an exact fit in a Singer cabinet, too, hinges and all. All of the Asian machines cloned or copied Singer.

As I said I want to repair my dodger, and also make winch covers, hatch covers, handrail covers, etc. I bought a huge roll of Sunbrella and matching thread. I might practice by making covers for my sewing machines and serger. (Truth be told, my 1961~62 vintage Singer 503a, "Rocketeer, Jr.," sews the Sunbrella with the heavy thread just fine, and I also get a million different stitches (well, 23 plus straight).)

What have you made with yours?

[DDHarriman]

https://x.com/LangmanVince/status/1977329907505189213

Every single mortgage document Letitia James signed over the last 42 years had "falsified information" this was not a "one-off"

Don't worry Malika, Dave, Sarcastr0, loki, Randal, etc. She's a powerful Democrat and laws don't apply to her, she has a gold heart and this is just 42 years of honest mistakes that LITERALLY EVERYONE does, so don't worry okay guys? She's way too important to our democracy to have to follow the laws like she makes us do.

[David Nieporent]

Still can't find an actual news outlet to support your weird ideas.

[DDHarriman]

What rights do 58 year old male transgenders have to access high school locker rooms of girls?

In Democrat NOVA and according to Democrat officials, apparently a male transgender has a right of dignity to access locker rooms at two different high schools and get naked in little girl locker rooms.

In fact, when the little girls didn't feel safe around the naked male woman, he complained to the school board and the Democrats on the school board took his side.

https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/locker-room-case-adds-heat-virginia-governor-race

[Poxigah146]

These people don't belong in society with the rest of us. If you pump these perverts full of gas, their bathroom preferences won't matter.

[ducksalad]

I guess after a few election cycles we'll have looked at all the mortgage papers for every political figure in the country and prosecuted every dotless i and every uncrossed t.

What should we go after next, when that's used up?

Those who moved but failed to send in a notarized statement cancelling their voter registration at their old address.

Those who moved and took move than 30 days to update the address on their driver's license. Not under state law. Call it a preparatory step in conspiracy to violate federal election law.

All those campaign contributions over $200 where the donor has to state their occupation? We can always say the statement wasn't perfectly accurate, and then say the campaign should have known it was fake. Since we can find hundreds of cases to dispute - in a single campaign - we can say it's a pattern and a conspiracy.

Surely a least some of them bought a mattress for someone else, or received a mattress as a gift. Arbitrarily declare either the gifter or giftee as the consumer, as necessary. Prosecute the non-consumer for removing the tag and the consumer for conspiracy.

Seems inexhaustible.

[DDHarriman]

Well when Democrats were targeting Republican politicos they used FARA violations as their favorite weapon. The mortgage fraud accountability is a better approach. The actions taken by people like Schiff & James are blatantly illegal and caused other mortgage borrowers real harm.

[not guilty]

If mortgage fraud allegations against folks like Letitia James or Adam Schiff were to actually go before a jury, I suspect the prosecution will have a devil of a time proving scienter -- the accused's culpable mental state.

If I were defending such an action, I would want jurors who have attended mortgage loan closings -- what with signatures required on dozens of documents, signed after just a cursory description of the contents thereof. Proof of guilty knowledge/intent to defraud beyond a reasonable doubt? I hardly think so.

But then, I surmise that actually obtaining convictions is not the DOJ's objective.

[ThePublius]

I didn't hear you complain when Trump was prosecuted for that bullshit by James.

What goes around comes around.

I hope they nail her for 42 counts of falsifying mortgage applications.

[DDHarriman]

Right. What was he saying in James & Bragg brought charges against Trump that haven't ever been brought against anyone before? Or that absurd civil trial with the half-a-billion dollar award?

But look at them now. All in a panic. Their new cries fall on deaf ears.

[ducksalad]

Most people are much more sophisticated than yourself, and can consider factors other than what-side-is-this-person on when opining on a public trial. You are totally unqualified to guess what I said about that case, and in fact you got it wrong.

And no, I'm not doing the work of scrolling through a hundred open threads when you make stuff up. You're the one making the accusation of hypocrisy so *you* go and show that I favored that prosecution.

[DDHarriman]

Most people are much more sophisticated than yourself, and can consider factors other than what-side-is-this-person on when opining on a public trial.
---

What a dumbass thing to say. The flaws in those trials were obvious to many, even laymen.

---
You are totally unqualified to guess what I said about that case, and in fact you got it wrong.
---

Humans, which excludes most Democrats, have this amazing ability to recognize patterns and then make reasonable inferences off of them. This is going to shock you, but most functioning humans do this same thing. It's a cognitive energy saver as our (human's, not Democrats) brains are one of the largest consumers of energy in the human body.

I recognized the demented reasoning pattern in your comment and reasonably deduced that you were a fanatic to the narrative and would be a die-hard for other part's of the narrative regarding Trump's prosecutions. Stereotypes and heuristics aren't the truth, but they're often pretty good approximations of it. Good enough for this forum.

Does your kind even grok this sort of human reasoning? I mean can you even comprehend it? Does your kind have things like inner monologues or understandings of hypotheticals?

[ducksalad]

I accept the implied withdrawal and apology.

[DDHarriman]

^^^^
The answer to this:

Does your kind even grok this sort of human reasoning?

[David Nieporent]

Humans do have an amazing ability to recognize patterns. So amazing, in fact, that they frequently recognize patterns that don't exist. That's why there are so many recognized fallacies.

[Randal]

It's also how you brainwash rubes like DDH. Conspiracy theories always fit some pattern.

[ducksalad]

Well I guess it's not possible to "hear" written complaints, so that saves you from literally lying in this particular instance. Doesn't save you from being intentionally misleading, which is still dishonest.

And no, it's not on me to provide any proof of what I said on the Trump case. Your deliberate technique is to use such requests as harassment.

Oh finally - please be C I V I L, you mendacious sack of shit.

[ThePublius]

"Oh finally - please be C I V I L, you mendacious sack of shit."

I guess you are not very self-aware, missing the iron of this statement?

I didn't say you didn't object, I said I don't recall hearing you object. And "hear" in this case is figurative, you illiterate slut.

[ducksalad]

The "self-aware" thing from yesterday still stinging? So sorry.

[ThePublius]

Not at all.

[not guilty]

"I didn't hear you complain when Trump was prosecuted for that bullshit by James."

Ms. James did not prosecute Donald Trump and his cohorts. She (successfully) sued them civilly.

[Kazinski]

The beatings will continue until moral improves:

"COPS are probing comments made by a Scottish Reform councillor who said she was “born and bred here” during an interview.

Falkirk councillor Claire Mackie-Brown has been reported to Police Scotland and the council standards watchdog after her remarks to STV News and her appearances at anti-migrant protests sparked outrage."

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/15440432/scots-reform-uk-councillor-probed-cops-born-bred-comment/

Video at the link, I don't know why shes still at large, its clear she's guilty.

[wvattorney13]

You know, I don't feel sorry for her. She gave into the woke mob by immediately retracting and apologizing. Don't give them that type of power over you. When you do, you lose the ability to say "What's the big deal? What did I do wrong?"

Her statements show that she thought she did something wrong.

[ThePublius]

What a fucked up country. Say something that somehow (?) offends migrants and you're in trouble with the police? Wow.

[ThePublius]

You know, strike that, the country is not fucked up, I actually like Scotland, a lot; my father was an accomplished piper, and my brothers and I did highland dance.

But, what a fucked up government they have now! I feel bad for them.

[ThePublius]

"Authorities Warn Katie Porter Has Grown To 600 Feet And Is Currently Rampaging Through San Francisco"

https://babylonbee.com/news/authorities-warn-katie-porter-has-grown-to-600-feet-and-is-currently-rampaging-through-san-francisco

[Mr. Bumble]

...600 feet tall and I thought it was more likely in diameter.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Given this woman's high-level position in her government's security apparatus, her views on the Israel-Palestinian conflict should be taken very seriously.

[Kazinski]

Larry Elder on Donald Trump:

"Here’s the deal regarding Donald John Trump. Years ago, I watched the Golf Channel where two professional golfers were being interviewed.

The interviewer asked, “What makes a good golfer?” One said, “I look how he grips the club; where he places his feet, how he positions his shoulders; if he’s right-handed whether he keeps his left arm locked as he swings; if he keeps his eyes squarely on the ball as he swings so he doesn’t hook or shank; the movement of his hips; whether he swings smoothly without a hitch—and he proceeded to give several more precise mechanical details.

The other golfer said, “I look where the ball lands.”

https://x.com/larryelder/status/1977034544181395872?t=2J6IAM1gisDsafW4rgIOIA&s=19

[Jeff Walden]

When I look at where the ball lands with Trump, I see a violent attack on the Capitol that he fomented by months of lies and the assembling of firewood for the conflagration. I see Ukraine at times deliberately stripped of even the mere information it needs to defend itself from murderous attacks targeting its civilians. I see open and unabashed acceptance of bribes in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I see self-serving pay-to-play crypto schemes. And I see all kinds of reports of American citizens swept up by openly racially discriminatory immigration enforcement.

This argument is deeply unserious.

[Bunny495]

Hard to believe this is not from the Babylon Bee

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/he-put-it-up-the-exit-ramp-polk-county-sheriff-says-thermos-was-found-inserted-inside-suspects-body/ar-AA1O6XLP?ocid=BingNewsSerp

[TwelveInchPianist]

The guy tried to give himself a coffee enema, and skipped a step?

Could happen to anyone.

[Jeff Walden]

Is it actually legal for the president to just steal unspent money from Pentagon R&D allocations to pay military salaries during the shutdown?

I would really appreciate a discussion of exactly how unspent funds can be used, particularly to what extent they're just a giant slush fund they can be redeployed on anything the president wants. That seems basically to destroy Congress's power of the purse if the president can just choose not to spend funds, then use them for anything he wants to.

[ThePublius]

"Steal?" No bias here, move along.

[Sarcastr0]

OK. Now address the substance; I'm also interested in how the President think he can reprogram appropriated funds.

Especially since I think it's 2-year R&D funds are going into a 1-year O&M account.

[Jeff Walden]

That I have an opinion on the matter, albeit a not deeply informed one, does not erase the real legal question here.

In the past during shutdowns, Congress legislated paying military salaries to solve the problem. Was that really unnecessary given that there's probably always going to be some loose change between the couch cushions?

The best extent of analysis I've seen of the question is here: https://notesfortheperplexed.substack.com/p/folkways-of-political-washington-675 I am very much not convinced that "emerging need" characterizes the humdrum paying of military salaries. Everyone in DC knew this was coming for months on end. There is no "emerging" to it at all. All that emerged was that the president and Congress couldn't reach a political agreement. Are we really going to say that political disagreement can create an emerging need that justifies contravening the actual allocations Congress has created? And, particularly when this creates an entirely self-serve system for reallocating funds? At that point Congress isn't even controlling the purse any more...

[Michael P]

The Schumer Shutdown has reached the Smithsonian, including the National Zoo. I'm sure some one cares, like someone who, many months ago, bought tickets to visit DC now -- but even in the DC area I don't think many do.

[Michael P]

Canadian euthanasia comes for marine mammals as well: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0kn6x711y2o

[Mr. Bumble]

As the sun is setting slowly in the west the Sunday open thread is winding down. But fear not, the Monday edition will be here in less than six hours with the usual cast.