Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Here is the video made by six members of Congress reminding members of our armed forces of their oath to support the Constitution and of their obligation to disobey unlawful orders. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2558895077819811

Donald Trump castigated this video, fulminating that is "seditious behavior, punishable by DEATH!" Reps. Jason Crow, D-Colo., Chris DeLuzio, D-Pa, Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H., and Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., and Sens. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., and Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., unlike Donald "Bone Spurs" Trump, themselves served in this country's armed forces. Trump conspicuously did not specify what criminal offense that he contends these members of Congress committed.

Seditions conspiracy is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 2384, which states:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

That statute is obviously inapplicable. Treason is punishable by death, but the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 2381 are clearly not implicated here:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

No matter how much President Trump wishes it were so, refusal of a member of Congress to kiss the President's ass is simply not a crime.

[Commenter_XY]

Seen in context, this video was a threat to every military serviceman who obeyed orders from their superior officer promulgating policy. This was a call for rebellion; the CCP is laughing their ass off.

In every large group, a ~1.25% rate of whack jobs can reasonably be expected. Thankfully, these jokers self-identified as the congressional whack jobs.

[not guilty]

Punishment for a crime requires a statute that has been violated. What federal statute(s), if any, do you claim the making of that video violated, Kazinski?

[not guilty]

I'm sorry. My last comment should have been directed to Commenter_XY. I mistakenly typed Kazinski.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't think any law was violated NG, it is overtly political speech protected by 1A. The congressional whack jobs have 'outed' themselves.

That said, I do think an implied threat was made to our servicemembers: If you obey the 'wrong' order, we will call it unlawful and you'll be hauled before Congress, and possibly prosecuted afterward (assuming they can win elections and control Congress). NG, using implied threats is perfectly normal behavior from DC politicians.

[Sarcastr0]

So you're redefining 'unlawful order' so you can justify Trump acting like an authoritarian again.

The military are trained on what an unlawful order is, and it's not 'Dems will totally persecute you unless you rebel.'

Based on your 'well at least Comey might be inconvenienced/bankrupted by the DoJ's shambolic case' below, this is projection.

[Riva]

The real question is what exactly do they mean in this video? What “unlawful” orders? What the fuck do they expect this to do to the chain of command? This is advocating a fucking military coup. It’s repulsive and this is what the democrats have become.

[Moderation4ever]

No it is reminding soldiers that their actions will be judged against their oath to the Constitution and not their loyalty to the leader.

[DDHarriman]

Don't forget, these Democrat's also threatened them if they violated the Democrat's subjective "morality".

You can see people in this thread also broadening the scope of their language to include the personal "morality" as justification for La Resistance!

Not just law and constitution. But the Democrat's morality, which is unmoored from the other two.

[not guilty]

"Don't forget, these Democrat's [sic] also threatened them if they violated the Democrat's subjective 'morality'."

How so, DDHarriman? What was the "threat"? By whom was it made? Against whom was it made? What consequence was "threatened"?

[Brett Bellmore]

The natural problem here, is that unless you're identifying what sort of unlawful orders are meant, you're just hanging over their heads a vague threat that orders they get today might be treated as having been unlawful tomorrow, with a change of administration, even though the entire chain of command above the soldier is currently telling them it's a lawful order.

While it's true that soldiers are legally obligated to refuse unlawful orders, this is an obligation they are normally held to only in the most absolutely crystal clear cases. This is not a threat that should be pulled out in cases where you just have a political disagreement.

Remember when Obama was having Hellfire missiles launched at wedding banquets, when Clinton had a pharmaceutical plant bombed? Would you have liked the military to have refused those orders? Worse, would you have liked the next administration to have tried and imprisoned or even executed the soldiers who acted on those orders?

[DDHarriman]

But you don't understand the paradigm.

Golden heart/ Black heart.

Obama and Hillary have golden, Democrat, hearts -- their orders are ALWAYS lawful, just, and moral because their hearts are golden.

Trump has a black, MAGA, heart -- his orders are ALWAYS unlawful, unjust, and immoral because his heart is black.

By definition.

[Sarcastr0]

If only soldiers were trained on what unlawful order were!

[Brett Bellmore]

They, in fact, are, which is why they didn't need this notification.

It doesn't serve to tell them to not do anything that is currently unlawful to do, they already know they're not supposed to.

It's a warning that the standards for what is an unlawful order are going to change when the Democrats are back in power, retroactively.

[ducksalad]

a vague threat

"We'll have your backs" doesn't sound much like a threat.

Remember when Obama was having Hellfire missiles launched at wedding banquets, when Clinton had a pharmaceutical plant bombed? Would you have liked the military to have refused those orders?

Wouldn't and didn't blame them for not refusing. But if they had, yes, it would have been a good thing. And if they got in trouble I'd certainly be in favor of a pardon.

Worse, would you have liked the next administration to have tried and imprisoned or even executed the soldiers who acted on those orders?

Now you're confused. It wasn't the congressmen in the video who mentioned execution.

[David Nieporent]

It's a warning that the standards for what is an unlawful order are going to change when the Democrats are back in power, retroactively.

Remember when Trump called for his acolytes to overthrow the government to keep him in power, and you pretended that because he didn't say the exact words, "I order you to attack the Capitol and force them to keep me in power" that it didn't happen?

Good times.

[Sarcastr0]

And pardoning them was all well and good because J6 was an FBI op.

[Brett Bellmore]

""We'll have your backs" doesn't sound much like a threat."

"We'll have your backs if and only if you violate orders from the current Commander in Chief" sure sounds like one.

[Sarcastr0]

refuse lawful orders on the "Orange Man Bad" theory.

Anything other than vibes suggesting this reading to you?

'Refuse lawful orders' is the opposite of what the language says.

It's also rather disrespecting the loyalty of our troops to posit that soldiers are motivated by 'orange man bad.'

[ducksalad]

"We'll have your backs if and only if you violate orders from the current Commander in Chief" sure sounds like one.

When you have to modify the quote to criticize it, that's a sign you're case is not strong.

[bernard11]

The natural problem here, is that unless you're identifying what sort of unlawful orders are meant,...

The military gets training on unlawful orders. This is not out of the blue.

Do you seriously expect that the video will run through every possible unlawful order? Might take a while.

you're just hanging over their heads a vague threat that orders they get today might be treated as having been unlawful tomorrow, with a change of administration, even though the entire chain of command above the soldier is currently telling them it's a lawful order.

Brett, your knee is jerking. Think. The video doesn't create the threat. The same possibilities are there with or without the video. All it does is provide a reminder that obeying an unlawful order is wrongful conduct.

[bernard11]

It's a warning that the standards for what is an unlawful order are going to change when the Democrats are back in power, retroactively.

This is more paranoid bullshit from you. Your notion that Democrats are irredeemably evil, and are even now conspiring as to how to punish soldiers for carrying out their duties is insane.

[Riva]

No, it is encouraging soldiers to violate their oath. An order is not “illegal” because some radical democrat hack disagrees with it or would prefer a different policy.

[SRG2]

No, it is encouraging soldiers to violate their oath

No. It is reminding them of their oath, and encouraging them to uphold it.

[Riva]

What fucking “illegal” orders? Milley thought his agenda controlled over the president. Is that behavior every soldier is supposed to emulate?

[Bob from Ohio]

"encouraging them to uphold it."

Its encouraging them to be insubordinate and refuse lawful orders on the "Orange Man Bad" theory.

[Bob from Ohio]

"soldiers are motivated by 'orange man bad.'"

I did not say or imply that.

Its the congrescritters who are so motivated.

[David Nieporent]

Editor's note: it would not be a "military coup" even if the people in the video said what MAGA is lying that they said and members of the armed forces acted on it. Refusing to carry out an order is not a "coup." It might be mutiny, but not a coup.

Now, sending your acolytes to attack Congress to get them to install you as the next president after you decisively lost an election — that's a coup (attempt). (Not a military one, though.)

[DDHarriman]

How many Democrat military forces occupied DC for how long after Bidens installation?

[David Nieporent]

None. There is no such thing as "Democrat military forces." For two reasons.

[Riva]

Editor’s note: I doubt democrats really care that much whether they’re engaging in a coup, insurrection, or “mutiny,” as long as they can exploit the opportunity for their own aggrandizement.

[not guilty]

"The real question is what exactly do they mean in this video? What “unlawful” orders? What the fuck do they expect this to do to the chain of command? This is advocating a fucking military coup. It’s repulsive and this is what the democrats have become."

No, Riva. Your cult leader President Trump called for imposition of the death penalty on six members of Congress, none of whom had committed any crime. That is reprehensible.

[Riva]

No, in point of fact he didn't, he simply pointed out, quite correctly, what penalties could result from the fucking outrageous conduct of these Congressmen. And, fun fact, if any of these now disgraced veterans are eligible to be recalled into active service then they'll be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, under which the death penalty can be imposed for those convicted of sedition or mutiny. Food for thought.

Bonus fun fact: the repulsive lawfare thugs in the Biden Administration and certain of the democrat state allies wanted President Trump to spend the rest of his natural life in prison; in other words, they wanted him to die in prison. For politics.

[not guilty]

"No, in point of fact he didn't, he simply pointed out, quite correctly, what penalties could result from the fucking outrageous conduct of these Congressmen."

Penalties imposed pursuant to what statute(s), Riva?

And what you characterize as "outrageous conduct" is expression fully protected under the First Amendment. If a criminal statute did prohibit this kind of expression, application thereof to this video would be plainly unconstitutional.

FWIW, there is no "outrageous conduct" exception to First Amendment protection. See, Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 458 (2011); Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 55 (1988).

[Riva]

Is this asinine partial cut and paste game in some troll handbook? This was my comment:

"No, in point of fact he didn't, he simply pointed out, quite correctly, what penalties could result from the fucking outrageous conduct of these Congressmen. And, fun fact, if any of these now disgraced veterans are eligible to be recalled into active service then they'll be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, under which the death penalty can be imposed for those convicted of sedition or mutiny. Food for thought.

Bonus fun fact: the repulsive lawfare thugs in the Biden Administration and certain of the democrat state allies wanted President Trump to spend the rest of his natural life in prison; in other words, they wanted him to die in prison. For politics."

You want to respond to it, then just fucking respond. I'm not playing this fucking stupid troll game anymore. If not we're done here.

[not guilty]

"You want to respond to it, then just fucking respond. I'm not playing this fucking stupid troll game anymore. If not we're done here."

IOW, you got nothing -- including the integrity to admit having nothing. Your go to option is to run away like a scalded dog.

[Sarcastr0]

‘I was only following orders’ is not a defense when the order is unlawful.

We established this when the Nazis tried it.

Since then we’ve defined out civic morality partially in direct contravention of that idea.

It’s not a call for rebellion.
How do you keep saying Nazi regime things.

[wvattorney13]

"‘I was only following orders’ is not a defense when the order is unlawful."

Yet when they were on a news program they could not identify one single order that they believe any military personnel was given that fit into this category.

[Sarcastr0]

Why would they need to get into specifics?

[John F. Carr]

This is the legal standard:

It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.

Rule for Courts-Martial 916(c). The commentary adds

An act performed pursuant to a lawful order is justified. See R.C.M. 916(c). An act performed pursuant to an unlawful order is excused unless the accused knew it to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known it to be unlawful.

In doubtful cases soldiers are expected to obey orders. Disobedience to lawful orders is punished by UCMJ articles 90 and 92. A soldier who refuses to obey an order assumes the risk that the order will be found lawful.

[not guilty]

"In doubtful cases soldiers are expected to obey orders. Disobedience to lawful orders is punished by UCMJ articles 90 and 92. A soldier who refuses to obey an order assumes the risk that the order will be found lawful."

Glenn Kirschner has an interesting interview with retired Army JAG officer Franklin Rosenblatt, the president of the National Institute of Military Justice. NIMJ created The Orders Project, to provide military members real-time advice from subject matter experts who are attorneys, on whether a particular order a soldier might have to wrestle with is a lawful order or an unlawful order. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS--xrUSGyA

That seems to me to be an invaluable resource.

[David Nieporent]

Yet when they were on a news program they could not identify one single order that they believe any military personnel was given that fit into this category.

1) Yes, they could, and did.
2) The video was prospective, not retrospective. It was about potential future orders, not past ones.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

This article provides useful context:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/20/politics/hang-democrats-trump-seditious-behavior

The gaslighting involved in 2025, suggesting those very concerned are hysterical, is patently ridiculous at this point.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

See also:

https://newrepublic.com/article/203489/transcript-trump-tirade-calling-death-dems-backfires-badly

[Drewski]

Nuremberg established this for international law, but in the US "just following orders" is, indeed, a defense. Admittedly I don't know the nuances, but if you think the Nuremberg Principle was adopted as domestic legal doctrine then you aren't ready for nuance.

[not guilty]

Under some limited circumstances reliance upon public authority can serve as a defense or affirmative defense to a crime. The Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual explains some of the nuances: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2055-public-authority-defense

In the case of an accused person whose military training includes the duty to disobey unlawful orders, that is an uphill climb from a defense perspective.

[Drewski]

It was indeed a call for rebellion - by Trump, against the Constitution. He is calling for loyalty to himself, above the law and morality.

[wvattorney13]

"Seen in context"

What is that? That's not done on this board. The Dems can do their Jasmine Crockett thing and their defenders on here will play coy and say that this was just a PSA to advise military members of their duty to disobey unlawful orders.

Honest, we didn't mean anything specifically!

[Sarcastr0]

Jesus you are paranoid about Democrats secret agenda here.

You can’t imagine a legit concern there will be illegal orders passed down by this admin? It’s got to be some specific Dems doing a fan fiction scenario?

You are telepathically finding bad faith, and that’s a fraught proposition.

[wvattorney13]

Right on time.

[Bwaaah]

Another day. That same lame type of accusation. It's an automaton.

[DDHarriman]

He expresses emotion more like one of those mentally unstable White women.

[Commenter_XY]

It is the vibes, man.

[Bwaaah]

There you are with your, "Oh, there go all the Democrats conspiring with that one vibe to destroy the human race."

[Commenter_XY]

I know, I know....that 1.5% congressional whack job number is huge! A total of n=6. 😉

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yes yes! Spur each other on to greater heights of idiocy!

[Bwaaah]

Jesus you are paranoid about Democrats secret agenda here.

You can’t imagine a legit concern there will be illegal orders passed down by this admin? It’s got to be some specific Dems doing a fan fiction scenario?

You are telepathically finding bad faith, and that’s a fraught proposition.

[Mr. Bumble]

Who would be left standing if hypocrisy was a capital crime.

[Joe_dallas]

Leftist hypocrisy is a virtue. Exposing the hypocrisy is the crime.

[Drewski]

I would. You would not.

[Sarcastr0]

If you'd care to engage with the issue I have with your argument:

You are demanding specificity in a future-looking concern. That is not a well structured requirement.

[DDHarriman]

Everyone prepare for the parade of horribles, insurrect, burn the cities down, commit treason, we must save our country from our imagined parade of horribles!!! VOTE DEMOCRAT!

[John 4]

“This was a call for rebellion”

You are not a serious person.

[John F. Carr]

This reminds me of Schenck v. United States, the "fire in a crowded theater" case. But I don't think any of the Congressmen are going to jail. Some soldiers might get in trouble when the courts disagree with the six members about what orders are unlawful.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Fire in a crowded theater" had a much different meaning a century ago when movie film was explosive.

[DDHarriman]

Wow! How is that still available online? Direct calls for treason & military insurrection.

Wow.

[not guilty]

"Direct calls for treason & military insurrection."

You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTRKCXC0JFg

Disobedience of an unlawful order is neither treason nor insurrection. It is instead a military duty. Those concepts are mutually exclusive.

[Riva]

So, the “No Kings” radicals are now embracing sedition and a military coup? Old habits die hard for the democrats apparently. But it has been over a hundred years since their last insurrection so they probably think it’s due.

[Swede425]

LOL!
The military looked up and said "Yeah, ok, thanks for the reminder" and then continued on.
None of these brave members of Congress offered any specifics that they thought this reminder might apply to for any current situation happening in the world at this moment.
Weird.

[Bunny495]

The problem with pols blabbing in public is that most of the time they have no idea what they are talking about. Specific to what happened in this case is the term "lawful order". As others have noted Obama and Clinton both used the military in ways very similar to what Trump is now doing. Clinton had bad intel and destroyed an aspirin factory and Obama killed innocents as well as an American citizen. I have cruised on my boat in the area where Trump's military is active. Everything I have seen points to good intel leading to military action. Fishermen don't use "go fast boats" or semi submersibles unless they are smuggling. Venezuela is a basket case and as shocking as this sounds there is an active market for smuggling things like toilet paper and toothpaste into (as well as other hard to find consumer goods) Venezuela and smuggling drugs out.

Another legal consideration is while what Obama and Clinton did was under the jurisdictions of what I will call landlubber law, Trump's actions are governed by the LOS treaties (I know the US did not sign them but it has mostly always abided by them).

Bottom line is Trump's drug interdiction activities all see legal and based on historical precedent. I would also point out some of what the pols in the vid said could be based on Trump's deployment of the NG to cities where unruly crowds have clearly interfered with ICE agents. Lawyers are still debating what the tipping point is for this deployment to be justified but there is no question the ICE agents have been subject to threats and physical attacks.

Bottom line is Trump may be pushing the boundaries, but it is a gray area with shifting boundaries. Not to mention the DOJ/military brass has issued a statement that what is happening is legal so troops are to follow orders. I don't see any way this would not lead to a winning defense.

[David Nieporent]

I don't see any way this would not lead to a winning defense.

"or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known it to be unlawful."

[Brett Bellmore]

"Clinton had bad intel and destroyed an aspirin factory"

I really hate it when people call that pharmaceutical plant an "aspirin factory."

That was the party line after, to make light of what he'd done. Al-Shifa was a full pharmaceutical plant, manufacturing a wide range of drugs including a major portion of Africa's anti-Malarial drugs.

It's not even clear that aspirin was among the things they DID manufacture!

[David Nieporent]

That was not "to make light of what he'd done." It was to make more serious what he had done.

[not guilty]

Bunny495, the President's ordering the Caribbean strikes is plainly illegal. Professor Marty Lederman of the Georgetown University Law Center, who served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Office of Legal Counsel from 2021-2023 and 2009-2010, and as an Attorney Advisor at the Office of Legal Counsel from 1994-2002, has a comprehensive analysis.

https://www.justsecurity.org/120296/many-ways-caribbean-strike-unlawful/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

The illegality of such orders should be obvious to anyone paying attention.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"The illegality of such orders should be obvious to anyone paying attention."

This implies to me that you believe that military people are risking criminal liability by obeying these orders. That's hard to swallow. It's pretty tough for me to accept that orders claimed to be legal by the entire chain of command should be seen as obviously illegal by those at the bottom actually executing the orders.

[not guilty]

"This implies to me that you believe that military people are risking criminal liability by obeying these orders. That's hard to swallow. It's pretty tough for me to accept that orders claimed to be legal by the entire chain of command should be seen as obviously illegal by those at the bottom actually executing the orders."

In regard to the Caribbean strikes, those who carry out unlawful orders are indeed risking criminal liability, as are those (other than the President himself) who give such orders.

Murder on the high seas violates 18 U.S.C. § 1111(b). In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1) makes it a felony to conspire within the United States “to commit at any place outside the United States an act that would constitute the offense of murder … if committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” if “any of the conspirators commits an act within the jurisdiction of the United States to effect any object of the conspiracy”.

As Professor Marty Lederman has opined, based upon the information that’s been made public thus far, there doesn’t appear to be any explanation for why the Caribbean strikes here, and the planning for them in the United States, did not violate these laws. https://www.justsecurity.org/120296/many-ways-caribbean-strike-unlawful/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

I don't wish to see the underlings who carried out these orders court martialed or criminally punished. But those who gave unlawful orders should be. In addition to the conspiracy offense specified at § 956, they are culpable for the substantive offenses as well per 18 U.S.C. § 2, which states:

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

[JohnSmith97]

Wow, look at all that work in (D) administrations.

I'm totally surprised that he disagrees with an (R) admin.

[SimonP]

Of course, "smuggling drugs" from Venezuela - or anywhere - does not justify the use of lethal military force.

From what's been publicly disclosed about the White House's legal analysis, it appears that the WH lawyers' analysis takes as granted the factual assertions that Trump has made, without any kind of plausible basis. It's a little like a legal opinion concluding, "Any FBI agent is legally permitted to shoot Black people on sight," where the opinion accepts as true the President's assertion that every Black person is actively engaged in a plot to kill as many white people as possible, at all times.

TdA is not engaged in armed conflict with the United States. TdA's illegal smuggling is not a direct or indirect threat to any American citizen. The "cartel de los soles" is not a coherent criminal group. Designating these groups as "terrorist organizations" does not authorize the use of lethal force. And so on.

We may never know with great detail the identities and purposes of the people that Trump has killed in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea. That's quite by design. But too focus on whether they were truly "innocent" is to miss the forest for the trees. They could have been illegal immigrants. They could have been human smugglers. They could have been fishermen. They could have been drug smugglers to other countries. It doesn't matter. The strikes are illegal, and those in our military who are following the orders to engage in these strikes need to seriously evaluate whether they are properly doing so.

[John F. Carr]

In thinking about the privilege to disobey an order known to be unlawful, I recalled the first day of Theory of Knowledge class. What does it mean to know something? A trial definition: You must believe it, and it must be true. That is unsatisfactory because objective truth may be inaccessible. In the case of military orders, objective truth is a question of law determined after the fact.

[M L]

Democrats are real big on following the constitution.

[not guilty]

It has been more than twelve hours now since I challenged the MAGA cult to identify how the video that President Trump fulminated about as "seditious behavior, punishable by DEATH!", constitutes any criminal offense.

No one has since identified any federal statute which these members of Congress have violated. Is anyone surprised?

[JohnSmith97]

No, I'm not surprised that your daily rant got ignored.

Actually, it seems like the best way to deal with what your write on here.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

So you've got nothing.

[not guilty]

There has been a lot of whataboutism bandied about. That is a surefire indicator that a commenter has nothing of substance to offer regarding the original proposition.

As the noted philosopher Ernest Tubb observed, Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V5nUT6jN2E&list=RD5V5nUT6jN2E&start_radio=1

[Magister]

But look: Four wrongs squared, minus two wrongs to the fourth power, divided by this formula*, do make a right.

* the margin is too narrow to contain the formula or the proof.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Halligan changes her story about the Comey indictment again.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.206.0.pdf

The official transcript of the September 25, 2025, proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vaala ...establishes that the grand jury voted on – and true-billed – the two-count indictment....
The transcript contains the following direct exchange between the Court and the grand jury foreperson:

THE COURT: Sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. So you voted on the one that has the two counts?
THE FOREPERSON: Yes.

The transcript is not available to the general public because the parties still have the option of requesting redactions, and at this point I don’t trust the government not to quote it in a misleading fashion. But it’s been eight weeks since the hearing--a hearing where the government was present and for which they have the transcript--and they are just now discovering what happened at that hearing?

[Commenter_XY]

The longer this drags on, the more billable time for defen$e coun$el. I'm sure Comey has deep pocket$.

[Kazinski]

I wouldn't worry, I'm sure there are some deep pockets lining up to fund his defense.

[not guilty]

James Comey and Patrick Fitzgerald have long been close friends. I have read (I can't remember where) that one was best man at the other's wedding. I would not be surprised if Fitzgerald is representing him pro bono.

[Commenter_XY]

Agree, it is an incestuous world in DC. And there is nothing wrong with associating with the people who are your neighbors, or friends (or doing pro bono work). I would simply note it is one of the factors in explaining why DC has become so disconnected from the rest of the country.

I just wonder how long it will drag out. And then appeals? Three years could be a long time doing pro bono work, along with the unwelcome attention it will attract over time.

Now suppose the case is tossed by the judge (it sure sounds that way to me). Does The Donald the DOJ get another bite at the apple? Is this where tolling comes in (or it does not apply)? Is it truly 'game over' for the DOJ (on these charges)?

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not you dint care about the taxpayer money being wasted.

[DDHarriman]

Your people obviously don't, why can't actual taxpayers care?

[not guilty]

The government can appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731 from a dismissal of an indictment. The government cannot appeal from a judgment of acquittal prior to verdict or from a jury verdict of not guilty.

Tolling does not apply here. If the indictment is dismissed and the dismissal is reversed on appeal, the accused will stand trial on the original indictment.

[Commenter_XY]

So....The Donald the DOJ can get another bite at the apple. Interesting. Not saying they would take another bite of the apple, of course.

[David Nieporent]

Um, that's just stupid and not at all the way it works. The vast bulk of the billable hours would be spent on trial prep/trial. This is all designed to head that off.

[loki13]

XY, fully on board the authoritarian train!

"Look, I don't care if there is any merit to the charges. I don't care if the DOJ is no longer performing in an ethical way, or now is simply lying to this Court (and other courts) repeatedly. I don't care if prosecutions have nothing to do with the law, and that ethical attorneys who refuse to prosecute the King's enemies are forced out of their positions so that the King can put in incompetent liars in their place in order to bring spurious cases against them.

What really matter, to me, is the lulz I get thinking about the amount of monetary and emotional pain the King can inflict on people (and their families) I don't like. Because I'm reasonably sure that King won't come after me. Right?"

[Commenter_XY]

loki13, when former O-Biden administration members do jail time, you can talk. The shoe is on the other foot now, for three more years.

[loki13]

Whaddabout ....

I appreciate that you've honestly identified exactly what you believe. You don't care about the law. You don't care about the facts. You don't care that we have destroyed the institutional legitimacy of the DOJ and the FBI.

So long as you get "revenge," which, for you, is allowing Trump to lash out however he wants, whenever he wants, against his perceived enemies. Regardless of the facts or the law.

Cool story.

[bernard11]

Not to mention XY's assumption that the various cases against Trump were wholly political and without substance.

Which is horseshit.

[Sarcastr0]

You didn't even bother to identify what behavior you think is criminal.

I have no idea why you post on a legal blog, given rule of law is antithetical to your priorities.

[DDHarriman]

Can you explain the concepts of "Rule of Law" and "Living Constitution" as you understand them?

You profess a belief in the Rule of Law, while your tribe generally believes in a "Living Constitution". I want to see if your kind is capable of grokking the contradiction.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The version of "Living Constitution" that exists in your head sure does sound awful.

[jb]

I don't think these constant screw ups by Halligan are making it more likely this is going to drag on very long. Getting the indictment thrown out before any of the other legal issues are resolved, much less before having to deal with a trial, seems like an extremely quick resolution to the case.

[Bunny495]

Update from GJ foreman

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/grand-jury-properly-voted-on-james-comey-s-indictment-foreman-claims-in-blow-to-defense-eliminates-any-doubt/ar-AA1QQbiO?ocid=msedgntp&pc=ASTS&cvid=6920691a504242048768147e1fe340c6&ei=59

[loki13]

Bunny,

This was already discussed.

1. This is not an "update" from the GJ foreperson. This is an article reporting from the DOJ's filing. Which has a selected part of the transcript.

2. As already discussed, this doesn't do what you (or the article) says. Because as carefully crafted as the notice was, it lacks a few important things....

a. It didn't have any declaration (actual sworn-to facts) from an attorney who stated what happened to the judge in the hearing.
b. It didn't have a declaration from Halligan about what happened.
c. It doesn't ACTUALLY SAY that the two-count indictment was voted on, and, in fact, it could not have been. Which was the issue at the prior hearing.

As an attorney who read that, I think that this filing was actually much worse, and I would not have filed it if I was the DOJ. Because it seems like they are trying to mislead the court with a selected portion of the public transcript, but it's already been made public (and the judge has the full proceedings) that there was never any presentation of the second indictment. Which means that either there are missing parts of the transcript, or, as is more likely, Halligan had the GJ Foreperson (I am using that because it was a woman) sign off on two indictments, one of which was never presented to the Grand Jury.

That's the actual legal issue, and it would also mean that there would have been a communication between Halligan and her that wasn't captured where she told her to sign it .... which isn't good. Because it doesn't matter what the person says after the deliberations, if the returned indictment that was presented was no true billed*, you have to present the re-packaged indictment.

Also? If you read the whole thing, there is this great part in the transcript where the MJ asks Halligan about the two indictments, and Halligan denies seeing the first one, and then the MJ asks her why she signed it.

HALLIGAN!

[Kenneth Almquist]

Can you explain about the transcript having “already been made public?” My reading of the docket entry 10 was that the Court would withhold the transcript until Dec. 25 to allow time for redactions. Thanks.

[loki13]

The transcript of the proceeding in front of the Magistrate Judge regarding approving the indictments. NOT the GJ proceedings. Apologize if that was unclear.

But I will use this opportunity to again point out how bizarre (and in my opinion, delusional and self-destructive) this notice filing was despite fooling Bunny.

You already had the MJ (the one assigned to the judge, not the one involved in the indictment) making the finding that the second indictment hadn't been presented.
You already had the DOJ concede the issue in other papers.
Then you had the Judge asking the DOJ's lawyers at hearing (incl. Halligan) and hearing that, no, the grand jury did not ever see the second indictment.
Then we also have the DOJ bury a footnote saying that the Grand Jury had been excused before the second indictment was ever drafted.

AND YET .... they file something that appears to try and elide all of this (without swearing anything or providing a declaration) and states that it is a correction (to what????) .... and seems to make an attempt to mislead the Court (that just heard them in court admit to it) ... that the second indictment WAS presented to the grand jury.

You can't make this up.

[not guilty]

I am not as concerned about the second, narrower indictment as I am about other missteps before the grand jury in the Comey matter. SCOTUS has opined:

The very purpose of the requirement that a man be indicted by grand jury is to limit his jeopardy to offenses charged by a group of his fellow citizens acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge. Thus, the basic protection the grand jury was designed to afford is defeated by a device or method which subjects the defendant to prosecution for [an offense] which the grand jury did not charge.

Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960) [footnote omitted].

Stirone involved an indictment which charged interference with interstate commerce in regard to sand brought into Pennsylvania from other States. At trial the government offered evidence of interference with commerce regarding steel shipments from a steel plant in Pennsylvania into Michigan and Kentucky. The trial judge instructed the jury that, so far as the interstate commerce aspect of the case was concerned, Stirone's guilt could be rested either on a finding that (1) sand used to make the concrete "had been shipped from another state into Pennsylvania" or (2) "Mr. Rider's concrete was used for constructing a mill which would manufacture articles of steel to be shipped in interstate commerce . . ." from Pennsylvania into other States. Id. at 214. IOW, the jury could convict on one set of facts which was found by the grand jury or on another set of facts which was not so found.

Cases since Stirone have generally held that a constitutionally impermissible "constructive amendment" of the indictment occurs where proof of offenses broader that what is charged is presented to the jury at trial. It does not work the other way, however. A broader indictment, containing more averments than necessary, can be narrowed by proof at trial. See, United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (1985).

SCOTUS has held that as a general matter, a district court may not dismiss an indictment for errors in grand jury proceedings unless such errors prejudiced the defendants. Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 254 (1988). If the grand jury in fact found the averments recited in Counts Two and Three of the original indictment, it is difficult for me to see how Mr. Comey has been prejudiced by the substitution of the second indictment for the first.

Lindsey Hooligan's reported representations to the grand jury which the Magistrate Judge characterized as "two statements by the prosecutor to the grand jurors that on their face appear to be fundamental misstatements of the law that could compromise the integrity of the grand jury process[,]" is a different kettle of fish. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.191.0_5.pdf

While parts of the Magistrate Judge's memorandum opinion (apparently including the verbatim words of the prosecutor) are redacted, the Court wrote that one such "statement clearly suggested to the grand jury that they did not have to rely only on the record before them to determine probable cause but could be assured the government had more evidence–perhaps better evidence–that would be presented at trial." The Court there characterized another statement by the prosecutor as "a fundamental and highly prejudicial misstatement of the law that suggests to the grand jury that Mr. Comey does not have a Fifth Amendment right not to testify at trial."

That is serious misconduct which indeed could vitiate the indictment.

[Life of Brian]

While parts of the Magistrate Judge's memorandum opinion (apparently including the verbatim words of the prosecutor) are redacted, the Court wrote that one such "statement clearly suggested to the grand jury that they did not have to rely only on the record before them to determine probable cause but could be assured the government had more evidence–perhaps better evidence–that would be presented at trial."

It seems like that argument might have had a lot more traction had the GJ not no-billed the first count. Were they actually confused into relying on some theoretical better evidence in the future rather than the evidence before them, it's not clear at all why they would have been confused for only some of the counts.

[not guilty]

No, LoB, a statement such as apparently was made here is not appropriate under any circumstances whatsoever.

Most judges think long and hard, and often pull punches, before calling out a member of the bar of misconduct. Judge Fitzpatrick's memorandum in that regard is extraordinary.

In this and in myriad other cases, the current administration of the Department of Justice is squandering institutional credibility which took decades to build. That portends ill for the administration of justice in federal courts.

[Life of Brian]

Strangely, the word "appropriate" did not appear in my post, nor did you address the point I actually made.

As you acknowledged in your first post, we can't even see what the language at issue was. All we have is the MJ's representation that the language "clearly suggested" something naughty. As Maggie Thatcher might have put it, if you have to say it's clear, it probably isn't.

But moving past that for the moment, even if the language had indeed "clearly suggested" the naughty notion, my point was that there's zero evidence that the GJ relied on it -- and in fact the no-bill of count 1 is evidence they didn't rely on it. And if they didn't rely on it, I'm not seeing what sort of prejudice Comey could articulate.

[not guilty]

Lindsey Hooligan's pretty head on a pike -- figuratively -- would serve an invaluable purpose here.

I would hope that would have a ripple effect on other newbie prosecutors and Trump psychophants* in U.S. Attorneys' offices across the land to deter similar kinds of misconduct.

* H/t apedad.

[Life of Brian]

And there's your second round of inflammatory rhetoric in lieu of actually engaging with my (rather straightforward and, outside the context of this hot-button case, I think rather uncontroversial) point.

The perceptive reader could be excused for concluding you actually agree, but just can't bring yourself to admit that.

[Kenneth Almquist]

I meant the proceedings in front of the Magistrate Judge. The problem is that the docket entry (as shown on court listener) indicates that the transcript is unavailable. The entry seems to indicate that the transcript is being withheld until Dec. 25 based on a policy that is posted to the court web site, which is unhelpful because it doesn’t say where the policy appears on the web site, so I’m not sure what policy is or whether it really means that nobody other than the parties can see the transcript prior to Dec. 25. If you know of a way for members of the general public to read the transcript now, rather than waiting until Dec. 25, I would appreciate knowing what that is. Thanks.

[Kazinski]

The Chigago Sun Times is reporting the suspect who set a woman on fire on the Blue line had more than 40 previous arrests.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2025/11/19/terrorism-charges-filed-after-woman-lit-on-fire-on-blue-line-in-loop

paywalled but here is the Fox news report:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/blue-city-suspect-numerous-prior-arrests-federally-charged-after-allegedly-setting-woman-ablaze-train

I'm sure I'm going to be accused of anti-Semitism and racism for pointing out that Kim Foxx, a Soros backed prosecutor was in office 2016-2024, and responsible for this obviously unstable and dangerous psyco for being on the streets.

[David Nieporent]

As always, the cops and media fail by pretending that arrests, rather than convictions, define someone's criminal history.

[wvattorney13]

Maybe she was wrongly accused more than 40 different times. The reader can account for that possibility when reading the article and give it whatever probability he or she deems appropriate.

[David Nieporent]

Who is this "she" you're talking about?

[wvattorney13]

Oops. I thought the suspect was a woman.

[DDHarriman]

In your defense, you didn't ask the suspect for their pronouns first.

[Brett Bellmore]

As a general matter, (Though not a legal matter.) if you've racked up 40 arrests, the probability that you really are a criminal converges on 100%.

[David Nieporent]

Only if arrests are independent of each other, which they're not.

[Bwaaah]

And only if he were independent of his arrests, which he is not.

An estimate of 99.9% would be low.

During Reed's first appearance in federal court Wednesday, he allegedly shouted, "I plead guilty, I plead guilty, I plead guilty."

[David Nieporent]

We are not talking about whether he's guilty of the current offense. We are talking about his so-called "criminal history."

Why do you think they're refusing to tell an easily determinable number: the number of convictions he has?

[Bwaaah]

Diversion programs often result in dismissals of criminal prosecutions, and widespread plea bargaining systematically concludes with characteristically lesser and fewer offenses. Convictions, as a way of characterizing criminal history, are typically severely abbreviated understatements of actual criminal history (particularly among characteristic recidivists).

[Riva]

I’m sure she was just jaywalking. And isn’t most everyone arrested at least 40 times in their lifetime?

[Bunny495]

David, is this the hill you want to die on? I have no doubt there are unjustified arrests (and convictions as well). This case is not one of them. My experience has been that the huge majority of criminals are first and foremost guilty of "criminal stupidity". Many of the charges against him were randomly punching women in the face. I can understand why you might want to punch someone in the face with reason but randomly doing it to someone you had never seen before is beyond the pale. He also had a single charge of jaywalking.

[loki13]

Well, I agree that we should stop random criminals assaulting people.

So you support cracking down on the thugs in ICE!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you support cracking down on the criminals harassing ICE?

[David Nieporent]

As well as the equally real hordes of leprechauns wandering the streets, yes.

[JohnSmith97]

Of course - those poor, innocent leftists. Since they have a golden heart, they are never guilty of anything.

[David Nieporent]

I have no doubt there are unjustified arrests (and convictions as well). This case is not one of them.

I in no way said that this case was one of them!

I am saying that people are being deliberately misleading about his "criminal history" by telling us about arrests rather than convictions. If he has been found guilty of multiple assaults for punching people in the face, that's an important piece of information for us to have. If he was acquitted, or charges were dropped, then the arrests are meaningless.

[John Mosby]

The standard for arrest is PC - more likely than not. In Cook County, it’s much higher than that - cops basically have to prove the case BRD to the duty ASA. Dude was arrested 40 times means 40 lawyers were willing to bet their bar cards they could get a conviction. Also, PC is the standard that beats a libel suit - you could say dude battered 40 people and sleep soundly knowing your fortune is safe. Charlie Chai, JSM

[SRG2]

The standard for arrest is PC - more likely than not

In theory

[Sarcastr0]

PC != 'more likely than not.'

That's preponderance of the evidence.

PC has a more subjective, reasonability aspect, with no specific evidentiary quantum.

I shoulda done this when I was in law school, what a great idea for an article:
https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/legal-standards-by-the-numbers/

[not guilty]

" In Cook County, it’s much higher than that - cops basically have to prove the case BRD to the duty ASA. Dude was arrested 40 times means 40 lawyers were willing to bet their bar cards they could get a conviction."

Was it lawyers making those arrests?

[Joe_dallas]

Focusing on only convictions is also misleading. Full context matters,

[Bunny495]

The article indicates on some of the charges he is awaiting trial. I suspect on the jaywalking charges he may have entered a diversion program. Not sure about driving with no insurance and some other civil stuff. I know of a case where a guy in Florida was arrested for driving with no tag or insurance. At the arraignment the judge asked the guy if he had read the letter DMV sent him stating he needed to get insurance and buy a tag. The guy was a 70 something black guy who responded he could not read.

It reminds me of this perp shouting at his arraignment 'I am guilty' multiple times and when the judge said that could mean a life sentence the perp replied "that's cool'. Like I posted above we need a law addressing 'criminal stupidity'.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, I guess I didn't consider the possibility that 40 false arrests drove the perp to commit this completely out of character crime.

[Sarcastr0]

Sounds like you decided who this guy is, and want that to be the end of it.

Anecdote plus vibes over process.

[Bob from Ohio]

He admitted to his last, worst crime.

You don't have to defend every career criminal.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not, I’m defending the process Kaz is going after without really understanding.

You invariably mix that up with defending the criminal because you don’t much like modern due process.

I feel like a lot of people think there’s a group who are born criminals and are just like that and we should identify them and just jail them for ever for the crime of being criminals.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You invariably mix that up with defending the criminal because you don’t much like modern due process."

Huh? What process is due before Kazinski thinks he's a bad guy?

[Kazinski]

You absolutely nailed me, guilty as charged.

The second I heard he deliberately set a woman on fire I decided he was a bad guy.

I didn't wait for any of the details to come out before making up my mind.

Go ahead, rub it in, I deserve it.

"They noted Reed’s 30-year criminal record: At least 72 arrests and about 15 convictions, including several for arson, criminal damage to government property, and drug trafficking.

The filing also detailed how Reed had recently been released from custody despite pending aggravated battery charges. Prosecutors said he attacked someone at a Berwyn hospital in August, but a judge let him go on electronic monitoring and then another judge lifted his electronic monitoring condition.

Prosecutors argue Reed has "consistently re-offended," which shows he is "undeterred" and should remain detained pending trial."

[Commenter_XY]

https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/11/alleged-chinese-agent-linda-sun-aide-to-hochul-and-cuomo-lavish-lifestyle-revealed/

This to me is unbelievable. Governors in the US access highly sensitive information (state, federal) themselves, it is logical that they would be targeted by the CCP. This Chinese CCP spy worked for Governor Cuomo andand Governor Hochul, for years (since 2012). But neither Cuomo nor Hochul suspected, or knew a thing about Linda Sun. To put one over on a NY Governor is quite an achievement, rarely are two politicians so 'taken'. That is really something, if true. BTW, Sun was there during the pandemic, how might Governor Cuomo's policies in 2020 have been influenced by Linda Sun (and the CCP)?

You know, Red or Blue, Left or Right, Team R or Team D, the CCP doesn't really care. They sought (and got) access to highly sensitive information. You can bet the NY Governor was not the only target by the CCP. How many other Governors in America have the same problem?

Legally, how do you find spies, like Linda Sun? Ostensibly, I thought that was what the FBI was supposed to be doing. They sure took their time doing it here. FTR: Robert Mueller, James Comey and Christopher Wray were the FBI Directors 2012-2024. What a trio.

[David Nieporent]

What do you think she "put over on" Hochul or Cuomo?

[Commenter_XY]

This Chinese CCP spy worked for Governor Cuomo and Governor Hochul, for years (since 2012). But neither Cuomo nor Hochul suspected, or knew a thing about Linda Sun.

[Ridgeway]

She is not accused of spying or espionage, but rather failure to register as an agent of the Chinese govt, in the sense that she was on their payroll. From what I have seen they (the CCP) didn't get much for their money -- she scrubbed mentions of the Uyghurs and Taiwan from some official communications, but they probably could have gotten that for free with a phone call. She also may have helped steer COVID PPI purchases to Chinese companies, but I have not seen much detail on that.

[David Nieporent]

Noted. But even if she was engaged in spying, though, I'm not sure what that has to do with Hochul or Cuomo. She didn't trick them (as far as we know) into hiring her; she simply failed to disclose she was on China's payroll. (I am not exonerating her; I'm saying that as far as we know now, there's nothing Cuomo or Hochul did foolish or wrong with respect to her.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"She didn't trick them (as far as we know) into hiring her; she simply failed to disclose she was on China's payroll."

I'm going to disagree here, in that if you apply for a job with an American politician, and fail to disclose you're the agent of a hostile foreign power, you ARE tricking them. Since we may safely presume that most American politicians would refuse to hire an agent of a hostile foreign power.

You are, however, right, that in this scenario Cuomo and Hochul were, presumptively, her victims, not collaborators.

[Bob from Ohio]

"we may safely presume that most American politicians would refuse to hire an agent of a hostile foreign power. "

Most yes, not all. We cannot assume that for the next NYC mayor or The Squad.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, we can.

People you disagree with are not going to purposefully hire Chinese spies.

What the fuck, man.

[Bob from Ohio]

"purposefully hire Chinese spies"

Oh, to use one of your usual tactics, you just changed the subject.

"hostile foreign power" is not just Red China.

Hiring Qataris or other Islamic agents is absolutely in their wheelhouse.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Since when did Qatar (where some American military are stationed) become a "hostile foreign power?"

[Bob from Ohio]

"Since when did Qatar (where some American military are stationed) become a "hostile foreign power?"

Our military ties are bad.

Yes, I know Trump got a plane. He didn't put our bases there, nor designated Qatar as a major non-NATO ally, that was Biden, Its a non-partisan disaster.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

I'll repeat the question:

Since when did Qatar (where some American military are stationed) become a "hostile foreign power?"

Your answer appears to be "never."

[Bob from Ohio]

"your answer appears to be "never."

Well, the date the current emir took over. Or when it let started supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, or when it let Al Jazeera become Bin Laden's propaganda arm.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 8 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Noted. But even if she was engaged in spying, though, I'm not sure what that has to do with Hochul or Cuomo. She didn't trick them (as far as we know) into hiring her; she simply failed to disclose she was on China's payroll.

What an idiotic comment - A chinese spy didnt trick Hochul or cuomo into hiring her ? Hell yes the spy trick them, hiding her background was part of the deception.

[David Nieporent]

What an idiotic comment - A chinese spy didnt trick Hochul or cuomo into hiring her ? Hell yes the spy trick them, hiding her background was part of the deception.

1) She wasn't Chinese; she was American.
2) She wasn't a spy.
3) What part of her "background" do you think she hid?
4) The indictment does not say when her relationship with the Chinese government began — before or after Cuomo hired her — so you have no idea if she had to lie about anything at all to get hired.

[DDHarriman]

How do you find them? Well given the data patterns, start with every Democrat politician.

[Riva]

I almost feel sorry for the poor CCP spies. The smell of the democrats alone must be hard to bear. Swawell must have paid extra. I wonder if the CCP lets them draw lots for the job?

[jb]

Given how much of federal law enforcement Trump is diverting to trying to catch and deport hot dog vendors, landscapers and day care employees, I can't imagine our counterintelligence capabilities are getting any better these days.

But to zoom out a bit: do we have any reason to believe we're worse at detecting these sorts of situations now with China versus historically with, say, Russia? Certainly Linda Sun wasn't anywhere near as damaging to US interests as say, Robert Hanssen or Aldrich Ames. This is an area that's mostly going to be defined by individual incidents rather than broad trends, but do we have any way to think about how good or bad we are at finding adversaries like this in general?

[David Nieporent]

Certainly Linda Sun wasn't anywhere near as damaging to US interests as say, Robert Hanssen or Aldrich Ames.

or Donald Trump.

[Kazinski]

A Couple of days ago when Trump ordered the House to vote to release the Epstein files, I said:

'Let the false charges and retractions commence".

This is the kind of thing I meant, although I was probably thinking at the time of the absurd allegation that Trump spent Thanksgiving in 2027 with Epstein.

https://nypost.com/2025/11/19/us-news/genius-jasmine-crockett-says-jeffrey-epstein-funded-lee-zeldin-files-show-it-wasnt-that-epstein/

I am sure there will be more.

Of course Hakeem Jefferies was hitting up the OG Epstein for cash not some upstart pediatrician.

[Commenter_XY]

Memo to Congresswoman Crockett:

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt -- Abraham Lincoln

Memo to Congressman Jeffries:

How was dinner with Jefferey Epstein? Do you even remember it? Would you mind talking about it, under oath? -- A Concerned Citizen

[David Nieporent]

Memo to Congressman Jeffries:

How was dinner with Jefferey Epstein? Do you even remember it? Would you mind talking about it, under oath? -- A Concerned Citizen

Memo to Commenter_XY: It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt -- Abraham Lincoln

Confusing a mass fundraising email with a personal invitation makes one look pretty damn stupid.

[DDHarriman]

"mass fundraising email"? lol is that the new Talking Point For The Stupids?

Do you get paid to be this way? I surely hope so. Because if you're doing this under your own agency, well wtf ... just wtf

[David Nieporent]

Voltage!

[loki13]

I know! It's interesting, isn't it, that XY .... is focused on an innocuous fundraising email so much that he felt obligated to post about it.

I mean, you'd think that there would be some sort of "memo" involving the detailed correspondence between Epstein and Bannon?

Thiel?

No? I was sure XY would go to the Summers well, because he's (D)ifferent than those two .... except that Summers is actually facing consequences already, and, of course, Democrats (D)on't support the people that were communicating with Epstein and were besties with him.

You know! Like Bannon. And Thiel. Two people that are besties with another bestie of Epstein!

Can't quite think of the name. I'm sure there are pictures of the person, or ... birthday cards ... or .... videos of him at this guy's wedding .... I dunno. Maybe a quote from the guy about how he's been best friends with him for over a decade, and how Epstein likes girls on the younger side?

On the tip of my tongue...

[Bunny495]

Saw a blurb video of her on Youtube talking about this. She was confronted with the fact that it was a different Jeffery Epstein and multiple times she pointed out her exact words were "a Jeffery Epstein" and went on to say "not the Jeffery Epstein".
It just goes from bad to worse. The date of the donation from "a Jeffery Epstein" was after "the Jeffery Epstein" was dead.

[Bob from Ohio]

Congresswoman Crockett is from a middle class background and attended private schools and Amy Barrett's college. No dummy but she now drops the ending "g" from words and otherwise talks like she is a 6th grade drop out.

[Kazinski]

Someone did a search and there are more than 300 'Jeffrey Epstein's in the US.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't Epstein a "Jewish" name? (I'm thinking the "ein" at the end.)

Ordinarily I wouldn't care but if it is anti-semetic to attack Soros because he is Jewish, then if Epstein is too, then....

(Personally, I prefer to hate Soros for what he has personally done...)

[Ridgeway]

Chicken Chow Mein? Man that worldwide conspiracy has long tentacles.

[bernard11]

I prefer to hate Soros for what he has personally done

Which is what? Why all the Soros-hate? It's nonsense.

[David Nieporent]

A Couple of days ago when Trump ordered the House to vote to release the Epstein files, I said:

'Let the false charges and retractions commence".

This is the kind of thing I meant,

You meant the kind of thing utterly unrelated to the so-called "Epstein files"?

although I was probably thinking at the time of the absurd allegation that Trump spent Thanksgiving in 2027 with Epstein.

I don't think anyone suggested that Trump had done anything with Esptein in 2027. In 2017, however, Epstein himself implied that Trump was going to do that, so it's hardly "absurd" at all.

[Malika la Maize]

A New Jersey fraudster who was pardoned by President Trump in 2021 was sentenced to 37 years in prison this month for running a $44 million Ponzi scheme, one of a growing number of people granted clemency by Mr. Trump only to be charged with new crimes.

The man, Eliyahu Weinstein, was pardoned by Mr. Trump in 2021 and was re-indicted by the U.S. attorney’s office in New Jerseythree years later. He was accused of swindling investors who thought their money was being used to buy surgical masks, baby formula and first-aid kits bound for Ukraine, and a jury convicted him in April of several crimes, including conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud.

“Mr. Weinstein received a gift only a few have received in the United States, a presidential commutation,” Judge Michael Shipp of Federal District Court in New Jersey said during the sentencing hearing. “Just months after he was released from prison and while on supervised release, he squandered this coveted gift by immediately defrauding investors of their hard-earned money.”

Mr. Weinstein’s victims included a single mother of three who was compelled to sell her home after failing to receive the returns she had expected. Calling Mr. Weinstein a “predator,” Judge Shipp concluded that, as the ringleader of the scheme, he deserved “the harshest punishment.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/20/nyregion/trump-pardon-eliyahu-weinstein-sentence.html

[David Nieporent]

“Mr. Weinstein received a gift only a few have received in the United States, a presidential commutation,” Judge Michael Shipp of Federal District Court in New Jersey said during the sentencing hearing. “Just months after he was released from prison and while on supervised release, he squandered this coveted gift by immediately defrauding investors of their hard-earned money.”

He doesn't need to worry; he just needs to throw some greenbacks Trump's way and he can get a second pardon.

EDIT: Actually, Trump's such an easy lay that the guy probably just has to denounce the prosecution as politically motivated against a loyal MAGA person and Trump will pardon him.

[Joe_dallas]

marc Rich?

[David Nieporent]

Pathetic. Not only is it a whatabout whatabout whatabout, but it's 25 years old. And something that was universally criticized at the time.

[Joe_dallas]

The answer to DN's response is :

Mr. Bumble 3 hours ago
"Who would be left standing if hypocrisy was a capital crime."

Joe_dallas 2 hours ago
Leftist hypocrisy is a virtue. Exposing the hypocrisy is the crime.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David, the left is saying give every criminal a third and fourth chance. Trump here gave a criminal a second chance and the schmuck blew it.

Are you going to condemn all the restorative justice folk and Soros-funded prosecutors?

[DDHarriman]

>Weinstein’s

Fuckin' Jews. That's the biggest complaint against Trump, his more MIGA than MAGA.

[Malika la Maize]

The state’s Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges, which investigates allegations of judicial misconduct, filed three disciplinary counts against Judge Thornhill, accusing him of dressing as Elvis Presley in the courtroom, politicking in the courtroom and filing an affidavit on behalf of a party in a paternity case.

Judge Thornhill “routinely” wore the wig “on or about Oct. 31,” Halloween, in the courtroom, in his chambers and in the courthouse, the commission said in court documents, which included photographs of the judge on the bench, wearing a wig styled after Presley’s signature black pompadour.

Sometimes Judge Thornhill would refer to the dates of Presley’s birth or death “when such statements were irrelevant to the proceedings before the court,” the commission said.

Other objections included playing Elvis Presley songs on his phone and asking litigants and witnesses if they wanted Presley’s music to be played as they were being sworn in. It said he had promoted his election campaign by asking litigants, witnesses and lawyers if they had seen his “Thornhill for Judge” signs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/20/us/missouri-judge-elvis-wig-resigns.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is there any evidence that it adversely affected parties before the court or affected the outcome of justice?

[Bob from Ohio]

“routinely” wore the wig “on or about Oct. 31,” Halloween, in the courtroom, in his chambers and in the courthouse"

OMG String him up.

A Halloween wig!! No real bad judges I guess.

[not guilty]

Was the judge's plea to the disciplinary commission Don't Be Cruel? I suspect that the judge was All Shook Up when he was Return[ed] to Sender after all that T-R-O-U-B-L-E. His fortunes went Way Down. But That's All Right, Mama. It's Now or Never.

[Zarniwoop]

.

[David Nieporent]

I'm shocked, shocked to find out how incompetent Donald Trump is yet again: US soybean shipments to China sit idle despite Beijing's pledge to buy big

Though I'm not sure this reflects incompetence so much as laziness and malice. Trump couldn’t give a fuck about Americans, let alone American farmers; all he wanted was a headline saying he had done something. He got that, so his work was done.

[DDHarriman]

Yes! Because once the headline goes out, all problems are solved and no one says anything ever again! Headlines are always the ONLY goal for politicians and citizens alike! Politicians like Trump know how the world works. Once a headline comes out, all problems are solved and everyone forgets!!!

David, you liberals are so smart. Which species of humanoids did ya'll descend from that makes y'all so uniquely smart?

[Mr. Bumble]

Given your comment history, I would have thought you'd answer your own question with "fuckin' Jews".

[DDHarriman]

David's not a Jew. And Jews are not uniquely intelligent. Look at the IQ data. They're right around there with Indians and Sub-Saharan Africans.

[Poxigah146]

That's absolutely false, at least for Ashkenazi Jews, who as a group test at around 115, compared to 100 for other whites and 85 for American blacks.

Sephardi test quite a bit lower.

[DDHarriman]

Anyone can carve out exceptions.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's a pretty glaring exception, if you ask me.

[not guilty]

David's not a Jew? What is your basis for that claim, DDHarriman?

[Dr. Ed 2]

David, you do know that Trump isn't personally loading those soybeans onto ships, DON'T YOU?!?

[David Nieporent]

I do. How is that responsive in any way to the point?

[Kazinski]

Reuters is reporting:

China's largest US soybean buy in 2 years buoys prices, triggers sales by struggling farmers
By Karl Plume
November 21, 202511:04 AM MSTUpdated 2 hours ago

CHICAGO, Nov 21 (Reuters) - The largest U.S. soybean sales to China in more than two years this week could be just the beginning of an accelerated buying program by Beijing after the world's top importer shunned U.S. supplies for months due to a trade war with Washington.
Even if purchases fall short of the 12 million metric tons that U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced, the uptick in sales has buoyed crop prices."

Not only that if you look at this chart soybean futures prices are 11% higher YTD, which means they are 11% higher than they were when Trump took office.

https://www.google.com/search?q=soybean+futures&oq=soybean+futures&sourceid=silk&ie=UTF-8

Now you should probably switch the conversation to inflation.

[Moderation4ever]

In this weeks addition of stupid people with guns, I offer a report in my local newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, dated 11/20/2025. Two women were arrested after they discharged a gun in their apartment. The bullet traveled through the wall an within 2 feet of a couple in an adjoining apartment. The right to have a gun does not mean it is a good idea for a person to have one.

Now for those who would counter with other things are dangerous in stupid peoples hand, I offer this report. Today paper reported a hunter shot himself in the ankle with a crossbow bolt. Ouch! To make matter worse he tried to drive himself to the hospital and crashed his car on the way.

[Moderation4ever]

My bad, should be this week's edition, not addition.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Were you there, ready, able, and willing to drive him to the hospital?
Was ANYONE???

Or was he making the best of a bad situation?

If I shot myself, instead of bleeding to death in the woods, I'd try to get to a hospital. And if I had to dent the fender of a police cruiser to get the Officer's attention so he could help me, I'd do it. MOST Officers would understand...

[Moderation4ever]

Probably a good case for not hunting alone. The man likely had a cell phone and probably would have been better to call for a rescue. He might have bled to death but driving he might then pass out behind the wheel. Point is he now has injuries from both the crossbow bolt and the car accident.

[Magister]

Reports say he crashed because he passed out; went off the road and eventually ran into a tree, where a nearby homeowner heard the crash and called 911.
https://www.wkow.com/news/hunter-shoots-himself-with-crossbow-crashes-while-driving-to-the-hospital/article_f02aa287-9a4f-46a1-8795-efa61abb72b6.html
Somebody with you when you do risky stuff, or just having a phone, seem like a sensible precaution.

[John F. Carr]

I remember a story about a man who drove 50 miles in handcuffs and shackles to get help instead of calling a local cop to unlock him. I think the restraints were from a sex game that ended badly. He was charged with reckless driving.

[wvattorney13]

Count me in the "if it happens to me, I'm not going to the cops" group.

[John F. Carr]

In Massachusetts, the prohibition on firing a gun in a built-up area has been construed as a strict liability crime. I think, at least post-Bruen, conviction should require proof of negligence.

Woody Allen fires a gun through a wall: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6qjibwpEzM

[grb]

Moderation4ever : " ....stupid people with guns.... "

I'm sorry to say that's small potatoes. In (yes) Whitestown Indiana, Ríos Pérez and her husband, Mauricio Velázquez, drove to a cleaning job assignment from their employer, using the GPS by the address they were given. The couple believed that they were at the correct location and were trying to unlock the house front door with a set of keys when a shot was fired through the door, fatally striking Ms Pérez in the head.

Curt Andersen had woken-up (it was almost 7am), heard people fumbling at his door, told his wife to go into their "safe room", then fired a gun thru the closed door from the top of the stairs. Only then, with Mr. Velázquez sobbing on the other side of the door, did he call 911. He told the police he was "afraid" Ms Pérez and her husband had four children, the youngest one year old. It took the authorities twelve days before they decided to charge him with a crime.

Anderson's attorney is Guy Relford, one of the state's most prominent gun rights lawyers. He insists his client will walk because of the state's Stand Your Ground law. Apparently this is what "gun rights" means these days.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2025/11/19/indiana-cleaning-woman-killed-fact-checking-maria-florinda-rios-perez-whitestown-gofundme/87239367007/

[Stella Link's Ghost]

It is unfortunate, but this sort of thing has happened before:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12699116.scot-shot-dead-in-houston-not-drunk/

In another Houston incident, a truck driver repossessing a truck was killed and no charges ensued. The Joe Horn case from a Houston suburb in 2007 became quite famous.

A recent Houston incident went the other way:
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/court/2025/09/17/531151/houston-man-accused-of-killing-11-year-old-boy-over-prank-asks-judge-for-lower-bond-amount/

[Moderation4ever]

There are definitely problems with the stand your ground laws. People have a right to protect themselves but people also need to understand that they have to restrain and act act appropriately. Simply shooting first thing is not acceptable.

[Moderation4ever]

Pope Leo has backed the American Bishops in their criticism of the Trump Administration treatment of immigrants. Including the blocking religious visits to people i immigrant detention centers. I hope the next summary of people being stopped from following their religious practices includes how the Trump Administration is blocking access to spiritual comfort for immigrants. But what can you expect from Trump's secret police force.

[Poxigah146]

The Catholic Church has long been a front for radical left-wing ideology.

Leo wants more third-world immigrants to fill the empty pews in his churches.

[Moderation4ever]

Right and the Supreme Court is full of those damn Catholics. Six at last count.

[Poxigah146]

I didn't nominate them. I think positions of power should be limited to white men who belong to a mainline Protestant church and whose family has been in America since at least the 1850s.

[Swede425]

OMG!
Trump has a secret police force?
How many other people know about it?
At what point does it stop being secret?
What does "secret" even mean?
It seems some people's definition of "secret" is as nebulous as their definition of "woman".

[Moderation4ever]

With regard to "secret police" the definition is pretty well known. They hid their identity, arrest people without warrants, haul off teachers in from of children, zip tie children, arrest and hold citizens without due process, and keep people locked up secretly. A Venn diagram of Trump's ICE and other authoritarian "secret police" would have a large overlap.

[Bob from Ohio]

Gestapo, Cheka/KGB, Stasi are secret police. ICE is not. Most of those hyperbolic charges are just ordinary police actions.

There is no overlap with real secret police.

[Sarcastr0]

Bare negation is not an argument.

Moderation4ever lays out things ICE does that look very secret polic like. Do you disagree with anything he lists?

[Bob from Ohio]

"look very secret polic [sic] like"

ICE in 2021-2024 arrested people without warrants. Were they secret police then?

Law is that illegals can be arrested with out judicially issued warrant under certain circumstances.

Real secret police don't have to wear masks because they are immune from consequences. Real secret police disappear people FOREVER.

[Sarcastr0]

I can see why you tried bare negation...

So from that list you have one thing that used to happen under some circumstances and now happens a lot more often on what looks to be a fully at-will basis.

And then you push an idiosyncratic definition of secret police to cut out the mask-wearing.

Your response is so weak and incomplete it more underscores Moderation's argument more than negating it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trying the usual "you did not respond in detail to every single sattement" response I see. Its a go to for you.

"idiosyncratic definition of secret police" is what you and "Moderation" have.

[Swede425]

Gaslighto (and others) are mad because Trump came in and EASILY did the the things that President Autopen said just couldn't be done.
He closed the border tighter than a dolphin's ass.
And now he's rounding up illegal aliens.
And he did it in no time flat.
Gaslighto (and others) gets the vapors when the headlines read "Grandmother in this country for over 40 years arrested in front of grandchildren!!!" because he's a leftist douchebag (the target audience for said headlines) and he wants this country filled with illegal aliens.
Gaslighto (and others) will call anybody who disagrees with him a racist and whatever. But, if you disregard what leftist douchebags have to say, you'll see these kinds of threads for what they are; amusing.

[Bob from Ohio]

Pretty much.

[Swede425]

Oh my goodness.
That sounds serious!
Why would anybody do that?
You can be arrested now? Without a warrant? In front of zip-tied children? While wearing a mask? And secretly locked away?
Just, like, randomly? Snatched right off the street for no reason whatsoever?
Gosh. How can that possibly be?

[grb]

Moderation4ever : "Pope Leo has backed the American Bishops in their criticism of the Trump Administration..."

I'm of two minds about Pope Leo. One the one hand, he seems a upright, humane, godly and righteous man, embodying the teachings of Jesus a thousand times more than the average Trump-supporting evangelical "Christian".

On the other hand, when I flew into Rome two months ago, my first objective was to see St. Peters. However the &%^$ Pope decided to say a public mass that morning and both church & plaza were locked-up tight by the carabinieri and polizia. The disruption to my schedule cost me a trip to the Colosseum and Forum. Being Christian in heritage if not faith, I know I must find forgiveness. Nonetheless, His Holiness has much to answer for!

[Malika la Maize]

The owners of Call Your Mother, a chain of “Jew-ish” delis that started in Washington, recently made a call of their own — to a lawyer.

The chain this week filed a trademark-infringement lawsuit against a bagel shop in Long Branch, New Jersey, that uses the name Call Your Bubbi. (Bubbi, commonly spelled “bubbe,” is a Yiddish term for “grandmother.”) The complaint claims that the New Jersey establishment’s name could confuse customers who might think the businesses were related, and could harm Call Your Mother’s reputation and brand.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2025/11/20/call-your-mother-bagels-trademark-lawsuit/

[Poxigah146]

Absurd. Nobody would reasonably think that a bagel shop 200 miles away is related.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like someone is looking for some publicity.

[Mr. Bumble]

Quite a kumbaya turnout at Darth Chaney's funeral.

[Bob from Ohio]

Uni-party.

I imagine Trump and Vance are grateful they were not invited but its typical of Liz Cheney to be a rude brat.

[Poxigah146]

She and her bulldyke sister need to disappear from the public eye. Nobody cares what they think.

[John F. Carr]

One headline said Bush had returned from exile.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Rachel Maddow went!
"Darth Chaney, while in league with the Devil, ate the livers of Iraqi children and polluted the world with the Devil's own ichor, oil, simultaneously sacrificing babies to the gods Haliburton and KBR in conjunction with....wait...what's that?...he hated Donald Trump?
WTF I LOVE DICK CHANEY NOW!!!"

[David Nieporent]

I'll bet Maddow could spell Cheney's name correctly.

[Swede425]

Probably.
It's tattooed on her ass.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"It's tattooed on her ass."
Then she'd have to read it by looking in a mirror and it would come out backwards. I think we'd notice that.

[Commenter_XY]

What are the odds that the 'alleged' human trafficking, wife-beating, drug smuggling, gang-banging illegal alien aka St. Abrego gets his sorry criminal ass deported to Liberia? Sounds like it is only a matter of time.

According the the State Dept, the deal to send him to Costa Rica is off the table. Oh well. Judge Xinis is running out of time, she needs to issue her decision. It probably doesn't matter too much what she decides.

I personally want to see this POS tried in TN, found guilty, and then deported. He can make lots of new friends in Liberia, where it is warm and sunny for much of the year.

[loki13]

How do you know that XY only reads selected media that is spoonfed to him and tells him what he wants to hear, without, you know, him saying it?

Because he tells you with every post! I've been covering the Abrego updates in prior threads, because, um, I follow the docket and the hearings.

As most of you know (having a much broader media diet than XY), the Abrego litigation has been a dumpster fire, because the DOJ can't stop lying .... when all you are doing is trying to generate some press releases for gullible rubes instead of being honest, you have that problem.

So yeah, the DOJ filed the declaration saying that (re: Costa Rica and Liberia). The judge, by now, has gotten wise to the DOJ lying. Ordered that the declarant testify in court - that was yesterday. The declarant admitted that he had no actual knowledge of anything relevant in the declaration. Nothing. Nada. The cross-x was basically ended when the Judge had to interject and state, on the record, that "The point has been made that this witness {the declarant) has zero information about the content of the declaration."

Yep. Oh, and it gets worse. The DOJ had noted liar/counsel (also subject to the reinstated contempt hearings re: his prior lies in another case) appear to argue .... Drew Ensign. Remember that name for future disciplinary proceedings, or, if we are in a dystopian future, the Chief Justice of the Council of Guardians and Bootlicking.

Anyway, the Judge kept noting that there wasn't actually ... you know ... a removal order ever made. Which was kind of a problem. Ensign kept trying to argue that certain things, if you squint at them and ignore what they say, might be kinda like a removal order ... things like a court order enjoining the government!!

Yeah, that. So let's recap-
1. The DOJ sent him to El Salvador to be tortured despite a court order that said he couldn't be deported.
2. The DOJ then lied, repeatedly, to the Court and said that they couldn't return him because they had no control over El Salvador's prison (which El Salvador then said ... we're just a contractor, and the US has full control, and the US then had to acknowledge). They did this in order to keep him unlawfully detained and tortured for months and months ....
3. So that the DOJ could create false criminal charges. How false? They had to get rid of an attorney who refused to sign off on this BS.
4. Oh, and they also began new deportation proceedings. Despite, uh, no order of removal.
5. I'm not even going to go to all the MS-13 lies and other lies that Trump and the DOJ have been spewing out for people like XY to post here. How's the photoshopping going?

Remember- they lie, they lie, they lie.* It's up to you if you want to believe it.

*See also, Bovino.

[Commenter_XY]

I think the saying goes....see you in (TN) court, counselor. 😉

[loki13]

At some point, I have to ask- do you care, even a little, about the actual facts? About what is going on? It's not like anything that I've recounted is a secret. It's well documented- it's not like you have to believe the press (as you appear to have a very selective basis for getting your information) ....

It's in court documents and transcripts. We can see, over and over again, that the DOJ ... the government ... has repeatedly lied.

If that doesn't bother you, even a little, I honestly don't know what to tell you. The whole thing began with a lie, and while any normal administration would attempt to rectify a mistake .... this administration instead spun up its lying machine and then started creating a narrative (made up out of whole cloth) that this was a "bad hombre" and a member of "MS-13" and then lied to courts, repeatedly ... findings that are court documents, in transcripts, and in the public record.

They've forced out ethical attorneys that refused to go along (why do you think Drew Ensign is now on the case)? They have submitted false declarations to court. They have forced out ICE agents that refused to go along with the lies. And so on.

At some point, this should bother you. And if it doesn't, you should look in the mirror. Because this isn't a partisan issue. Maybe you think all brown people that aren't citizens should be deported. Fine.

But we shouldn't debase ourselves for that reason. We don't need to lie, or condone lying, to do that. If you want immigrants gone, fine. But don't be a part of the problem- endemic lying by attorneys and law enforcement is a massive problem, and it really needs to be stopped and called out. If you think that this is some sort of game, then you are really a part of the problem.

[David Nieporent]

C_XY had a tantrum because he couldn't go to a funeral in 2020, and hasn't stopped stomping his feet, holding his breath and turning purple since. He's in a way worse than Bob from Ohio, who openly admits that everything he says is in bad faith.

[loki13]

"C_XY had a tantrum because he couldn't go to a funeral in 2020"

Really? 2020?

So ... because XY couldn't go to a funeral in 2020 due to a pandemic that started when Trump was President, and involved a situation where Trump was president, XY has been throwing a five-year tantrum about the loss of that right and thought the best thing in the world would be to put Trump back in ...

so that everyone else could suffer from Trump's policies as much as XY did?

.....tracks.

[David Nieporent]

I can't prove a causal relationship; I am simply noting (to borrow from employment law) temporal proximity.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Bob from Ohio, who openly admits that everything he says is in bad faith."

A lie.

[loki13]

And, by the way, if you don't think that all the lying makes a difference and you don't care because you hate brown illegal immigrants .... it does matter.

You can start with the Marimar Martinez case. She was a US Citizen. She was shot multiple times by ICE/CBP. And guess what?

The administration lied about it. Publicly and repeatedly. The DOJ then brought charges against Martinez, you know, for having the temerity for being repeatedly shot. There was also false testimony, destruction of evidence, more lies, etc.

The DOJ FINALLY dismissed the case against Martinez ... for being shot ... probably because all of the lies were starting to catch up to them. Also, the discovery of the texts of the agent that .... let's just say weren't real nice. And the body camera footage. And, um, the multiple lies about the destruction of evidence. Eventually, it caught up to them.

But as you like to say ... "I bet that US Citizen still suffered from being shot and then having to face criminal charges and paying for attorneys! HA HA HA HA!"

Good?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Maybe if people left ICE alone and let them do their jobs, this stuff wouldn't happen.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe if Jews had just converted to Christianity, the Gestapo wouldn't have hauled them off.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He's in a way worse than Bob from Ohio"

Congratulations Commenter_XY!

[Poxigah146]

It seems that Obama and Biden judges are falling over themselves to rule that Trump can't use the National Guard. All of these pieces of shit should be bypassed and SCOTUS needs to rule on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jia_M._Cobb

This nasty schvartze needs to stay in her lane.

[ReaderY]

Two institutions that the Framers had establshed to be bulwarks against tyranny - the tyranny of the mob in the case of the Electoral College, and the tyranny of the Executive in the case of the grand jury - have been rendered meaningless rubber stamps by the courts. If the electors don’t give you the vote you want, you just jail or replace them until you do. And now if a grand jury doesn’t give you the indictment you want, you just take it to another grand jury until you do. Essential, powerful, decision-making institutions have been rendered meaningless rubber stamps.

I am going to pose a question. Why can’t this well-established mechanism for preserving constitutional institutions but rendering them meaningless ritual formalities be equally applied to, say, popular elections?

Take, for example, Senatorial Electors. Yes, Senatorial Electors. Senatorial Electors exist. The Constitution provides for them, just as it provides for Presidential Electors. They’re right in the text.

The 17th Amendment specifies the identity of the Senatorial Electors, so they can’t simply be replaced if they don’t vote the right way. But what about the two other mechanisms - jailing recalcitrant electors, as the Supreme Court permitted for Presidential Electors in Chiaffolo, or simply calling a new election until the right result is reached, as is done with grand juries? After all, just like indictments and grand juries, all that needs to happen for a senator to be legit is there has to have been the requisite formal election procedure. Nothing says it can’t be done multiple times until the formal procedure produces the right result. There’s nothing that prevents treating recalcitrant electorates who refuse to elect just like recalcitrant grand juries who refuse to indict. And while recalcitrant senatorial electors cannot be replaced like recalcitrant presidential electors, they can be worn down into submission or apathetic dropout by making it clear the procedure will be repeated until the right result is reached. If the American legal system is proof of anything, it is proof that having the power to wear people down is often far more effective at getting ones way than having a valid legal claim.

[ducksalad]

It's a sound plan and I see no flaws, but there are easier ways to do it that don't involve any unpleasant coercion.

For example, the ballot qualifications. A typical state might have something like:

1. Must be the nominee of a party that won 10% or more of the vote in the last election, OR
2. Must submit a petition with the names of at least 3% of the registered voters.

All that is needed is to win once, and then raise 10% to 51%, and 3% to 98%.

[Mr. Bumble]

...nd for all of those whose moms threw away their baseball cards and comic books:

"Superman No. 1 breaks record for most valuable comic ever after selling for $9 million at auction"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15311563/Superman-comic-valuable-9-million-record.html

[Bwaaah]

The Liberal Patriot: "The Left’s 21st Century Project Has Failed" (by Ruy Teixeira)

My takeaway summary of the contemporary left's policies:
  * Promote uncontrolled mass immigration and declare all opposed to be "racists" and "xenophobes"
  * Promote climate change as driving imminent human destruction ("extinction event") and fund that battle with little concern for the widespread downward economic pressure that their battle portends for poorer people
  * Promote views of all peoples as being either oppressor or oppressed, and always promote the advancement of the oppressed (e.g. Israelis lose, Palestinians win; prosecutors lose, criminals win)
  * Promote the notion of upward economic mobility as a myth, and merit (read "individual performance") as archaic
  * Promote crime as a symptom of oppression, and criminals as non-responsible victims who lack agency
  * Promote "biological sex" as a purely cultural construct, and "gender identity" as a drop-in replacement for that now absurd construct
  * Promote technological advancement as being fundamentally dangerous to human well-being (excepting wind and solar and electric vehicle developments)

Look at that litany of absurdity. That is what Malicia calls "liberalism."

[DDHarriman]

Don't forget destruction of the natural family and natural marriage as an institution.

[David Nieporent]

Look at that litany of absurdity. That is what Malicia calls "liberalism."

You forgot "Twirl mustache and cackle villainously" and "Exist only in Bwaaah's imagination."

[Bwaaah]

As I wrote about myself recently:

For example, I'm pro-immigration, pro-free-trade, anti-tariff, pro-abortion-rights, pro-free-speech. I'm downright soft on government-subsidized assistance in food and health care and housing, and I'm for everybody shutting up about their sexual identities but don't care if they don't. I think DJT is demonstrating new highs in executive overreach. I think he and many of his high-profile cabinet members have little regard for my simple notions of truthfulness. (But hey...I never brought an end to so many of the world's wars.)

And yet, for merely being opposed to that litany I described in my comment above, I am NOT a liberal. I am MAGA!

And you, David, are a Democrat! LOL

[David Nieporent]

No, not "for merely being opposed to that litany." For falsely liberals of that litany of things.

[Bwaaah]

What I feel is irrelevant, David. That litany, in substantial measure, stands starkly before us all, left and right and others. Do you think those ideas came from the right? From my head? Do you not recognize how each of those ideas is placed and contextualized in the voice of the contemporary political left, by large numbers of its constituents and political leaders and reporters?

You can parse away my words, as you do, David. You can't parse away prevailing public sentiments, as if they are born from my imagination; as if that is how I want liberals to be seen.

[Magister]

Yes, those ideas come entirely from right wing sources, which obviously includes your head, and stand starkly before us only because MAGA cultists like you keep repeating them.

[Bwaaah]

lol.

So that is the MAGA cultist agenda? Let immigrants migrate easily into the U.S. with little control? Speak to the imminent threat of climate change and support government-funded climate change programs? Give voice to historically powerless sub-classes of people based on religious/racial/ethnic/sexual characteristics? Call out the evil aspects of Zionism? Try hard to keep criminals out of jail? Avoid merit-based systems that might disadvantage people? Promote race/ethnicity/sexuality-based affirmative action in hiring and admissions? Promote gender fluid identity (LGBTQIA+) and require affirmative treatment of those identities by everyone? Oppose fossil fuel development and expansion?

Wow. MAGA's got some agenda there. I must be asleep.

I am glad you're not like MAGA cultists, Magister.

[Magister]

No, you blithering idiot, MAGA people keep putting forward those paranoid claims about what leftists believe or want. And you just keep repeating them, and whine that nobody believes you're a liberal.

[Bwaaah]

Sorry. I thought you were talking to me.

[Magister]

Yes, you, Bwaaah, are too stupid to understand what is written plainly.

[David Nieporent]

Falsely *accusing* liberals of that litany of things.

[Bob from Ohio]

Are there no liberals you won't defend here?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Are there no liberals you won't defend here?"

Of the more than 81 million people who voted for Biden in 2020, there are about ten or fifteen (if that many) for which the "litany of things" applies. There are more crackpot wingnuts in these comments.

[Bwaaah]

Bob: "Are there no liberals you won't defend here?"

I know of one. Me.

[Magister]

It's weird that people can read David Nieporent's comments and think he's a liberal. But anybody who read Bwaaah's comments could think anything but that he's not a liberal. Non-liberals may oppose Trump; no liberal would defend Trump or advocate MAGA positions a tenth as vigorously as Bwaaah does.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

I find it weird that someone would post a list of all the horrible things that modern liberals supposedly advocate while simultaneously claiming to be a liberal. Needs to get a hair shirt and a quirt.

[Bwaaah]

I don't attribute those things to liberals. I attribute them to today's American left. Think of "liberalism" as a range of philosophies, and the "American left" as one half of a two party political dichotomy.

Liberalism and the American left are not the same thing, in my mind. There's significant overlap there, as between me and the left. But if you define the American left as "liberalism," well, that's mighty Democratic of you, and no, I have no more commitment to that than I do the other side. (I have no commitment to either one's ever-morphing hit list.).

[David Nieporent]

I will defend anyone from false accusations. It's called integrity — something you wouldn't understand.

[Mr. Bumble]

You mean like your false accusation above regarding soy bean sales to China?

[David Nieporent]

I have no idea what "false accusation" you are accusing me of making. What is happening (or not happening, in this case) was reported by others and I just passed along the link. The claim that Trump doesn't care because all he wants is a headline saying he did something is 100% true.

[Mr. Bumble]

...in your opinion, sans any "facts".

[BrotherMovesOn]

DMN, here you go:

https://a.co/d/eavqEdO

[loki13]

Interesting article-

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-law-allowing-senators-to-sue-over-phone-searches-is-worse-than-you-thought

You might ask yourself ... "Self, what happens when a group of senators say that they want some of that sweet Trump payola and sneak in a payday for themselves in a quick addendum to a bill to re-open the government? It can't be that bad, right? I'm sure that they crafted it carefully, thinking about how it might affect things, instead of just rushing through some language while dreaming of the ability to extract some money from the government like all of Trump's other allies!"

Well, read it and find out.

[DDHarriman]

Straight from the deep states mouthpiece to your keyboard.

What a good little foot soldier are you.

[David Nieporent]

Meanwhile, 5th circuit joke Judge Oldham decided he had time to write a law review article masquerading as a dissent, explaining why federal courts shouldn't certify state law questions to state supreme courts, as federal law allows. He spent 37 pages (!) explaining why he didn't like the whole process, starting by going back to the founding and explaining the antifederalists' views on the federal judiciary. Self-indulgent crap.

He tried at the end to make it sound like he was protecting the states, but appears not to realize that the state supreme courts can simply decline to accept a certified question if they don't want to deal with it.

[loki13]

Here's the thing. I am truly concerned about Judge Smith after what he wrote. Because .... da-yum. Someone do a wellness check.

But on the 5th Circuit, he could at least rest easy knowing that he could literally just smear his feces on paper and turn that in as an opinion, and that would probably only be the third craziest opinion in any week that Judges Oldham and Ho put their fingers to a keyboard.

[David Nieporent]

Before this, I had always classified Smith in my head as being a pretty staunch conservative but not crazy right winger. But someone reminded me of this, from a decade ago:

In a remarkable, partisan exchange in a Texas courtroom Tuesday, a federal judge demanded that the Obama administration formally explain recent statements by President Obama that some have construed as questioning the authority of courts to review, and potentially strike down, his signature health care law.

Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a Reagan appointee, issued the order during oral arguments in a case challenging the Affordable Care Act's restrictions on physician-owned hospitals.

"I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday… a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General in the Department of Justice in regard to the recent statements by the President - stating specifically, and in detailed reference to those statements, what the authority is in the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review," Smith told a government lawyer in a recording of the hearing released by the court.

"The letter needs to be at least three pages, single-spaced and it needs to be specific," he added.

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/judge-demands-obama-pledge-allegiance-to-federal-courts

[Magister]

Did they submit a three page single spaced letter?

[wvattorney13]

That is a bit much. Next thing you know he will be taking over personnel decisions for the executive branch and ordering money spent from the treasury.

[Sarcastr0]

I've heard a lot about him in the past month or so...has he always been like this, and everyone just kinda coughed and looked the other way?

Is he another for whom Trump's an excuse for him to discard norms and let his freak flag fly?

[Bunny495]

Not sure how to assess this. Putting aside efforts to redefine the legal term "illegal alien" and use the word immigrant the almost a grand a day fine for overstaying does seem like a lot. But it does seem to be the law.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/immigrants-fined-up-to-1-8-million-for-remaining-in-us-sue-trump-administration/ar-AA1QRmoa?ocid=msedgntp&pc=ASTS&cvid=69207b195cb04ca1b3cb1ed0465c0bee&ei=50

[John F. Carr]

It's like the "truck drivers must speak English" rule. Nixon gave us that one. It was enforced on and off for decades. Trump is blamed for enforcing it now.

[DDHarriman]

I wonder how much digging one would need to find those Dem politicos who were calling for the US Military to insurrect have ties to the CCP?

Probably not much.

[David Nieporent]

Voltage!

[John F. Carr]

Bloomberg Law looks at the aftermath of the Jarkesy case which said some civil penalties are to be imposed by juries instead of executive branch employees. If those common law folks back in England looking at the case would have seen a monetary remedy for a private right, there is a right to a jury trial.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/agencies-avoid-disaster-after-high-courts-in-house-judge-ruling

So far, most judges are siding with "business as usual". Agencies can be prosecutor, judge, and jury. There is enough confusion in the lower courts to encourage the Supreme Court to clarify the legal standard.

[loki13]

It's not too surprising, even if it is disappointing.

It's fairly common for the Supreme Court to lay out some vague, REVOLUTIONARY new rule.

And for the lower courts to muddle along for a while applying it, with a lot of courts defaulting to, "Apply it in the way that is closest to how we have already been applying the old rule."

Eventually, a circuit split will develop and the Supreme Court will see how the different courts have applied this vague standard so that they can say, "Look, we actually meant this and always did, we just never said it ... you idiots."

I'm being harsh, but it's also true. Search your feelings- you know that is exactly how it works.

[Sarcastr0]

Is it weird that I like that system?

Lots of fact-specific implementations to highlight what needs clarifying, bubbling up to the Court when refined into more specified questions of law.

It's not fast, but it's the best bet this side of a dictator to get thoughtful. harmonized, and clear law.

[loki13]

Don't get me wrong- I appreciate the system and think it works (despite my joking language). The course of the law should be slow and deliberate. And it's best to see court apply a vague rule in a lot of different factual situations and how it works out than announcing a definitive and super-specific rule that causes chaos because it sounds real good in theory, and is unworkable in practice in diverse factual scenarios, leading the Supreme Court to have to retreat from it quickly.

You know, like Bruen. When the Supreme Court had to issue Rahimi almost immediately afterwards saying, "Uh, let's talk about how Bruen was really about 'historic traditions' and how we could look at those as they apply to modern ideas," and Thomas dissenting, saying, "I wrote Bruen, and that's not what I said," and everyone else saying, "Yeah, we know. We have spent the last year trying to deal with that, and you didn't really think that through, did you?"

[Sarcastr0]

Yep, I had Bruen in mind as well.

It could turn into a workable doctrine; just give the lower courts a chance to chew for like a decade!

[DDHarriman]

Could you imagine a TDS addled govie like Sarcastr0 being the prosecutor, judge, and jury over any situation over you or any non-Democrat?

Tyranny of the modern Left kind.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Unbearable: Five Women and the Perils of Pregnancy in America by Irin Carmon is a well-written book that underlines the importance of reproductive justice. Reproductive justice is a united whole, involving good, respectful medical care and resources after having a child, miscarriage, or abortion.

The book concerns five women, including someone trying to get pregnant (also a lawyer), a doctor, and three women's experiences before and after being pregnant. The author was about to give birth herself when Dobbs was handed down.

The book also has a spoiler in the table of contents.

https://www.nypl.org/events/programs/2025/10/29/irin-carmon

[not guilty]

George Carlin said it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZdRMBTF-hQ

"If you're preborn, you're fine; if" you're preschool you're fucked."

"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

"These people aren't pro-life. They're killing doctors -- what kind of pro-life is that?"

"And speaking of my friends who are Catholic, when John Cardinal O'Connor of New York and some of these other cardinals and bishops have experienced their first pregnancies and their first labor pains and they've raised a couple of children on minimum wage, then I'll be glad to hear what they have to say about abortion. I'm sure it'll be interesting. In the meantime what they oughta be doing is telling these priests, who took a vow of chastity, to keep their hands off the altar boys!"

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Democrats revisit bill to allow Americans to sue ICE, Justice Department for constitutional violations

https://www.courthousenews.com/democrats-revisit-bill-to-allow-americans-to-sue-ice-justice-department-for-constitutional-violations/

The "Bivens Act" (linked) would "provide a civil remedy for an individual whose rights have been violated by a person acting under Federal authority, and for other purposes."

"Rights from Wrongs" by Alan Dershowitz (he had his moments) argues that our rights are not "natural" rights but arise from wrongs that demonstrate a need for certain protections.

ICE is a case study these days.

[David Nieporent]

Just another day in Nazi Germany/Trump's America:

A Rhode Island Superior Court intern was briefly taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Providence Thursday afternoon before a judge intervened, according to the state’s Judiciary office.

The student, a high school intern at Superior Court, was reportedly detained by the agents outside the Licht Judicial Complex on Benefit Street.

Superior Court Judge Joseph McBurney insisted the agents had the wrong person. It was not until ICE verified their information and admitted the intern was not their intended target that he was released.

Oh, and tell "Justice" Kavanaugh to go fuck himself:

Multiple sources told Target 12 that Rhode Island sheriffs earlier noticed someone taking photos of the intern inside the courthouse and in Superior Court Judge McBurney’s courtroom. When approached, the individual identified himself as an ICE agent and was told to abide by standard courthouse rules, and to stop taking pictures.

The intern was reportedly shaken, so McBurney offered to drive him home. ICE agents then surrounded the judge’s car and demanded everyone to exit the vehicle, threatening to smash in the windows if they did not comply.

Dana Smith, Head of Security Operations for R.I. Superior Court, confronted the agents and told both the judge and the intern to stay inside the car. After an argument, ICE confirmed they had misidentified the teen and left. The intern was released once his ID was checked.

https://www.wpri.com/news/local-news/providence/ri-judge-intervenes-after-ice-mistakenly-detains-superior-court-intern/

There's no curing ICE. It needs to be abolished. Every single person who has worked there — from field agents to officials — under Trump needs to be fired once the Trump regime has been ended. They all need to be named and shamed, and should be shunned from polite society, permanently. No decent human being would work for the agency.

[Bunny495]

No doubt ICE has and will continue to make mistakes. No question under Trump lots of illegal aliens have been deported. The real question is how many hits and how many misses. While I can think of two misses of the top of my head, I am sure there are more. Does anyone have hard data numbers as opposed to anecdotal examples.

[jb]

No, because ICE (intentionally) doesn't publish data on how often they pick up citizens.

It does feel like in a lot of the places ICE is operating with intensity, we end up in a "papers please" model where you can be detained and potentially arrested just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time or looking like someone who may be undocumented or maybe just for not carrying the right documentation with you at all times. In the olden days, most of the Republicans I knew were suspicious of ideas like a national ID because they didn't want to create the expectation that the federal government would have such an intrusive role in our lives, but now many of those same people seem to be cheerleading an environment where you have to be able to satisfy a random federal officer that you're here legally before being allowed to go about your daily business.

[jb]

Coincidentally, the AP story linked in this week's Short Circuit posting about the Border Patrol using license plate scans has an interesting data point:

https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-patrol-surveillance-drivers-ice-trump-9f5d05469ce8c629d6fecf32d32098cd

One of the law enforcement officers involved said that nine out of ten stops and searches didn't find anything. That's an incredibly low hit rate, and implies that they're harassing lots of citizens just going about their lives to get at a small number of undocumented immigrants. This isn't the government messing up every once in a while, it's the vast majority of stops being illegitimate.

[loki13]

"No decent human being would work for the agency."

I've heard from LEOs that I know that the signing bonuses have caused some local police departments to lose officers.

They would be annoyed by the loss of people (because the short staffing does suck) but they have told me that, for the most part, the people that are leaving are the ones ... well, you know. The ones that they would have gotten rid of if they could and/or will as soon as the next "incident" happens.

That's just one side. Every day, there's another report of an ICE agent getting arrested for doing something while "off-duty," like a DUI, and the one thing almost all of those arrests have in common is that the arrested ICE officer threatens the arresting LEO (if the arresting officer is black or brown, there's always the "I will deport you.").

It's almost like lowering your standards when adding a bunch of unaccountable thugs means you attract the worst of the worst, and giving them power, guns, and masks means that they'll act out on it. WEIRD!

[David Nieporent]

I've been told that much of the most egregious treatment of people one reads about lately has actually been Border Patrol agents detailed to work on ICE functions rather than career ICE agents. The theory seems to be that ICE is used to working within the U.S. and dealing with ordinary Americans, so they have a little bit more — let's just say — tact, while Border Patrol guys are used to working at, well, the border, where people have essentially no rights. At the end of the day, I don't think it matters; it's not like ICE are good — just not the worst of the worst. (And they all ultimately report to the same people, and are enforcing the same laws against the same people.)

[loki13]

Well, a lot of that is also an artifact from the massive use of CBP officers in Chicago, and Bovino, and all of that.

There's literally so much coming out of there on a daily basis that you can't keep track of it all. And each time, you get the same lies and the same BS.

Oh, wait..... you're saying that the nighttime raid of an apartment building with blackhawks and agents rappelling and crying children resulted in zero arrests, and there wasn't, in fact, a gang?

You know, the same lie that the administration kept up for weeks?

I AM SHOCKED, SHOCKED, to learn that this administration was just lying to us again.

Remember- they pump out the lie for the usual suspects here and the echo chambers where it will keep bouncing around forever, knowing that none of the rubes ever bothers to follow up and learn what the truth is.

[loki13]

Oh, btw DMN, you might enjoy (or you might get angered) at this compedium-

https://www.justsecurity.org/120547/presumption-regularity-trump-administration-litigation/

Presumption of regularity, indeed.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://i.imgflip.com/acu7oi.jpg

[David Nieporent]

Enjoy is definitely not the right word, no. What enrages me more than the lawless conduct by the administration is how feckless the judiciary has been, though. It has said lots of stuff, but has done little to follow through.

[loki13]

....I hear you. But ... it's also hard. I can understand where the judges are at. We've had generations where ... regardless of what party was in the White House, there was an assumption of regularity because ... it was regular. That the DOJ had institutional integrity and legitimacy- not that they never did anything incorrect or wrong, but overall they had a high degree of ethics and professionalism.

So you first have the district courts struggling with this. And as we are seeing, the district courts are realizing ... the DOJ lies. They are finally catching up to it.

But then we get to the next stage- the CoAs. And, for the most part, we have this giant body of caselaw that favors the government in a lot of different situations because .... we've never dealt with this before. So we are seeing CoAs struggle with this as well. Trying to apply the old legal standards that developed when government had ... well, the old standards ... in this changed landscape.

I mean .... even I struggle to believe, sometimes, that the DOJ's attorneys are just outright lying in court. It's hard for ME to internalize, even though I've been mentioning it here all the time because they are doing it all the time.

It makes me so angry, and so sad.

[David Nieporent]

Trump of course can and will pardon all his co-conspirators — but he can't pardon disbarment. There need to be disciplinary referrals for administration attorneys. Drew Ensign has lied to courts enough to get 10 lawyers disbarred.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, your side has used bar action as lawfare before and will do again.

Liberal lawyers, for instance, file "climate change" meritless cases, nothing happens to them.

[David Nieporent]

Liberal lawyers, for instance, file "climate change" meritless cases, nothing happens to them.

Do they make false representations to the court, defy court orders, and submit perjured testimony?

[not guilty]

"I've been told that much of the most egregious treatment of people one reads about lately has actually been Border Patrol agents detailed to work on ICE functions rather than career ICE agents. The theory seems to be that ICE is used to working within the U.S. and dealing with ordinary Americans, so they have a little bit more — let's just say — tact, while Border Patrol guys are used to working at, well, the border, where people have essentially no rights. At the end of the day, I don't think it matters; it's not like ICE are good — just not the worst of the worst. (And they all ultimately report to the same people, and are enforcing the same laws against the same people.)"

As the Turkish proverb teaches, a fish rots from the head down.

[Swede425]

So SALTY today, David!

I, too, have an unrealistic expectation that the government never makes a mistake, so I'm with you, brother!

[David Nieporent]

If they didn't go around trying to terrorize people for the sole purpose of being cruel, they couldn't make these sorts of "mistakes" [sic]. (Confusing the guy with some other target is a "mistake." Threatening to smash in car windows is not.) He was a high school student working at a courthouse. Unless someone had photoshopped MS-13 on his fingers, why would they "mistake" him for an illegal immigrant?

[ThePublius]

"...go around trying to terrorize people for the sole purpose of being cruel..."

Typical liberal bullshit.

[David Nieporent]

Libertarians, like liberals, do not like abusive government.

[ThePublius]

Your statement is bullshit, these law enforcement officers are not going "around trying to terrorize people for the sole purpose of being cruel." That's a very cynical, untrue, and defamatory statement. It's like saying all lawyers are going around for the sole purpose of screwing people out of their money. Why can't you be rational?

[David Nieporent]

these law enforcement officers are not going "around trying to terrorize people for the sole purpose of being cruel." That's a very cynical, untrue, and defamatory statement.

I mean, fine; that's only 90% of their motivation; they also like getting paid for doing it.

[Bunny495]

If you have not posted about anecdotal examples not being worth as much as complete statistics you should have. LEOs are always in a tough position when they give a command since it is not unheard of for there to be a violent reaction, sometimes a deadly reaction. The key sentence in the link is "The intern was released once his ID was checked."

It is standard procedure for LEOs to command occupants of a vehicle to get out with a warning that if they don't get out the windows will be smashed. To me this is an example of a judge looking for a fight with ICE and getting one. No windows were smashed and once the kid complied and his ID was checked everyone went about their business. Still don't get why you panties are in a bunch about this.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Still don't get why you panties are in a bunch about this."

1. He doesn't want any immigration enforcement.
2. Orange Man Bad! hysteria

[David Nieporent]

It is standard procedure for LEOs to command occupants of a vehicle to get out with a warning that if they don't get out the windows will be smashed.

Ever notice that no matter how egregiously a cop has behaved, the bootlickers will defend him by claiming he was just following protocol? Several times in my life I've been in a car that was pulled over; not once did the cops command us to get out, let alone threaten to smash the car's windows. But I'm white and middle class, so…

[Bob from Ohio]

"But I'm white and middle class"

The race card, don't leave home without it!

[grb]

David Nieporent : " ...no matter how egregiously a cop has behaved, the bootlickers will defend him... "

There was another recent incident in Chicago when a guy was arguing with an ICE agent and had his hand on the back of his hip while doing so. The ICE goon slung his weapon behind, stepped up into the guys face, and then violently attacked him. Of course he waited until the guy glanced away before trying to pick him up and hurl him to the ground & then needed two other ICE thugs to help him, but who's counting?

There was social media commentary and most people were horrified. But the bootlickers still turned out in large numbers and they insisted the goon was worried the guy had a gun.

I just shook my head. If ICE thug had that concern, the very last thing he would have done is sling his weapon back. The second to last thing would be get-up face-to-face with the guy. His actions only made sense if he was going into asskicking-mode.

The point is this: There's a certain kind of weak person who gets-off on people in uniform acting brutally. I suspect it gives them a tingle in their nether regions. They'll defend any kind of thuggery. They aren't bothered in the slightest if their excuses make zero sense.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"There's a certain kind of weak person who gets-off on people in uniform acting brutally. I suspect it gives them a tingle in their nether regions."

It's cheaper than a subscription to "Only Fans."

That's what I've been told, anyway.

[Kenneth Almquist]

This is the first time I’ve heard it claimed that it’s “standard procedure” for LEOs to threaten to smash car windows.

You state that the key sentence in the link is, "The intern was released once his ID was checked." So why didn’t ICE check his ID before arresting him?

Saying, “can I see some ID, please?” is a basic investigative step that every LEO should be able to master. The fact that ICE failed to perform this basic investigative step before initiating an arrest suggests that their lack of knowledge of the identity of the person they were arresting was willful ignorance.

[Swede425]

Really, hyperbole girl?
For the "sole purpose of being cruel"?
You are absolutely here for the sole purpose of my amusement.

[Bob from Ohio]

"So SALTY today, David!"

DN wants illegals to cut his grass. He's just mad about ANY enforcement.

[David Nieporent]

I have no idea what the citizenship status of those who work for our landscaping company is, and what's more, I don't care.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don't care"

I know.

You just figure some are and it keeps the bill down a bit.

[David Nieporent]

If so, great. Win-win.

[Sarcastr0]

You really can't abide by someone with principles, can you? You gotta accuse him of being as empty as you are.

I disagree with plenty of DMN's principles, but he has them.

It's by that low bar that we find ourselves in agreement so often.

[Bob from Ohio]

I cannot abide libertarians in general.

Arrogant and pedantic ones like him are even worse. You agree with him because he irrationally hates Trump like you. Such hatred cannot be called a principle though.

[Sarcastr0]

There is a lot of overlap between believing in principles and disliking Trump.

Your cynicism doesn’t allow you to see not everyone is as disaffected and irony poisoned as you are.

[Bob from Ohio]

Pounding your chest about your integrity/principles doesn't impress me.

[David Nieporent]

Um, yes, that's the point. People with no integrity/principles don't respect integrity or principles. It's the same reason the MAGA/grifter right hates David French; he's actually a Christian, while they just pretend to be.

[JohnSmith97]

Pity that one of your principles isn't actually doing your gov't job.

Or does another group pay you to post in here all day?

[Bunny495]

Cliff's Notes version of what I posted above. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.

[loki13]

Um, do you know what is the enemy of the good?

The bad!

Things like having masked and unidentified officers in unmarked cars that we have to "trust" are official. Which has caused such a noticeable spike in bad actors using those tactics that the FBI... yeah, Kash Patel's FBI... has pushed back on it (to no avail).

Or how about shooting and beating up and assaulting American citizens on the reg, and then lying about it?

Or attacking peaceful protesters, and then lying about it?

Or normalizing tactics like smashing in car windows (WTF?!!) for .... what? In almost all cases, these aren't even arrest warrants.

Or... how about using helicopters to attack an apartment building and terrorize families .... and then lying about it (resulting in zero arrests)?

Shall I continue? When someone asks you, Bunny, how many eggs do you want to break to make an omelette, is your reply, "All the eggs. And I want to hurt them before I break them. Also? I hate omelettes."

[Bunny495]

"Shall I continue? When someone asks you, Bunny, how many eggs do you want to break to make an omelette, is your reply, "All the eggs. And I want to hurt them before I break them. Also? I hate omelettes."

Reading comprehension is your friend (and so is a spell checker but that is beside the point). What I asked is how many eggs were broken to make an omelet (see how to correctly spell it)? As I posted above the key takeaway is once the kid's ID was checked he was free to go. This could have all been avoided if the judge had not tried to get the kid in his car to prevent an ID check. The judge was looking for a fight and he got one.

I have seen what I call click bait examples of illegal aliens/American citizens driving cars into ICE vehicles and using other violent means to escape. Same is true about click bait examples like this where ICE takes someone into custody that is an American citizen. The real question is what is the exception and what is the rule.

[David Nieporent]

I have seen what I call click bait examples of illegal aliens/American citizens driving cars into ICE vehicles and using other violent means to escape.

No, you haven't. You've probably seen examples of ICE driving cars into illegal aliens/American citizens and then falsely claiming the reverse, though.

[loki13]

On the plus side, they are the lucky ones. They didn't get shot, and then have the DOJ charge them for assaulting federal officers.

[loki13]

"Reading comprehension is your friend (and so is a spell checker but that is beside the point). What I asked is how many eggs were broken to make an omelet (see how to correctly spell it)?"

The first rule of pedantry on the internet? When you engage in it, you are almost always wrong. Omelette is a correct spelling. You're just not very worldly, are you? Sorry. Probably why people that are different scare you so much. Might not spell words the same way.

Bless your cotton socks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omelette

And no, this isn't about "click bait." Unlike you, I actually follow the cases (look at dockets, look at pleading, follow up on what is done and said) instead of just trusting the lies that are pumped out.

But hey- you do you! It's clear you are not serious, because it's a matter of child's play to find examples of American Citizens that have been detained and placed in facilities (including ones out of state) for periods ranging from hours to days to, in a few occasions, weeks or more with no charges and no due process by the authoritarians with the boots that you love to lick.

At some point, maybe you'd be better off having some curiosity and doing your own research instead of coming here and just saying, "I dunno. Seems legit. But I will pushback against anyone who actually does do research. Or provides court documents. Or keeps up with this. Because doggone it, as an old white guy, I'm probably going to be okay. Probably."

[David Nieporent]

Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Fair enough. What's "the good" here?

[Moderation4ever]

I have been assured by several commentors above that ICE is not acting as Trump's secret police. Seem strange that this happened.

[Swede425]

Agreed.

I, too, long for the days before Trump took office and the government didn't make mistakes. This is simply unacceptable.

I move, going forward, that any time the government makes a mistake, it should be shut down. Liberals should be able to get on board with this, they LOVE it when the government is shut down.

[wvattorney13]

Even if we credit the facts in that article, it looks like they got the wrong guy and when challenged promptly corrected their mistake. They initially surrounded the car because it looked like someone was trying to smuggle an illegal immigrant out of there instead of dealing with the situation. When you do that, the police will respond in that manner 100/100 times.

You guys have a completely different standard when it comes to immigration. I get that you want open borders, but you can't demand perfection and then claim that nothing works.

[loki13]

How do we begin to unpack your reflexive and knee-jerk bootlicking?

1. "Even if we credit the facts in that article..."
Let's start here. As all of us keep having to remind you ... they lie. Always. And yet you parrot those lies uncritically despite the fact that they have repeatedly been shown to be liars. For example- we just saw that in the Chicago litigation, they lied UNDER OATH repeatedly, and lied to the public repeatedly, about things small (they said that protesters hurled a bike at agents, when, in fact, agents stole the bike from protesters and hurled it at the protesters) and big (saying that the protesters set off fireworks requiring them to go an beat them ... when the fireworks were flahsbangs set off by CPB to give them an excuse to rough up peaceful protesters). Over and over.

Here, you have a judge, a high schooler, and the head of court security as the witnesses. But sure, if the facts check out....

2. The "wrong guy" in this case was an American Citizen, and a high schooler. Again- HIGH SCHOOL KID who was an American Citizen. He wasn't being "smuggled out" he was being driven by the Judge. And only the intervention of the Court's Head of Security (and over objection and threats) prevented him from being dragged off.

3. Also? There wasn't a warrant or any identification. I don't know about you, but my local PDs don't do that 100/100 times, or even 0/100 times.

This isn't about immigration. It's about terror and getting Trump's secret police into our streets and making it normal to have people snatched up off the street. How do I know that?

Because Obama deported just as many (probably more) in one year without doing this. Immigration issues can be resolved if that's actually the issue- start with vigorous (but legal) enforcement, and go after employers (that's always been a big one) in order to drive down demand.

But unlike you, I don't excuse these types of tactics- not when they are used on Americans, not when they are used on anyone.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

This sort of thing is the context when we get people all upset when a judge wants daily updates after determining there is evidence she is being lied to.

[Kenneth Almquist]

“When challenged [they] promptly corrected their mistake.”

I don’t find this particularly reassuring. At most ICE arrests, there is not going to be a superior court present to act as an advocate for the person arrested. If ICE had arrested the boy somewhere else, and potentially held him incommunicado, how long would it take the boy to obtain legal representation to challenge the arrest?

[Bob from Ohio]

The Associated Press@AP
8h
Armed men attacked a Catholic school in north-central Nigeria and abducted several schoolchildren and staff, an official says, days after 25 schoolgirls were abducted in a neighboring state.

https://apnews.com/article/nigeria-abductions-catholic-school-children-157834ff945cc4efde47d37bb6ed4a88?taid=69202caec9b8e40001d290f0&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

Catholic school. Um.

DN has assured me nothing bad is happening to Christians there though.

[grb]

Bob from Ohio : "DN has assured me nothing bad is happening to Christians there though."

I wouldn't dare speak for Mr. Nieporent, but it's unlikely he said anything of the sort. It's entirely possible he said Nigeria is in the midst of a civil war, with both its Christian and Muslim citizens suffering from terrorist insurgent attacks.

If he did say that, he'd be correct. Plenty of people of both religions have pointlessly & tragically died. But that's very different than claims of a "Christian Genocide". That's just another Trump lie to scam the dupes who form his supporters. Of which you're one, Bob. Dupe & supporter both.

[loki13]

By the way, there will be arguments on December 4 as to whether or not the USA for NDNY was lawfully appointed (Sarcone).

Idea-
Need to get t-shirts for "Trump's Unlawful United States Attorney Appointment Tour 2025."

Put in the names and dates of orders finding the various USAs were appointed unlawfully.
Habba
Chattah
Essayli
Halligan (TBD)
Sarcone (TBD)

[loki13]

Truth is stranger than fiction, example one billion in the Trump Regime-

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/11/abc-news-is-fake-news/

Yes, that is actually on the official government Pravda website. It's not satire. Honestly, I had to check repeatedly, because if someone had done something like this in a movie and tried to pass it off, I woulda been like, "Naw, that's way too North Korea. At least try and be a little subtle with the satire."

[ThePublius]

Do you have a job? You've made 9%+ of the posts on this thread, during working hours, I might add.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Maybe he's an air traffic controller.

[loki13]

More news that is really funny, but also truly terrifying:

https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/825675/groks-elon-musk-worship-is-getting-weird

Like you, I did not realize that Elon Musk is fitter than LeBron James and funnier than Seinfeld.*

But I was truly surprised that Elon Musk, because of his superior VC resources, was better at resurrection than Jesus.

*Unintentionally, sure.

[grb]

Most of Right-Wing-World today is composed of soulless craven whores. They see their life mission as putting a good tongue-polish on the shoe leather of Authority. They don't care if Dear Leader lies to them. They don't care he sees them as dupes and fools. They've gone beyond all caring of true of false, right or wrong. The Cult is all.

Given that, it's unsurprising a bootlicking movement would produce a bootlicking AI.

[Mr. Bumble]

If your TDS hard-on lasts longer than four hours seek medical help.
(That goes for Loki13, also)

[ThePublius]

"Most of Right-Wing-World today is composed of soulless craven whores."

!!!

You are truly deranged if you sincerely believe this.

[David Nieporent]

grb's statement is not true. "Most" is a vast underestimate.

[grb]

There's one thing the Trump Administration has given to the American people : A myriad of new ways to lie. Take RFK Jr as an example. He made a solemn commitment to the Senate Health Committee chairman, Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana that he (RFK) would not remove the statement on the C.D.C. website that vaccines don't cause autism. That promise was central to Senator (and Dr) Cassidy agreeing to support Kennedy's nomination.

But now the agency website says that “studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.” Despite extensive trials & tests finding no evidence of a link, the website says the statement accurately reporting those findings is not “evidence-based”.

In an interview with the NYT, Kennedy admitted personally ordering the change. He also admitted all the clinic trials have produced zero evidence of the link he champions.

Of course that link also happens to be the foundation of all his fundraising and prominence before joining the Trump Administration. We may wonder what losers like Noem, Patel, and Bondi do once their fifteen minutes of freak-show fame are over. But the answer is clear with RFK Jr: He'll go back to the full-time employment of selling conspiracy theories to the conspiracy-minded. I hear there's good money there.

And his promise to Cassidy? The statement on the C.D.C. website that vaccines don't cause autism is still there. Only now, there's an asterisk that leads to a footnote saying it “has not been removed due to an agreement” with the health committee chairman. Plus all those new evidence-free claims.

In Trump-World, truth has no meaning. There's so many ways to trample it into the ground.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/21/us/politics/rfk-jr-cdc-vaccines-autism-website.html

[Mr. Bumble]

"A myriad of new ways to lie."

There is nothing new under the Sun, especially when it comes to politicians and lying.

Fact is, as Dr. House was so fond of reminding everyone;
Everybody lies.
(Of course that would include you)

[grb]

Moi ?!?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

So how did Trump's meeting with that so-called dangerous commie go? Apparently, it was some lovefest.

“He said a lot of my voters actually voted for him,” Trump said. “And I’m OK with it.”

Mamdani, Trump explained, had shared some ideas “that were very interesting.”

“He wants to see houses go up, he wants to see a lot of houses created, a lot of apartments built, etc.” Trump said. “People would be shocked, but I want to see the same thing.”

https://archive.ph/FZArg

Trump is sucking up to a popular politician. He (now) predicts Mamdani will "do a great job" as mayor. Well, hope so.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Of course we should want Mamdani to succeed in helping the people of NY.

I suspect he'll be more likely to succeed if he avoids dogmatic socialism.

[grb]

I suspect he'll be more likely to succeed if he's a pragmatic adroit politician (plus blessed with additional luck). I think his opportunities to be a dogmatic socialist will be so few & far between that avoidance or non-avoidance will scarcely be a factor.

[Kenneth Almquist]

[This was supposed to be a reply to Joe’s post about the Trump/Mamdani meeting.]

I looked at the Fox News articles on the meeting. The comments on the pre-meeting article (titled “Trump, Mamdani set to face-off in first Oval Office meeting”) were mostly anti-Mamdami and anti-socialist comments, with a bunch of “not one cent of tax-payer money for New York City.”

The comment on the article about the meeting itself (“Trump reveals 'one thing in common' he has with Mamdani after Oval Office love fest”) were more temperate than I was expecting. Some people saying that it’s good for people with differing viewpoints to get along. Some saying Trump is playing 3D chess. One did write, “With all due respect. Mamdani won this one hands down.”

The Epstein fallout seems to have affected Trump’s supporters, but if the comments on Fox are an indication, his supporters are OK with Trump embracing a socialist.