Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against Fulton County, Georgia, over records related to the 2020 election, ostensibly pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 20701 et seq. The complaint is here: https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1420721/dl?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

This lawsuit is entirely frivolous and sanctionable. Section 20701 states in relevant part:

Every officer of election shall retain and preserve, for a period of twenty-two months from the date of any general, special, or primary election of which candidates for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, or Resident Commissioner from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are voted for, all records and papers which come into his possession relating to any application, registration, payment of poll tax, or other act requisite to voting in such election, except that, when required by law, such records and papers may be delivered to another officer of election and except that, if a State or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico designates a custodian to retain and preserve these records and papers at a specified place, then such records and papers may be deposited with such custodian, and the duty to retain and preserve any record or paper so deposited shall devolve upon such custodian. Any officer of election or custodian who willfully fails to comply with this section shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. [Emphasis added.]

The twenty-two month period following the November 2020 election expired in September 2022.

[Kazinski]

That's ridiculous, and you should know it.

Just because the statue state the minimum time for election records retention, it doesn't mean that records still extant can't be subpoenaed.

[not guilty]

"Just because the statue state the minimum time for election records retention, it doesn't mean that records still extant can't be subpoenaed."

This is not a subpoena, Kazinski. It is a civil complaint brought in federal court, ostensibly pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 20705, which provides:

The United States district court for the district in which a demand is made pursuant to section 20703 of this title, or in which a record or paper so demanded is located, shall have jurisdiction by appropriate process to compel the production of such record or paper.

Section 20703 by its own terms is limited to "[a]ny record or paper required by section 20701 of this title to be retained and preserved". That retention and preservation requirement expired during September of 2022.

The Clerk of Courts for Fulton County is not required to do a damn thing, and the United States District Court -- which is of limited jurisdiction -- has no subject matter jurisdiction to consider this lawsuit. Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires "a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction" to appear on the face of the complaint. Lacking that, this action should be dismissed sua sponte. Since amendment of the complaint would be futile, that dismissal should be with prejudice.

Statutes matter. In federal court, perhaps no statutes matter more than those defining and limiting the federal courts' subject matter jurisdiction.

[John F. Carr]

If the records have in fact been destroyed the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because it can not grant the requested relief. If the records exist, I'm not convinced that the court would conclude it lacks jurisdiction. The distinction between jurisdiction and merits can be confusing.

[not guilty]

"It is a familiar proposition that the constitutional policy of limited jurisdiction requires that the statutes granting subject matter jurisdiction to the federal courts be strictly construed." 13 Charles Alan Wright. et al, Federal Practice and Procedure § note 3, § 3602.1, at 135 (3d ed. 2009).

Section 20305 expressly references § 20303, which in turn specifically references "[a]ny record or paper required by section 20701 of this title." The 22 month time limit specified by § 20301 is accordingly jurisdictional.

Q.E.D.

[Mr. Bumble]

The law is such a circle jerk.

[Frank Drackman]

But it's a thoroughly cited Circle Jerk.
Remember the first time I heard the term, on Psychiatric Rounds (believe it or not, I wasn't the Patient) There was a Psychologist on staff, he got the Patients that Drugs or ECT wouldn't help, one day one of the Male Patients recounted how as a Teen he'd get together with his buddies and all jerk off, after he left (because Doctors DO talk about you behind your back) someone remarked on how perverse that sounded.
"Oh, that's a "Circle Jerk" said the Psychologist, that's actually normal for Teenage Boys, "umm, well, uh, I never did it...." he added.
Because you never want to embarrass one of the Staff on rounds, we didn't say anything (But for you Educators, your Students DO mock you behind your back), needless to say none of my classmates had heard of it (or would admit to it, they were mostly the Alpha Beta guys from "Revenge of the Nerds")
I needed a Private (locked) On-call Room for my Self Pleasure (Just me and Suzanne Somers on that Penthouse Forum Cover)
Jeez, today you say more (redacted) on QVC

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

I have a hard time imagining that's actually normal for teenaged boys. I guess I could believe it's normal for teenaged boys who end up being Psychologists.

[Frank Drackman]

Lets see, this was 1986 so Hommina Hommina Hommina, the Psychologist probably grew up in the 50's, Teens (literally) had a lot more time on their hands (or in their hands).
Worst for me was on Summer Vacations my Cheap Dad would either make us Camp out, me and my sister in the same tent, or if we did get a Motel, one room for the 4 of us, try rubbing one out in that setting.

Frank

[Bwaaah]

"Frank! Other people have to use the bathroom!"

[Dr. Ed 2]

In the 1950s -- it sounds more like a camp counselor or something doing it with a group of boys. I'm thinking of some of the stories that have come out about the then all-male prep schools and what some of the gay male teachers did.

[Lee Moore]

I don't think not guilty has got this right.

Section 20305 : The United States district court for the district in which a demand is made pursuant to section 20703 of this title, or in which a record or paper so demanded is located, shall have jurisdiction by appropriate process to compel the production of such record or paper.

So what gives the District Court jurisdiction is :

a demand is made pursuant to section 20703 of this title, or in which a record or paper so demanded is located

If the AG demands papers pursuant to section 20703 that's all that is required. Once the court hears the case, maybe it'll decide it's a bum demand and the AG isn't entitled to the record or paper. But it's still a demand giving the court jurisdiction.

As to the substance, I don't think it's clear. The question is whether a paper or record that the law requires someone to preserved from date x to date y, qualifies as a record

"required to be preserved {by the law} "

(a) only during the period from date x to date y or
(b) eternally, ie once the paper or record has acquired the status of one in respect of which an official is subject to a preservation obligation under the law, retains that status even after the official is released from his obligation.

not guilty's argument would be a little stronger if section 20703 had a present tense in it, ie :

"Any record that is required by Section 20701.." instead of
"Any record required by Section 20701..."

As it is, I'd say it's a coin toss.

[not guilty]

All federal courts are limited to the jurisdiction prescribed by Congress, according to statutes which must be construed narrowly against the exercise of such jurisdiction. See, e.g., Healy v. Ratta, 292 U.S. 263, 270 (1934) ("The policy of the [diversity jurisdiction] statute calls for its strict construction.")

As the Tenth Circuit opined in Grosvenor v. Qwest Corp., 733 F.3d 990, 995 (10th Cir. 2013), "We strictly construe statutes conferring jurisdiction. . . . [I]f there is ambiguity as to whether the instant statute confers federal jurisdiction over this case, we are compelled to adopt a reasonable, narrow construction." (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "[E]ffect must be given to the well established rule that federal jurisdiction is not to be extended beyond the scope permitted by a strict construction of the statute upon which it rests. Kresberg v. Int'l Paper Co., 149 F.2d 911, 913 (2d Cir. 1945), citing Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 314 U.S. 63 (1941) and Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442 (1942).

Per 50 U.S.C. § 20703, the Attorney General is authorized to demand inspection, reproduction, and copying of "[a]ny record or paper required by section 20701 of this title to be retained and preserved". As of September 3, 2022, the records which are the subject of the instant lawsuit forever ceased to be of that character, in that the same were no longer required to be retained and preserved.

According to ¶16 of the complaint, the Attorney General made her demand on October 30, 2025. Accordingly, S.O.L. here does not stand only for statute of limitations.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think not guilty has got this right.

I think ng has it right on the substantive merits of the claim, but not his subject matter jurisdiction analysis. A statutory requirement is not jurisdictional unless Congress clearly makes it so. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006)

This is just ordinary federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

[not guilty]

"This is just ordinary federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331."

That proposition would render 52 U.S.C. § 20705 superfluous. Congress there created a condition precedent -- the demand under § 20703 -- to the district court's "jurisdiction by appropriate process to compel the production of such record or paper."

[Armchair]

Indeed. Often the records are kept beyond the minimum time required.

[not guilty]

"Often the records are kept beyond the minimum time required."

So what? Federal court jurisdiction exists only with regard to those records "retain[ed] and preserve[d], for a period of twenty-two months from the date of any general, special, or primary election of which candidates for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, or Resident Commissioner from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are voted for". 50 U.S.C. §§ 20701, 20703 and 20705.

The "sell by" date has long since expired here.

[Armchair]

Perhaps you should check your law license... The law does not actually say the jurisdiction exists for only 22 months.

[not guilty]

The three statutes that I have cited, read in pari materia and construed narrowly, do indeed provide that, Armchair.

[Armchair]

They do not. The laws you have cited do not state that jurisdiction exists for only 22 months. Period.

[Riva]

So what Not Guilty? The records have long been under state court seal. According to the complaint, “On July 30, 2025, the State Election Board of Georgia passed a resolution calling upon the assistance of the Attorney General to effect compliance with voting transparency.” The AG then requested the records. The Clerk claims that a court order is required for production, and has refused a county election board subpoena and the AG’s request. The clerk does not claim that the records need not ever be produced.

[not guilty]

"The Clerk claims that a court order is required for production, and has refused a county election board subpoena and the AG’s request. The clerk does not claim that the records need not ever be produced."

The Clerk remains subject to process from any court with jurisdiction over the matter. For example, if a state court in Georgia ordered her to produce the records, she would be required to comply, and would refuse at her peril.

Here, however, the United States District Court has no such subject matter jurisdiction. Any order issued by that Court would accordingly be coram non judice, and the Clerk would not be required to comply therewith.

[Riva]

The clerk refused to comply with the state election board (I mistakenly noted county) and the AG. The AG cited all applicable authorities relied on by the board as well as federal law in its request. The clerk insisted on a court order. Whether the AG has any right to these records in this context is a matter for the federal court to decide in this federal declaratory action. If it is dismissed, then it is dismissed. But it was not frivolous. Your bombastic rhetoric is absurd,

[Riva]

Not Guilty, your comment is as frivolous and fraudulent as a WP anonymous source. The suit is against the Fulton county clerk because the records do exist and remain in the possession of the clerk allegedly under state court seal. The clerk refused to produce them without a court order. The DOJ federal suit seeks a declaration that the clerk’s “refusal to provide the election records upon demand by the Attorney General violates Title III of the Civil Rights Act as required by 52 U.S.C. § 20703” and an order to produce the requested records.

It’s a relatively short and simple action. How exactly could you possibly not understand it?

[not guilty]

Pam (bottle) Blondie is the second worst Attorney General in American history, and she is rapidly gaining on John Mitchell in that dubious regard.

[Riva]

Is there specific controlling case law that holds that the lapse of 22 months retroactively change the nature of the materials to render existing records that have been under court seal no longer "records” under 52 U.S.C. § 20701? The statute specifically only says that the specific federal criminal retention obligation ends at that point. If there is an issue here, this is why God created declaratory judgment actions. Why must you go to the absurd extreme of calling this a sanctionable frivolous action?

And, moreover, why shouldn't these records be produced for the sake of transparency? Isn't sunlight the best disinfectant?

[not guilty]

"Is there specific controlling case law that holds that the lapse of 22 months retroactively change the nature of the materials to render existing records that have been under court seal no longer "records” under 52 U.S.C. § 20701?"

Not to my knowledge. No prior Attorney General has been fool enough to litigate the question.

But per the plain language of § 20701, the records are not required to be retained and preserved beyond 22 months after a federal election. Section 20703 authorizes the Attorney General to demand only that a record or paper required by section 20701 to be retained and preserved for inspection, reproduction, and copying.

The maxim of statutory construction, inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, holds that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. After the expiration of 22 months, a record or paper is no longer one which is required by § 20701 to be retained and preserved. Sections 20701 and 20703, read together, exclude such records or papers from the category that the AG is authorized to demand.

Since 52 U.S.C. § 20704 deals with the subject matter jurisdiction of a federal court, it must be construed narrowly, and any ambiguity must be resolved against the exercise of jurisdiction. It is axiomatic that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. "It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, . . . and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction[.]" Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

[Riva]

No one is demanding the records be retained past 22 months on pain of criminal liability. That is not the issue. And to the extent there is an issue, that's why declaratory judgment actions exist. To settle any issue. And, again, why are you so opposed to transparency? Sunlight is no longer the best disinfectant? Withholding records is now better?

[not guilty]

"And, again, why are you so opposed to transparency? Sunlight is no longer the best disinfectant? Withholding records is now better?"

I see that you have no clue about federal subject matter jurisdiction. Whether granting access to the records to the Attorney General is or is not a good idea is irrelevant to the existence or nonexistence of such jurisdiction.

The Attorney General is free to sue in state court in Fulton County for access to the records in whatever manner that Georgia law provides. The United States District Court, however, is without jurisdiction order disclosure of such records more than 22 months after the election under the statutes that Congress has enacted.

In August 2022 these were records were required by 52 U.S.C. § 20701 to be retained and preserved. In October 2022 and thereafter, the same records were not required by § 20701 to be retained and preserved. Attorney General Garland's authority to demand inspection, reproduction, and copying of such records pursuant to § 20703 expired during the interim, and Attorney General Bondi has never had such authority. The federal district court accordingly has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant lawsuit.

[Riva]

Fortunately, Not Guilty doesn't get to unilaterally declare and decide all issues in this particular declaratory judgement action, including matters of jurisdiction. Even though Not Guilty would prefer the records at issue never see the light of day. Please don't ever have the fucking audacity to quote Louis Brandeis again.

[not guilty]

Riva, subject matter jurisdiction is the first question that a federal district court (or for that matter, any federal court) must address -- even in the absence of an objection. Statutes creating jurisdiction must be construed strictly, with any ambiguity being resolved against the exercise of federal jurisdiction.

Absent a Congressional grant of jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the action -- sua sponte if necessary --regardless of the wisdom or lack thereof of the policy as to which a plaintiff invokes jurisdiction.

[Riva]

You’re rather confused Not Guilty. I’ve never disputed that federal subject matter jurisdiction is irrelevant. I simply disagree with your statutory interpretation. And your selective preference for disclosures that favor your political views. Oh and I’ve pointed out how you and the other trolls here are obnoxious hypocrites who actually support sexism, again when it suits your politics.

[not guilty]

You have "never disputed that federal subject matter jurisdiction is irrelevant", Riva??

Is that what you meant to say?

The statutes at issue here may be inartfully drafted, and arguably are ambiguous. Under the rule of strict construction, however, if there both is a plausible interpretation that will support federal subject matter jurisdiction, and a plausible interpretation that will defeat such jurisdiction, the latter must prevail (based on the multiple authorities which I have cited upthread) and the federal courts accordingly have no jurisdiction to entertain the lawsuit.

To reiterate, on October 30, 2025 when the Attorney General made her purported demand of the Clerk in Fulton County, the requested records at that time were not required by § 20701 to be retained and preserved. The AG accordingly had no authority under § 20703 to demand them, and the Clerk is under no obligation to respond to such null and void "demand." A demand lawfully made pursuant to § 20703 is the sine qua non of the federal district court's jurisdiction created by § 20705.

Neither my "preferences" (nor yours) matter one whit. The Attorney General's remedy here, if there be any, arises under Georgia law.

[Riva]

To reiterate, you’re full of shit. The records don’t cease to be records under the statute because the criminal liability for failure to preserve or produce them has expired. Your failure to understand my objections is astonishing. Your sexism and genuine obnoxiousness though is quite expected.

[Frank Drackman]

Let me know when she murders 76 Men, Women, and Children like Janet Reno.

[Riva]

And AG Bondi (your sexist mockery says a lot about you and the democrat TDS deranged trolls here who are silent with respect to your offensive comment) is doing an excellent job. Most recently the DOJ has finally put an end to disparate impact liability.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One of the retro channels airs a Blondie (married to Bumstead, of the large sandwiches) film each Saturday morning.

Penny Singleton, who later was the voice of Jane Jetson, played the character. The actress became a labor organizer.

Singleton dyed her hair blonde for the role. A bit of trivia.

Blondie is also the name of a 1980s singer. She sang "Call Me," which was creatively used for a song about Charlemagne.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTTaVnZyG

OTOH, Pam Bondi is the attorney general.

[not guilty]

Some people get their blonde hair from their father's side.
Some people get their blonde hair from their mother's side.
Our Attorney General gets her blonde hair from peroxide.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Petty name-calling, including with a sexist edge, is a bit gauche.

[mulched]

On the one hand, his sexist name-calling shows him to be a misogynist. On the other hand, his racist name-calling shows him to be a bigot. So he's got that going for him.

[BrotherMovesOn]

I'm in agreement with JoeFromtheBronx here, with a big caveat in that NG provides a lot of content here weekly which is simply legal exposition, arguments and citations. Not having any Federal practice myself I find it helpful and it contributes to the comment section here. Once in a while he'll make comments about certain personalities.
Funny that it's another non- MAGA commenter who gently gives him a little' settle-down'. Attorney to attorney courtesy? Or maybe he thinks a non-MAGA will respond reasonably to such a mild reproach?
Mulched, I haven't seen you say jack about ThePublius', or Bumble's, or Pox123guy's, or Dr. Ed,'s or XY's or any of the other truly rascist and misogynistic commenters here (daily!)
All lay persons on a legal blog btw.
Only people apparently policing themselves are the non-MAGA here.
Let me know when you shake a finger at one of these voluminous targets and I'll retract.
Until then, like Dafoe said in To Live and Die in LA, you're not for real.

[mulched]

Lay persons commenting on a legal blog, quelle horreur!

Except it's not a legal blog, it's a law prof blog. The attorneys on here aren't qualified to comment unless they've taught law school.

Let me know your law school teaching background, and I'll accept your challenge.

[not guilty]

There is a dearth of commenters here who think like actual litigators. Lawsuits are not tried in a vacuum.

And this blog attracts an unfortunate number of dilettantes who, despite not knowing the first thing about persuading judges or jurors, pontificate inanely about legal matters.

David Dunning and Justin Kruger had a lot to say about that kind of foolishness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[BrotherMovesOn]

"The attorneys on here aren't qualified to comment unless they've taught law school."

LOL what a ridiculous comment.
Thanks for outing yourself.

[mulched]

Brother, what a joker! Claiming to be able to post on a blog for law professors without any teaching experience! You're not any more qualified than the non-lawyers you tried to drag.

[mulched]

NG, thanks for all the substantive comments you post here. Sincerely. You post interesting and informative comments from a perspective that few have.

Your racist and sexist comments are a stain.

[Riva]

Very sick. But gratifying how all the democrat troll champions here of gender equality have also jumped in to condemn this sexism.....oh wait...my bad... forget that part.

[ThePublius]

What an asshole comment.

[Ridgeway]

Mr. Picky would point out that Blondie was married to Dagwood and his eponymous sandwiches. Bumstead was their last name.

For more on said sandwiches, see, e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tcx_716heMw

[JoeFromtheBronx]

She was married to Dagwood Bumstead, often simply called "Bumstead" (usually in a critical fashion).

Yes, they were both Bumsteads. But, picky picky, she was still married to "Bumstead" (or Mr. Bumstead).

[Mr. Bumble]

@JoeFromtheBronx;
Blondie was the name of the group.
The hot blonde is Deborah Harry.
https://pagesix.com/2020/07/01/debbie-harry-turns-75-her-looks-through-the-years/#1
This was from 2020.

[David Nieporent]

Blondie is also the name of a 1980s singer. She sang "Call Me," which was creatively used for a song about Charlemagne.

Um, no. Ugh. Debbie Harry was the name of the singer. Blondie was the band.

EDIT: I see that Mr. Bumble already said that, but I hadn't scrolled down.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What is with all of the pirate tankers full of oil hanging out in the Gulf of America and Caribbean?

[Kazinski]

6 more tankers sanctioned.

Putin can't like that oil tankers carrying sanctioned oil can be siezed.

"Leavitt also said Trump would not be concerned "at all" to hear Russian President Vladimir Putin had called Maduro earlier in the day to offer Moscow's support "in the face of growing external pressure"."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz688jp90epo

Reports are the tankers are just sitting off the coast, no one wants to be the next to head into the terminal and load up.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, almost like we have a POTUS who can think Strategically.

[Armchair]

It would put significantly more pressure on Russia if the shadow oil fleet they are using to transport oil starts to be seized by American Warships.

[Frank Drackman]

Good idea, not like the Roosh-uns would respond with something to fuck us up, umm, I don't know, maybe another Pandemic, since except for the MAGA people, we're so eager to welcome every Tubercular Pan Handler from Marrakesh or Belize, might want to stock up on your Isoniazid.

Frank

[Kazinski]

And it would increase the risk of the policy too.

Ukraine attacked one of them.in the Black Sea earlier in the week, which will also help ratchet up the pressure.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That is a large part of how we won the American Revolution -- Privateers attacking British shipping adjacent to the British Isles. There was a growing pressure from British merchants to end the war.

Oil is organic, but it would rather suck for full tankers to start being sunk. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was 4.9 million barrels (approximately 205.8 million gallons) -- that's about 5 tankers. Sink 20 and it would be four times worse.

Do it in the Black Sea and, umm....

[Dr. Ed 2]

I didn't realize it until I checked -- the oil in the tanker is worth considerably more than the tanker itself.

If the ChiComs built a refinery to process the high-sulfur Venezuelan crude -- it'd be easy enough, they'd only have to copy the one that CITGO built in the 1950s -- then they would ONLY be able to process sour Venezuelan crude with it. For reasons that I don't understand, while sulfur poisons the catalysts of a regular refinery, one designed for high-sulfur crude can ONLY process high-sulfur crude.

This is one explanation as to why China is coming all the way over here after Vz crude when they can get a superior product far closer to home from Russia or Iran. Although I also think they are taking Cocaine as "deck cargo."

[Kazinski]

Not to the tankers owners.

It certainly can be very profitable to haul sanctioned oil, until you don't have a tanker anymore.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Oh, they're empty....

That makes a lot more sense.

[Kazinski]

The First Circuit has intervened in Talwani v Article I (also known as Planned Parenthood v. Kennedy).

A panel of 3 judges vacated Talwani's two injunctions requiring continuing payments to Planned Parenthood and its affiliates. No dissents, nobody wrote separately.

They quote Carolene products:
"The "Constitution presumes that, absent some reason to infer antipathy, even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic process and that judicial intervention is generally unwarranted no matter how unwisely we may think a political branch has acted.""

I don't think this will cure Talwani's case of Black Robe Fever, but who knows it might go into remission for a brief time.

[John F. Carr]

The OBBA limit on Planned Parenthood is not a bill of attainder because it is conditional on future acts. PP can avoid loss of funding by getting out of the abortion business. The OBBA is unlike a Cold War law that punished people for past communist sympathies.

The OBBA does not infringe on the right of association. It looks to corporate structure to decide who is "affiliated" with Planned Parenthood and so subject to the funding ban. Having a shared mission is not enough to be a covered affiliate. The government adopted this interpretation in a memo sent to states after the District Court enjoined the law. The First Circuit independently thought it was the correct interpretation. Because it does not infringe on the right of association Congress need only have a rational basis for the scope of the funding ban.

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1698P-01A.pdf

[John F. Carr]

There is a long list of amici. It looks like plaintiffs tried to recruit a politician from every municipality with a Planned Parenthood facility to sign onto a brief. For example, "Robin Wilt, Councilmember, Township of Brighton, New York". Only one red state heard from, Louisiana. A bunch of blue states shared a brief.

[Joe_dallas]

PP could also spin off their high profit program to a new entity, but they dont, perhaps its because they need that revenue stream. While PP is a tax exempt entity (501c3), it is still a profit driven entity.

[Armchair]

Perhaps she'll find another reason that we need to keep paying PP.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Will that Carolene footnote's sentiment be followed in the executive removal cases?

[Kazinski]

Barry Loudermilk current chair of the J6 congressional committee has said that all the pipe bomb footage from the planting and investigation of the DNC and RNC pipebombs has been erased and no longer exists, only the Jan 5 footage still exists.

Standard FBI procedure I am sure.

https://redstate.com/rusty-weiss/2025/12/12/j6-chair-makes-jaw-dropping-claim-pipe-bomb-videos-outside-rnc-and-dnc-deleteddoesnt-exist-n2197054

One other detail:
"U.S. Attorney Pirro tells @IngrahamAngle the D.C. pipe bomb suspect, Brian Cole Jr., kept a low profile and was "always wearing his headphones."

Probably listening to audio version of Catcher in the Rye.

[Sarcastr0]

You are such a trusting soul when you want to be.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like you're any different in that regard, except for the matter of who you want to trust.

[Sarcastr0]

No, I'm not like you two.

I look for multiple sources, which is why I'm not caught spending weeks pushing terrible nothingburgers like Kaz, nor going all in on personally generated stories like you.

I also choose my sources to have reporting standards, versus some Congressperson whose incentive is to rile up their base, and who tend to be more showhorse than smart journalist. This applies to Dems as well, which is why I don't post them as sources.

I also know the difference between 'allegedly'/'investigation is open'/'has declared' and an actual fact. Similarly, I do not post opinion to establish facts.

I do not think I'm immune to propaganda, or that I'm am super independent and don't trust any institutions except for myself. I understand the value of expertise, and of a standard and transparent process. I avoid blind trust, especially when a story is too good to check.

I'm into figuring out the truth, and contrarianism. It's why I originally started coming around here.
Part of that may be that I don't define myself by my politics, as some on here seem to. That doesn't mean I don't have a strong partisan lean, but it does mean I've got more heterodox opinions than those more into finding stories that validate their thinking. Of course I'm biased still, and I sure do get things wrong for that reason and others.
But even that I make the effort puts me well ahead of you two.

[Joe_dallas]

Multiple sources ?
CNN?
WP?
NPR?
NBC?
NYT?

Any objective and unbiased sources?

[Malika la Maize]

He’s literally commenting on a right leaning source in this very debate.

[Bwaaah]

Sarc: "I don't define myself by my politics"

You may not define yourself by your politics. But you sure do define others, such as me, by your politics.

You declare me "MAGA" in direct contradiction to my beliefs and the things I actually write, supported by nothing I ever wrote. ("I'm not going to waste my time looking back.") It's so plainly a case of, "If you're not for us, you must be against us," where "us" is the Democratic Party. Your heterodoxy, or any regard for it, seems to be left in a box somewhere at home.

You know this isn't a binary world (e.g. right vs. wrong). And yet, you argue here like it is. You castigate here like it is.

It's as if you are a troll, but only by accident.

[Malika la Maize]

I see Bari is checking in!

[Kazinski]

Sarcastro uses expert sources like 52 intelligence officers.

[Riva]

You choose your sources, little communist girl that never smiled? How does that work exactly when you jump on board WP bullshit based on anonymous sources?

[Commenter_XY]

All this, and vibes too. Who knew?

[Kazinski]

Were the surveillance tapes ever released 5 years now since the event?

I've never seen them

Was the Jan 5 tapes released twice, first a version that was degraded to 1 from a second, then the unaltered ones?

Yep.

Now if you've ever seen the Jan 6 DNC-RNC tapes please tell us, because that would contradict the Chairman.

When someone who should be in a position to know makes a statement, and it conforms to already publicly known facts then I generally do believe them.

And there are people who would be in a position to know who could contradict them. If Liz Cheney, or an FBI agent, or a DNC security officer, comes out and says that's not true, she has seen them then I will reassess.

[Mr. Bumble]

Will there be a Hallmark remake of Die Hard this Christmas?
Asking for a friend.

[Frank Drackman]

It's not any more a "Christmas Movie" than "Alien"
Now, I do love "A Christmas Story" surprised it hasn't been remade.
You know my "Secret Pleasure"??
Those Candace Cameron Bure Rom-Com's on Hallmark, at first Mrs. Drackman watched them, which meant I had to watch them, but after a while I started watching them myself, and if you want a Christmas Theme, check out
"The Heart of Christmas" (2011) have plenty of tissue

"Megan Walsh is a successful businesswoman who does not seem to have enough time for her husband and two children. While taking her children trick-or-treating during Halloween, she encounters a confusing situation in which many families are decorating for Christmas (which is nearly two months away). Their explanation is that they are trying to provide one last Christmas for Dax Locke, a toddler in their neighborhood who is dying of a rare form of leukemia. Curious, Megan reads Dax's mother Julie's blog and learns about the Lockes' journey. Inspired, Megan examines her own life and priorities."

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Will Judge Boasberg now attempt to hold the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in contempt for staying his contempt hearing that was scheduled for Monday?

[Malika la Maize]

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 90 percent of the shrimp Americans eat is imported, even along the coast.

So, this summer, the South Carolina Shrimpers Association, which Magwood heads, sued local restaurants they allege serve imported shrimp but falsely advertise as local. Some restaurants settled. Others denied the claims and appealed. Ultimately, a judge dismissed the federal suit saying the shrimper’s association, a nonprofit, did not have standing…

He says what shrimpers need is a truth in menu law, like Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas already have. It requires restaurants to disclose where they get their shrimp.

https://www.southcarolinapublicradio.org/sc-news/2025-12-04/lowcountry-shrimpers-fight-to-save-a-coastal-way-of-life

[Brett Bellmore]

Shouldn't the shrimper association simply have eaten at the restaurants, to establish standing?

[Mr. Bumble]

Why sue in federal court?

[not guilty]

"Shouldn't the shrimper association simply have eaten at the restaurants, to establish standing?"

Does a "shrimper association" have a gastrointestinal tract?

As to the individual members of the association, where is the injury in fact, which is redressable by any remedy that a federal district court could order?

[Malika la Maize]

Aren’t they harmed by lost sales due to the alleged fraud?

[hobie]

Illegal immigrant terrorist antisemitic tranny shrimp are the latest MAGA outrage!

[Frank Drackman]

Went into a Roadside Restaurant in Louisiana, asked if they served Crabs,
"We serve anyone!!!" the nice lady said,
then she recommended the "Boo-Dan Balls", which I was certain was a joke, I'm going to order the Boo-Dan Balls, and find out the Cook's name is "Boo-Dan"
They're delicious BTW, think Southern Hushpuppies, but with Sausage, Onions, Spices, mmm mmm! Once you have Boo-dan Balls in your mouth you'll want them in your mouth all the time!

Frank "so how are Deez Nuts??"

[jb]

Why does there need to be a truth in menu law here? I would assume that the default state of affairs is that merchants can't lie to me about the provenance of their products, so they shouldn't be allowed to say shrimp are local when they are in fact imported. That's different than a requirement that restaurants disclose the origin of their shrimp--it's fine if they just don't want to label it on the menu, but they shouldn't be able to actively lie to consumers.

[Armchair]

In other news, "AI" is pricing people differently for the same groceries.

Fascinating report. This was via InstaCart. 400 people bought groceries. Same store. Same time. Same delivery address. But InstaCart charged them different prices for the same item. Person A would be charged (for example) $2.99 for a dozen eggs. Person B would buy the exact same product at the exact same time from the exact same store with the exact same delivery address...but be charged $3.49

The AI was "grouping" people into separate baskets based on its views on their buying habits and jacking up prices on some people.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/09/study-instacart-ai-pricing-cost-of-groceries.html

Scary stuff honestly.

[Malika la Maize]

They call it surveillance pricing. The FTC was looking into it but when Trump came in they seemed to have dropped it.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-surveillance-pricing-study-indicates-wide-range-personal-data-used-set-individualized-consumer

[Armchair]

In other news, it's not all about Trump. Private groups have done fine in investigating this.

[Malika la Maize]

If you want it regulated in the next three years it’s quite a bit about Trump.

[Riva]

So what? Let the market decide. If some online retailers are charging more, people will go elsewhere. And certainly no brick and mortar store could price items differently for various practical and legal reasons.

[Brett Bellmore]

That sort of price discrimination is one of the few cases where I think there's a case for government regulation.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, yeah this offends my sense of fairness. So I'm down to ban the practice, but I'm into government regulation.

I don't see a great libertarian case to interfere with the market here. There is no market failure. If someone doesn't like the algorithm, they can shop elsewhere, etc. etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

How would they know?

[hobie]

Anyone can make an automated website scraper using Excel to lay seige to suspect shopping sites and try various purchasing scenarios. In other words, whoever is doing this will easily be outed and shunned. The market will take care of itself. I think.

[jb]

They can look at prices at other stores, or other delivery services? Like the exact same ways they'd use to compare prices that aren't set by algorithms.

[David Nieporent]

…or read the same article that Armchair just posted.

[Armchair]

"They can look at prices at other stores, or other delivery services?"

Fun fact. Instacart currently has 68% of the third-party grocery shopping market. Moreover, they serve multiple stores. So, you could look at a different store...but it would still be Instacart. 68% market share may not be a total monopoly, but it's high enough to have significant monopoly power.

[David Nieporent]

68% market share may not be a total monopoly, but it's high enough to have significant monopoly power.

You seem to have overlooked a key word there: "Instacart currently has 68% of the third-party grocery shopping market." Googling shows that Instacart has about 17% of the online grocery market, not 68%.

[Brett Bellmore]

I like free market theory, I'd love to try living in one some time. I'm sure as hell not living in one now.

As I said, I like free market theory, but I try to keep in mind that it's a theory, not a pre-determined law of nature, and it is based on a number of assumptions that aren't necessarily valid. And, it doesn't assume the good will of capitalists! "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." Capitalists are some of free market capitalism's greatest enemies.

Smith lived in a world where communications and computational resource limits put rather severe limits on network effects and economies of scale.

Now we've largely eliminated both limits, and we see that the frictionless market with unlimited computation tends towards monopoly. Large parts of the economy are monopolistic or close to it, and the firms in those parts of the economy act like it.

Now, I suspect that a lot of this is because of regulatory capture, but not all of it.

So, I think a free market, paradoxically, does need SOME regulation to function. But because of regulatory capture, an awful lot of regulation aims at preventing, not securing, a free market.

But I don't think banning price discrimination of the sort we're talking about falls into that destructive category.

[Sarcastr0]

So, I think a free market, paradoxically, does need SOME regulation to function.

Welcome to the progressive movement, Brett Bellmore!

I'm not sure what the psychological analysis of relying on constant telepathic findings of bad faith in implementation to prevent you from ever needing to advocate for your claimed economic worldview, but your commitment to the bit is impressive.

[Brett Bellmore]

Historically, progressives weren't regulating to maintain a free market, they were regulating to prevent a free market. FDR was very actively forcing businesses into cartels, not breaking them up.

[Bwaaah]

You couldn't possibly tolerate some obviously common ground with Brett. That would be a breach of your battle lines, I supposed. Or your ego. Or who-the-hell-knows?

Like you're still in the schoolyard.

[Malika la Maize]

lol, shorter Bari: “Democrats and leftists are always drawing lines, always so divisive, they’re so terrible, why do they have to be so “my side” binary and divisive!”

Phony baloney.

[Sarcastr0]

But Brett's *not* actually progressive, is the thing, Bwaah.

I am not your posting nemesis, you don't need to forget Brett's posting history to find an excuse to take me to task.

[Malika la Maize]

Overlooking any GOP or MAGA faults to circle back constantly to Dem or progressive faults (even if or maybe especially when they’re relatively slighter) is Bari’s modus operandi.

[Bwaaah]

Which part of this was you? Or was that supposed to be you doing Brett, in contradiction to what Brett said?

I mean, yeah this offends my sense of fairness. So I'm down to ban the practice, but I'm into government regulation.

I don't see a great libertarian case to interfere with the market here. There is no market failure. If someone doesn't like the algorithm, they can shop elsewhere, etc. etc.

[Sarcastr0]

Again: You don't need to forget Brett's posting history.

[Bwaaah]

No. I don't. But you need to pay attention to what he wrote, here, above, today. That's what I was responding to.

But for you...it's about other things.

You think I lost the thread? That thread in your head? The everything-in-your-head-Brett-ever-said thread? How the hell am I supposed to account for that? Why would I care? There's a discussion going on here, Sarc. Today. It would help if you would focus on *this* discussion, here, today.

Get your head in the game. Enough of the game in your head, treating me like that's not a total dodge.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The free market can only exist when there are no costs to entry, no barriers to entry.

We are a LONG way from those days!

[Armchair]

Indeed. It presents a scary level of control and way for corporations to discriminate against people they don't like.

[Bwaaah]

In theory, they could use it to discriminate against people they don't like. But more realistically, they'd use it to increase their profit margins with consumers who they think are likely to tolerate that.

And remember: we're talking about Instacart customers here. That level of service, of convenience, comes with substantial costs.

All that said, it's a practice that would be ripe for abuse. I suspect they will be seeing substantial blow-back from their customers. That's usually bad for business, even if it's "people they don't like." (It's about the money, not the people, but the two come as a package.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

The modern supermarket could use loyalty cards to offer different levels of discounts from the list price to different groups of customers. (The NAPA auto parts chain has been doing this for decades.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Back in the real world, corporations actually DO have a history of discriminating against people they don't like. Because, while corporations theoretically are profit maximizers, management are also personal profit maximizers, and screwing over people you don't like at the expense of your employer is a way to take profits that don't show up on your income taxes.

Look at any number of financial service companies, PayPal, various banks, which up and decided to reject profitable business in specific industries, sometimes because the government leaned hard on them to do so, but sometimes just because their management disapproved of perfectly legal activities.

[Sarcastr0]

Progressive means, for MAGA ends.

[Lee Moore]

That sort of price discrimination is one of the few cases where I think there's a case for government regulation.

Nah. "You f*cked up. You trusted us." "Us" being Instacart. Why would you trust Instacart unless and until it had establshed a solid reputation for getting you the best bargain ?

This is an excellent opportunity for competition between AI bots - some of which will establish themselves as assisting suppliers to price discriminate successfully - nothing wrong with that (ethically) if you can get away with it. The producer is just as entitled to duke it out for a share of the consumer surplus as is the consumer.

And some AI bots will establish themselves as reliable bargain hounds. And some will establish themselves as fairly good bargain hounds which are really easy to use, and will suit those who don't mind paying 0.025% more for ease of use.

Pretty quickly the first lot will be abandoned by everyone except the super-rubes. And from time to time one of the bargain hound bots will sell its reputation for a quick buck before going under. C'est la vie.

The governmemt must do something ! This is something, so we must do it !

Not.

[Armchair]

I think one of the issues is where this may go in the future. They're talking about putting digital prices on the shelves themselves, ones that can rapidly be updated as new people come through.

An online camera recognizes you via face matching, and increases the price of an item you're about to pick up off the shelf, because you "always" buy it.

[David Nieporent]

That’s one of those weird leftist dystopian notions that makes no sense in the real world. You don’t pay at the shelf; you pay at the register.

[Armchair]

Dumb objection.

If the system can track the price where you picked it up off the shelf, the system can track that price to when you pay for it.

[jb]

Yes, there are already stores that you just swipe a card when you enter and then they automatically charge you for the stuff you pick when you leave. No register even required. So in theory those prices could be fully dynamic, just as in an online shopping situation.

In practice it's more complicated since two people can be close enough to see a price at the same time, so it doesn't seem like the prices can be truly individualized unless there's not that many people in the store. Much more likely a store would use this to try to respond to short term supply/demand trends in general, like charging more when they're running low on a particular product.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, there are already stores that you just swipe a card when you enter and then they automatically charge you for the stuff you pick when you leave. No register even required.

If you’re revamping the entire store rather than just adding dynamic pricing, I guess. But it turned out that those experimental Amazon stores that could track as you put the stuff in your cart so you didn’t need to check out at a register were fake/marketing hype. In fact they relied on (not making this up) people in India watching you on camera as you shopped so they could track what you were buying.

In practice it's more complicated since two people can be close enough to see a price at the same time, so it doesn't seem like the prices can be truly individualized unless there's not that many people in the store.

Not to mention that if a couple or someone with kids is shopping, the person pulling it off the shelf and the person paying may be different people.

[Riva]

Why? if an online retailer wants to stupidly charge someone more, they'll eventually lose business.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not if they have enough market power to be an effective monopoly.

In fact, that's one of the ways you can tell when a market leader has accumulated enough market power to be a monopoly: It starts doing things it KNOWS pisses off it's customers, because, they don't really have anywhere else to go.

[Sarcastr0]

You sound like you have a lower definition of monopoly than me, even.

[Riva]

Is there any online retailer that could be said to hold a monopoly? Not even Amazon can claim that title. If they can’t, nobody can.

[TwelveInchPianist]

They also have to be able to prevent arbitrage.

[Absaroka]

I'll just point out that, writ large, this is not new. Businesses have always charged whatever price will maximize profit. It's hardly news that car dealers, for example, will absolutely set different prices for different people. Auctions - in person or ebay - set prices based on demand.

It wasn't practical in days of yore when supermarkets put price stickers on cans, but go to a Safeway today and you see '$5.99, Member Price $3.99, Online Coupon $2.99'. Airlines have been varying fares since reservations were computerized.

Generally speaking, I expect any business that can set prices electronically will be AB testing prices, whether to charge more and have 'free' shipping, setting prices based on customer location, buying history, yadda yadda. I know I routinely see different Amazon prices based on whether I'm logged in or not, from day to day, and God know what else.

As a consumer, I do the same in reverse, by using camelcamelcamel, shopping around, etc.

(not saying I like the pricing arms race. I think the 'all pharma companies have to sell to all comers at the same price (modulo, I suppose some bulk discounts or whatever)' thing is likely a good idea. I might support a carefully crafted uniform pricing law)

[Armchair]

"but go to a Safeway today and you see '$5.99, Member Price $3.99, Online Coupon $2.99'."

While true, I think the issue there is that people see the prices and can change their behavior to get the better price. It's a bigger issue when it's "hidden" and people can't see what the other price points are.

I would also differentiate this from big ticket items. The question is in the relative time-cost per item. For large items (houses, items at auction, etc), there is an expectation that more time committed to the process will net a better deal, and that will be worth it. But for small items, the time-cost savings isn't there. You can spend an hour or 5 negotiating the price of a car. But for a box of cereal? It's not effective.

[Malika la Maize]

Hours after Michael Virgil, 35, boarded a three-night cruise with his family last December, he was dead.

Last week, his fiancée, Connie Aguilar, filed a maritime wrongful-death complaint against the Royal Caribbean cruise line, which said that he was served 33 drinks and became agitated before he was forcibly restrained by crew members, whose use of excessive force, the federal lawsuit said, led to his death…

Mr. Virgil had purchased the deluxe beverage package from Royal Caribbean, which allows guests to order unlimited drinks…He later tried to find his room but got lost and became aggressive. According to the medical examiner’s report, based on a review of footage from cruise ship cameras and crew members’ body cameras, Mr. Virgil shouted profanities at other passengers and crew members and exhibited “violent and threatening behavior.”

At about 6 p.m., Mr. Virgil charged at crew members who were trying to subdue him and ended up splayed facedown on the floor of a stairwell, the report said. At least five crew members were “on top of him,” the medical examiner said, some of whom stood on his back, “possibly using their full body weight” for three minutes. Mr. Virgil stopped moving…

Ms. Aguilar’s federal lawsuit, filed in Miami, is being brought under the Death on the High Seas Act, which allows deaths caused by “wrongful act, neglect or default” that occur at sea beyond three miles from American shores to be tried on land in the United States. According to Mr. Shaffer, the act limits the amount of damages that can be awarded in these cases. They are usually directly related to the pain and suffering of the deceased and can be awarded only to those financially dependent on the person who died.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/travel/royal-caribbean-cruise-homicide-33-drinks.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Another George Floyd?
Seems there's a lot missing from this story. 33 drinks over what time frame? What was his blood alcohol level? Where any drugs (legal or illegal) involved?

[Malika la Maize]

Here’s a non-paywalled story:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna248408

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks. Still a lot of questions.
"At the captain’s request, crew members administered a sedative and sprayed him with pepper spray, the lawsuit said.

This treatment led to respiratory failure, cardiac arrest and Virgil’s death, it continued.

The Los Angeles County Medical Examiner ruled the death a homicide. It said Virgil died from the combined effects of mechanical asphyxia, which is when force or an object blocks breathing; obesity; an enlarged heart and alcohol intoxication."
From your link.

[Malika la Maize]

Agreed. My take is the cruise company shouldn’t be liable but I doubt I’ve got all the facts.

[hobie]

Like I'm inferring below, whether the alcohol (fentanyl) killed him or the officer on his neck killed him is invariably proportional to the level of skin pigmentation

[hobie]

Let's check Mr. Virgil's skin color to see if we give a fuck...

[checking...]

Nope.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, didn't realize he was a White guy.

[hobie]

I think he's more George Floyd than Charlie Kirk, Frankie.

[Mr. Bumble]

Look at the video.

[Frank Drackman]

You mean a worthless woman beating drug addict piece of shit?? Man, you really can't recognize Sarcasm, can you?

[Frank Drackman]

Never understood the allure of Cruises, of course my only experience on ship was the USS Tortuga (food wasn't bad but the Wine List sucked) for a month, but from what I've heard of the Clientele, I'd need 33 Drinks.

[not guilty]

"Ms. Aguilar’s federal lawsuit, filed in Miami, is being brought under the Death on the High Seas Act, which allows deaths caused by “wrongful act, neglect or default” that occur at sea beyond three miles from American shores to be tried on land in the United States. According to Mr. Shaffer, the act limits the amount of damages that can be awarded in these cases. They are usually directly related to the pain and suffering of the deceased and can be awarded only to those financially dependent on the person who died."

Does comparative negligence apply? (Not a rhetorical question; I don't know whether it does or doesn't.)

[John F. Carr]

The Ninth Circuit allows juries to find comparative negligence in any amount: https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/130

The Supreme Court long ago recognized that contributory negligence did not apply in admiralty cases. Pope and Talbot v. Hawn, 346 US 406 (1953).

[Malika la Maize]

An environmental conservation group filed a lawsuit to halt federal plans to decorate next year’s national parks pass with an image of President Donald Trump’s face, arguing that federal law requires the pass to feature the winner of an annual nature photography competition instead.

The standard America the Beautiful pass for 2026 unveiled last month by the Interior Department, features side-by-side portraits of George Washington and Trump to mark the 250th anniversary of America’s founding. The annual pass typically has shown a photo of wildlife or the natural landscape taken on public lands or waters.

The Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming the pass would violate a 2004 federal law and cause “recurring aesthetic harm” to passholders.

The lawsuit cites the 2004 Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which requires the secretaries of the interior and agriculture to “jointly hold an annual competition” to select a winning image to appear on the pass. The National Park Foundation’s competition rules state that submitted photos must “capture a moment that has been experienced on America’s federal public lands and waters.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/12/11/national-parks-pass-trump-photo/

[hobie]

A little East Wing action on Mount Rushmore seems more plausible by the day.

[hobie]

"The National Park Foundation’s competition rules state that submitted photos must “capture a moment that has been experienced on America’s federal public lands and waters.”"

Simples. An Iwo Jima-style pic of MAGA patriots hoisting the Trump flag on top of a pile of policemen. It did happen on federal public land after all.

[bloocow2]

So, I know he's doing this to keep his name in the news, and to piss off lefties.

But shouldn't this piss *everyone* off? Not just this, but everything else? The pettiness, the corruption, the vanity, the broken promises, the abuse of presidential power to enrich himself, the building of a f***ing ballroom at the White House while America is in an affordability crisis.

I get that previous presidents have been very far from perfect. But he's president now! How on Earth can anyone still support this clown? Is angering liberals really worth that much?

[Dr. Ed 2]

He could have come back and simply "disappeared" his enemies.

Think of what Lyndon Johnson would have done under similar circumstances -- and look up what LBJ did if you don't know -- Nixon was a Boy Scout by comparison.

Instead, he's just "mooning" them.

OK, childish -- but a heck of a lot more respectful for the system.

[John F. Carr]

Everyone doesn't matter. A handful of House Republicans and 15 Senate Republicans matter. Go get their constituents angry. The Democrats in Congress will impeach Trump for eating a ham sandwich if that's what it takes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This shows that it really isn't about issues after all.

Trump Derangement Syndrome really is a mental illness. This is a piece of paper, damn it, and if you are so offended, don't buy it.

Seriously, don't buy it. End of problem.

[Malika la Maize]

The sign of derangement is supporting this vainglory thing contrary to practice, purpose and seemingly the law. Cultish derangement.

Also, it’s the pass for the parks not a random piece of paper.

[bloocow2]

It really is amazing to me how rusted on some of his supporters are. He could literally kill someone in broad daylight and they'd find some way to justify it in their minds.

Just say that he did a bad thing! It's ok! Not everything needs to be a fight!

[Malika la Maize]

He’s literally bragged about that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's still a piece of paper, and he's doing this because he knows it will get you upset. Sophomoric...

[Malika la Maize]

That is very sophomoric of a person who is supposed to be the President of the United States.

This is the thing about MAGA, the former “party of personal responsibility” doesn’t fault Trump for his sophomoric antics, they fault you for pointing it out.

[bloocow2]

I'll concede that "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is a real thing, where people criticise him for some things that a) aren't especially abnormal, or b) aren't unique to him. He does drive people crazy!

But that shouldn't be a shield against any and all criticism of the guy. Even presidents you like can do things that you don't like, right? Why not be honest about that, instead of treating everything as an attack that must be defended?

[bloocow2]

It might also be a cultural thing. I live in Australia, and cannot possibly fathom liking a political leader here to the extent that I'd defend them no matter what. We're very sceptical of our politicians!

[Brett Bellmore]

Much of the time defending a political leader concerning specific things gets described as "no matter what".

[hobie]

You're gonna have to come up with some other reason people are preoccupied with all the naked Trump corruption. I think its more about the corruption part and less the Trump part.

[jb]

Here's my take on TDS. For folks on the left, it shows up like this: if you could imagine some other hypothetical President doing the thing and it would be okay, but there's a violent reaction against it just because Trump is doing it, there's probably some TDS going on. As examples: trying to broker peace between Cambodia and Thailand, or the initial skepticism to efforts around Covid vaccination from the left.

Much more common, is TDS from the MAGA crowd: if you imagine any President doing something and it would have been strongly opposed by the right, but it becomes magically okay because it's Trump doing it. Examples: Washington DC gun crackdown; pardons for drug traffickers, scammers, and corrupt politicians; forcing companies to give up portions of their ownership to the US government in exchange for regulatory favors; or putting his name and face wherever he can on federal government programs and property.

So yes, this is a pretty good example of TDS. But TDS from MAGA folks somehow trying to normalize yet more of Trump's insanity.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It's not "TDS" or whatever to distrust someone who earns your distrust. Some people can't be trusted & people are wary about them even when they don't do anything wrong. It's a safe bet if not always a correct one. It's the boy who cries wolf problem.

[Michael P]

"arguing that federal law requires the pass to feature the winner of an annual nature photography competition instead."

Resolving this is easy: Donald Trump takes the best pictures. Just ask anybody, they will tell you that his photographs have the most tasteful composition and are much more beautiful than anything less gilded.

[Malika la Maize]

Seems he’s wrote some pictures, too!

[Bwaaah]

Everybody says he takes the best pictures. And he takes a _lot_ of pictures. More pictures than anybody else in history.

And people say he looks presidential. That's not easy to do. But he did it, better than anybody. He's the most presidential looking president ever.

[SRG2]

This reminds me of the joke of the USSR Culture Minister announcing a sculpture competition to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Pushkin's death.

Third prize went to a statue of Pushkin holding a book of Pushkin's works. Second prize went to a statue of Stalin holding a book of Pushkin's works. The winning prize went to a statue of Stalin holding a book of Stalin's works.

[Estragon]

Here is the complaint:

https://biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/pdfs/251210-25-4285-01-Cmplnt-CTR.pdf

Ed unintentionally says something revealing. Wanting Interior and Agriculture to follow the law on the creation of these passes is actually evidence of TDS. Following the law is derangement if it is against Trump’s wishes. They are openly saying it.

[John F. Carr]

I don't think plaintiffs have standing. Buyers of passes are forced to admire Trump's face instead of seeing a nonpartisan picture of Glacier National Park that doesn't even show glaciers. They are offended observers.

[jb]

They should just start a religion that doesn't allow for images of currently living people. Would allow you to get out of a lot of awkward group picture situations as well.

[Estragon]

Yes, standing is its own inquiry. Doesn’t really inform whether they are violating the FLREA

[Malika la Maize]

When students in Catherine Hartmann’s honors seminar at the University of Wyoming took their final exams this month, they encountered a testing method as old as the ancient philosophers whose ideas they were studying.

For 30 minutes, each student sat opposite Hartmann in her office. Hartmann asked probing questions. The student answered.

Hartmann, a religious studies professor who started using oral examinations last year, is not alone in turning to a decidedly old-fashioned way to grade student performance.

Across the country, a small but growing number of educators are experimenting with oral exams to circumvent the temptations presented by powerful artificial intelligence platforms such as ChatGPT.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/12/12/ai-artificial-intelligence-college-oral-exam/

[hobie]

I was thinking last night how comparatively less educated students are going to become with AI doing all the lifting. But as long as all electronic devices are checked at the door, why wouldn't traditional exams still be valid?

[Malika la Maize]

I liked this analogy from the story:

Hartmann tells her students that using AI is like bringing a forklift to the gym when your goal is to build muscle. “The classroom is a gymnasium, and I am your personal trainer,” she explains. “I want you to lift the weights.”

[not guilty]

"Across the country, a small but growing number of educators are experimenting with oral exams to circumvent the temptations presented by powerful artificial intelligence platforms such as ChatGPT."

Makes sense to me. I recall the handwritten bluebook exams during law school in the mid-1980s.

[John F. Carr]

Underperforming students will need to find a doctor to write a note saying that the student's disability is incompatible with traditional exam methods.

[Frank Drackman]

To get Bored Certified in Anesthesia you have to pass a Written Exam, THEN you get to do Oral.
Of course we practice them all during Residency, part of it is to make up the most fucked up case you can imagine (at the Old Walter Reed every case was like that)
"OK, Doctor, you have a 98 year old Male for an Emergency Craniotomy for an Intracranial Bleed, he's in a Cervical Collar, with a bleeding Peritonsillar Abscess, perforated Appendix, he just had a 3 Vessel CABG/AVR, on Coumadin for a Post Op PE, oh, and has a history of Malignant Hyperthermia, and is allergic to "Caine" Local Anesthetics, oh yeah, he's a Jehovah's Witness so you can't transfuse him.
"Go"!

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK. Inquiring minds want to know.

WTF *do* you do???

[Frank Drackman]

(Dr. Evil Voice)
"Lets just do what we usually do, General Anesthesia(which can trigger Malignant Hyperthermia, so we'll have every vial of Dantrolene in the Hospital standing by) but with an awake Fiberoptic intubation first so we can protect and secure the airway, we'll risk the allergic reaction by spraying his throat with 4% Topical Cocaine (No, not from my Personal Stash, the legal Schedule II kind*) Vitamin K standing by to reverse the Coumadin, and we had him sign the consent for blood products by umm, not telling him what he was signing, (do YOU read everything you sign? I don't)
Once the tube's in, we'll give a whiff of Isoflurane, a dab of Droperidol ("Brain Cement" in the Gas Passer Lingo) and Paralyze (never say "Paralyze" around a Neurosurgeon) him with some Vecuronium to keep him from just walking away from the whole situation,
You actually got a better grade for "Thinking outside the Box"
"Key Word" was "Emergency" you can't just cancel the case if it's an "Emergency" It can be an Emergency Circumcision (I did one once, for Priapism with Paraphimosis (You think one Phimosis is bad, try a Pair of them! Get it? a "Pair" of Phimosis's??)
Now if it's an "Elective" Case that's the Train Wreck you fail for NOT cancelling it, even though in the Real World you'd probably $$$ do $$$$ it $$$$$ anyway, like Airliners, those OR's don't make money when you're not using them.

Frank

*" The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery considers cocaine to be a valuable anesthetic and vasoconstricting agent when used as part of the treatment of a patient by a physician. No other single drug combines the anesthetic and vasoconstricting properties of cocaine."
Plus it'll (redacted) you up when you "waste" what you didn't use on the Patient after the case.

[not guilty]

I was in law school when the Coca-cola company introduced the New Coke debacle. In the wake of that, they brought out Coca-cola Classic, which was touted as being made from the original formula.

To say the least, I was skeptical of that claim. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/25/fact-check-coke-once-contained-cocaine-but-likely-less-than-claimed/8008325002/

[Mr. Bumble]

Seriously. You're a bigger dope than your comments imply.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I prefer Moxie.

[Bwaaah]

Nice fake doctor talk there, Frank. Hobie and Malicia can chime in to finish the job for me.

You can't fool us. (The mis-capitalized words are a dead giveaway.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Nice fake doctor talk there, Frank."

Wait, you mean Frank's not qualified to take sperm samples?!?

[hobie]

I think patients (especially blacks or females) should be informed if their quack anesthesiologist is a racist misanthrope. Who knows when his inner Dahmer will surface and put a little air bubble into your tranny vein just to show you who's superior

[Frank Drackman]

Takes 20-200cc of air in a vein to be a problem (Your Venous Air Embolism Mileage may vary) It's really a problem in Pediatric Anesthesia where your patients may be 1/30th the size of your Chirst Christie Adults, so divide that 20-200 by 30. At Children's in DC we'd "Sleep" the Brats in an "Induction Room", maybe 10x15 feet so the Mom or Grandma could come back (it was DC) Since Children are smart and want nothing to do with Surgeons, you'd have to hold the mask on their face like the Boston Strangler, once they're limp, THEN you start your IV, while continuing to mask them, then push your paralytic and put the tube in, So picture this, you're holding the mask with either your left or right hand, and trying to stick an IV in a kid's vein (the Volatile Anesthetics do cause the veins to get larger) with your other hand, then take a Laryngoscope in one, and put an ET Tube in with the other, then roll the kid down the hall to the OR like that 3 Stooges episode ("Men in Black") and since your typical Peds case may take 15 minutes max, you've got 10 of these to do, made me long for a nice simple 15 hour TSRH Spine case
The Pediatric Attendings at Children's really would give you shit if you had any Air bubbles in your IV lines (Oh, and you had to spike 10 IV bags for your 10 Cases ahead of time to save time) There was this Pakistani Resident we'd fuck with, sneak in his room between cases and shake his IV bags so they looked like friggin Alka Seltzer,

Frank

[hobie]

Frankie, you try too hard to impress with jargon. Typical insecurity. Would be like me describing my own dick. No one wants to hear about neither.

[Frank Drackman]

They didn't emphasize Grammar at Fake Doctor Medical School

[Bwaaah]

Not everybody spends so much time on what matters not. Many, however, do.

[MoreCurious]

AI is Frank's newest and best friend. It's so much easier now for him to make up crap that sort of sounds like it could have been written by a medical person. But his grammar, spelling, and juvenile jokes continue to reveal that he's nothing more than a pathetic teenager sitting in his mother's basement trying to figure out why he's not one of the popular kids.

[Frank Drackman]

Am I the only one curious about this Fired Michigan Coach's Booty Call??
Dude lost $5,000,000 in Salary/Incentives, and I don't think Mrs. Coach is going to let him off with some Counseling.
That has got to be some Prime Grade A Snatch to risk that much for...
OTOH, maybe Auburn hired their new Coach too soon.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

It’s being reported he followed a bunch of college aged women on social media like OnlyFans and attended a P Diddy party once. Maybe a porn/sex addiction?

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/onlyfans-model-says-fired-michigan-coach-sherrone-moore-slid-into-her-dms-wasnt-surprised.amp

[not guilty]

I recall a story about the young woman who rode on the back of Bobby Petrino's motorcycle, who received an attractive offer from a prospective employer to bring her back for a second round of interviews, including first class airfare to and from.

She declined, explaining that she preferred to ride coach.

[Malika la Maize]

Good one.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Ohhhhh..........................

[Dr. Ed 2]

My take is more like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfGwwuiUJw8

Now if they have a no fraternization policy she should be fired too but she won't be.

[Mr. Bumble]

Poon Tang, is there anything it can't do?

[hobie]

Uh oh. When Frankie and MichaelP get all excited about an apolitical happening, it's usually a black on pretty white girl thing. Better check photos...

[Checking...]

Yep.

[Michael P]

Hallucinating hater hobie writes fiction yet again. I haven't commented on this story at all. I don't follow sports, and have no interest in the romantic intrigues of the people involved in this story. My general opinion is that it's terrible when people cheat on their spouses, and that is as specific as I care to be because I care very little about college football, even less about its coaches, and effectively not at all about their private lives.

Edited to add: Actually, I do wish people would stop talking about this story because I would rather hear about thousands of other topics rather than this. I will say that about this specific affair.

[Frank Drackman]

Except for Black Politicians, who do everything for Image, most Successful Black Men enjoy the White Meat.

[Armchair]

In other news, Europe is considering joining the US's tariff war against China.

Seems that after Trump put large tariffs on China, China pivoted and started exporting more to Europe. Lots more. And that is undercutting European businesses. So, now Europe is considering slapping hefty tariffs on China as well.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/eu-nations-weigh-tariffs-on-china-following-trumps-lead-on-trade-deficits/ar-AA1RYH0H

Hmm.

[hobie]

China is pulling light years away from everyone in EV tech. Europe and Africa both want to go 100% renewable because its cheaper and better. So they are going to preferentially buy from China rather than buying our 'clean coal' bullshit.

[ThePublius]

" Europe and Africa both want to go 100% renewable because its cheaper and better."

So-called renewables are neither cheaper nor better than fossil and nuclear. Where did you get that silly idea?

[hobie]

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

COST PER kW

Coal - $4074
Nuclear - $6695
Natural Gas - $922-$2630
Hydro - $3083
Wind - $1718
Solar - $1327

[Michael P]

That coal plant will last a lot longer and be a lot more steady than wind or solar.

And from that same table:
Offshore wind - $4833 to $6041
Solar thermal/concentrated - $7895
Solar PV with storage - $1748

One hazard inherent to the energy storage that you left out: https://www.sfgate.com/california/article/california-battery-plant-blaze-spread-heavy-metals-21221386.php

[Armchair]

Indeed. It's worth considering the cost per kwh.

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-coal-fired-power-cost-79-kwh-and-wind-power-1502-kwh-44956

It's kinda odd. If you built a 100 MW Coal power plant, you get 100 mW...24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you build a 100 MW Solar plant, you get 100 MW...on a sunny day, at noon. Half the time you get zero output. Another 25% of the time you get less than 50 MW.

[hobie]

Solar thermal/concentrated - $7895

Pfft...everyone knows that tech didn't work out. I remember passing by such an installation on the Andalusian plain outside Sevilla in Spain. From miles away that spooky glow on top of the tower looked otherwordly.

Now then, you travel to the windy Gibraltar area and you wade into an ocean wind turbines as far as the eye can see. 60% of Spain's electricity comes from renewables. It's now a net exporter of over 10,000 GW

Also, sure, a coal plant can last 100 years. But that's 100 years of expensive mining too. No need to mine sun and wind

[Brett Bellmore]

The real issue is that people don't want 100KWH that shows up whenever it feels like it. They want 100KWH that shows up when they WANT 100KWH.

So, if you're comparing a nuke or coal plant that's got 98% availability, with the outages for maintenance scheduled months in advance, with solar or wind, you have to include in the solar/wind price whatever secondary systems are necessary for it to provide 98% availability with the downtime being scheduled months in advance.

For solar that's typically maybe 16 hours storage and enough over-build that you get 24 hours worth of power in 8 hours, not on a sunny summer day, but an overcast day in the middle of January. But at least it's possible for solar, because the Sun does rise every day.

For wind, in MOST places, no plausible amount of storage and overbuild will get you to the reliability of conventional sources, because wind is only available on a statistical basis, and can occasionally go away for weeks at a time. But that's most places, and if you're in one of the places that have very consistent wind, wind power probably does make sense.

Most of the "levelized" comparisons I've seen that make solar and/or wind look good are aiming for something well short of 98% availability with predictable downtime, of course. They tend to assume either public tolerance for occasional brownouts, or that there are still enough conventional sources around to cover the gaps...

[Sarcastr0]

Your static view of an area in worldwide R&D ferment remains myopic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So Gaslight0 is going to make the sun shine at night -- which arrives at 4:30 this time of year...

[ThePublius]

What does that mean? Brett made a very reasonable and easily justifiable comment on renewable vs. conventional electricity generation. He's correct. Are you assuming that something like Moore's Law applies to wind and solar generation? If you are, you are mistaken.

Virtually ALL renewable generation installations depend upon conventional power generation to 'level' the load. Those are powered by gas or coal.

The future is nuclear, only because the enviro-whackos prevented it from being the present. Far smaller footprint, far, far, more reliable energy output. Germany committed energy suicide when they (Merkel) panicked and decommissioned their nuke plants.

We should be building nuke plants, not wrecking the land (solar) and sea (wind) environments with unreliable 'renewable' power.

[Michael P]

You might have a point if someone had invented an electricity plant powered by imagination. As it is, you only have your usual personal attacks based on your own ignorance.

[Frank Drackman]

Trump's great line from 2016,
"Honey, I'd like to watch Television, is the wind blowing?????"

[Kazinski]

Your chart is capital cost of new construction, if you go with wind then you have to build the wind AND the coal generation, or gas if you have it.

If you look at the states with the highest percentage of Wind power they all have pretty low rates, almost all of them have coal as the 1st or 2nd highest single source:

IState %Wind %fossil fuel
Iowa 63% 35%
South Dakota 58% 18%
Kansas 48% 48%
Oklahoma 44% 54%
North Dakota 37% 59%
New Mexico 35% 60%
Nebraska 31% 52%
Colorado 37% 64%
Minnesota 26% 42%
Texas 22% 65%

Iowa has an amazing 63% wind, the rest is coal #2, and gas #3.

Nebraska is 31% wind, 47% Coal, 14% nuclear.

Iowa is great, but they still can't get by without the coal plant.

[SRG2]

Well, definitely better, and cheaper may be merely a matter of tech generations.

[ThePublius]

And maybe someday pigs will fly.

[Michael P]

Generic engineering works wonders, but not that wonderful.

[SRG2]

There is actual evidence of tech improving generation after generation. One may even note that it is an inherent characteristic of tech that each generation is better and cheaper than the previous.

Or perhaps you're adopting a faith-based approach, that renewables can't get better and cheaper each generation because if they did, you'd be wrong, which is the Antipublius Heresy.

[Armchair]

"China is pulling light years away from everyone in EV tech"
No, they're not. But if you have any facts here....

"Europe and Africa both want to go 100% renewable because its cheaper and better. "
They do not. Among other items, 100% renewable just isn't reliable. There's a reason that Spain's power grid collapsed.
https://www.public.news/p/over-reliance-on-renewables-behind

"rather than buying our 'clean coal' bullshit."
There's a little bit of a contradiction here. If China's EV is so good, why are the leading the world in coal imports?

[Mr. Bumble]

"If China's EV is so good, why are the leading the world in coal imports?"
To build and power their "clean" EVs.

[jb]

"There's a little bit of a contradiction here. If China's EV is so good, why are the leading the world in coal imports?"

I know that rolling coal has become popular with the rednecks these days, but you know that's just a euphemism, right? IC engines don't actually run on coal.

[Armchair]

"I know that rolling coal has become popular with the rednecks these days, but you know that's just a euphemism, right? IC engines don't actually run on coal."

Well, we're all technically mixing and matching a few different items here. There's a difference between electricity generation (renewable/coal) versus automobile power sources (IC/EV).

But if we're worried about carbon emissions and using renewables, then it's the first category (electricity generation) which is arguably more important. If you have a fleet of EVs, but you're using electricity generated from coal power to charge them up, it's arguably worse than just having IC cars.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump is known for playing three dimensional chess.

[SRG2]

Cultists are known for idiotically thinking that Trump is playing three-dimensional chess.

[Frank Drackman]

Unless you're playing on an old 386 Computer all Chess is "Three Dimensional".
Are you a Pusher of the Wood? Sometimes the biggest Idiots are Fantastic Chess Players. I've been playing since I was 8 and still suck at it, Oh, I know a fair number of Openings, and the common End Games, it's that damn "Middle Game" that gets me every time, which is like saying you have a pretty good Foo-bawl Team except for that Blocking, Running, and Passing part.

Frank "Where's my Horsie??"

[Dr. Ed 2]

What bothers me about China is that paper that they would win in a war.

[Armchair]

In other news, Japan said something a month ago that infuriated China.

"Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has said that a Chinese military attack on Taiwan, including a naval blockade, could constitute a “survival-threatening situation” that would justify Japan’s Self-Defense Forces providing support under its right of collective self-defense. Her remarks mark one of the strongest statements by a Japanese leader on a potential Taiwan conflict.

Speaking at a parliamentary budget committee session on November 7, Takaichi said Japan would have to make a “comprehensive assessment” of the situation before taking action. She noted that while a line of Chinese civilian ships encircling Taiwan would not meet that threshold, a full-scale blockade accompanied by military combat would."

https://kyodonews.org/nation/takaichi-says-chinese-attack-on-taiwan-could-trigger-japans-self-defense-response/

[hobie]

Does anyone know how to train a dog? I have a super-smart border collie named Tuck. He was abandoned at my mansion earlier this year by an Airbnb guest.

Although weed (and abortion!) is constitutionally legal here in Ohio, I still like to get my $20 bag from my street dealer. $20 of pot makes me about 6 months worth of bedtime sleep aid edibles.

Now I have it in my mind that the height of entertainment would be to be able to teach Tuck to go to the driver's window of the dealer when he pulls up. The dealer will take the $20 from Tuck's collar and replace it with my weed bag. Not only will this be hilarious, but it will be consequence free for hobie, because it will be Tuck that makes the purchase.

All I require in life from a dog is Git! and Come!. Which Tuck does exceptionally well. But how do I train a dog to 'Go over there for a second!'?

[ThePublius]

I have trained hunting dogs. Border collies are quite biddable, but also have very strong herding instincts; so, it's not clear to me what you could train a border collie to do. He might just bring the dealers home!

[Dr. Ed 2]

"but it will be consequence free for hobie, because it will be Tuck that makes the purchase."

Consult competent counsel on that....

[Kazinski]

The UK Telegraph has more disturbing information about the "disturbing" Epstein Estate photo released of Trump and the "black box" women. They tracked down one of the woman and identified the event:

" I tracked down the women pictured with Donald Trump and kept by Jeffrey Epstien.

One of the women in the photo taken in 1998 at Mar-a-Lago described the president as a ‘gentleman’

She could not recall neither Ghislaine Maxwell or Epstien at the event."

https://x.com/connor_stringer/status/1999568524503621790

Full quote:
“I was 22 years old and remember him being very nice. He was very gentlemanly, that’s the word to describe him,” she told the publication.

The Telegraph reports that the image appears to be from 1998. And wouldn't you know it, Trump had participated as a VIP guest at the 1998 Miss Hawaiian Tropic International Pageant.

One of the reporters on that story further pointed out on X that the model "could not recall neither Ghislaine Maxwell or Epstein (being) at the event."

The walls are closing in.

[hobie]

So it was a non-Epstein public pageant event, yes? That a photo from it wound up in Epstein's archives is probably the more relevant issue.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it was a non-Epstein event involving adults, not minors.

The original newspaper photo, of course, showed the faces of the participants. So they obscured the faces in the copy they released to mislead people.

[hobie]

Good point. The face redactions were suspiciously unnecessary.

[Josh R]

Releasing the photos without context or dates is unfair to the subjects and distracts from the victims' search for justice.

[Sarcastr0]

How soon till Trump does some symbolic gesture and declares he won the War on Christmas?

[hobie]

He can destabilize Venezuela enough that it becomes an actual narco-terrorist state. Then pacify it with some Gaza-level genocide and...BOOM!...Nobel

[Josh R]

Yesterday, Trump announced on Truth Social that Thailand and Cambodia have agreed to stop all shooting effective Friday night. The Thai prime minister said he made no such agreement, instead claiming he told Trump he would stop shooting only when Cambodia withdrew it's forces and cleared land mines.

Will Trump admit he lied? Will he increase tariffs on Thailand?

[Mr. Bumble]

It's Saturday. Has the shooting stopped?

[Josh R]

No. It continued on Friday night into today.

[hobie]

Remember the Thai skirmish earlier this year that resulted in a quick ceasefire? Trump claimed he did that. And the Thai president said, then as now, 'You did absolutely fuck all!"

[Kazinski]

What a liar.

See the October 27 photo captioned:
"US President Donald Trump, right, looks on as Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet, center, and Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul hold up a ceasefire agreement in Kuala Lumpur yesterday."

But here is the real issue of the war which Trump can't fix:

Thai PM dissolves parliament to 'return power to people'
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3v11rd200yo

The Thai Oligarchy-military party lost the last election, coming in third with 10% of the vote. The Military then ginned up the war, the Supreme Court deposed the PM, and somehow the Oligarchies candidate who got only 10% of the vote in 2023 got installed as PM a few months ago.

Now he has dissolved.parliament and its too early to end the war until the election.

Its all a wag the dog.

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2025/10/27/2003846158

[David Nieporent]

See the October 27 photo captioned:
"US President Donald Trump, right, looks on as Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet, center, and Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul hold up a ceasefire agreement in Kuala Lumpur yesterday."

"I stood nearby while they announced a ceasefire" is not "I ended the war."

[Estragon]

“Today is Fentanyl Awareness day […] [i]n President Trump’s first 100 days we’ve seized over 22 million fentanyl laced pills, saving over 119 Million lives.”

The Attorney General said this the other day. Trumpists, can you help me with these numbers? They strike me as… implausible. Is this one of those situations where the claim is to be taken seriously, but not literally?

[ThePublius]

It's just a metric that's probably not very useful. How much fentanyl is a fatal dose? How much fentanyl was seized? Divide the latter by the former.

Who cares. We need to get that shit off the streets.

[Estragon]

“Divide the latter by the former.”

Are you suggesting someone in the Trump Administration actually put pen to paper and did calculations to arrive at that number?

“Who cares”

Ah yes, the eternal Trumpist rejoinder.

[ThePublius]

"Ah yes, the eternal Trumpist rejoinder."

I guess I should have said:

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

[Estragon]

So, not accurate, but in the words of Scott Adams “directionally true”?

[John F. Carr]

This is a standard exaggeration used well before Trump. Imagine a jar of a dangerous substance — fentanyl, plutonium, botulin, whatever. Divide the full amount into a million lethal doses. Inject a million people with a lethal dose. Your jar contained enough poison to kill a million people. In theory. In reality it never would.

[jb]

That's a different way of expressing it, though: "we seized so much fentanyl it could have killed 119 million people" is not the same as "we saved 119 million lives".

[John F. Carr]

Trump's team is lying a little more than has been traditional in sensationalist reporting.

[hobie]

Potential Lethality (Toxicity) = 119M
Actual Lethality (Impact/Fatalities) = 50k

I don't know enough about math to work out...what?...'practical lethality'?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's a standard that predates Trump -- you take the volume, divide by the LD50 and that's the number of people it would kill.

It's inherently disingenuous for two reasons -- first, LD50 is the dose that would kill 50% of the group, leaving the other half alive. And second, it presumes that the dose taken would be exactly LD50 -- not more (which would reduce fatalities as fewer could take it) and not less. It's like assuming that someone buying a half gallon bottle of rum will drink it all at once.

However this is the standard that everyone has used for decades so it is not unfair for Trump to use it, and LD-50 is the accepted standard of lethality -- for everything.

This all is a whole lot more logical than the rather asinine means of how a gram of a drug depends on what the drug is, as opposed to the objective standard of 0.03527396 of an ounce. And it presumes 100% purity of the confiscated drugs, which may or may not be true.

But if the weights are correct it's a claim as legitimate as when NoBama's people or Clinton's people announced their busts.

LEOs usually produce pictures, and volume usually does correspond to weight, this is true. And there is evidence out there if you look for it -- I saw a youtube of the USCG unloading something like 38 *pallets* of confiscated cocaine.

[Estragon]

Is it your impression that someone in the Trump administration actually put pen to paper and did actual calculations to arrive at the 119 number?

[ThePublius]

That's the second time you asked that question. The answer is 'of course.' Are you implying that everyone in the Trump administration and in the armed forces as well are innumerate ignoramuses? That says more about you then them.

[Estragon]

“Of course”

That is interesting. Because in a press conference the NEXT DAY Ms. Bondi said the actual number was 258 million.

[Ridgeway]

Maybe she could take a page from Sen Johnny Iselin (Ret.), and go with a more easily-remembered number like 57 million.

[Michael P]

Do you imagine any policy about these drugs should be substantively different if the average is ~1 lethal dose per pill versus ~5?

(There are sources, probably based on a single analysis, saying that 60% of pills seized have at least the LD50 amount of fentanyl, and the 119 million count might include amounts larger than a single pill. So 119 million seems like a large number, but apparently the cartels and other dealers don't care if a single pill exceeds the LD50 amount.)

[Sarcastr0]

I think the Admin shouldn’t tell transparent lies, and you shouldn’t deflect from that to defend them with unsourced assertions and kind of ridiculous math,

Why would you have a large percentage of the pills you want to sell be lethal?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't want to see pills -- at all....

[Michael P]

Two obvious possibilities are addict tolerance and that people split pills. George Floyd famously had blood concentration of fentanyl above the LD50 level, but we have been repeatedly assured that wasn't what killed him.

[Sarcastr0]

Addict tolerance means the death estimates are BS.
If pill splitting were a large part of the market, they'd make the pills smaller.

More likely than your strained speculations is that this is all bullshit made up numbers by a lying administration, by one of the agencies most commonly found out to be lying.

And they don't respect you enough to make up a believable lie. Realizing, correctly, that you'll eagerly do that work for them.

George Floyd
Disbelieve all experts, and all the evidence they present. Believe only The Party. It was their final, most essential command.

I'm not sure if you realize jumping to bring up how much you're into these right-wing conspiracy shibboleths tells on you.

[Estragon]

They revised the number of “lives saved” by over 2x overnight! Are you brain damaged?

[ThePublius]

"This data is mind blowing

“Non-citizens Social Security numbers issued during the Biden Administration

2021: 270,425
2022: 590,193
2023: 964,163
2024: 2,095,247

- The Biden administration gave more non-citizens Social Security cards in 4 years than live in the state of Iowa
- If we just took the amount of people they gave those to in 2024. That's more people than live in Nebraska, Idaho, West Virginia, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, DC, Vermont and Wyoming

It would be the 39th largest state in the union. Just the amount of people, non-Americans, they gave Social Security cards to last year.”

“Gee, I wonder why that escalated so much in 24. Because what are you probably more likely to legitimately be able to claim if you've got a social security card, citizenship voting. Mm-huh.”"

https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1999514304928973058

And in related news, "More than HALF of New York’s non-domiciled CDLs were issued ILLEGALLY. What’s worse, New York often fails to verify drivers’ legal status." (I think the number is 53%.)

https://x.com/SecDuffy/status/1999515505535705559

[John F. Carr]

The Trump administration changed the rules for expiration of aliens' CDLs. The old rules required legal status when the license was issued. New York could have issued an 8 year CDL to somebody whose legal status expired the next day. Now the expiration date of a CDL must not be later than the expiration of legal status at the time the CDL is granted. Some of the "illegal" licenses complied with the old rules but not the new rules.

[hobie]

Dear AI, what is the purpose of giving noncitizens social security numbers?

'Social Security Numbers (SSNs) are issued to noncitizens primarily for work authorization, tracking wages, determining eligibility for benefits, and other government identification purposes. '

[David Nieporent]

Note that the people who are posting this want you to think that the SSNs were given to illegal immigrants, but most "non-citizens" are here legally.

[jb]

“Gee, I wonder why that escalated so much in 24. Because what are you probably more likely to legitimately be able to claim if you've got a social security card, citizenship voting. Mm-huh.”"

That's stupid. Having a SSN has no bearing on whether you're entitled to vote or not. It does make it easier to pay taxes, though!

And in related news, "More than HALF of New York’s non-domiciled CDLs were issued ILLEGALLY. What’s worse, New York often fails to verify drivers’ legal status." (I think the number is 53%.)

More context here: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/problems-commercial-drivers-licenses-immigrants-found-8-states-128363422

It seems like the main problem is not putting expiration dates on the licenses when the person's work authorization ended, which as John F Carr points out was legal at the time most of these were issued. Texas apparently has a similar problem with about half of their CDLs to immigrants having issues, but of course they're a red state so Duffy isn't calling them out in a press conference.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As someone who *has* a CDL, let me point out the bigger issue.

An American teenager can get a Class D (vehicle under 26,000 lbs, i.e. car) license at age 16, but can't get an interstate CDL until age 21.

21-16=5 Five years to get the license revoked and/or do something that disqualifies you for having a CDL license.

Now in comes the alien -- legal, illegal, Martian -- whatever.
He gets his Class D and the very next day can go get his CDL learner's permit, and then it's just a matter of scheduling his road test and he has a CDL.

Let's say he is from Africa and has never even *seen* snow before.
He gets his Class D in July, his Class A or B in August, and is out on the highways carrying 80,000 lbs of Yee Deadly Hazardous Material.

Never having driven in snow -- never even have seen snow.

It's going to snow tonight -- so his first experience driving in snow will be both after dark and with an 80,000 trailer truck that is also a HazMat load.

Now what could possibly go wrong???

And before people start calling me names, I'd like to see a requirement that everyone have 4+ years of Class D licensure before being eligible to apply for a CDL. Most states have graduated licenses for Americans obtaining Class Ds, why not for immigrants obtaining CDLs?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Because what are you probably more likely to legitimately be able to claim if you've got a social security card, citizenship voting. Mm-huh.”

Perhaps, but the voting issue doesn't require citizenship.

Let me keep the math simple and ignore that the House is limited at 435 so it isn't just one state getting more Congresscritters but another state losing them. Let's say that it is one Congresscritter for every 100 of population.

State Alpha has 2,000 US citizens so it gets 20 Congresscritters.

State Beta has 1,000 US citizens so it should only get 10 Congresscritters, but it also has 1,000 totally-illegal aliens. Under the current rules, even though they can't vote, the totally-illegal aliens entitle State Beta to an additional 10 Congresscritters.

And then Baker v. Carr requires proportional Congressional districts and the totally-illegal aliens are not uniformly distributed throughout the state. So -- again keeping the math simple -- your 2,000 person district consists of 1,000 citizens and 1,000 non-citizens and even though the non-citizens can't vote, the vote of the citizens living there counts twice as much which itself is an explicit violation of the "one man, one vote" mandate of Baker v. Carr.

Look at this a different way -- there are 2,000 citizens in Milwaukee and 2,000 citizens out in the hinterland. But because there are also 2,000 totally-illegal aliens in Milwaukee, the 2,000 citizens in Milwaukee get TWO Congressmen while the same number of citizens out in the hinterland only get one.

The Dems would loose 20 seats in Congress if this wasn't being done.

[not guilty]

Allocating seats in the House of Representatives according to the number of citizens in the various states would require a constitutional amendment. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment states in relevant part:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

[Kazinski]

Thank you for explaining why its so important to deport all illegal aliens, not just criminals.

[David Nieporent]

The same "logic" employed by Dr. Ed applies to all non-citizens, legal or not.

[Kazinski]

Eell Ed of course is wrong. especially since a lot of green card holders could become citizens by the next election anyway.

My wife was not a citizen at the 2020 census, but she voted, for Trump, in 2024.

[Mr. Bumble]

Citizens and legal residents, yes.
Illegal aliens and visa holders and over-stayers, no.

[OpinionsVary]

I mean, if the constitution let literal property count towards a states' representation, I think you have a hard time arguing that aliens wouldn't.

[jb]

Seems like we found one of those living constitutionalists that the MAGAs are always complaining about! So much for Kagan's "we are all originalists now." Apparently Bumble didn't get the memo.

[David Nieporent]

Under the current rules,

The "current rules" are the United States Constitution, which requires apportionment based on population, not "voters."

A district where there are lots of minors who can't vote also gets the same number of representatives as one which is mostly adults.

[jb]

Wrong place

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yesterday was the 25th anniversary of Bush v. Gore.

There are many books out there about Supreme Court cases, including series put out by certain publishers.

The good ones don't just discuss the case. They provide a well-told window into the subject overall, including insights about the players, times, and overall matter at hand.

The same can be provided with other subjects. Douglas Boin uses "Clodia of Rome" (who is targeted in a famous Cato speech to the jury) to talk about her life and times.

She had various interesting family connections. Her sister-in-law, for instance, ultimately married Mark Anthony.

The book provides a window into early and mid-1st Century BCE Rome. The author challenges some of the bad press she received, including doubting the suggestion that she was the lover of Roman poet Catullus, known for his off-color verses.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Correction: "Cato" should be "Cicero."

[jpsextonesq]

Prediction: In addition to Wolford (granted 10/3/25) and Hemani (granted 10/20/25), I expect the Court to grant cert in Duncan v. Bonta (now relisted for a second conference). Taken together, those cases would allow the Court to address the application of Bruen across the “who,” “where,” and “what” dimensions of Second Amendment regulation in a single coordinated move.
Although the Court may ultimately take an assault-weapons-ban case on the merits, I think it is more likely (and certainly as a matter of sequencing) that it begins with a large-capacity magazine (LCM) case, such as Duncan and possibly Gator’s Custom Guns. Magazine bans are simply more palatable vehicles: less emotionally charged, easier to analyze under Bruen’s text-and-history framework, and well suited to doctrinal clarification without immediately forcing the Court into the most politically combustible terrain.
Duncan is particularly well positioned. It comes with a fully developed factual and historical record, extensive lower-court analysis, and unusually sharp dissents. For example, Judge Bumatay accused the majority of defying Bruen, and Judge VanDyke called the decision “terribly unprincipled” and delivered a portion by video. It also bears noting that Paul Clement represents the challengers in both Duncan and Gator’s Custom Guns. That level of advocacy, while obviously not guaranteeing cert, makes these cases easier vehicles for the Court to take up on the merits.
An LCM decision would also set the stage for subsequent AWB litigation. After clarifying Bruen’s mechanics in the magazine context, the Court could GVR pending AWB petitions and allow the circuits to reconsider them under a clarified framework—reserving plenary review of an AWB case for later if necessary. That sequencing would allow the Court to look institutionally modest while leaving lower courts with little room to maneuver.
This approach aligns with signals already sent. Justice Kavanaugh’s statement respecting denial in Snope suggested that the Court would be taking additional Second Amendment cases in the next term or two. At this point, there has been ample percolation: both the Ninth and Second Circuits have weighed in, offering competing (and often strained) applications of Bruen.
Nor would multiple 2A grants be unusual. When the Court was developing modern First Amendment doctrine, it often decided several related cases in a single term (e.g., Miller, Paris Adult Theatre I, and Kaplan in 1973), just as it has long done in Fourth Amendment law.
If I had to guess on authorship: Kavanaugh for Duncan, Barrett for Hemani, and Gorsuch or Thomas for Wolford.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

* No more lives torn apart
That wars would never start
And time would heal all hearts
And everyone would have a friend
And right would always win
And love would never end
This is my grown-up Christmas list *

[Kazinski]

Scott Johnson, who is an attorney and normally blogs at Powerlineblog, and understands that even Sullivan won't protect him from a libel judgement has published at the Washington Free Beacon:

Yes, Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother

Will she sue him for something so obviously defamatory, and in a friendly venue like Washington DC?

https://freebeacon.com/democrats/yes-ilhan-omar-married-her-brother/

"What I said in 2016 remains true today. In 2019, however, the state campaign finance board released its investigative file on Omar’s 2016 campaign finance violations. The file was full of interesting documents bearing on the 2016 campaign controversy. Among them were Omar’s 2014 and 2015 tax returns filed jointly with Ahmed Hirsi, whom she had never legally married, while she was still legally married to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi."

[Sarcastr0]

Your argument is Powerline guy wouldn’t lie because defamation law exists?

What a terrible way to make a credibility determination.

[Kazinski]

Well isn't that a major point of libel and slander laws?

To deter reckless of false statements?

And isn't truth an absolute defense in American libel law?

Yes, I am inclined to believe clear unweasally statements that would clearly be defamation by people who are not judgement proof.

But there is a clear path available for Omar to prove him wrong, she definitely has standing, and can state a claim, and prove damages.

[Sarcastr0]

The purpose of torts is not to deter, it is to compensate people who experienced a loss due to the fault of others.

I mean, come on - dirty tricks happen all the time, and people get away with it. If defamation law was meant to deal with that, it's been doing a piss-poor job for centuries.

[Kazinski]

'The purpose of torts is not to deter'

That of course is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever said.

In fact its quite often one of a lawyers key arguments to a jury in assessing damages: 'You need to send a message that they can't get away with this to stop them from doing it again'

And what's the whole punitive damages thing for if its not just compensation? Like maybe to deter future behavior, and set an example.

I realize you just reflexively have to offer a counter opinion, but you might give it 10 seconds thought first.

[David Nieporent]

In fact its quite often one of a lawyers key arguments to a jury in assessing damages: 'You need to send a message that they can't get away with this to stop them from doing it again'

It is generally impermissible — well, at least in federal court — to ask a jury to "send a message," except with respect to punitive damages.

[Sarcastr0]

I thought like you did till I actually took tort law. But hey, why not come in hot about an area you don't know much about?

Punitive damages are to deter. Which itself shows the core of tort law is NOT to deter, or else damages would not be based on making the victim whole, but rather creating sufficient harm to the liable party.
And punitive are pretty hard to get.

[hobie]

"To deter reckless of false statements?"

OMG, do you seriously want me to AI that on Trump/Leavitt/Hegseth?

Looks like AI came about just in time. The firehose from the White House probably intentionally meant to make critique impossible, is now irrelevant. I can de-hayseed MAGA bullshit at a glance now. The most time I spend in any comment is physically typing the results with a few jabs meant to hurt some feelings.

[Kazinski]

I believe that, you certainly aren't spending any time thinking.

And AI can't help you much more than write your post for you, I doubt if it can help you understand anything any better.

[not guilty]

One feature of defamation law is that it provides a safer alternative to dueling.

[Commenter_XY]

What lawyer would advise Omar not to sue if it was not true? This is a slam dunk for Omar, right? Sure looks that way to me. Hell, I don't think even NG would try to defend a slam dunk like that (and he did that for 30 years, even argued before the Supreme Court).

[not guilty]

Commenter_XY, you might want to google "Streisand Effect".

[Mr. Bumble]

So Omar or her lawyers are taking Disraeli's advice.
"Never complain, never explain"?

[John F. Carr]

The lawyer is going to start by asking, is one third of whatever the defendant ends up paying worth my time? Trump's lawyers get paid win or lose because their job is public relations. An ordinary plaintiff's lawyer gets paid by winning money from somebody who can afford to pay.

[hobie]

So you don't like a politician that lies, falsifies documents and engages in corruption, eh?

[John F. Carr]

What are her damages? If I am on the jury I want to know how many people had a good opinion of her and changed their minds on reading Scott Johnson's article.

[Kazinski]

Certainly you've heard of per se libel damages?

[David Nieporent]

Libel per se means that you don't need to prove actual damages to win the suit. But that's not the same thing as saying that a jury will award meaningful damages.

[Kazinski]

David Frum is accusing the Trump DOJ of Transnational Organized Crime, and he has receipts.

https://x.com/davidfrum/status/1999509383919653259?s=20

But there is some pushback on the claim.

https://x.com/RealMBrooks/status/1999656839861141622?s=20

I guess the key in evaluating whether its a crime is the jurisdiction.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m out and about and can’t clock through but this looks like a very different standard of skepticism and depth if excerpting on this post versus the one above.

[OpinionsVary]

Leaving that aside, it would be some kind of trade mark infringement wouldn't it? I can't imagine he isn't trade marked.

[Mr. Bumble]

Trademark or copyright?
What about the fair use for parody?
Is the use in memes infringement or fair use?

[OpinionsVary]

Yes, most memes likely break copyright. They exist on sufferance and because it would be worse PR to go after them than any gain. Simply not worth it. Parody exception is not anything that is haha funny. It to do with proper criticism (in the literally meaning of the word) of the work in question. See The Wind Dun Gone. In this example, I fail to see how this image servers as criticism of the Franklin character and book series. So we're left with unauthorised use. And, unlike most meme users, the US government might be big enough that the scales tip to 'worth it'.

Anyway, I said trademark. It might also be copyright. But trademark is all about protecting your mark. And protecting your kindly Canadian children's book character from military and/or immigration use sounds pretty compelling to me. Trademark fair use is a thing too but different from copyright fair use and I don't see how it would apply here either.

[Mr. Bumble]

I've seen a few of these memes but am unclear about who is creating them. Is it some government agency or are they only re-tweeting someone else's work?

[David Nieporent]

This isn't use in commerce, so it's not trademark infringement. Now, it might be dilution.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How's it not use in commerce? They say they're trying to recruit immigration judges.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, but they're really just using Franklin to shitpost online. They've been doing it to mock critics of their murder campaign in the Caribbean, too.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sovereign immunity?

[Kazinski]

I will spell it out for you:

P a r o d y.

Parody is protected by US copyright law, and the more obvious the parody the more protected it is.

Both are very obviously parody.

[OpinionsVary]

Copyright? I'm talking about trademarks. Please at least cite the right law. The two aren't particularly interchangeable.

[Kazinski]

Ok, so you don't understand fair use law in Trademarks, instead of not understanding fair use with copyright.

[OpinionsVary]

Fair use is very different in trademark law and the fact you cite copyright law really is a massive red flag. It is not my job to make your argument for you. Please cite the relevant fair use in trademark law if you want to argue this is protected.

To give you a start - there area two classes of trade mark fair use: nominative fair use and descriptive fair use. The later has some coverage of parody, which, again, must be criticism of the work in question.

Please go from there and, this time, don't try to cite copyright law.

[David Nieporent]

But there is some pushback on the claim.

https://x.com/RealMBrooks/status/1999656839861141622?s=20

The pushback is mistaken. Or, rather, it's right but irrelevant. Parody can be protected as fair use, but satire generally isn't. And this is the latter. (The distinction is whether one is making fun of the work in question by using the work, or whether one is using the work to comment on an unrelated issue. See Dr. Seuss Enters., LP v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997). This isn't intended as commentary on the Franklin series.

[Kazinski]

Clearly both satire and parody.

Do you know any lawyer that would sue expecting to actually win a judgement?

[OpinionsVary]

Parody isn't anything that is haha. David Nieporent's post seems pretty on point. It's not enough for something to be a parody in the general meaning of the word - taking a property and doing something silly with it. It needs to be a parody (that is criticism) of the work being parodied.

So how does this serve to criticise (in the literally meaning) the original property? What's it trying to say about Franklin?

[David Nieporent]

Do you know any lawyer that would sue expecting to actually win a judgement?

Well, certainly not on a copyright claim, because most copyright damages are unavailable against the federal government.

[TwelveInchPianist]

On-duty DEA Agent in Oregon runs a stop sign at 18-20 mph and kills a bicyclist. Oregon tries to prosecute. CA9 says nope.

[David Nieporent]

Another outrageous decision. "A pointless DEA surveillance was so important that I had to run over a citizen. And it must be true because all of my corrupt colleagues testified so."

[Krayt]

George Will once wrote an opinion piece, after some guy got choked out because he was selling singleton black market cigarettes without charging massive cigarette sales taxes, that the left, expressing justified outrage, was ignoring their own complicity in it, by way of omniprovident government, which they love, being voracious for taxes, looked lovingly, read: needingly, on this conveniently sinful tax, to support their spending habits, and that it was their voracious appetite that buttressed the police's brutal crackdown on cigarette tax violators, leading to the choking death of this individual.

It was not received well by the left, who preferred the beknighted position in it.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Tragic, even if it is legally correct on the given facts.

[Poxigah146]

Leaving aside the legal issue here, bicyclists, like pedestrians, need to pay attention. I ride a bicycle a lot. I don't approach an intersection when I have the right of way the same way I would in a car, simply because it's more dangerous.

[Dr. Ed 2]

One of these days, there's going to be a Jack Ruby doing followup.

[Poxigah146]

Also, Oregon is one of the bluest states in America, and it's they who support a strong federal government, not us.

[Poxigah146]

Regarding the shooting at Brown, the fact that they haven't described the shooter says to me that it doesn't fit the leftist media's narrative.

[ThePublius]

I don't think they've apprehended the shooter yet.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That doesn't mean they don't know who they are looking for...

And they know he is both male and dressed "all in black."
A race not mentioned means...

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is interesting:

"“Rhode Island Hospital is in lockdown at this time but is still accepting emergency department patients,” [hospital] said, adding that the hospital has remained in “continuous communication with Brown University.”"

The HOSPITAL on lockdown?!?

That was never in any of the protocols I saw for campus shooters and I'm thinking that this might be gang related and that they are worried about third parties going to finish the job.

They've already arrested (and released) one person dressed "all in black" which isn't a typical college attire, could that person have been a decoy intended to let the real perp escape?

ATF is responding, they don't have a perp, I presume they don't have a weapon yet, other than sitting around and looking pretty, what is the ATF supposed to do?

unless it was a fully auto weapon.

[Bwaaah]

There's still time to get this wrong before the facts come in.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, here is the video of the purported perp:

https://snworksceo.imgix.net/bdh/23397816-fe04-4bfb-a0e5-a115f73d9cbd.original-transcoded.mp4

It's darker than it looks, note the red reflection in the walk signal.
Digital cameras are amazing in low light conditions.