Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

The War Powers Resolution in the Senate failed, with Hawley (MO) and Young (IN) changing their votes .

Young had a statement:

“After numerous conversations with senior national security officials, I have received assurances that there are no American troops in Venezuela. I’ve also received a commitment that if President Trump were to determine American forces are needed in major military operations in Venezuela, the Administration will come to Congress in advance to ask for an authorization of force."

Of course that does not rule out another "minor incursion'.

JD Vance cast the deciding vote to kill it 51-50, but of course 50-50 wasn't enough to pass it either.

[santamonica811]

Ha, ha, ha. Hawley is such a whore. Anyone here surprised that he caved and changed his vote? No hands? No one? Not even one person?!?!???

Yeah, I'm not surprised either.

[grb]

santamonica811 : "Hawley is such a whore."

I dunno. Whenever I see him, he reminds me of Gumby. There just seems something rubbery about him. Mind, body, & soul : Rubbery.

[Frank Drackman]

He's got those creepy long fingers, should have gone into Urology.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Here he is asking a "doctor" if men can get pregnant.

[neurodoc]

Can someone tell me why ICE officer Ross had his gun drawn in the first place? Should he have had it drawn absent a reasonable apprehension of imminent risk to him?

[Kazinski]

Coming in at the end of the movie?

He drew is gun and shot immediately when she started moving forward towards him. The NYTimes video analysis clearly shows he didn't draw until she shifted to drive from reverse.

[David Nieporent]

You addressed when; neurodoc's question was why.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the same thing: Neurodoc's question seems premised on the notion that he had it drawn before any evidence of danger, we're pointing out that the timing wasn't at all like that.

[David Nieporent]

No; it's not the same thing. Assume for the sake of argument that he really believed she was aiming for him. What kind of lunatic thinks a bullet stops a car? (And, no, it can't be explained by saying he was trying to stop the driver. As the actual events themselves demonstrate, that doesn't work either; killing the driver doesn't cause the car to stop.) So why did he pull his gun?

Answer: he was trying to kill her, not defend himself.

[Mr. Bumble]

Should he have shot at the car?

[David Nieporent]

No, of course not.

[not guilty]

I wonder why Mr. Ross -- a seasoned law enforcement officer -- placed himself in front of a driver-occupied vehicle, with the engine running, in the first place. That was a reckless action itself -- there is a reason that patrol officers effecting a traffic stop approach from the rear of the vehicle.

Was he hoping Ms. Good would drive toward him and give him a pretext to shoot her?

If Ms. Good had malevolent intent toward the agent, why did she not run him down while he was directly in from of the vehicle with his firearm still holstered?

I regret that a woman died, but to me there are no sympathetic characters here.

[David Nieporent]

The actions of all the ICE agents on scene are inexplicable except as an exercise of "You will respect my authoritah!"

She was not blocking the road; cars were moving freely around her. There was room on both sides. And she was waving cars by and they were passing. And then ICE decided it wanted a confrontation, so they drove behind her and stopped their car to begin boxing her in, and then drove up to her, stopped, and got out of the car, aggressively approaching her and screaming at her — not to move her car, but to get out of the car. Then grabbing at her door. Meanwhile, Ross was meandering around the car for no law enforcement reason at all.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"That was a reckless action itself -- there is a reason that patrol officers effecting a traffic stop approach from the rear of the vehicle."

Ross wasn't effecting a traffic stop, remember? As you guys keep saying, she was just a harmless lady sitting in the middle of the road honking her horn and minding her own business, until the other agents came up and detained her.

And even during a traffic stop, the idea that a cop who gets in front of a car is legally reckless, as opposed to just going against best practices, is ridiculous.

[not guilty]

I was using "reckless" there in the colloquial sense, although the Model Penal Code definition could arguably fit as well:

A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.

The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.

No matter the nomenclature, an LEO walking in front of a driver occupied car with the engine running is a damn fool thing to do. As I have said, I wonder if the agent was hoping Ms. Good would drive toward him and give him a pretext to shoot her.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"No matter the nomenclature, an LEO walking in front of a driver occupied car with the engine running is a damn fool thing to do."

Kinda makes it tough to cross the street at a crosswalk, no?

And standing in the street directing traffic? Fuggetaboutit.

[Brett Bellmore]

As far as I can see, he didn't draw it until she put the car in motion, which certainly qualifies as a reasonable cause for such apprehension.

[Sarcastr0]

Shooting at a car trying to drive you down seems not an act that would get you out of danger.

Of course, that's miles from what happened, which explains why it makes no sense.

Even the 'want to believe' nonsense is falling apart.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's not even inches from what happened, since the car actually hit him and injured him.

As a matter of common sense, I agree, shooting the driver of a car that's already in motion and about to hit you won't stop it from hitting you. But this is the law, why are you expecting it to make sense?

[Sarcastr0]

Remember how you didn't believe the admin cut off a bunch of mental health grants because you hadn't seen a copy of a termination letter?

Here you are, swallowing a bare assertion by the administration that this guy was injured. As announced way later than makes sense. And with no corroboration or detail.

Have some standards. Or one. Have one standard.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Remember how you didn't believe the admin cut off a bunch of mental health grants because you hadn't seen a copy of a termination letter?"

No, as a matter of fact, I do not remember your hallucinations.

I remember when I complained that media sources should provide links to original source material rather than demanding that we take their accounts of what those material say on faith. You then proceeded as though I'd said they were lying because you are incapable of reading anything and not reading into it more than was actually written.

An assertion that you don't know the truth value of a statement ≠ an assertion that its truth value is negative.

"Here you are, swallowing a bare assertion by the administration that this guy was injured."

Said bare assertion.

I do not expect detailed medical reports on other people. The claimed injury, "internal bleeding", is perfectly consistent with being hit at low speed by a vehicle, and I know from multiple videos that he was hit by a car. So I've literally no reason to doubt it. He wasn't hospitalized, so I'd guess that at worst it was a hematoma. But that's just a guess, I know from personal experience that they'll decide not to hospitalize you over some pretty serious injuries, if they're confident that they've stabilized them.

[loki13]

You are missing the point, as usual.

When someone says something that you don't want to believe or give credence to (the story about cancellation ... or Obama's birth certificate ... or the raid on the reporter ... or anything, really) you question everything and assume that it isn't true.

On the other hand, you credulously accept the lies of known liars when it fits in with what you want to believe is true. You spent how many threads and comments trying to re-define "terrorism?" Or ... look at your laughable attempts to read statutes?

I could keep going, but you should get the gist.

You have standards Brett! If it's something you don't want to believe, you disagree with it and demand insane amounts of evidence, and will do independent googling (and really bad research) to justify your beliefs. On the other hand, you will accept, with maximum gullibility, any outrageous lie that is in accord with what you already want to be true.

[Joe_dallas]

displaying more mental whiplash than NG

[not guilty]

What is with your fixation upon "whiplash," Joe_dallas?

[Brett Bellmore]

"When someone says something that you don't want to believe or give credence to (the story about cancellation ... or Obama's birth certificate ... or the raid on the reporter ... or anything, really) you question everything and assume that it isn't true."

Sheesh. I have a long standing complaint about the media refusing to link to original source materials, demanding instead that we take it on faith that they're playing it straight. I don't like that because I know from long experience that they don't always play it straight. Usually? Sure. Always? Nope.

You know what I had to say about Obama's birth certificate? That while it was theoretically possible they could have faked his birth in Hawaii, they'd have had no reason at the time to do so, so it was extremely unlikely (But not 100% impossible.) that they'd done so, so the rational conclusion was that he was almost certainly a natural born citizen. (And I'd generally add that McCain, by contrast, was NOT a natural born citizen, and genuinely was NOT qualified to be President.)

But since I dislike the idea of constitutional provisions being left unenforced, I was of the opinion that they should be given the opportunity for a court hearing on the merits, where they would predictably lose.

Somehow in the minds of people who think the location of Obama's birth is an article of faith, not a contingent fact, this made me a "birther". Morons.

You are missing the point: I saw the evidence that he was hit by a car, I am familiar with being hit with a car, I have no reason to doubt that he sustained at least SOME injury.

Why would you even think to deny that somebody hit by a car was injured? Why is it so freaking important to you that he not have been injured by being struck by a car?

Because the injury makes it harder to sustain your already irrational conviction that he wasn't struck by the car? Sorry, no sympathy on that score.

[MoreCurious]

You say you "saw the evidence that he was hit by a car." I've watched a number of videos, and I cannot say with certainty that he was hit by the car or that he was not hit by the car. Could you please provide a link to the evidence that convinces you that the car hit him? Thanks.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm not going to do that again. You've seen the video from his own camera by now. I have no interest in playing endless rounds of "Just asking questions".

[David Nieporent]

No, I'm not going to do that again. You've seen the video from his own camera by now. I have no interest in playing endless rounds of "Just asking questions".

I suppose my memory might be failing me in my advanced age, but I seem to recall you just yesterday conceding that you could not see that in the video.

Ah, yes: https://reason.com/volokh/2026/01/14/open-thread-80/?comments=true#comment-11348427

[Brett Bellmore]

Unclear about the distinction between seeing "that" somebody was hit, and seeing the precise point of impact?

[Sarcastr0]

You, yesterday:
"Maybe they're not lying, but they're forcing you to take it on faith that they're not."

GUESS WHAT.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's what I said. Your reading incomprehension kicking in again? "Maybe somebody's not lying" is NOT a claim that they're lying, it's a statement that you don't freaking KNOW if they're lying or not.

Look, just stop reading into what I say. You're just inventing stuff I didn't say, when you do it.

[Kazinski]

I saw the SUV hit him in the chest, I saw the way he was walking after the impact.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — I doubt what you saw is what happened. I likely have a better monitor than you do, and better graphics processing, showing better contrast and more detail. But even if what you saw did happen, it remains irrelevant.

Had everything been positioned just as it was, but the shooter was a parent standing holding the hand of a 4-year-old, the instant the car went into reverse, the parent and the child would have had plenty of time to move out of the path of the car to a place where what you say you saw could not have happened.

And that is what anyone trying to be safe would have done. What no one trying to be safe would have done is stand his ground with a gun to shoot at an oncoming car. If the shooter got hit, he got hit because he chose on purpose not to deescalate, which is on him, not on the driver.

The driver lived long enough to prove beyond doubt that she was not trying to hit him. If she had been, and was aiming the car at him, after she was killed the car would have gone straight across the street after running the shooter down. Instead, the car turned down the street in a way that would have been an astounding outcome had she been already dead at the wheel and the car out of control.

The itime interval between when the car started moving, in reverse, and the time of the first shot, was approximately 6 seconds. Based on observation of his previous movements, the shooter was plainly capable to move more than 10 feet during an interval that long. Probably more than twice that distance.

Whatever happened, the shooter caused it on purpose.

[Kazinski]

If you look at the video, either the officers own or the one from the rear, you will see he was not in front of the car when it started moving.

She put him in front of her car when she reversed with her wheels fully crannies to the left. Then she puts it in drive and for at least the first 3' or halfway to him she is going straight at him, while accelerating.

Which way is he supposed to go then? And at that point he is drawing his gun.

Next half second she starts cranking the wheel to the right, hits him, and he shoots her, all in the same half second.

Here is another fox9 that syncs two of the videos, I think they have better video equipment than you and they say "it seems to show some contact".

In any case the law doesn't, nor can it, force him to make decisions in microseconds.

[David Nieporent]

If you look at the video, either the officers own or the one from the rear, you will see he was not in front of the car when it started moving.

I re-watched both videos, and do not agree with your characterization. He was in front when she reverses, and since she's turning and he's moving, he's no longer in front when it started moving forward.

[not guilty]

The notion that Renee Good "put him in front of her car" at any time is ludicrous. Mr. Ross walked from the driver's right to left, foolishly placing himself in front of the car.

If the driver had malevolent intent, why on earth did she not run him down at twelve o'clock high?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinsky — Not microseconds. Six seconds. You don't even contest it. You just repeat your irrelevancy, apparently because that is the only way you can get to the conclusion you want to sell. .

[Joe_dallas]

It is normal procedure is to have hand on gun in anticipation of action by potential suspect .
The video shows the agent starting to drawn the gun as she starts to drive directly at him. Then approx 3/10 of sec, the video show his arm raised approx 1/3 of the way up as she is still driving directly at him.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Of course, that does not rule out another "minor incursion'.

That would be concerning.

The senators reportedly talked to Rubio and/or Trump and were reassured that the legislation wasn't necessary. Multiple Democratic senators noted they were lied to before the "minor incursion." People like Hawley know that but don't really care enough to do much about it.

[shawn_dude]

The gap here could be explained by the difference in meaning of "slut" versus "whore."

[Kazinski]

The 1st qtr FY 2026 Treasury MTS statement came out, showing the 1st qtr deficit was 15% lower than than FY 2025 Q1, at 602,376 billion, compared to 710,935 billion last year.

That of course does not mean that the deficit is going to be 15% lower this year, because Joe Biden blew out the deficit in his last 4 months of office, so we can't expect to continue to have that much improvement this year.

The figures are nominal, and not adjusted for inflation, adjusted for inflation they would be even better than 15%.

[grb]

I kinda admire your whistling-by-the-graveyard dedication. That makes my spoiler alert to you even more heartless.

See, we've all seen this story before. Throughout the last presidential election campaign, people of my ilk kept insisting all the bad vibes on the economy weren't justified. "Not fair", we cried and didn't change a single mind doing so. Now, you'll argue rightwing voters are much more docile and ovine - which is true. On the other hand, Biden's economy was better than Trump's squandered mess, so I wouldn't count on the Right's zombie sheep tendencies to save ya....

[Kazinski]

I wonder if there was any data to support that premise?

Real Personal Income Percent increase by year:
2017 3.39%
2018 3.98%
2019 2.41%
2020 4.86%
Trump First term 14.64%

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RPI

2021 0.99%
2022 1.22%
2023 3.30%
2024 2.29%
Full Biden term 7.80%

Trump 2:
2025 Jan-Sept 1.05%

[jb]

So you're saying that yes, Trump 2 is indeed worse than Biden?

[jay.tee]

While that may or may not end up being true, Kazinski’s Trump 2 includes only ~8 months of data.

Too many confounding variables make this kind of “analysis” specious anyway. World events, pandemics, control of Congress, carryover policies, etc. muddy the waters.

[jb]

Trump 2 only includes 8 month of data, but it supports what grb wrote. Trump (and Kaz with all of his economic cheerleading) is doing the exact same thing that Biden and Harris tried to do, which is try to convince people that their impression of the economy is somehow invalid. This was a terrible tactic for Biden and Harris, and remains a terrible tactic for Trump. But I think MAGAs should double down on it--it's a reach for the Democrats to take the Senate this year, but if this is the MAGA campaign strategy we've got a much better chance!

[Kazinski]

Doesn't support any of what GRB wrote:
"Throughout the last presidential election campaign, people of my ilk kept insisting all the bad vibes on the economy weren't justified. "Not fair", we cried and didn't change a single mind doing so."

The voters knew the difference between Trump 1, and Biden, and it was real.

As for 8 months of Trump 2, pretty small sample size, and even that extrapolated out over a full year exceeded two of Biden's years.

[Michael P]

You should probably have your dementia checked by a doctor -- patient prognosis is pretty poor without appropriate care.

[Dr. Ed 2]

For those of you who missed it, the ICE guy was seriously injured when No-Good hit him. He has internal bleeding in his abdomen, which sounds to me like something inside got ripped loose or crushed when he fell..

This could need major surgery to repair, and may be worse than that.

The question I have is can he sue her wife, personally, for damages?
She clearly committed a crime - assault and battery the deadly weapon, motor vehicle — but being dead, can’t be currently charged.

[not guilty]

For those of you who missed it, the ICE guy was seriously injured when No-Good hit him. He has internal bleeding in his abdomen, which sounds to me like something inside got ripped loose or crushed when he fell..

This could need major surgery to repair, and may be worse than that.

"Internal bleeding" can be something as benign as a single bruise, or it could be something more serious. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/internal-bleeding

The ICE agent reportedly went to the emergency room after the incident, where he was treated and released. No surgery or hospital admission has been reported. If Agent Ross in fact was "seriously injured" to the extent that he "could need major surgery to repair, and may be worse than that", he may have a viable damages claim against the emergency room personnel who failed to detect his injuries. He has no claim, however, against Rebecca Good, who did nothing arguably tortious.

Renee Good's demise would not necessarily preclude an action against her estate, but I would think that the last place that Jonathan Ross would want to be is under oath, sworn to tell the truth about what happened before a Hennepin County, Missouri jury.*

Renee Good may have had a privilege to resist an unlawful arrest. At common law there was a privilege to use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest. Most jurisdictions have modified that rule by statute.

Minnesota Statutes § 609.06 appears to be the statute applicable here. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.06
This statute specifies that an individual may use reasonable force when they believe it is necessary to resist or prevent an offense against their person. This belief must be both honest and reasonable, meaning the individual genuinely perceived a threat and that a reasonable person in the same situation would have perceived the same threat.

Subdivision 2 of this statute states:

Deadly force used against peace officers. Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have announced their presence and are performing official duties at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.

Statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed. A statute will be construed to alter the common law only when that disposition is clear. A Scalia and B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts § 52, 318-319 (2012). The maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius holds that the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others. Id., at § 10, 107-111.

Applying these maxims to Minnesota's § 609.06, subdivision 2 would indicate that deadly force may be used against peace officers who have not announced their presence or who are not performing official duties or who are not at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.

___________________________
* I don't know what of state Mr. Ross is a citizen. If he is a citizen of a state other than Minnesota, and if his claimed damages exceed $75,000, he could sue in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction.

[Brett Bellmore]

Dude, I'll assure you that emergency rooms will release you with some really nasty injuries, if they think you're at least stable. I know that from personal experience.

Like, my leg was shattered from halfway up my shin to my ankle, with my foot flopping around loose, and once they'd reduced the dislocated ankle ("Oh, good, you have circulation again, you might keep this foot.") and put me in an air splint, they sent me home with an appointment a week later to actually do something about it.

They're not going to hospitalize you over a hematoma, if it's stable.

[Michael P]

Yeah, "not guilty" doesn't seem to understand when one would be formally admitted to a hospital (in addition to his familiarity with geography and other basic facts of the case). An awful lot of cases are only formally checked in for observation, rather than admitted to the hospital.

[John F. Carr]

I know somebody who was recently released from the hospital when I assumed she would stay. Severe internal pain and erratic blood pressure. They confirmed it wasn't a burst artery, gave her some pills, and sent her home. I think she's supposed to call them back if she dies overnight.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, they sent my mom home from an auto accident with instructions to us to take her back to an emergency room if she started coughing up blood; They REALLY want that pre-approval from your insurance company before admitting you, don't they?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No Brett, if you bring her back, that’s a second emergency room visit so you pay an additional $150 and they get to build the insurance company for the rest.

[Frank Drackman]

Hennepin County isn't in Missouri

[not guilty]

Whoops! Mea culpa.

[Frank Drackman]

My Latins a little rusty, is that how you say “I’m Stupid?”

Frank

[Kazinski]

For.purposes.of.justifying deadly force, it more than suffices that he was struck by the car pretty much simultaneously as when he fired.

As for lawfully resisting arrest, Ross was not trying to arrest her, he was 6-8' away in front of her car, another officer was attempting the arrest.

Resisting his attempt at arrest couldn't justify running Ross down.

[not guilty]

Statutes matter, Kazinski. For the Minnesota prohibition of even deadly force against peace officers to apply, three conditions must be met:

The peace officers who have announced their presence;
The peace officers must be performing official duties; and
The peace officers must be at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.

Absent all of these conditions being met, Ms. Good was entitled to exercise her common law privilege to resist an unlawful arrest.

Here the ICE agents did not announce themselves as police.

Ms. Good likely committed a traffic offense by blocking traffic by positioning her car in the middle of the road; furthermore, she was doing so while in the presence of law enforcement vehicles with lights and sirens activated. This appears to be a petty misdemeanor punishable at most by a $300 fine. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/169.89

Minnesota, however, does not automatically give federal officers authority to arrest for violations of state law. The following conditions must be met:

626.77 PEACE OFFICERS FROM ADJOINING STATES; FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
Subdivision 1. Arrest authority. A peace officer of a state adjoining Minnesota and a federal law enforcement officer have the same authority to arrest and hold an individual in custody as has any peace officer of this state if all of the following circumstances are present:
(1) the officer is on duty and is acting on a request for assistance by a peace officer of this state;
(2) while in this state, the officer acts under the direction of the peace officer to whom the officer is rendering assistance;
(3) while in this state, the officer acts in accordance with the rules and regulations of the officer's own appointive or elective authority; and
(4) upon effecting an arrest, the officer surrenders custody of the arrested individual to a peace officer of this state without unnecessary delay.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/626.77

Thanks to Michael Feinberg for his analysis at Lawfare blog. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/before-and-after-the-trigger-press-that-killed-renee-good

[Joe_dallas]

NG comment "Statutes matter, Kazinski. For the Minnesota prohibition of even deadly force against peace officers to apply, three conditions must be met:

The peace officers who have announced their presence;
The peace officers must be performing official duties; and
The peace officers must be at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.

NG -- That is only your second post of the day. Both implying wrong facts and using a non relevant statute.

[Kazinski]

Come on NG, if Federal Law authorizes ICE officers to make arrests then Minnesota can't pass a law that says they can't and make it stick.

Imagine if Arizona passed a law saying the FBI wasn't authorized to make arrests in Arizona for Jan. 6th infractions.

[Michael Resanovic]

NG is addressing the question of whether Minnesota has authorized feds to make arrests for violations of state law.

[Kazinski]

That doesn't matter one way or another, the agents were intending to arrest her for violating federal law by obstructing ICE agents.

[not guilty]

"Come on NG, if Federal Law authorizes ICE officers to make arrests then Minnesota can't pass a law that says they can't and make it stick."

Federal law allows federal officers to make arrests when they have probable cause to believe that the offender has violated federal law. Whether they have concurrent authority to make arrests for state law violations depends on state law. https://quartzmountain.org/article/does-a-peace-officer-status-travel-state-to-state

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/before-and-after-the-trigger-press-that-killed-renee-good

[David Nieporent]

You don't think that pointing a gun at someone from 6-8' away is an arrest? A display of authority that a person is not free to leave is an arrest whether or not the officer touches the person.

[not guilty]

"You don't think that pointing a gun at someone from 6-8' away is an arrest? A display of authority that a person is not free to leave is an arrest whether or not the officer touches the person."

Actually, California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991), indicates that an arrest requires a laying on of hands or application of physical force to restrain movement, even when it is ultimately unsuccessful, or in the alternative, the subject's submission to the officer's show of authority. Justice Scalia there wrote:

"Mere words will not constitute an arrest, while, on the other hand, no actual, physical touching is essential. The apparent inconsistency in the two parts of this statement is explained by the fact that an assertion of authority and purpose to arrest, followed by submission of the arrestee, constitutes an arrest. There can be no arrest without either touching or submission."

Id., at 626-627, quoting Perkins, The Law of Arrest, 25 Iowa L.Rev. 201, 206 (1940).

[Dr. Ed 2]

I personally got sent home with a drain in me, a tube coming out of my abdomen that went into a plastic bag that I kept having to dump. It isn’t like it was 50 years ago, they get you out of the hospital as quickly as possible.

[Riva]

Minnesota statutes are irrelevant here. And, given the industrial level fraud endemic in the state, I don’t think they give a shit about statutes in general.

[not guilty]

Minnesota statutes matter hugely as regards the authority of federal agents to arrest for state law violations, Riva. Ms. Good had committed at most a petty misdemeanor under state law regarding the parking of her vehicle.

Absent such authority to arrest, Ms. Good was entitled to exercise her common law right to use force to resist an unlawful arrest, which was abrogated by statute only in circumstances not present here. Even if she had killed Mr. Ross, at common law it would have been manslaughter rather than murder. See, Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900).

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 10 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Minnesota statutes matter hugely as regards the authority of federal agents to arrest for state law violations, Riva. Ms. Good had committed at most a petty misdemeanor under state law regarding the parking of her vehicle.

NG another own goal - Wrong facts - Wrong law.
Curious - what law course do law schools teach that instructs students to use the wrong facts in their legal analysis? Asking for a friend. Seems to be a serious outbreak among our legally trained brethren to use the wrong facts and law in their legal analysis lately.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, if you double park to obstruct an agent of the FBI in the pursuit of his duty, you don't get charged with the state traffic offense of double parking, you get charged with the federal offense of obstruction.

Yes, maybe she had committed at most a petty misdemeanor until the put the car into drive, but that petty misdemeanor was the means of committing a federal felony.

[Joe_dallas]

Correct - There has been a proliferation of posts from two attorneys fabricating facts, then using the wrong statutes and wrong legal analysis. Then getting pissed that that their disregard of professional standards and ethics are exposed.

[DDHarriman]

Two disbarred attorneys.

[Joe_dallas]

I dont think either are disbarred. Though I would think they would get a new one ripped if they tried that BS in court.

[not guilty]

Since when does DDHarriman care whether he tells the truth or not?

[loki13]

No, it's not federal obstruction of an officer. Again, I posted an article explaining this.

You can't just say "obstruction" as a magical cure-all. It does not mean what you think. You are engaging in results-oriented reasoning, as opposed to trying to understand the actual law and the issues.

Almost like when you googled a statute and didn't bother reading all the words, or understanding what it meant. Or that reading statutes when you have no understanding of the law, and a desire to read what you want to be true, often doesn't let you divine the actual meaning of the words.

[Joe_dallas]

loki13 17 minutes ago
"No, it's not federal obstruction of an officer. Again, I posted an article explaining this."

Yes you did post and article explain that. Though the reasoning was dubious.

[David Nieporent]

Though the reasoning was dubious.

bookkeeper_joe knows, because he watched an episode of Matlock once!

[jb]

The federal obstruction law I've seen cited requires the use of force, no?

[Brett Bellmore]

18 U.S. Code § 111 - Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees

I can see how you would interpret this law in that manner, as the sentencing portion talks about 'assault'.

But in practice simple obstruction without violence or physical conduct is treated as a misdemeanor violation.

And there's this:

1725. Protection Of Government Processes -- Obstruction Of Pending Proceeding -- 18 U.S.C. 1505

A lot of what ICE agents do on the job are such Governmental Processes, and you don't need to engage in violence to violate this law, you just need a "corrupt purpose" in doing whatever obstructed the agent. Preventing the law from being enforced IS a corrupt purpose.

[loki13]

Brettlaw, again!

Section 111 of Title 18 punishes anyone who "forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates or interferes with any person designated in 18 U.S.C. § 1114 or who formerly served as a person designated in § 1114, while engaged in or on account of the performance of his/her official duties." Force is an essential element of the crime. Long v. United States, 199 F.2d 717 (4th Cir. 1952). Whether the element of force, as required by the statute, is present in a particular case is a question of fact to be determined from all of the circumstances. The Long case indicates that a threat of force will satisfy the statute. Such a threat which reasonably causes a Federal officer to anticipate bodily harm while in the performance of his/her duties constitutes a "forcible assault" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 111. See also United States v. Walker, 835 F.2d 983, 987 (2d Cir. 1987); Gornick v. United States, 320 F.2d 325 (10th Cir. 1963). Thus, a threat uttered with the apparent present ability to execute it, or with menacing gestures, or in hostile company or threatening surroundings, may, in the proper case, be considered sufficient force for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. These judicial decisions suggest a similar construction of the statutory words "resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates or interferes with."

So let's go back to the beginning. Having a car placed in a position where ICE was able to easily drive around it (and, in fact, did) does not, and cannot, constitute obstruction, despite what you have continually said.

And please stop googling things that make you look even more stupid. There is a reason that ICE does not google other federal statutes like you do and try to charge people with it- instead, they lie and say people threw rocks at them (that do not exist) or that people ram them with their car (when ICE rams its victims with its car).

I know you're really reaching into Brettlaw to justify this, but you're saying a lot more about you than what happened. It's almost like you're willing to beclown yourself on something you don't know anything about in order to justify the actions of thugs.

Because true libertarians are in favor of state use of violence on citizens! WOOT, LIBERATRIAN BRETT FTW!

[Joe_dallas]

Loki - Look at your analysis in the first paragraph , then compare and contrast her actions your second paragraph along with comparing her actions subsequent to the actions you described in your first paragraph. Ie the actions that you omitted in your analysis. Seems your first paragraph is on point with those actions.

[not guilty]

The absence of any "forcible assault" is likely why Sean Charles Dunn, popularly nicknamed Sandwich Guy, was acquitted by a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on the misdemeanor charge of violating 18 U.S.C. § 111, assaulting or impeding a federal officer, for throwing a Subway sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent.

The jury apparently didn't buy the prosecution's theory of assault with a deli weapon.

[David Nieporent]

18 U.S.C. § 1505 requires a pending proceeding.

[Riva]

WTF? John Bad Elk? You really think an incident on an Indian reservation involving Indian police officers is in any fucking way relevant? If anyone is paying you, they should ask for a refund.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, lots of circuits have opined that Bad Elk is no longer good law, and 18-111 applies even to unlawful arrests.

And in any event, I don't see how her detention was unlawful. Given her behavior and that of her caravan, they had plenty of reasonable suspicion that some sort of obstruction or conspiracy or violation of federal law was afoot.

[jb]

Oh, we're doing Minority Report now?

[TwelveInchPianist]

We've been doing it for a long time.

[Michael Resanovic]

Circuits not following SCOTUS precedent, eh?

Also, probable cause would be the standard under s.1357

[TwelveInchPianist]

Circuits saying the precedent is not applicable.

And ICE agents can conduct Terry stops.

[Michael Resanovic]

The authority to conduct Terry stops has to come from statute law, not the CFR. You should have linked to the U.S. code. Here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357

Historically, there was no power to detain without arresting, and no authority to arrest on less than probable cause. Statutes giving authority to restrict physical liberty are read narrowly, as are statutes in derogation of common law.

8 U.S.C. 1357 (a)(1) gives authority to detain & question someone believed to be (=probable cause) a deportable alien. This is limited to immigration status, though. It is the only circumstance (aside from admiralty and border crossings) I have been able to find in which detention without arrest is legally sanctioned.

(a)(5) gives authority to arrest for offenses against the United States.

Remember, when SCOTUS finds something doesn't violate the fourth, that doesn't grant anyone power. It's merely a finding that such a grant would be constitutionally tolerable.

[wvattorney13]

How do you contend that the arrest was unlawful? She parked sideways in the street to block the ICE agents from performing their functions. Her girlfriend was out of the car filming the ICE agents and taunting them.

Or, to be more precise, the officers at least had reasonable articulable suspicion to believe she was obstructing them.

Do you really want to go down this road to save your leftist beliefs? Do you want guys shooting at cops when they get stopped for speeding because they read your post, decide they weren't speeding and start shooting?

[loki13]

Nope. Because "obstruct" has an actual legal meaning here. See above.

You're an attorney (supposedly). Either do better, or acknowledge that you didn't look this up.

[Joe_dallas]

loki13 6 hours ago

"Nope. Because "obstruct" has an actual legal meaning here. See above."

Yes it has a legal meaning - Can you point to the statute where "obstruct " is defined as something other than "obstruct"

[Sarcastr0]

reasonable articulable suspicion to believe she was obstructing them

I mean, either you're being obstructed or no; if you gotta start bringing in quanta of evidence (and papering over federal statutory language) you're making a case, not stating the facts.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"reasonable articulable suspicion to believe she was obstructing them."

Or that there was some sort of plot to obstruct them, or some sort of criminal activity within their enforcement authority was afoot. And given the woman and her caravan's behavior, it seems pretty clear that there was.

[shawn_dude]

Suspecting that someone is obstructing your movements is like suspecting they're punching you in the face. Either they are or they aren't. If you're scratching your chin trying to figure out if you're being obstructed, you're not.

Following them around ("caravan's behavior"), filming them (her wife's behavior), and blowing whistles aren't "obstruction."

If you want an example of "obstruction," consider the ICE agents preventing the EMTs from coming to her aid. They obstructed emergency care (not that this would have saved her life from a point blank shot to the head.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

You can suspect that someone intends to punch you in the face.

The standard is that criminal activity is afoot. Not that it is happening or has happened. In this case, it has to be criminal activity that the agent has the authority to enforce.

[David Nieporent]

reasonable articulable suspicion to believe

"Reasonable articulable suspicion to believe" is the standard to assess whether she can sue over her arrest, or whether they have QI.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? That's arguable reasonable suspicion. Reasonable articulable suspicion is the 4A standard for a Terry stop.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And in any event, I doubt she could sue over the initial detention because she wasn't seized until after she took off.

[Michael Resanovic]

There's no federal law that grants feds a general authority to perform Terry stops, so...

[TwelveInchPianist]

There's this:

If the immigration officer has a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned is, or is attempting to be, engaged in an offense against the United States or is an alien illegally in the United States, the immigration officer may briefly detain the person for questioning.

[Michael Resanovic]

See my other reply to you.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "For those of you who missed it, the ICE guy was seriously injured"

Well, there are six issues with that story:

1. It's told by anonymous people saying anonymous things.

2. And those people are the biggest liars on the planet.

3. As news, it's suspiciously late.

4. As news, it's suspiciously timely, given mass resignations in the prosecutor office over the murder coverup and the overall PR debacle.

5. As news, it's no substitution for true, real, & actual facts like the missing autopsy findings. And where are those findings?

Lastly, I supposed you heard mention of the "immaculate conception" over the holidays? Well, this would be the "immaculate internal bleeding". Because go to any of the comprehensive/synchronized video analyses and you'll find that Good's car did not hit Ross. Most of analyses don't even think it touched the officer. Again, he was on the outside edge of the front bumper when Good started moving forward with the wheels hard right. Every inch the car moved ahead, it was veering away from Ross. Physics-wise, that doesn't leave much room for your fantasies to take hold, does it Ed?

I also noted this : There was a shooting incident in Minneapolis today and the City-State authorities are on the scene conducting the investigation as anyone would expect. Strange that, since ICE locked-up every scintilla of evidence in the Ross murder case to ensure nobody else can sees it. Care to wonder why?

[bloocow2]

Only in America could an unarmed middle-aged woman get shot three times in the head by a cop, and have people lining up not only to defend the guy who shot her, but to say that she deserved it. If that happened in any other civilised country, there would be an investigation at the very least. We'd be having a damned Royal Commission!

Christ, even if you do support all this deportation stuff, you should want everything to be transparent and above board, right? That doesn't have to be a partisan thing, right?

[Brett Bellmore]

I assure you that in basically every country in the world, a middle aged women who got shot trying to run a cop over would have people lining up to defend the cop.

NOBODY wants to be run over.

[grb]

Uh huh. And I can very much assure you if any cop in any other country pumped three murder shots into a car when (a) he wasn't in the car's path with any of them, and (b) wasn't even touched by the car with any of them, then you'd have people lined-up to justly call that cop a murderer.

And that's not even counting the fact that two of those shots were execution-style through the driver side open window as the car passed well-clear of the killer.

Which is why you continue to flail the hopeless pointless meaningless lie that Good tried to run Ross over. Most of your cult buddies have abandoned that one as being too obviously false, yet you cling to it like a drowning man his life ring.

Because lies are all ya got. And where are those autopsy results?

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah right, the printer's gonna run out of paper printing out that Bee-otches Drug Screen.

[Michael P]

(b) wasn't even touched by the car with any of them

You should probably have your dementia checked by a doctor -- patient prognosis is pretty poor without appropriate care.

[Joe_dallas]

Michael P 2 hours ago
(b) wasn't even touched by the car with any of them

Yep - pretty much the standard talking point - Will any one admit they are pushing a bogus talking point?

[David Nieporent]

I assure you that in basically every country in the world, a middle aged women who got shot trying to run a cop over

And nobody sincerely believes she was "trying to run a cop over." Even if one thinks that the car did graze the guy, or even if one thinks that in the split second he actually was reasonably afraid and thus not civilly or criminally liable for her death, the notion that she was trying to kill him rather than drive away is just cuckoobananapants.

would have people lining up to defend the cop.

Sure; there are lots of bootlickers out there. Most don't pretend that they're libertarian, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

Note to Sarcastr0: You were complaining when I remarked that left-wingers aren't willing to accept that anyone genuinely disagrees with them?

Of course plenty of people sincerely think she was trying to run him over; She was looking straight at him when she pushed down the accelerator with him in front of the car.

You think depraved indifference plays much better?

[Sarcastr0]

1. DMN isn't a left-winger.
2. The issue was more that you're the most consistent person in the entire world in finding bad faith rather than disagreement.
3. You're really shaming yourself with your BrettFacts in service of making this shooting cool and good. Full on not believing what your eyes see, but some other thing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Only in America could an unarmed middle-aged woman get shot three times in the head by a cop, and have people lining up not only to defend the guy who shot her, but to say that she deserved it."

Yeah, Ashli Babbit only got shot once.

[Krayt]

The joys of a "good kill" come back to haunt.

[Harvey Mosley]

Same as Vicki Weaver.

[DDHarriman]

Weird how you never expressed similar concerns for woman who got killed by a Somali police officer. I don't think he got so much a as a reprimand from you or the State.

I don't think he got awarded with a new private, federally funded , daycare that raked in $500k/yr like Ashli Babbits murderer. But since he is Somali in MN, he probably already had his million dollar private daycare.

[not guilty]

"Weird how you never expressed similar concerns for woman who got killed by a Somali police officer. I don't think he got so much a as a reprimand from you or the State."

What Somali police officer are you talking about, DDH, and whom did he or she kill?

[DDHarriman]

Are you really this low information?

Mahmoud Noor murdered Justine Ruszczyk Damond and walks free today.

Unreal, ng. From your insane legal theories to your lack of awareness of current events.

[Frank Drackman]

NG doesn’t know his Minnesota from his Missouri

[Dr. Ed 2]

And it’s only because the victim was Australian, and the Australian embassy made a fuss about the unjustified killing of one of their nationals that anything ever came of this.

Remember that Noor was sitting in the passenger seat and fired out the left window, across the officer who was sitting in the driver seat. My guess that guy has some problems, at least hearing problems.

[not guilty]

I was unaware of that incident, which occurred in July of 2017.

But contrary to your assertion that the officer did not get so much a as a reprimand from you or the State, according to Wikipedia he was tried before a jury on charges of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. Noor claimed self defense. The jury convicted Noor of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter, but he was acquitted on the charge of intentional second degree murder. In June 2019, Noor was sentenced to 12.5 years in prison. Noor's conviction on third-degree murder was overturned by the Minnesota Supreme Court on September 15, 2021. In October 2021, his sentence was revised to 4.75 years in prison, with credit for time served. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Justine_Damond

It seems that even when you get some facts correct, you can't resist lying about other things, DDH.

[DDHarriman]

Do you see the qualification in my statement:
>I don't think he got so much a as a reprimand from you or the State.

When someone says "I don't think ..." to qualify a statement are they confidently asserting a fact?

Will you reflect upon why you didn't know about this and why you saw my very accurate statement as a lie?

Are you such a Democrat fanatic that all you see is blue?

[not guilty]

I didn't know about it because I hadn't previously heard about it. It's that simple.

[DDHarriman]

You hadn't heard about it because your news feed is carefully curated to keep you ignorant and you're too partisan to see it

[Harvey Mosley]

Now do Lon Horiuchi.

[Magister]

Weird how you never expressed similar concerns for woman who got killed by a Somali police officer. I don't think he got so much a as a reprimand from you or the State.

I don't know what not guilty might have said about that case, but the officer was convicted of third degree murder and second degree manslaughter, although the first conviction was overturned on appeal. That would seem to be a reprimand by the state in a case titled State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Mohamed Noor.

Edited: and not guilty commented with more information just ahead of me.

[DDHarriman]

Absolutely. I wasn't sure, that's why I qualified my statement.

This is a casual forum, I'm comfortable making qualified assertions from memory. That's a pretty normal thing in my circles.

[not guilty]

"This is a casual forum, I'm comfortable making qualified assertions from memory. That's a pretty normal thing in my circles."

IOW, you are getting your information from Otto Yourazz.

[DDHarriman]

I clearly know more about current events than you do. And unlike you who casually and confidently asserts wrong facts and lies in your legal "analyses" and then present them as august, and considered thinking, I am not too ashamed or embarrassed to acknowledge I may have some facts wrong or not fully formed.

I have humility and integrity. You want to try it out?

[not guilty]

When I make a mistake I will own it, as when I mistakenly typed Missouri upthread instead of Minnesota.

But I have seen no evidence that you know beans about either humility or integrity, DDH.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"as when I mistakenly typed Missouri upthread instead of Minnesota."

Yeah, you didn't try to post through that one, I'll give you that.

[Magister]

It's a bad thing to dredge up something from your right wing talking points (where it's apparently it's a current talking point) without even a trivial effort to find out the facts, and then criticize someone else for being low information.

But do you think that the officer in the current case deserves a reprimand? Or at least that Minnesota should have access to the evidence for its own investigation?

[DDHarriman]

Surely you meant "dredge up memories of similar occurrences and hypocritical responses."? And again, in a casual forum it's unnecessary to go blow the fog from any hazy recollection. A qualification is sufficient.

The Somalia murdered a White and is now walking free.
You don't get to foist absurd standards that you don't follow yourself on me just because I am a freedom loving, 1776 style Heritage American and you are not.

[Magister]

Nobody believes that you and Bumble in a previous open thread just happened to recall this same case from your own memories independently.

DDHarriman's claim to have humility and integrity in his multicomment "but I qualified it!" defense of his own stupidity is hilarious.

[David Nieporent]

Voltage! gets all his news from 4chan, and then pretends like other people should know what his oblique references to the things he reads there mean.

In this case, I did know, although Voltage! manages to get the guy's name wrong and lies about what happened. It's true that Mohamed — not "Mahmoud" — Noor did not get a "reprimand" from the state for killing Justine Diamond, but that's because he was actually prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned for her killing.

The lies about Michael Byrd are icing on the cake, though.

[jb]

As usual, your partisan lizard brain is leaving you untethered from reality.

As others have already pointed out, Noor was one of the rare police officers not only indicted but convicted for shooting someone. But just as importantly, while I can't speak for not guilty in particular, the community reaction in Minnesota to Damond's shooting very much mirrored the reaction to Good's (i.e., sympathy for the victim and mad about the cop and the department). Here's some example coverage from the time of the trial:

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/05/08/community-still-frustrated-over-justine-ruszczyk-damond-shooting

[Dr. Ed 2]

If she actually got shot THREE times in the head, ummm, there wouldn’t be much for the autopsy to find.

[hobie]

grb, if it is the hospital that is claiming internal bleeding, then I will believe it. If these claims are instead coming from Noem or Leavitt...well,,,

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hobie, what makes me think this is legitimate is it took about a week to leak out? That’s someone talking to a boyfriend or a girlfriend who then tell someone else will then tell someone else and I get a reporter with then verifies it and print it. That takes a week.

Remember, this is an explicit HIPAA violation so yeah, it doesn’t happen immediately…

[grb]

Or Ross and his allies just publicly announce the diagnosis immediately after it occurred. Kinda funny you didn't consider that, Ed.

[hobie]

A diagnosis of internal bleeding would be beneficial for the MAGA narrative. You'd think it would be crowed about in the very first hours. Tre suspicious.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You ever try to get an MRI on the same day? No you have to go through the insurance company. You’re lucky if you get it the next day it’s usually a better part of a week.

[not guilty]

I would think that the delay in reporting, combined with the ambiguity of "internal bleeding" -- which as I noted above could amount merely to a bruise -- makes it less likely that he sustained any notable injury.

[jb]

"Remember, this is an explicit HIPAA violation so yeah, it doesn’t happen immediately…"

LOL, one of the biggest side effects of Covid: MAGAs losing all understanding of what HIPAA actually says.

[loki13]

Not to mention that all of this was in derogation of explicit requirements of the DOJ when it comes to a shooting.

-They did not provide aid, and prevented assistance, after a shooting.
-They fled the scene.
-There is no record produced of seeking and documenting medical treatment, which should be a part of the record.

In other words, they did everything possible to cover up what we saw ... including having people lie about it repeatedly after it first happened.

But now, people want to believe uncorroborated reports. Sure.

[not guilty]

ICE is part of the Department of Homeland Security (headed by Secretary Dogshooter) rather than the Department of Justice. If this had been an agent of the FBI, the DEA, the BATF, the U.S. Marshal's service or the Bureau of Prisons, that use of deadly force would have violated DOJ guidelines. As I pointed out earlier this week, Section 1-16.200 of the Department of Justice Policy On Use Of Force states in part regarding the use of deadly force:

A. Deadly Force

Law enforcement and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.

Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect. [Emphasis added.]

Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. [Emphasis added.] Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.

If feasible and if to do so would not increase the danger to the officer or others, a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the officer shall be given prior to the use of deadly force.

https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force

[David Nieporent]

Hobie, what makes me think this is legitimate is it took about a week to leak out?

Yes, but you're dumb; that's what makes it obviously not legitimate. If he were actually significantly injured they would've called a press conference a week ago and flaunted his medical records. Instead, it was only after the narrative went south on them that they came up with this story to push, and provided no support for it.

explicit HIPAA violation

Is DHS a covered entity under HIPAA?

[not guilty]

"Remember, this is an explicit HIPAA violation so yeah, it doesn’t happen immediately…"

Nothing in HIPAA prohibits a patient from disclosing his own medical records. If Mr. Ross furnished his records to DHS, that agency is not constrained by HIPPA, either.

[grb]

As of last night, I'd seen it reported by CBS, Newsweek, Fox, and the National Review. But in all case the attribution was to "sources" undefined, though a quick check now has it "confirmed" by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

So ... well .... indeed. Remember the earlier case when an ICE vehicle ran into a women's car and then charged her for the accident despite everything being on video? That's ICE on the ground. Meanwhile, at the top of the food chain we have a president who was soooo embarrassed at accidently deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia against a court order that he used a crudely doctored photo to "prove" Garcia was in a gang.

This crew lies with every breath. It's a physical impossibility Ross suffered internal bleeding from anything the videos show, but let's set that aside. If he'd been so-diagnosed after the incident we'd have heard this one week ago. Instead it's a Surprise! announcement while the Minnesota prosecutor is bleeding out because no one can stomach the coverup and all polls on the subject show Trump deep underwater.

It's not remotely close to paranoia to ask what the professional liars in this White House might do in response. It's damn near gullible not to.

[grb]

(while the Minnesota prosecutor's office....)

[loki13]

This is the same administration that also announced that the thug had been run over.

Also? That Good was a domestic terrorist.

Also also? This is the same administration that lies routinely about all things, and regularly acts unlawfully with impunity. I mean, they abduct Native Americans and refuse to release them unless their sovereign tribe agrees to enter into agreements with ICE.

That's pure thuggery- we will abduct your people and hold them unless you agree to sign a treaty with us. Something that the Native Americans are probably familiar with, unfortunately.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, you wanna talk missing data? Where the hell is the EDR data?

That’s the black box that went off with the airbag, recording everything that car has been doing a few minutes before. The acceleration, the breaking the turning of the steering wheel, even if she was wearing her seatbelt. Where is that data?

[grb]

Personally, I don't know how much data that provides, but you're kinda missing the Big Picture.

Because however much it is, that data is currently locked down by ICE and Patel. So whatever key information we're not seeing, it's because Trump's White House doesn't want it seen.

And why would that be, Ed?

[David Nieporent]

Where the hell is the EDR data?

I don't know why you keep repeating this. Assuming for the sake of argument that her car model was equipped with EDR (which typically record 30 seconds, not "a few minutes"), and assuming they bothered to collect it at all,¹ it would of course be with FBI or DHS. If this were a normal administration, they wouldn't release it because it would be unprofessional to discuss evidence in an ongoing investigation. Since this is the most corrupt, authoritarian government this side of Moscow, though, the fact that they haven't talked about it is strong evidence that they either didn't collect it or decided it wasn't helpful to them.
​
​
¹This is the same agency whose agent deliberately crashed his car into someone in Chicago, shot the victim, blamed the victim, and then immediately rushed the car off to Maine to get repaired before the victim could get access to inspect it, and their explanation was "oops."

[Estragon]

Days of manic posting by many of you Trumpists and you still don’t know how to do MAGA correctly. Only Bob, Frank, Steven Miller and Don seem to get it.

To justify the shooting of Ms, Good on the basis of “feared for his life” or “mashing accelerators” or “run over” or “attempted vehicular homicide” is the kind of excuse making a RINO would engage in. Each of these justifications imply that if they had not been present, the shooting would have been bad in some way. But that is some real Jeb energy. Sad!

There is no need to make these kinds of excuses, no need to engage in video analysis, no need to post these up-is-down black-is-white interpretations of these videos. She was shot because she was disrespectful to law enforcement and they shouldn’t have to put up with that.

Bob and Frank get it. No excuses required. Get with the program, RINOs!

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you're mad because we're being reasonable rather than properly matching your expectations?

[Sarcastr0]

He's making fun of all the work you do asserting a stuff that didn't happen over and over, despite tons of posters pointing out you're full of shit.

Or the work defining terrorism way way down.

It's not being reasonable, it's just trying to defend the indefensible MAGA/ICE position that disrespecting ICE is a shootin' offense.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, a genuine example in the wild of "Every accusation is a confession"! I'm floored.

No, Sarcastr0, you're the ones trying to deny what happened when it's exhaustively documented.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, dude. Pedal to the metal!

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : " ... you're the ones trying to deny what happened when it's exhaustively documented."

Okay. Let's try doing this one step at a time. Precisely where was Ross when the car started forward? You shouldn't be able to evade, weasel, or lie about this given all your "exhaustively documented" research.

But I ain't hold'n my breath. Because you'll surely see from the start that one concession to truth will undermine all your treasured lies to come.

[Brett Bellmore]

At about 1 minute and 16 seconds in this video, the car has begun moving forward, and from the angle of the camera he appears to be roughly centered on driver and maybe 2 feet in front of it.

[Estragon]

I’m pointing out that your iterative excuse making is pointless and counterproductive to true MAGA. Only a RINO pussy would make excuses for what we all saw. As the President so eloquently put it: she was disrespecting law enforcement and they shouldn’t have to put up with that. Your compulsive excuse-making identifies you as a squish. Why bother? Is it self-soothing to think you don’t approve of shooting people in the head for being disrespectful? Because I hate to break it to you… that is now what your political movement requires. Bob and Frank are great examples of the proper attitude.

[not guilty]

Brett, has anyone, anywhere ever accused you of being reasonable?

[David Nieporent]

For those of you who missed it, the ICE guy was seriously injured

For those of you who aren't Dr. Ed, remember that he never gets anything right. Nobody said anything at all about him being "seriously injured."

[Magister]

The problem is too many people saying that over and over again when it's not true.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Rumor has it that ice is now heading into Boston. They’ve got an icehouse in Burlington, and reportedly a couple dozen unmarked SUVs have shown up out there. QED…

It could be fun…..

[John F. Carr]

An article on the incoming fleet said Burlington police are working with protest organizers to keep the peace. Nobody has been shot there yet.

[not guilty]

NBC News reports:

Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., said she's being investigated by federal prosecutors after she participated in a video with other Democratic lawmakers urging members of the military and the intelligence community not to follow illegal orders.

Slotkin said in a video statement Wednesday that she found out about the probe last week from the office of “former Fox host” Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who asked to interview her “because of” the 90-second video.

“To be clear, this is the president’s playbook. Truth doesn’t matter, facts don’t matter, and anyone who disagrees with him becomes an enemy. And he then weaponizes the federal government against them,” Slotkin said. “It’s legal intimidation and physical intimidation meant to get you to shut up.”

“No, I’m not going to do that because this president does not represent the views of a majority of Americans. Even if you voted for him, I do not believe that his vision of America is shared by a majority of Americans,” she added. “This country is worth fighting for.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/elissa-slotkin-investigation-video-refusing-illegal-military-orders-rcna253939

Ms. Pirro has the right to ask to interview anyone, just as the subject of an investigation has the right to refuse such an interview request. The weaponization of the Department of Justice to harass and attempt to intimidate President Bone Spurs Chickenhawk's political enemies, however, is reprehensible.

The MAGA cult has not identified any federal statute which the video featuring Senators Slotkin, Mark Kelly and four House members violated. OTOH, it is a federal crime to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, according to 18 U.S.C. § 241.

Bringing a criminal prosecution without probable cause in retaliation for a citizen's exercise of First Amendment protected expression is itself a First Amendment violation, as SCOTUS has recognized in Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006):

Official reprisal for protected speech “offends the Constitution because it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right,” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588, n.10 (1998), and the law is settled that as a general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions, including criminal prosecutions, for speaking out, id., at 592; see also Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972) (noting that the government may not punish a person or deprive him of a benefit on the basis of his “constitutionally protected speech”). Some official actions adverse to such a speaker might well be unexceptionable if taken on other grounds, but when nonretaliatory grounds are in fact insufficient to provoke the adverse consequences, we have held that retaliation is subject to recovery as the but-for cause of official action offending the Constitution. See Crawford-El, supra, at 593; Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283–284 (1977) (adverse action against government employee cannot be taken if it is in response to the employee’s “exercise of constitutionally protected First Amendment freedoms”). When the vengeful officer is federal, he is subject to an action for damages on the authority of Bivens [v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388,] 397 [(1971).]

Prosecuting attorneys enjoy absolute immunity from suit for money damages, see Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 429 (1976), but the judicially fashioned doctrine of official immunity does not reach "so far as to immunize criminal conduct proscribed by an Act of Congress." O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974), quoting Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 627 (1972).

Jeanine Pirro and her confederates should govern themselves accordingly.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you can infer air quotes and winking when Trump says he wants to find votes, you can infer air quotes and winking when Slotkin says "illegal orders".

[myself]

Give me a break.

It's beyond obvious that Trump was asking for the outcome of Georgia's election to be changed in his favour.

[Frank Drackman]

Since it was an obvious fraud then, and has been shown to be an even bigger one 5 years later, who gives a fuck?
Actually glad it worked out this way, we'll have 4 years of Prostatic Joe's Error sandwiched between the 8 greatest years of Amurican History.

Frank

[DDHarriman]

Under Biden we reached peak gay.

So gay that SCOTUS has to now decide something humans have known since the dawn of consciousness.

[not guilty]

DDH, were you discombobulated when you heard of Elvis Presley's Number 47 and Number 3 doing the Jailhouse Rock?

[grb]

When Justice Roberts placed a crown on Trump's head with near-total immunity, he took special care to insist the 27Dec White House meeting could never used as evidence. Which is hardly surprising given that meeting was pure criminality. Let's recall this sordid saga:

DOJ underling Jeffery Clark saw a chance to get ahead. He got Trump's ear and proposed a deal any crook would admire. If DJT ousted the acting Justice head and replaced him with Clark, then the latter would send letters to critical states saying an ongoing DOJ investigation had found voter fraud so the states should wait to certify their results. But no investigation existed. It was all a total fabrication.

Of course Trump loved the scheme, but summoned the acting DOJ head, Jeffery Rosen, to see if he could be threatened and/or suborned. As a hint of how things were going into the meeting, Clark was already being listed as head of the Justice Department in the White House call logs before it occurred.

So Trump pitched/threatened Rosen over the letters, but the latter told Trump (to his face) there was no fraud. Rosen would have no part of this sleazy con. And what was Trump's reaction per the notes/testimony of multiple attendees?

“Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen”

See, Trump only wanted lies. He was never concerned about voting fraud. He didn’t care his claims were false. He only wanted enough noise to push election certification into legislatures where “his” Republicans would engineer a different result. That’s why his huckster pitch on “stolen elections” is never consistent from one crowd to the next.

And the scheme? Trump was told he'd face mass resignations if Clark replaced Rosen. Only that made him back-off.

[DDHarriman]

lol TDS fanfic

[Joe_dallas]

grb 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
When Justice Roberts placed a crown on Trump's head with near-total immunity,

Another leftist lying about the SC's opinion.

[grb]

Two points :

1. It would be stupid to characterize that statement as a "lie" even if it was inaccurate - which it's not.

2. On the other hand, I think I was wrong about Ross leaving the scene so early in the comments yesterday. When I (belatedly) double-checked my source, I found a better source that contradicted it.

[Joe_dallas]

Its stupid to defend the statement -

Everyone knows the statement is a gross mischaracterization of the SC holding, especially well known by NG who keeps repeating the same in spite of knowing its a lie.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did you miss the part about where GEORGIA HAS NOW FOUND THOSE VOTES!?!

[Magister]

It's appropriate to miss things that are not true.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : "Did you miss the part ....."

No one missed anything, Ed. But here's what you're missing: For over two decades, the Right's freak squad has been caterwauling about fraudulent votes. Early in Trump-One, they actually had a "commission" tasked to find them. After Trump lost to Biden, all of rightwing world was insanely frantic to uncover something - anything!

But, zilch. The Right has never found ANYTHING beyond the same few hundred votes spread across a total of 150 million. When, Ed, will you ever produce? Every recount proves you wrong. Every election proves you wrong. Without a single exception, you're wrong, wrong, wrong.

So isn't this vote fraud shtick downright embarrassing by now? Given your whack-job hysteria dancing to Trump's lies post-2020, you should have found something, but there was nothing to found. Instead, you always return back to claims of "theoretical fraud" or "possible fraud" or "potential fraud".

Sorry, after 25-30yrs of unrelenting wrongness, that just doesn't cut it. You should feel absolute humiliation in just bringing it up. The Right is long pass due to show its cards but it never have a single cards to show.

"Voter Fraud" is one of the biggest clownshow nonissues this country has ever seen. When you bring it up these days, everyone just laughs.

[DDHarriman]

Hey remember when all those Blue states refused to assist and closed their books to the investigators?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

[jb]

"No one missed anything, Ed. But here's what you're missing: For over two decades, the Right's freak squad has been caterwauling about fraudulent votes. Early in Trump-One, they actually had a "commission" tasked to find them."

Actually, they are still looking for some bad illegal immigrant voters in this administration. They are finding...not a lot...and misidentifying a lot of people who are actually eligible to vote:

As president, Mr. Trump has pushed his administration to address the alleged crimes, including prompting many states to upload tens of millions of voter records through a federal immigration verification tool run out of the Department of Homeland Security.

But with the review underway, the results so far indicate there is no evidence of widespread fraud, according to interviews with government officials and documents reviewed by The New York Times.

Out of 49.5 million voter registrations that have been checked, the department referred around 10,000 cases to Homeland Security Investigations for further investigation of noncitizenship, or roughly .02 percent of the names processed

Note that these are invalid registrations, not instances of voting.

But, actually, the system is routinely misidentifying people:

Even that number could be inflated. The verification tool has mistakenly flagged some people who appear to actually be citizens, according to some local election officials.

In Charlotte County, Fla., for instance, the elections supervisor Leah Valenti, an appointee of Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor, said she found that just 15 out of 176,000 names she uploaded to D.H.S. came back as noncitizens. Of those, she found that three were people mistakenly added to the rolls who never intended to register to vote; they have since been removed. Two others already sent in documentation to prove their naturalized citizenship, she said.

“We didn’t get a mass onslaught of people,” said Ms. Valenti, who is a proponent of using the D.H.S. system to verify voters’ eligibility. “We have clean voter rolls.”...

In Missouri, 70 county clerks in December signed a letter sent to state House and Senate leadership describing the system as flawed, saying it regularly included “individuals we know to be U.S. citizens — our neighbors, colleagues and even voters we have personally registered at naturalization ceremonies.”

As usual, even when the Republicans make a concerted effort to go find fraud, they find out that everything is working just fine. Which is not to say that no fraud happens ever, but that it's so rare that it's immaterial to any election at scale.

[not guilty]

"If you can infer air quotes and winking when Trump says he wants to find votes, you can infer air quotes and winking when Slotkin says 'illegal orders'."
Brett, do you contend that Senator Slotkin has committed any federal crime? If so, what statute(s) do you claim that she has violated?

To support criminal prosecution in federal court, "The legislative authority of the Union must first make an act a crime, affix a punishment to it, and declare the court that shall have jurisdiction of the offense." United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 34 (1812).

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I don't think Slotkin committed any crime, given the speech and debate clause. But I do think she was trying to encourage military to disobey lawful orders.

[Michael P]

What speech or debate on the floor of Congress was Slotkin participating in at the time?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's typically interpreted pretty expansively, you know.

[DDHarriman]

It doesn't have to be.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and it shouldn't be.

[Michael P]

Sure, the bits about travel to and from a session of Congress are broadly interpreted. So is how it applies to things like the Congresscritter's office. I don't think it has ever been interpreted to apply to statements outside of Congress that were directed to the public.

[not guilty]

You've got the right answer for the wrong reason, Brett. The video was not in any way a legislative act. Senator Slotkin simply did not violate any federal criminal statute.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I don't think she did, either. But for the same reason that Trump didn't in his call with Raffensperger: You can't turn lawful speech into soliciting a crime just by claiming that the actual language used should be ignored in favor of supposedly implied meanings.

She may have intended to encourage people in the military to violate likely lawful orders, to cause Trump trouble, but she DID say "illegal", and that's enough to get her off the hook, just as nothing Trump actually said in his call to Raffensperger actually demanded unlawful actions.

[SRG2]

But I do think she was trying to encourage military to disobey Trump.

FTFY

[David Nieporent]

If you can infer air quotes and winking when Trump says he wants to find votes, you can infer air quotes and winking when Slotkin says "illegal orders".

But you can't or won't infer air quotes or winking when Trump says he wants to find votes. So why are you so eager to do so for everyone else?

[DDHarriman]

BREAKING NEWS

Prisoner says he's the only one in prison not guilty!!

Film@11

[Riva]

What illegal orders? There are and were none. The video was a sick color revolution tactic to undermine the Commander in Chief and instigate mass insubordination. Of course it should be investigated. Nothing wrong or illegal about that. And, for those under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ, we been down this path before.

You’re like a crazy broken record. Is anyone paying you for this crazy bullshit?

[SRG2]

But I do think she was trying to encourage military to disobey lawful orders.

So therefore there was nothing for the military to disobey and hence nothing to see.

But of course the reality is that you know Trump could give illegal orders, you just think that they should be obeyed.

[David Nieporent]

So therefore there was nothing for the military to disobey and hence nothing to see.

To be clear, the murders of people on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific were illegal, so the orders to commit those murders were illegal. But the video in question was — as I just mentioned — forward looking.

[not guilty]

"What illegal orders? There are and were none. The video was a sick color revolution tactic to undermine the Commander in Chief and instigate mass insubordination. Of course it should be investigated. Nothing wrong or illegal about that. And, for those under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ, we been down this path before."

You are just flat wrong, Riva. https://www.justsecurity.org/120296/many-ways-caribbean-strike-unlawful/ (The linked article was published before it became widely known that the survivors of the first boat strike on September 2 were murdered in a follow up strike, which was even more egregious.)

[David Nieporent]

Bot programmed to repeat stupid talking points that ignore the directional flow of time. "You should disobey illegal orders" is an entirely different statement than "You should've disobeyed illegal orders" — the former is a statement about the future, while the latter is a statement about the past — and therefore "What illegal orders?" is just a complete non sequitur. Whether there "were none" is irrelevant. The issue is whether there will be. And of course there will be; this is Trump.

color revolution tactic

Another stupid programmed talking point. There is no such thing as a "color revolution tactic," and if there were it wouldn't involve elected officials reminding military and intelligence officers to obey the law.

There is nothing to "investigate," so by definition an investigation is wrong and illegal. Its only purpose would be to try to intimidate Trump's opponents.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Just one question, which administration was it that started investigating everyone? That criminally prosecuted Trump 45‘s people for crimes that I couldn’t quite understand what it was alleged that actually done.

It is said that one should be careful, but one wishes for, less one gets it. The left wanted to live, and it kind of environment, and now hopefully they will enjoy it.

[SRG2]

which administration was it that started investigating everyone?

Nixon's, I think. Though before that, J. Edwina Hoover was investigating everyone and he was part of the admin.

[Krayt]

The weaponization of the Department of Justice to harass and attempt to intimidate President Bone Spurs Chickenhawk's political enemies

Would that this sentence had any value to you, slightly modified, for the last 10 years: The weaponization of the Department of Justice to harass and attempt to intimidate President Bone Spurs Chickenhawk

He was your political enemy. You did this on innumerable initiatives, to get your enemy.

It does not justify the current state of affairs, but, being power mongers, winning at all costs, using means fair or foul, is perfectly fine.

I wish you really did care about misuse of the investigative and prosecutorial power of government. Would be a nice learning moment. Instead, it's another situational ethics argument, only valid sometimes. Go home and sleep like a baby, I guess.

[SRG2]

I assume you were outraged by the FBI's persecution of the innocent citizen John Gotti.

[Martinned]

Yes, the US is an enemy of Europe as much as China and Russia are.

Germany will take the lead of European nations sending military personnel to Greenland after Denmark said its meeting with top US officials intent on controlling the world’s biggest island revealed that a “fundamental disagreement” remains.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-14/germany-leads-military-buildup-in-greenland-in-response-to-trump?srnd=homepage-europe

[Martinned]

I guess it's fortunate the US reduced its military presence on Greenland by more than 99% since the Cold War, otherwise we might have a real problem on our hands...

https://x.com/HthHans/status/2009915710688862703

[Frank Drackman]

You obviously haven't heard of this new invention. It's called the "Airplane"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Particularly the C-5, and I believe the USAF is the only outfit that has them.

[Frank Drackman]

Rode in a few during the 90’s, and its successor the C-17(much more advanced but just as uncomfortable)Remember that one of the Aircrew was basically a Stewardess, brewing coffee for the Cockpit Crew, taking them snacks, while only giving us shit that our seatbelts weren’t fastened. They didn’t like it when you asked for a hot towel

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

I’ve seen C5 takeoff at Westover, it’s almost impossible to believe that something that large can actually get off the ground.

And when it actually does, with all the noise, it is impressive….

And when they go with the Pioneer Valley, I know they have to be at least at 2000 feet because they have to be 1000 feet above the hills 5 miles to the east. But it looks like they’re about 20 feet off the ground. They really that big……

[Frank Drackman]

Nice thing about going somewhere on a C5, you were certain to get a few days to explore whatever base they had to land at to fix what was broken, sometimes good (Rhein-Main, Charleston, Lajes) sometimes bad, (Malmstrom AFB MT)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Perhaps it is now time for us to collect all of the unpaid World War II debts that Western Europe owes us, and never paid. Wonder what 70 years worth of interest would include?

And then we hit Germany for 70 years of protection from the Soviet minister during the Cold War. That ain’t gonna be cheap either and when Europe fails to pay, we start seizing not only Greenland, but large chunks of mainland, Europe, e.g. Antwerp, to collect the debt.

Welcome to USA ports — you want to land an airplane in Europe, or dark ship, get ready to pay tribute to Washington…

[Martinned]

Perhaps it is now time for us to collect all of the unpaid World War II debts that Western Europe owes us, and never paid.

WTF are you talking about? If there's one country that doesn't want to talk about unpaid debts, it's the US.

https://press.un.org/en/2025/gaab4504.doc.htm

And then we hit Germany for 70 years of protection from the Soviet minister during the Cold War.

Sure, I guess you can always make things up. By the way, did you notice that a substantial part of Germany wasn't "protected" at all, but rather sold down the river in 1945?

[Joe_dallas]

yes most of eastern europe sold down the river - In part , thanks to the president that is generally ranked in the top 3 by historians.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We actually lended the money to Europe to buy our weapon weapons to defend themselves with.

Remember the battle of the Atlantic and how it was won because we could build ships faster than the Germans could sink them?

That was uncle suckers’s money. We want it back.

[Martinned]

Show me the contract.

[David Nieporent]

Perhaps it is now time for us to collect all of the unpaid World War II debts that Western Europe owes us, and never paid. Wonder what 70 years worth of interest would include?

Nothing, because as usual you don't know what you're talking about. The only countries that haven't paid WW2 debts off to us are China, Iran, and Trump's bestie Russia.

[DDHarriman]

How many troops were sent?

13.

That must all they have left after Russia slaughtered them in UKR.

[Martinned]

No, that's all it takes to make sure that the US Regime can't invade Greenland while gaslighting its electorate and the rest of the world into believing that it's not attacking a NATO ally. One for all and all for one.

[Frank Drackman]

Like Nixon famously told CIA Director Richard Helms, when asked if he (Nixon) was threatening the CIA.

"Presidents don't make threats. They don't have to"

Like Anton Chigurh, "45/47/(48?)" doesn't know who Greenland belongs to, he knows who it's GOING (shit, now I'm using all caps like Dr. Ed) to belong to.
Much more important.

Frank

[DDHarriman]

Hey they're recruiting White men for Defense of Europe. You sign up?

[Martinned]

I think you're confused. Race war is a US thing.

[Frank Drackman]

Tell Anders Breivek

[Martinned]

I have just been informed that Greenland has a nuke: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash

The United States and Denmark launched an intensive clean-up and recovery operation, but the secondary stage of one of the nuclear weapons could not be accounted for after the operation was completed.

[Frank Drackman]

The Thule crash had a brighter side, it ended the practice of having a number of fully armed B52's in the air 24-7. Amazing how many Idiots (Your Cue Doctor Ed) think we still do.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

I know about operation chrome dome, and consider it insane.

But for a 50 Cent switch, we would have nuked Savannah…

[Krayt]

Invading a fellow NATO member on a war of conquest, much like Putin is doing, minus the NATO, would indeed be:

A. A real impeachable offense.
B. Would be one of those illegal orders that should be refused.

Letting people think it might happen, on the other hand...

Again, just noting the state of things. Gotta lather the rubes, I think the phrase is.

[Martinned]

1. The UN Charter forbids threatening force the same as actually using it.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

2. How is this different from what Trump *already did* in Venezuela? After all, the US runs Venezuela now.

[jb]

I guess it's working. No one seems to be talking about the fact that the DOJ said they actually had even more Epstein documents than they thought, and then promptly stopped releasing them.

[Kazinski]

NASA and SpaceX (but mostly SpaceX) evacuated the ISS more than a month before scheduled because of an undisclosed. emergency medical issue.

To schedule and launch a mission this quickly, this much before the mission was scheduled to be launched, would be completely impossible before the SpaceX era.

[Martinned]

Once upon a time NASA had space shuttles...

[grb]

Unfortunately, the fastest turnaround time for the Shuttle was 54days, with six months being more typical. Yes, Musk may be a loathsome creep with the emotional maturity of an acne-scarred surly teen, but his company has revolutionized space travel (at least in terms of rocket launches).

But it raises an interesting question. When I go on (say) the space forum linked below, it's always chock-full of Space X fanboys who take "stan" behavior to dizzying heights. They don't see any problem with the difficulties Musk is having with his new Starship rocket and have a strong case. It has developed exceptionally quickly per industry standards, so they see it fulfilling all the promises Musk has made.

But the most likely scenario is neither the utopia of dirt-cheap launches with a turnaround of hours, or total failure. The most likely thing is something inbetween. And there, Starship might prove something like the Shuttle : More expensive to launch than anticipated, much slower refit time than foreseen, and with a higher risk factor than people can accept.

It won't be as bad as the Shuttle by those standards, but may well be a more cumbersome platform that all the wild promises wildly promise.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/

[Martinned]

Musk may be a loathsome creep with the emotional maturity of an acne-scarred surly teen, but his company has revolutionized space travel (at least in terms of rocket launches).

Funny what you can do with tens of billions of dollars in government subsidy...

[Michael P]

So much for your claim to know anything about economics. SpaceX hasn't gotten anything like that.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2025/elon-musk-business-government-contracts-funding/

Unless you think SpaceX has delivered value to the government, hard to see these development contracts as other than subsidies.

NASA and the Defense Department nurtured SpaceX in its earliest years with contracts that helped it build infrastructure, while the agency tolerated the company’s failure to meet required milestones on time, according to congressional investigators.

I'm all for government subsidizing commercialization of tech, and while I think commercial manned space is not where I'd spend development funds yet, SpaceX seems legit the best of the bunch. But market worshipers loving SpaceX is a silly thing.

[Martinned]

The best of the bunch? Well, they sure seem to have form raining debris down on foreign countries and their airspace: https://www.propublica.org/article/spacex-faa-launch-airlines-safety-explosions-florida-caribbean

Last year, three of Starship’s five launches exploded at unexpected points on their flight paths, twice raining flaming debris over congested commercial airways and disrupting flights. And while no aircraft collided with rocket parts, pilots were forced to scramble for safety.

[Sarcastr0]

While one failure doesn't mean a program is wrongheaded, this and other setbacks are part of why I am of the opinion that our tech readiness is not there to transition manned spaceflight to commercial development.

[ThePublius]

How many people have died in Space Shuttles?

How many people have died in Dragon capsules?

[Brett Bellmore]

I have no interest at all in denying that Tesla, like all electric car manufacturers, has benefited from subsidies. There'd basically not BE an electric car market without subsidies.

I WOULD assert that some of SpaceX's schedule slippage was NASA's own fault, such as demanding that the Dragon capsule be redesigned to use parachutes instead of retropropulsive landings.

[jb]

I don't think contracts for services count as "subsidies" in a meaningful way, although the Elon stans here probably wouldn't hesitate to call them that if given to another company.

Space X is the lowest cost vendor for the government to do space stuff these days; if anything, contracting with traditional vendors like Boeing or Lockheed would be closer to subsidies at this point because of how much more expensive it would be for the same result.

[Sarcastr0]

Contracts for services generally, no.

But Commercial Space is a decades-long Congressionally mandated initiative where the agencies are required to find a vendor for R&D and prototyping contracts, regardless of if there's a market case or value there.

That's a subsidy.

And that's fine! I've not run the numbers on value, but it got us a space launch capability outside of Russia.

[Kazinski]

Yeah, my former brother-in-law was Nasa's Mission director in charge of several space shuttle missions. I have a reasonable Idea of what it takes to plan and ramp up a mission. Turnaround for the Space Shuttle was generally about 6 months, they did it faster a few times but after the first one blew up they took a lot more time on safety checks.

And remember they landed the shuttle At Edwards AFB in California and then had to piggy back it on a 747 to Florida.

3 months notice of getting a launch together would have NASA shifting their pants.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, but the Shuttle was an impressive Rube Goldberg rocket. Maybe if they'd built it as originally intended, with a titanium airframe and much less insulating but more durable heat shielding, it could have had a decent turn around time.

It wasn't so much reusable as refurbishable.

And the intent with Starship is not to have one or two of the rockets, but instead have dozens, so that you can literally have one ready to fly in the time it takes to fuel it.

[Frank Drackman]

During the investigation of the Challenger Explosion, (would you rather be in an Explosion or a Collison?) it came out that NASA had expected a "Catastrophic" Event every 75 missions, with 2 such Events in 135 missions, they weren't far off.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

The hell of it is that both catastrophes were avoidable even given the shuttle's compromised design.

Challenger blew up because Nasa management over-rode the actual engineers' judgment that it was too cold to launch.

Columbia burned up on reentry because Nasa management,
1. Flew it without an already designed and built drone intended to fly around the ship inspecting the heat shield for damage, just to save a few pounds.
2. Turned down an offer from the NSA to have one of their spysats take ultra high resolution photos of the damaged area so it could be assessed.

The latter because they were afraid that if they knew for an absolute fact that the shuttle would burn up on reentry, public opinion might force them to launch a hasty rescue mission. Whereas, so long as they didn't KNOW, they could order their reentry and cross their fingers, hoping like hell that they got lucky.

Seriously, depraved indifference on the part of management, especially in the second case.

[DDHarriman]

So a bunch of fart sniffing Sarcastr0s killed thse astronauts

[grb]

As an aside, news of the Challenger explosion came when I was on the grenade range in Basic. One of our Drill Sergeants told us. I asked if there were any survivors, but he just shook his head and said "it blew the fuck up".

The later memorial ceremony and Reagan's speech came when we were all lined-up for shearing at the Post barber. And that grenade range thing was only practice. The day our Company threw actual live grenades, I had KP.

The other day I spent washing dishes was when we practiced putting our gas masks on, over and over and over. Missing that proved problematic when we were later tear-gassed on a mock patrol. About 70% of us got our mask on. About 29% of us ran off. One person stood their coughing and hacking as he stubbornly tried to get the damn thing on. Guess who?

[Frank Drackman]

Was putting an IV in a Pediatric Patient, no TV in patients rooms back then, went to the waiting area to tell the Mother what a good job I'd done (OK, mostly that the Nurse did) People were freaking out as Dan Blather gave the benefit of his years of experience in Space Flight.

Frank

[Swede425]

LOL!
The one time I had KP in basic, the kitchen had made three too many sheet cakes and rolled them into the back where we were rinsing dishes to put them in racks for the giant dish washers. Mess Sergeant was like "enjoy!". The five of us ate the hell out of them.

[Mr. Bumble]

One time and three sheet cakes? Lucky you.
First time I had KP was at Ft. Dix on Palm Sunday three days after arriving at reception. Up a 4:30 sitting in the dark in a "temporary" WWII vintage mess hall. Then, spent the rest of the day washing greasy sheet pans, that were used to make bacon, with brown soap and steel wool until we ran out of both.

[grb]

Mr. Bumble : " .... at Ft. Dix ...."

Which is where I did Basic running into January/February. When we went out in the field, the temperatures dipped down in the low teens. I can still recall the trauma of forcing myself out of the bag for a midnight leak. Of course the Army's camping gear was ludicrously primitive back then. Our tent was two slabs of raw canvas, one from me and the other from my "buddy", with both stitched together to form a whole.

Another traumatic memory was Heritage Food Day in the mess hall. Since I pride myself on being adventurous (often to the point of folly), I just HAD to try United States Army mess hall GI-cooked chitterlings. I have no idea what they're supposed to taste like, but what I sampled seemed exactly what you'd expect given their origin deep in the lower intestine of a pig. I get a sour taste in my mouth just thinking of it.

[Swede425]

I did the Command and General Staff Officer Course (ILE) at Dix. Couldn't pump our own gas in New Jersey and the German restaurant off-post didn't serve alcohol but you could bring your own. Weirdest place ever.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Even still, they should never have launched that day.
Not with ice all over everything.

[Magister]

ice all over everything

Yeah, that's a bad thing that gets people killed.

[Kazinski]

Originally SpaceX engineers wanted to use lighter exotic material for his reuseble boosters, he told them to use Stainless Steel, it was strong enough that they could make it thin enough to be light enough, and not end up being too fragile.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think carbon fiber composites for cryogenic tankages was always a problematic choice; It doesn't do well under thermal cycling, and the tooling needed to make design revisions is extremely expensive.

And then when they switched to stainless steel, they originally wanted to use 301 stainless. Admittedly it has great specs, but I've worked with it, and not only does it have a difficult learning curve, it's subject to halogen induced delayed stress cracking, so you really don't want to be welding it in a sea breeze. So they switched pretty quickly to 304 stainless, then a proprietary alloy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I compare Elon Musk to Henry Ford and Howard Hughes.

In fairness, there was something about Hughes in an airplane crash and a head injury that may have been part of it, but when you look at either of those men, Musk isn’t that outrageous.

It’s been said that there’s a very fine line between genius and insanity. Perhaps it really isn’t a line…

[Martinned]

The difference is that those guys weren't (just) hype men, but actually knew how to build things/do things.

[ThePublius]

So you're saying Musk doesn't know how to do things, build things?

Ridiculous.

[Martinned]

Yes. Tesla + Musk = Cybertruck. Tesla without Musk = their actual innovations. Same with his other companies. He's great at getting fools to part with their money, and so those companies could operate (as well) without him, but when the time comes to actually build or do something with that money, they need him to STFU. (Which is why most Musk companies have staff whose main job it is to distract Musk and keep him away from the actual work.)

[ThePublius]

You're full of shit. You just hate Musk because he supported Trump. So you make shit up to defame him, which is totally ridiculous.

He founded SpaceX.
He founded Starlink.
He founded the Boring Company.
He founded Neuralink.
He founded OpenAI.
He founded xAI.
He ran Tesla to profitability and the most successful EV company ever, and sold the most of any car last year, the model Y.
...and more.

These are all well documented facts. Do you have any evidence to support your scurrilous claims?

[Martinned]

Did he found those companies or did he take them over with lots of fanboy money after other people found them?

And if you know what the Boring Company is other than exactly the thing I was talking about, you know more than the people who actually work for it.

He ran Tesla to profitability and the most successful EV company ever, and sold the most of any car last year, the model Y.

No, he was the "technoking" at Tesla while all of that - well, some of that - was happening. "Running" a company is something else. Meanwhile, all the good electric cars come from China.

[ThePublius]

So you're saying Teslas are no good? Ha, ha, ha. What a fool you are.

[Mr. Bumble]

Give us a list of all the Dutch car companies.

[ducksalad]

Reminds me of a very strange thing I saw on the street last week: a Haval Jolion HEV. Had to look it up and found it was a Chinese hybrid. Probably not a rare sight in other parts of the world, but unexpected in McAllen, TX.

Nuevo Leon plates so I assume it was bought in Monterrey and someone brought it over.

No opinion on whether it's a good car or not.

[Kazinski]

But somehow, despite being a miserable failure, Elon is the only one who, with one weeks notice, gear up an a medical evacuation mission to space, and bring 4 people back home safely.

He seems to do what he does very well, no matter how disfunctional he can be at times.

If you want to complain about didn't earn it, look at #7, or 13, 14, 15.

1. Elon Musk — $716.2B
2. Larry Page — $266.5B
3. Jeff Bezos — $256.1B
4. Sergey Brin — $245.9B
5. Larry Ellison — $238.2B
6. Mark Zuckerberg — $221.5B
7. Bernard Arnault & family — $190.9B
8. Jensen Huang — $160.6B
9. Warren Buffett — $148.0B
10. Amancio Ortega — $146.2B
11. Steve Ballmer — $145.8B
12. Michael Dell — $134.2B
13. Rob Walton & family — $132.4B
14. Jim Walton & family — $129.7B
15. Alice Walton — $120.8B
16. Michael Bloomberg — $109.4B
17. Mukesh Ambani — $106.4B
18. Bill Gates — $104.3B
19. Carlos Slim Helú & family — $102.1B
20. Françoise Bettencourt Meyers & family — $88.5B see

[jb]

While Musk was a co-founder of OpenAI, it's pretty misleading to put it alongside the other companies (including the failures like Neuralink and Boring Company) where he was the principal founder and provided a significant amount of direction.

He did found xAI, but xAI seems like maybe the sixth best AI lab out there.

I do think that Musk deserves a lot of credit for really moving the needle in both electric cars and space launches, so Martinned's position is pretty silly.

[ThePublius]

Neuralink and Boring are not failures!

For example:

"Neuralink is progressing well in its human clinical trials, with early participants successfully using the brain-computer interface (BCI) for tasks like playing games and controlling computers with their thoughts, demonstrating restored autonomy and positive impacts on their lives, despite technical challenges like electrode retraction that were resolved through software updates. The company is expanding its trials, seeking more participants, and also developing new applications like "Blindsight" for vision restoration, though facing scrutiny over its ambitious timelines and animal welfare concerns.
Current Progress & Milestones:
Successful Human Implants: The first human implant in January 2024 (patient Noland Arbaugh) showed immediate neural signal detection, allowing him to control a computer cursor and play games like chess and Civilization VI with his mind.
Positive User Experiences: Patients report significant improvements in independence and quality of life, enabling them to do things like extensive reading and work, with initial issues like thread retraction being fixed.
Expanding Trials: Neuralink is actively recruiting more participants for trials in the U.S. and Canada, aiming to restore function for those with paralysis or ALS.
New Developments: The company received "breakthrough" status for its "Blindsight" project, intended to help blind individuals regain some vision.
Challenges & Considerations:
Technical Hurdles: Initial issues with electrode retraction were overcome with software adjustments, but ongoing engineering challenges remain.
Regulatory Scrutiny: While working closely with regulators, Neuralink faces questions about the pace of development and the invasive nature of the procedure.
Ambitious Goals vs. Reality: Elon Musk's bold predictions (e.g., 1 million users by 2030) contrast with the current reality of a limited number of implanted individuals, notes STAT News.
Overall: Neuralink is making tangible progress in medical applications, restoring function for some, but remains a developing technology with significant scientific and ethical considerations, writes BBC."

[jb]

The Neuralink implant trials did not go so well:

https://www.futura-sciences.com/en/elon-musks-neuralink-brain-implant-faces-a-serious-technical-setback_18144/

Maybe "failure" is too strong, but it's definitely not a success. At best we could say that it's early days for Neuralink.

Boring company, on the other hand, is objectively a failure. Most of its projects have been cancelled, and the Vegas loop does not seem useful at all. Being generous, it's a low density version of a subway.

[ThePublius]

Well, we shall see, I'm sure. Some things take longer than others.

[Martinned]

I wonder why the US Regime prefers to put its Venezuelan oil money slush fund in a Qatar bank account instead of a domestic one...

Revenue from the oil sales is currently being held in bank accounts controlled by the US government, as indicated in Friday’s order, according to the administration official. The main account, according to a second senior administration official, is located in Qatar.

The second official described Qatar as a neutral location where money can flow freely with US approval and without risk of seizure. Trump’s order noted that at least some of the revenue would be held in US Treasury accounts.

https://www.semafor.com/article/01/14/2026/us-gets-first-500-million-venezuelan-oil-deal-holding-some-proceeds-in-qatar

[Martinned]

Speaking of which, this Executive Order seems to overstep at least a little bit:

Sec. 3. Preservation of Foreign Government Deposit Funds. (a) Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the Foreign Government Deposit Funds.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/01/safeguarding-venezuelan-oil-revenue-for-the-good-of-the-american-and-venezuelan-people/

I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the Regime thinks it can declare court judgments "null and void".

[grb]

Martinned : "US Regime .... slush fund .... Qatar bank account"

Sigh. I can still remember when the U.S. was the Leader of the Free World. That was before we became another gangster regime on the make.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, 20 years of the Clinton Crime Family/Barry Hussein's Crew, and the Biden Foundation will take a while to clean up, in the mean time, You're free to leave.

[loki13]

Just waiting for Brett's post saying that there's nothing to see here, no problem. Gotta assume that it's totally okay for the President to seize assets, deposit them with Qatar, and use the money in an accountable way as he sees fit ... because the Unitary Executive has the power of the purse.

And then for Bunny to post some nonsense. 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

Hope you enjoy waiting, 'cause it sounds pretty sus to me.

[Martinned]

Of course it is. How else is he supposed to pay for the purchase of Greenland?

[John F. Carr]

The executive order cites statutes allowing the President to regulate foreign trade in an emergency. If the money is in Qatar Trump can freeze it. If the money is in New York bank account in the name of a US person, or the US government, it is subject to ordinary US law rather than Presidential whims.

[Frank Drackman]

"45/47/(48?)" signed a Bill allowing Schools to serve Whole and 2% Milk along with the Skim Versions foisted on us by Mee-Chelle Osama.
Did everyone notice how well Mee-Chelle's plan worked? Jeez, the Kids today, they look like they just left Treblinka....
Gotta say, I was never a big Milk fan, probably goes back to Infancy, more Nicotine coming out of my Mom's (Redacted) than a Carton of Luckys...
And those awful cardboard cartons the Milk came in???? I would always try to trade mine for some of that healthy Kool Aid (Red 40 was my favorite, had 100% of the RDA of Benzene)

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Good on the administration for this.

I remember as a kid the kids first in line got the chocolate milks, then the whole milk and if you were unlucky and at the end you were stuck with that terrible pale blue carton of skim milk. Yuck.

[DDHarriman]

lol they didn't have that in Pakistan, pajeet. All pajeets do is lie.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In my town, McDonald’s relocated to across the street from the middle school. Just about every student now has a parent come pick them up at the end of the day and most every student goes across the street to McDonald’s for the lunch that the school didn’t serve.

Mothers feel guilty about working, and they do this to make the children happy. Please tell me how school lunches are healthy if they go into the trash and kids instead eat at McDonald’s?

[Bunny495]

Gotta say when I was a highschool student (graduate in 64) all the cool kids walked across the street to eat a grease burger at Kens.

[John F. Carr]

A coworker used to come to work with a healthy lunch made by his wife. He went out for fast food with me.

In other "across the street from a school" news, about 20 years ago school officials in southeastern Massachusetts were worried when they saw an ad for a bi male swingers party across the street from a school. These days they would organize a field trip so the little kids could get some sex ed liberal style. But in those days they were worried.

[Malika la Maize]

The price of beef has risen 16.4 percent over the last year. The price of coffee is up a whopping 19.8 percent. The price of lettuce is up 7.3 percent and frozen fish 8.6 percent.

Yet Mr. Trump continues to falsely claim otherwise. “Grocery prices are starting to go rapidly down,” he said Tuesday afternoon during a speech in Detroit. It’s not the first time that he has said food prices are down, even when data show they’re not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/14/business/food-prices-tariffs-trump.html

[Dr. Ed 2]

So your entire diet consists of those four items?!?

[Frank Drackman]

Other than the Lettuce that's actually not a bad choice.

[Bunny495]

RANT ALERT

The food items you mention (and many other food items) are not undifferenced commodities. I would say the majority of beef I see in stores is labeled as containing 20% salt water. Reading more closely it is not just salt water but also contains chemicals that break my food shopping rules that if I can't pronounce or spell an ingredient in food I won't buy it. This adding God knows to food and then what I consider mislabeling it (what is the difference between cheese and cheese in big letters and product below it in tiny letters, and why is starch/carbs added to cheese). I could go on but it should be clear that while the increased priced of processed foods is a fact there has been a much larger increase in real foods.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, I bow to no one in despising meat that's been pumped so full of water that when you start frying it, it turns to soup. 20% my eye. Including an absorbent pack underneath it that's a quarter of the package weight is just adding insult to injury.

But I assure you that you're going to have just as much trouble pronouncing the chemical names of all the compounds that make up perfectly unadulterated meat just ripped bleeding from the animal...

[not guilty]

Defense Secretary Prick Hegseth has announced:

[I]n response to Senator Mark Kelly’s seditious statements — and his pattern of reckless misconduct — the Department of War [sic] is taking administrative action against Captain Mark E. Kelly, USN (Ret). The department has initiated retirement grade determination proceedings under 10 U.S.C. § 1370(f), with reduction in his retired grade resulting in a corresponding reduction in retired pay.

* * *

These actions are based on Captain Kelly's public statements from June through December 2025 in which he characterized lawful military operations as illegal and counseled members of the Armed Forces to refuse lawful orders. This conduct was seditious in nature and violated Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to which Captain Kelly remains subject as a retired officer receiving pay.

https://x.com/SecWar/status/2008189258528665898?s=20 *

While the Secretary refers to 10 U.S.C. § 1370(f) relative tp a proposed reduction in Senator Kelly's retired grade resulting in a corresponding reduction in retired pay, I am doubtful that the statute can constitutionally be applied here.

The text of § 1370(f) reads:

(f) Finality of Retired Grade Determinations.—
(1)In general.—
Except for a conditional determination authorized by subsection (d), a determination of the retired grade of an officer pursuant to this section is administratively final on the day the officer is retired, and may not be reopened, except as provided in paragraph (2).
(2) Reopening.—A final determination of the retired grade of an officer may be reopened as follows:

(A) If the retirement or retired grade of the officer was procured by fraud.
(B) If substantial evidence comes to light after the retirement that could have led to determination of a different retired grade under this section if known by competent authority at the time of retirement.
(C) If a mistake of law or calculation was made in the determination of the retired grade.
(D) If the applicable Secretary determines, pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, that good cause exists to reopen the determination of retired grade.

Senator Kelly retired fifteen years ago from the Navy at the grade of Captain. That grade accordingly became administratively final on the day he retired.

None of the criteria of § 1370(f)(2), subsections (A), (B) or (C) would appear to arguably apply here. That leaves subsection (D), with the determination to be made by "the applicable Secretary", which here would be the Secretary of the Navy pursuant to § 1370(f)(3)(A).

In the context of civilian government employment, the Supreme Court has opined:

For at least a quarter-century, this Court has made clear that, even though a person has no "right" to a valuable governmental benefit, and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interest, especially his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to "produce a result which [it] could not command directly." Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 357 U.S. 526. Such interference with constitutional rights is impermissible.

To be sure, the First Amendment can be applied differently in the military context because of its distinctive character and purpose. Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974):
While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections. The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it.
Id., at 758.

The Supreme Court to date has not addressed the First Amendment rights of free speech and expression of military retirees. While "[t]here is a wide range of the conduct of military personnel to which Arts. 133 and 134 may be applied without infringement of the First Amendment", id., at 760, Senator Kelly's anodyne remarks in the subject video are not among them.

Senator Kelly has sought declaratory and injunctive relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, raising First Amendment concerns among multiple other claims. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/mark-kelly-hegseth-demotion-lawsuit.pdf That should be an ideal vehicle for eventual SCOTUS review.
__________________________
* I regard it as noteworthy that Secretary Hegseth here is not threatening court martial proceedings -- whereby Senator Kelly would be entitled to procedural protections including the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. See, e.g., United States v. Bench, 82 M.J. 388 (C.A.A.F. 2022):

The confrontation right is a procedural guarantee that ensures that any testimony presented to a jury be tested through “the crucible of cross-examination.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 61, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). The essential elements of the confrontation right require that the accused have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, that the witness take an oath to tell the truth, and that the jury be able to observe the witness's demeanor. Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 851, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990).

In the words of Dean John Henry Wigmore, cross-examination is “beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” 3 Wigmore, Evidence §1367, p. 27 (2d ed. 1923). The last thing that President Bone Spurs Chickenhawk and Secretary Hegseth would want is for Captain/Senator Kelly to call them to the stand as adverse witnesses.

[Malika la Maize]

Among the many culture war policies Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has pursued, there is one goal that has so far officially eluded his grasp: changing the name of the Department of Defense to the “Department of War.”

Doing so, however, would cost taxpayers as much as $125 million, according to a new report released by the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday.

To date, Congress has declined to take up the cause Mr. Hegseth has championed. That legislative body would need to write and pass a law making the name change official and legally binding.

The report noted that the Pentagon, which is led by Mr. Hegseth, refused to respond to the congressional office’s queries about how much money the department had already spent — and intended to spend in the future — pursuing the name change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/14/us/defense-department-name-change.html

[grb]

Sure, but changing the name makes Petey feel much more secure about his man-parts. What's $125 million in comparison to that?

[not guilty]

Do you suppose he is sensitive about being named Peter?

[Frank Drackman]

Just pretend it's the Funk-a-delic Group "War" and it's pretty cool.
C'mon (Man!) "Cisco Kid"???, "Lowrider"???
"Why Can't We Be Friends??"?? (played by NASA as "Wake Up Music" for the Soviet-Amurican Crew of the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz Mission)
and to show you what Bull Shit the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is, they've been rejected Twice! Twice! sort of like Hillary Rodman was. The friggin BEE GEE's are in (whatever they were, it wasn't "Rock and Roll") but not "War"??? Oh the Humanity!!!!

Frank

[DDHarriman]

So an interesting theory is brewing that has some real legs. The rise of AWFLs out there confronting bug burly masculine federal officers is due to some pyschosexual drama. Leftist men have become such limp wristed faggots that these women are driven to big husky handsome conservative law enforcement.

It makes sense. You can see it in their eyes.

Lesson for you? If you're a Democrat? Cut out the oat and soy milks, eat some beef and stopping being such sensitive queers.

[grb]

Get help.

[DDHarriman]

Okay, I’ll just say it. I’ve seen enough videos of the faces of liberal white women in conflict with @ICE, to know what is up. Liberal men at this point (sorry) are disproportionately estrogenized, physically passive, submissive due to woke gender hectoring, or porn-addicted. White liberal women are disproportionately sexually frustrated. Policing others as in the pandemic was an outlet for them, but it was not nearly enough. The smiles you see on their faces now say it all: white women long for all out combat with ICE - who tend to be strong, physically confident, masculine men - because the conflict is a form of physical release for them. They long for actual kinetic battle and it will get even uglier.

https://x.com/i/status/2009760622427418921

Now you've had two Dr's tell you these AWFL bitches are in desperate need of a Good, hard, fucking. Good - get it?

[hobie]

In the Orange-Is-The-New-Black department, looks like AWFL is 2026's 'antisemitic terrorist' label.

I don't think the hayseeds should give up just yet on 'antisemitic terrorist'. It still has some legs, in my opinion

[DDHarriman]

The only people I ever call 'antisemitic' are those modern, genetic Cannaanites who culturally appropriated Hebrew and Israel. What they call "Hebrew" today was invented in the late 1900s.

Get it right, Revolutionary Comrade.

[Frank Drackman]

Actually, under "Christian Identity" Theory, YOU'RE the "Real" Jew, and I'm just an Imposter.
Seriously, that's what they believe.

Frank

[hobie]

I think this blog is restricted, Frankie, so don't tell 'em you're Jewish. Okay?! Fine.

[DDHarriman]

If you're genetically Canaanite, you 're not a descended from the Hebrews of old.

You're a Canaanite culturally appropriating them.

[Magister]

"Antisemitic terrorist" has the problem that it's historically a right wing thing, so they went to their focus groups for a new branding.

[jb]

DDHarriman, foiled by facts again:

79% of Republican men would have sex with a Democrat, but only 38% of Democratic women would have sex with a Republican...

Republican couples struggle with ED more than Democratic couples

[DDHarriman]

Reddit Scientism!

[Sarcastr0]

H.H.S. Reverses Decision to Cut $2 Billion for Mental Health and Addiction Services
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/14/health/samhsa-funding-cuts.html

Better than if they kept the cuts, but this admin is so much of a chaos factory for no value-add.

[DDHarriman]

Rep. Jayapal (D): "This country was built by Somalis, Indians, Latinos, Africans."

It's bad enough your side doesn't know what a "woman", but this takes the cake.

[Frank Drackman]

Get it right, it's Representative Slap-a-Jap

[Frank Drackman]

Listen to quite a few Joe Rogan's Interviews (2+ hours with Rand Paul and not one question about the hair?) finally saw what he looked like.
The lilting plaintive voice does NOT go with the Head, and does he know he doesn't have a Neck? (any "Rocky Horror" fans out there?) Of course he openly admits to using HCG/Steroids, so I expect the Jupiter sized Head, but WTF is up with the voice??

Frank

[hobie]

Back in 1999 I saw Rogan at a little comedy club in Houston. As a comedian he absolutely killed.

[Frank Drackman]

That effeminate voice coming out of that huge Bald Head? I'm laughing just imagining it.

[DDHarriman]

https://www.frontpagemag.com/did-a-minneapolis-daycare-fraudster-become-a-somali-senator/

Holy moly Democrats can't govern.

[DDHarriman]

How dangerous is it now for federal agents now that foreign insurgents broke into their weapons locker and stole their weapons and operational documents?

Will we so hobies foreign socialist revolutionary party use these documents to ambush and kill federal officers? Will Democrat officials like Walz use these like he's threatened too?

[Martinned]

Who knows? Maybe those ICE guys will be so afraid that they go back to their mothers' basements.

[Frank Drackman]

Said by someone who's literally from a nation of cowards who hid in their mothers basements.

[hobie]

You and Harriman make a cute couple, Frankie.

[Frank Drackman]

Jealousy doesn't go well with your Prison Orange Reverend.

[DDHarriman]

What is the word to describe when violence and threats of violence against people or federal agents cause policy changes or other changes?

[Martinned]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Put up or shut up.

[Frank Drackman]

Same thing Nicolae Ceaușescu said to the Court (and the Firing Squad)

[Martinned]

The occupation continues:

Non-protesting dad just trying to hustle his kids, as young as 6mo, out of the neighborhood. ICE threw a flash-bang INTO HIS car, all 6 kids in the hospital now.

If anyone wondered how things turn against occupying armies there's a case study playing out in front of you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Got a source for that?

[Martinned]

Yes. (As you can tell from the fact that I put the thing in blockquote.)

[Brett Bellmore]

What we can see is that you didn't put in a link.

Looks to me like an anti-ICE riot was getting violent. But if I'm reading the transcript right, it was actually state troopers flinging the flashbangs.

[grb]

How about this one? Remember, there are dozens of incidents of thuggish goon behavior from ICE every single day. That's what happens when an ill-trained lawless invading army is led by freaks like Trump, Noem, and Bovino.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2833900056799650/posts/3012306092292378/

[ThePublius]

And there are no incidents of thuggish goon behavior on the part of the 'protesters,' resisters? Like they didn't beat an agent with a broom stick and a shovel and put him in the hospital yesterday?

Your selective outrage is sickening.

[hobie]

"Your selective outrage is sickening."

[Martinned]

Yes, being attacked with a broom stick is definitely a good reason to shoot someone dead.

Could you be any more authoritarian?

[hobie]

Their principles and stances change by the day, Martin. It's hard to keep up.

[Martinned]

So many incels rooting for a civil war, so that they can own the libs once and for all. Look at this mess:

If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State. Thank you for you attention to this matter! President DJT

If anyone knows who those "many Presidents" are, I'd be grateful to know. It seems to me that the senile old fool is spending too much time with Stephen Miller and his ilk.

[Brett Bellmore]

Don't care to admit that your flashbang was actually thrown by state troopers?

[ThePublius]

He didn't shoot anyone dead. He shot one attacker in the leg. And, yes, if you are subjected to potentially deadly physical force you have every right to use deadly physical force to protect yourself. It was three guys who ganged up on him, one with a broomstick and another with a shovel. Let's see how long you can take being beaten with a broomstick. Get a fucking brain.

[Mr. Bumble]

Martinned is still suffering from the excesses of his holiday.

[ThePublius]

I can tell you that if three guys jump me, one with a shovel and another with a broomstick, when it's over they're going to need three body bags, none of which are for me.

[ThePublius]

ST. PAUL, Minn. — The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a broom handle can be a dangerous weapon, as in this case, when a man broke a broom over his girlfriend’s head. Further, the lower court is allowed to convict the man of both second-degree assault and domestic assault, even though both convictions arose from this one act.

[Martinned]

What does that have to do with anything? Did anyone dispute that a broom handle could be a "dangerous weapon"?

[ThePublius]

Yes, YOU DID, when you attempted to minimize it and ridicule the concept when you sarcastically said "Yes, being attacked with a broom stick is definitely a good reason to shoot someone dead."

[Frank Drackman]

Ask Linda Blair how dangerous (or pleasurable) a Broomstick can be,

[David Nieporent]

Your selective outrage is sickening.

Setting aside these specific instances, your argument is misplaced. Different situations merit different reactions. It's not at all "sickening" to find violence by the government to be worse than violence by private individuals.

[David Nieporent]

Like they didn't beat an agent with a broom stick and a shovel and put him in the hospital yesterday?

Doubtful.

[Mr. Bumble]

Mr. Magic 8 Ball speaks.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, the United States of Amurica.

[OpinionsVary]

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/15/world/europe-troops-greenland-trump-nato-intl-hnk

So France, Germany, Sweden and Norway have or soon will send troops to Greenland. Others might follow. The goal seems to be a show of commitment but I suspect a key secondary purpose is to be trip wire troops.

This deployment can't stop Trump if he deploys the US military in force (I don't think any feasible deployment could, that close to the US mainland) but if Trump needs to kill not just Danish troops during a military take over but Norwegian, Swedish, German and, perhaps most importantly, nuclear armed France, that makes it far harder for US pressure to force Denmark to bow its head and accept a fait accompli in the aftermath of any invasion. He'd need to bow them all, which is a harder task.

Under trip wire theory, you use a symbolic force to pre-commit yourself to a larger response in the hope that your opponents, knowing of the larger response, will hold back. US troops in West Berlin are an example here. Completely surrounded, the USSR could have taken the city whenever they wanted. If there were no allied troops in the city, they might have gambled, took the city and wagered NATO wouldn't risk WW3 over just west Berlin. But by having US troops in the city, any USSR take over would involve killing US troops, which would mandate a harsh response - precommiting NATO to action. And so the USSR didn't.

But the question, does Trump and Vance actually care? Vance in particular might see the completely alienation of the European side of NATO as a plus. Even with dead trip wire troops, my guess is there still wouldn't be a hot war but it would guarantee a massive geopolitical rift.

[SRG2]

The Putin-supporting cultists here, which is to say, almost all of the cultists, must be very happy with this escalation. Anything which threatens NATO would be regarded by them as a good thing.

[DDHarriman]

They're so committed they are sending 20 advisors from all of EU!! 13 from one country!

SHOW OF FORCE!!!

[DDHarriman]

There are plenty of uniformed European military in the Ukraine being killed by Russia now and nothing is happening.

[ducksalad]

You are right it's a trip wire. However, the deterrent isn't just breaking up NATO. Potential actions if the US went in and shot a bunch of European troops could include expelling US bases, rounding up US intelligence agents and charging them with espionage, and seizure of US assets.

But....I don't think any of that is the main deterrent. What they are hoping is that the spectacle of US troops being sent off to attack (let's be frank) white democracies would cause a critical number of US congressmen to say enough is enough, and that Trump fears that scenario.

[Swede425]

LOL!
Sorry Ukraine!
Europe has other priorities.
Now, and forever.

[OpinionsVary]

Europe doesn't want to have other priorities but its not Europe who's threatening to invade the territory a NATO ally here.

[Swede425]

"Other priorities"?
Ukraine isn't a priority for Europe.
Strongly worded letters aside, the 420 million people of the EU are doing jack-shit about the war in their backyard.
I mean other than trying to get the US to fight it for them.
Pathetic.

[David Nieporent]

Strongly worded letters aside, the 420 million people of the EU are doing jack-shit about the war in their backyard.

The EU has provided far more support to Ukraine since the invasion than the U.S. has.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Far more"? Got a cite or just your vibes.

[OpinionsVary]

Ukraine Aid Tracker has it at 188 billion from Europe (it doesn't have a EU break down on that chart and a lot of the support will be from the member state rather than EU level) vs 114 for the US. That does include both economic aid and direct military aid, though.

https://www.kielinstitut.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks. A lot to digest especially in the breakdown of types of aid (military vs financial).

[David Nieporent]

(it doesn't have a EU break down on that chart and a lot of the support will be from the member state rather than EU level

Yes; to be clear I meant from EU constituent countries, not from the EU as an institution.

Although i suppose in fact in my head I really just meant "European sources," without distinguishing, and also including the UK.

[Martinned]

It's almost as if the US Regime is trying to help its friends in the Kremlin by opening a second front against Europe.

[Swede425]

LOL!
20 European advisors and they'll already be overextended on the "second front".

[Martinned]

Useful comment from a German military type on social media:

@gepardtatze

Because I read a lot of stupid things about the small numbers of soldiers the Europans send to Greenland.

What non military people do not understand, these small numbers of Soldiers going to #Greenland are a group that goes ahead to prepare for the main body. They are called "Military Strategic Information Gathering Teams." They are used by military-strategic headquarters, laying the groundwork for potential military operations and supporting the initial planning process. For example: collecting information and data on the future area of operation (AOO), including important infrastructure (e.g., APOD, SPOD, etc.) local conditions and troop preparations like Air and Missile Defence, Force Protection, Supply, Medical etc. They are extensively prepared to ensure readiness for rapid deployment to a crisis area upon activation.

[John 4]

He had internal bleeding!

Dear God, MAGA is the most embarrassingly gullible group, aren’t they, folks?

[hobie]

Remember when Rodney Dangerfield in Caddyshack was trying to get out of playing? So when a ball hit his arm, he thinks about it for a second, looks around desperately, then starts flailing his 'broken' arm wildly saying, 'Ow! My arm!'

[ThePublius]

And you guys went from saying he wasn't hit to O.K., he was hit but wasn't injured, to well, his injuries didn't really happen. And you call MAGA gullible?

[loki13]

The reason this administration is able to lie with impunity, is because they know it works.

And it works because there are those who are looking to hear what they want to believe. It doesn't matter what their lying eyes and ears tell them.

[Sarcastr0]

It works with the people this admin cares about.

But they're like 1 third of the population.

They keep seeing their insane base wild with approval, and pushing farther and farther.

But that's not actually America.

[loki13]

True. But what bothers me is the media that continues to uncritically report the administration's lies as if this was a normal administration and it should be given the respect and credence of a normal administration.

For example, in any story involving ICE that McLaughlin issues a statement, it should be placed at the bottom, and with a clarifier that her statements have repeatedly been found to be untrue.

Now, maybe this shouldn't be needed. Most people can read her statements and see that they are pure 1984-style propaganda. But it needs to be called out each time. Why report lies when you know the person has lied before. I don't recall our media saying, "Hey, this is what Baghdad Bob is saying, and we are going to accept this as the truth because he's right about things most of the time and an official spokesman!"

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, MAGA will be punished electorally but nearly how they should be.

That sucks.

I'm spending more of my time thinking about the post-Trump era.

How to build anew. Not rebuild; everything is too wrecked for that. But we will have something like a blank canvas and a ton of lessons learned to build institutions, penalties, and guardrails.

We'll probably never be the leader of the free world again, but other countries have managed imperial declines before. I just wish ours wasn't so needlessly accelerated.

The media being so soft is something I'm not sure America can top-down change. But the media's having its own existential struggles itself.

[loki13]

I am less confident than you. The Trump/Miller axis is doing everything possible to push the Overton window before the midterms; did you think that we would have a heavily-militarized federal police force terrorizing a major American city this soon?

I think things will get much worse ... because either the Courts will not sufficiently check this, or... they will try, and be ignored. And at that point, you have to wonder if there will start to be major confrontations between citizens and state LEO and federal thugs start to play out.

Roberts will forever be remembered for his immunity decision, because everything (IMO) can be traced back to that. It's the real difference between Trump I and II.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll concede the last week has moved probabilities closer to your prediction than mine.

Though the more optimistic takes I hear note how many resources it's taken to lock down just one city for a brief period of time.

[loki13]

Sure. But we also see Trump talking about the insurrection act and not needing midterm elections.

Almost like he can brutally attack citizens, lie about it, and use his own brutality and lies to escalate the violence and allow him to further federalize and militarize suppression of dissent and allow him to avoid midterms.

[Stephen Lathrop]

. . . did you think that we would have a heavily-militarized federal police force terrorizing a major American city this soon?

Not addressed to me, but I did say exactly that. Predicted that it would happen much sooner than the onset of serious election campaigning, to get Americans accustomed to tyrannical moves still in store for the actual election.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I'm spending more of my time thinking about the post-Trump era."

We've already been to the post-Trump era, and you guys fucked it up so bad that they brought the Trump era back.

And it was done with a just few egregious unforced errors that you supported as part of your knee-jerk support of Biden.

[Sarcastr0]

Hush now. You're being a petulant child.

[Swede425]

Absolutely.
Biden fucked it up so bad, the Democrats are the one's who got rid of him.
And tried to replace him with Word Salad and Elmer Fraud!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I appreciated when a NYT article on the latest shooting had this:

"The federal government’s narrative could not immediately be verified."

Narrative. Yes. https://archive.ph/dfJh1

Yes, a report about something that Jon Lovitz's "lying guy" character said should include a reference to his character.

[Sarcastr0]

MN has the castle doctrine.

Popehat:
“ Sure seems like ICE is gping into a violence spiral in MN. They act out, people monitor and protest, they get madder and more agitated, people monitor and protest more.

They‘re going to kill more people, administration’s going to congratulate and encourage more, they’re gonna kill MORE people.”

I’m not nearly as assured as he is this will end in a lot of killings, but there’s a ton of risk. Unnecessary risk.

And the terror tactics being used are indefensible. That some on here are so *eagerly* committed to denying and defending such things is just a sad commentary on the American right.

[ThePublius]

And not a word about the organized, funded, and trained agitators harassing, impeding, and attacking - yes, attacking - federal agents trying to do their jobs. Like it's all one-sided, right? Just yesterday an agent was attacked by a fleeing suspect and two bystanders, struck with a broomstick and shovel, and hospitalized.

If the agitators weren't violent, there would be no violence. Agents have to protect themselves.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not all one sided, but ICE is the one killing people. They are the one stealing cars and taking babies. They are the ones holding native American hostages. They are the ones breaking into cars for no reason. They are the one going after bystanders. The are the ones threatening people filming them. Brandishing their firearms. Arresting random citizens and then letting them go. They are the ones going door to door.

When I say terror tactics, that's what I mean.

You only read deceitful rags like Powerline and don't much like searching for stuff, so I presume a lot of this is stuff you've never heard of and will declare are lies.

Buddy, it's all on tape. If you cared to Google. Or check the AP. But you won't. You're both lazy and committed to the bit.

struck with a broomstick and shovel
BROOM STICK INSURECTIONS ARE THE MOST DANGEROUS.

You are a clown.

[ThePublius]

You're a dick.

No one stole a car.

No one 'took' a baby. They cared for it.

They are not going after bystanders, the 'bystanders' are going after them! Look up MN ICE Watch.

A broom stick can be a deadly weapon. The MN Supreme Court has ruled on this.

You're apparently opposed to detaining and deporting illegal immigrants. And a supported of people violently interfering with ICE agents doing their job.

[John 4]

As an American, I’d rather be an asshole than a pathetic, bootlicking apologist who revels in militarized troops marching through our streets.

YMMV

[ThePublius]

Suggest another way of removing illegal immigrants.

[jb]

You mean like when Obama was deporting more people than Trump?

Also, M L suggested the obvious fix in yesterday's open thread: go after employers. Most immigrants are here for economic opportunities, so if you cut those off they'd be much less likely to come or stick around.

And even if you're right and this is the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to remove illegal immigrants, that's still not an argument in favor of violating the Constitution. A Democratic President might think the only possible way of providing universal health care would be to nationalize all the hospitals, but that wouldn't actually make it okay to do so.

[ThePublius]

This is Minnesota. I'll bet most of the detainees don't work, are on welfare of various kinds. So, cut off their welfare? O.K., I'm in favor of that. Maybe they'll then just go to Maine or Ohio of California. Whack a mole.

[jb]

This is Minnesota. I'll bet most of the detainees don't work, are on welfare of various kinds.

That's because you continue to fundamentally misunderstand how the welfare system in the US works.

Here's some actual data, though:

the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimated Minnesota's immigrant population without documentation at 81,000 people using 2019 American Community Survey and Department of Homeland Security data, which matches closely with the Pew Research Center estimates for that same year...

According to MPI, the age distribution shows a predominantly working-age population, with 88% of undocumented immigrants between the ages of 16 and 54, compared to only about 50% of the state's total population...

The Pew Research Center estimated that there may be 70,000 unauthorized immigrants in Minnesota's labor force in 2022, which would be as much as 2.2% of the state's total labor force (3.1 million workers)

Doing the math, that means essentially all of the working-age undocumented immigrants have jobs (70K out of 71K). That ratio is probably a bit overstated because some of the jobs are probably held by people outside of the 16-54 age range, but nonetheless the vast majority of them are working.

[ThePublius]

I don't buy it. Maybe the 'work' for those daycare centers (without kids) and transportation companies (who don't transport anyone).

[jb]

It must be comforting to live in a world in which, confronted with data that contradicts your opinion and politics, you can just shrug it off. It can't possibly be the case that you were wrong, it must be all of the people studying the topic!

FWIW, I'll make note of two things: (1) the studies actually note what sectors the jobs are in so you don't need to speculate about that either, and (2) despite all of the hullabaloo about Somalis, most of the undocumented immigrants in Minnesota aren't from Africa.

[Swede425]

LOL!
That was back when CNN LOVED ICE.
Of course, that was when Black Jesus was the executive.
His fan bois mostly behaved.
Now they're all like "muh fascism!".

[ThePublius]

Exactly.

[SRG2]

No one stole a car.

They took it without legal authority. Certainly you have not provided any evidence for such authority.

No one 'took' a baby. They cared for it.

A kidnapper may well care for his victim. It's not a defence to the actual charge.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Seems like the guy making the accusations of theft should provide the evidence of lack of authority.

[John 4]

That you believe that logic makes the least bit of sense is very telling.

[SRG2]

It is unquestioned that the car was driven off without the owner's consent. That is the very definition of theft. Hence to claim that there was no theft requires the claimant to show that there were reasons - such as having legal authority - permitting the taking of the car.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that is NOT the very definition of theft, or else every time an illegally parked car gets towed you'd be looking at theft.

"Hence to claim that there was no theft requires the claimant to show that there were reasons - such as having legal authority - permitting the taking of the car."

And, the driver being under arrest, and the car being in an illegal location to leave it parked, completely fulfills that demand. As people keep pointing out to you.

[loki13]

Brettlaw strikes again!

See, police officers routinely drive off in people's cars, because that's just like towing the cars. That's why we see it all the time!

It's totally not theft. It's towing! Just without an authorized towing company, or authority.

Just like ICE Agents stealing people phones and selling them is not theft, it's ... what's the Brettlaw explanation for it .... um, an authorized bailment and release with costs and fees reimbursed under Brett Statutory Authority!

[SRG2]

r else every time an illegally parked car gets towed you'd be looking at theft.

It is, absent any legal authority for the tow.

the driver being under arrest, and the car being in an illegal location to leave it parked, completely fulfills that demand. As people keep pointing out to you.

They keep making that claim. But merely because a driver of a car is under arrest and the car is allegedly illegally parked does not mean that any agent of the government has the authority to drive the car away, and we can be pretty sure that in this case they have not, else you or someone else would have provided chapter and verse to show it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

From a news article:

In the criminal complaint against Quinonez, federal officials said that as they were preparing to leave the area, they saw him put the hammer in the trunk of his SUV and allegedly spotted him throwing objects that looked like rocks at their vehicle.

The agents then used their vehicles to box the SUV in to prevent him from leaving, at which time Quinonez got out of his car and began yelling that he had his daughter in the back seat.

In the complaint, agents said that a crowd began to gather, prompting them to move Quinonez and his daughter to a different location in an attempt to keep them together, but one of the agents spotted a handgun wrapped in a blue bandana as he was putting the child’s father into the seat of his SUV.

So they had authority to seize the vehicle and its occupants due to the rock throwing. Is there any authority that moving a vehicle during a seizure is unreasonable under these circumstances?

[SRG2]

So they had authority to seize the vehicle and its occupants due to the rock throwing.

The article doesn't say that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'm not relying on the article. They had probable cause to stop the vehicle because they saw the occupant of the vehicle committing a crime that they had the authority to enforce.

[SRG2]

They had probable cause to stop the vehicle

That doesn't give them the authority to restart it, of course.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

They didn't "take" the baby. Note the quotes. They seem to suggest a special meaning. Know your Alice.

[ThePublius]

You're just being belligerently contrary. The driver was arrested. So, what to do with the car? Move it out of the way. No one stole it; that would require the agents asserting that they possessed it now, which they did not. No one kidnapped the baby. They had to take it and care for it since the dad was in custody. They turned it over to the family. No one was asked for a ransom.

What would you suggest they do, which wouldn't amount in your twisted mind to not stealing and kidnapping? I mean, tell me. Dad arrested, and now a car and a child remain on the scene. Now what, in your view, should they have done?

Geez.

[Brett Bellmore]

Unarrested him, I suspect.

[ThePublius]

I'm serious, SRG2, tell us what should have been done that wouldn't be car theft and kidnapping in your view?

[SRG2]

Call the local police and stay put until they arrive. Possibly call the baby's mother to come and collect the child - or ask the man who else can come and take the baby. You know, common sense such as one doesn't find in Brownshirts.

[ThePublius]

They delivered the baby to the family. THe local police haven't been cooperating with ICE. Meanwhile they probably had to move the car ASAP.

[SRG2]

Ah, so it's a defence to kidnapping that you eventually return the kid who was napped.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m not opposed to detaining and deporting illegal immigrants.

What’s currently going on has nothing to do with that.

It’s just a reign of terror.

Even you have to see that they’re not picking up illegal anymore.

[grb]

Sarcastr0 : "They are the one going after bystanders."

They are indeed. Yesterday I saw three or four videos of Kavanaugh Stops, with the goons randomly rousting people walking down the street. Picture a thug in black or field-grey, perhaps with the Totenkopf on the collar. "Show me zee papers", he hisses (though not in the original German). If you are properly docile and obedient to the occupation troops, into the van you go.

I really admire this woman, who stands up for her rights with real dignity. "I don't need an ID to walk around here in my own city."

https://www.facebook.com/nicholesvalencia/videos/a-woman-who-says-she-is-a-us-citizen-is-stopped-and-harassed-by-at-least-three-m/1808779903166275/

Of course all the rightwing (good-German) bootlickers here will scorn her because she didn't drop to her knees like they would in her situation.

But what am I saying? Someone like (say) ThePublius has an easy time insisting on her meek subservience because he knows it's only required of people with black or brown skin. Kinda easy for him to say, "Constitution; we don't need no stink'n Constitution" because he's not in the target crosshairs.

(Note : There is one - and only one - upside to this constant lawlessness. By accounts I've read, Kavanaugh has started to get nervous about his newfound place in history. Apparently having anti-constitution abuse named after you isn't all it cracked-up to be)

[Sarcastr0]

They're going after white randos as well, so long as they're by themselves. Which is not a good sign.

[Absaroka]

I agree that looks really bad. If you have sufficient cause to detain someone, detain them. But just demanding ID of random pedestrians isn't OK.

I recall a young man interviewed during the NYC stop-n-frisk era. A good kid unfortunate enough to live in a bad neighborhood. He said by the time he graduated from high school he had done the up-against-the-wall drill several times. That's how you alienate a population enough that nobody sees nuthin' when a crime happens. Policing has a lot of similarity with counter-insurgency; pissing off the population isn't how you succeed at either.

As long as I'm on my soapbox, this is why you never ever want quotas in policing. Hassling people walking down the street or giving tickets for stopping 12 inches too far past a stop sign is counterproductive. This is a democracy, and people get to vote. Acting like an occupying army makes them not vote for you, potentially for a long time.

[David Nieporent]

If the agitators weren't violent, there would be no violence. Agents have to protect themselves.

If the agents weren't there, there would be no violence. Your claim that "agitators" are causing violence — the same thing your ilk said in the 1960s about the civil rights movement — is belied by the fact that ICE is attacking people everywhere.

[Mr. Bumble]

If MN state and local police don't start doing their job expect Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act.

[David Nieporent]

start doing their job

You mean, arresting ICE agents who are guilty of assault?

[Mr. Bumble]

"... arresting ICE agents who are guilty of assault?"
No, restoring public safety by controlling "mostly peaceful rioters"

[David Nieporent]

mostly peaceful rioters

Yes, that's who I meant by "ICE agents."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Popehat supports abolishing ICE, using a somewhat disgusting metaphor about a plate of food with a cockroach. Do you eat around the cockroach, or demand a new plate of food?

[loki13]

There was a great article just published about how a left-wing journalist was hired by ICE, despite not bothering to complete the paperwork for the background check, etc. Showing that ICE doesn't care, at all, who they hire (which has been shown elsewhere ... as they have hired numerous neo- and flat-out Nazis).

The administration, of course, immediately lied and said, "We didn't hire her."

So she posted the receipts. As if she needed to bother. Of course the administration lied. Because ... they lie, they lie, they lie. The only people that believe them, at this point, are the bootlickers.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/anti-ice-reporter-drops-proof-145019148.html

[David Nieporent]

The MAGA fallback position was "Acksually, she was only hired for a secretarial position, not a position as agent." Trouble is, she proved that wasn't true also.

[hobie]

https://photos.app.goo.gl/PYrPMiFXszN6c58JA

Shanghai braised pork belly.

Pretty easy to make. Brown the pork cubes then boil for an hour in light soy, dark soy, sugar and shaoxing wine. After an hour the sauce will be reduced and mahogany.

Also, you need to be getting your herbs, greens and porkbellies at a Chinese grocer. Super fresh and super great prices.

[Brett Bellmore]

AKA "Red cooked pork". A favorite of mine. I like throwing in some water chestnuts, though, for the crunch.

[hobie]

Red cooked pork being the other name for this dish. Very impressive, Brett.

[John F. Carr]

If we're talking about 红烧肉 I hear it called "red roasted pork" in English. Wikipedia editors chose yet another name, red braised pork belly.

[SRG2]

Slice thin and serve atop fried rice, correct?

[Mr. Bumble]

Not familiar with the dish, but hobie's recipe calls for cutting the pork into cubes. How and why do you slice cubes thin?

[Frank Drackman]

Good point, like how does one "Stand Fast"???
I can read fast, run (fairly) fast, eat fast, drink fast,
But try as I can, I can't "Stand Fast"
I just sort of stand there.

Frank

[ThePublius]

2. so as to be hard to move; securely.
"the ship was held fast by the anchor chain"

[Brett Bellmore]

No, not sliced thin. It's cut into bite sized pieces before you cook it...

On a side note, I never understood why the traditional Chinese recipe I had for it called for dunking the meat in boiling water, then throwing the water away, until I visited a 3rd world wet market.

It's to kill the maggots! That boy standing there with a switch isn't accomplishing squat.

[hobie]

It's to get rid of 'impuities'. Also makes broths clear. In the West were conditioned to cherish all the blood coagulants because that's part of the flavor. But in Southeast Asia they don't want none of it. And, yes, I parboiled and rinsed my pork chunks like a good Chinaman.

[SRG2]

It may also help render the fat - like putting a duck or goose in boiling water the day before you roast them.

[ThePublius]

Is that like brining, or something else?

[SRG2]

Something else,

You take the water off the boil, put the bird in, and let it cool down. Once it's cooled to room temperature, remove the bird, pat dry and store in a cool place overnight.

[Jmaie]

I was told the boiling water was to tighten the bird's skin...

[SRG2]

I suspect that happens as well.

[SRG2]

In London, whenever I had red cooked pork it hadn't been diced before cooking and was then sliced thin. I don't recall what it was like in HK as I was eating so much of everything. 🙂

[lal]

Good afternoon! Question. Is there any indication that this blog, Volokh Conspiracy, has swayed any SCOTUS thinking? Maybe an anecdotal sway? It is obvious that it does not seem to be on the Ninth’s Circuit required reading list! Or am I out to lunch?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll toot his horn for him: The Papers of Eugene Volokh

"He is among the five most cited then-under-45 faculty members listed in the Top 25 Law Faculties in Scholarly Impact, 2005-2009 study, and among the forty most cited faculty members on that list without regard to age. These citation counts refer to citations in law review articles, but his works have also been cited by courts. Six of his law review articles have been cited by opinions of the Supreme Court Justices; twenty-nine of his works (mostly articles but also a textbook, an op-ed, and a blog post) have been cited by federal circuit courts; and several others have been cited by district courts or state courts."

[Bunny495]

No question EV is a real mover and shaker. For some peeps with intuitional memory this goes back to Cyberia and PGP.

[hobie]

We only have one influencer on the VC: Josh Blackman. Self-described as 'America's Thought Leader™'.

Blackman has provided many photos of himself schmoozing around at legal events. I suspect it is there that Blackman deploys his revanchist form of MAGAism. According to Blackman, they all listen to him.

[Voize of Reazon]

He should change his label to 'The World's Foremost Authority", that position has been open since the passing of Professor Irwin Corey.

[Krayt]

This blog long ago observed it was read by movers and shakers, including justices. And certainly talking heads looking for a new take.

It's not an echo chamber regurgitation forum, though it certainly contains plenty of that.

It's a place that injects ideas into echo chambers. I've had at least two unique ideas I came up with (afaik) be used by talking heads days later, and I rarely watch such shows since Kennedy was canceled, and not at all since I cut the cord several years ago.

I also pointed out the hidden math and motivations behind the knock him off the ballot movement, that if they could just get one or two purple states to do it, it was all over, since Trump needed 'em all for any chance.

In the SC case, a justice asked if it was proper a single state could thusly decide for the nation. Coincidence? Maybe. I'd hate to think I was the only one who could figure this out.

[CindyF]

Meanwhile..... LOL!

A federal appeals panel on Thursday reversed a lower court decision that released former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil from an immigration jail, bringing the government one step closer to detaining and ultimately deporting the Palestinian activist.

A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia instructed the lower court to dismiss Khalil’s habeas petition, a court filing that secured his release. The panel ruled that the federal district court in New Jersey did not have jurisdiction over the matter because immigration challenges are handled differently under the law.

The 2-1 ruling concluded that Khalil needed to channel his complaint through immigration courts and ultimately to the court of appeals — the standard process for immigration challenges — rather than take a habeas petition to district court.

https://apnews.com/article/mahmoud-khalil-protester-immigration-appeals-court-deportation-2b6d321d5157632412a82fba14eb3bd4

[John F. Carr]

I do not see the decision on the court's web site.

[John F. Carr]

The order but not the opinion is on the District Court docket at

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69757814/khalil-v-joyce/?page=3

[John F. Carr]

Reuters has a copy.

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/klvyjojqopg/01152026khalil.pdf

Khalil has to exhaust administrative remedies then seek review of a final order of removal in an Appeals Court, which would likely be the Third Circuit.

[Martinned]

That's alright. I'm sure having the right to habeas corpus isn't really a very important for anything.

[John F. Carr]

Blame the Supreme Court for not having a majority opinion in Jennings v. Rodriguez. The Supreme Court split 3-3-3 when it ruled the Ninth Circuit erred in requiring a bond hearing after an alien is detained for six months.

[Frank Drackman]

Only been 2 days, but I miss "Coffee with Scott Adams" Dude did a daily Podcast right to the end. He and Ann Coulter were about the only ones who said Trump would win in 2015.

Frank

[SRG2]

My edit of a Dilbert strip

[loki13]

Helpful article-

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/minnesota-can-prosecute-jonathan-ross-but-it-may-not-be-easy

Legal framework for state prosecution of Ross, and possible issues and what evidence / hurdles will exist.

Notes-
1. As usual, the administration lies. I particularly enjoyed the reference to the state prosecution of an FBI agent involved in Ruby Ridge.

2. The article sidesteps the issue of whether or not these Ice Agents can be considered "peace officers" under Minnesota law; if you've looked around, it's pretty obvious that they are not under the Minnesota statutes.

3. One of the main issues is the administration's refusal to share any information; while the state might be able to get enough other information to proceed, it might also be the case that there is just not enough evidence under this administration.

Anyway, I recommend reading it if you want to understand the legal framework. HA! Who am I kidding. Most of you don't care.

[Bunny495]

ding the article is a waste of time. Comparing a state charging a local LEO to charging a federal LEO in the second paragraph shows how much of a hit job this is. Sad to say it only gets worse from there. Ignoring the 10A and Touhy precedent making charging almost impossible show how much of a hit piece it is.

[loki13]

*whoosh*

They go through all the analysis. The reason they used the specific example of a state-level charging is because ... once you analyze the specific federal issues (such as sovereign immunity, removal, etc., which IS DONE) ... it goes to state law.

Because it would be a charge under state law. Remember?

And there happens to be a state law case that provides the framework.

Of course, this is Bunny, who views actual legal analysis by a noted scholar and former state solicitor general as a "hit piece," because he doesn't understand or care about ... you know, the law.

[Bunny495]

In hindsight, I probably did not give the old chief his due. Rehnquist's one page rulings were a delight. His comment 'no judge ever complained about a brief being too short' is one the most compelling quotations from any jurist.

Mary and Keith just filed 108 page and 80 page press releases disguised as motions dealing with the Ross/Good shooting. Interestingly they mostly bash ICE but say nothing about charging Ross with anything. There is throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks but these two libtards are taking things to a new level.

[loki13]

While I don't particularly care for press releases as filing, I assume you're not that dense.

Oh, wait. You don't actually read documents, and instead you're parroting something someone else said.

But to recap-
1. Briefs are filed in appellate courts, and are not the same thing as complaints or motions filed in trial courts.

2. So, for example, complaints (with lots of facts) will be longer- the 80 page complaint has 53 pages of facts (the rest is the facts with the 11 legal counts).

3. "Just filed" means what they filed ... three days ago.

4. Of course it's mostly about bashing ICE and has nothing to do with charging Ross. BECAUSE IT'S A CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Now, if you were actually interested in the law, I might discuss why I think that there are ... issues ... in terms of the legal framework here. Also, why I think that the other lawsuit filed some time ago (which had an emergency hearing recently) is more likely to produce some injunctive relief. But you're not. You literally do not care about facts or law.

[Bunny495]

Your comment is a classic example of what the old chief was talking about. The summary of what you posted is "I don't like your post". I try not to put words into other people's mouths and don't like it when others do it to me.

While I would never claim to know what others "care about" I would ask you what you think about the success of these requests for relief. Every legal analysis I have seen is along the lines of 10A considerations and Touhy precedent don't bode well for success. If you have different analysis, please share it.

[John 4]

“The summary of what you posted is "I don't like your post"”

Incorrect. The summary is: “You don’t know what you’re taking about, and here’s why.”

[loki13]

Agreed. But the actual summary is, "You don't know what you're talking about, here's why, and because you're a moron who doesn't care about the facts and the law, I'm not going to bother engaging with you in a substantive conversation about the law since it won't matter. I also won't bother to discuss the collateral action which is pending and we will have a decision in shortly, since again, you are a moron that doesn't actually care about these things."

[John 4]

You’re too generous to these cretins.

[John F. Carr]

Here is the Minnesota case: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72132615/state-of-minnesota-v-noem/

Judge Menendez will hear arguments on a preliminary injunction next week. She was appointed by Biden and spent about 16 years as a public defender. She was born in Kansas. (Personal information taken from Wikipedia.)

[SRG2]

press releases disguised as motions

Ha, taking a leaf out of Trump's book

[Estragon]

Not enough has been made of this, I think. Trump, speaking of Greenland:

President Trump: Really it is, to me, it’s ownership. Ownership is very important.

David E. Sanger: Why is ownership important here?

President Trump: Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success.

So the President wants Greenland for his personal psychological needs. Does that strike anyone else as a… suboptimal basis for national security decisions?

[loki13]

Well, it's beyond that. Why do we need it?

To keep away Russian and Chinese boats (that aren't there).

To position American military? We have a military base.

To ensure defense? If only there was some ... treaty ... governing the North Atlantic ... for our common defense.

Because the arctic is important? Fun fact! The US only has four old icebreakers. Well below the Russian modern fleet. We're not building them, either. And we have a backlog to build ships ... not to mention Trump's BATTLESHIPS! So what do we do? We depend on the icebreakers of our European allies. Oh yeah, that.

What has all of this accomplished? It's pissed off all of our allies, to the extent that they are putting troops there in case WE attack. It's pissed off the people of Greenland, who used to view the US as an ally, but now ... kinda hate us. Heck, it means other countries are turning against us too. Just recently, our pick as ambassador to Iceland is getting into a lot of trouble because he made a comment about Iceland being the 52nd state ... which might have been ignored, except Iceland is worried about our colonialist ambitions.

And for what? If Trump meant to buy it, the rhetoric has turned the people of Greenland firmly against us. If he really means to use the military, then he will have turned America firmly into the pariah status it has been moving steadily towards.

I don't think most of the people here, who view all of politics as a reality show, understand how fundamentally damaging all of this is.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

How many people even know we have a base there?

Would articles and reports that emphasize that be of any use? IDK. Still, seems useful to get out there, with an additional question of "what does owning it add to the equation?"

BTW, Stephen Miller in one interview spoke of "thirty thousand" people being in Greenland. The number is more like 57K.

[loki13]

Facts don't matter. Heck, yesterday Brett was talking about how rich Greenlanders are, because he didn't know basics about the block grant from Denmark to Greenland.

It's almost like a lot of Americans don't know much about what is going on.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It's only suboptimal if you don't believe that the President is the personal embodiment of the will of the volk.

[Bunny495]

Once again Trump demonstrates his superpower of making liberal heads explode. All Trump has to do is find a dog whistle issue for liberals and talk about it and the liberals go off the deep end. The polymarkets have a 10% chance of America sending troops to Greenland. Liberals are happy to talk about an invasion but I don't see them putting their money where their mouth is.

https://polymarket.com/event/will-the-us-invade-greenland-in-2026

[OpinionsVary]

Except that threatening to invade a nato ally is terrible even if he doesn't follow through. You do get this right? This is 'Herherher, I'm only pretending to be stupid' meme territory here. https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/738/025/db0.jpg

[loki13]

...you realize that when the President does things, it has much wider ramifications than just making "liberal heads explode" and that while you might be getting some small entertainment out of it ... after all, I assume you are old, white, and retired, and this is all reality TV for you ... it has major implications for the nation moving forward that matter a lot more than merely being something that is entertaining for you?

[Estragon]

Government by trolling appeals to 12 year olds nationwide.

[loki13]

By the way, if this was just a dogwhistle to make liberal heads explode, then why was there a summit at the White House where Denmark came out and said that there fundamental disagreements with the United States over Greenland?

Why are our European allies deploying troops to defend Greenland?

Why are the people of Greenland (liberal heads?) so angry at us?

I hope you're entertained!

[Bunny495]

Making liberal heads explode internationally. Lets not forget Trump has been rattling the cage of eurotrash about not paying their fair share of NATO defense as well.

[loki13]

Well, we have to remember that you are one of the bloodthirsty people that is fully in favor of having Trump's Thugs make liberals heads explode ... literally.

Like I said, this is just entertainment for old retired white guys like you. Too bad it's, you know, un-American and all that. But what do you care so long as you get your jollies imagining your enemies being crushed and complaining?

[LawTalkingGuy]

What would be entertaining (in a sense) would be European intelligence assessments of Trump, his followers, and the US political situation that are making them take the Greenland stuff seriously. I mean besides the obvious indications that top US political leadership is legitimately insane, they are probably worried that Trump/Vance/Hegseth/Miller/Rubio genuinely believe in this, and, more importantly, actually have sufficient control over enough of the military and Congress that a plan to invade Greenland could come to fruition and would only result in a few high level resignations/firings and not a mutiny or successful impeachment.

[SRG2]

I am sure that many dictators have made liberal heads explode - sometimes literally. Why you think it's praiseworthy is another matter.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Despite all the horrors, it is unfortunately genuinely fascinating to watch a fascist movement try and govern in a federal republic with a 60+ year tradition of being a diverse liberal democracy that also has 1) the benefit of having records of historical fascist movements 2) the ability to quickly expose and spread recognition of the weaknesses of the fascist personalities to counteract fascist messaging 3) no widespread desire or support for expansionism or brutal tactics.

[loki13]

Unfortunately, I think it has also been illuminating to see just how many people even in this federal republic haven't learned any of these lessons and are far too willing to extend their tongues to the fascist boot.

Maybe it's just 25-30%. But that's still a lot of people.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well I suppose it's not surprising that the people with the worst personalities gravitate to the worst political movements. But yes it is nicer when they're more spread out.

[Sarcastr0]

Someone told me that fascism is rule by the midwits.

I think that's right.

The true idiots are randomly distributed - plenty of the left, plenty wandered into some other ideology.
You can spot the MAGA nitwits around here no problem. We've also had at least one left-wing nitwit, who is now departed.

You can also spot the midwits.
The frustrated midwit, with ambitions above their ability...those are the ones putting in the *work*.

[Krayt]

Your claims would carry more weight if you hadn't spent the past 10 years on innumerable initiatives to investigate him, charge him, arrest him, jail him, remove him from office, twice, send investigation info down to the states "just in case he pardons himself", and finally get him kicked off ballots of key states, because you so love rule of law and democracy and you're not trying to get a particularly irritating political opponent.

We are here because you built this world. He's ratcheted all this up to 11 because of you. It doesn't justify anything, but nobody learns, do they?

[LawTalkingGuy]

"We are here because you built this world. He's ratcheted all this up to 11 because of you."

Much like domestic abusers blame their partners for striking them (look what you made me do), fascists blame liberal institutions (among other things) for their own depravity, violence, incompetence, and corruption. Thus demonstrating why liberals were correct to try and stop them from obtaining power in the first place.

[Krayt]

Our abuses of process are justified!

Please step away from the Constitution.

No. As a matter of fact and philosophy, you have no such justification. What an asinine claim. You aren't the first to make it. See Iran at the moment, Venezuela today, and previously under Chavez.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s all so telling that you are obsessed with the supposed victimhood of one transparently depraved but powerful man and use that justify any abuse of power lodged against anyone else. Such a servile and pathetic mentality. The kind of loserdom fascist regimes thrive on.

[jb]

A few points:

1) Is your theory that Trump actually did nothing illegal, or that he should just be allowed to do so as long as he might run for office?

2) The statement "send investigation down to the states" is a weird one. The New York indictment predates any of the federal ones, so it doesn't seem like it was a backup plan by anyone. And if it was, who would that be? Is there some secret cabal of Democratic law enforcement strategy coordinating who charges Trump for what where?

3) Even if you accept that some or all of the charges against Trump were politically motivated rather than addressing serious criminality (I think both the New York criminal and civil cases probably qualify), the equivalent would be Trump going after Biden or maybe Gavin Newsom. But what he's actually doing is using the force of the federal government to go after all sorts of political opponents: senators, former FBI directors, his own former National Security Advisor if we're focusing on criminal charges, but more broadly universities and law firms. There's just no comparison in the scale of the use of government to try to railroad his enemies. Attempting to justify what Trump is doing by pointing at what was done to him is like trying to justify shooting someone because they called you a mean name.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Attempting to justify what Trump is doing by pointing at what was done to him is like trying to justify shooting someone because they called you a mean name."

Yeah, it is like that, which is why so many on the right are doing both right now.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I appreciate that the NY Giants are expected to hire John Harbaugh as head coach. Good leadership, even with flawed tools, is key.

Not really related, but I found this guest entry (Prof. Michael Dorf is a role model for me regarding reasonable analysis; the other contributors are a mixed bag) interesting:

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2026/01/a-sinking-court-and-one-way-to-right-it.html

I think it is a reasonable proposal of reform of the judicial administration of the federal courts. A major concern.

I think more needs to be done. All the same, once there is an opening for reform, there is potential for more.

[John F. Carr]

The proposal is to get more viewpoint diversity on the Judicial Council's committees by taking some power away from the Chief Justice. The concept strikes me as mostly harmless but also ineffective in getting liberals to warm up to the court system.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A major concern of liberal critics is the lack of proper ethical restraints. They argue that Roberts is not providing the proper leadership. Senator Whitehouse has argued this.

The entry notes:

Giving one person unreviewable authority to select every committee member gives that person extraordinary sway over the outcomes of the Conference, both procedural and substantive.

I think something like this is a first step sort of thing. It is not going to be enough on its own. The will to do it, however, suggests the will to do other things too.

The piece also notes that many liberals already are "warm" to the general concept of the court system. Some are concerned about the integrity of it at this moment.

[John F. Carr]

Here is the docket for the lawsuit by Illinois against DHS related to immigration enforcement:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72131845/state-of-illinois-v-department-of-homeland-security/

Plaintiffs want it reassigned to a friendly judge. Judge Sara Ellis ruled against DHS before and plaintiffs hope she will do so in the new case. The new case is on hold while Judge Ellis decides whether to take it. The motion to reassign is docket 328 at

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71559589/chicago-headline-club-v-noem/?page=2

Plaintiffs asked for a hearing on the motion this afternoon.

[Bunny495]

Does anyone realistically think this will not be appealed to the SCOUS and will result with the plaintiffs being told to hold it sideways and stick it where the sun don't shine.

[Mr. Bumble]

Re: Mahmoud Khalil:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2026/01/appeals-court-judge-had-no-jurisdiction-to-release-mahmoud-khalil/

[jb]

See above for discussion on the same topic initiated by CindyF.

[Mr. Bumble]

Missed that.
The article linked in my comment has the decision of the court embedded.

[Commenter_XY]

The hamas supporting POS Khalil will be gone.

[jb]

Gone like Abrego Garcia was never going to set foot in the US again?

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't know who said he'd never be back, but....
Never say never and always avoid always.
He may be back but will he stay?

[Magister]

Commenter_XY wrote it, as you might have inferred from who was replied to.

the relevant fact here is that, Garcia, the illegal alien gangbanger, will never leave his homeland again

[loki13]

XY is, of course, impervious to facts. No matter how many times it was pointed out that the administration just lied, repeatedly, and that these lies were exposed in court ...

XY continues to slander. Because XY doesn't want to confront the fact that maybe hate hasn't brought XY to a good place.

After all, cheering on thugs and murder isn't so great, is it? Best to slander the victims so you don't appear to be a complete ghoul!

[Bunny495]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/three-men-arrested-for-attempted-murder-of-feds-in-minneapolis-id-d-as-illegal-immigrants-from-venezuela/ar-AA1Uipv0

How long before Mary and Keith demand control of this case.

[jb]

"The three men arrested for ambushing an ICE agent in Minneapolis..."

Very credible article based on that first sentence. They "ambushed" him by getting him to pull the first guy over in a traffic stop?

[Commenter_XY]

[loki13]

I think that we should use the US Military to bomb government forces that are using violence against peaceful protests.

Yes, I think that we need to bomb ICE.

[Mr. Bumble]

Well, if Trump invokes the Insurrection Act the military may be involved but not how you think.
(Peaceful protestors my ass).

[M L]

Yesterday, in Texas, a criminal illegal alien tried to run over our officer — smashing vehicles and leaving one officer injured and sent to the hospital.

Thanks to politicians spewing dangerous anti-ICE rhetoric, this is becoming a daily occurrence.

https://x.com/ICEgov/status/2011516333838807231

Complete lawlessness at the Renaissance Hotel in Minneapolis.

Chief Brian O'Hara stands by while criminals take over the inside, making noise so paying guests can’t sleep.

This is what happens when leadership chooses chaos over law and order.

https://x.com/KimKatieUSA/status/2009828202399879404

Here two ICE agents get overrun by Somalis in St. Cloud, Minnesota.

This is the 2nd largest Somali community in the state, it’s also coincidentally where I uncovered a Somali voter fraud scheme.

We need more agents in Central Minnesota.

https://x.com/GrageDustin/status/2010141730373267540

[grb]

Another Kavanaugh Stop:

https://www.reddit.com/r/FedEmployees/comments/1qdp85a/why_are_you_asking_me_for_my_papers/

[loki13]

Today's reminder to the bootlicking fascists-

The thugs that you support-

Throw flashbang grenades, KNOWINGLY AND DELIBERATELY, into cars filled with children (US Citizens, not that it should matter) ... causing one to need emergency medical attention after their heart stopped.

Put a 16 year old US Citizen in a choke hold and beat him and stole his phone because he was recording him, and then stole his phone and sold it.

Blinded a 21 year old US Citizen who was protesting ... he was protesting their killing of another US Citizen and mother.

Pulled out of a car and brutalized and beat an autistic woman who was trying to get to a doctor's appointment.

Rounded up native americans and have held them for over a week, with no charges and refusing to identify them, in order to coerce their tribe to allowing ICE more access to tribal lands.

Regularly kidnap, beat, and brutalize American citizens and refuse to allow them to contact an attorney ... demand that these people provide "names" of protesters or undocumented immigrants, and release them into dangerous conditions.

Push US Citizens into traffic. Point loaded guns at them. Beat Americans, kidnap them, and then "release" them in hazardous conditions. Demand ID, and ... REFUSE to accept ID when they feel like it. Enter private property without warrants. And so on .... there are so many instances you can't keep up with them all at this point.

Finally, you are supporting the idea that recording this barbaric activity, in public areas, counts as "terrorism" such that these thugs are justified attacking citizens that are doing nothing more than recording these abuses. Oh, and allowing ICE to illegally access databases in order to show up at people's homes in order to intimidate them.

This is what you are supporting. Moreover, you are supporting the idea that all of this can be done with no accountability, and believe that the administration should be allowed to lie about these incidents with impunity.

[Sarcastr0]

And posting unsupported complaints from DHS and ICE accounts of how violent it is doesn't cut the mustard.

We have so very much of this shit on tape, with witnesses and reporting; you have a bare assertion from a lying administration.

And even with only one side being constrained by reality, the number and seriousness still don't add up.

Like, this isn't hard. Look at the people you are supporting, and look at the protesters you're claiming are terrorists and require military intervention.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Throw flashbang grenades, KNOWINGLY AND DELIBERATELY, into cars filled with children (US Citizens, not that it should matter) ... causing one to need emergency medical attention after their heart stopped."

Already linked to the news report: State troopers throwing flashbangs to disperse an anti-ICE riot. NOT ICE throwing them.

[Magister]

More reporting says it was federal agents who threw the flashbangs, with video evidence. Of course Brett Bellmore wants to believe one report he found that seems to excuse his cult leader's Gestapo.

[loki13]

Did you know that gullible isn't in the dictionary?

[David Nieporent]

Remember, it's not all ICE agents. It's the 95% of fascist ICE agents who make the other 5% look bad.

[Frank Drackman]

Pre-Judge much?

[hippo]

Idiot. DN

Muted.

[grb]

Another Kavanaugh Stop:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1qdp1pb/cbpice_just_abducted_a_woman_in_minneapolis_after/

[John 4]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ice-barbie-warns-americans-must-be-prepared-to-prove-citizenship/

“In every situation, we are doing targeted enforcement. If we are on a target and doing an operation, there may be individuals surrounding that criminal that we may be asking who they are and why they’re there and validate their identity,” Noem claimed. “That’s what we’ve always done in asking people who they are so that we know who’s in those surroundings.”

[JoeFromtheBronx]

NYT: "The Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado said she presented Mr. Trump with her Nobel Peace Prize during their meeting at the White House on Thursday. Mr. Trump has openly coveted the prize, and Machado dedicated it to him when she received it, though the Nobel Committee has said the Peace Prize itself is not transferable. It was not immediately clear whether she gave Mr. Trump the actual prize or if he accepted it."

Speaking to reporters, Machado compared handing her medal to Trump to how, in 1825, the Marquis de Lafayette sent a gold medal featuring an image of George Washington to the South American independence hero Simón Bolívar. Machado called Lafayette’s gift “a sign of the brotherhood between the people of the US and the people of Venezuela in their fight for freedom against tyranny”.

https://www.europesays.com/uk/698604/

That's nice. But what about the money?

[Frank Drackman]

Any OC specialists out there? Does Tampon-Tim have a RICO in his future??

[DDHarriman]

Those fucking idiot ANTIFA Democratics.

Turns out they broke into FBI vehicles, not ICE. Stole their weapons and documents --- then read them on their livestreams.

Those idiot retards are gonna be going to pound me in the ass prison. lol