Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Two federal prosecutors have reportedly resigned from the U. S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of Florida rather than participate in a sham investigation of Barack Obama's participation of events occurring prior to the 2016 presidential election. https://www.ms.now/news/us-attorney-investigating-alleged-grand-conspiracy-calls-unit-wide-mee-rcna243100

MSNBC reports:

“Everyone is on pins and needles,” the source told MSNBC, referring to prosecutors who fear being asked by the U.S. Attorney Reding Quiñones, or his leadership team, to work on a case that President Donald Trump has said should lead to the arrests of an expansive list of individuals, including former President Barack Obama and former CIA Director John Brennan.

The Justice Department approved at least 30 subpoenas on Friday, including for Brennan and former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

Never mind that prosecution of acts occurring that long ago is plainly barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3238, President Obama would be immune from prosecution for official acts occurring while in office.

Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 144 S.Ct. 2312 (2024), is an execrable decision, but it is the law of the land. Donald Trump's handmaiden John Roberts there opined:

The Government does not dispute that the indictment's allegations regarding the Justice Department involve Trump's "use of official power." Brief for United States 46; see id., at 10-11; Tr. of Oral Arg. 125. The allegations in fact plainly implicate Trump's "conclusive and preclusive" authority. "[I]nvestigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function." Brief for United States 19 (quoting Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 706, 108 S.Ct. 2597, 101 L.Ed.2d 569 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting)). And the Executive Branch has "exclusive authority and absolute discretion" to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. [United States v.] Nixon, 418 U.S. [683,] 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090; see United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670, 678-679, 143 S.Ct. 1964, 216 L.Ed.2d 624 (2023) ("Under Article II,the Executive Branch possesses authority to decide 'how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law.' " (quoting TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 429, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 210 L.Ed.2d 568 (2021))). The President may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Art. II, § 3. And the Attorney General, as head of the Justice Department, acts as the President's "chief law enforcement officer" who "provides vital assistance to [him] in the performance of [his] constitutional duty to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.' " Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 520, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (quoting Art. II, § 1, cl. 8).

Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is "the special province of the Executive Branch," Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985), and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President, Art. II, § 1.

144 S.Ct. at 2334-2335.

[Riva]

Remember all the anonymous “sources familiar with the matter” feeding a compliant media with self serving specially timed leaks throughout the Mueller farce during the Russian collusion fraud hysteria ? Old habits die hard.

[Moderation4ever]

Plenty of people spoke on the record about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump campaign staffer Paul Manafort even put his involvement with Russia in his book.

[Riva]

Makes one wonder, with all those “reputable” people speaking out, why they needed to feed the media so many anonymous specially timed leaks to fuel the Russian conspiracy fraud? How many of the anonymous leaks where springboards for those brave out spoken?

[Riva]

Maybe we should consult an expert to settle our different views? May I suggest James Comey?

[not guilty]

Riva, your blather is completely unrelated to the legal issues I have raised about timeliness and, in the case of President Obama, immunity under Trump v. United States.

Why am I unsurprised?

[Riva]

Speaking of blather, who said Obama was being investigated for prosecution of constitutionally immune official acts? You? Anonymous sources? (See above on that horse shit game)

Brennan and other corrupt former administration actors somehow share in presidential immunity? As for liability for a continuing conspiracy, well, that remains to be seen. Spare me your bullshit.

[not guilty]

"Speaking of blather, who said Obama was being investigated for prosecution of constitutionally immune official acts?

Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard, among others, have called for prosecution of Barack Obama for mishandling classified information in regard to what Trump refers to as the "Russia hoax." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tulsi-gabbard-obama-russia-interfence-coup-b2792505.html

"Brennan and other corrupt former administration actors somehow share in presidential immunity?"

No, presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts is limited to the President. I have never suggested otherwise.

[Riva]

Wow, this is your authority? A UK tabloid. Treason is not a categorically immune official act entitling Obama to immunity. If Obama has been involved in a treasonous conspiracy, the facts may overcome any presumption of immunity. Moreover, if there is a treasonous conspiracy, then by definition others, unquestionably not immune, are implicated. That's kinda what conspiracy means Clarence Darrow.

So, in sum, an investigation of Obama and Brennan and all of Obama's corrupt national security team is absolutely proper, notwithstanding "anonymous sources" or a UK rag or your ill informed, amateur opinion. Go play somewhere else.

[Sarcastr0]

"Treason"
"treasonous conspiracy"
"treasonous conspiracy"

Say it a few more times, maybe you can will it into being.

And feel free to Google the story about Trump and Gabbard going after Obama - it's all over the place.

[David Nieporent]

One would have to be both batshit crazy and lobotomized — and batshit crazy — to think that "treason" could possibly be at play.

[Riva]

Not Guilty provided the link you fucking idiot. Take it up with him asshole.

[Joe_dallas]

NG's quote from msnbc - "The Justice Department approved at least 30 subpoenas on Friday, including for Brennan and former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page."

Those three should be investigated, even if the statute of limitations has expired, If for no other reason to determine how individuals so corrupt and partisan were able to advance to such high levels in government. In brennan's case, why was he ever nominated, much less approved by the senate to head the cia

[Sarcastr0]

Show trials are bad. Show investigations are bad.

[Joe_dallas]

No one said anything about show trials. My comment was addressing why 3 individuals so corrupt and partisan were able to advance so high in the intelligence community. Along with an evaluation to prevent inappropriate promotions from occurring in the future, Including the appointment of someone like brennan.

[Sarcastr0]

You want criminal investigations even if we know no criminal trial of the target could result.

That's just a show.

I don't care what conspiratorial nonsense you believe, we have rules against that from seeing that kind of thing in Soviet Russia and the like.

[Riva]

I can’t speak for others but your confidence in no viable federal criminal charges is, shall we say, misplaced.

And investigations, outside of the context of criminal charges and criminal investigations, are equally important, if not more so, for the purposes of exposing these hacks and reforming corrupt institutions.

[not guilty]

What is the arguable nexus to the Southern District of Florida for John Brennan, Peter Strzok and/or Lisa Page?

Rule 4.3(a) of Florida's Rules of Professional Conduct provides that the prosecutor in a criminal case must refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause. Rule 4-8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

In addition to Attorney General Pam Bondi and U. S. Attorney Jason Reding Quiñones being licensed in Florida, federal law requires (28 U.S.C. § 530B) that an attorney for the Government shall be subject to State laws and rules, and local Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that attorney’s duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State. Bondi and Reding Quiñones should be subject to professional discipline.

[Riva]

What makes you think there is no basis for an investigation in the Southern District of Florida? Are you in possession of irrefutable evidence that there was no broader criminal conspiracy involving events in this venue? If so, I would suggest you contact the DOJ.

And as noted above, criminal investigations are a small part of the accountability and reforms needed.

[Sarcastr0]

You're shifting the burden in an amusingly ham-fisted way.

You need to meet the burden to have an investigation, it's not 'prove there shouldn't be an investigation' that's how you get infinity investigations.

[Riva]

Again, what makes you think there is no basis for an investigation in the Southern District of Florida? Any thoughts as to why it's in the Southern District of Florida? Where is Mar-a-Lago located?

[Joe_dallas]

My comment wasnt about a show trial,
That is twice you misrepresented my comment -Honesty and ethics have never been your forte

[Bob from Ohio]

"we have rules against that from seeing that kind of thing in Soviet Russia and the like."

Looks like you should have stated worrying about such rules before 2025 began.

You were warned that the next GOP president would get revenge for going after Trump but you didn't care.

The fact that "next GOP president " is actually Trump makes it even funnier.

[Sarcastr0]

'I'm morally absolved because I've decided you did things as bad as what I want to do'

That's a blank check permission structure.

Why do you even bother with such excuses?

[Bob from Ohio]

Just pointing out your side's outrage about "political motivated" is just more performance outage, like Epstein

Funniest thing is Biden, Bragg and Wills actually helped Trump win.

[Sarcastr0]

Someone talked yesterday about your cycnicsm as a failure of imagination.

You can't imagine people not being as transactional as you.

You accuse 'my side' of all being down at your level, wrapped in layers of detachment and cynicism.

But in reality lots of people are not like you.

[Riva]

Is this bad free verse poetry or just another asinine response? I’ll let the readers decide.

[bernard11]

why 3 individuals so corrupt and partisan were able to advance so high in the intelligence community.

Beg the question much?

[Joe_dallas]

The only question begging is why you would demonstrate such tiny modicum of background knowledge of their corruption, ethics and partisanship.

[David Nieporent]

Add "partisan" to the list of words bookkeeper_joe doesn't know the definition of.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I don't think he gets the concept of question begging either.

[Joe_dallas]

Beg the question is why partisan leftist deny basic background knowledge. Brennan, Strzok demonstrated repetitively they were corrupt.

Yet we have had 4 leftists attempt to distort, distract etc from basic facts.

[Stephen Lathrop]

QED on the question begging.

[Krayt]

Indeed! We hate when the investigative and prosecutorial power of the United States (and The Several States for that matter) are used against a political opponent because they're a political opponent!

There's even some on point amendments to the constitution that attempt to forbid this historical and massive, well-known abuse.

[Bob from Ohio]

"We hate when the investigative and prosecutorial power of the United States (and The Several States for that matter) are used against a political opponent because they're a political opponent!"

In 2025. Not applicable prior to that.

[shawn_dude]

Actual crimes versus Q-Anon-style conspiracy theories. Trump's declaration of criminality or innocence is not evidence of anything but for 35% of the country that is all that is required.

Meanwhile, Trump pardons sex offenders, fraudsters, cop-assaulters, and a bevy of other swamp denizens and his insane clown posse waves that aside.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump pardons criminals instead of infants and elderly nuns, shocking!

[Riva]

There’s a really fat democrat DA in Manhattan and some equally fat democrat AGs in NY and GA that needed someone to intervene with that sage, although ironic, advice coming from a little communist girl.

[Bob from Ohio]

Anger at political motivated prosecutions started January 20, 2025 with these clowns.

[David Nieporent]

If for no other reason to determine how individuals so corrupt and partisan were able to advance to such high levels in government.

Even if this weren't MAGA delusion, and of course it is, it is not the role of the DOJ. If Congress wanted to investigate this — and if it were real, which it isn't — that would be within its purview.

[Joe_dallas]

That is a stupid response - even by DN 's standards

The FBI is under the DOJ, and therefore it is well within the DOJ's authority to weed out corruption, partisanship and ethical issues in the FBI.

[grb]

Joe_dallas : "The FBI is under the DOJ, and therefore it is well within the DOJ's authority to weed out corruption, partisanship and ethical issues in the FBI."

Kash Patel, investigate thyself!

[David Nieporent]

None of the people reportedly being investigated are "in the FBI." The DOJ/FBI can do all the internal inquiries that it wants. But internal inquiries are not conducted via grand juries.

[Joe_dallas]

Again DN distorts my commentary - nothing like a dishonest argument from a leftist.

As previously pointed out twice, my comment did not deal with a criminal investigation.

DN response is even more off base since he incorrectly stated that it is not role of DOJ to investigate corruption within the FBI. Yet he chose to shift the topic to hide his dishonest characterization of his response.

[David Nieporent]

As previously pointed out twice, my comment did not deal with a criminal investigation.

Um, the entire topic of this discussion is a criminal investigation. Your comment was in response to a comment saying "The Justice Department approved at least 30 subpoenas on Friday, including for Brennan and former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page." What do you think the word "subpoenas" refers to?

[not guilty]

The matters that Trump refers to as the "Russia hoax" were investigated by John Durham as Special Counsel and by former Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Neither investigation yielded anything as to the major targets.

[grb]

not guilty : " ....were investigated by John Durham as Special Counsel and by former Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz."

Of course that's the "Russian Hoax" as "conspiracy" against Trump. Durham in particular made quite an embarrassing spectacle on that, endlessly & pointlessly & uselessly spinning his wheels. And said rascal proved quite the tease, always hinting to his Trumpette fanbase that exciting developments were coming on the horizon. But the horizon never arrived.

But for a fact-free deadender like Joe_dallas, the "Russian Hoax" also means denying the bizarre contacts between Trump associates and agents of the Russian government. It means denying Trump's friggin campaign head was secretly briefing a Russian spy during the high election season. It means ignoring the written comment by little Trump Jr that they'd welcome secret assistance from the Russian State to help Trump's election. It means forgetting the secret business negotiations between Trump and the Kremlin over a Moscow development deal that continued right up to Election Eve. It means ignoring all the ways the Russian government tried to help Trump's campaign. Hell, it even ignores the infamous Trump Sex Tape. Granted, everyone agrees it was a forgery by Russian criminal elements, but that didn't stop Trump from asking Michael Cohen to suppress it - another event that occurred in the final weeks of the '16 election (as Mueller documented in his report).

And document he did! That and much, much more. But there's even more detail in the five-volume report issued by the GOP-chaired Senate Intelligence Committee. That Republican-led panel concluded that Trump campaign contacts with Russia in 2016 "represented a grave counterintelligence threat". It detailed interactions between Trump campaign staff and Russian operatives, including that Russian intelligence officer. It concluded the Kremlin "engaged in an aggressive, multifaceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence" the 2016 election.

I guessing Joe_dallas didn't read the report, note its evidence, or follow its conclusions. Sometimes it takes a concerted effort to be a fact-free deadender. Ya gotta work at it....

[Joe_dallas]

Ng - pulling the same BS stunt as DN, sarcastro and others. Changing the topic of my comment, then trying to prove I was wrong on a comment I didnt make.

Lets play that game -

Let pretend russian agents did not infiltrate the HRC campaign or the obama campaign or the Biden campaign.

The pretend that russian attempts to infiltrate trumps campaign was the first and only time the russian attempted to infiltrate any US presidential campaign.

Lets pretend hillary did have a pay for play scheme,
Lets pretend hillary's campaign didnt pay for the steele dosier, albeit after the money changed hands a few times.
Lets pretend the uranium one deal didnt have a few issues with the approval

[grb]

Stop digging, dude.....

[not guilty]

"Ng - pulling the same BS stunt as DN, sarcastro and others. Changing the topic of my comment, then trying to prove I was wrong on a comment I didnt make."

Uh, my reply was to David Nieporent's comment above. I posted in support of his observation: "The DOJ/FBI can do all the internal inquiries that it wants. But internal inquiries are not conducted via grand juries."

[David Nieporent]

The pretend that russian attempts to infiltrate trumps campaign was the first and only time the russian attempted to infiltrate any US presidential campaign.

Yes; let's pretend that things we have no evidence for are not as equally likely as things we have overwhelming evidence for. (The careful reader will note how you tried to change the subject by talking about "infiltrating," when the discussion was about conscious efforts by members of the Trump campaign, not covert efforts by Russia.)

Lets pretend hillary did have a pay for play scheme,
Lets pretend hillary's campaign didnt pay for the steele dosier, albeit after the money changed hands a few times.
Lets pretend the uranium one deal didnt have a few issues with the approval

Once again, the concept of evidence seems to escape you (except that it's undisputed that Hillary paid for the Steele dossier, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Every campaign conducts opposition research on rival candidates.)

[not guilty]

"Those three should be investigated, even if the statute of limitations has expired, If for no other reason to determine how individuals so corrupt and partisan were able to advance to such high levels in government. In brennan's case, why was he ever nominated, much less approved by the senate to head the cia"

How is that even arguably the province of a federal grand jury investigation?

[Life of Brian]

Never mind that prosecution of acts occurring that long ago is plainly barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3238

You say this a lot, and it usually turns out to be wrong because the acts at issue have a specific exception to the 5-year limit. Here, we don't even know what the acts at issue are or what the charges would be.

[Michael P]

He heard that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but didn't realize that clocks are a special case.

[not guilty]

As to any act(s) occurring during 2016 and 2017 during what Trump calls the "Russia hoax", what federal statute(s) do you contend create an exception to § 3238, Life of Birdbrain? Please cite by number.

And FWIW, John Durham as Special Counsel investigated those matters while prosecution could still have been timely, and that investigation yielded nothing as to intelligence and law enforcement officials now facing subpoenas, as did an investigation by former Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

The MAGAts are grasping at straws.

[JohnSmith97]

We will just add this to the list of predictions you have blathered on about for the last 4 plus years. If we know something about your predictions over that time frame, it only allows one conclusion.

Nostradamus you ain't.

[wvattorney13]

"Never mind that prosecution of acts occurring that long ago is plainly barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3238,"

You have to think like a prosecutor. You just allege that there was/is an ongoing conspiracy to commit whatever violation you find and that it only ended last Tuesday. Prosecutors have been reviving statutes of limitations for decades.

[not guilty]

If and to the extent that prosecutors are relying here on some kind of criminal conspiracy theory, several questions come to mind:

Who are the supposed conspirators?

When was the conspiratorial agreement formed, and by whom?

What was the object of the conspiracy?

When was the conspiratorial objective achieved or, in the alternative, abandoned?

If the conspiracy is punishable according to 18 U.S.C. § 371, what overt acts were committed in furtherance thereof?

If the conspiracy is punishable according to 18 U.S.C. § 241, whose federal rights were supposedly violated or intended to be violated? What specific federal constitutional or statutory rights were violated or intended to be violated? What then existing authorit(ies) gave fair warning that such rights were "clearly established" for purposes of United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997)?

What overt act(s) in furtherance of the conspiracy, if any, occurred within the past five years?

For purposes of this discussion, suppose an indictment alleging a criminal conspiracy were to be filed on December 1, 2025. It would then be incumbent on the Government to prove that the conspiracy, as contemplated in the agreement as finally formulated, was still in existence on December 1, 2020, and that at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was performed after that date. Compare, Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 396 (1957).

[not guilty]

Just listen to the sweet sound of crickets chirping on a mid-November evening!

[Kazinski]

NBC reports:

"Trump says House Republicans should vote to release Epstein files: 'We have nothing to hide'"

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-says-house-republicans-vote-release-epstein-files-nothing-hide-rcna244293

He should have done this a few months ago but, late is better than never.

Now let the false charges and retractions begin.

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz...This took way too long. Release it all, and let the chips fall where they may. The people who molested these teens (mostly girls, some boys) must be identified, and shunned. They must never walk freely w/o restraint in American civil society again.

If there is a prosecutable crime, then absolutely prosecute. IDGAF if these a-holes are old. A number of these girls committed suicide b/c of the psychological trauma from their molestation. Their blood soaks the earth and cries out for justice.

[Kazinski]

You don't think all that, if it ever existed, was destroyed in 2008 when the DOJ did its clean up mission?

Certainly Epstein, nor Maxwell ever acted like they had any leverage to use.

[Commenter_XY]

No, I don't think it was destroyed. The blackmail value is too great.

[Kazinski]

Doesn't make any sense.

If the blackmail value was so great then why didn't they use it?

Committing suicide and rotting in jail, if you have that big of bag of bombshells?

[Brett Bellmore]

But, at the time he was in jail, he didn't HAVE that big bag anymore.

I tend to think that if he had a blackmail file, hypothetically with provisions to auto release it in the event the government came after him, then the government must have defused that time bomb.

Or else they'd have continued leaving him alone.

The very fact of his arrest argues that if he ever had such a file, he'd lost control of it.

[Brett Bellmore]

The blackmail value is WHY it would have been destroyed, since it was the people subject to blackmail who'd have destroyed it.

[Malika la Maize]

“Now let the false charges and retractions begin.”

lol.

[David Nieporent]

The people who molested these teens (mostly girls, some boys) must be identified, and shunned.

They. Already. Were. Jeffrey Epstein. Ghislaine Maxwell.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sure Fuckwit. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.

[Joe_dallas]

quite a few others that Epstein allowed to participate, prince andrews, reportedly bill clinton to name a few.

[Nelson]

Don’t forget Trump.

[Joe_dallas]

There is no indication that Trump participated in similar actions as prince Andrew or Clinton. While Trump has a lot of bad traits, having sex with underage girls does not appear to be one of them.

[Bored Lawyer]

Granted those two were the ringleaders, you are certain it is only those two? No one else was involved in molestation?

[Bob from Ohio]

"No one else was involved in molestation?"

7th in line for UK throne?

Nobody important.

[no, IDK, but its the safe bet]

[David Nieporent]

I mean, metaphysically certain, the way I am that the Yankees are evil? No. But certain beyond a reasonable doubt, yes. Why would none of the victims have sued any of these people if they existed? Does anyone think that, e.g., Paul Cassell is a shrinking violet? Or David Boies? (Note that Cassell did name Dershowitz, and was then forced to back down and retract that.) I mean, Boies sued JPM and Deutsche Bank for the sin of being Epstein's bank, without any actual involvement by those institutions in his crimes, and got millions. You think that if there were evidence Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump, or any other rich, prominent person were involved, they'd have hesitated?

Scores if not hundreds of federal and state law enforcement agents and attorneys have had access to evidence against Epstein over the decades. Are you telling me that none of them would have leaked against any of the other perpetrators if they had seen evidence that such people existed?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Where did not a prince Andrew fit in here?

[David Nieporent]

Virginia Roberts/Giuffre named him. There was no evidence beyond her word, but because he had the misfortune of having once been photographed with her, the British government paid her off because he was an embarrassment to them. If there were any sort of pattern, I'd think he was guilty, but the pattern is the opposite, from both perspectives. First, Giuffre also named Dershowitz, but was then forced to admit that she may have been "mistaken." Second, where are any of the other accusers? Why didn't any of them seek out a payday?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"no evidence beyond her word, but because he had the misfortune of having once been photographed with her"

I did not do a deep dive in this case or anything, but I find it a tad curious that you are so firm here.

For instance, a Wikipedia page with links, to cite but one, cites flight logs that back up her story. It is not that the evidence is "mixed" or "paltry." It's just her word and a single photograph.

The fact that she is mistaken on Dersh is notable, but it doesn't refute her overall story. Many victims are confused about certain details. Epstein and Andrew had some sort of relationship, anyway, and Andrew did various things to cause the Crown problems.

(Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal)

other accusers

Part of why your stance is a bit curious is that it doesn't even require sexual abuse. For instance, if people helped to cover up their crimes, they would be aiders and abettors. Were only two people involved here in that sense?

As to "other accusers"

One of the women, Lisa Phillips, said the group had begun compiling a confidential list of Epstein associates who they say were involved in abuse.

"We will confidentially compile the names we all know were regularly in the Epstein world," she said. "It will be done by survivors, and for survivors."

(I don't think this is a one-off.)

I am not going to say in conclusive tones about such things. I simply don't know. But the idea that more than two people were directly involved in the abuse does not seem absurd.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yvpgyjed8o

[wvattorney13]

"The fact that she is mistaken on Dersh is notable, but it doesn't refute her overall story. Many victims are confused about certain details."

Doesn't such a statement make any story, however contrived, self-authenticating? One could point out that a story is contradictory and riddle with holes only to be shot down with "Well, she's a victim. It is normal to get some things wrong."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

No. Not sure how you get from A (does not refute in this specific case using the fact she got something wrong) to B (however contrived, self-authenticating) here.

[David Nieporent]

Part of why your stance is a bit curious is that it doesn't even require sexual abuse. For instance, if people helped to cover up their crimes, they would be aiders and abettors. Were only two people involved here in that sense?

Sorry; I almost included that caveat in an earlier response in this chain, but it got left out of the final post. I'm talking about the actual act of sexual abuse itself, not about any other crimes.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

[Estragon]

“having once been photographed with her”

Actually, no— Andrew claimed that photo was fake.

[David Nieporent]

I know that he had claimed that — or at least claimed that he didn't remember it so maybe it was — but I don't think anyone ever believed that.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

From what I can tell, his not credible denials about certain things factor into why he got into so much trouble with the Crown. I suppose that would be part of the "evidence" that something is wrong here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You do realize that Epstein wasn't kidnapping girls from loving homes, don't you?

These were "throwaway" children who were ALREADY messed up, ALREADY into drugs, and definitely not virgins.

[David Nieporent]

Those whores deserved it, right, Dr. Ed?

[Zarniwoop]

People like Grampa Ed are precisely why abusers prefer victims who are already vulnerable.

[Krayt]

IDGAF if these a-holes are old.

Germany refused prosecution on venerable Nazis because they were ancient, calling it compassionate. This was not just compassionate release, but declination to prosecute new cases, which are still discerned from time to time.

It outrages other countries, but gets some support as a concept in the US. I'll let you guess which side is fine with it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Germany refused prosecution on venerable Nazis because they were ancient, calling it compassionate. "

When? They have been prosecuting elderly secretaries and bookkeepers recently.

They let Nazis off in the 1950s. Yes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why is he attacking MTG?

She says he's attacking her to cover up the Epstein files.

[Kazinski]

Because she is an self absorbed idiot, but he just realized it.

See my link to X below.

[Zarniwoop]

I was told Trump was a great leader who has all the best people.

Are you impugning the people skills of Dear Leader?

[Kazinski]

Absolutely, I am impugning his judgement on people.

He was much worse in his first term when he let Chris Christie run his transition.

He is doing a much better job in this term, but nobody is perfect.

People like Greene, and Boebert have always been more concerned about their social media profile than governing.

[Glaucomatose]

He appointed a former Real World star as the head of NASA. Who are the ones who are actually concerned about governing?

[wvattorney13]

Greene and Boebert have always been bubble headed useful idiots who are tolerable when they support you absolutely. When they are opposed to you they really offer Trump nothing at all. Why humor them?

[grb]

Kazinski : "Because she is an self absorbed idiot...."

Gotta agree with Kazinski here. For Trump, it was like looking in a mirror (figuratively). And just as he treasures fellow criminals, I'm sure he has a soft spot for other self absorbed idiots.

[shawn_dude]

Trump has been accused of inappropriateness around underage teens before at the Miss Teen USA contest. So, like all the other criminals he's pardoned, I'm sure he recognizes a fellow traveler here as well.

[Mr. Bumble]

How about a list of things Trump hasn't been accused of?

[not guilty]

Well, Trump has not been accused of honesty, integrity nor abiding by the law, for starters.

[grb]

Ouch!

[Mr. Bumble]

Hardly.
I would expect no less fro not guilty.

[Armchair]

There's nothing really there.

If there was something seriously there, Biden would have had it released.

[jb]

The right wing contortions on whether or not there is something in the Epstein files have been amazing to witness.

The incredible thing these days is all the MAGA faithful coming out and declaring that adults having sex with 16 and 17 years is not pedophilia and actually pretty normal. It's gotta be rough having a whole political party built around a really disgusting human being.

[ThePublius]

"The incredible thing these days is all the MAGA faithful coming out and declaring that adults having sex with 16 and 17 years is not pedophilia and actually pretty normal."

Do you have a citation for that?

[jb]

See, e.g., Brett below. Or Megyn Kelly on Epstein:

"Jeffrey Epstein, in this person's view, was not a pedophile. This is this person's view, who was there for a lot of this, but that he was into the barely legal type. Like, he liked 15-year-old girls."

[ThePublius]

That doesn't go to "the MAGA faithful coming out and declaring that adults having sex with 16 and 17 years is not pedophilia and actually pretty normal." In fact, I presume that quite the opposite is the case; those you refer to as the MAGA faithful are actually quite conservative, by contemporary standards.

[jb]

I don't think you're going to see any prominent Democrats out there trying to explain the difference between pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia to try to rationalize away Epstein's sex crimes. So far the only ones doing it are pretty reliable Trump supporters.

[shawn_dude]

MAGA ejected Matt Gaetz over his abuse of a 17yo girl. You'd think they get the idea that 15-17 is also bad for other people and that covering for them and codling them is also very disgusting.

[Kazinski]

Wildly normal in the 60's and '70s, did you ever watch 'Almost Famous'?

Or read Ken Kesey?
"She was fifteen years old, going on thirty-five, Doc, and she told me she was eighteen, she was very willing, I practically had to take to sewing my pants shut."

Back in the 70's the statute of limitations in almost every state was 16 or less.

"Sixteen became the age of consent in the United Kingdom in 1885 with the Criminal Law Amendment Act. In the United States, there is no single date, as laws were set at the state level, but by 1920, many states had raised it to 16. The process was driven by a social purity movement and took many decades, with the last US state raising it to 16 in 2001.

18 is too high in terms of human behavior, and is a large part of the infantilization that is ruining youth worldwide.

[jb]

Getting all the best MAGA takes in this thread, including that what's wrong with the kids these days is that the creepy old men can't fuck them anymore.

[Kazinski]

Not really a MAGA take, but it is conservative because it doesn't ignore 30,000 years of human history and tradition. I was hardly MAGA in 1978 when my 17 year old girlfriend moved in with me. I was a long haired dope smoking hippie.
We were married 35 years and had 3 kids.

You should see 'Manhattan' Woodie Allen's 1979 film about a 42 year old having a relationship with a 17 year old, not for the plot, but you should take this quote to heart:

"Yale: You are so self-righteous, you know. I mean we're just people. We're just human beings, you know? You think you're God.

Isaac Davis: I... I gotta model myself after someone."

Issac of course is the one dating the teenager, Yale is the one having an affair with someone his own age.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079522/?ref_=ttqu_ov_bk

[Sarcastr0]

I don't much get the appeal of his movies, but I do know appealing to Woody Allen as a moral authority on consent issues is...not a great choice you just made.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why not? Many people find the allegations non-credible.

[Kazinski]

Hardly apealling to Woody, I like the quote.

But I'm currently reading Churchill's Marlboro, John Churchill married his wife Sarah when she was 17, they met when she was 15. He was 25.

Churchill's sister Arabella became James ii mistress at 17, they had 4 children. James was 33, and it wasn't kept a secret.

Its normal, natural behavior that moral scolds want to criminalize.

16 is plenty low enough.

Although none of that excuses prostituting minors.

[thenotoriousrbg]

how old were you when your 17yo girlfriend moved in with you?

[Kazinski]

23. 6 years older.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure why exactly that's "incredible". The word "pedophilia" actually has a meaning, you know. And it's not "attracted to women below the local legal age of consent". It's "attracted to girls below the age of puberty".

When a state legislature decides to raise the age of consent, that doesn't magically transform men into pedophiles.

So, yeah, being attracted to young but clearly sexually mature women IS perfectly natural. Having sex with them when they're below the age of consent is a crime.

But it's the crime of 'statutory rape", not "pedophilia".

[Mr. Bumble]

We live in a world where Humpty Dumpty language is the rule.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kentucky Education law references girls "under the age of 15" who are married.

200 years ago, girls often got married at the age of 15. I'd say about half the 15 year olds today are sexually active.

[David Nieporent]

Kentucky Education law references girls "under the age of 15" who are married.

You made this claim before; I pointed out it was not correct; and you're back to saying it.

I'd say about half the 15 year olds today are sexually active.

Yes, you would, because bitter incels often assume that everyone except them is doing it. In fact, surveys show sexual activity among adolescents has declined substantially in the last 20 years, and the most recent data I saw — as of 2021 — was that 70% of high school students — all high school students, so that includes those up to age 18 — report never having had sex. So, no, 50% of 15-year olds are not sexually active.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It's 'attracted to girls below the age of puberty'"

Or boys.

I can't say I'm shocked that the left is trying to normalize this type of attraction by equating it to attraction to people just below the age of consent.

[Malika la Maize]

That’s an interesting read of criticizing people for parsing terminology of sex with minors.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'm criticizing people for blurring the distinction between sex with prepubescent children and sex with minors.

Why aren't you?

[Malika la Maize]

You’re criticizing people for criticizing the parsing of terminology of sex with minors.

Are you Matt Gaetz?

[Bwaaah]

Question: "What's a pedophile?"
Malicia: "A person who has sex with a person under the age of majority. If you have a different definition, you're a right-wing asshole."

Way to play language games.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Age of consent is 16 in Massachusetts...

[Malika la Maize]

lol!

Bwaah’s (only) friend: “sorry man, my parents say your dad can’t come to the party because he’s a convicted thief.”

Bwaah: “no, you’re wrong, he was convicted of embezzlement, there was no taking and carrying away of property but rather a conversion of property entrusted to him, so hah!”

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"I didn't inhale" redux. If it's shown that Trump had sex with a 15 year old girl, we'll see how that lame defense plays with the public.

[Brett Bellmore]

Cue some 77 year old crone accusing Trump of having sex with her 62 years ago, and everybody on the left insisting it must be true, women never lie about that sort of thing.

[David Nieporent]

Um, if Trump had sex with a then-15 year old 62 years ago, he'd have been 17 himself at the time and it wouldn't really be a scandal at all.

[jb]

Yeah, the loony left and their attempts to conflate Epstein's behavior and pedophilia:

"Jeffrey Epstein was a member at Mar-a-Lago until President Trump kicked him out because Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile and he was a creep," Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters

[David Nieporent]

Leavitt is apparently confessing that Trump knew that Epstein was abusing children and did nothing about it besides revoking a golf club membership. (I guess that to Trump such a revocation is worse than prison.)

[wvattorney13]

Right. Several things can be true at once.

Having sex with 15 or 16 year old girls can be wrong, illegal, perverted, disgusting, and any other adjective.

It can also be true that this wrong is not properly categorized as pedophilia. It can be true that this is not as wrong (but still very wrong) as having sex with an 8 year old.

For those who have trouble with logic, this is not saying that it is okay to have sex with 15 or 16 year olds.

[Sarcastr0]

Standing on technicalities and semantics when it comes to age of consent seems an unwise choice.

I'm a bit surprised at who seems compelled to dive into that tarpit to defend Trump.

[Michael P]

Gaslight0 again comes out in favor of throwing out definitions and redefining language for the purpose of badmouthing his political opponents.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And Sarcastro seems to think the difference between the ability of an eight-year-old to consent and a 17-year-old to consent is technicalities and semantics.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Since he said nothing of the sort, it is only in your mind that he seems to think that. Your twelve inch straw man reeks of desperation.

[Michael P]

Gaslight0's crack about "technicalities and semantics" expressed exactly what 12IP described.

[Drewski]

Pretty obvious at this point that you're a pedo. You should stop digging and delete your account, you sick freak.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro thinks insisting on facts is an unwise choice if it disrupts his political narrative?

No wonder he was so willing to lie about Charlie Kirk right after he got shot. And he hasn't corrected himself on that, despite his claim that he corrects himself when caught lying.

[Sarcastr0]

Pedantry is fun and all, but pedants should pick their battles.

lie about Charlie Kirk right after he got shot
To what do you refer, here? A citation, ideally.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'm not shocked that you justify lying by calling facts Pedantry.

You lied about Kirk here. The "thing about black women" that people were denying Kirk said was the fabricated Attiah quote.

[Sarcastr0]

"If we would have said three weeks ago […] that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist. But now they're coming out and they're saying it for us! They're coming out and they're saying, "I'm only here because of affirmative action."

Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously."

Not a fabricated quote.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-black-women/

Hows about you fuck off with your accusation of lying, asshole. It can go right along with you accusing me of being a fan of rape.

What the fuck is your problem?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Not a fabricated quote."

And you're lying again.

Of course, it doesn't help that Snopes is lying too.

[Krayt]

IDGAF if these a-holes are old.

Germany refused prosecution on venerable Nazis because they were ancient, calling it compassionate. This was not just compassionate release, but declination to prosecute new cases, which are still discerned from time to time.

It outrages other countries, but gets some support as a concept in the US. I'll let you guess which side is fine with it.

[Malika la Maize]

If we’re talking at an academic conference, sure. But if someone says “your uncle is a pedo” and your reply is “you’re wrong, the kid was 15 so he’s a statutory rapist, not a pedophile because that clinically is defined as srx with pre-puberty kids” you’re going to hear chuckles because it’s tone deaf in the context

[Dr. Ed 2]

Are you arguing it isn't worse if was a 3 year old?

[Malika la Maize]

I’m arguing it’s politically tone deaf to get into a discussion of what kind of child rape is worse.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why are you so invested in refusing to concede that having sex with an eight-year-old is not worse than an eighteen-year-old having consensual sex with a seventeen-year-old?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Again, no one wrote or claimed that. What Malika is saying is that "I'm a child rapist, but not technically a pedophile" isn't a politically successful move. I guess I'm glad it makes Trump apologists like yourself feel better about your political choices.

[Brett Bellmore]

If it's tone deaf to insist on being right rather than wrong, I'm proud to be tone deaf.

[Sarcastr0]

...Is that your approach to your marriage?

In reality, radical honesty is not much of a thing.

Those pretending to take a stand for The Truth are not being real.

[jb]

That can all be true, but you notice suddenly a bunch of MAGA people started caring about the distinction when it seems like maybe Trump is a bit closer to the "not legal but maybe not pedophilia" stuff than they had previously been led to believe. Up until the last couple of days, most of these folks were happy to label it all "pedophilia". In fact I posted a recent quote from the White House spokeswoman saying that Trump stopped being bffs with Epstein because Epstein was a pedophile. So it's hard to take very seriously this sudden interest in getting the terminology exactly right.

[not guilty]

Actually the distinctions among pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia are legitimate ones.

It is ironic, however, to see these distinctions being propounded vigorously by those who label an embryo or fetus as a "baby" and conflate the performance of lawful abortions with "murder."

[shawn_dude]

The same people finding new ways to say "pedophile" that don't sound as bad as "pedophile" for Trump and friends while not shying away from calling LGBT people "groomers" with a broad brush. It's almost like there's a double standard. Trying to minimize the sexual abuse of girls because your favorite dictator is implicated is "incredible." But we've seen this before when he was found liable for sexually assaulting Jean Carroll where the judge described it as basically "rape" as most people would understand it yet there's been a lot of bloviating about how it wasn't really rape, because the only fig leaf they've got is a dictionary argument.

I'd say this could be good news for Bill Clinton since everyone rushing to provide cover for Trump will also incidentally help him avoid some consequences.

[Bored Lawyer]

In many jurisdictions its perfectly legal. If you lower the age of consent, you lower the age of consent.

Is it disgusting, even if legal? Yes.

[shawn_dude]

Isn't part of the issue is that the minor girls were transported from one jurisdiction to another? If that's the case, doesn't that modify any mitigation the destination's laws might provide?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"adults having sex with 16 and 17 years is not pedophilia and actually pretty normal."

No one is saying it's normal, perhaps unless there's not a significant age difference, but why do you insist on conflating this with pedophilia?

If a 17-year old misrepresents her age, is the 18-year old who believes her a pedophile?

[Malika la Maize]

“He’s not a Nazi, he’s a white supremacist! The real question is why are you trying to equate the two, to normalize Nazism?” lol

[loki13]

MAGA then: EVERYONE WE DONT LIKE IS A PEDO!!!11!!!!!

MAGA now: Ak-shually, we need to have a rational and calm conversation about the specific age differences involved in pedophilia, and understand that because this is such a heinous word, we don't want to tar rich people with pejorative terms that make people think less of them when those rich people merely have illegal and icky sex with desperate and coerced underage teens that cause those kids lasting damage.

Everyone else- Bruh, just listen to yourself.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Loki:

EVERYONE WHO WON'T USE PEDO INCORRECTLY IS A PEDO!!!11!!!!!

[wvattorney13]

Right. It seems that the argument is that as you have already done something bad, we can exaggerate what you have done, and you have no moral authority to correct our false characterization of it. So once you go so far, we can slander you the rest of the way.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

No, the argument is that it is political death to have been shown to have had sex with a child, regardless of how young that child had to be to be technically labeled as pedophilia. It's a distinction that won't matter to the public at large.

And furthermore, how do you know whether or not Trump had sex with young girls, and how young they may have been?

[wvattorney13]

That's not the argument. Nobody has suggested that it is not political death to be caught having sex with a minor.

The debate here, and I know it is hard for your side to stay focused, is that it is not "pedophilia" to have sex with an underage yet post-pubescent minor. You want to resist that idea by saying that we are talking about everything but that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"He’s not a Nazi, he’s a white supremacist! The real question is why are you trying to equate the two, to normalize Nazism?"

So you're not willing to concede that that having sex with an eight-year-old is worse than an eighteen-year-old having sex with a seventeen-year-old?

[Dr. Ed 2]

From what I read, it was pretty normal circa 1970.

As I understand it, one of the problems with the Roman Palanski trial was finding a DA who hadn't himself had sex with a minor.

[David Nieporent]

You, of course, do not "understand it," or anything at all. They did not have any trouble finding a DA, but there was no "Roman Polanski trial" because he pleaded guilty; the only "problem" was that he fled before sentencing.

[jb]

"No one is saying it's normal,"

I suggest you pursue a few more of the posts in this very thread. The one from Kaz above not only tries to normalize it, but claims the 18 yo age of consent is a big problem!

[Kazinski]

It certainly is a problem, because the average girl has sex the first time at 17.3, some studies find it younger:

"15 percent of 20-to-24-year-olds born in the 1990s have not had sex since turning 18, compared to only 6 percent of comparable young adults born in the late 1960s—more than twice as many."

Any law that criminalizes, felonizes, the majority of Americans for natural human behavior is a problem.

A bunch of moral scolds.

But it certainly doesn't mean I condone prostituting minors, which is what Epstein and Maxwell did.

You can indulge in your moral panic if you want to, but don't expect me to join you.

[jb]

Are there any states that have an age of consent that is 18 that doesn't include an exception for a partner of a similar age?

The issue we're talking about here isn't kids having sex with other kids, it's middle age men sleeping with girls who should be in high school.

[TwelveInchPianist]

California. Don't know how many others.

[Armchair]

"The right wing contortions on whether or not there is something in the Epstein files have been amazing to witness."

Not really. Dems just released their biggest info dump...it was OK-ish for a news cycle. There's nothing else there. No Pedo, nothing really.

[Zarniwoop]

I thought Biden was incompetent! The GOP has claimed that for years!

Now his lack of action on something is reliable evidence, sufficient to prove a negative?

Huhn. Interesting take.

[Mr. Bumble]

Incontinent.

[wvattorney13]

Nobody is suggesting that Biden was reviewing the files with a drink next to the fire.

If there was something in the files that hurt Trump then Biden's puppet masters would have released them.

[Armchair]

"I thought Biden was incompetent!"

Apologies. I should have written the "Biden administration + friends". They found everything they could throw at Trump and then some. And even "this" wasn't worth pursuing.

So yeah.... They were willing to go after Trump because his employee stamped "for legal expenses" on a check...but even this didn't have anything.

[David Nieporent]

stamped "for legal expenses" on a check

No.

[Riva]

Remember the 20,000 Epstein emails? Be careful what you wish for Democrats. Worth reposting. Hat tip John Hinderaker, powerlineblog.com:

Jeffrey Epstein was a Democrat, and his friends and associates were overwhelmingly Democrats. He was prominent in academic circles, and was an insider at both Harvard and MIT. The only politician with whom he is known to have had a relatively significant relationship was Bill Clinton

Yet, the Democrats, in their ceaseless search for issues to distract from their own performance in office, have tried to link Epstein to President Trump. Last week, the House Oversight Committee cooperated by releasing 20,000 Epstein emails. Democrats greeted the release joyfully, only to find that out of 20,000 there are zero emails from Donald Trump, and zero emails to Donald Trump. Epstein name-dropped Trump, as he did Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, except that in Trump’s case he was mostly expressing antagonism.

And it turns out that in 2019, after Epstein was a convicted sex offender, Epstein texted a Democratic member of Congress in the middle of a hearing, advising her on ways the Democrats could "get" President Trump. Of course it didn’t work, because Epstein knew nothing about Trump that was of use.

The point is that Epstein hated Donald Trump, probably because Trump had told him, years before, never to darken the door of Mar-a-Lago again. So the Democrats’ glee over the 20,000 emails comes down to this: Epstein had no relationship with President Trump, and hated him.

Now President Trump has asked the Department of Justice to investigate Epstein’s relationships with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers–who, like Clinton, visited Epstein’s island–LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, and Epstein’s banks. Attorney General Pam Bondi has said that DOJ will do so. The New York Times is outraged, of course...

[Malika la Maize]

Of course the Times and any sensible person is outraged. The President just blatantly did what MAGAns caterwauled about for years. They claimed Obama and Biden directed the Justice Department to investigate him as a political opponent. Now Trump has done exactly that because he was embarrassed to be implicated in the Epstein affair and the AG said sir, yes sir.

It is amusing though that Trump is so dim he thinks the left is bothered by Larry Summers being targeted.

[Estragon]

I think I can speak for a lot of us when I say: please, take Larry Summers.

That certain folks around here keep saying “Clinton” over and over again as if that somehow neutralizes what is going on here is revealing of nihilistic cynicism, obviously, but also revealing of a kind of psychological blind spot. As I said yesterday, cynicism is a form of naïveté.

[Estragon]

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/11/17/summers-epstein-wing-man-woman-described-as-mentee/

I repeat. MAGA: please, I beg you, take Larry Summers. He’s all yours. His downfall would be one of the vanishingly few positives to emerge thus far from this horrendous affair.

[grb]

Malika la Maize : "The President just blatantly did what MAGAns caterwauled about for years."

It's a regular phenomena. For example, the Right has whined & wailed for years about corrupt elections without ever producing a scintilla of "election fraud" evidence. Then Right-wingers tried to steal an election.

They seem to be seduced by their own exaggeration and lies. Of course, try stepping back to look at the big picture: The Right of my youth were all about "personal responsibly". Today's group is endless excuses and professional 24/7 Victimhood. The old Right bewailed "identity politics". Today's bunch couldn't survive a second without it. Previously the Right was big on the truism of 2+2=4. Math was truth that couldn't be denied by wishful thinking. The Right of today believes economic "theories" replete with magical flying unicorns that fart rainbows across the sky.

I'm convinced if you take the Rightwing talking point given the most frenzied hysterical emphasis today and wait twenty years, you'll then find them embodying it. So, yes, in another quarter-century all the male MAGA pols will be wearing dresses....

[shawn_dude]

My take is that you've got cause and effect reversed. The MAGAsphere cabal gets together and says "we want to do X" and then they begin a marketing campaign to desensitize their cult to the horrors of X by first accusing the Left of doing it, repeatedly, for months before we find out the GOP is guilty of it.

Example: "Drag queens are Groomers!" when, in reality, Trump is the groomer (Miss Teen USA, Epstein, etc.) "Stealing an election!" while they plan a coup. "Biden in Senile!!1!" while they worry about Trump's constant need to take dementia tests and then brag about being "good" at them to the media. etc, etc, ...

[Malika la Maize]

“Epstein had no relationship with President Trump, and hated him.”

Uh huh, someone should have told Don!

“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/

[Magister]

If you try to stuff all of history into the memory hole, it is probably going to clog and back up. It won't stop the MAGAmites from trying, though.

[windycityattorney]

And yet... I have yet to hear one MAGA spokesperson or fanboy explain why convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell is right now at club fed, against DOJ's own guidelines, on orders of the Trump DOJ. Specifically, his deputy AG and former personal lawyer, Todd Blanche. Who met with Maxwell before her 'special move.'

WHY is she there? Why is Trump's DOJ doing favors for sex traffickers tied to Epstein? Hmmmm??? *CRICKETS* Maybe the south florida fed prosecutor should look into that?

[Moderation4ever]

It a little hard to believe that after expending so much effort to stop the release of the files the President now is giving in to the release. It could be he has finally accepted reality. This happened late on January 6, 2021 when Trump finally released he could not stop the certification of the 2020 election and told the insurrectionists to go home. It could also be strategy to let Congress act and then stop the release through another means. As for the false charges , I welcome President Trump retracting his request to investigate only his political enemies with regard to the Epstein matter.

[Estragon]

It seems pretty obvious to me what is happening here: Trump can read politico as well as anyone. Well, ok, Trump advisors can read at least.

After expending energy and political capital for months trying to prevent a vote on this material, Trump ultimately failed. The spectacle of Mike Johnson refusing to seat Grijalva for weeks on end finally became politically unsustainable (and was reaching a head legally, besides). So we got to 218 votes… but not before they literally had Bondi, Blanche and Patel drag Bobert into the situation room and attempt to strong arm her into backing off. She is the most obviously comprised of the three GOP reps but the flopsweat and desperation must have been so palpable that Bobert realized there is actually something of a there there.

So now that the vote goes to the whole house Trump is facing the prospect of mass defections on this (politico says up to 100 reps). So rather be exposed as having lost control of a substantial portion of his party, Trump will pretend he wants this (for now). John Thune— Trump turns his lonely eyes to you. Are there 60 votes in the Senate? Would Trump actually try to veto this?

[hobie]

I like to imagine that Boebert did more than talk in that room. This is Boebert afterall.

[shawn_dude]

Trump's re-discovered willingness to release the files might be a strong indicator that the Senate Republicans are unwilling to vote to release.

[Zarniwoop]

Sounds like TACO Tuesday came early this week.

[Bunny495]

As someone old enough to remember "release the JFK assassination files" clusterfuck the Epstein files release borders on funny. While I get it that Epstein/Maxwell acted like pimps for the rich and shameless as well as being borderline kinky with underage kids that pales in my mind compared to a sitting president being assassinated and huge questions still lingering in many people's minds. Look at how long the JFK files have remained hidden.

As I have repeatedly posted I am all for the release of all files in both cases (and probably a lot of other files the government is hiding). I am also jaded about a complete release given the history of the JFK files. As for the defense of Trump I look at his history. Before Trump ever met Epstein he was a well know slime doggy who had sex with multiple women he treated like disposable toys. Trump never seemed to have any trouble attracting women. Maybe he was good at hiding it but Melania was at least a 36DD, Stormy was at least a 44 double something; point is even Kara Young was not what I would call a "under age body type" that Trump has historically chased.

As for Epstein I have lots of questions. His rise (both socially and economically) seem to defy reality. Lots of his connections were very wealthy and powerful and not easy to understand given his what seems to be a sleezy history in financial advice. In fact what happened with Wexner would be the basis of a great Hollywood movie. Bottom line is while Epstein's sexual exploits get the headlines there are lots of other secrets that need to see the light of day.

[shawn_dude]

It's not just Epstein's sexual exploits we're talking about here. It's the "Rich and shameless" he marketed those exploits to who also partook or who were silent witnesses to the sexual abuse of children. Name and shame them all.

[Josh R]

In other words, Trump concedes defeat (a rarity!). Yet, he could order the release of the files without Congressional action. Why doesn't he?

[Bunny495]

As others have noted there are/will be ongoing investigations that preclude files being released. Not saying I don't want them released, just that ongoing investigations are a stumbling block.

[loki13]

Wait ... so what you're saying is that right before the Congressional vote to release the files*, Trump's DOJ suddenly claims that they are opening up an investigation into, oh, Clinton or something.

And therefore they can't release the files?

Did you also know that the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

*Which Trump did everything to stop, including trying to strong-arm one of the GOP signers of the petition in the situation room last week? He's literally been fighting this with everything he can for months and months with increasing desperation.

[Estragon]

The palpable desperation to forestall this vote really has me wondering. It all goes back to a conversation you and I had months ago: I thought this was already priced in! I think the most obvious explanation for what is in these files is what has already essentially been revealed by reporting and Trump’s own statements: Trump knew what Epstein was up to and didn’t do anything about it, even when Epstein and Maxwell started stealing spa girls from Mar A Lago. My guess is that Epstein had receipts showing Trump’s actual knowledge but that is as far as it goes.

But that level of exposure, while embarrassing and potentially politically damaging in the short term, wouldn’t seem to me to move the needle for anyone not already on board (or vice versa) with Don. I mean— we all sat through the entire Carroll trial. If nobody cared about him shoving his grubby little sausage fingers inside Ms Carroll, what tears would be shed over Trump looking the other way while Ghislaine tried to Shanghai spa girls? Armchair himself said this yesterday: what’s the big deal?

But the ridiculous refusal to seat Grijalva, combined with the attempted situation room strongarm, to me, looks significantly more desperate than would be warranted by the above.

[Estragon]

And as if to specifically dispel any doubts about what I just posited: here we have it, courtesy of Mr Bellmore above:

“Cue some 77 year old crone accusing Trump of having sex with her 62 years ago, and everybody on the left insisting it must be true, women never lie about that sort of thing.”

This sort of misconduct is already priced in. So why the flopsweat?

[not guilty]

Apparently the GOP rule is don't believe a rape accuser unless and until she has sworn an affidavit expressly denying that any untoward sexual conduct by Bill Clinton took place.

https://mediamalpractice.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Washingtonpost.com-AFFIDAVIT_JANE_DOE_-Clinton-Accused.pdf

[shawn_dude]

Independent voters in the mid-terms? Especially in states with high religiosity like Utah? Just guessing.

[John 4]

“Cue some 77 year old crone accusing Trump of having sex with her 62 years ago, and everybody on the left insisting it must be true, women never lie about that sort of thing.”

Nice, Brett!

[Estragon]

So yes, I think this investigation of Summers, Clinton, et al., is designed to provide yet another excuse to avoid releasing whatever is in these materials. An investigation, btw, that Bondi said as recently as this summer wasn’t warranted. Dumping this whole thing into SDNY’s lap isn’t going to make it go away though, quite the opposite— it prolongs it. It doesn’t really make a ton of sense to keep this on a slow burn unless there’s really a there there they are trying to keep quiet at any cost. One possibility is something about how Melania came into this world, but I am just guessing.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Ah. The ongoing investigation argument. Just like for his tax records. I am proud of Trump's support of procedural regularity.

As to "defeat," at least somewhat, but we are not quite at the end of the game here. Lots of delaying mechanisms are possible.

[Zarniwoop]

I'd be quite surprised if he's not doing a "supporting the House vote" TACO in public, while privately trying to strong-arm the Senate leadership/individual Senators into keeping a vote bottled up in committee, never to reach the floor.

[shawn_dude]

"procedural regularity" must be a euphemism for Trump's bowel movements at Mar a Lago surrounded by boxes of classified material.

[Mr. Hook]

Based on the responses, it would seem some on the right here have reached their come-to-Clinton moment of "it depends on what the definition of pedophilia is." Bold moral absolutists, we hardly knew ye.

[Bunny495]

Just this post on X. While I cannot confirm or deny the claim that there are "about a thousand" underaged peeps involved the sheer number suggests while we know some of the high-profile names this may only be the tip of the iceberg.

https://x.com/AaronParnas/status/1990203634152529965

[Sarcastr0]

Remember when everyone on this website who wasn't a puritain was a 'groomer?'

I sure do.

Good luck spending a ton of effort to really get in the weeds about which exact category of nonconsensual sex was happening.

[Estragon]

Groomer panic was always situational and trans-related but it became a lot less tenable once they nominated Matt Gaetz for Attorney General. But I agree; think back to the picture in the Epstein birthday book depicting grooming in crude drawing form. Grooming is now no big deal to parts of MAGA— just ask them!

[Zarniwoop]

Matt Gaetz was what happened when MAGA tried to place an order for Jeffrey Epstein on Temu.

[shawn_dude]

Zing!

[Zarniwoop]

I got curious about the discharge petition (H.R. 581). The summary reads:

This resolution provides a special rule for consideration of H.R. 185 and amends that bill to direct the Department of Justice (DOJ) to make publicly available certain records related to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell.

Under H.R. 185, as amended by the resolution, DOJ must publicly disclose all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in its possession that relate to Epstein or Maxwell. The records include unclassified records referring or relating to Epstein's detention and death; flight logs of aircraft owned or used by Epstein; individuals named in connection with Epstein’s criminal activities, civil settlements, or immunity or plea agreements; immunity deals, sealed settlements, or plea bargains of Epstein or his associates; entities with ties to Epstein’s trafficking or financial networks; and internal Department of Justice communications concerning decisions to investigate or charge Epstein or his associates.

However, under the amended bill, DOJ may withhold or redact portions of records with written justification that such portions contain (1) victims' personally identifiable information; (2) child sexual abuse materials; (3) images of death, physical abuse, or injury; (4) information which would jeopardize an active federal investigation or prosecution; or (5) classified information. DOJ may not withhold or redact records on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.

Further, within 15 days of completing the required disclosures, DOJ must provide Congress with a report listing all categories of records released and withheld, all redactions made and their legal basis, and all government officials and politically exposed persons named or referenced in the released materials.

(emphasis added). So yeah, that explains the sudden "investigate Clinton" zeal ... which would presumably (and conveniently) last until Trump is out of office. Compliance with the final paragraph might make it harder to keep rumors under wraps, but they'd stay rumors and thus out of thorough public scrutiny and crowd-sourced investigation.

[Commenter_XY]

Are you foreign and fat? Maybe taking anti-depressants? Do you have Parkinson's? Maybe COPD? Lung cancer?

You won't be coming to America and draining our medical system on the Taxpayer dime anymore.

https://www.newsmax.com/health/health-news/visa-trump-admin-chronic-illnesses/2025/11/14/id/1234549/

Certain medical conditions — including, but not limited to, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, cancers, diabetes, metabolic diseases, neurological diseases, and mental health conditions are now grounds for denial of visa.

[ducksalad]

Oh great. Then the retaliatory visa denials start and my vacation plans are shot just because I like to start the day with a hearty breakfast and to get my money's worth at buffets. Thanks a lot, little Marco.

[Commenter_XY]

No problem = retaliatory visa denials

Higher tariffs await. 😉

No need to have sick foreigners suckling on the public teat.

[Armchair]

These sorts of policies actually have a long history in other countries. That's why they make you show you have medical care insurance "in that country" or some way to cover it before visiting.

[bernard11]

What countries are these?

I've traveled a fair amount and have never been asked for this.

[santamonica811]

I think Armchair is thinking of the group tours abroad. Many (most? all???) do require demonstration of travel insurance/health insurance. The specifics vary wildly, depending on the length of the trip, the country or countries visited, and the particular tour company. I had to buy this insurance for a 2-month trip to China; for a 2-month trip through southern Africa, didn't have to buy for 2 weeks in Turkey; did for 10 days in Antarctica (which was almost pointless...where the hell were they going to evacuate us to, in the event of a medical emergency while on Antarctica?)

[Bob from Ohio]

"my vacation plans are shot"

Stay in the US. Everything in the world can be found here.

[bernard11]

Yeah. A whole herd of migrating wildebeest went down my street just yesterday.

You're an idiot.

[Bob from Ohio]

Buffalo here.

[bernard11]

I hope that was a joke.

[santamonica811]

I think so. (At the very least; here in the USA, it would be bison, not buffalo, no?)

[Estragon]

“Everything in the world can be found here.”

Sure, little buddy. If you’re 12!

[Bob from Ohio]

Art, go to NYC. Beaches, Hawaii or SoCal or US virgin islands. Skiing, Colorado or NY. Mountains and forests, Yellowstone or other parks. Quaint little towns and big cities. Historic battlefields. Prairies. Great rivers.

[bernard11]

That's even more absurd than your earlier comment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How is this different from countries that won't let Americans in unless they have prepaid health insurance covering them for the duration of their stay?

[Krayt]

I worked overseas in Europe for a while. I went to the doctor. The company provided me with out of country insurance. The doctor said don't bother, unnecessary.

But I was living and paying taxes there, who knows? They did have some issue about their kind of social security vs. the US's, as they had reciprocity agreements to pay your source country's taxes as long as it was roughly equivalent in quality. This decision had not yet been made at the time (so the tax firm the company paid to do my taxes said) but then got decided in the positive.

[jb]

You can't be dumb enough to think that having a visa somehow entities you to free medical care in the US, can you? I know you guys had to try to go along with the lie that federal Medicaid dollars were somehow paying for illegal immigrants, but this one doesn't even seem to rely on a live political debate.

[ThePublius]

Medicaid Spending on Illegal Aliens Has Cost Taxpayers over $16.2 Billion Under Open Border Czar Harris

"WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its analysis of the cost to taxpayers of Vice President Kamala Harris’ open border agenda on the Medicaid program. CBO estimates that the Biden-Harris Administration’s open border agenda cost federal and state taxpayers more than $16.2 billion to provide Medicaid-funded emergency services to illegal aliens during the first three years of the Administration. This
is a staggering increase of 124 percent compared to the same period under the Trump Administration."

https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/cbo_on_medicaid_for_illegal_immigrants.pdf

[jb]

As usual, you read the headline but don't bother to look at the actual details. That's spending on emergency services, which is reimbursing hospitals for emergency care that they're obliged to provide.

Importantly, your own doc includes the following statement: 'Illegal aliens without documentation are
considered “non-qualified aliens” under PRWORA and thus statutorily barred
from receiving most federal benefits.'

So, once again you yourself are linking to documents that make clear the federal government doesn't pay for regular Medicaid for undocumented aliens.

All of which has nothing to do with XY's new dumb claim about visa restrictions, of course.

[ThePublius]

First of all, I read the entire paper I linked; it's only 3 pages, after all. Don't tell me what I've read or haven't read.

You said "I know you guys had to try to go along with the lie that federal Medicaid dollars were somehow paying for illegal immigrants,...." That is categorically wrong. Medicaid dollars are paying for illegal immigrants, as the CBO report says.

You didn't qualify it in any way.

Slice it anyway you want, what you said is still baloney.

[John 4]

There is literally zero work shown in that "paper", just to be clear.

[ThePublius]

"You can't be dumb enough to think that having a visa somehow entities you to free medical care in the US, can you? "

If that includes emergency medical care, which it must since you didn't qualify it, you must be dumb enough, or disingenuous enough to think that it doesn't entitle you to free medical care in the U.S. - paid for with Medicaid dollars.

Change my mind.

[jb]

There's actually not an entitlement to free medical care for undocumented immigrants or those newly entered on visas. There is a law that says that hospitals have to provide emergency care to everyone, but they're allowed to charge for that care. Separately, there's a law that compensates hospitals when they provide such care, can't get payment from the patient, and that person would otherwise qualify for Medicaid (as you note below). But since you're trying to nitpick language rather than engage in a good faith discussion, what I wrote is completely correct.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, we have indeed established that a lot of federal money gets spent on providing free medical care to illegal aliens, and you're only quibbling about the precise mechanism by which it is accomplished.

[Sarcastr0]

Have we indeed established that?

[ThePublius]

The CBO says so, and the evidence is so thick we're tripping over it.

It's a fact that TPS and parolees get Medicaid funded care. They are technically here illegally (thanks to Biden).

[jb]

"They are technically here illegally (thanks to Biden)."

Huh? If Biden invited them using legal protections in US law, how are they here illegally?

[ThePublius]

They entered the U.S. illegally and the Biden admin. paroled them into the U.S. awaiting hearings. So, they are here illegally.

[jb]

While some may have entered illegally, many people who TPS applies to entered the country legally and then were allowed to stay longer and/or work legally as a result of TPS.

As for parole, the whole point of the Biden parole programs was to give people fleeing hardship a legal way to enter the country rather than crossing illegally. The CHNV program, for example, excluded people who had entered illegally and instead provided a way for them to apply for parole and then cross legally into the US.

[ThePublius]

"Of Course Illegal Immigrants Access Public Health Benefits
Shutdown debate misses the fact that illegals already get taxpayer-funded healthcare through other pathways"

https://cis.org/Richwine/Course-Illegal-Immigrants-Access-Public-Health-Benefits

[Krayt]

If The People, in their wisdom, decide to force hospitals to provide first, in emergencies anyway, collect later, and they cannot collect for whatever reason, then I'm fine with The People making up the differences through general revenue.

This includes illegal aliens, the same way killing one is still murder.

[bernard11]

Thank you, Krayt. If someone is in a car accident I'm unwilling to let them die on the road, regardless of their immigration status.

Lots of conservatives, many of them self-described Christians, seem to disagree.

[Poxigah146]

No, what we believe (although I'm not a Christian) is that they shouldn't be here in the first place.

[ThePublius]

More on this:

"Undocumented immigrants [ed.: illegal immigrants] in the U.S. are entitled to receive emergency medical care at hospitals. A federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), requires almost all hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment for emergency conditions to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay, citizenship, or immigration status.
While the care itself is provided, it is not always entirely "free" in the common understanding of health insurance, as the costs are often covered in different ways:
Emergency Medicaid: Hospitals can be reimbursed for the costs of emergency services through a program called Emergency Medicaid if the individual meets all other Medicaid eligibility criteria (such as low income) but for their immigration status. This funding is shared by federal and state governments and often covers a significant portion of the cost, including labor and delivery services.
Uncompensated Care: The reimbursement may not cover the full cost of care, leading to uncompensated care costs for hospitals. These costs are often passed on to other patients or absorbed by the hospital, sometimes using "charity care" programs.
Taxpayer Funding: The portion of the costs covered by Emergency Medicaid is funded through taxpayer money at both the federal and state levels."

Note that last head - Taxpayer Funding. Yes, we taxpayers are underwriting the costs of emergency medical care for illegals. You're welcome.

[Poxigah146]

Also, remember that their "citizen" children are indeed entitled to all sorts of free services for the indigent, including medical care.

[David Nieporent]

Once again, we see that MAGA is just flat-out lying when they pretend their objection is only to illegal immigration. They just hate foreigners and look for any excuse to keep them out.

[ThePublius]

That's bullshit. First, "MAGA" is not some monolithic block of thinking and acting. Second, most who would associate with the MAGA movement do not hate foreigners. To say so is not only untrue, it's nasty and intellectually lazy.

[Malika la Maize]

“First, "MAGA" is not some monolithic block of thinking and acting.”

It’s true, their uniform, unqualified support of Trump is expressed sometimes via hat, sometimes in other ways.

[ThePublius]

MAGA is not a thing. There's no group, no organization, nothing. It's a 'thing' the Dems, libs, and progs have invented to malign people who don't agree with them and vote with them.

[Michael P]

Hey, hey, that argument only works for Antifa.

[Malika la Maize]

Do all those hats stand for Make America Goofy Again?

[ThePublius]

Oh, so you think that hat constitutes a uniform that makes the wearer a member of a particular organization? If I wear a Yankees hat does that mean I play for the Yankees?

[David Nieporent]

I suppose you're just trying to be ironic about such statements about antifa. But I agree that those things are true about MAGA — though there is one distinction between Antifa and MAGA, which is that the latter has a spiritual orange leader. (Spiritual in the sense that he's worshipped, not the formal legal head.)

But what MAGA — and antifa — are are movements. And what defines a movement is sharing a common set of beliefs and goals.

[ThePublius]

No one is funding so-called MAGAns to fly and be bused all over the country to protest and disrupt things, be supplied with posters and weapons, like bricks, be supplied with water bottles and 'rations' - yet, Antifa is. Antifa is organized and funded. MAGA is no such thing.

[David Nieporent]

No one is funding antifa to fly or be bused anywhere, or supplying them with weapons, bricks, or anything else. Where do you people get this lunacy?

[bernard11]

Come on, David. You must know Soros is behind it all.

[David Nieporent]

Apparently Antifa™ is both an international terrorist organization and an organization so small that it can't gin up local protests on their own but must bring in people from elsewhere in the country to demonstrate.

[David Nieporent]

Second, most who would associate with the MAGA movement do not hate foreigners.

You are correct; I misspoke. They don't all hate foreigners. Some do; others just hate foreigners being in this country.

[ThePublius]

And Democrats, liberals, and progressives are all anti-semites. Right?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, not necessary hate, as such, but, sure: Most of the world's population lives somewhere other than the US, and will never come here. It's not like it's such a terribly imposition to say that they can keep on doing so, doesn't require that you hate them.

[wvattorney13]

Are you just running interference to bail out your argument partners who declare untrue things like how Medicaid pays no money for illegal immigrants?

Once they do that, ole DN steps in and helps them out by throwing another bomb here to redirect the flack.

[Sarcastr0]

your argument partners

If your arguing is about making it some kind of us/them thing, you're losing.

[Bunny495]

As a 100% service connected disabled veteran I have been pleased with how the VA treats me. The city I live in only has an out patient VA clinic and once they sent me to the local hospital emergency room. It was a real eye opener. Before I left the VA clinic I was given a manila folder with some of my records. I had to wait for two peeps ahead of me in the line and both were jerks arguing with the tirage clerk and generally being dicks. Once both of them were told to sit down and wait I approached the triage clerk and handed him my manilla folder. He opened it, read the first page, flipped through the rest, and told me to have a seat. Literally a minute later a nurse came out and called my name; much to the chagrin of the two peeps I waited in line behind.

Bottom line is if you show up at an emergency room with health care coverage and a note from a medical doctor explaining why she sent you there you are treated like it is an emergency and quickly get care. If you show up and the first thing you do is open your big mouth and start blabbing you are told to sit down and wait.

[Swede425]

Many people don't understand the 2 halves of the VA.
I've always had pretty good treatment from the medical side of the house. My hearing aids are top of the line, too.
The rating side of the house, however, is often a struggle. The inconsistencies are pretty flagrant. I'm currently rated at 70% and I have a few brands in the fire but those are going to be fights, like most of them were. I think some vets, who've struggled with the rating side, tend to take their frustrations out on the medical side. Not fair, but understandable if you don't see the difference.

[shawn_dude]

LOL... I thought this was an ad to apply for ICE employment...

[ducksalad]

Compare this:

As I said on Friday night aboard Air Force One to the Fake News Media, House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat “Shutdown.” The Department of Justice has already turned over tens of thousands of pages to the Public on “Epstein,” are looking at various Democrat operatives (Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman, Larry Summers, etc.) and their relationship to Epstein, and the House Oversight Committee can have whatever they are legally entitled to, I DON’T CARE! All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT, which is the Economy, “Affordability” (where we are winning BIG!), our Victory on reducing Inflation from the highest level in History to practically nothing, bringing down prices for the American People, delivering Historic Tax Cuts, gaining Trillions of Dollars of Investment into America (A RECORD!), the rebuilding of our Military, securing our Border, deporting Criminal Illegal Aliens, ending Men in Women’s Sports, stopping Transgender for Everyone, and so much more! Nobody cared about Jeffrey Epstein when he was alive and, if the Democrats had anything, they would have released it before our Landslide Election Victory. Some “members” of the Republican Party are being “used,” and we can’t let that happen. Let’s start talking about the Republican Party’s Record Setting Achievements, and not fall into the Epstein “TRAP,” which is actually a curse on the Democrats, not us. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

to this:

Wacky Marjorie “Traitor” Brown (Remember, Green turns to Brown where there is ROT involved!) is working overtime to try and portray herself as a victim when, in actuality, she is the cause of all of her own problems. The fact is, nobody cares about this Traitor to our Country!
....
I am withdrawing my support and Endorsement of “Congresswoman” Marjorie Taylor Greene, of the Great State of Georgia. Over the past few weeks, despite my creating Record Achievements for our Country including, a Total and Complete Victory on the Shutdown, Closed Borders, Low Taxes, No Men in Women’s Sports or Transgender for Everyone, ending DEI, stopping Biden’s Record Setting Inflation, Biggest Regulation Cuts in History, stopping EIGHT WARS, rebuilding our Military, being RESPECTED by every Country in the World (as opposed to being the laughingstock that we were just 12 months ago!), having Trillions of Dollars (Record Setting!) INVESTED in the U.S.A., and having created the “HOTTEST” Country anywhere in the World from being a DEAD Country just 12 months ago (and so much more!), all I see “Wacky” Marjorie do is COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN! It seemed to all begin when I sent her a Poll stating that she should not run for Senator, or Governor, she was at 12%, and didn’t have a chance (unless, of course, she had my Endorsement — which she wasn’t about to get!). She has told many people that she is upset that I don’t return her phone calls anymore, but with 219 Congressmen/women, 53 U.S. Senators, 24 Cabinet Members, almost 200 Countries, and an otherwise normal life to lead, I can’t take a ranting Lunatic’s call every day. I understand that wonderful, Conservative people are thinking about primarying Marjorie in her District of Georgia, that they too are fed up with her and her antics and, if the right person runs, they will have my Complete and Unyielding Support. She has gone Far Left, even doing The View, with their Low IQ Republican hating Anchors. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
...
Lightweight Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Brown (Green grass turns Brown when it begins to ROT!), betrayed the entire Republican Party when she turned Left, performed poorly on the pathetic View, and became the RINO that we all know she always was. Just another Fake politician, no different than Rand Paul Jr. (Thomas Massie), who got caught being a full fledged Republican In Name Only (RINO)! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!

Why is he so mad at Empty Gee and Massie? Precisely because they signed the petition to release the files.

[Kazinski]

You haven't been paying attention, Massie has been a thorn for a while, one of only two GOP votes in the house to vote against the OBBBA, and almost everything else on the GOP agenda.

MTG broke with Trump over support for Israel and the Iran war. There are dozens more that have been just as vocal about releasing the "Epstein files" who he hasn't had any problem with.

But this might be the real reason she quit him:

https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1990183095023087816?s=20

[jb]

"There are dozens more that have been just as vocal about releasing the "Epstein files" who he hasn't had any problem with."

Uh huh. Other than Mace and Bobert, none of them were willing to sign Massey's discharge petition, though.

[Estragon]

Maybe there’s one thing we can all agree on. Bondi really screwed up in two related ways: 1) saying that the list was on her desk and 2) inviting all those influencers to the white house and handing out those nothingburger binders. So stupid.

She’s been fighting for her political life ever since then, which is why I suspect she immediately agreed to open this new investigation Trump demanded, even after she said there was nothing to be investigated. I don’t know that dumping this hot potato into Jay Clayton’s lap will have the desired effect, however.

[Bunny495]

Not sure why you think Bondi is fighting for her political life. Seems to me she is no danger of being replaced.

[Estragon]

Loomer wants her replaced. That is big danger in Trump world. She’s doing obviously stupid things out of desperation.

[grb]

Bunny495 : "Not sure why you think Bondi is fighting for her political life."

Bondi has to have a special place in Trump's heart for two reasons:

1. He successfully bribed her in the past - and we all know his soft-spot for fellow criminals. There was a point when state AGs had to decide whether to support legal action against DJT's fake university. Bondi was wavering for Florida until Trump delivered a tall pile of cash. Someone corrupt and without ethics had to be a top candidate when the druggie & underage rapist Gaetz had to drop from consideration for the nation's highest legal position.

2. But there's more! Bondi took her payout from Trump's fraud charity. When that was exposed, she had to return every red cent. Apparently Bondi didn't know political donations from charitable organizations are strictly limited. But I suspect DJT is doubly fond of her for that very reason. She was successfully bribed in the past but had to fully refund the payoff back to Trump. Venal and stupid at once, it's like she was made for Trump.

[Moderation4ever]

It is one thing to sign a petition and another for a member of Congress to vote on a bill. A vote will create a permanent record that will have to be address at election time. It why you see so many Republicans talk about cutting spending and yet don't want take a vote to cut spending. Now forced to take a vote more will support that release.

[jb]

Yes, that's true. As you say: they weren't willing to actually try to push to get the files released, but now that it's going to happen either way they'll definitely go back to voting for it to avoid being conspicuously pro-pedo.

[ThePublius]

So, you think it's rational to assert that Republicans are pro-pedo? You should have your head examined.

[shawn_dude]

They're pro-Trump and only care about charges of pedophilia if the targets are LGBT. Which implies they don't care about pedophilia itself just its usefulness as a means to dehumanize scapegoats.

[Riva]

The trolls will do anything to distract from the democrats’ failure to put forward any policy agenda a sane voter would support.

[John 4]

No comment about the unhinged lunacy those quotes entail?

[ducksalad]

Unhinged? Yes but not exactly - the repeated muttering of a list of points is something people do when they're afraid of forgetting. So he's still hinged enough to realize that he's starting to have trouble with recall, and that list of "accomplishments" is something that he needs very badly. He wants to remember why he is the greatest president ever.

Most of us have done it ourselves even when young, when it's something like a list of bones for an anatomy exam or stuff a friend asked us to pick up at the grocery. Then it progresses to the old uncle who keeps repeating his favorite war stories to anyone who'll listen, and then to himself. And finally in memory care, the old woman who keeps muttering "I have two sons and a daughter and my name is Susan" over and over, trying to hang on to at least that.

So: the uncle with the war stories is not yet unhinged, but he feels it coming. Would normally call for kindness and tolerance...unless he's in charge of the family business or trying to fly an airplane.

[Riva]

Nothing unhinged here except the TDS deranged trolls commenting in this thread.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Leftist Loon in Maine is imploding.
https://www.themainewire.com/2025/11/platner-misses-federal-filing-deadline-as-senior-staff-departures-mount/

The disclosure issue follows reporting that the campaign elected to place Platner’s wife on its payroll rather than risk affecting the candidate’s disability payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Platner has said he does not take income from his oyster farm and instead relies on $4,800 per month in VA disability benefits.

How is this not fraud?

Platner is 100 disabled because of purported PTSD and because he "can't work" and yet he does. That's fraud to me...

[Sarcastr0]

Oh man but I heard the left loved him because he was a Nazi like they are.

I guess maybe we have to look elsewhere for the Nazi condoners.

[hobie]

Yep. I too only like him because he's an antisemitic tranny terrorist Nazi...just like the rest of us libs.

[Frank Drackman]

Do you ever say anything that's not either idiotic or ignorant, or in this case, both??
VA "Disability" has nothing to do with one's ability to work, if you were a Veteran, or knew any, you'd know this (I know, you didn't serve, the Astigmatism, guess that's better than "Homo, much better now though")
I've seen Vets who are rated at 300-400%, usually because they have 30-40 conditions each rated at 10%. and most of them still work, and the VA knows about it, and doesn't care, because that's not why they're getting paid.
Now if your disability renders you unable to work, that's a different matter, and you get a different payment, that ones harder to get. I saw a Vet who had terminal Lung Cancer, still showed up to work every day, one day he didn't show up, they called his home,
"Oh he just died, he won't be coming in today"
Next you'll be telling me Platner had a "Nazi" Tattoo

Frank

[hobie]

I wonder if racism is a disability. You should look into that, Frankie.

[Malika la Maize]

or Writing. in bizarre Way( ???

[Dr. Ed 2]

Now explain why he would lose the money if he received income.

[Dr. Ed 2]

WHY is Trump *so* determined to keep the Epstein files secret when he's not in them?

And he's not because the Dems would have released them otherwise.

[Moderation4ever]

Not sure where you are ting to go but I would point out that earliest calls for the release of the Epstein files was on the part of the MAGA crowd, Vance, Bongino, Patel, etc. The Democrats only became interested as the Trump administration sought to hold up the files. Again the coverup attracts more attention than the crime.

[hobie]

Yep. I've been ignoring all the QAnon shit from the right for years. My antennae only shot up when the Orange Caligula told everyone to stop talking about it. This is all a complete MAGA own-goal.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Remember when Roberts saved NoBama NoCare and people speculated on extortion?

Well....

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Are you comparing that allegation with MAGA screaming for release of the Epstein files?

[David Nieporent]

No.

[Malika la Maize]

The Trump Organization is in talks that could bring a Trump-branded property to one of Saudi Arabia’s largest government-owned real estate developments, according to the chief executive of the Saudi company leading the development.

The negotiations are the latest example of President Trump blending governance and family business, particularly in Persian Gulf countries.

Since returning to office, the president’s family and businesses have announced new ventures abroad involving billions of dollars, made hundreds of millions from cryptocurrency, and sold tickets to a private dinner hosted by Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump is set to host Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, in Washington next week…

Next week, Prince Mohammed is expected to make his first visit to the United States in seven years. He hopes to sign a mutual defense agreement with Washington and potentially advance a deal to transfer American nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.

That sets up a scenario in which Mr. Trump discusses matters of national security with a foreign leader who is also a key figure in a potential business deal with the president’s family.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/15/world/middleeast/trump-organization-saudi-development-deal.html

[hobie]

In 2001, how quickly would someone get locked away if they suggested giving nuclear technology (which eventually means weapons) to a gulf terror state...Saudi Arabia?

[shawn_dude]

From a nation where a significant number of 9/11 terrorists were from.

[Moderation4ever]

The American people were told that the Trump Administration was going after undocumented criminal aliens. What the American people have seen is that the Trump Administration has quotas that means you pick up as many people as you can, be they citizens, long term hard working residents, spouse of American service people, and even children getting cancer treatment. The American people have responded and it been reported that in Chicago people are buying up and donating street vendors merchandise to help these immigrant workers from have to spend too much time exposed. Well done.

[Kazinski]

That's not what I voted for, nor what most voters voted for:

"May 20, 2024 — Fully 56 percent of voters said most or all immigrants in the US illegally should be rounded up and deported, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found."

You are mistaken, what we were told was criminal illegals were the priority, but they would get to everyone here illegally.

[Malika la Maize]

Most=everyone?

[Bwaaah]

That would be stupid, like your faux question.

[Malika la Maize]

Are you playing a disaffected illiterate today?

56 percent of voters said *most* or all immigrants in the US illegally should be rounded up and deported, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found."

You are mistaken, what we were told was criminal illegals were the priority, but they would get to *everyone* here

[Magister]

Answering a poll is not voting. But if we're looking at polls, very few 2024 voters listed illegal immigration as the most important issue.

[Kazinski]

What's that got to do with it?

A candidate runs on a platform, and when he is elected voters have every expectation of them trying to implement their platform.

And voters seem to approve after 10 months of seeing what the implementation looks like:
"Just 13% said they opposed the deportation of criminal migrants and 27% said they opposed the removal of everyone in the US illegally, compared to 50% who said they supported the drastic move."

And go ahead and quibble with the poll, I just picked it because it was in the last month.

But the 2024 poll and this poll certainly refute the idea that a significant majority of "The American people" didn't know what Trump intended and no longer support it.

https://nypost.com/2025/10/28/us-news/even-democrats-support-one-part-of-trumps-deportation-plan-poll/

[Magister]

You pointed to a poll as evidence of what people voted for; polling shows more Trump voters voted for reducing prices, which was supposed to happen on day 1. It's a rare voter who gets exactly what they want from a president's platform.

Plenty of polls don't show the support for Trump's immigration crackdown, because it's clearly not aimed solely at immigrants who committed crimes and tramples all over other people, even citizens.

[ducksalad]

Yeah, let's see. 70+% of voters say that congress is doing a bad job. 70+% of voters favor term limits. And then you put a name and a face on the congressmen and they get re-elected about 90% of the time. Sometimes for a dozen terms, with votes from people who say no congressman should go more than twice.

People say sex offenders need to be locked up for life, they don't care what they did because every bit of it is totally inexcusable. Or that every homicide needs the death penalty because a life for a life, period. Then they get on a jury and end up sometimes agreeing to probation.

Do you get my point? Easy to say tough eliminationist stuff when it's in the abstract. Easy to spout absolutes when you haven't considered the specifics.

A lot of those 56% were conned into a mental image of a raping felon living on welfare. And then they find out it's their hot dog vendor.

[Josh R]

If you ask people whether people should be deported who have lived a long time in the USA without a criminal record, you get a much different answer.

I think mass deportations are likely slightly a minority view and would become a smaller minority once people see their friends, coworkers, etc. being deported.

[Kazinski]

I think Congress should increase the number of immigrant visas available. Currently the are processing family based immigrant applications for siblings of American Citizens filed "08JAN08" or more than17 years ago.

Why should someone who illegally crossed the border with no vetting whatsoever be rewarded and moved ahead of an immediate relative of an American Citizen that already has ties to this country and a support network and will undergo a background check before they receive their visa?

[Josh R]

I'm all for making it harder to get into and stay here illegally while making it easier to come here legally. But, for those already here for "long enough" without criminal records, they get amnesty. We just have to make sure the same thing doesn't happen (at least not in large numbers) again. If that takes a wall, fine.

[Poxigah146]

Sorry, we've already been sold the "amnesty this one time, but never again" lie before.

Not happening again.

[Josh R]

The wall will stop it from happening again. I'm open to other ideas if you think that's not sufficient.

[Kazinski]

Lets send them home and make them wait 10 years to reapply to come back legally.

That's not my idea, that's what Congress decided.

Maybe you should explain why your preferences should override the law as Congress wrote it.

[Josh R]

It's called a compromise. They have been here long enough they are de facto permanent residents.

[Kazinski]

Then write your congressman, or call their office.

But you are advocating Trump act like a King and just ignore the law he has a duty to follow.

[Josh R]

WTF? I expressed my opinion of what the policy should be. I didn't say boo about Trump. Of course Congress has to set the policy.

[David Nieporent]

Immigration visas come in different categories; family reunification visas are one, and other types, like the lottery, are another, and one doesn't affect the other. (There are strict quotas on non-immediate family members, while there are few on spouses and minor children.)

People who crossed the border illegally are not getting visas at all; a decision not to round them up and deport them does not "move them ahead" of anyone else.

[Poxigah146]

What if you ask those people whether an illegal who has lived a long time in the USA without a criminal record, but doesn't speak English, has a menial job, and uses the emergency room as a doctor's office?

[Josh R]

Forget the last point because they have to use the emergency room. I'm open to requiring English proficiency, but any job will do.

[Poxigah146]

You realize that low income people of all races and legal statuses use far more in government services than they provide in taxes, right?

[Josh R]

Sounds like you want to greatly curtail legal immigration. I don't.

[Bob from Ohio]

"American people were told that the Trump Administration was going after undocumented criminal aliens"

When did Trump say it would ONLY be "undocumented criminal aliens"?

Be specific.

[shawn_dude]

When did Trump say he wouldn't revoke legal status over speech he doesn't like, make them illegal overnight, and then deport them? When did Trump say he wouldn't deport the citizen children of immigrants and deport them? When did Trump say he wouldn't pick up the legal, immigrant spouses of military members and deport them? When did Trump say he wouldn't pick up immigrant US military veterans with a minor traffic infraction or decades old PTSD incident and deport them?

Seriously, when did Trump say he wouldn't target US-born citizens, revoke citizenship, and deport them? We know he's floated this idea already and is challenging birthright citizenship.

[Moderation4ever]

When questioned about deporting undocumented aliens JD Vance and other administrative officials spoke about prioritizing those undocumented with criminal records. People want criminals here illegally deported not food cart vendors.

[apedad]

The U.S. Postal Service has experienced significant financial losses over the years, with the following notable figures:

https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2025/1114-usps-reports-fiscal-year-2025-results.htm

FY 2025: $9.0 billion net loss
FY 2024: $9.5 billion net loss
FY 2023: $6.5 billion net loss
FY 2022: Adjusted loss of $473 million
FY 2021: $6.5 billion net loss
FY 2020: $10 billion net loss due to pandemic relief
FY 2019: $6.5 billion net loss
FY 2018: $6.5 billion net loss
FY 2017: $6.5 billion net loss
FY 2016: $6.5 billion net loss
FY 2015: $6.5 billion net loss

I wonder why they call it a "loss" when it's a govt agency that is not profit driven.

We don't say the Department of Defense loses money even though its budget is multiple times bigger.

[Kazinski]

It is a "government corporation" which is supposed to pay its own way, but can't.

They could probably pay there own way if they cut mail delivery to 3 days a week which is all most people need, Businesses could get a PO box or pay extra for 5 day delivery.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like Amtrack.

[Malika la Maize]

Both Amtrak and the Post Office are tasked with political imperatives that private companies would not undertake, it’s understandable they don’t make money.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bingo!

[Malika la Maize]

Lord you’re dim. The point is that it’s a pretense “corporate” form for government agencies, and, as mentioned, government agencies “lose” money.

[Bwaaah]

Bumble agreed with you. You couldn't handle that?

[grb]

Whenever Bumble agrees with me, I break out the champagne. I just wish it happened more often.

(for his sake, not mine)

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm trying.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Amtrak sold me a can of Diet Pepsi for $2 that I could buy at WalMart for 60 cents -- and managed to lose over $6 in the process.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I can't get over how much they charge for PO Boxes.

35 years ago, it was $5/year for one -- it's now $250 a year!
And it's cheaper to deliver to a PO box than lug it to the house.

40 years ago, Boston to Bangor was 2 days -- you'd receive it on the 3rd. Now it can take 7 days within the same town!

And 60 years ago, cities had TWICE a day delivery, they came around again in the afternoon.

Have you been in a Post Office recently? They are all empty...

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Move to an area like Hatteras Island, that has no mail delivery. Your PO Box is free. And I can assure you, the post office isn't empty.

[jb]

They could also pay their own way if they cut the number of rural post offices dramatically, and didn't have to actually deliver the mail to houses far away from post offices for the same price as houses in walking distance from the post office.

As with many things in America, cities are massively subsidizing rural areas for critical services. Given the anti-government voting tendencies of those rural voters, I'm pretty fine at this point removing the subsidy and letting them get the postal service the free market will provide to them.

[wvattorney13]

How are you going to get all of your mail in ballots to the voters who can't find a polling place? Sounds like a poll tax to me.

[jb]

They can still drive to the nearest drop box or post office. And there's still in-person voting as an option even if it's less convenient.

But your comment highlights an interesting point: mail in voting is usually more convenient than in person voting. Republicans used to love mail in voting because it was often more readily available to groups that vote for them, such as old people and the military. When mail in voting became generally available during the pandemic, suddenly Republicans didn't like it any more because it was no longer providing added convenience for their own voting base, but actually made it more likely all sorts of people might be able to benefit.

[Bored Lawyer]

The Dept. of Defense does not charge user fees, the US Post Office does.

[Malika la Maize]

And the Post Office doesn’t “lose” as much as DOD. Stop being silly.

[grb]

Bored Lawyer : "The Dept. of Defense does not charge user fees, the US Post Office does."

Huh? Do we expect the motor vehicle department of any given state to turn a profit because it charges for licenses and registration? The pretense USPS and Amtrak are businesses supposed to make money is off-the-charts ludicrous in every way. It's just political kabuki, with no connection to reality.

99% of rightwing pols who rail against the pair as failed businesses would never permit them to either (a) make the changes necessary to earn a profit, or (b) shut down because their operating model makes profit impossible. As empty political rhetoric goes, this is emptier than most.

[ThePublius]

"Since the Postal Reorganization Act came into effect in 1971, the USPS has been mandated to be self-financing and rely solely on revenue from stamps and package deliveries to support itself.[151][152] In 1982, postal stamps were changed to be categorized as products rather than a form of taxation, and since then, the Postal Service has no longer received taxpayer funding.[151]"

"Founded in 1971 as a quasi-public corporation to operate many U.S. passenger rail routes, Amtrak receives a combination of state and federal subsidies but is managed as a for-profit organization."

[wvattorney13]

Countdown to 3...2..1..

Why do you support pedophiles?

[shawn_dude]

Various postal service reform acts have saddled the USPS with retirement funding liabilities and even require it to fund expected future liabilities in ways most companies and no other federal agencies have to do. There's been a general trend of stacking more bricks on the back of USPS in the name of "reform" that could ultimately lead to regular losses (as seen above) and provide plenty of excuses to privatize the service.

A note to rural voters who trend Republican: if your internet and phone service suck, your mail service is next.

[Mr. Bumble]

Twenty years after the fighting and seventeen years after PBS scrubbed the release of this documentary this film is now available on PBS and Amazon.
" "The Last 600 Meters: The Battles of Najaf and Fallujah", written and directed by Michael Peck, is a gripping documentary that weaves firsthand accounts and raw combat footage into a vivid reconstruction of two key battles of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2004."
https://pjmedia.com/greg-young/2025/11/10/revisiting-iraq-in-the-last-600-meters-the-battles-of-najaf-and-fallujah-n4945819

"Further detail from David Zimmerman in The Washington Examiner,

PBS initially rejected the documentary in 2008 because of its perceived pro-military bias and lack of political commentary, even though the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was the project’s principal funder at the start. The network then began to dictate the direction of the final cut, but Pack wasn’t willing to compromise on his vision.

It was only recently that PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger decided to broadcast it upon reexamination. Pack credited her courage in reversing the company’s past decisions.

“We owe her a great debt. It’s not easy to do that, and I really appreciate her doing it,” he said. “She simply saw the film, looked at it with fresh eyes, and said, ‘We should have this on the air,’ and that was a great decision.” "
https://cdrsalamander.substack.com/p/the-last-600-meters-pbss-17-year

[Malika la Maize]

The largest city in Alaska is about to undertake an experiment that feels both inevitable and impossibly futuristic in an era of pervasive mistrust toward elections: allowing all voters to cast ballots from their smartphones.

Anchorage, home to about 240,000 registered voters, is starting small. Mail and in-person voting will still exist, but voters will also be able to open a link on their phones to cast a ballot in municipal races in April, when six city assembly seats and two school board seats are up for election. The change will not apply to higher-profile races later in the year for state legislature, governor and federal offices.

But even at the local level, the trial run of phone voting — one of the first of its scale in the nation — could offer a blueprint for expanded use in future elections beyond Alaska.

The cautious technological step forward is designed to help offset Alaska’s logistical challenges: harsh weather, long drives to vote in rural areas, a transient population and, for Anchorage itself, a large military base nearby. Lots of ballots never get delivered, and plenty more arrive too late to be counted. Local election officials hope that the phone experiment will make it easier to vote, while also keeping their elections secure.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/13/us/politics/alaska-phone-voting-anchorage.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

[Mr. Bumble]

What could possibly go wrong.

[apedad]

Do you have a better solution to, "(l)ots of ballots never get delivered, and plenty more arrive too late to be counted?"

This is not a good idea in urban/sub-urban settings but it's worth a test in extremely isolated areas.

[Malika la Maize]

The better question is will what goes wrong be worse than what’s currently the case.

“harsh weather, long drives to vote in rural areas, a transient population and, for Anchorage itself, a large military base nearby. Lots of ballots never get delivered, and plenty more arrive too late to be counted.”

[Mr. Bumble]

"Lots of ballots never get delivered, and plenty more arrive too late to be counted.”
Since the linked story is pay-walled I can't tell the extent of this but have to assume it is a problem with the USPS.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, yeah it can’t be, I dunno, a problem with Alaskan weather, geography, etc.

[Bob from Ohio]

"plenty more arrive too late to be counted"

Go to a poll site on election day. Never "too late".

[Malika la Maize]

Are you performing a naive person unaware of context and history today? They’re saying it might be hard in Alaska given weather and the work many do.

[Mr. Bumble]

"They" say a lot of shit.
"Bad weather" is unique to Anchorage?

[Dr. Ed 2]

You do know why first Tuesday in November is election day -- don't you?

In the original 15 states -- i.e. 1791 -- the roads were open and the crops in -- people didn't have farm work to do, and the roads were neither muddy nor covered with snow.

Maybe Alaska should vote in August...

[David Nieporent]

The first Tuesday in November wasn't established as election day until the mid-19th century.

[Bob from Ohio]

"might be hard in Alaska"

So? If you need new poll sites, establish them.

[ducksalad]

Let's say the standard is a polling place no more than 60 minutes away, not using aircraft. In a few parts of Alaska that could require someone to be their own election clerk. Or at least their spouse's.

[Malika la Maize]

Alaska is not the flat, boring grids of Ohio. Voting should t be an obstacle course or trek.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its Anchorage, I bet its pretty flat.

Ohio is generally not considered "flat", it has many hills in the SE.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I've been to Anchorage, you would lose that bet. The entire Pacific coast of Alaska is basically set on the side of enormous mountains.

[Bob from Ohio]

I bet most people in the city do not live on the mountains.

[shawn_dude]

ROFLMAO. Seriously?!

https://www.lwv.org/blog/common-voting-restrictions-are-more-harmful-you-might-think

The GOP has been restricting the number of polling places, especially in Red states with Blue cities. Wonder why?

[jb]

The "keeping elections secure" piece feels basically impossible with the technologies in question. This has all the difficulties of electronic voting machines with no paper trail and mail in voting combined, and with a bunch of novel security challenges added in. If we didn't have a requirement for secret ballots, you could probably get a good enough audit trail in place to balance out most of the risk, but I don't think there's any way to be confident about election integrity for this set of technologies.

[Bored Lawyer]

Not sure. Nowadays there are lots of good security systems. I do online banking all the time, and use my firm's online accounting system. They both have robust security to make sure that I am authorized to use the systems. Seems to me a secure system can be designed. Of course, the political will to do so has to be there.

[Mr. Bumble]

The Germans thought Enigma was secure.
How did that work out.

[apedad]

That's your take?

Bringing up technology from 80+ years ago?!?

Look, security technology is always playing catch up and it's difficult to anticipate new threats, and the "bad guys" always have time on their side.

At the same time, it's the 21st century and we'll never going backwards, e.g., cash-only.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Enigma WAS secure -- the physical security of the Enigma devices and code tables wasn't.

[Michael P]

Online money transfers get a lot of security because they are broadly reversible and not anonymous. A ballot is supposed to be anonymous and irreversible, which is why it's so hard to secure digital ballots.

[wvattorney13]

I know nothing about software, but couldn't the software be programmed to authenticate the ballot by connecting it to a registered voter, count the voter as having voted, tabulate the results and then forever strip the counted ballot of identifying information?

You would then have a paper trail that these 50,000 votes are counted, and here is the 50,000 voters who have voted, but we can't match any voter to any ballot?

[jb]

Yeah, but how do you know that it didn't change 20% of the votes to be for a different candidate than the voter intended?

[wvattorney13]

Couldn't you have a Republican firm and a Democratic firm inspect the code and certify that it counts the votes correctly and cannot be manually manipulated?

[jb]

You could try, but as you're probably aware systems get hacked all the time. Perfect security isn't really possible--if even the big tech companies get hacked while paying super high salaries to the best cyber security people, local governments don't stand much of a chance against motivated hackers.

And in this case, you don't just need to worry about the servers being hacked, because unlike normal human voting, it's quite feasible to compromise a large number of voters' phones to the point that you could influence the outcome of elections just by manipulating the votes that are sent in.

There's potentially ways to address these risks with digital signatures or blockchain technologies, but they'd require that at least the voter would be able to see how their vote was recorded. Usually our notion of a secret ballot extends to the point that the voter couldn't subsequently prove that they voted in a certain way, so it's really hard to combine ballots with those secrecy guarantees and adequate security.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bored, the also know every transaction you made.

QED, no ballot secrecy.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think security by itself is the biggest challenge — though obviously it is one. It's the combination of security and the secret ballot that's so hard.

[not guilty]

Anchorage is home to about 240,000 registered voters?? Wikipedia reports a population of 291,247 at the 2020 census. That article also states that the Anchorage metropolitan area, which includes Anchorage and the neighboring Matanuska-Susitna Borough, had a population of 398,328 in 2020. The 240,000 figure is much more plausible for the latter.

[Bunny495]

The real question is why America has the most bizarre election system on earth. Third world countries like Afghanistan have national elections in one day and the results are quickly known. Same goes for places like the EU where there are often more political parties than I have digits on my hands and feet but again the results are often known the same day.

If I tried to explain everything wrong with the way America elects it's president it would take the longest post in the history of VC.

[Malika la Maize]

In September, Ms. Javice, 33, was sentenced to more than seven years in prison for fraud. In 2021, JPMorgan Chase acquired her start-up, Frank, for $175 million. Ms. Javice had claimed her company helped millions of people fill out their federal financial aid forms.

After the acquisition, however, the bank discovered that she had lied about most of Frank’s customers. JPMorgan sued, and then prosecutors put Ms. Javice on trial. A jury convicted her this year.

Along the way, Ms. Javice won a ruling that required the bank to pay her legal fees. JPMorgan has objected to the size of the fees in the past, and after her sentencing it decided to try to cut her off. The bank is trying the same maneuver with her former chief growth and acquisition officer, Olivier Amar, who was also convicted of fraud.

JPMorgan said in a filing last month that Ms. Javice engaged five separate law firms, and that she and her lawyers have treated the original ruling forcing the bank to pay for her defense as a “blank check to bill and expense whatever they please.” The stable of lawyers that she has used have also represented Elon Musk, Harvey Weinstein and Sam Bankman-Fried…

All told, the bank has so far offered up about $115 million for Ms. Javice’s and Mr. Amar’s legal fees. If the bank fails to slow their spending down, the costs for the pair could approach the size of the fraud they committed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/14/business/charlie-javice-jpmorgan-legal-bills.html

[Frank Drackman]

I heard that this "Frank" was a made up character living in his Mom's basement.

[grb]

And worth $175 million to boot! Mom must be proud.....

[Zarniwoop]

I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for JPMC here, though. Maybe they should rethink contract clauses that give unlimited discretionary funding of expenses to favored coddled executives who potentially can become adverse parties.

But JPMC won’t, because the JPMC decision makers like having that protection for themselves.

[David Nieporent]

I haven't looked at anything beyond the NYT story, but I find it hard to believe that any agreement to reimburse her for legal expenses doesn't include the word "reasonable" in front of it.

[Zarniwoop]

Sure, and similarly I haven’t read the contract terms from JPMC’s acquisition of Frank.

I would not be surprised, however, if in their fervent desire to acquire a hot start-up someone at JPMC was less than careful about green-lighting the deal - with regard to both substantive due diligence and the contractual terms.

[Bob from Ohio]

"$115 million for Ms. Javice’s and Mr. Amar’s legal fees."

Only what JPMC deserves. Who thought this 25 year old founded a real business?

[Dr. Ed 2]

More importantly, sometimes you simply eat losses for reasons like this. I doubt they will get much of the $1.75M back, and definitely won't come out ahead.

And David, DEFINE "reasonable" -- and remember that you are paying for the lawyers on the other side.

Maybe the grownups at JPMC finally decided to step in...

[not guilty]

Uh, courts have boatloads of experience in determining what legal fees are reasonable or not. This most often occurs regarding fees to be awarded to a prevailing party where authorized by statute. The Lodestar method for calculating attorney fees multiplies reasonable hours worked by a reasonable hourly rate to determine fair compensation.

Factors to be considered in determining reasonableness include:

(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to the acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the ‘undesirability’ of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 430, n.3 (1983).

[Malika la Maize]

Lord knows 25 year olds can’t build great businesses!

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/shows/history/history-of-microsoft-1980

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh, one time.

[ThePublius]

"Elon Musk was 27 years old when he co-founded X.com, the company that would merge to become PayPal. He was born in 1971, and X.com was founded in 1999."

[ThePublius]

"Steve Jobs was 21 years old when he co-founded Apple Computer in 1976. He started the company with his friend Steve Wozniak in the garage of his parents' home."

[Bob from Ohio]

When did all those people sell to a big bank?

She had already been accused of fraud by the feds. It was just a complete collapse of due diligence.

[SRG2]

I'm surprised Trump hasn't tried to pardon her yet.

[Zarniwoop]

A Rolex desk clock and a monogrammed 1Kg gold bar - for the Trump presidential library, of course, not Trump personally - should help speed the process along.

[Zarniwoop]

heh - just spotted in the wild:

"We're hearing that Donald Trump may not pardon the Thanksgiving Turkey at the White House this year because the turkey is having trouble raising the two million dollars the pardon costs."

[Malika la Maize]

Watched a lot of football yesterday.

1. WTF was up with the Chargers? Manhandled by the Jaguars.
2. Broncos seem for real
3. Pittsburgh might want to consider going with Rudolph over Rodger’s.
4. With Purdy back I wouldn’t want to play this Niners squad.
5. The Washington-Dolphins game was a hit for modern style analytics (both teams went for it on 4th and short goal and were stuffed late in the game, probably should have taken the 3).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A bunch of subpar teams, including the Giants, found ways to screw up possible upsets. The KC Chiefs are also now 5-5.

I think the fifth entry should be in Spanish.

The "not quite" award goes to Seattle, which got the ball back at its own 1 with less than two minutes to play. They managed to sorta get into field goal range with a second to spare (helped by a penalty), but missed the possible winning 61 yd field goal.

[Frank Drackman]

That's been the NFL's goal for years, "Any Given Sunday", perfect season would be every team finishes 8-8 (OK, the 17 game season messed that up) and they have to flip coins to determine every Play Off Spot.

[Kazinski]

Problem with the 49ers was never their offense, it was losing their two best defensive players. Before Fred Warner got injured they were giving up 18.6 a game which is very good, now its 25.8, which is not.

[hobie]

Had a young Palestinian man at the Airbnb last night. He was clearly on the run: suitcases; bags of laundry; is from Cleveland yet had to stay in my house.

But he was happy. In fact, giddy. He had just come out to his family so he was banished. A young black man came by in the evening and stayed the night. As he and his two dogs piled into the Uber this morning, I congratulated him on his coming out. And there he went, a gay Palestinian, possibly the most hated thing in the MAGAverse. Yet he was happy...free. You fuckers can't take that away from him.

[Dr. Ed 2]

HE TOLD YOU THAT he was a .....

He just as easily could have been a terrorist fleeing the authorities.
He could even have been a gay terrorist, or merely using that as cover. Did you run his prints?

Fact is you only know what he told you.

[wvattorney13]

That's a great cover if that happened. If he stayed at a Hampton Inn then about 5 people would have called the FBI and he would have been in custody. Sleep in your car on the side of the road, it is a suspicious vehicle.

But stay in a lefty Airbnb they will aid and abet your escape. Brilliant!

[Bunny495]

Shades of "The Day of the Jackal"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gBKE5MUiQc

[ThePublius]

Why do you think 'MAGAns' hat gay people or Palestinians?

There are many gay MAGAns. I don't know about Palestinians.

You fucker... (back atcha)

[Kazinski]

Trump did well in the Arab vote in Michigan.

He took Dearborn which is majority Arab.

[Frank Drackman]

Except he had to let you (redacted) him up the (redacted)

[Mr. Bumble]

hobie skank; humanitarian with benefits.

[Bunny495]

Referees Under Fire for Ruining Shedeur Sanders’ Browns Debut

"Sanders finished the day 4-of-16 passing for 47 yards with an interception and a fumble."

https://heavy.com/sports/nfl/cleveland-browns/shedeur-sanders-ravens-offsides-referees-missed-call/

[Bunny495]

My bad.

This was suppose to be in Malika la Maize's NFL thread.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I saw a quirky old Selma Blair film: Kill Me Later.

It has other familiar faces, including an actor who pops up in multiple Hallmark Channel films.

Blair plays a young bank employee who is about to commit suicide, when a fleeing bank robber seizes her to try to escape. She promised to help if (see movie title).

Worth a look if you get a chance. Selma Blair also narrated the audiobook for Anne Frank's diary.

[SRG2]

I always thought she was attractive, but doesn't make my shortlist of top 5 Jewish female celebrities with SRG spouse potential.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Now!

[grb]

Did anyone watch the new Ken Burn's documentary on the American Revolution? I meant to, but didn't....

[ThePublius]

I would like to have watched, but, alas, I cut the cord and only have internet access. Perhaps I could have figured out how to stream if? (I just saw I can watch it for free.)

On thing that turned me off was Ken Burns' recent comments that cutting PBS funding would create information deserts in middle America. Is he kidding? I think not. It's kinda deranged.

[grb]

ThePublius : " ...cutting PBS funding would create information deserts in middle America"

Two stories from thru-hiking the AT back in 2010-2011:

1. I'm (of course) a news junkie. Whenever I would go off-trail into a town, the very first action was always score a newspaper. But for long stretches of small towns, there was little to be found. Sometimes I couldn't even find a gawdforsaken USA Today and would be reading about town council meetings in some little local rag.

But there was always an NPR station to follow on my tiny radio. I would lose one hiking downtrail, but pick-up the next. And it offered some of the most comprehensive detailed news available.

2. Near Roanoke, Va, I got off-trail to meet an old college friend. Our first stop was Denny's and an AYCE breakfast where I astounded him with the volume of food a hiker puts away when loosed on abundance. Then he drove me around on errands - outfitter, post office, supermarket. Last was a truck stop to do my laundry. There we fell to talking politics with a burly trucker. His take was an eccentric mix of Left & Right populism, but the amazing thing was the depth of his knowledge about political affairs. He reeled off detail after detail without breaking a sweat. I'm no slough with that, but finally had to confess my awe and admiration. His explanation was simple: He listened to public radio as he drove all day. Of course he knew more than almost anyone else.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nice story.

[Frank Drackman]

1: Hard to take a "Historian" seriously who has a hairstyle I abandoned in the 1980's (OK, more accurate to say it abandoned me)
2: He could make Sex boring, seriously, his "Baseball" series almost got me to switch to Soccer.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

He finally got a big boy haircut.

[loki13]

ORDERED that, by 3:00 p.m. on November 17, 2025, the Clerk of Court shall make available to the defense all grand jury materials filed on the docket under seal by the government (ECF 179); and it is further ORDERED that the government shall, no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 17, 2025, produce to the defense the complete audio recording of the grand jury proceedings; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file on the public docket the version of the Memorandum Opinion containing narrow redactions of grand jury material; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall maintain the unredacted version of the Memorandum Opinion under seal until further order of the Court as to James B. Comey, Jr. Signed by Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick on 11/17/2025.

Looks like after reviewing the proceedings in camera, judges aren't too impressed with the protestations of the DOJ.

Remember- they lie. They lie. They lie.

[loki13]

Here's is the lightly redacted order-

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26284277-191-memo-opinion/

It's ... something. A judge that is obviously struggling with the statements made by the DOJ.

That's the nice way to put it.

From the order-

"On November 14, 2025, the prosecutor filed a declaration with the Court attempting to address the issue of whether the transcript of the grand jury proceedings filed with the Court was the full and complete transcript. ECF 187-1. The prosecutor stated that after the grand jury was left to deliberate on the first indictment at approximately 4:28 p.m., she had no further contact with the grand jury. The prosecutor further stated that at approximately 6:40 p.m. she was notified by the then-First Assistant United States Attorney that the grand jury returned a true bill on only two of the three counts presented by the government.11 Id. The prosecutor, according to her declaration, then proceeded to the courtroom for the return of the indictment. Id. The hearing on the return of the indictment began at approximately 6:47 p.m. ECF 10.The short time span between the moment the prosecutor learned that the grand jury rejected one count in the original indictment and the time the prosecutor appeared in court to return the second indictment could not have been sufficient to draft the second indictment, sign the second indictment, present it to the grand jury, provide legal instructions to the grand jury, and give them an opportunity to deliberate and render a decision on the new indictment. If the prosecutor is mistaken about the time she received notification of the grand jury’s vote on the original indictment, and this procedure did take place, then the transcript and audio recording provided to the Court are incomplete. If this procedure did not take place, then the Court is in uncharted legal territory in that the indictment returned in open court was not the same charging document presented to and deliberated upon by the grand jury. Either way, this unusual series of events, still not fully explained by the prosecutor’s declaration, calls into question the presumption of regularity generally associated with grand jury proceedings, and provides another genuine issue the defense may raise to challenge the manner in which the government obtained the indictment."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

" calls into question the presumption of regularity"

(Insert meme of dog in burning room with "presumption of regularity" caption, and the dog is saying "this is fine.")

[LawTalkingGuy]

I know the rules on grand jury secrecy, but, redacting her alleged misstatements of law when the analysis tells us their substance is at best silly and at worst invites accusations of disingenuousness.

[loki13]

The judge (magistrate judge) was required to make specific findings of fact to support the release of the grand jury proceedings to Comey's defense- this was argued by the DOJ, and the DOJ received the result they wanted. Then, to avoid losing a hearing on the issue, they gave the judge the transcript to review in camera.

The factual findings were made and required. The redactions are from the actual statements made by Halligan to the grand jury. Of course we know the issue (because the facts had to be found) of the impermissible statements of law. That said, the actual statements she made (see Order at 15-16) are unknown to me.

I have a guess for the single word that was redacted. But ... if you know, why don't you tell us what the other longer sections are- not the gist (which is known because of the analysis), but the actual verbiage.

Given that the issue is the exact wording of what she said, I think it is entirely proper. Am I missing something?

[LawTalkingGuy]

More of a comment on how strict grand jury secrecy here is a bit pointless.

[loki13]

Fair!

I assume that if the judge's review in camera hadn't revealed any issues, it would have simply been denied without revealing anything further.

It's the catch-22; in order to breach the secrecy, the order has to identify some basis for ... breaching the secrecy, which necessarily means some breach of the secrecy.

[David Nieporent]

There's a footnote that expressly lays it out: "10 Specific statements made before the grand jury are redacted. The Court’s analysis of those statements is not."

I have one concern about the Court's analysis: it seems very likely that the government violated the 4th amendment by retaining and searching old material without a warrant, but didn't it violate Richman's 4th amendment rights, not Comey's, by so doing? Why would that be a basis to dismiss an indictment of Comey? (To be clear, there are also privilege issues with respect to Comey that would support such a dismissal.)

[Zarniwoop]

Damn - even setting aside the ACP and AWP issues, the 4th Amd issues don’t look good for Halligan either. From p.12:

As a result, the parameters of the 2025 search would inevitably have had a different and much narrower scope than the Richman Warrants. Faced with this prospect, the government chose to unilaterally search materials that were (1) seized five years earlier; (2) seized in a separate and since closed investigation; (3) that were never reviewed to determine whether the seized information was responsive to the original warrants; (4) that were likely improperly held by the government for a prolonged period of time; (5) that included potentially privileged communications; (6) did sowithout ever engaging the privilege holders; and (7) did so without seeking any new judicial authority.
Having decided to forge ahead under these highly unusual circumstances, the FBI agent conducting the September 12, 2025 search of the disc containing information from Mr. Richman’s iPhone and iPad was specifically instructed to seize “conversations between [Mr.] Richman and[Mr.] Comey.” ECF 172-1. There appeared to be no precautions in place to avoid the collection of privileged communications. Id. The agent conducted the review and printed “the relevant pages,” which included multiple conversations involving Mr. Comey and Mr. Richman. Id.

.
And it gets worse from there (see pp. 13-14).

[loki13]

Oh- I forgot to mention that this is in the Comey case (re: Halligan).

Specifically, the Magistrate Judge's findings after reviewing the grand jury proceedings in camera.

[loki13]

Final thought.

Bondi first ratified Halligan's actions without actually reviewing the proceedings she said she reviewed.

On Friday, Bondi submitted a new document saying, um, okay, I've actually read the stuff now and I'm ratifying this.

If this is what she was ratifying in the second document, that's ... perhaps more problematic than the first ratification. It's almost worst to ratify something that you can see has serious issues than ratifying something that might not.

(Of course, the application of common sense would tell you that you can't let a rando do the grand jury proceeding and then later have it ratified, because that would mean that there is no meaningful protection for just having, oh, Steve Bannon wander into the grand jury and get an indictment and have Bondi ratify it later.)

[LawTalkingGuy]

On the one hand, misstating the burden and implying the defendant should be explaining themselves is not something a good prosecutor should or would do. But on the other hand, it is something prosecutors routinely do anyway.

So lack of experience aside, maybe she does have this prosecutor thing down after all.

[loki13]

I think the much bigger issue is the multiple indictments and the conflicting statements about them.

Of course, the actual purpose of this originally was to find out about the use of improper evidence by the DOJ, and it appears that there is a good basis for that as well.

Just a clown show, made worse by consistent lying.

[Zarniwoop]

went to look up AG Barbie's second attempt at "ratification" (Friday Nov. 14); I see that the Halligan has just asked for 7 days (until Nov. 24) to respond to the Magistrate's order. That strikes me as optimistic, given the fast pace and limited time until trial. They should be working on it this afternoon and hope they get a deadline of 5pm tomorrow or Wednesday.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.195.0_1.pdf

[Zarniwoop]

Called it. Per The Hill:

U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, the judge assigned to oversee the case, agreed to pause Fitzpatrick’s order until the government has the chance to object. However, he gave prosecutors a shorter timeline to do so than requested.

The government must file any objections by the end of business hours Wednesday, and the defense must respond by the end of Friday.

I would not be at all surprised if Comey’s team gets their brief submitted early, so Nachmanoff has it on his desk when he arrives at court on Friday morning.

[apedad]

Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

The 17-point drop in the percentage of U.S. adults who say religion is an important part of their daily life — from 66% in 2015 to 49% today — ranks among the largest Gallup has recorded in any country over any 10-year period since 2007.

About half of Americans now say religion is not an important part of their daily life. They remain as divided on the question today as they were last year.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/697676/drop-religiosity-among-largest-world.aspx

This article doesn't give reasons for this drop but since it covers a period since about 2007, I wonder how much the rise in internet usage during this period is (a large) part of the drop.

[hobie]

I'm sure the political hate group shitshow that American Christianty has become had something to do with it

[Frank Drackman]

So American Christianity is the current DemoKKKratic Party?

[dwb68]

For those of you hoping 2026 and 2028 will be a referendum on tariffs, reminder: they are popular on the center left, too. See Gretchen Whitmer's oped: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/17/gretchen-whitmer-tariff-strategy/

"Let’s use all the new tariff revenue we’re bringing in to reinvest in American businesses and workers. "

If she gets the nomination, she has a great shot at being President.

"No state has lived through the consequences of offshoring and outsourcing more than Michigan. Decades of unfettered free trade policy decimated hundreds of our factory towns. It led to declining populations, fewer police officers on the beat, underfunded schools, less housing and worse roads. Many places lost a sense of purpose and identity.

Onshoring and increasing American manufacturing jobs is a worthwhile goal, especially since manufacturing has the highest economic multiplier effect of any sector."

She is not against tariffs; she is against *Trump's* tariffs. This is where most of the country is.
Its also why The SUopreme Court is likely to throw Trump a bone to give him at least half a policy loaf.

[loki13]

"She is not against tariffs; she is against *Trump's* tariffs. This is where most of the country is."

Yes, the country is united against Trump's tariffs. Because they are stupid, arbitrary, capricious, and serve no overall purpose- but make him feel powerful and like he is "dealing" with issues that he usually doesn't understand.

See, e.g., his moronic proposal that he keeps floating to issue a "tariff rebate." Do I have to explain all the ways in which it is stupid (not to mention that it would cost more than we bring in)?

Tariffs, generally, are bad. They are a tax on us- Americans. But there are some occasions when tariffs are useful.

1. When there is some domestic industry or product that we want to shelter from dumping or foreign competition, and are willing to tax Americans to protect it or to prevent other countries from subsidizing an industry and dumping its products here.

2. ...and that's pretty much it. Tariffs are good for protecting domestic industries by taxing American consumers, and as such should be used sparingly and carefully. For example, broad tariffs that "protect" an industry, but also include a lot of the (foreign) materials and supply chain for it, aren't that great. Or tariffs on products that we don't make a lot of here (coffee, for example). It's not like we can suddenly pivot to making coffee.

Also? They need to have a good reason, and certainty that they will be in place. If you want to protect an industry that requires serious capital investment, no one will bother if they don't believe the tariffs will last, or will be ended at the capricious whim of Trump.

[dwb68]

I think you missed the part where she was pro-tariffs, lol. Just as Biden continued Trump's tariffs, President Whitmer will continue Trump's.

[loki13]

No, she wouldn't. She didn't, in fact, say that. And you can't just conflate things that aren't the same- "Trump's Tariffs" that Biden continued were limited and lawful tariffs related to steel and aluminium (25% and 10%) and specific targeted tariffs on China under 301 for goods from China that there were findings related to unfair competition. Those aren't the unlawful "Trump Tariffs" we are talking about here, but tariffs enacted through regular legal means.

In addition, the tariffs are broadly unpopular with Americans. And they are most unpopular with Democrats, with as close to universal dislike as possible.

I suggest learning more and not cherry-picking isolated quotes that support what you want to be true.

[dwb68]

lol. She did not say they were unlawful, just chaotic (which I happen to agree with- uncertainty holds back capital investments).

She said:
"We cannot allow Chinese government-funded companies to drive American automakers out of business. We cannot stop making American steel, an essential building block of nearly all industrial activity. And we must continue to develop our own semiconductor supply chain or risk costly delays and quality issues. We see the consequences of outsourcing these industries in Europe, where foreign cars and chips are starting to muscle out domestic products."

I feel fairly confident that Whitmer is carving out her lane for a Presidential run and knows what sells in the working-class swing states she'll need. Tariffs sell as a solution to exporting jobs. (got a better idea?)... tight immigration controls and tariffs to protect industries have always been popular union positions.

Cry a river in the comments. High tariffs are here to stay, at least until the trade deficit is solved.

[loki13]

"Cry a river in the comments. High tariffs are here to stay, at least until the trade deficit is solved."

Tell me you don't understand economics without telling me you don't understand economics.

Of course, even if you didn't understand economics, even a reasonably competent person who has been paying the slightest attention to what's going on has a basic understanding of the impact of tariffs.

But sure, you keep on "lol'ing" .... once you are reduced to base-level trolling, you don't really have much else to talk about, right?

Can't defend them on the law.
Can't defend them on the economics.
Can't defend them on principle.

So ... "Hey, here's one other random Democrat that disagrees with them but thinks that certain tariffs, at certain times, used for the correct purpose (targeted protection of specific domestic industry), might be okay. Ima clever boy because that means Trump was right!!!!"

Sure, if that's what you need to tell yourself.

[dwb68]

I have a graduate degree in economics. Most economists are 80% certain, 20% right, and 100% captured by ideology.**

It's all about the trade deficit and exporting jobs: there are only a few things you can do to address it, like devaluing the dollar or tariffs.

Of course, I'd like to see lower regulations and taxes so it's cheaper to make stuff.

But its not enough to be against something. You have to be for an alternative. Absent a better idea to prevent export of jobs, Michigan and PA will latch onto tariffs.

** a good economist can invent a model to prove any conclusion wanted

[loki13]

If you have a graduate degree in economics, then you know that a trade deficit is the flip side of the investment surplus that we have.

...do you want to keep going? Feel free. Here, let me help-

"President Trump is so smart, that uses tariffs to force other countries to invest more in this country...."

No? C'mon. And ... "exporting jobs?" I assume you mean the colloquial sense. How about, "Other countries have an advantage at producing (stuff) and we want to use tariffs to make importing (stuff) more expensive, because we want to subsidize job creation in the (stuff) industry through raising taxes (tariffs) on American consumers and importers."

You got this.

[dwb68]

Reposting Mankiw or Krugman's theory of comparative advantage in international goods won't win elections. I am aware of the theory. The public has soured on the theory of immigration and free trade, that's how we got here. Its not working for people.

The first step to fixing the problem is recognizing you have one. Denial of the problem is no longer a choice.

[Glaucomatose]

The public doesn't have a position on Mankiw or Krugman's theory of comparative advantage in international goods. They have a position on higher prices, less consumer choice, and a worsening employment outlook - you know, the stuff they're getting thanks to tariffs.

[loki13]

1. You missed (deliberately) the main thrust of what I said, which should be obvious given your stated background.

2. I have said nothing about immigration, and I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. Immigration and tariffs are different issues, and you can' t just talismanically invoke them together.

3. I am not discussing "good politics," (although I will refer you again to what I first stated, which is that Trump's tariffs are unpopular). I am discussing Econ101.

I will repeat-
Can't defend them on the law.
Can't defend them on the economics.
Can't defend them on principle.

So we're back to, "The public has soured on them" (citation needed) despite repeated polling showing that "Trump's tariffs" are really unpopular.

'Kay.

[dwb68]

"They have a position on higher prices, less consumer choice, and a worsening employment outlook - you know, the stuff they're getting thanks to tariffs."

Mostly the effects of the tarifs have been overwrought. The revenue is approximately 200 billion; there are Medicare and unemployment fraud cases that large. The government deficit is 1.8 trillion. US GDP is 30.49 trillion

The economy is always the strongest at the trough of the interest rate cycle and weakens as the Federal Reserve raises rates (that's why they raise them: to curb inflation by increasing unemployment). Now that interest rates have peaked (plus taxes go down next year) the economy will improve.

[Glaucomatose]

Except interest rates peaked in 2023 into 2024 while the economy was still strong, and have come down materially over the last year, and yet the economy is worse than it was when the Fed started lowering rates. What's pushed the economy off its balance has been the tariffs - and the general sense of not knowing what wrench the White House will decide to throw into the works tomorrow.

And please point me to the $200 billion unemployment or Medicare fraud case.

[dwb68]

"interest rates peaked in 2023 into 2024"

Aug 2024
Yes: that's how it works (if the Fed times it right). It takes 18 or so months for rates to trickle through the economy. The effect ov lowering rates last year is only beginning to seep through the economy.

[David Nieporent]

The revenue is approximately 200 billion; there are Medicare and unemployment fraud cases that large.

TF? You're off by like three orders of magnitude!

[David Nieporent]

"Export of jobs" isn't a thing in the first place. A job is not a tangible thing. And tariffs do not protect jobs.

Also, you're trying to sanewash Trump. He has — I reiterate — touted three utterly incompatible justifications for tariffs. At times he has said that the purpose is to give him leverage to lower foreign tariffs. That requires that the tariffs be temporary, which would go against the protectionist idea you describe even if tariffs 'worked' for that, which they don't.

At times he has said that the purpose is to bring in zillions of dollars from foreigners (which of course makes no sense since Americans pay them), so that other taxes be lowered. That requires that the tariffs be permanent but that people continue importing lots of stuff anyway, which… would go against the protectionist idea you describe.

And at times he has said that the purpose is to convince foreign countries to invest here, which could create domestic jobs but would raise the trade deficit, and would require that the tariffs be permanent and that people don't pay them.

[Krayt]

"Let’s use all the new tariff revenue we’re bringing in to reinvest in American businesses and workers. "

Remember my prediction, made with mathematical certitude when the tariff stuff started: I don't think it will work, but if it does, it will not be used to reduce spending and balance the budget, but spent and used as argument to keep borrowing even more.

These are rotten to the core thieves. Listen to the rotten thieves: Tariffs are a plague, it won't work, wait, it's working? Let's just spend it anyway!

Rotten, filthy humans.

[dwb68]

"Republican" congress increased the deficit rather than cut spending.

tariffs do reconfigure the supply chain. But it takes years and billions to build a new aluminum smelter, and the biggest cost of aluminum smelting is electricity.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, did you see the Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll conducted by renowned Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer showed Harris with a 47% to 44% advantage among likely voters over Trump??
Let me know how the Erection turns out.

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

[The below is all from the article; I don't want to get any plagiarism charges.]

A federal magistrate judge said on Monday that the criminal case against James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, could be in serious trouble because of a series of apparent errors committed in front of the grand jury by Lindsey Halligan, the inexperienced prosecutor picked by President Trump to handle the matter.

The ruling by Judge Fitzpatrick was only the most recent setback in the Justice Department’s efforts to bring charges against Mr. Comey — a decision that was initially rejected by Ms. Halligan’s predecessor as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik S. Siebert. In an extraordinary move, Mr. Trump ousted Mr. Siebert in September to make way for Ms. Halligan after he suggested there was insufficient evidence to file an indictment against Mr. Comey.

Ms. Halligan, who had never worked on a criminal case until she was thrust into the Comey prosecution, has faced extensive scrutiny from the moment Mr. Trump installed her atop the U.S. attorney’s office in the Eastern District of Virginia against the wishes of many career prosecutors there. Her critics have pointed out that her previous experience in the law was limited to working as an insurance lawyer and serving on Mr. Trump’s defense team in the case in which he was accused of mishandling classified materials.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/17/us/politics/comey-justice-department-misconduct.html

From the linked order:

"The Court recognizes that the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted. However, the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding."

[Mr. Bumble]

""The Court recognizes that the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted."
... but, but, but Trump.

"A federal magistrate judge said on Monday that the criminal case against James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, could be in serious trouble...
Of course it could.

[DDHarriman]

No one expects justice for a Democrat in front of a Democrat judge.

[Glaucomatose]

No one expects a Trump supporter to understand how magistrate judges are appointed.

[not guilty]

"No one expects justice for a Democrat in front of a Democrat judge."

Do you claim that James Comey is a Democrat? Based on what?

Donald Trump won election as President in 2016 based on Comey's shenanigans regarding Anthony Weiner's laptop. Comey was deservedly fired by Trump, but I have never seen any credible suggestion that Comey is a Democrat.

[not guilty]

And how do you claim to know the Magistrate Judge's political party affiliation, DDHarriman?

Did you get that information from Otto Yourazz?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Of course it’s “but Trump.” Trump is the one putting incompetent people in important positions! If he wasn’t doing that, this wouldn’t be happening!

[Glaucomatose]

... but, but, but the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.

Having a hard time reading, Bumble?

[David Nieporent]

From the NYT article:

It is extremely unusual for judges to examine how prosecutors act in front of grand juries, let alone to openly criticize their conduct. But that is exactly what Judge Fitzpatrick did to Ms. Halligan.

He noted that during her grand jury presentation she appears to have misrepresented a basic tenet of the law by suggesting that Mr. Comey did not have the right, under the Fifth Amendment, to avoid testifying at his own trial.

She also appears to have made another astonishing error, Judge Fitzpatrick said. In his ruling, he pointed out that she told grand jurors that they did not have to rely solely “on the record before them” to return an indictment against Mr. Comey, but instead “could be assured the government had more evidence — perhaps better evidence — that would be presented at trial.”

TF? If she did those things, I would suggest she must be part of the Deep State trying to undermine Trump by deliberately sabotaging his efforts.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Honestly, the Deep State probably would have done a better job if forced to.

[David Nieporent]

From the opinion, the likely fourth and fifth amendment violations described in the order are even worse, but might or might not be laid at the feet of Halligan. Instead of getting a warrant:

Faced with this prospect [of having to rush to obtain a warrant], the government chose to unilaterally search materials that were (1) seized five years earlier; (2) seized in a separate and since closed investigation; (3) that were never reviewed to determine whether the seized information was responsive to the original warrants; (4) that were likely improperly held by the government for a prolonged period of time; (5) that included potentially privileged communications; (6) did so without ever engaging the privilege holders; and (7) did so without seeking any new judicial authority.

It's like the Nazi Keystone Kops.

I'm not sure if this, from the judge, is better characterized as wry or sardonic:

The government’s decision to allow an agent who was exposed to potentially privileged information to testify before a grand jury is highly irregular and a radical departure from past DOJ practice.

[Zarniwoop]

yeah, I flagged this exact paragraph somewhere above. The main question I have at this point is "in what order will the reasons to dismiss the case be presented in the district court's opinion?"

If these are the "best people!!1!" Trump hires, I'd hate to see what the rejected resumes look like.

[grb]

David Nieporent : "It's like the Nazi Keystone Kops."

Famous line from All the President's Men: "The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand."

[Zarniwoop]

TF? If she did those things, I would suggest she must be part of the Deep State trying to undermine Trump by deliberately sabotaging his efforts.

At this point, Hanlon's Razor is looking more like a coin flip between malice and incompetence.

[not guilty]

The Magistrate Judge's Memorandum Opinion is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.191.0.pdf

[DDHarriman]

Any guesses as to why Democrat congressmen would be coordinating with Epstein in a live hearing about Epstein?

[David Nieporent]

Any guesses what "Democrat congressmen" could mean?

[Estragon]

These things become so baroque as to be almost indecipherable to those of us not swimming in it constantly.

But the overall thrust is boringly clear and a replay of something we’ve seen countless times: one way in which Trump has consistently managed to avoid accountability is by turning scandals into partisan political issues. The examples are numerous. And you can see the less-online folks up at the top of the thread attempting it with Larry Summers and Bill Clinton. But it’s not working, because Epstein is the kryptonite to Trump’s superpower. The genius of Trump is the showman: his ability to direct and focus attention in a way that is beneficial to him and his aims. Except that Epstein is the one issue on which Don has struggled to command and direct attention. You can see it with today’s developments: they are being reactive, because things are out of their control. So any attempt to tie this scandal to congressional Democrats is just a pumped up version of what the dittoheads are trying above with Summers and Clinton: to turn it into a partisan political issue which then turns the focus away from Trump’s personal involvement. The specifics of the accusation are not actually important, and actually can be so flimsy and tenuous that they are intended to invite the kind of response you just provided. Which is why I suspect there is actually more than meets the eye to this particular handle (or series of handles). But that’s a conversation for another day.

As I said above: cynicism is a kind of naïveté and psychological blindness. Which is why I suspect they thought invoking Larry Summers would be effective here.

[David Nieporent]

The other problem they have is that they really don't grasp that just because MAGA is a cult doesn't mean that all other political movements are. It doesn't work to whatabout with Bill Clinton or Larry Summers because nobody cares about Bill Clinton or Larry Summers. Neither the Epstein-obsessed QAnon types nor the Democrats are going to be deterred by the thought that Bill Clinton's name (let alone Larry Summers') might be tarnished.

[JohnSmith97]

We know, DN. You would actually have to admit that a (D) did something wrong - and that is not allowed in the (D) cult. The delegate from VI was coached by Epstein (via text messages) during a hearing.

Of course, it is (D)ifferent when a (D) does it.

[David Nieporent]

The delegate from the VI is a Democratic congress(wo)man, not a "Democrat congressman." And what do you contend is the "something" that she "did wrong"?

[Mr. Bumble]

Get it straight.
That would be non-voting Democrat delegate from the US Virgin Islands, Stacey Plaskett.

[John F. Carr]

I encountered a strange quirk of Colorado law I hadn't heard of before. A plaintiff suing over a school shooting has a right to comprehensive discovery in addition to a right to monetary relief. Such cases may not be settled before discovery is complete. In Castillo v. STEM the school at which a student was murdered offered to settle the case for the statutory maximum $387,000. But that didn't end the case. The plaintiffs were entitled to continued discovery of material that had no possible benefit to their case. A year and a half later, once the plaintiffs had 25,000 pages of evidence they didn't need, the trial court finally declared the case moot. The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiffs got all they were entitled to, discovery and a wad of cash that might not cover the expense of three years of litigation. In particular, plaintiffs were not entitled to force a jury trial for the purpose of "harming [school's] reputation by exposing its mistakes."
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10736088/castillo-v-stem/

It seems to me a broader FOIA law would accomplish the same purpose more cheaply.

[Kazinski]

For a lot of people the most important issue both domestically and internationally for a few years is Gaza.

Well good news on that front, the UN Security Council has endorsed Trump's Gaza peace plan.

Reuters reports;
"The UN Security Council voted to adopt a US-drafted resolution endorsing President Trump's plan to end the war in Gaza and authorizing an international stabilization force for the Palestinian enclave".

I did a quick search on Gaza in the comments, and tellingly not a single mention.

The most pressing, the most intractable problem in the world, solved just like that.

Next up: Tehran's water crises, which may end up being worse than Gaza because the Iranians were too busy meddling in Gaza to secure a reliable water supply.

[Daddyhill]

I've been following, intermittently, the course of the DOJ's investigation and indictment of James Comey. Today on Politico there were a couple of photos of Lindsey Halligan, one of Trump's personal lawyers. I know this sounds sexist, but I gotta ask: why don't any of Trump's female attorneys look like one of my sisters rather than glamour magazine models? This has nothing to do, mind you, with her education, training, and competence, which I'm not qualified to consider, and nothing to do with her current position and case work.

[Zarniwoop]

Trump also selects incompetent-but-unqualified pretty boys like Pete Hegseth. At least he’s somewhat equal opportunity when it comes to choosing people based on “looks good on TV” over skill, experience, and judgment.

This still doesn’t explain Steve Miller, of course.

[David Nieporent]

"Steve"? I didn't realize you two were so close.

[grb]

Zarniwoop : "This still doesn’t explain Steve Miller, of course."

After all that eye candy, there had to be room for a Mini-Me of pure Evil.

[David Nieporent]

I know this sounds sexist, but I gotta ask: why don't any of Trump's female attorneys look like one of my sisters rather than glamour magazine models?

She's literally a beauty pageant winner.

and nothing to do with her current position and case work.

Au contraire; it's how she got her current position.

[John F. Carr]

Earlier this year cause célèbre Karen Read was acquitted of murder charges after her defense team argued she was a victim of corrupt Massachusetts cops. Now witnesses in her trial are preparing to sue her for defamation for making them look bad. Another potential defendant is a blogger who posted frequently in her defense.

Read owes millions to her legal team. The defamation plaintiffs will take little even if they win.

https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/witnesses-karen-read-murder-trial-planning-defamation-lawsuit-against-her-blogger-turtleboy/FNWYSGWZPVAPNLFOXXJ37OP26I/

[David Nieporent]

Did Read make out of court statements, or are these people just legally ignorant?

[grb]

David Nieporent : " ...or are these people just legally ignorant?"

Guilty as charged! But fortunately we have Google and trusty AI. Thus:

"Generally, you cannot be sued for defamation for statements made in a courtroom because of absolute privilege, which protects participants like witnesses and lawyers from liability for statements related to the litigation. This privilege is meant to ensure the free and open administration of justice without fear of a defamation lawsuit"

[TwelveInchPianist]

She didn't testify, and she gave interviews to the news media.

[Poxigah146]

https://nypost.com/2025/11/17/us-news/massive-drop-in-latino-support-for-trump-stuns-cnns-harry-enten/

So what's the takeaway here? That a group of low-skill, low-income, high criminality people won't support you unless you support legalizing more of their cucaracha cousins?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Ryan Lizza's description of how he "found out", with an interesting twist.

[Kazinski]

"a year earlier I had spent an afternoon on my knees carefully arranging scores of her boots, high heels, sneakers, and slippers on an enormous shoe rack.

Olivia almost cried when she saw the results. “Nobody has ever done anything like that for me,” she said."

My wife would cry if that's the way I decided to come out too.