Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Jack Smith has offered to testify before any committee of Congress in an open, public session. Rep. Gym Jordan has reportedly subpoenaed him to meet privately with members of the House Judiciary Committee and answer questions about his two federal prosecutions of President Donald Trump. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/12/03/jack-smith-judiciary-subpoena-testimony/

Louis Brandeis famously said in 1913 that "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Why do the Republicans in the House want to keep their interview of Mr. Smith under wraps?

[Commenter_XY]

Suppose Jack says, Pound sand'. And never shows.

Is that contempt of Congress?

[not guilty]

If that were to happen, yes it could be contumacious.

But why in the world would Jack Smith do that?

He is obliged to appear in response to a subpoena and to testify truthfully, subject to any privilege that he may assert. Any such assertion of privilege would need to be on a question by question basis.

[Commenter_XY]

Sounds like Jack has a problem, NG. You can figure out why Jack doesn't want to be back (answering questions under oath).

Jack better call Abbe Lowell, heh. I hear Abbe is very expen$ive. And busy. After paying Abbe's retainer, Jack probably won't have jack.

[not guilty]

"Sounds like Jack has a problem, NG. You can figure out why Jack doesn't want to be back (answering questions under oath)."

Where on earth do you get that idea, XY? Mr. Smith is eager to testify before any Congressional committee. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26195522/jack-smith-letter-requesting-to-testify.pdf

The glitch is whether the testimony will be in open session, as Mr. Smith's counsel has proposed, or in the shadows away from public scrutiny.

And FWIW, Mr. Smith is well represented by able counsel from Covington & Burling. What need of Abbe Lowell does he have?
https://www.cov.com/en/professionals/b/lanny-breuer
https://www.cov.com/en/professionals/k/peter-koski

[Commenter_XY]

I remember that firm.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/suspension-of-security-clearances-and-evaluation-of-government-contracts/

Their security clearances were yanked. Can they even be present if classified information is discussed (I presume there will be classified information discussed behind closed doors)?

[Martinned]

Gee, I wonder if it is a coincidence that a guy who is persecuted for political reasons by the US regime is assisted by a law firm that was also persecuted for political reasons. Sounds like your country is doing great!

[Commenter_XY]

Eurotrash 1, yes America is doing quite well, thank you very much.

In all of recorded human history, there has been no other country that has given as much, done as much, sacrificed as much for the betterment of humanity as the United States of America. It is not even close.

Your pissant country barely registers a blip. And they suck at football, too.

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter_XY 12 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Why are you so rude?

[Martinned]

In all of recorded human history, there has been no other country that has given as much, done as much, sacrificed as much for the betterment of humanity as the United States of America.

You're joking right?

[Commenter_XY]

Eurotrash 1, would you care to name another country that has done as much as America for the tangible betterment of humanity? There isn't one.

When disaster strikes anywhere on the globe, America gets called. Or, called out for not being there faster. What other country feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, heals the sick to the global scale that America does -- every single day? No other country.

We have to build walls to keep people out, Eurotrash 1. That says a lot for what we have here.

[Sarcastr0]

This is jingoism.

You can love America without pulling supercountry BS.

We've done good, we've done bad. We've not been around very long in the grand scheme of things. Our impact is light compared to century long empires.

It's cringey to go about as though our shit don't stink. Especially when it's Trump supporters who do so, even as Trump turns us towards favoring Russia's predations, kills our domestic innovation engines, and generally wrecks what you superpatriots claim is a great country.

[Commenter_XY]

Jingoism, my ass. More like ignorance from you. You want to take a swing at naming another country?

[Sarcastr0]

Athens, Rome, Mongolia, the UK, India.

Off the top of my head I might give the crown to Byzantium.

[David Nieporent]

Eurotrash 1, would you care to name another country that has done as much as America for the tangible betterment of humanity? There isn't one.

Besides the aqueducts, I mean.

[Bob from Ohio]

No other country that has given as much, done as much, sacrificed as much for the betterment of humanity as Mongolia !

LOL All those sacked cities and piles of skulls! Bettering humanity!

The others are little better. UK is the only possible other choice.

[Sarcastr0]

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

History does not lend itself to good guy/bad guy, especially over multi-century timespans.

[Bob from Ohio]

"History does not lend itself to good guy/bad guy."

Yup, those good Nazis.

The Mongols made a desert and called it peace.

[Sarcastr0]

If you gotta whip out the Nazis...

[Bob from Ohio]

"If you gotta whip out the Nazis..."

You made a categorical, no exception statement ["History does not lend itself to good guy/bad guy."] and I pointed out an example that wrecked your statement. You can't hand wave it away.

[Sarcastr0]

Categorical statements don't include an 'especially.'

Don't parse tendentiously. It's tedious.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Yup, those good Nazis. "

But, think what they did for fashion:
https://assets.rafmuseum.org.uk/app/uploads/2021/01/Goering.jpg

[Bob from Ohio]

"Don't parse tendentiously. It's tedious."

Funny, you do it just about every day.

Just admit you made a dumb statement. No good or bad guys in history!

[Sarcastr0]

As I already said: Categorical statements don't include an 'especially.'

Your read was wrong. Still is wrong. I think you know it's wrong but you want to try and win an Internet argument so you're playing dumb.

It is, as I said, tedious.

[SRG2]

I can recommend this book:

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

[Sarcastr0]

That's on my list!

I'd also recommend this one:
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1836390823/reasonmagazinea-20/

I'm not sure if I 100% agree with the thesis, especially as it projects to the future. But there's something to the idea of Nazis as an anti-moral pole around which the modern moral consensus rotates.

[SRG2]

Only a cultist would argue that someone who wants to testify in public doesn't want to testify.

I assume you're a fan of the misprisionist Gym Jordan - he's definitely your kind of guy.

[Riva]

The same thug who illegally and secretly obtained the phone records of senators now has some commitment to openness? Bovine Scatology.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"The same thug who illegally and secretly obtained the phone records of senators now has some commitment to openness? Bovine Scatology."

Exactly what phone records were obtained illegally and exactly what law was violated?

[Riva]

For the benefit of the troll Stella whatever and others, I note that the thug Smith, in the Arctic Frost operation, issued subpoenas fishing for incriminating information from over 400 republicans individuals and entities, including sitting republican senators and a house member. With the subpoenas included an order from, unsurprisingly, Judge Boasberg, that prevented companies from disclosing the subpoenas because “the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, and serious jeopardy to the investigation.” Yes, upon the thug's request, the hack Boasberg, lacking any fucking factually basis, found that senators and representative would tamper with or destroy evidence. The repulsive thug Smith doesn't give a shit about the law or openness in legal process.

[not guilty]

Riva, Stella Link's Ghost challenged you to identify exactly what phone records were obtained illegally and exactly what law was violated. You responded with argle bargle.

What specific federal statute(s) do you claim prohibited issuance of subpoenas, with the approval of a district judge, to telephone service providers for metadata (not content)? Especially since 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) expressly authorizes any court that is a court of competent jurisdiction to order disclosure of such records if the governmental entity seeking disclosure offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.

Please specify the applicable title and section of the United States Code.

[Riva]

WTF Not Guilty? I noted there was zero basis for that hack to find that sitting US senators would tamper or destroy evidence? You’re just fine with that? And why the fuck do you think this shithead felt compelled to make this finding? Because he just wanted to? It just felt good? Maybe the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b), required such findings to prevent disclosure? Maybe the shithead judge violated the statute? And notwithstanding that, 2 U.S.C. § 6628 explicitly states that a provider for a Senate office “shall not be barred, through operation of any court order or any statutory provision, from notifying the Senate office of any legal process seeking disclosure of Senate data.” Boasberg sure didn’t give a fuck about that.

Why do we have to argue the obvious fucking impropriety of Smith’s sick weaponization of legal process?

And as an aside, will any troll here have the fucking integrity to concede their errors? It would be a first.

[not guilty]

Riva, the statutes you cite are restrictions upon the issuing judge or magistrate, not upon the applicant. You have identified no illegality on the part of Jack Smith.

[Riva]

It reflects illegalities on the part of BOTH. Smith sought orders that violated the law. The hack judge obliged. What the f is wrong with you? Show a modicum of class and just admit you’re wrong.

[hobie]

Jesus, XY, you have become absolutely juvenile and rude. I come to this blog because there is a small sense of civility. Without that, it would just be another cesspool like Breitbart. I think you should excommunicate yourself from here and find a place where your trash talk is more common.

[MoreCurious]

Unfortunately, Hobie, it's been a long time since there was even a tiny sense of civility connected to this blog (or at least the Open Thread part of it. If we were all honest with each other, I suspect we'd admit that we come back every day to witness the cast of clowns scratch each other's eyes out, show their ignorance, and otherwise make fools of themselves. P.S. Notice that I'm not mentioning any names, but if the shoe fits . . . .

[Bob from Ohio]

"And they suck at football, too."

They have not even been in a Super Bowl!

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"They have not even been in a Super Bowl!"

Neither has Bayern München which, apparently, is about the best football team in the world.

And, how have the Green Bay Packers fared in the World Cup?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Neither has Bayern München which, apparently, is about the best football team in the world."

Doubt they could even win again the Tennessee Titans.

"And, how have the Green Bay Packers fared in the World Cup?"

Green Bay has 13 world championships.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Doubt they could even win again the Tennessee Titans."
In a football game they could.

"Green Bay has 13 world championships."

Perhaps so, but not in football.

[Bob from Ohio]

National FOOTBALL League, QED

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"National FOOTBALL League, QED"

NATIONAL, QED. The Green Bay Packers have won no world championships, not in football, football, or anything else.

A fact of no importance, I attended the Ice Bowl. It was a National Football League championship game, not a world championship game in anything.

[Bob from Ohio]

"National Football League championship game"

Yes, because there was an AFL-NFL world championship game

From Green Bay's website:

"Most World Championships:

Green Bay Packers, 13"

https://www.packers.com/history/championship-seasons

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"From Green Bay's website:
Most World Championships"

So what?
1. Anybody anywhere can claim to be world champions at anything, and frequently does.

2, They can't be world champions at football, because they don't play what the vast majority of people in the world consider to be football.

Why are you so stupid?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why are you so stupid?"

Why do you have no sense of humor?

I realize the inferior parts of the world call soccer football.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Why do you have no sense of humor?"

My sense of humor may not be to your liking, but I sure do find you worth more than a few laughs.

Once again, why are you so stupid?

[Kazinski]

Jack Smith can't impose conditions on Congress, when he is summoned, he better show.

[not guilty]

"Jack Smith can't impose conditions on Congress, when he is summoned, he better show."

Uh, that, Captain Obvious, is a given. Nothing in the October 23 letter from Mr. Smith's counsel even remotely suggests that he will defy any subpoena; it is merely a respectful request that proceedings be conducted in the light of day.

I suspect that Rep. Gym Jordan knows that Mr. Smith is not a witness who can be bullied or buffaloed, and Rep. Jordan is scared shitless of giving the witness a public forum to talk about Donald Trump's lawless conduct which gave rise to the indictments.

[Kazinski]

Well good, I am.glad we are on the same page.

I will also note after Smith's testimony he can have a press conference on the Capitol steps and augment his testimony however he chooses. Unlike Judge Boasberg, Congress can't issue gag orders, even if Jack Smith asks them too.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - did you forget Eric Holder?

Selective memory?

[Kazinski]

Hunter Biden did initially refuse a Congressional deposition, you can get away with it if your daddy is president and his DOJ won't prosecute, and daddy can give you a pardon.

[Joe_dallas]

Any guesses as to when NG will own up to his selective condemnations and selective defenses?

Admitting double standards?

[bernard11]

WTF are you talking about?

Why are you brain-dead MAGA's criticizing Smith for wanting to testify publicly?

[Joe_dallas]

Bernard - you know exactly WTF I am talking about - Its NG extreme level of double standards and hypocrisy.

Misrepresenting my statement is a good sign that you dont want to address the substance of my statement along your preference for dishonestly.

[Kazinski]

No I am not criticizing Smith for this, I am just saying its not up to him.

But I do think Congress is rightfully pissed off at him for surveilling them, likely illegally and requesting Boasberg issue gag orders, likely illegally.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"No I am not criticizing Smith for this, I am just saying its not up to him."

So, you're criticizing a claim that nobody has made.

[Kazinski]

I didn't say anyone did, but I thought it should be made clear after Hunter's example of defying a congressional subpoena to give a deposition, at least temporarily.

[David Nieporent]

Hunter Biden appeared after being subpoenaed, which kind of directly belies the claim that he "[could] get away with it."

[not guilty]

No, Joe_dallas, I haven't forgotten Eric Holder.

How is your question there even remotely relevant to whether Jack Smith testifies in public or behind closed doors?

[Riva]

I guess old Jack must have found this commitment to pubic openness sometime after he illegally and secretly searched senators' phone records.

[not guilty]

You lie, Riva. Jack Smith did not do that.

[bernard11]

You can figure out why Jack doesn't want to be back (answering questions under oath).

Stupid comment of the day.

Smith has said that he wants to testify publicly. Not hard to see why. A public hearing and transcript block Coatless Jim Jordan and Comer from spreading a lot of lies as to what he said.

Only you could interpret, "I want to testify publicly" to mean, "I don't want to testify."

[Frank Drackman]

Ask Steve Banyon

[Dr. Ed 2]

Weren't there Republicans raising this very issue a few years ago when the Democrats were demanding secret hearings?

And weren't there criminal prosecutions of said Republicans, with some of them going to jail as a consequence?

Ans what were people like NG saying then?

And how was that Different?!?

[not guilty]

Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro went to prison for contempt of Congress, each having completely failed to respond to subpoenas. That kind of failure to appear is essentially indefensible -- if there were any privilege(s) to be asserted, the proper course of action would have been to appear, be sworn in, and assert privileges if applicable on a question by question basis.

Dr. Ed 2, which Democrats were then demanding secret hearings? Please name names or, in the alternative, admit that you are getting your information from that infamous source, Otto Yourazz.

[Riva]

There were issues regarding executive privilege at issue with Bannon and Navarro, you gaslighting clown. Can the thug Smith make any similar arguments? Let’s hear them.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"There were issues regarding executive privilege at issue with Bannon and Navarro"

No there were not. Executive privilege resides with, you know, the executive. Neither Bannon nor Navarro had any more claim to executive privilege than did Charles Manson.

[Riva]

No that was the prosecution’s argument. Bannon argued otherwise contending the president was asserting privilege and that he, Bannon, was bound to honor it.

But, and this is the important part, even if one disagrees with Bannon, he at least had an argument. And I am not debating the merits of that argument. My question asked, what is Smith’s argument? He has no such basis to resist the subpoena.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

" Bannon argued otherwise contending the president was asserting privilege"

That's stupid. Bannon has no more right to assert that Trump is asserting that privilege than I do if confronted with a citation for overtime parking.

" My question asked, what is Smith’s argument? "
Argument for what? Smith has not refused to comply with any subpoena, has he?

[Riva]

NG began this entire thread with some bullshit about Smith’s supposed (and undefined) “offer” of public testimony in reference to a pending subpoena. My point is that Smith has no basis to refuse the subpoena and this supposed offer of public testimony is an absurd distraction. Apparently you agree with me. Smith has no basis to refuse the subpoena.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Apparently you agree with me. Smith has no basis to refuse the subpoena."

So does everybody else on the planet. Nobody has asserted that Smith has a basis to refuse to comply with a subpoena.

" this supposed offer of public testimony is an absurd distraction"
There is nothing "supposed" about it and there is nothing distracting about it.

You surely are one strange person.

[loki13]

Don't argue with the bot.

As anyone who isn't a bot knows, it wasn't a supposed offer. It was a very public offer. For a very good reason.

Second, the offer was supported by the Democrats on the Committee. When it was made, and now. For a very good reason.

What is that good reason? Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

That the offer (a PUBLIC hearing) was refused by .... the most shameless media whore in the House, Jim "I don't expose sexual predators" Jordan ... in preference for a Star Chamber that he can use to lie about ... tells you everything you need to know.

The fact that there are people here who can't seem to understand what is actually going on and instead default to making stuff up is sad but predictable.

[Riva]

You are taking issue with a partial quote from my response. This was my response: "NG began this entire thread with some bullshit about Smith’s supposed (and undefined) 'offer' of public testimony in reference to a pending subpoena. My point is that Smith has no basis to refuse the subpoena and this supposed offer of public testimony is an absurd distraction. Apparently you agree with me. Smith has no basis to refuse the subpoena."

If you want to challenge me, do it fucking honestly you POS troll.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"If you want to challenge me, do it fucking honestly you POS troll."
You certainly are one strange person.

[Riva]

You surely are one strange troll. This is a comments section. And I am, wait for it, responding to comments. You are simply parroting the same insult over and over again. Ok, we're done. Fuck off now.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Ok, we're done. Fuck off now."

You certainly are a strange person. Downright queer.

[not guilty]

"My question asked, what is Smith’s argument? He has no such basis to resist the subpoena."

Riva doofus, Jack Smith is not resisting any subpoena.

[not guilty]

"There were issues regarding executive privilege at issue with Bannon and Navarro, you gaslighting clown. Can the thug Smith make any similar arguments? Let’s hear them."

Riva, as I said, if there were any privilege(s) to be asserted, the proper course of action would have been to appear, be sworn in, and assert privileges if applicable on a question by question basis. What part of that fails to register with you?

And Jack Smith is not seeking to avoid testifying, although there may be some questions that grand jury secrecy rules constrain him from answering. Those questions can be objected to if and when they are presented. Mr. Smith simply prefers to testify publicly, in the light of day.

To call you a fool, Riva, would be an insult to fools in general.

[Riva]

I don’t give a fuck what he prefers. And since when did he give a fuck about openness when seeking his 400 plus secret subpoenas fishing for incriminating evidence? What exactly was the factual basis supporting Boasberg’s order that sitting senators, or anyone else, would tamper with or destroy evidence? By the way, the hack Boasberg sure as shit is running away from any hearings.

Here’s a paraphrase you may like. It is better NG, to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to respond and remove all doubt. Do yourself a favor and stop responding.

[Armchair]

A closed deposition will answer questions about Arctic Frost. An open session limited to 5 minute bits is just PR.

We need answers on why the DoJ under Biden was spying on the opposition.

[hobie]

"We need answers on why the DoJ under Biden was spying on the opposition."

Well, there's about 5,000 hours of news footage. All these MAGA politicians were pressuring officials (Graham), coordinating with fake electors (Johnson & Hawley), breaking into Georgia election databases. You know...criminal election stealing. They were lucky all they got was investigated instead of indicted.

[jay.tee]

Except of course they weren’t the target of the investigation, otherwise the DOJ would have been concerned with the inadmissibility of evidence it gleaned through obtaining their toll records.

[Kenneth Almquist]

What makes you think that the DOJ wasn’t concerned about admissibility? The DOJ obtained a warrant for the records.

[David Nieporent]

The DOJ obtained a warrant for the records.

Not exactly, no. This was a grand jury subpoena. No warrant is needed to obtain toll records.

[not guilty]

"We need answers on why the DoJ under Biden was spying on the opposition."

There was no "spying" by Jack Smith while he served as Special Counsel, Armchair. The questions that you surmise are insipid, not based in fact.

[DDHarriman]

They're holding the interviews in the same SCIF as the J6 committee held theirs.

[Riva]

NG, I don’t give a fuck what he “offered.” (And, I note, we don’t have any details on that). The thug has been subpoenaed. The thug somehow has a special right to ignore the subpoena? Ask Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro about that.

[not guilty]

Riva, why do you posit that Jack Smith has ignored or is going to ignore any subpoena?

Are you drunk?

[Riva]

And of course it should be noted that the WP concocted false narrative having collapsed on itself, you clowns now move onto something else. Never even acknowledging your past lies. So much for sunlight.

[not guilty]

R.I.P. Steve Cropper, dead at age 84. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/03/arts/music/steve-cropper-dead.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Bummer.

[santamonica811]

Has there been anything more insane and dumb than Trump's recent announcement that anything Biden did via autopen is now null and void. Specifically including pardons and commutations. Obviously (to everyone on Earth except Trump), once a pardon is given, there is no way--other than perhaps evidence of fraud in the inducement, coercion, etc--that any future President can un-ring that bell. Just like all the recent criminals--from the lowliest of Jan 6 felons who have been pardoned, to the loftiest former Presidents of Central American countries who brought in to America tons of dangerous and illegal drugs--are all safe from Future-President Rubio or Harris or Newsom (etc etc) trying to undo those Trump pardons.

What is especially stupid to me (IMO, obviously) is Trump announcing that all of Biden's autopen executive actions are null & void. What's the point of this. Trump can undo these WITH HIS OWN EXECUTIVE ACTIONS. (And did so, on his very first day in office, when he undid literally dozens and dozens of Biden E.A.s.)

Anyone want to jump in and defend this? In terms of Trump's evil acts, this is wayyyy down on the list, I cheerfully admit. He's not doing anything especially wrong, if judging by our usual Trump standards. (Trying to destroy American's faith in a functioning government, of course; but that's what Trump does 3 times each day before breakfast, so that's not particularly noteworthy.)

I guess that, for the most idiotic of Trump supporters; it might serve as a deflection from the Epstein files, from murdering foreigners on the high seas, etc. But hardly worth his time and effort, methinks.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, not sure why he wants to set a precedent that a President can nullify a previous President's pardons.

[Brett Bellmore]

The legal argument would be, there's no pardon to nullify. Like, if you could prove that there wasn't any evidence a supposed law had ever actually been voted on by Congress, ignoring it wouldn't be ignoring a previous law, it would just be recognizing that it never was a law to begin with.

[David Nieporent]

The legal argument would be, there's no pardon to nullify.

That isn't the argument Trump made, and that isn't what Trump did — or purported to do. He purported to issue an order that the pardons were void. Which has as much legal significance as issuing an order that pi = 3.

[Joe_dallas]

Issuing a pardon by the president requires knowledge of the president granting the pardon.

The issue is whether someone other than the president signed the pardon via autopen without Biden's knowledge and/or that Biden did not subsequently take some later action to confirm or approve that prior unauthorized autopen pardon. Proving that is problematic.

[jb]

Proving the inverse is also problematic, and yet Trump asserts categorically that all of these actions are void.

[Joe_dallas]

JB - all I am pointing out is the misrepresentation of why the Biden autopen pardons may be invalid. There is a legitimate dispute as to Biden was the person who actually signed the pardons via autopen or if they were signed by someone else using the autopen and if so, whether he actually approved someone else signing via autopen or if subsequently became aware and made some form approval for the pardons.

[santamonica811]

Joe,
Respectfully, there is NOT a *legitimate* dispute. Trump's crazy rants and 2 a.m. postings do not equal "legitimate." The fact that the most idiotic and sheep-like of his slavish followers believe Trump's stupidity also does not raise the issue to any semblance of legitimacy.

Given that autopen pardons are clearly valid; the entire burden is on Trump to demonstrate that Joe Biden was SO CLEARLY mentally/cognitively incomplete (as a matter of law) that literally nothing that he was doing had any legal effect.

We all saw Joe Biden make lots of perfectly cogent speeches before the infamous and disastrous debate. And saw Biden make equally cogent speeches after the debate. So, if I were a judge deciding the matter (or a member of a jury), I'd say, "How on Earth can you, Mr. Trump, possibly prove to me that, on the specific time and date that the autopen was used, President Biden was mentally incompetent?

(I'll absolutely grant you that, during the first 1/4 or 1/3 of that debate, Biden looked SO out of it that I'd seriously question his competence. But you should also grant that during the last half of the debate, he was perfectly coherent. So, it's definitely not a case where we all saw a dysfunctional person, and that person remained just as diminished in the days and weeks afterwards.)

[Joe_dallas]

Santamonica -
You changed the topic of what is in dispute.

The dispute is not trumps behavior of questioning the validity of the pardons.

the dispute is whether Biden signed the pardons via autopens or if was ever aware that someone signed the pardons with the autopen without his knowledge or subsequent approval.

Your description of Biden's approval of the pardon's is suspect.

[David Nieporent]

As usual, you completely fail to understand anything that requires SME. The point is that if there is some legal reason why the pardons issued by Joe Biden were invalid, then they were invalid ab initio. Donald Trump cannot make them invalid — or more invalid — by issuing an order to that effect, any more than Donald Duck can.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly -- and technology is increasingly making it difficult to prove intentional actions by competent natural persons.

A century ago, Silent Cal's signature was sufficient proof -- now it isn't. Today a witnessed and videoed Trump signing of the document is sufficient proof -- in a decade, that won't be.

But the person holding the pardon has to prove that it was BIDEN who issued the order/pardon, and an autopen "signature" alone isn't it.

[bernard11]

But the person holding the pardon has to prove that it was BIDEN who issued the order/pardon, and an autopen "signature" alone isn't it.

No. They don't have to prove anything. They can wait to see if Donald, "Inspector Clouseau," Trump can prove otherwise.

[Area Man]

Yeah, I actually had this same though: Who's burden is it? I think it's clearly the government's burden to show that the pardon is somehow invalid. The next question is, what's the burden of proof--a preponderance; clear and convincing; beyond a reasonable doubt? I have no idea what the answer to that would be, but even under the lowest burden of proof, the government would have a hard time showing that Biden either didn't approve the pardons ahead of time or did not "ratify" them later on. The Administration's argument seems to be that Biden was so out of it that he couldn't ever have approved the pardons, but that's going to be pretty hard to prove to the degree needed to overturn a presumptively valid pardon.

[Estragon]

For the most part I think what is really being targeted here are the “preemptive” pardons, and maybe the Hunter one. I may be mistaken, but I believe many (most? All?) of the “traditional” pardons took place with at least some involvement from the pardon office at DOJ reviewing individual cases (or classes of cases). Which could be taken as further evidence of intent, one could argue.

On the other hand, pardons before any trial may be de rigueur now and in the future.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/trump-pardons-climate-pledge-arena-developer-months-after-indictment/

[not guilty]

"But the person holding the pardon has to prove that it was BIDEN who issued the order/pardon, and an autopen 'signature' alone isn't it."

The issue would arise only if and when the recipient of the pardon is actually charged with a crime. The accused would no doubt file a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure based upon the pardon. The trial court would be required by Rule 12(d) to determine the issue prior to trial.

If the purported pardon document is sealed and signed, it is self-authenticating under Rule 902(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. A certified copy of the document would be self-authenticating under Rule 902(4).

Presentation of the pardon document by the accused as to the motion to dismiss would be prima facie evidence of its validity. The burden to show invalidity would be on the prosecution. I don't know how any such showing would be made.

[OpinionsVary]

The weird question is - did Trump also just declare Biden's *vetos* void too?

Vetoes aren't signed in the sense of laws being signed but, then again, neither are pardons. No requirement in the US constitution that pardons need even be written after all. And when a president vetoes a law, they return it with a message explaining why and which ends in the President's name. See here for Biden's - https://www.senate.gov/legislative/vetoes/BidenJR.htm

So if Trump's (claimed and incorrect) 'null and void' action extends to vetoes, wouldn't that mean Biden never legally returned those bills to Congress? And hence, wouldn't they have (in Trump's world) become law under the 10 day limit?

[Brett Bellmore]

1. Pardons are not required to be signed, but they are required to be done by the President, the signature is just one of many ways of demonstrating that happened. If it's a real signature, anyway.

2. The case is similar with vetoes, except of course "pocket" vetoes, which are purely a matter of inaction.

The whole problem here is that the autopen doesn't prove anything beyond that some unidentified person pressed a button.

Really, what IS lost if we ban the autopen for anything having legal significance? (And while we're at it, establish that digital input devices that don't display what you're supposedly signing are invalid, too.)

Only the ability to forge signatures more easily.

[OpinionsVary]

So you think it *did* extend to the vetoes? Does that mean you agree this would mean that everything Biden vetod (and didn't accidentally pocket veto) automatically became law ten days after he received it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, if it was a signed veto in a circumstance where no pocket veto was possible, and there was no other evidence of Biden himself intending the veto, sure.

Looks to me like Biden didn't typically autopen his vetos.

[Sarcastr0]

Nice to see the ridiculous formalism return after so long twisting to whatever tune is required to defend Trump, but this is still ridiculous.

[Brett Bellmore]

Signing something actually has functionality, it is genuine evidence of knowledge and intent.

You know what's ridiculous formalism? Treating a 'signature' reproduced by a machine as somebody having "signed" something, absent evidence of knowledge and intent.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a 100% impossibility to implement. At all.

You're wrong about other stuff too, but this here ends the analysis.

[Brett Bellmore]

"All of history prior to autopens didn't exist!"

[Sarcastr0]

If your analysis says to do something impossible, the flaw is not with reality for being so stubborn.

[ducksalad]

Throughout most of recorded history, it was common for emperors, kings, etc to have a seal.

Question #1: How is a seal different from an autopen? For all we know someone on the king's staff picked up the seal and used it.

Question #2: Large swathes of the US southwest started out as Spanish land grants. Suppose we go back to the original paperwork and it turns out to be a seal rather than a signature. Does the property revert to King Felipe VI of Spain?

[Life of Brian]

You say impossible, I say acquired laziness due to the availability of the autopen.

While Truman enjoyed the warm waters, tropical breezes, and relaxing atmosphere, he was constantly fulfilling his duties as president. “I have been signing and dictating as fast as I can here,” he wrote his sister Mary Jane. “Just finished signing a folder full of public documents and I must now sign some three or four hundred letters. It is no vacation—only a change of scenery.”

https://www.whitehousehistory.org/harry-s-trumans-little-white-house

[Commenter_XY]

In all of recorded history, I am certain that at least one thing was more insane and dumb, sm811. But only one? 😉

Should we 'ban the autopen'? Perhaps we should.

[OpinionsVary]

Imagine we existed in a world were the autopen had been banned in the late 90s. Would it be any different? I don't think so. Trump would just be saying something slightly different like 'Sign Anything Joe was to mentally incapable to understand what he read and signed anything put in front of him. VOID AND NULL. Thank you for your attention in this matter.'

[Commenter_XY]

It is impossible to say if the world would be different, but your point is well-taken. I would note that there is something ineffable to affixing one's personal signature to paper, by one's own hand, as opposed to the Autopen.

What we saw with The Cauliflower and the Autopen is not something we want to see repeated. By any cognitively diminished POTUS of any political party.

Is it such a great sacrifice to require a POTUS to sign bills with their own hand? Just think of all the pens they can give away to constituents....in gratis, of course. Heh.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"'Sign Anything Joe was to mentally incapable to understand what he read and signed anything put in front of him."

"Put in front of him" is very relevant...

Jack Kennedy couldn't have signed something in 1964, but his autopen (had it existed then) could have.

[jb]

Let's say there was a President who for some reason lost the use of their hands. Is your theory that that President shouldn't be able to take any formal Presidential actions because they couldn't sign things themself?

[Life of Brian]

IMO, we should deal with speculative corner cases if and when they arise, not dumb down the entire system just in case.

[jb]

But it seems like in my hypothetical we'd all agree that obviously having the President physically sign things isn't essential to their exercise of power. So maybe rather than fixate on pen vs autopen we should try to figure out what it is we really expect to be able to understand and memorialize Presidential intent.

[Life of Brian]

A President with no hands is going to have all sorts of trouble doing all sorts of things, and accommodating those things would create a huge level of overhead that all real-world Presidents haven't had to deal with.

I'm sure that we could come up with a scheme for that hypothetical handless person that would sufficiently document intent to sign a document that's actually signed by some sort of proxy. But for real-world Presidents with hands, I'd be more than a bit surprised if that system would end up remotely as efficient as just signing the damn paper and being done with it.

[Estragon]

The insistence that pen and paper are the crucial indicators of sufficient intent seems odd in the age of DocuSign.

[Life of Brian]

Docusign and its ilk don't ultimately rely on the signature image itself -- if you've ever used it, you know you can actually just type your name if you prefer.

It's the underlying audit trail of the document itself -- the email address the document was sent to, the IP address of the device used to sign, the time it was signed, and so on -- that collectively attributes the signature to a specific individual.

I'm not suggesting a properly-designed Docusign-like process couldn't work,* but 1) that's miles away from the loosey-goosey system currently surrounding the autopen, 2) a properly-designed process is likely going to be more hoop-jumping than just signing the piece of paper one of your many aides is happy to place in front of you, particularly when 3) you're generally talking about a generation of people that don't tend to eat/sleep/breathe technology anyway.

* Even Docusign documents can be challenged if the audit trail can be shown not to unambiguously resolve to a specific individual -- for example, an executive that gives his secretary access to his email. Any Presidential scheme would have to take issues like this into account, or we'd be right back to square 1.

[Estragon]

So pen and paper NOT required, you just prefer it that way.

This whole subject seems silly to me on its face, especially given we just lived through this whole kerfuffle:

“We want to get criminals out of our country, number one, and I don’t know when it was signed, because I didn’t sign it”

As always, the motives for this coming back to the forefront are transparent.

[Life of Brian]

So pen and paper NOT required, you just prefer it that way.

I'm honestly not sure how you could read my rather extensive post above (much less in the context of everything else I've said in this thread) about design considerations, feasibility, and overhead, and somehow come up with "you just prefer it that way" as a takeaway.

[Estragon]

Yes, you provided a list of reasons that you think pen and paper would be better. What am I missing?

[Life of Brian]

I guess I think of a preference more along the lines of, for example, pointing at a handful of things that are differently-colored but in all other respects equal, and saying "I'd rather have the green one."

What I'm saying here is that any system -- paper or electronic -- needs a process around it to prevent fraud, and that in the specific context of the Presidency a process built around wet signatures requires the least additional checks and balances to guard against fraud, and thus imposes the least amount of additional overhead than any other process I'm aware of. It's not that other systems couldn't be made to work, as I said in so many words, but it likely would be impossible to design one that would be as trustworthy, as efficient, and as non-technologically-dependent as just picking up a pen and signing your name.

If you disagree, it would be great to hear specifically why.

[Estragon]

Sure, if you were designing the pardon over again I could see why one might argue for witnessed wet signatures. I propose the President must cut his or her hand and sign in their own blood while perched upon a stack of Bibles— to provide even further, more concrete, evidence of “intent.” I mean— why not? I keep thinking about Gov. Le Petomane.

But even you seem to acknowledge your preferred method is not required in the reality we inhabit here today.

It just seems like a solution on search of a problem. You keep talking about fraud. Can you give me an example of a fraudulent pardon? Oftentimes (almost always?) they are accompanied by statements from the President outlining the reasoning behind the pardon. Certainly that is the true in the case of the certain individuals we expect to see targeted by Trump.

[Life of Brian]

In case you've forgotten, you parachuted into the middle of a discussion about the wisdom of imposing a signature process usable by Presidents that can't use their hands on Presidents that can. So I'm not sure why you keep triumphantly pointing out that wet signatures are not "required."

I propose the President must cut his or her hand and sign in their own blood while perched upon a stack of Bibles— to provide even further, more concrete, evidence of “intent.” I mean— why not?

Unserious.

It just seems like a solution on search of a problem.

I presume that's because you don't believe that there's any possibility of a problem with the stack of pardons that Biden neither signed nor conveyed authorization to the person who signed on his behalf. If that's your take, that's your take, but I don't see how it's based on anything but wishful thinking.

Oftentimes (almost always?) they are accompanied by statements from the President outlining the reasoning behind the pardon.

Are you just talking about words typed on the page? Authorship of those is no more reliable (or perhaps even less so) than the signature.

[Estragon]

“Unserious”

Why? I read a case in 1L about the enforceability of a land sale contract signed at a bar on a napkin in Korean. In blood, because they didn’t have a pen handy. I thought this was about showing the requisite intent. Surely blood is more intentional than ink?

“neither signed nor conveyed authorization to the person who signed on his behalf.”

That sounds pretty speculative. And that is not the same as mere usage of the “autopen” which is this Administration’s stated rationale.

[Life of Brian]

Surely blood is more intentional than ink?

Again, unserious.

That sounds pretty speculative. And that is not the same as mere usage of the “autopen” which is this Administration’s stated rationale.

Ah, I now see you were away last week when we discussed this article. That may explain some of the disconnect. At this point, it's way past speculation, and way past just the use of the autopen.

[Estragon]

I don’t think that article says as much as you suggest. What’s the fraud? Biden determined classes of convictions they wanted to issue commutations for, and there was some shuffling around the margins about who was or was not eligible. In the same way I assume there was some line drawing around who would or wouldn’t be eligible for the blanket J6 pardons.

In any event, even if you want to say that sequence of events was improper, it strikes me as inapplicable to the case of the real targets here— all of whom were issued individual pardons. And indeed, as to at least a few, Biden made live public comments about his reasons for pardoning. Surely that evinces enough intent? Or are we back to pen and paper are required?

[Estragon]

I mean… are you really suggesting that this whole autopen thing is about the 2500 nobodies who got commuted for the low-level drug stuff? What’s the plan here? Track em down and lock em back up?

[Life of Brian]

blanket pardons . . . 2500 nobodies

Not the issue. I guess I should have also given you the link to last week's discussion itself that weeded out distractions like this.

In any event, even if you want to say that sequence of events was improper, it strikes me as inapplicable to the case of the real targets here— all of whom were issued individual pardons.

Those were addressed in the article as well. Maybe read it again.

[Estragon]

It looks like a lot of baroque hypotheticals and speculation.

[Life of Brian]

It's neither speculation nor hypothetical that Stefanie Feldman fired up the autopen based solely on an email from an aide, who most of the time did not hear directly from Biden and was simply relaying instructions from another intermediary.

That makes the contents of these pardon documents about as reliable as the Book of Mormon.

[not guilty]

"It looks like a lot of baroque hypotheticals and speculation."

Yes, indeed. There is a dearth of commenters here who have actually tried a lawsuit to completion. The rest have not learned to think like litigators. As I wrote upthread:

The issue would arise only if and when the recipient of the pardon is actually charged with a crime. The accused would no doubt file a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure based upon the pardon. The trial court would be required by Rule 12(d) to determine the issue prior to trial.

If the purported pardon document is sealed and signed, it is self-authenticating under Rule 902(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. A certified copy of the document would be self-authenticating under Rule 902(4).

Presentation of the pardon document by the accused as to the motion to dismiss would be prima facie evidence of its validity. The burden to show invalidity would be on the prosecution. I don't know how any such showing would be made.

Does anyone else have any idea as to how a prosecuting attorney would proffer evidence of invalidity of a facially valid pardon? What witness(es) would he call? What document(s) would he offer? Who would authenticate any such documents?

[Life of Brian]

Oh, look -- the Jim Cramer of law has weighed in. Now we know for sure how this is going to turn out.

I suspect if you were on the side needing to challenge the pardon, it wouldn't be too heavy of a lift at all for someone of your depth of knowledge and experience to come up with 1 or perhaps 2 witnesses at the most who would (if not perjuring themselves) readily establish that the person controlling the autopen had no direct knowledge whether the document she (oh, sorry, didn't mean to give it away) autopenned actually reflected the intent of the signer.

[Estragon]

“Assume a spherical cow”

You are speculating. You just admitted it!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Does anyone else have any idea as to how a prosecuting attorney would proffer evidence of invalidity of a facially valid pardon?"

Probably by showing evidence that the current President declared it invalid. A pardon without a direct signature is just a public record, and if the issuing agency rescinds it, I don't see how it would be valid.

[not guilty]

"I suspect if you were on the side needing to challenge the pardon, it wouldn't be too heavy of a lift at all for someone of your depth of knowledge and experience to come up with 1 or perhaps 2 witnesses at the most who would (if not perjuring themselves) readily establish that the person controlling the autopen had no direct knowledge whether the document she (oh, sorry, didn't mean to give it away) autopenned actually reflected the intent of the signer."

IOW, LoB, you have no clue, and you lack the integrity to admit that you have no clue.

What witness(es)? What document(s)? What authentication or, in the alternative, demostration of personal knowledge?

[not guilty]

"Probably by showing evidence that the current President declared it invalid. A pardon without a direct signature is just a public record, and if the issuing agency rescinds it, I don't see how it would be valid."

TIP, do you have any authority whatsoever that a successor President can rescind or declare (an unconditional) pardon issued by a predecessor to be invalid?

And even if that were the case, how would a prosecuting attorney adduce evidence that a particular pardon, propounded by the accused individual on a motion to dismiss, in fact was unsigned? What witness(es) would he call? What document(s) would he offer? Who would authenticate any such documents?

[Life of Brian]

IOW, LoB, you have no clue, and you lack the integrity to admit that you have no clue.

We've been discussing the relevant individuals in the very thread you selected for your sealioning exercise. Maybe divert a bit of energy from thumping your chest and actually read it, Jim.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"TIP, do you have any authority whatsoever that a successor President can rescind or declare (an unconditional) pardon issued by a predecessor to be invalid?"

Let's be clear. If a President executes a pardon, a successor President can't rescind it.

But above, you've claimed that a sealed document signed with an autopen is a self-authenticating document, meaning that no extrinsic evidence is required to show that the DoJ actually issued the document.

Now, how does the fact that the DoJ issued a pardon document establish that the President actually executed a pardon? IIUC it would be a public record and fall under that exception to the hearsay rule. But public agencies modify their records all the time.

[David Nieporent]

Probably by showing evidence that the current President declared it invalid. A pardon without a direct signature is just a public record, and if the issuing agency rescinds it, I don't see how it would be valid.

To be clear, everything you just said was wrong. President 2 cannot "declare" anything one way or the other about the validity of a pardon. (Well, he can, in the same way that Oprah Winfrey can, with the same legal effect.)

A pardon is not a "public record." A pardon is a presidential decision. The document that memorializes the decision is evidence of that decision; it doesn't constitute the decision. A pardon does not require any signature on it at all; a pardon need not even be in writing.

There is no such thing as "rescinding" a pardon. One could tear up the piece of paper, but that would make no difference of any sort.

[Mr. Bumble]

A new entry in the Hypothetical Hall of Fame.

[ducksalad]

We've all seen those pictures of Trump's right hand. Sometimes he's got it covered with a bandage, sometimes with pancake makeup, sometimes it's exposed with obvious hematoma.

Since he's verified over and over again that he's in perfect health, we can absolute rule out anything cardiovascular or any kind of intravenous treatment.

That only leaves one possible explanation. It is an implant. A wireless neural interface that allows the hand to be controlled remotely. Trump's right hand is itself an autopen!

(Can I take jb's place in the Hall of Fame?)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Some people can't use their hands. They can still take part in binding contracts, including those that require things in writing.

Of course, this whole thing is silly, though it is mildly interesting to think about. Up to a point. But at some point, it is just silly.

People with disabilities sometimes use their feet or mouth to use a pen. Even if we imagine (and that is what it is) that only a regular pen or pencil can be used, [in NYC, for instance, people can vote using a contraption that involves blowing into a device], it can be done without hands.

[Michael P]

The Autopen administration's unconstitutional rent moratorium to protect people from sniffles is an obvious example of something more insane and dumb.

[jb]

This moratorium?

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-working-stop-evictions-protect-americans-homes-covid-19-pandemic/

[Joe_dallas]

yes that moratorium and the subsequent renewals of the eviction moratorium which of course had zero or near zero impact of the transmission of a respiratory virus. Trump unfortunately listened to and implemented policies promoted by faux experts.

[jb]

Just kind of confused, because Michael P said "autopen" when I guess he meant "Trump".

Must be fun to just pretend that every policy or outcome you don't like comes from your political enemies. Although it seems like less fun when a ten second Internet search proves you're either lying or dumb.

[Joe_dallas]

Trump was wrong to issue the eviction moratorium and Biden was wrong to renew the eviction moratorium for the specific reason I stated.

Accusing me of lying based on policy preference is pathetic, especially since the entirety of my statement is factually correct.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Accusing me of lying based on policy preference is pathetic, especially since the entirety of my statement is factually correct."

Who accused you of lying in this instance? jb was clearly refering to Michael P.

[Joe_dallas]

Stella - doubling up on JB's lie -
JB specifically accused me of lying in his last sentence. He was not referring to MP.
Two dishonest statements - its running uncontrollably from leftists today.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

What the fuck are you talking about?

"Must be fun to just pretend that every policy or outcome you don't like comes from your political enemies. Although it seems like less fun when a ten second Internet search proves you're either lying or dumb."

That whole quote is in reference to Michael P.

[Joe_dallas]

If it was in reply to MP, then why did you post it as a response to my comment? Its hard to argue that it was in response to MP when when you were replying to me and the response was in direct reply to my comment.

In summary, your two attempts at an alibi remain lies.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"In summary, your two attempts at an alibi remain lies."

Why are you so stupid?

[jb]

"If it was in reply to MP, then why did you post it as a response to my comment?"

Because when I asked Michael P which moratorium he was talking about, you were the one who responded and correctly confirmed that it was Trump's moratorium (later extended by Biden. So then I wrote some stuff about Michael P's apparent confusion on the topic, which you can tell because I started my post specifically referring to Michael P. That's how threaded conversations like this work!

Chill out, dude. I promise I'll let you know if I think you're lying. This is not one of those times.

[Joe_dallas]

jb 43 minutes ago

JB - One last time - you replied to me - Your alibi remains a lie

"If it was in reply to MP, then why did you post it as a response to my comment?"

Stella's hatred for honesty abounds.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Stella's hatred for honesty abounds."

Why are you so stupid?

[jb]

What are you talking about dude? I have no problem with anything you wrote. My whole message was about Michael P.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Perhaps he is asserting that he and Michael P are the same person. That is the only way that what he is writing could make any sense.

[Joe_dallas]

You replied to me, not to MP!
Your alibi still sucks and it fools no one except yourself

[not guilty]

Joe_dallas, "alibi" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Where do you posit that jb was claiming to be at the time of a crime?

[Joe_dallas]

Yet you specifically accused me of lying - Again your alibi sucks

[jb]

Hey man, here's a song you might like:

https://youtu.be/mQZmCJUSC6g?si=aotNXRQCzvi2o2WY

[David Nieporent]

A rent moratorium is not "unconstitutional." It may be a taking, which would require compensation to the landlords. It may be ultra vires, in which case it would be void. But in neither case would it be "unconstitutional."

[SRG2]

Obviously (to everyone on Earth except Trump
,,,and the cultists, of course.

[Riva]

Yeah, I have. And it’s beyond insane and dumb. The conduct of democrats in Minnesota, particularly Walz, in enabling the billon dollar industrial level welfare fraud. And let’s add Omar (that would be the immigration fraudster who married her brother) to the list of democrats here. Most of this fraud was in her district. Hard to believe she was ignorant of this, but she’s rather an idiot so maybe ignorance is a defense here.

[Sarcastr0]

Beep boop talking point deployed!

[Bob from Ohio]

No lib here ever deploys a "talking point".

You just copied a prior post of your own. Yesterday DN said this was evidence of being a "bot". Um.

[Sarcastr0]

Riva's thing is he comes in and refusing or failing to substantively engage with the post he replies to, he posts his latest talking point.

This is the third time he's done this particular talking point.

He's remarkably bad at posting due to this habit. So are some other people as well, which does not change that he's bad at posting.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 3 minutes ago
"Riva's thing is he comes in and refusing or failing to substantively engage with the post he replies to, he posts his latest talking point."

Sardumbo is oblivious to his own behavior. At least Riva addresses the substantive issues.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thus as I've stated repeatedly Sardumbo , as you refer to him (I like that) is a douche and in real douche fashion unaware that he is.

[Riva]

There are many comments here so perhaps the parrot troll Sarcastr0 can be excused for forgetting the obnoxious challenge beginning these exchanges (“Has there been anything more insane and dumb than Trump's recent announcement that anything Biden did via autopen is now null and void.”) My response highlights some real news that further impugns democrats. I guess his fellow troll shouldn’t have posed the question if he didn’t want a response.

But if the ass Sarcastr0 wants additional commentary on the preceding bullshit trolling, I would point out that the real problem was the derelict and improper use of the auto pen under the Biden regime, not the efforts to correct that wrong.

[Bob from Ohio]

"he's bad at posting"

That is not the same as being a "bot", which is a computer program, not a human.

He at least probably knows Mongols were bad.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"He at least probably knows Mongols were bad."

Depends on the programming.

[Riva]

If the billon dollar industrial level Somali welfare fraud enabled by Democrats is a talking point, then it’s a talking point receiving a lot of attention in multiple national news reports. Sometimes such a “talking point” is called news.

[Joe_dallas]

Unfortunately - it took almost two years to for the national media to pick up on it. Several smaller media organizations have reporting for the last two years.

Further - The Minneapolis somalian community is relatively small and most , if not all , of the big names in that community knew what was going on.

[Kazinski]

CNBC is reporting that Apartment rents have started retrenching:

"The national median rent for apartments fell 1% in November from October, and now stands at $1,367, according to Apartment List.
The national multifamily vacancy rate was 7.2% in November, a record high.
The historic surge in multifamily construction over the past few years is now pulling back, but a good supply of new units is still coming online at a time of much weaker demand."

This is very good news, because rents have been a big driver of inflation since 2020, up cost inflation has been one of the biggest drivers of inflation since 2020, up 32%, compared to 24% for CPI overall since 2020. And rents/mortgages are also the largest single household.expense.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/02/apartment-rents-vacancies-november.html

[Krayt]

Good. Maybe some of the rental corps snapping up houses to rent will start taking a bath on their purchases.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have long felt that all of this speculative capital -- not just this -- is long overdue a bath. The question will be what happens then? Where is this money actually coming from?

What happens when it evaporates???

[Kazinski]

This reduction in rents maybe due to a couple of factors:

1 Weaker job market, the latest ADP report showed 30,000 fewer jobs.

2. Fewer illegal aliens, approximately 2 million have either voluntarily or involuntarily departed.

3. Greater supply, as the article says.

[Brett Bellmore]

The job market has to be measured relative to population; 30,000 fewer jobs, 2 million fewer people. That's actually a stronger job market, in per capita terms.

[jb]

Sure, but not necessarily in good for the economy terms. It's not like the labor was useless, otherwise the jobs wouldn't have existed.

[jay.tee]

Agree, and we should have an immigration system designed to encourage more legal immigration for those who can contribute to our economy, i.e. tax base. Aside from the other benefits of legal, regulated immigration, our entitlement programs may not have another path to sustainability aside from significantly increasing the number of contributors through immigration.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Strange case involving judges allegedly intimidating defendants and court personnel in Texas.

[Commenter_XY]

They have very colorful judges in TX.

[SRG2]

Therefore they must have been Republicans.

[wvattorney13]

"“Many of the witnesses we would have had to rely on lacked credibility” and “they have motives that undermine their credibility,” Curry continued."

When has that ever stopped a prosecutor?

[Area Man]

Many times, actually.

[Commenter_XY]

Fellow VC Conspirators, the end of the year will soon be upon us. And a New Year (NY) will begin. For some of us, our NY was a few months back. If you are like millions of Americans, you'll be making a New Year's resolution. To help you in this difficult endeavor, I present you with this gem.

https://melissajanelee.com/funny-new-years-resolutions/

I liked #70: Be emotionally stable-ish; and, I liked #91: Speak fluent sarcasm (I need to work on this, bigly)

What about you? What is your 2026 NY resolution? How did you do on your 2025 NY resolution(s)? Personally, I whiffed on an important one (spiritual, in nature).

[Brett Bellmore]

Start work on building my retirement fishing boat.

[Commenter_XY]

Blue water boat or brown water boat?

I confess, I have never really enjoyed fishing. Maybe I never did it right. You basically pitch a piece of dead whatever into the water, attached to a line and a hook, and then hope for the best. I just could never get into it. You sit, watch the water, and do what?

What about fishing makes it so special for you, that you are building a boat?

[Brett Bellmore]

Some of my best childhood memories involve fishing on Lake St. Claire. And I like eating fish, and they taste remarkably better if very fresh.

Admittedly fishing is more fun when you're actually catching them, but when you're not, it's very peaceful. Gives you plenty of time to look around, think. And the lake I'll be doing it on is very scenic.

I'm building this one. It's a trailerable houseboat. Has to be, I don't actually live on the water. While Lake Jocassee is my favorite, there are several decent lakes within easy driving distance. Puddles, really, by Great Lake standards, but the flip side is, no worry about waves you couldn't handle in a barge style houseboat.

Think of it as camping on the water.

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, brown water. That is a nice looking boat. How long for you to build, start to finish?

[Brett Bellmore]

Estimated 800 hours. Since I'll still be working while building it, probably two years? First year the hull and trailer, 2nd year the cabin and interior.

That lets me spread the expense out over two years, too. Marine plywood is fairly expensive, and, surprisingly, the epoxy even more so.

Of course, the first thing is that carport. My garage isn't big enough to build a boat in.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Two bilge pumps -- one set higher than the other, ideally set to trigger an alarm and/or autodialer if it runs.

The second one is the emergency pump.

[jay.tee]

Didn’t realize you lived in that area, Brett. I frequently drive through there. Some really great roads and views, underrated and hasn’t (yet) attained the popularity of WNC / Asheville area or even the North Georgia mountains.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...and hasn’t (yet) attained the popularity of WNC / Asheville area or even the North Georgia mountains."
Stay hopeful that it doesn't. Nothing ruins a place like "popularity".

[Brett Bellmore]

About an hour East of there, actually, just a few minutes out of Greenville SC.

As lakes go, Jocassee isn't the best fishing lake, (I think that would be Strom Thurmond.) but it's by far the most scenic.

[Martinned]

Are you sure about that? As long as you keep it somewhere north of New Orleans you're probably OK, but you wouldn't want Hegseth to blow you out of the water...

[ThePublius]

Such a jerk you are....

[David Nieporent]

my retirement fishing boat.

Keep it away from the Caribbean until 1/21/2029.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not planning on any saltwater adventures at this time, but I have been checking out a map of nearby navigable rivers, and it's possible I might end up in the Gulf at some point.

[Bunny495]

Not the first time a bill has been introduced in congress to ban dual citizenship. There is at least one SC decision that sorta seems to allow dual citizenship (Talbot v. Jansen, 3 U.S. 133 (1795)) but it is a very convoluted case and to my mind the facts argue against dual citizenship (some American citizens outfitted an American built ship in America, went to a French colony and got French citizenship and proceeded to capture a ship of United Netherlands, which France was at war with. When the owners from United Netherlands sued in American courts the SC ruled in favor of dual citizenship and awarded the United Netherlands owners some, but not all of what they asked for as relief). I am no fan of dual citizenship and agree with the idea that a man cannot serve two masters. YMMV

(https://thehill.com/policy/international/5629349-ohio-moreno-us-dual-citizenship/

[Martinned]

In my capacity as citizen I don't serve any master. On the contrary, it means that the government of the country where I am a citizen serves me.

[Bunny495]

I bet dollars to donuts you pay federal income taxes and are subject to federal laws.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't seem clear on the difference between citizen of a state and subject of a master.

[Michael P]

The Netherlands is a unitary country, so there's no federal government for him to pay taxes to, only the national one.

Every American who lives in a state is subject to taxes and laws of two sovereigns. Some commute across state borders for work and this are subject to more. National citizenship seems similar to me, except that nations sometimes go to war with each other. Dual citizenship seems reasonable to me, but might restrict one's ability to serve in the military, get a national security clearance, or the like -- at least until there's a war between the countries.

[Martinned]

Despite 250 years of retoric to the contrary, the States of the United States haven't been sovereign since they became subject to the (Federal) Constitution, which transferred the Kompetenz Kompetenz to the federal level, compared to the Articles of Confederation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The US Constitution was ratified in 1789, not 1775...

[Martinned]

Are you suggesting there was no retoric before 1789?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I argue that property owners ought to be able to vote in EVERY municipality that they are paying property taxes in.

[Martinned]

In the Netherlands we have water boards that date back to the Middle Ages. In the elections for the board of the water board (sorry, it's less confusing in Dutch) all residents have a vote, and all landowners have a vote, and groups that are disproportionately affected by decisions about (ground) water, like farmers, have more votes still. In other words, a non-resident landowner still has a vote, and an owner-occupier of a property has (at least) two votes.

[jb]

AFAIK, in the US dual citizenship (or not having US citizenship at all) isn't a bar to serving in the military, but does prevent one from any sort of security clearance.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

" but does prevent one from any sort of security clearance."

Not according to the Department of State (or whatever they are calling it these days).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://careers.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Dual-Citizenship.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi1-PPVrqSRAxVSmmoFHQbVBU4QFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3r8ShT-02pKgtQHlIXY8Pk

[jb]

Interesting! I thought I had looked at this at some point and found clear guidance to the contrary, but either something has changed or I misunderstood.

[Martinned]

I bet dollars to donuts you pay federal income taxes and are subject to federal laws.

I don't, in fact. But in the two countries where I do pay income taxes I don't do so because I'm a citizen. (In one of them I'm not a citizen, but HMRC still sends me a bill.)

[Mr. Bumble]

@Bunny495:
That expression has lost its punch since most donuts cost a dollar (or more) today.

[David Nieporent]

I bet dollars to donuts you pay federal income taxes and are subject to federal laws.

Neither of those have any necessary relationship to citizenship. Those two conditions apply to noncitizens in the U.S. too.

[Kazinski]

It's pretty impossible to ban dual.citizenship.

A lot of people are dual.citizens without even knowing it.

For instance their are 9 EU Countries that grant citizenship to great grandchildren of citizens:

https://www.imidaily.com/europe/9-eu-countries-that-grant-citizenship-to-the-great-grandchildren-of-their-citizens/

And you can be a citizen even if you haven't applied for a passport.

Or what if a country passes a law saying you can't renounce your citizenship, and any renunciation is void under their laws?

[Brett Bellmore]

The US citizenship oath requires you to renounce any foreign allegiance, but, of course, can't compel another country to care that you renounced your citizenship.

Under US law, dual citizenship is all downside: It spares you absolutely nothing in terms of US legal obligations, even when you're overseas, but may ALSO result in you being subject to foreign legal obligations. If the two end up conflicting, you can find yourself damned if you do, damned if you don't, legally, with no lawful course of action.

If you're visiting the other country, and it's a country that's friendly with the US, I guess it can be handy.

[Bunny495]

The bigger problem is not with friendly countries but unfriendly countries. Imagine being a dual citizen of America and Germany in 1939 or 1940 and things just get worse as time passes. After December of 1942 how could you reconcile that dual citizenship. A lot of dems still bash FDR for his treatment of American citizens with Japanese heritage. I am also not buying the dual state and federal citizenship, there is no question federal law is superior to state law. Bottom line is when push comes to shove you can't serve two masters.

[ducksalad]

I see you've decided to lean into this "master" thing.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Perhaps he is just baiting you.

[santamonica811]

"A lot of Dems ... bash FDR [re Japanese internment]..."

Wait, you think a lot of Republicans don't bash him for doing this??? I may not be the typical 2025 Republican, but I sure do . . . and so do the Republicans I know. One of America's most shameful policies in the last century, IMO.

I'm reluctant to give Dems all the credit on this issue. Lots of us Republicans are also on the right side of this.

[Kazinski]

The oath requires you to renounce allegiance and fidelity, but it doesn't require you to surrender your passport.

In fact US law encourages dual citizenship, by conferring citizenship on children of foreigners here temporarily who have no intention of making the US their permanent home. Boris Johnson is one prominent example. Or conferring US citizenship of children with one US parent who are born overseas in the country of the other non-US parent.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Or conferring US citizenship of children with one US parent who are born overseas in the country of the other non-US parent."

Like our Texas-Canadian senator Rafeal Cruz who calls himself Ted and winters in Mexico (with his beautiful wife, both inside and out) because Texas is too cold. Is Cruz a dual citizen?

[Kazinski]

He might be, why would it matter?

Is Ilhan Omar?
Is Norma Torres, who was born in Guatemala?

There are probably at least half a dozen Congressmen with dual citizenship. There are more than 30 foreign born members of Congress.

[David Nieporent]

Is Cruz a dual citizen?

He was. He renounced his Canadian citizenship after the discussion about it during his 2016 presidential run, because he was too much of a coward to just tell the people who were bringing it up that they were stupid idiots.

[SRG2]

I presume that after you posted the story yesterday, you now understand dual citizenship but still don't agree with it, on the same absurd grounds.

[loki13]

Oh boy. The dual citizenship thing?

Off the top of my head...

First, we (Americans) are all dual citizens- citizens of the United States and citizens of a particular state. That's part of the nature of the dual sovereignty that is inherent in our federal system. You might see that reflected in your state statutes or constitution, which will have language reflecting same (such as a requirement that you are a citizen of the state to have standing to bring a particular claim).

Second, citizenship is not the same as allegiance. Obviously, there is the difference between jus sanguinis and jus solis, but an individual might have "acquired" citizenships without necessarily seeking them.

Third, it always seems that people celebrate this idea or heritage ... when it comes to some places, and then get really angry and fearful for others. No one says, "Oh, I am terrified of that person who is a dual UK/US citizen because he was born to an American Mother and British Father in the UK, and then raised in America. That sounds cool!" But others ....

I wonder why.

[Bunny495]

"Third, it always seems that people celebrate this idea or heritage ... when it comes to some places, and then get really angry and fearful for others. No one says, "Oh, I am terrified of that person who is a dual UK/US citizen because he was born to an American Mother and British Father in the UK, and then raised in America. That sounds cool!" But others ....'

As I posted above FDR got bashed (well after the fact) for internment camps and plenty of peeps were "terrified" of American citizens with Japanese heritage. As for the UK position from a speech by Lord Palmerston in the House of Commons on March 1, 1848, where he said:

"Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

[ducksalad]

I'm not seeing how the Japanese internment helps your case here, if anything it counts against it.

They weren't just interning dual citizens, and I don't believe that any amount of renouncing or swearing would get someone exempted from the evacuation order. It was based on parentage.

Which shows that eliminating dual citizenship would not have solved anything, or mitigated accusations about allegiance or serving two masters. Is there some subtle point I'm misunderstanding here?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"They weren't just interning dual citizens,"

I haven't read much about this in many years, but my recollection is that many of those interned, perhaps as many as 100k, were American citizens and some of those were American born. At the time, I don't believe that dual citizenship was a recognized thing. One had to relinquish/disavow foreign citizenship to be naturalized.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"At the time, I don't believe that dual citizenship was a recognized thing."

It certainly was, see <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/717/"here.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Ok.

[Kazinski]

Actually they were only or mostly interning dual citizens, because Japanese law conferred citizenship to children or even grandchildren of people born in Japan, even if they didn't realize it.

AI disclaimer:

"Before WWII, Japan's citizenship was primarily based on jus sanguinis, or "right of blood," meaning nationality was inherited through parents, not determined by birthplace. This principle meant that children born to Japanese parents in other countries, such as the U.S., were automatically Japanese citizens, leading to many Nisei (second-generation Japanese Americans) holding dual citizenship with the United States."

And of course Japan does not confer birthright citizenship so it has residents down to several generations who are not Japanese citizens.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

I don't think foreign states get to declare American born US citizens as dual citizens without consent though I admit to not knowing that.

And, in the context of the internments, no matter whether the naturalized citizens of Japanese ancestry were legally dual citizens, they had all the rights of American born citizens.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I don't think foreign states get to declare American born US citizens as dual citizens without consent though I admit to not knowing that."

What are we going to do, nuke them?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"What are we going to do, nuke them?"

No, just refuse to take take cognizance of any attempt to enforce duties of citizenship. For example, if Canada had a draft and attempted to draft Cruz or attempted to levy income taxes on him or the like. Tell them to get stuffed. Perhaps Cruz isn't a good example because he was born in Canada. So, how about Louis C.K. who may be considered a citizen by Mexico.

These sorts of issues may be governed by agreements or treaties or something, I don't know.

[Kazinski]

We do that to other countries, why can't they do it to us?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"We do that to other countries"

Do we? Citizens of other countries who are American citizens by inheritance? The US taxes them and subjects them to draft registration (if of the proper sex)? I've never heard about such a case in which the foregin born person accepted American citizenship in some way. Likewise, I've never heard of an American born citizen of another country who had not accepted American citizenship in some way being subjected to the obligations of American citizenship. For example, I know of several French people born in the US who live entirely as French people with no ties to the US since childhood and I've never heard of the US going after such people for any reason. Perhaps it's happening all over the world every day and nobody tells me.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Likewise, I've never heard of an American born citizen of another country who had not accepted American citizenship in some way being subjected to the obligations of American citizenship."

Well, now you have.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Well, now you have."

Can you elucidate a bit?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I... linked to an article discussing US born folks with no other link to the US living in other countries having to pay US taxes.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"I... linked to an article discussing US born folks with no other link to the US living in other countries having to pay US taxes."

Ok -- I found it. On my screen it shows as underlined text which I did not recognize as a link.

Yes, now I have heard of such a thing. It's bizarre and, in my opinion, unjustified. I don't know why France doesn't tell the US that it's unenforceable and to go pound sand.

[ducksalad]

And, in the context of the internments, no matter whether the naturalized citizens of Japanese ancestry were legally dual citizens, they had all the rights of American born citizens.

I assume you mean they were entitled to all the rights but the rights were violated.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"I assume you mean they were entitled to all the rights but the rights were violated."

Yes, of course.

[ducksalad]

Kaz, this is exactly my complaint with Bunny's defense of this law.

Automatic citizenship doesn't prove anything one way or another about "allegiance" (or to use Bunny's terminology, who is "master").

And as the internment proves, when there's a real crisis, the people who claim to be worried about "allegiance" aren't going to be convinced by renouncements.

[Josh R]

In Afroyim v. Rusk, SCOTUS held that Congress did not have the power to revoke one's citizenship unless the person voluntarily gives it up. The specific statute at issue revoked citizenship when the person voted in a foreign election. I would think the same would apply if a person became a citizen of another country.

[Martinned]

Nice case that, if it were a US case, prof. Volokh would have surely blogged about already:

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2025/12/04/manifestation-of-religious-belief-smith-v-manchester-city-council-2025-ewhc-2987-kb/

To what extent does the law afford protection to couples looking to foster children, in circumstances where that couple possesses (and vocalises) strong religious beliefs? This was the issue for consideration before Turner J, who heard this appeal in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court. Judgment was handed down on 18 November 2025.

Background

The Claimants were a married couple with strong evangelical Christian beliefs who wished to foster children. To that end, they approached Manchester City Council and made an application.

Their foster application failed at the first stage of the assessment of their suitability. One reason given for the rejection was that the social workers responsible for the assessment had concluded that the couple would find it “quite difficult to be proactive in promoting a diverse view of the world”. Of particular concern was that the Claimants believed that homosexuality and abortion were wrong and they held gender-critical beliefs. It was a distinct possibility that the Claimants might express such views to any children entrusted to their care. Indeed, the Claimants had “indicated what they were likely to say and do in the clearest of terms”.
(...)
The principles underlying Turner J’s review of proportionality can be summarised as follows:

- On the facts of the instant case, the examination of attitudes to homosexuality and same sex relationships of a person who has applied to be a foster carer was not unreasonable. (...)

- The court “is bound to be more circumspect” in applying [the proportionality test] where the justifications are “inextricably bound up” with children’s welfare. The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.

- Although there will be cases in which the manifestation of the religion of potential foster parents may be seen as being of positive benefit to children by way (for example, by providing consistency and continuity with the faith in which they have hitherto been brought up) local authorities and other agencies must remain vigilant to consider any ways in which the manifestation of the religious beliefs of particular prospective foster parents may affect the welfare of the child.

[hobie]

Good for the UK. They reason that raising a child to be MAGA is tantamount to abuse. Who can argue with that?

[jay.tee]

Who can argue with that?

People who aren’t bigots, for starters.

While I’m not a Christian and disagree with some tenets of the faith, especially evangelicalism, I respect their right to practice as they see fit. And nothing you cited amounts to anything more than viewpoint and religious discrimination.

[hobie]

You know how MAGA Christians legally discriminate against gays for food, employment or bathrooms? Sincerely held beliefs.

Well, looks like the British people have a sincerely held belief that indoctrinating kids to hate people is harmful to the child. Wouldn't you agree?

[jay.tee]

You’re making assumptions not in evidence; nothing you quoted even approaches “indoctrinating kids to hate people.”

I’m speculating, but perhaps you’re not able to discern:

“We don’t agree with your life choices/lifestyle/etc. but you do you”

from

“We don’t agree with your life choices/lifestyle/etc. and that makes you evil”

To head off the inevitable strawmanning no, I don’t believe being gay is a life choice, lifestyle, evil, sinful, or inherently wrong.

I do however believe bigotry against a group of people based on your perceptions of their beliefs is inherently wrong.

[Josh R]

I think under US precedent, the couple could be denied if the state had a categorical exclusion of prospective parents who believed as this couple did whether or not that belief was motivated by religious or secular convictions.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

European Union Court of Justice: EU Countries Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriages Performed in Other Member States

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2025/12/european-union-court-of-justice-eu.html

[another case]

[Stephen Lathrop]

Michael and Susan Dell have announced plans to further corrupt American politics to the tune of a $6+ billion contribution to gin up support for Trump/MAGA candidates at the peak of the mid-term election season. The idea is to break that gigantic contribution into millions of bite-sized chunks, and piggyback it on Trump's already-passed bill to hand out cash bribes to voters with kids.

Not explained in the initial publicity is what means, if any, will be used by Trump to compensate the Dells for their political help. Turns out their wealth, estimated far above $100 billion, makes this scheme a matter of pocket change.

[CountmontyC]

They are giving money to children. When the children turn 18 they can use the money for education, to start a business or buy a house.
Sounds good to me.

[Kazinski]

Lathrop has a valid concern, the Administration is making A converted effort to indoctrinate children.

This is the worst thing I have seen since Joe Camel.

https://x.com/PeteHegseth/status/1995291042346852861

[Bob from Ohio]

See the other versions going around? Hit and miss like most memes but some are laugh out loud funny.

Pete's version is pretty good.

[jay.tee]

Hegseth’s meme is pretty revolting.

Even if the strikes are morally justified, and I don’t believe they are, casualties should be mourned not celebrated.

Even if the strikes are legal, and the only people sure either way are fools or liars, flaunting your exploitation of the fuzzy boundaries of “national security” is at best tone deaf.

[Commenter_XY]

lathrop, you clearly don't know math. And you certainly don't know tax code. In OBBB, the Trump 'Baby' Account, a tax deferred retirement investment plan, was created. The Dells just provided a 25% match to the 1K seed money provided by the Federal government to US citizens w/SS number born 2025-28. Each baby gets 1K (Fed) + $250 (Dell, income based match capped at 25MM babies). BTW lathrop, if you have grandchildren, you can kick in 5K to your grandchild - every year - until they turn 18. Any parent can turbocharge their child's retirement investment very early. This is a very, very significant piece of legislation. Parents must file to open it for their newborn.

The funds are invested in low cost index funds (e.g. Total US stock mkt, S&P 500). At age 18, it converts to an IRA. Assume a 7% rate of return, with a retirement age of 60. Each 1K invested at birth becomes becomes 39K at age 60. Alternatively, the 18-year old could convert the IRA to a Roth IRA, and pay the tax (probably close to zero). Every early contribution has a huge impact. Investing is not just for the rich, investing is for everyone. The Trump 'Baby' Account is buying your child's retirement plan on the cheap.

If a billionaire wishes to help fund that Trump Account, why is it a problem? Don't we want more of that kind of behavior? Why not make a downpayment for our (America's) children; what is the problem with that?

[Dr. Ed 2]

What happens WHEN, not if, we have a sustained bear market like we did in the 1970s? Much of the current market is a speculative bubble.

[Kazinski]

The !at let will go down, then it will go back up again.

PR people will invest the money in bonds not stocks , or Real Estate Investment Trusts, or even god forbid Chinese ETFs.

[Commenter_XY]

If there was a bear market when they invested the money, that would be amazingly good for the Trump accounts, long term, Dr. Ed.

[santamonica811]

"...Assume a 7% rate of return, with a retirement age of 60. Each 1K invested at birth becomes becomes 39K at age 60. Alternatively, the 18-year old could convert the IRA to a Roth IRA, and pay the tax (probably close to zero)...."

XY,
If a person did this conversion; wouldn't she have to pay taxes on the $38,000 increase? Wouldn't this be taxes as a normal capital gain? (If so, the taxes will be thousands of dollars, no?) I've never done this IRA-to-Roth IRA conversion. Is there some special tax rule, that yields a far lower rate? [My assumption has always been, "If I convert only, say, $10,000 per year, and have no other income due to me being 8 years old, then maybe my taxes will be zero or close to zero, because my total yearly income falls below the minimum threshold." Am I wrong about this? If so, I will certainly to change my own regular IRAs to Roth.]

[Kazinski]

Cory Booker thinks its a good idea, for CEOs to contribute to Trump accounts.

"WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) sent a letter to the CEOs of Fortune 1000 companies urging them to support child investment accounts created by H.R. 1, theOne Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025. "

Of course the source is suspect:
http://www.booker.senate.gov/news/press/booker-cruz-urge-fortune-1000-ceos-to-back-trump-accounts

[Commenter_XY]

You know, in addition to parental contributions, any employer can contribute up to $2,500 and it doesn't count against the 5K individual contributor limit. It is treated like the Fed seed money, for tax purposes.

Every parent or grandparent with a newborn should be asking about this from their employer. Today, if possible.

[hobie]

If the Orange Mamdani wants to practice socialism in this fashion, he has my blessing

[Joe_dallas]

Stephen Lathrop 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Michael and Susan Dell have announced plans to further corrupt American politics ."

Soros? Another leftist with double and triple standards- who woulda thunk?

[Bwaaah]

SL: This "scheme," the American Opportunity Accounts Act, was created by Corey Booker and Ayanna Pressley:

In February 2023, Senator Booker and Congresswoman Pressley reintroduced the American Opportunity Accounts Act with the support of 15 Senators, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Be careful now. You want to be on the right side of Baby Bonds.

[bernard11]

I think you are being silly, Stephen.

I think the Dells are acting in good faith, out of generosity, not political motives.

[Malika la Maize]

A bipartisan group of lawmakers asked Attorney General Pam Bondi on Wednesday to update them this week on the Justice Department’s progress on releasing files related to Jeffrey Epstein.

President Donald Trump signed a law last month directing the Justice Department to release within 30 days files related to its investigation into Epstein — who was arrested in 2019 on sex-trafficking charges and died in federal custody, apparently by suicide. But many Democrats have expressed skepticism that Trump will follow through on releasing the files after the White House spent months trying to prevent the law from passing.

The Justice Department has not responded to questions about how it plans to comply with the new law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/12/03/lawmakers-bondi-release-epstein-files/

[SRG2]

The Justice Department has not responded to questions about how it plans to comply with the new law.

I assume that they're waiting until they've scrubbed the files

[hobie]

I think the redactions will look like this:

*****************orange makeup on homework assignment***********

We'll never know who or what!

[Malika la Maize]

On December 1, 2025, Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) introduced the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025. The bill would prohibit any person from simultaneously holding U.S. citizenship and citizenship of another country. The major provisions include an effective date 180 days after enactment; the requirement that existing dual citizens would have one year to renounce all foreign citizenships or relinquish U.S. citizenship; the failure to renounce foreign citizenship within the one-year period would be treated as a voluntary relinquishment of U.S. citizenship under Section 349(a) of the Immigration and 26 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481(a); the voluntary acquisition of a foreign citizenship after enactment would trigger immediate loss of U.S. citizenship.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/virginialatorrejeker/2025/12/03/senator-bernie-moreno-introduces-bill-to-eliminate-dual-citizenship/

[Martinned]

Am I crazy or can't Congress do that? (Declare that someone is deemed to be voluntarily giving up their US citizenship like that.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Would this be the same Congress with the Constitutional power to determine what constitutes a voluntary waiver of US citizenship?

[ducksalad]

As I read the constitution it gave Congress power over "naturalization" which doesn't cover people born as citizens.

The 14th Amendment, which came later and overrides any earlier conflicting clauses, further limited both federal and state power over natural-born citizens. The text, read literally, doesn't allow for renunciation. Born here subject to the jurisdiction -> citizen whether you like it or not.

Federal courts may not agree with me....

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Federal courts may not agree with me...."

They don't, but they do hold that a person can only lose his citizenship voluntarily.

[Kazinski]

It also doesn't confer Congress the right to revoke citizenship once someone has been naturalized.

And what happens if a country does not recognize renunciation?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"And what happens if a country does not recognize renunciation?"

Are you asking what happens if an American citizen with dual citizenship acquired voluntarily or not renounces foreign citizenship and the foreign state attempts to enforce obligations of citizenship? I say, Fuck 'em. We fought a war over that, among other things, like trying to take over Canada.

[Josh R]

As I noted earlier in this thread, SCOTUS in Afroyim v. Rusk held a person must voluntary give up their citizenship. In Vance v. Terrazas, SCOTUS clarified that Congress cannot categorically define an act to constitute a voluntarily renunciation.

[Bunny495]

"SCOTUS clarified" Roe v Wade and then said just kidding.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If you deem a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Three:
https://www.dogster.com/dog-health-care/how-to-care-for-a-three-legged-dog

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not that dog.

[Magister]

How about this one? Somewhere between two and three.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dexter-dog-walks-human-ouray-colorado/

[TwelveInchPianist]

Nope.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

And here's a photo of a dog with two legs, according to our fearless leader:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/08/14/us/politics/13dc-omarosa/13dc-omarosa-superJumbo.jpg

[Glaucomatose]

Fantastic. So all some clever foreign meddler has to do (or an American in concert with a foreign government) is quietly grant citizenship to any American it wants to keep out of power, wait a year, and publicly point out their failure to renounce said foreign citizenship.

[Bored Lawyer]

Not really. The acquisition has to be voluntary. Someone declaring that Mr. X or Ms. Y is a citizen of their country is not voluntary.

[ducksalad]

Did you bother to read the text?

Part (b) says if you voluntarily acquire dual citizenship, you immediately - no one year period - renounce your US citizenship.

Part (c) says anyone who possesses citizenship has one year to get rid of it, or they lose their US citizenship. It does not say voluntary, it does not mention acquisition, it doesn't even say knowingly.

https://www.moreno.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Exclusive-Citizenship-Act-of-2025.pdf

Senator Moreno is just a hothead who didn't think very hard before he came up with this. Presumably the text would get fixed up before it passed, although it would still be bad idea.

[Bored Lawyer]

So you just add in the word "knowingly" before the word "possesses."

The notion that the law would strip citizenship from some person whom a foreign government secretly made a citizen is absurd.

(For that matter, someone might be born abroad, come here as a baby, and not realize he or she is a foreign citizen. Same issue.)

[ducksalad]

The notion that the law would strip citizenship from some person whom a foreign government secretly made a citizen is absurd.

Yes, that is my point. Moreno's bill, as he submitted it, is absurd. He didn't think it through.

Or - equally likely - he assumes and intends that it would enforced selectively, and does not want any intentional targets to have lack of knowledge as a defense. Unintentional Somalian - you're gone. Unintentional Irish - prosecutorial discretion counts in your favor.

[Bored Lawyer]

No, you just pointed out a scenario in which it would be absurd. You did not deal with the more normal situation where someone knows he or she is a dual citizen. Like they hold two passports.

I don't think his bill is a good idea. But the scenario posited by Glaucomatose is not why.

[ducksalad]

I think I edited while you were responding.

In the case of countries where one can automatically acquire citizenship, it is going to be hard to prove the "knowing" part.

And maybe that is why Moreno left it out? I am more inclined to think it was just sloppy drafting.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

What group among American citizens is likely to voluntarily hold dual citizenship and to have sought it? Makes me wonder, but maybe Moreno is just an idiot. Wouldn't be the only Bernie idiot in Congress.

[Kazinski]

I think it would run into 14th amendment problems.

And take the case of someone that does not realize they are a dual citizen, would they lose their US citizenship, when they had no idea another countries laws conferred citizenship ship on them.

That actually happened in Australia when 15 members of Parliament were removed for not adequately renouncing foreign citizenship, in many cases unaware they had it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%9318_Australian_parliamentary_eligibility_crisis

[Krayt]

I keep getting this cookiebot thing popping up.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Me too.

After what is now seven times in 15 minutes, what part of "no" does Reason not understand?!?

We and our 989 partners process your personal data, e.g. your IP-number, using technology such as cookies to store and access information on your device in order to serve personalized ads and content, ad and content measurement, audience research and services development.

And those 989 schmucks can go Fire trUCK themselves.

I BOYCOTT any schmuck low enough to engage in advertising practices like this. This stuff would end if enough people did this.

Make that EIGHT times.

Now ELEVEN times. EV this is becoming an issue...

[Kazinski]

Its a bug in a script someone implemented, it happens.

At least its not as bad as Airbus having to rollback a software update in 400 planes before they can be allowed to fly again.

[Krayt]

We and our 989 partners process

That kind of thing scares the shit out of me. Same for Google, Amazon, facebook, whoever.

"We keep your info secure, and only share it with our partners, which is anybody who pays us an participates in watching your surfing, all major corporations, and any government who wants to pay us. We think there may be an Inuit village somewhere that doesn't."

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yeah, I got it too. Switched from Firefox to Safari and it went away.

[jay.tee]

Use a VPN, preferably one that blocks shit like that, in conjunction with stronger privacy settings in your browser.

[Martinned]

At the end of the first day of the second Ashes test, England managed to survive (barely) at bat. So they just closed at 325-9, with Joe Root at 135 and Joffra Archer at (a career best) 32.

In other words, England already almost matched its combined two innings total of 336 of the first test. (Which was all done and dusted before the end of day two.)

[SRG2]

Root finally got his century Down Under!

[Michael P]

Do people remember Iryna Zarutska and her namesake law? The law is working as intended.

https://myfox8.com/news/north-carolina/charlotte/north-carolina-teen-held-on-5-3m-bond-accused-of-shooting-into-home/

[PaulS]

Instead of offering a payout from tariff funds, Trump should apply them to the Social Security trust fund - offering a solution to a looming problem that congress is unwilling to address. If a bill was then put on the table in congress the votes will create lots 30 second ads for 2026.

[David Nieporent]

Again: the tariff funds are trivial compared to the federal budget. It would be no more a "solution" to an oncoming social security deficit than a half-full 16 oz Poland Spring bottle would be a "solution" to the Sahara Desert.

[Kazinski]

According to the most current CBO estimate from November they estimate 2.5 trillion dollars in revenue over the 10 year budget window.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61877

Won't solve the problem on its own, but 2.5 trillion is not trivial.

[David Nieporent]

2.5 trillion over 10 years is trivial compared to the U.S. budget.

[PaulS]

Currently outflow in the program exceeds what is coming in by a little over 100 billion - Tariffs are more than that (by alot) so it certainly stops the bleeding. The "fund" balance is at least going back up again (thus reducing the deficit in government speak). Alot of groups would find reasons that would make it hard not to support

[Bwaaah]

"The Social Security trust fund."

Isn't the fungibility of language grand?

(They can put the funds in a "lockbox")

[Armchair]

TDS...Trump Derangement Syndrome...is real. It is a religious-like irrational hatred of Trump that affects one's everyday life.

Now, you don't have to like the guy. I don't like him. But I don't let it affect my daily life. But when, as one woman reported..." she couldn’t enjoy a family vacation because “it felt wrong to relax while Trump was still out there.”"

That's a psychological problem.

This piece is worth reading.

https://nypost.com/2025/12/02/opinion/trump-derangement-syndrome-is-real-these-hysterical-threats-prove-it/

[apedad]

You don't let Trump bother you . . . but some random person's opinion does.

RPDS?

[Armchair]

The random person's opinion doesn't make me "not enjoy my family vacation".

If you want to discuss things rationally and have concerns, then sure. Irrational hatred and reflexive emotional responses without consideration, that's a little different.

[apedad]

You write that while posting on the Volokh Conspiracy?!?

[Armchair]

Discussing things rationally here? I'm an optimist.

[SRG2]

Clearly this is qualitatively different from those of us who are regularly accused of TDS by the cultists simply for having more accurate perceptions of Trump than they have.

[Armchair]

Does the thought of Trump keep you up at night?
Do you reflexively cut off relationships with anyone who may have voted for Trump?
Does Donald Trump doing something spur you to reflexive hatred, where as someone else doing something similar would provoke a "meh...well..." response?
If Donald Trump recommends something, do you reflexively do the opposite?

If so, you may have TDS, a serious psychological issue.

[SRG2]

No to all of the above.

[santamonica811]

Armchair,
Which do you think poses a bigger problem for America, writ large:
a. Anti-Trump people with TDS, as you described, or
b. Pro-Trump people with TDS (those followers and supporters to blindly believe obvious lies, condone horrific behavior by him, etc)?

To me, it's the TDS people who are pro-Trump that pose the bigger threat. America is used to people opposing a current President. Some on rational bases; some for irrational reasons. Bill Clinton prompted this level of animus. Obama did (lest we forget the racist and bizarre belief--THAT ENDURE TO THIS DAY, by the most deranged Trumpists--that Obama was born in Kenya. If Reagan has been President during the Internet Age, he would have as well.
Because opposing an administration is a time-honored tradition in this country; I think we can deal easily with the irrational opposition.

But it's the irrational endorsement of Trump that is so dangerous to me. To support his pathological lying, his over racism, his mocking of women, the disabled, etc etc (not to mention his rapes and sexual assaults) . . . well, that is just supporting the unsupportable, and helps destroy our norms.

Do you disagree? Do you think the "anti" TDS folk are a bigger threat than the "pro" TDS sufferers? If so, can you explain, and help me understand why you believe this?

[Sarcastr0]

A yes, an opinion from the famously centrist NY Post.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Source doesn't matter, it's adherence to narrative that counts. Remember, the story about Hilary Clinton's use of a private email server was broken by Michael Schmidt and the New York Times.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm also making a distinction between reporting and opinion.

[Bunny495]

My definition of TDS is bringing up Trump with no connection to anything. Lane Kiffin recently quit his job at Ole Miss to go to LSU (for around a cool hundred million dollars) and I saw several post comparing him to Trump. While both may be world class jerks there is little other connection.

[Kazinski]

My definition of TDS is worrying that Michael Dell giving 6 billion dollars to children is dangerous because it might help Trump.

[santamonica811]

Kaz,
But that's not TDS. That's a *completely normal* (if dickish) political concern. If Dell were doing this exact same gesture during President Hillary Clinton's time in office, Republicans would be concerned that it would inure to her political benefit, or to the political benefit of Democrats in general. That wouldn't mean that the R's are showing Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

It's sort of the opposite of TDS, isn't it, since the negative reaction here has zero to do with Donald Trump and any of his, um, specific foibles?

[apedad]

First-ever US SMR project clinches DOE grant to unleash 300 MW nuclear power

The United States administration has selected the Tennessee Valley Authority’s application for a $400 million grant to accelerate the deployment of the country’s first Generation 3+ small modular nuclear reactor (SMR).

The grant from the US Department of Energy (DOE) will help in the deployment of the nuclear reactor at TVA’s Clinch River nuclear site in East Tennessee.

https://interestingengineering.com/energy/us-doe-tva-300mw-smr-grant

Good news!

Nuclear energy is our future.

As a bonus, it'll bring more educated (read liberal) folks to Tennessippi further reducing mouthbreathers' influence.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Nuclear energy is our future."
Then why have so many of your "educated(read liberal" folks been at the forefront of opposing nuclear and instead favored costly and inefficient solar and wind instead?

[apedad]

The trend is Dems are more accepting nuclear power.

"Support for expanding nuclear power is up in both parties since 2020"

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/16/support-for-expanding-nuclear-power-is-up-in-both-parties-since-2020/

I'd say this is due to better controls and oversight, and a more mature industry.

And changing attitudes across generations.

[Bwaaah]

See? It was "immature" to support nuclear energy before 2020. And now it's the "mature" thing to do.

The adults are always in the room.

[ducksalad]

I do think a non-trivial number of formerly anti-nuke liberals were convinced by the argument that starts out:

"If you really believe that carbon emissions are an existential threat then you need to...."

The premise may or may not be flawed but if they believe it, then changing their mind was in fact the mature thing to do.

[Sarcastr0]

It was "immature" to support nuclear energy before 2020

No one said this but you.

[Bwaaah]

I was just trying to say "stupid" in the same way that adults might say it.

"OMG! What are we going to do with the waste? And the weapons proliferation. And it's not even economical."

[Sarcastr0]

You're taking a trend in an opinion poll and using it to posit a single liberal who changed their mind 180 degrees in 2020.

That's a weird take.

[Bwaaah]

No. Apedad is the one implying some kind of sea change.

I'm observing a minor trend of people moving away from decades of lazy, dogmatic, anti-nuclear emotions. But that kind of emotional stupidity is the foundation of environmentalism and environmentalists. Environmentalism (the big stupid dogmatic political kind) isn't going away. With continued Democratic support, it only takes a few of activists to get the government to gum up the works, so I don't expect to see a significant change in things.

Like always, this isn't so much of a change in the way people act is it is in what they say. Our oppressive regulatory regimes, and their legions of adherents, are much less movable than public opinion.

Don't worry. You're not going anywhere. Your kind is entrenched. That's the good of it, and that's the bad of it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

apedad — Help me out if you can. The web seems flooded with promo for this approach to nuclear energy. In addition to industry and government promos, I found a Wikipedia article, which was little better.

My present concerns about nuclear electric power generation are three-fold:

1. The giant backlog of high level waste already scattered at reactor sites around the nation. The nuclear industry promised the nation safe storage, and did not deliver. This new plan seems to bypass attention to getting that broken promise kept. Will the new smaller reactors just contribute to making the backlog worse?

2. Security of nuclear plants against terrorist attack. Seems like a plan to shrink reactors, and disperse more of them everywhere will make that problem less manageable. Long-standing government policy seems to be to let private industry worry about reactor-site security issues. Given private industry interest to downplay risks, and to save money wherever possible, that looks ominous.

3. The security of bomb-useful nuclear materials which accumulate during reactor operation, and then get transported, reprocessed, and stored in ordinary commerce under too-cost-conscious civilian control. I see no discussion on how to address that problem. Not even any mention whether the new technology will add to already plentiful stocks of stored plutonium amounting to thousands of critical masses. I find omission of public discussion of that issue disturbing. I presume if the new technology improved on that already-dire risk, the improvement would be trumpeted as an advantage. Instead, it looks as if dispersal and smaller-scale installations might be poised to make the problem worse, with project boosters averse to talking about that downside.

I take you to be a pro-nuclear advocate. Do you have any reassurances to offer me?

My focal concern about nuclear bomb materials does not extend to efficiently-designed big-blast bombs like those delivered into national nuclear arsenals. I am worried more about the ease with which plutonium especially can be put to work to deliver a sub-kiloton fizzle yield, which would nevertheless create the worst terrorist damage ever inflicted anywhere. A one-tenth kiloton fizzle is nevertheless a blast equivalent to 200,000 pounds of TNT, plus radiation deaths and injuries out to something like a one-mile radius.

I hope you understand what I am talking about, and have information to allay my concerns.

[David Nieporent]

1. The giant backlog of high level waste already scattered at reactor sites around the nation. The nuclear industry promised the nation safe storage, and did not deliver. This new plan seems to bypass attention to getting that broken promise kept. Will the new smaller reactors just contribute to making the backlog worse?

You are being disingenuous. Even assuming this isn't safe, it's not the "nuclear industry" that has blocked centralized waste disposal; it's politicians.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, neither I, nor the politicians who back the nuclear industry consider this nation's nuclear bureaucracy anything but a part of the nuclear industry. The former AEC operated under a formal mandate to promote the nuclear industry. While the names sometimes change, the ideological geometry has remained stable.

If this nation ever did have a nuclear-regulatory bureaucracy independent of the civilian nuclear industry, then the current mess would have been subject to critique and constraint as it happened. I doubt the current mess would have ensued.

Also, there is nothing disingenuous in treating non-government nuke industry boosters as responsible to clean up messes, even if they relied on a fiction that it was government's responsibility to do that. Citizens have a right, and a demonstrable need, to require that any pro-nuclear advocates soliciting support from the public demonstrate that the advocates themselves have political clout sufficient to assure promises get kept. Absent that, the entire public dialogue becomes a shell-game. I am objecting to continuing the shell game.

[Mr. Bumble]

Once again proving why no one takes you seriously.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Folks, I am going to get the science wrong because I am not a scientist, but let's start with the fact that both granite and bananas are radioactive. And second that heat expands things and hence forces them to disperse.

The problem with building a bomb is not that the fragments of each splitting atom will then split exponentially more, but that the splitable atoms will remain together long enough for this to happen. Only 3% of the atoms in the Hiroshima bomb actually split -- 97% were blown away before a neutron could split them.

So bomb grade material needs to be highly enriched while lower enriched can be put into what were initially called "atomic piles" which produce heat which is used to create steam used to drive electric turbines. In theory there are other ways to create electricity from an "atomic pile" but I don't think anyone is doing it.

Now everything has a "half life" -- when it is half as radioactive as it was before -- the "half life" of a (24 can) case of beer is 12 cans, and then it's 6 cans, and then 3 cans... 24 cans I'd make an issue about, three I might ignore.

So at a certain point the "atomic pile" isn't producing ENOUGH heat to produce ENOUGH steam to be economically viable so you refuel with more radioactive rods. This is your waste.

Now using the beer analogy, each of your 24-can cases have 21 empty cans and 3 that are still full -- but you throw all 24 away because it is cheaper to just get full cases instead. And this is your radoactive waste.

Now imagine if you instead if you went through those millions of cases and segregated out the few full cans.

This is called "reprocessing" the fuel and I believe that part of this "small reactor" stuff involves concurrently or adjacently reprocessing waste as fuel for them -- in other words, they will reduce the waste stockpile, not increase it.

And as to security -- what no one is talking about much (outside some of the academic circles I am in) are the university reactors, some of which use weapons grade material (for reasons I can't understand) and "academic freedom" includes not having to tell your campus police chief that you have a reactor in your lab...

This has all been in print so I don't mind mentioning it here.

[hobie]

Two years ago I was in the tiny town of Kemmerer, Wyoming (true fact: birthplace of JC Penny) to hunt for fish fossils. There in Kemmerer is a coal mine and coal-burning energy plant. Bill Gates' Terran Power and Warren Buffet's Berkshire Energy bought both for decommissioning and then broke ground on the nation's first Natrium nuclear reactor. It uses molten sodium chloride as a coolant meaning it is impossible to have a meltdown.

One night at the local bar I ask a local hayseed, "Ain't y'all still mad a Bill Gates for putting nanotrackers in vaccines?' He says, 'Oh sure. But we like Gates now.'

Money heals all wounds!

[Mr. Bumble]

Nice story.
How do your neegroes feel about nano trackers?

[Bwaaah]

Your attempt to parrot hobie's demeaning voice will be lost on him. At some level, he views all people with contempt. And he has no shame about that, regardless of what arbitrary reasons he uses to get there.

As he said above:

I come to this blog because there is a small sense of civility. Without that, it would just be another cesspool like Breitbart.

Mr. Cesspool speaks.

[hobie]

Well, there's being a 'smartass' (hobie), and then there's being an asshole (XY). XY is turning mean. I ain't mean.

[Bwaaah]

The hayseed says, "I ain't mean."

[hobie]

To their credit, my neighbors don't give a fig about politics. For them nothing changes, so they don't bother

[Bwaaah]

Most people don't give a fig about politics. You gotta be pretty cushy about the day's expenses to waste your mind on politics. For most people, that stuff is down somewhere after the first thousand things on their list of Things That Might Actually Affect Me Today.

Your neighbors are no different than those in any "working class" neighborhood. With money, you get to live where the sky is always falling. Without money, focus turns to immediate, often momentary opportunities. (Smartly so.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hobie, the RMS Titanic was "unsinkable."

EVERY engineering disaster has started with the some critical failure was "impossible." NOTHING is "impossible."

Highly unlikely, yes -- but never forget that it was a 57 cent switch that prevented Savannah from being nuked back in the 1950s -- it was the only "fail safe" that didn't fail.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Engineering requires a math background -- engineers tend to be conservative as a result.

[Armchair]

Why are unmarried liberal women without children increasingly unhappy? Especially compared to liberal women who are married with children?

https://ifstudies.org/blog/whats-killing-marriage-unmarriageable-men-or-liberal-women

[Mr. Bumble]

Happiness is not a warm dildo.

[grb]

Tho many a woman has praised vibrators as an aid to happiness. Sigh. Maybe we guys need to do better.....

[Mr. Bumble]

Penial vibrator implants?

[jay.tee]

C’mon man. No need to further reinforce grb’s point.

[SRG2]

"Area man trawls internet for stories"

[Sarcastr0]

"What’s Killing Marriage—Unmarriageable Men or Liberal Women?"

The right's incel trend continues, I see.

[grb]

Maybe there's light at the end of the tunnel. The other day Ed was praising sexbots as being so much more perfect than real breathing woman. So perhaps a glorious future is near, with all the MAGA men serviced by robot woman as they hoot & cheer our Reality-TV president doing his banana-republic buffoon shtick.

[Estragon]

“Sex is gay”

-Alex Dwyer

[hobie]

Have you seen the women at Trump rallies or in comment sections around the internet? They're angry as fuck!

[Frank Drackman]

At least they're real women, Coach. I thought you were into Linebackers anyway (and Tight Ends)

[grb]

Judging by Trump nominee women, many go beyond reality via extensive argumentation. I've head some plastic surgeons are offering a MAGA Bimbo Package for that Noem plasticine look.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, let's go back to hairy armpits and legs and "women" with a package.
The good old days.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hardly plasticine:
https://x.com/GodlyNations/status/1995581069475942602

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Hardly plasticine"

So, you prefer women made of rubber as opposed to women with body hair?

[jay.tee]

grb above:

Sigh. Maybe we guys need to do better.....

Take your own advice. Do better. Noem arms us all with plenty of ammunition to criticize her actions and policies. Don’t resort to misogyny to make your point.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a difference between "angry" and "mean" -- leftist (not "liberal") feminists are MEAN...

[Zarniwoop]

Answering the question with a strong "unmarriagable men", I see.

Enjoy your sexbot, though!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Male hormones can be measured in a woman's bloodstream an hour after semen is deposited in any one of her three holes. This came out about 20 years ago.

Birth control pills work by tricking the woman's body into believing that she is pregnant.

Just saying...

[Brett Bellmore]

Cookiebot delenda est!

[loki13]

On this, we have 100% agreement Brett!

And then we shall salt the ground.

[hobie]

I noted a few months ago that Trump perfectly checks every box for being the Antichrist except one: that he must declare himself to be God. But I wonder, do his followers elevating him above God and Christ (and guns even! Or is guns no longer #1) count?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Obama IS the antichrist....

[ducksalad]

Anybody have a clue what this Truth Social post means?

I’m dealing with, THE POISONING OF AMERICA!

[hobie]

He's a mad man.

[Sarcastr0]

Drugs are bad, so murder is good.

[ducksalad]

Ah, I see. Thank you.

[hobie]

We're gonna have to bring back the Epstein just to deflect from all the extrajudicial executions. When Epstein gets too hot we'll blow up some more people to detract. Rinse repeat.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Drugs are bad, so murder is good.

This is who you are defending:

"Luis "Che" Martínez was killed in the first strike. A burly 60-year-old, Martínez was a longtime local crime boss, and he made most of his living smuggling drugs and people across borders, according to several people who knew him."

https://www.kcra.com/article/trump-has-accused-boat-crews-of-being-narco-terrorists-the-truth-is-more-nuanced-ap-found/69295932

[Sarcastr0]

I'm pretty happy being on the other side of your bloodthirsty 'he was no angel' murder advocacy.

[apedad]

"according to several people who knew him" is your level of acceptable evidence?!?

[Bob from Ohio]

"level of acceptable evidence"

Good enough for the WaPo article that started the current kerfuffle.

[hobie]

Looks like going forward, we'll be giving the boat people pardons. Or not. It seems to change day by day. Tomorrow we might be bombing El Chapo at a Colorado supermax.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"This is who you are defending:"

Who is defending him (or his memory, as the case may be)? Just because people oppose the summary execution of people without investigation or due process doesn't mean they are defending anybody.

Why are you so stupid?

[Bob from Ohio]

"without investigation"

DOD has intelligence that they are smuggling drugs.

"due process"

US has been blowing up/shooting people all over the world without due process but for national security purposes for 80 years. Including every Dem president.

You guys are hysterical for the same reason you have been hysterical for 10 years. Its Trump doing something.

[Sarcastr0]

DOD has intelligence that they are smuggling drugs.

What a trusting soul you suddenly are.

[Bob from Ohio]

He said there was no investigation, which is not true.

The linked article shows that strike was a drug boat. So the intelligence was correct.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not sure what you think due process is, but relying on reporters to corroborate so you know it's legit is not a great sign.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"You guys are hysterical for the same reason you have been hysterical for 10 years. Its Trump doing something."

Why are you so stupid?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fentanyl is poison....

[Stella Link's Ghost]

How much fentanyl comes to the US from Venezuela in a year?

[santamonica811]

Ed's point is that, since fentanyl is coming from Mexico, Trump should be bombing mainland Mexico rather than bombing tiny boats carrying cocaine, that are hundreds and hundreds of miles from the United States. I think i agree with Ed on this point (assuming for the sake of argument that you take the evil position that murdering drug smugglers, rather than arresting them, is the legally and morally correct position).

[Stella Link's Ghost]

That sounds much too nuanced to be Ed's position. I figured that Ed's position would be something like:
"Fentanyl is bad and is coming from Mexico so let's impose stupid tariffs on Canada, bomb Venezuelan cocaine traffickers, pardon Honduran drug smugglers, and send the national guard to Portland. That will solve the problem.

[Commenter_XY]

Well, well, well....The DC Pipe Bomber arrested by the FBI after taking their sweet time about it (5 years). Should be interesting.

[grb]

And that's the perfect moment for this:

The account I saw said "motive unknown" and the original crime targeted both parties. So for a limited time, we're dealing with a tabula rasa. Since we stand between the lines right now, I propose a truce.

I, for one, am tired of waiting anxiously to learn whether some freak basket-case who committed a horrible crime was on "my side" or "their side". Because almost 100% of the time, the freak isn't on any side. He's just mentally ill. So rather than worry over a bogus affiliation with the Left or gloat over a bogus affiliation with the Right, I say let's just call the whole thing off!

[hobie]

These days it's either a antisemitic marxist tranny or a MAGA nut. No in between.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

What we obviously need is an antisemitic marxist tranny MAGA nut.

[hobie]

Well, the antisemitic part sticks. Probably not the tranny

[Bob from Ohio]

"DC Pipe Bomber arrested"

He retired from the FBI and this is how they treat him!

[Glaucomatose]

It must be so frustrating to finally get pardoned for invading the Capitol but then go right back to jail for setting pipe bombs.

[ducksalad]

His problem was getting caught too late. If he'd been indicted prior to January 20, 2025 he'd have been off the hook.

"I further direct the Attorney General to pursue dismissal with prejudice to the government of all pending indictments against individuals for their conduct related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. The Bureau of Prisons shall immediately implement all instructions from the Department of Justice regarding this directive."

[hobie]

REPORTER: You have made so clear how you want to keep drugs out of the U.S. Can you explain more about why you would pardon a notorious drug trafficker?
TRUMP: Well, I don't know who you're talking about....
[about 5 seconds later]
TRUMP: I mean you could take any country you want. If somebody sells drugs in that country, that doesn't mean you arrest the president of that country and put him in jail for the rest of his life. That includes this country to be honest. I mean if somebody does something wrong do you put the president in jail?

[Zarniwoop]

I wonder if Ghislaine Maxwell has someone trying to whisper “she was treated very unfairly by Biden” in Trump’s ear.

[Estragon]

Maxwell is in a bind. She needs to get out soon— she has much more leverage over Trump than any other potential successor.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But as to Dem Donors, um....

[Estragon]

Don’t be stupid. “Dem Donors” aren’t transferring her to Bryant, giving her unsupervised internet access, special meals, a therapy puppy etc etc against BOP guidelines.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

REPORTER: Which one of your thirty thousands lies told during your presidency is your favorite?
TRUMP: I don't lie!
REPORTER: Yeah, that's my favorite one too.

[Mr. Bumble]

Keep the day job or save it for your appearance on the Kimmel show.

[santamonica811]

I thought it was pretty funny, actually.

[grb]

Alpheus W Drinkwater : "REPORTER: Yeah, that's my favorite one too."

Which brings up that ancient quandary : Given Trump always lies, supposed he stood before the reporters and said, "I'm lying right now".

It's a puzzler! I never had any problem with the Tree Falling in the Middle of a Forest-thing, but can't work out a solution here to save my soul. I'm guessing it would cause many reporter's heads to explode which might well be the point.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Lady or the Tiger?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Tiger.

You've never seen female envy, have you?

[Mr. Bumble]

Ah, the Liars Paradox.
Surprised you left out the rest: "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." of course substituting Trump for Cretan.

[grb]

It's reassuring a cult guy like yourself so easily recognizes a description of Donald John Trump. Now, would it be presumptive or pushy of me to ask you to care?

[Mr. Bumble]

About Cretans?

[John 4]

Cretin. The word is cretin. The fact that autocorrect capitalized your misspelling should have alerted you after the second time that “Cretan” is an entirely different word. It’s almost like you’re a cretin.

[loki13]

Maybe the person you're talking to just really hates people from Crete?

Dunno. It's all Greek to me.

[grb]

To be fair to Bumble, one of the original Liar Paradoxes dated back to ancient Greece, and was based on the parable of a gentleman from Crete saying, "All Cretans are liars". And - yes - this caused heads to explode back then.

I was always more a fan of Zeno's Paradox myself.

[grb]

(that said, Trump may not be from Crete, but he's damn sure a cretin)

[Mr. Bumble]

Cretan in American English
(ˈkritn)
adjective
1. of or pertaining to the island of Crete or its inhabitants
noun
2. a native or inhabitant of Crete

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Cretin. The word is cretin."

Yup. Who's not familiar with the quote from Titus 1:12:

One of cret’s own prophets has said it: “cretins are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”

[Mr. Bumble]

Cretan in American English
(ˈkritn)
adjective
1. of or pertaining to the island of Crete or its inhabitants
noun
2. a native or inhabitant of Crete

[Mr. Bumble]

Cretan in American English
(ˈkritn)
adjective
1. of or pertaining to the island of Crete or its inhabitants
noun
2. a native or inhabitant of Crete

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons."

And don't get me started on Lesbians.

[grb]

Don't tell me you're bigoted against the inhabitants of Lesbos ?!?

(That would be carrying your MAGA obligation to be small-minded too far)

[TwelveInchPianist]

Of course not. I'm a big fan of their videos.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

I never thought to look before. Lesbos does have at least one nice video and it's safe for work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-NB82FGmFA

[Josh R]

The Pentagon IG held that Hegseth used a personal phone (and even worse) in the now-infamous Signal chat.

I worked as a consultant for the government when our lead government contact was summarily fired for receiving government emails on his personal phone. Both Hegseth and Clinton would have received the same treatment for doing similar things.

[ducksalad]

Which explanation is more likely:

1. Trump's handlers are slipping, they didn't manage to have the IG fired before he filed his report.

2. Trump's handlers have decided that Hegseth is a liability and are no longer running cover for him.

[jb]

Or just 3. As usual, the administration is a shitshow and can't help but constantly get in its own way.

There's plenty malicious about Trump and his toadies, but I think if you start with incompetence as an explanation for most of the weird stuff going on, you'd be right almost all the time.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The report wasn’t issued by the DoD Inspector General, it was issued by the DoD Office of Inspector General. Trump fired the Inspector General back in January, but the Office still exists, and the people working there are still doing their jobs.

I don’t know what Trump was trying to accomplish by firing the Inspector General, but whatever it was, the firing doesn’t seem to have worked. The office is still functioning, and the fact that it released this report suggests that the people working there were not intimidated by the firing. The report refers to the DoD as the Department of Defense (rather than the “Department of War”), and to Hegseth as the Secretary of Defense.

I have to agree with JB. The good thing about Trump is that, while he may be evil, he’s also incompetent.

[Dr. Ed 2]

RHIP.

Remember when the security clearance protocols had to be adapted for Bill Clinton's staff to get approved?

[Zarniwoop]

Unclassified version of the IG’s report:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26336195-unclassified-inspector-general-report-on-hegseth-use-of-signal/

[Zarniwoop]

Hegseth claimed (p.31):

In his statement, the Secretary also wrote that he used “non-specific general details” that he deemed “not classified or that [he] could safely declassify” to develop an “unclassified summary” to provide to senior government officials.

The IG says the strike information was classified SECRET when Hegseth got it:

The details that the Secretary entered into the chat included information from the USCENTCOM email detailing the types of aircraft, launch times, and strike times for the operation. According to the USCENTCOM SCG, the operational movement of aircraft should be classified as SECRET. However, based on EO 13526, as the OCA for the DoD, theSecretary of Defense is authorized to declassify information as appropriate.

So because Hegseth is the DoD’s Original Classification Authority (OCA), his assertion that he “created an unclassified summary” when he reposted just-recently-SECRET info to the signal chat is within his authority:

(U) We concluded that under EO 13526, the Secretary, as the agency head for the DoD, has the OCA authority to determine the required level of classification for any DoD information he communicates, such as through a document, message, or speech. DoDM 5200.45 identifies that the Secretary’s authority supersedes the authority of other OCAs in the DoD, including the USCENTCOM Commander

I have little doubt his post-hoc “I declassified it” is BS, but the IG has to take it at face value. In other words: Hegseth wanted to beat his chest and look macho, fuckered up, but gets away with it because he declassified it in his mind.

[Josh R]

My comment wasn't on classified material. It was on the use of a personal phone to receive government information, classified or not.

[Bob from Ohio]

"he declassified it in his mind"

No, he declassified it by communicating it to others.

[Sarcastr0]

he declassified it by communicating it to others.
That's not how declassification authority is exercised.

It also ignores the unsecure device.

And your hypocricy re: butter e-mails.

[Bob from Ohio]

"your hypocricy [sic] re: butter e-mails."

Works both ways. You dismissed her e-mails as nothing, but now its a 5 alarm fire over this.

[Sarcastr0]

I think the same thing about both - it shows sloppiness that is unbecoming but not alone a firing offense.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"That's not how declassification authority is exercised."

Says who?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No, he declassified it by communicating it to others."

And that makes sense when there's not partisanship involved. An OCA shares some information because he thinks it's in the public interest to do so, nobody's going to claim he's a felon because he didn't do some magic incantation.

[jay.tee]

when our lead government contact was summarily fired for receiving government emails on his personal phone

Then of course you understand why this is an inapt comparison to Hegseth’s (and others’) use of Signal? Whereas Signal is end-to-end encrypted, email is almost never protected through the entire delivery chain and especially not in its end-state storage.

Does not excuse Hegseth’s usage, but neither is it the same as the situation you describe.

[jb]

I don't think the problem is the use of Signal per se (although on a personal device it doesn't really matter if the message is encrypted if the phone can be hacked by an adversary), so much as sending Signal messages to people who shouldn't have been seeing them. That seems a lot worse than the hypothetical insecurity of email.

[Estragon]

I wonder how the pilots who flew the mission feel about this.

[Kazinski]

Well you could ask them, however if you couldn't still ask them it might be a bigger issue.

[Estragon]

I’m sure they take comfort in that.

[jay.tee]

although on a personal device it doesn't really matter if the message is encrypted if the phone can be hacked by an adversary

This isn’t correct unless you’re a dumbass and not password/Face ID/ passkey protect your Signal account. An adversary would have to compromise the Signal account, too.

But point taken: the best security in the world is circumvented if you allow access to those who shouldn’t have it whether that’s a Signal chat or FWD/CCing an email.

And either way, Hegseth et al shouldn’t have been using personal devices and Signal to communicate.

[jb]

This isn’t correct unless you’re a dumbass and not password/Face ID/ passkey protect your Signal account. An adversary would have to compromise the Signal account, too.

No. Depending on the attack, a hacker can potentially get root-level access to the entire device. If this is the case whenever someone opens their Signal account, the attacker would have access to whatever data is in the app because it's necessarily decrypted to be able to display it to the user. If a device is owned sufficiently hard enough, anything the user has access to at any given point in time, so does the adversary.

Read more here, which is a pretty good explainer on why Signal is useful but also the limitations to the security model:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/signal-app-used-hegseth-can-leave-door-open-hackers-rcna197956

Just because Signal protects messages in transit doesn’t mean it protects its users from other types of snooping. A person who gains full access to a person’s unlocked phone, either remotely with sophisticated hacking software or by physically acquiring it, can simply read a decrypted Signal message.

This is why the DoD prohibits the use of personal devices, because they are not hardened in the same ways that government-management devices are. This makes it much more likely an attacker can compromise the device and get access to all of its contents.

[Josh R]

Per the IG report:

the Secretary’s actions did not comply with DoD Instruction 8170.01, which prohibits using a personal device for official business and using a nonapproved commercially available messaging application to send nonpublic DoD information.

It doesn't matter that the communication was encrypted.

[Kazinski]

I am not defending Hegseth's faux pas, but lets be honest it was not a ongoing national security threat to the nation, at most it would have compromised a single foreign terrorist strike.

It is nothing more than an attempt for Hegseth's scalp, which you aren't going to get.

Nice try.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"It is nothing more than an attempt for Hegseth's scalp, which you aren't going to get."

That would require a hazardous waste permit.

[John F. Carr]

All things considered, Hegseth's job is at great risk. If he stays, he stays because Trump does not want to look weak by firing him. Trump could try to weather a storm that will likely blow over, or Trump could put blood in the water.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Hegseth's job is at great risk"

Maybe, anything's possible, but see Cotton's and Turner's comments below. Looks like the GOP is going to back the drug interdiction effort.

[Kazinski]

Do you think Trump or Hegseth cares about this kerfuffle? Or the boat strike?

It doesn't seem like it. He was sitting on the couch right next to Trump at today's news conference, if Hegseth was in any danger he wouldn't be.

Maybe if the house flips in a year and Hegseth gets impeached then they might care.

[Life of Brian]

Maybe if the house flips in a year and Hegseth gets impeached then they might care.

My gut says no. That probably would be right on the heels of Trump's third impeachment, which at this point I suspect he would view as a badge of honor.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

People Like Us offers six rules that a character’s father told him to follow in life. I didn't see the film. The concept sounds nice.

Some people simplify. Jesus cited two simple commandments.

But six is a useful number.

[1] Don't be an asshole (that includes showing some empathy)

[2] Do the little things (can matter a lot)

[3] Life is complicated (often pops up in comments; people assume things a bit too often online)

[4] Treat people as individuals (not stereotypes)

[5] Be honest and don’t b.s

[6] Have a sense of humor about life

[SRG2]

"I have the best naps, many people say so, big beautiful naps unlike Sleepy Joe Biden who would sleep in cabinet meetings, he was always tired with the autopen that the failing New York Times never said anything about but my naps, I call them power naps, I don't sleep but it's like with the smart cellophane, and cellphone, that's still working even when the screen is off, it's because of rare earth metals that keep it going which we will be getting from Ukraine after the peace deal, great deal, I told Putin, Vladimir, I call him Vladimir, it's a great deal because making deals, I make great deals..."

[grb]

In the Princess Bride, the evil Count's machine sucks vigor and life force from its victims. I worry channeling Donald John Trump might have the same effect. Doesn't it hurt your brain to do so?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

“FBI makes arrest in DC pipe bomber investigation, sources say”

The FBI arrested a man on Thursday who investigators believe planted pipe bombs near the Republican and Democratic National Committee headquarters the night before the 2021 US Capitol riot, according to two law enforcement sources.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/04/politics/arrest-pipe-bomb-investigation

Also:

Brian Cole was identified as the suspect in custody, according to two senior law enforcement officials briefed on the matter. The arrest marks a breakthrough in a case that has stymied investigators for nearly five years.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/suspect-arrested-january-6-dc-pipe-bomb-case-rcna247308

==

There is already some discussion about whether he has already been pardoned.

Anthony Michael Kreis‬
‪@anthonymkreis.bsky.social‬
· 26m
Replied to
Harry Litman
Was he part of the broader January 6th conspiracy? Because he sure has a decent claim he’s already been pardoned.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So what if he has?

He still will be on the "no fly" list and every other watch list, he's not going to get away with anything else, and we don't have to house him.

[hobie]

That's an interesting point. Did Trump's blanket pardon list every name?

But he definitely qualifies as part of the mob. All things being fair, he should get pardoned just like everyone else.

[apedad]

No, the blanket pardon only lists 14 individuals.

The other 1000+ are covered by:

"(b) grant a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021;"

Here's the actual pardon:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/granting-pardons-and-commutation-of-sentences-for-certain-offenses-relating-to-the-events-at-or-near-the-united-states-capitol-on-january-6-2021/

[loki13]

Good catch. I appreciate factual corrections.

[jb]

The "convicted" in (b) is in the past tense. Doesn't that mean they need to have already been convicted for it to apply?

[apedad]

"Pre-emptive Pardons: The President can issue pardons at any point after a crime is committed, including before charges are filed or during ongoing criminal proceedings. This means that individuals who have not yet been indicted or convicted can still receive a pardon."

[jb]

I know that preemptive pardons are possible, I just don't read the language of the pardon as providing one. In order to do so it would need to say "individuals who have been or may in the future be convicted" or some such. As it stands, it seems to apply only to people who had been convicted at the time of the pardon.

[Zarniwoop]

I think that’s correct; I don’t read the doc as pardoning the alleged bomber. It’s worth noting that Trump separately ordered in the same doc:

I further direct the Attorney General to pursue dismissal with prejudice to the government of all pending indictments against individuals for their conduct related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Which strongly suggests to me that non-convicted folks were not pardoned. Nor was the alleged bomber’s case pending at the time.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The comments I referenced appears to also be in reference to this one:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-11-14/pdf/2025-19928.pdf

I'm unsure if that might not apply somehow. The text is broad.

[Zarniwoop]

The language in that pardon (not the Jan 6 pardon) is broad:

for conduct relating to the advice, creation, organization, execution, submission, support, voting, activities, participation in, or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of Presidential electors, whether or not recognized by any State or State official, in connection with the 2020 Presidential Election, as well for any conduct relating to their efforts to expose voting fraud and vulnerabilities in the 2020 Presidential Election.

... but I'm fairly confident "planting pipe bombs" is still outside the broad scope. It's not conduct relating to a slate of electors (the first/major category), and it's not about exposing fraud (the secondary category).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

You very well might be right.

Nonetheless, "any conduct relating to their efforts to expose voting fraud and vulnerabilities in the 2020 Presidential Election" sounds like it could apply to stopping the count (STOP THE STEAL!) by invading the Capitol. Why not this?

We don't know the exact motivation.

[Kazinski]

How would any rational person think that planting a pipe bomb on a bench would aid in exposing voting fraud and vulnerabilities I the 2020 election.

Now I will allow "rational person" may not include a large subset of Federal District Judges, but that is why we have courts of appeals.

Give it up.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"Now I will allow "rational person" may not include a large subset of Federal District Judges,"

Does "rational person" describe many pipe bombers?

[Magister]

Pretty much none of the insurrectionists were rational people.

The intent might have been to create enough chaos and divert police so that the insurrectionists could take hostages in Congress or give Trump enough excuse to declare martial law or otherwise prevent the electoral vote counting. Many of your fellow cultists insist that the only reason the election fraud was not exposed was that Biden took office and suppressed the evidence; evidence maybe known only to the whales who instead were killed by Midwestern wind turbines in vast numbers (or any other conspiracy theory you like).

[loki13]

It is pretty friggin' sad, isn't it?

The main question with the pipe bomber is whether he's already been pardoned by Trump.

But even if he hasn't been, why shouldn't he be? You can't differentiate his violent participation from the violent participation of others he has pardoned.

Heck, he just pardoned a murdering narco-boss who worked closely with El Chapo to import hundreds of tons of cocaine into the United States, so it's not like pardoning "bad hombres" is a foreign concept.*

The only thing foreign about most of the pardons is, usually, the money that is received, I guess.

*The icing on the cake of that pardon, by the way, was the revelation that it was Roger Stone and Matt Gaetz that pushed for it. Because of course it was.

[hobie]

Frankly, I'm surprised the FBI continued to investigate who, to them, is a MAGA hero.

Because now they're in another pickle, I think. MAGA etiquette dictates this poor pipe bomber go free. I mean, how would it look that out of all the violent, armed rednecks, and apart from the arsenals brought by the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, that this one MAGA pipe bomber will be the only J6 convict?

HOWEVER...giving a bomber yet another pardon will look...well...peculiar to normal Americans and independents. Plus, like going after Obama and Smith and Comey - three men who are chomping at the bit to testify and remind the nation of all the crime - this is going to open up MAGA to yet more J6 scrutiny.

As I'm writing I'm now thinking, 'Hey! This is going to turn out pretty cool!'

[not guilty]

"Plus, like going after Obama and Smith and Comey - three men who are chomping at the bit to testify and remind the nation of all the crime - this is going to open up MAGA to yet more J6 scrutiny."

This comment prompted me to wonder whether the correct idiom is still "champing at the bit" or the more recent "chomping at the bit." According to grammarist.com, it seems that both are acceptable, but I prefer the original usage:

The original, and proper use of the term is champing at the bit, and it also is surprisingly more widely used even though chomping at the bit may seem more familiar to the majority of our readers. Regardless, both are acceptable to use even if one is technically more correct. If you have been concerned about using it incorrectly, have no fear, you are fine either way – unless you are a stickler for proper word usage related to original idiom.

https://grammarist.com/usage/champing-chomping-at-the-bit/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One difficulty is that there are grounds not to trust the Trump Justice Department regarding investigating these matters.

For instance:

Dan Bongino, the incoming deputy director of the FBI, suggested on his popular podcast in January that the agency he is now about to help lead was complicit in planting pipe bombs around Washington ahead of the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.

“I believe the FBI knows the identity of this pipe bomber on January 6th, four years ago, and just doesn’t wanna tell us ‘cause it was an inside job,” Bongino said on his podcast.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/01/politics/kfile-dan-bongino-january-6th-pipe-bomb-fbi

Pam Bondi, unsurprisingly, felt it necessary to badmouth the Biden Justice Department when providing an update.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/04/politics/arrest-pipe-bomb-investigation

Patel on J6 arrest: "When you attack American citizens, when you attack our institutions of legislation, when you attack our nation's Capitol, you attack the very being of our way of life."

[No comment]

[hobie]

"When you attack American citizens, when you attack our institutions of legislation, when you attack our nation's Capitol, you attack the very being of our way of life."

The mind boggles. Speaking of mind, have you lost yours Patel?! Saying something like that out loud. Remember, you're just the token brownie. MAGA will turn on you in a heartbeat if you're no longer useful.

[jay.tee]

Remember, you're just the token brownie

WTF is going on with the racism from regular posters?

[hobie]

Does anyone here know how to make an eye-rolling emoji face?

[Life of Brian]

Hobie considers himself to be an honorary brother, so he of course gets a pass.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Especially a regular poster who spent years hassling EV for quoting racial slurs in court decisions. In case anyone were tempted to think that hobie/Kirkland had an ounce of integrity.

[hobie]

You people are odd. Our dear Rev was very repetitive in his commentary. I don't use the same talk he does.

[jay.tee]

Us people, the ones who abhor racism, are odd?

What an interesting, revealing take.

[grb]

The United States Institute of Peace was an organization created by Congress as an independent, nonprofit, national institute tasked with promoting conflict resolution and prevention worldwide, it provided research, analysis, and training to individuals in diplomacy, mediation, and other peace-building measures.

As per above, it was meant to be independent and non-partisan, which presidents before Trump have respected over its four-decade existence. But Trump basically sent in armed goons to seize the building by force, then gutted the institute with mass firings.

So what function is left for the remaining shell of an organization? We saw that yesterday, when the building signage and website was changed to the "Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace". It's only purpose remaining is to appease the bottomless pit of Trump's insecurity.

Now, DJT is harming and sabotaging this country in a myriad of ways every day. He thinks it's funny the more damage he does. His supporters think it's entertaining to watch their cult-god degrade, demean, and destroy. The United States Institute of Peace is nothing in the greater picture of Trump's gleeful desecration. But people around the globe see this pathetic nonsense and laugh over the once-great America becoming another banana republic joke.

But, again, MAGA doesn't care about the United States' humiliation. They don't care we've abandoned our status as Leader of the Free World. They don't care we're now a worldwide laughingstock. They are entertained by Trump's brat child antics. That's literally the only thing important to them.

[Kazinski]

The President is charged with conducting the foreign policy of the United States, not an independent NGO, funded by taxpayers.

I don't know why it still exists in any form but I suppose as a rudderless shell is OK too, as long as it can't be revived.

[grb]

Oh for God's sake, Kazinski! If you're reduced to responses this lame defending Trump, maybe that's a sign you need to rethink your priorities. For self-respect if nothing else. If excusing Trump sleaze, criminality, and lies requires this self-abasement, then perhaps you need a new line of work.

Blatantly Obvious Newsflash:

The United States Institute of Peace wasn't conducting the foreign policy of anything, much less the United States.

Does that help? And, yes, it will be revived per existing law once we have a non-criminal adult back in the Oval Office. I also note you don't contest how juvenile, pathetic, and petty Trump's actions are here. Because you're MAGA. To you, "Make America Great" is siting in an easy chair, popping a brewski, and hooting as you slap your knee with glee to Trump's latest brat-child antics. The actual country? I doubt you give the slightest f**K.

[apedad]

Lawmaker sparks fresh call to abolish HOAs after dispute in Florida turns deadly. Is it finally time to end this ‘failed experiment’?

In Florida’s coastal city of Port St. Lucie, tucked between Miami and Orlando, homeowner association tensions are boiling over into real violence.

Police say 62-year-old Paul Maraio shot and killed two neighbors, 54-year-old Mark Douglas Golden and 75-year-old David Walter Gasik, before barricading himself inside their home. He later turned the gun on himself and died from his injuries.

Police Chief Leo Niemczyk called it the breaking point of a long and bitter HOA feud. Records show the association had been trying to evict Maraio, though Niemczyk added the conflict grew out of clashing political views.

https://moneywise.com/news/real-estate-news/lawmaker-sparks-fresh-call-to-abolish-hoas-after-dispute-in-florida-turns-deadly

Yeah, I tend to agree that HOAs are a failed experiment.

Not enough safeguards against (potential) self-appointed demigods.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Now do small town politics -- actually worse.

[John 4]

This was just a homophobic MAGAt killing his gay neighbors.

[Kazinski]

Perhaps, but its also demonstrates why neighborhood disputes can get out of hand when one set of neighbors get control of the HOA and use the authority to persecute the neighbors.

They were trying to evict him, not just flipping him off when he drove by.

[Zarniwoop]

NYTimes sues Pentagon over press access:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26334404-nytdodcomp120425pdf/

Seems like a well drafted complaint; I would expect nothing less from Ted Boutrous.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It appears that the 2nd missile was approved by a JAG.

Apparently the two climbed back into the boat (which is probably why they were still alive), appeared to be in communication with someone, and appeared to be trying to rescue some of the drugs.

When you get into complicated matters, is "my lawyer told me it was legal" a defense? IMHO, it should be as mens rea of asking a lawyer and acting on legal advice indicates an effort to be legal.

[John F. Carr]

In a court martial, obedience to orders is a defense unless the defendant knew the order was illegal or a reasonable person in the same situation would have known the order was illegal. Having a lawyer's blessing is good for the defense.

Advice of counsel does not automatically negate guilt. A company I used to work for bought a letter from a lawyer to justify not doing some legally required paperwork. When the division was acquired the new owner found the lawyer's argument unconvincing and did the paperwork.

[loki13]

By the way, corruption should always be a non-partisan issue.

Trump should not have pardoned Cuellar. And Hakeem Jeffries is acting shamefully in not putting party first and not condemning it.

I get it; every seat counts blah blah blah. But integrity matters. Corruption shouldn't be tolerated even if you are benefitting from it.

[jb]

Agreed. And if Jeffries wants to defend the seat, he should help recruit a non corrupt Democratic challenger for it.

[Bwaaah]

As a person who stands by silently as transgressions abound (believing full well those alleged transgressions are indeed wrong), I am reconciling my behavior against your assertion (which I find sort of appealing).

Corruption *is* (to some extent) a non-partisan issue. But how we talk about corruption, and when, is commonly ordered by partisan preferences.

What constitutes corruption isn't always clear. Is it corrupt for DJT to take donations for his ballroom? Obama for his library? Should Sotomayor be promoting her book sales while she's on the bench? Should Kash Patel's girlfriend's security be intertwined with his?

Is it corrupt for the government to let oil companies make huge profits when prices soar? Is it corrupt for the government to take special exception to tax oil company profits when they soar?

If I were to speak out against corruption whenever I see it, I'd have little time to speak on much else.

And anyway, the benefits of a holy voice are easily overrated.

[grb]

Is it corrupt for DJT to take donations for his ballroom? Answer : No, not as long as there's transparency on all details and no return benefits for the donation. Which are conditions not satisfied by Trump.

Obama for his library? Answer : Ditto. But those conditions are satisfied with Obama.

Should Sotomayor be promoting her book sales while she's on the bench? Answer : Why not?

Should Kash Patel's girlfriend's security be intertwined with his? Answer : Absent a credible threat, the additional security given Ms Wilkins is unwarranted by previous policy or tradition. Plus, that doesn't cover her free ride home on the FBI's plane.

Is it corrupt for the government to let oil companies make huge profits when prices soar? Answer : Absent exceptional evidence of price fixing independent of market forces, no.

Is it corrupt for the government to take special exception to tax oil company profits when they soar? Answer : Why would it be?

But why am I bothering? We have a Trump cultist saying corruption is too darn complicated to work-out or bother with. Big surprise there, huh?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I appreciate the breakdown. The comment tosses everything and the kitchen sink together. We can play that game all day.

[Bwaaah]

I didn't consider them to be good examples. Arguing that they are bad examples misses the point: different people see those issues quite differently.

[loki13]

....I appreciate the reasoned response. However, I would counter by saying the following-

First, I am not some holy roller. I have my vices. I do not demand perfection. But ... I have lived abroad. I have seen what happens when public corruption becomes endemic in society. It is a rot than cannot easily be cured, and it infects everything. There is a reason I think corruption is, and should be, anathema.

Second, just because things can always be seen through a partisan lens does not mean that they should be. I do not think that child abuse is partisan. I do not think that rape is partisan. I don't think corruption is partisan. People can try and "whaddabout" all they want, but it's still corruption- whether done by Democrats or Republicans. For example, the corruption of the 80s-90s involving the congressional post office and Rostenkowski? That was corruption, regardless of the party affiliation. I am glad it was rooted out.

Third, it is hard to take people making comparisons seriously when they throw out things that sound alike, yet aren't. For example, there is actually some real reasons to be concerned about the ways that Presidential Libraries can enable corruption. It's ... it's a whole thing. Now, some might say that Obama tried to sidestep some of the issues with the way he structured the fundraising to ramp up after he left office. Other would say that it was too little to address this issue. But that's hardly the type of "corruption" as we are seeing- everything from the Pentagon giving hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to a startup for Trump's son to straight-up quid pro quo of pardons for large donations .... to a library.

But to answer your final question- I would not demand that you speak up against corruption every time you find it; were you to try to do so ... especially with what we are seeing today, you wouldn't have time left over to breathe, let alone eat.

Just don't excuse corruption because of partisan concerns, like Jeffries.

[Zarniwoop]

Hey, what presidential library doesn't need a recently refurbished 747? No bribe there!

I think the 1 Kg personally-monogrammed gold bar "for the Presidential library" is also laughable ... but pretty clever of the Swiss in the "use shiny gold to stroke his ego (but it's not a bribe, oh-no-no!)" sense.

[grb]

Aside from cleverness with gold, the Swiss have been fodder for movie dialog over the years:

The Third Man:

"In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock".

The Heist :

Never liked the Swiss. They make them little clocks, these two cocksuckers come out of 'em with these little hammers, hit each other on the head. What kind of sick mentality is that?"

[Mr. Bumble]

I thought cuckoo clocks were German (Black Forest).
The Swiss were noted for their watches (and secret bank accounts).

[loki13]

I mean, the problem is trying to engage with people on these issues. Why? Because they don't actually care to know the answers.

Here's the thing- Presidential Libraries are ... they've been an issue for a while. It's ... complicated. Stupid, but complicated. And because of the stupid, but complicated, issues, they are neither particularly great at what they are supposed to be for (preservation of Presidential records for scholarship) yet also present issues re: corruption.

In fact, the issues with them are a reason that Obama genuinely tried to do his in a different way. He had measures for transparency and to decrease the appearance of corruption, as well as a full separation of the "museum" and "archive" aspects. Was it perfect? Heck no! Among other issues, this was done voluntarily, so it didn't have the force of law that would bind ... future Presidents. But it was something.

And yet, because he was popular and did successful fundraising AFTER he was President, people point to this as ... corrupt. Which is completely not the point. And then don't look at what Trump is trying to do ...

Which is use the "charity" side of the Presidential Library to funnel to himself assets for his full control- like he did with all of his prior charities. And to raise funds (and or personal property, like 747s) for his use, in what can only be perceived as a straight quid pro quo.

In short, understanding all of these issues and distinctions requires understanding history, and law, and how Presidential Libraries actually work, and so on.

So you're left with two options-
1. Either you can just realize that what Trump is doing is different in scale and manner than has ever been done (in terms of taking something that was kinda sorta an issue and using it for straight graft) and leave it at that.

2. Or you realize that everytime some person brings this up and tries to WHADDABOUT this, you could try and explain all of this, or tell them how to educate themselves ... but it doesn't matter, because they don't care.

Which is sad. Most people just do not care, in the same sense that a person rooting for the Steelers doesn't want to hear why the refs called the penalty against them correctly.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, I'm just going to say this bluntly:

Corrupt government in America is an inevitable, unavoidable consequence of something you approve of.

We have in America a Constitution which was written over 200 years ago for a federation of agrarian states. It was deliberately written to limit the scale and reach of the federal government.

At the same time, we now have a federal government that hugely exceeds those limits.

Since nobody can honestly read the US Constitution and think it authorizes the scale of government we have, the government inevitably, unavoidably, has to be staffed with people who aren't honest.

You might wish, with all your heart, that those people will exhibit a strictly limited, contained sort of dishonesty. That's not realistic.

Anybody who can rationalize today's government being constitutional under the Constitution they've all sworn an oath to uphold, is capable of rationalizing ANYTHING. Including things you'd rather they didn't do.

The current US constitution.
The current scale of the federal government.
Honest government.

Pick two, you can't have all three at the same time.

[Bwaaah]

Loki13: "Just don't excuse corruption because of partisan concerns, like Jeffries."

I admit to being silent about a lot of it here. But I am not confused. I see it, and I don't justify it.

But "whattabout" is getting a bad rap these days. It's falsely portrayed as justifying bad behavior. But that's not the import of it; it elucidates not only how common corruption is, but how partisanism incorporates large swaths of the population to routinely turn a blind eye to it, e.g. massive student loan forgiveness, and massive tariffs. A blind eye. Routinely. What about that? Stop pointing it out and just soldier on compliantly?

Brett hits a nerve for me in his attempt to call out the extent and scope of rationalization that goes on in our legalistic world. Our Congress empowers the USDA to compel Christmas tree growers to pay 15 cents per tree to the Christmas Tree Promotion Board. I know that sounds unimportant to just about everybody. But it's one of thousands of examples of laws, Laws, LAWS that reach into a lot of people's lives all different ways. And that's not some kind of corruption? No, it's not corruption.

So maybe I am confused? I am definitely confused. Sorry for my whatabouts. I can't seem to even pick my nose anymore without tripping over one.

[ducksalad]

It's falsely portrayed as justifying bad behavior.

More like there could be a few innocent whatabouts in a vast sea of bad ones that are absolutely deployed for the sole purpose of justifying the behavior.

It's usually not that hard to tell if one's scroll bar allows going two or three comments upthread. If you don't want your innocent whatabout to be falsely accused, it's fairly easy to make it clear that you are against it regardless of who does it.

So anyway, yeah, there's a lot of bad there and we have a right to be cynical. And thus don't be surprised if our cynicism extends to unjustly smearing your idealistic and pure whatabouts. Feel free to assume we apologize if that happens.

[Bwaaah]

Who is that "we" you are speaking for?

[ducksalad]

I didn't say we apologize. I'm just saying you're free to assume it.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I was reading something related to the Election of 1860.

The corruption of the Buchanan Administration was an election theme. It was noted that corruption was generally understood as a threat to republican government.

I have seen many Democrats annoyed at Jeffries's remarks. There is significant concern about his overall leadership.

Even on a cynical level, it's stupid to basically say, "You got to give it to Trump, he was right here." It's just stupid, really.

The support of that guy was dubious before, too. There was opposition to a primary campaign since his challenger was seen as less likely to win. The election wasn't that close that one vote mattered. And, he was not worth the effort.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

"I get it; every seat counts blah blah blah. But integrity matters. Corruption shouldn't be tolerated even if you are benefitting from it."

If the Republicans have the integrity to expel Santos, it makes the Democrats look bad in comparison. Kick his ass to the curb. Not only because of the optics but because the guy shouldn't be in any position of authority anywhere.

[Zarniwoop]

+1

[Mr. Bumble]

Nice thought, but will it happen?
Only Dem I can think of who was forced out was Al Franken (bet he's pissed).

[jb]

Andrew Cuomo
Bob Menendez
Katie Hill
John Conyers

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Alcee Hastings was removed from office but it didn't stick. I guess that's Florida for you.

[not guilty]

Judge Hastings was removed pursuant to impeachment, but the judgment did not include disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States, even though such penalty is authorized by Article I, § 5 of the Constitution. After his removal, Hastings was elected to the House of Representatives, where he served until he died in office.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Yeah, I know. The thing is that after having been impeached and convicted he was elected to congress what, 14 or 15 times? I find that plumb amazing.

[Kazinski]

Trump is speaking now at the Rwanda-DRC peace agreement signing between the two countries.

According to Wikipedia that conflict has been going on since 1994, and has had the highest death toll of any conflict since WW2.

Hopefully it does bring lasting peace.

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/trump-hosts-congo-rwanda-leaders-latest-push-peace-2025-12-04/

[apedad]

Side tangent...

In 1994, I was deployed to Entebbe, Uganda, in support of Operation Support Hope.

"C-130 aircraft from Ramstein Air Base, Germany, Pope Air Force Base, NC and Kulis Air National Guard Base, Alaska deployed to Entebbe, Uganda and shuttled relief cargo, US Army water filtration systems, and medical teams from Doctors Without Borders to remote locations throughout the region." (wiki)

The old Entebbe terminal from Operation Thunderbolt was still there - and still had bullet holes.

Thunderbolt was "a 1976 Israeli counter-terrorist mission in Uganda. It was launched in response to the hijacking of an international civilian passenger flight (an Airbus A300) operated by Air France between the cities of Tel Aviv and Paris." (wiki)

[loki13]

Let's see.... in the ongoing "Trump Unlawfully Appoints Cronies to Pursue Vengenace World Tour 2025," we just had another stop.

Alina Habba - saw it, got the T-Shirt.
Bilal Essayli - played the deep cuts!
Sigal Chattah - did a three-song encore.
HALLIGAN! - so punk that band fell off the stage before it could perfrom.

And now we had the fist hearing on John Sarcone.

Let's say ... the Judge expressed scepticism. Not of the theory, but that Sarcone was lawfully appointed. SHOCKING!

We'll have to wait for a ruling. Who knows? Maybe the fifth time is the charm?

(FYI, this is just about subpoenas, but how often do you see subpoenas attacked because of this?)

[hobie]

Let me get this straight:

Illegally appoint a lawyer to perform lawfare on political opponents.

This sounds awfully, awfully familiar

[OpinionsVary]

I don't think the Trump administration agrees with Judge Cannon's position that special attorneys can't be appointed by the AG. When she tried to use her time machine to try and save the case against Comey, Bondi appointed HALLIGAN! a special attorney with the remit to prosecute Comey. That failed because Bondi lost her time travel licence on a DUI a while back but HALLIGAN! is presumably a special attorney going forward, if not retrospectively.

[Bored Lawyer]

The War Against the Jews continues:

BEDLAM IN LOS ANGELES: ‘Baby Killers’ Chants, Smashed Glass, and Arrests as Anti-Israel Protesters Storm City’s Oldest Synagogue
https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/2481770/bedlam-in-los-angeles-baby-killers-chants-smashed-glass-and-arrests-as-anti-israel-protesters-storm-citys-oldest-synagogue.html

Can't wait for the fellow travelers to justify this.

[hobie]

A war on Israeli battlefield killings, sure. One even shouted something about baby killers. Sounds like a typical right to life protest. You wouldn't begrudge that surely?

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, Israeli battle field killing are protested by invading a synagogue in Los Angeles, shouting profanities and smashing glass. (And where have we heard about smashing synagogue glass before?)

As predicted. Fellow traveler.

Wonder what the reaction would be if someone did that at an LA mosque that supports Hamas?

[hobie]

Oh, they were definitely disorderly. All of them should have been arrested for disorderly.

My gripe as always is where's the war on Jews part?

[Bob from Ohio]

"(And where have we heard about smashing synagogue glass before?)"

I swear I didn't see this before my comment to Sarasshole below.

[Sarcastr0]

This sucks but to call it 'War Against the Jews' is hilariously melodramatic.

[hobie]

It's like you need to have mobile whiteboard wherever you go these days. Point to one side of the board where the word Antisemitism is. Then point to the other side where Israeli Political Policies is written. Back forth. Back forth. So you show this whiteboard to MAGA everyday for one year. At the end of one year, you ask: 'So MAGA, what have we learned?"

MAGA strains and thinks and finally says, 'They are both the same, right?'

[Sarcastr0]

It's got the Israel = Jews thing, which to be fair angry protestors often elide themselves.

It's also got the 'one protest with arrests is the same as war' nonsense.

There's being vigilant, and there's straining for oppression.

[Bob from Ohio]

"protest "

I always smash a glass vase inside a place of worship when I protest.

[Sarcastr0]

Bob's certainty instituted a pogrom against anyone taking him seriously.

[Bob from Ohio]

Oh screw you.
Minimizing this, or treating it as just an isolated incident, is a bad thing.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

If people attack a synagogue because they are pissed at Israeli behavior, isn't it fair to infer that the attackers are equating Israeli behavior with Judaism and isn't that fairly classified as antisemitism? Seems to me to be the equivalent of the right wing assholes attributing an "honor killing" in the Netherlands to all muslims

[grb]

It depends - but with most of the truth on your side. Someone who objects to Israel's policies or actions by protesting or harassing a Jewish individual or group is very often an antisemite, even if he's too stupid or blind to understand that.

The exception is if that individual or group has a direct connection to the policies or actions. An example of that was recently highlighted in the Israeli newspapers as part of their hysteria about Mamdani.

There was a protest at the Park East Synagogue, which has close ties to Nefesh B’Nefesh, a nonprofit organization that promotes migration to dozens of settlements in the occupied West Bank. Purely on the question whether a protest has legitimacy beyond simple antisemitism, I'd say yes in that case. Whether the protest included any disorderly behavior or bigoted rhetoric, I don't know. I would suspect yes, but didn't follow the details.

[Bored Lawyer]

Nefesh B’Nefesh, a nonprofit organization that promotes migration to dozens of settlements in the occupied West Bank.

No, it promotes immigration to Israel. Which the protestors consider illegitimate in toto.

[grb]

Oh for goodness sake! Even the Times of Israel admits Nefesh B’Nefesh supports immigration to the settlements. They just complained the protestors made no distinction between that and immigration to Israel proper. Of course I wondered how the protestors were supposed to establish that distinction to the Time's satisfaction, but that's a separate issue.

[Bob from Ohio]

"hilariously melodramatic"

Yes, pogroms are hilarious.

[Sarcastr0]

po·grom
/pōˈɡrəm,ˈpōɡrəm/
noun
an organized massacre of a particular ethnic group...

What a clownshow.

[hobie]

Do you want me break out the whiteboard for Bob?

[Bob from Ohio]

"What a clownshow."

Minimizing this is a clownshow. yes.

Breaking glass at night. Where have I heard that happening before.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

" Where have I heard that happening before."

Chicago?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7wXXnElpb0

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wow

Doctors have admitted to performing “non-standard” gender-affirming procedures [including castration] on youngsters and sometimes base treatment purely on cosmetic goals — as they see a spike in patients seeking out “nonbinary” surgeries.

The medical professionals copped to sometimes even performing the life-altering procedures with little to no assessment of an individual’s mental health or gender identity, newly emerged videos obtained by The Free Press show.

One social worker from Oregon once described how an 18-year-old high school graduate wanted to look like “a Barbie down there.”

[One clinician] acknowledged, ... that medical professionals were often making it up as they went, saying: “I feel like we’re all just winging it, you know? And which is okay, you’re winging it too. But maybe we can just, like, wing it together.”

[hobie]

"2021 conference of the US Professional Association for Transgender Health."

Seems like normal conversations that you would hear at an Association for Transgender Health.

Like talking sedition at an Oath Keepers meeting. Or antisemitism in a Republican chatroom.

So what's the breaking news here?

[not guilty]

"One social worker from Oregon once described how an 18-year-old high school graduate wanted to look like 'a Barbie down there.' ”

Somehow I don't think that emulating Barbie's crotch will prove very satisfactory to that young woman, nor to any of her prospective partners.

[hobie]

Did Trump pardon any turkeys this year?

[ThePublius]

Yes.
https://www.npr.org/2025/11/26/g-s1-99437/trump-turkeys-annual-pardoning-ceremony

[loki13]

Old Hotness: Trump had Epstein Killed!!11!!!!

New Hotness: Epstein was a sucker and a loser. If he didn't kill himself, he'd have received one of those sweet, sweet Trump Pardons by now.

But to answer your question, I was going to say that most of Trump's pardons are turkeys. But that's defaming turkeys, who aren't murdering narco-traffickers that pal around with El Chapo.

I wish Trump would just stick to pardoning people who defraud Americans of millions of dollars....

[hobie]

Butterball had to quid the Trump Family to get their turkeys pardoned this year.

I see that most White House turkey's are white, but also know that turkeys can also be brown or black. If I were a progressive turkey farmer, I'd send one black and one white and see what happens. I also think the pardon turkeys usually have names. Id call mine Jeffrey and Donald

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Barr took Epstein off the board.

[Zarniwoop]

He's pardoned a whole lot of turkeys. Two of them were also birds.

[Sarcastr0]

They're showing video of the double tap to legislators.

GOP Rep. Mike Turner: "This activity that's happening in the Caribbean where they are hitting these boats -- these individuals if they were captured and tried and convicted, they would be guilty of criminal activity for which they're not subject to capital punishment. These people are being killed."

Cotton: "I saw two survivors trying to flip a boat -- loaded with drugs, bound for the United States -- back over, so they could stay in the fight."

The survivors should not have tried to survive, and by trying to survive they made it lawful to kill them.

Murder enjoyers, you have an ally!

[hobie]

Republicans: Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Trust us.
Republicans: Maduro has drugs of mass destruction. Trust us.

[JohnSmith97]

I realize the leftist talking point is "innocent fisherman", but those are some of the strangest fishing boats i've seen. open deck boat, not a hint of fishing gear or fish storage, but plenty of bales of something on deck.

I'm sure that its books or something..

[DDHarriman]

I'll take: "How do you get a rabid Leftist to weep more for a narco-terrorist than for an American" for $1000, Alex.

[loki13]

Yeah .... look, I am going to wait for a more sober analysis before piling on ... and I really want to pile on to Cotton.

But this is what our partisan divide had come to.

We'll see. I am at least somewhat hopeful that AFAICT there have been a number of GOP congresspeople who are choosing to not say anything yet.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"They're showing video of the double tap to legislators."

And Bradley denied that Hegseth gave a "kill them all" order.

So no evidence to corroborate WAPO's anonymously sourced claims.

[DDHarriman]

A powerful Democrat Senator is out there now directly calling for an armed military coup.

Warner added, “I think in many ways, the uniformed military may help save us from this president and his lame people like Hegseth, because I think their commitment is to the Constitution and obviously not to Trump. I expect Bradley to adhere to that.”

Their rhetoric is getting very very dangerous. Look out Whites.

[JohnSmith97]

I'm sure the usual suspects will spend the next weeks pretending Warner (D-VA) ever said anything of the sort. Or that the golden hearts (D) have means that his call for a military coup is really nothing of the sort.

[SRG2]

Or that the golden hearts (D) have means that his call for a military coup is really nothing of the sort.

There is no such call, you lying fuckwit.

But my guess is you supported a coup in 2020, from which it would follow that your objections to a coup are based entirely on who's doing it.

[SRG2]

Such hysterical. So clutched pearls.

You would have the US military follow illegal orders - probably on the grounds that if Trump gave them, they're not illegal.

[DDHarriman]

Why would an Antifa Leftist ex-CIA guy get arrested for planting the pipe bomb on J6?

So weird! Even weirder?

Somehow or another Boasburg is related to this guy. What a teeny tiny small world how all of the La Resistance always points back to Democrat Judge Boasburg...

[Michael P]

All the comments above fantasizing about whether the guy was pardoned and/or MAGA aged hilariously poorly.

https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1996737488124101099

(Take the hypothesizing at the end with a grain of salt appropriate for the source.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

What do you mean? CNN says it was a white guy.

[DDHarriman]

Tim Walz FUMES that people are calling him a “RETARD” in public now that President Trump did it
“People driving by my house and using the R word!!

lmao

[SRG2]

A possible explanation for Trump's recent MRI

FDA to recommend additional, earlier MRI monitoring for patients with Alzheimer’s disease taking Leqembi (lecanemab)