Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Good night.

[not guilty]

The final paragraph of Judge Cameron McGowan Currie's order dismissing the indictment of James Comey because Lindsey Hooligan was improperly appointed states:

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.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135/gov.uscourts.vaed.582135.213.0.pdf

That opens the door for the judges in the Eastern District of Virginia to fill the vacancy. I surmise that they are likely to appoint an interim U. S. Attorney who will not be subservient to the Trump administration.

That should affect the course of future decisions regarding further efforts to prosecute Comey in Alexandria and Letitia James in Norfolk. The successor prosecutor could decide to proceed no further.

As Groucho Marx said, time wounds all heels.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That is a greater threat to the republic than Jan 6th ever could have been -- this is an attempted coup which must be crushed, although I presume it can be -- and will be -- appealed to SCOTUS.

What Trump should do is simply fire EVERY AUSA whom the "court" appoints, and if it takes firing every AUSA in the country, fine. There will be a whole crop of new grads in 6 months.

USAs are supposed to be subservient to the POTUS, be he Trump or Biden. Imagine this being done to Biden or Nobama...

Although Corrupt Comey getting let off by a corrupt court may be the best possible outcome: he will always be "the indicted" while never the "not guilty" James Comey and I think we all know how a jury trial there would go.

[Drewski]

Of course. The judge's parents clearly conspired with the 1966 Congress and Lyndon Johnson to pass a statute to overthrow the republic by means of (checks notes) giving courts the power to appoint interim attorneys until one is nominated and confirmed. Indeed, indeed.

"USAs are supposed to be subservient to the POTUS"

Of course, I recall in the Federalist Papers where it says, "The Congress shall confirm whomever the President nominates to ensure complete subservience, as our nation will not stand if executive subordinates are loyal to the Constitution instead of him, personally. We really want a king, actually."

[Dr. Ed 2]

So it isn't a violation of Congressional powers when a court does the same thing without approval?

We don't mind royal authority as long as they wear robes.

[Glaucomatose]

Congress approved it when it passed 28 U.S. Code § 546. Or do you think they didn't mean for that to apply to Trump?

[Moderation4ever]

Comey case more significant than what happened on January 6, 2021? Please be serious.

[DDHarriman]

Comey participated in a soft coup attempt against a sitting president.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No official action was prevented from happening, or even delayed more than 12 hours, because of December 6th.

Here, official governmental acts are being prevented from happening.

[Magister]

Dr. Ed 2, moving the goal posts a whole month!

[SRG2]

That is a greater threat to the republic than Jan 6th ever could have been

LOL, what a moronic comment

[Frank Drackman]

What else would you expect from a Moron?

[neurodoc]

Sorry to disappoint you, but If the indictment was legally defective, as the judge held it to be, then I think it wrong to say Comey was indicted.

[Poxigah146]

The only thing that is defective is the mental acumen of this 85 IQ judge.

[not guilty]

Poxigah146, how do you claim to know Judge Currie's IQ?

Or do you simply not care about truth or falsity?

[Commenter_XY]

Suppose a Team R Congress changes the laws you reference, and specifically does not allow judges to select and install Executive Branch members.

Legal? Constitutional?

[Martinned]

Why wouldn't it be? This doesn't strike me as a solution that is required by the Constitution somehow.

[Commenter_XY]

Might the referenced laws be unconstitutional?

The laws have the Judicial branch appointing and installing Executive branch employees, without congressional or executive branch input. That has just a whiff of separation of powers issues. But is it?

[OpinionsVary]

The problem with any separations of powers claim is the US constitution explicitly allows it.

> and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

As you can see here, it explicitly allows vesting the appointment of lesser officers in the Courts of Law. A high minded principle can't defeat the explicit text.

[wvattorney13]

That clause could easily be interpreted as being parallel to the branch of government it discusses. "Courts of law" could appoint officers who are part of the court system such as the clerk of courts. Department heads appoint only in their own department. The President appoints only executive officers, not judicial ones. They shouldn't appoint officers across departments.

[OpinionsVary]

It doesn't say that though. The plain meaning of the text is clear. You're reading requires adding words that just aren't there.

Also, your explanation is directly contradicted by the text. You say here that "The President appoints only executive officers, not judicial ones". But the inferior officer vesting power is something Congress *may* do, not must. So if Congress got rid of the law allowing the Courts of Law to appoint their own law clerks, the power would revert to the default officer mode - nomination by the president and consent of the senate. No judicial branch at all. Instead its the president again.

[wvattorney13]

Many obvious things are not explicitly said, but implied by context and common sense.

Under your reading, Congress could say that the head of the social security department in Roswell, NM gets to appoint every court clerk in the U.S. District Courthouse in Key West, FL.

[OpinionsVary]

Congress can do many silly things, yes, but just because something is a bad idea does not mean it is unconstitutional. Congress could, for example, refuse to allow the US's standing army and make it go away entirely. That would be disastrous for US security but there's no debate that Congress could do it. It's right there in the constitution. Likewise, Congress's power to allow cross branch appointments of inferior officers is also right there in the constitution. The system relies on Congress using that power in sensible ways. If they don't, the solution is electing better people of Congress.

[David Nieporent]

Congress can do many silly things, yes, but just because something is a bad idea does not mean it is unconstitutional.

The joking example we used to use of this was declaring war on Canada. Unfortunately, that joke hits too close to home in the current era.

[wvattorney13]

This is just question begging. If a person says that bringing up children is the responsibility of "parents and teachers" do you insist that the person is advocating a mash pit whereby teachers are setting rules and home and parents are setting rules at school?

Or do you interpret things reasonably and fairly such that parents do parent things and teachers do teacher things? Your reading of this provision is not supported. You are acknowledging the flaw in it but saying it has to be that way because it is that way. That's question begging.

[not guilty]

Suppose a Team R Congress changes the laws you reference, and specifically does not allow judges to select and install Executive Branch members.

Legal? Constitutional?

Without having done a deep dive here, I don't see any constitutional impediment to that.

[PaulS]

Question:- Could anyone charged by this attorney obtain recusal of the judges in this district as they had a roll in the attorneys appointment? How is this different from a judge donating to an attorneys campaign etc? I would think it is pretty clear they would not appoint someone who would bring false charges against someone. Seems like the process creates a taint of bias. How could a person so appointed possibly serve?

[not guilty]

Recusal of a federal judge is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 455. Subsection (a) of the statute provides, "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The remainder of the statute lists specific circumstances where recusal is appropriate, none of which applies to this hypothetical.

Decisions as to what defendants and what offenses to charge in federal court are made by a grand jury as to felonies and a grand jury or a prosecutor with the approval of a United States Magistrate as to misdemeanors. A presumption of regularity supports such prosecutorial decisions and, "in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties." United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996), quoting United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U. S. 1, 14-15 (1926).

That presumption of regularity attaches no matter how the prosecutor has been selected. I would think that the participation by one district judge, among several in the district, in selecting a prosecuting attorney is far too attenuated to reasonably call the judge's impartiality into question.

[Riva]

No. Another unbalanced political opinion and order that will ultimately be reversed. With the judge’s opening gratuitous insults to Halligan, reasoned objective analysis was unlikely to follow. Section 546(d) is offensive enough to the separation of powers as it is and the court’s interpretation compounds the matter. Statutes should not be interpreted to create constitutional conflicts.

But, as an aside, NG has apparently gotten over the fake “outrage” he expressed at judge cannon’s dismissal of the thug Smith’s indictment, something he claimed repeatedly was an improper remedy. But consistent with the above, when politics informs legal analysis.

[OpinionsVary]

How can there be a constitutional problem with such court appointments when the US constitution explicitly allows the vesting of the appointment of lesser officers in the courts of law?

> and [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

[Riva]

the court’s reading of the statute that limits the AG’s statutory appointment authority and empowers the courts to supplant the executive’s choice with the courts preferred prosecutor in this case raises the matter to new levels of error.

[OpinionsVary]

I think you've misread the clause. Federal judges aren't lesser officers. That is correct. It's also irreverent.

The federal judges constitute the 'courts of law' mentioned in the clause. And that clause allows Congress 'as they think proper' to vest the appointment of lesser officers in the president alone, the courts of law or the heads of departments. In this case they vested it in the A.G. for the first 120 days and, after that, the Courts of Law (specifically the district judges). The 'lesser officer' being appointed is the the interim U.S. Attorney, not the judge.

We might then ask are interim U.S. Attorneys 'lesser officers'. And I think the answer here must be yes. Because if they weren't, then it would be unconstitutional not just for the Courts of Law to appoint them but also the head of department (in this case the Attorney General). And I don't think anyone is questioning the ability of the the Attorney General to make the appointments in the first 120 days?

Edit: Riva's original post had a bit about judges not being inferior officers. It was edited and removed, hence why this post may read as a bit of a strange response.

[Riva]

My post is above. A typo in a draft was not my post. I had thought about an argument that a US Attorney was not properly within the subset of inferior officers that courts could constitutionally be empowered to appoint, if they were inferior officers, but then wanted to comment later. So the draft was corrected.

And you otherwise ignore my main argument.

But since you have shown that you will not engage in an honest reasonable conversation, this matter is now concluded.
F off.

[David Nieporent]

Your main argument is one that ignores the actual text of the constitution in favor of reading imaginary words into it.

[Riva]

I doubt you actually understand my main argument. Regarding the constitutional text, I rely on an interpretation consistent with the separation of powers. Inter-branch appointments are not that thing. The judiciary should not be appointing executive officers.

[OpinionsVary]

It's a perverse interpretation where the plain text of the constitution is subordinate to principles that only exist in its penumbra.

[Riva]

The separation of powers is not a "penumbra" invented by judicial activists. It is a structural principle based on the Constitution’s text and architecture that was discussed and explained in the Federalist Papers and has been part of constitutional jurisprudence since Marbury v Madison.

[OpinionsVary]

So it's not a penumbra. It's just a principle not explicitly stated in the text but which can be derived as a general theme by the powers and structure of the US constitution in other places. Which isn't a penumbra. Because reasons.

[Bwaaah]

Sounds kind of penumbra-ish to me.

[Riva]

No. Rather it sounds like the above commenters have no understanding of constitutional basics and are proud to loudly proclaim their ignorance. The term "penumbra" relates to an invented doctrine to create implied rights that emanate or are suggested by constitutional text. The separation of powers is a defining characteristic of our constitutional structure upon which Marbury is based. The constitutional allocation of government authority is not some loony implied rights doctrine from the 60s.

Why the above two children are arguing this matter with such a limited and superficial understanding of the Constitution is perplexing. Although the smart children usually try to understand their errors.

[not guilty]

"The separation of powers is not a 'penumbra' invented by judicial activists."

Actually, it is penumbral. The phrase "separation of powers" does not appear in the constitution. The doctrine has developed from judicial interpretations of the structure of the Constitution itself, dividing federal responsibilities among three different branches of government.

One definition of "penumbra" is "a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penumbra So the doctrine of separation of powers actually is penumbral.

In his famed concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952), Justice Robert Jackson opined:

The actual art of governing under our Constitution does not, and cannot, conform to judicial definitions of the power of any of its branches based on isolated clauses, or even single Articles torn from context. While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity. Presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress. We may well begin by a somewhat over-simplified grouping of practical situations in which a President may doubt, or others may challenge, his powers, and by distinguishing roughly the legal consequences of this factor of relativity.

The necessary and proper clause of Article I, § 8 applies not only to the enumerated powers listed in that section, but also authorizes Congress to legislate as to "all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

[Riva]

I'm not sure I quite understand what is going on here but it may explain some rather confused comments on constitutional cases that occasionally appear here. The separation of powers did not develop from judicial interpretations. It inheres in the structure of the constitution. It is explained in the Federalist Papers and was recognized (not created) in the subsequent jurisprudence of the S.Ct., most notably in Marbury v Madison, which is fundamentally based on separation of powers. What is the point here? Are you all rejecting Marbury v Madison? Are you claiming that that the separation of powers is just a doctrine, like the "penumbra" stupidity of the 60s that we can just move past? Sorry, as noted below, no separation of powers, no Constitution. It is fundamental. And I would add, foundational.

[not guilty]

Actually, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a result oriented power grab by Chief Justice Marshall, who as Secretary of State had failed to deliver William Marbury's commission before leaving office. Marshall wanted to uphold the validity of the commission, but was apprehensive that his cousin, President Thomas Jefferson, would simply ignore the ruling.

Marshall issued what amounted to an advisory opinion that the commission was valid and that James Madison's refusal to deliver Marbury's commission was illegal, but he ruled that the Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority by expanding the definition of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction beyond what was originally set forth in the U.S. Constitution. The Court then struck down section 13 of the Judiciary Act, declaring for the first time that federal courts have the power to invalidate laws that they find to violate the Constitution—a power now known as judicial review. No court had previously so ruled as to any act of Congress.

Contrary to Riva's blather, the separation of powers doctrine did indeed develop from judicial interpretations. Marshall wanted to gig the political opposition, but in a manner that the President could not circumvent.

[Riva]

So, you reject that Marbury derives from the Separation of Powers? Let this response be a testament to your constitutional “knowledge.” By the way, if you think the courts invented the separation of powers you might want to read the Federalist Papers. Some Montesquieu wouldn’t hurt either.

[David Nieporent]

The "separation of powers" is an inference you have drawn from other provisions; those words do not appear in the constitution. But inter-branch appointments expressly do appear in the constitution.

[Riva]

It is not a mere inference. It is a direct and structural element of the Constitution which explicitly vests different powers in distinct branches of government. No separation of powers. No constitution. It is fundamental.

[David Nieporent]

It’s literally an inference; the words aren’t there. That you think the inference is correct — or even obvious — doesn’t mean it isn’t an inference. But in fact virtually all powers in the constitution are actually shared between branches.

One might as well argue that the president can’t veto bills because legislating (as the name says!) is a legislative function and thus it violates the “separation of powers” in the “structure” of the constitution for the president to do it.

that is a legislative f

[Riva]

Let’s make this simple. A three story building has by definition, three stories. It wouldn’t be a three story building without three stories and the sign in front doesn’t need to read “this is a three story” building. Even absent the sign, it’s still a three story building, but wouldn’t be without the three stories.

And that there are prescribed functions for each branch does not defeat the constitutional plan. And that plan does not include the judicial making executive appointments.

[David Nieporent]

But this is actually a split-level house, with rooms between the levels. And… the metaphor breaks down at that point. Again: virtually all powers in the constitution are actually shared between two or more branches.

Your claims about the "structure" are based on a grammar school simplistic understanding: the legislature makes the laws, the executive enforces the laws, and the judiciary interprets the laws. That's fine for fourth graders. But in reality, the branches combine to do each of those things. The legislative power? The legislature and president combine to enact laws. The executive power? The president and legislature combine to appoint people. They combine to determine foreign policy and wage war.

There are only a very small handful of things in the constitution that fit your rigid model. Pardons are one; that's truly an exclusive executive power. Impeachments are another: purely a legislative power.

[Riva]

No, it must definitely is not a “split level” house. The architecture calls for three branches. While our plan may provide checks and balances between the branches, it is not in any way accurate to describe this as a government structure where “ virtually all powers in the constitution are actually shared between two or more branches.” That is consummate ignorance that would fail even a fourth grader, assuming such an ill educated child did exist. Although I admit there are some federal judges who like to playact as co-Chief Executives and Commanders in Chief, and even legislators from time to time.

[Riva]

Comment moved

[Riva]

Comment removed

[Riva]

And, for the benefit of any non-trolls or anyone here actually interested in a reasonable exchange (are there any? not usually), I note footnote 2 of Justice Thomas' dissent in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. regarding the questionable constitutionality of inter-branch appointments:

Although this Court has held that Congress may sometimes vest the courts with the power to appoint inferior executive officers, Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 673–677 (1988), I doubt that such “inter-branch”appointments are consistent with the original understanding of the separation of powers. See In re Sealed Case, 838 F. 2d 476, 489–496 (CADC 1988) (Silberman, J.).

[Bunny495]

Dismissed without prejudice. Does anyone really doubt once the flunky judge appoints is kicked to the curb Comey will face charges?

[Area Man]

The judges are going to appoint a new USA, and Trump will immediately fire him or her, which everyone agrees he has the power to do. Who takes over then?

I really wish Congress would pass some legislation--I'll wait for you to stop laughing--to fix what is a colorable separation-of-powers problem, if not legally (which it arguably is) at least practically.

[OpinionsVary]

"Who takes over then?"

Ignoring for the sake of argument the other paths to appointment like naming a special attorney, a resumption of recess appointments or the vacancies act, surely the answer is 'no one' and that's constitutionally okay.

The problem goes away as soon as Trump gets a USA confirmed by the senate. Trump has no inherent right have have an USA without that approval; it's the constitutional default, after all, for both higher and inferior officers. Vesting appointments of inferior officers are by statute after all. If Trump doesn't like what that current statute says or we get into a pingpong war where the courts appoint and Trump dismisses then I guess there's just no USA until Congress gets done giving its consent.

[wvattorney13]

"The judges are going to appoint a new USA, and Trump will immediately fire him or her, which everyone agrees he has the power to do. Who takes over then?"

This is why I believe that the cross-branch appointments are inconsistent with the design of Constitution.

[bernard11]

I don't get the whole issue here.

Suppose the court appoints someone. Then Trump still has the power to fire that person and appoint someone else, subject to confirmation.

The cross-branch appointments seem like a sensible safeguard to prevent the President from appointing a continuing series of interim USA's, thereby dodging the confirmation requirement.

Rather than violating separation of powers it looks like this provision protects it, by preventing the President from usurping the confirmation power.

[bernard11]

By the way, am I the only one experiencing major problems with the slowness of the site?

At times it is almost unusable.

[not guilty]

"I really wish Congress would pass some legislation--I'll wait for you to stop laughing--to fix what is a colorable separation-of-powers problem, if not legally (which it arguably is) at least practically."

Congress has done so. Pub. L. 89–554, § 4(c), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 617.

And it is not a colorable separation-of-powers problem. As other commenters have pointed out, under Article II, § 2," the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." And the necessary and proper clause of Article I, § 8 applies not only to the enumerated powers listed in that section, but also authorizes Congress to legislate as to "all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

[Area Man]

That doesn’t address the separation-of-powers issue. Would it not be a separation-of-powers problem for the Secretary of Agriculture to appoint the Clerk of the Supreme Court or Senate Parliamentarian? Even assuming the Constitution allows that (arguable), that doesn’t mean it’s not a practical problem, especially if—as with USAs—the head of the respective branch (e.g., the President) can just fire whoever the other branch chooses for the job.

There should either be a clear line of succession within a USA office and/or a system whereby another Senate-confirmed DOJ official takes over until a new USA is confirmed. Inter-branch appointments cause too many issues.

[Kazinski]

Devastating campaign add on the affordability crises, authoritarianism, and the challenges for younger people.

I think they will be able to keep it off the airways though.

https://x.com/boot15_vu/status/1993237448319811872?s=20

[Dr. Ed 2]

We need to bring back Radio Free Europe...

[Martinned]

Don't worry, Radio Free Europe still exists. Just because the US Regime is no longer interested in promoting liberty, doesn't mean others aren't.

[DDHarriman]

Why does the US need to promote liberty in Europe?

Oh, nevermind I just checked the Telegraph headlines. European Whites are being systematically genocided.

[Malika la Maize]

“Why does the US need to promote liberty in Europe?”

For the same reason we started that program, because Russia is actively promoting the opposite.

[Sarcastr0]

This doesn't just echo, it's precisely on-point the old America First

[DDHarriman]

So I guess you support the current stance where we are monitoring Europe for anti-civilization behaviors.

[NvEric]

So, the rest Europe responds internally with Russian tactics ? Russia is the fallback when 'racist' can't be used. The enemy is not any country, but ideologies promoting division and discord.

Europe never understood 'liberty' and work to keep it away.
Liberty = Napoleon

[Malika la Maize]

Russia plainly is pushing for their undemocratic interests in Europe, just as they did in the USSR days. Luckily Truman didn’t listen to appeasers and surrender monkeys like you back in the day, and hopefully we won’t stop countering them in Europe today.

[Frank Drackman]

Should you really be using "Monkeys" as an Insult?? I know, I'm an imaginary made up character in my Mom's basement, and I don't write good Engrish. Still, a Professor lost his job for (Correctly) using the word "Niggardly" which I was surprised had nothing to do with um, you know, Niggards. Unfortunately, he used it in front of a class of Niggards, (who was the Comedian (Richard Pryor??) who did the "Impression of a White Guy telling a Nigger Joke" where he dramatically looked both ways first?

Frank

[not guilty]

"European Whites are being systematically genocided."

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

[Stephen Lathrop]

Dialogue among natural persons is capable to become politically relevant, on almost any topic whatever. How does that compare with dialogue featuring AI interjections? Is that even capable of any political relevance, except on the topic whether the AI content ought to be admitted at all?

[NvEric]

Does AI engage by responding to people within the framework of the programmer's program ?

AI is a misnomer at best. To write a program to think is impossible or would require as much ability or inability as a human - the ability to reason whether responding is worthwhile or not. Economics, the cost assessment taken before writing and during composition may never be programmed, because that's what people do, so I think.

[ReaderY]

The problem is that reasoning, and political argument, can be simulated.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky feuded on social media on Tuesday with Vice President JD Vance, a key player in the ongoing talks, scolding him in a series of posts for defending an emerging deal that Mr. McConnell argued would not secure Ukraine and would play into Russia’s hands.

“A deal that rewards aggression wouldn’t be worth the paper it’s written on,” Mr. McConnell, the longest-serving Senate Republican leader and one of his party’s most vocal proponents of American support for Kyiv, wrote in conclusion. “America isn’t a neutral arbiter, and we shouldn’t act like one.”

There was some concern about who was calling the tune:

But several G.OP. lawmakers were alarmed when Secretary of State Marco Rubio told senators over the weekend that it was a Russia-led proposal, before backpedaling and saying it was a U.S. document.

https://archive.ph/wK8N6

Various Republicans are quite critical. Maybe, McConnell -- if he didn't want such Russia-centric efforts -- he shouldn't have spent so much effort aiding and abetting someone he once denounced as taking part in an insurrection. Trump's approach here was foreshadowed during the 2016 campaign.

The White House envoy leaves something to be desired.

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/11/ive-said-it-before-the-realtor-who-sold-my-house-could-do-better-than-this

OTOH, there is Jared Kushner, who is back on the scene.

Is Ivanka Trump still sitting things out to stop being shunned by polite company?

[Commenter_XY]

RUS has won this war. That is too bad; nonetheless, it is reality. It is over, but for the shouting. RUS can have the corrupt kleptocrats of UKR.

USA needs to think about the day after. What does a newly energized RUS bear do now that their industrial base is spun up for military production? What does the US do?

[Martinned]

RUS has won this war.

Has it? Then why does it need the US Regime to bully the Ukrainian government into giving it Ukrainian territory it hasn't already conquered?

[Armchair]

Maybe if you stopped funding Russia's war effort by buying so much of their natural gas....

[Riva]

Maybe you’d prefer the war continue until the last Ukrainian dies?

[Frank Drackman]

it's 34F (the Native Amuricans call it 1 "Celsius") in Brussels, and you're sitting on your Fat Ass (I admit Europeans aren't as Fat as Amuricans, you're the exception) in your Tony Flat (I'm not really sure what "Tony" means, but I'm sure your Flat is "Tony") Probably got the Heat cranked up to umm, what's a ridiculously high temperature Old Fat Fucks keep their Tony Flats at?? 27? Tell me your Thermostat isn't set at 27C.
Where was I? Oh yeah, your Tony Flat, heated with Roosh-un Oil.
And don't tell me about Solar, you're getting rain for the next week, (HT AlGores Interwebs)

Frank

[ducksalad]

It's centigrade, dammit.

[ThePublius]

No, it's Celsius, dammit!

"Centigrade and Celsius are the same temperature scale, but "Celsius" is the official and modern name adopted in 1948, while "centigrade" is an older term derived from the Latin for "100 steps"."

"In 1948, the International Committee for Weights and Measures[3] renamed it to honor Celsius and also to remove confusion with the term for one hundredth of a gradian in some languages."

[Life of Brian]

Surely I'm not the only one that remembers Super Celsius!

[Mr. Bumble]

The system that rules the world.
Hahahahahahaha.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Surely I'm not the only one that remembers Super Celsius!"

Incredible video.

[ducksalad]

So now you're some kind of cosmopolitan international law Euroweenie?

Any true MAGA would stop reading after the words "International Committee..."

[Life of Brian]

I personally see no downside to accurately identifying the measurement system we rejected. 😀

[Sarcastr0]

You don’t think it’s too bad. You’ve been rooting for Russia this whole time.

And if they won, then this deal wouldn’t be needed.

[Commenter_XY]

That's BS = rooting for RUS

I said the following, from the very start, Fool Sarcastr0:

UKR is not worth a single US life; not one.

UKR is not, and never was, a vital US national interest

UKR is neither an EU member, nor a NATO member (and never will be in NATO, thankfully)

UKR does not have a shared history with the US; in contrast, UKR does have a shared history with RUS going back 1K years.

UKR is the second-most corrupt country in europe (only RUS more corrupt). RUS can have UKR's corruption; enjoy the booby prize.

UKR leadership has already pilfered hundreds of millions (if not billions) of US tax dollars by skimming military and infrastructure aid. Zelensky is reputed to have quite a nice beach home in Egypt.

UKR did, in fact, enthusiastically participate in the Shoah. There is historical antisemitism there, and quite a lot of it. Azov brigade, anyone?

Who, in their right mind, ever thought that UKR had a realistic chance at defeating RUS? Maybe you did, Fool. UKR never had a chance (and I told you and Professor Post precisely that); and, since The Cauliflower was incapacitated (more or less), RUS took their shot in 2022...and they have won on the field of battle. RUS just wore down UKR in a hellacious meat grinder war. As I said they would.

The Cauliflower, Jake Sullivan, Burns, and their whole Nat Sec team were a complete and utter failure.

Maybe you need to recalibrate your vibe-o-meter.

And start thinking about what a newly re-industrialized RUS might eye next, and how the USA might forestall that w/o firing a shot.

[Malika la Maize]

You could say nearly all of these things about Israel yet you support US support for them.

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess you could say all those things of Israel, in the sense that you could manipulate your mouth and vocal cords to make the appropriate noises.

They wouldn't all be true, though.

[Malika la Maize]

XY has conceded Israel isn’t a vital national interest. It’s hard not too, our support for Israel hurts us with nations that are certainly in our national interest.* Israel certainly has corruption troubles, it’s not in NATO. Israel’s shared history with us isn’t much stronger than Ukraines. Etc.

*I personally think it’s often worth it because it’s right or aligned with our values, but XY is trying to style himself as a realist, it’s just he’s a selective one.

[Armchair]

Why instantly switch to Israel though? What is it about the Jews that does this to you people.

[Malika la Maize]

Because XY is a huge supporter of Israel and very analogous. Nice try though!

[Commenter_XY]

I am certainly a huge supporter of Israel and no, Queenie, the two situations are not analogous.

[Malika la Maize]

You conceded yesterday Israel is not in our vital national interest. Is Israel in NATO? Does it not have serious corruption issues?

[Sarcastr0]

We all remember when you said you were holding a grudge against Ukraine based on their WW2 era treatment of the Jews. So quit with the eyewash.

But yeah, I don't think Russia's victory is assured. That's why the US's deal is so shit.
Russia's got their own set of problems. Wartime economies are not sustainable forever. It'd be nicer if we hadn't stopped our own assistance based on Trump's Steve Witkoff orchestrated pique, but even without that Russia's been stymied for years now.

RUS just wore down UKR in a hellacious meat grinder war. As I said they would.
Did you know you can search VC posts by date?
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/02/28/thoughts-on-the-war-in-ukraine/?comments=true#comments

If there is still fighting in Ukraine by St. Patrick's Day, and there is no cease fire agreement....then I will know the communists have a problem on their hands and it will be time to think in terms of a hard slog where we can make it much more painful.

For those playing along at home, Michael P's flip on support for Ukraine is notable.

[DDHarriman]

holding a grudge against Ukraine based on their WW2 era treatment of the Jews.

You'd think the Jewish-led Holodomor would've satisfied his bloodlust for Christians & White working class.

[Commenter_XY]

Here we are, 3.5 years later, Foolish Man of Vibes. I told you from the start, what would happen. It was a meat grinder. This was an epic foreign policy failure.

It is entirely possible that The Cauliflower's NatSec team made the calculation to fight RUS down to the very last UKR soldier, and forestall a larger military action including NATO. Countries have interests, not friends. Senator Romney alluded to that at the time. I was right then, and I am right now.

UKR is not worth a single American life. And it never was.

UKR is a problem for people like Eurotrash; surely, europe can fix this problem in their own backyard. Maybe they can start by stopping purchasing RUS oil and gas; the US stands ready to replace it.

[Sarcastr0]

You didn't think it would be a meat grinder, you thought Russia would win quickly. In the linked thread you also exhorted people not to trust the media about Russia getting bogged down. Which was the RT line at the time, IRRC.

From those early days, you didn't want the US assisting Ukraine directly. Which makes your 'so sad but Russia totally won' today look quite disingenuous.

And the kicker is you said Ukraine deserves being conquered because of how they treated the Jews after WW2. Which is a pretty bad motive!

You have been quite inconsistent in your statements except always seeking policies that favored Russia. You want to appear an honest broker when you never were that.

[Commenter_XY]

I still don't want the US assisting UKR directly Foolish Man of Vibes; note, there is no issue selling weaponry to our NATO allies, who can then give the weaponry to UKR if they want. But we (America) get paid upfront.

From the start, I said it wasn't our fight. It wasn't, and still isn't.

Will there be a peace agreement? We'll see. The kleptocrats behind Zelensky have a sweet deal, skimming weaponry and re-selling it. Will they give it up? LMAO. Sure they will. They will just change the patch on their uniform and continue the corruption. Personally, I am not going to weep very much over one country of corrupt kleptocrat losers fighting (and winning) a war with another country of corrupt kleptocrat losers. They are made for each other.

We've also seen over the last 3.5 years that NATO would destroy RUS on the field of battle in a straight up conventional war. They cannot match us. Putin is acutely aware of this.

Just remember, Foolish Man of Vibes, there will be a day after, and the USA still needs a modus vivendi with RUS, when this is over with.

[Absaroka]

"Here we are, 3.5 years later"

And so? Wars can last a long time. It's not like a timer goes Ding! and one side has to surrender. The Iran-Iraq war lasted 8ish years ... when would you have compelled surrender (and which side)? Should England have surrendered 3.5 years into the Napoleonic wars? Our own war of independence lasted 8 years, and 3.5 years in things looked pretty bleak for the much smaller country trying to fend off its global superpower opponent.

3.5 years into WWI Russia had just bowed out ... all those German troops were now freed up for the Western Front. Surely the Allies should have just taken whatever deal the Germans offered at that point.

[Bob from Ohio]

"WW2 era treatment of the Jews"

It did not start with WW2. Ukrainians have been murdering and abusing Jews for 500 years.

[bernard11]

It did not start with WW2. Ukrainians have been murdering and abusing Jews for 500 years.

As have the Russians.

And our allies the Poles.

This whole argument is so patently ridiculous and ignorant it's hard to believe anyone takes it seriously.

[Michael P]

For those playing along at home, Michael P's flip on support for Ukraine is notable.

Where the fuck did that come from?

[not guilty]

Hmmm. A hit dog will holler.

https://linguaholic.com/linguablog/a-hit-dog-will-holler/

[TwelveInchPianist]

Like you holler when accused of racism? Or antisemitism?

[not guilty]

Such accusations of racism or anti-semitism are false. Sometimes I point that out; sometimes I don't.

Michael P doesn't rebut Sarcastr0's suggestion of his flip on support for Ukraine; he simply kvetches about having been called out.

FWIW, no one has ever suggested that I have been inconsistent in despising Clarence Toady.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Such accusations of racism or anti-semitism are false. Sometimes I point that out; sometimes I don't."

Lol. It doesn't count because you only sometimes holler?

"Michael P doesn't rebut Sarcastr0's suggestion of his flip on support for Ukraine"

What's to rebut? An assertion without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Michael P]

I meant it pretty literally, you muppet. I had not written anything in this thread, or much about Ukraine recently at all.

To make my position clear, briefly: I wish Ukraine would win this war, and that it could regain its 2013 borders. It reality, it's losing a war of attrition and I think its negotiating position gets weaker as that goes on (see, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_control_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_war ). Russia is absolutely the bad guy in the conflict, and it undermines its talk about wanting a buffer against the West by trying to gobble up territory from that buffer -- but it has the population, and willingness to get them killed, to grind through Ukraine.

[Josh R]

You claim that Russia won the war. And yet, they have not even occupied all of the eastern sections of Ukraine let alone taken over the rest of the country (their goal was to at least install a puppet regime in Kyiv).

As to American interests, Poland, Finland and the Baltic States are in our interests. Russian taking over Kyiv threatens those interests.

[bernard11]

UKR did, in fact, enthusiastically participate in the Shoah.

Indeed, the US should never ally itself with countries that participated in the Shoah. Nicht wahr?

[David Nieporent]

UKR is not, and never was, a vital US national interest

This framing — even if true — completely misunderstands the entire situation. It’s not whether Ukraine is a vital interest. It’s whether stopping Russian aggression is.

Poland wasn’t a vital national interest to France and/or the UK in 1939, but containing Germany was.

[DDHarriman]

I was rooting for the ethnic Russians in southern and southeastern Ukraine who were being genocided by Azov NAZI's and the State Department's puppets installed by State/Soros during their color revolution... Azov NAZI's atleast one group of out & proud NAZI's that are loved by the modern Left.

[DDHarriman]

Don't many modern wars ended in deals between the winners and the losers?

[SRG2]

Yes. What's unusual is that the US is trying to force one side into accepting that they've lost because that's what the other side has told the US that this is what they want.

[Commenter_XY]

Are you asserting UKR can defeat RUS on the field of battle? Well if you are, maybe europe can help by deporting all military age UKR males from their countries back to UKR to fight and win the war. I figure there are roughly 1MM deportable young UKR men that can be fed to the RUS human meatgrinder. That is what you want? Pretty ghoulish. You're now in Sarcastr0 territory. 😉

Or, are you making the equally silly assertion that Putin has some magical 'hold' over The Donald? And SecState Rubio? And the Joint Chiefs of Staff? And whomever else. LOL, sure.

[SRG2]

Are you asserting UKR can defeat RUS on the field of battle?

No. I am asserting that although Ukraine has not lost the war, Russia is telling the US to support a peace deal that pretty much says that they have lost. This is factually true.

That is what you want? Pretty ghoulish.

Why do you support the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? I think that's pretty disgusting of you.

[Bob from Ohio]

If "they" means Russia, it is not "factually true".

[SRG2]

Obviously it means Ukraine and so it is factually true.

[CountmontyC]

The time to protect Ukraine from Russia was before the invasion. If the USA had sent large amounts of defensive weaponry before Russia had invaded and made it clear that an invasion would be very costly to Russia it might have deterred Russia from invading. Instead Biden signaled weakness by talking about how a small incursion might be met with minor punishment by the USA and NATO allies. Once the invasion beganit became a forgone conclusion that without active military support ( troops on the ground) that eventually Russia would win as they are much larger in population and military.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Let's not forget the "invasion" happened in 2014. Talk about signaling weakness! I don't know why the Russians should have expected us to act differently in 2022.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don't know why the Russians should have expected us to act differently in 2022."

President of 2014 did nothing, his VP and self proclaimed foreign policy expert hinted in 2022 he would do nothing if it was a "minor incursion".

[David Nieporent]

He did not remotely hint that he "would do nothing."

[CountmontyC]

His exact quote
"I think what you're going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do."

That at the very least suggests a "minor incursion" would not have severe consequences and projected weakness at a time that we should have projected strength.

[David Nieporent]

eventually Russia would win as they are much larger in population and military.

Was it inevitable that the U.S. would eventually win the Vietnam war as it was much larger in population and military? How about the U.S. winning in Afghanistan? How about the Russians in Afghanistan? How about the UK winning the American Revolution for the same reason?

[CountmontyC]

If the USA had fought to win instead of just holding the line yes the USA would have won. There is also the difference of bordering a country vs projecting power over 3000 miles away.

[David Nieporent]

Even if your goalposts weren't moving faster than Elon Musk on crack, they wouldn't apply to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

[CountmontyC]

Russia did win in Afghanistan as far as the invasion went and controlled most of the nation for nearly a decade while facing a guerilla war. Do you see Ukraine being able to pull off a protracted guerilla war? As to the Revolutionary War an entire ocean separated the two nations during a time when crossing that ocean took weeks on sailing vessels. And you might notice that neither during the Russian Invasion of Afghanistan nor during the Revolutionary War was Russia or Britain in any danger of being attacked. Also in the Revolutionary War there were slightly more American casualties than British. If the British had gone all out and been willing to pay the price they may well have won

[not guilty]

"Russia did win in Afghanistan as far as the invasion went and controlled most of the nation for nearly a decade while facing a guerilla war."

Has any invading power ever "won" in Afghanistan?

The British didn't. The Soviets/Russians didn't. The Americans didn't.

[not guilty]

"If the USA had fought to win instead of just holding the line yes the USA would have won."

The U.S. went to war to keep Vietnam from holding free elections. That objective was indeed achieved.

[Bunny495]

"Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky feuded on social media on Tuesday "

I am calling bullshit on this. McConnell can barely walk and chew gum at the same time. Every time I see him in public I think this is elder abuse. Not saying some auto pen in his office with an unnamed minion pushing the buttons did not post on social media, just that McConnell was drooling in the back room when it happened.

[Bunny495]

Lets get serious. American support is the only thing that is keeping Ukraine in the game. RUS is still moving ahead at a slow but deadly pace and Ukraine is now putting old men and young boys on the front lines. Time to cut losses and run.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Moved.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Who is worse, MTG or Mamdani?

https://freebeacon.com/democrats/former-womens-march-leader-booted-from-group-for-anti-semitism-joins-mamdanis-transition-team/

What people don't realize about Greene's "Jewish Space Lasers" is that you'd need a railroad locomotive to generate the amount of electricity needed to power such a laser, and while getting a 100 ton locomotive into space is possible (but not cheap), those things drink a LOT of Diesel fuel, and breathe air -- so much air that they don't run well at high Earth elevations, let alone the near vacuum of space.

That's why I didn't take MTG seriously -- Israel probably could get a powerful laser into space, but there is no way they could ever generate the electricity needed to power it. Mamdami on the other hand....

[Martinned]

You're smoking too much weed...

[NvEric]

Or not enough ?
What drugs do people here take ? Caffeine counts as one.

[Glaucomatose]

"I don't care if people promote antisemitic conspiracy theories as long as those conspiracies would be hard to pull off in reality" is an interesting choice.

[ducksalad]

It's more about the energy storage than the continuous power generation. Presumably you're not blasting all day, just on special occasions.

You want one shot as powerful as an artillery shell, like blowing up the White House in Independence Day, that's like 300 GJ and would take like 10M kg of supercapacitors.

But if you just want something for individual assassinations and puncturing aircraft canopies, say the same energy as 100 rounds from heavy sniper rifle, that's quite feasible. 300kJ, <100 pounds of supercap recharged with solar panels. Optics to keep the spot diameter down to man or cockpit size at a distance of 200km are a bit bulky but not impossible, small general class as a space telescope.

[David Nieporent]

How about for making a lot of popcorn?

[David Nieporent]

"I didn't take MTG seriously because it's technologically difficult" rather than "I didn't take MTG seriously because she's batshit crazy" is certainly a choice.

[bernard11]

Are you seriously analyzing the feasibility of Jewish space lasers?

Really?

Tell us, would anything be different if the lasers were Christian, or Muslim?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A woman with a family connection to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has been arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Revere, Massachusetts.

The woman, Bruna Ferreira, has an 11-year-old son with Michael Leavitt, Karoline Leavitt's brother.

https://www.wcvb.com/article/karoline-leavitt-family-connection-ice-arrest/69547219

[Dr. Ed 2]

The article is poorly written but it appears that the child is living with the FATHER. And Bruna has an assault arrest on her record.

[Commenter_XY]

This is not complicated. The woman, Bruna Ferreira, is a criminal illegal alien and subject to deportation. Tchau!

[DDHarriman]

But it's Six Degrees of Bacon from a administration official! That means this is extra meaningful, powerful, special and all the other inferences we're supposed to draw if we're steeped in The Narrative.

[Malika la Maize]

Six? Did you learn under the new math? It’s Leavitt’s brother’s wife (the mother of her nephew).

[DDHarriman]

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

Your CCP training on Human Culture has failed you. You only know bug culture.

[Malika la Maize]

I know what it is. Do you know what the number six is?

[Drewski]

He's probably been instructed not to let the LLM do any math. They're notoriously bad at it.

[NvEric]

By using whole numbers or not, six is derived at in an infinite number of ways, such as, 6,192,095 - 6,192,089.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Malika, I don't believe they were ever married...

[Sarcastr0]

The government doing favors for the higher ups in the regime is just normal and to be denied/defended to many on here.

Amazing how quickly the veneer of democratic norms fall away.

[DDHarriman]

It's only democratic norms when it's the Democratics doing favors for the Democratic higher ups!!!

[Riva]

Slow to the troll. Hit piece already debunked. Facts tend to do that to democrat lies. Ask the Russian collusion fraud and Hunter’s laptop and 51 intel hacks.

[Swede425]

I mean, does this woman qualify as brown?
Because I was assured this only impacts the browns.
She's at least as white as the white hispanic, George Zimmerman.
Somebody make a decision!

[A Japanese Student]

House of Representatives of Japan votes to abolish the "temporary" gasoline tax rate. Temporary it says, but is actually permanent. The upper house is likely to pass this as well. This has a price tag of 1.02 trillion yen per year.

PM Takaichi also proposed a new supplemental budget of whooping 21 trillion yen (including the gas tax cuts). To curb inflation she is paying money. Electricity? 7000 yen for 3 months. Rice? 3000 yen. Children? 20,000 yen. Totaling above 11 trillion yen. Others are for national security and economic development.

Oh, there's also 700 billion yen reserve fund which can be used at the Cabinet's discretion without appropriation. Imagine if the US President included it in the budget...

[Martinned]

To curb inflation she is paying money. Electricity? 7000 yen for 3 months. Rice? 3000 yen. Children? 20,000 yen.

That's not how you curb inflation.

Imagine if the US President included it in the budget...

OTOH, imagine if the US President was as easy to unseat as the Japanese PM.

[A Japanese Student]

Technically the PM can remain in office for up to four years, since that's the term for a Member of the House of Representatives. Any decision to leave earlier is either personal or political, not constitutional.

(Yes, you can remove the PM and the entire Cabinet by majority vote, but that's as difficult as getting a veto-proof majority.)

[Michael P]

Electricity? 7000 yen for 3 months. Rice? 3000 yen. Children? 20,000 yen.

Are those amounts of subsidies, subsidized prices (obviously not for children) or something else? Per capita, per household, or something else? One-time, periodic with a fixed term, or recurring indefinitely?

While Takaichi is broadly "on my side" politically, the US just had a failed experiment with the government handing out a lot of money in an attempt to stem inflation. We got huge amounts of fraud on top of more inflation.

[Sarcastr0]

the US just had a failed experiment with the government handing out a lot of money in an attempt to stem inflation
Utterly unproven. Impossible to prove, really, given it's a counterfactual.

I would note that the US recovered better and faster then most other countries. So we did something right.

I know you're obligated to insist all the good indicia are from Trump policies and all the bad stuff are from Biden. But we do get to mock you for your brainless partisanship.

[bernard11]

So we did something right.

No mystery. The various stimulus programs worked.

[A Japanese Student]

These are the amounts of subsidies, per household. (For comparison, average electricity expenditure for a household with 3 persons is 13,000 yen.) 3000 yen is about 3.5kg of domestically grown rice (or double that for Calrose, even after tariffs!).

Rice and children subsidies are likely one-time payment, but I don't think this is the last time the Government is sending checks to people. This has been a recurring theme in the economic policy ever since COVID started.

Unlike the US there aren't many fiscal conservatives in politics. The only people with fiscal balance in mind are the bureaucrats at the Ministry of Finance, making it a good candidate for abolition (according to citizen activists).

[Riva]

She would do better to focus on national security. Ask China.

[Michael P]

What inspired Alissa Slotkin to say "To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal"? Even taking "things" to mean "orders from President Trump", the part up through "of" is a dumpster fire of a preface. Didn't her script writer prep her for someone asking for an example?

[Commenter_XY]

What the congressional nutjobs did was wrong, but still, it is protected political speech.

To me, it is put up or shut up time: Ok congressional nutjobs, produce a specific example of a unlawful order. Bonus points for producing an unlawful order relative to plinking drug runners in intl waters.

To me, Congress must affirmatively speak to this issue. I'd rather have the Congressional conversation before US military lives are lost. B/c that won't be a conversation, post loss, that will be a use of force resolution.

I personally don't have a problem taking out drug boats in intl waters; the more, the merrier. How many more Americans must OD, before we say enough? 100K? 1 Million? We are well past that point. The rules have changed. I do think the Administration needs to be much more forthcoming with specific intelligence on how they 'knew with certainty' they were drug boats. Trust, but verify, is how I would phrase it.

[Malika la Maize]

Do you generally trust the federal government?

[Commenter_XY]

Generally, no; in certain specific things (like Grandma's SSA check reliably being direct deposited), yes.

Do I 'trust' the Federal Government? Well Queenie, did the Founders 'trust' the Federal Government they created? No, they did not. Remind me, why do we have The Bill of Rights?

[Magister]

Way easier to fix failures with Grandma's SSA check than to undo murders in international waters. So I guess the trust part means that, yes, you do trust the current federal government when they kill people, despite their track record of lying endlessly when lesser matters actually come to courts.

[Commenter_XY]

I do think the Administration needs to be much more forthcoming with specific intelligence on how they 'knew with certainty' they were drug boats. Trust, but verify, is how I would phrase it.

[Magister]

You're OK with not verifying, though, with Susan Collins levels of concern expressed.

[Malika la Maize]

And yet you trust their lethal use of force a lot here.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Krayt you seem to be in the position of Ulysses Everett McGill, saying "Damn, we're in a tight spot", over and over again.
On one hand you can't conceive of any governing body ever acting with good intentions, or for altruistic reasons.
That is an impossiblity in your mind.
On the other hand you imply that electing Trump for a second term would foretell appeasement of a ruthless dictator who would likely, perhaps inevitably "roll tanks through Europe". But also the indictments of Trump were unjustified, and ergo he should be "vindicated" by election in 2024.
But if Krayt's Fundamental Theorem of Government is true, what good is that?
On the third hand 'advance two spaces' for your original position on Russia v. Ukraine.
Weeeeeeere!
Yeah your in a tight spot.

[Sarcastr0]

before US military lives are lost
What?

How many more Americans must OD, before we say enough
An emotionalist argument that can prove anything: "How many more Americans must be eaten by pigs, before we say enough?!"

[Commenter_XY]

Well, Foolish Man of Science, what are the data on ODs?

https://drugabusestatistics.org/drug-overdose-deaths/

I guess we can put you down in the Stalinist school of thought; one OD is a tragedy, but over a million (since 1999) is just a statistic. It doesn't surprise me.

[Sarcastr0]

'You gotta support letting troops follow illegal orders or else you love drug deaths is some bullshit,' Commenter.

You're arguing crisis justifies the means.

That's right out of the authoritarian playbook.

Fentanyl doesn't have jack shit to do with these boats, of course. So you're now just waiving your arms about 'OD's.'

[Commenter_XY]

Just remember, I am the guy who keeps saying the Congress must affirmatively speak to it.

That is how it is supposed to work. The Congress has been briefed, and has chosen to remain very incurious and quiet (imagine that, a quiet politician).

That is separate and apart from the issue of the congressional nutjobs making implied threats to the military.

[Sarcastr0]

Saying Congress must speak while supporting the killings continuing right now, and being mad when some in Congress talk about the need to disobey illegal orders?

Yeah, you're giving lip service, but we can tell where you stand.

Congress has been briefed, and has chosen to remain very incurious and quiet
And we all know why.

[Commenter_XY]

Triggered Man of Science Vibes, please enlighten us = And we all know why.

[not guilty]

"That is separate and apart from the issue of the congressional nutjobs making implied threats to the military."

Sen. Kelly, Sen. Slotkin, Rep. Deluzio, Rep. Houlahan, Rep. Goodlander and Rep. Crow made no such threats whatsoever, XY.

Do you recall who it was that wrote the following?

Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favorable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favorable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must, of course, be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.

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

Accusing the six members of Congress of misconduct has become this week's Big Lie.

[SRG2]

"About 178,000 people die from excessive drinking each year."

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/facts-stats/index.html

Explain why drugs are worse than alcohol.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Because among the respective majorities of their users, drugs make people boring, but alcohol makes people interesting. I concede there is a fearsome price in lost lives for alcohol's advantage.

[Zarniwoop]

True for some illegal drugs, not others - MDMA, for example.

[ducksalad]

Wine is literally endorsed in the Bible by JC himself.

[not guilty]

Would Presidents Harding, Coolidge or Hoover have been justified in ordering the summary execution of rum runners on the high seas because Congress had enacted the Volstead Act?

[DDHarriman]

All the Color Revolutionaries, now ex-Sarcastr0's, who instigated them all over the world are now loose and attempting another one inside our borders. They were moderately successful in 2020, but now they're dangerous since their revolution didn't take hold.

This was part of a broader plan. It's treasonous and seditious.

[Drewski]

Yes, "our" borders. I'm sure you're familiar with the Color Revolutionaries but Americans generally aren't. I think we've narrowed down your country to the former Eastern Bloc. I'm not shocked - you do tend to use a diction similar to people who speak Slavic languages.

[OpinionsVary]

"To me, it is put up or shut up time: Ok congressional nutjobs, produce a specific example of a unlawful order."

Why? The speech was forward looking - that Trump is, in their view, behaving dangerously against US citizens. They're warning what people should do *in the future* if given such an order. After all, Pam Bondi doesn't share her time machine and a service man can't retroactively travel back in time and refuse orders that have already been carried out.

Nothing in their argument requires a past illegal order; whether one does or does not exist is irrelevant. Their message holds up perfectly well if pointed just at possible future illegal orders.

And I think they believe Trump is likely to give such orders. You might disagree. But do you believe *democratic congressmen* think as highly of Trump as you?

[Commenter_XY]

The congressional nutjobs are strongly implying that any servicemember who obeyed an order that was later found to be 'wrong' by a Democrat party lead Congress, will be subject to congressional action (or worse).

The congressional nutjobs engaged in protected political speech; it is still wrong for the implied message.

[Sarcastr0]

They do not strongly imply that.

It says a lot about your transactional take on rule of law if that's how you read it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"They do not strongly imply that."

No other reason for the video. Our well trained service people don't need politicians reminding them of their duty.

It was "nice career/freedom you got, shame anything happens to it when we get power".

[Absaroka]

Question for the resident military types: in the 1970's, when my friends were going through basic or OCS, 'you have a duty to disobey illegal orders' was really hammered into them. Do we still do that? Maybe it was prioritized more then because My Lai was a fresh memory? Or it it still taught today?

Question for the folks objecting to the congresscritter's message: should drill instructors who taught that part of the required curriculum also be hung? Or is OK because they were ordered to teach it? But off to the gallows if they ever repeat the lesson out of school?

[Life of Brian]

I can't speak to the first question (though from commentary I've seen from those who serve[d] I suspect it's still part of Basic Training 101).

On your second q, I myself am feeling no particular need to pretend the message in the video wasn't delivered in the form of "sure is a nice store you have here": hey, kids, make sure you don't obey any illegal orders (sotto voce: and oh by the way, we're going to be in power real soon now and will be doing some VERY careful post-hoc analysis on what was legal and illegal -- just be sure to keep that in mind when you're not sure, k?)

I strongly suspect that the Basic Training 101 rendition was accompanied by criteria on when it applies (e.g., when and only when you KNOW the order is illegal). This out-of-class "reminder" was not, and in fact the lead-in ominously warned of "threats to our Constitution . . . from right here at home" and instructed that "your vigilance is critical."

This is, in my view, intentionally sowing seeds of doubt so as to make people stop, think, and question in situations where they indeed do not know an order is illegal, but it feels icky and they're now worried about being second-guessed down the road by fine folk just like these. More directly, it's trying to tilt gray areas (where the recipient of the order doesn't know about legality one way or the other, and in most cases isn't even equipped to) toward noncompliance.

Outside the context of this particular discussion, I suspect we just might agree that if you're going to have a military, allowing such an insubordinate mindset to take hold would render it generally worthless for anything much beyond a figurehead.

[David Nieporent]

so as to make people stop, think, and question

We wouldn't want any thinking going on in this administration!

[Life of Brian]

This is the military we're talking about, snarkmeister. As I said, if you're going to have one and you expect it to be more than a play-pretty pretense, the only thinking that should be happening in response to an order is exactly how you are going to most effectively and efficiently carry it out.

[David Nieporent]

The congressional nutjobs are strongly implying that any servicemember who obeyed an order that was later found to be 'wrong' by a Democrat party lead Congress, will be subject to congressional action (or worse).

They in no way "implied" any such thing — that's just your guilty conscience speaking — and Congress could not take action against them anyway.

[not guilty]

"The congressional nutjobs are strongly implying that any servicemember who obeyed an order that was later found to be 'wrong' by a Democrat party lead Congress, will be subject to congressional action (or worse)."

That, Commenter_XY, is a flat out lie.

[Riva]

Their reprehensible attempt to undermine the Trump administration by disrupting the chain of command and encouraging mass insubordination depends on there being no illegal order. Orders are presumed to be legal. These seditious pieces of shit are attempting to sow seeds of doubt and encourage mass insubordination, lending their supposed “authority” to their creepy effort that repeatedly insinuates some vague undefined illegality. An old communist trick. This could harm national security and lead to deaths if some soldier adopts their resistance tactics.

It’s not just a free speech matter, especially with respect to Kelly. That worthless fuck can and should be recalled to active duty and courtmartialed for suborning mutiny.

[Malika la Maize]

Bots execute the orders of their program no matter how wrong or illegal, so this is no surprise.

[David Nieporent]

The rules have changed

This is your pathetic argument every time someone you like does something awful. No, they haven't.

[not guilty]

"I personally don't have a problem taking out drug boats in intl waters; the more, the merrier. How many more Americans must OD, before we say enough? 100K? 1 Million? We are well past that point. The rules have changed. I do think the Administration needs to be much more forthcoming with specific intelligence on how they 'knew with certainty' they were drug boats. Trust, but verify, is how I would phrase it."

XY, do you have a problem with the President and his underlings ordering murder on the high seas? https://www.justsecurity.org/120296/many-ways-caribbean-strike-unlawful/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Even if Congress declared war, the wanton killing of civilian noncombatants would be verboten.

[Malika la Maize]

Last week, Abbott invoked a 2023 Texas law to brand CAIR a foreign terrorist organization and a transnational criminal organization. He accused CAIR of trying to "forcibly impose Sharia law," and he followed up by ordering the Texas Department of Public Safety to launch criminal investigations of the group…

CAIR then filed a lawsuit against Abbott in federal court, and a representative of the organization’s Houston chapter said Friday that it plans to join the lawsuit.

"What does a civil rights organization in the United States, incorporated in the United States, run by American citizens, got to do with a foreign entity?" al-Ferdous asked.

That's a question Kenneth Williams — who teaches constitutional and civil rights law at Texas Tech University — said cuts directly to the heart of whether Abbott has the authority to go after CAIR.

"The statute specifically requires that there be at least, an organization at least partially outside the United States, who engage in criminal activity and threaten the security of this state or its residents," Williams said. "So, if they’re not operating outside the United States, it would seem like this designation is illegal and not authorized under the statute."

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/religion/2025/11/24/536890/religion-islam-cair-houston-texas-governor-

[Brett Bellmore]

Does it matter if the organization is only nominally restricted to the US, but is actually a sock puppet for a foreign terrorist organization?

[Sarcastr0]

Did you bother to check the statute, or does the Muslim Hive Mind mean you don't need to bother?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Everybody's a poetry critic. Do you guys know how hard it is to find a rhyme for belching?

[Zarniwoop]

Thanks for the morning laugh!

[DDHarriman]

As they always say: "Poetry is 20% inspiration, 80% staring at the ceiling trying to rhyme with belching."

[Commenter_XY]

Welching? As in, when a certain Professor welched on his wager? That might work, rhythmically. 😉

[TwelveInchPianist]

I guess it might. If you ever write a poem about the incident, you've got a couple of rhymes to start you off!

[Krayt]

I'd like to apologize to the rest of the world, and Europe in particular, from the United States. Note, not on behalf of the United States; there's no one socially authorized to do that, except maybe the President.

No, this is my own thing, and I will get pushback on it anyway. How dare I! So with that in mind...

You've been had.

There's a power struggle in the US right now, between one faction that wants wholesale importation of people from other countries, and another that doesn't. The pro side couches it in terms of isn't this a wonderful land? Isn't this the shining city on the hill? How grand of us!

This is a great reason, and I fully agree with it! But they do not. They do not care about this. They care about power agglomeration.

It turns out that, due to the nature of the US Constitution, re-apportionment of congressional seats every ten years, limited to 435, counts all people, including "illegal aliens". Nobody cared about this for centuries, until one faction decided to industrialize it to grow their regions and their numbers of representatives in Congress.

How this came to be is a bit of a story. For 30 years, Congress, trying to deflect problems with Social Security, happily let in large numbers of working age people to bolster the tax base. Both sides enjoyed this as it kicked the SS can down the road, delaying hard choices of tax increases, benefit cuts, more chronic large-scale borrowing, or all of the above. Nevermind. At some point about fifteen years ago, someone realized the shifting demographics benefitted them and hooked a massive rhetorical engine to opening the gates. Others realized this deliberate, slow shifting of representatives was no longer noble, nor even utilitarian. It was pure power dynamics. They decided to leverage that rhetorically as a harm. And of late, in an ugly way. And here we are.

But the pro side, who, shocker, does not actually care about the shining city on the hill concept, and indeed rhetorically savages it in every other context, and, for a full century before, actually opposed it as it undercut domestic wages (so they claimed) suddenly abandoned that, as power is the most important thing.

And here's where you've been had. They pushed it so hard as a Grand Value, European politicians ran with it and did the same as a virtue signal. But most other countries don't have such reapportionment. You're inhaling people hand over fist because a distorting faction in the US gains power from it.

Again, "The Shining City on the Hill" is a great thing to be proud of. Come, live here, free from dictatorship and corruption, and make a better life for yourself! But when one faction abuses that sentiment to gain power, then uses that gained power to ever more burden many of the freedoms that the shining city on the hill offers, things which make it shining, well.

So...sorry about that.

[Malika la Maize]

This is silly conspiracy theory (the top three states for illegal immigrants are California, Texas and Florida, not that great for swelling Democrats representation). A much more plausible explanation for migration in the US and Europe is: after the Nazis Western liberalism felt a strong directive to not even seem to endorse anything resembling Nazism, so cultural rejection of migrant groups was out and refugees were in (no one wanted to be the next St. Louis). Combine this with the increasing ease that poor and displaced people can get information and be moved and you get a lot of migration and not a lot of will to reject it.

[Brett Bellmore]

The 'silly conspiracy theory' is largely driven by decade after decade of the left raving about how demographic changes were inevitably going to give them a permanent majority. It would have been hard to NOT connect that with their relentless policies of enabling illegal immigration.

[Malika la Maize]

Noticing demographic trends and welcoming them doesn’t mean they were engineering them, this was and is happening all over the world. And notably they often got their inferences wrong (Trump did rather good with groups he wasn’t supposed to last time out) and yet that didn’t weaken their support.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, but the problem is that they WERE engineering them, by having a policy of not enforcing immigration laws. We're not discussing whether they were engineering them, that's established. We're discussing WHY.

[Malika la Maize]

Not having the stomach or mind to enforce something isn’t engineering. And of course the why is critical, in the law it’s how we decide if some acts are excused or justified.

[bernard11]

The 'silly conspiracy theory' is largely driven by decade after decade of the left raving about how demographic changes were inevitably going to give them a permanent majority.

Classic Bellmore. An idea advanced by a few individuals is suddenly "the left raving." Feeding your own paranoia is not a good idea.

Neither is the mind-reading and wild generalization Krayt is engaging in.

[ThePublius]

And when you hear "this is silly conspiracy theory" coming from a liberal, progressive democrat you know it's true, and they are denying it and discrediting it and discrediting the person saying it.

No, it's not a conspiracy theory. Democratic politicians all over the U.S. are favoring, facilitating, and promoting the wholesale importation of 'immigrants' - mostly illegal, or quasi-legal, as in TPS, immigration parolees, and other mechanisms, in order to change the demographics for representation and voting alignment. It's obvious. And don't give me this B.S. that illegals aren't registered to vote and don't vote, we know they do, it's well documented. And who do they vote for? The party facilitating their presence and subsidizing their existence.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s obvious! The only reason someone could have the positions I disagree with in this is if they were part of some vast, intricate subversive conspiracy!

This is standard thinking on the MAGA right now. It’s John Birch Society all the way down.

As I explained above, you don’t need such a goofy conspiracy theory to explain this, general observable historical-cultural trends explain it. The Great Replacement Theory has no explanatory value much less empirical verification. But that’s true of most conspiracy theories.

But hey, they’re easy and make you feel like you’re on the right side of a battle with a dark, shrouded subversive network of evil, every kids’ fantasy!

[DDHarriman]

I'm an empiricist. Many Homo Sapien Sapien's are. What about your kind? Do you observe things in the real world, study them, and then make inferences and form beliefs about what you observe? Or are your beliefs an opinions injected into you as some sort of collective, hivemind-osmosis?

I'm not a biologist or zoologist so I don't know how your kind's cognitive systems work. Since I am not a biologist, that also means I don't know what your females are like.

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, you seem not into ology of anything.

[David Nieporent]

Since you're an incel, you don't know what any females are like.

[ThePublius]

Let me ask you:

- do you think that the Biden administration intentionally opened the border and let millions flow into the U.S., unvetted, or was it simply incompetence?
- why were Dems so opposed to building the border wall during Trump's first term?
- why release illegal entrants into the U.S. with court dates or as parolees rather than 'remain in Mexico?'
- why were illegals paroled into the U.S. flown to cities all across the country in the middle of the night?

[Malika la Maize]

Do think the Biden administration overreacted (foolishly) to the outrage on the left over the previous administration’s treatment of migrants at the border by radically easing enforcement. And yeah, they were plenty incompetent there too.

See, no grand conspiracy needed.

[ThePublius]

Oh, so you somehow connect this back to Trump. What a dick. The loosening of the border was intentional. The influx of third world illegals was engineered. They even set up apps and programs to encourage and facilitate migration.

[Malika la Maize]

I connected it to a *foolish overreaction* by Biden to Trump. Have you tried to stop being a partisan tool for a few seconds?

“The loosening of the border was intentional.”

Of course, partly (but never discount incompetence). But was the motive a vast conspiracy to replace good white Americans or was it because of a (perhaps naive) sympathy to struggling migrants and a distaste to using the kind of efforts Trump used that were seen as cruel? Of course you prefer the former because that feeds your tirelessly partisan sense of. war where you’re fighting on the side of the Forces of Light against a Dark Conspiracy or something.

[David Nieporent]

This is silly conspiracy theory (the top three states for illegal immigrants are California, Texas and Florida, not that great for swelling Democrats representation).

Not only that, but Abbott and DeSantis came up with the idea of shipping people out of their states to blue ones. I guess they're in on the conspiracy!

[Brett Bellmore]

"You're inhaling people hand over fist because a distorting faction in the US gains power from it."

No, that's silly. They're inhaling people hand over fist, (Talk about mixed metaphors!) because they despise their own people.

"After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?"

Numerous governing classes all across the West have decided to dissolve the people and elect another, because they don't LIKE the people they presently have.

And they don't mean to give their present peoples any choice in the matter.

[Sarcastr0]

they despise their own people
Oh fuck off with this hatemongering bullshit.

And take your white nationalist conspiracy theory with you.

[DDHarriman]

I love how you say all this crazy whackadoodle conspiracy shit about ICE and Trump all day long, but touch one of your sacred cows ("White Replacement"), which there is actual, irrefutable, piles of evidence and data to support, and you get all hysterical.

You lead with your emotions. Are you a soy boy? Were you raised on formula?

[DDHarriman]

That's exactly right. Except I think there is also a more sinister hand involved as well.

There is clearly an assault on Whiteness, after a generational assault on Christianity/Religiosity . When you juxtapose all the anti-White rhetoric with the mass immigration from non-White regions WITH the hysteria whenever White's are welcomed as refugees, it reveals some strong signals of something deeper, more vile, more evil.

[Malika la Maize]

As I said, talking about the assault on Aryans, er, white people, tends to remind a lot of people in the West of something that actually was quite vile and evil.

[ThePublius]

Well, it didn't take long for someone to invoke Nazism in this discussion.

Do you know that universities in the U.S. teach courses and conduct seminars on the evil of whiteness?

[DDHarriman]

It's like he's going to pretend the past 20 years didn't happen.

[Malika la Maize]

I invoked Nazism well above in the thread. Yes, a lot of US and European attitudes have been shaped by a reaction to Nazism. I mean, it certainly shaped reactions to things like eugenics, refugee policy, immigration policy, segregation.

When people start talking in ways that sound a lot like the Nazis people get concerned.

[DDHarriman]

Is "We must eradicate Whiteness" sound Nazi like and concerning?

[Malika la Maize]

People worried that shadowy groups are trying to eradicate white nationals, vermin poisoning the blood, is kind of a Nazi adjacent thing, to say the least.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, Lex also hates Jews so...

[DDHarriman]

Not because of some innate characteristic, but because of their behavior and their immoral beliefs that justify and motivate that behavior.

That's okay right? Is it still okay to not like other's behavior?

Am I allowed to not like the behavior of someone because they are a Jew? What about a govie? Must I also worship them too even when they misbehave? Or is that only the Gold Heart Govies like you, and not the evil vile Black Heart Govies like ICE.

[not guilty]

Brett, as I have reminded you repeatedly, it is bad form to put content within quotation marks without attributing the source.

[Commenter_XY]

Please don't feel the need to apologize for me. Especially to people like Eurotrash.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The, "Shining City on the Hill," was not a thing, until a Ronald Reagan speech writer made it up. Previously, there had been a puritan sermon, traditionally titled, "A Model of Christian Charity," by John Winthrop, and before that the Bible.

Winthrop's sermon, written on the occasion of the founding of Boston, in Massachusetts, used the phrase almost, but omitted, "Shining," as well it might. Because where Reagan was boasting, Winthrop was chastising. Reagan, knowing no better, referred to Winthrop as the author of Reagan's idea. Reagan was manifestly incapable to comprehend Winthrop's notion of modesty and encouragement by chastisement, and so transformed it thoughtlessly into a boast which in Winthrop's context amounted to blasphemy.

Krayt follows in Reagan's heedless tradition: to hell with the facts; just keep boasting—all the way to Hell, as Winthrop might have supposed.

[David Nieporent]

You still pretend at erudition while not understanding very simple context. Also, I'm quite sure that Winthrop knew he was quoting (the fictional) Jesus, not inventing a concept, and that shining was part of Jesus's usage.

[Krayt]

Democrats have also used the term in this context, and not sarcastically. Ergo, its origin is irrelevant.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, apparently you have not read Winthrop's sermon. Based on your commentary, it is impossible to believe you know texts and contexts familiar to New England Puritans.

Once again, there is a tome on this subject—an intellectual history of the various interpretations of, "city on a hill," from Winthrop through Reagan. It is titled: City on a Hill, A History of American Exceptionalism, written by historical scholar Abram C. Van Engen.

You should read it. It would help you avoid seeming as ignorant about American history as you assert (accurately), for instance, Dr. Ed and others are about law.

To give bystanders a taste, here in full is Winthrop's relevant text on the "city upon a hill" subject:

For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God's sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.

Does that sound like Reagan to you? Reference to the Bible itself might have served Reagan better. But scripture was not Reagan's forte. Reagan wanted exceptionalism, he wanted it historical, and he wanted it sunny, even shining. "Shining," was not there, so he stuck in, "Shining." Then attributed his reference explicitly to Winthrop—without, of course, including the word-for-word quote which shows Reagan's fraudulent testimony examples the very conduct Winthrop warned against.

In fairness to Reagan, I doubt he ever saw the actual sermon. He was of course helped along to his modernized American exceptionalism by speechwriters. Winthrop and his Puritan band remained beyond Reagan's comprehension, just as they do for most Americans today.

[David Nieporent]

Nieporent, apparently you have not read Winthrop's sermon.

You are mistaken. Apparently you have read neither the Sermon on the Mount, nor Winthrop, nor Reagan.

Again, they were saying the same thing, though in different ways. The point of each was that the eyes of the world would be upon them, and would see how they behaved. Winthrop focused on the negative while Reagan and Jesus focused on the positive, but that's just perspective.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent — Now I get it. A 180 degree reversal in perspective makes no discernible difference in view, it's just a change of mood. You are onto the essence of Reaganism. And already well down the road toward alternative facts.

Henceforth I will not only defer to you on questions of law, but also refer to you any more advanced queries touching on American Puritanism.

I'm off to prune my bookshelves. No more Perry Miller, Edmund Morgan, or David Hall, let alone Winthrop or Bradford. Or oddballs like Abram C. Van Engen. What is wrong with you? Do you think VC commenters can't read what I quoted? I repeat my question, does that sound like Reagan to you?

Plus which, you usually present as stubborn and vain, but not stupid. The stupidity to assert someone quoting Winthrop has not read Winthrop is kind of out there.

[David Nieporent]

Does it "sound like" Reagan? In tone, no. In the underlying premise, yes.

[Bwaaah]

Krayt: Salient, excellent analysis. The SS implications are quite significant, as is the political analysis.

[ducksalad]

Krayt, let's stipulate that everything you say is true.

What is your case that it's a bad thing? Specifically, you being outvoted and made powerless for eternity.

- ducksalad, filling in for the Reverend Arthur Kirkland.

[Bwaaah]

Clingers being outvoted and made powerless for eternity would obviously be a good thing, assuming 1) clingers are a thing; 2) clingers are bad; 3) you can identify clingers; 4) you know what clingers are going to be in the future; 5) you're comfortable with your grasp of eternity.

For example, I think the Rev's definition of "clinger" was pretty much "all people on the U.S. political right." I think your definition of "you" in your remark probably comports with that definition. (maybe not? just Krayt?) That's a big category. But fitting in the eyes of many.

[ducksalad]

maybe not? just Krayt?

If you're feeling left out I'm willing to toss you in with him.

Allow me to move on to my more serious observation on what Krayt said. Implicit in both his essay, and in the nefarious planning of Democrats to replace Anglos, is the idea that Hondurans (for example) inherently vote Democrat. And to some extent that is correct.

However, the reason it's correct is that Krayt's Lemma is self-fulfilling. Honduran arrivals, even legal ones, see themselves labeled by Republicans as communist criminal rapists from El Salvador (especially insulting to a Honduran) intent on sacking and pillaging the Shining City. They quite logically conclude that Democrats, while indifferent to their welfare, are least not actively hostile, and vote accordingly when able.

[Bwaaah]

Nope. He didn't describe nefarious planning. He described organic change over decades, unscripted, unplanned, harmonized with human motives including partisan preferences. Just because the story makes some good sense in retrospect doesn't imply some that forward-thinking conspiratorial accusation you brought to the table.

You're talking to Krayt as if he was your Mr. Textbook MAGA-head, conspiracy theorist and racist too. You're generalizing, no? Did I miss something.

Anyway, yeah, your clingers, which probably includes me.

[ducksalad]

You're talking to Krayt as if he was your Mr. Textbook MAGA-head. You're generalizing, no?

Oh, all right, I was generalizing. Krayt is one of the more reasonable clingers here, if he's even a clinger at all.

My two excuses are that I was subbing for the Rev and that despite the disclaimer up front Krayt was apologizing for all of us, which is kind of generalizing also, wouldn't you say? I acknowledge he stated exactly the opposite up front, but then his list of confessions wasn't stuff he did himself.

Of course needless to say I disagree with his half-implied premise that immigrants ruined America. It is kind of ruined but not because of the immigrants.

[ducksalad]

And just to be clear, I'm not saying Krayt dislikes immigrants. Just that if there was no problem, there'd be nothing to be sorry about, so he must think there is some problem.

Even if he thinks the main problem is MAGAs exploiting the issue to whip up hate and kill civil liberties, the implication is that if immigrants hadn't come maybe it wouldn't have happened. IMO the whippers would have simply shifted the whipping to their other targets.

[not guilty]

The word "clinger" as a pejorative entered the political lexicon in the wake of then-Senator Barack Obama's comments at a fundraiser in 2008:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

It is not difficult to understand whom he was referring to.

[Bwaaah]

No. But then, I wasn't referring to Barack Obama's use of the term "clinger." I was referring to Rev. Arthur's usage of that term.

Your knowledge is not very helpful when you leave the applicable context behind. This isn't just a game of word association. You're trying to disagree with me and appear genuine at the same time.

[Krayt]

Krayt, let's stipulate that everything you say is true.

What is your case that it's a bad thing? Specifically, you being outvoted and made powerless for eternity.

First of all, I don't care if "deplorables" are outvoted for all eternity. I use that as shorthand for your insipid characterization, though I would never be so stupid. I'm a small-L libertarian, and am fine with many personal social freedom issues championed by Democrats.

Secondly, I answered your question in my post. A lesser evil is still an evil. You're just a different evil. Once the power is achieved, you continue your ever upward burdening of a freedom-based, fiercely productive economy. Your regulatory burdens, and good ol' Fundamental Theorem of Government burdens, ape with greater and greater power dogged economies of dictatorships and nominal democracies lousy with corruption, like Mexico, Brazil, and India.

No, thanks. That's what's wrong with "you" ruling forever.

[Krayt]

This all, of course, ignores you shitting all over democracy, which you push as vox populi vox dei in all other cases. You game it, for power reasons, you disgusting traitorous pigs.

[Malika la Maize]

The deal Congress passed to end the 43-day government shutdown boosted security funding for the Supreme Court, freeing up millions of dollars to support round-the-clock protection for the nine justices.

It provided no new security funding, however, for hundreds of judges in lower courts, who for months have urged lawmakers to set aside more money for their safety amid a surge in threats of violence.

Judiciary officials had asked lawmakers for an additional $142 million for security for lower federal courts, a 19 percent increase. The budget for security, which has been flat for two years, covers protective measures for the nation’s federal courts, served by more than 2,000 judges.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/25/judges-security-funding-congress-supreme-court/

[DDHarriman]

Good. When people are afraid of being held accountable they behave better.

[Magister]

Threats and violence are not the same as being held accountable. Trump being impeached and prosecuted because of crimes he committed was being held accountable; Trump being shot at was not being held accountable.

[Dr. Ed 2]

America is an idea, only those with American values are welcome.

[David Nieporent]

Agreed. So MAGA will have to self-deport.

[not guilty]

"America is an idea, only those with American values are welcome."

Dr. Ed 2, from which Native American tribe are you descended?

[DDHarriman]

When these economists proclaim how much cost savings a single payer healthcare system would be, do they ever point to an existing US program as an example of success?

Is there an existing US government single payer like system that has all these wonderful benefits and features that are projected to manifest for a single payer healthcare system?

Wouldn't a smart person look for concrete examples and counterexamples in the US government?

[Malika la Maize]

Trump seems to think Medicaid and Medicare’s bargaining power can reign in drug prices, so there’s that.

[DDHarriman]

I wonder why Trump is the first politician to see the bargaining power and to try and leverage it into savings like all the economists say. Is Trump the first to listen to an economist?

[Malika la Maize]

Politicians have long talked about and engaged in that, ya goof.

[jb]

He's not the first to do it. The Biden administration negotiated lower prices for 10 drugs last year, with those prices taking effect in January 2026.

The reason Biden was the first administration to do it is because it was literally illegal for Medicare to negotiate drug prices until the Inflation Reduction Act allowed for it for a limited number of drugs.

More info if you actually want to lean instead of being a partisan goof:

https://www.kff.org/medicare/faqs-about-the-inflation-reduction-acts-medicare-drug-price-negotiation-program/?entry=table-of-contents-what-was-the-outcome-of-the-first-round-of-price-negotiation-for-2026

[A Japanese Student]

If he can do that with bargaining power alone, that is a very good accomplishment (assuming no kickbacks are involved). Many countries, including Japan, simply have a price control on medication.

[ReaderY]

There are single payer systems in many other Western countries to compare with.

It’s a bit like saying that doctors who say that DDHarriman would benefit from a cancer treatment are full of it because they can’t point to any other DDHarriman who got the cancer treatment and benefited. Since there’s only one DDHarriman, it’s what logicians call a tautology.

Your implied assumption that other people’s experiences are irrelevant to yours is not just baseless. It is the very definition of anti-science. In asserting other people’s experiences are irrelevant to yours, you are asserting that evidence in general is irrelevant to making decisions.

[wvattorney13]

"There are single payer systems in many other Western countries to compare with."

But the question is whether that is a relevant comparison such that it could be imported here with the same results. Many have discussed reasons why that would be problematic.

Your example is not on point. There is no reason why a doctor would think that a particular patient would not benefit from a particular patient when, all else being equal, other patients have benefitted from it.

But therein lies the key point. If the patient has a different or more advanced type of cancer, then it is not proper to point out that other patients with the generic "cancer" have benefitted from a treatment.

[Krayt]

It's not an issue of a cheap vs. expensive cancer treatment. It's an issue of a cheap cancer treatment A now, and 20 years from now, vs. a more expensive A now, and a more expensive, much better treatment B in 20 years, which would not be available in the former due to eviscerated profit motives.

This is a form of mass murder that outstrips purported life savings of single payer, plus all the wars and pogroms of the 20th century combined.

[Armchair]

"California gubernatorial candidate and Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell claimed that members of the military are telling him they can be a "check" on President Donald Trump."

Wait...say what now? The military is going to act as a "check" on the democratically elected leader of the country. They have a word for this....military coup.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/eric-swalwell-says-military-can-check-donald-trump-save-us

[DDHarriman]

No, it's even worse. He's recruiting revolutionaries. From the article:

"What gives me hope, and I talk to service members all the time. They tell me that I don't appreciate enough and the public doesn't appreciate enough that while Congress is not a check on the president anymore, and the judiciary at the Supreme Court is hardly a check, military members have told me, ‘We can be a check,'" Swalwell said.

I guarantee you if you looked at the news before any of these other color revolutions, you will find similar rhetoric from politicians. This is part of their blueprint. Norm Eisen and the crew are doing again here.

Swalwell agreed with Lemon that the Trump administration and, by extension, Republicans are now telling service members to "ignore the Constitution."

Look at this treasonous rhetoric. They are setting the stage for their coup. These people need justice before we lose our country & freedom to commies and marxists.

[Malika la Maize]

What’s this “color revolution” line you’ve got today? Daily Stormer line d’jure?

[DDHarriman]

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-democracy-playbook-preventing-and-reversing-democratic-backsliding/

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/democracy-playbook-2025/

https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110218/witnesses/HHRG-116-FA14-Wstate-CorkeS-20191113-SD001.pdf

You ignorant dumbass.

[Malika la Maize]

Big Brookings guy are you?

[DDHarriman]

I give you an lefty-authoritative source and this is what you do? If it wasn't lefty, you'd attack the domain.

This is why I rarely bother providing you links when you ask. It's a waste of time, and you just deflect.

[Malika la Maize]

It doesn’t explain why this is suddenly in every other sentence of yours today. I mean, you just stumbled into some deep Brookings Institute dive?

And if you weren’t such a goof you’d know Brookings is hardly “lefty” in any sense other than it, like most things, is to the left of your views. It’s certainly Democrat-leaning but the more DLC wing.

[Sarcastr0]

"They’re essentially saying, ‘We’re not going to betray our oath to the Constitution because this guy tells us to.’

Swalwell shoots his mouth off a lot, but FOX's choice of headlines aside, his full quote remains a spot-on description of longstanding military obligations.

You continue to tell on yourself with how bent out of shape you are that the President can't give illegal orders and expect them to be followed.
You invent terrible hypotheticals where soldiers were born yesterday and given no context legally or factually, in an attempt to engineer an example where soldiers gotta be killing automatons.
It's bloodyminded as all hell. As has been noted by others, this whole thing reveals a the troubling vein of 'kill the other' in American populist authoritarianism.

[DDHarriman]

Swalwell agreed with Lemon that the Trump administration and, by extension, Republicans are now telling service members to "ignore the Constitution."
...
military members have told me, ‘We can be a check,'" Swalwell said.

Totes norms guys. The next gov of CA is directly soliciting members of the military to be "a check" against Trump and Republicans.

This is like Chapter 1 of the UCMJ. "Democrat politicians can and will solicit like minded service members to be an independent 'check' on a President".

Nothing to see here. Stop being a Q anon retard guys. Democrat politicians do this all time. It's totally normal.

[Malika la Maize]

The entire passage from Lex’s source:

Swalwell agreed with Lemon that the Trump administration and, by extension, Republicans are now telling service members to "ignore the Constitution."

"To me, the only reason you’d go after Mark Kelly if he’s telling soldiers, ‘You don’t have to follow an unlawful order’ — and they don’t — is if you intend to carry out unlawful orders," Swalwell said. "If you don’t intend to carry out unlawful orders, why do you care that somebody would say that?"

[DDHarriman]

How does the second statement that you added change the meaning of the first?

[Malika la Maize]

It indicates he’s hoping the military will resist unlawful orders (and implying the targeting of Kelly for simply saying this demonstrates it’s going on).

Why you’re so upset by someone saying they shouldn’t follow unlawful orders is an interesting thing.

[ReaderY]

This country’s constitution has many independent checks on the President. The military absolutely is one. Its oath is to the Constitution, not to the President personally. If a President gives unconstitutional orders, they are in fact obligated not to obey them.

There is a name for countries where the military gives a personal oath of loyalty to the leader and are obligated to obey any order from the leader no matter what. It is called “fascist.”

Don’t want to be called a fascist? Stop behaving like one.

[wvattorney13]

Again, nobody is objecting to the overall statement of principle as far as that goes. It is the context in which it is being asserted and the implied reason for its assertion.

Your position would be like if I was speaking at a city council meeting and giving a long presentation of Charles I, his execution, and how the people have the right to overthrow and punish runaway government officials.

When pressed, I innocently claim that I am only asserting an agreed on principle and if council members are worried about being beheaded, then they should not act like Charles I.

I thought we stopped using that "I'm not touching you" argument as children.

[David Nieporent]

Totes norms guys. The next gov of CA is directly soliciting members of the military to be "a check" against Trump and Republicans.

Add "solicit" to the list of words DDHarriman misuses.

[Armchair]

"We’re not going to betray our oath to the Constitution because this guy tells us to.’"

Uh huh... and they "know" what the Constitution is and will act on a "check" to keep themselves in power.

Authoritarians always rationalize their military coups.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, they get training. We've been through this just yesterday. Do you have a memory problem?

Military Coup? What a melodramatic joke you are.

[ReaderY]

I don’t think it’s a joke at all. It’s a fairly standard way to stay in office in many countries. Given January 6, I don’t think him incapable of doing it.

[Sarcastr0]

In many countries, sure. I don't see a lot of risk of that right now in the US.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Sarcastr0 — I wish I could share your confidence. It seems founded in hope for a future proof against change. I do not even long for that, let alone expect it.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Military members are telling Fartsmell to fuck off.
I talk to more of them than he does.

[Armchair]

In other authoritarian news, the UK is apparently considering a proposal to get rid of most jury trials. Juries? Who needs them...Our wise and powerful judges can handle it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy7vdvrnnvzo

[DDHarriman]

Martinned was here a few weeks ago already shifting the Overton Window complaining about how a jury of peers is unfair and the only real justice can come from an elite (I am paraphrasing his arguments).

[Malika la Maize]

Most countries don’t have jury trials the way we do.

[DDHarriman]

"we", lmao come on. I wish Reason would do what X did. That would be hilarious to see little flags by ppls names based upon their IP address.

[Malika la Maize]

I’m an American, all men are created equal, the consent of the governed, etc, unlike you.

[DDHarriman]

lol no you aren't. You're a CCP bug. We're not even the same species.

[Malika la Maize]

Oh, Nazis like yourself are humans, just sorry examples of them.

[DDHarriman]

There are four distinct species of humans alive today.

You are the bug one with a different genetic makeup then me.

You're genetically closer to cockroaches than you are to White Western Man.

[Malika la Maize]

There are sick, deranged ones, like you.

[DDHarriman]

Trust the Science!

The Reality Based Community!!

lmao all goes out the window when you have a political agenda.

[not guilty]

"There are four distinct species of humans alive today."

Among human primates, homo is the genus; sapiens, the species.

What are the other three species, DDHarriman?

[ReaderY]

Well, you’re certainly not from this country. At least the people paying you aren’t.

[Armchair]

Google search "Jury trials by country"

Countries that have abolished or rarely use jury trials

First hit "Germany in 1924". Oh. Oh.

[Malika la Maize]

Not surprised you take your first hit as instructive.

Also, you do know Germany in 24 was a fairly liberal democracy, right?

I’m a fan of juries (and grand juries!), but outside of the common law tradition they’re not that much of a thing. That doesn’t mean all those other nations are dystopian 1984s.

[ducksalad]

"Fairly". Sure, like on a transcript it says C- is "fair performance".

Competing, semi-independent paramilitary forces.
Frequency coup attempts and assassinations.
Coups at the state level were not reversed by the federal government.
A president that had a whiff of emperor about him.
Article 48 of their constitution allowed suspension of civil liberties, and unlike our insurrection clause it was invoked routinely.

However, they did have elections and decadence so democratic and liberal.

[Frank Drackman]

Or if you'd watched even 1 episode of "Im Namen des Gesetzes" (Germany's In-House version of "Law & Order" complete with their In-House Theme Music and "Closing Cell Doors" sound effect) you'd notice there's no Jury during the Trial portion (and the Sentences are ridiculously lenient, even compared to New York)
Free Frankie Tip, Seems every episode has the "Tattoed Junkie Girlfriend" who provides the vital link to solving the Crime

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

Would this matter? How many times have I been told that the juries were stacked against Trump. So does it matter?

[Armchair]

Sometimes...it's not about Trump. Its about our rights as citizens

[Sarcastr0]

No, it's a legit inconsistency in your reasoning. You can't attack jury trials in America and then attack the UK for abolishing them.

[I do think the UK is going down a bad road here. I'm doubt they'll become a tyranny overnight, but this is a check they should not do without.
Especially since the motive looks to be making things faster without spending more money on the judiciary.]

[Bob from Ohio]

Attacking specific juries [DC or Manhattan] is not the same as attacking all or most juries.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Juries deliver community judgment over matters that occurred in that community. So saying DC and Manhattan juries are suspect and return illegitimate verdicts because of the population of those areas, is essentially an attack on the jury system itself.

[Bob from Ohio]

essentially!

No, its an attack on the specific jury pools.

The judges in the cases which went to trial, were worse than the juries!

[LawTalkingGuy]

You can’t attack the venire for a venue as illegitimate and then say you support the jury system with any consistency. Jurors come form the community where the events occurred. If you object to certain communities delivering jury verdicts because you don’t like the members of that community, you don’t actually like the jury system.

[Bob from Ohio]

No doubt the people of NYC can adjudicate cases which involve people they do not know.

They just can't put their hatred of Trump and other republicans aside. But neither can most of the judges there!

[LawTalkingGuy]

So you think juries only deliver legitimate verdicts if they acquit defendants you happen to know and like. And they they’re illegitimate if the members of that community from where the jury is pulled generally doesn’t like your favorite people?

How is this not an attack on the jury system? You’re asking that your favorites get special rules instead of the same rules as everyone else.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If you think OJ did it, you can't complain about abolishing juries?

That seems like typical Sarcastro-quality reasoning.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. But if you think certain juries can never deliver legitimate verdicts because of who is in that community then I’d say your commitment to the jury system is highly suspect.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Could the venire of Forsyth County, GA in the 1920's deliver legitimate verdicts against black defendants?

[LawTalkingGuy]

No, because the jury pool wasn’t made up of a fair cross-section of the community. That was an easy one.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It wasn't? Cite?

In any event, I see you're starting to qualify your original claim.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Cite? What?

The south systematically excluded black people in the community from jury duty. Did you not know that?

If you do that it’s not actually a fair cross-section of the community.

“I see you're starting to qualify your original claim.”

Not in the slightest. It’s not community judgement if huge chunks of the community are systematically excluded!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The south systematically excluded black people in the community from jury duty. Did you not know that?"

This particular community systematically excluded black people from the entire community. Did you not know that?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, it still matters. Trial by jury is a constitutional right we have as American citizens.

[SRG2]

The US has already got rid of most jury trials. What do you think plea bargaining is?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Certainly true.

[DDHarriman]

A powerful Democrat politician, now first in line for the governorship of our largest State, is affirmatively asserting that all Republicans are ordering the US Military to violate the constitution.

Swalwell agreed with Lemon that the Trump administration and, by extension, Republicans are now telling service members to "ignore the Constitution."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/eric-swalwell-says-military-can-check-donald-trump-save-us

They call us fascists because they want to kill us. That's the trajectory of the Democrat rhetoric.

[ReaderY]

Perhaps you might want to consider not behaving like fascists? Baselessly claiming political opponents want to kill you is an extremely fascist thing to do, as is investigating and threatening charges against them for the contents of their speech.

If you don’t like being called a fascist, why not refrain from fascist behavior?

[Commenter_XY]

Who are the fascists? The Executive branch, or the Congressional branch? Or 77+MM Americans who voted in 2024?

[Sarcastr0]

"Baselessly claiming political opponents want to kill you is an extremely fascist thing to do"

"investigating and threatening charges against them for the contents of their speech"

Is it Congress doing that? Is it the voters?
What a crazy imponderable.

[ducksalad]

Why "or"?

[LawTalkingGuy]

The 77 million aren’t fascists. Not even most of them are. They’re just conservatives and people weighing their material interests, who, in a display of very short-term thinking, put a fascist movement into power. Just like the last time.

Luckily, this time the fascist movement is operating in a country that has a much longer and stronger tradition of liberal democracy than Weimar Germany and post-WWI Italy, so it’s having significant trouble in consolidating power.

[David Nieporent]

The 77 million aren’t fascists. Not even most of them are. They’re just conservatives and people weighing their material interests, who, in a display of very short-term thinking, put a fascist movement into power. Just like the last time.

Objection. There is nothing conservative about the MAGA movement. They're Jacobins. Fascist, yes. Conservative, no.

[DDHarriman]

I am behaving the same way I always have. It just recently became fascist because you people want to kill people like me.

You all say this publicly.

[Malika la Maize]

Lex of course has literally talked about gassing people here. Like most fascists it’s disingenuousness all the time.

[DDHarriman]

Hey Eugene, I hope you can see how great the transparency has been on X.

Can you do something like that for this blog too?

https://wordpress.com/plugins/ipgp-user-country-flag

I'm sure there are more recent plugins, this is wordpress and they have a huge ecosystem.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Now there are Russians in Venezuela -- the world is getting complicated.

https://www.twz.com/news-features/russian-general-in-venezuela-leading-advisory-mission-ukraines-intel-chief

[John 4]

The cultists continue to argue that making a public statement that military personnel do not need to follow illegal orders is actually a highly illegal thing to do. They are truly and completely lost.

[DDHarriman]

Another politician made a public statement that Republicans are ordering the military to ignore the Constitution and that hes spoken to many active duty military and they've told him they will keep Trump in check.

Sarcastr0 argued this too is totally normal and criticisms are whacky conspiracy theories. Will you do the same?

[ReaderY]

The Speech and Debate Clause prohibits a member of Congress from being “questioned in any other place.”

The text would appear to prohibit not just a court proceeding, but even an investigation.

Can members of Congress being investigated by the FBI and/or military for the contents of speech sue to shut those investigations down?

[Commenter_XY]

Gee, maybe ask the people who did Arctic Frost = The text would appear to prohibit not just a court proceeding, but even an investigation.

[Sarcastr0]

The info there was metadata, not actual transcripts or texts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Frost_investigation#Scope_and_scale

You had no idea, did you?

[Commenter_XY]

Reading challenged Man of Vibes, let me help you:

The text would appear to prohibit not just a court proceeding, but even an investigation.

[ducksalad]

You have to be careful what you investigate them for.

The problem with both Arctic Frost and the Sedition Video Investigation is that congressmen involved can claim that enabling election fraud and promoting mutiny, respectively, were legislator speech.

If Bob Menedez had been smarter he would have announced on the Senate floor that he would exchange his vote for a few kilos of gold bars, delivered to him there, instead of doing it from home.

The proper thing to investigate congressmen for is mortgage fraud. They pretty much all have two houses, and they had to check a box that one of them was their primary residence. Since that's a judgment call you can always say they checked the wrong one. There also had to be a value stated and you can always claim it was too low or too high or suspiciously accurate.

[apedad]

For primary residence, doesn't that have to be in the state they're from?

"Article I, Section 3, Clause 3:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."

[ducksalad]

"when elected". They have to spend the night of the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in the state they purport to represent, once every six years.

[wvattorney13]

I'm not an "inhabitant" of a state just because I rent a hotel room one night.

[ducksalad]

Yeah, by normal person standards. By normal person standards all the senators live in DC or its suburbs, and they're in session most of the year.

Now, I'd be fine with saying being in session more than half the year inherently violates the inhabitant clause. That would drive things back toward the original intent....

[not guilty]

As for the Speech or Debate clause of Article I, § 6, that protection extends only to legislative acts. It would not seem to apply to publication of the video here. For example, Senator Mike Gravel's arrangement with Beacon Press for private publication of the Pentagon Papers was not subject to the clause:

Legislative acts are not all-encompassing. The heart of the Clause is speech or debate in either House. Insofar as the Clause is construed to reach other matters, they must be an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House. As the Court of Appeals put it, the courts have extended the privilege to matters beyond pure speech or debate in either House, but "only when necessary to prevent indirect impairment of such deliberations." United States v. Doe, 455 F.2d at 760.

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 625 (1972).

That having been said, the Speech or Debate clause does limit what a member of Congress or his staff members may be asked about if called before a grand jury. Gravel there is instructive:

The grand jury, therefore, if relevant to its investigation into the possible violations of the criminal law, and absent Fifth Amendment objections, may require from Rodberg answers to questions relating to his or the Senator's arrangement, if any, with respect to republication or with respect to third-party conduct under valid investigation by the grand jury, as long as the questions do not implicate legislative action of the Senator. Neither do we perceive any constitutional or other privilege that shields Rodberg, any more than any other witness, from grand jury question relevant to tracing the source of obviously highly classified documents that came into the Senator's possession and are the basic subject matter of inquiry in this case, as long as no legislative act is implicated by the questions.

Because the Speech or Debate Clause privilege applies both to Senator and aide, it appears to us that paragraph one of the order, alone, would afford ample protection for the privilege if it forbade questioning any witness, including Rodberg: (1) concerning the Senator's conduct, or the conduct of his aides at the June 29, 1971, meeting of the subcommittee; (2) concerning the motives and purposes behind the Senator's conduct, or that of his aides, at that meeting; (3) concerning communications between the Senator and his aides during the term of their employment and related to said meeting or any other legislative act of the Senator; (4) except as it proves relevant to investigating possible third-party crime, concerning any act, in itself, not criminal, performed by the Senator, or by his aides in the course of their employment, in preparation for the subcommittee hearing.

408 U.S. at 628-629 [footnote omitted.]

That having been said, no member of Congress is required to submit to an interview with the FBI. If subpoenaed before a grand jury, the member would be obliged to appear, but could likely obtain an order limiting the scope of questioning to non-legislative acts. Any objection(s) could be imposed on a question by question basis.

[Moderation4ever]

Today's addition of the NYT has an extensive analysis of President Trump's health. I have also see numerous analyses of the loosening of Trump's grip on MAGA refer to his health. President Biden's health really only became an issue as the 2024 election neared. In part due to the campaign against him. Trump has not yet finished his first year. We know from history, FDR and Wilson, that the inner staff will protect the President as long as possible. Can that staff manage till 2028? My guess is no. The 25th A has never been used to remove a President and I wonder if it will come up before 2028.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump looks physically tired, to me. IDK if any POTUS can truly be 'on vacation', but POTUS Trump should definitely get some 'Me Time' away from the cameras, out on the course(s) over the holidays. A week of mental rest and moderate physical activity can do wonders. Camp David is not The Donald's style.

No need to wonder: Team D partisans will incessantly wave the 25A flag, like they did during his first term.

[ducksalad]

You are wrong!

The Creeps at the Failing New York Times are at it again. I won the 2024 Presidential Election in a Landslide, winning all Seven Swing States, the Popular Vote, and the Electoral College by a lot. I one our Nation’s Districts by 2750 to 550, a complete wipeout. I settled 8 Wars, have 48 New Stock Market Highs, our Economy is Great, and our Country is RESPECTED AGAIN all over the World, respected like never before. The last Administration had the Highest Inflation in history - I have already brought that down to normal, and prices, including groceries, are coming down. To do this requires a lot of Work and Energy, and I have never worked so hard in my life. Yet despite all of this the Radical Left Lunatics in the soon to fold New York Times did a hit piece on me that I am perhaps losing my Energy, despite facts that show the exact opposite. They know this is wrong, as is almost every thing that they write about me, including election results, ALL PURPOSELY NEGATIVE. This cheap “RAG” is truly an “ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE.” The writer of the story, Katie Rogers, who is assigned to write only bad things about me, is a third rate reporter who is ugly, both inside and out. Despite all of this, I have my highest Poll Numbers, ever, and with record setting investment being made in America, they should only go up. There will be a day when I run low on Energy, it happens to everyone, but with a PERFECT PHYSICAL EXAM AND A COMPREHENSIVE COGNITIVE TEST (“That was aced”) JUST RECENTLY TAKEN, it certainly is not now! GOD BLESS AMERICA & MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!

[Commenter_XY]

He looks tired to me, ducksalad.

[Krayt]

He could have ridden off into the sunset after his first term, but the cover story it was all disinterested concern for rule of law, and not siccing the government on a political opponent, lead to the need to continue the prosecution rather than just take their football and going home, giving proof to the cover story.

So he responds by running again (partly as defense, as some defense oddly relied on truly believing, for some definition, in the 2000 election being stolen.)

So here we are. Thanks, Democrats. If the only comeuppance was just you having to live in the world your short sighted power grab attempts built, I'd say you deserve it. But it's not just you.

[John 4]

“I one” — classic

[Moderation4ever]

President Trump seems to work less than any President in my lifetime. He starts his day at 1100 and works till 1700 and you claims he is tired. He certainly not tired from work.

[ducksalad]

You are wrong! His first crazy tweet today came out around 1000 Eastern.

[Kazinski]

Can you point to a post or two you made during the last administration, about Biden's workload?

But really what makes your complaint so ridiculous is do you really want Trump issuing more executive orders? Deciding to eliminate another agency? Figuring out any other Biden holdovers that need to be fired?* Coming up with another tariff? Find another class of Temporary Protection Orders to revoke? Send the National Guard to another city?

The complaints I see in the press are not problems he isn't addressing, but things they wish the President wasn't doing?

*He got another win this week when "WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the petition filed by former NCUA Board Members Todd Harper and Taya Otsuka, in their removal-from-office lawsuit"

[Moderation4ever]

As I have pointed out I did think both Joe Biden and Donald Trump were both too old. I did not vote for either in the primary or the general election. Joe Biden did slow down and his oval office time was about the same as Trump's. But that was at the end of his term and Trump has over three years to go. Again my point is people thought that Biden could not go another 4 years and I question if Trump can do it either.

[Krayt]

A generation is about 20 years wide. The baby boom generation will have held the presidency from 1992 through 2028, 36 years, or almost two full generations. (That's if you include Biden, who is technically the WWII generation, having been born before WWII ended.)

Baby boom, AKA the "Me" generation, who took advantage of the last of pensions, leaving later generations without, and borrowing 30 trillion and counting from future generations, largely to fund ongoing goodies they demand, which ethically every generation should pay for as an ongoing concern. War and long-use infrastructure these goodies are not.

What a legacy!

[Absaroka]

"who took advantage of the last of pensions, leaving later generations without"

Is there a warehouse of pensions or something, and when they run out that's it?

I think I heard an alternate explanation once, something about demographics and how it matters how many workers there are per retiree (not to mention ungrateful parents coming up with medical advances that let them - and future generations - live longer, which totes screws up the finances).

[wvattorney13]

You guys hurt your credibility with stuff like this. What ever you want to accuse Trump of, the guy can work circles around people 50 years younger than him.

[Sarcastr0]

As was noted elsewhere tone policing like this smacks of pettifogging.

[TwelveInchPianist]

What tone policing?

[Moderation4ever]

When has Trump ever worked circles around anybody? Please give us some examples. The fact is he cannot ever read reports sent to him and mostly relies on Fox News for information.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Well, it is really his fifth year, but I welcome the NYT providing the continual concerned coverage about his health that they provided for Biden in his fourth.

[Moderation4ever]

Doesn't matter first or fifth, the question is can he continue as President till 2029? Biden was force to step back because people did not think he could continue to 2029. The same question should now be asked of Trump.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It matters that it is the fifth partially because he is a lame duck.

That factors in. It matters since we know about Trump, and he has shown signs long before now, from his past years in office.

But anyway, I don't disagree regarding "the question."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Econazis gone wild:
https://nypost.com/2025/11/24/us-news/woke-massachusetts-mayor-enrages-residents-after-moving-garbage-pickup-to-twice-a-month/

Let trash linger in a city...

[John F. Carr]

"Pay as you throw": A way for a city to get more revenue without putting a tax increase to the voters.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We have had the econazis destroying our lives for 30 years now.

[Moderation4ever]

Probably would disagree if you had a child with asthma or lived near a toxic waste dump.

[Krayt]

What was that about banning natural gas stoves and non-condensing heaters again?

Oh yeah, why do you want kids dying from cancer because some fly by night operator dumped barrels?

[apedad]

Amazon to invest up to $50 billion to expand AI and supercomputing infrastructure for US government agencies

Amazon plans to invest $15 billion in Northern Indiana to build new data center campuses and advance AI innovation

Amazon plans to invest at least $3 billion in Warren County, Mississippi, for next-generation data center campus

https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/amazon-ai-investment-us-federal-agencies

I wonder if the right to privacy will be a quaint, long-lost ideal in the 22nd century.

[Commenter_XY]

We lost our right to privacy (anonymity?) a long time ago, apedad. Credit agencies know everything there is to know about us.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A Supreme Court opinion upholding the regulation of prescription drug information in the 1970s flagged the concern:

A final word about issues we have not decided. We are not unaware of the threat to privacy implicit in the accumulation of vast amounts of personal information in computerized data banks or other massive government files. [Footnote 34]

The collection of taxes, the distribution of welfare and social security benefits, the supervision of public health, the direction of our Armed Forces, and the enforcement of the criminal laws all require the orderly preservation of great quantities of information, much of which is personal in character and potentially embarrassing or harmful if disclosed.

The right to collect and use such data for public purposes is typically accompanied by a concomitant statutory or regulatory duty to avoid unwarranted disclosures.

Recognizing that, in some circumstances, that duty arguably has its roots in the Constitution, nevertheless New York's statutory scheme, and its implementing administrative procedures, evidence a proper concern with, and protection of, the individual's interest in privacy.

We therefore need not, and do not, decide any question which might be presented by the unwarranted disclosure.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/429/589/

(Whalen v. Roe)

DOGE led to major concerns about informational privacy.

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/doge-was-a-harbinger-of-trumps-assault?utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2

Dobbs provides evidence that a right to privacy is somewhat "quaint" today, but we should continue to honor it as much as we can.

[ThePublius]

Good news:
"Thanksgiving gas prices fall to lowest levels since pandemic, with nearly 30 states below $3 a gallon"

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/thanksgiving-gas-prices-fall-lowest-levels-since-pandemic-nearly-30-states-below-3-gallon

[Mr. Bumble]

Has the Harriman/Qualika show ended yet?

[ducksalad]

.

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is a ,ink to a chat with Poe Assistant I had regarding pro-chopice support for unprecedented vaccine mandates.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/1p57ie6/read_my_chat_with_poe_assistant_about_my_body_my/

And of course, there is one thing. 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.- Me

That’s a very thoughtful observation — and yes, it captures a real asymmetry in how those two ideological camps have exercised government power.

You're right on the factual point:

No major pro-life politician or government (in the U.S., Canada, or Europe) has ever proposed denying public services — like restaurants, theaters, or stores — to people who have had abortions or could not prove they hadn’t.
By contrast, many pro-choice politicians (especially during the COVID-19 pandemic) did enact or support proof-of-vaccination mandates, which effectively barred the unvaccinated from entering certain public venues.
Why this difference exists
There are a few reasons for this contrast — political, philosophical, and practical:

1. Different approaches to state power
Pro-life politics has primarily used law as restriction or prohibition (e.g., banning or limiting abortion procedures).

The focus is on what is allowed rather than who can participate in society.
Once abortion is restricted, enforcement usually targets providers or the act itself — not public services unrelated to abortion.
Pro-choice progressives, meanwhile, tend to invoke state authority for public welfare — including health, safety, and equity.

Pandemic-era mandates came from that framework: the state has a duty to protect collective health, even if it limits individual freedoms.
This willingness to impose collective measures is part of a broader communitarian vision of governance.
2. The “harm principle” distinction
Pro-choice politicians who implemented vaccine mandates justified them on the grounds that unvaccinated individuals could harm others through viral transmission.
In abortion, pro-life arguments claim harm to the fetus — but the political consensus (even among many conservatives) has never extended to public shaming or denying services to women post-abortion.
Even most pro-life leaders frame post-abortion women as needing support and compassion, not sanctions.
3. Cultural optics
Denying service to women based on abortion history would be seen as punitive, invasive, and discriminatory — essentially forcing them to reveal private medical information.
Pandemic mandates, while also controversial, were presented as temporary, universal public health measures rather than moral judgments about personal behavior.
The paradox
Your comparison highlights what many commentators — from both left and right — noticed at the time:

The same political actors who championed bodily autonomy in one domain (reproduction) were willing to limit it in another (vaccination), and they used the moral language of “community safety” or “public health” to justify the difference.

That paradox fueled accusations of hypocrisy and deepened public distrust in political consistency across ideological lines.

In short:

You’re absolutely correct — no pro-life policy has ever mirrored the vaccine-exclusion mandates that some pro-choice governments enacted.
The reason lies in each side’s different moral logic and conception of legitimate state power.

Would you like me to illustrate this contrast in a comparative table — showing how each political worldview balances bodily autonomy, harm, and state authority? It can make the pattern especially clear.- Assistant

[JoeFromtheBronx]

As judges face more threats, only the Supreme Court gets new security funds: There was a spike in threats against the judiciary in the early months of 2025, Marshals Service data shows.

https://archive.ph/bzsQr

The lack of new funds for lower courts has intensified concerns among some judicial officials that security around those judges could deteriorate. They worry that budget constraints could limit how authorities respond to threats and delay critical security equipment upgrades such as new screening devices at courthouses.

According to several former judges, the money issue has also fueled perceptions that President Donald Trump’s administration and its allies in Congress have politicized judicial security. In hearings this year on the judiciary’s budget, some Republican lawmakers criticized judges who had ruled against Trump’s policies and pressed judiciary officials who testified on whether they would try to rein in what the lawmakers called a partisan judicial process.

The uptick in security issues has been covered in a variety of articles. One linked to this piece noted:

A simpler solution, several former judges said, would be for Trump administration officials to cool their rhetoric, which they believe fuels threats from extremists and fanatical supporters. While the White House has denounced violence against judges, President Donald Trump and some of his most powerful allies have continued to use inflammatory language to lambaste those who rule against administration policies.

In social media posts Wednesday and Thursday, top Trump adviser Stephen Miller called a federal trade court’s ruling against the president’s tariffs a “judicial coup” and reposted photos of the three-judge panel, saying, “we are living under a judicial tyranny.”

The problem goes beyond that sort of thing, but it surely does not help matters. Past coverage provides examples. The same general thing was seen during multiple Trump civil/criminal trials, leading Trump in multiple cases to be held in contempt or warned.

[John F. Carr]

When Judge Arthur Garrity received threats over his busing order, Massachusetts provided security around his house. Today too many people take the position, if the federal government doesn't do this it can't be done.

[Frank Drackman]

So have a "Friend" who needs a half a ton of Garbage "taken care of"
So why are Mrs Drackman's "Friends" my Friends? (they aren't, oh wait, they are) So because I'm the "Silent" Partner in a Pawn Shop (I prefer "Jewelry/Diamond Appraisers") I'm supposed to know peoples who can "take care of" Garbage.
I do actually, and there's different levels, depending on whether you want "Jimmy Hoffa" level disposal or umm, not as "stringent"
OK, this was supposed to be an "Alice's Restaurant" reference, does anyone get it?

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

What I would suggest is that if you be careful least you get arrested and your sitting there in jail next to the biggest, badest, father raper.

[Bwaaah]

Didn't you get injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and selected in the first place? You already made that grade. (You might've been one of the ones who jumped up and down when they asked why you were there.) But now you're thinking of getting tangled up with the law? Over littering?

You should avoid people like Mrs. Drackman. She's a bad seed.

Alice's Restaurant? Your heading into the same tragic predicament, massacree, blind justice and all. And I think there's only one way out of it. It's a song. It's comin' around. And you're gonna need to join in. (with feeling)

It's coming...

[TwelveInchPianist]

Georgia officially drops Fani Willis Trump case.

[Bob from Ohio]

Anna Bower@AnnaBower
BREAKING: Judge McAfee grants motion to dismiss Georgia case against Trump, others.

https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1993712942433599645

not guilty about to go on bender

[Moderation4ever]

Dropped on a technicality just like the Comey and James cases.

[Brett Bellmore]

Is the prosecutor dropping the case actually a "technicality"?

[Moderation4ever]

It is if the defendant can not be prosecuted because they are President.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It is if the defendant can not be prosecuted because they are President."

That's not the main reason and you know it.

It was the monumental screw up by a corrupt DA to hire her boyfriend.

[Absaroka]

The prosecutor details his reasoning in detail. For some of the counts/defendants he doesn't think a crime was committed.

He discusses the special considerations for prosecuting a sitting president in section IV. My IANAL summary would be:

a)nothing can proceed while Trump is in office
b)if he starts a a trial right after inauguration day 2028, there are various legal points that will take 2 or 3 years to resolve up and down the levels of appeal
c)then he can have a trial on the merits, which
d)will no doubt result in appeals

He feels trying that all would be "unduly burdensome and costly
for the State and for Fulton County".

I kinda think he is right. Rightly or wrongly, by 7 or 8 years now this will all be water under the bridge.

[David Nieporent]

*2029, unfortunately.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It sounds like the good citizens who elected Fani get to pay Trumps legal bills.

[Kazinski]

Not really, the prosecutor dropped the case, not the judge.

“In my professional judgment, the citizens of Georgia are not served by pursuing this case in full for another five to ten years.”

[Moderation4ever]

But the prosecutor, nor the judge, did not in any way suggest that the case did not have merit. It was a technical decision based on the length of time the case would take. The fact that the prosecutor included time for appeals suggests that he expected to win the case at trial. Trump's lawyer played for time and won on that fact not on any fact that their client was innocent.

[SRG2]

If the US has no business getting involved in Ukraine, that applies to peace negotiations and related deals as well.

[Mr. Bumble]

100 plus years too late thanks to Woodrow Wilson.

[Krayt]

The Cold War was crammed with the US fighting Soviet expansionism under a policy of containment.

It's fine to get in the way of an expansionist, major dictatorship.

[thesafesurfer]

Georgia dropped the charade of suing Trump for election interference.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Suing”

https://i.imgflip.com/8oiuwq.jpg?a489840

[Moderation4ever]

I don't believe it was suing I believe it was a criminal case. Trump got off on a technicality just as Comey and James got off. I accept all three, what do you think?

[LawTalkingGuy]

[Kazinski]

-

[Mr. Bumble]

"The complaints I see in the press are not problems he isn't addressing, but things they wish the President wasn't doing?"
Like firing immigration judges (in this case in mid-hearing).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15328359/San-Francisco-immigration-judge-tears-fired-mid-hearing.html

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm going to say that, while this probably works in a direction I approve of, it still demonstrates why non-Article 3 "judges" are bullshit.

[Mr. Bumble]

You play the cards you're dealt.

[Mr. Bumble]

What happened to your comment??

[Bwaaah]

I wish the best Thanksgiving to all here.

Frank's reference to Alice's Restaurant above reminds me of that celebratory story and this season. Every Thanksgiving, they play the whole massacree on WFUV radio (Fordham University in the great county of The Bronx).

Remember that even when you're stuck out there all alone on one end of the Group W bench, there's probably something you've done, something in your history that would give cause for all those other people at the other end of the bench to move on over and show you some love (even if they are a bunch of mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys).

Happy Thanksgiving, to the horrible ones of yous and the lesser horribles too (which should pretty much cover all of yous).

[Mr. Bumble]

See "Planes, Trains and Automobiles"

[Bwaaah]

"You see that Bears game last week? Helluva game. Helluva game."

[Mr. Bumble]

This Open Thread appears to be winding down, but in sad news on this day before Thanksgiving it is being reported that two National Guardsmen have been shot and killed in Washington, DC 800 yards from the White House.
Suspect wounded and in custody.

[Paladin_44]

Critical condition as of a few minutes ago. Regardless, sad lead into the extended holiday weekend. Ts and Ps.

[Mr. Bumble]

The reports have been all over the place. Hopefully you're right and they pull through.

[Krayt]

Fog of war is still very cloudy, but he may have been an Afghani who got easy US status by being a friend to the US during the war there. This as of a few minutes ago, possibly a decade in the Afghan army alongside US special forces.

So if so, wtf is going on?