Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Krayt]

Third of three!

[Mr. Bumble]

Do not attempt to control the open thread.
We are in control.

[Frank Drackman]

That "Outer Limits" opening scared the wee out of me as a kid, then the actual programs were awful.
Except for one, where Aliens were controlling Tumbleweeds, as I remember, not for some nefarious purpose, just their way of saying "Hi", the thought of that still bothers me.
Or maybe it was because Eddie Albert was in that episode (can't remember the title, just the plot and Eddie Albert) and I kept waiting for Mr. Haney to show up with his special Tumbleweed repellant.

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

"Cry of Silence" Season 2 Episode 6, originally aired on 10-24-1964, see, even the title is creepy.

Frank

[NvEric]

Hey, the tumbleweed, Russian Thistle, has a real presence. Sometimes they group up into larger units to attack cars. I've seen them do this. On the highway, a four or five foot 'being' came at me, but I stared it down and it missed the car. Other people report similar sightings. While none came at my throat, they can be nasty little buggers when the wind kicks up.

In Nevada we have Nevada Day at the end of October which is around the time the tumbleweed turns color and dies. I always thought there could be a contest with various divisions of presentation for tumbleweed sculptures since they are supple when green.

There're two types of tumbleweed. One is a thicker, more squat and pure green. While the other has violet streaks and is slimer, thus grows taller.

Tumbleweed is also edible when young, before the thistles pop out. Simply stream them until tender, season to taste.

[Bwaaah]

Lots of hugely oversized craniums on their aliens. I always worried their heads would fall off if they leaned too much to one side or another.

And re: Mr. Haney...are you sure that's not Ted Cruz?

[Mr. Bumble]

Decisions, decisions, decisions,
Where to post a comment.
Which Open Thread will survive?

[Bwaaah]

This one!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Mamdani does not strike me as intellectually frail. If I were similarly confident about Trump's cognitive capacity, I would presume neither of them intended their post-meeting press conference to be taken seriously.

Maybe Mamdani had told Trump he is one of the great builders of all time. Maybe Mamdani invited Trump to build without constraint in New York, if Trump would agree to keep the federal thugs out of New York City.

Otherwise? Baffling.

[ThePublius]

When something seems contradictory, question your premises.

(To spell it out for you, the meaning of the phrase is this:
If you seem to be confronting a contradiction, then at least one of your relevant beliefs is false.”)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Here I was, all this time. supposing some contradictions get created by accident, by people thinking carelessly. Had I only known what ThePublius knows, that actual contradictions never exist.

[David Nieporent]

Schrödinger's cat notwithstanding, contradictions cannot exist. If you think that two contradictory things are true, you are wrong about one (or both) of them.

[Magister]

False statements, including contradictions, can and do exist. Contradictions are useful for disproving a premise.

[TwelveInchPianist]

A false statement is not a contradiction. It signifies a contradiction.

[Magister]

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Better in logic than law.

[Malika la Maize]

Meh, not a Trump or Mamdani fan but good on them for trying to focus on areas of agreement rather than a photo op fight.

[Josh R]

It was pure PR and good for both of them, although perhaps not so good for the GOP theme that Mamdani is the evil socialist face of the Democratic party.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm reminded of when then-Boston Mayor James Michael Curley went to the Harvard Commencement in 17th Century garb, as the Harvard regs technically still required...

[Dr. Ed 2]

My bad -- it was when he was Governor.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1970/6/10/sheriff-cops-out-on-commencement-pcommencement/

Boston is Suffolk County, Cambridge is Middlesex.

[Poxigah146]

Doesn't baffle me. Trump prioritizes loyalty above all else. If someone is flattering him, he likes them.

My guess is that's what happened.

[Riva]

Anyone who wants government run grocery stores, to defund the police, to tax “whites” to enrich his preferred supporters, and to globalize the intifada is not, by definition, a serious intellectual heavyweight.

[Malika la Maize]

In a letter sent on Wednesday to district attorneys and sheriffs in two North Texas counties, Mr. Abbott suggested there were multiple entities in the state “masquerading” as legal courts, but he named only one: the Islamic Tribunal, an independent institution that has operated in the Dallas area for more than a decade.

The letter quoted from the tribunal’s website to suggest it was illegally posing as a rival court to the Texas judicial system and speculated that the court could recommend stoning as a punishment.

Other faith groups operate ecclesiastical tribunals in the United States that resolve spiritual matters and disputes that overlap with the traditional court system. In Judaism, rabbinical courts known as beth dins rule on the details of divorce agreements, among other issues. Catholic dioceses, including the diocese of Dallas and others throughout Texas, also operate courts to handle cases of church law, including marriage and annulment.

The governor’s statement said the Islamic Tribunal was different from other faith-based arbitration bodies because it was “purporting to replace actual courts of law to evade neutral and generally applicable laws.”

“The Constitution’s religious protections provide no authority for religious courts to skirt state and federal laws simply by donning robes and pronouncing positions inconsistent with western civilization,” the governor wrote in the letter. He offered no specific examples of resolved disputes that have violated U.S. law but urged the counties to work with the state’s Department of Public Safety and attorney general, Ken Paxton, who had “additional investigative tools at their disposal.”

For experts in Islamic law and culture, the move was puzzling.

“The Islamic Tribunal is not unique in Texas or the United States,” said Robert Hunt, a professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas who has written about contemporary Islam. “They’re part of the complication of living as a religious person in a secular society with secular laws.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/21/us/abbott-texas-muslim-investigation.html

[DDHarriman]

>For experts in Islamic law and culture, the move was puzzling.

“The Islamic Tribunal is not unique in Texas or the United States,” said Robert Hunt,

---

Do either of those statements undermine Gov. Abbot's claims that this sharia court is violating the law?

[Malika la Maize]

It undermines the claim it uniquely does so, and if they’re being selectively targeted that’s a potential problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah

[DDHarriman]

It's a good thing you're the only one making that claim, since it's being so undermined by those quotes.

Great work in creating new claims that the article's experts previous statements can then be said to have undermined.

Brilliant.

[Malika la Maize]

The point of the quoted part is it’s selective and suspect, ya goof. It’s not unique but it’s the only one Abbott (“put the Ten Commandments in the classrooms”) is targeting.

[DDHarriman]

So you don't dispute that's it's illegal.

You're just mad they're enforcing the law?

lol wtf is wrong with your kind

[Magister]

In what way is it illegal? Given that "submission to its jurisdiction is
voluntary", the only penalty they could impose on Muslims who don't accept their rulings is no different from the Catholic Church excommunicating a Catholic.

[bernard11]

Given that "submission to its jurisdiction is
voluntary", the only penalty they could impose on Muslims who don't accept their rulings is no different from the Catholic Church excommunicating a Catholic.

Of course.

If two people ask me to settle a dispute between them, and I do so, nobody has done anything illegal, no matter what Abbott or Harriman thinks.

Abbott is an idiot, but he's at least doing this for a reason - to show off for the rubes. Those who defend it are also idiots, but have no reason.

[Drewski]

It obviously isn't illegal, but "the only penalty they could impose on Muslims who don't accept their rulings is no different from the Catholic Church excommunicating a Catholic" is false. Religious arbitration is frequently binding (by agreement) and ratified by the courts. For more information, there's a legal blog that occasionally deep-dives into religious arbitration called the Volokh Conspiracy.

[Magister]

Those who reject the "(by agreement)" part are not subject to any secular penalty. Secular arbitration is probably worse than religious arbitration.

[Drewski]

They also aren't participating in the arbitration. You don't usually get the option of seeking advisory opinions from formal religious arbitrators. I'm sure it's possible but you'll have to show me an example to believe it happens.

[David Nieporent]

but "the only penalty they could impose on Muslims who don't accept their rulings is no different from the Catholic Church excommunicating a Catholic" is false.

I think he meant "who don't agree to be bound by their rulings," not "who don't accept their rulings."

In any case, to be pedantic only actual government courts can carry out any penalty beyond shunning, so he's technically right anyway. That is, an arbitrator (secular or religious) can award damages to a participant, but has no mechanism for enforcement. One needs the government courts for that.

[wvattorney13]

This is not my area, but I think this is the rub.

Say the parties agree to settle their contract dispute through religious arbitration. The arbitrator finds one party at fault for a religious reason that the general public might be suspect about: work on the sabbath, no pork, women shouldn't do X, etc.

Having agreed to submit to the religious arbitration, the secular court is then bound to enforce the arbitration based on the agreement of the parties. You run into it looking a little like a Shelley v. Kramer problem with secular courts affirming religious edicts.

[ducksalad]

wv, you may have point.

Greg Abbott, on the other hand, wasn't making some sophisticated point about entanglement of government and religion. In fact, he likes entangling government and religion. He likes it a lot.

[Malika la Maize]

I think Abbott’s selective targeting is likely illegal, yes.

[David Nieporent]

Do either of those statements undermine Gov. Abbot's claims that this sharia court is violating the law?

No. The fact that Abbott is a lying demagogue undermines his claims. These are arbitration panels, with versions used by Jews, Christians, and others, and are not only legal, but protected under federal law. The Federal Arbitration Act underpins their authority, regardless of Texas law.

To be sure, an individual decision of an arbitration panel — secular or religious — could be void because of certain defects, but the arbitration organization itself is fine.

[ducksalad]

Some examples. First one is in Texas....

https://dallascatholic.org/tribunal/

https://bethdin.org/

https://mormonwiki.com/Mormon_Disciplinary_Councils

https://www.oca.org/statute/article-xv

[Dr. Ed 2]

Maine dealt with this 40 years ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/07/25/us/baptist-pastor-s-actions-split-maine-community.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was trying to find the incident with the running chain saws (there were three paper mills in the region back in the '80s and most of these people were loggers).

But the State of Maine said that it didn't care if he was a minister, he'd go to jail. And the same thing needs to be done with Sharia Courts.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/12/10/Minister-arrested-in-church/3828534574800/

[David Nieporent]

But the State of Maine said that it didn't care if he was a minister, he'd go to jail. And the same thing needs to be done with Sharia Courts.

What the fuck are you talking about? There is no law — I doublechecked — requiring you to post something random about something that happened in Maine or Massachusetts forty years ago that has nothing whatsoever to do with a topic just because you don't know anything about that topic.

That story is about a minister convicted of assault. Why the fuck are you bringing it up in a discussion of arbitration?

[bernard11]

There is no law — I doublechecked — requiring you to post something random about something that happened in Maine or Massachusetts forty years ago that has nothing whatsoever to do with a topic just because you don't know anything about that topic.

You doublechecked?

I doubt it.

I didn't even check once, but I'd still be willing to bet there is no such law.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As you may or may not know, David, Maine was once part of Massachusetts, and Massachusetts was once a theocracy.
When the church was disestablished, this created the problem of dividing church property and town (municipal) property.

In Lee this created a situation where part of the town common actually belonged to the church. And one Easter, teenagers were playing frisbee on said town common, including the part owned by the church. And Dumphy went out with a shotgun and threatened to shoot said teenagers if they didn't cease and desist because playing frisbee on Easter was a crime against God. Or something.

The State of Maine considers threatening people with firearms to be a crime against the state and they arrested him for that, too.

FERPA precludes me going further into the other issues, although read the articles I posted between the lines and you can see some of the issues that were existing in Northern Penobscot County at the time.

Or maybe you can't -- but I suspect others can see the conflict between State Law and religious law relative to teenaged girls...

[David Nieporent]

Still have no idea what you think any of that has to do with a discussion of arbitration.

[Joe_dallas]

Its correct that parties can agree to bind themselves to religious laws (somewhat akin to agreeing to arbitration) whether it be orthodox jewish law, catholic law, Morman law, etc. That is not what the dispute entails.

There are two primary objections
First , sharia law is vastly more anti freedoms protected by the federal and state, US constitution etc. Very much anti woman and anti woman rights. How can fathom feminists approving of sharia law.
Secondly , the way the community is planned, there is legitimate concern that defacto sharia law will emerge. Think of dearborn, mi, or other enclaves that have majority mulsim population. HOA on islamic steroids.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's been a few years, but I remember being told that contracts that violated public policy are not enforceable.

QED any arbitration that is based on a waiver of civil rights would be illegal, wouldn't it?

[not guilty]

Not if the waiver is voluntary. Civil rights can be asserted, or they can be waived.

[David Nieporent]

It would not be "illegal," whatever that means. As I mentioned above, a particular arbitration decision — secular or religious — might not be enforceable for one reason or another. That doesn't make anything "illegal."

[wvattorney13]

That is pretty broad. If I waive my right not to work and sell my services for money---every employment contract---would I be waiving my civil rights?

[Riva]

There are no faiths that embrace an offensive process similar to what the cult of Islam employs in its sharia law courts.

[David Nieporent]

"Islam" does not have sharia law courts, any more than "Judaism" has batei din. Individual organizations run these courts, just like JAMS and AAA run secular ones. And there is nothing "offensive" about the process.

[Malika la Maize]

The LSU board of supervisors Friday authorized new school president Wade Rousse to send former coach Brian Kelly written notice that he has been fired, the first step in its response to a lawsuit Kelly filed against the board.

The topic was discussed during a private executive session that lasted around 27 minutes. Upon returning from the closed-door meeting, LSU board member John Carmouche asked the board to give Rousse permission “in consultation with general counsel to review and, if appropriate, send Brian Kelly written notice of termination under his employment agreement.”

The motion was passed without an objection. Carmouche is the chairman of the athletics committee and has been a key figure in the buyout negotiations with Kelly’s representatives. Carmouche, Rousse and board chairman Scott Ballard declined further comment.

Kelly filed a lawsuit Nov. 10 in the 19th Judicial District for East Baton Rouge Parish as the two sides reached an impasse in buyout negotiations.

His attorneys alleged LSU took the position that he had not been “formally terminated” and that the school sought to fire him for cause, which could take the school off the hook for his nearly $54 million buyout. The lawsuit asked for a declaratory judgment that Kelly has been fired without cause and is owed his full buyout.

The lawsuit also claimed LSU said then-athletic director Scott Woodward did not have the authority to fire Kelly at the time. Woodward and the school parted ways four days later after Gov. Jeff Landry criticized Woodward in a news conference and said he would not hire the next head coach.

https://www.nola.com/sports/lsu/lsu-moves-to-formally-fire-brian-kelly/article_bb992eaa-be47-4aed-84de-61f9a7527090.amp.html

[DDHarriman]

Democrat Matthew Graves got some low-level unknown magistrate in FL to sign the NDO order that kept secret his spying on Republican elected officials.

https://x.com/julie_kelly2/status/1992008326859882881

I'm sure not guilty will be along to say how this is all perfectly and totally legal, moral, ethical, and normal.

Then David will come in and just assert "That didn't happen".

Malika will whatabouttrump

Sarcastr0 will finger wag and try and shame me into self-censoring.

Loki will continue to pretend he's never heard a single bad thing about any Democrat and act all incredulous that someone would actually insinuate it.

[ThePublius]

And Stephen Lathrop will write a 1000+ word essay negating your assertion in some oblique way.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ThePublius — You seem incapable to distinguish my oblique negations from the others. But you do seem to feel constrained that when I negate you, I try to be thorough about it.

[ThePublius]

I honestly don't follow that comment.

Remember, communication is message received, not message sent.

[Mr. Bumble]

You miss the point.
Lathrop is talking to himself.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bumble, you have that sort of right. All my life I have written at least partly for my own satisfaction, and especially to test whether some idea I had made sense enough to stay coherent in print.

Lately, that has been all of it. Previously, of course, to avoid being construed a blockhead,
I wrote for money.

[Stephen Lathrop]

ThePublius — Message received by you, or by me, or by anyone in particular, is a standard for solipsism. The standard for communication is more general.

I suppose that is another comment you may not follow, but do not worry over much if I prove powerless to help.

[ThePublius]

Snob.

[Malika la Maize]

Julie Kelly is a political commentator and senior contributor to American Greatness.
Kelly covers political and policy issues including the January 6 investigation, 2020 election
fraud, and pandemic-related lockdowns. She is a former political consultant to officeholders and
candidates in suburban Chicago.
Kelly is the author of two books, “Disloyal Opposition: How the NeverTrump Right Tried and
Failed to Take Down the President,” and “January 6: How Democrats Used the Capitol Protest to
Launch a War on Terror Against the Political Right.” Her past work can be found at the Federalist and National Review as well as guest editorials in the Wall Street Journal, Roll Call, Forbes, and the Hill. She is frequent guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU08/20220121/114349/HHRG-117-JU08-Bio-KellyJ-20220121.pdf

[DDHarriman]

Woah! That must mean everything she said is CATEGORICALLY NOT TRUE. And everyone who is remotely associated with her is ALSO CATEGORICALLY NOT TRUE.

Great work! I didn't realize I was reading such a non-person who is so far out of the approved channels of lawful and moral information that I was endangering our Sacred Democracy.

Someone activate that global censorship command center at State Department, our cognitive infrastructure is under attack!!!

[Malika la Maize]

lol, crying bias when the bias of his source is noted.

[DDHarriman]

Attack the Messenger isn't an argument. It's a trope and a logical fallacy.

Are you just learning this?

[Drewski]

Oh look we got us an expert in formal logic!

[TwelveInchPianist]

And ad holmium attack isn't an argument.

[Magister]

Six-seven! Enough electrons to remove silver from office. (Unless you mean an ad homonym attack.)

[ducksalad]

Ate too much grits once, suffered an ad hominy attack a few hours later.

[Drewski]

Wow, nothing but logicians here today! Tell me, Mr. Expert, what formal syllogism you've disproved with your astute eye for fallacies.

[Malika la Maize]

One shouldn’t waste time on the claims of a biased, unreliable person.
Julie Kelly is a biased, unreliable person.
Therefore one shouldn’t waste time on the claims of Julie Kelly.

[jb]

There isn't even a claim. It's just innuendo.

[SRG2]

What law or principle was broken here?

[DDHarriman]

Do you think Washington DC & Congress is in that Florida magistrate's jurisdiction?

[Drewski]

Obviously yes. Nobody's going to explain jurisdiction to you though.

[Nelson]

“ some low-level unknown magistrate in FL”

We all know that only well-known magistrates have authority. It’s renown, not position, that confers authority in a country of laws.

“ his spying on Republican elected officials.”

Right, because following legal procedures during a criminal investigation is “spying”. I notice that standard only applies when it’s Republicans being investigated for wrongdoing.

So is that because Republicans never break the law or because Democrats always break the law?

[David Nieporent]

It is all perfectly and totally legal, moral, ethical, and normal.

https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1991987481185820893?s=20

Julie Kelly is a lying bimbo recipe blogger grifter who has taken it upon herself to report on legal affairs despite knowing less about the law than RFK Jr. knows about science. When she's not simply making shit up, her specialty is to take routine things and pretend that they're extraordinary.

The most egregious example that comes to mind right now is when she took routine restrictions on executing a search warrant — that agents could only use force in self-defense — and turned it into "the FBI authorized its agents to shoot Donald Trump during the search of Mar-a-Lago," because she was too ignorant to know that the language in those instructions was found in every such instance, and too fucking stupid to read what they actually said correctly.

Every single hearing she reports on, she makes into the courtroom scene from A Few Good Men, no matter how ordinary they are.

[Krayt]

One man's SOP is another woman's authorization to assassinate.

I wonder if they had a discussion on rules of engagement with a search warrant for an ex president under Secret Service protection. Even if the ex pres became a violent ass, I can't imagine they'd stand by and let him get terminated. Defend first, ask questions later.

If I were the Secret Service, I'd have said to the warrant agents, if some shit starts going down, back off and let us handle it.

Beyond the local encouter, there are larger societal issues. No matter what, it would be cast as an assassination (with the usual suspects on both sides here.) But I would recommend not leaving these thoughts to on the fly decisions by agents on the ground because nobody's thought it through before.

[not guilty]

IIRC, the execution of the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago was purposefully timed to occur at a time when Mr. and Mrs. Trump were not present.

[David Nieporent]

I wonder if they had a discussion on rules of engagement with a search warrant for an ex president under Secret Service protection. Even if the ex pres became a violent ass, I can't imagine they'd stand by and let him get terminated. Defend first, ask questions later.

If I were the Secret Service, I'd have said to the warrant agents, if some shit starts going down, back off and let us handle it.

The FBI expressly chose to execute the warrant a time at when they knew Trump was out of state, so that there would be no chance of any such incident.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Then why have the "shoot to kill" in there?

Imagine if ICE did....

[not guilty]

The warrant did not include "shoot to kill" language. The FBI coordinated with the Secret Service regarding execution of the warrant.
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/05/trump-allies-misrepresent-fbi-order-on-document-search-at-mar-a-lago/

[David Nieporent]

They didn't have shoot to kill in there. It's a standard, pre-printed form that reminds agents that they're not authorized to use deadly force except "when the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person." Which is true of everyone at all times.

[wvattorney13]

Further no judge or anyone else could authorize deadly force absent such circumstances.

Perhaps the only exception would be the execution of a death sentence.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'll go further and remind people of when the Bush twins got arrested for underaged drinking -- they had to get USSS permission to arrest them.

IF Trump had actually been there at the time, do you have any idea just how easily this could have turned into a good-guy firefight?

Can you imagine the outcry if ICE used identical language on their operations? IDENTICAL LANGUAGE....

Enough said?

[David Nieporent]

I'll go further and remind people of when the Bush twins got arrested for underaged drinking -- they had to get USSS permission to arrest them.

It's not true no matter how many times you say it.

IF Trump had actually been there at the time, do you have any idea just how easily this could have turned into a good-guy firefight?

Not easily at all, but — as noted earlier — they deliberately chose a time when he wasn't even in the state.

Can you imagine the outcry if ICE used identical language on their operations? IDENTICAL LANGUAGE....

They do. Again: It's. A. Pre-Printed. Form.

[David Nieporent]

I need to correct that: it is a pre-printed form, but it's a DOJ form; each agency may have their own. So ICE — which is not under DOJ — might use a slightly different one. But the policy is constitutional in nature, so the substance remains the same.

[Life of Brian]

Oh, is this is a Bill Shipley is reliable day? So hard to keep up.

[not guilty]

"I'm sure not guilty will be along to say how this is all perfectly and totally legal, moral, ethical, and normal."

I don't have enough information to form an opinion about morality or ethics, but as to legality, it helps to actually read the relevant statutes. The plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b) authorizes "[a] governmental entity acting under section 2703" to seek such a nondisclosure order as happened here. As for the authority of a magistrate outside of the District of Columbia, 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) states that "[a] court order for disclosure under subsection (b) or (c) [directed to a provider of electronic communication service] may be issued by any court that is a court of competent jurisdiction[.]"

DDHarriman, the first rule of parsing statutes is: don't do so with your head up your ass.

[Kazinski]

Trump gets results.

First Gaza.

Now Marjorie Taylor Greene is resigning from Congress, as soon as her Federal pension vests.

https://apnews.com/article/marjorie-taylor-green-congress-resigns-trump-maga-5f42d4893343babc8e87da1491a0de2b

[ThePublius]

"...as soon as her Federal pension vests."

She may be crazy, but she ain't stupid!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was wondering about the choice of date.
However I worry more about this:

"If I am cast aside by MAGA Inc and replaced by Neocons, Big Pharma, Big Tech, Military Industrial War Complex, foreign leaders, and the elite donor class that can't even relate to real Americans, then many common Americans have been cast aside and replaced as well."

I fear that she may be right -- that Trump has gone to the dark side.
I am really uncomfortable with Trump's "peace in our time" proposal.

I'm also reminded of LBJ's concept of urine -- that it is better having someone inside the tent and pissing out than have someone outside the tent and pissing in.

[Longtobefree]

As everyone else knows, you are SUPPOSED to be uncomfortable with Trump's proposal.
It is called The Art Of The Deal.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody calls it that. (Not even Trump; he didn't write the book.)

[Stella Link's Ghost]

I doubt he's read it.

[Krayt]

"Art of the Deal"

[Josh R]

Perhaps Dr. Ed is representative enough of the MAGA base that their turnout will be down in 2026 (*). The electoral vulnerability of the Epstein Files was always Trump angering his base by not releasing them, not what was in them.

(*) As with 2018 and 2022, we would expect some MAGA 2016, 2020 and 2024 voters not to vote because Trump is not on the ballot. But perhaps in 2026 even more than expected will sit it out.

[John F. Carr]

Some of the anti-Trump crowd will not vote because Trump is not on the ballot. Which side has more single-issue voters?

[Josh R]

The data from 2016/2020/2024 versus 2018/2022 strongly suggest more pro-Trump sit it out in the midterms than anti-Trump.

[Nelson]

“ that Trump has gone to the dark side.”

He started there. He didn’t even have to pack snacks to travel to the dark side.

[wvattorney13]

My thought about Greene (and also Boebert) is that she is a useful idiot who brings along many supporters because of her looks (maybe 20 years ago) and uniqueness.

You put up with her insanity because she is loyal and gives you cheap points. However when she stops doing that and actually starts causing trouble, then her usefulness is outweighed by her baggage.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's more than her looks -- women change when they get to age 50.

[Kazinski]

I'm comfortable saying she is addition by subtraction.

[gVOR08]

It's being reported as due to her break with Trump, Trump's subsequent attacks on her, and his threat to oppose her in the primary. Doesn't it seem more likely the causality runs the other way, she decided to drop out and broke with Trump in support of whatever her plans going forward are?

[John F. Carr]

Last year she said she wouldn't run for Senate in 2026. Times change?

[ducksalad]

She was still on the team and following orders back then.

[Voize of Reazon]

Assuming she does plan to run for another office in the future I can't seen how this resignation is a good move. She is handing her future opponents ammunition to attack her as a quitter.

[Kazinski]

The reason she is quitting now is almost certainly she just got back private poll of he district and it made it plain her constituents will be glad to vote for anyone Trump endorses and glad to see her go. All this started when it she found out she had a snowballs chance in hell to move to the Senate or Governor.

To show how delusional she was there are reports she wanted to VP on the ticket in 2028.

She thought she had her own brand but it turns out she was an unneeded accessory to Trump's brand.

But now she's a victim:

“I refuse to be a battered wife hoping it all goes away and gets better.”

[Kenneth Almquist]

Suggestions that George W. Bush wasn’t a real conservative started during his second term. I think you are right, this looks like a similar phenomenon. If Trump’s popularity declines over the next few years, that will create an opportunity for people like Greene who have distanced themselves from Trump.

[not guilty]

So long, MTG. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/22/marjorie-taylor-greene-donald-trump-epstein-files-the-view/86866372007/?utm_source=usat-DailyBriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-briefing&utm_term=hero&utm_content=8872UT-E-NLETTER02

She will not be missed.

[totakoh221]

today trump announced he's ending the scam tips program for somalis in minnesota.

somalis are the worst of the worst. combine muslim beliefs with nigger genetics and you end up with a retarded, defective biped.

[Mr. Bumble]

For a primer on Somali activities in MN see this:
https://www.city-journal.org/article/minnesota-welfare-fraud-somalia-al-shabaab

[ducksalad]

You may have heard of an experiment at Bell Labs where they wanted to optimize handset cord length. They came in every night and cut a few inches off the cord on everyone's office phone, and kept records of when people noticed and complained. One guy held out until it was down to six inches.

Pretty sure the (seven letter)(three digit) accounts are all one person conducting a similar test. Mr. Bumble is holding out.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have a problem with research design -- it presumes one can complain without cost.

[ducksalad]

You have a good point for the Bell Labs experiment.
Not sure what the cost would be for Bumble to distance himself from some of what (seven letters)(three digits) says.

[David Nieporent]

Anyone else not at all surprised that Bumble would take a racist troll post and respond as if it were legitimate, trying to support it rather than calling it out?

[Bwaaah]

I'm actually slightly surprised. But guilt by association is a mudslinger's game. You go high and low, David. I prefer your high game. (It's stronger than most admit.)

You're middling at best here. Lazy Saturday, is it?

[Mr. Bumble]

A new crash test dummy that better resembles women gets key government endorsement

Modeled after the cast of "The View"?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/nov/21/crash-test-dummy-better-resembles-women-gets-key-government/

[Flink]

But what, really, is a "woman?"

[Frank Drackman]

Not going to invite him to Temple but Man-Damn-he seemed like a nice guy yesterday.
That's the problem, they all seem like nice guys right up to the point they storm the Olympic Village and murder Israeli Athletes.

Frank

[DDHarriman]

Good to see how little you care of all the Christian lives lost at the hands of Moslem terrorists. Like Donald Trump, The Jew is Numero Uno in your universe.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm 1/2 Jew (the Good Half) so I care for 1/2 the Christians (you're not in that 1/2)

Frank

[Kazinski]

I'm not Jewish, nor have any special affinity to them, but its easy to support Israel because they fight, provide the weapons and they fight.

If the Christians in Africa start fighting back, then I will be happy to start supporting them too.

[Poxigah146]

Could Israel defend itself without U.S. support? I legitimately don't know, which is why I'm asking the question.

They've had U.S. support for so long that there is really no precedent.

[Frank Drackman]

Question should be Could the US defend itself without Israeli support?
"for so long"??
Oh you mean since 1948?
Or 5708 on our Calendar, We've been around longer than you.
As Foghorn Leghorn used to say to the little Chickenhawk,
"Ah say Boy! Go away, ya botherin' me!"

Frank

[not guilty]

"Oh you mean since 1948?
Or 5708 on our Calendar, We've been around longer than you."

And your tribe didn't fare so well between 70 and 1948 C.E.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't blame me, I wasn't chosen until 1962

[bernard11]

And your tribe didn't fare so well between 70 and 1948 C.E.

Well, lots of tribes didn't fare so well when the Roman legions came calling.

What you say is generally true, but remember, we had an awful lot of Christians arrayed against us at many times for almost two millennia. Still, we definitely had our moments and, more important, we're still here and doing quite well, thank you, which a lot of tribes aren't.

[Bwaaah]

Did we? Did they?

So many of you are like DDHarriman, just switching around who's your odd man out. Y'all save your scorn for ones who really deserve it.

Nasty shit. All of it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Israel has nukes.

Israel could at least fight on its own if it had to.

[Poxigah146]

Sure, but that wouldn't work against Palestinians. You'd need boots on the ground and the weapons that would come along with that

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Marjorie Taylor Greene Says She Plans to Resign in January" [NYT]

My preference is for elected officials to serve out their full terms.

Various people have resigned mid-term. It is not an ideal policy unless it is necessary for health reasons or some other such strong reason. For instance, one member will soon be governor.

Greene may very well run for a higher office in the long term.

In recent months, the lawmaker who once subscribed to QAnon conspiracy theories has been operating as a powerful free agent and the rare Republican in Congress willing to break with Mr. Trump. She recently apologized on television for contributing to the divisive political climate in America.

She said that she doesn't want her state to have a "hateful primary," but that doesn't require her to resign prematurely.

Doing so deprives her district of a representative for an extended period. A special election might be called (incurring costs and effort), but that would still take time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Good news, bad news; Mikey Sherill has also resigned (Thursday).

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wow. It seems like Mikey Sherill and Gavin Newsome are the latest adherents to the theory that federal income taxes are voluntary.

I can't wait to see them in federal court explaining to the judge that the color of the fringe on the flag in the court means that the judge doesn't have any authority.

[John F. Carr]

Sherrill appears more clueful than previous tax protesters. He's not proposing to divert all private sector income tax withholding to the state.

[Mr. Bumble]

He ?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, Mikie. We're not blameless here.

[John F. Carr]

Damn 19th amendment...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It's Mikie Sherrill. A woman.

The article is somewhat vague but hey that makes it easy to sneer at things. Details are buzzkills.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It goes into a lot of detail than most articles I see about tax protesters.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I don't know what articles you have seen.

I have seen tax protesters draw complex, detailed webs explaining ("explaining") their theories.

That article briefly references her theory and then says it "is unclear how such a proposal would work, and Sherrill’s transition team declined to elaborate."

[jb]

If the federal government is going to illegally withhold money from the states, seems like a potentially reasonable response.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Good luck with that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It turns out that withholding taxes as a protest, even if it seems reasonable to the protestor, isn't exactly a new idea and doesn't have a good track record.

[jb]

It turns out the states have a different relationship to the federal government than random citizens.

[Life of Brian]

While this is true as far as it goes, as far as I know the random citizens and the businesses they operate are the only ones paying federal taxes. If you have any info about states themselves paying, please pass it on.

[ducksalad]

The state has employees. They withhold federal taxes from their paychecks and then send it to the feds.

Now of course you can say that's the employee's money, not the state's money. I could see the IRS claiming the power to go after either the employee ("you have to pay, it's not our problem the state stole your money") or the state ("that money was ours once you withheld it").

[ducksalad]

Actually, the employer half of the social security just flat comes out of the state budget. They owe it directly, not the employee. So there's that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm. no. State employees aren't under social security.
States have pension systems instead.

[Absaroka]

"State employees aren't under social security"

You better tell the state I worked for and SSA, because they disagree with you.

[David Nieporent]

Ummm. no. State employees aren't under social security.

Are you ever right about anything?

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10051.pdf

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, but that's money passing through the state-as-employer's hands just like any other employer, and as you say it's ultimately money owed by the employees so that would be a pretty reckless way for a state to try to make a point. And the optics of holding back Social Security contributions in particular would be horrible.

[wvattorney13]

I agree. If the states wanted to throw down the gauntlet by refusing to withhold federal income tax or FICA, that would be one thing, but withholding and refusing to pay would be a taking under false pretenses---likely a larceny.

The employees would be out money for the stated purpose of fulfilling their income tax and FICA obligations---and then the state would fail to fulfil those obligations.

[bernard11]

I could see the IRS claiming the power to go after either the employee ("you have to pay, it's not our problem the state stole your money") or the state.

My understanding is that once the employer withholds the money the employee is off the hook. I don't know if that's a matter of law, or just standard IRS practice, or even if it's true. I have known an employer or two who played very stupid games with withheld taxes. It turned out badly for them.

[Malika la Maize]

You’re worried about pols paying taxes now? I thought your guy had established taxes are for suckers?

https://theweek.com/articles/652033/donald-trumps-tax-gaffe-actually-just-republican-orthodoxy

[ducksalad]

If she's planning to run for Senate she might want to focus full time on that. And if she is going to do that, a replacement representative is better for her district than someone absent and distracted.

However, more likely the plan is some kind of talk show host. Much higher ceiling on income. Gets to focus on the fun part (grandstanding) without the boring committee work. Gets to live in Georgia. Only needs one house (having two houses makes you automatically liable to prosecution for mortgage fraud - whichever you claim as primary, Pulte can say you lied).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Her resignation in January means no one will represent them for months (depending on how long the process takes).

Why is that "better" in the long run?

How much more distracted will Marjorie Taylor Greene likely be if she stayed in office to run for office? She will still have staff to take care of her constituents.

[ducksalad]

You and I have different levels of belief in representative democracy.

I can see at least the possibility of my representative being so bad that it would better to have no representative at all. I certainly think that about some other people's representatives.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

You and I have different levels of belief in representative democracy.

Probably.

I can see at least the possibility of my representative being so bad that it would better to have no representative at all.

I can see that too.

You didn't rely on that. You talked about the possibility of her being absent and distracted if she ran for another office.

Focusing on what I said, not what you think I might say, how does no representative result in less absence and distraction?

Now, there will be no representative for months.

Meanwhile, the people will need to worry about electing a new short-term representative. A distraction.

It's a deep red district. They seem to be relatively okay with the current member. My "belief in representative democracy" includes allowing local people to choose who they like, even if I really don't like the person. It's their call. I don't live there.

They chose someone to serve for two years. Any chance the person might resign is very small. So, they expect the two years.

Again, going by what I said, not what I might say, I don't think a candidacy would make her much more distracted. Given who she is and all. Plus, she has staff to help constituents now.

[ducksalad]

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

You go with she's betrayed a solemn duty to serve out her term.

I'll go with we've got a 13th Amendment so she can quit anytime she wants, and good riddance at that. Her recent changes make her slightly less bad, but only slightly.

Side note: I'm kind of sour on the whole "constituent services" thing. I'm not in favor of a system where constituents need their congressmen to intercede in their personal cases to get justice/service/redress. I'd rather Congress fix broken agencies than go beg my representative to make it work for me as a favor.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You do know that her leaving shrinks an already small majority by one...

[Kazinski]

She isn't running for the Senate because she has almost no support in the Republican primary because she would lose badly in the general.

That may be behind her attempted pivot to the center.

The has always just been a self absorbed opportunist, working a brand. First it was Ultra-MAGA, then she came to the realization that was a dead end, so hence the pivot. But just pivoting toward the center wouldn't provide headlines, so she went further and crashed and burned.

[David Nieporent]

Doing so deprives her district of a representative for an extended period.

Though the governor of Georgia isn't a POS, so he probably won't refuse to schedule a special election for almost a full year, as Greg Abbott did when Sylvester Turner died.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2025/11/22/metro-atlanta-gop-chair-march-special-election-likely-fill-marjorie-taylor-greenes-seat/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Priest Brings Defamation Action Against Podcasters Who Questioned His Credentials as an Exorcist"

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2025/11/priest-brings-defamation-action-against.html

This case might have some interesting witnesses.

"Now Regan, tell the Court in your own words ..."

Court: He said "Regan," not the demon possessing her. (Sighs)

[Dr. Ed 2]

As I understand it, the demons make it very clear that they are not the person possessing them

[David Nieporent]

As you understand what, exactly?

[DDHarriman]

>First Antifa terrorism convictions in US history

On Nov. 19, Seth Sikes, Joy Abigail Gibson, Lynette Read Sharp, Nathan Baumann and John Phillip Thomas each admitted to one count of providing material support to terrorists for their role in the shooting attack on the Prairieland facility in Alvarado, Texas, that resulted in a police officer being shot in the neck and other officers being fired upon.

----
ANTIFA doesn't exist guys!!! This is a fake court case made up by MAGAts!!!!

[Jerry B.]

They should have ditched their membership cards.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Just a hunch here, but Big Brother keeps track of who buys guns and the ATF is pretty good at both "tracing" a serial number back to the initial dealer and in recovering filed-off serial numbers.

The people willing to shoot a police officer usually already have enough paperwork on them to preclude lawful possession of a firearm in the first place, so there is liability for providing the guns.

[ducksalad]

I have different hunch. The alleged actual shooter and ringleader, Benjamin Song, will be among the last to enter a plea. He was among the last to be picked up. "Shooting in the neck" sounds awful but somehow the officer left the ER later the same evening, not clear whether have there been any forensic reports showing that it was a bullet and where it came from.

Whitmer Kidnapping II?

[Dr. Ed 2]

My cousin was shot in the neck in the infamous lobstermen's shootout of 15 years ago -- it depends on the type of round and what it hits.

There was no forensic on that bullet, which I think went into the harbor.

What would have been a fatal gunshot wound 40-50 years ago isn't anymore. Kennedy no, but the other three assassinated Presidents would have lived today. It's really amazing what trauma medicine can do.

[ducksalad]

Yeah, trauma medicine has really improved.

But there's no evidence much trauma was involved here. The officer was discharged a few hours after he went in. Just really lucky, or was he hit by something other than a bullet? That's why I want to know if there are any lab reports saying he was actually shot by an AR-15 or actually shot at all.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If you discharge the round and it puts a hole in someone, you shot the person, regardless of what else the bullet did.

Rounds ricochet (bounce off stuff) a *lot*, they fragment, and there are flesh wounds. If a bullet exits the victim, which is better because that means that it didn't transfer all of its energy, good luck finding it. Moreso if it broke up into fragments.

It's also possible for a bullet to hit something hard enough for that to become a projectile capable of injury -- this happens with glass a lot.

So all they may know -- honestly all they may know -- is that there was a gun fired and at the same time someone suddenly has a hole in his neck. What is the rational conclusion? And in the effort to save his life, you don't much care about finding the projectile.

Trump was "treated and released" after being shot.

[ducksalad]

What's the evidence that he was hit by a bullet at all?

There were also a lot of fireworks going off. Noise and running around in the brush in the dark.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/benjamin-song-new-details-emerge-anti-ice-suspect-captured-after-major-texas-manhunt

[ducksalad]

Funny. Compare all the local Fox links to the other channels. The others say the officer briefly visited the hospital and was released the same evening (the whole thing happened after sunset).

Days later the incident Fox spins it as "the officer is expected to recover". As if he's miraculously hanging on after the crack team of neurosurgeons saved him.

But anyway, we'll be able to guess when the sentences come out. A few years each for the team and somehow Song never goes to trial, then it's Whitmer Kidnapping II.

[Nelson]

The claim that Antifa doesn’t exist is a strawman. It exists like right-wing militias exist.

The claim is that Antifa isn’t an organization, but is a movement or collection of organizations grouped by loosely-defined, shared ideals (exactly like militias on the right).

If someone said that Militia is an organization, you would rightly object. So why is it so hard for the right to grasp such a simple concept? Are they braindead or partisan hacks?

[jb]

It's because they only like to argue against dumb strawmen, not actual arguments. Not sure why this is satisfying, but I guess it lets them backslap each other and announce that they've owned the libs yet again.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s like how the service academies like to play teams that run the option.

[Michael P]

Militias have been prosecuted for illegal actions committed by members or organized by the militia, but the "Antifa isn’t an organization" is usually deployed to argue that no one should be prosecuted for crimes committed by members or organized by the Antifa cell.

[Magister]

"Antifa isn't an organization" is deployed to rebut "Antifa is an organization", which is usually deployed to tar all opponents as the same as the most extreme person. (It's sometimes deployed in service of bizarre conspiracy theories by people who already assume their political enemies are uniformly evil.)

[DDHarriman]

No one but your strawman say Antifa has some legal corporate structure.

Literally no one but the Lefts ghosts amd fantasies.

[David Nieporent]

What militia was prosecuted for actions committed by its members? And nobody — except MAGA, with respect to J6 — has ever argued that "no one should be prosecuted for crimes committed." The argument is that the people who commit crimes should be prosecuted, but that others shouldn't pretend that those people are "members" in something that isn't an organization and doesn't have members.

[ThePublius]

"And nobody — except MAGA"

Who is this "MAGA" bogeyman man to which you refer? This leftist, prog bullshit is tiring.

Yes, Antifa is and organization, and it's well funded. Get a brain.

[David Nieporent]

It's not an organization and has no funding of any sort.

[ThePublius]

Of course it does! Deny all you want, how do you think these SAME PEOPLE keep showing up at 'demonstrations' all over the country? Are you daft?

[David Nieporent]

The question is why you believe that the same people keep showing up at demonstrations all over the country.

[ThePublius]

David Nieporent - Antfia denier. What a clown.

[not guilty]

Antifa may or may not be an organization, but they've got a banging theme song. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRG0PdVzNro&list=RDmRG0PdVzNro&start_radio=1

[DDHarriman]

You people say Antifa doesn't exist whenever us people say Antifa is attacking government workers.

Its you people who use it to dismiss any conversation about Antifa.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Both the original complaint and the superseding indictment fail to mention that any of the defendants were members of Antifa. The defendants do seem to be seriously bad people who should serve significant jail time, but your obsession with proving that the mythical Antifa organization exists is not supported by this prosecution. Perhaps you should take a break and look for bigfoot instead.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71664444/united-states-v-arnold/

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2025/11/21/Supreme-Court-justice-halts-throwing-out-new-House-maops/9351763774129/

What I don't understand is an appeal with TWO district judges on it -- I know they sometimes have one when they are short of bodies, but TWO? On something like this?

And why isn't the circuit going en bank or whatever it is called when the whole circuit gets to revote a decision?

"Circuit Court Judge Jerry Smith, nominated by President Ronald Reagan, dissented, writing: "In my 37 years on the federal bench, this is the most outrageous conduct by a judge that I have ever encountered in a case in which I have been involved."
"If, however, there were a Nobel prize for fiction, Judge Brown's opinion would be a prime candidate."

I'm wondering if this is where/when SCOTUS will do what the late Abby Thernstrom predicted -- strike down the Voting Rights Act "majority/minority" mandates as both an equal protection violation and a violation of the other parts of the Voting Rights Act itself.

And I have another question here -- if the KKK hypothetically had a lot of money and fed it through numerous NGOs to fund a lawsuit, would it be appropriate for an appeals court judge to mention that the Klan had funded the litigation? Or -- while it was also a foreign state -- the Apartheid South African government?

[John F. Carr]

En banc votes take time and might not be available for motions and stays.

En banc is a borrowing from French, hence the odd spelling. I have recently heard the French borrowing en route anglicized as in route.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's spelled the same way, but try Calais, Maine.

It's named after the French one, but pronounced "callous."

[ducksalad]

Glad I didn't open my mouth when I was there a few winters back.

Texas is full of similar traps for people who know too much about foreign languages and pronunciation.

[John F. Carr]

Berlin, Massachusetts - accent on the first syllable

Creve Coeur, Missouri - just wrong

[Dr. Ed 2]

Madrid and Moscow Maine...

[jb]

"What I don't understand is an appeal with TWO district judges on it -- I know they sometimes have one when they are short of bodies, but TWO? On something like this?"

Redistricting cases have a special procedure that requires a three judge panel (generally with two district court judges and one circuit court judge). These decisions are then directly appealable to the Supreme Court.

[David Nieporent]

What I don't understand is an appeal with TWO district judges on it -- I know they sometimes have one when they are short of bodies, but TWO? On something like this?

It's not an appeal. That was the original court.

And why isn't the circuit going en bank or whatever it is called when the whole circuit gets to revote a decision?

Because it wasn't a circuit court case. Lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of electoral maps start at a three-judge panel consisting of two district judges and a circuit court judge. Appeals go to SCOTUS.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2284.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and on this day in 1963, JFK was assassinated in Dallas, Texas.
Hardly a mention in today's news sources.

[DDHarriman]

Today's news is pro-Communist. This is a day of celebration.

[John F. Carr]

Today I watched a video of his last speech, that morning, telling his audience that South Vietnam wouldn't last a day without American support, and that Western Europe, NATO, and other acronyms would be nothing without America.

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like Trump.
Ironic that his idiot youngest brother saw to it that South Vietnam would fall.

[Mr. Bumble]

Gaza bots:
https://x.com/LiquidFaerie/status/1992097744157397364?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1992097744157397364%7Ctwgr%5E3b9f43acac46a4e083d18ec3ba030f8a7f1b2d4f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F758104%2F
Breaking: @elonmusk
just turned on the location spotlight and the entire “Gaza resident” influencer industry & fake IDF soldier industry just imploded.

[DDHarriman]

Half of the Twitter B-tier influences were pajeet scammers. And way too many political influencers were foreign ops.

Thats why Twitter immediately removed the location feature.

[ducksalad]

I HAVE JUST GOTTEN THE HIGHEST POLL NUMBERS OF MY “POLITICAL CAREER.” While my great work on the Economy has not yet been fully appreciated, it will be! Things are really Rockin’. Stopping WARS and Foreign Relations seems to be a strong suit. Also great, The Border and Stopping Crime. I predict that the Economy, with the already HIGHEST STOCK MARKET, EVER, and prices coming sharply down from the Biden disaster, will soon be at the top of the list. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

[Paladin_44]

Delusional as usual...

[Poxigah146]

He very much misunderstands the American people if he thinks anyone but the top 10% or so care that much about the stock market.

[Poxigah146]

https://reason.com/2025/11/19/79-year-old-world-war-ii-refugee-remains-in-ice-custody-after-living-in-the-u-s-for-over-70-years/

Why is Reason posting fake stories? The despicable Ilya Somin and his sycophants on the left have told us for years that Trump's immigration actions are targeted at non-whites. Therefore, it has to be a lie that a Polish man is being detained by ICE.

[jb]

Just because they're targeting brown people doesn't mean their aim is that good. They're supposed to be targeting dangerous criminals, after all...

[Poxigah146]

No, he didn't campaign, and get elected on, only targeting dangerous criminals, but many of the tens of millions here illegally.

You may not like that, but that's what the American people voted for.

[jb]

Clearly the American people don't think they voted for what Trump is doing based on his cratering approval numbers on immigration policy.

I've said before: Trump did come in with something of a mandate to take action on immigration, but he's way overshot the mark and now immigration has become a liability for him instead of a strength. Had he actually focused deportation efforts on people who were dangerous while strengthening the border, he'd probably still have a lot of support on the topic.

[Poxigah146]

The American people don't know what they want. They want the illegal problem solved, but want it to be done by waving a wand and having the people disappear.

They're like the people who want a home-cooked meal but don't want the house to smell like it afterward.

[Brett Bellmore]

Typical of Reason, they lead with his being 79 years old, and then eventually get around to mentioning that he's a rapist.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You should really specify who you're talking about in a comment like that, even a reply.

[Brett Bellmore]

Poxigah146's comment is right there, I didn't think I was being mysterious.

So, you say, "They're supposed to be targeting dangerous criminals, after all..."

His 79 year old WWII refugee was a convicted rapist. Larceny, too. Which is kind of WHY he was subject to a deportation order for most of those 79 years.

So, even if you ignore that he only said they'd prioritize dangerous criminals, but were going to deport every illegal alien they could find, the guy technically qualified.

[jb]

I agree he was a criminal, but at 79 and with a few decades since that conviction, the "dangerous" part seems pretty questionable.

And this applies to many of the "criminals" the administration is deporting. Often here legally, but with that status suddenly revoked for a 20 year old marijuana possession charge or something equally silly. It's all just about scrabbling around to find enough bodies to deport to make Trump happy with the numbers.

[Poxigah146]

To be fair, I'm not sure how much credibility to lend to a fraternity house rape conviction after what was done to the Duke lacrosse players.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair enough, but there was also the larceny conviction to demonstrate he wasn't exactly law abiding.

OK, his wife says he was innocent. I'm not sure that's exactly conclusive.

[Poxigah146]

Yeah, the jury is still out on this one. Either way, I'm not sympathetic given that he had 50 years to get citizenship and chose not to.

[David Nieporent]

he had 50 years to get citizenship and chose not to.

Tell me that you don't know how immigration law works without saying that you don't know how immigration law works.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A frat house rape conviction prior to 1980 I would take seriously -- frat boys weren't prosecuted back then.

[Poxigah146]

Depends where.

[Sarcastr0]

1) Acting CIA General Counsel. A career lawyer, "was among those who had raised questions about the legality of the agency’s use of lethal force." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/22/drug-boats-strikes-cia-legal-concerns/)

Replaced with CIA Deputy Director Ellis, who retained his policy position and signed off on the strikes.

2) NSC Legal Adviser Paul Ney "had been among the lawyers who had raised concerns about the legality of lethal strikes."

3) CIA Mission Center’s lawyer "who questioned the use of lethal force against drug traffickers has been reassigned and replaced"
-----------
'I thought it was legal' is not a legitimate argument this administration can make about these strikes.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Does the religious liberty panel Josh Blackman is on get complaints about this?

Demonstrators attempted to hold onto Woolf, who was wearing a clerical collar, but four officers wrenched him from the crowd and tossed him to the ground. After turning him onto his stomach, officers proceeded to arrest Woolf and removed him to the Cook County Sheriff’s Office in Maywood, Illinois.

“I’ve got bruises all over my body,” Woolf, an American Baptist minister who is pastor of Lake Street Church of Evanston, Illinois, told Religion News Service. He was speaking in his first interview since being released Friday afternoon after about seven hours in custody.

Woolf said when he asked the arresting officers to loosen the plastic handcuffs that were causing his hands to go numb, an officer replied: “Nobody wants to talk to you — shut the f–k up.”

“It’s part of the dehumanizing nature of it, and it gives me a lot of clarity around what’s happening here,” said Woolf, who has been active in protests against ICE. “It’s really a spiritual emergency.”

https://religionnews.com/2025/11/15/at-least-seven-faith-leaders-arrested-at-ice-facility-protest/

If clergy outside a reproductive health clinic was treated this way, many Trump supporters would be appalled.

[jb]

It is surprising that ICE seems to be targeting the clergy for mistreatment but no one on the right seems bothered by this at all. Well, maybe not surprising. "Revealing" is probably the better word.

[John 4]

All this woke clergy out there trying to help people!!!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"If clergy outside a[n abortuary] was treated this way," Sarcastro and his gang would deny it had happened, or say the report was biased, and anyway say the head of the agency which did it was a model of integrity.

[santamonica811]

Mar,
I'm sorry. What are you whining about now????

[not guilty]

In regard to the kerfluffle about President Trump accusing member of Congress of "seditious behavior, punishable by DEATH!", 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.

According to Mr. Rosenblatt, a service member's seeking advice there does create an attorney-client relationship. In the event of a prosecution under Article 90 of the UCMJ (willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer), advice of counsel that an order is unlawful could go a long way to negate the accused's culpable mental state.

[John F. Carr]

Legality of an order is ordinarily a question of law. If an order is lawful it must be obeyed.

[not guilty]

Whether such disobedience was willful, however, is a question of fact that the prosecution would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Advice of disinterested counsel could be powerful evidence in that regard that the accused did not act willfully. And since the privilege belongs to the client, the accused could waive privilege and call the attorney who advised him as a witness.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Article 92 doesn't require willfulness.

And it's not clear that Article 90 requires the accused to know that the order is illegal. That's not one of the elements in the MCM.

[Armchair]

Question for the forum.

1) You are in the United States Air Force, Drone Operations unit. You're currently monitoring a speedboat, rapidly moving under the cover of night, off the coast of Venezuela. The order comes down to fire on it with your drone's missiles. Do you follow the order? Why or why not?

2) Same question, but you're a lawyer for the member of the armed forces above. Do you advice them to follow such an order in the given situation? Why or why not?

[ducksalad]

With no further information, the order isn't clearly illegal because you don't know what intelligence the higher ups might have about the boat, and there hasn't ever been a clear rule that presidents can't order this kind of operation outside the US.

And I don't think the congressmen were suggesting prosecuting any low-level drone pilots for war crimes based on what's happened so far.

[not guilty]

"And I don't think the congressmen were suggesting prosecuting any low-level drone pilots for war crimes based on what's happened so far."

I don't think so either, but perhaps those who have given unlawful orders to underlings should face prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) and/or § 956(a)(1).

[Armchair]

"And I don't think the congressmen were suggesting prosecuting any low-level drone pilots for war crimes based on what's happened so far."

But they might be suggesting low level drone pilots disobey such orders.

[not guilty]

"But they might be suggesting low level drone pilots disobey such orders."

The video is here: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2558895077819811

What word or group of words even remotely suggests disobeying a lawful order, Armchair?

[Armchair]

You've argued quite thoroughly below that such orders are illegal, and you wouldn't comply with them.

[John F. Carr]

There is a clear precedent that presidents get to blow things up. If recent activities are criminal, a lot of officers of decades past are in legal peril too. Take the invasion of Grenada in 1983 as an example.

[not guilty]

I don't know about the particulars of this hypothetical, but some principles are generally applicable here. Professor Marty Lederman, of 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 good article about the current Caribbean strikes. https://www.justsecurity.org/120296/many-ways-caribbean-strike-unlawful/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Murder on the high seas violates 18 U.S.C. § 1111(b). Murder there is defined as “the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought”—within the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” A service member may be able to assert acting under public authority as a defense or an affirmative defense. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2055-public-authority-defense

Similarly, Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 918, provides that “[a]ny person subject to this chapter who, without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when such person— (1) has a premeditated design to kill; [or] (2) intends to kill … is guilty of murder.”

The higher ups who give such an order (other than the President, thanks to Donald Trump's handmaid John Roberts and five of his fellow black robed wardheelers) may be liable under 18 U.S.C. § 2* or under 18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1), which 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”.

Whether the killing is "unlawful" for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1111(b) or whether the killing is without justification or excuse and unlawful for purposes of 10 U.S.C. § 918 present fact specific questions beyond the information provided in the hypothetical. For example, is the targeted person a member of enemy armed forces in a congressionally authorized armed conflict, and does the targeting conform to the laws of armed conflict and other international law constraints?
_______________________

* (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.

[Armchair]

With all that said....
The above is the information available to you at the current time. That's what you know. No more.

1) If you're in the military, do you carry out the order?

2) If you're the lawyer, do you advise them to follow out such an order?

[not guilty]

What pare of "we need additional information" do you fail to understand, Armchair?

[Armchair]

This may be hard for you to understand....but as the drone pilot, you do not have that additional information. It simply isn't available at the time. You have two options. Follow the order. Or don't.

Which do you pick?

[not guilty]

The responsible thing to do would be to ask for clarification of the order. The irresponsible thing would be to carry out the order despite being ignorant.

Professor Lederman has some instructive commentary which I quoted below in response to TwelveInchPianist.

[Armchair]

The clarification is simple. Open fire and destroy that speedboat. Do you comply?

Or are you demanding the set of intelligence around the order, and refuse to obey the order, unless it is given to you? That's what it sounds like...

[not guilty]

You are not the first one to consider this hypothetical, Armchair. From the Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations:

6.2.12.1 Superior Orders

The fact that a person committed a war crime under orders of their government or of a superior does not relieve that person from responsibility under international law provided it was possible, in fact, for that person to make a moral choice. See DOD Law of War Manual, 18.22.4. Under the Rules for Court Martial (RCM) and MMC, 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 (RCM, 916(d) and MMC, Part II, Rule 916(d)). An order requiring the performance of a military duty to act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime (e.g., an order directing the murder of a civilian, a noncombatant, a combatant who is hors de combat, or the abuse or torture of a prisoner) [boldface added] (e.g., see MCM, Part IV, Paragraph 14c(2)(a)(i)). The fact an offense was committed pursuant to superior orders may be considered as mitigation to reduce the level of punishment (e.g., United States v. Sawada, Law of Trials of War Crimes, Volume V, 7–8, 13–22, UN War Crimes Commission, (1948); ICTY, Article 7(4)).

https://stjececmsdusgva001.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/public/documents/NWP_1-14M.pdf#page=104

Your hypothetical accordingly posits a textbook example of "a patently illegal order." Fealty to the service member's oath requires disobedience thereof. If I were in that situation, I would hope that I would have the fortitude to uphold that oath.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Your hypothetical accordingly posits a textbook example of 'a patently illegal order.'"

How so? In the hypo, the subordinate doesn't know who's in the boat.

[Armchair]

Indeed. But NG has made his point clear. He won't fire.

[Sarcastr0]

The clarification is simple. Open fire and destroy that speedboat. Do you comply?

If that's the clarification, I'll know I'm in a bad novel or movie doing a ham-handed 'what if the government is evil' plot.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What are you talking about? The hypo is a likely example of an order that someone received.

[Armchair]

This may surprise you Sarcastr0, but in the military, they typically do not give the troops on the firing line an entire 15-point intelligence summary prior to orders to open fire.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Here's another one: You're a General given an order by Hegseth or Trump to sink drug boats. Is it a crime to disobey an order from the Secretary of Defense or President, even a lawful one? What crime?

[not guilty]

Professor Lederman's article which I linked above again is helpful. He writes:

[T]he fact that President Trump apparently has authorized the military to use lethal force to target a boat filled with civilians does not mean that all subordinate officials should reflexively defer to, and comply with, any such orders issued at his direction. To be sure, as the Judge Advocate General Handbook explains, subordinates in the military chain of command must presume, in the ordinary course, that orders of superiors in the lawful chain-of-command are themselves lawful. Even so, in a “rare” case where “an order seems unlawful,” the subordinate should “not carry it out right away, but [should] not ignore it either.” She should, instead, “immediately and respectfully seek clarification of that order”; and if, after receiving a clarification (or after being informed that no clarification is forthcoming), a reasonable person “would recognize the wrongfulness of the act or order, even in light of a soldier’s general duty to obey, then the order is ‘manifestly illegal,’ and soldiers have a duty to disobey it.” The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations includes an admonition that certainly appears to be on point here: It notes that although “[a]n order requiring the performance of a military duty to act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate,” this inference “does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime (e.g., an order directing the murder of a civilian [or] a noncombatant …”) [alterations and italics supplied by Prof. Lederman].

[TwelveInchPianist]

That doesn't address whether or not it's a crime to disobey a (lawful) order from the President or Secretary of Defense.

[John F. Carr]

That is an interesting question. The UCMJ does not require obedience to people outside the military. See articles 90-92. The most general provision requires obedience to an "order issued by a member of the armed forces" or a "general order or regulation". A soldier can't tell the president to fuck off, see article 89, but it appears to me a soldier can demand that the order be relayed through the military chain of command.

[Voize of Reazon]

Article 89 prohibits disrespect to a superior commissioned officer, which the President is not.

[Voize of Reazon]

Since you failed to say "Secretary of War" you are now an enemy of the state and subject to summary punishment.

It is an offense under 10 U.S.C. §890 (UCMJ Art. 90) to disobey an order from a superior commissioned officer, but neither the President nor the Secretary are one of those.

It is an offense under 10 U.S.C. §892 (UCMJ Art. 92) to disobey a lawful general order or regulation, or a "lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey". I don't believe a specific order from Trump or Hegseth would qualify under that either.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Since you failed to say 'Secretary of War' you are now an enemy of the state and subject to summary punishment."

Someone should have me thrown into the Gulf of Mexico immediately.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Commander in Chief; What DOES it mean? We may never know.

[Voize of Reazon]

It means not a commissioned officer.

[not guilty]

"That doesn't address whether or not it's a crime to disobey a (lawful) order from the President or Secretary of Defense."

Of course it is a crime under Article 90 of the UCMJ to (willfully) disobey a lawful order. No one, including the Senators and Representatives who made the video, disputes that. (The video refers only to unlawful orders. That adjective is the linchpin here.)

But your parenthetical surmise that the order is lawful is doing a boatload of question begging, TIP. And your conspicuously eliding the culpable mental state required by Article 90 is a silence which speaks loudly.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But your parenthetical surmise that the order is lawful is doing a boatload of question begging, TIP."

It's not a parenthetical surmise; it's an assumption for the sake of argument.

[not guilty]

That "assumption" carries the day, then.

It is indeed a crime to disobey a (lawful) order from the President or Secretary of Defense.

And water indeed is wet.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Please cite the statute that is violated.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What makes anyone think that the drone operators can tell who is in the targeted boats? All they see are heat signatures.

And for that matter, who says that they know that they are actually firing real missiles? The USAF has to have some sort of practice software where student pilots learn how to shoot missiles and such.

So you are refusing to do training. Isn't that like refusing to load bombs into B-52s back in Vietnam?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Beyond the pale...

[Frank Drackman]

Hey, I'm the one who's supposed to incorrectly capitalize Nouns on this Blog.
And if I was going to make up a Valor Story it'd be claiming to be a Special Forces Ranger/Green Beret/SEAL/TopGun-Red Flag Pilot flying an F-17 against Mig-28's in a Conflict that's so classified I'd have to kill you after telling you, not being a Navy Doc in Gulf Wah 1 (the one we won)

Frank