Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

An incredibly wild conspiracy theory, making me wonder if Tucker Carlson is all right (spoiler: he isn't)

"Tucker Carlson believes it’s a “distinct possibility” that the U.S. captured Maduro to *checks notes* “bring gay marriage to Venezuela.”

https://x.com/TheMilkBarTV/status/2008040313240289705

[Brett Bellmore]

My theory: The CIA has been drugging conservative 'influencers' with LSD.

OK, probably not, but it would explain a lot.

[Dr. Ed 2]

When you look at the number of conservative commentators who have gone to the dark side over the past 40 years, your theory about LSD makes more sense than anything else….

Anyone remember David Brock, when he was a conservative attacking Hillary?

[Zarniwoop]

As someone who, er ... knows people that have taken LSD, that's not much of an explanation/excuse either.

[Riva]

How do you explain Sarcastr0 then?

[grb]

Whereas primitive bot programing explains your every comment completely.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "My theory: The CIA has been drugging conservative 'influencers' with LSD."

That explains your nonstop loopy conspiracy theories by providing a meta-conspiracy theory as excuse. ( I'm, of course, tallying you as a "conservative influencer" worth the CIA's free drugs).

[Joe_dallas]

Why truncate the rest of Brett's comment ?

We know the answer - Wanted to intentionally misrepresent is comment.

[DDHarriman]

Netanyahu is out there taking credit for ordering the raid.so it wouldn't surprise me that it ultimately was for subversive reasons

[Krayt]

'cuz he's Jewish?

[Ridgeway]

Duh!

[Frank Drackman]

Bibi has more Testosterone in one of his Nosehairs than dreamt of in your Philosophy.

[not guilty]

"Netanyahu is out there taking credit for ordering the raid.so it wouldn't surprise me that it ultimately was for subversive reasons"

When and where has Netanyahu "tak[en] credit for ordering the raid," DDH? Please be specific.

[not guilty]

Still waiting, DDH.

[Don Nico]

What's to wonder? Carlson is a dangerous fool.

[Ridgeway]

Occam's Razor tells me that Tucker (and many of his ilk on the Right and the Left) doesn't actually believe what he is saying. He is just playing a role for money (and for clicks/follows, which is another way to say "money").

Ideological and intellectual consistency just do not even factor into the calculus.

[Bored Lawyer]

Nah. It was to change the name of the country. From Venezuela to Trumpaterra. (It is a Spanish speaking country, after all).

[Kazinski]

-

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.wkrn.com/news/local-news/clarksville/apsu-settles-with-professor-fired-over-charlie-kirk-post/
Austin Peay State University will pay one of its professors $500,000 after initially firing him for a social media post made in the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s death.

Not that MAGA cares. The initial scalp-getting is what they're in for. The scalp-keeping is not important when your politics revolves around constantly seeking new lib-owning content.

[Brett Bellmore]

I wouldn't say I don't care. I'm not big on the idea of firing people over off the job speech, though, even if it is absolutely obnoxious speech, as this was.

I only wish the left agreed with me about that.

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't see you baying for liberal scalps when Kirk was murdered, but I also didn't see you objecting much when others were doing so.

I only wish the left agreed with me about that.
Since the left you interact with lives in your head, that's on you. Liberals are the ones into the rights of employees.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, left-wing cancel culture only exists in my head. You're really phoning it in these days.

[DDHarriman]

>I didn't see you baying for liberal scalps when Kirk was murdered, but I also didn't see you objecting much when others were doing so.

Brett, your public behavior MUST meet Sarcastr0's private expectations! Otherwise you will never get his approval. He has a secret contract that each of us must abide by, he's using progressive disclosure through finger-wagging to allow us to slowly discover his requirements on our public behavior and our private thoughts.

[Krayt]

Many right wing beam with joy when a U gets a sanction for penalizing conservative speech. You take it all or not at all.

It is a joyous whattabout, in terms others use, and highly valuable as it demonstrates how shallow both sides are, flip flopping on principles depending on whether they are in power or not.

Situational Ethics: The high valuation of a philosophical principle when it supports your already decided upon position, and the pooh poohing of it when it gets in the way of another.

[ducksalad]

You mind if I steal "joyous whatabout"? It is an unusually good description. Still not convinced by faceting, though.

[Michael P]

"didn't see you objecting much"

So ... your fundamental complaint is that he didn't join your whine squadron vocally enough.

Sad. Extremely sad.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sarcastro, otoh, was busy lying about what Kirk said.

[bernard11]

Do you?

You have your usual blinders on. There's been plenty of firing by right-wingers. Read the article Sarcastro links to. Say something, anything, about Kirk that is not totally worshipful and you are in danger. And that doesn't cover the right's censorship of universities and policing of curricula.

And, BTW, what was so "absolutely obnoxious" about quoting Kirk's own words?

The right really needs to get over Kirk. He was a successful political provocateur, a white nationalist and an antisemite. I don't think he's going to be canonized.

[jay.tee]

There's been plenty of firing by right-wingers

If only some non-partisan free-speech organization maintained a database on this kind of stuff: https://www.thefire.org/ (for the record, I believe too many people have been fired for uttering left-wing inanities though that seems to be a more recent phenomenon than the other side of the coin)

He was a successful political provocateur, a white nationalist and an antisemite

Reflexively idiotic statements about someone - like yours - often elicit strong reactions. Shouldn’t be surprising.

[Armchair]

Makes sense. The university would likely pay more than that in lawyers, even if they won. The liberals are happy to "donate" lawyer time to the case.

[Sarcastr0]

The liberals!

You just made something up, so MAGA can never fail only be failed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Which is why I think we’d be better off. We went back to the 19th century rules where anyone with the college degree could practice law. Anyone.

One way or the other, these leftist activist, loons of lawyers would be reigned in.

[not guilty]

"Makes sense. The university would likely pay more than that in lawyers, even if they won. The liberals are happy to 'donate' lawyer time to the case."

I doubt that. The University would have been represented by salaried employees of the Attorney General of Tennessee, who would not bill by the hour. A successful plaintiff can recover reasonable attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, -- which would be relevant to a decision to settle -- but Armchair's comment posits that the University had won.

Even if the case went to trial and the plaintiff prevailed, reasonable attorney fees would likely not reach six figures, let alone a half million dollars. Armchair is talking through his hat.

[DDHarriman]

Woah, a very powerful fingerwag from the Great Sarcastr0.

I will definitely become a Democrat now after that public shaming!!

Will you lead my public struggle session, Comrade, to show the world my submissiveness to the State?

[not guilty]

Please don't become a Democrat, DDH. We don't want a bigoted moron such as you. Fred Phelps having been a Democrat is obloquy enough to last for decades.

[jay.tee]

We don't want a bigoted moron such as you

That’s not a very welcoming response, NG. After all, you ably demonstrate the Democratic Party has plenty of room for racists in their ranks.

[not guilty]

MAGAts love to accuse me of racism because I have the temerity to call out Clarence Toady's opportunism and rank hypocrisy. (Emphasis on the "rank".)

That is a whale of a lot easier than responding on the merits in support of their hero.

I have also called out the late Strom Thurmond for his hypocritical demagogy on miscegenation and Ted Haggard for denouncing buttsex. Does that mean that I am also an anti-white racist?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Austin Peay State University"

Named after the guy who signed the anti-evolution bill in 1925.

But apparently that's not *all* he did. According the Wikipedia,

"To update the state's tax code, Peay signed measures lowering property taxes while placing new taxes on corporate profits. He enacted a policy of paying for projects with available funding as opposed to bond issues. By his third term, the state's $3 million debt had become a $1.2 million surplus....

"By the time of Peay's death in 1927, Tennessee's highways had expanded from 244 miles (393 km) to more than 4,000 miles (6,400 km), including one highway connecting Memphis and Bristol at opposite ends of the state. Seventeen new bridges were also constructed....

"In his second term, Peay enacted the Education Act of 1925. He expanded the school year to eight months, established licensing requirements and salary schedules for teachers, and increased funding for the University of Tennessee. The state authorized the establishment of a normal school, now Austin Peay State University, in Clarksville and an agricultural institute, now the University of Tennessee at Martin."

And: "A 1981 poll of 52 Tennessee historians placed Austin Peay at number 1 in an all-time ranking of Tennessee's governors."

Making him better than Sam Houston, James K. Polk, and Andrew Johnson, who also served as governor.

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

[David Nieporent]

Making him better than Sam Houston

Only man to be elected governor of two different states.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Making him better than Sam Houston"

Sam suddenly resigned and fled to the Indian Territory part way thru his term.

[bernard11]

His name has been immortalized in the school's cheer:

"Let's go Peay!!!"

(Yes, the name really is pronounced that way.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Legislatures care and the next thing we will see, in a year or two, is that said State University‘s budget gets cut. Or that it’s going out going out of business.

And no one will ask the faculty union if this was worth it…

[not guilty]

The WKRN story that Sarcastr0 links suggests that a post on X by Senator Marsha Blackburn accompanied the firing. https://x.com/VoteMarsha/status/1966602242795950518

Blackburn is notoriously a doofus. She is expected to run for the Republican nomination for governor this year, along with my Congressman John Rose. Unfortunately since Blackburn is in the middle of her second term, she will not need to leave her present office in order to run. At least I will have a new House member next year.

[bernard11]

I more or less gave up on TN politics when she beat Phil Bredesen for the Senate seat.

I can't recall two opposing candidates in any race with a bigger gap in intelligence, qualifications, and proven accomplishments.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I’ve met her, have you?

She is not stupid. She definitely is not stupid.

[David Nieporent]

Well, perhaps not by your standards, but then, neither is a fire hydrant.

I have not met her personally, so all I can judge are on is what she says and does publicly. And what she says and does publicly is very stupid. Not quite Tuberville stupid, but right up there.

[Michael P]

Minnesota's latest spending scandal has been instigated by ... the state's Office of the Legislative Auditor, for example finding that, in one case, a single grantee got paid $672,647.78 for its first month of work. The grantee could not provide inadequate documentation to show it performed any work. That payment was disbursed through $40,000 payments to each of 14 subcontractors that supposedly did different amounts of different work, but could not document how they determined per-unit pricing, and the two subcontractors that the auditor visited had no records to show who they provided services to under the grant. The grant manager who authorized the payment left the state agency several days later, and then provided consulting services to the grantee. The agency issued another grant to the same grantee -- but eventually cancelled it for noncompliance. (The auditor found further problems with that grantee, its subcontractors, and government oversight of the grant.)

And that was just part of one of 13 findings, including six findings not resolved from previous audit(s).

https://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/fad/pdf/fad2601.pdf

[Sarcastr0]

No one claims no fraud existed. So what new information is here?

Are you gonna start getting mad at every audit that finds fraud?

MAGA does love their special pleading.

[DDHarriman]

What people are demonstrating that this fraud was well known, as shown by these sorts of findings, but ignored.

Is that okay with you? Does MAGA have your permission to seek and then demonstrate evidence of malfeasance?

If not, can we pretty please have your permission? We pinky-swear that if we find anything that might harm a Democrat, we will cover it up and hide it like you do. Okay?

[Armchair]

More than well known...the government officials were in on it.

The government officials make the grant, then immediately leave the government and get a "consulting" job with the grant recipient.

[Sarcastr0]

The government officials make the grant, then immediately leave the government and get a "consulting" job with the grant recipient.

The audit you cite found this happened once. And of course such a consulting job is a banned conflict of interest already, so this is not the common revolving door you've decided it is.

[Armchair]

" a consulting job is a banned conflict of interest"

And yet...it was taken anyway. No prevention. Just corruption, fraud, all arouund.

[Sarcastr0]

Crimes happen. Therefore laws don't exist.

You've made it quite clear by your posting here that don't know shit about grants and don't want to learn.

[DDHarriman]

Come on now, Sarcastr0, don't sully yourself with weak strawmen.

Shame him! Finger wag him! Denounce him for not having the proper beliefs! Tone police him! Do your standard schtick instead of this weaksauce.

[DDHarriman]

wrog

[Kazinski]

Shorter Sarcastro: 'You found the fraud, now stop looking.'

[Joe_dallas]

Shorter - shorter Sarcastro

Fraud is one of the benefits of these programs that feed the grifters.

Sarcastro has stated his livelihood funded via government programs, albeit indirectly. Ceasing the programs that fund the grifting would put a huge dent in his income stream.

[Sarcastr0]

I want money to go to scientists.

That is a motive for me to go after fraud, not to allow it. Unless you think I'm not actually committed to basic research.

You seem to argue fraud is what keeps research grants going, and thus my salary.
What an ignoramus you come off as.

[Joe_dallas]

No you response to address the fraud is quite superficial .

If actually cared about the fraud - you wouldnt continuing to objecting to those pointing out the fraud by the grifters.

In summary, your defense rings hollow

[Brett Bellmore]

I want money to stay with the people whose money it was in the first place, unless they chose to give it to somebody else.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 53 minutes ago
"I want money to go to scientists.

That is a motive for me to go after fraud, not to allow it. Unless you think I'm not actually committed to basic research.

You seem to argue fraud is what keeps research grants going, and thus my salary."

Your recent conversion to wanting to stop fraud ( only after you exposed yourself as soft on fraud) again rings very hollow. In spite of position that should be the first link in reducing fraud in scientific research, your prior commentary shows you have displayed very little capacity to even recognize fraud in scientific research.

[David Nieporent]

There's a word conspicuously absent from Voltage!'s post: Somali. I find it well nigh impossible to believe that if there was any way to even remotely tie this report to the they're-eating-the-cats targets du jour, that he wouldn't have done so. So it's likely just white criminals.

(Note that Voltage! mischaracterizes the report anyway; it doesn't say that this was actually fraud. It wasn't a criminal investigation; it was an audit to see if proper procedures were being followed. It found out they weren't. Which is bad, as that can abet fraud. But it does not by itself constitute fraud.)

[Armchair]

This is also corruption within the state. It goes beyond simple fraud. To approve such a large grant, then immediately start working for the organization you made a grant to (as a government official)....

[Sarcastr0]

So you're generalizing this single example based on nothing.

Another MAGA mainstay.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, we're mad about systems that seem to be set up to make fraud easy.

[Sarcastr0]

If you were, you'd be looking at ways to change that.

Instead, all we get is attacks.

Again, special pleading is how MAGA works. It was clear from the beginning, but it's become ever more clear that solving problems isn't the goal.

You just have no interest in making things better. You just want to own the libs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Admitting you have a problem always comes before solving it, Sarcastr0.

[Michael P]

Private organizations have controls in place to greatly limit fraud, and they file criminal charges against fraudsters.

https://www.waow.com/news/marshfield-woman-charged-with-stealing-120k-from-ronald-mcdonald-house-pleads-not-guilty/article_5d7d1366-1eeb-40d8-8bdc-5e89a2368a84.html

When we ask for the same response to government fraud, the response is that we're racist and that it's not cost effective to care about fraud.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, no fraud in private organizations! That's why there's no need for federal regulations about that.

Your supporting evidence is, of course, this one anecdote you Googled up.

Waste, fraud, abuse, conflicts, embezzlement, etc. are problems in any large institution.
There's corker books about GE and Enron if you're interested.

Or, if you like stats more than stories, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners estimate that organizations lose 5% of revenue to fraud each year:
https://www.acfe.com/about-the-acfe/newsroom-for-media/press-releases/press-release-detail?s=2024-Report-to-the-Nations

[Joe_dallas]

Sar dumbo - Are you still trying to minimize $1b of fraud in one state, a $1b fraud amount that is likely to get much bigger as more stones are turned.

Are trying justify programs that are rife with fraud because of some greater good?
Are trying to justify the programs because the source of your compensation is due in part from programs the feed off the government tit?

[Sarcastr0]

Here's what I'm saying.

1. The monomaniacal focus on MN fraud only shows that the folks presenting it do not care about governmental fraud; this is just an attack.

2. That doesn't mean ignore the fraud. And hey, it's not being ignored. And yet the usuals won't shut up about it even so. More proof this isn't about dealing with fraud.

3. As the GAO lays out, the best way to address fraud on federal moneys is to hire more IGs. As someone who cares about fraud (I want the money to go to research!), I'm all for this.
But this admin hates IGs and hiring federal workers. No one here is making a peep about that. More proof no one yelling about the fraud actually cares about the fraud.

4. The thesis some are pushing that MN or just the government or every liberal loves fraud is nonsense. There is no culture of fraud established by these anecdotes. Some issues are government-specific, but in general fraud is a problem with any large institution, not particular to the government.
Pretending otherwise swiftly puts you in 'the federal government exists only to be corrupt' crank territory.

[Joe_dallas]

Cutting through the BS, you are objecting to real efforts to expose the fraud.

further you are opposed to stopping programs where it is easy to commit fraud.
No need to hire more IG's if the programs highly prone to fraud are never created.

[Sarcastr0]

You didn't read my comment.

Sorry if it was too long for your lazy ass.

[Joe_dallas]

Yes we read you comment -

I summarized your long winded answer correctly.

Your comment -"3. As the GAO lays out, the best way to address fraud on federal moneys is to hire more IGs. As someone who cares about fraud (I want the money to go to research!), I'm all for this."

the comment you made shows you dont really understand why the fraud exists or how to reduce the fraud. Hint - you stop the fraud before it starts. none of your commentary hints that you even remotely understand the cause.

[Joe_dallas]

Sarcastr0 2 hours ago
"You didn't read my comment.

"Sorry if it was too long for your lazy ass."

Speaking of lazy Ass - which is Sardumbo -
Did you read the ACFE report you linked? Apparently not - Obviously not. The misappropriation of assets is only 2%or less, which is vastly different than the 20%-50% of funding with the MN fraud. Vastly different scale.

Do you even have the capacity recognize the difference?

[Life of Brian]

Some issues are government-specific, but in general fraud is a problem with any large institution, not particular to the government.

Sounds like we need to cut back on large institutions across the board!

[Magister]

The only thing worse than having large institutions is not having large institutions.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, this varies depending on the large institution, right?

And, actually, I think most stuff that's done by large institutions could be done by lots of smaller institutions anyway.

[Life of Brian]

And, actually, I think most stuff that's done by large institutions could be done by lots of smaller institutions anyway.

Indeed, and in most cases more nimbly.

[Commenter_XY]

The best way to deal with fraud on federal monies (Man of Science, you suck at spelling, btw) is to imprison the fraudsters. And then deport them (if applicable).

Hire more federal employees? Are you quite mad?

[bernard11]

No you're not. You're mad when it doesn't go to your guys.

[Michael P]

It's more evidence that leftist regimes make fraud easy. They should be training people and establishing and using systems to record their oversight of spending, but they don't. They should enforce basic ethics, but they don't.

One of the other audit findings included a grant manager who was supposed to make three visits to check on a grantee, and created records for those visits after the audit started (many months after the supposed visits), based on no written documentation. The audit implies that the visits likely did not happen.

But we note that you don't understand the point of audits and the new information they provide.

[jb]

But of course, there's lots of fraud in red states too. Louisiana was in the news for a while. Rick Scott's fraud seems to have been centered in Florida. And Scott and JD Vance have highlighted that Medicare fraud is a nationwide phenomenon widely perpetrated by large insurance companies costing the federal government tens of billions dollars a year.

But of course the face of most of that fraud is white dudes, which is why your motives seem suspect. You seem very concerned about fraud committed by Somalis in Minnesota while completely ignoring larger scale fraud in other places. You're either racist or posturing for political points or both, but it seems pretty unlikely that you're actually interested in reducing the overall amount of fraud.

[not guilty]

The fraud carried out by the company then headed by Rick Scott as to Medicare, Medicaid and other federally funded health care programs included activity in Florida, but it was nationwide in scope -- not limited to a particular geographic region. https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2003/June/03_civ_386.htm

The company then known as Columbia/HCA was headquartered in Nashville and resulted from a merger between Nashville-based Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) and Louisville, Kentucky-based Columbia Hospital Corporation, which had been headed by Scott. In the wake of the scandal the HCA Board of Directors dropped Columbia from the name, ran Scott out of town on a rail (albeit with a golden parachute) and called Dr. Thomas Frist, Jr. (one of HCA's founders) out of retirement to right the ship.

Wikipedia states as to Scott:

In 2000, during a deposition for a civil suit unrelated to the fraud investigation, Scott pleaded the Fifth Amendment 75 times. In settlements reached in 2000 and 2002, Columbia/HCA pleaded guilty to 14 felonies and agreed to a $600+ million fine in what was at the time the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history. Columbia/HCA admitted systematically overcharging the government by claiming marketing costs as reimbursable, by striking illegal deals with home care agencies, and by filing false data about use of hospital space. It also admitted to fraudulently billing Medicare and other health programs by inflating the seriousness of diagnoses and to giving doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. It filed false cost reports, fraudulently billed Medicare for home health care workers, and paid kickbacks in the sale of home health agencies and to doctors to refer patients. In addition, it gave doctors "loans" never intending to be repaid, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies.

In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the United States government $631 million, plus interest, and $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims. In all, civil lawsuits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle; at the time, this was the largest fraud settlement in U.S. history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott [footnotes omitted.]

Notwithstanding his perfidy, the Republican Party embraced Rick Scott with open arms. That reflects poorly on both.

[CountmontyC]

Should we not get mad at fraud?

[Sarcastr0]

You all have been getting mad at this one example of fraud for the past month and a half.

Makes one think you're not actually mad at the fraud.

[Michael P]

This is different (waste,) fraud (and abuse), and still from the same state.

[Sarcastr0]

Watching MN audit findings like a hawk so you can post every negative finding is pathetic work, Mike.

Again, your focus makes it clear you do not actually care about fraud.

I pointed to a report about much larger and more widespread fraud problems, and how to solve them. But that includes paying for more federal workers so zero interest from the MN is a state of Somali thieves crowd.

[CountmontyC]

Are you saying that we can be mad at fraud for only a short time? That we should get over proven fraud ( actual convictions) of over $160 million and estimates of billions of dollars? Yeah no way. There are new allegations and the anger should not abate until those involved face the consequences of their actions.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm saying what you're mad at versus what your not mad at doesn't really track being actually mad at what you claim.

[CountmontyC]

How so? Defrauding the government is bad and I have an antipathy towards those who abuse taxpayer money.

[J_A_H]

@Sarcastr0 Have you engaged in any self reflection about why you feel compelled to argue with every single person who posts, regardless of the topic? No matter how minor, how valid, or how obvious the point being made, you seeming need to argue over it. Have you ever considered, just like, not? You seem miserable. And I find it hard to believe that whatever it is you're doing here is making you feel any better. I hope you find some peace.

[Sarcastr0]

Luv to have a fan.

If it made me miserable, I'd stop.

[Bob from Ohio]

"why you feel compelled to argue with every single person who posts"

Beats working at his civil service job.

[Joe_dallas]

Bob from Ohio 3 minutes ago
"why you feel compelled to argue with every single person who posts"

"Beats working at his civil service job."

That explains Sarcastro's opposition to exposing the fraud. Just another one of the grifters making a living off the government tit

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Beats working at his civil service job."

And he gets paid either way.

[jb]

I thought the state government was just ignoring an the fraud?

[Armchair]

The Transportation Security Administration flagged nearly $700 million in cash detected in passengers’ luggage leaving the Minneapolis airport the last two years, a massive cash exodus believed to be tied to Somali immigrants and their money couriers, Homeland Security officials told Just the News.

The officials said the cash movements out of Minnesota’s largest airport began about a decade ago – around the time Democrat Gov. Tim Walz took office – and has grown substantially in recent years.

https://justthenews.com/government/security/wedfeds-probing-hundreds-millions-suspected-somali-cash-luggage-leaving

[Sarcastr0]

The right-wing rags you read are just feeding examples of fraud in Minnesota to you, and as they intend you're taking each one and using it to confirmation bias your way a false reality where Minnesota the state is run purely by people who exist to do grants fraud.

If you're actually interested in the proble, I recommend you read a GAO report on catching Medicare fraud sometime; see where they find it and what they suggest.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107487

[Michael P]

Ad hominem. Straw man. Whatabout.

Don't be such a pestilent troll.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll add ad hominem to the fallacies you cargo cult accusations of and do not understand.

And you're still not getting whattaboutism, since my accusation is special pleading re: MN.

Assuming you know what stramanning is, I'd point you above to Armchair's vastly generalized take on MN's issues based on some few examples.

[DDHarriman]

"How do you find a government report that Sarcastr0 accepts?"

Find one that confirms his bias. They always say.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Gaslight0 reminds me of someone who complains about his neighbor, throwing an empty beer can into the ocean while he’s pumping toxic waste by the hundreds of gallons into it.

May I remind people who was running home security during the Biden administration? Well, we don’t really know who is running anything during those years, but it sure as heck wasn’t MAGA…

SO IF BRANDON‘S BOYS ARE REPORTING AN INCREASE IN CASH GOING TO SOMALIA, THAT STRIKES ME AS CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.

[David Nieporent]

Just The News. LOL. Why don't any of you people use legitimate news outlets?

1) Tim Walz was not elected a decade ago, so it's already starting with bullshit,
2) No evidence is actually presented.
3) $700 million over the last two years is not a very big number.
4) It expressly says that the money was all properly declared, so it's unlikely to be anything sinister.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 1 hour ago
"Just The News. LOL. Why don't any of you people use legitimate news outlets?"

That is a good question - Why do lefties use WP, NPR, MSNBC NYT instead of legitimate news outlets?

[David Nieporent]

It's that famous IKYABWAI? wit that MAGA are so good at.

[jay.tee]

No, it’s a legitimate question. Each outlet cited by JD has committed multiple instances of ideologically driven journalistic malpractice. That you approve of their ideology and resulting biases doesn’t make them any more trustworthy or legitimate.

If you’re not reading all of the above, you’re getting a distorted perspective.

[bernard11]

I doubt that Just the News has never committed even one instance of honest journalism.

[jay.tee]

Did you commit double-negative malpractice? Or are you actually admitting that yes, even JtN publishes (some) legitimate news?

[Commenter_XY]

3) $700 million over the last two years is not a very big number.

Maybe you should check your privilege.

[DDHarriman]

>NEW: CIA tells court it needs four more years to search for records on what its people were doing at the US Capitol on January 6.

https://x.com/TomFitton/status/2008547815744848259

We know exactly what the CIA is doing... trying to run out the clock. The CIA is a den of Democrat demons and should be shattered into a million pieces.

[apedad]

I wonder who was the president in charge of the CIA on Jan 6, 2021, . . . and who is the president in charge of the CIA now (and for the next three years).

[DDHarriman]

Do you really believe all these federal government agencies flip whole-cloth back and forth from right-wing to left-wing with every election change?

[Joe_dallas]

ddh - correct - as if none of the 4th branch were actively undercutting the president during his first term.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you honestly believe that federal agencies respond to the whim of the current president?

Of course, the other question is if CIA is competent enough to actually be able to figure out how much they were involved in January 6, or to be able to be sure that they weren’t. I never cease to be amazed at the sheer incompetence of federal bureaucrats, not malice, but just plain incompetence. Sometimes they remind me of the mentally retarded, wish they well may be…..

[David Nieporent]

LOL. Yet another fake news account, and it doesn't say anything, as Tom Fitton is a very stupid person. "The CIA says that it sent some people to assist with bomb detection as part of the response to J6. We just uncovered this thing that was actually public information years ago. What was the CIA doing there?"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why is the CIA the folks you call for EOD?
I can think of a lot better qualified people, including those whose job it is to do this, i.e. the bomb squad.

I’m not going down the rabbit hole, but if I wanted to, I’d ask what the CIA might know about a pipe bomb that the bomb squad wouldn’t know. Particularly sense, at least in theory, the bomb squad has ongoing training about the newest and latest bombs. We have an FBI and ATF and probably a few more folks whose job it is to keep track of this stuff and to tell the local folks how to defuse them – ahead of time.

So why CIA?

[David Nieporent]

I don't know why you think the CIA's bomb squad is less "qualified" than any other agency's bomb squad, and because J6 was an all hands on deck situation, presumably.

[apedad]

At trial, Colorado reporter recalls Marine following, strangling him after demanding proof of citizenship

A former TV news reporter recalled before a jury on Tuesday being followed and assaulted by a Colorado man in December 2024, as the stranger demanded proof of his citizenship in the name of “Trump’s America.”

After a 40-minute drive, (Ja’Ronn) Alex reached a stoplight in Grand Junction, where the white car pulled up next to him and the driver, 39-year-old Patrick Egan, shouted at him.

“He was asking me if I’m an American citizen,” Alex recalled. “He was telling me he was a Marine and that ‘this was Donald Trump’s America,’ and I was supposed to show him if I’m an American citizen.”

When he arrived at the news office, Alex told the jury he didn’t run inside “because I have the right to walk into my workplace without being threatened.”

Without warning, however, Egan charged, and Alex found himself on the ground, with “just the blue of the sky” above. Egan wrestled Alex and strangled him, even as his co-workers intervened.

Police charged Egan with second-degree assault, bias-motivated crime and harassment. The Marine veteran pleaded not guilty in August. Public defenders requested several arraignment delays to consult mental health experts.

https://courthousenews.com/at-trial-colorado-reporter-recalls-marine-following-strangling-him-after-demanding-proof-of-citizenship/

Mental case right winger attacks US citizen with absolutely zero justification.

Sounds about right.

[Michael P]

You sound like a mental case.

[apedad]

Resorting to the ad hominem fallacy is evidence that one has lost the argument.

(H/T Dr. Ed2!)

[Michael P]

Being ignorant of what the ad hominem fallacy is shows that you're ignorant on top of being a mental case.

[apedad]

I thought it meant argument against the person (as you did), but feel free to enlighten all of us.

[Michael P]

Yes, it requires making an argument. You don't deserve an argument, just scorn.

If Gaslight0 was less hypocritical and less busy special pleading in defense of fraud and communist revolutionaries, he would point out that you were specially pleading here with your guilt-by-association fallacy.

[Commenter_XY]

I agree. The guy is a mental case.

[Armchair]

Well, seems like Mr. Mandami, our "not a communist, really" mayor of NYC has hired Cea Weaver as a director in the Mayor's Office. Some winning quotes from Ms. Weaver.

"Private property including and kind of ESPECIALLY homeownership is a weapon of white supremacy masquerading as ‘wealth building’ public policy."

"for centuries, we’ve really treated property as an individualized good and not a collective good" and that in the future we will transition to treating it as a collective good under a model of "shared equity."

"It will mean that families, especially white families, are going to have a different relationship to property than the one we currently have."

"Seize private property!"

Enjoy living in your new collective future, NYC comrades.

[Sarcastr0]

This is the third time this 2019 quote got posted here as proof of a communist revolution in NYC, Armchair.

You're always late to the party.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure what your complaint is, exactly, beyond that it's improper to produce evidence of things you'd rather people didn't know.

You don't want people to believe that Mamdani really IS a communist, so nobody is allowed to produce evidence of it.

[DDHarriman]

wrong spot

[Sarcastr0]

You have like 2 quotes. One not even from the guy.

Maybe wait for actual acts before you start running around declaring a communist revolution.

Otherwise you might look like someone who goes in for melodramatic delusions.

Wouldn't want that.

[DDHarriman]

Definitely Brett! You wouldn't want Sarcastr0 to think you're "someone who goes in for melodramatic delusions".

STRAIGHTEN YOUR SHIT - BRETT.

[Michael P]

Mamdani's rental czar was the one declaring a communist revolution. Mamdani himself declared a "warmth of collectivism" revolution. And still you are a diehard denialist.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll add revolution to the list of things you don't know the meaning of.
Alongside whattaboutism.

[Brett Bellmore]

His "warmth of collectivism" was just a few days ago. A few years ago he was talking at a socialist gathering about the need to publicly talk about the parts of the agenda that the public would tolerate, and be quiet about the rest, but that it was important not to abandon those unpopular parts, just be quiet about them.

It's famous that dictators during their rise actually tell people what they're going to do, and count on not being believed. Sarcastr0 demonstrates why they often succeed in broadcasting their intentions without being believed: They have allies working hard to keep people from paying attention to what they say.

[Armchair]

I mean, it's 4 quotes from the person he just hired. But here are a few more.

"People like home ownership because they like control, which is rooted in a racist and classist society"

"We are the City of New York, we have an interest that housing is maintained and we're going to take this building away from you," Cea Weaver, Mamdani's tenants rights advocate."

"Elect more communists"

[Dr. Ed 2]

What scares me is what history says about things like this. Nathan Bedford Forest was a confederate, agreed, but I have not seen anything indicating that he was an inherently evil man.

He formed the Klu Klux Klan in response to real problems that were happening during reconstruction. White women were being raped, mostly by drunken White northern soldiers, and the army had no interest in policing its own. Any serious or even credible attempt to deny people property rights on the basis of skin color will inherently create identity in affiliation groups of people of that skin color.

History tells us this.

And history also tells us what happens next.

I’m not going to drag it in here, but spend a few weeks sometime reading up on the actual roots of the holocaust. Hitler was just an opportunist — it really started with Martin Luther.

[Magister]

The Fort Pillow Massacre was evil. Not going to bother going beyond that first paragraph.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I did not know about that. History is messy. It also reduces the clarity of my analogy, but not my underlying point.

Treat white males like shit long enough and bad things are gonna happen. Treat anyone like shit long enough and bad things will happen.

[not guilty]

If you were ignorant of the Fort Pillow Massacre, why on earth did you comment on whether Nathan Bedford Forrest was good or evil?

That is comparable to someone who is ignorant of China's Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution declaring that Mao Zedong was a communist, agreed, but I have not seen anything indicating that he was an inherently evil man.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you have any idea of just how nasty the Civil War had gotten, on both sides, by 1864? Any idea? The way that POWs were treated, on both sides, it’s reflective of this. And was horrific.

As to Fort Pillow, when both sides openly state that they have no intention of giving any water to the other, and as I understand it that was done, you kinda know it’s gonna get nasty. Not that war and killing people is exactly a nice thing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Quarter.

Dammit Apple, it was correct when it said quiet and you didn’t need to change it. And that’s quarter not quiet.

Grrrrrrrrrrr"….."

[Joe_dallas]

"beyond that it's improper to produce evidence of things you'd rather people didn't know."

He learned that from the MSM.

[DDHarriman]

Haha yeah, people shouldn't look at Mamdani's words and actions and draw conclusions on their own!

Sarcastr0 is here to tell you that words and actions taken before this exact moment shouldn't be considered as it's unfair to look into someone's past, especially if they're a leftwing revolutionary.

In that case, we must ONLY listen to what Sarcastr0 says about them and NOT all the evidence.

[ThePublius]

This spin on the age of a quote is one of the many arrows in the Democratic/liberal/progressive quiver, along with the race card and 'conspiracy theory.' It's bullshit. If someone as an adult in public life made a pronouncement yesterday, or a month ago, or last year, or nine years ago, it all still counts if they haven't believably and sincerely repudiated it. And the Dems are duplicitous on this, as they never excuse an opposition character, no matter how old a comment is; take the case of Trump's 2005 Access Hollywood 'grab them by the pussy' comments. Did Sarcastr0 say 'oh, that was 11 years ago, it doesn't count' during the 2016 presidential campaign? No. Did Hitler do, in 1933, what he said he would in Mein Kampf 9 years earlier? Yes.

Cea Weaver's comments, her extensive comments on private property, on whiteness, on the white middle class, including her desire to impoverish them, ALL STILL COUNT. I completely reject this spin from Sarcastr0 and many others on the left that since it was 6 or 7 years ago it doesn't count. Total bullshit.

[ThePublius]

Oh, yea, another arrow in the quiver is the 'old news' one: 'you said this already,' 'this is the third time this was mentioned,' and variations on that, as if repetition somehow negates it.

Someone should write a book that's something of a counter to Alinksy's Rules for Radicals, that delineates all of the spin the left puts on revelations and arguments with which they disagree.

[Krayt]

He should have said "seize unrealized stock gains!" like he's been trained.

[Commenter_XY]

You know, Man of Science, some of us told you he was a marxist at heart. Surprise! He is.

[DDHarriman]

Her mother is an White Supremacist Grand Dragon with their $1.6M family home in Nashville.

Notice how Cea is demanding any Warm Collectivism warmly collectivize her parent's property.

[not guilty]

"Her mother is an [sic] White Supremacist Grand Dragon with their $1.6M family home in Nashville."

Supporting facts as to the White Supremacist Grand Dragon, DDH?

Celia Applegate is a professor of Germanic Studies at Vanderbilt University's Blair School of Music. https://as.vanderbilt.edu/history/bio/celia-applegate/ I seriously doubt that Vanderbilt's Board of Trust would employ a white supremacist grand dragon as a tenured professor.

The New York Post reports that Professor Applegate bought the Nashville property with her partner, David Blackbourn, (who is now a Professor of History Emeritus at both Vanderbilt and Harvard*) in July 2012 for $814,000. https://nypost.com/2026/01/06/us-news/mom-of-zohran-mamdani-aide-who-said-owning-a-home-fuels-white-supremacy-has-1-6m-house-in-tennessee/ Housing prices in Nashville have skyrocketed since then.

And in any event, what does the mother's status have to do with Cea Weaver?
______________________________
* https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.vanderbilt.edu%2Fvu-cas%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F39%2F2025%2F07%2F28133150%2Fcv-1.doc&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK

[not guilty]

Still waiting on those supporting facts, DDH.

Is anyone else surprised that DDH has run away like a scalded dog?

[ThePublius]

Yesterday's editorial from the editorial board at the Washington Post:
Mamdani’s new tenant advocate wants to seize private property
Socialists keep dreaming of collectivism as New Yorkers suffer from unserious housing policy.

"As we have repeatedly warned, capping what landlords can charge tenants, especially below market rate, leads to unlivable accommodations and a broader rise in average rent costs. It never leads to cheaper, nicer rental options."

"Mamdani, Weaver and their fellow travelers might enjoy fantasizing about a collective utopia without property rights. In reality, renters are going to be left fending for themselves as they navigate ever-dilapidating housing conditions."

Wall Street Journal editorial board today:
The Rent-Control Slums of New York

Mayor Mamdani tries to stop a bankruptcy his new housing czar caused.

"Enter Mr. Mamdani, who last week appointed left-wing activist Cea Weaver as his housing czar. This is like hiring an arsonist to put out a fire.

He boasts that Ms. Weaver played a “pivotal role in securing passage” of the 2019 state rent law and the Covid eviction moratorium, as well as a 2024 law that limited rent increases statewide in most buildings to 5% plus the consumer price index. He says she also “mobilized more than 20,000 tenants to vote in support of a citywide rent freeze,” as if that’s good news.

Ms. Weaver isn’t shy about her goals. The NYU professor says the city needs to stop treating private property as an individual right and treat it “as a collective good and towards a model of shared equity.” She adds this “will mean that families, especially white families,” will “have a different relationship to property.” Will she soon be demanding that families share their homes or spare rooms with whoever she deems worthy—and by race?"

But Sarcastr0 will tell you none of what Weaver said counts as it was in the past. Ha, ha, ha....

[John F. Carr]

When a New York City landlord declares bankruptcy, can the units be removed from rent control or have their rent reset to market rates? I specify New York City because a search tells me bankruptcy courts are not uniform in treatment of tenants and because New York City law is special.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That’s an interesting question.

The bankruptcy of the landlord would not change the characteristics of an asset, i.e. an ongoing non-code confirming grandfathered usage would still be permitted. So if you consider rent control the equivalent of a grandfathered zoning thing, why would landlord bankruptcy change it?

The bankruptcy may end tenant leases much like a restaurant lease, but much as the restaurant may be grandfathered as a use with somebody else able to use it as such why wouldn’t that apply to rent controlled units?

[Bob from Ohio]

Making a Commie cry

https://x.com/Daily_MailUS/status/2008903817341931618

[TwelveInchPianist]

Shocking! Doesn't he know that white woman tears are a form of white supremacy?

[Swede425]

LOL!
She doesn't do confrontation very well.
Just a couple of days on the job and already made to cry (literally) when challenged about her retarded statements and the fact that her mom owns a house worth over a million dollars in a gentrified neighborhood.
She ran away!
Liberal white women are the fucking worst.

[Commenter_XY]

They are truly...AWFL!

[Michael P]

John Fetterman gets in a dig on Mamdani: "we all recognize that kind of warm collectivism, socialism in Venezuela, no one really liked to live under that, and they had to flee that."

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2026/01/06/fetterman-no-one-liked-living-under-maduros-warm-collectivism-socialism-in-venezuela/

[DDHarriman]

Kurt Metzger recently coined this term "trauma-controlled mind-slaves".

It's brilliant. It describes perfectly what we've seen. The Left veers from one existential trauma to the next, and has done so for nearly a generation.

Look around here. Look at all the Lefties who are slavishly devoted to the Narrative.

If there is any human left inside you and it hasn't all become Democrat, look at what these evil people (we know who) have done to you and your generation. You're mind controlled. You're a slave. And you welcome it with open arms. You beg for rent control. You beg for censorship. You beg for oppression of The Other. You beg for violence and blood shed. You beg for broken families. You beg for White genocide - the one demographic that has bettered the human condition more so than any other.

You beg for the downfall of freedom and liberty. The warmth you're embracing is from human blood.

Shake out of it. Come back to being a human being.

[Malika la Maize]

Note no rebuke from MAGAns.

[DDHarriman]

lol why would there be a rebuke for speaking The Truth.

[bernard11]

You, sir, are a madman howling at the moon and frothing at the mouth. There is no other description.

[dwb68]

WSJ: JP Morgan will no longer use proxy advisory firms for vote recommendations on corporate proxies. They will use...in-house AI to make recommendations. "AI also will analyze data from more than 3,000 annual company meetings and provide recommendations to the portfolio managers"

Corporate proxies and the firms that examine them are worthless, so bye!

On the other hand, most corporate management is just as robotic and worthless, succumbing to groupthink.

[Krayt]

It's only a matter of time. Computers decide you lose a battle. Report to disintegration chamber.

[Krayt]

It won't last long.

Computer: I vote to increase spending and investment for long term payoff. It will just take 10 years to see the increased value.

Board: Nope!

[DDHarriman]

Sadly the infamous Somali Learing Center has closed. It's too bad, they were offering the public service of childcare at the low low Democrat cost of $1M/kid per year and they serviced three kids. All of them the owners children. But still a worthy public service we will all miss.

FUCK YOU RACIST MAGA!!! Society NEEDS social services like daycare!!

[Longtobefree]

I have always wondered about that spelling error; was it supposed to be "learning", or "leering"?

[Joe_dallas]

Gotta give Trump credit - Its easier to find Maduro than a child in a MN Somalian daycare.

[ThePublius]

A couple of days ago in the Open Thread someone posted that the Somalia Ambassador to the U.N., Abukar Dahir Osman, was running a fraud in Ohio, and he was summarily dismissed and mocked; conspiracy theorist, racist, and all the usual stuff.

Well, as usual, yesterday's conservative conspiracy theory is today's reality. It turns out that Abukar Dahir Osman is , indeed, involved in Medicaid fraud.

"HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill confirmed via X that Osman is in fact linked to Progressive Health Care Services and that the federal agency previously took action against the home healthcare company after a conviction for Medicaid fraud.

“I can confirm public speculation that Ambassador Abukar Dahir Osman, Permanent Representative of Somalia to the UN and President of the Security Council, is in fact associated with Progressive Health Care Services, a home health agency in Cincinnati,” O’Neill wrote.

“HHS has previously taken action against Progressive in response to a conviction for Medicaid fraud,” he continued. “More to come.”"

"O’Neill’s statement came after the account Libs of TikTok posted several documents purporting to show Osman’s ties to Progressive Health Services.

“Somalia’s Ambassador to the UN Abukar Dahir Osman was a healthcare administrator in Ohio. There is another healthcare company in the SAME SUITE as his with a different name, and multiple others at the same address, all with Somali names,” the account wrote on X.

“His company was convicted of Medicaid fraud while he worked in a Medicaid office in Ohio,” the account wrote."

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2026/01/06/feds-somalias-ambassador-united-nations-linked-medicaid-fraud-ohio/

O.K., get ready for Sarcastr0, et.al., to counter this with:
- that was six years ago, it doesn't count;
- you're a racist who hates Somalians, etc.;
- he wasn't personally convicted, so it wasn't him;
and so on.

[Malika la Maize]

Do you think calling Somalis garbage people is racist?

[EllaWilson]

What race is "garbage"? My trash bags are white.

[Malika la Maize]

What kind of idiot are you? I mean, is your argument calling an ethnic group garbage can’t be racist because your trash bag is white?

[ThePublius]

Who called them garbage people?

That said, Somali culture is that of corruption. That should be clear to you from the history of Somali pirates, and the widespread fraud in the U.S. perpetrated by Somalis. Even the Somali ambassador to the U.N. is involved in it!

[Malika la Maize]

Jesus Christ, you’re defending you bigotry by pointing to Somali pirates from centuries ago?

You’re like liberals who hate Southerners because of what Confederates did.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Carrying a Confederate flag into the Capitol on January 6th was sorta bad.

[Mr. Bumble]

@Qualika:
"Pirate activity reportedly began off the coast around 2000, but rapidly escalated during the War in Somalia from 2006 to 2009."from wiki
2000 was a century ago? Who knew.

[Malika la Maize]

So your argument is, hey there were some Somali pirates more recently so that totes supports referring to them as garbage?

The internet folks.

[Michael P]

"from centuries ago", or last week?

https://maritime-executive.com/article/report-chinese-fishing-vessel-hijacked-off-somalia

[Malika la Maize]

Malika la Maize 17 minutes ago
So your argument is, hey there were some Somali pirates more recently so that totes supports referring to them as garbage?

The internet folks.

Reply Edit

[Michael P]

My fundamental argument is that Malicia is a garbage person, as amply demonstrated in these pages.

[ThePublius]

You're an ass. Somali pirates are currently active, and have been for decades. This year, for example:

"Mogadishu (HOL) — Somali pirates hijacked a Chinese fishing vessel off the coast of Puntland on New Year’s Day, seizing the ship near the port town of Bandarbeyla in what regional officials say appears to be a ransom-driven attack."

Jerk, saying I'm referring to something centuries ago.

[ThePublius]

More typical Dem/lib/prog B.S. of accusing me of being a bigot because I point out something that doesn't fit their preferred narrative.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Who called them garbage people?"
Qualika likes to attribute to others that which "she" knows to be true but can't come to admit.

[Malika la Maize]

https://people.com/donald-trump-calls-somali-immigrants-garbage-televised-tirade-11860974

[ThePublius]

And what does that have to do with me? You're a jerk.

[Malika la Maize]

Is what he said racist?

[ThePublius]

WTF does that have to do with the topic at hand? You're just trying to derail the conversation with your B.S.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s amazing how much wiggling you’re engaging in to avoid answering the question. Was it racist?

[ThePublius]

This is classic Democrat/liberal/progressive deflection. He wants to deflect form the matter at hand so he attempts to change the subject, or the trajectory of the discussion, with an oblique accusation along the lines of bigotry or racism. I have your number, Malika, and I don't give a shit what you have to say.

The only garbage person here is Malika.

[Malika la Maize]

Trump referred to Somalis as garbage. That’s racist. And you engage in similar talk. But you don’t want anyone to call this out, so you’re apoplectic.

If you want to talk about MN fraud, by all means. Wasting taxpayer money is incredibly awful.

But your thing is to trash an ethnic group. You’re like Harriman talking about Jewish fraud. Only your masters have told you not to talk like that about Jews, but Somalis? Go nuts.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's nationalist, not racist. "Somali" isn't a race.

[Malika la Maize]

This is incredibly stupid. Israelis are devils isn’t racist, dur hur!

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it isn't.

Distinct evils are different evils from each other, you cheapen discourse by collapsing all these distinctions.

[Malika la Maize]

Jesus Christ, is your argument “it’s not racism it’s insulting a national origin?”

First all, that’s dumb. Do you think “go back to Africa” is not racist because, hey, it’s just a geographical reference!

Secondly, is there anything less worse about generalizing bad things about people based on where they come from instead of their race?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Secondly, is there anything less worse about generalizing bad things about people based on where they come from instead of their race?"

Yes, actually.

People who actually came from some particular place are genuinely likely (but not guaranteed!) to share a common culture, and that culture may be problematic.

By contrast race is just genes, and doesn't tell you anything about a person's culture.

I'll add that the left just casually calling every last thing they don't like "racism" has reduced what used to be a charge with genuine bite to nothing more than a content free epithet that is increasingly ignored.

[Malika la Maize]

So your argument is Filipinos are culturally degenerate is significantly better than Filipinos are racially degenerate?

YMMV but I think both are abhorrent generalizations.

[Brett Bellmore]

"So your argument is [the claim that] Filipinos are culturally degenerate is significantly better than [the claim that] Filipinos are racially degenerate?"

Yeah, it seems to me you've summed it up accurately. There's actually some basis for the first claim, the latter claim is groundless.

By the way, you'd undoubtedly be horrified at what the Filipinos I know have to say about Filipino culture and corruption. They do agree that it is culturally endemic.

[not guilty]

"People who actually came from some particular place are genuinely likely (but not guaranteed!) to share a common culture, and that culture may be problematic."

Brett, please indulge my curiosity here. Why prompted you to move from Michigan to an area where a child might reach adolescence before learning that "damn" and "yankee" are separate words?

[ThePublius]

The Somali culture is that of corruption. That is self evident if you examine their country, and their behavior as a group, both in Somalia and among the Somali immigrants to the U.S. Why is so much fraud perpetrated by Somalians? Coincidence? I think not. We're talking of perhaps $9B in fraud in Minnesota, and potentially similar numbers on Ohio, Maine, New York, Washington state, and other places, all by Somali "communities." Even the Somali ambassador to the U.N. is implicated in Medicaid fraud. Wake up.

[Malika la Maize]

This is exactly how racism works.

Look how many black people are involved in violent crime, look how many Jews are involved in making porn, therefore let’s generalize about how these groups are bad.

You’re a racist, dude.

[ThePublius]

It has nothing to do with race. I would be just as outraged if they were Irish travelers. It's culture. The racist claim is Dem/lib/prog bullshit.

[Frank Drackman]

You act like "Making Porn" (does Jerry Seinfeld "Make Comedy"?? Does Dustin Hoffman "Make Drama") is a bad thing. Somebody bought all those tickets to "Deep Throat"

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

So if I say Jews have a wicked culture that’s fine, but if I say it’s in their blood that’s bad?

You’re a collectivist jerk.

[Brett Bellmore]

"So if I say Jews have a wicked culture that’s fine, but if I say it’s in their blood that’s bad?"

At least recognize that they're different claims.

[grb]

ThePublius : "It has nothing to do with race."

It has everything to do with race. Let's see how this works, using crime statistics from 2011:

Males constituted 98.9% of those arrested for forcible rape
Males constituted 87.9% of those arrested for robbery
Males constituted 85.0% of those arrested for burglary
Males constituted 83.0% of those arrested for arson
Males constituted 81.7% of those arrested for vandalism
Males constituted 81.5% of those arrested for car theft.
Males constituted 79.7% of those arrested for offenses against family and children.
Males constituted 77.8% of those arrested for aggravated assault.

See? Males are animals. Little better than brutes. I imagine ThePublius will say those numbers aren't reflective of all men and he (personally) shouldn't be seen as some lesser human being because of the numbers. Then he'll hear about some crime committed by a person with dark skin and his eyes will go vacate and skin flush with orgasmic joy again. Kinda pathetic, but that sordid pleasure is what floats his boat.

[ThePublius]

grb doesn't get that there's a difference between immutable characteristics, like gender, and culture. What a jerk.

[Joe_dallas]

ThePublius 7 hours ago
"A couple of days ago in the Open Thread someone posted that the Somalia Ambassador to the U.N., Abukar Dahir Osman, was running a fraud in Ohio, and he was summarily dismissed and mocked;

Happens frequently - someone makes a factually correct statement which is mocked , a few days later or within a month or two, other sources confirm the correctness of the original statement that leftists mocked.

[Bwaaah]

Michael P posted this very revealing audit of Minnesota's Behavioral Health Administration.

https://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/fad/pdf/fad2601.pdf

I note in reading its findings that ALL of the things that went wrong were well-known risks that are covered (and substantially mitigated) by already established rules that are, evidently, widely and routinely flouted by government employees. That wasn't just some people breaking rules. That's A CULTURE OF RULE-BREAKING.

I now look back upon all the instances in which I engaged with government, not on the widely watched admin functions like medicare or social security or passports, but as a business person seeking to provide services to government, or as a parent in a case of a "special needs program" for a child (for example). And now I recall how many different ways I was explicitly guided by government administrators as to how to get around rules that were clearly intended to prohibit that which we were trying to do.

In some cases, the violations were with corrupt intent, particularly from the side of the government (e.g. they always liked to present grossly inflated performance statistics). In others, we were both just working around rules so onerous that they prevented the possibility of effecting legitimate solutions in an affordable way.

But I now look back and realize that rule-breaking isn't an exceptional practice in government. It's institutionally normative and even necessary, frighteningly so in some big programs, but especially to get smaller things done.

It's telling that the Minnesota audit report recommends almost no new rules to address the kind of large-scale corruption that occurred there. To the contrary, it simply asserts the need to abide by existing rules. That's not likely to happen, because doing so would stunt many of the good but already overburdened intentions of government.

Rule-breaking in government is both a feature and a bug. But what of the rules themselves? They're as meaningful or meaningless as their functionaries choose, because they know and trust in customary rule-breaking. It's rampant.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s a real problem with liberalism that they don’t think about how it’s other people’s money they’re playing with. I think they’re more worried about the deserving person who gets tripped up by anti-fraud measures than the taxpayer paying for fraud. I don’t pretend this has an easy answer.

[Brett Bellmore]

As I've remarked before, I'm more and more convinced that 'liberals' somehow skipped a basic developmental step in childhood, coming to comprehend that other people's stuff was other people's stuff, not their own.

[Malika la Maize]

I wouldn’t say it’s just liberals (look at how people like Pubes here sees both wrong with tariffs making the products I buy more expensive), but they probably do have more of an issue with not realizing how gracious other people are being with their money for government benefits.

[Frank Drackman]

One of the few luxuries I had as a kid (OK, I was an Officer's kid, I had a nice Baseball Glove, a Schwinn Stingray, back before they were cool, and got horseback riding lessons (instead of a Dirt Bike) was the Crayola 64 Crayon Box (with built in Sharpener!) including such colors as "Raw Umber" (for the Cierra) "Orange-Red" "Cornflower" "Thistle" (The inspiration for a Brady Bunch episode BTW).
No way I was sharing my largesse with the Schlubs with their 8 Basic Color sets...

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

"a Schwinn Stingray, back before they were cool,"

Weren't those coaster brakes great? I don't know why you can't seem to get anything but caliper brakes anymore.

[Frank Drackman]

They were, of course the "Stingray" (almost sold my Z06 for a "Stingray" once, just for the cool name) had the "Stick Shift" in the perfect position (to contuse your Balls) right between your legs. Always the Nerd, I'd connect a speedometer (got up to 30mph going down a hill in Bellevue NE) and of course, put a Baseball Card (one of the ones where you checked off which cards you already had) between the spokes so it'd make that cool "whap-whap-whap" sound

Frank

[Bwaaah]

The baseball card was the icing on the Sting Ray cake. I used a wooden clothes pin on the front fork to lock the card in place. There was a few month period where I lowered down my handlebars so they straddled my thighs. I couldn't do a sharp turn for shit, but I sure did look like the bad boy.

And the stick shift placement...oh yeah! It'd reach right down there.

[bernard11]

I used one of those worthless team cards.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It’s a real problem with liberalism that they don’t think about how it’s other people’s money they’re playing with

I am reminded by that scene in It's A Wonderful Life:

You're thinking of this place all wrong. As if I had the money back in a safe. The money's not here. Well, your money's in Joe's house. That's right next to yours. And in the Kennedy house. And Mrs. Macklin's house and a hundred others. You're lending them the money to build, and then they're going to pay it back to you as best they can.

Anyway, isn't this a bit silly? People have different views on the appropriate way to regulate money. They have different strategies and philosophies. They think things through.

Liberals realize where money comes from. People disagree with their decision-making in various cases.

Anyway, it there is really a "real problem" here, it is that any group deciding how to regulate money don't think things through enough. But that is a standard concern.

[Bwaaah]

I don't think a lack of regard for other people's money is limited to any philosophical faction. More pointedly, people of all persuasions tend to show elevated concern only for their own money, and not the money of others.

But that minor point aside, I agree with your simple but well-said comment. I too do not pretend this has an easy answer. And a hard answer isn't an answer at all. Complexity itself is a cause of the problem, and simplification would look like more of a blind eye.

This looks like the kind of problem that's already well understood and has already been addressed, vis-a-vis systems, just about as optimally as it can be addressed. Punishment by prosecution, importantly including rule-breaking government actors, would be a helpful reminder that violation of rules, even normative ones, carry significant risk to individuals in government. (It's not clear to me that they do.) But that too is a double-edged sword that cuts for and against our purposes.

And still, to your point, we rely on individual judgement and intent to maximize the utility, the benefits, of our governmental systems. The fundamental purpose of feeding programs is to feed people who need food, and not to prove the fidelity of government to its rules.

[Malika la Maize]

This is my pint about Trump (but not just about him). The Founders were good about recognizing that people are very corruptible. So systems should be in place to counteract that. Trump is in a situation where conflicts of interest are massive.

[Bwaaah]

The President, any President, is special. He (and the people he chooses to protect) is the only one who gets away with such violations. But he does so pretty much in full view and scrutiny of the [voting] public. While typical government functionaries are limited in some measure by rules, the President is limited only by a need for substantial political support by voters. That, too, is a feature and a bug.

[Malika la Maize]

What kind of recently disaffected liberal is more worried about state functionaries than a President re conflict of interests? There’s a reason the Federalist Papers focused more on the latter.

[Bwaaah]

And there you jumped the shark.

[Malika la Maize]

Dodge the question much?

[Bwaaah]

Please copy/paste what it is that you think justified your false implication that I am "more worried about state functionaries than a President re conflict of interests."

I didn't say that. I don't believe that.

I appreciate the moments when you leave your trolling behind.

[Magister]

"The President, any President, is special. He (and the people he chooses to protect) is the only one who gets away with such violations."

You seem to think we limit government functionaries by rules but nothing can or needs to be done about the President's conflicts of interest. It's possible that Trump in particular does not worry you, which pretty much supports the mockery of your disaffected liberal pretense.

[Malika la Maize]

That’s easy, you wrote about one a lot and the other none.

[jb]

There's a few things going on, I think:

1) You're probably right that there's not enough of a sense of accountability for being efficient in spending in government. This is pretty common in large organizations, but in government leadership may think that it's "worth it" because the cause is good whereas in the private sector leadership is a lot more focused on the bottom line so there's likely to be more pressure towards accountability for individual components of the large organization.

2) You'll notice that all of the really big frauds are done by providers, but almost all of the "death by paperwork" rules apply to consumers. There's pretty good research showing just how burdensome paperwork can be to people who legitimately qualify for benefits, but it often seems super easy to fraudulently provide services. I think this is because a lot of anti-fraud rhetoric tends to focus on trying to cast the fraudsters as undesirables, so it tends to focus on individual stories of malfeasance rather than corporations scheming the system. (Just see how riled up the MAGAs are about the Somalis in Minnesota versus the much larger-scale frauds insurance companies perpetrate through the country as evidence of this.)

3) Liberals probably tend to overcompensate for the time tax in the other direction by erring on the side of providing services. In some contexts (like Covid) this makes sense, even if it resulted in a lot of fraud under programs like PPP. Even in the context of individuals getting access to needed service, it may make sense, but because it's so much easier to systemically rob the system from the provider side, clamping down with more scrutiny there probably makes more sense.

4) But as Bwaah hints at above, there's so many rules and so much paperwork in government overall that the whole thing is unworkable. Some of this is roadblocks put up by conservatives to limit fraud and otherwise in the interest of good governance; some of this is restrictions put in place by liberals to promote social causes like environmental review or union labor requirements. But they add up to incredibly slow-moving government. A good discussion of this is in Ezra Klein's book Abundance. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the result of all of this is a lot of folks routinely trying to work around well-intentioned rules. This also happens in other large organizations, and in this case leadership is less likely to do something about it until something bad happens and then a whole new passel of rules get put in place which will eventually be ignored or at least become totally disjoint from their original intention.

5) I do think if liberals want to push government as a solution to some of society's big problems, it's incumbent on them to do the hard work to figure out how to make government work better. That means more efficacious as well as addressing problems like fraud. There are problem with the way MAGA is engaging with the fraud in Minnesota, but it is a real problem and liberals should be taking the lead in proposing solutions instead of just pushing back on the problem statement.

[Bwaaah]

That's all right stuff to me.

[Sarcastr0]

TP has not established a 'culture of rule-breaking.'

He has picked up what the right's been pushing with it's anecdotes.

It's telling that the Minnesota audit report recommends almost no new rules to address the kind of large-scale corruption that occurred there.
Page 3, chief.

We've discussed the issues in MN already, and they are policy not cultural. But TP will read and not read whatever he needs because he's clearly stoked with this new story he's vibsed up about the government.

[Bwaaah]

I've had around ten (or more) unusual, unrelated interactions with government. Seven of those included a government employee breaking a rule or engaging in deceptive practices. That establishes for me overwhelming evidence of a culture of rule-breaking.

You can presume I'm a freak example with freak experiences.

You don't even know when to just shut up and leave well enough alone. Deny. Deny. Deny.

[Malika la Maize]

I’ve been in line and saw those people misusing food stamps!

Very Recently Disaffected Liberal (to be sure)!

[Sarcastr0]

You come with an anecdote, barely detailed, that aligns with your extremism.

And then you preemptively accuse me of denial because you know you've provided nothing to convince anyone.

[Bwaaah]

1) New York had a state funded "economic development" program for "small businesses" that enabled participants to receive favorable (state subsidized) borrowing rates on business loans. The only requirement was that we be a small business, and that we periodically report how many jobs were "saved or created" by the program. We told them that we didn't expect the program to create or save jobs, but to merely help our ability to continue doing business. The state administrators schooled us in how to come up with numbers, like, they said, "Say, 10 percent?" We subsequently used their guidance to report jobs saved or created, regardless of the realities of whether we were hiring or firing. The program lived on "good news."

2) A child of mine was evaluated for eligibility for a NY State early childhood development program. After a screening evaluation, state administrators sat down with me and my wife to inform us of his eligibility and to ask if we wanted to proceed. I began to discuss the decision with my wife, right there at the table. I was opposed to participation at that point because I didn't see any significant developmental problem in the child. (The state's only eligibility criteria was that the child be outside the 70th percentile of performance, i.e. a "late walker" in that case). As the administrators listened in, the supervising administrator interrupted our discussion to tell my wife and I that we had to decide at that meeting, and that after that, our child would no longer be eligible for the program. (Yeah. She was that much of a self-interested, deceitful jerk.)

3) I worked for a manufacturer in New Jersey who provided certain products to school systems all around the state. All that business was secured through [supposedly] competitive, annual, "open bidding" processes. We had lots of competitors, and though we weren't necessarily the lowest price producer, we were a very reliable supplier with a wide array of excellent products. In order to routinely force our company to be the winning bidder, school bid administrators would carefully craft the bid to require inclusion of one particular very carefully specified product for which we were known to be the only producer. We were a shoe-in for a lot of the business annually, and in fact, it wasn't truly an "open bidding" process.

There's a sample. I've wasted enough time with you. (Too many have as well.)

[Bwaaah]

4) A few months ago, a New York City public school came to my son's company to get work done for the school. It was common work that is done by many, many companies. After much back and forth, the job was agreed upon for a price somewhere around $25,000. One of the school teachers advised him that the billing had to be done as three separate invoices, each under $10,000, submitted over a three month period. The purpose of that accounting rigmarole was to avoid the requirement that jobs over $10,000 be routed through central purchasing administration, and potentially, a lengthy bidding process.

[ThePublius]

What do you mean "TP?"

[Bwaaah]

Yeah. I wondered the same. But I figure in Sarc-land, we're the same vibe with no difference.

[John F. Carr]

The United States continues to try to seize a tanker that fled Venezuela while the military was busy helping execute an arrest warrant. WSJ reports a P-8 and AC-130 are supporting boarding of the ex-Bella 1 near Iceland while a Russian submarine makes an invisible show of force beneath. The tanker claims Russian registry. The legitimacy of that claim is unclear.

Obligatory quote: "This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it." There used to be a genre of fiction where little things escalated into WW3.

[Mr. Bumble]

LIVE
Pete Hegseth warns US will enforce Venezuela oil blockade ANYWHERE as America seizes tanker off Europe: Live updates

By RACHEL BOWMAN, US SENIOR NEWS REPORTER and ROSS IBBETSON, ASSOCIATE EDITOR

Updated: 09:56 EST, 7 January 2026

46

View comments
Top
Home

46

View comments

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claimed that the 'blockade' of sanctioned Venezuelan oil remains in 'full effect' after the US secured two Russian-flagged oil tankers in European and Caribbean waters.

US special forces boarded the Marinera, previously named Bella-1, on Wednesday before a Russian submarine could arrive. The second tanker captured, the M/T Sophia, was 'operating in international waters and conducting illicit activities in the Caribbean Sea' according to US Southern Command.

The assault was carried out by US military and Coast guard personnel.

The United States European Command said in a statement: 'The @TheJusticeDept & @DHSgov, in coordination with the @DeptofWar today announced the seizure of the M/V Bella 1 for violations of U.S. sanctions.

'The vessel was seized in the North Atlantic pursuant to a warrant issued by a U.S. federal court after being tracked by USCGC Munro.'

Hegseth shortly quoted the post thereafter, writing: 'The blockade of sanctioned and illicit Venezuelan oil remains in FULL EFFECT — anywhere in the world.'

Donald Trump appears to have dismissed the threat of Vladimir Putin's forces lurking nearby, including reports of a submarine.

Russia's foreign ministry earlier said that the vessel is in international waters and is acting according to maritime law.

Follow along for the latest updates
US European Command confirms oil tanker was 'seized'

US European Command confirmed the military seized a Venezuela-linked, sanctioned oil tanker in the North Atlantic after pursuing it for weeks.

'The @TheJusticeDept & @DHSgov, in coordination with the @DeptofWar today announced the seizure of the M/V Bella 1 for violations of US sanctions,' US European Command wrote on X.

'The vessel was seized in the North Atlantic pursuant to a warrant issued by a U.S. federal court after being tracked by USCGC Munro.

'This seizure supports @POTUS Proclamation targeting sanctioned vessels that threaten the security and stability of the Western Hemisphere. The operation was executed by DHS components with support from @DeptofWar, showcasing a whole-of-government approach to protect the homeland.'

14:55
US confirms seizure of two 'ghost fleet' tanker ships

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed the US military conducted back-to-back oil tanker seizures in the North Atlantic and Caribbean this morning.

In a post on X, Noem explained that both ships were either last docked in Venezuela or en route to it.

'One of these tankers, Motor Tanker Bella I, has been trying to evade the Coast Guard for weeks, even changing its flag and painting a new name on the hull while being pursued, in a desperate and failed attempt to escape justice,' she wrote.

'The heroic crew of the USCGC Munro pursued this vessel across the high seas and through treacherous storms - keeping diligent watch, and protecting our country with the determination and patriotism that make Americans proud. These brave men and women deserve our nation’s thanks for their selfless devotion to duty.

'The world’s criminals are on notice. You can run, but you can’t hide. We will never relent in our mission to protect the American people and disrupt the funding of narco terrorism wherever we find it, period.'

[Bob from Ohio]

A blockade enforced from 3,000 to 4,000 miles away! Amazing assertion of power.

[John F. Carr]

It's not a blockade. Trump is using a word imprecisely. He does that from time to time.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's using it informally, not legally, as I am.

Its still an impressive feat no matter the terminology.

[John F. Carr]

Now it is done and the U.S. is said to have two more tankers. Seized oil will be sold and (in my words) the money will go into to Trump's slush fund.

AP reports that acting President Rodriguez tried to pay off Trump in 2017 with a contribution to his inauguration but was foiled by Rubio. She is acting cooperative nine years later. I think she and he will get along fine. Rubio will be disappointed because Trump will not bring democracy to Venezuela. Trump will put business first.

[Kazinski]

Both SkyNews and BBC are reporting that the UK provided the US assistance in tracking the tanker and supported its seizure.

The UK Defense Minister said curbing dark fleet tankers carrying sanctioned oil will help resolve conflicts around the world:

"John Healey confirms RAF provided extra surveillance and navy refuelling while capture under way

Britain’s Ministry of Defence said it had provided military help to the US forces that seized a Russian-flagged oil tanker north-west of Britain and Ireland, arguing the operation was legitimate because the vessel had breached sanctions on Iran.

John Healey, the defence secretary, said the UK had allowed US aircraft to use bases to prepare for and carry out the mission, while the RAF had provided extra surveillance and the navy refuelling while the final capture was under way.

Healey said British involvement was justified under international law because the Marinera, which was sailing from the Caribbean Sea towards Russia, had previously been placed under sanctions when it was known as the Bella 1.

“This ship, with a nefarious history, is part of a Russian-Iranian axis of sanctions evasion which is fuelling terrorism, conflict, and misery from the Middle East to Ukraine,” "
Not to mention Venezuela.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/07/uk-helped-us-seize-russian-flagged-tanker-defence-ministry-says

[Malika la Maize]

I’m curious as to how MAGAns reconcile their anti-fraud bona fides with Trump pretty much diving into conflicts of interest.

[SRG2]

What Dear Leader does, is the law.

[Malika la Maize]

I mean, if you care about fraud maybe a President with business interests in the areas he has power over is a potential problem?

This is why no one should take them seriously when they talk about this.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've repeatedly said that I don't like Trump, (Though I do occasionally find him amusing...) and have only ever supported him as the lesser of two evils, and not nearly as lesser in practice as I'd hoped.

I actually mean that "evil", you know.

[Malika la Maize]

I respect that you’re very upfront about that.

I totally get someone who says Trump is problematic but I’m more worried about the other side. Half of my family thinks this way. What I can’t get is the toadies like Mikie Q who slavishly defend everything the guy does.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's wearing to recognize that you're making lesser of two evil choices, and that those are the only choices you realistically have. It's psychologically painful. Eventually you have a tendency to become numb.

So people have a tendency to let the evil aspects of the evil they've chosen as lesser fade in their consciousness, tend to ignore what's in front of them, to avoid that psychological pain. And pretend they've chosen a good, not just a lesser evil.

[Sarcastr0]

Some prefer to paint the alternative as so dag nasty evil it keeps their decisions equally easy. And as a bonus allows purity testing their own side for insufficient zealotry if they compromise.

I'd love to have a chance to make a hard decision in a national election. I do think it'll happen in my lifetime; populism burns out.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're a classic demonstration of the point I was making, just at the other end of the political spectrum.

[Michael P]

Conflicts of interest like a VP threatening a country to compel it to for a prosecutor investigating the Second Son's employer?

[Malika la Maize]

Stupid whatabout.

I mean, look how pathetic this is. Kushner is involved in all kinds of business that makes Hunter’s conflicts of interest look sad.

I guess you’re getting something out of this Presidency that you think means you don’t have to even pretend in rational policy decentness.

[Malika la Maize]

Here’s what I think.

A sitting President should not have business interests, nor his immediate family, in nations where he’s deciding whether they get things like US armaments and other goodies.

Do you think that’s wrong?

I’m not asking if you can whatabout Hunter Biden or Nancy Pelosi or whatever. It’s pathetic. Do you think this kind of thing is generally a good idea?

[Michael P]

It's not a whatabout. You didn't indicate any alleged conflict of interest in your original comment. Based on your history, you probably imagined it all.

[Malika la Maize]

So I charged conflicts of interest re Trump and your immediate response is “whatabout Biden” but it’s not whataboutism because….my charge wasn’t specific?

What a pathetic partisan toady you are.

[Michael P]

I didn't say "what about" Biden, I asked if you were talking about a particular kind of conflict of interest.

When you want to make dumb accusations, be specific about what you are accusing people of.

[Magister]

The corrupt prosecutor was in fact not investigating the company Hunter Biden worked for, and pretty much everybody wanted that prosecutor fired for his corruption; and anyway Joe Biden didn't have the authority to initiate that policy on his own.

[Michael Ejercito]

Then calling Zelenskky to ask for a second look was no harm, no foul.

[Magister]

Nobody wanted such an investigation except to benefit the Trump 2020 campaign; Trump didn't want an investigation; he wanted a public announcement of an investigation in order to tar the political opponent he most feared. All the later US investigation of the Biden family revealed nothing beyond Hunter Biden's own problems.

[Kazinski]

I wanted the investigation, because I was concerned about public corruption, and it stank, that the son on the VP, who had barely a year earlier been dismissed from the Navy because he was a crack addict, got a million dollar a year job in a country his father had been designated the Administration point man.

Don't I count?

[Malika la Maize]

Do you think President’s family shouldn’t be getting lucrative business deals in countries where their dad is “a point man?”

You’re a joke.

[Magister]

Nobody who wasn't more interested in Donald Trump's election prospects; clowns like Kazinski who believed and believe Trump's lies do not count. When Biden communicated Obama's demand that the prosecutor be fired, there was bipartisan support in Congress along with the EU and the IMF wanting him fired. When Trump tried to extort Zelensky, he was withholding military aid that had been appropriated with bipartisan support in Congress.

[Kazinski]

That's not what Joe Biden said happened.

Wouldn't he know?

Nobody said that at the time, that was just the post hoc justification.

And Glenn Kessler's revised factcheck, finally, acknowledged " In December 2015, the then-vice president “called an audible” on linking the removal of a key Ukrainian figure to a loan guarantee"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/15/inside-vp-bidens-linking-loan-ukraine-prosecutors-ouster

Finally after 3 years of the press contradicting what Joe himself had said the WaPo fact checker admitted the truth.

Here is Joe himself with the scoop:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M-yrD2WMKiA

And don't forget at that time, Hunter was getting paid 1 million a year, and his boss, the man paying him, was a fugitive from justice.

[Magister]

Biden may have suggested it, but it was the policy of the Obama administration and the preference of the EU and IMF and had bipartisan support in Congress. It had nothing to do with Hunter Biden's company which was not being investigated by the corrupt prosecutor.

Other officials involved in the policy process, including two who were also on Biden’s plane, don’t quite remember Biden’s making such a forceful intervention. They recall a more disciplined policy process preceding the trip that led to consensus on linking the firing to the loan — though memories have blurred over eight years, they admitted. The White House records remain classified. In any case, by the time Biden landed in Kyiv, four people with direct knowledge told The Fact Checker, the Obama White House was firmly on board with the plan.

He claimed that when Poroshenko objected, Biden told him he was welcome to call President Barack Obama to confirm the policy decision.

You apparently do not read what you link.

"And don't forget" is a nice Dr. Ed 2 flourish.

[David Nieporent]

The "audible" was solely over whether to link the loan guarantees to the demand for Shokin's firing. There was never any change in policy with respect to the demand itself.

[jb]

Although at the time it seemed like this was purely a cynical ploy to try to get Ukraine to score political points for Trump in exchange for him actually doing what Congress had instructed, Trump v2 makes it clear that Trump probably also didn't like that the administration was going after Shokin at all. Trump turns out to be a huge fan of corrupt government officials, so trying to make it look like Shokin was actually a good guy might have been part of the agenda as well.

[not guilty]

"The corrupt prosecutor was in fact not investigating the company Hunter Biden worked for, and pretty much everybody wanted that prosecutor fired for his corruption; and anyway Joe Biden didn't have the authority to initiate that policy on his own."

Don't confuse MAGATs with facts, Magister. I suspect that it makes them break out in hives.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Trump Doesn't Merely Violate the Law. He Aims to Destroy it.

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2026/01/trump-doesnt-merely-violate-law-he-aims.html

These are the actions of a tyrant.

The usual suspects argue that Trump opponents are just partisan. They do the same thing when any other Republican is in control. Selective quotations are used to "prove this."

I don't recall past presidents doing things like:

White House re-litigates Jan. 6 with webpage claiming "insurrection" was a Democratic fabrication

or reports akin to ...

Danish officials are increasingly alarmed that the Trump administration has shifted toward an active effort in recent days to seize Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, as the White House said Tuesday that “utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option” to acquire the Arctic island.

‪Ilya Somin‬ on Bluesky:

I have no words equal to the anniversary of Jan. 6. So I will merely link to my article explaining why the Supreme Court was wrong not to disqualify Trump for it. But, in fairness, the Court was far from only institution that failed here. Lots of blame to go around.

On his blog, we get the latest interesting lower court decisions and the like. The anniversary cited regarded NYT v. Sullivan. The history involved executive removal power in the late 19th Century. Helpful in its own way, I guess.

Anyway, I think we are in an active state of lawlessness that warrants more than the usual level of concern. It is not just business as usual with the solution merely normal elections.

Trump, for instance, should be impeached, and he repeatedly shows evidence that the 25th Amendment should kick in. As Somin notes, correctly applied, the 14th Amendment would block Trump from office as well. A perfect storm of sorts.

There are different ways to address the situation, including because realistically, the powers that be are not going to do all that is appropriate.

Still. It is useful to occasionally, at least, remember where we are.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump has lost Ilya Somin‬! He's done for!

One of your examples of an action of a tyrant is a web page. Complete TDS.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“One of your examples of an action of a tyrant is a [a Leni Riefenstahl film].” Complete HDS.

[Bob from Ohio]

Propaganda can be created for non-tyrants too.

Example:

https://tv.apple.com/us/show/nbc-news-barack-obama-specials/umc.cmc.4slg5pc1zy5x1rb69hv1efojp

[Frank Drackman]

I'm a Jew, but that "Torchlight Parade" in TOTW gives me Goosesteps.....
See what I did there?, it's from my Comedy Set I'd have done at Kellerman's in 1963...
"Any Leni Riefenstahl fans in the Audience??? Oh yes, Mrs. Eichmann, I'm so sorry for your loss......
"Yes, I'm Jewish, but doesn't that "Torchlight Parade" Scene in Triumph of the Will give you Goosesteps??
I mean "Goose Bumps"!
Now "Olympiad" was a great concept, but how many grimacing Aryans putting the Shot can you watch until it's boring???...
Oh, sorry, let me introduce "Bruno", Kellerman's own Grimacing Aryan, head of Security, any of you try anything, he'll call for the Cops (it's 1963, no 9-11)
But hey, any of you catch my Cameo in "Exodus"?? I was "Annoying Jew #7"
Great Flick, Paul Newman, technically not "Chosen", but hey, how about that Jill Haworth?? She said she was 16!!!"

It's about this point "Bruno" reminds me I have a Bar tab to settle...

Frank

[John F. Carr]

"The usual suspects argue that Trump opponents are just partisan. They do the same thing when any other Republican is in control."

Early in Trump's first term there was a series of essays and posts by liberals along the lines of "I said these things about past Republicans but this time I mean it." When every Republican is Hitler calling Trump Hitler doesn't carry much weight.

Many of Trump's critics would say the same thing about any Republican. I wouldn't look to The Guardian (for example) for reasons why Trump is bad. Look to people who don't have the same partisan history. I liked the late P. J. O'Rourke's description of Hillary Clinton as "wrong within normal parameters" when explaining why he preferred her to Trump.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"wrong within normal parameters" is a good line

[LawTalkingGuy]

At least as far as Greenland is concerned, in the event that Congress doesn’t stop this nonsense or they do and Trump ignores it, the EU probably could probably sanction us to the point that enough Republicans would turn on Trumpism. If it had the political will of course. Greenland might force them to.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"probably could probably"

Use enough modifiers, things get sketchy.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Ah shit lol

[Bob from Ohio]

"EU probably could probably sanction us "

Big deal. So we sanction back.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Big deal"

Of course you think that, you're 12.

[Bob from Ohio]

A 12 year old would at least knew that EU sanctions are worthless.

What's your excuse?

[LawTalkingGuy]

"A 12 year old would at least knew that EU sanctions are worthless."

I mean a 12 year old would be wrong. That's why you believe this. Do you have any idea how much economic power Europe has? Do you really think it wouldn't be incredibly painful for the US if they leveraged it against us? Everything from banking to pharmaceuticals to transportation would be impacted.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Do you have any idea how much economic power Europe has?"

Less than us. Far less. They won't get into a tit for tat.

Calm down, we aren't invading and the EU is not sanctioning the US.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Less than us. Far less."

This is completely untrue. Why would say something so stupid and obviously false? EU itself has 29 Trillion GDP. We have 30 Trillion. Add in the UK and Norway, and Europe is by a around 3 trillion.

"we aren't invading"

Why do you think this? The WH seems set on it.

"EU is not sanctioning the US."

Now. The point was what they would do if Trump actually tried to take over Greenland.

[Bob from Ohio]

"obviously false"

No goalpost moving.

GDP is not the only thing that makes up "economic power". It does not even make the wikipedia entry on the subject, for instance.

US is 50% larger than the EU by Nominal GDP in any event.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You said "Far less" but oyu have no actual information to back that up. You're just spouting bullshit because you're 12.

"US is 50% larger than the EU by Nominal GDP in any event."

Which is a stupid measure compared to PPP where they are essentially equivalent (before adding in Norway and the UK)

Just admit you overstated things when you said "far less" and admit that it would actually be painful for Europe to exercise economic leverage against us. You know its true. You actually wouldn't want to live in a world where Europe imposed significant sanctions on us.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You actually wouldn't want to live in a world where Europe imposed significant sanctions on us."

Nor the Euros in a world where the US imposed significant sanctions on them.

"Which is a stupid measure compared to PPP where they are essentially equivalent"

You pick the measure that supports you and I'll do the same.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Of course you think that, you're 12."

And then some.

[jb]

In Bob's mind, Trump's tariffs are a powerful negotiating tool because of how much pain they inflict on their targets, but if the EU does it to us no one will even notice.

[Brett Bellmore]

"So I will merely link to my article explaining why the Supreme Court was wrong not to disqualify Trump for it."

Sigh.

The court was NOT wrong to not disqualify Trump for it.

I actually predicted the Supreme court's reasoning on that case: Section 3 is not self-executing, it requires enabling legislation, and the only extant enabling legislation requires a felony conviction for insurrection in order to apply.

Has Trump been convicted of insurrection? Has he even been charged with insurrection? No, he has not.

Disqualification can also result from conviction in an impeachment trial. Trump has been impeached, twice. Was he ever convicted? No, not even once.

It's very frustrating when somebody looks self evidently guilty of some serious crime, and they suffer none of the legal consequences for it because of a minor technicality like not having been charged, tried, or convicted. [/sarc]

You'd think this was a nuance a law professor like Somin would be sensitive to.

And I'll add that the reason he was not charged with insurrection isn't because the Biden DOJ were determined to protect him, come hell or high water.

It's because being self-evidently guilty isn't enough to convict somebody. You need actual evidence of guilt. And evidence that Trump actually committed the felony crime of insurrection is remarkably lacking.

[Michael Ejercito]

Yes, these are very good points.
All we heard was whining about the Insurrection®™ (which was more peaceful than mostly peaceful)

[ducksalad]

Certainly you've got a powerful argument. It should be a rock-solid principle that we only punish people after due process in a court of law, even if the crime appears to be self-evident.

But....there's this "history and tradition" thing that perhaps needs to be addressed. In the reconstruction era, the disqualification clause was actually applied to many people. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) few of the people disqualified were charged, convicted, or tried for the crime of insurrection. It was (correct me if I'm wrong) felt to be self-evident that they were officers of the Confederate government, and that was enough.

So please, no sarcastic high horse about due process. The Supremes did get it right, but the argument is purely about the text of the current law. Congress can clearly decide whether or not self-evident is a good enough standard to disqualify someone.

[Brett Bellmore]

There were two periods during the Civil war/Reconstruction when people were disqualified for insurrection: Pre and post 14th amendment.

The pre-14th amendment disqualifications took place while the South was under military occupation, and were an exercise of raw power over a vanquished foe. There was scarcely any pretense of due process about it.

The post-14th amendment disqualifications were pursuant to enabling legislation, only different enabling legislation, which empowered federal attorneys to disqualify people on the basis of a "quo warrento" civil process. That legislation was repealed in 1948.

Prior to this a Socialist named Victor Berger was disqualified from holding federal office on the basis of an espionage conviction. It is notable that, when the conviction was overturned on a technicality, Congress seated him.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The Supremes did get it right, but the argument is purely about the text of the current law. Congress can clearly decide whether or not self-evident is a good enough standard to disqualify someone."

Yes, Congress could, undoubtedly, enact a new civil procedure for disqualification, though I expect the judiciary would take exception to depriving people of at least SOME sort of trial.

[Kazinski]

That's true, but it was not self-executing. Congress had passed the 1870 Enforcement Act that did not require a conviction but directed US Attorneys to file quo warranto actions.

But Congress repealed the Enforcement Act of 1870, and in that same act passed the Insurrection Statute requiring a conviction.

None of what you say contradicts Brett.

After Chief Justice Chase's ruling in Griffin's case Congress acted under Section 3 and that remedy, and the subsequent Congressional enactments became the only remedy.

That shouldn't be surprising that the courts, and Congress took section 1 of the 14th amendment seriously enough to provide provisions for due process via section 5, since section 3 did not provide any due process provisions.

[ducksalad]

None of what you say contradicts Brett.

Contradict Brett? How could you contemplate such a thing? I tremble even to think of it. I was merely agreeing in a less than fully positive manner.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The 14A, sec. 3 provision is a disqualification. It is not a punishment that requires a BARD standard. People are regularly disqualified by means other than the criminal process.

And, yes, when it was applied during the Reconstruction years, it was not applied only after the people were convicted in a court of law. It was also applied before Congress acted.

This was covered by various people, including Ilya Somin‬ and William Baude, spelling out the details.

On top of that, there was "due process" in the Colorado case. We can debate if there was enough, but there was. Again, people covered that in the past.

https://prawfsblawg.com/happy-january-6th/

[I link that in part since he's a self-labeled conservative, who is a Never Trumper type who supported the usage of 14A, sec. 3, and testified in litigation. He also wrote books about the Reconstruction ERA, FWIW, so he has some expertise in the history/tradition.]

Finally, granting for the sake of argument that more process was necessary and Trump v. Anderson was correctly decided (the per curiam version, at least), the appropriate thing to do (and there was one or more bills proposed to do so) was for Congress to pass a law to enforce the provision.

The opinion left open the ability of states to disqualify non-federal officials for engagement in insurrection.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The 14A, sec. 3 provision is a disqualification. It is not a punishment that requires a BARD standard. People are regularly disqualified by means other than the criminal process."

Yes, disqualification is not a punishment, which is why doing it by civil process rather than criminal was possible. It's just that, at present, the only enabling legislation happens to rely on criminal convictions.

"And, yes, when it was applied during the Reconstruction years, it was not applied only after the people were convicted in a court of law. It was also applied before Congress acted."

As I said, in states under military occupation, as an exercise of raw power over a vanquished foe. The Union did a lot of things in the South during that period that would be utterly intolerable if done in time of peace.

"On top of that, there was "due process" in the Colorado case. We can debate if there was enough, but there was. Again, people covered that in the past."

No, there was "process", but per the Supreme court, not due process. By definition, "due" process IS "enough" process.

"Finally, granting for the sake of argument that more process was necessary and Trump v. Anderson was correctly decided (the per curiam version, at least), the appropriate thing to do (and there was one or more bills proposed to do so) was for Congress to pass a law to enforce the provision."

There already IS a law to enforce the provision. You just don't want to have to prove in a criminal court that Trump was actually guilty in order to disqualify him.

"The opinion left open the ability of states to disqualify non-federal officials for engagement in insurrection."

Well, of course it did. States are largely free, with a few federal constitutional limits, to set whatever qualifications they want for state office. What they can't do is add qualifications to hold federal office.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, disqualification is not a punishment, which is why doing it by civil process rather than criminal was possible. It's just that, at present, the only enabling legislation happens to rely on criminal convictions.

Once more: that isn't enabling legislation for the 14A. It's just a criminal statute.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is, trivially, enabling legislation, because it carries a penalty of disqualification, and since statutes can't add to the qualification for office, it is either enabling legislation or it is unconstitutional.

And take it up with the Supreme court, you're arguing with them. From Trump V Anderson:

"Any congressional legislation
enforcing Section 3 must, like the Enforcement Act of 1870
and §2383, reflect “congruence and proportionality” between preventing or remedying that conduct “and the
means adopted to that end.” City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at
520. Neither we nor the respondents are aware of any other
legislation by Congress to enforce Section 3. "

Note that "other"; 2383 is construed by the Court to be legislation to enforce Section 3.

[David Nieporent]

It is, trivially, enabling legislation, because it carries a penalty of disqualification,

It, trivially, is not enabling legislation, because it carries a penalty of disqualification for people to whom the 14th amendment doesn't even apply, and (on the flip side) doesn't even apply to many people to whom the 14th amendment does apply.

It happens to partially overlap with the 14th amendment, but is not a means of enabling the 14th amendment — which, I reiterate, does not require enabling legislation at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're confusing "not enabling legislation" and "not just enabling legislation".

[not guilty]

JoeFromtheBronx writes:

Anyway, I think we are in an active state of lawlessness that warrants more than the usual level of concern. It is not just business as usual with the solution merely normal elections.

Trump, for instance, should be impeached, and he repeatedly shows evidence that the 25th Amendment should kick in. As Somin notes, correctly applied, the 14th Amendment would block Trump from office as well. A perfect storm of sorts.

There is another constitutional provision involving disqualification that not even Chief Justice Whoreberts and his fellow black robed wardheelers can save Doofus Trum from -- that of Article I, § 3.

Politico reports:

National security leaders told senators Wednesday that the administration does not plan to use ground troops in Venezuela, despite President Donald Trump’s insistence this week that he might do so.

But Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a closed-door briefing with the full Senate that American military forces will remain deployed around the South American country indefinitely to provide “leverage” in stabilizing the region, according to more than a dozen lawmakers who attended the event.

U.S. troops have been engaged in hostilities against Venezuela for more than four months now. Whether it involves ground troops in Venezuela or not, continued use of military force requires Congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, codified at 50 U.S. Code Chapter 33.

Per 50 U.S.C. § 1543(a):

In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;

the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

President Trump reportedly complied with that reporting requirement (at least in part) within 48 hours of the September 2 attack on Venezuelan boats. https://www.wusf.org/2025-09-17/is-the-trump-administrations-attack-on-two-venezuelan-ships-legal-a-lawyer-weighs-in That report began the running of the timetable specified in § 1544(b):

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543(a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

We are now well beyond that 60 day deadline. The War Powers Resolution was adopted by Congress in the wake of unauthorized uses of American military forces in Southeast Asia by Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon -- especially Nixon's widening the conflict into Cambodia. Trump's use of forces without Congressional authorization should be an impeachable offense, and it may well become so after the midterm elections this November.

Trump deserves to be impeached, convicted, removed from office and disqualified from holding and enjoying any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A major dodge for Republicans regarding the second impeachment was that there supposedly was a constitutional problem with convicting him after he left office. People showed this wasn't true.

Roberts refused to preside since it took place after Trump left office.

If there was a serious chance of conviction, Trump could resign after 64 senators voted guilty, and the last three Republicans would suddenly decide they couldn't convict.

I'll take the resignation, though.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The First Eight: A Personal History of the Pioneering Black Congressmen Who Shaped A Nation by Jim Clyburn is pretty good. It concerns the first eight black South Carolina congressmen, written by the ninth. The author was once a history teacher, so he has some skills in particular to write about the subject.

The eight include Robert Smalls, who was a Civil War hero (he delivered a Confederate transport ship he piloted to the Union). One of the eight appears to have been the grandson of a signer of the Declaration of Independence. [Rep. Thomas Miller]

One thing that pops up is that there were a lot of contested elections back then. Repeatedly, the eight had short terms because they only won after contesting an election.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Robert Smalls is a perfect biopic subject.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Very much so. He even used the prize money from seizing the ship to buy the home where he grew up.

[Frank Drackman]

He was a Republican, that's what we do.

[Frank Drackman]

What party did Representative Smalls belong to? or Representative Thomas Miller? Alonzo Ransier?, Richard Cain?, Robert Elliot? Robert Delarge? Joseph Rainey?
How many Black Representatives has Massachusetts had? or Connecticut?

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

ICE shot someone dead in Portland.

Beyond that, gonna wait for details to be confirmed about the circumstances and identity. Tomorrow at the earliest.

I very much hope there's video, since ICE lies.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Minneapolis.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/07/shooting-south-minneapolis-ice-agents-federal-operation

[Frank Drackman]

Honest mistake, they're both Shitholes.

[hobie]

Her name was Nicole Good.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Editor’s note: ICE officials say a woman was shot and killed Wednesday morning in south Minneapolis after attempting to run over agents with her car. Witnesses dispute ICE’s version of what happened. Mayor Jacob Frey and other city officials are expected to speak to reporters at 12:15 p.m."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Minneapolis Mayor says video shows DHS claims of self-defense are “bullshit.” He says ICE created the situation & made it worse.

His message to ICE: “Get the fuck out of Minneapolis."

He encourages citizens not to take the bait & rise to the occasion. "Let's show them unity."

[‪Joyce White Vance summary. I listened to a clip of the mayor saying the last bit.]

[LawTalkingGuy]

Seeing reports they wouldn’t let a doctor render aid and actually drew guns on them: if that’s true, JFC.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Minneapolis Mayor says video shows DHS claims of self-defense are “bullshit.” He says ICE created the situation & made it worse."

I want to see the video before I take his word about that. And, yeah, of course he says ICE "created the situation". Created by having the nerve to actually do their job, of course, but created it.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe it was an unarmed Veteran, then you won't give a shit

[hobie]

Bro, if the deceased was trying to gain unauthorized entry someplace to kill people, then, yeah, good kill on ICE's part..

[Brett Bellmore]

According to ICE, she was shot trying to run over agents. But, yes, I certainly hope there was video.

I would like to think that mandatory use of badge cams by all police, local, state, and federal, is something we could all agree on.

I'd add gun cams to that. Wouldn't be too hard to equip guns with cameras that started filming as soon as the gun was drawn from its holster, and committed the video to read only memory if the trigger was pulled.

[Frank Drackman]

While we're describing imaginary inventions how about a "Bullet Cam"??? Wouldn't be too hard to equip bullets with cameras that started filming as soon as the bullet was fired from its gun, and committed the video to read only memory if the trigger was pulled.

[Brett Bellmore]

It would basically be impossible. Ignoring building a tough enough camera to survive being fired down a gun barrel, you wouldn't intercept enough light during the tiny fraction of a second available to generate high resolution images.

By contrast a gun cam would be almost trivial to manufacture.

[Frank Drackman]

Trivial? while it wouldn't add much weight to my Smith & Wesson Model 28, the recoil from a 125 grain 357 Magnum Jacketed Hollow Point exiting Stage Front at >1,300 feet/second might cause a little "Blur" for your imaginary Gun-Cam.
And I've heard sometimes you have to fire more than one shot.

Frank

[ThePublius]

Sweet. .357 Magnum is my new favorite cartridge. I prefer the polished finish model 27, but the 28 is great, too. I have a 27. I also have a couple of Ruger Blackhawks in .357, and a Marlin 1894 in the same chambering. Yee-haw!

[Frank Drackman]

I have 1 Model 27, in NICKEL, serial number dates it to 1973, which wasn't a great time for S&W, Pinned & Recessed, bought another in the late 80's which wasn't Pinned & Recessed, Traded it in the 90's, I think for a Model 19 (that WAS Pinned & Recessed) I don't know what it is about "Pinned & Recessed"
I know, it's almost Sexual
"When I have Sex with Mrs. Drackman she's "Pinned & Recessed" (and usually looking at her Phone)
Always like the 28's better, I have 2, they just look like they can't wait to kill somebody....

Frank "Nut, Gun"

[jb]

At a minimum, at this point lack of body cam footage should be considered a factor that would make you think that police are more likely than the average citizen to be lying, as opposed to the deference their testimony is generally given.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I'd agree: Failure to have a working badge cam on you should be considered a form of spoilation, leading to adverse presumptions.

[Frank Drackman]

How about the Crooks? why don't they have to wear a "Crook-Cam" (I'm talking about Crooks already convicted, as part of their Parole, they already have multiple other restrictions they routinely violate (using Alcohol, Drugs, associating with Felons) I'd be guilty of 2/3 almost every day

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

“Today, ICE officers in Minneapolis were conducting targeted operations when rioters began blocking ICE officers and one of these violent rioters weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them—an act of domestic terrorism.
“An ICE officer, fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots.
“He used his training and saved his own life and that of his fellow officers.
“The alleged perpetrator was hit and is deceased. Thankfully, the ICE officers who were hurt are expected to make full recoveries.”

[SRG2]

Absent video, that means bugger all.

[windycityattorney]

This sounds like a repeat of Chicago where the girl in the car got lit up but survived...and later when the cams were shown that the agents swerved into her and she never threatened them with a gun; she was released from custody.

But not before every bootlicking prick praised the bravery of ICE and their own spokesperson kept repeating lies of an armed woman ramming agents with her car and it was self defense and she was a domestic terrorist? Solicitor General repeated these known falsehoods in written arguments before the Sup Ct months after it was all shown to be false and Justice Alito repeated them in his dissent. Ridiculous.

FUCK ICE and their untrained goon squads. They have zero credibility and nobody should trust what they say because they repeatedly lie and get caught lying and keep lying.

[Bob from Ohio]

Here is a video

https://x.com/maxnesterak/status/2008961959731859757

[Brett Bellmore]

Not an ideal camera angle, (The officer who they claimed she was trying to run over was on the far side of the car.) I'll wait on the badge cams.

[Kazinski]

It was a righteous shoot.

No, I don't have any details on the shooting either.

[Sarcastr0]

Your first paragraph is contradicted by your second.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Not if you think that shooting people is itself a good.

[Frank Drackman]

Some Peoples need to be shot, that's why Cops carry Guns.

[Kazinski]

You've convinced me that trusting government is important, so at least in this case I will.

Take the win.

[John 4]

Literal LOL. You people are stupid beyond belief. Good heavens.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What video has come out so far has been bad for ICE. But that won’t stop them from lying about it and getting enough people to believe it. There’s no reason for them not to.

[Brett Bellmore]

The only thing I was really able to establish from that video is that,

1. There was an officer kind of vaguely in front of her car, but since he was on the far side from the camera I can't really tell if he was actually in the path of the car, or off to the side. I want to see his badge cam, could have gone either way.
2. She drove off while the officers were still interacting with her, one even had an arm in the window. Not a capital offense, of course, but not the sort of thing you're supposed to do while interacting with law enforcement.

My inclination would be to say that, if she was shot through the side window, after she'd already passed the officer in front of her, it was a bad shot. If she was shot though the side window by a different cop while the other cop was still in front, maybe a good shot.

[Brett Bellmore]

After more investigation, she was indeed shot by the cop who had been in front of the car, but through the side window after he was no longer in danger.

She contributed mightily to the situation, but I'd say it was still a bad shot.

[Bob from Ohio]

Here's another video

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/2008976092326203562

[ThePublius]

It's clear she stepped on the gas when an officer was in front of the car. Did he have to shoot her? That's debatable, but I don't think so. But then, it wasn't me about to get run over.

[Bob from Ohio]

"through the side window"

There is a picture of the car with a bullet hole in the front windshield.

https://x.com/RobProvince/status/2008993371667488872

[Brett Bellmore]

Ok, that's better video than I'd seen. He did shoot through the windshield, but continued shooting through the side window.

I'd say he initiated firing when the car was unambiguously moving in his direction, and quite close. So maybe a good shot.

But it should go to trial, it's hardly open and shut.

The only open and shut thing about it is that woman being utterly irresponsible. It's only luck that she didn't run over at least two people, and putting the car into motion was deliberate.

[Armchair]

It's not going to trial Brett. Here's the issue. The woman accelerates and hits the ICE officer with the front of her car. At that point, it's assault with a deadly weapon on a law enforcement agent. That results in the right to use lethal force.

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

And here's the deal. Even if the woman was just "trying to escape"...it's still assault with a deadly weapon. If a guy with a gun charges a cop and fires at them "just trying to get away"....results in deadly force being used. If a guy with a knife runs towards a cop "just trying to get away" and swings it...just grazing the cop. Still assault with a deadly weapon. And the cop can fire in response. Even if the guy with the knife is a foot away and actually hasn't hit him yet....the cop can still shoot.

An automobile like this is just as deadly a weapon as the knife or gun. Even if the woman is "just trying to get away"...once you aim it at someone...especially once you hit them. Assault with a deadly weapon on a law enforcement officer.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem is that, just because you're entitled to shoot somebody who's threatening your life, does not mean that you're entitled to continue shooting after the threat is over.

Once he wasn't in line with the vehicle, his excuse to shoot evaporated, but he kept shooting.

[wvattorney13]

And from my view, the driver fairly clearly rolls forward while turning the wheels to the right. From the video, I find it extremely unlikely that the officer can articulate a reasonable fear of harm based on the driver's actions.

Kristi Noem is an absolute fool. This is not "domestic terrorism."

[Brett Bellmore]

And from yet another angle, you can see the officer bounce off the front fender. So, yeah, reasonable fear of harm for a moment or two.

In a better world she'd be alive and facing vehicular assault charges. You just don't DO that with a car!

I agree that domestic terrorism is a stretch. But vehicular assault is right on the money.

[Armchair]

As Brett states, the officer clearly bounces off the front of the vehicle.

This is called a "hit and run". Well...the run part was interrupted.

[Armchair]

You're talking about a matter of seconds. Literally, maybe 3 seconds from the video. That's too close to say "well, NOW you must stop shooting."

[David Nieporent]

The woman accelerates

People drive faster than that in parking lots.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Every single person who is claiming the agent was about to be run over has absolutely been in a parking lot and stepped out of the way of a car in a parking lot going faster than this one. Not one of them would ever suggest they had almost been murdered.

[Armchair]

Here's the issue. It doesn't matter. It's assault.

Just because the knife the perpetrator was touching you with was just barely breaking the skin...it doesn't mean it's not assault with a deadly weapon. They could, literally, at any second just press further and end your life.

The woman has taken her car, and accelerated into the ICE officer. It's assault. Is she right in that second going slowly? Sure. Could she instantly kill him by pressing the accelerator? Absolutely. He is literally touching the car, there is no time for any "well she might not kill me"...type thinking. And she has already assaulted him with a deadly weapon.

Your logic would in essence say "Sure, the perp shot me with a hand gun and it took off my ear. But he might NOT fire again in the next second. So deadly force isn't called for."

[jay.tee]

…

[Armchair]

It doesn't actually matter. If you're run over at 10 mph...you're still run over. There is no "well, when I cut you with the knife, I was moving it slowly" exemption to assault.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He wasn’t in any danger of being run over. If he was the car would have kept accelerating toward him after the first shot. But it didn’t and he easily moved out of the way in order to fire multiple shots into the driver side window.

[jay.tee]

He wasn’t in any danger of being run over

That’s an odd, if not dishonest take LTG. Of course the agent was in danger of being run over! And even low-speed collisions can and often do kill.

If you’re a few feet in front of a car and the driver suddenly accelerates, you have no idea if the driver is at 20% throttle or has mashed it to the floor - until it’s too late.

It’s a travesty she’s dead and I wish the ICE agent hadn’t used lethal force. Neither of us was in his shoes and felt the threat. In the end, she acted unlawfully and imperiled his life.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No, he wasn’t. Because if he was, the car would have ran him over as soon as the driver lost consciousness after being shot in the face due to the momentum of the vehicle. He obviously easily moved out of the way and was able to shoot her several more times.

Your life is not in danger if you can step a foot to the right and avoid a collision.

[Armchair]

"He wasn’t in any danger of being run over."

This is incorrect. He was directly in front of the car that was accelerating towards him. There was a clear danger that he may have been run over.

"If he was the car would have kept accelerating toward him after the first shot."

This assumes the person would lean down on the pedal after being shot and keep the car accelerating. This is an inaccurate assumption. This does not necessarily happen (and indeed in this case, did not happen after the person was shot, as the car stopped soon after.)

"But it didn’t"

Indeed. There are several potential reasons why. One might be the force of the gunshot drove the driver backwards and off the accelerator. Thus saving the officer's life.

[Magister]

The car was moving slowly enough for the officer in front to step aside (and continue shooting). The car sped up only after that, and only stopped when it ran into a parked car and stopped against a telephone pole.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Sounds like there should be a trial.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll certainly agree with that. None of this unqualified immunity bullshit.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Civilly it will be a Bivens claim if its a federal officer. The federal courts are absolutely hostile to Bivens claims now, even if there are some signs they are being a little more skeptical of QI in 1983 cases. I don't know enough about the recent FTCA about federal agent liability to know if that's viable for this kind of claim.

The State can certainly charge the shooter criminally here, and it will certainly be removed to federal court. The question then will be, in motion practice, if they are immune under the Supremacy Clause because they were acting reasonably within the scope of their federal duties. The 9th Circuit denied federal immunity to the Ruby Ridge agent, but the state dropped the case rather than proceed to trial. ruby Ridge f course was a uniquely terrible shooting by the federal agent. But if it gets past the federal immunity hurdle (and the interlocutory appeals) it becomes a matter of Minnesota self-defense law.

And just as an aside: even if a state criminal case is moved to federal court, the state still prosecutes (not DOJ) and the President cannot issue a pardon of the state charges.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The 9th Circuit denied federal immunity to the Ruby Ridge agent, but the state dropped the case rather than proceed to trial. ruby Ridge f course was a uniquely terrible shooting by the federal agent."

Providing a little more detail: IIRC the CA9 panel gave him immunity, the en banc court overtured them, but the op was vacated as moot when the state dropped the charges. So it really is up in the air.

[Bob from Ohio]

Just skipping the indictment stage I guess.

[LawTalkingGuy]

There's this thing called a lawsuit. Perhaps you heard about it in law school?

[Bob from Ohio]

Why did you post about the criminal possibility then?

You could have stopped after para 1.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Because those are the two ways to get a trial?

[wvattorney13]

It is definitely on the teetering edge of being a bad shot if not all the way over the line.

I agree. Stop for the police, don't run. But the driver seemed to carefully avoid the officer while driving away. Again, that's not an excuse and the officer might have taken it differently, but that is really a stretch.

In my opinion it would come down to the driver's words and demeanor during the interaction that would influence what a reasonable person in the officer's situation would have believed. I don't buy that he feared being run over by the vehicle.

[MarkJawz]

Do you believe that the 85 IQ black Michael Byrd feared for his life when he shot Babbitt?

[not guilty]

Defense of others is available as justification on the same basis as self-defense. Mr. Byrd could reasonably have feared for the lives of Members of Congress at the time of the fatal shooting.

Had he been charged criminally, the prosecution would have had to rule that defense out before a District of Columbia jury. The Court would have instructed the jury that the defense must be negated beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict.

[MarkJawz]

Well, right that's the problem. A black jury will never convict a black man who commits a crime against a white woman, no matter what the evidence. Hell, the average black cheers it! They hate whites with a passion, so whites should hate them back.

[not guilty]

No reply as to whether Mr. Byrd in fact could reasonably have feared for the lives of Members of Congress at the time of the fatal shooting??

[TwelveInchPianist]

Feared for the lives? Sure. Believed that there was an imminent threat? No.

[Armchair]

" But the driver seemed to carefully avoid the officer while driving away."

By "Carefully avoid"...do you mean "hit the officer"?

[MarkJawz]

I'm old enough to remember when cops could shoot uppity blacks or whites who sided with blacks, we called them nigger lovers, with impunity. America was a much safer, more prosperous place then.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Let’s say the shot was legally justified under traditional self-defense principles.

Why on earth is it okay for the government to lie about the person shot and say she was a domestic terrorist or lie and say the officer was grievously injured?? If the facts and law are on agent’s side why lie?

[Michael P]

She was a domestic terrorist. She attempted murder (with a deadly weapon) of an on-duty federal law enforcement officer because the target was a federal officer.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"because the target was a federal officer."

How on earth do you know this? What information do you have that you could come to this conclusion? What information does DHS have that they could know this within an hour of the shooting that you are confident it is correct?

Don't you feel a little bit embarrassed to just be spouting bullshit like this?

[Commenter_XY]

Is it bullshit? Really? We don't know. What we know: A woman is dead. A family grieves. We need to know more.

I really hope it is not an AWFL FAFO.

[bernard11]

Is it bullshit? Really? We don't know.

Yes, we do know it's bullshit. Michael P., as usual, has zero basis for his claims. So his claims are bullshit.

[Michael P]

She blocked ICE officers doing their jobs. She tried to run one over. Don't be a stooge, even if you're part of the Antifa Legal Front.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Don't be a stooge”

It’s been a few hours and you parroted the DHS’s “domestic terrorist” line verbatim without any knowledge of who the victim even is. It doesn’t get more stoogey than that.

[Michael P]

What more should I know, besides the fact that the victim is an ICE agent who is now hospitalized after being struck with a car by a domestic terrorist?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Hospitalized? How do you know that?

[Michael P]

https://nypost.com/2026/01/07/us-news/ice-agent-who-shot-woman-in-minneapolis-hospitalized-trump/

The ICE agent who shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis was hospitalized and lucky to be alive after the “disorderly” woman hit him with her vehicle, President Trump said.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Ahhhhh President Trump. How does he know that?

[David Nieporent]

Ahhhhh President Trump. How does he know that?

The same way he "knows" everything else.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/livestory/ice-shooting-minneapolis-live-updates-9.7036845?ts=1767829138324

As she did earlier today, Noem characterizes the woman’s actions as “an act of domestic terrorism.” She said the ICE agent who fatally shot the woman was temporarily hospitalized today, but has since been released.

"Went to the hospital but was immediately released" is not "hospitalized." The least charitable explanation is that he went to the hospital to manufacture a narrative; the most charitable is that it was just a precaution. Either way, of course, Trump was lying about "lucky to be alive."

[Michael P]

So, apparently LTG doesn't care anything about the victim's identity except that he is an ICE agent, and both LTG and DMN think being hospitalized after attempted murder is just an occupational hazard for ICE agents.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’m just asking how you know all this information about how she was a terrorist and he is hospitalized. Considering you’re not a stooge and are an independent thinker surely you have an independent basis for believing this so confidently other than what the administration has said?

[Michael P]

The domestic terrorist part is trivial. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331#5

The only basis for questioning whether the victim was hospitalized seems to be denialism.

[Michael P]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/man-allegedly-broke-windows-jd-162300489.html

CINCINNATI — The Ohio man accused of vandalizing Vice President JD Vance's Cincinnati home has a "mental health issue” and the alleged property attack wasn't intended to be a political statement, his lawyer and family said Tuesday.

Is this the kind of case where one should say "Mental case [and trans] left winger attacks US politician with absolutely zero justification. Sounds about right."?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Actually I believe we’re supposed to say he was JD’s spurned gay lover.

[Frank Drackman]

Way more likely that he's Governor Sergeant Major Pepper-Waltz's current one.
See, LTG (Can I call you "LTG"?) That's why you shouldn't try to play in the Big Leagues of Busting Balls (BLoBB) until you've done some time in the Little Leagues of Busting Balls (LLoBB) You thought you were busting JD's Balls (who probably turns down more Snatch in 10 minutes than you've had in your entire pathetic life) and I busted yours even worse.
Part of it's innate (the "Nature") Part Life (the "Nurture") and I can't get in a Time Machine (Although the idea of FTL travel intrigues me) go back to your Mom's Uterus, and teach you how to Bust Balls,
Wait, that sort of included Nature and Nurture,
Or sign you up for Little League Baseball, Football, Basketball (you can get hurt playing Roundball) so you get the benefit of an entire team of Adolescents who don't give a fuck mocking your most sensitive sensitivity.
Seriously, stick with whatever Legal Job you supposedly support yourself with. (I just ended a sentence with a Preposition! call the Preposition Police!!!)

Frank

[John 4]

Too bad you can’t go back in a Time Machine and pay attention in English class.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, I'll ignore your oblivious grammatical criticism and discuss something that's actually interesting (to me anyway, which is all that matters)
SO, "Faster than Light Travel" (FTL) sounds impossible, I mean Einstein, Relativity, to go faster than the Speed of Light
(The speed of light in vacuum, often called simply speed of light and commonly denoted C, is a universal physical constant exactly equal to 299,792,458 meters per second (approximately 1 billion kilometers per hour; 700 million miles per hour). It is exact because, by international agreement, a meter is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299792458 second. The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter their relative velocity. It is the upper limit for the speed at which information, matter, or energy can travel through space)
OK, so "Impossible", but lets do a "Thought Experiment" like Einstein used to do.

Lets say you have a 4 Light Year Long (Light Year is a measure of distance, not time) Pole, extending to Alpha Centauri, where your Alpha Centaurian Comrad is holding the other end)
If you forcefully push the Pole 3 feet ahead of you, does it not move at the same time on Alpha Centauri?? Irritating your Alpha Centaurian Comrad who gets poked in the Balls.
If not, why not? and "Because Relativity/Einstein" isn't an acceptable answer

Frank

[SRG2]

If not, why not?

Because the force between the molecules that make up the pole is not transmitted instantaneously, obviously.

[Frank Drackman]

Too theoretical, let me poke the Pole towards your eye and see what you think

[SRG2]

Not remotely theoretical. Brett made the same point in greater detail but it's the actual explanation.

Solidity isn't infinite.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, Dr. Oblivious, do you think this is my first time discussing this?? Like Galileo (that was his first name, why are we on a first name with this Genius? we don't talk about "Albert's Theory of Relativity" or "Issac's Laws of Motion") said about the Earth,
"(and yet) It Moves"
Same with the Pole

Frank

[SRG2]

do you think this is my first time discussing this?
I have no idea, but it's clear that either you don't understand or you don't like the correct answers supplied. You must believe that when a traffic light turns green, all the cars start moving forward at the same time.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because your pole is not a single perfectly rigid idealized object. It is an assemblage of atoms interacting through EM forces that propagate at the speed of light, and the combination of those forces and the properties of the atoms dictate that for a "normal" push, the displacement of the pole will only travel at the speed of sound.

For a really energetic "push", you can propagate a shock wave through the pole, (For a little ways, anyway; Shock waves dissipate energy.) but it will still be traveling slower than the speed of light, because all the particles and interactions are traveling slower than the speed of light.

[Frank Drackman]

I always love this answer, so you can't go faster than the speed of light, but me pushing a pole goes at the speed of sound???
You're like the Idiots who said the "Plane on the Conveyor Belt" wouldn't take off, and when the guys on "Myth Busters" put a Plane on a Conveyor Belt, and it took off, said
"They didn't do it right! it took off!!!"

Frank

[SRG2]

So the correct answers have been provided to you, but you reject their reality and replace it with your own.

[Frank Drackman]

Admit it, you were one of the ones (Nerdy Poindexter Voice)
"Well if the speed of the air over the wings matches the speed of the Airplane on the Conveyor Belt, it won't take off"

Ignoring the whole mechanisms by which Airplanes fly.

Frank

[SRG2]

And no, I was not one of those. I know the mechanisms by which aeroplanes fly. Remove the wings and make sure that the fuselage is not a lifting body, then yes, the aeroplane doesn't fly. But then if you do that, it wouldn't fly anyway.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

Dear Frances,
Does the idea of the relationship between stress and strain in a solid object confuse you?

[Brett Bellmore]

I looked that up. What kind of idiot would think a plane couldn't take off because it was on a conveyor belt? It's not like they're propelled by the wheels...

[Frank Drackman]

Actually on the "Mythbusters" Episode, "Airplane on a Conveyor Belt" the Pilot they had flying the Airplane thought it wouldn't take off.
He wasn't a professional pilot.
We had that Scenario described to us in Flight Surgeon School, given that most Physicians aren't Engineers, you'd think they'd at least have better than average Common Sense, most of the Class thought the Airplane wouldn't take off.

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Can I take your comment about my "Pole" and save it for a later come-back?? While it might not be "Perfect" or "Idealized" it can still get pretty Rigid.

[SRG2]

F = ma,

where m = moron, a = asshole and F = Frank

[John 4]

I think it’s very likely considering JD has issues with his sexuality.

https://www.businessinsider.com/jd-vance-convinced-himself-gay-hillbilly-elegy-trump-vp-2024-7

The only question I have is whether Charlie Kirk also had a gay lover.

[Frank Drackman]

Seriously? So just have some fucking balls and say it was his gay lover who murdered him, it's a pretty common scenario, and pretty sure that shit bag will claim it at some point (when he realizes Utah actually has Capitol Punishment) So J. Edgar Hoover was a Fag because he wasn't married?? Jon Hamm hasn't ever been married either, are you better than him?? Or Leonardo Decraprio (OK, bad example), Benecio Del Toro?
Marissa Tomei!!?!?!??!
Marissa Tomei's never been married?!?!??!?!
So there's still a chance......

Frank

[John 4]

“Seriously? So just have some fucking balls and say it was his gay lover who murdered him”

Just asking questions, boss! I am not sure if either was murdered by their respective gay lovers.

[Frank Drackman]

Well I'm answering them, you're a pathetic piece of Shit, and although I know the existence of a Surpreme Being is Questionable, and a Surpreme Being who would wield a "Cancer Stick" with which to give deserving Shitstains Cancer, even more unlikely, here's hoping he gives you the worst one,
lets see, Esophageal, you get to eat through a tube poked in your stomach, and in your final days choke on your own secretions,
Rectal, you get to shit in a bag, and in your final days it backs up and explodes,

Frank

[John 4]

Thanks, Frank. Coming from you that means everything!

[SRG2]

whether Charlie Kirk also had a gay lover.

"Friends of Lindsay"

[Bored Lawyer]

Lifetime tenure for federal judges has a downside: at some point, they are too old for the job and can't keep up.

This article from Andy McCarthy takes the issue up with the judge assigned to the Maduro trial. As he points out, the judge is now 92 and will be 94 or 95 when the trial ends.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/01/at-92-judge-hellerstein-should-not-preside-over-the-maduro-case/

This jumped out at me:

In a New York Times op-ed yesterday, in which legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin urged Hellerstein to recuse himself, he noted that the judge last year dozed off multiple times during the six-week trial of Charlie Javice, who was eventually convicted of massively defrauding JPMorgan Chase. The lawyers for both sides conferred over what to do about these sleeping episodes. Ultimately, they did nothing.

That's a serious problem -- judge repeatedly dozes off in the middle of a long trial. The law has to catch up on this, perhaps with a Constitutional amendment. The issue here is not corruption or bias, it's declining abilities. FWIW, New Jersey has mandatory retirement for judges at 70.

[SRG2]

As long as he didn't sleep through the important bits (tm 5th Circuit)

[Commenter_XY]

Ok, but it is Toobin. Remember that, BL.

The physical demands of the job might be too much for Judge Hellerstein. Although, I have zero doubt he will do equal right, none at all. I hope he tells us his story before he dies.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Perhaps Toobin can give the judge some advice on how to stay awake.

[Kazinski]

Now there are Minnesota political sources that are claiming Vance Boelter had it right, Tim Walz covets Amy Klobuchers Senate seat.

"Sources close to the governor tell me Tim Walz doesn’t see a path to winning statewide, so he brokered a deal with Sen. Klobuchar to appoint him to her U.S. Senate seat if she becomes governor."
https://x.com/i/status/2008906252198281320

Boelter alledged in his letter:
"Recently, I was approached about a project that Tim Walz wanted done … Tim wanted me to kill Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith. Tim wants to be a senator,”

Now as much as, I'd like to believe any of that, it of course makes no sense because no way is Klobucher or the DFL going to appoint Walz to the Senate when he is too radioactive to run for governor. It would leave a bad taste in voters mouths when he would almost certainly lose in the special election eventually has to be held.

But if it is all true, I am happy that Tim found a way to get what he wanted without offing Amy.

[John 4]

Any word from X as to whether the person killed by ICE today was gay lover of any sort?

Asking for Frank.

[DDHarriman]

The person who was targeting that officer with her vehicle and refused lawful orders to stop?

[DDHarriman]

Of course, this follows the tried and true way of Democrats picking their elected officials ... by Democrat elites and not voters.

[Bob from Ohio]

Another "not guilty" legal opinion is wrong

https://newjerseymonitor.com/briefs/judge-lamonica-mciver-assault-charge/

[Commenter_XY]

Let's see what NG says. 🙂

[not guilty]

Bob from Ohio apparently regards truth as such a precious commodity that he uses it sparingly. I have never opined that Rep. McIver is or is not entitled to Speech or Debate Clause immunity from prosecution.

Having read the actual opinion, https://newjerseymonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/1-5-25-McIver-opinion.pdf , and assuming that the District Court has correctly described the underlying facts, I agree that immunity is unavailable.

[MarkJawz]

Anyone protesting the ICE operations is a traitor, and should be dealt with accordingly. Look at the white "Minnesota nice" people protesting outside the house after the fatal shooting today.

These people prioritize Somalis and Hispanics over their fellow countrymen.

[John 4]

“Anyone protesting the ICE operations is a traitor, and should be dealt with accordingly.”

Good thinking, little guy!

[MoreCurious]

I have a question for those knowledgeable about police procedure. Depending on how the video is interpreted, it's likely that some will say that the ICE agent could have fairly easily eliminated the danger simply by taking a step or two away from the path of the car. What have the courts said about whether or not officers are obligated to try to remove themselves from possible harm?

[Kazinski]

No duty to retreat?

Which never applies to law enforcement anyway, when they retreat from danger, it creates more danger.

[Kazinski]

After looking at the video, he had about 1/4 second to react, and zero time to retreat, especially on an icy street.

She had a lot more time to decide whether or not to gun it and obey law enforcement instructions than he had to decide whether or not the vehicle coming toward him from 5' away was a threat.

[MarkJawz]

Cops rarely have an obligation to get out of the way of a threat.

Read Tennessee v. Garner and Barnes v. Felix.

Anyway, this white shitlib was a disgusting moonbat, interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations. She described herself as a poet, and used "pronouns." I'm sure she was an ardent supporter of same-sex marriage, third-trimester baby murder, and probably also was an anti-war vegan. I'm glad she's dead. America is better off for it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Hey look its that POS who always turns up with new names.

[MarkJawz]

Hey look, it's a leftist moonbat.

[Mr. Bumble]

Absolutely amazing what Trump and his MAGAnians have been able to do to avoid having to deal with the "Epstein Files".

[Kazinski]

A tanker a day keeps the Epstein away.

[Mr. Bumble]

Up next, Greenland?

[Kazinski]

Greenland is way too far out of bounds to countenance.

Venezuela turned out to be way less than first reports indicted, a brief incursion and quick withdrawal, rather than invasion and occupation.

But Greenland? No possible justification.

[Mr. Bumble]

No need for an invasion.
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2026/01/the-us-has-such-free-hand-in-greenland.html
"Under a little-known Cold War agreement, the United States already enjoys sweeping military access in Greenland... allow[ing] it to “construct, install, maintain, and operate” military bases across Greenland, “house personnel” and “control landings, takeoffs, anchorages, moorings, movements, and operation of ships, aircraft, and waterborne craft.” It was signed in 1951 by the United States and Denmark, which colonized Greenland more than 300 years ago and still controls some of its affairs.... "

[Kazinski]

Trump probably wants Greenland because its the only place they won't accuse him of wanting so he can build a hotel.

Of course Venezuela isn't going to be at the top of everyone's list either.

[SRG2]

If the regime does try to seize Greenland, the cultists will provide plenty of fake justifications

[hobie]

The prime minister of Greenland said today, "Of course we're scared. We don't have weapons to fight this."

[SRG2]

Then they should definitely make plans to kill Trump if he tries. That would be totally justified.

[John 4]

Fight what? Trump isn’t suggesting violence. He means [insert whatever bullshit term MAGA is using at the moment].

[Brett Bellmore]

Fight what? Greenland has a population of about 55k. Just offer to make them all millionaires, and buy the country out.

[hobie]

And if they don't want any of that (which is plain), how do they fight that?

[John 4]

Heh, thanks, Brett,

[Estragon]

It’s hard not to feel as if a page has truly turned today. The President described an entirely fictional scenario in talking about this ICE shooting.

“violently, willfully, and viciously ran over ... hard to believe he is alive.”

Don is describing the person who we can see on video walking away unharmed. This is an obvious and knowing lie— one that many of his supporters here today choose to accept. We are on a dangerous path.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

THIS is somehow different than any number of deranged things he said? A page, in a large book, was turned, I think.

[Estragon]

I am struck by the blatant bogusity in the face of multiple videos. I am disgusted but not surprised by the reaction of the usual suspects here— indeed the responses are so predictable as to be rote.

Much like people who fought to keep other humans as slaves, the people who would defend what we all saw with our own eyes today out of contrarianism, political or ideological fanaticism, or psychotic depravity are not fit to share a decent country with the rest of us. They must be confronted. And soon.

[Estragon]

37 year old mother of three. JFC.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, "F!" seems to be the general reaction today.

[hobie]

Dear AI, did the Nazis ever justify the murder of civilians?

"Yes, the Nazis developed a complex ideology and used extensive propaganda to justify the mass murder of civilians, including Jews, people with disabilities, Roma, Soviet POWs, and others they deemed racially "inferior" or "undesirable""

[DDHarriman]

Wrong

[Kazinski]

She did stamp on the accelerator with the ICE officer standing directly in front of her car, at the time he shot he had no idea if she would hit him or not.

She made an unfortunate choice.

Looking at the video you can see her start backing up at 2:15 with her wheels cranked to the right, you see two ICE agents to her right engaging with her. There is another ICE Agent directly in front of her obscured by her vehicle and one of the other ICE Agents.

At 2:17 she starts going straight forward wheels straight ahead,

At 2:18 still going forward she starts cranking wheels to the left at the same fraction of a second he shoots, by the time it rolls over to 2:19, she is past him and already dead, and then you can see fully see him.

https://www.fox9.com/video/fmc-rshzshq077gp6y6k

[David Nieporent]

She did not "stamp on the accelerator" at any point in the video.

[LawTalkingGuy]

$20 says several of the ICE agent defenders thought James Alex Fields who did stamp on the accelerator and kill someone did absolutely nothing wrong.

[Kazinski]

She didn't? Keep watching until you see the result of the impact with the car 50-75 feet down the street, that was not parking lot speed, it took some acceleration to get going that fast from a dead stop in 2 seconds.

If you look frame by one officer is next to her window when the it turns 2:18 with his foot on the white line, by the time it turns 2:19 she is 2-3 ft past the white line and has spun the officer forward by about a yard.

A Honda Pilot is 16 feet, so she has traveled 9-10 feet in one second on an icy road. 0-9 ft is .28gs, .28 gs is 0-60mph in 9.77 seconds, in perfect conditions going straight ahead, on dry pavement a Honda pilot will go 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, if she was going that fast with her wheel cranked on an icy road she had it floored, and the only reason she didn't spin out was because it was front wheel drive.

[BrotherMovesOn]

"At 2:18 still going forward she starts cranking wheels to the left at the same fraction of a second he shoots ..."

I think you should watch it again, if you think that her wheels turned to the left towards the officer at any time.
DNM notes she never stamp[ed] on the accelerator. Clearly.
It makes one think you never "stamped on an accelerator" in a car in your life.
She was driving like my grandmother drives.

[Michael P]

So how many times has your grandmother suffered "unintended acceleration" (better known as stomping on the accelerator portal)?

Both her acceleration backwards and forwards were unusually fast, especially considering pedestrians around her vehicle and the road conditions.

[Kazinski]

I mispoke, her wheels were cranked to the left when she was backing to the right. It should read:

"Looking at the video you can see her start backing up at 2:15 with her wheels cranked to the left, you see two ICE agents to her left engaging with her. There is another ICE Agent directly in front of her obscured by her vehicle and one of the other ICE Agents.

At 2:17 she starts going straight forward wheels straight ahead,

At 2:18 still going forward she starts cranking wheels to the right at the same fraction of a second he shoots, by the time it rolls over to 2:19, she is past him and already dead, and then you can see fully see him."

At 2:18 you see the 2 officers to the left, and the man in the white knit cap behind the white SUV to the right.

It isn't until 2:20 until she is completely past all of them do you see the officer who was directly in front of her SUV at 2:18 when her wheels were going straight forward and she started accelerating straight at him, by the end of 2:18 her wheels are cranked to the right. A lot happened in a second.

So look at again at 2:17 when her backup lights go off there are 3 men also in the frame two with black head coverings, one white.

At 2:20 3 with black head coverings, including the one you couldn't see before almost directly behind her still moving car and still the man with the white knit cap behind the light colored SUV.

[Estragon]

My post was focused on the President’s obvious and knowing lies regarding this incident. That you have chosen to respond in this way to that statement really says it all about what kind of person you are— although those of us who have been around long enough knew it years ago. You are not a decent person. If we are to have a decent country and society, then people like you must be marginalized. We marginalized a lot of people who wanted to own humans as chattel once upon a time.

[Kazinski]

Hard to see what the President actually said with the truncated quotes and ellipsis, and no link.

According to reports the Agent was struck by the vehicle and injured.

"Federal officials and President Donald Trump allege the woman, who was in an SUV, used her vehicle as a weapon to try to kill ICE agents. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the ICE agent was “hit by the vehicle.”"

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/minnesota-ice-shooting-live-updates-rcna252852

It does not appear he was seriously injured because he was still on his feet, but he may indeed be lucky to be alive.

So going with a frame by frame account of what actually happened, and factually refutes what the president said makes me a terrible person?

Other than my unfortunate right/left dyslexia, which I corrected, what did I get wrong?

[Michael P]

Insurrectionist Walz seems to relish the idea of declaring a new Civil War against the federal government.

https://twitter.com/america/status/2009017720826913128

[hobie]

You seem to be getting a lot of your information from Twitter, Michael. You know, I could lend you some money if you want to get a subscription somewhere.

[Kazinski]

X is the number 1 worldwide app for news.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1803643556180996169?s=20

Which is why AP, Reuters, NYTimes, WaPo, and almost every other major news organization posts their breaking news on it.

[not guilty]

Michael P, did you watch that video before linking it. Governor Walz in fact said, "Well I said this yesterday. We've never been at war with the federal government."

Where do you get that he is "declaring a new Civil War"? Do you live on Bizarro World, a/k/a Htrae?

[BrotherMovesOn]

Although Walter Reed's folks said his heart was that of a lion, the 'cardio health' was of a person 15 years younger, the MRI was "perfect" and nobody would be surprised if he shot par at Pebble Beach Golf Links, his eyesight was deemed "well, it's a good thing he doesn't drive".

[hobie]

[annals from Hell]
Ashli: 'So how'd you get here? I smashed a door to kill some congressmen. But some nigger shot me.'
Nicole: 'That sucks. I was in my car trying to be obnoxious. Then some ICE agent shot me.'
Ashli: 'You wanna go over and talk to Charlie?'
Nicole: 'Sure. Should we bring Lashonda?'
Ashli: 'No!!!'

[jay.tee]

Just stop. We already know you’re a bigot and a racist. No need to reinforce it.

[hobie]

Jesus-Christ, dude...do you really want me to quote Charlie Kirk verbatim?

[jay.tee]

No, I want you to stop being a bigot and a racist.

[John 4]

HaHa!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Putting the Streisand effect to good use.

[BrotherMovesOn]

This is what happens when you serially marry models.
Believe me TiP, I know. I know.