Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Commenter_XY]

The narco-trafficker war goes on...USS Gerald Ford now sent to Caribbean.

Recently, the Senate voted to decline placing restrictions on POTUS Trump regarding Venezuela.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-strikes-congress-6c0061bf5a9c417e66f76fcc6ee57405

The Congress has received briefings from the Executive Branch on kinetic activities. Congress has chosen not to place restrictions at this time.

It looks like there will be a lot of dead narco-traffickers over the next year.

[Frank Drackman]

Is that a problem?

[Moderation4ever]

The Trump administrations program of price supports for illegal drugs is the problem. Supply side economics also works for prohibited products. Prices will go up, profits will go up, and so does the incentive to smuggle in drugs.

[DDHarriman]

Profits have to outweigh the risks.

[Moderation4ever]

They always do. Smuggling and black markets have existed as long as government has tried to prohibit or control commerce. Killing smugglers isn't a new tactic, read history.

[Lee Moore]

True, but it's not just the supply side that responds to market pressures, the demand side responds too. The greater the costs and risks incurred by the smugglers, the higher these will drive prices; and in turn, demand will respond to this price pressure - by falling.

Which is a neat seque into the "are tariffs regulatory ? " thing. Forming a matching pair with "do quantitative import controls (including full bans) affect import prices ?" (For slow players, the answers to these two questions are "yes" and "yes.")

One of my favorite "smuggling" stories is official British smuggling out of Switzerland in WW2, when Switzerland was entirely surrounded by Axis powers, and there were no air links out of Switzerland. The Brits discovered in 1940, to their horror, that they absolutely could not kick the habit of precision manufactures from Switzerland - diamonds (for machine tooling), chronometers, watches, high end optical equipment, theodolites, precision goods of all kinds. And they realized that they simply did not have the right skills in the workforce to replace Swiss manufacture. So - with a certain amount of tacit co-operation from the Swiss - they smuggled the stuff.

The Axis border controls acted as a "ban" on Swiss exports of material that could help the Brits industrially or militarily. To run the blockade cost a lot in money (and also lives, as the smugglers often got caught) so the cost of these goods went up bigly. And so, British efforts to substitute for Swiss goods, from other sources, and with home manufacture, kicked in equally bigly. The smuggling extended to skilled Swiss workers too.

By the fall of 1944, when a land route to and from Switzerland was at last reopened, because of the supply side response to sky high costs of Swiss goods, the need for Swiss manufactures had faded down to almost nothing. Almost nothing, but not nothing.

It's an amazing thing - but prices do work !

[Moderation4ever]

So by way of your story, as smuggled drug prices rise, American will respond by manufacturing drugs in the US. You can not work just the supply side. For the addict the demand is not elastic and they need their fix. Hirer cost mean the addict will do what they need to get the money. Likely more street level crime.

[Michael P]

Calling US government policies "price supports for illegal drugs" is characteristically dishonest of you. Do you play the Chesire Cat in your day job?

[Malika la Maize]

“It looks like there will be a lot of dead narco-traffickers over the next year.”

Your trust in the federal government in dealing out death is noted. The same people who think the post office can’t be trusted to deliver a mail in ballot go “oh, of course they’re only summarily killing bad guys!” I mean, the former morning TV host in charge of this couldn’t pull off a group call for Jebus’ sake.

[DDHarriman]

You may not realize this, but the military doesn't deliver the mail in the United States.

Conflating the two is idiotic.

HTH

[Michael P]

Almost nobody should be trusted to deliver mail-in ballots. There are too many failure modes, so they should be used only when there's no other practical way for the citizen to vote.

[SRG2]

There are too many failure modes

Yet almost no actual failures.

[Michael P]

Almost no actual failures if you ignore bundles of ballots delivered to random people, countless people registered to vote from non-residential addresses, residential addresses with far more voters than beds, the various convictions for vote fraud, and so on.

[ReaderY]

There will be a lot of dead people, especially in a world where people get bonuses for meeting quotas.

But how will we know how many of them are actual narco-traffickers vs. fishermen, tourists, or people who happen to have tattoos or looks that US agents dislike?

To add to Malika La Maize’s comment, the former TV host in charge, indeed this administration as a whole, consistently acts as if its personal motto was “videre quam esse.” (North Carolina’s state motto is “esse quam videre,” to be rather than to seem.)

[John 4]

Trump and cronies said they’re bad people. That’s good enough for a cultist.

[Krayt]

A Dsmocratic president wannabee says a full quarter of the nation are a basket of deplorables. That's good enough for a cultist.

[John 4]

“It’s ok to kill people without due process, because a woman called me a name.”

Which is of course disingenuous as Trump constantly insults people in ways far worse than “deplorables”.

[David Nieporent]

That's a pathetic whatabout, since it isn't even true. Many of us think that Hillary's claim was an underestimate, but not a single person on the planet said, "I believe as an article of personal faith that they are deplorable because Hillary said so."

[wvattorney13]

In that recent report their families all admitted that they were drug runners. They protested that they weren't El Chapo but just ran a few boatloads of drugs here and there.

[Bunny495]

Still not as strict as the laws in Singapore.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/judge-ordered-release-600-chicago-illegal-immigrants-slammed-dhs-activist-putting-lives-risk

Two questions.

One, does this judge even have the authority to order the release of hundreds of illegal aliens? Didn't Congress strip art3 judges of that authority?

Two, what stops the Fed Gov't from evac'ing the entire group (n~600) and sending them to Eswatini, and then saying, "Illegals? What illegals?"

[John F. Carr]

Here is the case: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6952165/castanon-nava-v-department-of-homeland-security/?page=2

Lawyers sued the first Trump administration on behalf of "All current and future persons arrested without a warrant for a civil violation of U.S. immigration laws within the area of responsibility of the ICE Chicago Field Office." The Biden administration settled the case, presumably on terms unfavorable to the government. The second Trump administration may have violated the Biden administration's promises.

The federal government did in fact remove many aliens before the court could act. See docket entry 247.

To begin, in the parties’ joint status reports filed on November 7, 2025, the parties report that they have agreed—after an examination of the pertinent arrest records—that 46 class members were arrested in violation of the terms of the Consent Decree and are thus entitled to relief under the Decree. (Dckt. #244 at 3–4). However, the majority of these class members have already been removed from the United States, either involuntarily or voluntarily, and only 13 of these class members remain in detention. After meeting and conferring as to the identity of these individuals, by 12:00 p.m. on November 14, 2025, defendants shall release these 13 individuals whom the parties agree were arrested in violation of the Consent Decree, remain in custody, and who are therefore subject to release “on their own recognizance without bond or conditions of release” pursuant to Section V(E)(2) of the Consent Decree.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Just throw the Judge in jail.

[not guilty]

Just throw the Judge in jail for what?

[Frank Drackman]

HT for "Eswatini" which I'd never heard of before, found out it's the former "Swaziland" and even though it's a small landlocked nation slightly larger than Connecticut, it's home to 8 species of Venomous Serpents, including the Black Mamba, Pemphetfwane, Boomslang, Puff Ader, Snouted Cobra, Spitting Cobra, and the innocent sounding "Twig Snake"
Oh, and they also have Crocodiles.
Frank

[ThePublius]

I just read about that the other day:

"In April 2018, King Mswati III declared that he would be changing the name of Swaziland to eSwatini (officially the Kingdom of eSwatini). The announcement came during celebrations for the country’s 50th anniversary of independence (and the king’s 50th birthday). As an absolute monarch, Mswati III is one of few people in the world with the power to change a country name unopposed. One of his main motivations was to lessen confusion with the name of Switzerland. Smaller than the state of New Jersey, this landlocked country between eastern South Africa and Mozambique packs a lot into its diminutive size. White and black rhinos roam freely in Mikhaya Game Reserve, and Mlilwane Wildlife Sanctuary provides habitats for hundreds of bird species. In the northwest, the granite Sibebe Rock is Africa’s largest rock and the world’s second-largest monolith, behind Australia’s Uluru."

https://dailypassport.com/countries-changed-their-names-since-2000/?lctg=971e12b5-24ca-42a0-a644-d8ee21943ae8

[David Nieporent]

As an absolute monarch, Mswati III is one of few people in the world with the power to change a country name unopposed.

He then proceeded to order that the Gulf of Mexico be called the Gulf of America.

[not guilty]

"One, does this judge even have the authority to order the release of hundreds of illegal aliens? Didn't Congress strip art3 judges of that authority?"

There is no substitute for original source materials. The November 3 order of the District Court is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.352901/gov.uscourts.ilnd.352901.239.0_2.pdf

The order concerns implementation of a previous order, which was apparently agreed to by the Biden administration. Yes, courts have Article III and statutory to see that its settlement orders are carried out.

[Lee Moore]

One of Prof Somin’s recent pieces led via a link to one of his earlier pieces mentioning the Migration and Importation Clause of the Constitution. Leaving aside its relevance to the current debates about immigration, there’s an interesting originalism point in there struggling to get out.
Somin referencing a founder or two argued that the clause was only aimed at the importation of slaves, and that the form of words was essentially chosen as a euphemism, so that slavery would not have to be mentioned.
So we have a clause whose literal meaning encompasses any kind of person, not just slaves, but which was - I stipulate - understood by the drafters to apply only to slaves. I stipulate further that the general public would at the time have understood the form of words as a euphemism referring only to slaves.
If so it seems to me that we could fairly say that the original public meaning was the euphemism, and “migration and importation” originally meant “migration and importation as slaves.” This would not be a case of original understanding, ie where the words originally meant something else but the drafters did not appreciate that they could be applied more widely than they imagined.
Anyway it struck me as an interesting puzzle. How should textualists and originalists in particular interpret text that is deliberately drafted to disguise its true object, when everyone at the time of drafting understands that the words written do not mean what they usually mean.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you have to distinguish between euphemism and indirection. (Maybe there's a better word.)

Are we talking about "as slaves, and ONLY as slaves"? Or are we talking about "We really mean slaves, but we made the language broader to obscure that."?

Meaning to apply just to slaves, and affirmatively nobody else? Or meaning to apply to slaves, and it's fine if other people are swept up by it?

Barring evidence of the former, I think there's no case for ignoring how broad the text is.

[Lee Moore]

My stipulation was intended to convey "as slaves and ONLY as slaves."

But I agree that in practice, including in this case, the idea that the general public would have overwhelmingly understood the words as a euphemism is going to be pretty hard to demonstrate.

[Brett Bellmore]

In any event...

It's easy to forget that the migration and importation clause is a limitation on what is implied to be a pre-existing Congressional power. It doesn't authorize such laws, it prohibits them prior to 1808.

So, if we really conclude that it only applies to slaves, what's being BARRED is only laws interfering with the migration or importation of slaves, and that prohibition would not have applied to laws affecting the immigration of free people.

So, even if the reasoning is valid, it proves the wrong thing as far as Somin is concerned.

We discuss the M&I clause in the context of immigration because it stands as evidence that the founders thought that Congress DID have the power to regulate immigration; Otherwise, what was the point of temporarily limiting it?

Now, if the clause had only referred to importation, we might have supposed it was a limitation on the interstate commerce clause, and there wouldn't have been any implications for immigration. But it also refers to migration, and that would not have been considered relevant to the commerce clause at the time. So the implication of immigration powers remains.

[Lee Moore]

That was indeed the context of Prof Somin's argument. ie he wanted to head off your line of reasoning at the pass, by arguing that the clause was directed at slaves alone, not at voluntary migrants.

So if he was correct that everybody at the time would have read the words as a euphemism applying only to imports of slaves, then he would indeed have headed off your argument - the clause would by implication permit Congress to regulate the import of slaves, after 1808, but the implication would not extent to voluntary migrants.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, he wouldn't have.

My point is that the importation of slaves was commerce, as such it would have been regulated under the power extended by the interstate commerce clause. So a ban on laws prohibiting JUST the importation of slaves would not imply a power to regulate immigration as such.

So Somin would be on solid ground if it were the "Importation clause". But it's not. It's the "Migration and Importation clause".

And "migration" isn't commerce, at least not as "commerce" was understood at the time. So by including the word "migration", the clause actually DOES imply a power to regulate immigration.

That word "migration" is fatal to his argument.

[Lee Moore]

I beg to differ. The inclusion of thee word “migration” is fatal to Somin’s argument only if “migration” is meant in its ordinary sense. But if it is meant as, and understood as at the time of the adoption of the constitution as, merely a decorative filler to avoid having to say “importation” alone, then it takes that empty meaning.

[Brett Bellmore]

This runs against the rule of surplusage. That word is in there, it MUST be given effect, not treated as moot or redundant.

A Dozen Canons of Statutory and Constitutional Text Construction

"Surplusage Canon. If possible, every word and every provision is to be given effect (verba cum effectu sunt accipienda). None should be ignored. None should needlessly be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate another provision or to have no consequence."

And that's exactly what you're proposing to do here.

[David Nieporent]

This runs against the rule of surplusage. That word is in there, it MUST be given effect, not treated as moot or redundant.

That is not a "rule." It is a canon of construction. Like all such canons, it can be overcome by other evidence of meaning.

[DDHarriman]

I haven't read Somin's arguments, but if euphemisms of slaves aren't used consistently throughout, then isn't that also fatal?

It doesn't jive to cryptically refer to ONLY SLAVES in one, and only one, sense that just so happens to support Somin's predetermined beliefs about migration.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have read at least some of his arguments, and at best they're motivated reasoning.

[not guilty]

For Brett Bellmore to kvetch about motivated reasoning is rich!

[wvattorney13]

I'm not following. Even if we assume that clause read "no ban on the slave trade until after 1808" why does it speak to anything, yes or no, about regulating voluntary immigration.

As Brett said, it was a restriction on an assumed power. And if we say it had nothing to do with voluntary migration, then why does it speak to voluntary migration?

[Lee Moore]

1. If it read "no ban on the slave trade until after 1808" that would imply that - absent that specific restriction - Congress had the power to ban the slave trade.

2. If it read ""no ban on celebrating Thanksgiving with fireworks until after 1808" that would imply that - absent that specific restriction - Congress had the power to ban celebrating Thanksgiving with fireworks.

3. If it read ""no ban on voluntary migration into the US, or on importing slaves, until after 1808" that would imply that - absent that specific restriction - Congress had the power to ban voluntary migration into the US. (As well as the power to ban the import of slaves.)

Thus it matters - to Somin - whether "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight" means :

"no ban on importing slaves.....until 1808" or

"no ban on voluntary migration or on importing slaves ...until 1808"

If the actual constitutional text means no more than 1 above, then it has - as you say - no implications, positive or negative, for whether Congress has the power to control voluntary immigration (after 1808.)

But if it means 3 above, then it does have an implication - that Congress has the power to control voluntary immigration (after 1808.)

Smin is voting eagerly that it means 1 because the reference to "migration" should be taken as a euphemism. Brett is voting eagerly for 3, which carries the implication that Somin wishes to avoid.

[wvattorney13]

I think I understand. That still wouldn't get Somin all the way where he wants to be, but he gets to duck the obvious implication that Congress has the power to regulate "migration"?

[Lee Moore]

Yes. Though to put it a little more generously, one could say that Somin is refuting Brett’s argument that the clause demonstrates by implication Congress’s power to regulate migration, by contending that as a euphemism “migration” doesn’t in this context mean what Brett thinks it means.

Whether you think it is a successful refutation depends on whether you buy the euphemism argument - ie not merely that the writers intended it as such but also that the public at the time would have understood it as such.

[apedad]

Justice Scalia provides an answer how contemporary jurists should interpret laws.

In Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), Justice Scalia, writing for a unanimous Court, declared that “statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed.” Id. at 79.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/523/75/

Bottom line: The law is what We the People TODAY say it is (within constitutional constraints of course).

[Lee Moore]

I think you are thinking wishfully.

The distinction that Scalia is drawing is between "the provisions of our laws" - ie what the law actually says, amd "the principal concerns of our legislators" - ie what the legislators were hoping the law would apply to. But there's nothing in his remarks that imply that he was departing from the usual originalist take, which is that each of these things must be measured as they were at the time the legislation was promulgated. So it is a matter of what "We the people of {insert date of the law's promulgation] understood the words to mean" not what "We the people of today understand the words to mean today."

The only role for the people TODAY, is that today's judges live today, and they therefore have to puzzle out TODAY what they think the words meant to the people YESTERDAY when the law was passed.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yup. An excellent example of "...prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils..." are the reconstruction amendments, although obvs they are constitutional provisions and not statutory.

The principal evil that the 13th amendment wanted to ban was the race-based chattel slavery of black people, but the framers went further and banned all slavery and involuntary servitude.

Similar, the framers of the 14A principally wanted to prevent freedmen from being discriminated against, but they enacted a ban on states depriving any person within their jurisdiction (even [gasp] white people) of equal protection of the law.

But it wasn't done extratextually. The "prohibitions [that] go beyond the principal evil" are spelled out right in the text.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

puzzle out TODAY what they think the words meant to the people YESTERDAY when the law was passed

This is ultimately an impractical approach if taken literally. It is a form of LARP-ing, which always has a fantasy element.

Anyway, such concerns are somewhat besides the point.

What the people meant when the law (including the supreme law of the land) was passed tends to include an understanding of how laws are generally interpreted.

They set forth general, open-ended language that will "often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils" when applied years later. The people who pass the laws (and constitutional text) repeatedly said just that.

Some constitutional provisions leave open blatant opportunities for new perspectives as times and knowledge change. So, e.g., the 13th-15th Amendments give Congress the power to pass laws to enforce its terms. Congress in 1870, 1970, and 2070 will do so differently, as times and understandings change.

That is what the Framers "meant" to do by giving Congress, made up of people applying current understandings, not trying to parse what their ancestors understood, the power to enforce them.

[Lee Moore]

This is ultimately an impractical approach if taken literally. It is a form of LARP-ing, which always has a fantasy element.

I think you are - probably uninintentionally - proving a little too much here. Large chunks of historical "evidence" consists of reviewing contemporaneous documents to try to puzzle out what was going on and why. Certainly there is scope for error, but we don't typically accuse historians, or at least those who make a serious attempt at this, of "fantasy."

The same problem arises in legal cases. If judges cannot hazard a guess at what was intended by a contract, or a deed, or some other legal document, by considering what the words in it might have meant to those who entered into it, then they are pretty much debarred from adjudicating on contracts. Is it fantastical to try to tease the meaning from a deposition taken two months ago ?

In fact, philosophically, the problem you describe does not even require the passage of time to present itself. How can you be confident that you understand what someone is saying to you, while they are actually speaking to you directly ? Maybe they seem to you to be talking about child care arrangements, when in fact they may be expressing their concerns about the lizard takeover in Minnesota.

Generally, most people think they can make a reasonable stab at what other people mean, when they speak, even if they spoke some time ago. And that it is only common sense to make the attempt. We have an innate "theory of mind" that credits our fellow humans with a mode of thinking not wildly dissimilar to our own and we tend to swing with that. There's room for error, but surely even more room for error if we assume our fellow humans are completely unpredictable and unreadable. If they are indeed humans. and not lizards, of course.

Maybe we're all fantasists at heart, but if one's life is spent in a constant battle against the threat of lizard takeover, maybe one is overcomplicating.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I used the word "literally" because there is some ability to interpret original understanding, including for a "contract, or a deed, or some other legal document."

However, ultimately, the law allows some current understanding to be incorporated. That is how the law realistically works.

The original creators realize this. At least, as a "reasonable" legal actor, they should.

This is more so when applying laws and the supreme law of the land. Which is not the same thing as a "deed." We need to understand "it is a constitution" (or whatever) we are applying.

Again, the framers understood this. They said so in various ways. It is realistically how it will work.

Their language in practice will have that result. So, "Congress" (the current Congress, which acts in a certain way, not as archeologists) is given specific power to enforce certain open-ended amendments.

Or, some open-ended piece of legislation involving antitrust or equal protection by "sex" or whatever is applied by the courts.

The framers realize the courts will, in some fashion, act like "common law" courts, applying current knowledge when interpreting the text, using standard legal techniques to do so.

So, there is no need to rely on fantasy, including because there is some felt understanding that is the only way to "interpret law" or that is what the framers required. It isn't, they didn't.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe we're all fantasists at heart, but if one's life is spent in a constant battle against the threat of lizard takeover, maybe one is overcomplicating.

I, for one, welcome our new insect lizard overlords.

[wvattorney13]

"Bottom line: The law is what We the People TODAY say it is (within constitutional constraints of course)."

I'm not sure how you got that conclusion from: " it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed"

If the text says no discrimination "because of sex" that plain term means both women and men despite the impetus for the law being discrimination of women. That would have been the understanding in 1964 and in 2024. It has nothing to do with any modern spin.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

That's true for some text. Other constitutional and statutory text is, shall we say, a little vague and open to interpretation. In that case, should "modern spin" creep in, or should we continue the search for that mythical beast, the one original understanding of the text?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Whelp, bad news guys. The law regarding this holiday was written a little while ago. The judge has determined that the language has evolved to the point where we can no longer get away with simply engaging in happy merriment, and unfortunately the legislature adjourned before it could modify the text...

[Bob from Ohio]

“migration and importation”

They just did not want to get into a later dispute on the issue that: are human slaves property that you import or humans that migrate, here by force

[SRG2]

How should textualists and originalists in particular interpret text that is deliberately drafted to disguise its true object,

Dishonestly.

[apedad]

Tennessee Woman Pleads Guilty to Charges Related to Creation and Distribution of Videos Depicting Monkey Torture and Mutilation

A Tennessee woman pleaded guilty last week to crimes based on her involvement with online groups dedicated to creating and distributing videos depicting acts of extreme violence and sexual abuse against monkeys.

Katrina Favret, of Greenville, Tennessee, pleaded guilty to conspiring to create and distribute so-called “animal crush videos,” and to a second count addressing a specific video she solicited.

According to court documents, Favret conspired with others to create and distribute videos depicting acts of sadistic violence against baby and adult monkeys. The conspirators used encrypted chat applications to direct money to individuals in Indonesia willing to commit the requested acts of torture on camera.

According to a statement of facts signed by Favret, the videos included depictions of monkeys having their digits and limbs severed and monkeys being forcibly sodomized with a heated screwdriver.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/tennessee-woman-pleads-guilty-charges-related-creation-and-distribution-videos-depicting

WTF is wrong with people.

On a legal note, under United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010), "(t)he government may not ban depictions of animal cruelty for commercial gain because this law is overly broad under the First Amendment in regulating based on content."

However, "(o)n April 21, one day after the Supreme Court struck down the law, its original sponsor, Representative Elton Gallegly (R-CA) introduced a new bill with much more specific language, indicating it was intended only to apply to 'crush videos.' President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on December 9, 2010. (wiki)

[Lee Moore]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Apedaddio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Bwaaah]

And yet the philosophy somehow remains viewed as being applicable to everything. Perhaps it's less a philosophy than a feeling of universality?

[SRG2]

What she deserves and what can constitutionally be done to her are two different things.

[David Nieporent]

On a legal note, under United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010), "(t)he government may not ban depictions of animal cruelty for commercial gain because this law is overly broad under the First Amendment in regulating based on content."

Right. But they can ban the actual activity depicted in those videos, and thus punish anyone involved in creating it.

(Note the distinction between this and, e.g., child porn, where they can punish possession and distribution of the content itself, regardless of one's involvement in creating it, because child porn is inherently not protected by the 1A.)

[not guilty]

Child pornography images which do not show an actual child and which are not obscene according to Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), are indeed First Amendment protected. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 256 (2002).

[not guilty]

This conviction arose out of a guilty plea. First Amendment rights, like other constitutional rights, can be waived.

Any defense that would arguably have been available under United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010), was waived by the plea of guilty.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We are destroying the concept of a minimum wage with the 20 hour "volunteer" mandate. Why pay minimum wage when you can get an unpaid "volunteer" whose children will starve if she isn't willing to be a slave.

I don't see this ending well....

[ThePublius]

You're distorting this story a bit. It's more complicated than that, varies state to state; and you don't volunteer at a regular business establishment.

"What counts toward the requirement?
Volunteering: Unpaid volunteer work for a non-profit or public organization counts. [emphasis mine]
Paid or unpaid work: Any work, even if for goods or services instead of money, can be counted.
Work programs: Participation in approved programs like SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) also counts.
Combination: A combination of work and work program hours can be used to meet the total requirement. "

Google "20 hour volunteer mandate for SNAP" for more.

[Dr. Ed 2]

All I know is that paid employees at the local hospital are now "volunteers." And the SEIU says nothing because they aren't about employees.

[ThePublius]

Can you be more specific? What role do these employees fulfill? How did the transition occur?

[Frank Drackman]

Medical Residencies have been doing it since the first Residencies started, and they were initially called "Residencies" because they gave you a "Residence", OK, it was just a room in the Hospital, but did cut down on Commuting costs.
Current first year Resident pay at Emory University in Atlanta is $69,000, but hey, you get 3 weeks Vay-Kay!!!!!!!!!!!!
Assuming an 80 hour week (funny how nobody believes Medical Residents work 80 hours a week, when it's actually more than that, and the "80 Hour Week" was the "Reform" from when it had been 100-120.
49 work weeks, hommina hommina hommina,
works out to $17.60 hour, but hey, your tips are Tax Free!!!!!!!!!
Oh, "Overtime"??? you're Salaried, so you don't a get a no a over-time-a (that's supposed to be an Italian accent)
And you can't even get 500 pairs of Scrubs like I used to, most hospitals have a "Scrub Machine" that you get them from, and keeps track of how many you've had, the Old Walter Reed had that, felt like friggin Oliver Twist, "Please Suh, may I have sum mo' Scrubs please????"

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Academic internships are different -- I had to PAY to do my student teaching. And while it may not be what you are worth, $69,000 is a lot more than the $39,525 median individual income in Georgia.

[Frank Drackman]

My Intern Salary was $20K in 1988, or about $55K in current Shekels, only 2 weeks Vacation, plus you got either the week before or after X-mas off, which wasn't as good as it sounds, because you had to do twice the work, and that was back when we did average 100hours/week, so you were making $4/hr (minimum wage was $3.35).
Oh yeah, the "Median Individual" in Georgia hasn't done 8 yrs College/Med Screw-el

Frank

[wvattorney13]

That's an odd definition of "slave." A lot of people throughout history have worked so their children don't starve. This looks like an agreed upon exchange.

[David Nieporent]

I guarantee you are utterly misunderstanding whatever it is you think you are talking about. Nothing here changes the requirements imposed by the FLSA or applicable state laws.

[Malika la Maize]

Congress on Wednesday stiffened restrictions on hemp, a form of the cannabis plant that was legalized in the 2018 farm bill, in a provision tucked into the legislation signed into law by President Donald Trump that ended the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

The restrictions triggered protests from producers who have come to rely on the multibillion-dollar industry as a source of income. They aim to close a loophole that let market players sell unregulated food and beverages containing hemp-derived psychoactive compounds. The rules set a stricter limit on the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the intoxicating chemical also found in marijuana, that a hemp product can contain.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/13/hemp-cannabis-thc-delta8-rand-paul/

[Frank Drackman]

It's "Delta 9" THC btw, or if you want to go all IUPAC it's
"(6aR,10aR)-delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol; (−)-trans-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol"
Was so great when my Glaucoma magically got better, so I don't have to pretend I'm getting stoned for "Medical" reasons.
Favorite is the "LivWell" Dispensary near the Denver Airport (which is almost in Nebraska) you can get your Buzz on while waiting for the Airport Shuttle, all of the Bud-Tenders are great, but ask for Ramon', he'll get you to the Be-Jesus Belt before you can say "Far Out"(man)

Frank

[Armchair]

Aww...no more THC gummies for kids to buy...

[Malika la Maize]

It’s illegal for licensed dealers to sell to kids, I guess you’d prefer the black market take care of that.

[Armchair]

You originally said it was unregulated. Now it's not?

Pick one.

[DDHarriman]

Black markets form up for everything and that can't be a reason not to act.

However, I am on your side on this issue, and apparently this whole thing is a some bullshit politician pay off to McConnell or some shit.

Fuck him. THC gummies help me sleep.

[Brett Bellmore]

Try melatonin. Works really well when washed down with a jigger of liquor.

[Brett Bellmore]

To be fair, if you recall the original push to relegalize hemp, it was premised on the idea that hemp, as distinct from marijuana, was just an innocent source of fiber and seed oils that had mistakenly been swept up in the war on drugs. And the idea was that it WASN'T a psychoactive product!

So naturally, as soon as it got relegalized, some people started breeding and culturing it in order to emphasize the psychoactive properties. Not just to make fabric and rope.

I wasn't involved enough in the original push to get it relegalized to have an opinion on whether this was a deliberate bait and switch on the part of hemp advocates, or just some druggies taking advantage of their hard and innocent work.

But this very much is closing an unintended loophole. And to the extent that the war on drugs is at all legitimate, (Not very, in my opinion.) was a reasonable thing to do.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I saw this flagged in my daily news email.

The article suggests it is a somewhat complicated issue:

But lawmakers, including Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a champion of the 2018 legislation, say companies have exploited a farm bill loophole to legally formulate products with enough THC to get their consumers high.

“Unfortunately, companies … [take] legal amounts of THC from hemp and [turn] it into intoxicating substances,” McConnell said on the Senate floor Monday. These companies then market it to children in “candy-like packaging” and sell it in “easily accessible places like gas stations,” he said.

The trick is to properly regulate the intoxication while not inappropriately interfering with a legitimate hemp industry.

[Malika la Maize]

There’s no denying that sports betting is more visible now than it was a decade ago. That’s by design. Legal markets bring sunlight. They create standards. And they bring better accountability.…

The irony is this: Had the ban on legal sports betting remained in place, we may not have discovered what happened with Jontay Porter and Terry Rozier. We might not have caught these possible N.B.A. infractions. We might not be having this conversation.

The regulated system is working. We should defend it, improve it and ensure it’s the standard — not the exception. When it comes to ensuring the integrity of sports, legal betting has achieved more in seven years than prohibition did for decades before.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/14/opinion/chris-christie-sports-gambling-mlb-nba.html

[ThePublius]

You really should put quotation marks around things you are quoting. I initially thought those were your words.

[Bob from Ohio]

"we may not have discovered what happened"

You have it backwards. In fact, the ease of betting encouraged the recent NBA and MLB problems.

[Estragon]

Well, Chris Christie has it (partially) wrong, but whatever. The prop bets that the NBA guys and especially the Guardians pitchers were involved in were not offered in the past, and that probably has something to do with the proliferation of the technology, and the ease of betting afforded to the masses. But many of these bets at issue in the criminal cases were placed the old fashioned way— at casinos in person, so Christie is right in a sense that better data collection across all betting sources was key in identifying these frauds.

[ThePublius]

I subscribe to the NY Times, along with the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, and also read Fox News and Breitbart online, as well as Powerline Blog and Instapundit. So, there you have it. 🙂

So, from the NYTimes I get this sob story this morning of a supposedly innocent Columbian fisherman killed by the U.S. Lots of pictures, but no picture of him or the boat. I think to myself, well, maybe he was running drugs? It is not unheard of, throughout history, for fisherman to participate in smuggling of people and goods, whiskey and marijuana, and now, cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl.

Its not until you get to paragraph 10 in the story that this appears:

"At the same time, in Mr. Carranza’s case, there is no immediate ability to determine with certainty if he was simply a fisherman or had been involved in drug smuggling.

Mr. Petro, in a news conference last month, said Mr. Carranza was from a traditional fishing family, but “may have been involved very intermittently’’ with drugs.

Many fishermen in coastal and island communities, he said, become involved in drug transport because poverty leaves them few alternatives."

And then, paragraph 30:

"In a case from 2012, Mr. Carranza had taken part in a scheme to steal weapons that had been confiscated in legal proceedings, according to Colombian officials."

So, not exactly a boy scout, eh?

So, there. So much for jumping to the conclusion that the U.S. is evil and murdering innocents during this drug interdiction campaign.

I have watched videos of recent drug smuggling interdictions, with USCG crews in fast RIBs chasing down smuggling boats - semi-submerged, super-powered boats built specifically for that purpose. It's dangerous work. What do you do if they refuse to stop? Also, the existence of these vessels doesn't preclude the more stealthy approach of using fishing vessels to move drugs. The fishing vessel has been a cover for covert operations for centuries.

Until we know exactly what happens we just don't know. We shouldn't assume lawlessness and evil, murderous intent on the part of the U.S. and U.S. servicemen.

And, out of the goodness of my heart, I will share this article, since I can do so as a subscriber:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/13/world/americas/trump-drug-boat-strikes-colombian-fisherman.html?unlocked_article_code=1.1E8.qJdW.e4H8DNeu11-x&smid=url-share

[Malika la Maize]

It seems to me that when it comes to killing folk one might want more transparent certainty than “It is not unheard of,” “not exactly a Boy Scout,” “doesn’t preclude” etc., but YMMV.

[Sarcastr0]

We shouldn't assume lawlessness and evil, murderous intent on the part of the U.S. and U.S. servicemen.

Not the right place to put the burden.
People are getting killed in our name.

Our government has not provided evidence or process to determine guilt, necessity, or authority to do these killings.

Until all three are established, these deaths are murders. We don't paper over intentional killings. Making the NYT do the legwork is not how it works.
And the fact that some psychos around here seem to get off on these killings just shows how fucked up humans can be when posting comfortably on the Internet.

Hiding behind our US servicemens' reputation is some only following orders bullshit that does more to tar you as a Good German-type than it does to defend these actions.
'He was no angel' is also echoes of some very bad papering over of murders done in our name.

[ThePublius]

I'm not hiding behind anything, I'm saying that until we know exactly what happens we just don't know. We shouldn't assume lawlessness and evil, murderous intent on the part of the U.S. and U.S. servicemen.

[Sarcastr0]

You are still shifting the burden.

It is the government’s responsibility to be transparent and ensure we know what’s happening.

They aren’t doing that.

That’s not an excuse for us to sit back and assume it’s legit until we hear otherwise.

[Life of Brian]

You don't trust anything the administration says anyway, so how could they possibly ever satisfy you?

[John 4]

Yeah, just because they’re breaking laws and killing people doesn’t mean we should point that out.

[DDHarriman]

What laws are being broken?

[not guilty]

Try 10 U.S.C. § 918 for starters.

[Life of Brian]

Just briefly playing along that this statute might apply at all in this sort of circumstance (your terse one-liner suggests you don't believe that yourself), what's your game plan for overcoming the presumption against its extraterritorial application?

[not guilty]

What is your authority for that presumption?

https://ucmj.us/where-does-the-ucmj-apply/

[Life of Brian]

The presumption against extraterritorial application of US law is just that -- Morrison, RJR Nabisco, etc. TiP just answered below why it doesn't apply here.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Probably this.

[Life of Brian]

Yup, that'll do it.

[not guilty]

That supports the presumption that Life of Brian refers to??

Is that as true as everything else you have said, TwelveInchPianist?

It seems to me that the language of § 805, to-wit: "This chapter applies in all places", conclusively precludes any such presumption from ever arising.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sigh. You can't even be right without being wrong.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The defense would be that they were following orders, and overcoming that would require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person of ordinary sense would know that the order was illegal, or that the defendant knew it was illegal.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, at a minimum the "unlawful" requirement in the statute seems to take it right back to DD's original question.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Looking at the Lt. Calley opinion is kind of interesting.

He was convicted by court martial of violating 10 U.S.C. § 918. The judge instructed the jury:

I therefore instruct you, as a matter of law, that if unresisting human beings were killed at My Lai (4) while within the effective custody and control of our military forces, their deaths cannot be considered justified, and any order to kill such people would be, as a matter of law, an illegal order. Thus, if you find that Lieutenant Calley received an order directing him to kill unresisting Vietnamese within his control or within the control of his troops, that order would be an illegal order.

I assume if anyone were charged here, a military judge would have to figure out what similar instruction, if any, to give the jury.

[Life of Brian]

Ugh, that was not a fun read. I do think there's some conceptual airspace between mowing down submissive women and children already in your custody, and taking out drug smuggling watercraft specifically engineered to evade capture.

The quote from Winthrop's on page 532 seems relevant:

But for the inferior to assume to determine the question of the lawfulness of an order given him by a superior would of itself, as a general rule, amount to insubordination, and such an assumption carried into practice would subvert military discipline. Where the order is apparently regular and lawful on its face, he is not to go behind it to satisfy himself that his superior has proceeded with authority, but is to obey it according to its terms, the only exceptions recognized to the rule of obedience being cases of orders so manifestly beyond the legal power or discretion of the commander as to admit of no rational doubt of their unlawfulness. . . .

The majority appeared to agree with the general principle, but found the killing of the prisoners so egregious as to trigger the exception.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Certainly true, I thought it shed some light on the process. In substance the cases are very different.

[DDHarriman]

Our government has not provided evidence or process to determine guilt, necessity, or authority to do these killings.

To whom do you think the CINC or Navy needs to ask permission from? Obama/Soros? The cast of the View?

The same people you think the President needs to ask permission of to declassify something? Lifer loser govies like you?

[David Nieporent]

To whom do you think the CINC or Navy needs to ask permission from?

At a bare minimum, Congress. He's still not a king and doesn't get to decide what's legal and what isn't.

[not guilty]

"To whom do you think the CINC or Navy needs to ask permission from? Obama/Soros? The cast of the View?"

The Congress.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Until all three are established, these deaths are murders. "

A dumb comment. The DOD has no obligation to provide evidence to you.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah fuck the people, they’ll sit in the dark and like it, eh Comrade?

[Bob from Ohio]

You might want the info, the people by and large do not.

Videos show semi-submersible and three motor low silhouette speed boats going at high speeds. These are not fishing boats no matter how many "he was a good boy" NYT articles get written.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“the people by and large do not.”

What’s your basis for this statement?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Yeah fuck the people, they’ll sit in the dark and like it, eh Comrade?"

Huh? You don't have to like it, but you're still in the dark.

[Malika la Maize]

“get this sob story this morning of a supposedly innocent Columbian fisherman killed by the U.S.”

The story seems to me to do a good job of presenting the claims of his family and the Colombian government with Trump’s claims and statements about uncertainties that exist. You’re just looking for dishonesty here.

[Armchair]

It's the NYTimes. Of course there's dishonesty.

[Malika la Maize]

“You’re just looking for dishonesty here.”

As I said.

Every accusation….

[Michael P]

Pointing out that the failing, dishonest NYT it's falling and dishonest isn't an accusation, it's just a factual remark about a newsroom full of deplorables.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

yawn

[Bob from Ohio]

"claims of his family "

You apparently believe anything.

"He was a good boy, quiet, never got in trouble, helped old ladies with yardwork. I can't believe he shot up that school."

[Bwaaah]

More widely usable link: https://archive.ph/20251113192227/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/13/world/americas/trump-drug-boat-strikes-colombian-fisherman.html

[Frank Drackman]

It's like in "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" where the always great Eli Wallach (Brooklyn born son of Polish Jews playing a Mexican, and well, going to University of Texas probably helped) as the Bandit "Tuko" keeps claiming he's just an "Honest Farmer", and every time he's almost hung (hanged?) it takes the Hangman 5 minutes to read all of his Crimes
".raping a virgin of the white race...
...and statutory rape of a minor of the black race...
...of derailing a train in order to rob the passengers
guilty of the crimes of murder,
armed robbery...
...of citizens, state banks, and post offices...
...the theft of sacred objects, arson in a state prison...
...perjury, bigamy, deserting his wife and children...
...inciting prostitution, kidnapping, extortion...
...receiving stolen goods, selling stolen goods...
...passing counterfeit money,
posing as a Guide and leading a Wagon Train into the Hunting Grounds of the Sioux Indians....
"

Frank

[ducksalad]

Hanged.

The best part of that scene is the reaction of the ladies in the crowd.

[SRG2]

LOL yes indeed!

[hobie]

Are we killing these boat-goers as narcotraffickers under the standard of probably cause or reasonable doubt?

[David Nieporent]

So, not exactly a boy scout, eh?

I am utterly opposed to the war on drugs in every way, shape, and form, but my additional opposition to Trump's escalation does not turn on whether these people were "boy scouts." It turns on (a) the lack of due process; and (b) the fact that it's not a capital crime in the first place.

Until we know exactly what happens we just don't know. We shouldn't assume lawlessness and evil, murderous intent on the part of the U.S. and U.S. servicemen.

No; we should conclude lawlessness and evil precisely because we don't know. If the government is unwilling to publish all its evidence, we should conclude that it's because the evidence doesn't exist.

[not guilty]

Its not until you get to paragraph 10 in the story that this appears:

"At the same time, in Mr. Carranza’s case, there is no immediate ability to determine with certainty if he was simply a fisherman or had been involved in drug smuggling.

And you don't see how, in light of that inability, executing the man summarily poses a problem?

[Moderation4ever]

For this weeks edition of stupid gun owners, I offer the following, reported in the Wisconsin State Journal on 11/12. Police were called to a Madison apartment at 3 am where a man horsing around with a gun fired into the apartment ceiling striking and rupturing a water pipe for the buildings sprinkler system. The Constitution gives citizens the right to own a gun, it does not say that everyone should have one.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you have any idea of the stupid things people have done and set off the sprinklers?

[ThePublius]

Here's the mugshot and the charges. Perhaps needless to say, drugs were involved. No reporting so far mentions if the gun was possessed legally.

OPERATE GO ARM W FIREARM INTOX939.63(1)(A) - (1) 11/12/2025 2:50 AM
2ND-DEG RECKLESSLY ENDANG SAFE939.63(1)(A) - (1) 11/12/2025 2:50 AM
POS W/INT DEL SCHED IV DRUGS - (1) 11/12/2025 2:50 AM
POSSESSION OF COCAINE/BASE - (1) 11/12/2025 2:50 AM

https://www.madisonmugs.com/arrest/KYLE%20SCOUT%20ESTOCK-a9d457d6eb5d963937778b3604fdf3eaeddd4582

[Moderation4ever]

Of course drugs were involved, not at all uncommon.

[Michael P]

It's still a federal felony to possess a firearm while being a user of, or addicted to, controlled substances, right?

Why not improve enforcement of existing prohibitions before inventing more?

[Frank Drackman]

Good, feel free not to have one

[Malika la Maize]

Right-wing media had a similar first response to new emails tying President Trump to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein: thunderous silence.

For hours, Fox News made nary a mention of the tranche, whose contents suggested, among other things, that the president knew more about the abuses perpetrated by Mr. Epstein, a former friend, than he had admitted.

Prominent podcasters like Ben Shapiro and Megyn Kelly focused on H-1B visas, the government shutdown and a proposal for 50-year mortgages on their shows and social media.…

They argued that Democrats on the House Oversight Committee — who had released three emails early on Wednesday — had created a false narrative by hiding the name of one of Mr. Epstein’s victims in one of the messages. The redaction, the theory went, was meant to cover up that the victim, Virginia Giuffre, previously said she had never witnessed Mr. Trump involved in sexual abuse of minors.

In the dependably administration-friendly world of conservative media, the question of how to address the president’s relationship with Mr. Epstein has proved particularly thorny. It has pitted abiding loyalty to Mr. Trump against growing demands from the MAGA base that the federal government release all its files related to the notorious predator.
But the unified response to this week’s disclosures shows how closely aligned right-wing media voices are with elected Republicans and the degree to which the two share story lines — and provide each other political cover. Indeed, the core message that ended up emanating from conservative media this week originated within the Oversight Committee itself, which jumped on the redaction question less than an hour after the three emails dropped.

“​​Why did Democrats cover up the name?” Republicans on the committee asked on X, adding: “Democrats are trying to create a fake narrative to slander President Trump.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/14/business/media/epstein-trump-emails-conservative-media.html

[ThePublius]

“​​Why did Democrats cover up the name?” Republicans on the committee asked on X, adding: “Democrats are trying to create a fake narrative to slander President Trump.”

Yes, and that's exactly right. Of the thousands of emails released, none came from Trump, none were addressed to Trump, and he's only mentioned in two.

And there was not "thunderous silence" from so-called right wing media; you are just looking in the wrong places.

[Sarcastr0]

he's only mentioned in two.

You read and responded to the below, so I know you know that's not true.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/11/13/open-thread-9/?comments=true#comment-11280222

[Michael P]

You're right, Democrats fell for a number of obvious lies or distortions in emails from Epstein: https://x.com/greg_price11/status/1989113709101535660

[Sarcastr0]

No one here talked about anything like that.

Try and stay on topic, even if you're super excited you found a tweet about Dems bad and want to post.

[Michael P]

You argued that Trump is mentioned in more than two emails. The problem is those emails are facially wrong and/or misinterpreted by you and other partisan shills. Remember how Democrats just got caught redacting the name of a victim to obscure the fact that she repeatedly said Trump was not involved in what Epstein did to her?

[Sarcastr0]

Your link is not about any of the emails I posted yesterday and linked today.

You follow up that irrelevant chaff with throwing other irrelevant chaff and making false assertions.

Even ThePublius admitted he got the number wrong.

This is getting pretty sad.

[Michael P]

Yes, and I explained yesterday why you were full of baloney (as usual) about the emails you mentioned before. I didn't see any reason to rehash that when there are further examples of useful idiots acting like idiots.

[Malika la Maize]

“he's only mentioned in two”

Demonstrably wrong right out of the gate.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/11/12/us/epstein-emails.html

[ThePublius]

O.K., I stand corrected. In how many conversations is he mentioned, or the 20,000+ emails?

And, more to the point, is he implicated in any wrongedoing?

[Moderation4ever]

At this point he isn't implicated in any wrong doing. This make it seem strange that so much effort is going into stopping the release.

[David Nieporent]

Since Trump doesn't use email, the fact that they weren't sent to/from him isn't very interesting. And he was mentioned in a lot more than two.

[Sarcastr0]

MAGA:

"I don't care if Donald trump was with 15 year olds in bikinis or if he slept with them I care about deportations.
When I see indians and mexicans in my country, I don't think
“well at least Joe Biden wasn’t friends with Epstein.""

[ThePublius]

Don't speak for MAGA, speak for yourself.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's response on Truth Social:

Now that the Democrats are using the Epstein Hoax, involving Democrats, not Republicans, to try and deflect from their disastrous SHUTDOWN, and all of their other failures, I will be asking A.G. Pam Bondi, and the Department of Justice, together with our great patriots at the FBI, to investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase, and many other people and institutions, to determine what was going on with them, and him. This is another Russia, Russia, Russia Scam, with all arrows pointing to the Democrats. Records show that these men, and many others, spent large portions of their life with Epstein, and on his “Island.” Stay tuned!!!

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115548785919046772

Investigate those folks for what? Aggravated boat riding?

Not to mention that prosecution for nearly any federal criminal offense that occurred before Epstein's death in 2019 would be time barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3282.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" the victim, Virginia Giuffre, previously said she had never witnessed Mr. Trump involved in sexual abuse of minors."

Which would include herself!!!!!

Saying Trump was alone with "a victim" without saying it was "a victim that had said that is deceptive!

[DDHarriman]

They stripped all email headers and redacted the name of the witness.

They stripped all email headers because they are faking much of it.
They redacted the witness, because specific person has made public statements exonerating the President.

YABAH (Yet Another Blue Anon Hoax)

[Glaucomatose]

You realize that by “They,” you’re referring to Congressional Republicans, right?

[Michael P]

You realize that you come across as if you have been smoking crack, right?

[Sarcastr0]

.

[Mr. Bumble]

Il Douche rendered speechless?

[Bob from Ohio]

His best comment!

[Armchair]

Is warning someone the police are coming obstruction of justice?

Imagine this....The police get a tip that mass murderer (MM) is at the house on Jones street. But Johnny is a friend of mass murderer, and overhears the police that are coming to get MM. So, Johnny calls ahead, warns MM, and MM escapes.

Should the police charge Johnny with obstruction of justice?

[ThePublius]

They can charge him with a whole lot of things:

"Aiding the escape of a murderer is a serious crime, potentially leading to charges like being an accessory after the fact, aiding and abetting a fugitive, or obstruction of justice. This can result in state or federal charges, and the penalties can be severe, sometimes even including the same charges as the original crime."

Are you seriously wondering, or just trying to start a conversation?

[Armchair]

Starting a conversation.

So, warning an individual the police are coming to arrest them can be considered obstruction of justice.

How does that mesh with an individual(s) warning that "ICE is coming" warning people that ICE is coming to arrest them.

https://lapublicpress.org/2025/11/la-ice-bystanders-help-immigration/

[Malika la Maize]

Classic Armchair. You wanted to ask this but had to do your hypo routine. Why don’t you just ask everyone what you want initially?

[Armchair]

Just because you don't understand classical logic and argumentation, it doesn't mean that others shouldn't employ it.

[Michael P]

It's not clear whether Malika fails to understand basic logic and argument, but clearly Malika doesn't want to be bothered with good logic or strong arguments. Half-written sentences that rely on evoking feels are about the limit of what passes for Malika's mind.

[ThePublius]

No, I get it, unfortunate that you don't. Warning the murderer is obviously illegal. Yet folks insist warning illegals that ICE is coming is somehow O.K., or even noble.

It's an analogy, and a pretty damned good one!

[not guilty]

"Warning the murderer is obviously illegal."

Pursuant to what statute(s), pray tell?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, obviously he wanted to trap people into admitting what the general principle was, before confronting them with the situation where they refuse to follow it. Which is a perfectly legitimate rhetorical technique.

[Bwaaah]

Would it make a difference if the "warner" believes the person he/she is warning has not committed a crime?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not really. I doesn't hinge on your opinion of the target's guilt, but instead on whether or not you're trying to interfere with the legal process.

If I tell Bob to avoid Main street, as the police have set up a check point to catch a bank robbery suspect, that's fine if I'm just warning him of the traffic congestion, and have no reason to suppose that the police are looking specifically for Bob.

But if I know the police think Bob is the suspect, now I'm committing a crime, and it really doesn't matter if I think they're mistaken to think him a suspect.

[Armchair]

No.

[David Nieporent]

How does that mesh with an individual(s) warning that "ICE is coming" warning people that ICE is coming to arrest them.

Warning a specific individual that the police are coming for him¹ may be some form of crime. Making a general announcement to the world that police are in the area is free speech.
​
​
¹At least if done with the intent that he evade the police. "The police are coming to arrest you, so you should give me the key to your safe so I can access all the vital household documents" would not be a crime.

[Malika la Maize]

EV had a discussion here about this-namely flashing your headlights to warn another motorist of a speed trap-somewhat recently iirc.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's different -- it's a warning not TO COMMIT a crime, as opposed to helping those who have escape capture.

[Krayt]

I think an app where people could register actual active speed trap locations suffered a hit as well.

But it's ok, to them, to ban putting a quarter in someone else's parking meter. If there's any left.

[ThePublius]

I remember that, vaguely. It was determined to be legal as it was protected speech, no? Warning someone who hasn't committed a crime or been charged with one, or is sought for one, isn't illegal.

[ReaderY]

One problem with the analogy is that illegal status is not necessarily a crime. A circuit Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed this by holding that immigration and deportation proceedings are civil matters, not criminal ones.

Since ICE is an immigration rather than a criminal justice agency and arrests people as part of civil deportation proceedings rather than to initiate criminal charges, there is no crime being facilitated, and criminal justice is not being obstructed. The analogy is not a valid one.

Commentators here may think it ought to be analogous as a moral or policy matter. But the civil/criminal difference means it isn’t a legally correct analogy.

The civil/criminal difference often works to the administration’s favor. It means it can deport people based on a lot shakier evidence than it would need to convict them of a crime. But it also has consequences, like this one, that work against the administration.

[ThePublius]

Point taken, but you don't know who they are after and why. They may be after people who have illegally re-entered, which is a crime. Or illegals dealing drugs, stealing cars, raping people, and so on.

So, if someone warns a factory that ICE is coming, and among the factory workers are people who have illegally re-entered the country, then the person issuing the warning is obstructing justice, at least.

[ReaderY]

The problem is criminal intent. The essence of criminal intent is that you have to know. If you don’t know, there is no criminal intent.

Doubtless some people who hale cabs are fleeing police. But a taxi driver giving cab halers rides is not obstructing justice just because some of them may be criminals. The driver has to know that a haler is under criminal investigation.

I believe this is similar. ICE does not conduct criminal investigations. It only concerns itself with deportations, a civil matter. While it may be possible that people ICE seeks to deport may also be guilty of crimes, knowing ICE is going to arrest someone communicates only a civil arrest. There is no knowledge of the existence of a crime, and hence there can be no criminal intent to obstruct justice.

Put otherwise, ICE is not (criminal) Justice. It is merely (civil) Homeland Security. Obstruction of Homeland Security, by itself, is not obstruction of Justice. Congress could make obstruction of Homeland Security a crime if it wanted to. But it hasn’t.

[Brett Bellmore]

8 U.S. Code § 1324

"(a) Criminal penalties
(1)(A) Any person who-
...
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;"

I believe warning somebody ICE are on their way, if you have reason to believe the person or people you're warning are illegal aliens, would fall under this clause, and thus is indeed a crime.

[ReaderY]

The OC question was whether it was obstruction of justice.

[not guilty]

"I believe warning somebody ICE are on their way, if you have reason to believe the person or people you're warning are illegal aliens, would fall under this clause, and thus is indeed a crime."

It doesn't matter what you believe, Brett doofus. Verbs matter.

See, United States v. Costello, 666 F.3d 1040 (7th Cir. 2012).

And "reason to believe" falls well short of knowledge or reckless disregard of a fact. Culpable mental states matter as well.

[ThePublius]

"ICE does not conduct criminal investigations"

When I read this it struck me as incorrect, so I looked it up, and it is, indeed, incorrect.

"ICE conducts criminal investigations through its Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) division, which investigates crimes like human trafficking, financial fraud, and drug smuggling. While ICE also enforces civil immigration laws, its HSI arm focuses specifically on criminal activity that crosses borders or has national security implications."

I would note that ICE routinely teams up with local law enforcement agencies in carrying out raids.

"ICE teams up with law enforcement agencies through partnerships like the 287(g) program, which authorizes local and state officers to perform specified immigration enforcement functions under ICE's supervision. This collaboration also occurs through broader cooperation to combat transnational crime, and ICE's Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) works with various federal, state, local, and international partners on investigations ranging from sex trafficking to counterterrorism."

So, this completely negates your last two paragraphs.

Oh, and by the way, it's "hail a cab," not "hale a cab." 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

Unless you're a car mechanic, of course.

[ReaderY]

No it doesn’t. The fact that ICE can and sometimes does something is not evidence that ICE is doing it in any specific instance.

If ICE wore identifying uniforms that enable identification of HSI agents you might have a point. But they don’t. And that has consequences.

Once again, the fact that it’s possible for something t happen doesn’t provide proof a person knows it’s going to happen. Hence there is no intent.

[ThePublius]

Very weasely response. You were wrong. You might concede it.

You said, very affirmatively that ICE does not conduct criminal investigations. That is incorrect.

The fact that ICE can and sometimes does something is not evidence that ICE is not doing it in any specific instance.

[ReaderY]

My claim is that there is no specific intent to obstruct justice because there is no specific knowledge.

Your tangent attempt doesn’t refute this.

While I think I’m right that the general obstruction of justice statute does not apply, as Brett points out there is a separate statute covering illegal aliens. So whether the general obstruction of justice statute applies or not is probably irrelevant.

[wvattorney13]

I'm not following this. Obstruction is generally impeding a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties. There is no requirement that the officer be in a criminal investigation or actively making an arrest.

He had a badge and he was doing police type stuff. That's all that matters. You don't get to determine case by case whether you believe it is worthwhile to let him do his job.

[Voize of Reazon]

That would be the Law & Order version of obstruction, but the reality is a little more fact specific. Take the Texas Penal Code for example, section 38.15 Interference with Public Duties says

(a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law;

Criminal negligence raises the bar a bit, plus a little later there's a carveout

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1) that the conduct engaged in by the defendant was intended to warn a person operating a motor vehicle of the presence of a peace officer who was enforcing Subtitle C, Title 7, Transportation Code.

Subtitle C defines the traffic offenses including speeding.

[not guilty]

"I'm not following this. Obstruction is generally impeding a law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties. There is no requirement that the officer be in a criminal investigation or actively making an arrest."

That depends on the specific language of the particular statute at issue. Due process requires fair warning of what conduct a criminal statute prohibits.

[ReaderY]

Clarification: there is an omnibus obstruction of justice statute applicable to any proceeding before any federal agency, which would include deportation proceedings. But it requires an additional element, threats or force, which is simply not present in the original hypothetical.

[Brett Bellmore]

But as I note above, there's a specific obstruction of immigration law enforcement statute, which does not require any additional element.

[not guilty]

"But as I note above, there's a specific obstruction of immigration law enforcement statute, which does not require any additional element."

Where in the Code is that statute found, Brett? Because the statute you cited upthread, 8 U.S.C. § 1324, isn't what you describe here.

[Armchair]

The civil/criminal difference here...doesn't matter.

One can just as easily obstruct justice in a civil infraction as compared to a criminal infraction.

[SRG2]

I brought up the case of the Automobile Association in Britain, whose motorcyclists would salute oncoming drivers if they saw the AA badge mounted on their cars - unless there was a speed trap up ahead, in which case the motorcyclists would do nothing...

[ducksalad]

Is warning someone the police are coming obstruction of justice?

So about ten times a day the annoying little pop-up video at the lower right of my computer screen features a hideously unpleasant female who warns illegal immigrants that ICE is coming for them. She advises them to leave the area to avoid being picked up.

This smug-ugly "obstructor of justice" (as you define it) doesn't even try to hide her identity (although some guys who work at her do wear masks). Even worse, she is supposedly drawing a federal paycheck for some stupid made up desk job, but instead of going to work and doing that job she puts on camo to play like she's a fighter for justice and makes these videos. I believe she might be using our taxpayer dollars for her cosplay freedom fighter hobby.

Even more sickening, the obviously hard-left media run her videos as public service announcements! Can you believe it?

Would I love to see her arrested and charged with something? Yes, oh, yes. But not for saying what she says in the video. That she is allowed to do.

[Krayt]

Little corner? I see full blown ads, let us help you depart, you may be eligible to reapply if you go voluntarily.

[Michael P]

Who do I sue because the comment says "ducksalad" but it really only contains word salad?

[ducksalad]

If you aren't already a Reason subscriber like myself, I urge you to sign up. Then you could claim you paid some money and might have standing.

[Michael P]

I am a subscriber, but Reason isn't who posted word salad under the ducksalad label. Haven't you ever heard of Section 230 or taking responsibility for your own actions?

[ducksalad]

IANAL but I know Rule #1 of Lawsuits - you only sue people who have money. I kindly tried to point you toward the Reason Foundation.

But anyway, sorry if I stepped on any feelings you have about Kristi. I'm willing to take back "hideously", it was unfair to go after her personal appearance especially in front of devoted admirers.

[Bored Lawyer]

When I drive down the highway, I sometimes see cars driving in the other direction with their brights on, a warning that there is a speed trap down the road. Obstruction?

[Mr. Bumble]

FWIW from our host:
"Reviewing these cases, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh describes the act of flashing one’s headlights as “crime-facilitating speech,” similar to the actions of publishing names of witnesses in the newspaper or printing instructions that explain how to make bombs or commit suicide. Volokh says that a driver by flashing headlights is encouraging other drivers to speed before they reach the speed trap and again after they have
passed the speed trap."

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/headlight-flashing/

[Michael P]

That's a somewhat egregious misrepresentation of what EV's actual article says; it says that flashing high beams lets, rather than encourages, people drive illegally before and after the speed trap. EV's article also points out a court case that allowed a First Amendment defense in a case over it, and raises a hypo where someone specifically warns an acquaintance they know speeds on that section of the road and thereby acts more like a criminal lookout.

[ThePublius]

No. Topic beaten to death.

[Mr. Bumble]

Again, FWIW:
"The primary legal defense for flashing headlights to warn of police presence is rooted in the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. This argument frames the act not as a traffic violation, but as a form of communication. The flash of light conveys a truthful message to other drivers: “police are ahead.” This type of expressive conduct, which communicates a fact about government activity, has been interpreted by several courts as protected speech.

This interpretation has been affirmed by federal courts, with a notable decision from a U.S. District Court in Missouri establishing a First Amendment right to this expression. The court reasoned that the government cannot restrict this speech without a compelling interest. The argument that flashing lights interferes with a police investigation is often countered by the fact that the goal of a speed trap—to slow down traffic and improve safety—is still achieved, regardless of whether a ticket is issued.

This legal precedent suggests the act of warning other drivers is a form of symbolic speech. Courts have recognized that a headlight flash can have multiple meanings, such as warning of a road hazard or signaling a driver to turn on their own lights. This ambiguity further complicates attempts to outright ban the practice."
https://legalclarity.org/is-it-illegal-to-flash-your-headlights-to-warn-of-police/

[Armchair]

No. Because you are warning someone not to commit a crime. Rather than helping someone elude the authorities for a crime the authorities are pursuing them for.

Warning someone not to commit a crime is not illegal.

For example. A Lawyer tells his client not to commit perjury. Not "obstruction of justice". A lawyer lies to the police about where his client is. Potentially obstruction.

[hobie]

Let's say you know the FBI is coming, so you tell your boys to hide boxes and surveillance tapes? It's all obstruction any way you look at it.

[ReaderY]

North Carolina’s state motto is “Esse quam videre,” to be rather than to seem.

Perhaps this administration should formally adapt the motto “Videre quam esse,” to seem rather than to be. If there is one consistent thread that has run through this administration, this motto might be it.

Discuss.

[apedad]

Substance has never been a Trump quality.

Only BIG or BEAUTIFUL (read ostentatious) things count.

[Michael P]

Only if the former administration formally adopted the motto "mentire quam videre" (regarding mental competence, among other things).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brandenberg v Ohio:

Bumper stickers:
#1: "The only good social worker is a dead one."
#2: "Kill all Social Workers"

Difference between the two?

[ReaderY]

None.

The Brandenberg standard requires a specific nexus to a crime rather than abstract advocacy. Common examples of this are solicitation and conspiracy, where someone asks or advises someone else, or people plan and discuss, killing a specific social worker.

Paladin Enterprises, a circuit court rather than a Supreme Court case, extended this somewhat. In the case, a book called Hit Man provided very specific details about how to conduct and conceal a hit as well as how to advertise, negotiate, and collect payments on a contract murder business. The plaintiffs proved that the individuals who had murdered their relatives had bought the book and used its specific guidance to conduct their hits. The 4th Circuit held this provided a sufficient nexus to specific crimes to take the book outside the First Amendment and hold the publisher liable.

But neither slogan has anything like the specific nexus to an individual crime that court cases hold take speech outside the First Amendment. Both are general advocacy with no connection to anything specific. They neither concern specific individuals, nor provide detailed plans for how to commit a murder.

[Krayt]

"No knowledge for you!" -- Your Betters

[David Nieporent]

Difference between the two?

No.

Placing a bumper sticker on a car cannot possibly in any real world scenario be an incitement to imminent unlawful action, regardless of what it says.

[not guilty]

Under Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), both bumper stickers are First Amendment protected. "[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Id., at 447.

No one is going to kill a social worker merely because he looked at a bumper sticker

[Poxigah146]

Trump has not been polling well on the economy or affordability. The best thing that could happen for him is for the stock market decline to continue for a while and stay down.

The AI bubble in the stock market is only good for the top 5% or so of Americans, and it's feeding inflation like crazy.

[Brett Bellmore]

It might be feeding inflation like crazy, but it does not appear that inflation is eating what's placed before it.

12-month percentage change, Consumer Price Index, selected categories

[Poxigah146]

It's much higher in services, including housing, where it matters. We can buy cheap TVs and gas, but it's out of control in the necessities.

[Bored Lawyer]

I saw this on LinkedIn. To say I am astounded is an understatement:

A firm is billing L.A. City at $1,295/hour in a homelessness case. Here’s the catch:
All 15 attorneys, whether junior associates or senior partners, are billing at this same $1,295 hourly rate.
A federal judge has raised some obvious concerns, questioning why all 15 attorneys with varying levels of experience and titles are billed at the same $1,295 hourly rate.
The firm’s response is that it is “one blended, discounted rate” applied to all attorneys working on the matter.
For context, this case is part of the city’s dispute with the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, which sued over unsafe homeless encampments.
To be fair, the city council initially approved a $900,000 contract with the firm. However, within a few months the invoices totaled more than $3 million.
The city council has since approved an increase to cover $5 million, but the firm is on pace to exceed that.
Reports say the firm billed $1.8 million in a 2 week period.
The federal judge said this from the bench:
“How much good could have been accomplished on behalf of the homeless with compliance with the court’s order instead of spending it on legal fees?”
He brings up a good point, but what do you think?

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7394823845427232769/

"An ox knows his owner and a donkey his master's feed trough." (Isaiah 1:3)

[Bob from Ohio]

“How much good could have been accomplished on behalf of the homeless with compliance with the court’s order instead of spending it on legal fees?”

Its a trick question. LA and California already spend many, many millions more to no apparent "good".

[Bored Lawyer]

That's a point. Still does not justify these outrageous fees.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Still does not justify these outrageous fees."

Agreed, but smart lawyers can recognize suckers when they see them.

These contracts are usually no bid.

[Kazinski]

-

[Frank Drackman]

Again, why the delay in trying/convicting/executing Charlie Kirk's cowardly killer???
Giuseppe Zangara, who murdered Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak (was it really "First Degree Murder"?? he was trying to kill FDR) was executed in Florida's Electric Chair 2 weeks after Cermak died from his wounds
or, to summarize
Feb 15, 1933 Zangara fatally wounds Cermak, misses FDR
March 6, 1933 Cermak dies
March 10, 1933 Zangara convicted of Murder, sentenced to Death
March 20, 1933 Zangara executed in Electric Chair, his final words were
"Push the button! Go ahead, push the button!"

Which I just realized is how Dr. Clayton Forrester from MST3K would usually end each show, telling "TV's Frank" (No relation)
"Push the button Frank!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'

Frank

[wvattorney13]

Zangara pled guilty, refused to appeal, and Florida law in 1933 didn’t force any automatic review. So once the governor signed the warrant, the prison carried it out immediately.

[Moderation4ever]

Thank you for the information. I wonder what Frank would think if Utah rushed the trial and Tyler Robinson walked? I think it unlikely but if I were the handling the case I would be very careful.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, sounds like a "Progressive" system

[dwb68]

the Supreme Court SNAP funding case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a539.html

It has not yet been dismissed as moot, which I think is odd, since this could be handled with one line.

I strongly suspect we are getting an opinion (concurrence) related to the 1st circuits underlying handling of the case.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The government withdrew the application for a stay from the Supreme Court, which entered the withdrawal on the docket, meaning that the Supreme Court is done with the case. At the trial level, the government filed a notice stating that it would “confer with Plaintiffs in the coming days about appropriate next steps in this litigation.”

I expect the parties to agree that the case is moot and to file a joint motion to dismiss the case. There might be a small delay because the plaintiffs may want the SNAP benefits to actually be delivered to the recipients before they agree that the case is moot. The role of the judge is largely reactive; he won’t dismiss the case until he is asked to do so.

P.S. The government’s notice to the district court is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.60750/gov.uscourts.rid.60750.41.0.pdf

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Late on the last thread, I discussed an episode of The Donna Reed Show that touched upon school censorship.

Jeff writes an op-ed for the school newspaper complaining about homework. The faculty advisor, assuring him she didn't want to censor, told him she couldn't allow him to include the op-ed. The school board okayed the homework and it's their call.

Jeff's dad later told him it was the advisor's call. The Supreme Court decades later agreed. A school publication is government speech. Still, Jeff's sister was right. It was a First Amendment issue. It was censorship. He should have been allowed to include his opinion that there was too much homework.

[ThePublius]

Do you have a link to that episode?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It's a second season episode entitled "The Editorial."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Donna_Reed_Show_episodes#Season_2_(1959%E2%80%9360)

[ThePublius]

Thank you!

[loki13]

For those of you who don't believe all the media coverage, or like a certain serial liar (sorry, serial believer of other liars who then reposts their lies here) state that Trump was only mentioned twice, I unveil to you a searchable database of the files released.

Which files? Oh, you know. The Epstein ones.

https://couriernewsroom.com/news/we-created-a-searchable-database-with-all-20000-files-from-epsteins-estate/

What name was mentioned the most? Do you want to guess?

You probably said ... Epstein! Oh, so close. He's mentioned the second-most times.

The most? Wait for it. Wait for it. Wait for it ... oh, you know already.

Trump.

More than 1600 times, ~600 times more than Epstein (!!!!!). Four times more than anyone else.

Shocker! Look, part of it is because of his prominence (Obama, Clinton, and Wolff round out the top five ... get them conspiracies going) ... but still.

A beautiful secret, indeed!

[ThePublius]

I am not a serial liar, and I conceded that I was incorrect, something almost no one does on this blog.

[hobie]

Yikes! That's quite a trove. I decided to look up Dershowitz just to check the search out. Wow. Dershowitz aside, I see just in the documents related to him, huge numbers of lawyers, judges and academic elites documented flying all over on Epstein's jets and attending his parties and staying at his estates. Jesus, The List is going to be huge!

[loki13]

Don't worry. Trump announced he is going to investigate ....

ALL THE PEOPLE HE HATES that are named in the FAKE NEWS that the DEMONCRATS SHOULN'T HAVE LEAKED.

You know, Clinton. Because as we all know, Trump's DOJ is completely trustworthy. I'm sure he'll have Halligan on it.

Conspicuously missing from any hint of investigation or improriety? All the names you'd expect that are repeatedly named. Like Bannon. Thiel. Dershowitz.

.... oh, and Trump.

I gotta say, how often do you think Trump can piss on the rube's legs and tell them that it's raining? My guess from the comments? Apparently, not only can he keep doing it, they'll open their mouths to enjoy the drink.

[hobie]

I ain't worried for myself. But come Nuremburg 2029, so many defendants are gonna need the come pumped from their stomachs just to stand trial.

[Mr. Hook]

"I gotta say, how often do you think Trump can piss on the rube's legs and tell them that it's raining? My guess from the comments? Apparently, not only can he keep doing it, they'll open their mouths to enjoy the drink."

A surprising number of people see Boxer from Animal Farm as a role model.

[Moderation4ever]

How about the fact that Bill Clinton is mention less than 1/4th the number of times that Trump is mentioned. Trump want Clinton investigated but not himself?

[Frank Drackman]

How many times are YOU mentioned??
"None"
That can be changed.
OK, I get that you're a nobody nothing who the best thing that could happen to is you're mentioned in the same paragraph as someone who actually was a success, like Epstein (Umm, he was a "Success" until the end) or "45/47/(48?)", but even your Pubic Hair in the Scheme of Life could be ruined if it turned out someone said you were there (probably not as scandalous as your actual life)

Frank

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

It is almost like the 1950s when people lost their jobs because they were accused of being communists with no real proof. How about a few weeks go when little people lost jobs because they did not express enough grief or right kind when Charlie Kirk was murdered.

[Michael P]

Congratulations, you discovered that Epstein had a special obsession with Donald Trump -- just like an awful lot of you?

[hobie]

It's almost like he became president and then we started to blame him for everything. You remember that don't you, Michael? Everything that happened while Biden was president was his fault. And I agree with that. If prices were bad...that was Biden's fault.

[loki13]

One more thing before I check out. I just saw this, and confirmed because ... I honestly could not believe that it was true, and even though I think the individual (Steve Miran, Trump's Toady at the Fed) is a complete moron, I didn't think he was this stupid. I mean.... this is even more moronic that most of the commenters here (although I can't wait for someone to "Trumpsplain" this ... should be fun)...

This is what an actual ... sorry, a Trumpist Chair of the Fed said in regards to inflation-

"Cutting down net migration to zero, potentially even negative because of the deportations that have been occurring, I think is very disinflationary."

Look, I'm trying to be fair. He was out there to promote the Vance nonsense about immigrants and housing stock. Which is a whole 'nother ball of stupid.

But this ... this is gobbledygook. If we were to assume static conditions, with a fixed economy and a stable population blah blah blah ... would reducing the number of people necessarily be deflationary?

Well, if everything was fixed, you'd have the same number of jobs, and fewer people .... which means ... yep.

Obviously, things are more complicated than that- the economy is dynamic. Not all jobs (or applicants or workers) are equal. Removing workers might shrink the economy, and lead to fewer good produced and so on. Not to mention there are much larger factors.

But generally, there is no way to predict what shrinking the population will do to an economy simply in terms of inflation (because, duh, people are both producers and consumers). I'd add that undocumented WORKERS tend to be younger, so you'll shrink production faster than consumption, but that's a factual issue (and would lead to inflation).

This? What he said? It's trying to equate net migration with inflation, which is so stupid, but might be enough for the rubes.

I hope not, but y'all been real stupid for a while.

[Mr. Bumble]

"One more thing before I check out."
Do you need the number of the suicide help line?

[David Nieporent]

the suicide help line?

"FYI: a firearm is more reliable than pills…"

[Mr. Bumble]

I said what I meant and meant what I said.
Thanks for sharing the tip.

[ThePublius]

Who are you quoting? I don't think anyone here said that.

[David Nieporent]

I was just inordinately amused by the phrase "suicide help line."

[Bob from Ohio]

"Look, I'm trying to be fair."

First time for everything!

[Kazinski]

The "evaporated" IRS whistleblowers that forced the DOJ and Abbe Lowell to scrap Hunter's sweetheart plea deal, made up with Abbe, and they have issued a joint statement with Abbe, in conjunction with releasing their (Shapley and Zeiglers) book:

The Whistleblowers vs. The Big Guy

November 14, 2025
WASHINGTON – IRS Whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler have resolved their defamation case with Biden family attorney Abbe Lowell.
Shapley and Ziegler filed the lawsuit against Lowell, alleging that Lowell republished false statements accusing the whistleblowers of illegally releasing confidential tax information about the Hunter Biden case.
The suit alleged that the statements Lowell republished were part of a well-funded campaign launched to smear Shapley and Ziegler in retaliation for their legally protected whistleblower disclosures to Congress.
In the joint statement agreed upon by both sides, Abbe Lowell admitted that “the whistleblower provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 2302 and 26 U.S.C. § 6103 authorized Messrs. Shapley and Ziegler to make disclosures of otherwise confidential tax information about the investigation of Hunter Biden to the tax committees in Congress[.]” He also admitted that, “when speaking to the media, Messrs. Shapley and Ziegler believed they acted in good faith to follow the law and to limit their remarks to information that had already been lawfully disclosed by others[.]”
Empower Oversight President Tristan Leavitt said, “This settlement unequivocally establishes the fact that our clients followed the law and that their whistleblower disclosures were legally protected.” Leavitt went on to say, “This case was never about the money for Gary and Joe, but about restoring their professional reputation and ensuring that other whistleblowers can come forward the way they did—without fear.”
For the complete statement, visit https://empowr.us/joint-statement/.

The Whistleblowers vs. The Big Guy Order the book: https://truthvpower.com Out 11/11/25

[David Nieporent]

This case was never about the money

Translated: they didn't get any.

[Sarcastr0]

Hawking a book insisting you've got the goods is what being depreciated after not having the goods looks like.

[Bob from Ohio]

Tamar Hallerman@TamarHallerman
Breaking: Pete Skandalakis, the head of the nonpartisan Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia, said he's appointing himself to oversee the Fulton Trump case, taking over for DQed Fani Willis.

He said "several" other prosecutors turned down the appointment

https://x.com/TamarHallerman/status/1989340241480822912

not guilty hardest hit. Its going to be dismissed.

[Michael P]

In news that should surprise no one but goes against what was somehow the official protection, Norway's wealth tax restored in a significant drop in tax revenues.

https://citizenx.com/insights/norway-wealth-exodus/

[ThePublius]

"wealth tax restored in a significant drop in tax revenues"

Did you mean 'resulted in a significant drop in tax revenues?'

[Mr. Bumble]

Also, projection, not protection?

[Michael P]

Sigh. Yes, thanks for the corrections. I hate typing on my phone.

[Sarcastr0]

Incredible analysis from:

CitizenX:
Invest in your Citizenship. Become truly Free.
"Our secure and private platform combines Swiss engineering and 24/7 Concierge service to help you diversify your passport portfolio, ensuring a safe future for you and your loved ones."

-----
Was the wealth tax revenue neutral? Because they point to the loss in wealth tax revenue as compared to the projected baseline.

Which seems kinda circular.

[ThePublius]

-

[Josh R]

Trump's lowering some tariffs to reduce prices. Has Econ 101 snuck into the White House?

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems as if the move to a daily Open Thread has reduced the comment count and the often long threads that were common.
Curious as to why that might be.

[ducksalad]

Conservation of mass, like starting a high-fiber diet. Higher frequency necessarily implies lesser quantity per sitting.