Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

It seems that Ka$h Patel, Director of the FBI, has dedicated himself to the promotion of life, liberty and the pursuit of poontang at government expense. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/23/us/politics/kash-patel-girlfriend-fbi-protection.html

Well, maybe not life and liberty so much.

[Mr. Bumble]

Paywalled but would bet this is the typical happy horseshit NYT story with no one on the record.

Poontang, is there anything it can't do?

[Martinned]

Stay classy!

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course you meant that for not guilty.

[Martinned]

No, I meant that for the person who used the word "poontang".

[Mr. Bumble]

not guilty 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User

It seems that Ka$h Patel, Director of the FBI, has dedicated himself to the promotion of life, liberty and the pursuit of poontang at government expense.

[Martinned]

Have you been listening to Andrew Tate too much? Or one of the millions of other online entrepreneurs who target incels with misogynist content?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Meant for not guilty?

[CountmontyC]

You must understand that Martinned is willfully blind when it comes to bad behavior by those on the political left while also being supersensitive to anything that looks like bad behavior on the right.

[Martinned]

WTF are you talking about?

[Magister]

You criticized Bumble for not being classy; it appears to many that this was because he repeated a word that not guilty had already used.

Better to criticize Bumble for his insipid comments.

[Michael P]

Meant for not classy, perhaps.

[grb]

The substance is readily available from dozens of non-paywalled sources, Bumble, if you have the stomach to go look. Among the items, Patel assigned an elite FBI SWAT team to watch over his honey. The agents normally operate out of the Bureau's Nashville office and are meant to be on call for major incidents such as mass shootings or terrorist attacks. Apparently doting after Patel's main squeeze also falls under their job description.

Plus there's Patel taking the FBI's 60mil dollar plan to Pennsylvania to watch his lovey-dovey sing, then giving her a ride on same back to Tennessee. But what do you expect? Patel was given the job heading the nation's premier law enforcement agency because he's a sleazy little two-bit hustler, not in spite of it. I'm guessing when Trump heard Patel was hawking "anti-vaxx" pills to all the dupes, chumps and marks stupid enuff to be scammed, that sealed the deal.

“Mrna detox, reverse the vaxx n get healthy,” Patel wrote in one post. “Spike the Vax, order this homerun kit to rid your body of the harms of the vax,” he wrote in another. I'm betting Trump read that gibberish and his tiny little heart glowed with warmth. There's nothing DJT loves more than a fellow criminal, no matter how small and petty.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The substance is readily available from dozens of non-paywalled sources,..."
If so, and you are aware of them, why not provide even one of the "dozens"?
Given the history of FBI directors, Patel is no better or worse than his predecessors.

[grb]

https://people.com/fbis-kash-patel-faces-criticism-for-girlfriend-alexis-wilkins-swat-protection-11855358

[grb]

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/kash-patel-alexis-wilkins-protection-fbi-b2870881.html

[grb]

https://nypost.com/2025/11/17/us-news/kash-patels-girlfriend-gets-protective-detail-from-elite-fbi-swat-team/

[grb]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2025/11/17/kash-patels-girlfriend-has-an-fbi-security-detail-report-says/

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks.
As I said above, he's no better or worse than his predecessors.

[Martinned]

Isn't he, though?

[Dr. Ed 2]

If he wasn't dealing with real threats from the radical left, I would ask questions about this -- but I don't because of the threats.

[Martinned]

Are these threats in the room with you right now?

Or are those threats like the ones received by Marjorie Traitor Greene, who never needed personal security until one day after she brok ranks with the Regime?

[CountmontyC]

Within the last two years there has been one assassination attempt on a Supreme Court justice, two assassination attempts on Trump and an actual assassination of a conservative speaker( his name was Charlie Kirk). All by leftists. There was also an actual assassination of a health care executive by a leftist (who has been idolized by many on the left). I would say that suggests death threats be taken seriously.

[not guilty]

CountmontyC, any assassination or attempt thereof is horrible. But how do you claim to know the ideological leanings of Thomas Matthew Crooks, Ryan Wesley Routh and/or Tyler James Robinson? (Other than that you hope that they were leftists.)

Please be specific.

[hobie]

The old 'threats clause', eh? Is that all the MAGA elite need to invoke to get non-stop Gulfstream service for their constant vacationing?

[not guilty]

"As I said above, he's no better or worse than his predecessors."

Even those who engage in naked whataboutism ordinarily provide examples, Bumble.

Who are the comparators here? The last previous unmarried director of the FBI was J. Edgar Hoover, who was not known for chasing pussy (but kept his lover on the payroll).

[Malika la Maize]

The kind of weak sauce whataboutism that empowers crooks as long as they seem to be on your “side.”

[not guilty]

IOKIYAR now!
IOKIYAR tomorrow!!
IOKIYAR fo'evah!!!

[Krychek_2]

"Given the history of FBI directors, Patel is no better or worse than his predecessors."

I very much doubt that that's true, and I note Bumble couldn't be bothered to provide any examples. But for sake of argument, suppose that it is.

Are you really saying that bad behavior is justified so long as you can point to one of your predecessors, preferably of the other party, who did something similar? That if a Democratic FBI director did exactly what Patel did, it would be a complete defense to claim that others did just as bad?

By the way, this entire administration reminds me of a line from the movie Nicholas and Alexandra in which the dowager empress tells the tsar, "Congratulations. Of the millions of incompetent thieves in Russia, you managed to find the worst of them to put in your government."

[Life of Brian]

From grb's Post link above:

“Ms. Wilkins is receiving a protective detail because she has faced hundreds of credible death threats related to her relationship with Director Patel, whom she has been dating for three years,” the rep said.

Can you maybe expand a bit on what you see to be the "bad behavior" here?

[Krychek_2]

You seriously believe that the FBI director's girlfriend has received "hundreds" of credible death threats? Oh well, the Bible does say that the simple believe every word.

I'll be surprised if Patel himself has received hundreds of credible death threats.

[Life of Brian]

Not exactly sure how fixating on the word "hundreds" really advances the conversation.

Are you saying they're lying about them all and the actual number is zero?

Or are you just saying the actual number is under some yet-to-be-defined acceptable threshold for credible death threats?

[Krychek_2]

I'm saying that with an administration this mendacious, and this blatantly willing to loot the treasury, it pays to be suspicious. I'm also skeptical that all those boats being blown up off the coast of Venezuela are actually running drugs, but that's another thread.

If you were going to call in a credible death threat against someone, why on earth would you pick Kash Patel's girlfriend? Before the story broke, who even knew that he had a girlfriend? For comparison, how many death threats have other prominent Republican girlfriends gotten? And not just death threats, but "credible" and "hundreds" of them? Forgive me my cynicism but this just smells fishy to me.

Maybe she's had zero, maybe a handful, maybe they really are telling the truth and there are hundreds of them. I can't say since I don't read her mail or monitor her phone calls. What I can say is that this story is making my bullshit detector go into overdrive.

[Life of Brian]

I'm saying that with an administration this mendacious, and this blatantly willing to loot the treasury, it pays to be suspicious.

I understand your skepticism, and I'm not saying I know there actually were hundreds. I expect it would take a lot fewer than that for most of us to take them seriously.

Before the story broke, who even knew that he had a girlfriend?

For starters, all those who read any one of the numerous rounds of haranguing over Patel using government jets to visit her. Seven months is plenty of time for a mob to get lathered into a frenzy.

But in any event, what I originally asked you about was what you meant by Patel's "bad behavior," and we seem to be drifting from that.

[not guilty]

"That if a Democratic FBI director did exactly what Patel did, it would be a complete defense to claim that others did just as bad?"

I'm not aware of any Democrat having served as FBI director. Two were appointed by Democratic presidents -- William Webster and Louis Freeh -- but they were Republicans. Thomas Pickard served as acting director for 71 days during 2001 and James B. Adams served as acting director for seven days in February of 1978.

[not guilty]

I really don't understand the propensity of MAGAts to reflexively defend and rationalize anything that one of their own may do.

I am a partisan Democrat, but I don't try to defend the indefensible. For example, I supported President Clinton in general, but not his conduct with Monica Lewinsky and his casual relationship with telling the truth. I said at the time that he should have resigned and allowed Albert Gore, Jr. (as some of us in Middle Tennessee recall him) to take office.

Other things I regard as completely indefensible, such as Ted Kennedy's conduct regarding Chappaquiddick, Lyndon Johnson's committing U. S. troops to Vietnam, and many Democrats' (former) fervent support for racial segregation.

Most public figures do good things and bad things. (Donald Trump may be the exception with regard to good things.) Wise people discern between the two.

[not guilty]

As President Clinton observed, Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line.

[CountmontyC]

How many Democrats even called for Bill Clinton to resign? I could only find three. I also noticed only five Democratic Representatives ( out of 205) voted to impeach and zero Democratic Senators voted to convict. Sounds like the Democrats fell in line.

[Riva]

No need to even bother reading more horseshit from the democrat party (yeah democrat party, I’m blatantly referring to the organization this way to show my contempt for another organization as vile as the Times and to irritate the trolls) outlet that obsessively promoted the Russian collusion fraud; pretended the Hunter Biden laptop matter had the “hallmarks” of a Russian plot based on the analysis of “professional” intelligence officers recruited by the Biden campaign; and whose stated goal, based on numerous disclosures from insiders, is to undermine the Trump administration. And that’s scratching the surface of this disgrace.

[Malika la Maize]

“to irritate the trolls”

Sad robot!

“based on numerous disclosures from insiders”

Like their report on Katel.

[Riva]

One particularly stupid antisemitic jv parrot troll triggered. His betters apparently have more self control and would rather seethe internally in silence, but the stupid ones can't resist themselves.

[Moderation4ever]

There are a lot of good questions here about the level of protection we extend to people in the government and those associated with them. I would assume the Director of the FBI is given some level of protection and so the question is what does that cover? Family protection might also be included and if so does a girl friend? What is the Director's relation to the women. Maybe the easiest thing would be for the Director to simple marry his girlfriend and solve the problem. There is also the question of flying friends on government owned aircraft. As the article notes, the Director must fly on the government plane. I have no problem taking other people as it is efficient to fill the plane. But for a pleasure trip I think the companions should chip in for the cost. Maybe something like if it is a pleasure trip and your not the host's family you remit to the government the cost equivalent to a first class ticket. That a bargain for a trip on a private aircraft.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I can see it saving the govt a lot of money to have the girlfriend completely inside the bubble as opposed to having to protect him going outside to pick her up at airport, etc.

[Moderation4ever]

I have no problem having a social partner in the bubble. If you cover immediate family then in this day and age covering a partner makes sense. I also rather have it on the books and not have the Director sneaking a round.

[wvattorney13]

The articles are short on details. The implication is that she has a SWAT team protecting her when they have a couple of guys who used to work on a SWAT team protecting her.

In any event, I strongly oppose this. Taxpayers should not be providing protection for Patel's girlfriend. Maybe his wife if Congress authorized it but even then that is rather thin. As others have said, I can't imagine that she is in much if any danger.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You would be surprised at how many genuine crazies there are on the left. Particularly the left.

If the professionals say it is necessary, then ....

[wvattorney13]

Then he can pay for it out of pocket. The taxpayers shouldn't pay for his chick. Nobody would know who she was if he didn't put her in front of the cameras at all times.

Don't get me wrong, I like him. But this is the kind of stuff we shouldn't be doing.

[Armchair]

"Nobody would know who she was if he didn't put her in front of the cameras at all times."

Alexis Wilkins is a country music singer, songwriter, and actress. She puts herself in front of the camera.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3599976/

[con_fuse9]

Pizzagate, Jan 6th... darn crazy lefties

[Harvey Mosley]

I don't know if he should be prosecuted (IANAL and don't want NG to order me to quote a statute) but he should definitely be fired.

As far as comments below about him being no worse than his predecessors, at least he hasn't had any kids burned to death or had a mother holding her baby murdered by an FBI sniper.

[not guilty]

Whataboutism is effectively an admission of having nothing of substance. It is the MAGAt equivalent of crying "Uncle."

[Armchair]

Seems to me that if the FBI can give security protection to the wife of past FBI director Christopher Wray, they can also give security protection to the long term girlfriend of the current FBI director. Especially if she's giving public performances and subject to hundreds of death threats.

[not guilty]

"Seems to me that if the FBI can give security protection to the wife of past FBI director Christopher Wray, they can also give security protection to the long term girlfriend of the current FBI director."

What is your source of information regarding Mr. Wray's wife?

[Armchair]

grb gave a number of links. Perhaps you should read them. This was "your" post originally.

[grb]

So I'm late in the office, trying to wrap-up my backlog as prelude to taking the next week off. And I discover someone else is burning the midnight oil aside from me & NG (and Bumble) - our President! Via the torpor of his mind and busy little thumbs, this:

"Despite the massive amount of money being made by the United States of America, Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, as a direct result of Tariffs being charged to other countries, the full benefit of the Tariffs has not yet been calculated in that many of the buyers of goods and products, in order to avoid paying the Tariffs in the short term, “STOCK UP” by purchasing far more inventory than they can use in order to avoid Tariff payments in the short term. That heavy inventory purchase is now, however, wearing thin, and soon Tariffs will be paid on everything they apply to, without avoidance, and the amounts payable to the USA will SKYROCKET, over and above the already historic levels of dollars received. These payments will be RECORD SETTING, and put our Nation on a new and unprecedented course. We are already the “hottest” Country anywhere in the World, but this Tariff POWER will bring America National Security and Wealth the likes of which has never been seen before. Those opposing us are serving hostile foreign interests that are not aligned with the success, safety and prosperity of the USA. They couldn’t care less about us. I look so much forward to the United States Supreme Court’s decision on this urgent and time sensitive matter so that we can continue, in an uninterrupted manner to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Thank you for your attention to this matter! President"

Kinda boggles the mind, doesn't it? Upon reading it, the first question is whether the addled old halfwit has a single ounce of functioning grey matter left in his skull.

The second question is the same, but asked of his followers.

[Malika la Maize]

RECORD SETTING!

What a weirdo.

[Moderation4ever]

It is amazing the number of people who criticized President Biden for small lapse in memory and yet these same people accept President Trump's departure from reality.

[Riva]

Yeah, working late. Uh huh. Although if true, perhaps you wouldn’t be late in the office if you weren’t obsessed with posting TDS ridden bullshit? 10 comments so far in this thread. Now, your job could be posting TDS bullshit, but then the TDS bullshit would be your backlog.

[Moderation4ever]

Who the one with TDS here? Seems a bid deranged to accept this kind of late night schizophrenic delusion from the President.

[Malika la Maize]

Every accusation is a confession…

[grb]

I started to quote RFK Jr's sext to Olivia Nuzzi, but stopped. Near as I can tell, this forum has a PG rating, the complete lack of parental guidance notwithstanding. However if you absolutely must see't, a link is provided below. Suffice it to say, Jr's brain worm must have been exceptionally busy before he (RFK) sent "send".

https://nypost.com/2025/11/22/us-news/ryan-lizza-reveals-raunchy-poem-rfk-jr-allegedly-sent-his-then-fiancee-olivia-nuzzi/

[Mr. Bumble]

"allegedly" is there a more worn out word?

[Kazinski]

I thought we didn't care anymore about what consenting adults do with each other.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Lizza says that some of the other sexts were “too explicit to print.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rfk-jr-sext-poem-olivia-nuzzi_n_6918b829e4b0b43a45c0aab1

[Michael P]

Printers must be awfully nosy and judgemental these days.

[not guilty]

Right. The printer itself doesn't know or care about content. (But the publisher often does.)

I have read (I can't recall where) about anti-pornographer crusaders searching for an overabundance of red pixels in online photographs as an indicator of likely pornographic content, in order to spam readers with unsolicited bluenose messages.

[Martinned]

Since we were talking about the elements of the crime of genocide the other day, I can recommend this analysis of the Swedish judgment on the Yazidi genocide: https://www.ejiltalk.org/intent-to-destroy-reflections-on-the-swedish-yazidi-genocide-case/

[Mr. Bumble]

Certainly crimes were committed, but genocide?

[Martinned]

If only there was some kind of process to decide which crimes had been committed!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Then, as members of a democratic society, we would be able to question that process, which appears to be what's happening.

[hobie]

It's not a genocide to Bumble until the last Gazan or Jew is in the mass grave. Then - maybe - we'll talk. Bumble: 'What genocide? There's still plenty of Jews left in Europe!' Shades of the Lorax here.

[Frank Drackman]

The Swedish Chef from the Muppet Show is more relevant.

[darkknight9]

What's on my mind? I've never been outside the US but lately have wondered what kind of traffic controls you have at borders between nations when each nation drives on different sides of the roads? I was making a lowenbrau joke about it being an insurance adjusters worst nightmare but now I'm genuinely curious.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems like the largest nations that drive on the "wrong side" of the road are islands.

[Kazinski]

Its not too bad, best way is to use traffic lights. Or an overpass.

The only left/right border I am familiar Is Cambodia and Thailand, and they have to stop at both sides for exit permissions, then stop again for entry and customs inspection, so its not like anyone is going anywhere in a hurry.

But there aren't many left hand drive countries where there are land borders, nobody drives to Japan, UK, Australia, or Indonesia. That leaves just south asia, and southern and eastern Africa where driving is a shitshow anyway.

[Michael P]

nobody drives to Japan, UK

Users of the Chunnel are shocked to hear this.

Nobody drives to the various Caribbean islands that drive on the left, though -- including the US Virgin Islands. (To balance that out, the British Virgin Islands also drive on the left, but use US dollars.)

[Martinned]

When you drive off the Channel Tunnel auto train, you're immediately guided into the correct (for the UK) side of the road. There's no need for a change-over.

[gVOR08]

There’s a WIKI page on Dagen H, H Day, the day in 1967 when Sweden switched from driving on the left to driving on the right. Doesn’t say much about the border crossings with Norway and Finland, who drove on the right. Did say before the switch there were a lot of head on collisions on two lane roads because most cars were left hand drive and people couldn’t see to pass.

Back in the days of manual transmissions there was a line about Americans driving in Britain - no matter how much you focus on driving on the left, sooner or later you will attempt to shift with the window crank, and when you do you will look down and momentarily panic when you look back up.

[Kazinski]

I haven't driven a car in a left hand drive country but I have driven a motorcycle in Thailand, its not so bad when there is other traffic you are following, but when there is other no other traffic about the first half dozen right hand turns I made I ended up driving on the wrong side of the road.

[Martinned]

Right-hand drive country, presumably? The US is left-hand drive.

[John 4]

This dude isn’t even American? Or doesn’t know his left from his right?

[Kazinski]

Try not to make a fool of yourself John, you are fairly new here, you've got plenty of time to make yourself ridiculous without rushing.

[Frank Drackman]

As a Lefty, shifting with my dominant hand should be easier, but the one time I drove in the UK it felt wrong, like trying to sneeze and jerk off at the same time.

[ThePublius]

Now, that's funny!

I've driven in the U.K. many times. The first time was very difficult and mentally exhausting, but returning, even years later, it was, as they say, like riding a bike.

[Kazinski]

I find walking in the UK and Hong Kong for that matter challenging, I find myself looking the wrong way for traffic when I step off the curb.

[Kazinski]

When I was a rural route carrier for the post office most RR carriers drove a regular car sitting in the passenger seat with the left foot over the middle for the gas and brake, and steering with the left hand. All the mail on a RR is delivered to roadside boxes that you can reach from the window. I did that for about 3 years. My route was about 55 miles long,

The only way that was practical was with a automatic and bench seats but I knew one guy, who when he was a substitute, did for it for a while in a VW bug, I have no idea how he managed it.

[Martinned]

Broadly speaking, there are no major land border crossings between countries that drive on different sides of the roads. That's why the Swedes changed to driving on the right in the 1960s, and why Suriname drives on the left. (It has a road to Guyana but not to French Guyana or Brazil.)

The borders of former British India with the surrounding countries are generally high in the Himalayas, Hindu Kush, or desert. Not a lot of people drive from the former British colonies in southern and eastern Africa into the rest of Africa either. Etc.

[Martinned]

But sure, here is a border crossing between Tanzania (drives on the left) and Rwanda (drives on the right). Just on the Rwanda side there's a switch-over: https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Rusumo+International+Bridge/@-2.3825773,30.7815113,311m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m15!1m8!3m7!1s0x1771a69f6499f945:0x874155ce43014549!2sUganda!3b1!8m2!3d1.373333!4d32.290275!16zL20vMDd0cDI!3m5!1s0x19c4ddf371cf330f:0x2bab4ff6505d7c3e!8m2!3d-2.3821053!4d30.7831889!16s%2Fm%2F0rpfzb4!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTExNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[Kazinski]

Laos and Thailand have a long border together, and while the Lao and Thai are very close culturally, linguistically, and religiously, they drive on different sides of the road, but at least 3/4 of their border is the Mekong river, and most of Laos population is close to the river and Thailand so there is a lot of traffic. But its pretty easy to control coming off a bridge or a ferry.

I can't even remember what the crossing is like between Vientiane and Northern Thailand which is the only place I've crossed, that was about 10-12 years ago.

[Martinned]

Have we figured out yet whether President Trump's 28-point peace plan for Ukraine is a US plan? (Or indeed whether it's a plan at all, or only a pathway towards a plan?)

[Martinned]

Speaking of which, here is the point-by-point EU/Ukraine counter-proposal: https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/full-text-european-counter-proposal-us-ukraine-peace-plan-2025-11-23/

[Bob from Ohio]

" point-by-point EU/Ukraine counter-proposal"

On Meth, LSD or Crack as they wrote this?

Its a victor's proposal. Did I miss a Ukrainian victory?

[loki13]

I think the simplest explanation is probably the best.

First, it obviously is the Russian proposal (what they provided to the US as their wish list for a peace agreement- you know, the opening offer). Somehow, because of ... I dunno, this administration ... there was an internal crossing of the wires and became "our peace plan."

So you had people in the administration who knew that it was just an initial Russian proposal, but you also had the administration (aka, Trump) saying, NO, THIS IS OUR PLAN. That's what caused the initial conflict.

In any normal administration, this would have been caught and corrected and they would have just said, "This is what Russia wants, and now we are going to find a path forward." But because our Dear Leader already said it was OUR PLAN, we had some initial voices saying the correct thing (such as Rubio, initially, to the Senators) ... but since we live in the dumbest timeline and the Dear Leader cannot be wrong, everyone had to eventually get on board with the idea that the Russian proposal was, in fact, our plan.

It's the problem when you always double down on lies- even when the lie is stupid and against your own interests, you can't go back. Well, you could. I could. But this administration can't.

Anyway, I'm sure that all those MAGA accounts of real 'Murikan who just happen to be based in Russia absolute love it. Has Riva commented yet?

[Josh R]

Here are some differences:

1) Permits NATO expansion
2) Ukraine does not commit to not joining NATO
3) NATO troops permitted in Ukraine on a temporary basis
4) 800,000 instead of 600,000 Ukrainian military cap
5) Wordsmith changes on the security guarantee
6) No US profits deal from investing frozen Russian assets
7) Territorial negotiations from the Line of Contact (no secession).
8) No amnesty for war crimes

I doubt Putin agrees to this. Notably, Trump still heads the Board of Peace. You gotta stroke that ego to get him on board. This likely was another example of Trump giving into Putin to get his Nobel Peace Prize with the EU stepping in.

[Armchair]

As has been repeatedly explained, Ukraine cannot support 600,000 troops in peacetime. That number is too large.

[Absaroka]

I'm just curious - if Ukraine can't support 600k troops, why does Putin feel it's necessary to restrict them to 600k troops?

[Armchair]

0). Again, it's worth mentioning. 600,000 troops is more than the entire military of the UK, France, and Germany combined. It's an absurd level for a country of Ukraine's size during peace.
1) Who said "Putin" came up with the number?
2) But "Peacetime" is key here. If Russia, was, for example worried about an aggressive wartime Ukraine, ramping up it's military to that level would be an issue.
3) Finally, if we were speaking realistically, this is one of those face saving provisions. Something easy to show that you "got something" that wasn't really a big deal.

But please...look at the numbers of active duty military around the world for yourself, especially in comparison to population.

[David Nieporent]

0). Again, it's worth mentioning. 600,000 troops is more than the entire military of the UK, France, and Germany combined. It's an absurd level for a country of Ukraine's size during peace.

Neither the UK, France, nor Germany, nor any combination of them, have a large hostile power that has already attacked them on their border.

Also, your claim is only true for active duty forces; nothing in the "peace plan [sic]" specifies whether reservists are included in the cap.

[Absaroka]

"look at the numbers of active duty military around the world for yourself, especially in comparison to population."

Here are the numbers. Ukraine is 17th for 'total' and 4th for 'active' (you can sort the columns).

Even just for 'active' it's right above Israel. Is the size of Israel's military also absurd? And the proposal doesn't specify a limit just on active duty military, it says "The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel". That would move it down the list below Taiwan, South Korea, Estonia, Finland, Singapore, Vietnam, Belarus, Greece, and those well known warmongers the Swiss, inter alia.

Secondly, who the heck are we to tell other countries how many troops they can have?

"If Russia, was, for example worried about an aggressive wartime Ukraine"

In what fantasy universe would Russia worry about an aggressive Ukraine?

[Bunny495]

The American peace plan is basically do what American says as opposed to Biden's plan which was 'shut up and take American money'. Bottom line is Ukraine is running out of men, material, American money to pay its public employees and retirement system, and is faced with a scandal involving Zman's close friend and advisor; if America pulls the plug Ukraine goes down the drain.

[Martinned]

The acquisition of cloud company Solvinity, which hosts a lot of key Dutch government functions, by IBM-spin off Kyndryl has now been notified at the competition authority:

https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stcrt-2025-40490.html

The Dutch government recently put its foot down vis-à-vis the Chinese, by seizing control of Nexperia. It will be interesting to see whether the Americans get the same treatment.

[grb]

When Trump "negotiated" the Doha Agreement with the Taliban, the mullahs must have thought they died and went to heaven, 72 virgins and all. Strictly speaking, the Taliban doesn't celebrate Christmas, but after concession following concession following concession, the deal they were gifted must have looked like Xmas Morning to them. And they didn't have to do anything! All Trump "demanded" was a few milquetoast promises and I bet he got down on his knees and asked "please" first. Poor Neville Chamberlain must have spun wildly in his grave. Appeasement had a new definition.

So this Ukraine business is hardly surprising. Trump wants a headline and will give away the store to get it. That this finely wrapped gift is to his beloved Daddy, Putin, is just icing on the cake. (You kinda know when Putin & Trump have their intimate moments together, it's the former pulling the hair and slapping the ass).

But knowing all that, the incompetence of this kindergarten-grade shitshow is still astonishing. You have Trump saying this deal is the carefully calculated and calibrated output of his Nobel-worthy mind. (have you heard he had an uncle who taught at MIT?).

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Rubio is telling Senators the entire "plan" is simply a wish list handed to Trump by the Russians. Now, I'm betting his supporters don't care a bit. Trump is being Trump, they giggle while waiting for more lib-owning viewing pleasure. As long as they're entertained, Trump can bungle, lie, cheat, and steal.

But the rest of the world sees a banana-republic-grade buffoon leading what was once the former Leader of the Free World.

[Martinned]

Haven't you heard? It's Biden who abandoned the people of Afghanistan to their fate.

At the same time, of course, Afghanistan is a perfectly safe country that the Regime can deport people to whenever it pleases.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/12/dhs-terminating-temporary-protected-status-afghanistan

[Mr. Bumble]

"It's Biden who abandoned the people of Afghanistan to their fate."
...and it was. Even you sometimes get things right.

[grb]

By the time Biden took office, Trump had :

1. Withdrawn all U.S. forces but a small skeletal force.
2. Abandoned most U.S. Military bases.
3. Set strict limits on when U.S. air power could be used against the Taliban.

According to the agreement, U.S. military aircraft couldn't attack Taliban groups waiting more than 500 meters away. They couldn't attack the Taliban within that range if the mullahs stopped firing on Afghan government troops. In the 45 days after the agreement, the Taliban conducted more than 4,500 attacks in Afghanistan, an increase of more than 70% compared to the corresponding period in the previous year. More than 900 Afghan security forces were killed, up from about 520 in the same period a year earlier.

Meanwhile, because of a significant reduction in the number of offensives and airstrikes by Afghan and U.S. forces against the Taliban, Taliban casualties dropped to 610 in the period down from about 1,660 in the same period a year earlier. But back to Trump's Neville Special:

4. Released 5000 Taliban fighters being held by the government.
5. Pledged total withdrawal of U.S. forces less than a year into the following presidential term.
6. Promised the end of all U.S. sanctions.
7. Promised to push the UN to lift their sanctions too.

Less than four months after Trump's "deal", Afghanistan reported its "bloodiest week in 19 years". 291 government soldiers were killed and 550 others wounded in 422 attacks carried out by the Taliban. At least 42 civilians, including women and children, were murdered, with another 105 wounded by the Taliban across 18 provinces. They also kidnapped 60 civilians in the central province of Daykundi. That was just one week of post-Neville-Chamberlain appeasement.

Biden inherited a tiny remnant force, effectively held hostage to the deal Trump inked. When he delayed the last scheduled pull-out, who do you think thundered criticism down on his head? That's right : Trump. He demanded Biden finish the withdrawal immediately.

[Mr. Bumble]

You'll never get any work done at this rate.

[grb]

This is true. Out.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump has gone to the dark side.

Sad....

[Martinned]

By the way, you may want to look out for a major international incident that is about to kick off:

URGENT

Two days ago I was contacted by a high-ranking employee of the French Government. After determining this person’s position and proximity to the French couple, I have deemed the information they gave me to be credible enough to share publicly in the event that something happens.
In short, this person claims that the Macrons have executed upon and paid for my assassination. Yes, you read that correctly. More specifically, that the green light was given to a small team in National Gendamaries Intervention Group. I am told there is one Israeli that is on this assasanation squad and the plans were formalized.
Again, this person provided concrete proof that they are well placed within the French government apparatus.
Further to this point, this person claims that Charlie Kirk’s assassin trained with the French legion 13th brigade with multi-state involvement. Journalist Xavier Poussard’s life is also at risk. This is deadly serious. The head of state of France apparently wants us both dead and has authorized professional units to carry this out.
I ask that every person RETWEET and share this.
I do not know who in the American government can be trusted, since this source claims our leaders are aware. But I have more specific information which is definitively verifiable, should they care to reach out to me.
To the brave official in France who did this because they were so moved by the evil of Charlie’s public execution to risk their own life—May God bless you. Truly.

Let all be revealed.

Signed: Candace Owens

[Mr. Bumble]

Who is nuttier, Owens for making the claim or you for playing Enquirer and posting it?
Will space lasers be involved?

[Kazinski]

Poor poor Candace. I don't know what its like to crave attention so desperately, but it must be terrible.

[Brett Bellmore]

She had such a bright future at one time, all she needed was to not go insane.

[wvattorney13]

She and Tucker are rapidly failing that test.

[David Nieporent]

She had such a bright future at one time, all she needed was to not go insane.

Not really; one doesn't get to be a successful MAGA grifter via sanity.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The scary thing is that I'm not convinced that there aren't real facts in her delusions. There are some really scary things in the background,

[Michael P]

Does the metric of "10£ per shot" imply that someone is now selling Lasers-as-a-Service? https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/uk-dragonfire-laser-downs-high-speed-drones

More specifically, does that cost include non-recurring design, recurring production and/or maintenance costs, or is it strictly based on how much electricity the laser uses?

[Life of Brian]

Seems like it has to be an all-in measure. The laser is reported to be in the 50kW range and is operated in 10-second bursts, so back of the napkin the electricity itself would be less than 5% of the quoted per-shot cost.

[Bunny495]

Back in 1967 I was a fresh recruit just out of Basic Training and in Advanced Infantry Training at Ft. Ord. At the time the Army was working on lasers as weapons. I currently own several hand held laser that I can pop balloons, light matches, and other tricks. Over the years I have kept up with laser development. The American Navy tried using lasers on destroyers and had limited success, mostly due to the power requirements as well as other technical problems.

The biggest problem is that the beam diverges. Think of a normal flashlight. The beam is say two inches across when it starts but quickly spreads to feet and tens of feet losing power quickly. It takes lens set a precise distance apart to keep this beam concentrated at the one inch spot this weapons claims. This system uses a laser array. I have seen analysis this is "a hundred 500-watts-at-aperture fiber lasers harnessed to a proprietary beam combiner for 50,000-watts-at-aperture power, feeding into a really speedy gimbaled mirror". Bottom line this system is far ahead of anything I have seen claimed before.

[Malika la Maize]

In April, Alina Habba, the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, extolled her office’s role in the sentencing of a former nursing home magnate to three years in prison for defrauding the government of $38 million. The man, Joseph Schwartz, was alleged to have overseen a “collapsed nursing home empire” and “willfully” failed to pay employment taxes, Habba’s announcement said.

Around that time, Schwartz paid $960,000 to two lobbyists “seeking a federal pardon,” according to their lobbying filing…

The lobbyists, right-wing provocateurs Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl, noted on the disclosure form that they had been convicted of telecommunications fraud in Ohio in connection with a robocall scheme designed to deter the turnout of minority voters. They also face sentencing next month in Michigan on a similar robocall case and have been subject to millions of dollars in fines in a related case brought by the Federal Communications Commission, according to state and federal authorities. For years, the pair have injected themselves into politics, such as alleging without evidence in 2018 that there were sexual assault claims against special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

It is not clear what Burkman and Wohl did for Schwartz. But on Nov. 14, seven months after Habba celebrated Schwartz’s conviction, Trump granted Schwartz a “full and unconditional” pardon.

Liz Oyer, a former U.S. pardon attorney who was fired by Trump in March, said the involvement of the lobbyists — and the huge payment — heightens concern that there is “a special tier of justice for people who can afford to pay.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/23/joseph-schwartz-trump-pardon-fraud/

[Dr. Ed 2]

You are surprised to learn that justice exists only for those with money?

I could have told you that...

[Malika la Maize]

I’m not surprised but still outraged.

[Michael P]

Tyler Cowen argues that the US is too successful and attractive to have any broadly acceptable balance in immigration policy; restricting numbers to what the public tolerates requires a harshness that he does not like: https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/tyler-cowen-why-humane-immigration-policy-ends-in-cruelty

[Malika la Maize]

This is almost certainly correct. The trick is that some immigration is useful and we don’t want to return to the time where we rebuffed boats of Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis but at the same time there’s going to be a necessity to only take in some fraction of people that would like to come in under those principles.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Tax them -- confiscate their wealth and give it to those of us born here.

[Brett Bellmore]

From what I could read, he's arguing that there's no stable level of enforcement because the public will not tolerate the sringency of enforcement necessary to reduce immigration to tolerable levels. So we keep getting cycles of lax enforcement leading to high immigration leading to strict enforcement leading to reduced immigration but public outrage, rinse and repeat.

As a theoretical matter that COULD happen with enough lag in feedback. But I don't think we've actually seen such a pattern. Swings in immigration policy have taken generations to play out.

I think, rather, you have a consistent public hostility to high levels of immigration, but a political class who largely don't share that sentiment. They fail to respond to public opinion until the mismatch becomes severe enough that the public forces them to, by which time extreme measures are necessary.

Less an oscillator and more like an earthquake fault resisting continental drift until the rock breaks.

To achieve a steady state you need a more responsive political class who don't resist doing the public's will until they're ready to revolt.

So, how can we get a political class who don't systematically disagree with the public on multiple issues?

[Sarcastr0]

“Tolerable levels.”

[Z Crazy]

Illegalkind is a threat to us all!

They even steal our identities in addition to running over our boys and raping our girls!

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, if the public refuses to tolerate something, then you reduce it and they relent, that's a "tolerable" level.

What is it with you thinking that repeating words and phrases constitutes an argument, anyway?

[Sarcastr0]

tol·er·a·ble
/ˈtäl(ə)rəb(ə)l,ˈtälərb(ə)l/
adjective
able to be endured.
"a stimulant to make life more tolerable"

Weird choice of words, dude.

[Bunny495]

"To achieve a steady state you need a more responsive political class who don't resist doing the public's will until they're ready to revolt.

So, how can we get a political class who don't systematically disagree with the public on multiple issues?"

There are way more "multiple issues" than most peeps realize. Back when Newt was riding high he pointed well over 85% of the population was in favor of English Only as the national language. I would bet that is still favored by a super majority of the public and it is definitely favored by a majority.

My biggest concern is that cheap labor is getting so expensive that automation is replacing it at a frightening rate. What happens to all those illegal aliens then.

[Brett Bellmore]

"There are way more "multiple issues" than most peeps realize."

That's actually the problem. There are too many issues, each one might have majority or super majority support, but from a different set of people.

If people could vote independently on each issue, you could clear the backlog. Not everybody would get all they want, but the general level of satisfaction with government would rise tremendously.

But you can't vote independently on each issue, you get to vote for a very limited number of candidates, up/down. Voting doesn't have enough bandwidth to properly control the government!

It's only when the public becomes so pissed off about a particular issue that they're willing to set other issues on the back burner that the public can actually get their way.

Immigration is that issue at the moment. But Trump is gradually taking the pressure off, and soon the status quo where the public can't agree on what one issue to assert control over will reassert itself.

THAT is what we need to somehow fix: We need to match the bandwidth of policy to the bandwidth of voting.

[not guilty]

To what extent do the harshest critics of illegal immigration (of brown folks) believe that the public will pay more for groceries, dining out, overnight lodging, live in child care, landscaping and so forth?

Immigrants are willing to do jobs that most Americans find distasteful. Hell, two of them even married Donald Trump!

[David Nieporent]

I think, rather, you have a consistent public hostility to high levels of immigration, but a political class who largely don't share that sentiment. They fail to respond to public opinion until the mismatch becomes severe enough that the public forces them to, by which time extreme measures are necessary.

That's one possibility. Another is that immigration wasn't actually a serious issue until Trump demagogued it into one, and that if the political class were responsible, the public hostility would not exist.

That's not to say that the majority of the public is likely ever going to be, "Yay! We love immigrants! The more the better! More, more, more!" But (as I try to explain to my liberal friends about other issues) there's a difference between expressing a view about a topic and thinking the topic is important.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"DALLAS -- Federal prosecutors say two Texas men plotted to take over a Haitian island, one going so far as joining the U.S. military to acquire training for an armed attack, with the goal of killing all the men and using the women and children for sex."

Create an army out of DC homeless and seize power on an island of 8,700 people.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/federal-prosecutors-2-texas-men-made-plans-haitian-127769816

Right....

[Michael Ejercito]

What overt acts did they allege?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Child porn.

[John F. Carr]

That is a separate crime, not an overt act in support of the conspiracy.

[John F. Carr]

See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71940942/united-states-v-weisenburg/

a. made plans
b. took Haitian Creole lessons
c. Enlisted in the Air Force to get military training
d. Enrolled in the North Texas Fire Academy to get training
e. Went to Thailand to learn to sail
f. Attempted to recruit others
g. The enlistee from (c) got a reassignment from Germany to Maryland to be closer to D.C. to recruit homeless people

[not guilty]

The indictment is here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/gavin-weisenburg-indictment.pdf

It doesn't appear that wisdom and discernment are these defendants' strong suits.

[Bunny495]

Once again the lack of a law prohibiting "criminal stupidity" shows how the American legal system is a failure.

[Malika la Maize]

Thirteen years ago, a Brooklyn man’s child molestation conviction pierced a veil of silence in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, where many people who dared to report sexual abuse were shunned, expelled from schools and had businesses ruined.

Now the man, Nechemya Weberman, an unlicensed therapist who was sentenced to 103 years in prison, could be on a path to freedom.

Mr. Weberman, 67, is scheduled to appear in court next month, with a judge set to decide whether to commute the original sentence and impose a new, shorter one, in a move supported by Eric Gonzalez, the district attorney.

Supporters of survivors of sexual abuse in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community are outraged. They say Mr. Gonzalez has bowed to years of relentless pressure from an influential voting bloc, and that an office that won a watershed conviction was now abdicating its duty in the same case…

Mr. Gonzalez, in an interview on Friday, said his office stood by the conviction and he called Mr. Weberman’s crimes “horrific.” But he also said the original sentence departed unfairly from the norm and had been engineered to make an example of one man.

He added that victims would be less likely to report such crimes if they thought that members of ultra-Orthodox Jewish community would be treated unfairly at sentencing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/22/nyregion/judge-nechemya-weberman-resentence.html

[Michael P]

... and?

Do you think 103 years in prison is a reasonable sentence for his crimes (which, in the non-paywalled part of the Flailing New York Slimes article, are only described as targeting one child)?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know this story well enough to comment on it, but Michael made a short but terrible comment.

103 years in prison
We give out ridiculous sentences like that all the time. Don't special plead.

Flailing New York Slimes
Pathetic.

only described as targeting one child
Dude...

[Michael P]

Gaslight0 is apparently a fan of excessive sentences ... when they're given to Jews.

[Dr. Ed 2]

13 years served as a sex offender -- and he;s still alive???

Enough is enough.....

[Malika la Maize]

Sociologically it would be interesting to see if many people thought committing one sexual assault on 59 girls =\= committing 59 sexual assaults on one girl and why.

[Ska]

Similar reason why a majority of people would pull the switch on the trolley problem: when having imprecise information, the idea that having one victim instead of fifty-nine (or five) victims is easier to process and rationalize.

[Malika la Maize]

The victim was 12 when child sex offender Nechemya Weberman first assaulted her. Last January, at age 18, she dabbed at tears in her eyes as she spoke in a Brooklyn courtroom.

For years during and after the abuse, the woman said she would look in the mirror and see “a girl who didn’t want to live in her own skin,” the New York Times reported. “I would cry until the tears ran dry,” she told the court. But now, she said, she can see someone “who finally stood up and spoke out,” on behalf of both herself and “the other silent victims.”

Weberman, an unlicensed therapist, was found guilty in December 2012 of 59 counts of sexual abuse, which carry a maximum combined sentence of 117 years. He was convicted of engaging in sexual misdeeds that included oral sex, groping and acting out pornographic videos, all during the therapy sessions that were meant to help the girl become more religious. The abuse lasted three years.

https://www.archerlaw.com/a/web/d1Gpxo2Z9jD8RefnjaMmA4/the_religious_wall_of_silence.pdf

[Krayt]

Sure, but there's this: Before going to trial, Mr. Weberman was offered a plea agreement under which he would have been sentenced to five years in prison. He refused it, was convicted and received the lengthy sentence.

Skipping the subject matter, I have to wonder about the propriety of doing things like this. Those officials virtue signalling the outrage now, were apparently fine with a relatively tiny sentence then.

"That's how it works!" Well, yes. Isn't that a larger problem under discussion for a decade+ now?

[Michael P]

I wasn't asking whether what he did was horrible; based on the sentence I expected that to be true. My question was whether you think the sentence was excessive for the crimes. But apparently you don't think, you just regurgitate.

[Sarcastr0]

You're being coy about whether you think 13 years is a better number.

America loves big number sentences. Including (IMO) the death penalty.

Consecutive life sentences are silly, but have been around for at least my lifetime.

I don't find the juice is worth the squeeze to stop now.

Are you just now learning about this aspect of our criminal justice system?

[Michael P]

I have not looked closely enough into what was charged, proven or treated as uncharged or unproven offenses to decide whether 13 years is a long-enough term, but I am pretty sure that 103 years is too long. (While groping a 12- to 15-year-old even once is a serious offense, I will note that including "groping" in the list of offenses makes it sound like they ran out of more serious kinds of molestation to list.)

You're usually quick to complain about overly long sentences in the US justice system. Except for your sad addiction to bashing me and the fact that this convict is Jewish, what makes this case different?

[Sarcastr0]

You're usually quick to complain about overly long sentences in the US justice system.

You seem to be conflating my complaints about property and drug crimes with infamous crimes like rape and murder. I don't believe you'll find me struggling against our sentencing regimes for that, at least not for mentally competent adults.

Adding life sentences on top of life sentences doesn't change much. Given the political enthusiasm for them, and that's not a reform at the top of my list.

Do you know what special pleading is? You seem to be indulging in it.

And quit intimating I'm doing this out of antisemitism. Far too many posters on here working hard to cheapen that accusation. Of course, the administration is using that as blank check to go after schools, so I suppose the fish rots from the head.

[Michael P]

I know what special pleading is. This thread suggests you don't. You're just desperate for any reason to attack me instead of engaging with the actual topic.

[Sarcastr0]

You posted a very bad comment and I responded to that.

It’s not about you personally.

[Michael P]

Don't blame me because you read and write badly.

[Malika la Maize]

“the fact that this convict is Jewish”

Pathetic.

[Michael P]

Take it up with the guy who apparently doesn't know what "infamous crime" means. (The Fifth Amendment and Supreme Court both use a much broader definition than him.)

[Sarcastr0]

Lol.

[Malika la Maize]

wtf?

[Brett Bellmore]

What are you supposed to do, when somebody is convicted of multiple crimes, all of which merit a life sentence?

True, somebody can't serve multiple consecutive life sentences, having but one life, but it serves to remind people decades later who might be considering clemency, that this is one bad dude, who earned life in prison many times over.

Note, this is a general comment about consecutive life sentences, not relating to this particular case.

[Sarcastr0]

I think it's silly. Like the volume dial going to 11 in Spinal Tap. Yes, we're super duper extra mad.

But it's also not a criminal reform hill I'm going to die on. We do vastly worse things than look silly.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a signaling mechanism, that's all. It's supposed to communicate to a later generation considering clemency that the life sentence was earned many times over, so think twice before commuting it.

[David Nieporent]

Note, this is a general comment about consecutive life sentences, not relating to this particular case.

Consecutive life sentences for discrete, unrelated crimes makes sense; if one of those convictions is overturned or whatever, the person stays in prison for the other offenses. But for the same/related crimes it's pretty pointless, since they tend to stand or fall together.

[Bwaaah]

Sarcastr0: "I don't know this story well enough to comment on it"

[Malika la Maize]

He commented on Mikie Q’s comment about it being less deserving of the sentence because there was only one victim.

[Malika la Maize]

You commented on the lack of context about the crimes so I provided more, weird that got you so testy.

Interesting that Captain Civility (Pubes) hasn’t chastened you yet.

[Michael P]

Stay classy, question dodger.

[Malika la Maize]

You’re really defensive about this molester, interesting.

[Michael P]

Why do you hate Jews so much?

[Malika la Maize]

Do you only like the ones that are molesters?

[Michael P]

Of course not. That sounds like your jam.

[Malika la Maize]

I’m not the one getting so testy about this molester’s sentence.

[Ska]

Getting teste? Get ovary it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Where the hell were the girl's parents?

If your daughter is "crying until the tears ran out" wouldn't you be concerned? Aren't there like OTHER Rabbis you could take her to?

And wouldn't an honest Rabbi, when he found out what was being done to the girl, do *something*?

[Malika la Maize]

But as painful as the appearance was at Weberman’s sentencing hearing, so too was the harsh cultural ostracism that the victim and her family suffered for her testimony. As members of the Orthodox Jewish Satmar Hasidic community, the victim told the court, she and her family were harassed and shunned for reporting Weberman, also a member of the Hasidic community. And, according to trial testimony, her parents’ business was threatened, leading to fears that the family would no longer be able to support itself.

The Weberman case is symptomatic of the difficulties that government prosecutors face in bringing sexual assault charges against a member of an insular religious community.

As with many communities, the majority of sexual abuse crimes against children go unreported. But in religious communities, the fear of ostracism carries additional weight.

https://www.archerlaw.com/a/web/d1Gpxo2Z9jD8RefnjaMmA4/the_religious_wall_of_silence.pdf

[Michael P]

You are further proving my point that you don't think, you just regurgitate.

[Malika la Maize]

He asked where were the parents so I posted from the source about them I get posting from sources rather than shooting from the hip is strange to you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hasidic communities support children being treated this way?

I'm not saying they go to the state, but don't they have ways of handling things internally?

[ducksalad]

It's the combination of insular but living in a larger state that claims a monopoly on policing.

They could handle things internally but the state doesn't allow stonings and such. If they were literally insular - on an independent island - something scriptural and final would have happened to the guy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was thinking more along the lines of shunning and banishment.

Revocation of religious credentials as well.

[Poxigah146]

I think all child molesters should be put to death. Tell the drunken Irishmen Kennedy he can go fuck off with his "evolving standards of decency" bullshit.

[Michael Ejercito]

Evolving standards of decency would be determined by Congress.

A literal interpretation would practically mean it would only restrain the states, not Congress.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Do you think 103 years in prison is a reasonable sentence for his crimes"

Totally unreasonable. Should have been a death sentence.

The SCOTUS case forbidding death as a sentence for non-murder is a travesty. Weberman is a perfect example of why. He raped a girl many, many times and gets a chance to get out after a mere 13 years. The victim suffered more than some murder victims.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If we had the death penalty for sex crimes, a lot more would go unreported and unconvicted. These cases, especially ones involving children, are already very difficult cases to investigate and prosecute. Family and community dynamics play a large role in these cases. You add the possibility of an execution into the mix and you’re probably going to get a lot less reporting. It won’t deter sex offenders, it’ll deter reporting and convictions.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yeah, that is the argument. Its just vibes from death penalty opponents though.

" It won’t deter sex offenders,"

It would punish them appropriately though.

[LawTalkingGuy]

And children’s advocacy orgs.

“It would punish them appropriately though.”

Aside from the fact that deterrence is one of the justifications for punishment, why would social policy trade less people receiving the appropriate retribution in exchange for more offenders not being punished at all? Especially in this context!

Regardless, and with zero due respect, you have no clue what you’re talking about when it comes to criminal law. None. You live in a comfy black and white world behind contract boilerplate and don’t understand how these things actually work. You don’t work on these cases and don’t actually speak to victims. You have no idea what’s involved whatsoever. By contrast I’ve actually worked on sex cases and capital cases. And they’re far more
complicated than you can imagine. And the reason I think that is because I’ve actually listened to victim and purported victim testimony and statements. Because unlike you, I actually care what they have to say. And I’m telling you: you don’t want to put the added pressure of potential capital punishment out into these types of cases.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The victim would be told that she is responsible for someone being dead. She'd be called a "murderer."

It's bad enough to be "responsible" for someone being in prison. I've seen what this does to kids, it isn't pretty.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I’m telling you"

Like your opinion matters to me in the least.

Don't you get tired of beating your chest about how caring and virtuous you are?

[A rhetorical question I know, you never do.]

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Like your opinion matters to me in the least.”

It should. Since I have experience in these matters and you don’t. I’d take your opinion seriously on whatever real estate bullshit you talk about even though I loathe your personal character. Because I know to trust expertise I don’t have. That’s what makes me a good lawyer. Don’t you think that given your limited experience in these matters you should defer to expertise? Don’t you want to be a good lawyer?

But don’t take it from me: talk to some criminal lawyers, judges, victims advocates and victims about the complexities of capital cases and sex offenses. You might learn about the nature of these cases.

“Don't you get tired of beating your chest about how caring and virtuous you are?”

Do you ever tire of being a contrarian ghoul who doesn’t know what he’s talking about and just likes to pretend to be a tough guy on criminal law despite being way out of his depth?

[A rhetorical question I know, you never do.]

Oh and by the way: we’ve finally gotten to the point where you have essentially acknowledged I am in fact more caring and virtuous than you. You’ve completely given up on trying to demonstrate otherwise and now just have to complain that my having a better understanding of the legal and moral issues in criminal law than you is “chest beating.”

Complete LTG victory. Have fun with your boilerplate.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Complete LTG victory."

Sorry for your head injury.

Those who constantly crow about caring so much don't. Its an act.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Those who constantly crow about caring so much don't. Its an act.“

This is just something cynical assholes tell themselves to make themselves feel better about being cynical assholes. Hypocrites are real and even the most virtuous aren’t always on the good path. But sometimes people seem like they are simply “virtue signaling” because they are in fact more virtuous.

And indeed, I’m not trying to be Mr Rogers who was the real deal). I’m not trying to claim to be better than everyone. Just YOU. Like you specifically have set such a low bar for virtue that it’s easy to clear by a basic show of compassion and empathy or basic moral reasoning.

If I seem to be chest beating about virtues it’s because you have so little of it everything that seems moral must be an act. It says far more about you than it ever could about me.

And I guarantee that deep down, you know that to be the case.

[David Nieporent]

Don't you get tired of beating your chest about how caring and virtuous you are?

Don't you get tired of beating your chest about how uncaring and vile you are?

[not guilty]

"The SCOTUS case forbidding death as a sentence for non-murder is a travesty. Weberman is a perfect example of why. He raped a girl many, many times and gets a chance to get out after a mere 13 years. The victim suffered more than some murder victims."

Many of those who commit capital crimes (whether sentenced to death or imprisonment or otherwise) do not consider the potential consequences of their conduct before doing so. If and to the extent they do, however, if death were an automatic penalty for child rape, the rapist would have little to lose by killing his victim, and he might to some degree even lessen the chance of detection and punishment thereby. I don't think we should incentivize killing victims in that manner.

[not guilty]

Very few criminal acts are more heinous than children being sexually abused by those whose access to the children is grounded in religious practice.

It doesn't matter whether the abusers are Jewish as here, Catholic as in multiple lands, Southern Baptist, Mennonite or what not. Wikipedia reports:

Several sexual abuse scandals have involved religious abuse or religious settings and often cover-up among non-abusers, including cases in the Southern Baptist Convention,[42] Catholic Church, Episcopalian religion,[43] Islam,[44] Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutheran church,[45] Methodist Church,[46] Anabaptist/Mennonite Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,[47] the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Orthodox Judaism,[48] other branches of Judaism,[49] various buddhist schools such as Zen and Tibetan,[50][51][52][53] Yoga classes,[54] and various cults.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse#Positions_of_power

I don't know whether hell as described by Christian fundamentalists does or does not exist, but I do believe the words attributed to Jesus: "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:3-6 (RSV).

[Sarcastr0]

Musk is getting farther and farther down the Nazi train.

Retweeting open eugenics here.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1992599328897294496

Here is what he retweeted:

Europe became the greatest civilization ever seen by hanging criminals for centuries, executing 1-2% of each generation until doing such became unnecessary because the crime genes had been weeded out

As a result, they could focus on empire building and high civilization rather than forever paying the EBT Danegeld to a hostile and irrationally violent underclass

Ah yes, the crime genes.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It's really too bad that Musk would go off and say that.

Historically, despite the allegedly high execution rate, Europe showed it had plenty of "crime genes" left by the 20th century.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Nazis were not criminals -- everything they did was legal under German law. The "criminals" were the people who opposed them, i.e. hid the Jews.

Remember: "criminal" is "one who commits crimes" and "crimes" are "mala en se" -- whatever the state says they are.

THIS is my point about how killing criminals led to tolerance of fascism.

[Zarniwoop]

Remember: "criminal" is "one who commits crimes" and "crimes" are "mala en se" -- whatever the state says they are.

Remember: Grampa Ed will pull a definition out of his posterior orifice rather than consult a legal dictionary.

In this instance:
1) not all crimes are mala in se (things that are inherently immoral and universally considered wrong, like murder)
2) things that are crimes because “the state says they are” are commonly classified as mala prohibitum

It’s truly amazing how much wrong Grampa Ed can cram into a single sentence while presuming to lecture the VC commentariat.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Thank you for correcting my mistake in remembering which was which in Latin. That said, you couldn't tell what I meant?!?

[Zarniwoop]

I confess I'm not sure. Was it simply "I'm a blathering idiot" or were you going all-in on "I'm a pompous and condescending blathering idiot"?

You didn't make a "mistake in remembering which was which in Latin"; you collapsed two categorical opposites into one - swap mala prohibitum in place of mala in se into your comment, and it's still wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do you actually have an argument in there anywhere?

[Michael P]

He seldom does. He just has snark and nastiness.

[Sarcastr0]

What argument do I need?

Musk is endorsing eugenics.

[Michael P]

For some definitions of "endorsing" and "eugenics" that don't meet the usual usage of either.

You're batting 0.000 for definitions today.

[Sarcastr0]

You’re gonna need to walk me though why you think my description of his post is wrong.

[Michael P]

Musk's post was descriptive rather than normative. Capital punishment is not generally considered eugenics, and Musk didn't even argue that the mechanism was eugenic rather than based on conditioning and deterrence.

To be clear, it's a fairly silly argument anyway: defining Europe as one "civilization" is tendentious, and the crime rate argument probably requires excluding Nazi Germany, Russia (the most heavily populated parts are in Europe), most of southern Europe, both parts of Ireland, and maybe more. Regardless, there are big differences in crime rates and acceptance of corruption between Britain/France/northwest Europe and Arabia or Africa.

[Zarniwoop]

Perhaps you can share a good definition of “eugenics” you’d like us to consider, that is meaningful and also excludes Musk’s apparent support of capital punishment as a long-term mechanism for weeding out “the crime genes”.

[Michael P]

I'll start with the Encyclopedia Britannica definition: "the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans." Killing people who commit the most serious crimes is not for the purpose of removing then from the gene pool. It's also not broad enough to credibly shift genetics unless we assume tendency to murder is significantly driven by dominant traits.

https://www.britannica.com/science/eugenics-genetics

[Sarcastr0]

You are confusing eugenics the practice with eugenics the idea.

They're both very bad.

[Brett Bellmore]

Eugenics, the practice, in some, but only some forms, violates rights.

Eugenics, the idea, violates nobody's rights.

[Sarcastr0]

What an irrelevant metric to pull out of your ass.

Terrible ideas can be terrible all on their own.

[David Nieporent]

Killing people who commit the most serious crimes is not for the purpose of removing then from the gene pool.

That often was the purpose, but even if you claim it never was, that's the purpose which Elon is endorsing.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, obviously, you're just rejecting the distinction between descriptive and normative.

I suppose that's a result of consequentialist ethics: Makes it hard to recognize when somebody is noticing that something had positive consequences without actually advocating it.

[Magister]

It's likely that Musk is putting this forward not to advocate capital punishment to improve gene pools, but to endorse a racist standard of immigration: along the lines of "Europeans eliminated their crime genes while other races did not, which is why only white people should be allowed to immigrate to the US". That is of course just the kind of reasoning that Brett Bellmore loves.

[wvattorney13]

It's a trap! Don't do it! You'll be given a bland dictionary definition of eugenics that will plausibly apply to Musk's statement and you'll spend 30 posts arguing what that isn't proper.

[Malika la Maize]

“the crime genes had been weeded out”

Yeah, who could see eugenics in that! Lol

[Z Crazy]

Why is eugenics bad?

Is not peace and order more important?

[Malika la Maize]

Took time from your painting to post that, Adolph?

[Brett Bellmore]

Is he saying you should kill people to improve the next generation? No.

He's saying that routinely killing criminals DOES eventually improve the next generation.

This is a reasonable observation. That sort of criminality is largely a product of deficient impulse control, and twin studies have shown that impulse control IS heritable.

[Malika la Maize]

Sure Brett, he said Europe became great by doing this, no endorsement there!

[Sarcastr0]

It’s not a reasonable observation! Crime is a lot more complex than a genetic deficiency in impulse control.

Holy shit. You buy into eugenics.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course there's more to it than a genetic deficiency in impulse control. But that IS a large component of it.

[Sarcastr0]

You have 2 assertions here:

1. Impulse control is genetically determined.
2. Criminality is largely tied to impulse control.

Do you have anything to back either of those up, or are you vibesing your way into reopening one of the worst ideas America ever had?

[Brett Bellmore]

"1. Impulse control is genetically determined."

To at least some extent. See, for instance: Genetics of impulsive behaviour

"Finally, impulsivity is associated with suicidal behaviour, aggressiveness and with certain forms of criminality."

"2. Criminality is largely tied to impulse control."

See also, Behavioral Measures of Impulsivity and the Law

Really, you pick the strangest things to take exception to.

[Sarcastr0]

1. "Via deep sequencing an uncommon HTR2B stop codon, common in one population, was discovered, with implications for understanding impulsive behaviour in both humans and rodents and for future gene discovery."

You got a ways to go before you get anything generalizable, and 'to some extent' is so broad as to be useless. Tons of things are genetic 'to some extent.'

2. Your link is about a specific mental health condition called Conduct Disorder. I've not heard of it, but I know a switcheroo when I see it.

Really, you pick the strangest things to take exception to.
Fucking. Eugenics. Is not strange to take exception to.

[Absaroka]

I saw an 'Europe executed it's way to social harmony' article a couple months ago. My reaction was they needed to show their work in a lot more detail.

Poor impulse control can lead to crime, to be sure. Or gaining 20 pounds. Or charging an enemy machine gun nest and winning a Medal of Honor.

Beware of simple solutions or explanations of complex problems.

[David Nieporent]

Is he saying you should kill people to improve the next generation? No.

Yes!!!!!!!!! That's literally exactly what he's saying!

[Z Crazy]

How is that worse than publicly excusing those who commit crimes against people?

How is that worse than actually interfering with police who make lawful arrests?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's an interesting thesis, Gaslight0 -- take it one step further, does it explain how European leaders have more power than American ones?

[Z Crazy]

There are violent underclasses who are allowed to fester.

In europe, theres this toxic ideology that excuses wrongdoing and violent crimes by people, because they come from a Colonized Class®™, sepecially if they commit sex crimes against white girls.

See the Colonge Sex Attacks for an example.

[Malika la Maize]

Beginning in January, Prince George’s County will no longer be one of the largest municipalities in the country with a breed ordinance. Instead, it will join neighboring areas such as Montgomery County, D.C. and Anne Arundel County in abandoning breed-specific policies…

There have been efforts over the years to repeal the ban as county leaders reviewed the law’s efficacy and how much it cost the county to enforce, which Burroughs put at around $3 million annually. Despite the ban, the county has become home to between 20,000 and 30,000 pit bulls and pit bull mixes, Burroughs said…

Besides lifting the ban, the new county law that Burroughs sponsored expands Prince George’s leash requirements and ushers in a pilot program for fostering and adopting the dogs that previously fell under the ban.

But not everyone is celebrating the new law.
Lutricia Lewis-Quarles, 75, of Suitland, still holds the pain of losing her shar-pei, ReddZ, who was attacked by two pit bulls. ReddZ had severe injuries that contributed to her death in 2023. Lewis-Quarles keeps a picture of ReddZ “like a shrine” in her family room.

For a time when ReddZ was alive, Lewis-Quarles said, she would walk around her neighborhood with an iron pole to keep roaming pit bulls at bay. She still has inklings of that fear today when she sees pit bulls in her neighborhood, growling at neighbors and making them unwilling to leave their homes, she said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/11/23/pitt-bulls-prince-georges-ban/

[Stephen Lathrop]

The notion is nonsense that dog breeds are irrelevant to canine behavior. Herding instincts in border collies were selectively bred for. Pointing instincts in German short haired pointers were selectively bred for. Pit bulls were bred to enjoy aggression, to use aggression as other dogs use chasing tennis balls, as play.

That is a problem. A problem made worse by the fact that many folks who live in areas they think unsafe, also think they get personal protection by keeping dangerous dogs. Others, who live in those same unsafe areas, keep dangerous dogs with an eye to making others unsafe.

No amount of idealizing beneficial dog socialization—which is of course virtuous, and when done by skilled dog handlers works fairly well even among dogs with inherently dangerous breeding—can reliably assure the public safety of dogs with notable complements of pit bull genes. You cannot train the herding instinct out of a border collie. You cannot train the aggression instinct out of a pit bull. That breed should be outlawed everywhere, until it has been extirpated by non-breeding.

The efficient way to enforce necessary breed laws is not to target dog owners, but instead to police breeders and shelter operators. Make it a serious civil offense, seriously enforced with large fines, to sell pit bulls, and pit bull cross-breeds, and the breed will gradually cease to be a public menace. Until then, not a week will pass without new accounts of grave injuries inflicted by pit bull attacks at locations around this nation. The vicious dogs' owners will always be, "surprised," when it happens. In the frequent cases where the surprise is genuine, it is tragic.

[ducksalad]

The efficient way to enforce necessary breed laws is not to target dog owners, but instead to police breeders and shelter operators.

Reminds one of the gun control advocate's idea of going after manufacturers rather than owners, on the theory that there would be less popular pushback. It didn't work, and gun owners were not fooled about the real objective.

I'd be satisfied with reminding people of Moderation4Ever's Proverb: just because you have the right to own a pit bull doesn't necessarily mean you ought to own a pit bull.

[Malika la Maize]

Breeds influence but need not determine.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Malika — Sure, in the same way genes influence but do not determine. There is always nurture, with its effects variable and changeable over time. And there is nature, with its program locked in.

[ducksalad]

Once one concedes that dogs have some inherent individual value, some very limited set of "rights", it naturally leads to the idea that they should be judged by what they do individually, not the collective statistics of whatever dog-race they belong to.

Whether or not that's a good development, it was predictable.

And of course, even if most maulings are committed by pit bulls, most pit bulls don't ever maul anybody. Kind of like human murders and human males...

[Brett Bellmore]

Friend of mine years ago had Rottweilers. Nicely behaved dogs, actually, but he said they did have an innate requirement for a bit of violence... Which he satisfied by tossing paper grocery bags to them to tear apart whenever he got home from grocery shopping.

They hit the floor as confetti, but those dogs never bit anybody.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — With that kind of reassurance, what a surprise it would have been if those dogs attacked someone. Did it ever occur to you to ask your friend what reason he had to choose Rottweilers, instead of, for instance, Newfoundlands?

[Stephen Lathrop]

ducksalad — Human maulings need not get deference because of some fanciful notion of individual rights for dogs. That takes a principle of deference which ought not even apply to human rights of self-defense with guns, and puts it on overdrive.

And of course it ignores the fact that pit bull breeding has not been principally directed toward encouraging attacks on humans, but instead toward encouraging attacks on other dogs. What you advocate—or at least seem to entertain for the sake of argument—is encouragement and protection for a principle of dog-on-dog murder.

[Bunny495]

I have mixed feelings about this. Growing up in the country dogs were mandatory. I always favored Leopard Dogs as they were very capable as helpers on a ranch. No matter what breed or mix of dog the most important factor is training. Dogs are pack animals and the owner needs to make clear he is the alpha in the pack. Same goes for family members being recognized as alpha.

The problem arises when the dog thinks it is the alpha. I have seen tiny dogs (I am talking about the recognized toy dog breeds) that think they are alpha to their owners and nip humans the toy dog thinks pose a threat. The fly in the ointment is while a chihuahua attacking a human usually results in the human swatting the chihuahua away like a mosquito the same is not true with a pit bull/other big dogs. This is why I like leopard dogs, while they are a big powerful dog (they often herd cows and will drag a bull around by its nose) but I am not aware of any leopard dog biting humans without provocation.

Bottom line it makes more sense to consider size/weight more than breed. Just like insurance companies have rules like liability insurance on dogs weighing more than say fifty pounds cost way more than on dogs that weigh less than ten pounds.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bunny495 — Perhaps without intending to, you write as an apologist for dangerous dogs. For those especially, talk about pack leaders and alpha dogs is not without basis. Experienced dog handlers know how to use such notions to good effect with many breeds. Problem is, dangerous breeds—pit bulls, presa canarios, Rhodesian ridgebacks, etc.—too often cannot be trained to take as an alpha pack leader small children with whom they are not familiar, or some elderly stranger with a hitch in his gait. Around you, such dogs may be fine. The problem is what happens when you are not around.

I have no experience with the leopard dogs you extol. I note that the breed descriptions for them online are replete with the language often chosen to warn off purchasers who might think choosing a dangerous dog is a mistake. The AKC says this:

The breed requires firm guidance and early socialization, as they can be independent, territorial, and protective. For the same reasons, they do not allow mistreatment and will assert themselves in self-defense. Once they know their place in the family unit, they are affectionate, loyal, and gentle.

Note that safety around strangers is omitted. The pattern of traits for the leopard dog is similar to—but on the good side, less pronounced—than the pattern for the presa canario, another dog with a cattle herding breed history. But that one is among the most dangerous dogs in the world.

Looks like the leopard dog would be a better choice for safety than the presa canario. But so would a pit bull.

Given a ranch to operate and defend, and wild pigs to hunt, maybe the leopard dog would work out well. That makes it a maybe-wise choice for a smallish fraction of the population—mostly including folks who do not socialize much among strangers.

It is almost never a wise choice to select a dog bred to be a personal guardian. In today's world of less-open spaces, that is a job too complicated for typical canine intelligence, (let's face it; personal self-defense under complicated circumstances too often baffles even human intelligence), even if rare canine examples show sagacity enough to do a nearly-reliable job of it. Responsible dog owners will not choose to expose themselves to the possibility of mistakes made by canine would-be guardians.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Also, a wolverine is not a dog. But it is an example to show how inherent temperament is potentially a more acute risk than size.

An insurance company which does as you describe is cheating the owners of Newfoundlands. While exposing itself to inordinate risk from owners of Scotch terriers.

[ReaderY]

Professor Somin a few days ago compared the Russia-US “peace plan” to the Munich Agreement.

This is a bad analogy. At Munich, as at Potsdam later, the Western allies made a common decision. A bad decision, but a common one. While they made what they thought was a peace that turned out to be a very temporary truce, they did not destroy their alliance with each other.

No such thing happened here. The far better historical analogy is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in which Russia and Germany engaged in an exclusive bilateral negotiation resulting in Russia switching sides, completely abandoning its former allies, and agreeing to carve up Poland, a country it had previously agreed to protect. This action changed its entire propaganda line. While before communist mouthpieces spewed out a line supporting a common front against fascism, they henceforth favored strict pacifism.

Here too, the United States’s actions can only be interpreted as switching sides, abandoning its former allies, and cozying up to its former enemies.

One wonders what real estate concessions Trump was offered in exchange for rubber-stamping a Russian-authored plan parts of which were rather badly translated from the Russian original. Hotels? Cryptocurrency riches?

At any rate, this action singlehandedly marks the effective death of NATO as an organization with common goals. While still retaining trappings of its democratic origins in domestic matters, the United States has by its action officially cast its lot with the world’s authoritarian empires, abandoning its former common ties to the world’s liberal democracies and signaling the formation of a new Holy Alliance reminiscent of the pact among Prussia, Austria, and Russia to contain liberalism, punish ethnic groups and ideologies fomenting trouble, and ensure the future of absolute, religion-focused Divine-right autocratic rule in the early to mid 19th Century.

So far as foreign policy is concerned, this is the single most profound act Trump has ever done to not just signal a complete shift in the fundamental nature and values of this country, but to create a fait accompli leaving a mark on the world that can never be undone and will ensure the world, and this country, will never be able to return to the way things were before.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Unless TACO.

[Moderation4ever]

I have to wonder at what point Marco Rubio gives up and resigns. Rubio has ambition and the SOS is a normal path to gain point for the big job. Instead Rubio is just losing any credibility he may have had.

[Bob from Ohio]

"SOS is a normal path to gain point for the big job"

Sure, before the Civil War. Not successfully since Buchanan and I think Clinton was the only one to even get nominated.

[ducksalad]

Look at the bright side. Molotov-Ribbentrop only lasted about 22 months. This one also has a short life expectancy, and for roughly the same reason.

I think the danger of creating some generations-long Holy Alliance is about zero. Even among the possible disastrous outcomes that's one of the less likely ones.

[Dr. Ed 2]

UNLESS there are serious concerns about China.

Russia is not threat to us -- heck, most of their nukes probably wouldn't even get off the ground, let alone detonate.

CHINA IS -- and perhaps something is happening we don't know about.

[Zarniwoop]

CHINA IS -- and perhaps something is happening we don't know about.

Watch out! Perhaps China is coming for the U.S. ... with a snowplow! After all, we don't know it's not true!

On a slightly more serious, not-shooting-Grampa Ed-fish-in-a-barrel, type of note: for all that Russia's engineering peak may have passed, they've still got a lot of very competent folks and the financing of a large expansionist nation behind them. One that also has a very large chip on their shoulder about fading imperial glory, and will desperately cling to indicia of global power and relevance like their nuclear arsenal.

Assuming nukes won't get off the ground "let alone detonate" is not the sort of thing I'd bet human civilization on (and maybe most multi-cellular life on this planet for a short geologic era).

[Moderation4ever]

Elon Musk's recently speaking at a US Saudi Investment Forum speculated that in 10 to 20 years work will be optional. His remarks again bring in question what will be the effects of AI on the labor market. Work will be optional because their will simple not be enough jobs for all the people. How will we handle this as a society? Today many view the able bodied nonworking as lazy, but what happens when their are not enough jobs for the able bodied? This is a question to address now as AI use increases, and it will increase. Technology only moves forward, in the past this meant moving labor from agriculture to the factories and then to the service economy. In this future we may have to accept that the labor market may not be their for all those wanting to work.

BYW - I believe that this Musk prediction is far more likely to happen than his manned trip to Mars.

[ReaderY]

What he didn’t mention was who will have the option.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The time horizon to treat the labor market threat of AI is not distant, it is proximate. Every staff reduction attributable to AI immediately undercuts financing for all social safety net programs. Unless some legal requirement is put in place to replace that funding by proceeds from AI "employment," the same market processes which increase AI adoption and use will decrease public capacity to offset AI impacts on natural persons. A policy to treat AI with laissez-faire policy is a policy to end Social Security and Medicare, and to do that using reductions which begin immediately.

[ducksalad]

A couple random things-

There was a time several generations back when people worked about 70-80 hours a week. Now we don't. Still seems to be enough food and stuff.

There was a time a few thousand generations back when people didn't have the concept of employment at all. The fact that we're here indicates they managed anyway.

Birthrate's already going below 2.0.

Somehow it will work itself out.

[Moderation4ever]

The question I have is how painful will the working out process be for our country. Lathrop is right and we need to be thinking about how we adjust the social safety net to address AI impact on the labor market. In the Depression this country had almost 25% unemployment. Fortunately we also had and enlightened leader like FDR. That may not be the case in the future.

[ducksalad]

When other countries have their Great Whatever it often involves some large fraction of the population dying, they probably think our Great Depression was kind of lame.

Not to minimize it, but a lot of the suffering in the Great Depression was tied up with people's ideas about the work ethic and the connection between work and food. The only fatality in our extended family was an uncle who killed himself out of the shame of being unemployed and unable to support his family. (Needless to say that didn't help his family, also needless to say they didn't starve to death without him.)

So part of the solution is to modify our work ethic. The whole Western culture of shaming idleness was to make sure all hands were on deck to get the crops in. We really don't need all hands on deck anymore, for anything. Even existential wars don't need a lot of manpower.

1. Redefine full-time employment at some lower number of hours per week.
2. Further normalize what I call the anti-Protestant work ethic: you work because you want or need money, not because working is some sacred end in itself. If you've got enough money to satisfy your needs, you don't get blamed if you decide to do some slacking.
3. Worry less about late-launching youth and early retirement.

BTW, Covid kind of helped this. People had been taught their whole lives if you don't go to work awful things will happen. Then they got banned from work for months at a time, and they survived. Attitudes have changed noticeably as a result.

[Brett Bellmore]

In the short run, sure, we don't need everybody motivated to work. In the short run.

In the long run, supporting people who refuse to work, (As opposed to being obviously incapable of it.) will have negative societal consequences. Because, if you stop stigmatizing being a parasite, you get more parasites. And MORE parasites. And the parasite load just keeps climbing until the host either dies, or finds some way to kill off the parasites.

[ducksalad]

Well, part of Mod's thesis is that there simply won't be enough work to go around, unless we drastically revise our expectations.

And the parasite load just keeps climbing until the host either dies, or finds some way to kill off the parasites.

Some other options there:

Or the host could go parasite for a while. Pretty sure someone will blink when the actual calorie count becomes low. This one doesn't necessarily require political power.

Or the host could decide not to work 40 hours and support three others working zero, and instead work 10 hours and expect the others to work 10 hours also. This one would require some changes in societal norms and government policies.

But I do think you and I might have some divergent attitudes. Some people are quite bothered by the inconsistency of a colleague who doesn't work as hard but gets paid more. I can shrug it off as long as my own workload isn't unbearable, and it isn't.

[ducksalad]

And one other option:

Drop our obsession with equality, and let the fraction of people who want to work their butts off have sinful amounts of luxury and privilege, while the rest of us content ourselves with low effort, a modest home, an adequate diet, and inexpensive entertainment. I believe there are enough people driven by the desire to have more than others that they'll make sure the very little human work that will need doing gets done.

Basically 10% of people work and live in beltway mansions with AI, and 90% live like Costa Ricans on a holiday. I might take Option 2.

[Moderation4ever]

Wrong analogy, not parasitic but symbiotic. What the nonworking provide is a customer base. Business wants to be efficient and reduce the number of workers but those workers are also consumer. We no longer live in a subsistence economy but rather a consumer economy that needs customers. AI can replace the workers but not the customers. This is part of what must be planned for.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What the nonworking provide is a customer base."

Huh? Customers don't just consume, they provide something in exchange for consuming.

[Magister]

The more common change in attitude is in people who were able to work remotely with the same productivity and expected that arrangement to continue. People who got laid off but "survived" doesn't exactly encourage people to think getting laid off isn't bad.

[ducksalad]

Of course I'm generalizing, plenty of people got hit hard by it. But some anecdotal evidence as a college instructor:

- Significant fraction of STEM seniors blowing off the career fair and telling us they're not sure they want to work a "regular job".

- Peak time at McDonald's is now 10am instead of 8am. How did that happen? BTW, I live in a mostly working class city, $28K per capita income, so it can't be all professionals working remote.

- Noticeably reduced effort to get started on finding a partner. The number of college age virgins, or at least those who act like it, appears to be increasing.

- Just in general, a lower drive to "launch".

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure how rising levels of apathy are something we should blow off, let alone celebrate.

My concern here is two fold.

1. Dependence of this sort is not a healthy state, either at the individual level or societal. The best model we have for a society where healthy people are supported despite most of them not working productively are inner city ghettos. They're not exactly healthy societies.

2. I don't believe a situation where most people are not doing anything necessary to the economy, and are just being supported as a matter of charity or welfare is remotely stable.

Not socially, not politically, not even from an evolutionary perspective.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, after mandatory free market reliance takes away half the white collar jobs, and nearly all the manufacturing jobs, what's your plan? Before you answer, let me add a caveat. Free market capitalism wielding AI as a worker replacement tool can thrive better than ever before, even if AI turns out less productive than human employment. If you do not plan to share wealth generated by employment-like activity, you do not necessarily need high productivity to keep getting richer. You only need markedly lower costs, plus unconstrained freedom to direct where the income goes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Bellmore, after mandatory free market reliance takes away half the white collar jobs, and nearly all the manufacturing jobs, what's your plan?"

Sounds like Stephen doesn't understand how a non-planned economy works.

[David Nieporent]

Bellmore, after mandatory free market reliance takes away half the white collar jobs, and nearly all the manufacturing jobs, what's your plan?

To put down the dystopian novel and return to the real world where people have been claiming since the industrial revolution that we were going to run out of work due to machines, and have always been wrong.

[ducksalad]

OK, my comment did come off like I was celebrating apathy. Really was just listing some changes that Covid seems to have accelerated.

Right now we don't label someone as trapped in dependence if they don't get a real full-time job until they're 21, then they work about 40 hours a week to a job that is only mildly demanding, and then stop working at 65.

I suggest those three numbers could be engineered a bit, without a lot of coercion, in order to spread the reducing workload over the same number of people.

Let me also flip around some of that apathy. It's not like the seniors not looking to work at IBM or GM plan to spend life in their pajamas. They imagine working for themselves, or some kind of idealistic "do-gooder" work, or going to graduate school and not for the later salary.

Maybe not 100% realistic, but it's also true that (a) IBM and GM no longer need armies of people, (b) landing a job at IBM or GM no longer defaults to a career, and (c) a world with a lot of small-size whimsical startups, cash hobbies, "consultants", and gig work doesn't sound all that hellish.

most people are not doing anything necessary to the economy

That could apply to most working people, depending on how do you define "necessary". Is Starbucks necessary? For that matter, are any restaurants, entertainment, or fitness gyms necessary? Some large fraction of the economy is us selling each other purely optional pleasures and conveniences. We could just stop it, or conversely do more of it. Looks like we'll need the latter to keep busy.

[Magister]

Anecdotal indeed. I'm not sure what a significant percentage represents; not my experience depending on what STEM. A working class town may have a lot of people working in the gig economy or juggling multiple part time jobs, rather than having a traditional 9 to 5 (or thereabouts) job. Lower drive to launch may be the seemingly insurmountable challenge of reaching the American dream, which may stem more from the housing bubble and Great Recession than COVID. So maybe, maybe not. But I really have to look askance at a college instructor who judges which students act like a virgin in sufficient numbers to generalize like that.

[Brett Bellmore]

The usual problem is that "X will produce enough wealth that nobody will need to work." is not the same as "X will result in nobody needing to work."

I mean, why exactly is any of that wealth going to find its way to somebody who isn't doing anything that was necessary to create it?

[Armchair]

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT’S $5 MILLION MISTAKE LEADS TO A COVID SCAM AND A HOUSE MEMBER’S INDICTMENT. Did you know that a Democratic member of the House is under federal criminal indictment? It didn’t receive a lot of news coverage, but the Justice Department announced last Wednesday that Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick of Florida and three co-defendants have been charged with stealing federal COVID funds and using the money to enrich themselves, to finance a political campaign, and to buy, among other items, a 3.14-carat diamond ring.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/3896469/government-5-million-mistake-covid-scam-house-member-indictment/

You know, part of me would hope that our nation's elected representatives would be more honest about our nation's money. But...Democrats

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, we talked about it last Thursday:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/11/20/open-thread-16/?comments=true#comment-11288195

I was initially skeptical, but thread consensus is that this indictment is legit.

[Bwaaah]

Sarcastr0: "thread consensus is that this indictment is legit."

...in case anybody wonder's where legitimacy comes from in the mind of Il Douche.

[Sarcastr0]

I often cede to the expertise that the practitioners on here have. We have people here with experience in federal criminal work.

That seems...a pretty normal way to be?

[not guilty]

The indictment is here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26289405/25-cr-20500-indictment.pdf

If the allegations are proven, whether at trial or by a plea of guilty, a harsh penalty will be warranted.

And I fervently hope that this defendant loses her primary election next year.

[David Nieporent]

The funny thing about it is how the alleged $5 million theft happened. When we used to play Monopoly it amused/annoyed my family when I always pointed out that "Bank error in your favor; collect $200" isn't how it works; you don't get to keep the money when that happens. But that's what she supposedly did. The bank made a massive error — moving a decimal point so that she got $5,000,000 and change when she was owed $50,000 and change. And she allegedly just decided to keep it, instead of alerting anyone.

[Malika la Maize]

I read about it in the Times five days ago, it’s hardly being ignored

[Joe_dallas]

pelosi family
biden family

pelosi is going to struggle now that she is an 'outside" trader

[Malika la Maize]

All whataboutism, all the time with jd. He has no principles.

[Joe_dallas]

Screaming whataboutism is just a pathetic attempt to hide your hypocrisy and double standards

[not guilty]

Joe_dallas, have you yet identified the anti-semitic comment(s) that you claim I have made?

[Poxigah146]

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/us-attorneys-office-chicago-charges-man-federal-terrorism-offense-allegedly-setting

Appropriate use of the terrorism statute, yay or nay?

[Moderation4ever]

I would say no. The cited article does not mention anything about the accused mental health but checking other accounts it appear this is a case of a mentally ill person committing a crime. There seem little doubt that this individual need to be in some form of custody for the rest of his life, but I don't think this is terrorism.

[Michael P]

I'm not seeing how this attack fits the statutory definition of terrorism. If we wanted to talk about the state and local justice systems that allowed the guy to run free and light some random person on fire, I might see it differently -- a conspiracy to deprive people of the equal protection of laws.

[Zarniwoop]

I’m open to “societal failures” as part of an explanation, but I also think “conspiracy” is inapposite, in that there’s probably not an affirmative mutual agreement by a defined group of people to accomplish the goal of “deprive people of the equal protection of laws.”

Words matter, and fixing problems starts with understanding what the problems are and accurately describing them. Bandying about “conspiracy!!1!” is over-dramatic tin foil hat territory.

[Poxigah146]

I tend to agree. I don't think this is an appropriate use of the statute, but I still support it because the blue states' method of criminal justice isn't working, and is violating their obligations under the U.S. Constitution to their people.

[Malika la Maize]

We have to improperly use laws to combat improper use of laws. Gotcha.

[Michael Ejercito]

Then the courts will strike it down, setting precedent.

[Poxigah146]

When Soros DAs are using the criminal justice system, or the failure to use it properly, to let blacks go free because of their race, then yes, as whites are being deprived of their right to a republican form of government.

[wvattorney13]

I don't think it is. It likely fits an "according to Hoyle" definition of terrorism but it isn't what we think of as terrorism. If we go down that road then any random attack is terrorism.

You could say that Ted Bundy was a terrorist. Again, it fits some definitions but not ours.

[Poxigah146]

Fair point, but the terrorism statute (18 USC 1992) is really just a statute that criminalizes violence on mass transportation vehicles that affect interstate commerce.

Unlike many state terrorism statutes, there is no requirement that the purpose of the act is to disrupt the government or intimidate the civilian population at large.

[not guilty]

The criminal complaint is here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/media/1419031/dl?inline

The conduct alleged in the complaint falls clearly within the prohibitions of 18 U.S.C. § 1992, specifically subsection (a)(7). While the title of that statute is "Terrorist attacks and other violence against railroad carriers and against mass transportation systems on land, on water, or through the air", commission of an act of terrorism is not an element of the offense.

Whether, in the event of a conviction, a terrorism enhancement should be applied at sentencing is a separate question.

[Poxigah146]

Yes, I agree. This is a statute where the prohibited conduct doesn't really line up with the heading.

[David Nieporent]

Lots of states have a crime called something like "Terroristic threats." But it often has nothing to do with terrorism per se; it doesn't necessarily refer to (e.g.) threatening to blow something up if a government policy isn't changed. Calling a private person up and saying, "I'm going to kill you" can be a terroristic threat.

[Martinned]

I didn't follow the last few open threads. Have you guys figured out yet whether US army officers can be hanged for disobeying an unconstitutional order?

[ducksalad]

We were occupied with more immediately relevant issue of whether congressmen can be hanged for suggesting, in the abstract, that officers could disobey some hypothetical future unconstitutional order.

The vote came down along the usual lines.

[Martinned]

Your country is profoundly broken.

[ducksalad]

Actually I'm optimistic. The fever is starting to break. Even right here in the VC Open Thread, fewer and fewer Trump supporters humiliate themselves by reversing long held opinions every time Trump changes his.

For instance, note that none of them have parroted Trump's new "Mamdani is great" thing. That is actually a good sign! They're thinking for themselves again. They have regained some self-respect.

I predict MAGA will collapse as a movement in conjunction with the 2026 election. There'll be a realignment similar to the 1960s and we'll settle on some more rational division of parties that's not all about one person, for or against.

[DDHarriman]

>For instance, note that none of them have parroted Trump's new "Mamdani is great" thing. That is actually a good sign! They're thinking for themselves again. They have regained some self-respect.

Can you not dismabiguate between Mamdani the person (is great) and Mamdani's policies (stupid, Leftist garbage)

[ducksalad]

I can. Maybe you can, jury's out on that one.

Trump can't, there's no evidence at all that he is making such a distinction. It's simply a case of a senile old man being charmed by someone personable who chooses to flatter him. Nothing more. Foreign leaders have figured this out, Mamdani has figured this out. Holdouts like Maduro and Petro and Khamenei are thinking too much with their balls. All they need to do is smile and bring gifts and say he deserves a Nobel, and they can work out something about the speedboats and the centrifuges.

But congratulations on getting back some small part of your dignity. Maybe someday you can walk among men again.

[ducksalad]

You know, that second sentence was too harsh. You obviously can disambiguate, as you just did. When you need to. The question is, could you do it if Trump hadn't implicitly given you permission/cover to say that "Mamdami the person (is great)" by having a mutual lathering session in the Oval Office. I think so....just needs a few more reversals and you'll start to resent getting jerked around.

[DDHarriman]

Oh I see the problem. Politics is life for you, and for your kind there is no separation between the individual and the belief.

Bad Politics = Bad Human. Which of course fits into the whole Gold Heart/Black Heart mental framework of the Left.

You can't fathom Good Person with Bad Ideas. It's not in your universe of possibilities.

This explains why you're struggling with this. Further, my kind, Homo sapiens sapiens, has the cognitive ability to distinguish between people and their beliefs. Does your kind have that ability?

Frankly, my kind shouldn't be giving your kind that much respect as, for the most part, your kind is as bad as your ideas. Just awful awful creatures.

[ducksalad]

That's such a stupid misread that I'm going back to my old opinion: Your "disambiguation" was probably a talking point that you found last night. No points for independent thinking this time.

[DDHarriman]

The guy who genuinely believes a many times over billionaire, two-time president, tv star that bangs models and porn stars can't separate a man from his ideas says I'm the stupid one.

lmao

Like you're literally believe he's incapable of saying "He's a nice man, but he has stupid ideas".

That's retarded. Your retarded. I don't want any of you're retard points. Save your retard points to cash in for some new MS Now schwag.

[Michael Ejercito]

What sort of order would violate the Constitution?

[ducksalad]

Here's some examples we should all be able to agree upon. Not remotely implying that any current politician intends to issue any orders remotely like these:

1. Orders to round up some particular class of citizens and detain them without due process.
2. Orders to shut down Congress and block entrance to the building.
3. Orders to implement martial law in some state, in the absence of any uprising, merely because the election results were unfavorable.
4. Orders to shut down the Supreme Court and block entrance to the building.
5. Orders to have soldiers swear a new oath to the president, superseding their oath to the Constitution.
6. Orders to mass execute prisoners of war, regardless of whether they are foreign or domestic prisoners.

Again, I don't see any of this coming. The worst of our politicians have a bark much worse than their bite. However, such orders have happened in democracies, and if the military obeyed they became former democracies. Nothing even a little bit wrong with some congressmen pointing that out.

[wvattorney13]

If we agree that these are wild hypotheticals, then why are Congressman making videos instructing members of the military about them?

And we have posters on this board saying that military members should refuse orders to strike boats in the Caribbean---with the caveat that these military personnel are not privy to the underlying intelligence. Could be rogue pirates smuggling nukes into the U.S. for all the personnel know.

But, say our posters, because Trump, they should get "clarification" (read, full intelligence) before ordering the strike.

I understand that you are not the representative of every poster on this board, and your post seems reasonable, but it simply doesn't square with the issuing of the video and other statements.

[Josh R]

If we agree that these are wild hypotheticals, then why are Congressman making videos instructing members of the military about them?

Fundraising. It's distasteful, but the reaction (lock 'em up) is far worse.

[ducksalad]

Lock 'em up? What I heard was "hanging" and "death penalty".

[ducksalad]

I think it's a basic point about civics, I would not object to a high school government teacher bringing it up in an everyday lesson.

And while I don't think Trump has issued an order that is unambiguously illegal and should be disobeyed, and more than likely he won't, he has floated and tweeted all kinds of things that rightly make people less than 100% sure. He is pushing the Overton Window in the wrong way.

Under these conditions it is entirely appropriate to remind people that there are limits and ways to prevent a president from crossing them. It's good to remember there is an endpoint and what that endpoint looks like.

Or if you prefer, just call it counter-smack talk. If he wants to constantly talk smack about constitutional edge cases, he shouldn't get all huffy if he gets a bit of it back. If he wants it to stop he should consider lowering his volume a bit.

[not guilty]

"And while I don't think Trump has issued an order that is unambiguously illegal and should be disobeyed, and more than likely he won't, he has floated and tweeted all kinds of things that rightly make people less than 100% sure. He is pushing the Overton Window in the wrong way."

Ordering military strikes upon civilians in the Caribbean comes close, for the reasons which I explained on Saturday's open thread, quoting Professor Marty Lederman:

[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].

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

The text of the reference cited by Prof. Lederman is here:

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

Trump's order to take out civilians in the Caribbean accordingly posits a textbook example of "a patently illegal order." Fealty to the service member's oath requires disobedience thereof.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think it's realistic for ordinary soldiers to be given full intelligence briefings before carrying out orders. But they at least need to be given justifications for those orders. In actual legitimate military deployments, there are rules of engagement; it's not just "do whatever you feel like." If someone tells a pilot, "blow up that ship," and the ship is an enemy navy ship in wartime, that's obvious. If the ship is heading full speed towards an American target and has ignored warnings, again, sure. But if we're not at war, and it's obviously a civilian ship, and clearly not capable of even reaching the U.S. (or a U.S. target), then "because I said so" isn't sufficient. Something as simple as, "We have intelligence that suggests it's part of an active terrorist op" should be. But, "We think it could be committing a civilian crime that wouldn't be punishable by death anyway, and we haven't even tried to stop it"? No.

[TwelveInchPianist]

This sounds like an "Area Man" type of argument. It sounds reasonable, but I don't see where it's the law.

If there's any doubt, the much safer course of action is to follow the order. To punish you, they have to show BRD that a person of ordinary sense would know the order was unlawful.

OTOH, I don't see where a mistaken belief that an order was unlawful is ever a defense to Article 92. I'm not even sure that "the guy was blindfolded and tied to a stake, how was I supposed to know he was sentenced to death" would be a defense.

[John F. Carr]

If an order is illegal then disobedience is not punishable under the UCMJ. Legality is determined by a military judge, not the Orders Project or a gaggle of highly credentialed academics posting online.

Orders fall into three categories.

1. Legal. Legal orders must be obeyed if possible.
2. Not legal but not obviously illegal. Disobedience is not punished. Crimes resulting from obedience are excused.
3. Obviously not legal. Obedience to such an order does not excuse commission of crimes. Obedience to such an order is not a crime by itself. If I, a civilian, order a solider to pick up trash he may choose to obey despite my lack of authority to give the order.

[not guilty]

"If an order is illegal then disobedience is not punishable under the UCMJ. Legality is determined by a military judge, not the Orders Project or a gaggle of highly credentialed academics posting online."

That is correct insofar as it goes. But whether disobedience is or is not "willful[]" under Article 90 of the UCMJ is a question of fact, with the prosecution bearing the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hypothetically, if a service member has been advised by disinterested counsel (such as provided by the Orders Project) that an order is unlawful, that would go a long way toward negating or rebutting willfulness.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Article 92 doesn't require willfulness, and I don't think it's clear that willfulness under Article 90 requires knowledge that the order is lawful. The Rules for Courts Martial lists knowledge of the order and knowledge that the person was a superior officer as elements, but not knowledge that the order was lawful.

[JohnSmith97]

What illegal order are you talking about?

Sorry to break it to you, but the fact that a (D) disagrees with it doesn't make it an illegal order.

[Voize of Reazon]

The original topic was unlawful orders, who raised the bar to "unconstitutional"?

[not guilty]

An "unconstitutional" order would be within a subset of "unlawful" orders, so the distinction is one without a difference.

Let's say hypothetically that the Vice-president (while not acting as president under the 25th Amendment) purports to issue an "order" to a service member. Such an "order" could be disregarded with impunity because of the lack of constitutional authority in the Vice-president to issue it.

[DDHarriman]

Be pretty English White woman.

Get raped by a gang of Moslem groomers.

Text friend, call one of them a faggot.

Friend reports victim.

Get sentenced to longer prison term than rapists.

The Democrats!

[Michael Ejercito]

There is no Democratic Party in the UK.

[DDHarriman]

Sure, but it's my take on the classic joke The Aristocrats. And definitely Democrats and UK gov are birds of the marxist feather.

[Joe_dallas]

Trump threatens to revoke TPS status of somolia immigrants due to the Massive fraud in the minnesota somalia community under the watch of Walz and Ellison -

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/panic-in-minnesota-s-somali-community-after-trump-s-pledge-to-end-deportation-protections/ar-AA1QXGB0?ocid=BingNewsSerp

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/77th-defendant-charged-feeding-our-future-fraud-scheme

[Malika la Maize]

I like how “Massive” is capitalized but “somalia” and “minnesota” is not.

[Martinned]

"somolia"...

[Joe_dallas]

Another leftists with the uncanny ability to find a typo yet unable to to address the substance, in this case the extensive fraud -

[Malika la Maize]

Which was the typo, capitalizing massive or not capitalizing the state and nation(ality)?

[John 4]

A great lesson for you: if you come off like an uneducated hillbilly with a tenuous grasp of reading and writing, people won’t listen. It’s probably not fair, but nevertheless…

[Joe_dallas]

Just the same - typical leftists who cant address the substance- in this case the massive fraud under the watchful eyes of Walz and Ellison.

[Mr. Bumble]

Temporary = 39 years.
It's due to expire this coming March.

[David Nieporent]

The TPS order is performative because it only applies to a few hundred of the hundred thousand Somali immigrants in the U.S.

The fraud seems to be real (the claims by Internet randos like Chris Rufo that it's related to terrorism have no support), but it's a few score people; only bigots claim that 100,000 people are a problem because of the actions of 0.1% who look like them.

[Martinned]

Speaking of things I might have missed in recent open threads: Is the US going to launch an aggressive war on Venezuela? And, if so, is it going to violate Dutch sovereignty and/or put the Kingdom of the Netherlands at risk of retalliation by Venezuela without our consent?

[Mr. Bumble]

Ask Mauduro.

[Martinned]

For the geographically challenged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_islands

[Bob from Ohio]

Colonial legacy. We should liberate them.

If Dutch soldiers are there, it will be a cakewalk, Ask the Bosnians how well Dutch soldiers fight.

[DDHarriman]

Also ask the Africans.

[Joe_dallas]

Martin - are you in favor of drug running?

[Malika la Maize]

Are you in favor of summary killing of suspected drug runners?

[Bob from Ohio]

"going to violate Dutch sovereignty "

A bonus!

[Michael Ejercito]

Read this chat I had with Poe Assistant (which was about how pro-choice politicians supported unprecedented vaccine mandates)

https://poe.com/s/H42DowjeTHEjeZWKVI8k

[Z Crazy]

Very interesting chat. It explains how Brandon led the Dems to abandon "My Body, My Choice".

[Michael Ejercito]

Here were points I made that made the mandates especially egregious.

- They enacted policies forbidding public establishments from serving customers unless they had proof of having taken one vaccine. This was never done with the swine flu vaccine nor any other vaccine.
- No pro-life politician ever even suggested prohibiting public establishment from providing service to girls and women who could not prove they have never had an abortion. By sharp contrast, so many pro-choice politicians enacted the same regarding people who could not prove they took one vaccine.
- Pro-choice politicians actually dragooned private businesses into punishing people who refused one vaccine. Pro-lifers never proposed dragooning private business, or individuals, into punishing girls and women who have had abortions.
- Furthermore, the FJb administration used unprecedented means to effectiuvely require apeople to take the COVID vaccine (suing an OSHA temporary emergency standard). No pro-life politicians proposed using emergency measures to restrict access to abortion.
- FJB delivered this message aboit people who refused the vaccine."We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us. So, please, do the right thing.," he said. This sounds like pro-lifers saying that, "you sluts keep spreading your legs and killing babies"
- And it was aggravated by the method used to impose the employer vaccine mandate, using an untested method instead of ordinary procedures, let alone an act passed by Congress.

[Z Crazy]

These are very good points!

[apedad]

‘We’re toast’: Virginia GOP erupts in finger-pointing after sweeping Democratic wins

Possibly no Republican voice has been louder in the weeks since the election than Loudoun County GOP Chair Scott Pio.

In a lengthy post on X, formerly Twitter, Pio accused state party leadership of failing to build a coherent statewide message and of instructing unit chairs not to engage in issue-based communication.

“So while the Democrats have a messaging machine … the Republican Party personally mandates that they are not allowed to talk policy,” Pio wrote.

He then demanded the resignation of Peake, in addition to the GOP State Central Committee’s executive leadership and any member who “has taken a check from a candidate in the last five years.”

Peake pushed back against Pio’s move.

“The best step would be for Pio to resign,” he said in the interview, calling him “part of the problem” and saying he “has not gotten over that crushing defeat I delivered to him” in the RPV chair election in the spring.

Democrats, meanwhile, are already moving to consolidate their gains. Just days before the election, they advanced a constitutional amendment that could allow the General Assembly to redraw Virginia’s U.S. House districts ahead of the 2026 elections — sidestepping the independent redistricting commission voters approved in 2020.

https://virginiamercury.com/2025/11/24/were-toast-virginia-gop-erupts-in-finger-pointing-after-sweeping-democratic-wins/

Almost makes me feel sad for Virginia Republicans.

Almost. . . .

[Z Crazy]

How did Jay Jones win?

[JohnSmith97]

Because there is nothing a (D) can say or do to keep their base from reflexively pulling the lever for any candidate with a (D) after their name.

[Brett Bellmore]

"the Republican Party personally mandates that they are not allowed to talk policy,”"

The usual problem: A lot of the party leadership don't LIKE the policies that would motivate the Republican base to vote.

[jb]

Or put another way: the policies Republican politicians do like are extremely unpopular, including amongst their own base.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Nick-at-Night has a schedule of certain shows each night, including Friends, Big Bang Theory, and Modern Family. All three had long runs, so lots of episodes.

In the 1990s, Friends was an early show with a same sex wedding. At the time, it was only a private ceremony; same sex marriage was officially only recognized years later. OTOH, Domestic Partnership Legislation was passed in 1998.

https://www.columbia.edu/cu/gables/dpinfo_nyc/

Carol and Susan raised Ben, who was the biological son of Carol and Ross, who (apparently*) divorced before the show began. He co-parents Ben with Carol and Susan.

(Ross later had another child out of wedlock with Rachel.)

Modern Family came later. It concerns three families, each with kids. Same sex marriage had by then started to be legally recognized in the U.S.

The same sex couple is able to legally be married when CA legalized same sex marriage in the middle of the show's run.

Viewers readily accepted the families. They recognized each couple was married. It helps to show how fiction influences culture and sometimes the law. Normalization occurs in various ways & it influences legal judgments.

==

* A flashback episode suggests the two broke up sometime in the year before the events of the first episode.

Ross found out Carol was pregnant in the second episode. The timing of events is somewhat sketchy.

BTW, one of the actors who portrayed Ben is currently in a film about a nonbinary teenager. The actor plays their brother-in-law.

[John F. Carr]

From Seinfeld in 1992:
Elaine gets into a conversation on the subway on the way to a lesbian wedding. "I hate men but I'm not a lesbian!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gu4TyXCh84#t=117
The 1993 episode "The Outing" popularized "not that there's anything wrong with that". Friends started in 1994.

[apedad]

And in more delightful MAGA news:

GOP Congressman Slams State Department: "Some People Better Get Fired"

State Department spokesman Tommy Piggett responded to King’s statement: “This is blatantly false. As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians.”

U.S. Representative Don Bacon (R-NE) responded Piggett’s post: “Some people better get fired on Monday for the gross buffoonery we just witnessed over the last four days. This hurt our country and undermined our alliances, and encouraged our adversaries.”

https://2paragraphs.com/2025/11/gop-congressman-slams-state-department-some-people-better-get-fired/

Getting your ass handed to you in an election does make one rethink a lot of things.

[David Nieporent]

State Department spokesman Tommy Piggett responded to King’s statement: “This is blatantly false. As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians.”

Except Rubio has not "consistently maintained" that; he accidentally slipped before returning to the party line.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is an article from Jack Marshall regarding how illegal aliens hurt us.

https://ethicsalarms.com/2025/11/23/another-good-illegal-immigrant-sob-story-from-the-new-york-times/

If I were bloggress Ann Althouse (and how can you be sure I’m not?) I’d begin this post with a quote from the story, like:

“But Perez-Bravo had most of his family and several members of his church at the hearing, and his lawyer said that he was “connected to the city in deep ways.” He regularly cooked for 60 people at church barbecues. He had a son who was about to graduate from high school, a boss who wrote letters testifying to his work ethic, and a pastor who was willing to pay a $1,000 bond on his behalf and risk her house as collateral. “This is a kind family and they help everybody,” the pastor testified. “We’re going to help him.” The judge ruled that he could return home with an ankle monitor until his next court date as long as he stopped using Kluver’s name and Social Security number….”

… Then I’d add a wry and probing observation or two, maybe a pedantic discourse on what “connected to the city” means, and leave it to commenters to analyze the story. I’m tempted to do an Althouse impression here, but I won’t, because I want to be unequivocal.

This situation isn’t as complex and wrenching as the Times reporter tries to make it. An Guadamalan came to the the U.S. illegally, broke the law repeatedly to stay here, and screwed up the life of an American citizen in the process. Finally he was caught, and that’s good. I have no sympathy for noble illegal immigrant the Times weeps for: he got more out of his dishonesty and disrespect for American sovereignty than he deserved.

Instead of the one quote from “Two Men. One Identity. They Both Paid the Price— Thousands of undocumented workers rely on fraudulent Social Security numbers. One of them belonged to Dan Kluver”, I’ll give you several with this gift link. Note that the Times, of course, uses the still-in vogue cover-phrase for “illegal immigrant.” When I read “undocumented worker,” I know I’m being misled by a biased source with an agenda.

Here are the quotes with some brief reactions from your heartless host:

“His case was one version of a problem that’s been spreading across the country for years. The government estimates that as many as one million undocumented workers are using fraudulent or stolen Social Security numbers — a survival tactic used to pass background checks and get jobs”
“A survival tactic.” When a mobster chops up a body and covers it with lye in the hole where he stashes his victim in a desert, do we call that “a survival tactic”? Language games are another insidious way the Axis news media tries to subtly make readers sympathize with illegals. They’re only trying to survive!

“Perez-Bravo had come to the United States for the first time at 16 to help earn money for his family, traveling alone to join his father in Marshall, Minn. He hiked out of the Guatemalan highlands, rode atop a freight train for three weeks across Mexico, nearly drowned in the Rio Grande and took a Greyhound to Middle America, where life somehow felt harder. He slept on a couch in his father’s apartment and enrolled in high school despite speaking almost no English. Then he began to look for a job, but no one would hire an underage worker without papers.”
This is the illegal immigrant who stole the identity of Danial Kluwar. But how can you blame him? He just wanted “to help earn money for his family.” And look at all the ordeals he went through! How can you blame him, you heartless, privileged reader?

My answer: Easily.

“The first years were lonely and exhausting. He started to drink, which led to a string of D.U.I.s and other minor offenses. He was deported back to Guatemala in 2005, 2008 and 2009, but each time he returned to the United States and purchased a new ID for work.”
The Times wants us to consider: How can anyone impugn whomever he is (the Good illegal Immigrant has had at least three fake identities) for those DUI’s (why was he driving with a fake license?) and “minor offenses” (I wonder how “minor” they were…)? After all, he was lonely and exhausted!

But then, so am I…

“He sought out new documents from the black market, sending a few text messages and then meeting a middle man on a street corner in Nebraska to pay in cash. This time the Social Security card was for Daniel Kluver. Perez-Bravo didn’t know if that person was fake, or dead, or a victim of identity theft, or somehow in on the scheme. But the number worked at a succession of factory jobs across the Midwest.”
It worked! And since he didn’t know if his stolen ID was going to cause problems for an innocent, legal citizen, how can he be criticized if it did?

“Like millions of undocumented immigrants, he paid federal and state taxes that were automatically deducted from his paycheck. To Perez-Bravo, that meant he was contributing thousands into a Social Security fund from which he would never collect”
See what a Good Illegal Immigrant he was? And there are “millions” like him. How can ICE be so cruel as to deport someone this productive and noble?

“Perez-Bravo wanted to live and work under his own name, so he signed up for extra shifts and stacked overtime until he could afford to hire an immigration lawyer earlier this year. He paid $4,000 upfront only to learn that the pathways to citizenship were essentially closed under the Trump administration for someone with a history of D.U.I.s and deportations, even if he’d stopped drinking and kept his record clean for the past 15 years. “All I do is take care of my family and go to work,” he told his lawyer. “Is there no way to fix this?”

Sure: go back to Guatemala and try to immigrate legally. As Roy Hobbs says in “The Natural,” ” Some mistakes, I guess, we never stop paying for.” Yup! That’s life.

“And then came a detail from a police report that Kluver couldn’t shake. In the summer of 2022, the other Dan Kluver had been driving to work in St. Joseph when the serpentine belt broke in his car, causing him to lose control at a red light and collide with a grandfather and his 9-year-old granddaughter as they rode on a motorized tricycle. The girl sustained minor injuries, but the 68-year-old man flew off the bike, broke his pelvis in two places, struck his head and died. The driver stayed on the scene, praying and cooperating with the police as he handed over a license and registration for Dan Kluver. He was cleared of any wrongdoing. The crash was ruled an accident. But the victim’s family had filed a wrongful-death lawsuit — with Kluver listed as the defendant.”
He was praying. See? He’s a decent, God-fearing man…who was driving illegally and killed somebody. For sometimes other people have to pay for our mistakes, even though they did nothing wrong.

Well, read the rest: there are plenty of other sections that should drive you crazy if you grasp the basic principles or responsibility, honesty, accountability, rationalizations and fairness. The New York Times wants to make certain that you don’t.

Near the end, the Good Illegal Immigrant expresses sympathy for the man whose identity he stole, whom the Times cleverly calls “a victim of a broken system.” You know, because the system stole his identity, or forced what’s-his- name to do it.

“He sounds like me — a good worker,” Perez-Bravo told his wife, one day last month. “I don’t want to mess things up for anyone. I just want to work. It makes me crazy with no job. How many hours can I sit and pray?” “You’re still here,” she told him. “That’s what matters.” “I’m here and I’m worthless,” he said. “This is not a life.”

It’s the life he chose.

[David Nieporent]

It's a legitimate concern… which would be fixed if we reformed our immigration system to make it reasonably possible for people to come here legally. This guy isn't a model (non-)citizen; there were some DUIs. But they were apparently a long time ago, and he appears to otherwise be hard working and productive.

(The guy whose identity he was unknowingly using, while an innocent victim, doesn't exactly appear to be a genius. He was the victim of identity theft, knew about it, and just didn't do anything about it. One can get a new SSN if one is the victim of such theft. That would have solved his problems, but he seemingly didn't try.)

[Michael P]

As discussed above, demand for immigration to the US will always exceed supply. Someone who drinks, drives, commits a string of "other minor offenses", gets deported three times, steals an identity each time he comes back, and commits vehicular homicide probably doesn't deserve to make the cut under any defensible threshold. So it's dumb to say the problem would be fixed if immigration was reasonably easy.

And the US government will be the first to tell you that getting a new SSN doesn't mean your identity-theft problems are over, because a lot of companies and even government agencies will have records that still point your old number to you -- and your new number won't link to your credit history. At least that's what https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10064.pdf (linked from https://www.identitytheft.gov/Info-Lost-or-Stolen) told me. But congrats on blaming one of the actual victims here.

[David Nieporent]

He did not "commit vehicular homicide." He was driving a car where someone died through no fault of his own (at least not in the criminal sense; it clearly says they ruled it an accident. I guess it could turn out he was negligent in some way, but that's not vehicular homicide.)

And he didn't "steal an identity" in the way you mean; he bought some fake documents, which turned out in this case to match a real person. (I'm not sure whether they even did on the prior occasions.) The Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that this isn't identity theft. Someone else stole the identity.

Anyway, if the government had just let him work under his own identity, this wouldn't have happened.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The victim was wearing a short skirt? Oh, that makes everything OK.

[Absaroka]

Does anyone know how the use-someone-else's-SSN thing works? I would think that seeing wages reported for SSN 111-22-3333 in Omaha, Phoenix, and Seattle totaling 120 hours a week would raise some flags at SSA. Do they just ignore the anomalies?

[David Nieporent]

Generally, yes. They're in the business of tracking earnings and paying benefits, not catching criminals. And all they get is a wage/payor report; they don't know where the money is actually earned or how many hours were worked. How many Americans work remotely and their employer is not in any way related to where they live?

[Absaroka]

Sure, you wouldn't catch them all, but I'd think there would be some standouts. Like when one of the yahoos selling SSNs sells the same one to several people.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A comment addresses a local law regarding dogs.

Here is a more expansive article.

https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2025/08/how-nyc-governs-dogs/407159

[loki13]

So many things going on, but this is the major development:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The appointment of Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney violated 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (2) All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan's defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey's indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside. (3) The Attorney General's attempts to ratify Ms. Halligan's actions were ineffective and are hereby set aside. (4) Mr. Comey's motion to dismiss the indictment (ECF No. 60) is granted in accordance with this order. (5) The indictment is dismissed without prejudice. (6) The power to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546 during the current vacancy lies with the district court until a U.S. Attorney is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate under 28 U.S.C. § 541 as to James B. Comey Jr. Signed by Senior District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie on 11/24/2025.

Link to order:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71459121/213/united-states-v-comey/

[loki13]

(Same result for Latetia James)

[JohnSmith97]

(D) judge makes another helpful to (D) decision. Must be a day ending in "y"

[JoeFromtheBronx]

When a judge nominated by a Republican president helps the Democrats, it is also a day ending with "y."

When they don't, it still is a day ending with "y."

Turns out all days end with "y."

[OpinionsVary]

Quick question, it was dismissed without prejudice but does the statute of limitations mean it can't be refiled anyway? Or can they refile because the first indictment was inside the period?

[loki13]

Although it was a dismissal without prejudice, the judge predicated that on the specific finding re: appointments. Specifically, this language:

I will do the same here. I will invalidate the ultra vires acts performed by Ms. Halligan and dismiss the indictment without prejudice, returning Mr. Comey to the status he occupied before being indicted.

In the relief, it also specifically states that the actions of Halligan are "set aside."

I'd have to think about this more, but I believe that the effect is that Comey cannot be re-indicted (SOL) while James could be under the logic of this order.

[Riva]

No, that is incorrect. I don't think Halligan was improperly appointed. But even assuming so, under 18 U.S.C. § 3288, if an indictment is dismissed after the statute of limitations has expired because of a defect in the indictment or in the institution of the prosecution (for example, problems with how the grand jury was used or how the prosecutor was appointed), the government has six months from the date of dismissal to obtain a new, properly returned indictment for the same offense. So that puke Comey isn't going to just walk away.

[not guilty]

"No, that is incorrect. I don't think Halligan was improperly appointed. But even assuming so, under 18 U.S.C. § 3288, if an indictment is dismissed after the statute of limitations has expired because of a defect in the indictment or in the institution of the prosecution (for example, problems with how the grand jury was used or how the prosecutor was appointed), the government has six months from the date of dismissal to obtain a new, properly returned indictment for the same offense. So that puke Comey isn't going to just walk away."

Riva appears to be incorrectly reading 18 U.S.C. § 3288, which provides:

Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within six calendar months of the date of the dismissal of the indictment or information, or, in the event of an appeal, within 60 days of the date the dismissal of the indictment or information becomes final, or, if no regular grand jury is in session in the appropriate jurisdiction when the indictment or information is dismissed, within six calendar months of the date when the next regular grand jury is convened, which new indictment shall not be barred by any statute of limitations. This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution. [Emphasis added.]

The linchpin here is the language which I have bolded, read in light of the following language from pages 19-20 of Judge Currie's order of dismissal:

Here, Mr. Comey contends Ms. Halligan’s unlawful appointment renders all her purported official actions void ab initio. ECF No. 60 at 25. He therefore argues the case must be dismissed because Ms. Halligan was not lawfully exercising executive power when she appeared before the grand jury alone and obtained his indictment. See id. I agree.

“When an appointment violates the Appointments Clause from the jump, the actor has ‘exercise[d] power that [she] did not lawfully possess.’” United States v. Giraud, No. 1:24-CR00768, 2025 WL 2196794, at *8 (D.N.J. Aug. 1, 2025) (Giraud I) (alterations in original) (quoting Collins, 594 U.S. at 258); see also Collins, 594 U.S. at 276 (Gorsuch, J., concurring in part) (explaining that when an officer is “unconstitutionally appointed,” “governmental action is taken by someone erroneously claiming the mantle of executive power — and thus taken with no authority at all”); id. at 266 (Thomas, J., concurring) (“[A]n officer must be properly appointed before he can legally act as an officer.”). In such a case, “the proper remedy is invalidation of the ultra vires action[s]” taken by the actor. United States v. Trump, 740 F. Supp. 3d 1245, 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2024). “Invalidation ‘follows directly from the government actor’s lack of authority to take the challenged action in the first place. That is, winning the merits of the constitutional challenge is enough.’” Id. (quoting Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. All Am. Check Cashing, Inc., 33 F.4th 218, 241 (5th Cir. 2022) (Jones, J., concurring)).

In light of these principles, I conclude that all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, constitute unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside. There is simply “no alternative course to cure the unconstitutional problem.” Trump, 740 F.Supp.3d at 1303. [boldface added]

The purported document(s) filed with the Court on September 25, 2025 were not indictments; they were nullities -- pieces of paper which were void ab initio, The applicable period of limitations expired at midnight on September 30, 2025. By its own terms, 18 U.S.C. § 3288 "does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations[.]" No such indictment was filed here.

Q.E.D.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice. "

If there was no indictment, what was she referring to?

[not guilty]

In context, the judge likely meant "purported indictment" or "pretended indictment."

[TwelveInchPianist]

Maybe that's what 3288 means too.

[Riva]

I do not accept your reasoning, NG. There was no failure to file the indictment within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations and there is nothing barring obtaining a new indictment. Your “logic” would prevent a statute that allows such new indictment following a dismissal for “any reason” from ever operating if the dismissal was due to the government attorney lacking proper authority, although there is no such exclusion and this circumstance certainly comes within “any.” “Some other reason” that would bar indictment would be something like the defendant’s immunity from prosecution, not the disqualification of the government attorney.

And as an aside, you’ve certainly changed your tone on dismissal as a remedy in this circumstance given your insistence that the same remedy ordered by judge cannon was grossly improper. Politics makes all the difference with you. So much for objective justice.

[not guilty]

The order by Judge Loose Cannon was lawless because it flouted controlling Supreme Court precedent. Had the appeal proceeded, it would almost surely have been reversed on vertical stare decisis grounds. Moreover, none of the statutes at issue there were involved here.

[Riva]

After I expose the error in your book length comment, you ignore my primary argument and respond by attacking my aside. I disagree with your criticism of judges cannon’s ruling. It was legally justified, in fact. Now your vertical stare decisis precluded what? The order ruling the appointment invalid or the remedy? You were adamant that a dismissal of the indictment was not a proper remedy in general, not on the basis of stare decisis as I recall.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The government argued that Pam Bondi ratified Halligan’s actions before the grand jury, which fixed any problems. The judge disagreed for multiple reasons, one of which was that Bondi lacked the ability to indict Comey “at the time the ratification was made” because when Bondi attempted to ratify Halligan’s actions, the statute of limitations had already expired. According to footnote 21 of the opinion: “[A] valid indictment insulates from statute-of-limitations problems any refiling of the same charges during the pendency of that valid indictment (that is, the superseding of a valid indictment). But if the earlier indictment is void, there is no legitimate peg on which to hang such a judicial limitations-tolling result.”

So according to the judge, the answer to your question is no. Or more precisely, they can refile, but the case would be thrown out and it’s possible the prosecutor filing the case would face sanctions.

[David Nieporent]

To the extent that the SOL acts as a bar, DOJ's only avenue is to appeal this decision. With respect to Letitia James, whose prosecution appears to not be time barred, they can just re-indict with someone who's actually legally in office. If they can find anyone willing to whore themselves out the way Halligan was so willing.

[Zarniwoop]

I think the gov't could at least try re-indictment under § 3288 (see below).

The argument would have to look something like:
1) § 3288 covers an indictment that is "dismissed for any reason" (emphasis added);
2) there was some indictment filed before the SOL, even if Halligan screwed up;
3) the judge's order even says "(5) The indictment is dismissed without prejudice"; so
4) the gov't has 6 months to refile.

I don't know enough about existing precedent regarding indictments that were void ab initio. Would welcome input from people with expertise on that aspect.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Footnote 21 cites three cases as precedent that the government cannot refile. I haven’t looked at the cites, but I’m guessing that they are sufficient to reject the argument you describe.

[Zarniwoop]

Yeah, I just encountered that while reading the full opinion. I haven't looked at the cites either, but assuming Judge Currie didn't include AI hallucinations, I definitely agree.

[Life of Brian]

Footnote 21 is part of the section on Bondi's ratification attempts, and all three of the cited cases concern superseding indictments that were filed after the SOL expired.

The first (Ojedokun) is just cited for a general statement of the law, and there the superseding indictment was found valid.

The other two both specifically discuss § 3288, and both say it didn't apply because the original, defective indictment hadn't been dismissed before the superseding indictment was filed.

So none of this appears to me to speak to the question of whether § 3288 is available now that the original indictment has actually been dismissed.

[Zarniwoop]

Thanks for looking into that, appreciate the thoughts.

[wvattorney13]

" there was some indictment filed before the SOL"

I don't have particular knowledge in this area, but I would expect the argument to take some form of "a void indictment is no indictment at all."

[Life of Brian]

Agree that appears to be their best argument given my post re § 3288 above.

A quick look revealed at least one case where the government re-indicted under § 3288 after the prior indictment was declared void (because the GJ's term apparently hadn't been properly extended).

Not my wheelhouse either, but it's not clear what principled distinction there might be between the underlying reasons why the indictment was held void.

[Riva]

Why do you think 18 U.S.C. § 3288 doesn't apply to give the government 6 months to file a new indictment, if they choose to go this route?

[Riva]

Labeling a professional woman you disagree with a "whore." Democrats are class acts.

Class acts with selective logic. Remember Judge Cannon's ruling and the hysteria over dismissal? Good times.

[Riva]

The statute of limitations is not a bar. You might want to consult 18 U.S.C. § 3288.

[windycityattorney]

Hmmm.... this is a very interesting question. Does a void indictment toll the statute of limitations that has now passed? I would have to venture a guess that this is the government's fuck up so the benefit should go to Comey. If the old indictment is void and a new one is beyond SOL...govt may be screwed.

Comey's defense team already has on file a motion to dismiss based on the SOL which I have not yet read...but perhaps the rule of lenity or something kicks in. The error on the government's part is not trivial so not sure if that factors into the analysis.

For example, say a natural disaster caused the grand jury to shut down before an indictment could be sought; it passes and they re-constitute the grand jury and they vote to indict but the vote comes a couple days after the SOL. No fault or bad faith on part of the govt... perhaps that one is allowed. Here the DOJ/executive branch intentionally made a bad appointment and extending the SOL to fix their fuck up seems like a stretch.

[David Nieporent]

It seems like the primary purpose of 3288 is to prevent a defendant from sandbagging the government by waiting until the statute of limitations is nearly up and then moving to dismiss, such that a new indictment would be time-barred. That's kind of different than a situation where the government waits until the last minute and then screws up this badly.

[Riva]

So, the text of 3288, provides "but in the kind of different situation where the government waits until the last minute and, according to some assholes, screws up badly, then this statute no longer applies"? Is that your argument you fucking moron?

[Zarniwoop]

1) a USAtty appointed by the District Court might not be all-in on trying to refile an indictment.

2) But if the USA does try to refile, the thing that might save the gov't posterior is 18 U.S.C. § 3288, which provides:

Indictments and information dismissed after period of limitations

Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within six calendar months of the date of the dismissal of the indictment or information, or, in the event of an appeal, within 60 days of the date the dismissal of the indictment or information becomes final, or, if no regular grand jury is in session in the appropriate jurisdiction when the indictment or information is dismissed, within six calendar months of the date when the next regular grand jury is convened, which new indictment shall not be barred by any statute of limitations. This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution.

That last sentence seems like it will be the focus of argument, specifically whether an indictment that was never operative is sufficient to get into § 3288 territory. The exact scenario here (void ab initio because there was no valid USA appointment, signature, etc.) could be a matter of first impression, and I'm not sure how it would play out. I expect talking heads will be giving a lot of interviews on this very subject in the next 24-48 hours.

[David Nieporent]

The grace period in § 3288 applies when there was an actual indictment. But a void indictment was never valid in the first place, so there's nothing for a new indictment to relate back to.

[Zarniwoop]

I tend to agree. But If I were the gov't I'd parse existing case law pretty thoroughly (not something this administration is noted for), and try to make an argument that "dismissed for any reason" means "any reason".

If Comey can point to clear precedent for "no grace period if void at the get-go", I concur that DOJ can't refile. I simply don't know what the case law looks like on this; I presume it's fairly atypical.

[Zarniwoop]

Now that I'm reading the full opinion, I see that Judge Currie addresses this topic at fn. 21:

Generally, “[t]he return of an indictment tolls the statute of limitations on the charges contained in the indictment.” United States v. Ojedokun, 16 F.4th 1091, 1109 (4th Cir. 2021). “An invalid indictment,” however, “cannot serve to block the door of limitations as it swings closed.” United States v. Crysopt Corp., 781 F. Supp. 375, 378 (D. Md. 1991) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Gillespie, 666 F. Supp. 1137, 1141 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (“[A] valid indictment insulates from statute-of-limitations problems any refiling of the same charges during the pendency of that valid indictment (that is, the superseding of a valid indictment). But if the earlier indictment is void, there is no legitimate peg on which to hang such a judicial limitations-tolling result.” (emphasis in original)).

So yah, that seems to slam the door on the § 3288 argument.

[David Nieporent]

So yah, that seems to slam the door on the § 3288 argument.

Though of course it's non-binding dicta; whether a new indictment would be valid is up to the judge presiding over the case.

(This motion was only assigned to Judge Currie because the issue is whether Halligan or a person appointed by the EDVA judges is the legitimate USA. For any other issue, the regular EDVA judge would decide it.)

[David Nieporent]

By the way, we've all been talking about whether a new indictment would be time-barred under § 3288. But even if it isn't, there's not remotely a guarantee that Halligan could successfully obtain a new indictment anyway. By all accounts, the two counts for which she managed to secure an indictment the first time were by a bare majority of the grand jury. A second grand jury might not be so generous to her.

(Though, to be fair, she has six months rather than six days to prepare a new grand jury presentation.)

[DDHarriman]

Democrats never face justice from other Democrats.

Their actions are too important. They are our Democracy Savers, after all, and Democrats saving Democracy is the highest command.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Tell that to Bob Menendez. And Rod Blagojevich. And Chakah Fatah. And Jesse Jackson Jr. and Corrine Brown. Etc.

[Ska]

I saw an op-ed from Blagovich in the WSJ a few months ago. It completely took me by surprise. It was odd enough to see him writing something that got published in the Journal. Then the real headscratcher: the opinion made sense.

[ducksalad]

Question for the Midwesterners here.

To those of us outside the area Blagojevich just looked like a brazenly corrupt politician who need to be taken out and put away. But then occasionally I hear someone from Illinois say, no, it was unfair, you've got him wrong.

Was there some redeeming feature, some brilliant act of leadership that makes them say that? Is there some possible good excuse we hadn't considered for selling a senate seat? Or is his behavior considered normal up there?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Don’t forget about mmmm
Mmmmmm
Mmmmmm
Barack Hussein Obama!

[Kenneth Almquist]

The corresponding opinion in the James case is here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.583342/gov.uscourts.vaed.583342.140.0_3.pdf

The opinions are very similar. The discussion of Bondi’s attempt to retroactively ratify the indictment omits the portion referencing the statute of limitations (since the statute of limitations hasn’t expired in the James case). James’s motions for an injunction was denied as moot (since the case was dismissed); there was no corresponding motion to deny in the Comey case.

[Poxigah146]

The idea that an invalid appointment means that anything he or she did is invalid is a joke.

As an example, the fact that a prosecutor was not actually a lawyer and eligible to prosecute doesn't mean that every conviction is automatically vacated, as long as the defendants still got constitutionally fair trials.

[David Nieporent]

As an example, the fact that a prosecutor was not actually a lawyer and eligible to prosecute doesn't mean that every conviction is automatically vacated, as long as the defendants still got constitutionally fair trials.

As another example, Aileen Cannon dismissed the Espionage Act case against Trump based on the purportedly invalid appointment of Jack Smith.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The Trump Administration is reacting about as you might expect. Pam Bondi says that the DoJ will appeal the ruling in both cases. The White House press secretary asserts, falsely, that “Everybody knows that James Comey lied to Congress.” She goes on to attack the judge and claim that Lindsey Halligan is “extremely qualified for this position.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/24/james-comey-letitia-james-indictments-dismissed-trump/87449991007/

[Ridgeway]

I have not heard much from C_XY and others lately regarding DOGE.

I wonder why?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/23/trump-musk-doge-reportedly-disbanded

[Sarcastr0]

I can tell you this is not true, except maybe in the most formalistic sense.

[Malika la Maize]

“A federal judge dismissed the indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday.”

Meritocracy attacked!

[Z Crazy]

The same judge?

[Zarniwoop]

yep. Halligan presented both indictments in EDVA, the legal issues regarding the Appointment Clause were the same, so the cases were consolidated on that one issue. Judge Currie held a single hearing. The consolidation part was pretty routine, and AFAIK no one objected. The opinions are nearly (but not exactly) the same.

[Bob from Ohio]

Hey David N, you were so concerned this scum had only an arrest record. Is 9 felonies a criminal record?

"Reed has 22 prior arrests since 2016 alone, and 53 criminal cases in Cook County dating back to 1993 — nine of them felonies for which he pleaded guilty, officials said.

However, he’s only served time twice, spending just two and a half years behind bars in total, according to CWB Chicago."

Read the whole article, maybe it will shame you and you might be concerned for victims. ha Ha, whom are I kidding, your a libertarian.

https://nypost.com/2025/11/23/us-news/bethany-magee-26-identified-as-chicago-woman-set-on-fire-on-cta-train-by-serial-thug-with-72-arrests/?utm_source=twitter&utm_social_post_id=593819668&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nypost&utm_social_handle_id=17469289

[David Nieporent]

Hey David N, you were so concerned this scum had only an arrest record.

False. I was complaining that nobody was telling us whether, how many times, and for what he might have been convicted. Now we know two of those three. I'd still like to know what the convictions were for — e.g., were they for violent crimes with victims, or not? In either case, the guy sounds like he maybe should've been committed some time ago rather than incarcerated.

[M L]

This is amazing. Countless loudmouth clowns on X revealed as some dipshit foreigner pretending to be American, real opinionated about American politics. Finally, the real foreign interference.

Elon Musk’s X Begins Labeling Account Locations, Revealing MAGA Division Is Being Pushed by Foreigners

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2025/11/24/elon-musks-x-begins-labeling-account-locations-revealing-maga-division-is-being-pushed-by-foreigners/

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, this is some pretty sad spin.

Sure, a lot of MAGA influencers were from overseas, but it was only the *bad* ones, trying to bring down MAGA from within!

I wonder if they include this ML character who was recently saying Trump had failed MAGA.

Anyhow, X has returned to not revealing locations for...reasons. But too late; MAGA is super united now!

[Bob from Ohio]

If most Dem senators won't return blue slips, half of the country's US attorney offices are effectively outside the President's control, the office controlled by judicial cronies.

I suggest closing the offices, take servers/hard drives back to DOJ main, change the locks, layoff the clerical staff, and re-assign the AUSAs to neighboring districts. No law says there has to be US criminal prosecutions in a given district. Maybe the judges will stop obstructing things then.

Think of al the backlogged civil cases the judges can clear!

[DDHarriman]

Blue slips are a tradition that needs to die.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Blue slips helped Republicans over the years, and now that Democrats are in the minority, it is problematic for some that they still have some bite. Oh well.

IMHO, blue slips are a potentially useful tool to delegate the "advise and consent" function to individual home senators.

They have their place up to a point. They should not be absolute bars. They are also open to abuse. When that happens, appropriate moves can be taken.

I supported, for instance, removing the filibuster for executive appointments. The process was getting unhinged.

[LawTalkingGuy]

LMAO.

Bob: death to criminals! Punish them all! Avenge the victims! JUSTICE!

Also Bob: dismantle the apparatus of federal criminal prosecution in blue states! No one needs to be prosecuted for serious sex, drug, gang, and white collar offenses!!

Cynical asshole doesn’t even begin to cover your depravity at this point! Also is there a bigger Pedocon policy win than shutting down local US Atty offices?

[Armchair]

Nah, you need to be more creative Bob.

See, what needs to happen is you look at the districts with conservative judges. Then, exactly 120 days before inauguration day, you tell each US attorney in each of those districts to resign. Then you reappoint them as an acting USA. Once the inauguration comes around....well, they can no longer serve. But...they'd be asked to resign anyway. But now, the district court can appoint the new acting USA. The administration can't. The 120 day limit has passed. And the district courts, well, they're quite familiar with the old acting USAs. So, they just reappoint them.

[David Nieporent]

If most Dem senators won't return blue slips, half of the country's US attorney offices are effectively outside the President's control, the office controlled by judicial cronies.

I suggest closing the offices,

I suggest that Donald Trump try nominating competent, ethical people.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHA!

But seriously…

[not guilty]

On yesterday's open thread, while discussing "chain of custody of a person", ThePublius made the curious assertion that someone "can be detained and transported on reasonable suspicion without being arrested, though there's a time limit on that."

I challenged him/her to any authority for the proposition that detention plus transportation can be justified merely upon reasonable suspicion. I received no response.

Has ThePublius gotten any smarter overnight? To reiterate the authorities I cited:

Detained in the sense of a Terry stop and frisk? Permissible if the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect was armed and dangerous. Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 63 (1968), citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

In construing the demands of the Fourth Amendment, courts have recognized three distinct types of police-citizen interactions: (1) a full scale arrest which must be supported by probable cause, see Brown v. Illinois 422 U.S. 590 (1975);  (2) a brief investigatory detention which must be supported by reasonable suspicion, see Terry v. Ohio, supra; and (3) brief police-citizen encounters which require no objective justification, see Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991).

“In order to determine whether a particular encounter constitutes a seizure, a court must consider all the circumstances surrounding the encounter to determine whether police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that the person was not free to decline the officer's request or otherwise terminate the encounter.” Bostick, 501 U.S. at 440.

"The application of the Fourth Amendment's requirement of probable cause does not depend on whether an intrusion of this magnitude is termed an 'arrest' under state law. The mere facts that petitioner was not told he was under arrest, was not 'booked,' and would not have had an arrest record if the interrogation had proved fruitless, while not insignificant for all purposes," are not dispositive of whether a seizure of the person requires probable cause. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 212 (1979).

How about it, Pubes?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Pubes.

[Armchair]

So, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie disqualified a US Attorney recently. Her argument was that

"In sum, the text, structure, and history of section 546 point to one conclusion: the Attorney General’s authority to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney lasts for a total of 120 days from the date she first invokes section 546 after the departure of a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney. If the position remains vacant at the end of the 120-day period, the exclusive authority to make further interim appointments under the statute shifts to the district court, where it remains until the President’s nominee is confirmed by the Senate."

(emphasis added).

That's fascinating. So, 120 days for an acting US Attorney (USA). Period. Then it's the court's decision. My thoughts instantly go to the the US attorney for DC. Specifically, Channing Phillips for the period from March 3, 2021 – November 5, 2021. Phillips was appointed as acting US Attorney for DC by the Biden administration. Not the district court. But....prior to Phillips, the DC USA was ALSO an acting USA. Michael Sherwin...for the period from May 19, 2020 – March 3, 2021. Which means...Channing Phillips nomination as an acting USA was illegal. The 120 day period had long passed. And most (if not all) of the decisions Phillips made as USA were illegitimate.

That of course is just one example, there may be more.

Anyone see any issues with this logic?

[not guilty]

This portends ill: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/russian-tanker-tries-to-run-away-as-u-s-navy-destroyer-blocks-path-to-venezuela/ar-AA1R3FEc?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=6924bf9d7ebf4332be93f921664c4476&ei=17

Why on earth does Donald Trump not man up and ask Congress to declare war on Venezuela?

[Armchair]

So, are you pro-Russia now? Sanctions, Russian tankers, eh... not important, right?

[not guilty]

No, I am not at all pro-Russia.

I am, however, strongly in favor of the rule of law, including the constitutional separation of powers.

I reiterate -- why on earth does Donald Trump not man up and ask Congress to declare war on Venezuela?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Biden made us energy dominant…Trump for some reason thinks it’s 2008 and Rubio is using that to manipulate him.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"... what I can tell you is that a con man is about to take over the Republican Party and the conservative movement and we have to put a stop to it ..."
He's a slippery one, that Rubio! A real rascal.

[apedad]

Trump Media stock crashes to all-time lows, wiping out $5B in first family wealth during crypto slide

Trump Media & Technology Group, the crypto and social media company controlled by members of the first family, has seen its stock price plummet to all-time lows — wiping out more than $5 billion in wealth for the Trumps as cryptocurrencies continue their slide.

Shares of Trump Media, which trades under the ticker DJT, have fallen nearly 70% this year — 34.6% of that just the past month, according to Barron’s.

https://nypost.com/2025/11/19/business/trump-media-stock-crashes-to-all-time-lows-wiping-out-5b-in-first-family-wealth-during-crypto-slide/

$5 BILLION loss?!?!?

#ETTD

[David Nieporent]

1) That's a loss of market cap, not an actual loss of money.
2) I don't think this is really an example of ETTD, because this was never alive in the first place. From the beginning it's been a joke of a business with essentially no business model or revenue.