Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

Maybe Judge Boasberg is owed a partial apology. Reports were that Judge Boasberg approved subpoenas for about a dozen Congressman's possibly violating the Speech and debate clause of the constitution.

Well Jack Smith is now claiming that the subpoenas didn't disclose whose phone records were being seized, they were John Doe subpoenas:

"WASHINGTON — Jack Smith admitted that judges weren’t made aware his team was seizing Republicans’ phone records when asked to sign off on non-disclosure orders for associated subpoenas, according to a transcript of the ex-special counsel’s deposition released Wednesday.

Smith claimed to members of the House Judiciary Committee in the Dec. 17 sitdown that keeping the subpoenas — which were part of the FBI’s sprawling Arctic Frost probe into 2020 election interference — hidden was necessary to avoid a “grave risk of obstruction of justice.”

Asked by an unidentified Judiciary Committee questioner whether judges who approved the subpoenas knew they were demanding that phone carriers AT&T and Verizon hand over lawmakers’ call logs, Smith said: “I don’t think we identified that, because I don’t think that was Department policy at the time.”

If this was legal, there needs to be legislation to make it illegal well unless you are comfortable with Trump being able to issue subpoenas of Congress's phone records with no predicate, no disclosure to the judge, and a gag order to the service provider.

https://nypost.com/2025/12/31/us-news/jack-smith-withheld-names-of-gop-lawmakers-from-judges-who-granted-access-to-phone-records/

So I would.like.to.personally. apologize to.Judge Boasberg for assuming a federal judge wouldn't sign a gag order subpoena without having any idea who it was for or what it was about.

Now I know better.

Oh by the way this is the just released taped deposition of Jack Smith by congressional committee staff, which should explain to NG why they wanted to depose Smith by trained staff rather than amateurs in the more constrained congressional hearing format.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Impeach him anyway.

And Congress should retaliate against Verizon somehow as well.

[Ridgeway]

Somehow!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Majority vote to impeach.

Judges have large egos, a mere impeachment would suffice.

[Ridgeway]

I've got to get me one of them "Impeach Verizon" buttons.

[not guilty]

"Oh by the way this is the just released taped deposition of Jack Smith by congressional committee staff, which should explain to NG why they wanted to depose Smith by trained staff rather than amateurs in the more constrained congressional hearing format."

Contrary to this pronouncement, Kazinski in fact did not link to "the just released taped deposition." I surmise that he doesn't care whether he tells the truth or not.

As Jack Smith testified at page 18 of the transcript, "Toll records were sought for historical telephone routing information, collected after calls had taken place, identifying the incoming and outgoing call numbers, the time of the calls and their duration. Toll records do not include the content of calls. Those records were lawfully subpoenaed and were relevant to complete a comprehensive investigation." This information is neither Speech nor Debate in Congress.

And nothing about the deposition explains why it could not have been conducted in the light of day.

[Kazinski]

I didn't say I linked to the just released taped deposition, I linked to the Post article about the released taped deposition.

Learn to read.

If you, or anyone else, including Smith, want to dispute what Smith want to dispute what Smith said, well then go ahead. And nothing you quote contradicts what is said in the article. Or do you think Boasberg would recognize all those phone numbers without names?

Although to be fair Boasberg was probably accustomed to approving warrants and subpoenas without question or supporting details from his time on the FISA court.

But don't grasp at nonexistent straws like that, honestly it makes me feel sorry for you.

And to make it worse, you immediately post the easily found Transcript and video tape which contradicts nothing I or the article said.

[not guilty]

"Oh by the way this is the just released taped deposition of Jack Smith by congressional committee staff".

Your words, Kazinski, not mine. And your crawfishing hasn't spooked the words off the page, nor the pixels off the monitor.

[Kazinski]

Exactly. The quotes and the article refers to "the just released taped deposition of Jack Smith by congressional committee staff"

It didn't seem to take you long to find the transcript because it was linked in the Post Article I linked to.

How helpless are you?

That's a rhetorical question, I already know.

[Magister]

You might reasonably have said "this is based on the just released taped deposition of Jack Smith by congressional committee staff". It is a common flaw of right wing commenters here to look only at what's been filtered through right wing media.

[Joe_dallas]

as opposed to left wing commentators who only look at what is filtered through left wing media?

[Magister]

Do you consider the transcript of a congressional deposition to be left wing media? It would explain a lot of your posts.

[Joe_dallas]

I am not the one who falsely accused Kaz of getting his information from right wing media when he cited and quoted the congressional testimony.

Notable that you changed the subject when your false accusation was exposed.

[Magister]

Kazinski linked to and quoted the NY Post.
not guilty linked to and quoted the transcript.
Joe_dallas again asserts something stupid that is directly contradicted in the comments.

[Joe_dallas]

Kazinski 7 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Exactly. The quotes and the article refers to "the just released taped deposition of Jack Smith by congressional committee staff"

It didn't seem to take you long to find the transcript because it was linked in the Post Article I linked to.

Mag - try again -
You falsely accused Kaz of getting wrong info from a right wing media source with the direct implication of Kaz getting facts wrong.

Kaz specifically stated it was a direct quote from Congressional testimony

You through in an unfounded and non relevant accusation trying to score points even after NG's false allegation was corrected.

[Magister]

I didn't accuse Kazinski of anything; I suggested a better phrasing for the statement not guilty misinterpreted, and I pointed out, correctly, that right wing commenters filter reality through right wing media. The NY Post swoons on the fainting couch over possible violation of the Speech and Debate clause; not guilty quotes from the transcript what was subpoenaed, and reasonably concludes that it was not speech or debate.

[Joe_dallas]

Magister 12 minutes ago
"I didn't accuse Kazinski of anything;"

You accused Kaz of getting his info from right wing media - With the direct implication that his info was wrong.

More importantly - nothing in your comment or any of your subsequent comments rebutted any thing Kaz stated.

More importantly - Nothing in your string of commentary provided any substantive commentary which is consistent with all your comments. Congratulations on being consistent with worthless commentary.

[Magister]

I said

It is a common flaw of right wing commenters here to look only at what's been filtered through right wing media.

Interesting* that Joe_dallas took that to mean Kazinski. Right wing media may actually report facts (or they may make up stuff) but subjected to right wing spin; looking at a variety of sources and the original non-media sources like transcripts or various documents submitted to or issued by courts will help to know the facts and reach better conclusions.

* OK, not actually interesting, since Joe_dallas is a stupid clown.

[Kazinski]

" I suggested a better phrasing for the statement not guilty misinterpreted"

NG didn't misinterpret anything, he was looking for something to nitpick about because he didn't have any substantive point he could make.

He says he downloaded the transcript yesterday, so its not like he clicked on my link, and missed the link in the first paragraph of the story and didn't know where to find it.

My comment and the story were referring to the transcript, and that is exactly what I said, and NG already had the transcript.

It's not even a coherent complaint.

[Magister]

If you'd said "referred to" instead of "is" in the first place, there would have been no scope for not guilty's comment. "My comment and the story were referring to the transcript" is not exactly what you said.

[Kazinski]

No. I was quoting a news article which opens:

"WASHINGTON — Jack Smith admitted that judges weren’t made aware his team was seizing Republicans’ phone records when asked to sign off on non-disclosure orders for associated subpoenas, according to a transcript of the ex-special counsel’s deposition released Wednesday."

It should be clear to anyone with basic comprehension skils, that the "deposition" I am referring to is the deposition in the first paragraph, which is actually a link to the PDF in the article.

"Oh by the way this is the just released taped deposition of Jack Smith by congressional committee staff, which should explain to NG why they wanted to depose Smith by trained staff rather than amateurs in the more constrained congressional hearing format."

[Magister]

But then your story changed from "is" to "referring to". I seriously doubt that the NY Post was "explain[ing] to NG", so that part was not quoting an article; it's your wording, which definitely could be improved, as evidenced by you actually doing so a few comments above.

[Kazinski]

Well the NY Times did publish an article about the deposition, but you have to read very closely between the lines to find a hint that Smith didn't tell the Judge or judges who the subpoenas were for, with no direct quotes from Smith on the subject.

The Post article does a much better job of directly quoting the specific questions and answers.

For example The Post quotes this exchange:

“I mean, the toll records provide enormous valuable information, because it shows who a Member of Congress, who a Senator is taking calls from and who they’re calling,” the questioner continued.

“And if you map it up against the Senate or the House calendar, you can see, you know, what the inputs are to their legislative decision-making, which is at the core of Speech or Debate. Do you agree with that?” the interlocutor asked.

“My office and I personally take the protections of the Speech or Debate Clause seriously,” Smith replied. “I think they’re part of our Constitution. They’re an important part of separation of powers.”

“And when we sought these subpoenas, we got approval from [the Department of Justice’s] Public Integrity [Section], who are the sort of keepers of that issue, and they concurred in us getting these subpoenas,” he added.

“They did,” his questioner fired back. “And we saw some of that email traffic, and I would respectfully disagree with their view of the Speech or Debate law, as you might imagine.”

You can search the Times article in vain for the words "speech" or "debate"

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/us/politics/jack-smith-deposition-house-trump.html

Or you can Google "ny times smith deposition "speech or debate"" and come dry.

So in short I'd love to quote the NY times on the issue of Smiths testimony on the secret subpoenas, but they hardly even mentioned the issue, and included no direct quotes on the questions or the answers.

[windycityattorney]

So just to follow up. Didn't Jack Smith say they had evidence from others that Trump and his staff were calling Senators and Congressmen in an effort to delay the vote? That part of the conspiracy (or object of the conspiracy) was in fact to stop the certification which would have declared Biden the winner? And when Pence clearly wasn't going to go along with the scheme, the White House was desperate to find other ways to delay or stop the certification?? Isn't it important, you think, to know who was called and when to establish Trump's intent or to prove steps that were taken as part of the conspiracy??

It doesn't imply the Senators or legislators were doing anything illegal and they weren't the targets of the investigation. But it does show the steps Trump himself (or his staff/surrogates) took in furtherance of the conspiracy. So yes. It is highly relevant. It led to other witnesses the special counsel could talk to to corroborate or substantiate elements of the offense. And most importantly, since its sometimes the hardest element to get direct evidence for, it goes to Trump's intent or state of mind. They would had to have proof that Trump knowingly did all these things with a criminal or fraudulent intent.

[Brett Bellmore]

The fundamental problem is that they had the people who DID plan the break in under intense surveillance for months prior, including about half their leadership being FBI informants, and found not the tiniest bit of evidence that Trump had actually communicated with them, let alone directed them to do anything.

Everything they can prove Trump actually did was legal.

[Kazinski]

Of course that's ridiculous predicate for a conspiracy charge, the President calling members of congress about delaying a vote.

And what does Judge Boasberg have to do with any of that, anyway?

My post was specifically about whether the Judge was informed that the subpoenas were for congressmen, because I had criticized the judge for issuing illegal gag orders to Verizon and ATT, for congressmen's phone logs. And we can be pretty sure DOJ knew they were illegal because when ATT told them to pound sand, they decided it was a good day for a walk on the beach.

I think its pretty telling that its because the DOJ knew the orders were illegal they didn't tell the judge, and I might even go so far as to speculate that Boasberg knew enough not to ask. He probably had a lot of experience knowing what questions not to ask from his time on the FISA court.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, that's pretty par for the course, for conspiracy charges, isn't it?

Bob hatches an illegal plan, but does absolutely nothing to act on it. Maybe he's just blowing steam, maybe he's drawing an occasional paycheck from the FBI.

Bob's acquaintance Frank does something perfectly legal that can be rationalized to advance Bob's plan. But it's perfectly legal!

Say the magic word "conspiracy", and Frank's perfectly legal act becomes an "overt act" in Bob's plan, say hello to San Quentin.

[not guilty]

Actually, that's pretty par for the course, for conspiracy charges, isn't it?

Bob hatches an illegal plan, but does absolutely nothing to act on it. Maybe he's just blowing steam, maybe he's drawing an occasional paycheck from the FBI.

Bob's acquaintance Frank does something perfectly legal that can be rationalized to advance Bob's plan. But it's perfectly legal!

Say the magic word "conspiracy", and Frank's perfectly legal act becomes an "overt act" in Bob's plan, say hello to San Quentin.

Wrong, Brett. To support a conspiracy charge, both Bob and Frank must agree with one another, or with other persons, to commit a fraud or an substantive offense. Each must intend for that fraud or target offense to be committed, although the actual commission thereof need not be proven. If a statute defining the offense so provides,* at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiratorial objective must be committed by at least one conspirator. The overt act need not be itself illegal.

The gravamen of the inchoate offense is the conspiratorial agreement itself, whether the conspiratorial objective is or is not accomplished. If so, commission of the substantive offense can be a separate crime.

And FWIW, San Quentin does not house federal inmates.
____________________________
* For example, conspiracy to defraud the United States or commit an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 371 requires proof of at least one overt act, which conspiracy to violate civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 does not.

[not guilty]

"It didn't seem to take you long to find the transcript because it was linked in the Post Article I linked to."

Actually, I had found and read the deposition transcript the day before. You should note that the transcript I linked within minutes after you posted your comment is from a different site from that to which the New York Post linked.

You claimed, Kazinski, "Oh by the way this is the just released taped deposition of Jack Smith by congressional committee staff". You lied. If you had said "this is a news story containing a link to the deposition of Jack Smith", that would have been truthful. But you apparently didn't care about truth or falsity.

[Kazinski]

Go ahead and beclown yourself.

The link to the transcript of the "just released taped deposition" is in the very first paragraph of the story I linked, which quotes it extensively.

If that wasn't quite spoonfed to you to your exact liking, when you already had downloaded and read the transcript, then you are just looking for something to complain about, because there is absolutely nothing in the story or what I said about it that you can point to that's contradicted by the transcript.

[Magister]

What about a link to a twitter post containing a link to a blog post with a link to an article with a link to the original document?

"on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard'."

[Kazinski]

Well that is standard on the internet. In fact this is probably the link I should have used.

https://x.com/i/status/2007000146198888887

But absolutely call me on that next time I do it.

[David Nieporent]

If this was legal, there needs to be legislation to make it illegal well unless you are comfortable with Trump being able to issue subpoenas of Congress's phone records with no predicate, no disclosure to the judge, and a gag order to the service provider.

For the record, grand juries, not presidents, issue subpoenas. (And judges, not presidents, issue gag orders.)

[Michael P]

Only grand juries, huh? The people who wrote and maintain Rule 45 of the FRCivP are likely to be surprised by that news, along with the many bodies that are statutorily authorized to issue administrative subpoenas (including those who work for ... President Trump).

[David Nieporent]

We are talking about the criminal context, in which the Fed. R. Civ. P. do not apply. And there are no gag orders in Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; notice is required. So your gotcha, while pointing out imprecision in the language of my comment, really has nothing to do with the hypothetical.

[Michael P]

So you didn't mean subpoenas in general, you just meant subpoenas issued by a grand jury, excluding administrative subpoenas that I previously mentioned plus the normal ones that can be issued for either defense or prosecution of a civil case? And because you restricted your meaning to grand juries, it means only grand juries can issue such subpoenas?

Gag orders for investigative subpoenas have been an issue going back to at least the Obama administration: https://cyberscoop.com/microsoft-cloud-fourth-amendment-justice-department/

[not guilty]

Parties to a criminal case can request issuance of subpoenas by the clerk of the court pursuant to Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which does not apply at the grand jury investigation stage.

[Riva]

The salient point is that the gag orders violated federal law. For the record, yet another example from crazy Dave of legal analysis that would embarrass a first year law student or paralegal. I'll be kind and say TDS has unbalanced him, but the balance was likely precarious before President Trump. Boasberg should be impeached and removed. Crazy Dave should not post any more comments.

[David Nieporent]

The gag orders did not violate federal law, unless they were directed at the senators' official phone records, which they likely were not.

[Riva]

Uh huh. All perfectly legal and above board from the thug architect of the Arctic Frost political targeting of over 400 Republicans. I wonder if Senator Cruz, one of the targets, made any statements on the matter? Well, guess what? He did:

One of those subpoenas went from Jack Smith to AT&T seeking my cell phone communications.

It went to AT&T, and I actually want to commend AT and T for doing the right thing. AT&T is based in Texas. AT&T looked at that subpoena, and they went to their legal counsel and they said, “What should we do with that subpoena?”

And their legal counsel said, “You cannot comply because this is protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of the US Constitution.” And so AT&T declined to comply, did not hand over my cell phone records.

Now one might ask, ordinarily, a phone company being asked to hand over the phone records of a sitting senator would notify that Senator.

Well, there was a reason. AT&T did not do so.

Accompanying the subpoena was an order, which I have in my hand right here, an order that was signed by Judge James E Boasberg.

Now, who is Boasberg? Boasberg is that radical leftist judge who is out of control, who has been issuing nationwide injunctions, one after the other, trying to stop President Trump from carrying out his mandate from the voters.

Judge Boasberg issued an order to AT&T, and signed that order prohibiting AT&T from informing me of this subpoena for at least one year. And Judge Boasberg gave the basis for that order, and I quote from the order Judge Boasberg signed, “the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, and serious jeopardy to the investigation.”

That’s an order a judge signed. Now I can tell you right now there is precisely zero evidence to conclude that I am likely to destroy or tamper with evidence or to intimidate potential witnesses. Zero evidentiary basis for that, this order is an abuse of power. This order is a weaponized legal system.

My assumption we don’t have the subpoenas that were issued for the other senators, but my assumption is Judge Boasberg printed these things out, like the placemats at Denny’s, one after the other we don’t know that for a fact, but I feel confident that he concluded it’s likely that Lindsey Graham would destroy evidence, and Marsha Blackburn would destroy evidence, and Eric Schmidt would destroy evidence, and Chuck Grassley would destroy evidence if a litigant makes a claim for which there is no factual basis that litigant is subject to sanctions in federal court.

[windycityattorney]

Boooooooohoooooooooooo Ted Cruz was one of the people the WH staff called to delay the certification. BUT delaying the certification (or stopping it) was the object of the conspiracy. So Teddy Cruz was unknowingly roped into a conspiracy and because of his association with the head conspirator - his phone records were seized.

What did Trump call him?? Lyin' Ted was it? Ya I believe that fits. Don't associate with traitors and criminals and maybe you won't have this problem, Teddy. Ya spineless douche.

[Riva]

If you were an attorney or even a layman who believed in the rule of law, the judicial assembly line issuance of gag orders ("like placemats at Denny's") that falsely claim to have a reasonable basis might give you some pause. But, life is simpler for you being simply a hack troll.

[not guilty]

Actually Ted Crude's phone records were not seized. AT&T pushed back, and the Special Counsel did not follow up.

[Riva]

Actually you missed the part about the illegal gag orders. This is gross judicial misconduct regardless of one’s political views. Show some fucking integrity.

[not guilty]

The topic here is whether Jack Smith's conduct amounts to a federal crime. It doesn't, pure and simple.

And the like of you kvetching about integrity is akin to Strom Thurmond inveighing against miscegenation or Ted Haggard decrying buttsex and drug use.

When I think of Haggard and Jones, I prefer Merle and George to Ted and Mike.

[Kazinski]

By the way Dave, didn't you defend the subpoenas because supposedly they only asked for the records for just a very specific period of time like 1 week around Jan 6th?

Here is one little nugget from the transcript:
"with Speaker McCarthy, the subpoena, the timeframe was November 2020, through January 8, 2021. With the now chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the timeframe went back to January 2020. So it was for a full year where, you know, between January 2020 and December of 2020, nobody, you know, had any type of phone calls about these matters.
I'm just curious why you went back to January 2020, the office did? "

I think the Chairman of the Judiciary referred to was Jim Jordon, and that goes all to when Jim Jordon was participating in the first Ukranian impeachment trial.

Smith wasn't able to answer the question because that subpoena was issued before he came on board.

You aren't going to claim that wasn't a fishing expedition are you?

[Commenter_XY]

It was a fishing expedition.

[PaulS]

Should the Judge have asked who the numbers belonged to? Since he was asking the court to do something that he knew was illegal (not reporting the subpoena to congress) is he saying it was not against department policy to report illegal conduct?

[David Nieporent]

something that he knew was illegal (not reporting the subpoena to congress)

You are mistaken. No law required Congress to be notified. The statute — if it applied, which we do not have enough information to say — only said that the phone providers couldn't be forbidden to provide notice; it did not say that notice must be provided.

[PaulS]

So it is legal to ask the court to do something that they are expressly forbidden from doing - And to purposely hide the information that would let them know this? Legal ethics is amazing! And obviously (my spell check tried to change this to obliviously - oops?) this does not reflect on the integrity/character of anyone involved

[not guilty]

A federal crime is defined and prohibited by the language that Congress uses.

The Congress indeed could enact a statute forbidding a prosecutor, on pain of criminal penalties if it so chose, "to ask the court to do something that they are expressly forbidden from doing - And to purposely hide the information that would let them know this".

Congress, however, has not done so.

[not guilty]

Here is the video of Jack Smith's full deposition testimony before the House Judiciary Committee (which I have not viewed): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YR8slAt3Ek Here is the full transcript of the testimony (which I have read): https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2025/12/Smith-Depo-Transcript_Redacted-w-Errata.pdf

President Trump posted on Truth Social on October 29, 2025 kvetching, "These thugs should all be investigated and put in prison. A disgrace to humanity. Deranged Jack Smith is a criminal!!!" https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115457600588415376 The doofus-in-chief, however, conspicuously failed to identify any crime that Smith had committed. Neither has any MAGAt commenter on this blog identified any federal statute that Smith has violated, despite repeated challenges for them to do so.

MAGA cult, it's time to quit singing it and start bringing it. Like with John Brennan, James Comey and Leticia James, merely having pissed off Donald Trump is no crime. What statute do you claim that Jack Smith has violated, and by what particular conduct?

[Dr. Ed 2]

If your side can fabricate crimes, why shouldn’t Trump be able to do likewise?

[not guilty]

No one "can fabricate crimes." Criminal prosecution requires an enactment of Congress prohibiting the subject conduct and an indictment by a grand jury (or waiver of the indictment by the accused).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshyte….

[Joe_dallas]

Intentionally misapplying the law to facts which are not in fact a crime fits nicely into that category of fabricating crimes. You would think a defense attorney would pounce on that. but not NG. Hope you are taking proper steps in your rehab for that whiplash.

[Joe_dallas]

https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/12/jack-smith-admits-star-january-6-witness-relied-on-hearsay/

Fabricating crimes? Never happens!

Jack Smiths star witness relied on hearsay and appears to have invented parts of her story that was contradicted by Secret service agents who had first hand knowledge.

Again - a competent defense attorney would have a field day with a prosecutor how fabricated evidence and crimes.

NG - Whats the answer?

[Michael P]

Just because she changed her testimony and gave testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony of first-hand witnesses doesn't mean she was lying. Maybe she misheard the question and was distracted when, uh, swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus. That must have been it.

[David Nieporent]

She "changed her testimony" only once, when she got independent counsel rather Passantino, who was a Trump lawyer who was coaching her to lie and say she didn't remember anything.

[jay.tee]

No. She changed her testimony - and attorney - because unethical Liz Cheney convinced her to fabricate her account of events.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, that's one possibility. Another one, that's actually truthful, is that once she got independent counsel rather than Passantino, who was a Trump lawyer who was coaching her to lie and say she didn't remember anything, she reached out to the J6 committee and gave them her accurate testimony.

[jay.tee]

Again, no. The facts don’t support your left wing fantasies.

Her final version of events were pure fiction according to all who were actually there (and handwriting analysis).

[David Nieporent]

NG - Whats the answer?

I'm not NG, but the answer is that you're — as is the case 100% of the time when not discussing bookkeeping — completely out of your depth. Not only don't you know what you're talking about, but you don't even know enough to know that you don't know.

Cassidy Hutchinson was not anybody's "star witness." She wasn't "Smith's witness" at all, as he explained. No shit she relied on hearsay; what's your point? The FRE don't apply to Congressional hearings.

And with the possible exception of whose handwriting was on one piece of paper, her story was never contradicted at all, precisely because it was hearsay. She never said, "Trump did this." She said, "Ornato told me that Trump did this." To be sure, right wing media outlets were filled with secondhand claims that Ornato would testify it wasn't true. But not only did he not ever do so, but he went out of his way to dodge it, saying that he didn't remember telling her that.

[Moderation4ever]

Thank you for reminding the Trump cultist that Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony is both honest, hearsay and has never been refuted. I suspect that Ornato was just trying to impress Hutchinson with some bullshit. But he has never wanted to explain his behavior.

[jay.tee]

I’m not sure how you can be so completely wrong about something that’s been widely publicized:

White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Anthony Ornato, who by Hutchinson’s own admission relayed the startling incident to her, immediately claimed her account was false.

The agent and the driver of the vehicle also separately refuted Hutchinson’s testimony as well, with the president’s chauffeur telling committee members in a non-televised interview that Trump “never grabbed the steering wheel” or “lunge[d] to try to get into the front seat at all.”

But the Democrat-led House committee “hid the driver’s full testimony” and did not release the full transcript, according to Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who opened a probe into the select panel and Jan. 6 after the GOP retook the majority in 2023.

https://nypost.com/2025/12/31/us-news/cassidy-hutchinson-ruled-out-as-credible-witness-in-trump-jan-6-case-jack-smith/

She also lied about the memo given to Trump on Jan 6.

[David Nieporent]

White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Anthony Ornato, who by Hutchinson’s own admission relayed the startling incident to her, immediately claimed her account was false.

Trouble is, this is false. People secondhandly claimed that Ornato would deny it. But he didn't — which is why the Post doesn't quote him — and, again, as I noted, instead claimed he didn't recall saying that.

The agent and the driver of the vehicle also separately refuted Hutchinson’s testimony as well

They did not, for two reasons. (Indeed, they could not have done so, as they were not present during Ornato's conversation with Hutchinson.) The first is that "refute" means "prove false," not "deny." The second is that they supported the claim that Trump wanted to go back to the Capitol and was furious he wasn't allowed to. They only said that he didn't actually lunge for the wheel or choke anyone.

[jay.tee]

Again, no. You’re either knowingly lying or completely ignorant.

Everyone with direct knowledge of the events directly contradicted her final “version” of events.

[not guilty]

"Jack Smiths star witness relied on hearsay and appears to have invented parts of her story that was contradicted by Secret service agents who had first hand knowledge."

Did you read Jack Smith's testimony regarding Cassidy Hutchinson? (Pages 185-187 of the transcript.) She was not at all a "star witness."

[Kazinski]

Totally correct, she was Liz Cheney's star witness, testifying at length about matters she had no knowledge of and no collaboration.

[David Nieporent]

I suspect you meant corroboration. But you're mistaken; she was a minor witness for the committee (her testimony was dramatic, but not legally significant), and her testimony was of course about matters she had knowledge of. She testified what Ornato told her personally.

[SRG2]

merely having pissed off Donald Trump is no crime

For the cultists, it is a crime, akin to lèse-majesté.

I note that one clear sign of cult membership is believing that Jack Smith is lying while Trump is telling the truth,

[Riva]

As for crimes, well that's currently under investigation related to the abuse of federal law enforcement and/or intelligence powers targeting President Trump and others. Arctic Frost was under Biden but Obama dirty tricks show up in the false January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. And of course we have a raid without probably cause of President Trump's home. Let's see what the indictment charges.

And speaking of social media, what has Mamdani been up to lately?

"It has been only 14 hours since Mamdani took office, and one of his first acts is deleting tweets about protecting Jews."
https://x.com/Justine_Brooke/status/2006808946900938771?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[David Nieporent]

The January 2017 ICA was true, and moreover there is not one shred of evidence that Obama had any input into its contents.

And of course there was probable cause to search — not "raid" — Mar-a-Lago, where Trump illegally lives. Even Judge Cannon didn't accept that bullshit argument.

[Riva]

About as credible as your gaslighting on Boasberg's illegal gag orders. The recently declassified material from DNI Gabbard is clear. From a summary by Catherine Herridge "the 2016 Russia Collusion narrative was not rooted in credible intelligence reporting, but manufactured to fit a preferred political narrative....After a White House Principals meeting, a new intelligence assessment was commissioned, and media leaks followed, reinforcing a new narrative that 'Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system.' "

[not guilty]

"About as credible as your gaslighting on Boasberg's illegal gag orders."

Gaslighting?? Riva, has anything I have said led you to question your own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories? Has it led to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of your emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on me? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaslighting

If so, I am damned proud to have done so. But to paraphrase Jonathan Swift, “It is useless to attempt to reason a bot out of a thing it was never reasoned into.”

[Riva]

Is this tag team trolling or are you a deranged alias of crazy Dave?

[not guilty]

Fair enough. I have made comments similarly noting that the Trump whore Judge Loose Cannon rejected a claim that there was no probable cause for Magistrate Judge Reinhart's issuance of the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago.

So allow me to revise my question, Riva. Has anything David said led you to question your own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories? Has it led to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of your emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on David?

[Riva]

It’s certainly more than apparent that there’s no shortage of deranged trolls here, regardless of whether a few are operating under different aliases. This site seems to a magnet for the disturbed. Rather sad. I honestly expected more.

[not guilty]

You are assiduously avoiding the question, Riva. Has anything David said led you to question your own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories? Has it led to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of your emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on David?

If not, he is not "gaslighting," and you are lying. Unless one party to a conversation has in fact been gaslighted, no "gaslighting" by the other party has occurred.

[Armchair]

There is no Judge "Loose Cannon". This is a fallacious statement, and should be retracted.

[not guilty]

The recently declassified material from DNI Gabbard is clear. From a summary by Catherine Herridge "the 2016 Russia Collusion narrative was not rooted in credible intelligence reporting, but manufactured to fit a preferred political narrative....After a White House Principals meeting, a new intelligence assessment was commissioned, and media leaks followed, reinforcing a new narrative that 'Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system.' "

None of which has a damned thing to do with the existence or nonexistence of "probably cause" to believe that evidence of criminal activity would be found at Mar-a-Lago within fourteen days* of August 5, 2022.

The warrant authorized a search for evidence that Donald Trump had violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071, or 1519. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/mar-a-lago-search-warrant-and-inventory/6478c5980764438f/full.pdf By their nature, such crimes could not have been committed by Trump until after he left office as President on January 20, 2021.

The so-called 2016 Russia Collusion narrative had nothing to do with it.
______________________
* See, Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e)(2)(A)(i).

[Riva]

I was responding to Crazy Dave’s comment on the Obama administration’s instigation of false political narrative in the intelligence assessment. The baseless search warrant is another issue. You need a time out loony.

[not guilty]

David's comment to which you replied also asserted:

And of course there was probable cause to search — not "raid" — Mar-a-Lago, where Trump illegally lives. Even Judge Cannon didn't accept that bullshit argument.

(Although I do wonder about David's assertion that Trump illegally lives at Mar-a-Lago.)

[Magister]

When Mar-a-Lago was converted to a private club, there was a use agreement that no guest stay there more than 7 consecutive days or 21 total days annually. Palm Beach decided that Trump is an employee of the club and therefore can stay there; a poor reflection on the United States that its president has to take a second job in order to have somewhere to live.

There are his two primary residences in Florida.

[Riva]

You seem more confused than usual today loony. If you don’t like how I choose to frame a response, then tough shit. I’ve actually had enough of this pointless game today. Go play elsewhere.

[David Nieporent]

The "recently declassified material from DNI Gabbard" does not show any such thing, of course. As always, the evidence against Trump's foes is just "It's there somewhere, but I won't tell you where. Everyone [who reads right-wing nuttery on social media] knows it, without regard to the facts." The Gabbard stuff is literally nothing more than, "There was a meeting, so therefore something bad happened at it."

But in any case, WTF does a meeting at the White House in January 2017 — i.e., before Trump took office — have to do with whether there was probable cause to search Mar-a-Lago for national defense information in 2022 for documents he stole while he was in office and then hid?

[Riva]

I never argued that you gaslighting POS.

And President Trump didn’t steal presidential documents you fucking idiot. To the extent classified material was mistakenly included among the thousands of presidential documents, there were safeguards and procedures to return any material to the national archives.

[David Nieporent]

No, he stole the documents. Bragged about it. Hid them. Moved them around so they wouldn't be found. Tried to erase video of those movements. And then caused a perjured affidavit to be submitted claiming he had returned them all.

[hobie]

From a post by Jewish Lives Matter:

"On his first day in office, Mayor Zohran Mamdani took actions that made Jewish New Yorkers less safe:

• Revoked NYC’s use of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, removing the city’s primary tool for identifying modern antisemitism, including when it targets Jews under the guise of anti-Zionism.
• Eliminated the city’s anti-BDS executive order, signaling that economic warfare against the world’s only Jewish state is acceptable city policy.
• Rolled back NYPD guidance meant to scrutinize and limit protests outside synagogues, protections put in place after Jewish institutions were directly targeted.
• Dissolved NYC–Israel economic cooperation initiatives, cutting formal ties between the city and Israeli-American businesses and communities."

I guess it depends on how you look at this. Is this antisemitism? Or is he removing restrictions that prevented the people's right to speech and to protest?

Do other religions have favorable sweetheart business deals with the city of New York? If so, then I'd say some of this is targeted and could be antisemitic. If not, then I would see the removal of favoritism as a good thing.

[David Nieporent]

Is this antisemitism? Or is he removing restrictions that prevented the people's right to speech and to protest?

It's neither. Mamdani didn't do what they're pretending. He simply issued a general executive order constituting a blanket revocation of all executive orders issued by Adams after Adams' indictment. What they're doing is finding the Adams executive orders covered by Mamdani's order that they like and pretend that Mamdani specifically targeted those.

That's not to say that Mamdani wouldn't have targeted those orders if it came up — it's just to say that he didn't.

[Commenter_XY]

The Marxist mayor is an antisemite.

[not guilty]

"As for crimes, well that's currently under investigation related to the abuse of federal law enforcement and/or intelligence powers targeting President Trump and others. Arctic Frost was under Biden but Obama dirty tricks show up in the false January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. And of course we have a raid without probably cause [sic] of President Trump's home. Let's see what the indictment charges."

What federal criminal statute(s) and what conduct by Jack Smith, Riva? If you don't know, just say so.

And as for your so-called "raid without probably cause [sic] of President Trump's home", FBI agents executed a valid search warrant, issued by a United States Magistrate upon a showing of probable cause that evidence of a crime would be found at Mar-a-Lago.

Even Judge Cannon -- a Trump whore if ever there was one -- accepted that the warrant was supported by probable cause. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.655.0_1.pdf Footnote 2 of that order notes that the defense did "not meaningfully challenge the presence of probable cause in the affidavit."

[Riva]

That depends on all the facts but 18 U.S. Code § 241, conspiracy against rights, may be mentioned once or twice in the indictment. I think the thug Smith may be familiar with that statute.

You claim to be a defense lawyer and find nothing questionable regarding the thug's lawfare adventures? You're quite a profile in legal courage, Not Guilty.

[Glaucomatose]

"Let's see what the indictment charges."

I can't wait to hear all about Jack Smith's failure to properly designate his second home as such on his mortgage application.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-882059

A second Iranian revolution to undo the first would be welcome news! And without Iranian funding, Hamas, Hesbola, etc. evaporate.

This is real peace…

[John F. Carr]

If the mythical Iranian moderates come out of the woodwork and take over, great news.

Trump threatened to intervene if the Iranian government kills protesters. Iran replied by threatening chaos across the Middle East.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0q4z33pnnyo

[hobie]

Bombs Venezuela. Bombs Nigeria. Already bombed Iran. Bombs boats. Should be a shoe-in for this years NASCAR War Prize.

[Joe_dallas]

As opposed to Obama who help facilitate and encouraged the mullahs suppression of the opposition and suppression of protestors in Iran. As opposed to Obama who helped prop up the mullah's regime with the JCPOA and the pallets of cash.

Obama deserves another nobel peace prize.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

How about Obama, how about Obama...? Be quiet now, adults are talking.

[not guilty]

If the despotic government of Iran is overthrown, that will be cause for celebration. Intervention by the United States, though, has historically not worked out well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

President Trump has written on Truth Social:

“If Iran shots [sic] and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115824439366264186

Let's hope that this doesn't become another land war in Asia.

[Commenter_XY]

POTUS Trump is fucking with their heads (meaning, Khamenei, IGRC leadership). We're not getting in another ME war.

[bernard11]

POTUS Trump is fucking with their heads

He may be trying to but unlike Trump, they are not fools.

[Armchair]

"Intervention by the United States, though, has historically not worked out well."

You've only cited a single example, and have not cited any of the other examples where the United States has intervened. A case example set of one, without looking at the other examples, does not mean it has "historically not worked out well".

[Kazinski]

I ran across this link at Insta pundit to a Substack which summarizes an affidavit for a series of search warrants in the Somali Social services fraud in Minnesota. The substack links to the court documents including the affidavit. Here is just one little anecdote about what is going on there:

"Kelly R was initially sent to UHHS by her “Community Access for Disability Inclusion” (CAID) manager — a state employee — under the “Housing Stabilization Services” program, another Minnesota progressive/socialism program looted by fraud as described below. UHHS told Kelly R that she could only rent one of their apartments if she could also qualify for services under ICS. Her CAID “manager” assisted her in applying for ICS and — SHOCKINGLY — she was qualified to participate.

She moved into an apartment in June 2024, for $60 a month.

When asked about any ICS services she received, Kelly R said she typically checked-in with the Front Desk when she got home from work. Sometimes no one was there. Kelly R explained that sometimes a UHHS employee would knock on her door to check on her. But Kelly R explained that many days she had no contact with UHHS employees and essentially lived on her own with no support.

Over a 447 day period from June 2024 to August 2025, UHHS billed Minnesota’s ICS program for ”services” to Kelly R on 443 of those days, and received $166,000 — or $375 per day. Keep in mind that UHHS had 10 other “clients” in the same apartment complex."

https://shipwreckedcrew.substack.com/p/ffa5b895-8bed-4617-9ed4-ec0766a9cb12

[Sarcastr0]

“ Here is just one little anecdote”

Hmmm.

“ what is going on there”
Wrong verb tense.

What does this inform other than more hate at the larger Somali-American community in MN?

I’m getting lunch with someone who does nonprofit grants, and I’m gonna ask what his take is on what happened here; he”s said something about MN being extra vulnerable to COVID grant fraud.

I suspect it’s not going to be a Democratic conspiracy to give every black Muslim in MN free money.

[Kazinski]

Here is another anecdote for you from the affidavit filed with the court:

"Rick C. was a 39 year old man — a diagnosed schizophrenic who needed to remain on his medications to control his mental illness and delusional behavior. Living in the UHHS provided apartment beginning in June 2024 was the first time in his life that Rick C had lived on his own.

Rick C’s mother visited him once a week, and generally spent the entire day with him when she did. The first time she visited him she was concerned with the level of care as she did not see any UHHS staff member the entire time she was there. A month after he moved in, Rick C’s mother realized he had stopped taking his medications. Rick C signed a release allowing his mother to obtain his medical records — including the billings from UHHS for the Medicaid funded services it was supposedly providing him under the ICS program. She told the investigators she never saw UHHS provide services remotely similar to what was described in the invoices submitted for payment by UHHS.

Rick C was found dead in his apartment in March 2025, nine months after he had moved in. Interviews of UHHS staff members by the police included one staff member saying he had seen Rick C the previous morning, even though it was obvious Rick C had been deceased for several days when he was found. Another staffer described Rick C as “one of the most … independent residents here…. [T]o be honest, I do my daily check-ins, I have no idea what he does.”

UHHS was invoicing the ICS program for 12 hours of services every day for Rick C, in the amount of $460 — over $38 an hour.

UHHS is co-owned by Othman Mohammed and Hasan Abshir, and was continuing to receive payments from Minnesota until just 40 days ago. After a local news story claiming UHHS was fraudulent billing ICS for services, the Minnesota DHS suspended payments to UHHS on November 20, 2025.

In a statement, DHS said it took the action due to “credible allegations of fraud involving the provider billing DHS for services that were not provided.”

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kelly is not a common Somali name.

But SHE wasn’t getting the $375 a day….

She was, in fact, required to accept services from them that they weren’t providing.

Hence she’s twice a VICTIM of fraud.

[DDHarriman]

Look at this fucking guy.

[Sarcastr0]

OK so here's what I learned about the policy issues from someone with general expertise in the area. This is a subject of some interest, as one might imagine.
I've Googled what I head to trust but verify, and it all checks out at least at first blush.

Pandemic relief fraud is common, and not unique to one party or state. That's somewhat of a policy decision, to allow some undeserving parties to get paid in order to keep things moving speedily.

MN was extra lax on pandemic relief, though.
- Minnesota is an especially non-profit dense state, and has for some time had some state funding programs administering relief funds for housing and food that were intentionally designed with lower than usual administrative hurdles for grantees.
- Minnesota opted to fully administer funds themselves rather than relying on the Fed government, which resulted in laxer vetting
- when the first warning signs of fraud were seen, the state tried to stop payments but the orgs sued and the state and federal district courts courts sided with them, ruling that MN didn't have independent authority to just stop payments without more than an ongoing investigation to point to.
-----
The the investigation started back in the early Biden administration. 2022-2026 is not that long to go from investigation to prosecution. And if you consider what a shambles the FBI is on everything but immigration...

No sign the investigation was stymied by the race card.

The low barriers to grantee entry is a policy decision MN made. It bit them in the ass.

No sign of higher-level officials being complicit, especially since they've been working with the government on this investigation for years now.

The federal government isn't quite saying saying the Somali community in MN is a blight on America, but they have plenty of assholes wiling to do that for them.

Or just post anecdotes from the investigation and wallow in the contextless emotionalism and confirmation bias.

[Absaroka]

A cautionary tale to be sure. Putting out money without oversight is like potato salad uncovered at a picnic - you shouldn't be surprised when flies arrive.

The question is, what now? If I'm reading wiki's Madoff article right, about $4B went unrecovered, and he got 150 years. The NYT is reporting the scale in MN as "more than half of the $18 billion in taxpayer funds spent on the 14 programs and intended to help low-income, vulnerable people since 2018" (as an aside, 2018 predates the covid emergency). So we'll see how justice is eventually done.

I hope the people in government who decided the lax oversight was a good idea face consequences as well. Not legal consequences - making bad decisions is not a crime. But their future careers should reflect their bad judgement.

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't a fraud at an unprecedented scale, but the fraudsters taking money meant for the needy should have the book thrown at them, to be sure!

As DMN has said, it's not a priori a negligent decision that speed is worth the risk. It's not a judgement I would make, I don't think (I am kind of a dork for policies and procedures after all), but punishing based on hindsight creates an incentive for defensive lawmaking which is also bad.

The solution is not ginning up new consequences for past acts (thought the voters are free to do as they please). The way to deal with program failure is to change the policy so it doesn't happen again.
Trump's hostility towards grants generally has assured that for now there's so many layers of hostile oversight that's not a problem right now.

Once things are being rebuilt, we would do well to keep these facts in mind as we put strings on federal money. Though block grants are not something I know much about.

[Commenter_XY]

This isn't a fraud at an unprecedented scale, but the fraudsters taking money meant for the needy should have the book thrown at them, to be sure!

I actually agree with you about this. You're on board with denaturalization and deportation, then. Hallelujah! 😉

[windycityattorney]

I thought I read something like 70 people had already been indicted in the fraud scheme over the last couple yrs. But its now picked up major steam due to national publicity and MAGA weirdos staking out day care centers and what not.

Assuming some or many of those 70people previously indicted have either reached plea deals or settlements - we should know what the sentencing is like. Restitution? Prison? Deportations? Some combination of all? Likely if we are talking about tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

[DDHarriman]

What does this have to do with the Somalia childcare fraud?

[Kazinski]

There is a simpler explanation.

The whole point of these social programs is income redistribution, taking richer tax payers money and redistributing it to friendly constituencies, by both providing jobs and services to the community.

And because the purpose was not providing daycare but income redistribution fraud is not a flaw in the system to be rooted out, it enhances and accelerates the income redistribution, and is a feature not a flaw in the system.

And that explains why it was completely ignored until it got so big, and blatant, it couldn't be hidden.

[Sarcastr0]

the purpose was not providing daycare but income redistribution fraud

That's not a simpler explanation.

[Kazinski]

You have to admit that fraud is a great way to turbocharge income redistribution.

[Absaroka]

I dunno ... the people getting the fraudulent billions aren't too poor at that point.

[Sarcastr0]

1. I do not believe fraud is good at that, as Absaroka pointed out.

2. You're assuming a widespread conspiracy of MN lawmakers and civil servants. That's rarely a good explanation for anything.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The Swiss bar fire is going to raise two questions— are European fire codes as good as U.S. ones (they aren’t), and if Swiss codes were followed (I doubt it).

Even if the explosions were rupturing gas lines, that’s not burning liquid dripping from the ceiling. I’m thinking flammable foam above the false ceiling and flammable varnish on it. US code would require a second staircase or other route to OUTDOORS.

AND SPARKLERS ARE NOT ALLLOWED!

There are a lot of rich victims from other European countries, this is going to be an interesting legal mess….

[John F. Carr]

I was thinking of The Station fire. Forbidden sparks + substandard wall covering.

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

[hobie]

I can barely get myself to even think about this Swiss Fire, because the footage from the Station Nightclub has so deeply, deeply, scarred me. I know inside cell phone footage of the Swiss fire is coming and I pray I have the will not to look.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It’s the same issue — if the building is on fire, GET OUT NOW!

If there is a possibility that the building might be on fire, GET OUT NOW!

30 seconds was the difference between life and death — don’t think, ACT!!!

[David Nieporent]

don’t think, ACT!!!

Dr. Ed's personal life motto.

[Magister]

Yes, but the only action Dr. Ed 2 takes is to comment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not back when he was younger —Dr Ed saved lives….

[Mr. Hook]

If you squint, I guess obeying a restraining order counts as saving a life.

[Bwaaah]

"I pray I have the will not to look"

Sounds to me like the will to look.

[hobie]

Yeah

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Maybe Deep Purple will do a song about it.

[Commenter_XY]

Are they even alive to do it? They're geezers by now.

[Malika la Maize]

President Trump said in new interview regarding his health that he has rejected his doctors’ advice to take less aspirin for cardiac prevention because he has been taking it for more than two decades and is a “little superstitious.” 

“They say aspirin is good for thinning out the blood, and I don’t want thick blood pouring through my heart,” Trump said in an interviewwith The Wall Street Journal that was published on Thursday. “I want nice, thin blood pouring through my heart. Does that make sense?”

Doctors have recommended that the president take smaller dose of aspirin than what he currently takes, which is 325 milligrams a day, according to Trump’s physician, Sean Barbabella. A low dose of aspirin is typically closer to 80 milligrams.

“They’d rather have me take the smaller one,” he said. “I take the larger one, but I’ve done it for years, and what it does do is it causes bruising.” 

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5669408-trump-health-aspirin/

[Krayt]

The bruising is most likely too-thin blood leaking out. Blood vessels are not like rubber hoses. They have to let stuff through, as that is blood's purpose. You can't assume all is well deep in your body.

Some blood thinners are used as rat poison for this same reason. It's all about the dose.

[SRG2]

Well, he does know more about medicine than his doctors, they were amazed how much he knew, they thought he would have made a great doctor, many doctors have said so.

[Joe_dallas]

not always the case, but quite a few patients can monitor and adjust medications based on how the level of medications affect the patient.

You are likely reading too much into Trumps comment - Partisan blindness and hate perhaps.

[ducksalad]

quite a few patients can monitor and adjust medications

Actually all of us not involuntarily committed can do that, at least for non-prescription stuff. The question is whether we should.

Have to admit I take 325 every day even though the PA keeps saying why not 80. The MD is older and wiser, just rolls his eyes and says nothing. Also have to admit that Trump's reasoning is almost word for word what I would have said myself.

[Joe_dallas]

I am not going to defend or condemn trumps personal decision to override the doctors advice. Only noting that frequently the patient will find the prescription from the Md is too high or too low or simply the wrong medication. Simply there isnt enough information to know what is the correct protocol.

[Krayt]

"Are you having spontaneous bruising with no known smacks?"

"Yes."

"Reduce your blood thinners."

[SRG2]

You are likely reading too much into Trumps comment

Nope. I am merely making fun of Trump, but, in the cultiverse, that is unacceptable, Thou shalt not mock Dear Leader, nor his wife nor his family nor all that is his.

Partisan blindness and hate perhaps

Is what gets one to over-defend Dear Leader

[Mr. Hook]

Here's a poser: Both Trump and Brett Bellmore know more than any medical doctor or researcher, but which of those two is the greater medical expert?

[Life of Brian]

Doctors have recommended that the president take smaller dose of aspirin than what he currently takes, which is 325 milligrams a day, according to Trump’s physician, Sean Barbabella. A low dose of aspirin is typically closer to 80 milligrams.

This very much reminds me of the extra scoop of ice cream create-a-scandal in the first year of Term 1.

Apparently all the ostensibly concerning stuff has died down, and they're having to bottom-feed to try to keep the clicks coming.

[Malika la Maize]

Yesterday Oregon defeated Texas Tech by more than they beat JMU, and in a shutout to boot. I think that makes the charges that JMU didn’t deserve to be in the playoffs a little less strong.

The teams left include one ACC team, two Big 10 teams and one team from the SEC. So much for the latter’s supposed dominance.

[hobie]

Oregon embarrassed my beloved Texas Tech. At least Indiana remains. What a story they are!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

My son graduated from IU, and was in their fantastic marching band. I spent many a freezing cold afternoon in Bloomington to see my son march, and watching IU get crushed by Big 10 rivals in the late 2000's. This season has been particularly gratifying.

[Commenter_XY]

I bet it was amazing to watch your son from the stands. Your son must have had several qualities from you and your SO. What qualities from you or your SO do you think got him into the marching band?

It is a serious question.

[DDHarriman]

https://x.com/i/status/2006952221729267991

Of course.

Israeli cybersecurity billionaire Shlomo Kramer says "it's time to limit the First Amendment."

"We need to control all the social platforms…And take control of what they are saying."

[Krayt]

"We need to control all the social platforms…And take control of what they are saying."

"We", being the elites.

I recall Egypt after the Arab Spring, fully in the hands of the military, cracking down on satellite dishes. The argument? The People should not be allowed to watch CNN without government there to contextualize it.

The irony was Obama went to facebook and asked them to delay a service shutdown during the Arab Spring precisely because it was needed by the people to route around their slipping governments.

A few years back, the elites here tried to make cracks in the First Amendment by revisiting The Marketplace of Ideas, not to buttress it, but to ultimately claim harrassment had no such value, and therefore could be banned.

No thank you, elitest. You are the problem, because too much free speech is threatening you.

[John F. Carr]

The medical industry is pushing a redefinition of obesity that would make 70 to 75% of Americans obese. With an industry-backed diganosis insurance companies will be expected to pay for more visits, more tests, and more drugs.

Coincidentally, or perhaps not, class action lawsuits allege that not covering expensive GLP-1 drugs is illegal disability discrimination on the part of employer-provided health plans.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/weight-loss-drug-suits-test-health-insurer-coverage-decisions

[ThePublius]

We used to joke that if you go to an optometrist you're going to get glasses whether you need them or not. Well, it turns out that special interest groups representing practitioners continually lobby to change diagnostic standards to increase positive diagnoses for the conditions they treat, for primarily financial and professional gain. A good example is autism. Nearly all (98% or so) of the increase in autism diagnoses in the last several years is due to a change in the diagnostic standard. More business, more jobs, more subsidies. Everyone needs glasses. Every child is autistic, or, rather, "on the spectrum."

I'm a fairly skinny guy, and have always been so. I'm currently 5'8" and 135 lb. When I was 170 lb., about 10 years ago, even though I was still obviously skinny, and quite active and athletic, my doctor told me that due to my BMI measure I was borderline obese. I laughed in his face. He blushed and said, yea, they changed the standard.

[DDHarriman]

re: Autism diagnoses

We're also seeing that as a vehicle for fraud.

[Michael P]

One frustrating thing is that the new rules seem to be very opaque. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2840138 says the new definition is any of:

(1) elevated BMI plus at least 1 elevated anthropometric measure (eg, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and/or waist-to-height ratio) or BMI greater than 40; (2) at least 2 elevated anthropometric measures, irrespective of BMI; or (3) excess body fat as assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry or similar modalities.

However, the anthropomorphic measures use sex- and race-specific thresholds, and I haven't been able to find what those are. Another article mentioned waist-to-height ratio thresholds of 0.5 and 0.6, but didn't specifically say whether those were used in the new definition.

And https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/obesity-defined-1.7431181 says the new definition "includes 18 diagnostic criteria for clinical obesity in adults and 13 criteria for children and adolescents", which does not inspire confidence in the precision of the label.

[Krayt]

Ratios and measurements mean nothing unless correlated to health problems. I assume this is done here.

[Michael P]

Do you mean correlated in terms of population statistics? You can find hazard or odds ratios for these in most of the studies, including my first link, although they have the usual limitations of associational statistics. The "18 diagnostic criteria" from my second link seem to be an attempt to base an obesity diagnosis on more individual factors, but I couldn't tell whether those are thought to be contributors to, versus symptoms of, obesity. Either of those could be seen as "health problems".

[Life of Brian]

(1) elevated BMI plus at least 1 elevated anthropometric measure (eg, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and/or waist-to-height ratio) or BMI greater than 40; (2) at least 2 elevated anthropometric measures, irrespective of BMI; or (3) excess body fat as assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry or similar modalities.

The underlying article is here, and reads like a death-by-committee effort.

I went looking for it to see how it quantifies "excess body fat," and found nothing. And thank goodness -- with criteria that squishy, The Man won't be able to deny the anorexics of the world their GLP-1s.

[SRG2]

The current obesity level is what. 35% to 40% or so? That's already a ridiculously high number.

BTW here is a map of obesity by state.
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data-and-statistics/adult-obesity-prevalence-maps.html

BMI is an imperfect measure - I'm supposedly overweight at 5'10" and 184lb, but I run track and train accordingly.

[Malika la Maize]

Did someone order tacos?

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/white-house-delays-new-tariffs-furniture-kitchen-cabinets/story?id=128830021

In the latest reversal of his signature economic policy, President Donald Trump is rolling back tariffs on furniture, kitchen cabinets and vanities.

Higher tariff rates on those goods that were set to take effect Jan. 1 will now be delayed for another year, according to a White House fact sheet.

[ThePublius]

Modulating tariffs in response to conditions is not chickening out. He already set those tariffs to 25%, he's just not raising them to 50% for at least another year.

When you drive do you just press the accelerator all the way to the floor until you get where you're going?

[ducksalad]

When you drive do you just press the accelerator all the way to the floor until you get where you're going?

Of course not. I wait for a "go" signal from the Premier of Ontario or the Brazilian Supreme Court.

[David Nieporent]

When you drive do you just press the accelerator all the way to the floor until you get where you're going?

Go that way, really fast. If something gets in your way, turn.

[David Nieporent]

Bootlickers can't help but lick boots. The tariffs weren't set in response to conditions, and they aren't being modulated in response to conditions.

[Josh R]

Perhaps they are TACO responses to high prices?

[John F. Carr]

Remember "Better dead than red"?

https://coloradosun.com/2026/01/02/911-service-boulder-county-mountain-towns-gold-hill-jamestown-colorado/

This is mainly a story about the consequences of telecom deregulation. The sole phone company in the mountains west of Boulder, Colorado won't replace the batteries that provide service during a power outage. When power goes down 911 goes down 20 seonds later. But buried in the middle is a paragraph about politics. Starlink works just fine and needs little power. Some residents refuse to buy Starlink because they don't want to do business with Trump ally Musk.

[Michael P]

There's a lot of griping in that article, but...

In the event of a power outage, the batteries are supposed to kick on, keeping Gold Hill connected for about two hours.

I don't see a description of how long power outages last or even how frequent they are, but I would expect most of them are for more than two hours.

And any kind of battery loses both life and charge when it gets cold enough. The chemistry slows way down and components get brittle even if nothing freezes solid. It's one thing to have good batteries in a forgiving climate, but that part of Colorado gets really cold. For example, neither lead-acid nor lithium-ion batteries are rated for safe operation below -20 degrees C (-4 degrees F), and above-freezing is preferred. Slapping a heater on the battery compounds the capacity problem.

[ThePublius]

Most telephone exchanges operate on 48VDC. Batteries are convenient to back these up, but that should only be until the generator kicks on. I forget most of the terminology, but these small switching facilities all had generators, typically natural gas powered. (I know, I bought a surplus one!). You don't need a ton of power to keep a small switching station running, 3kW is usually enough.

Why don't they have generators? Especially for something as important as 911?

[Michael P]

I agree on the generator question. That requires more equipment and maintenance, but rural phone service is already subsidized, and the improved reliability has inherent value.

[Absaroka]

"Why don't they have generators? Especially for something as important as 911?"

My sense is that companies bought the baby bells as a way to get the rights of way and so on to use for fiber. They don't want to service the fast shrinking twisted-pair copper user base, and aren't; service is bad and getting worse.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Back in the ‘80s, they were Diesel — I delivered fuel to a few.

But with FIOS, you have to have power in your house, too.

[Absaroka]

I *think* they are talking about an old-school Ma Bell type copper phone system ("the batteries have not been replaced for more than 20 years"). Those were in substation buildings, not out on a cold pole somewhere. I lived in a canyon above Boulder 40 some years ago, and the battery backups seemed to work fine then.

I don't think there is some fundamental problem with the doing battery backups for the 'classic' phone system; that was a solved problem for decades. The problem is the 'over 20 years'. Lead acid batteries just don't last anywhere near 20 years.

"neither lead-acid nor lithium-ion batteries are rated for safe operation below -20 degrees C (-4 degrees F)"

True for lithium, but not for lead-acid. When we parked at -40 for a week, the car cranked right up (if it is in a good state of tune, right oil, healthy battery, all of which we were careful to have because being stranded at a remote trailhead wouldn't be fun).

We have an off-grid cabin in the MT mountains. It is not heated at all for weeks when we are gone. When we show up the lead acid battery is charged and ready to go. Neighbors have lithiums (and we're converting to lithium). They work well.

[Dr. Ed 2]

With POTS twisted copper wires, the electricity came from the switch building, which had both batteries and a generator.

The problem with glass fiber is that you need electricity at the house to both convert the light into an electric signal and to send a light signal back. This uses house power with a battery backup and THAT battery only lasts a year, and it isn’t cheap to have replaced.

[John F. Carr]

The latest outage was a 3-5 days long. Elsewhere in the affected region even cell service was seriously degraded after a couple days.

[Kazinski]

They ever hear of a propane generator with an autostart module?

Propane is usable down to -44f, -42c. A 100 gallon propane tank is about the size of a hot water tank, and would fit in a closet and would power a propane generator for 100 hours.

If I can afford a setup like that for my well pump, then they can certainly afford it for a community phone system.

[hobie]

The NY Times ran an article on the first iterations of OpenAI's ChatGPT. The initial output was incomprehensible to humans. So OpenAI spent an inordinate amount of time making the interface human-friendly and pleasant such that humans would accept it as human and be pleased by it. It enables us to spend more time with it. It is a better reflection of who we are.

As I become more and more consciously aware that I am spending more and more time watching content - and I can see the algorithm honing more and more what I like - I am thinking of the Greek fable of Narcissus. He was so infatuated with his reflection, that he could no longer look away. It is easy to see that anyone without a discipline of iron (most of humanity) will slowly fall into the trap.

I see the future as the following. The tech titans are now more wealthy and powerful than anyone before them. More powerful than any nation including the United States. It’s no longer just computers and software. They are taking over all forms of communication, energy production, military hardware, space, food production and distribution, media and movies, automation, and now AI. They're even buying whole governments, including ours. Nearly all facets of life.

I do not see a Sky Net/Terminator scenario. I see the Matrix. A WALLE. A Matrix we willingly enter. As tech takes over everything, as they automate work, we will work less and view more. Eventually - ?hypothetically? - we will spend all our time in front of the monitor.

Plus, tech is consolidating. One will eventually come up with the better mouse trap, the perfect AI, the perfect quantum computer, the perfect robots. And that company will be the planet’s one, single company. Our Buy ‘N Large from WALLE. Obviating the need for nation states. We will give the corporation 100% of our time and attention, and in return the corporation will do all our work and feed us.

And that will be the final destination of humanity…metaphorically enslaved in front of our computers. Not physically plugged into pods of the vast Matrix power stations. Not obliterated by war. Just quietly and eternally mesmerized by dopamine-inducing content. If an alien spacecraft were to fly by, it would see a planet as quiet as a church, with 8 billion people silently watching a screen.

[Malika la Maize]

Brave New World > 1984

[Krayt]

I got logged out of YouTube somehow. Suddenly the shorts "scroll wall" was completely different stuff. This was refreshing. In four days, it was back to the same repetition still without me logging in.

They need a reset button to set back to pretend-no-knowledge-of-me, or set it permanently. I don't mind seeing stuff I like, but not only that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Clear cookies and history in browser.

[John F. Carr]

YouTube is influenced by history at the same IP address.

I saw ads related to NYC politics after somebody used the same IP address as me then moved to NYC.

[bernard11]

"scroll wall"

I hate that damn thing.

[DDHarriman]

If you've never read Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman, you should.

It was first published in the 80s.

--

This is the second post of yours I've actually enjoyed. What's going on? A New Years Resolution to try and act like a human? I like this hobie. We're arm & arm against the Jews, now we're arm & arm against Big Tech/WEF/Democrat/Globalist Marxism.

[hobie]

No, Harriman, you are against the Jews; I'm against the acts of the State of Israel. A distinction lost on all hayseeds.

[DDHarriman]

Not true at all.

I am against people because of their behavior who happen to be Jewish.

"Jew" is just a shorthand for people who are behaving a particular way -- Like the Zionist assault on Palestinian women and children. Or the attacks on Christian churches & Christians. Or their subversion of the family, our culture, and our society, and their 'tikkum olam' which is really not to better the world, but to put them in control of all the lesser peoples, the Goy.

I can hate people for their behavior.
I can hate people for their lack of accountability.
I can hate people for their vile beliefs.

And I can use common, generalized language without parsing it or over qualifying it because most high functioning adults understand that generalizations are exactly that. Shorthand to convey concepts and not literal judgments that apply to literally every person. Only retards think in absolutes like that.

So go fuck yourself. We both hate the Jews.

Not every literal breathing Jew -- some, the good ones, have even found Jesus. Just the Jews that are sacrificing Christian children and slaughtering Palestinian ones. You and I are arm & arm in that hatred of typical Jew behavior.

[David Nieporent]

Like the Zionist assault on Palestinian women and children.

Yes, you're a real humanitarian who cares about the fate of brown people.

[DDHarriman]

Hobie certainly does.

I'm surprised you didn't do your classic Ostrich stance.

"That didn't happen... trust me -- pinky swear".

[Josh R]

"Jew" is just a shorthand for people who are behaving a particular way.

... that just happens to include (according to DDH) almost all Jews and consists of almost exclusively Jews. DDH, you are alone at the top of the anti-Semitic trash heap.

[DDHarriman]

I use Jew like you use MAGA.

If the subversive behavior is exclusively Jewish, what does that say about the genetics of the Jew?

What is it about them that makes them so subversive? Throughout history. Maybe peoples who aren't so subversive don't need Iron Domes?

[Josh R]

I don't use MAGA to describe people.

You sound very proud to be at the top of the heap of the antisemites.

[not guilty]

"I use Jew like you use MAGA."

Ah, yes! The Humpty Dumpty school of language, as described in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass (1871):

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

A Jew is a person born to a Jewish mother. (It originally meant a person from Judea.) It is ancestral. Unlike MAGA followers, Jews are not self-selected.

[Magister]

That sounds very much like those earnest explanations of how the N word isn't about race and includes white people.

[ducksalad]

we will spend all our time in front of the monitor.…metaphorically enslaved in front of our computers.

You're not keeping up with news, hobie. Musk's brain interface chip will get released soon. There will be no need for you to be anywhere near a monitor or sit in front of the computer.

[hobie]

There is that. Ain't no one touching my brain just so I can shop faster online.

[David Nieporent]

And that company will be the planet’s one, single company.

That's the plot of many a dystopian scifi work, and it remains economically illiterate. Who is this corporation selling to? And perhaps even more importantly: why? What is it doing with money?

[Magister]

It's about having all the power; money is mostly irrelevant in that dystopia, but might still exist to represent scoring in the competition between the corporation's wage slaves. People are happier if they have someone worse off to compare themselves to.

[Michael P]

You're describing a despotism, though, not a company. The dystopian trope almost always has the villain being a company, because it's too implausible without the label "corporation". Who would want to go to such a planet, or to stay there if they have a choice?

Alternatively, think of it as the ultimate in central planning of the economy. What functionally or behaviorally distinguishes that hypothetical company from a hypothetical world government? DMN is pointing at particular motives that a company has that a government doesn't, and without those, there's no apparent motivation for them to behave differently.

[Magister]

The corporation would obviously be the government, and contra "The dystopian trope almost always has the villain being a company" many famous dystopian novels have government as the villain: 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, The Handmaid's Tale (arguably religion there, which took over the government; not clear that the first three developed from corporations rather than governments). Blade Runner is the most prominent example of a dystopia with corporate rule, although it does not have a single corporation in charge of everything.

In 1984, three world powers share totalitarian control (if the other two world powers actually exist) so that each has enemies to mobilize their citizens against. Similarly, one could imagine that a dystopia of corporations would actually have multiple corporations who "compete" in the manner of sports leagues; no point to baseball if the Yankees were the only team, or to basketball if the Harlem Globetrotters had no opponent to perform against. But it might be a single corporation in which divisions compete against each other; that apparently fueled Sears' downfall but it could work with a single corporation, and money would be meaningful to the different divisions.

As to who would want to go to such a planet or stay there, it's not like any of us have or will have any other choice, corporation or religion or government.

[John F. Carr]

I think of corporate dystopias as peaking around the 1980s.

[hobie]

I don't believe I'm just fantasizing a dystopian trope. I think it truly is beginning for real...right before our eyes. And I ain't no QAnon conspiracist hayseed either. I rarely entertain these kind of thoughts. So if I say what I said, you'd do well to take notice

[BrotherMovesOn]

Everything was much simpler when I was a kid. We still had three nations. That was before the corporate wars, even before Rollerball. Before everything.

– Cletus

It’s like people had a choice a long time ago between… well, having all them nice things or freedom. Of course, they chose comfort.

– Jonathan E

[hobie]

The data centers are one of the big tells for me. Google alone is investing $1.2 trillion. One single company is investing the GDP of half the world. How is it possible they have that much money?!

This is the end game. The race to consolidation happening right before our eyes. No one entity or nation can ever hope to catch up to or replicate any of this. It's now just a matter of who will win it all. My hope is that it will be Microsoft or Google; I feel there is still a little goodness left in them.

But, unfortunately, I think it will be Musk that claims it all. He's just too powerful. And no one can stop him from completely controlling space and all global communication.

But to your question: how does one corporation prosper when they control everything and no one works or pays them? I don't know. But completely controlling an entire planet seems like a benefit of some sort.

[Armchair]

"Google alone is investing $1.2 trillion. One single company is investing the GDP of half the world. How is it possible they have that much money?"

Half the world? Worldwide annual GDP is $117 Trillion. That's maybe 1% of world GDP. And what timeframe is Google investing that over?

[David Nieporent]

And what timeframe is Google investing that over?

Google's entire market cap is only about 3x that figure; I don't think it's investing that kind of money over any short period of time.

[Armchair]

Exactly.

[Magister]

The poorest half of countries in the world probably have a total GDP of less than that. But I expect that this was hyperbole, as startlingly inconsistent as that would be for hobie.

[Armchair]

"The poorest half of countries in the world probably have a total GDP of less than that"

Even that isn't likely. The GDP of just Africa is $3.1 Trillion.

Start subtracting countries. Lose South Africa, that's 0.4 Trillion. Egypt, another 0.3 trillion. Algeria, Morocco, Nigeria ~0.8 trillion. Another 0.6 trillion...Lose Kenya, Ethiopia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Tanzania, DRC, and Uganda....

That's maybe 50% of Africa left. It certainly doesn't add up to "50% of the world"

[Magister]

I looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) and sorted by the various columns, and took the sum of the lowest half of the data. It did come out to 1.22 trillion for the IMF estimates, which don't include data for a significant number with low numbers in the other columns, but below 1.2 trillion for the other two columns.

[Armchair]

Ouch....that's pretty misleading to call it "1/2 the world"

What that does is it groups all the micro counties into one category. Andorra, San Marino, Nauru, Vanuatu, Kiribati, Comoros, Barbados, Liechtenstein, , etc....

It's not anywhere close to 1/2 of the world's POPULATION. Or 1/2 the world's land area. Liechtenstein isn't even poor (GDP per capita in excess of $200,000). But it's tiny (less than 70 square miles) with a small population (<50,000 people). Group 50 or so countries micro countries plus 40 just a little bigger and calling that "1/2 the world" is...misleading.

[Magister]

Hmm, that would be hyperbole then, so you can stop being enraged.

[Armchair]

Try going down to the neighborhood bar, having a beer, and talking to some people instead.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes, I would suggest that same.

[Malika la Maize]

A group of Fox News hosts were taken to task over selective outrage as a federal fraud investigation ramps up in Minnesota.
The probe into fraud at the state’s social services programs has gained the attention of top Trump administration officials as well as GOP lawmakers.

But as political strategist Jessica Tarlov noted, members of the administration enraged over widespread fraud reports in Democratic Governor Tim Walz’s state have allowed some of the biggest convicted fraudsters in the country off the hook.

She noted that Philip Esformes, a former healthcare and nursing home executive convicted in a $1.3 billion Medicare fraud scheme, one of the largest healthcare fraud schemes in U.S. history, had his 20-year prison sentence commuted by Trump during his first term.

She also pointed a finger at another convicted fraudster, former private equity executive David Gentile. Gentile was found to have defrauded thousands of investors in a $1.6 billion scheme, but he was granted clemency by the president last month.

Tarlov also brought up Trump University, which the president started before he entered politics. It reached a $25 million settlement after being sued for defrauding its students.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-anchors-fact-checked-to-their-faces-over-fraud-outrage/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump U was no worse than State U.

[Magister]

That might depend on the state, but many state universities are highly regarded, and most are accredited, don't engage in high pressure sales or false claims, charge reasonable and even subsidized tuition, and have not been sued for being massive scams. Perhaps you could name the state and its particular university you have in mind?

[Michael P]

That's what one calls "whataboutism", right?

Malicia continues to demonstrate an inability to think, much less be consistent, or even to quote material from other people.

[Sarcastr0]

The subject in the post is the double standard.

That's not deflecting from an issue by 'what about' some new issue. Here, there is nothing to deflect from.

[Michael P]

No surprise that you defend parroting somebody's whataboutism.

It was explicitly couched as "taken to task over selective outrage as a federal fraud investigation ramps up in Minnesota" -- that is, blatant and shameless whataboutism. You're being meta-hypocritical.

[Josh R]

You don't understand whataboutism.

Person A (who you like) does X (which you don't like). You are asked whether A was justified. You don't answer the question and instead say B (who you don't like) also did X. That's whataboutism.

Person A (who Person C does not like) does X. Person C criticizes person A for doing X. Person C is silent about person B (who Person C likes) doing X. Person D calls out Person C for being a hypocrite. That is not whataboutism.

The latter describes Malika's post.

[Michael P]

That would be news to Malicia, Gaslight0, and lots of others who love to accuse their interlocutors of whataboutism for pointing out hypocrisy by the former group.

[Josh R]

Could be, but not this time.

[Randal]

No, this is simple calling out of hypocrisy (in the furtherance of corruption). Not whataboutism.

[Michael P]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03833-8

A meta-analysis of 168 studies covering more than 11 million people found no reliable link between economic inequality and well-being or mental health. In other words, living in a place that has large gaps between the rich and poor does not affect these outcomes, with implications for policy.

Worth remembering. Especially for democratic socialists (i.e. morons) who declare "We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism."

[Sarcastr0]

"11,389,871 participants from 38,335 geographical units"

What is a geographical unit?
This seems a sub-national analysis.
If so, I'd be concerned about rural/urban effects swamping the data.

I can't access the paper right now to see more detail.

[Absaroka]

"What is a geographical unit?"

From a skim of the article:
"Approximately 35% of studies focused on local clusters (for example, municipalities), 17% on large subnational clusters (for example, states) and 45% on countries (the remainder used combinations of clusters). The corpus of studies was diverse: nearly 40% used data from international datasets, 20% from the USA, 10% from China and 30% from other countries, including several in the Global South (for example, Indonesia, Ghana, Vietnam and Mexico)."

My dad, who as a depression baby knew a little about income inequality, used to opine that the happiness/money curve had a steep beginning, up until you had enough to eat, a warm house, a car that worked and what have you, and was pretty flat after that. That's true for me; getting the first econobox that got me out of riding the Greyhound was a yuuuge improvement, while (for me!) swapping the econobox for a Rolls-Royce wouldn't add much (in fact, I'd probably like it less). Lower down the hierarchy of needs, the hungry->bread step is a lot bigger than the bread->croissant step.

This is not a universal outlook, of course. Envy is unfortunately common.

[Michael P]

There are definite benefits to getting out of poverty, but the finding of this study is that those thresholds need to be in absolute terms rather than relative ones. Americans generally have better well-being than subsistence farmers because we are richer in absolute terms, not relative ones.

[John F. Carr]

See "hierarchy of needs".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

[Sarcastr0]

Historians say revolution is sparked by a change in circumstances of a critical mass of the population, not by the absolute or comparative value of circumstances.

I'm skeptical of the paper just from my quick read of the abstract and summary, but if I have it wrong, I don't think it does much to upset my ideals or policy choices - there are good policy reasons why extreme income inequality is bad beyond civic stability and/or self-reported happiness.

[Bwaaah]

In historical terms, all of a sudden (over the past century), we find ourselves with unprecedented levels of food, health, comfort, security, and even leisure.

If there is a revolution coming, it could be the first one sparked by too many people jerking off at the same time.

[Sarcastr0]

You're talking about absolute circumstances. Which is exactly what I said historians believe doesn't matter.

We have a ton of retired and comfortable people on this here website at least by what they post are quite dissatisfied with the status quo of today.
No small number of them claim to yearn for the 1950s.

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

[bernard11]

Absaroka,

What your father was observing was the declining marginal utility of wealth, a pretty common economic assumption. It is one of the ideas behind progressive income taxes.

[hobie]

A prediction for 2026

Trump doesn't do anything that doesn't enrich the Trump Clan. So why all this punching down on Venezuela out of the blue? Why bomb its little boats? Yet he pardons or extols Central American kingpins and doesn't lay a finger on Mexican cartel business. Basically he's eliminating the competition and making a friendly corridor through Central America.

I think it will be discovered that he's been bought by the Mexican cartels

[Michael P]

And how much are you willing to wager on that? What specific threshold do you set for "it will be discovered"?

[windycityattorney]

Don Jr seems to have been caught on camera looking like my coke head clients do after a long weekend of doing blow.

Since we live in the dumbest of all possible timelines; I can safety predict that a democratic Congresswoman is going to have a blown up photo of Don Jr's dong put into the Congressional record by May.

This is how that works, right?

[hobie]

I would hope the Dems in Congress have more class than that.

[Estragon]

A few days late, but I was heartened to see this development. The frogs won this round.

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2025/12/trump-drops-national-guard-in-portland-other-cities.html

[DDHarriman]

I crunched the data. I made a map.
States with no effective voter ID requirement average nearly 8x more welfare benefits to illegal immigrants compared to states requiring voter ID verification.
They are importing and paying illegals for votes.

https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/2007023660666867956

Demorats fucking hate you and only want to control you while they make themselves rich Godkings. They are ruining this country for their perverse fucked up corruption.

[SRG2]

They are importing and paying illegals for votes.

And yet no GOP investigation has ever found this to be true.

[Estragon]

https://legacy.www.documentcloud.org/documents/26450573-251217-jack-smith

“And what I recall was Meadows stating that “I’ve never seen Jim Jordan scared of anything,” and the fact that we were in this different situation now where people were scared really made it clear that what was going on at the Capitol could not be mistaken for anything other than what it was.”

Jim Jordan calling the White House pissing-his-pants scared about a bunch of granny tourists just taking pictures? What a low-energy RINO loser! Sad!

[DDHarriman]

>Jack Smith sought to define “truth”, and then counter the free speech defense by mob agreement on what constitutes the “truth.” Under this predicate, President Trump was being prosecuted for a thought crime, and Jack Smith sought to legally prove he knew his thoughts.

>The only way Jack Smith could prove fraud would be to prove that President Trump believed the information about Joe Biden winning the election. Smith sought to prove Trump’s belief by presenting Republican voices who told President Trump he lost.
...

>A man tells you a chicken is a frog, you laugh. The man then brings 15 of your family members to tell you a chicken is a frog. You reject the absurdity of the premise, but the man brings forth hundreds more people to tell you the chicken is a frog, and if you do not accept that Chickens are Frogs, you will be defined as mentally impaired, institutionalized and become a ward of the state.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/01/01/jack-smiths-twisted-machiavellian-lawfare-mindset-paints-a-dystopian-future-for-the-usa-if-not-dispatched-quickly/

Everyone should be afraid of what the Democrats are trying to do. It's sickening, evil, and monstrous.

[Estragon]

Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV. Chicken. Frog.

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. Why are MAGA so stupid? Trump was being prosecuted for his actions, combined with a culpable mental state. The latter element is called mens rea, is part of every criminal prosecution, and does not constitute a "thoughtcrime."

Example: if I sell you a Van Gogh, and it turns out to be a forgery, that's only criminal fraud on my part if I knew, or should have known, that it was a forgery.

Oh, and the analogy in the post is really stupid, because the whole point is that Trump's prosecution relied on the fact that he was knowingly lying, not that he was "mentally impaired."

(But, yeah, if hundreds of people are telling you something is a frog, and you keep insisting it's a chicken, and you actually believe it, then you are almost certainly mentally impaired.)

[Josh R]

Precisely. Had the prosecution gone forward, Smith would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew the election was not rigged, a tall order in my opinion.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think it's as difficult as all that. Call as witnesses all the people — people in Trump's orbit — who told Trump it was legit, including those who wrote reports expressly explaining why his factual claims were baseless. They only have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. How's Trump going to convince a jury that actually he sincerely believed his false statements — at least without taking the stand, which I have to believe his lawyers would commit seppuku before allowing to happen?

[Moderation4ever]

I think this is right on the money. The only way for Trump to assert that he truly believed he won the election would be by direct testimony from Trump. It could not be done indirectly. There is no way that Trump could testify without making things worse.

[Estragon]

I love how when certain people are involved, bog-standard prosecutorial elements like proving intent all of a sudden become these fantastically impossible feats, literally beyond the reach of human capacity. It’s why we always get the references to science fiction— as if proving intent requires some kind of futuristic mind reading device. This standard however is curiously not universally applied to all criminal defendants.

[Josh R]

For an ordinary adult, sure. But if I am Trump's lawyer, I would introduce evidence of Trump's history of ignoring advice and going his own way. That is, Trump's extreme narcissism could save the day.

[windycityattorney]

Or you introduce evidence of Trump receiving competing theories of the facts AND CONSISTENTLY and deliberately only going for the one's that end up with him winning the election.

Lawsuits all failed? Corrupt judges. Guillani and Powell and my pillow guy not being able to substantiate their wild claims of election fraud? Conspiracy. John Eastman making constitutional law up? Best lawyer ever! Michael Pence and his entire staff saying Meadows is full of shit and Pence can't do what they are asking? TRAITOR. If you are president and you have all these talented staff and legal teams...and they all tell you the election is over you lost (once all the legal challenges failed and the VP wasn't going along with questionable theories) BUT some fringe minority says ... 'no there is still hope.'

And you wilfully blind yourself to reality and go with the fringe minority...at some point it has to be considered a conscious disregard of reality and a knowing or deliberate attempt to simply steal the election. Its not like he is average joe getting advice from his poker buddies. He was the fucking president. Pence's team refusing the bullshit should have been the final wake up call. But no.

[Josh R]

at some point it has to be considered a conscious disregard of reality and a knowing or deliberate attempt to simply steal the election

Again, that makes sense for a normal functioning adult. But, Trump ... ?

[Commenter_XY]

Heh, you're off to a good start with the turn of phrase, How's Trump going to convince a jury that actually he sincerely believed his false statements — at least without taking the stand, which I have to believe his lawyers would commit seppuku before allowing to happen?

It is not as good as the using the seven deadly sins as a to-do list, but respectable. 🙂

[not guilty]

"Precisely. Had the prosecution gone forward, Smith would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew the election was not rigged, a tall order in my opinion."

Not necessarily. Trump was charged in the District of Columbia with conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k), obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), and conspiracy against voting rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.226.0_38.pdf

Trump's knowledge that the election was not rigged would have been powerful evidence of his culpable mental state, but it is not a sine qua non of any essential element of any of the charged offenses.

[Josh R]

The entire narrative in Smith's indictment relies on Trump's knowing he lost. Without that element at the very least the First Amendment likely protects much of what Smith would use to prove his case.

[Randal]

The First Amendment doesn't protect your words from being used against you.

[Josh R]

Smith alleges Trump's words are part of the conspiracy.

[Randal]

So you think if I come up with the plan and communicate it to you, I'm protected from charges of conspiracy by the First Amendment? I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.

[Josh R]

Of course those aren't protected words if they are knowingly made to violate the law. But if instead they were made by a person so bat-shit crazy he honestly believes he won and is trying to uphold the law, then they are protected.

As Smith put it himself in his testimony to Congress (my emphasis):

As we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say falsely that he won the election. But what he was not free to do was violate Federal law and use knowing -- knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. That he was not allowed to do.

[Randal]

Exactly. The First Amendment is doing no work. If his statements were criminal, they're unprotected. If they weren't criminal, then they don't need protection.

[Josh R]

The First Amendment is doing no work because Smith made sure his indictment relied on Trump knowingly engaging in criminal conduct. But not guilty seemed to argue that it suffices that Trump was delusional and thought he won. But if that were the case, then the call to Raffensberger, pressuring the DOJ to declare there was fraud, pressuring Pence to not certify, and even calling the crowd to Washington on January 6 are all protected speech.

[Randal]

Are you trying to say that ng would be right, but for the First Amendment?

[Josh R]

No. Apart from the First Amendment, the statute requires mens rea.

[not guilty]

"Smith alleges Trump's words are part of the conspiracy."

Wrong. The indictment alleges that in many instances Trump's words were evidence of the conspiracy. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.226.0_38.pdf Paragraph 4 of the superseding indictment recites:

Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. perpetrated three criminal conspiracies:

a. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;

b. A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified (“the certification proceeding”), in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1512(k); and

c. A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.

Each of these conspiracies—which built on the widespread mistrust the Defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud—targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the
results of the presidential election (“the federal government function’).

Paragraph 7 identifies the purpose of the § 371 conspiracy:

he purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.

The superseding indictment avers at paragraph 102 that Trump:

did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to corruptly obstruct and impede an official proceeding, that is, the certification of the electoral vote, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2).

The superseding indictment avers at paragraph 130 that Trump:

did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States—that is, the right to vote, and to have one’s vote counted.

There is no substitute for original source materials. Trump's words were part of the manner and means of the alleged conspiracies, but were not essential elements thereof. Trump was indicted, not for what he said, but for what he did (in combination with others).

[Josh R]

Your recitation said Trump knowingly conspired to defraud, etc. If Trump believes he won, he can't have knowingly defrauded, etc.

[not guilty]

"Your recitation said Trump knowingly conspired to defraud, etc. If Trump believes he won, he can't have knowingly defrauded, etc."

Suppose Trump did believe -- however delusionally -- that he had not lost the election. The fake elector scheme was fraudulent topside to bottom irrespective of Trump's delusional belief. Trump knew that a challenge to Congressional certification of the electoral count Conspiring with other loons to overturn the election result was not a lawfully available remedy.

[Josh R]

It's not a fake elector scheme in Trump's mind if he thought he won. It would be instead, a legitimate backstop similar to the two elector slates from Hawaii in 1960.

Similarly, Smith would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew that a challenge to Congressional certification of the electoral count was not a lawfully available remedy (unless there is an applicable law that does not require mens rea which Smith did not put forth in his indictment).

[DDHarriman]

What statute did he violate by contesting the election?

And do you believe Trump is the first politician who contested an election that thought they had still lost and was grasping for straws?

[Josh R]

The indictment alleges he did not contest the election, but instead knew he lost and try to steal it (he wasn't grasping for straws). Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. (18 U.S.C. § 371) under that theory (as well as obstruction).

[DDHarriman]

So he was contesting the election like every other politician does, but since Trump has a black heart he's guilty of fraud!

You people are so deranged.

[Josh R]

If by "black heart" you mean that Trump (unlike anyone else) knew he lost and therefore was trying to steal the election rather than contesting is, yes that is precisely what Smith alleges.

[not guilty]

"What statute did he violate by contesting the election?"

Trump was charged with criminally contesting an election, such as by filing lawsuits in the disputed states. He was charged in the District of Columbia with conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k), obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), and conspiracy against voting rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.226.0_38.pdf

The fact that scores of election challenges had been determined adversely to Trump would be strong evidence of his culpable mental state at the time of his criminal conduct.

[Commenter_XY]

This is all mental masturbation, the case is dead.

[not guilty]

"This is all mental masturbation, the case is dead."

The discussion here, XY, is whether Jack Smith committed a crime, as your cult leader has bizarrely accused him. All of this is very relevant as to that topic.

Do you contend that Smith is criminally culpable? Yes or no? If so, based on what federal statute and on what particular conduct?

[not guilty]

Correction: I meant to say:

Trump was not charged with criminally contesting an election, such as by filing lawsuits in the disputed states. He was charged in the District of Columbia with conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k), obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), and conspiracy against voting rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.226.0_38.pdf

Mea maxima culpa.

[DDHarriman]

That's "criminally contesting an election"

lol did you even read what you wrote? How can any adult believe this and think this isn't shitty lawfare and making up whacky interpretations for Trump.

[not guilty]

DDHarriman, have you read the freaking indictment and the subsequent, superseding indictment? Yes or no? Nothing in either one alleges that any of the legal challenges to election results in the various state and federal courts was alleged to be illegal, let alone criminal.

The fact that those challenges were uniformly rejected are included in the indictments as evincing Trump's consciousness that the fake elector scheme was a corrupt attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and that the objects of the multiple conspiracies were in fact fraudulent.

[DDHarriman]

So Donald Trump lawfully contested the election?

What official proceeding was Trump obstructing by lawfully contesting the election?

[DDHarriman]

Wrong

[hobie]

Re: Cassidy Hutchinson:

"“[M]y recollection with Ms. Hutchinson, at least one of the issues was a number of the things that she gave evidence on were secondhand hearsay, were things that she had heard from other people and, as a result, that testimony may or may not be admissible, and it certainly wouldn’t be as powerful as firsthand testimony,” Smith said."

Followed by:

"“The partisan January 6th Committee’s ENTIRE case was just destroyed by… Jack Smith,” the Judiciary GOP posted on X. “Star witness completely unreliable!”"

[Moderation4ever]

The January 6th Committee did a textbook job of a Congressional investigation. Cassidy Hutchison was only one of many witnesses. It also true that Ms. Hutchison testimony was never refuted. That is Ornato never denied talking to Ms. Hutchison, he just can't remember.

[jay.tee]

Since you’re so spectacularly wrong, I’ll paste my response from above here too.

I’m not sure how you can be so completely wrong about something that’s been widely publicized:

White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Anthony Ornato, who by Hutchinson’s own admission relayed the startling incident to her, immediately claimed her account was false.

The agent and the driver of the vehicle also separately refuted Hutchinson’s testimony as well, with the president’s chauffeur telling committee members in a non-televised interview that Trump “never grabbed the steering wheel” or “lunge[d] to try to get into the front seat at all.”

But the Democrat-led House committee “hid the driver’s full testimony” and did not release the full transcript, according to Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who opened a probe into the select panel and Jan. 6 after the GOP retook the majority in 2023.

https://nypost.com/2025/12/31/us-news/cassidy-hutchinson-ruled-out-as-credible-witness-in-trump-jan-6-case-jack-smith/

She also lied about the memo given to Trump on Jan 6.

[Moderation4ever]

Same comment you made earlier and one refuted by David Nieporent.

BTW - Jack Smith did not rule out Cassidy Hutchison's testimony. In his testimony before the Congressional Committee he stated that he did not expect to call Ms. Hutchison as he had many witnesses and he expected to stream line the case and not spend months with witness testimony. I suggest you read the transcripts and not a newspaper summary.

[jay.tee]

And again, you both are lying or deliberately ignorant.

Either way, everyone in the know - meaning they were actually there - refuted her final version”version” of events.

You and David are trying to use your partisan vibes to counter actual facts. It’s pathetic.

[Riva]

If you thought globalizing the intifada was troubling, get ready for “the warmth of collectivism.” Go communism!

[DDHarriman]

I can't fucking wait for all the commie suffering in NYC.

The Heritage Americans are gonna get fucked while they lavish privileged status & tax payer funded wealth on illegals and foreigners, which is too bad, but then they're gonna run out of other people's money.

People need to suffer from their choices before they learn not to make them.

[Estragon]

“People need to suffer from their choices before they learn not to make them.”

Yes, a lot of Trump people seem to be having “the leopard wasn’t supposed to eat MY face” moments these days.

[Michael P]

Support for your last sentence is in short supply. Most Trump voters I know of have been having "yes, this is what I voted for" moments. Employment up, stocks up, inflation down, crime down, illegal immigration down....

[Estragon]

Well, then you deserve to get it good and hard. Enjoy!

[Michael P]

Why do I deserve to get "the warmth of collectivism" good and hard?

[Estragon]

“Warmth”

No, that’s not for you. It tends to be a bad fit for the frigid “fuck your feelings” crowd.

You deserve the consequences of Trumpism, you know, the ones like “inflation down” and “employment up” that you and your friends are undoubtedly genuinely experiencing all day every day, like some sort perpetual onanistic orgasm.

One might also be tempted to say the voters of— to pick a random example, Prowers County, Colorado— also deserve to get what they voted for good and hard. The problem is the “hard” in their particular context might include radioactive drinking water. But saying such things wouldn’t be particularly warm.

[Michael P]

You sound really, really, really unhinged.

I think you're talking about this: https://www.denver7.com/news/state-news/trump-vetoes-bi-partisan-bill-aimed-to-bring-clean-reliable-drinking-water-to-southeastern-colorado

... in which case, you're blaming Trump for "naturally occurring salinity or radionuclide contamination" because he vetoed a bill that, among other things, would give the region even more favorable loan terms than they already have. For a project that was approved in 1962 and that got federal funding for 65% of the costs in 2009.

The veto does not halt construction of the pipeline, Arbogast said, but does "increase substantially the burden on those counties to participate as a partner and pay their 35%."

Yeah, you're a loon.

[Estragon]

“you're blaming Trump […] because he vetoed a bill”

Wow, check out the big brain on this guy. Maybe the voters of Prowers county are so enthused by the benefits of the Trumpism they voted for that you so helpfully identified, like “inflation down” and “employment up” that access to clean drinking water seems like small potatoes.

Anyways, here’s the statement from one of the local US Reps involved.

https://x.com/RepJeffHurd/status/2006206306235863382?s=20

[Michael P]

Yes, people voted for fiscal responsibility. You are the only person here getting bent out of shape about how Trump should save these counties from the state changing the rules under them, and how it's unfair that they should be in the same situation as for the last 17 years or however long it's been since Colorado last changed the standards.

Apparently "clean drinking water" wasn't a priority for the other 60-plus years that the pipeline has been approved.

[Estragon]

“fiscal responsibility”

Well, then I guess they should be just as happy as you are that they are doing the fiscally responsible thing and continuing to live with increasingly punky drinking water. I imagine some residents of SE Colorado loved paeans to fiscal responsibility as well, until they got a taste. Rather metallic.

Surely, the positives outweigh the negatives for those folks. And I’m likewise certain that claims of fiscal responsibility do not in any way ring hollow when viewed in context of other highly publicized and conspicuous spending that this Administration has in fact authorized. Or, like one of the local reps from this area, one might even be tempted to divine an alternative motivation for this veto, something perhaps a bit more personalized than lofty commitments to fiscal rectitude.

And, of course, it’s easier to talk about fiscal responsibility when you aren’t guzzling the contaminants, but whatever— you and your friends are doing great.

[Commenter_XY]

It will be a long three years for Estragon. In three years time, where do you think s/he will be?

[Estragon]

The good news is that I won’t be a depraved ghoul like yourself— salivating over snuff videos, fapping to imagined genital injuries, telling everyone about what I watched on Taiwanese TV and counting Paul Ingrassia and his little “streak” as one of my political fellow travelers. Or, maybe “teammate” in terms that might be easier for you to understand.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with that remark is that our faces are conspicuously uneaten.

[Estragon]

In a world of Kavanaugh stops and Heritage Americans, a local South Carolina father married to a southeast Asian non-citizen remains serenely unbothered because everything is going great for him right now. I am so so happy for you, Brett. You deserve everything you voted for— good and hard.

[Brett Bellmore]

My wife has been a US citizen for a good decade at least, but even setting that aside, that was stupid.

I see no face eating leopard. I see a guy who is actually trying to deliver on campaign promises, (Which I like.) only usually in the stupidest way possible, which I don't like.

I tend to prefer that to somebody delivering on campaign promises I disapprove of.

[Estragon]

“US citizen for a good decade at least”

Wow, that is such a relief for you because I have never ever heard anyone say anything like “denaturalization” or “deport Somin.”

If you might permit me a further personal question— is that woman the mother of your child? Do you think voltage would view your son as a “Heritage American”?

“I see no face eating leopard.”

Yes, we know you are doing great. You already told us.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, I don't really care, I'm aware every movement has its assholes, and reading the news lately, a lot of them on the right appear to be just foreign troll farms anyway.

[Estragon]

Sure Brett, it’s all foreign trolls. Let’s revisit that prediction in a years time.

[Brett Bellmore]

"A lot" DNE "All". If you have to change what somebody wrote to criticize them, you've got nothing.

[Estragon]

I’m sure that distinction comes as a great reassurance to Mrs Bellmore and your son.

Don’t worry kiddo, when my fellow political travelers talk about Heritage Americans it’s just… errr mostly… foreign troll farms. And besides— I’m doing great!

You are part of a political movement that contains people that do not view your son as a part of the volk— a “Heritage American.” To say nothing of your wife. That you “don’t care” is both overdetermined and puzzling, if such a thing is possible. It is the glib certainty that everything will be fine for you personally— which you have repeatedly expressed— that I am criticizing because it is self-evidently wrongheaded as a general proposition and specifically wrong as to you and your family.

[Commenter_XY]

What bothers you is Crooks missed, and your team lost.

[Estragon]

“Team”

And you’re on the same team as Paul Ingrassia! I’m sure things will keep going great for you indefinitely.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm sure heritage Americans becoming a thing on the right is all Russian bots and nothing to worry about.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, this comentariat is lousy with white comfortable retired men who are unconcerned that this admin's authoritarianism will effect them.

In fact, the like it.

They believe they are protected but not bound. That's both selfish and short-sighted, but thus is MAGA.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I believe I'm bound, but on things I had no intention of doing anyway. I never had any intention of smuggling drugs, or illegal immigrants, or committing daycare fraud, so I am not terribly troubled by Trump acting against those activities.

On the other hand, I'm protected from having my gas stove and furnace banned, being forced to drive an oversized electric golf cart, having my guns taken away, and so forth.

Sarcastr0, Democrats, too, are quite authoritarian. They're simply authoritarian on axis that don't bother you. So in principle you should understand the right quite well, were it not for your incapacity to understand people who disagree with you.

[Randal]

I don't think you know what "authoritarian" means, Brett.

You keep pivoting to trivial, democratically-enacted policy concerns. Neither Sarcastr0 nor Estragon is talking about those. They're talking about your wife and child being summarily deported (or worse).

[Sarcastr0]

Your gas stove and furnace were not banned. You spend a ton of time aggrieved about stuff that never happened to anyone and none about stuff that has happened, just not to you.

[Michael P]

The WaPo's Marc Thiessen needed more than ten items to list the best things Trump did this year, in fact: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/01/02/donald-trump-accomplishments-2025-marc-thiessen/

[Sarcastr0]

You might want to look into that guy's background before you appeal to his objective authority.

[Michael P]

The "block party" with no food and no restrooms was an effective sneak preview.

[Estragon]

“Heritage Americans”

Once again, I suggest the community take note of the appearance of this term. It obviously is used to express the idea that some are more American than others. I anticipate we will hear a lot about this in 2026. I wonder what someone with a foreign-born parent or spouse thinks about when they hear this.

[Mr. Hook]

In Canada's 2015 federal election, the Conservatives played around with the term "old-stock Canadians," which wasn't hard to read as "white" and representing tiered citizenship. They also pledged setting up a hotline for people—presumably old-stock Canadians—to rat on non-old-stock Canadians' "barbaric cultural practices."
https://guelph.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/under-fire-harper-defines-old-stock-canadians/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/02/canada-conservatives-barbaric-cultural-practices-hotline

[Randal]

All someone would have to do is allege fraud on the part of the foreign-born spouse and then voop! CECOT.

[Estragon]

Shhhh…. Don’t give Brett any ideas.

[David Nieporent]

Bill de Blasio was just as socialist as Mamdani. Yet for some reason MAGA didn't get nearly as worked up about him. I wonder if there's something that distinguishes the two of them other than their ideology.

[Michael P]

We were very critical of Warren Wilhelm Jr, although he had the advantage of at least some prior experience in city government, so he was more than just a socialist with a fresh face. But that's just one of the many things you have forgotten.

[David Nieporent]

although he had the advantage of at least some prior experience in city government, so he was more than just a socialist with a fresh face.

You mean, the hyperventilation about Mamdani is solely because his previous position was in New York State, rather than New York City, government?

[ThePublius]

First of all, I reject, and find offensive, your use of the term MAGA as a collective for all people not progressive democrats.

Second, Republicans and conservatives were incensed at the apparent fraud perpetrated by De Blasio's wife. Don't you recall any of that?

[Estragon]

Hey voltage, Brett Bellmore just called you a foreign troll farm! Are you just going to sit there and take that like some low-T beta cuck RINO? Sad!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Zohran Mamdani signed an executive order in his first day as mayor on Thursday revoking all orders issued by former Mayor Eric Adams after his indictment on federal corruption charges, including two that he had touted as support for Israel.

(NYT: "Mamdani Revokes Executive Orders That Adams Signed to Support Israel")

The new EO is general in scope. It is clearly meant to send a message about the indictment of Eric Adams. It is dubious special pleading to argue it is somehow anti-Jewish because among the many EOs involved, one or more might be Jewish-related. The article notes, however, that is what some are doing.

(This is an example of dubious gotchas. The general principle can be applied in other contexts.)

Something like this should be done the next time a non-Trumpy president is in office. A general EO on the first day should be used to reset. There will be a lot to do, and thought should be given ahead of time on how to go about it.

[Brett Bellmore]

It does send a message: "I'm prioritizing sending messages over actual good governance, so I don't need to pick and chose among these executive orders!"

[Sarcastr0]

Is that really the only way to read that order?

And if so, would you read Trump's orders similarly?

[John F. Carr]

Democrats will want to use care rather than revoking all of Trump's executive orders. They're not all crazy and some of them modify previous executive orders whose status needs to be clarified.

https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/donald-trump/2025

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"they're not all crazy"

A feel for some of the comments in 2029.

Yes, they should use care since they (unlike the current crew) should govern responsibly.

[Michael P]

... says the guy stanning for the mayor who just issued a blanket order turning the clock back, and who claims the antisemitic effects were just an incidental benefit.

As one wag put it, in the wake of Mamdani declaring that he'll rule as a radical: "Zohran Mamdani is uniquely prepared to be the first person in history to make Communism work due to his experience as a trust fund kid and failed rapper."

And, uh, what's up with that salute? https://x.com/mattvanswol/status/2006884069183991957

[David Nieporent]

A lot of MAGA online are ranting that all of "autopen's" EOs and pardons should be revoked by Trump. (Sometimes they say by Bondi.) Obviously revoking pardons isn't actually a thing. But Trump — though not Bondi — could issue a similar EO blanket revocation if he wanted. He has full authority to do so. (The autopen thing is a red herring, both because it has no lawful significance to begin with and because Trump doesn't need a legal excuse beyond "because I feel like it" to revoke a previous EO.) And yet he hasn't done so. I guess Susie Wiles, at least, realizes how chaotic that would be.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Didn’t Trump 45 try to do this with. Obama’s???

[Don Nico]

"This is an example of dubious gotchas. "
Both the NYT and CNN saw it differently

[TwelveInchPianist]

How about an executive actually decide if policy is good or bad, and act accordingly. And then take responsibility for his actions, instead of saying then can't be blamed for the things he did because he was acting blindly?

[John F. Carr]

Here is the order: https://www.nyc.gov/content/dam/nycgov/mayors-office/downloads/pdf/executive-orders/2026/eo1-prior-executive-orders.pdf

"Emergency Executive Orders" remain in effect.

[John F. Carr]

Another executive order installs a rent control advocate in a housing job.

https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/01/mayor-mamdani-signs-eo-to-revitalize-mayor-s-office-to-protect-t

[DDHarriman]

In another "The Democrats" moment - the Somalia ambassador to the UN runs a childcare in OH.

Why would the government create a program that is so easily defrauded then let it go on for so long?

[David Nieporent]

Why would DDHarriman make up an easily disprovable lie?

[ThePublius]

I believe you're satire blind.

[hobie]

You sure it's satire?

[DDHarriman]

https://x.com/i/status/2006524991618101423

[Life of Brian]

Why would DDHarriman make up an easily disprovable lie?

Seems likely it's the same reason we're still waiting for you to easily disprove it.

[Randal]

It would be nice if people provided proof, or at least evidence, of their wild allegations, rather than expecting other people to disprove them.

Anyway, as best I can tell, he once "ran" a company which had nothing wrong with it. But in the same office building gasp were other companies. That's what "links" him to any and every issue with all the companies and people that shared that office building.

So basically, it's like if I found out there were a sex offender living in your neighborhood ten years ago and decided to announce that "Brian is linked to pedophilia rings."

[David Nieporent]

Anyway, as best I can tell, he once "ran" a company which had nothing wrong with it.

Someone with that name once did. Any reason to believe it's the same person.

[Randal]

We must distinguish between antisemitism and criticism of the Israeli government, and the ADL’s report oftentimes ignores this distinction, and in doing so, it draws attention away from the very real crisis of antisemitism.

My sentiments exactly. The ADL is doing palpable damage to Judaism by tying it inextricably to the Israeli regime.

[hobie]

You're blatantly advocating for censorship. I thought you hayseeds abhorred European crackdowns on people who protest one side of a conflict.

[hobie]

The thing about you Young Republicans crying antisemitism so much is that it grows really stale. You got anything else?

[DDHarriman]

They don't, brother, they don't. "Antisemite" is just their version of "das racist".

[Randal]

That's a quote from Mamdani. I don't think he's a young Republican.

[Armchair]

It's just funny how the criticism of the Israeli government is ever so present...

Meanwhile actions are taken by many other governments which are the same or far far worse, see so little criticism.

The Tigray war in Ethiopia has killed hundreds of thousands
The DRC war with Rwanda has killed thousands, with hundreds of thousands displaced
The Cartel drug wars in Mexico have killed tens of thousands
The Somalian civil war has killed over 10,000 in 2025 alone
Sudan has seen more than 20,000 deaths
Myanmar has seen over 10,000 deaths in 2025
Mali has seen more than 20,000 deaths due to war in 2025

But Israel and the Israeli government has seen more attention and more criticism than all of those other conflicts...combined.

Why is that....does it rhyme with "ewes"?

[Randal]

No. It rhymes with car-part-hide.

[DDHarriman]

Why are you comparing the behavior of a first world country to those third world ones?