Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Omar married her brother.
Prove me wrong.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump has the shallowest American roots of any president in history and 4 of his 5 children have even shallower roots than him. The first 3 were anchor babies for the foreign con artist, Ivana. And Tiffany married a man that has shallow American roots like her father.

[AmosArch]

I'm gonna pull an Ilya here or maybe not because he's surprisingly been inconsistent on immigration to be consistent about being on the wrong side before. But personally I think there should be a 'model' visa for attractive young women. Not all the people we let in for talent are necessarily scientists or engineers or other technical specialists so why not brighten up the place a bit from the dreary landscape of frumpsters and massive mobility scooters? Have it be judged by a panel of heterosexual noninsane ie leftwing or other mentally unsound men. I'm sure Donald in his heart of hearts agrees with me but can't yet propose this very logical policy due to political situations which ignore the reality that the right type of attractive women bring in resources that are just as important if not more so then the next Python Coder or Eurasian tree squirrel biologist .

[Brett Bellmore]

There already is. It's called a "fiancée visa", and there only has to be one guy on the panel of judges.

[DDHarriman]

WhataboutTrump!!?!?!

[SRG2]

Mr Bumble fucks pigs. Prove me wrong.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your wife and daughter don't like it when you refer to them as pigs.

[Bwaaah]

For those who may wonder, here is Bumble's link from yesterday to his case for Omar having married her brother.

The case is detailed enough and circumstantial enough to make it a trying read and therefore anything but a slam dunk. I lack enough interest in the matter to do the deep dive. But I looked only because Bumble is a credible commenter (despite his crustiness). And as a critical thinker myself, there seems to be enough there to make it a challenge to dismiss the argument...more of a challenge than the effort I'm willing to put in.

But then there's the parade of non-critical thinkers who dismiss the argument without consideration of the evidence because, well, they're not critical thinkers and the other team would score the point if Bumble is correct. Consider them to be among the There's-No-Such-Thing-As-A-Hunter-Biden-Laptop caucus.

They'll believe it only if and when a teammate does their homework for them (and the story gets sufficient legs).

[Joe_dallas]

It may not have been her brother she married in the sham marriage, none the less, it was a sham marriage done for immigration purposes.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-curious-case-of-ilhan-omar

[Malika la Maize]

jd yesterday

Joe_dallas 1 day ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
How classy is the Omar's fraudulent marriage to her brother?

jd today
Joe_dallas 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
It may not have been her brother she married

That’s our jd!

[Joe_dallas]

Are you capable of grasping that it was a fraudulent marriage whether it was to her brother or not?

[David Nieporent]

It was of course not a sham marriage for immigration purposes, as evidenced by the fact that there weren't any immigration purposes. That is: if it were a so-called "green card marriage," where's the green card?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I lack enough interest in the matter to do the deep dive."

That's what her broth...

Never mind, I'll show myself out.

[Bwaaah]

thwappp! (my attempt at onomatopoeia for the door hitting you on the way out)

[Malika la Maize]

“Omar married her brother.
Prove me wrong.”

Credible commenter indeed!

Remember, this is the guy who tried to pass himself off as a sadly recently disaffected liberal who just, dadgummit, has been let down by those liberals he tried so hard to love. He’s as transparent as a glass sculpture of Bari Weiss.

[Bwaaah]

Welcome back.

Anyway, like I said, on Thursday: you and I have much in common that you prefer to avoid. Or maybe I'm mistaken? Maybe you're not really a liberal, and just a smearing Democrat?

Tell me about your liberal values, Malicia. Tell me the liberal values you affirm that you think I deny.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Remember, this is the guy who tried to pass himself off as a sadly recently disaffected liberal who just, dadgummit, has been let down by those liberals he tried so hard to love"
In what universe? If you're talking about me, you must have me confused with someone else.

[Magister]

Obviously talking about Bwaaah, although the laughable characterization of Bumble as a credible commenter was probably the particular Bwaaah nonsense chosen for criticism.

[ducksalad]

Now that we've totally separated marriage from anything having to do with reproduction or authorization for sexual intercourse, what is the objection to a brother marrying his sister?

Is there some big problem with siblings filing a joint tax return? As for the inheritance and power of attorney and visitation rights, that's something a sibling can already grant anyway, with not a whole lot more paperwork than a marriage license.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

People were able to get married while unable to have children long before same sex marriage was authorized. Limits of (certain types) of fornication before marriage have long been unenforced.

Incest was long banned in and out of marriage. Other "unnatural" unions in the past sometimes included interracial or across religions or castes. etc.

The meaning of "incest" is variable. Genesis at one point notes that Abram(ham) is his wife Sarah's half-brother. Some laws ban non-biological relations from having sexual intercourse. Step-siblings or adopted siblings (this was a plot point on The Fosters.)

OBERGEFELL notes that procreation and child-rearing is an aspect of the right to marry. Marriage is in place for various reasons. "Reproduction" is still part of it, akin to eating, being about things (religious dietary rules) that some do not worry about.

The opinion discusses various aspects of marriage. Some marriages will have a biological connection. Cousins sometimes marry, for instance. Rhode Island, for a long time, allowed a religious exemption to bans on uncle/niece marriages.

OTOH, biological families are already a thing. Marriage generally involves "outsiders becoming insiders."

Of course, we can, on some libertarian basis, think broadly. We can set up "domestic unions" of two sisters or whatever.

[not guilty]

Neither marriage nor procreation has ever been the sine qua non of the other. Conception (sometimes) results from the sexual union of a fertile female and a virile male.

Both parents may be unmarried. They may be married to each other. One of both may be married, but not to the other parent.

Gametes don't ask about their progenitors' marital status before combining to form zygotes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, but laws classifying based on sex are subject to intermediate scrutiny, which doesn't require narrow tailoring.

For a while California had a sex-specific statutory rape law, where only men could be perpetrators and only women could be victims. The law was held valid based on that fact that only women could get pregnant.

AFAIK it was not a defense that either the victim or the perpetrator was infertile.

[not guilty]

"Now that we've totally separated marriage from anything having to do with reproduction or authorization for sexual intercourse, what is the objection to a brother marrying his sister?"

ducksalad, if you are hot for your sibling and the two of you are keeping your pants on only because that variety of sex is illegal, go ahead and sue and develop an evidentiary record. I don't think that your state attorney general will have much difficulty defending the prohibitory statute.

[ducksalad]

Joe and not guilty, you may be misreading me.

I really am questioning why we still need to ban sibling marriage, and it's not an implied criticism of same sex marriage, which I support.

And not guilty, you are conflating marriage with sexual intercourse. I assume/hope you reject the idea that marriage is a license from the state to have sex, or even an affirmation of whatever sex a couple may or may not have.

If that is true, then the sex and its genetic consequences are irrelevant.

Conceptually, we could allow sibling marriage and still ban incestual sex. Suppose that was the proposal: sibling marriage, but at least officially required to be celibate. What is the objection?

Note that there are plenty of historical and current examples of married couples not being allowed to do certain things: sodomy, historically; non-consensual sex, currently.

To turn around your last paragraph, if two siblings really were deterred from engaging in intercourse because it is illegal, presumably allowing them to file a joint tax return would not change their thinking.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

My response was general and did not assume criticism of SSM.

For instance, whatever one's stance in that respect, I question the "totally separate" especially as a matter of is vs. ought.

We can "conceptually" separate things, but the two things also generally are connected. For instance, some states allow certain degree of cousins to marry (or this was the rule in the past) after a certain age to prevent the possibility of conception.

As noted, we can have legal domestic partnerships with various legal privileges and responsibilities. OTOH, since families already have certain connections, historically and otherwise, two siblings and two non-related partners still have multiple differences.

The "domestic partnership" legal construct still would be different than a "marriage." Same sex marriages are so labelled since they are like different sex marriages in all the relevant respects. Two siblings can have a legal partnership w/o it being a "marriage."

[Poxigah146]

The fact that Omar was able to find 5 men willing to stick his schlong into her is remarkable.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I provided a link on that thread to an explainer and looked over various articles linked to it. Another person explained why it was not a sensible claim. A third person was more simply dismissive, though perhaps partially from past knowledge of the argument.

[Bwaaah]

I believe this is your link to a 2019 New York Times "Fact Check". (Or "explainer," as you call it.)

That seems to be a short treatment of DJT's remarks about the story in 2019. It doesn't address the much lengthier track of alleged "evidence" asserted by Powerline Blog.

The Times relied, for example, on its cite of another outlet's report that an unnamed interviewer of Omar saw "cellphone photos" of "entry documents" that lacked the alleged brother's name among listed family members. That seemed to be the Time's most compelling "evidence." (Indications are that Omar has refused to produce any such documents.)

But the Times said this:

"Minnesota’s campaign finance board found that Ms. Omar filed joint tax returns in 2014 and 2015 with Mr. Hirsi while she was still legally married to Mr. Elmi. She agreed to pay a fine and back taxes as a result of the amendments to her returns those years."

That tells me that even the Times found she was playing the kinds of self-serving, unlawful lying games indicated by Powerline Blog's accusations. (Not big crimes, mind you. But crimes, mind you.)

It's a rabbit hole. And like I said, I lack sufficient interest (or purpose) in going down that one. But the dismissals of Bumble's assertion, based essentially on the charge of there being no evidence, offer little-to-no substantive rebuttal of Powerline's presentation (which seems to be the central source of the claims in dispute).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

As noted, I followed the links, which covers more ground.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, the whole thing is complicated, and if you aren't interested (which is fine) in covering all the bases, perhaps you should not say things like "was playing the kinds of self-serving, unlawful lying games" and merely citing something where she acknowledged she was legally married which can be a result of confusion on her legal status. That is not the same thing as "self-serving, unlawful lying games." There was a reference in one of the articles, for instance, to her being married pursuant to her religious tradition, which very well might not match British or American law.

[Bwaaah]

I regret that overstep of mine. I don't know that she intended deception.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I appreciate it.

[Riva]

Allow me to correct your sentence: "The case is detailed enough to make it a slam dunk."

[not guilty]

Professor Jack Goldsmith has written about the indefensible nature of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's reported spoken directive about the September 2 strike against the survivors of the initial strike on a boat in the Carribbean Sea. “The order was to kill everybody,” per the Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/28/hegseth-kill-them-all-survivors-boat-strike/

Professor Goldsmith points out that Section 5.4.7 of the DOD Law of War Manual says:

Prohibition Against Declaring That No Quarter Be Given. It is forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given. This means that it is prohibited to order that legitimate offers of surrender will be refused or that detainees, such as unprivileged belligerents, will be summarily executed. Moreover, it is also prohibited to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be no survivors, or to threaten the adversary with the denial of quarter. This rule is based on both humanitarian and military considerations. This rule also applies during non-international armed conflict.

[Emphasis added.]

If the Washington Post story is correct, Hegseth and the Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack, from Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley, deserve to be prosecuted for murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1111(b) and for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1) (making it a felony to conspire within the United States “to commit at any place outside the United States an act that would constitute the offense of murder … if committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” if “any of the conspirators commits an act within the jurisdiction of the United States to effect any object of the conspiracy”).

[Mr. Bumble]

Get back to us when the Post (and any other news outlets, right or left) publish stories with named sources.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Obstinacy about named sources is either performative, or stupid. It amounts to a, "bananas in my ears," formula to throw away most of the public benefit which is uniquely available only from an institutional press. Self-evidently, government insiders with stories of public importance about government malfeasance will not do so if they must be named.

An institutional press—and only an institutional press‚—has capacity to establish journalistic standards, and to adhere to them long enough and faithfully enough to earn ready confidence from both a considerable audience, and from government insiders. It is need to cherish the earned trust of those two non-journalistic groups—not the mere assertions of a press organization—which delivers the public check against journalistic carelessness, or outright falsehoods, in anonymously-sourced stories.

Because doing all that is difficult, and takes a long time, few sources sufficiently prestigious to publish significant anonymously-sourced stories about national governance ever exist. Some smaller outlets can accomplish as much locally.

An institutional press which has achieved that gains a priceless asset. An asset not just for the press business itself, but for public discourse, and thus for the public life of the nation.

That is an achievement which generally takes years to accomplish. Credibility builds slowly. It can be squandered by exposure of one or two untoward errors. Publishers and editors understand that, and accordingly scrutinize anonymous stories more closely than others. They understand that when they publish an important anonymously-sourced story which angers government, they put not just their reputations, but also their careers on the line.

The history of the most-prestigious institutional press organizations is dotted here and there with accounts of failed journalistic careers. Those happen when institutional journals misjudge the reliability of an employee, get embarrassed by publication of falsehoods, and must retract anonymously-sourced stories.

Would-be journalists who do that to an employer which guards its reputation cease to find employment among that select group. Some quit journalism, others simply switch to disreputable journals content to publish lies on purpose. It is up to news consumers to decide which are which, and thus provide the check which keeps reliable the careful institutional press.

Bumble's comment above examples a taste for ignorance, bought at the cost of treasure. Perhaps Bumble numbers himself among the those who suppose extending personal publishing power to millions of Joe and Jane Keyboard types offsets need for reliable professional news gatherers, together with institutional press organizations to support their work.

If so, that merely demonstrates that Bumble is unaware that even the best professional news gatherers—including those who have won personal trust from literally hundreds of highly placed government insiders—find themselves incapable to continue productive if they work as freelances. They succeed only if they can practice with the cooperation of an established and trusted institutional press organization.

Would-be anonymous sources take frightening risks themselves. They rarely provide important information with an eye to personal gain for themselves. They take those risks for diverse motives, but not usually for disreputable ones. They are typically unwilling to do that except in the expectation of two assurances: first, that a large and influential audience follows regularly the news outlet in which the story will appear, and, second, that the organization itself has resources and prestige sufficient to deliver a reliable guarantee of anonymity.

Of course internet personalities—obscure or even famous—are incapable to deliver what well-placed anonymous sources require. In fact, not even the best-connected and most experienced professional news gatherers can do that, except in the employ of an elite institutional press organization. It is the organization, not the journalist, which provides the assurances anonymous sources demand in exchange for the risks they run.

If this nation follows Bumble's lead, and turns against the very existence of an elite institutional press, its citizens will be plunged suddenly into nearly complete ignorance about troublesome activities going on inside governments and major corporations. Bad consequences will not be limited merely to public discourse, but will extend to doing damage to public life itself.

[Kazinski]

"An institutional press which has achieved that gains a priceless asset. An asset not just for the press business itself, but for public discourse, and thus for the public life of the nation."

I fully agree with Lathrop, the Press's reputation is well earned.

"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans’ confidence in the mass media has edged down to a new low, with just 28% expressing a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in newspapers, television and radio to report the news fully, accurately and fairly. This is down from 31% last year and 40% five years ago.

Meanwhile, seven in 10 U.S. adults now say they have “not very much” confidence (36%) or “none at all” (34%)."

https://news.gallup.com/poll/695762/trust-media-new-low.aspx

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — I explained why irrational distrust of elite media is senseless. You commented—as if you thought you were countering—with info to show the senselessness is already pervasive, and perhaps still increasing. That non-sequitur is another example to go with Bumble's, likewise performative or stupid.

What do you have, if anything, to counter the point that it takes elite media to make inside-government sources, or inside-corporate sources, willing to disclose what they know about malfeasance by their employers?

[Brett Bellmore]

Irrational distrust of the media would, tautologically, be senseless. Your problem is that you're faced with rational distrust of the media.

Every time I've been involved in anything that got reported in the papers, some aspect of the story as published was wrong. Every damn time. I have seen newspaper photographers carefully frame photos to exclude black people present at a political rally, then report that it was a white rally.

They didn't start pulling crap like that this year. They've been doing it since the 90's, in my personal experience.

The media's problem is that Gell-Mann amnesia has its limits, and the media in this country have blown past them.

So, no, you're not entitled to have the public trust you. You're entitled, by a long string of abuses, for them to assume that every anonymous report is made up out of whole cloth, and half the named accounts, too.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, when have you ever been involved in anything anonymously sourced that got reported in the NYT, and what did that report get wrong? As I mentioned above, anonymously sourced stories get more scrutiny than others.

Not that being wrong is impossible for any reporter. Your demand that every detail of every story reported in every local rag must meet your own informed standard of accuracy cannot be met. For the good reason that your specific notion of accuracy will often differ in detail from those of others similarly involved. To make the point you keep repeating, you need to show not that you disagree with the report, but that the report did not agree with whatever source it relied upon, or that the source was unworthy of reportorial reliance and the reporter had reason to know that.

And before you repeat that claim of personal knowledge again, I suggest you give the reporting business a try, and see how you do. Based on the commentary you publish here, I doubt you have the temperament necessary to withhold judgment, and take a story right down the middle, while basing it on a source you may disagree with.

There are of course plenty of bad reporters out there, and you might turn out to be one of them. That is why I made it a point to confine my remarks to, "elite," media, despite well knowing that many here find that notion triggering.

News reporting is barely even an art. More a job of work that ought to be done in accord with acknowledged high standards. As with most such activities, almost all the output worth paying special attention to will be delivered by a smallish elite among the practitioners. Same with history. Same with law. Same with economics. Same with biological sciences or medicine. Same with play writing and poetry. Same with teaching. The list is endless.

As in the case of all acquired skills, wise judges do not try to impeach the best practitioners by taxing them with the shortcomings of others. It is even less wise to critique any field of intellectual endeavor because most of its practitioners, inevitably, fall below the standards of the best.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not the NYT, the Detroit Free Press.

But I've observed generally declining standards in the industry for years, or perhaps just declining capacity to suppress knowledge of their standards.

[Absaroka]

Several reasons, I think:
1)Revenue has shifted to other kinds of media; you can't really do more with a lot less.
2)There is a rush to be first to print. It's not like you have a few hours before the evening edition deadline to check things, much less set on a story for a couple days.
3)The profession has shifted from 'we report the facts and let the reader decide' to 'we provide a narrative to steer the reader to the conclusion we want'.

[Bwaaah]

#3 is more of a self-selecting feedback loop that very much affects profit and becomes, "we provide a narrative to steer the reader to the conclusions the reader wants."

Media enterprises may (and do) build their audience on what they think is right. But once their audience turns into customers and they profit from the satisfaction of their customers, it is that satisfaction that a successful media enterprise covets, fosters, exploits.

You gotta take your customers for a trip around the universe while guaranteeing they feel surely right along the way. That's the self-righteous ethos that lots of people seem to crave.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They have never covered a fire.

It used to be that reporters started out by covering fires and car crashes and the charity banquets for the hospital. They sat through really boring County Commission meetings and tried to explain why the new Sheriff's cars would be Fords instead of Chevys, and why they would be painted white instead of blue, and who wanted them to be silver instead.

Starting in the '80s there was a young crop of reporters who had been 10-12 years old during Watergate, old enough to be impressed that Woodward & Bernstein brought down Nixon, but not old enough to have understood any of it in real time.

But they still covered fires because they knew that was how Woodward & Bernstein stumbled into Watergate, they were covering a routine "nothing" burgulary and did it by-the-book only to find out some not-so-nothing facts involved, e.g. burgulars with $100 bills on them.

The 1994 Congressional landslide eliminated the jobs of a lot of people on Capitol Hill, and AlGore's subsequent loss six years eliminated a lot more. Many of these people went directly into journalism, but as political activists. For example, George Stephanopoulos had been Clinton's communications director.

David Brinkley started writing for the local newspaper while in high school. He came back early from WWII with a medical discharge and started working for UPI before becoming a White House Correspondent on the then-new local TV news.

Chet Huntley had started in local radio news and worked his way
up.

Walter Chronkite dropped out of college his junior year because he already had several newspaper reporting jobs -- and 1935 was the depths of the Depression. He went on to be a war correspondent, quite close to the action.

Compare that to today when most journalists learned aobout journalism watching John Stewart on The Daily Show.

[Bwaaah]

Three times, I have written to the New York Times to criticize something they printed. In all three cases (between 2005-2019?), I received prompt, seriously considered responses. In one, they disagreed and gave me a reasonably-minded counterargument. In another, the writer posted a brief correction and apology for the error. In the third, regarding a prominent front page political article, they briefly acknowledged the correctness of my point in writing and posted a substantial correction to the article within 20 minutes (along with a note of errata at the bottom).

Those were the only times I saw things seriously wrong enough to be worthy of writing. I'd give the [people of the] Times an "A" for having taken my remarks seriously. (I'm a no-name nobody who represented no credentials in my emails to the Times.)

[Kazinski]

What really started the press's long slide into disgrace was the 60 minutes Rathergate scandal. Where the most prestigious anchor, on the most prestigious news network, on their flagship show, coordinated with the Kerry campaign and used obviously forged documents to try to swing a presidential election.

After that the public realized that the press could not be implicitly trusted and that blogs and citizen journalism was an important counterweight to a biased "elite" media.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — There is a problem with your Rather take. It is easy to show that Rather had done his journalism wrong—he had no idea what the actual source of his document was.

On a story like that one, not knowing where the document came from was an offense grave enough to warrant Rather's firing. Or, it was an example of self-sacrifice, done to protect a source to whom Rather had pledged confidentiality.

But your conclusion that Rather's document was obviously forged relies on a false assertion: that Rather's document matched another created by a Rather accuser using a modern Times Roman font. It did not. There were two kinds of differences in those fonts.

There was one difference so subtle that it was all but impossible to discern without having the documents in hand, despite the fact it affected every lowercase character. The so-called x-heights did not match. Because I did not have the documents in hand, I am only about 90% confident about that assertion.

But there was another difference as well, which showed up only among some of the numerals. And where those numerals do happen to show up, that one is unmistakable. Some of the numerals showed old-style descenders, like those seen on the dates of Lincoln cents. Unless the numerals used show a three, a seven, or a nine, old-style numerals are only subtly different. But those three characters descend below the baseline established by the other numeric characters. The comparison document showed modern numerals, without descenders. Rather's document did show numerals with descenders. Hence the fonts were not alike, and the claim that Rather forged the document using a modern word processor went unsupported by the purported evidence. I say, "unsupported," instead of, "refuted," because a modern word processing program can create an old-style font set using software engineered to do it.

Finally, there was another claim—that the line lengths matched. Without the documents in hand, and a light table to do the comparison, that can be another challenge to discern. But only if the samples in question feature genuinely matching fonts. If they do not use the same font, and the line lengths do match, then that is all but proof of jiggery-pokery created by subtle spacing manipulations. An expert typographer equipped with sophisticated typographic software can make that happen, and do it in a way an untrained eye will not detect. But fonts of differing designs virtually never match line lengths by happenstance. And the descender difference already noted proved the differing designs.

On that basis it is certain that the critique of Rather's document was made without competent evidence to support it. And it is likely that the document used to critique Rather's document was a deliberate forgery. On that last assertion, I say, "likely," only because I do not have the documents in hand. If I did, I could say for certain.

I have career credentials as a digital typographic expert sufficient to qualify me as an expert witness in court on all these questions.

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 4 hours ago
"Kazinski — I explained why irrational distrust of elite media is senseless. "

SL - you are correct, "irrational distrust of elite media" is senseless.
However- Rational distrust of the elite media is well earned by the media for their extensive dishonest reporting.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas — As with Bellmore, I challenge you to discredit on the basis of your own research any anonymously reported story in, for instance, the NYT. Do that and you will at least demonstrate you know what you are talking about. Keep relying on others who have not done that either, and you will all continue struggling together.

[Mr. Bumble]

Proving a negative?

[Riva]

More anonymous sources. How many times did this same tired bullshit formula of "people with knowledge" appear to prop up the Russian collusion fraud? Has anyone kept count? Someone should.

[David Nieporent]

Obstinacy about named sources is either performative, or stupid. It amounts to a, "bananas in my ears," formula to throw away most of the public benefit which is uniquely available only from an institutional press. Self-evidently, government insiders with stories of public importance about government malfeasance will not do so if they must be named.

The worst part is that even when named sources do confirm a story — see, e.g., John Kelly and "suckers and losers" — they just continue to deny it. It's a bad faith argument.

[Commenter_XY]

https://www.breitbart.com/border/2025/11/28/hegseth-weve-only-just-begun-to-kill-narco-terrorists-proclaims-cartel-war-entered-new-phase/

Well NG, I don't think SecWar Hegseth got Goldsmith's memo, nor does he particularly give a shit what WaPoop has to write.

"We have only just begun to kill narco-terrorists." -- SecWar Hegseth

Contact your Senators and Congresscritter. See what they think. 😉

[not guilty]

From the Breitbart post that you link:

Hegseth reiterated the consistent message from the Trump administration about narco-terrorists and foreign terrorist organizations, writing, “As we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be “lethal, kinetic strikes.” The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people. Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.”

He emphasized that the orders to strike the narco-terrorists is a “lawful order under both U.S. and international law. He explained that “all actions are in compliance with the law of armed conflict.”

Secretary Hegseth is flagrantly ignoring the First Rule of Holes: STOP DIGGING!!

Commenter_XY, riddle me this. During 1920, liquor was regarded as every bit the scourge that illegal narcotics today are regarded. The prohibition of alcoholic beverage then was even written into the Constitution:

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

XY, do you claim that presidential authority during the 1920s would then have authorized a president to order the summary execution of rum runners on the high seas?

[Commenter_XY]

NG, you are clearly bothered by the deaths of drug dealers.

By all means, contact your Senator and Congress-critter. I am sure they will give your concern and solicitude for drug dealers and narco-terrorists a fair hearing. You're a constituent who votes.

Do let us know how that talk goes. 😉

[not guilty]

I suspect that my Senators and my Congressman care very little for the rule of law. I'm not terribly familiar with Senator Bill Hagerty or Rep. John Rose, but Senator Marsha Blackburn is a blithering idiot. I doubt that any one of them cares what I have to say.

Now please answer my question. Do you claim that presidential authority during the 1920s would then have authorized a president to order the summary execution of rum runners on the high seas?

[Kazinski]

I'm sure it would have been perfectly fine, in fact its well documented that Texas Rangers, Federal agents, and local Louisiana law enforcement made no attempt to give Bonnie and Clyde a chance to surrender, they just lit them up when they saw their car.

[ducksalad]

Not the same thing.

Shooting someone without warning - allowed depending on circumstances.

Shooting someone who is trying to surrender - not allowed.

[Kazinski]

That wasn't NG's hypothetical.

And it was a stupid hypothetical.

It was routine in the 20's all the way to the 60's to shoot felons in the commission of a crime, even when fleeing, front or back.

In fact look up Vicky Weaver and how she died, and who was charged for her murder. That was 1992.

[Mr. Bumble]

I mentioned this referring to the scene from "It's a Wonderful Life"
Where Bert (Ward Bond) shoots at a fleeing George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) in the middle of a crowded main street in "Pottersville".

[David Nieporent]

C_XY, you're being an asshole. Your entire response amounts to "Nyah, nyah, you can't stop it."

[Dr. Ed 2]

"XY, do you claim that presidential authority during the 1920s would then have authorized a president to order the summary execution of rum runners on the high seas?"

1: That would have been an act of war with Great Britain as they were British (Canadian) flagged vessels, which conspicuously displayed the British/Canadian flag as they anchored out on Rum Row -- 12 knots offshore.

2: More importantly, rum was legal in the rest of the world -- COCAINE AND FENTANYL ARE NOT! That's a big difference as International law addresses the suppression of piracy and drug smuggling differently than, say, the smuggling of designer jeans.

3: We recognized both the British and Canadian governments at the time -- we do NOT recognize the current Venezuelan government.

[not guilty]

Since when is it necessary to recognize a government in order to commit a war crime against another country's nationals, Ed?

[Drewski]

Says the foreign shill who was trolling when Americans were eating on Thanksgiving.

[Kazinski]

Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell said they told the WAPO the story was fake before they printed it.

https://x.com/SeanParnellUSA/status/1994556986768155105?s=20

[not guilty]

And just who does Mr. Parnell report to? What would you expect him to say?

For that matter, President Clinton shook his finger, bit his lip and solemnly declared, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

Merely issuing a self-serving statement doesn't make something so.

[Kazinski]

You and I can believe whomever and whatever we want, but a court is going to need some evidence.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Meh, Trump assassinated a little American girl with his first military order. Sorry, not sorry.

[David Nieporent]

Parnell did not say that. Read more better. He conspicuously neglected to say that the story was fake. He said that the narrative was false, which doesn't mean anything at all.

[Dr. Ed 2]

These are pirates, not enemy combatantants, and they have not surrendered. Notwithstanding this, a policy manual is not binding on the secretary.

Let's prosecute NG for sedition if we are going to prosecute people for bogus stuff. And prosecute the WaPo for abducting aliens....

[DDHarriman]

If this horrible thing I imagined is true, ARREST PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!

[not guilty]

"If this horrible thing I imagined is true, ARREST PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!"

No one is clamoring for an arrest of President Trump. His handmaid John Roberts saw to that last year. As Justice Robert Jackson, concurring in result in Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953), said of his colleagues on SCOTUS, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

Hegseth and Bradley, however, have a great deal of exposure once we get an honest Attorney General. I will not be surprised if Trump issues preemptive pardons to them before he leaves office.

[DDHarriman]

If this horrible thing I imagined is true, ARREST PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OFFICIALS!!!

Totally not lawfare!!! INVESTIGATE ALL TRUMP APPOINTEE'S for illegal lawfare!! In fact, repeat what we did 2020-2024 and investigate every TRUMP associate and donor too for illegal lawfare, and find crimes and arrest them and debank them again!!! Investigating political opponents is wrong!!!

It's the Paradox of Lawfare, one must commit lawfare in order to protect Sacred Democracies from lawfare!!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I will not be surprised if Trump issues preemptive pardons to them before he leaves office."

That's true. The norm is that Presidents issue preemptive pardons for family and staff who might be in legal jeopardy. Hopefully Trump will buck it, but I don't have my hopes up.

[Commenter_XY]

Suppose POTUS Trump does not issue pre-emptive pardons.

Then what? Endless lawfare? To what end (what is 'victory')?

The Cauliflower was aware enough to issue the pre-emptive pardons. Or directed the Autopen to do it.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 53 minutes ago
"No one is clamoring for an arrest of President Trump. His handmaid John Roberts saw to that last year."

NG continuing to misrepresent the SC holding in the immunity case. You wouda thunk NG knows better.

[not guilty]

You lie, Joe_Dallas. I have never misrepresented the holding of Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 144 S.Ct. 2312 (2024).

If you contend otherwise, show us your proof.

[Joe_dallas]

BS - you just did - and you have done it frequently.

What was this statement - if not your usual attempt to misrepresent the holding?

your plausible deniability is pure BS and only a deflection

[not guilty]

No, I have consistently accurately represented the holding of Trump v. United States, including downthread today.

I have repeatedly acknowledged that President Trump is not subject to criminal prosecution now or after leaving office for giving orders to military forces -- that is why I am calling for prosecution of Secretary Hegseth and General Bradley, but not President Trump. I have also pointed out that that state of affairs is due to the handiwork of Chief Justice John Roberts. Do you contend that either of these propositions is false?

[DDHarriman]

"President Trump is not subject to criminal prosecution now or after leaving office for giving orders to military forces"

Clarify this statement, please. Are you referring to lawful orders, unlawful orders, or all orders both lawful and unlawful?

It sure sounds like you're saying that President Trump can issue a lawful order that Secretary Hegseth and General Bradley could be prosecuted for, but not President Trump.

Or, you're saying that President Trump can issue an unlawful order and that SCOTUS has declared he is immune when issuing unlawful orders but would leave everyone else in legal jeopardy who followed them.

Using more precise language, can you restate your claims?

[not guilty]

Per Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), the President issuing orders to the armed forces is within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. So President Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for issuing such orders, whether the orders are lawful or unlawful.

That is precisely why I am calling for prosecution of Secretary Hegseth and General Bradley -- to whom immunity does not attach -- for issuing/carrying out unlawful orders, but I am not calling for prosecution of President Trump.

Upon any such prosecution, the unlawfulness of the order(s) would be an essential element of the offense(s), which the government of course would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Upon any such prosecution, the unlawfulness of the order(s) would be an essential element of the offense(s), which the government of course would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt."

IIUC the unlawfulness of the orders would be a question of law, to be determined by the courts.

"President Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for issuing such orders, whether the orders are lawful or unlawful."

Although who knows, if the court composition changes, or if the next Administration enlarges the court...

[DDHarriman]

President Trump has constitutional authority to issue unlawful orders?

I cant believe even you cant see the contradiction.

Or you do and youre intentionally lying and obfuscating like you typically do.

[Kenneth Almquist]

> President Trump has constitutional authority to issue unlawful orders?

He is immune from criminal prosecution if he issues unlawful orders.

> I cant believe even you cant see the contradiction.

Not Guilty is just relaying what the Supreme Court said; it’s not his fault if the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States makes no sense.

[DDHarriman]

Kenneth,

That is not what SCOTUS said. That's the lie that you and not guilty keep perpetuating. It's literally spelled out right on the front page of the opinion.

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature
of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity
from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority

In your mind, does "constitutional authority" subsume "illegal orders" and "legal orders"? I mean do you believe that a President has constitutional authority to issue illegal orders?

Can you just state affirmatively and directly a clear statement like "I believe that the constitution grants a President to do 'X', but 'X' is illegal, made illegal by 'Y' and SCOTUS ruled a President can still commit act 'X'."

Then can you expand on how you think whatever authority 'Y' is happens to be greater than our constitution?

[not guilty]

"IIUC the unlawfulness of the orders would be a question of law, to be determined by the courts."

No. The sixth amendment requires that a criminal defendant is entitled to "a jury determination that he is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt." Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 477 (2000), quoting United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S. 506, 510 (1995).

The citation to Gaudin there is highly significant. Prior to that decision, the question of materiality in a false statement or perjury prosecution had been regarded as a question of law to be determined by the court. A unanimous Supreme Court there held that the trial judge's refusal to submit the question of materiality to the jury was unconstitutional, in that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require criminal convictions to rest upon a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt, 515 U.S. at 510, including mixed questions of law and fact.

[DDHarriman]

Of course ng returns and ignores the obvious. This is what he does. Puts all sorts of legalish sound garbage then harumphs away when cornered.

How could a President execute a constitutionally authorized act, that is simultaneously unlawful?

How can one thing be both "constitutionally authorized" and "unlawful"? Are there any examples of something authorized by the US Constitution, but that has also made illegal by some other authority? In the example can you also explain how this other authority is superior to the US Constitution?

[TwelveInchPianist]

From the MCM discussion of Article 90:

The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.

The discussion of Article 92 references the same description.

[TwelveInchPianist]

But ultimately, contra what you said, the lawfulness of the order is not an element of the offense, but an obedience to orders defense would be raised, where the government would have to prove that the accused knew the order was unlawful, or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would know that the order was unlawful. The lawfulness of the order would still be a question of law.

[not guilty]

From the MCM discussion of Article 90:

The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.

The discussion of Article 92 references the same description.

I was not referring to a court martial, but instead to a criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1111 and/or 18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1), to which the Fifth and Sixth Amendments apply in full force.

Under Article I, § 8 of the Constitution, the Congress can "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." A member of the armed forces does not have a constitutional right to a jury trial in courts martial.

Congress, however, cannot override the Fifth and Sixth Amendment requirements applicable to criminal prosecutions generally.

[not guilty]

How could a President execute a constitutionally authorized act, that is simultaneously unlawful?

How can one thing be both "constitutionally authorized" and "unlawful"? Are there any examples of something authorized by the US Constitution, but that has also made illegal by some other authority? In the example can you also explain how this other authority is superior to the US Constitution?

The President, in his capacity as commander in chief, giving orders to military personnel is acting within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority -- whether such orders are lawful or unlawful.

To use an example cited in the Trump decision, "Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials." Suppose a President ordered his attorney general to prosecute a political opponent for spitting on the sidewalk, which is not a federal crime. That order would be unlawful, but the President would be immune from criminal prosecution after leaving office for issuing the suspect order.

If legal analysis were easy, top shelf lawyers wouldn't make the big bucks.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I was not referring to a court martial, but instead to a criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1111 and/or 18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1), to which the Fifth and Sixth Amendments apply in full force."

And how is the lawfulness of an order an essential element of either of those?

[not guilty]

"And how is the lawfulness of an order an essential element of either of those?"

It is not. The unlawfulness of the order is, however.

Per 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a), "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." Killing pursuant to a lawful order is not prohibited by § 1111. Ergo, the unlawful nature of the order is an essential element of the prosecution's proof.

Likewise, 18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1) makes it a felony to conspire within the United States “to commit at any place outside the United States an act that would constitute the offense of murder … if committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” if “any of the conspirators commits an act within the jurisdiction of the United States to effect any object of the conspiracy”. Four our armed services to kill pursuant to a lawful order would not "constitute the offense of murder," such that a conspiracy to do so is not prohibited by § 956(a)(1).

[TwelveInchPianist]

According to the Ninth:

The essential elements of first-degree murder are: (1) the act or acts of killing a human being; (2) doing such act or acts with malice aforethought; and (3) doing such act or acts with premeditation.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Arresting a president has various constitutional and practical difficulties.

This was discussed for a long time. It was determined, however, that you can arrest vice presidents.

You should be able to arrest people no longer the president. Trump v. U.S. does make that more difficult. The makeup of Congress also makes it harder to legally remove him via impeachment. Likewise, the supermajority requirement overall, as seen in the case of President Andrew Johnson.

As to arresting other federal officials, including Cabinet members, there does seem to be evidence to arrest Pete Hegseth. OTOH, it is not likely as a matter of prosecutorial discretion.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump v US doesn't make it particularly hard to arrest people no longer President. It just establishes that you can't do it for things that aren't crimes, and that exercising the powers of the office isn't a crime.

If Trump happens to rob a bank, have at him.

[DDHarriman]

They don't understand that distinction. Somehow that basic shit is too nuanced for them.

Trump = Black Heart = Illegal. That's all their minds can seem to comprehend.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

What is too nuanced here?

A specific thing (not Trump = bad) is cited.

The opinion significantly limits what can be made illegal and how to prove it. It goes so far in restraining prosecution that a member of the majority (Barrett) did not go along with certain aspects of the opinion. Your comment is a tad ironic.

[Bwaaah]

This is my comment about NG's comment about a professor's comments about a WP report about remarks made by unnamed sources about what Pete Hegseth said.

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, good point. Besides, out in intl waters, dealing with foreign terrorists, different rules apply. They're just target practice and shark shit, and it is perfectly legal.

Drug dealers who transport drugs to the US are in mortal danger. These criminals should a) make sure their life insurance policy is paid up, and b) make peace with The Almighty. As far as the law goes, the POTUS designated these foreign drug dealers terrorists via executive order. They're toast.

[Josh R]

Besides, out in intl waters, dealing with foreign terrorists, different rules apply. They're just target practice and shark shit, and it is perfectly legal.Citation?

[Bwaaah]

LOL

Citation? Commenter_XY, of course.

I mean, it's pretty much his signature material, no? Who else says it that way?

[not guilty]

"Besides, out in intl waters, dealing with foreign terrorists, different rules apply. They're just target practice and shark shit, and it is perfectly legal."

XY, you couldn't be more wrong. Per 18 U.S.C. § 1111(b):

(b)Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;
Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

The “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” specifically includes the high seas. 18 U.S.C. § 7(1).

Per 10 U.S.C. § 805, the Uniform Code of Military Justice applies in all places.

As I have said time and time and time again, there is no substitute for original source materials.

[hobie]

DEA agents and prosecutors were stunned Friday to find out that Trump had pardoned one of the western hemisphere's most notorious drug traffickers (Honduran pres).

[DDHarriman]

The Honduran ex-President is POC. This is just rectifying the harms of White Supremacies that caused him to commit any crimes. Just like POCs in the US.

It's not his fault. He's a POC, which means he's too stupid to get his own ID to vote without Systemic Whiteness helping him.

[Riva]

If the WP is correct? Why all we have to do is assess the credibility of the sources and then we can....oh my bad....we can't actually do that. Funny how that keeps happening, ain't it?

[DDHarriman]

Riva, recall during Trump v1.0 their favorite source was "People familiar with his thinking".

Which literally could be anyone.

[John F. Carr]

The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine may be a defense to a conspiracy charge. Members of the same organization, the U.S. military, worked together to make the organization do something illegal. (Season with "allegedly" to taste.)

[Commenter_XY]

This one is a head scratcher.

The Cauliflower and the Autopen.

Can POTUS Trump actually undo The Cauliflower's actions authorized by Autopen, based on The Cauliflower being unaware of what was being forged signed with his signature?

I don't think POTUS Trump can. I would only counsel that one day, the shoe will be on the other foot, and a future POTUS might do the same. It isn't a good idea.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is an autopen a legally valid signature?

Let's say a law firm's paralegals were using it to sign pleadings that the licensed lawyer had never seen. Wouldn't that be a problem?

What does the Statute of Frauds say about autopen-signed contracts?

[Commenter_XY]

Is an autopen a legally valid signature?
Answer: Yes

Other: It could be re-litigated.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm reminded of my recent visit to the doctor, when I had to "sign" a form before treatment. By scribbling with my finger tip something that a blind man might have mistaken for my normal signature, on an entry device, which for all I knew could have been recording it on a durable power of attorney, not a HIPA rights acknowledgement.

Procedures get created to accomplish particular ends, and then human laziness kicks in, and they get made convenient, in ways that see to it that they no longer accomplish them. Formality displaces reality.

Personally signing a document is intended to confirm that you have read it, and agreed to it. Scribbling on an input pad to verify this for an unseen document. Having a machine copy your signature, which does it regardless of who presses the button.

These are conveniences that completely abolish the POINT of the procedure!

So, no, autopens should not be legally valid signatures, unless you have some concrete evidence that the person whose signature it is actually pressed the button, in full view of the document their signature is being copied onto.

If there is any question at all who pressed the button, any way at all it could have been done without the participation of the person whose signature was affixed, or their awareness of the document it was affixed to, the whole POINT of signing is gone!

[ThePublius]

Well said. I agree,

[ducksalad]

You have a point, but even a traditional manual signature with a fountain pen is very weak proof. Even centuries ago, if it was important to be sure, witnesses were required. Signatures are not very hard to forge and 30 years ago people in authority sometimes told their trusted secretaries to fake it for them.

The pardon-doubters could, in an instant, switch to claiming that someone forged Biden's signature. Whether it's done by a forger's hand or an autopen doesn't much matter.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, this might just be why Trump is making a point of signing stuff in front of a camera, with witnesses? Because he's trying to actually reliably establish that he signed stuff, instead of just giving up because it's hard?

The last administration went in the opposite direction, and likely because Biden actually wasn't in command, he was just a figurehead much of the time.

[ducksalad]

I think the real point here is that living in a low trust society is very difficult and living in a zero trust society is impossible.

Here's his signature.
- - Autopen or faked.
But there were witnesses.
-- They're lying.
Here's a DNA sample and retina scan.
-- Stolen, copied.
Here's the man himself saying he signed it.
-- He's lying to cover for his subordinates.
Five hundred witnesses, half of them on your side, saw it only ten minutes ago and have continuously averred he signed it in front of them.
-- He might have signed it with a secret mental reservation.
You yourself blamed him for signing it just this morning.
-- I deny that and you can't prove it.

[DDHarriman]

We've become a low trust society.

Multi-cultural societies are always low trust. It's simple human nature.

Needing more proof for society affecting orders by one man? That's just the price we pay for our Utopia.

[ducksalad]

You judge by ethnicity.
I judge by a person's record, like your BS about EOs posted earlier today.

[DDHarriman]

It's a simple observed fact that when there are multiple cultures in an area, there is low trust.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-diversity-create-distrust/

In 2007 the Harvard professor Robert Putnam published a paper that appeared to challenge the benefits of living in a racially diverse society. Putnam’s study, which used a large, nationally representative sample of nearly 30,000 Americans, found that people living in more diverse areas reported lower levels of trust in their neighbors. They also reported less interest in voting, volunteering, and giving to charity. In other words, greater diversity seemed to be linked to both feelings and behaviors that threaten a sense of community.

Now of course the Trust The Scientism Klean up Krew had to rewrite reality for The Reality Based Community with:

After reanalyzing the same dataset used by Putnam, Abascal and Baldassari asserted that when it comes to distrust and diversity, most of the distrust is expressed by Whites who feel uncomfortable living amongst racial minorities.

So of course the Left landed on their favorite boogeyman to wash away reality and preserve The Narrative. The low-trust society created from multi-culturalism was because of SYSTEMIC RACISM!!!!

lol it's just so predictable and tiresome.

Sadly, it’s rare to see well-established and stable racially diverse communities.

So they literally have zero empirical evidence. Just dogma and ideology. lol wtf is wrong with your kind.

[ducksalad]

We don't disagree on the survey. It's a simple fact that there are people who distrust people based on ethnicity, and they answer surveys, and the results reflect that.

We just disagree who is to blame. I don't blame whites. I blame people who share your attitude, and they come in all colors.

[DDHarriman]

I wonder why there are zero communities filled with Enlightened Liberals like you where everyone is just as Moral and Good as you that trusts everyone even those that are radically different than you?

Or are you unique in your Goodness?

You'd think you'd see a high-trust multicultural community somewhere where liberals live like San Francisco...

But alas, we don't.... maybe your theory of enlightenment is wrong?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Are there witness? From what I read, the chain of custody for many of the pardons seemed rather weak.

It's a moot point (or an unripe point) until someone tries to prosecute someone with an actual pardon, of course.

[ducksalad]

I'm just pointing out that some witnesses coming forward wouldn't convince anyone determined not to be convinced.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on: It's easy to hypothesize in the absence of good evidence, that it would be futile to provide good evidence. But all it is, is an excuse to ignore that you DON'T have good evidence, and people are responding to that.

[ducksalad]

Did you see the signature doubters deciding not to accept their social security checks, or turning down defense contracts, based on the idea that maybe Joe Biden didn't REALLY sign the national budget and maybe it was Jill or the autopen?

No. That's because they want to believe in the budget and don't want to believe in the pardons. That's the only reasoning, and it is motivated.

Maybe y'all would have been happier if the Seditious Six took a different approach: "Hey, active duty troops! When you get an order from Trump, keep in mind that maybe it was really an autopen! You don't have to obey if you didn't see him sign it in person!"

[Joe_dallas]

docusign is exceptionally easy to forge. there is virtually no possible way to get the computer mouse to match a normal signature, much less be consistent from the same person.

[ducksalad]

Yup.

There is some tiny value to both docusign and scrawled signature on a touch pad - a person who misuses it is risking the penalties for forgery.

In that sense it's a little like being put under oath - doesn't verify anything is true but is possibly a deterrent against lying.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"for all I knew could have been recording it on a durable power of attorney, not a HIPA rights acknowledgement."

I asked the gal at the desk how people knew what they were signing, and she handed me a couple of printed pages and said, "It's this."

[ducksalad]

Check the twelfth document in the pile. It's the one where you sign to certify that you read the previous eleven before you signed them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure, but why should I think that the stack of papers I'm being handed has any relation to the black piece of plastic I'm supposed to scrawl my mark on?

[ducksalad]

Because you signed an agreement and on page 9, paragraph 7b it authorizes them to use electronic signatures.

[Mr. Bumble]

Life in the Matrix.

[Krayt]

The legal point of a signature is it represents the assent of a particular individual. The strokes are part of the security, as are witnesses.

A mechanical signing device might as well be a literal physical rubber stamp. Or just set authorized quasi-signers, with a registry of people authorized to physically sign a long as the president so directs.

Well, it's getting stupid and dangerously open to frauds. There is no logical point to a mechanical signing swing-arm as it does not achieve the point of a manual signature.

This is raw sophistry.

Going forward:

1. Should be banned. Real signatures only.
2. Old autopens should be confirmed with the previous presidents. In the case of Biden, if verbal memery suddenly appears claiming he's too old to remember what he authorized for autopen signing, know this is brute fakery, cover up of autopen fraud.

We are men and women of science. We like theories that make predictions, and if the predictions come true, that gives confidence.

Let us demand a review of all autopen signatures, with actual statements by previous presidents that they approved each and every one. Then, if "he's too old!" appears, we will know.

We will know. And in that case, they should be treated as invalid as preventing fraudulent "authorizations" by the President (to say nothing of laws) outweighs glib power grabbery.

Best hurry, while Biden is still considered lucid.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Best hurry, while Biden is still considered lucid."
That ship sailed years ago.

[ducksalad]

Should be banned. Real signatures only.

Equal protection violation against victims of amputation, paralysis, and severe arthritis.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm sure we could find some substitute in such cases that was equally secure, rather than demanding uniform insecurity.

[ducksalad]

Equally secure with a traditional signature, as I said above, is not very secure at all. Forging signatures has been a thing since time immemorial.

On a more general and cheerful note: we are approaching the time when it won't be possible to prove anything at all.

Video and photos can be faked to any desired degree of accuracy, and no, digital stamps and blockchains aren't a barrier to someone able to inject fake video at the level of the camera element.

DNA evidence? CRISPR machines get better and cheaper every year. Someday a mid-range criminal enterprise will be able to afford a desktop machine that can reproduce your DNA and smear it on anything they want.

ID cards depend on the issuing agency having access to technology that forgers don't. That's an ongoing arms race, but the real issue is that the agencies have to buy that technology from somebody.

[Life of Brian]

I'm basically just repeating what Brett and others have said above, but I don't know of any other context in the world where we completely drop the security and/or authenticity measures we have just because they're not perfect.

[ducksalad]

Maybe it is just me. We don't lock our house, even when we leave on trips, and I don't even know if we still have keys.

Some friends and relatives are all shocked about it, they're the kind that turn around one hour into a vacation to go back and check that they didn't forget.

What's the point when the house has a dozen glass windows and any adult with normal legs and one good shoulder could knock down the front door?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...they're the kind that turn around one hour into a vacation to go back and check that they didn't forget."

Huh? Why don't they just look on their phones?

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot to post your address.

[ducksalad]

Why Bumble? You don't have two normal legs and a shoulder?

PS Please don't take the HP48. It has sentimental value, I'm crippled without it, and they're getting very hard to find.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'm sure your insurance company will be happy to learn you left your property unsecured when the contents are removed or squatters set it afire.

[Life of Brian]

What's the point when the house has a dozen glass windows and any adult with normal legs and one good shoulder could knock down the front door?

Maybe you live out in a sparse rural area where breaking a window or knocking down the front door wouldn't attract any attention, and a burglar, bored teenager, etc., would just do whatever they have to do to get into the first house they eyeball rather than holding out for one like yours that they can just slip into undetected. But in most cases, locking deters a non-zero amount of theft/vandalism.

Again, not perfect, but helpful.

[ducksalad]

Insurance? You and I really do lead very different lives.

The house is paid off and we have no homeowner's insurance. We make enough money to have shelter if it burns down.

You do realize, Mr. Bumble, that the insurance company's whole business proposition is that, on the odds, they will take more money from you than they ever pay back. It's not a good deal unless you can't survive the insured event. I hope you're not confused by that.

This is laughable. Self-proclaimed conservatives and libertarians advocate for catastrophic-only insurance, no mandatory insurance, people responsible for managing their own risks, etc.

Then they encounter someone actually doing it and they're all surprised.

[ducksalad]

LoB, it's the suburbs of a metro area of 800,000. Not distant suburbs, there's major commercial strips farther out than us. But anyway we also did it while living in central Austin.

I will concede that all the effort *you* put into locking might make thieves think it's not worth trying doors at random to see if one is unlocked. I'm glad to free ride on your work, sucker!

Kind of like the unvaccinated benefiting from herd immunity. I did not begrudge them that, BTW.

[Life of Brian]

I will concede that all the effort *you* put into locking might make thieves think it's not worth trying doors at random to see if one is unlocked.

I see this the other way around, actually: because even minimally informed thieves understand there are enough easy targets like you out there, my locked door encourages them to move on and keep looking.

[Bwaaah]

Ducksalad: Your description of the value proposition of catastrophic insurance, in addressing its value to insurance companies (i.e. their profit), completely fails to speak to its value proposition to the market.

(The risk of a financially catastrophic loss, through insurance, may be mitigated at a very low relative cost.)

You'd think insurance is best understood in terms of the Ducksalad situation. True, but only for you.

[ducksalad]

Bwaah, do we disagree here?

I have insurance for misfortunes we could not cover, and no insurance for misfortunes we could. Whenever there is such an option. Isn't that the whole point?

OK, if it makes you feel better, I do have home insurance: self-insurance. I could write a check to myself for the premiums every year but it seems kind of ridiculous. Let's just say it was like a Biden pardon or a Trump declassification - I paid mentally.

[Bwaaah]

You have a distinctive way of trashing your material, I mean audience. No need to fix it on my account.

[Drewski]

You should worry about your own country.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I would only counsel that one day, the shoe will be on the other foot, and a future POTUS might do the same."

Perhaps this is why Trump isn't using the autopen for anything legally significant?

[DDHarriman]

A previous President shouldn't be able to bind a future President.
So far, the courts have ruled that ONLY President Trump is bound by predecessor EO's, but other President's aren't bound by Trump EO's.

So no worries.

[Josh R]

There is precedent from the OLC that Trump cannot undo Autopen actions (except when he can undo human-signed actions, such as EOs).

As a practical matter, if Autopen actions can be undone, a whole lot of stuff is now void. Ain't gonna happen.

[ducksalad]

Hypothetical question:

You sign and mail-in in your income tax return well before the April 15th deadline.

Three months later, the IRS informs you that they are fining you $3000 for failure to file.

You ask them if they got it. Yes, they say, but it was invalid because they think the signature is fake.

You offer to come down and sign it in front them. No, they say, it's past the deadline. You already missed the deadline.

You assure them you really did sign it. No, they won't accept that, they think your daughter faked the signature and you can't prove otherwise. Of course you'd lie about it now. Hell, you might even have faked your own signature. Pay up.

[Mr. Bumble]

Next time don't use magic mushrooms for the stuffed mushrooms for your Thanksgiving feast.

[Life of Brian]

I know you didn't advance this as a serious example, but ironically enough it's pretty much directly counter to actual IRS policy: even if you send in your return with no signature at all, they'll generally just ask you to sign it and consider the return timely unless there's other evidence you were trying to buy time or otherwise game the system.

The broader reason this example doesn't work is that signatures generally bind the signer to some commitment, and in most cases the authenticity of the signature has no relevance unless and until someone needs to enforce that commitment (e.g., what TIP mentioned above about the signature on a pardon being academic until a prosecutor challenges it). Here, the IRS would have no reason to care what particular signature (or particular 5-digit PIN, if you file electronically) appears on the return unless and until a dispute arises as to the accuracy of the information in the return -- and at that point, the taxpayer would be the one claiming someone else forged their signature.

[Life of Brian]

Oops, correct link here.

[John F. Carr]

At one time, if you owed money the IRS was happy with an unsigned return. If you were due a refund the IRS would insist on a signature.

[ducksalad]

You know what, fair enough. It was a bad example. Allow me to propose another one that I believe is closer to the mark.

An elderly man, still able to talk and shamble about, memory bad but not completely gone, lives with his ne'er do well son, a well-known drug user and Trump supporter.

At the election, a mail-in ballot is received, marked for Republicans all the way down the list. The local DA, a Democrat looking to make a name for himself, accuses the son of "harvesting" his father's ballot, and issues a press release that he intends to look into it sometime in the future.

Reporters go to the home to ask about it. The son notes that is legal for him to help his father fill in the ballot. The father says - the exact quote is important here - "I understand why [the DA] would think that," the former president told the Times, “because obviously, I guess, he doesn’t focus much. Anyway, so — yes, I made every decision.”

Asked to name each and every candidate he voted for, from memory, the father say he just remembers Trump and the rest were generally Republicans. He challenges the reporter to name all the names on the ballot, and the reporter admits he can't either.

What would you do next if you were the DA?
1. Drop the whole thing, once the father backed up the son there's no point.
2. Try to somehow prove there was a crime, keeping in mind that it was perfectly legal for the son to check the boxes according to his father's wishes, so no amount of fingerprints or handwriting analysis will prove anything.
3. Don't actually prosecute, because deep down you know it's all stupid, but keep up a social media campaign to milk it as long as you can and entertain your Democrat base.

[Life of Brian]

Forgive me if I missed it, but this one doesn't seem to involve a signature at all?

And if you're really trying to parallel the fact pattern in the article you linked, the son (Jeff Zient) would disappear into a room with the father (Biden), come out later and tell his baby mama (Zient's assistant) who his father had said he wanted to vote for, and she in turn would call her ex-sister-in-law (Stefanie Feldman) and tell her how to fill out the father's ballot.

And to that, I'd say the ex-SIL's acts went far beyond "helping the father fill out the ballot," and in fact she filled out the ballot based on the say-so of two intermediaries, with precisely zero actual understanding of the father's wishes.

As to the father's conveniently sharp memory of the act but fuzzy memory of the details, it just doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. If he had actually just told the son he wanted to vote a straight R ticket, that's totally believable and not at all hard to remember. But if he really had the political knowledge to sit there and talk through each individual choice, it's screamingly suspect that he suddenly can't bring back any of that at all.

Also, the accuracy of the ballot presumably didn't turn the election. In the real deal, a lot of people have a lot riding on whether the signed documents are actually what they purport to be. So the bottom-line issue is whether these third parties can hold the US government to the words printed on the page, not whether Zient or anyone else in the food chain is going to go down for fraud.

[ducksalad]

You had a pretty strong argument up to here:

As to the father's conveniently sharp memory of the act but fuzzy memory of the details, it just doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.

Huh? I would bet most Americans, not just elderly ones, are exactly like I described. They know they voted for Trump in 2024, they know they "generally" vote Republican. If asked at the point of a gun who they voted for Clerk of 13th Probate Court, they would probably not be able to recall the name.

Anyway my ill-considered hypotheticals are driving us away from the main point. Presidents often get a long list of names for potential pardons, for example, no one believes that Trump individually reviewed the names for his J6 pardons, and no one who isn't a partisan Democrat hack thinks they're invalid, well at least not for that reason. He told his staff what kind of people he generally wanted them to find, they did it, and it's not important whether he used his hand or told his staff to use the autopen.

So maybe the real question is how specific do the presidents have to pay to make it a valid pardon?

Lots of earlier presidents: "Anyone who you think got an unfairly long sentence for drug possession"
DJT: "Anyone who you determine allegedly trespassed or assaulted anyone on my behalf in relation to J6"
JB: "Anyone on my WH team who would be at risk of being prosecuted by Trump"

And then when the staff come up with names, how close do they have to look at them?

[Life of Brian]

OK, hold up -- I think we've landed on the disconnect.

Trump's proclamation commuting/pardoning the J6 crowd describes an objective set: a few specific names, and "all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021." (Yes, there's an academic possibility that could sweep in someone who just coincidentally committed an unrelated crime in that area on that date, but those odds are slim overall, much less that anyone like that would be a candidate for a staff-driven stealth pardon.)

The NYP article you linked describes two blocks of mass pardons: 2,500 prisoners with crack cocaine offenses, and 1,500 people who had been transitioned to house arrest in the early COVID days. Those too are objective enough that we could both agree whether a given pardoned individual legitimately fell within the criteria, and similarly tough for arbitrary nepotistic manipulation.

The entire J6 kangaroo court machinery and the few dozen other individual, criteria-free pardons? That's where the action is. And that's precisely where you'd expect someone who just spent the last four years of his life working with these folks be able to name more than one or two of them (and those not even by name!), had he truly been involved in the decision-making process.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And then when the staff come up with names, how close do they have to look at them?"

You probably have to have a defined set, even if you don't look at it.

But this:

In cases where changes were made to the list of inmates, staffers waited until a final version of the clemency roster was produced, then ran it through the autopen rather than ask Biden to keep signing successive versions.

Sounds like an unlawful delegation of the pardon power.

[not guilty]

It has now been nine days since President Trump said of Sen. Mark Kelly, Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Kelly and Slotkin, Rep. Jason Crow, Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, Rep. Chris DeLuzio and Rep. Maggie Goodlander in regard to their video reminding service members of their sworn duty to disobey illegal orders: "It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL." https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115582417825161974

Arrest, trial and punishment must be predicated on the accused's violation of a criminal statute. To date, neither Trump nor his underlings, nor anyone else in the MAGA cult, has identified any federal statute(s) which these members of Congress are said to have violated.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How about "ACCESSORY TO MURDER"?

There is a DEAD soldier and another clinging to life BECAUSE OF THOSE SCHMUCKS and I say try them in West Virginia.

[not guilty]

Not clear on the concept of causation, Dr. Ed 2?

What do you claim is the nexus between the subject video and the heinous actions of Rahmanullah Lakanwal? Please show your work.

[hobie]

Approves immigrant's status 2025: Trump
Put Guard victim in DC 2025: Trump

That kind of accessory, Ed?

[Commenter_XY]

The six congressional nutjobs engaged in 1A protected political speech. Even congressional nutjobs get their day in the sun.

[Riva]

No. That's not all there is to this democratic disgrace. As one commenter on X ably notes:

The “Seditious Six” video isn’t some neutral civics reminder; it’s built like the same regime‑change propaganda the U.S. has used overseas. It takes a legal truism everyone agrees with – “don’t follow illegal orders” – then wraps it in ominous music, military credentials, and direct emotional appeals to the troops in a way that’s designed to build distrust in the elected commander‑in‑chief rather than fix any real problem. In other countries, that style of messaging is used to soften up the security forces before a push to weaken or topple a government; recycling that template at home, on American soldiers, is what alarms people who see it as crossing from normal dissent into “color revolution” territory.
https://x.com/cyborg_bob/status/1993691484282081597

[not guilty]

Riva, what exception to First Amendment protection do you claim applies to the subject video?

The video is not obscene. It is not fighting words. It is not false and defamatory. It is not a true threat. It is not intended to incite or produce imminent unlawful action and likely to do so. It is not pornography involving any actual children. It is not used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute. It does not propose an unlawful commercial transaction.

Like it or not, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), is no longer good law. Like a blind hog, Commenter_XY has found that elusive acorn.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Schenck had not waived his 1A rights by being an officer in the armed services or CIA.

Schenck was not bound by a security clearance -- these folks are.
Schenck did not need prior approval on books...

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2, what exception to First Amendment protection do you claim applies to the subject video?

[Riva]

Schenck v. United States didn't address Congressmen lending their authority to a color revolution tactic to undermine the Trump administration and encourage mass insubordination in the military. Nor does it apply to the liability of any retired military recalled for a court-martial under the UCMJ for suborning mutiny.

And why the fuck are you not bothered by the repulsive tactics on display here? So much for respecting democracy. Democrats apparently don't really give a shit about that.

[not guilty]

Riva, what exception to First Amendment protection do you claim applies to the subject video?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Riva.

[DDHarriman]

>Arrest, trial and punishment must be predicated on the accused's violation of a criminal statute. To date, neither Trump nor his underlings, nor anyone else in the MAGA cult, has identified any federal statute(s) which these members of Congress are said to have violated.

... as far as not guilty knows...

Generally, smart people don't speak in absolutes.

[not guilty]

DDH, do you claim that someone, somewhere has identified any federal statute(s) which these members of Congress are said to have violated?

If so, who? What statute(s)?

If someone actually had come up with any cogent argument supporting Trump's blather, the MAGAts would be on that like white on rice, parroting furiously.

[DDHarriman]

Yes I do claim so.

No, it is not my responsibility to inform you. It's all over the media that actual humans consume.

Ask your Hive Queen to empath upon you these humanoid facts, before asking one of my kind to do your personal research for you.

Thanks in advance.

DDH - The Human

[not guilty]

You've got nothing, DDH. And you most assuredly lack the integrity to admit that you've got nothing.

Ipse dixit assertions don't feed the bulldog.

Don't forget which white supremacist wrote the following in 1925:

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 [Ellipses in original.]

[Riva]

Offensive as always NG, but you're essentially correct. What the democrats and their activists are doing in attempting to undermine the administration and military reflects a propaganda effort. It's called a color revolution. And we may also be experiencing the violent fruits of these leftist tactics.

[Joe_dallas]

The implication of the video was not to tell the military to disobey unlawful orders. It was to convey that Trump was issuing unlawful orders.

[Malika la Maize]

The hidden meaning!

[Riva]

Noted above but worth reposting:

The “Seditious Six” video isn’t some neutral civics reminder; it’s built like the same regime‑change propaganda the U.S. has used overseas. It takes a legal truism everyone agrees with – “don’t follow illegal orders” – then wraps it in ominous music, military credentials, and direct emotional appeals to the troops in a way that’s designed to build distrust in the elected commander‑in‑chief rather than fix any real problem. In other countries, that style of messaging is used to soften up the security forces before a push to weaken or topple a government; recycling that template at home, on American soldiers, is what alarms people who see it as crossing from normal dissent into “color revolution” territory.
https://x.com/cyborg_bob/status/1993691484282081597

[DDHarriman]

This wasn't an isolated video. It was part of a larger color revolution plot.

[Josh R]

FFS not guilty. Trump is 1) riffing as a wanna-be dictator and 2) giving raw meat to his base. Repeatedly asking for a rational defense of his post is a fool's errand. Give it up and let Trump and the GOP drown as they ignore affordability.

[Kazinski]

"I read the motion of the "conflict prosecutor", In the Trump Georgia RICO case here are some highlights:

"I begin the process of evaluating this case with a basic truth: It is not illegal to question or challenge election results. Our nation’s foundational principles of free speech andelectoral scrutiny are rooted in this very freedom. The State of Georgia is no stranger tosuch challenges. In 2018, Ms. Stacy Abrams questioned the legitimacy of Brian Kemp’svictory in the gubernatorial race. "

Specifically, the Republican Electors lacked criminal intent in taking the actions allegedas overt acts in the indictment. Criminal intent is an essential element of committing any crime. You cannot presume someone has it, but a jury or judge may find a person has itupon consideration of the words, conduct, demeanor, motive, and all other circumstancesconnected with the act for which a person is prosecuted. O.C.G.A. § 16-2-6.Fortunately, the meeting was transcribed by a court reporter, providing a clear and reviewable record....Nothing in the evidence suggests that David Shafer, Shawn Still, Cathleen Latham, or anyof the remaining electors conspired to overturn the election. On the contrary, the record overwhelmingly demonstrates that the electors believed their actions were legally required to preserve Georgia’s electoral votes in the event President Donald J. Trump prevailed in the then-pending lawsuit in Fulton County "

"As a prosecutor, I am loath to usethe criminal justice system to pursue law-abiding citizens who, in good conscience and upon the advice of counsel, were asked to perform certain tasks in connection with thelitigation of an election challenge."

"Some may argue that cases against the campaign attorneys and advisors should proceed even if President Trump is removed from the indictment. However, I am extremely reluctant to criminalize the act of attorneys providing flawed legal advice to the Presidentof the United States under these circumstances."

He does go on to say there may have been criminal acts but that would have to be addressed in Smith's case, but he doesn't discuss any in the detail he does with the Electors case.

"Overt acts such as arranging a phone call, issuing a public statement, tweeting to thepublic to watch the Georgia Senate subcommittee hearings, texting someone to attendthose hearings, or answering a 63-minute phone call without providing the context of thatconversation, just to name a few examples, are not acts I would consider sufficient tosustain a RICO case.

The strongest and most prosecutable case against those seeking to overturn the 2020Presidential election results and prevent the certification of those votes was the oneinvestigated and indicted by Special Counsel Jack Smith. Although Special Counsel JackSmith’s federal case encompassed evidence from multiple states, he ultimately concluded the federal case could not be prosecuted because of the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision..."

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26303666-state-v-trump-et-al-nolle-pros-and-exhibit-a-filed/#document/p1

All the quotes I pulled from Exhibit A.

But in short the prosecutor says he didn't drop the case because of a technicality, but because he couldn't find any basis under Georgia law to continue the case.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — All of which happened after years of bellicose demands from Trump/MAGA—and from Trump/MAGA cult members—that some legal technicality deliver Trump from a trial which all those howling expected Trump to lose. And presto, a corruptly partisan Supreme Court majority delivered not only assorted technicalities, but also trial-prohibitive delay.

That is not a record to support a campaign to rehabilitate Trump/MAGA's threadbare reputation among the American public. Demonstrably, it goes down well among the cult.

[Kazinski]

He is talking about Georgia law. And says he can't find a crime under Georgia law.

Trump doesn't need to be rehabilitated, he's a free man, and has a steady job, nice house, nice wife too.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Cult member, satisfied by defense of cult leader, by cult apologist. On the whole, a cult-like delusion.

Before SCOTUS delivered Trump his impunity, you were not advocating an early trial date to clear Trump's reputation. Like nearly everyone else, you thought Trump would be convicted. Like your Trump/MAGA associates, you thought a chance at election ought to justify legal impunity, to keep out of public sight any evidence which would justify criminal conviction.

[DDHarriman]

Your side criminalized contesting elections for the 2020 election, even complaining about it got you cancelled by banks, your employer and your crucial services, then magically forgot all about it when they lost in 2024. Now they're back to "it's totes normal to challenge elections and say they were stolen".

You should see the shit that's coming about with Ruby Freeman now. They stole 2020. It's irrefutable.

[Krayt]

The sides flip flop as time moves along. Here's an example, portrayed 80 years ago, about an election a century ago, where the shenanigans were already tired and ancient by that time.

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 4 hours ago
"Before SCOTUS delivered Trump his impunity, "

You could be forgiven for misinterpreting a SC that did not rule as you just claim considering the frequency of leftists making such a delusional claim. However attorneys such as NG, who should know better have no excuse for intentionally misrepresenting the holding by the SC.

[DDHarriman]

He's always been a pompous partisan clown.

He confesses so when you push him. He's as partisan as he his racist. Another sin he gleefully confesses to.

[not guilty]

"He confesses so when you push him. He's as partisan as he his [sic] racist. Another sin he gleefully confesses to."

You lie, DDH. Being partisan -- which I proudly acknowledge -- is no sin, and I have never confessed to being racist.

[DDHarriman]

Can you please provide a list of all your favorite pejoratives for Clarence Thomas?

Here is a reminder of some of your faves to help you recall:

1. Uncle Tom
2. Registered Blue Gum
3. Filthy Ni... (ill let you finish this one, its too vile even for me)

[not guilty]

DDH, even though I think one of them fits to a t, I have never used any of those slurs in reference to Clarence Thomas. (I have referred to him as Justice Uncle Thomas, which is not on your list.)

My personal favorite among the epithets I have used is Clarence Toady.

It is quite evident that you care nothing about truth or falsity of what you write here.

[not guilty]

House negro ranks a close second.

When I use language in a comment on these threads, I own that language. If a mistake is called to my attention, I will acknowledge my mistake.

But don't set up a straw man based on what I have not said.

[Kazinski]

Sexist too.

[not guilty]

Au contraire! I have never misrepresented the holding of Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 144 S.Ct. 2312 (2024) -- although I have harshly criticized the reasoning of that execrable decision.

Since the day the decision was announced, I have consistently identified the three categories of acts taken by a president while in office and discussed the immunity (or lack thereof) from criminal prosecution after leaving office as to each category:

(1) There is no immunity from prosecution after leaving office for unofficial acts.
(2) A former President is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.
(3) As to official acts outside that conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, a rebuttable presumption of immunity attaches. It is the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity by showing that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

Advocates may differ as to which of the three categories a particular action or omission falls into. But I have never misrepresented the tripartite framework of analysis. If Joe_Dallas contends that I have, then let him produce the receipts.

[Joe_dallas]

I reproduced your statement that you made today.

[not guilty]

No, you did not. In any event, nothing I have today or previously misrepresents the tripartite analytical framework of Trump v. United States regarding when a former president is or is not immune from criminal prosecution.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you, doofus.

EDIT: On further review, you did reproduce my statement that "No one is clamoring for an arrest of President Trump. His handmaid John Roberts saw to that last year."

But that statement is one hundred percent accurate. I perhaps should have clarified by adding that no one who understands the execrable Trump v. United States decision is clamoring for an arrest of Trump. Such an arrest would be idle ceremony and would not accomplish anything. That is why I have called for prosecution of Secretary Hegseth and General Bradley, but not of Trump.

[Josh R]

Forget about the criminal case. In your opinion. did Trump try to steal the election (with his actions in the Georgia case being just one example)? Or, was he just questioning and challenging the results?

[Commenter_XY]

Question for the finance minded lawyers.

401K matches vary in amount, and vesting time. Is there a legal case to be made to eliminate vesting time? This would be important for workers in retail, who work in low wage jobs with lengthy vesting times (3-6 years). There are many low wage workers in this situation, not just retail.

If you had to make the argument, what would it be?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The Trump Accounts are the key to privatizing SS…so they need to be untouchable until the individual turns 65. As they are drafted they are just a tax haven for the wealthy and will probably end up fueling a violent crime wave in 18 years. Never give an 18 year old free money like we did in 2020 with PPO which fueled the fentanyl crisis and violent crime wave.

[DDHarriman]

Privatizing SS would be wonderful! I hope that's his plan.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And hat happens when (not if) the stock market tanks?

[ThePublius]

That's kind of a ridiculous question, since if employers were required to eliminate vesting time they could just eliminate matches. And who would that hurt or help?

Don't you understand the purpose of match vesting times?

[Dr. Ed 2]

In 1992 the people of South Central rose up in protest after a court failed to convict four police officers for the crime everyone saw them committing.

That's what we have been told for over 30 years -- that arson, mayhem & murder are "legitimate responses" to injustice.

It's what we were told when a drug-addled criminal overdosed on fentanyl -- and yes, Saint George Floyd overdosed on fentanyl, "I can't breathe" is a symptom of fentanyl overdose, including medical/surgical therapeutic fentanyl usage.

But burning our cities flat was more important than even Covid segregation. This is what we were told...

OK, please explain why White America shouldn't respond to the "Injustice of November 24th in similar fashion? Take everyone who wasn't born in this country, parented by two people also born in this country, and throw them the bleep out of the country. Build a large three-sided containment area that is open to the Mexican border and tell them they can remain there and starve, or they can go into Mexico, their choice....

I can think of a lot of legitimate conservative reasons not to do this, but in terms of what the Leftists (they are not "Liberals") have been preaching for the past 40 years --- in terms of "Progressive" thought and "Social Justice" -- why isn't the summary execution of everyone with a foreign accent a "legitimate response"?

Using the left's logic -- and I suggest people look at that phrase as an indication of what I am *really* saying here -- using the logic of the progressive left, why shouldn't we do what the Chinese did 50 years ago and destroy all of our colleges and universities? Bulldoze them flat and send all the professors to Siberia -- or El Salvador...

If what the left has been doing for the past 65 years is legitimate, aren't we mandated to do thus????

And if it isn't, shouldn't they be denounced much as Stalin was, and for the very same reasons? (HINT: This is the question I am really asking, and let's see how many people read this far...)

[Kazinski]

"OK, please explain why White America shouldn't respond to the "Injustice of November 24th in similar fashion? Take everyone who wasn't born in this country, parented by two people also born in this country, and throw them the bleep out of the country."

Well, Ed because of you tried to throw my wife out of the country I would shoot you in the head, or gut, depending on my mood at the time.

And then I'd call the cops and tell them what happened, and we'd stand around with puzzled faces wondering what made you think you could get away with that?

Then they'd haul you away.

[DDHarriman]

We will let the colonized women and children stay. Of course.

[Kazinski]

I'm the one who got colonized.

[DDHarriman]

Oh, I thought you were the White one.

[Kazinski]

What gave you the idea I’m White?

I am pinkish-gray.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The cops would already be there and somewhat less than pleased that you'd shot one of theirs in the head.

If you were still alive, you'd be facing a capital murder charge.

[Kazinski]

Why would the cops in my town be enforcing illegal, unconstitutional orders?

And it would be a coin flip as to whether they'd be 'white', my town is only 42% 'white non-hispanic'.

[not guilty]

"OK, please explain why White America shouldn't respond to the 'Injustice of November 24th in similar fashion? Take everyone who wasn't born in this country, parented by two people also born in this country, and throw them the bleep out of the country. Build a large three-sided containment area that is open to the Mexican border and tell them they can remain there and starve, or they can go into Mexico, their choice...."

Well, that would be one way to rid ourselves of Donald Trump, whose mother was born in Scotland. It would also banish four of Trump's five children, whose mothers were born outside the U.S.

Both of Marco Rubio's parents were Cuban.

Senator Ted Crude was born in Canada, and his father was Cuban.

Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico.

Justice Samuel Alito's father was foreign born.

Oh, wait. Dr. Ed 2 asked for reasons not to do what he has proposed. Never mind!

[Joe_dallas]

NG - continuing with his asshole comments
"Senator Ted Crude"

[John 4]

This is just basic, unadulterated racism.

[DDHarriman]

Countries of origin aren't races.

They are like two totally different concepts. I wonder why you conflated the two.

[Malika la Maize]

Exactly! It’s why when people referred to heathen Chinamen they were making a theological and geographical point, no racism!

[Dr. Ed 2]

And it wasn't when Burn, Loot, & Murder was preaching it?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"This is just basic, unadulterated racism."

And???

Seriously, AND???

0r is only some racism bad?

[Malika la Maize]

Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker ruled Floyd's death last May a homicide and identified the cause as "cardiopulmonary arrest" that occurred during "law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression" -- all findings he stood by in court on Friday.

https://news.wttw.com/2021/04/10/heart-disease-fentanyl-contributed-george-floyd-s-death-were-not-main-cause-medical

[ThePublius]

Yea, but we don't believe that bullshit. It certainly wouldn't be the first time, and not the last, that a ME was full of shit.

[Malika la Maize]

There’s a raft of experts that agreed with the assessment both in the trial and outside.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-george-floyd-kanye-west-police-397984860325#

From the article:

Lewis Nelson, director of the medical toxicology division at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, told the AP on Thursday that the medical examiner’s office and the expert witnesses called by prosecutors during the trial properly concluded that Floyd did not die of an overdose or because of his drug use.

He said the amount of fentanyl found in Floyd’s system could be lethal for a first-time user or a young child or a smaller adult, but likely not for Floyd, who was 46 years old, stood more than six feet tall, weighed more than 200 pounds and struggled with opioid addiction. Nelson also dismissed the amount of meth in Floyd’s system as “trivial.”

“If somebody was a chronic user and their blood level was 11, we wouldn’t be particularly concerned,” Nelson said of the amount of fentanyl in Floyd. “In fact, sometimes people could be in withdrawal with levels of 11. It’s tricky. You have to put it in context.”

Leo Beletsky, an opioid expert at Northeastern University in Boston who was also not involved in the trial, agreed, noting that Floyd didn’t exhibit the typical signs of opioid overdose.

“They fall into a sleep-like state,” he said of overdose victims. “They have shallow breathing. They stop talking. Their face turns ashen or their fingertips turn blue and their lips turn pale. The physical responses that he was having were much more consistent with trauma than an overdose.”

[DDHarriman]

We all know you won't read any counter evidence, that's why when you make efforts at good posts like this that no one will respond.

Because you're not here in good faith and you're just a CCP bug here to harm our sacred White democracy with your commie/Lefty subversion.

[Malika la Maize]

Go back to the Daily Whiner, loser.

[DDHarriman]

See how you got no response? Learn how us humans communicate if you want to fit in with humans.

[Malika la Maize]

That was a response, one I’m sure you’re used to hearing.

[DDHarriman]

When you look in the mirror, don't you secretly wish you were White like me?

It's weird how your kind worships Whiteness while at the same time so viscously attacking it. White women are the beauty ideal. White males are the masculine ideal. White, intact, natural families are the social ideal.

It's so pervasive and universal that you can almost believe that Whiteness being the best '-ness' is an objective claim, and not a subjective opinion. The data strongly suggests so. I'm not quite there yet, but it sure seems a reasonable conclusion to draw given the facts.

[Malika la Maize]

White like you? You mean whiny?

[DDHarriman]

In Human English "White" doesn't mean "whiney". Sure they start with similar sounds, but they don't mean the same.

How would that best translate to "bug"? A bunch of chirps, or should I rub my legs together as some form of bug serenade?

[Joe_dallas]

Floyd couldnt breath due to the fluid in his lungs,
As evidenced by the fluid in the lungs in the autopsy and the foam coming out of his mouth prior to any restraint.

The function of the alveoli air sacs in the lungs to exchange oxygen in the blood stream is taught in junior high school .

[Joe_dallas]

Malika - provides this statement from lewis nelson director of toxicology at rutgers - “If somebody was a chronic user and their blood level was 11, we wouldn’t be particularly concerned,” Nelson said of the amount of fentanyl in Floyd. “In fact, sometimes people could be in withdrawal with levels of 11. It’s tricky. You have to put it in context.”

While that statement is true, it is also highly misleading. As he stated, you have to put it into context. Regular users can survive levels of 13-14, while the same user may die with levels of 7-8, all of which depend on other factors at the time.

[Joe_dallas]

Publius - The ME was actually the most honest of the medical experts testifying on behalf of the prosecution in the trial. The chicago cardiologist was nothing more than a paid hit man, testifying to medical facts that were not relevant to the case.

[Malika la Maize]

Mr. Bushart, a 61-year-old retired police officer living in Lexington, Tenn., had posted a meme on Facebook after the assassination of the conservative activist Charlie Kirk on Sept. 10. It was a picture of Donald Trump along with Mr. Trump’s comment in response to a school shooting at Perry High School in Iowa in 2024: “We have to get over it.” The meme was headed by the caption, “This seems relevant today.”

Mr. Bushart shared that meme in a Facebook thread promoting a vigil for Mr. Kirk in nearby Perry County, Tenn. The Perry County Sheriff’s Office obtained a warrant for Mr. Bushart’s arrest, claiming that the post was a threat of “mass violence” at a school. The sheriff’s office did this even though the meme referred to a shooting that took place more than a year before at a school in Iowa. The only connection — if you can even call it a connection — was that the Iowa school also had “Perry” in its name.

Mr. Bushart’s bail was set at $2 million. Unable to pay, he spent 37 days in jail before prosecutors dropped the charge.

In my 25 years working as a lawyer on free-speech cases, I have seen a lot of overreach. I have never seen anything quite like this. With the help of a local attorney, my organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, is preparing a federal civil-rights lawsuit against the Perry County sheriff and others, seeking damages and a ruling that what happened to Mr. Bushart violated the First Amendment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/26/opinion/charlie-kirk-free-speech-bushart.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

[Frank Drackman]

Guy was pretty stupid posting under his real name.

[Glaucomatose]

Sheriff was pretty stupid flagrantly violating the Constitution and opening himself up to a massive lawsuit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That he will lose.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why would he lose?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sorry, that the Sheriff will lose? I agree. I think I misread your comment.

[Life of Brian]

In my 25 years working as a lawyer on free-speech cases

Now there's an angle you've not let slip before.

[Malika la Maize]

Don’t know how to click?

[Life of Brian]

The mute button? It's tempting at times, but you still occasionally amuse me.

[DDHarriman]

You don't think having the FBI swat school parents and investigating them because they didn't want their 5 year olds being forced to read gay porn would qualify for "I have seen a lot of overreach. I have never seen anything quite like this."?

[Malika la Maize]

Did they go to jail for weeks?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes.

[Malika la Maize]

Cite?

[Frank Drackman]

I-ANAL but this Afghani Murderer in DC is an Afghani Citizen, an Enemy Combatant, I'd say driving 2,400 miles is evidence of "Premeditation", give him a Fair Military Commission Trial, and when he's convicted, because I'm such a lover of History, Execute him at the same exact spot as the Lincoln Conspirators (Fort McNair) Firing Squad's too good for this piece of Succus Entericus but I'd make an exception to let the Victims fellow Soldiers participate.

Frank

[SRG2]

You are indeed definitely ANAL.

[not guilty]

I don't think you understand the concept of enemy combatants, Frank.

As a matter of fact, Rahmanullah Lakanwal in Afghanistan had worked with the CIA in support of the United States mission there. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/how-alleged-dc-terrorist-rahmanullah-lakanwal-was-welcomed-into-the-us-after-cia-vetting-and-then-turned-against-it/ar-AA1RkBTE

[DDHarriman]

Of course it was the CIA. They are always the Lefty Color Revolution instigators.

[Frank Drackman]

Ew! Ew! Ew! Mis-tuh Kot-Tear!!!!
I am going to love using this Phrase....
"Had Worked" is "Doing a lot of Work" there.
Get it? "Had Worked" is "Doing a lot of Work"??
Unless something really strange is going on, he wasn't working for the CIA the other day.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

So he was a paid thug assassin -- not exactly the type of person we want to be bringing into our country.

Even without the evidence that the CIA attempted a soft coup against the 45th President of the United States of America, I think Congressional hearings are in order...

[DDHarriman]

He's only an Enemy Combatant if you accept that the Sarcastr0's working at the CIA are our enemies. Which they are. They always have been.

[Malika la Maize]

Should drug dealers get summarily executed or pardons? Depends on who they know?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/28/world/americas/trump-pardon-honduras-hernandez.html

President Trump announced on Friday afternoon that he would grant “a Full and Complete Pardon” to a former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, who, as the center of a sweeping drug case, was found guilty by an American jury last year of conspiring to import cocaine into the United States.

The news came as a shock not only to Hondurans, but also to the authorities in the United States who had built a major case and won a conviction against Mr. Hernández. They had accused him of taking bribes during his campaign from Joaquín Guzmán, the notorious former leader of the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico known as “El Chapo,” and of running his Central American country like a narco state.

The judge in his case, P. Kevin Castel, had called Mr. Hernández “a two-faced politician hungry for power” who masqueraded as an antidrug crusader while partnering with traffickers. And prosecutors had asked the judge to make sure Mr. Hernández would die behind bars, citing his abuse of power, connections to violent traffickers and “the unfathomable destruction” caused by cocaine….

Since Mr. Trump took office this year, Mr. Hernández’s family has attempted to portray his conviction as political persecution by the Biden administration. But the investigation into his ties with drug traffickers took place primarily during Mr. Trump’s first term.

His cause was taken up by figures like Roger Stone, the conservative political operative and Trump ally. Mr. Stone claimed that Mr. Hernández had been “trapped” and was a victim of a conspiracy tied to the U.S. government.

[SRG2]

"XY unsure how to react"

[DDHarriman]

Well since Mr. Hernández is a POC, this is just righting the historical racist ship and social justicing him by letting him go.

He's a victim of White Supremacies. Not a drug dealer.

[Malika la Maize]

You’re like a caricature of white fragility, all whine, all the time about white victimhood. Someone always stacking the deck against you because of your color. I guess that’s a more satisfying explanation for your lack of success than others…

[DDHarriman]

It's "White". Show some respect CCP bug.

[Malika la Maize]

Thanks for proving my point!

[not guilty]

DDHarriman, earlier this week you posited that "There are four distinct species of humans alive today."

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

Once again, what are the other three species?

[DDHarriman]

Dude, did you not read all the replies you got yesterday?

Your kind can read homo sapien sapien English, right?

[Malika la Maize]

Israeli forces on Thursday killed a pair of Palestinian men in the occupied West Bank after they appeared to surrender to troops, drawing Palestinian accusations that the men were executed "in cold blood." The Israeli military said it was investigating.

The killings, captured in videos shown on two Arab TV stations, came as Israel pressed ahead with its latest offensive in the West Bank, where the army has stepped up its activities over the past two years. Israel says it is cracking down on militants, but Palestinians and rights groups accuse Israel of using excessive force and say dozens of unarmed civilians have been killed.

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/28/nx-s1-5623794/israeli-forces-kill-palestinian-men-in-west-bank-after-appear-surrende

[Krayt]

The Israeli military said it was investigating.

Perhaps they did wrong. But isn't it neat to have a government that does that, looks into it, as opposed to cheering on the killing officially, as policy?

[Malika la Maize]

Absolutely, I’ve never thought you can equate the IDF with Hamas just as I would never equate US forces with ISIS. That doesn’t make the IDF or US forces immune from criticism (that’s a healthy sign actually), of course, but it’s good to keep perspective.

[Commenter_XY]

It doesn't look good. The palestinians made the fatal error of running away from the IDF into the building, instead of obeying the clear orders by the IDF (in arabic) not to do so.

It should be looked at.

[hobie]

"But isn't it neat to have a government that does that, looks into it, as opposed to cheering on the killing officially, as policy?"

Now do the boat executions.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm sure their blood was body temperature when they were shot. Shit happens in Wars, maybe next time don't start one with a Country better armed and more courageous than yours.
As the Great General Sun Tzu said (or if he didn't he should have)
"If your Enemy is more skilled and
stronger than yourself, and you can't find
a way to defeat him, then you must
learn to die well."

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Nothing rattles lil’ Frankie like a criticism of Israeli forces. Posts in the wrong place, justifies war crimes, etc., This is the exact opposite of the healthy response discussed with Kraft above.

[DDHarriman]

Yes exactly. Name the Jew and Franky gets all discombobulated.

Malika, you may be a bug, but I like your stance on the Jew Question. This is a great opportunity for cross-species collaboration.

[Malika la Maize]

You wouldn’t like my stance at all (for starters there’s no question there, lil’ Adolph).

[John 4]

You're not Christian?

[DDHarriman]

What caused you to ask that? I don't get how what I said would cause you to question by faith.

[John 4]

I’m just surprised a massive racist is also in an ancient middle eastern tribal cult.

[Bwaaah]

Oh, look. Now you're attracting flies.

[Malika la Maize]

By posting the new article? Can’t help if he’s so predictably sensitive to such news.

What are you pretending to be recently disaffected about today?

[hobie]

Frankie's status as an REMF meant he never got his coveted KIA. But he lives vicariously through the blowing up of civilians.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, Reverend, I'm on to your little game now, just for that I'm not recommending you for the DC Coordinator position at Ole Miss.

[DDHarriman]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/28/it-consultant-arrested-after-posing-with-gun-on-linkedin/

This would be America had the Democrats managed to steal 2024 like they did 2020.

That's Fascism. Fascism was invented by a Socialist and it remains part of the Left's DNA.

[Malika la Maize]

Mussolini was a socialist in the same way Whittaker Chambers was a communist, ya goof.

“Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle". Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism

[Brett Bellmore]

Um, Whittaker Chambers WAS a communist. So, did you have a point that wasn't self-defeating?

[Malika la Maize]

Holy dense.

He was, then stopped and became famous for opposing communism.

Mussolini was a socialist and (after being expelled) became famous for creating socialism-opposing fascism.

[DDHarriman]

So you believe that someone steeped in radical leftism, did a complete180 and flipped his principles on their head to far-right Conservativism?

Even though his seminal work, The Fascist Manifesto, is filled to the brim with typical Lefty policies, economics, and agendas?

[Malika la Maize]

I realize you’re so unlearned that you don’t know much about Chambers, so you making this argument in a conversation where I used him as analogous to Mussolini makes me wonder if that makes it more or less funny.

[DDHarriman]

I am certain he's a primary figure in your ideology. He was a Commie Benedict Arnold. Probably features prominently in your red books.

[Brett Bellmore]

OK, let me explain this to you: Mussolini the socialist, rather than rejecting socialism, developed a new and improved national version of socialism.

Chambers the communist soured on Communism, and turned informer.

So, Mussolini was a socialist, and Chambers was a communist, but Mussolini's case of socialism got worse, while Chambers got over his case of communism.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The key is not the specifics of an ideology but the fact it is an ideology. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are not in that different from communism only they are successful islamofascist monarchies. Franco was successful because he wasn’t an ideologue but a nationalist/traditionalist.

[DDHarriman]

Mussolini was a prominent Socialist before he invented Fascism. He saw it as an improvement upon the International Socialism (which we call Globalism today) that was failing societies back then.

Do you really not know history? He's was such a famous Lefty that Hollywood even had him in films. You can find him on IMDB.
e.g. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0019759/

[Malika la Maize]

He counters a direct quote from Mussolini with “well he was in films!” Lol

Apart from the logical crapshow of this argument, the ignorance that Republicans (Frank Capra, Sam Goldwyn, etc) were common in Hollywood back then is the cherry on top.

[DDHarriman]

From the same:

"Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism;"

Is Collectivism closer to Socialism or to Conservativism?

"The rights of the State as expressing the real essence
of the individual. "

The State subsumes the individual? Is that something John Adams would say, or Karl Marx?

And how much would a human say the sentence immediately preceding your quote would color the meaning? Does your bug kind have Theory of Mind? I know y'all struggle with Object Permanence. But do you have Theory of Mind?

I genuinely can't believe you'd cherry pick a quote out of the whole document filled with left-wing thought and try to portray it was right-wing. lmao stupid fucking bugs

[DDHarriman]

Muslim Democrats chanting Death to America in the US.

https://x.com/DerrickEvans4WV/status/1994448359243874694

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1994506434290258329

Right there on video.

Don't worry folks, this is just more mostly peaceful Democrats calling for more "Democrat peace" for White people. Anyone who says otherwise is a CONSPIRACY KOOK!!!! Ignore all evidence and subscribe To The Narrative (that's erasing the existence of Whiteness & White people by the day --- but we pretend totally isn't happening no matter how much data or proof there is!).

[Malika la Maize]

The video has the sound of what seems like one guy at a protest yelling this. Pathetic.

[DDHarriman]

There are two videos, bug. I guess we just found the human-like species that hasn't invented numbers yet...

[Malika la Maize]

And what do you think the one I’m talking about shows?

[DDHarriman]

I don't know how your kind thinks. Your slavish devotion to The Narrative suggests some sort of alien hivemind.

I'm not sure how to interpret your inner mind works (do you even have an inner monologue like Whites?). It's foreign to humans.

[Frank Drackman]

So Thanksgiving afternoon I'm driving the ZO6, converting Dead Dinosaurs to CO2, Water, Noise, and Speed, turned on the Radio, tuned to one of the 2 National Pubic Radio Stations (we get both kinds, Sunni AND Shit'ite)
Whole hour long program about how the way you load your Dishwasher reveals your innermost Psychological Traits. OK it was Thanksgiving Afternoon, not like there was some other news, Umm, I don't know, maybe a Terrorist attack blocks from the White House.
Show was So bad I had to listen to the whole thing, it's like how I can't help but watch "Plan 9 from Outer Space" whenever I come across it.
It was right up there with their gripping "Bungee Jumping can be Dangerous!!" they reported back in the 90's.
Don't believe me?? Here's the Program description:

"Every relationship has a person who loads the dishwasher like an architect, and one who throws plates in like a tornado. Ellen Cushing, staff writer for The Atlantic, joins host Krys Boyd to discuss why arguments over daily chores might signal deeper issues in a partnership, why some household appliances have such a hold on us, and, yes, we’ll get to scientific proof of how that dishwasher is really supposed to be loaded. (Be prepared to tell your significant other.) Her article is, “There Are Two Types of Dishwasher People.”

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

With modern run three times dishwashers, does it even matter?

[DDHarriman]

I first saw "ZO6" as "ZOG". Frank, tone down the Jewyness pls.

... good find, otherwise. Two years ago the headline would've been "How You Load Your Dishwasher is Racist" like the million other similar headlines from The Troubles.

[Frank Drackman]

ZO6, it's a Car.
A Car you will never have.

[DDHarriman]

Right. When I had my midlife crisis I bought myself an R10 for my daily driver.

Thats the difference between people from my social/economic class and yours. Actual class and sophistication. And not Boomer nostalgia
.

[John 4]

*claims class and sophistication*

*expresses the views of a barefoot hillbilly*

Fascinating. You might be as delusional as Frank.

[hobie]

Their all hillbillies, John.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Bears beat the Eagles in the Black Friday Game.

People keep on saying they aren't "for real," and they keep on winning.

[Bwaaah]

An extended Thanksgiving?

I am thankful for the space untouched by a certain incessant insufferable commenter. Facts aside, the blend of voices feels less malign to me.

[BrotherMovesOn]

I'm sure they are spending their holiday hours thinking about you too ...

[Bwaaah]

I don't think so. For their sake, I hope not. I'm kind of an ugly thought, don't you think?

[BrotherMovesOn]

I haven't thought about it.

[DDHarriman]

Why can't the Seditious Six name one President Trump order that they believe to be illegal?

Are they conceding all these existing court challenges to Trump's orders are political garbage and that they believe his orders are lawful?

You'd think if they agreed with any of the Democrat governors, they'd be out there supporting them with examples of unlawful orders.

Isn't that weird? Federal Democrat politicians agree Trump's orders have been lawful, while State Democrat's sue him for making unlawful orders?

Weird.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

The Afghan terrorist is here because of veterans like Hegseth that attacked Biden for not flying enough here after Trump surrendered to the Taliban. In this instance I would defer to the war fighters that enlisted after 9/11 while you peed your panties and ran to your mommy.

[Michael Ejercito]

That video which those senators made about disobeying illegal orders was immoral.

- It was prefaced with the statement that American trust in the military is at risk (it is not)
- It was prefaced with the claim that this administration is pitting the military and intelligence communities against the American people (it is not)
- these claims about the Trump administration were directed expressly toward the troops, in their capacity as troops. Thus, even if the criticisms were correct, they should have been made to the general public, not specifically to the troops.
- Upon questioning by Rachel Maddow, Mark Kelly could not specify which illegal orders were recently made, only saying, "You don't want to wait for your kid to get hit by a car before you tell them to look both ways"

[BrotherMovesOn]

" .. if the criticisms were correct, they should have been made to the general public, not specifically to the troops."

Twitter/X is not public enough for you?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Shoot now I remember who you are. Nevermind.