Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[mggaviles]

I would be interested to hear more from the blog authors on the anti-commandeering doctrine and the federal government's repeated attempts to withhold funds from states and local governments for not enforcing federal immigration laws.

[MarkJawz]

More like "withhold funds from states and local governments for actively interfering with the federal government's enforcement of federal immigration laws."

[Martinned]

Is that what they're doing? Or is that what OANN and Newsmaxxx claim they're doing?

[DDHarriman]

Why are you interfering in our Democracy?

[Martinned]

Because your fuck ups cause problems for my democracy.

[Frank Drackman]

The "Democracy" (it's really more of a Constitutional Monarchy) that only exists because of the sacrifice of millions from actual Democracies??

Frank

[Bored Lawyer]

I posted about this yesterday.

You are mixing up two different things.

Anti-commandeering means the government can't require the states to enforce federal law or assist federal authorities.

OTOH, nothing in the Constitution requires the federal government to spend money in any particular way. If it does spend money that grants funds to states, or their political subdivisions (cities, counties), then it can put conditions on those funds.

Conditions have to be legislated by Congress. The president can't just add his own conditions. So many of the current challenges to the president are based on his adding conditions that Congress did not legislate.

[Voize of Reazon]

Conditions have to be legislated by Congress.

Yes, but they still can't be arbitrary. South Dakota v. Dole and its progeny lay out the limits, see the discussion in this 2017 CRS Report.

[Bored Lawyer]

True, but that is a very deferential standard. After all, South Dakota lost that one. It's a form of rational review. Which theoretically means you can challenge it, but in reality courts almost never will strike down something like that.

[ReaderY]

The federal government is not attempting to withhold funds from these states. Mr. Trump is attempting to do so. Here the Constitution makes crystal clear that Congress and only Congress decides how federal money is spent. Congress and only Congress is the federal government here. That means Mr. Trump here is not the federal government, and his opinions are not the federal government’s opinions. He has no more say in the matter than any other citizen. His only role here - his government job - is simply to execute directives given to him by Congress. His job is do what he is told.

He and his shills’ claim that he personally is the federal government here is just one of his high-and-mighty airs he has a habit of putting on.. He can style himself emperor and pretend he has the powers of an emperor all he wanfs. But his brags and his boasts and his pretenses and his bullshit don’t make it so.

[John F. Carr]

Follow Ilya Somin and you will learn why everything that limits immigration is unconstitutional, illegal, and cruel.

[grb]

If you follow Professor Somin's arguments (vs strawman descriptions), you'll learn nothing of the sort.

On the other hand, if you follow Professor Somin's posts and note the choking rage that results, you'll see how faux-Libertarians react when a real Libertarian doesn't change opinions with each new party in the White House.

Damn if that doesn't infuriate some people.....

[bernard11]

Follow some of the commenters here, not to mention the Administration, and you'll learn that every immigrant is a threat to the country and to every decent American.

I mean, if you are going to criticize excess outrage, that would be a much more target-rich environment.

[not guilty]

I ran across an interesting article on slate.com regarding birthright citizenship. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/01/supreme-court-analysis-precedents-birthright-citizenship-case.html (It may be hidden behind a paywall. I don't know.)

The sum and substance of the article is:

Just after World War II, the U.S. government started to implement the provisions of the Nationality Act of 1940 that allowed the federal government to deprive Americans—native-born and naturalized alike—of their citizenship for reasons like voting in a foreign election, joining a foreign army, remaining for six months or longer within any foreign state of which they or either of their parents have been a national, or for evading the draft. Starting in 1945 and continuing until 1967, between 1,000 and 8,000 Americans were stripped of their nationality each year. This practice only ended when the Supreme Court declared these provisions unconstitutional in the 1967 case Afroyim v. Rusk.

Of those stripped of citizenship before that ruling—totaling more than 120,000—a majority were native-born. Some of those affected challenged their loss of citizenship by appealing to the courts. Nine such cases reached the Supreme Court between 1955 and 1967. . . .

On March 31, 1958, the court announced its decision regarding three denationalization cases: Trop [v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958),] Nishikawa [v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958),] and Perez [v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), overruled in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).] . . .

Two of the three defendants whose cases were considered that day—Mitsugi Nishikawa and Clemente Perez—were born in the United States to foreign parents.

Why do these long-forgotten cases matter today? Because the highly divided court was unanimous on one point: Being born in the United States meant being a native-born American, regardless of the status of one’s foreign parents. This unanimous interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was echoed in two subsequent cases—Gonzales [ v. Landon, 350 U.S. 920] in 1955 and [Kennedy v.] Mendoza-Martinez[, 372 U.S. 144] in 1962—involving the deprivation of citizenship of children of immigrants.

The import of these cases involving plaintiffs born in the United States to foreign national parents is that these plaintiffs' citizenship, though later revoked, was conferred at birth, irrespective of their parents' citizenship or national origin.

Mitsugi Nishikawa, born in California to Japanese parents, went to Japan to study, and he was conscripted into the Japanese military in early 1941. After the end of the war, Nishikawa was informed by US officials that he had lost his citizenship because he had served in a foreign army. His case was eventually reviewed by the Supreme Court, which decided that the burden of proof must be on the government to prove that Nishikawa's Japanese military service was undertaken voluntarily before he could be stripped of his citizenship.

Clemente Martinez Perez was born in El Paso, Texas, on March 17, 1909. He resided in the United States until 1919 or 1920, when his parents took him to Mexico. In 1928, he was informed that he had been born in the state of Texas.

During World War II, he applied for admission and was admitted into the United States as a Mexican alien railroad worker. His application for such entry contained his recitation that he was a native-born citizen of Mexico. By 1947, however, Perez had returned to Mexico, and in that year, he applied for admission to the United States as a citizen of the United States. Upon his arrival, he was charged with failing to register under the Selective Service Laws of the United States during the war.

Under oath, Perez admitted that between 1944 and 1947, he had remained outside the United States to avoid military service and had voted in an election in Mexico in 1946.

On May 15, 1953, he surrendered to immigration authorities in San Francisco as an alien unlawfully in the United States but claimed that he was a citizen of the United States by birth and thereby entitled to remain. The US District Court, however, found that Perez had lost his American citizenship, a decision that was affirmed by the court of appeals.

The courts held that Congress can attach loss of citizenship only as a consequence of conduct engaged in voluntarily even if there was no intent or desire to lose citizenship.

Francisco Mendoza-Martinez was born in this country in 1922, and therefore acquired American citizenship by birth. By reason of his parentage, he also, under Mexican law, gained Mexican citizenship, thereby possessing dual nationality. In 1942, he departed from this country and went to Mexico, solely, as he admits, for the purpose of evading military service in our armed forces. He concedes that he remained there for that sole purpose until November, 1946, when he voluntarily returned to this country. In 1947, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, he pleaded guilty to and was convicted of evasion of his service obligations in violation of § 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. [Footnote 2] He served the imposed sentence of a year and a day. For all that appears in the record, he was, upon his release, allowed to reside undisturbed in this country until 1953, when, after a lapse of five years, he was served with a warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings. This was premised on the assertion that, by remaining outside the United States to avoid military service after September 27, 1944, when § 401(j) took effect, he had lost his American citizenship. Following hearing, the Attorney General's special inquiry officer sustained the warrant and ordered that Mendoza-Martinez be deported as an alien.

If these litigants -- each born in the united States to foreign national parents -- had not acquired American citizenship at birth, there would never have been any citizenship to revoke the first place.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The constitution is not a suicide pack.

End of discussion.

[David Nieporent]

Dr. Ed is going to pretend that he knew the word was "pact" and that Apple somehow changed that correct one to the wrong one. He's wrong on the merits too, of course.

[Bwaaah]

He meant the strap-on kind, like, "I got my jet pack in the back, my suicide pack in the front, and goin' rando kamikaze on the neighbors today."

[mggaviles]

How is 'jus soli,' a rule followed by more than 30 countries worldwide and by almost all nations in the Americas, a "suicide"?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ask the Romans……

[SRG2]

i.e., you yourself don't know the answer, you just like repeating the phrase "not a suicide pact". The Romans will not provide you with the answer you're looking for.

[grb]

Ancient Rome would provide the very opposite conclusion Ed is seeking. Not that he still couldn't find it there regardless of all facts. Ed is good at that.

[MarkJawz]

Bccause the U.S. is the only one that's not a shithole, and has a steady stream of low-quality third worlders trying to enter.

[DDHarriman]

"Not followed by a super majority, 150+, of countries around the world" is the same way to say what you said.

[Malika la Maize]

If someone didn’t understand what he was replying to, I guess. For someone who likes to say people that disagree with you must be foreigners your grasp of English seems limited.

[Moderation4ever]

If that is your opinion there is no much value to having a discussion with you.

[bernard11]

End of discussion.

WTF do you think you are? Or, as we say around here, "Who died and made you Pope?"

[Riva]

“If these litigants -- each born in the united States to foreign national parents -- had not acquired American citizenship at birth, there would never have been any citizenship to revoke the first place.“

Uh …what? These litigants were the children of illegals? These litigants were the children of illegals and the manner of their acquiring citizenship was an issue in either of those case? A fact not at issue is somehow controlling?

But more importantly, if this is somehow relevant to you, please explain your complete disregard of the facts in Wong Kim Ark. Facts which absolutely defined the issue and the holding as limited to the citizenship status of the child of legal permanent residents. You desperately need someone to teach you how to read caselaw.

[Michael P]

They were children of "immigrants". Note that the stooges don't distinguish legal immigration versus illegal immigration versus birth tourism.

[Malika la Maize]

Why would someone distinguish about something (“birth tourism” at least in the sense you’re using the term) that’s not recognized under current law?

[Riva]

The concept of parties legally and permanently domiciled in the US was fairly understood and recognized by the Court in Wing Kim Ark. Just to help you out, tourists looking to have children born in the US are not legal permanent residents.

[Malika la Maize]

Which courts are in accord with that reading?

[Riva]

That “reading” is literally in the holding of Wong Kim Ark. If you’re aware of a court higher than the Supreme Court, don’t keep the secret to yourself.

[David Nieporent]

No subsequent court at any level has adopted your illiterate interpretation of the case.

[David Nieporent]

The concept of parties legally and permanently domiciled in the US was fairly understood and recognized by the Court in Wing Kim Ark.

It was not. Neither category existed. (The concept of domicile existed, but had no legal significance; there was no such thing as "permanently domiciled.")

Just to help you out, tourists looking to have children born in the US are not legal permanent residents.

And yet WKA made clear, albeit in dicta, that those kids were birthright citizens too.

[Riva]

Well crazy Dave, let’s ask Wong Kim Ark:

“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

Hmm..”but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business... ” kinda sounds like the parents of Wong Kim Ark were legally and permanently residing here crazy Dave. Or to put it another way, they weren't tourists or anyone who had trespassed over our borders.

[David Nieporent]

The parents were indeed legally residing here. What does that have to do with — no pun intended — the price of tea in China? The Supreme Court recited the facts of the case; it did not say "Each of these facts is relevant to our finding." Because the Supreme Court in the very same text you're quoting also said that WKA was "of parents of Chinese descent." Do you think this means that the holding of the case doesn't apply to children of parents of Japanese descent?

Actual lawyers rather than misprogrammed bots know the difference between facts relevant to a decision and background facts about the case.

[Riva]

The Court in Wong Kim Ark quite clearly defined the issue in the context of the relevant facts. Actual lawyers do not ignore the plain language of the Court and make up a holding to suit their political agenda. That is left to fucking hack trolls like crazy Dave. Not sure if some of the hacks here like my friend Dave are rent-a-trolls. You get what you pay for I guess.

[ducksalad]

NG didn't mention Wong Kim Ark and his conclusion does not depend on Wong Kim Ark. Not sure why you brought it up except you've been conditioned to pop off your talking points, and because you have a misconception that Wong Kim Ark is the only case on point.

You also have a misconception that a holding of "all A are entitled to B" is equivalent to a holding that "only A are entitled to B". That's a logical and reading comprehension error, but I won't go into it further because this isn't about Wong Kim Ark.

Don't want to put words in NG's mouth but I believe his whole effing point is that these cases show birthright citizenship independently of Wong Kim Ark, and the court did NOT limit their holding to

The point is that in the cases he listed, the ONLY thing they had to do to establish citizenship was establish that they were born here. If the law was as you falsely claim, they would have had to additionally establish that their parents were here legally and permanently. But they DIDN'T have to show because the judges and immigration authorities understood that their parentage was irrelevant.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/144/

"The facts of both cases are not in dispute. Mendoza-Martinez, the appellee in No. 2, was born in this country in 1922, and therefore acquired American citizenship by birth. "

You see? The holding is NOT limited by parentage.

[not guilty]

Thank you, ducksalad. You are exactly right.

[Riva]

Never ask a duck or a Not Guilty to interpret case law. In none of those cases noted in Not Guilty's comment was the establishment of birthright citizenship an issue. It was THE ISSUE in Wong Kim Ark. And the facts and holding of Wong Kim Ark are limited to the children of permanent legal residents. Facts that no duck or Not Guilty has yet addressed. That is the fucking point.

And by the way, your facts do NOT say Medoza-Martinez was the child of illegals, just so you know.

[ducksalad]

One more time real slow.

He is not quoting or interpreting Wong Kim Ark. The comment is not about Wong Kim Ark. You have a false belief that Wong Kim Ark is the only case related to birthright citizenship case, or perhaps you are injecting Wong Kim Ark into this because it's the only case you've got prepared talking points on.

He is pointing out that there are many other later cases, that had no language about the parents at all.

do NOT say Medoza-Martinez was the child of illegals, just so you now

LOL. Your are informing us about the point we've trying to make and you've been failing to get until now.

The case doesn't mention the parents' legal status or lack of it, it doesn't mention the parents' vegetarianism or lack of it, it doesn't mention the parents' service in the Civil War or lack of it. What do the legal status, vegetarianism, and Civil War service have in common? The court didn't think they were relevant or important to the case.

Just so you know....

[Riva]

I didn't say he was "quoting or interpreting" Wong Kim Ark you fucking moron. I said his cases were irrelevant and he ignored the actual facts and holding of Wong Kim Ark, which is actually relevant precedent.

[ducksalad]

And all that's just for Mendoza-Martinez. As you see below NG quoted another case that explicitly takes on the parentage and states that the child is a citizen anyway.

[David Nieporent]

Repeating your lies about it won't make it true. Not one word in Wong Kim Ark hinted at it being limited to the citizenship status of the child of legal permanent residents, if for no other reason than that there was no such thing as "legal permanent residents" in 1898. That is a legal category not invented until 50 years later.

[Riva]

You're right crazy Dave, apart from the agreed upon facts, the 37 times domicile is mentioned, and the holding, not one damn word.

[not guilty]

As I have pointed out before, in Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S. 72 (1957), every member of SCOTUS recognized the birthright citizenship of a child who was born within the U.S. to Greek national parents, each of whom had entered the country lawfully but overstayed a visa and was accordingly subject to deportation. The facts are summarized in the syllabus:

Petitioners, husband and wife, entered the United States in 1951 as alien seamen, and remained unlawfully after expiration of their limited lawful stay. In November, 1951, a child was born to them -- an American citizen by birth. In January, 1952, petitioners applied for suspension of deportation under §19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, which conditionally authorizes suspension of a deportation which "would result in serious economic detriment to a citizen . . . who is the . . . minor child of such deportable alien." The Board of Immigration Appeals found that petitioners were eligible for relief but, as a matter of administrative discretion, denied suspension of deportation, relying mainly on the fact that petitioners had established no roots or ties in this country. [Ellipses in original]

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/353/72/

From Justice Harlan's opinion of the Court:

Petitioners are husband and wife, both aliens. Prior to 1951, both worked as seamen on foreign vessels. In July, 1951, the wife lawfully entered the United States as a crew member of a ship in a United States port. Being pregnant, she sought medical advice; subsequently, she decided in the interest of her health to stay ashore. A month later, on the next occasion his ship arrived in the United States, her husband joined her; he also failed to leave on the expiration of his limited lawful stay. In November, 1951, their child was born; the child is, of course, an American citizen by birth. In January, 1952, petitioners voluntarily disclosed their illegal presence to the Immigration Service and applied for suspension of deportation under § 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, which provides, in part:

"In the case of any alien . . . who is deportable under any law of the United States and who has proved good moral character for the preceding five years, the Attorney General may . . . suspend deportation of such alien if he is not ineligible for naturalization . . . if he finds (a) that such deportation would result in serious economic detriment to a citizen or legally resident alien who is the spouse, parent, or minor child of such deportable alien. . . ." [Ellipses in original.]

353 U.S. at 73-74 [Footnotes omitted; boldface added.] The findings of the Board of Immigration Appeals included:

"It is obvious that the American citizen infant child is dependent upon the alien parents for economic support, care and maintenance. Documentary and other evidence establish good moral character for the requisite period. The aliens have no connection with subversive groups."
"* * * *"
"As stated above, we have, in the instant case, a family consisting of two alien parents illegally residing in the United States and one American citizen child, age about two and one-half years. These respondents have been in the United States for a period of less than three years. Both arrived in this country as seamen. They have no other dependents or close family ties here. The record indicates that the male respondent may be able to obtain work as a Greek seaman and earn about $85 monthly."

"Notwithstanding the fact that . . . the deportation of these respondents would result in a serious economic detriment to an American citizen infant child, the granting or withholding of maximum discretionary relief depends on the factors and merits in each individual case, and is a matter of administrative discretion. We have carefully examined the facts and circumstances in the instant case, and we find that the granting of the maximum relief is not warranted by the record in the case. . . ."

Id., at 75-76 [Ellipses in original; boldface added.] Upon the Petitioners' motion for reconsideration, the Board reiterated: "We indicated in our previous order that the deportation of the respondents would result in a serious economic detriment to their citizen minor child, and we do not question that the respondents have established the statutory requirements for suspension of deportation. . . ." Id., at 76-77 [Ellipses in original; boldface added.]

Justice Harlan wrote for the Court:

We do not think that there was error in these proceedings. It is clear from the record that the Board applied the correct legal standards in deciding whether petitioners met the statutory prerequisites for suspension of deportation. The Board found that petitioners met these standards, and were eligible for relief.

Id., at 77. If the infant had not been a U.S. citizen, the Petitioners would not have "met the statutory prerequisites for suspension of deportation." The citizenship of the child was the sine qua non of such statutory eligibility.

Justice Douglas, joined in dissent by Justice Black, was emphatic about the citizenship of the child, despite both parents having overstayed they visas:

This case, on its face, seems to be an instance of a deportation which would "result in serious economic detriment to a citizen," as those words are used in § 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917.

The citizen is a five-year-old boy who was born here and who, therefore, is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities which the Fourteenth Amendment bestows on every citizen. A five-year-old boy cannot enjoy the educational, spiritual, and economic benefits which our society affords unless he is with his parents. His parents are law-abiding and self-supporting. From this record, it appears that they are good members of the community. They do not seem to have done anything illegal or antisocial that should penalize their American son.

It would seem, therefore, that the maintenance of this young American citizen in a home in America is the way to effectuate the policy of the 1917 Act.

353 U.S. at 79-80 [Boldface added.]

All eight SCOTUS members who participated in the case recognized the American citizenship of a child born within the U.S. to parents who were not domiciled here and who had remained in the country unlawfully.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[ducksalad]

Thanks for posting this. It won't convince Riva but maybe some others here will at least recognize that the SC would have to *overturn* prior precedent to get them the result they want so badly.

[Riva]

As I have pointed out before, the child’s birth citizenship was NOT at issue in Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy. The citizenship of the parties' child was treated as accepted fact. The Court addressed only whether discretionary denial of the application for suspension of deportation was lawful. The Court did not question the child’s birthright citizenship in any way. But, if you think this issue was clearly settled in 1957, then what the fuck is the Court now deliberating in Trump v. Barbara? I guess the Court disagrees with your settled law theory.

If you really like the Latin (and who doesn't?), may I suggest you instead append "ex ore stultorum verba" to your next post?

[not guilty]

"As I have pointed out before, the child’s birth citizenship was NOT at issue in Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy. The citizenship of the parties' child was treated as accepted fact. The Court addressed only whether discretionary denial of the application for suspension of deportation was lawful. The Court did not question the child’s birthright citizenship in any way."

Except for acknowledging that "The citizenship of the parties' child was treated as accepted fact" and that "The Court did not question the child’s birthright citizenship in any way", you lie, Riva -- even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then. https://www.hillbillyslang.com/sayings/even-a-blind-hog-finds-an-acorn-now-and-then/

The majority opinion states: "There being no error, the judgment is affirmed." 353 U.S. 72, 79. The opinion further recites:

We do not think that there was error in these proceedings. It is clear from the record that the Board [of Immigration Appeals] applied the correct legal standards in deciding whether petitioners met the statutory prerequisites for suspension of deportation. The Board found that petitioners met these standards, and were eligible for relief.

Id., at 77. If the infant had not been a U.S. citizen, the parents would have been INELIGIBLE for relief, Riva.

Justice Harlan and the other five justices in the majority did not say that the Board had erroneously determined the child to be a citizen and that its discretionary decision denying suspension was therefore incorrect; they said expressly that there was no error in the Board's determination of the facts.

You remind me once more of the comedian Ron White's commentary: "Let me tell you something folks. You can't fix stupid. There's not a pill you can take. There's not a class you can go to. Stupid is fo'evah!!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDvQ77JP8nw

[Riva]

If you really want to believe that case is precedent for the scope of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, you’re welcome to your view. No point in wasting any more time on your nonsense.

[Bunny495]

Bottom line is precedents exist where the American government has declared American citizens non citizens. I would also point out the reverse has always been true, but it is not an easy process de jure. While 14A is often viewed as the controlling legal authority congress has passed laws over the years and there is currently proposed legislation addressing citizenship.

[Martinned]

Ausweis, bitte

Question: Thank you. Madam Secretary, perhaps to follow up, why are we seeing Americans being asked on the street to provide proof of citizenship in Minnesota? Is that targeted enforcement? And are you advising Americans to carry proof of citizenship?

Kristi Noem: In every situation, we're 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 having them validate their identity. That's what we've always done, in asking people who they are so that we know who's in those surroundings.

https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/transcript/donald-trump-press-briefing-kristi-noem-the-white-house-january-15-2026/

[Commenter_XY]

Eurotrash, the US has a long way to go, to go down to your level.

[OpinionsVary]

Papers please.

[hobie]

You know, you don't have to be a dick every day, XY.

[Frank Drackman]

Why not? you do.

[bloocow2]

You do understand how hard it is to take you seriously when every second thing you write is some weird racist shitpost, right?

[Bwaaah]

I don't know that Frank's shitposting percentage ever dropped so low as to hit 50%, but it's pretty easy to see where he crosses those lines. At the slim risk of being mistaken, I don't think your message will be a revelation to him.

Sometimes, as in this case, the point at hand is so crisp that even Frank Drackman lacks the will to embellish it. You could've just said something like, "When you're right, you're right."

Hobie said, "You know, you don't have to be a dick every day."

Hobie said that.

[David Nieporent]

You know, you don't have to be a dick every day, XY.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

[Commenter_XY]

You know, the next three years will be very entertaining, hobie. 😛

You know what else? Nothing will stop the detention and deportation of millions more illegal aliens from this country.

[Frank Drackman]

I get asked for my "Papers" every time I go through TSA (Don't pay for the "Clear" or "Pre-Check" I enjoy the Calisthenics and getting to look down 15, errrr, 21 yr old women's shirts.)
Some states they scan my ID when I buy a Sixer of Dos Equis.
Now I don't with Hotel check in (Hilton "Diamond") that's done with the Ap,

Frank

[Bunny495]

Every hotel I have ever checked into asked for ID. While they have lightened up on having to fill in the blank for my license tag number of my vehicle, they still want the make, model and color. It drives them crazy when they look at my Sprinter van after I put Mercedes Benz and I have been asked to show my insurance card to prove who made the van.

[bernard11]

Every hotel I have ever checked into asked for ID.

Stupid argument. The hotel wants to know who its guests are, in part so that they be sure of getting paid. The other examples have similar purposes.

Asking for ID from someone walking down the street has no legitimate purpose. It's just intimidating, thuggish behavior.

[Bunny495]

Reading comprehension is your friend. I was responding to Frank's comment about hotel's not asking for ID and pointing out that they have always asked for mine. I never expressed any opinion as to asking for ID being legit or not.

I would point out that "walking down the street" covers a lot of ground. If a LEO just got an APB about a black male wearing a hoodie being involved in an armed robbery and killing someone and then sees a black male in a hoodie walking down the street asking for his ID is legit. If the LEO does the same thing to a white female with a baby in her arms it is questionable. Point is where do you draw the line. A group of Hispanic males in a Home Depot parking lot wandering around seems somewhat legit to me. A Hispanic teenager leaving a high school in a Hispanic neighborhood not so much. Bottom line is details matter.

[John F. Carr]

Traditionally motels had to report guests to police or at least make records of guests available. In 2015 that obligation was limited by City of Los Angeles v. Patel.

[Absaroka]

FWIW, I have stayed in, to put it delicately, economical motels and hotels where the only ID needed came from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. You could scrawl whatever you wanted in the registry.

When growing affluence allowed me to stay in posher places, from Motel 6 to Holiday Inn, my recollection is they wanted a credit card but not actual ID. I might be wrong; I haven't paid all that much attention, or tried to pay with cash.

It used to be easy - routine even - to travel Greyhound (and I think fly?) by buying a ticket for cash, no ID needed. Ditto for lodging and everything else. Now there is a Flock license plate reader just down the road.

[Magister]

One would think that motel owners would want to identify a guest against the event that the guest absconded with some of the furniture; requiring a credit card would probably cover that, though. Absaroka's economy motels probably charged enough that damage to or loss of the not-so-posh furnishings would not be a huge concern.

[Riva]

Interesting and somewhat ironic given that Minnesota seems intent on instigating and aiding a budding insurrection. As a new independent nation their corruption might even surpass Somalia.

[Malika la Maize]

AI hallucination.

[Riva]

If only this asshole parrot troll was a hallucination.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Would someone please explain why tactics have been used for over a quarter century to address under age drinking and OUI shouldn’t also be used to address illegal alienship???

All of the constitutional issues, civil rights issues, human rights issues, and everything else that people are attempting to raise now should have been raised back in the 90s. It’s too damn late now.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody knows what "tactics" you're talking about, or who was supposed to raise these issues, or when, or why, or how someone who wasn't born in the 1990s could have raised them then, or how it can ever be "too late" to argue that a governmental action is unconstitutional.

[jb]

As someone who could have engaged in underaged drinking in the 90s, I do not remember masked federal LEOs going door to door to make sure no teens were drinking inside.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Much of it didn’t start until the ‘00s….

[jb]

I'm pretty sure it's still not happening even today!

[John F. Carr]

Immigration agents do use roadblocks that work like DUI roadblocks. There are permanent facilities in Vermont and the Southwest. There have been temporary roadblocks in New Hampshire.

Some police have figured if they hang out around bars they will spot more drunk drivers than if they run a speed trap on the freeway. That's like going to Home Depot to look for day laborers without work authorization.

[loki13]

The rule is they have to be within 100 miles from the border.

This wasn't a big deal, when they were used only in areas where there was an actual problem with inward migration (for example, some place in Arizona).

But ... it is withing 100 miles of ANY border, land or sea, which allows them to do it ... to all of Florida, or Charlotte, or most of the populated places in the US. It doesn't seem like much, but it's approximate 2/3 of the population.

[Commenter_XY]

So Loki13, you would never see CBP in KY or KS doing a roadblock, checking IDs for illegal aliens....is that correct?

[loki13]

Not lawfully.

[ducksalad]

"All of the constitutional issues, civil rights issues, human rights issues, and everything else that people are attempting to raise now should have been raised back in the 90s. It’s too damn late now."

Actually many, many people raised issues with the roadblocks. They also pointed out that granting that exception would someday lead for calls by authoritarian assholes to extend the exception to things besides drunk driving.

It's just that bad quality SC justices decided sad stories provided by MADD outweighed the Fourth American.

The reason the tactics shouldn't be used is because they should be eliminated entirely in all contexts and the SC precedent overturned.

IMO the only tolerable position for roadblock checkpoint is at a point where zero US citizens traveling within the US will be stopped. In other words, exactly at where the road crosses the border.

[Absaroka]

"All of the constitutional issues, civil rights issues, human rights issues, and everything else that people are attempting to raise now should have been raised back in the 90s. It’s too damn late now."

That notion seems like bad news for Heller.

[hobie]

Was nice of the Venezuelan lady to offer the peace prize that she risked her life to achieve. But I think it's pretty classless to have accepted it. Is like a little girl gives up the only photo she has of her dead mother. A normal recipient would thank the girl but hand it right back...and be the hero for doing so.

[Martinned]

Imagine voting for a politician who is that pathetic...

[Martinned]

See also Lindsay Graham's court testimony the other day:

Sen. Lindsey Graham added more credibility to the claims that Donald Trump cheats at golf, according to secret testimony he gave in the Georgia election interference case.

Graham, who was questioned by prosecutors in 2022 about Trump’s refusal to concede the 2020 election, said, “If you told him Martians came and stole votes, he’d be inclined to believe it.”

When prosecutors then asked the senator, who is often Trump’s golfing partner, about the president’s unsportsmanlike golfing habits, Graham admitted that not everything was on the level.

“Some people say you may outdrive him, but you’re not going to outdrive his caddy,” he said, The New York Times reported. “It is what it is.”
(...)
The more questions arise about Trump’s golf game, the more he seems to brag. In a Thanksgiving phone call with troops, he claimed to have won 38 golf titles.

Golf writer Rick Reilly, who wrote the Trump book Commander in Cheat, said the real number was zero.

https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/maga-star-cornered-court-trump-070512465.html

[Malika la Maize]

For the third consecutive presidential election, former President Donald Trump is lying that he was named “Man of the Year” in Michigan before he ran for president.

Trump said it again on Saturday during a speech in Detroit: “You know, I got the ‘Man of the Year’ in Michigan. Years ago, long before politics, like 12, 13 years ago.”

Trump’s claim remains false. Nobody has ever been able to find any evidence that he was ever named “Man of the Year” in Michigan before he ran for president. The state itself does not give out a “Man of the Year” award; Trump has never lived in Michigan; and he has never specified who supposedly gave him this award and when.

After nearly seven years of media fact checks of Trump’s many declarations that he had once been named Man of the Year in Michigan, a Republican group in the state, the Oakland County Republican Party, gave him its first-ever “Man of the Decade” award at an event in 2023.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/16/politics/fact-check-donald-trump-michigan-man-of-the-year

[hobie]

How many booby prizes can one man get in a calendar year?!

[hobie]

Shades of Kim Jung Un

[David Nieporent]

See also Lindsay Graham's court testimony the other day:

Just to clarify: Graham's testimony wasn't the other day. It was several years ago. It just came out the other day. Graham wouldn't dare say something negative about Trump now.

[Frank Drackman]

At least we get to vote, unlike you with your Pediophile King

[Moderation4ever]

So well said. The idea that a Peace Prize recipient has to give up her prize to win favor and thereby help her people is just pathetic. How Republicans are not embarrassed by this is unfathomable.

[Joe_dallas]

She gave her peace prize to Trump after the event not before. Note the distinction

[Malika la Maize]

Those people aren’t done being helped. Note the distinction.

[grb]

Joe_dallas : "Note the distinction"

Meanwhile, Trump is perfectly happy leaving the previous thug government in power since he's being paid off. Yesterday, the first US sale of Venezuelan crude was to a company who channeled millions to Donald Trump’s re-election campaign.⁠ Machado may hope she's influencing Trump to help her people, but I'm pretty sure that's a sad delusion. She doesn't have enough money to pay-off Trump to buy that policy. He'll pocket the metal, but that's all.
⁠

[SykesFive]

Well hang on: isn't it too early to say? What is "the event"?

Machado has been saying pretty much since she received the award that she dedicated it to Trump and he deserved it more than she did.

Then Trump took Maduro out.

On the other hand, Trump did not then put Machado in power, though maybe that will happen.

At this point I think Machado is desperately trying to stay relevant even though events have passed her by. To some extent her advocacy legitimated removing Machado--note pretty much every democratic government said good riddance to him despite the way he was removed--but it sure looks like she herself isn't going to get anything out of it.

[Joe_dallas]

Hobie and the rest of the leftist standing behind Maduro.

Trump has done more to bring freedom to the Venezuelan people and leftists are pissed.

[Martinned]

Trump has done exactly nothing to bring freedom to the Venezuelan people. He's kidnapped the Venezuelan ruler in order to replace him with people that he could do a deal with. Trump's never once mentioned democracy, and has shown no interest in promoting it in Venezuela or anywhere else.

[Joe_dallas]

TDS runs deep!
See your mental health professional

[Mr. Bumble]

Qualika has the "Doctor is in" sign on.

[Malika la Maize]

What are talking about?

[Bob from Ohio]

I think its a Lucy reference,

You are as good of a psychologist as she was.

[Commenter_XY]

My response is to Eurotrash is 'So what'. US interests were served by serving a warrant on Maduro and taking him into custody to face trial. We now control 20% of the worlds known oil reserve. CHN, RUS kicked out of VEN. And Cuba is screwed even more; it will collapse.

We are set up in the US to refine VEN oil. It is a short distance (3K miles) from VEN to LA, TX oil terminals.

VEN makes out big, too, in the long run.

[John F. Carr]

Doing a deal with Trump is likely to improve the standard of living of Venezuelans at much less cost than occupying the country to democratize it.

[Mr. Bumble]

Unlike the mistake in Iraq.

[hobie]

You should hire MichaelP to comb thru the comments archive to find all the posts where us Libs advocate for Maduro.

EDIT....still waiting

EDIT EDIT...still waiting

[Malika la Maize]

It’s not standing behind Maduro to find Trump’s prize lust pathetic. Try again.

[jb]

As far as I can tell, the principal person standing behind the Maduro regime right now is Trump. He kept basically everyone in place except for Maduro himself, doesn't seem interested in moving quickly to elections to replace it, and other than taking the Nobel medal from Machado has barely acknowledged the legitimacy of the opposition.

Now maybe that's all because Trump actually wants to stay as President of Venezuela himself, but whereas in the US Trump actually won an election to be President, in Venezuela he'd be no less of an illegitimate dictator than Maduro was.

[John F. Carr]

Maybe Trump's team learned from Iraq where the US failed to keep governing institutions intact.

[jb]

Maybe? But there's a lot of daylight between de-Baathification and just leaving the entire regime in place indefinitely.

[David Nieporent]

Trump has done more to bring freedom to the Venezuelan people and leftists are pissed.

WTF are you talking about? Trump hasn't done anything at all to bring freedom to the Venezuelan people. I know you're deeply stupid, but couldn't you take at least one hour a day off from demonstrating it?

[SykesFive]

Remember back in 2016 when some retired O-5 gave Trump his Purple Heart Medal and Trump accepted it?

[Bunny495]

Sad to say the Nobel Peace Prize has become a joke. Whatever one thinks of Obama it is impossible to defend him getting the prize. He literally did nothing to deserve it. Even with Biden's (or at least his autopen) attempts to subvert the Abraham Accords they still seem to be holding and Iran's attempts to prevent Syria to join in recognizing a Jewish state are moving forward. Trump's highway in the Caucasus looks promising even with Russia and Iran trying to stop it. Same goes for Trump's economic diplomacy in the mess Clinton/NATO left in the former Yugoslavia. Bottom line is Trump can point to tangible results from his efforts to stop killing and use economic partnerships to get former enemies to work together for mutual benefit in terms of both peace and profit.

[David Nieporent]

Even with Biden's (or at least his autopen) attempts to subvert the Abraham Accords they still seem to be holding

Um, what? You know that the so-called Abraham Accords involved countries that weren't at war with Israel, right?

[Dr. Ed 2]

“Yes I said ‘was.’ The bitch is dead.”

So ends Ian Flemming‘s first and perhaps most disturbing Bond book, written in the very different world of 1952.

Renee Good is dead. Same issue, 74 years later.

The bitch is dead. And that is a good thing, or at least a necessary thing.w

[hobie]

Trump (or possibly Ed): If Iran harms any protestors, we will act.

[ducksalad]

Perhaps when Trump looked into it he found out that some of the dead Iranian protesters had broken an Iranian law, or had failed to disperse when ordered, or resisted arrest, or were filming with their phones, or threw something, or worst of all let their vehicle move several feet in the direction of an officer. He then decided they deserved it after all.

[Martinned]

Now do Charlie Kirk

[hobie]

We need a comparable piece of literature where a political monster was stopped short of world ruin. Stephen King's Dead Zone doesn't count because the villain wasn't killed.

[John F. Carr]

The debater is dead!

[Dr. Ed 2]

“Yes I said ‘was.’ The bitch is dead.”

So ends Ian Flemming‘s first and perhaps most disturbing Bond book, written in the very different world of 1952.

Renee Good is dead. Same issue, 74 years later.

The bitch is dead. And that is a good thing, or at least a necessary thing. It’s time for the era of man bashing to end!

[Malika la Maize]

You might try being one, first.

[Frank Drackman]

Eww, Queenie lands a shot to the Balls, hope you've got your guard up.

[hobie]

That Ross character must be a tough SOB. A car strike to the torso resulting in internal bleeding. Even a professional boxer would be massaging his midsection. But not Ross. He's strutting around.

What's your thoughts on internal bleeding, Frankie?

[Frank Drackman]

I'm against it.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and so begins another day of "the show that never ends".

[Martinned]

Since you're apparently not aware: Making voters think of it as a "show" is exactly part of the authoritarian strategy. The truth doesn't matter, it's all just a game, so you might as well let the Regime do whatever it likes.

[Malika la Maize]

The US agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, is facing ridicule from congressional Democrats – among others – after claiming Americans can save money and have their meals align with new Department of Health and Human Services dietary guidelines by simply eating “a piece of chicken, a piece of broccoli”, “a corn tortilla” and “one other thing”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/15/trump-agriculture-secretary-brooke-rollins-food-guidelines#:~:text=The%20US%20agriculture%20secretary%2C%20Brooke%20Rollins%2C%20is%20facing%20ridicule%20from,and%20“one%20other%20thing”.

[hobie]

Re RFK Jr: It's difficult to accept nutritional advice from a dude that looks like he was the only guy who looked into the open Ark of the Covenant and survived.

[Malika la Maize]

I mean, even the proverbial soy boy eats better than that austerity special. A *piece* of broccoli?

[Mr. Bumble]

George H. W. Bush smiles.

[Malika la Maize]

Good one.

[Frank Drackman]

Says the guy on the Jerry Nadler diet.
I mean you eat what Jerry does, not that you subsist by consuming Jerry Nadler daily.

[Malika la Maize]

Supporter of fat President zings fat congressman! Pathetic.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, maybe "45/47(48?)" is a little heavy,
he's not Morbidly Obese (BMI>40) like the "Nad"
and that's after Jerry had the Gastric Bypass.
BTW, what was Hillary Rodman's Height/Weight, funny how that was omitted when she released her "Annual Physical" results

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Trump is a little heavy like you have a little English writing problem.

[Bunny495]

Once again libtard hobie fails.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUhsKKGF1VI&t=34s

[hobie]

Ouch! You know I cannot handle insults like that. So why you do it?

[bernard11]

Can the one other thing be a giant chocolate sundae? (ice cream and whipped cream made from whole milk of course.)

[Mr. Bumble]

...and to save the UK from wrong think:
"Dutch Populist Eva Vlaardingerbroek Barred from Entering Britain by Leftist Government"
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2026/01/15/dutch-populist-eva-vlaardingerbroek-barred-from-entering-britain/

[Martinned]

Yes, isn't it terrible when countries control their borders and refuse entry to foreigners who they don't like? /s

[Malika la Maize]

A federal judge Thursday decried what he said were “breathtaking” constitutional violations by senior Trump administration officials and called the president an “authoritarian” who expects everyone in the executive branch to “toe the line absolutely.”

In remarks laced with outrage and disbelief, U.S. District Judge William Young said Donald Trump and top officials have a “fearful approach” to freedom of speech that would seek to “exclude from participation everyone who doesn’t agree with them.”

Young, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, leveled the searing critique during a hearing in Boston to determine the appropriate remedies for the administration’s detentions of pro-Palestinian students last year. The judge had ruled in September that senior administration officials engaged in an illegal effort to arrest and deport noncitizen students based on their activism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/01/15/protesters-trump-administration-free-speech-violations/

[hobie]

The UK and EU are censoring people's speech!!! We're talking about the UK, yes?

[loki13]

The other interesting thing?

The DOJ (of course) is trying to keep everything (the evidence) in the case sealed.

The judge is not going to allow it to be sealed.

So that means that we should be seeing what the judge saw.

It has become the regular tactic of the DOJ to seal documents in any and every case in order to keep things from coming to light- either what they are actually doing, or, in many cases, to avoid people finding out what they are claiming to the court ... which, if it became public, would allow others to see it and allow people to realize that it's a lie.

[Bob from Ohio]

Dinosaurs get cranky.

[Armchair]

More people have been sent back across the Dutch border from Germany and Belgium than the Netherlands has rejected since controls were reintroduced nearly a year ago, government figures show.

A total of 470 people were refused entry at checkpoints in the nine months since the regime began last December, while another 230 were arrested for suspected offences ranging from human trafficking and drug smuggling to traffic violations.

In the same period 690 people were sent back to the Netherlands from Germany and 120 people were turned away at the Belgian border. The Netherlands handed 490 people over to German authorities and 60 to Belgium.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2025/11/hundreds-returned-to-nl-at-border-checks-80-claim-asylum/

[Martinned]

Yes, I saw. (Well, the number I saw was 530 somehow.)

That's completely nuts. Crazy numbers of border checks, massive inconvenience, and peanuts in terms of the numbers of people they actually stopped. The social cost per person they returned must be astronomical.

[Brett Bellmore]

Now, wait a minute. Are you completely ignoring deterrence, assuming that people being publicly stopped doesn't cause other people to refrain from trying?

[Martinned]

Yes, that's what I'm assuming. Anyone who actually wants to cross the land border can easily do so using one of the smaller roads that they're not checking. In fact, there's no way of knowing whether even the 500-odd people they did stop didn't simply cross the border 15 minutes later. This is Western Europe, not Canada. There are endlessly many little roads across the border, and neither the Dutch government nor the Germans have anywere near the capacity to check them all.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair enough. Actually, large parts of the US-Canada border are not significantly sealed, either. While it mostly follows lakes and rivers, and roads that actually cross it typically have border stations, you'll find a lot of areas where roads approach the border from both sides, and simply have short gaps.

[Absaroka]

Sometimes there isn't even a gap.

[Kazinski]

She is welcome here.

[Malika la Maize]

Emergency repair crews are working flat out to restore power in the Kyiv region of Ukraine, officials said Wednesday, after relentless Russian barrageson energy infrastructure left Ukrainians at the mercy of the coldest winter in years.

In Boryspil, a town in the Kyiv region with a population of around 60,000, workers dismantled and rebuilt burned-out electrical systems as they rushed to fix the damage.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-power-blackouts-13e814e9c51eb7f2048a1f662c7433ce

March 4, 2023. Speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland.

“Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the disastrous war between Russia and Ukraine settled. It will be settled quickly. Quickly. I will get the problem solved and I will get it solved in rapid order and it will take me no longer than one day. I know exactly what to say to each of them.”

[Mr. Bumble]

Obviously Trump doesn't have the answer to ending this war. Do you?

[Malika la Maize]

Obviously, I didn’t tell the American people I did and would in a day. That was pretty stupid of him, wasn’t it?

[Armchair]

Optimistic, but not necessarily stupid. People should be celebrated for trying to stop wars. Shows focus and where Trump is willing to put his time and energy.

[Malika la Maize]

If he was optimistic he could get it done on day one it was recklessly, stupidly optimistic. Stop toadying.

[grb]

Armchair : "Optimistic, but not necessarily stupid."

Yes; necessarily stupid. Trump's promise wasn't just another one of his endless lies, but actually based on a "strategy". He would give Putin everything he wants (just like Trump gave the Taliban everything they wanted in the Doha Agreement). He would freeze out the Ukrainians and stab them in the back. (just like Trump froze out the Afghan government and betrayed them in the Doha Agreement).

This Neville Chamberlain-style plan worked in Afghanistan, but was never going to succeed in Ukraine. There were two many other factors involved here, such as popular & political opposition here and in Europe. But Trump was too stupid to grasp that. His "shiv Zelenskyy in the back" show opened & closed the very same day. It didn't even make it to off-Broadway.

[Frank Drackman]

He got Erected. Apparently 80 million Peoples preferred him to Cums-a-lot

Frank

[Martinned]

Unlike Trump, I don't think Malika promised to end the war in 24 hours. Why would you vote for someone who "obviously" (your word) lies like that?

[Armchair]

Nothing wrong with Trump being optimistic about ending the war in Ukraine. It showed he had a focus on ending the war.

[SRG2]

Ah - "Trump wasn't lying, he was being optimistic".

You're such a fucking optimist.

[Malika la Maize]

Perfect

[bernard11]

Wow. Are you a sucker and a toady.

What did the cult serve you for breakfast today?

[Joe_dallas]

In the 4 or so years of the war, Putin has conquered an area about the size of South Carolina. Zhukov might have accomplished that on a Wednesday.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yeah, he made a reckless campaign promise that turned out not to occur..

A first in US politics!

[Joe_dallas]

So he wants to condemn one president that failed to get a peace treaty in 12 months after promising as much, but wont condemn the president who Russia showed so little deference to that they felt they had free hand ripe for invasion.

[Bob from Ohio]

He's sure he has this big gotcha.

[Malika la Maize]

Federal prosecutors secured indictments against 26 people accused of rigging college basketball games in America and pro contests in China, according to court papers unsealed Thursday in Philadelphia.

The suspects face charges that include alleged bribery in sports, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and aiding and abetting.

U.S. Attorney David Metcalf said the dozens accused “perpetrated a transnational criminal scheme to fix NCAA Division I men’s basketball games as well as professional Chinese Basketball Association games.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/sports/sports-gambling/20-charged-basketball-game-fixing-scandal-rcna254197

[SykesFive]

I'll keep saying it forever: the laws against sports betting were good, and the effects of allowing sports betting are terrible.

[Bunny495]

To quote Nick the Greek "never bet on anything that has two legs and can talk"

[bloocow2]

I just got back from communion at The Bone Temple. Would heartily recommend, but only if you're not squeamish.

[Malika la Maize]

Do you need to have seen 28 Years Later?

[bloocow2]

It's a direct sequel to that, so yes, pretty much.

[Malika la Maize]

Ok, thanks, I knew it was connected but whether it was a direct sequel or “from the world of” that I wasn’t sure of. I’ve heard 28 Years Later is good so maybe I’ll catch it on streaming and then check this one out after.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey! I'm the one who does obscure References nobody gets.

[CountmontyC]

I tell people my real name is Lamont Cranston III.

[Frank Drackman]

"Bouy are you Fat! Reginald Van Gleason III!!!"

[CountmontyC]

My doctor, Johann Dippel, says I am in great shape and that that I should donate my brain to science.

[DDHarriman]

This morning is filled with stinky pajeets, queers, eurotrash, and foreign funded revolutionaries.

All we are missing are a few trannies and we'd have a full reddit mod team or Wikipedia editor team.

What a cesspool of irrelevant commenters.

[Malika la Maize]

Boy, Lex must still be crying from Trump giving him the boot. You hurt, bro?

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/11/us/politics/trump-maga-republicans-antisemitism.html

[DDHarriman]

I am not MIGA. He is.

Pajeet.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So if you have a nice lunch somewhere and then later arrest the people who made and served you that lunch for deportation…you’re an asshole. Taking advantage of someone’s services and hospitality, and then deciding to arrest those people is an asshole move. The kind of move that would result in divine punishment in Ancient Greek literature.

[ThePublius]

Is this comment based on a real event?

Some might argue that sneaking into a country and setting up house and taking a job, remaining illegally, is an asshole move.

[Michael P]

Is it more or less of an asshole move than intentionally being an unreasonable jerk, and then doubling down when someone points out that unreason? (This comment is based on a very real thing LTG eventually confessed to.)

[LawTalkingGuy]

“This comment is based on a very real thing LTG eventually confessed to.”

Oh this should be good. What are you talking about?

[Michael P]

https://reason.com/volokh/2026/01/08/zaprudering-the-minneapolis-ice-video/?comments=true#comment-11340248 et seq.

You were intentionally a stupid dick about the standard for caring about kids because you were in denial that Renee Good was homicidally maniacal.

[hobie]

Ol' MIchaelP holds onto a grudge like money. And, as usual, his citations make no sensed

[Malika la Maize]

A piece of ankle, a piece of broccoli, a corn tortilla and an other thing.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What did i eventually confess to?

“in denial that Renee Good was homicidally maniacal.”

Yeah me and most of the rest of the country. So yes I still think you don’t give a shit about the kids if you continue to defame their dead mom with your delusions.

[Michael P]

Like if you really believed that, you would fly out to Minnesota, and go reassure her kids, who you apparently feel sorry for, that it’s actually good their homicidally maniacal mother is dead.

I don't know why you think "it's actually good their homicidally maniacal mother is dead", but you admitted that the bit about flying out to Minnesota was intentionally unreasonable.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“I don't know why you think "it's actually good their homicidally maniacal mother is dead.”

I don’t think that: you do. Or at least you pretend to with the anonymity of the internet. The point of the exercise was you don’t actually believe what you’re typing because you would never ever put your money where your mouth is and tell the kids that to their face. You don’t actually believe your own bullshit about their mom being a homicidal maniac and are lying to gain the claps of four other losers in the comments section of a legal blog.

So I still don’t know what you think
I’m confessing to. I think the problem is that I clocked you as insincere in your vice signaling and you’re pissy about it.

[Michael P]

I don't think that, you lunatic. I continue to think it's unfortunate that she died, but she put herself in that situation. And yes, she did that because she was homicidally maniacal.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/maniacal

You just can't read.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Okay so you see how you don’t actually believe the second thing, right? And you’re just pretending to.

Homicidal maniacs don’t “put themselves in situations.” Imagine saying: Jeffrey Dahmer “put himself in that situation.” You’re already being exonerative of HER!

And it’s not actually “unfortunate” when homicidal
maniacs die (especially mid-rampage) Or at least so I’m told by many many right-wingers when capital punishment is imposed or a cop shoots someone where there is actually evidence they were a danger. Imagine you saying it’s “unfortunate” that the police shot Thomas Crooks for instance. You wouldn’t lol.

So yeah you don’t believe your own bullshit. If you actually believed she was a homicidal maniac you would say it with your chest!

[Michael P]

Homicidal maniacs absolutely do put themselves in situations. You continue to just make shit up to justify your assholery.

The big difference between Good and Crooks is that Crooks went intending to kill someone with malice aforethought, whereas Good was more on the crime-of-passion side of the ledger -- she went intending to forcibly obstruct ICE, and then between her mania and that of her passenger, escalated it to attempted vehicular homicide. They're not morally equivalent, even though you act like they are. But it is telling that you equate Good's actions to a rampage or to Jeffrey Dahmer.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"whereas Good was more on the manslaughter side of the ledger -- she went intending to forcibly obstruct ICE, and then between her mania and that of her passenger, escalated it to attempted vehicular homicide. They're not morally equivalent, even though you act like they are."

You are the one who is acting this way! You called her a "domestic terrorist" and a "homicidal maniac!" People don't use those terms to describe "attempted vehicular homicide" or "manslaughter!"

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Homicidal maniacs absolutely do put themselves in situations. You continue to just make shit up to justify your assholery."

Yeah, no shit, Aristotle. Everyone puts themselves in situations all the time. People only describe actions that way when they want to blame a victim or exonerate a perpetrator but don't want to fully commit to the idea that the victim was doing something malicious or wrong.

[Michael P]

LTG is big angry that I said precisely what I meant, whereas he wishes I called Good a murderous sociopath or something.

She committed domestic terrorism by actively blocking ICE with her vehicle. I pointed you to the statutory definition.

She was maniacal: exhibiting both clinical symptoms of mania and the colloquial definition I cited above.

And ahe was homicidally maniacal: she acted in a way that threatened death to another person.

It's a reflection on you that you don't like that the label fits, and that you became so outraged over it that you declared that I must not feel sorry for her kids unless I flew to Minnesota in an attempt to comfort them.

(At the time of that earlier thread, I was not aware that she had lost custody of her two older children -- the state agreed that they should be raised outside her home.)

[Michael P]

Everyone puts themselves in situations all the time. People only describe actions that way when they want to blame a victim or exonerate a perpetrator but don't want to fully commit to the idea that the victim was doing something malicious or wrong.

I cannot tell where you think you're going with this. You think I don't want to commit to the idea that a "homicidally maniacal domestic terrorist" "was doing something malicious or wrong"? Or are you saying that the ICE agent that Good hit was the victim?

[LawTalkingGuy]

You think I don't want to commit to the idea that a "homicidally maniacal domestic terrorist" "was doing something malicious or wrong"?

YES! That's been the entire point. You don't believe Good was a homicidal maniac. You don't believe she was a domestic terrorist. You are lying to be provocative. People who lie about a mom like this don't actually care about the kids. But you can't admit it because you love vice signaling. So you engage in these elaborate justifications for an idiosyncratic use of deliberately proactive terms. And how do I know this? You keep contradicting yourself:

"The big difference between Good and Crooks is that Crooks went intending to kill someone with malice aforethought, whereas Good was more on the crime-of-passion side of the ledger."

Don't you read your own comments?

[not guilty]

Per 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5):

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

Even if there is a state law prohibiting it, how in hell is parking a car sideways an act dangerous to human life?

And even is one makes the implausible assumption that Ms. Good intended to strike Mr. Ross with her car, how is the "appear[s] to be intended" language of subsection (5)(B) satisfied? That act -- committed as to an agent of ICE -- was not designed "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." It did not involve "mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." It did not involve "intimidation or coercion" of any government agency or official -- she made no threats of adverse consequences to influence anyone to act against his/her will, to perform an act they are legally privileged not to do, or to prevent them from doing something they are legally entitled to do.

[bernard11]

I used to think you were just a very stupid, very dedicated, Trump cultist.

It turns out you're an utterly disgusting piece of slime as well.

"homicidally maniacal." Can you go any lower?

[Michael P]

I probably wouldn't, but you do.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/workers-family-run-mexican-restaurant-082521797.html

“Some might argue that sneaking into a country and setting up house and taking a job, remaining illegally, is an asshole move.”

It was a family owned Mexican restaurant and their immigration status isn’t clear so I’m not sure what job was “taken.” (Were You planning on opening a Mexican restaurant in Minnesota?) But let’s say they are all illegal: Taking advantage of their hospitality and service and then arresting them is the bigger asshole move clearly. If they thought they were illegal immigrants they should have immediately arrested them and not taken advantage of their services! To betray their trust and graciousness is such shitty anti-social behavior.

If you can’t see that you are truly lost.

[Bwaaah]

If you really cared so much about that, you'd fly out there to Minnesota to tell their families how wrong it was that the ICE officers ate at the restaurant hours before the arrests.

Did they tip? How much?

- Disaffected Liberal ™

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well I can't do that because it was a family restaurant and they've been detained. But I'd happily tell the agents that they are pieces of shit to their face! Give me their contact info.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I'd happily tell the agents that they are pieces of shit to their face"

Internet tough guy!

[LawTalkingGuy]

Not any different than cross-examining them. Just a little more pointed and crass.

[Bob from Ohio]

You have your chance, go to Minneapolis tomorrow.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Okay

[Bob from Ohio]

I'll need a video.

[Commenter_XY]

Please record the encounter.

[Swede425]

LOL!
C'mon, man.
I bet they tipped real nice before doing their duty.
Now squeeze some more tears.

[not guilty]

"Some might argue that sneaking into a country and setting up house and taking a job, remaining illegally, is an asshole move."

ThePublius, from what Native American tribe are you descended?

[Armchair]

The federal government sends billions of dollars worth of services and hospitality every year to Minnesota. Is it an asshole move for Minnesota to turn around and threaten to arrest the federal government's agents?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Thanks for agreeing with me that arresting the people who served you is being an asshole. Had you not you would have defended the agents. Apparently you can’t since you responded with this complete non-sequitur.

[Armchair]

Just putting the proverbial shoe on the other proverbial foot.

Shouldn't Minnesota be grateful for the billions of dollars it gets from the federal government? And not be an "asshole" through its actions?

[LawTalkingGuy]

If you really want to go down this path: this would mean that all the red states that frustrate the federal government when Dems are in control of it are also assholes, especially because they tend to take more in federal funding than they send in taxes.

[Magister]

But Minnesota sends more money to the federal government than it receives, so surely it's the federal government that should be grateful, or perhaps the other states that Minnesota subsidizes are the ingrates.

[Sarcastr0]

MN didn’t take those funds knowing ICE was going to turn into the gestapo. These agents knew they were going to arrest the workers.

Yum yum boots.

[Armchair]

"MN didn’t take those funds knowing... "

MN is still taking those funds. They certainly know now.

But hey....

[David Nieporent]

Um, Minnesota is a donor state; it gives more to the federal government than it gets.

[Mr. Bumble]

Minnesota doesn't give anything. Any money the federal government receives from Minnesota comes from the labor of the people who live within its borders by way of federal taxes.

[Malika la Maize]

AI Overview

+2
Yes, Minnesota consistently pays more in federal taxes than it receives in federal funding, making it a "donor state," though the exact gap varies by year and report, with recent data showing residents paying significantly more per capita than they get back, according to analyses by USAFacts, the Rockefeller Institute of Government, and MinnPost, with one analysis showing Minnesota residents receiving only about $0.70 for every $1 paid in federal taxes.

[jb]

Minnesota has the second highest per capita net contribution to the federal government (taxes paid versus money/services received back) of any state. So no, I don't think they owe any sort of gratitude to the federal government for giving some of their own money back to them.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think we should just put a total stop to the whole practice of federal grants. The federal government should just do what it's authorized to do, itself, let the states do and pay for themselves what they want to do.

In the end it's just a way of circumventing state level prohibitions on borrowing, while centralizing control in the federal government.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — National economic problems had proved stubbornly unresponsive to decentralized control during the Articles of Confederation era. That had something to do with the change.

National borrowing was a related but different issue. An issue Alexander Hamilton proved especially adept at analyzing. Hamilton thus won an enduring historical reputation as something of an economic genius for his time.

Are you unaware of that history? Do you think it had nothing to do with the ascension of the United States to great power status during the ensuing century? Do you suppose your face should be on the national currency instead of Hamilton's, Washington's, Lincoln's, or Franklin's?

[Bunny495]

" An issue Alexander Hamilton proved especially adept at analyzing. Hamilton thus won an enduring historical reputation as something of an economic genius for his time."

This is distortion of reality, intentional or not. Not dissing Hamilton but his idea of a national bank was based on specie money, something that is for practical purposes extinct today. Fiat money. The first real example of fiat money and the disaster of using it was in 1020 under the Song Dynasty. While the Greenbacks issued by the Union were fiat money after the war they returned to specie gold backed paper money.

Point is Hamilton, as smart and knowledgeable as he was, never envisioned a national bank under fiat money. What say you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bunny495 — I say I do not trust Hamilton. In his contributions to the Federalist Papers he wrote as a zealous legal advocate, to convince an audience he took to be hostile to stuff he actually favored, so he was often not forthright. For instance, Hamilton's biography shows him an advocate for a standing army, and an opponent of reliance on militias—in both cases the opposite of arguments he used to sell the the new Constitution to skeptics.

As I said above, the fiat money question is not the same as the national bank question. But there are obvious possibilities of entanglements between questions touching on national debt, and forthright acknowledgement that insistence on specie will likely put a hard ceiling on taking on debt. Hamilton was forthrightly a theorist that national debt could be a positive good—even indispensable to develop international power—and thus at least potentially skirted stubborn reliance on specie.

[Sarcastr0]

Ignoring your reading 'general welfare' out of the Constitution, the national guard is funded via grants.

You think you know a lot about stuff you're actually super ignorant about. It's like you work to remain ignorant.

[Brett Bellmore]

The general welfare clause, properly read, is a limitation on how the enumerated powers are used, not a "never mind all that enumeration" excuse to do anything that looks like a good idea.

[Sarcastr0]

properly read

BrettLaw.

[bernard11]

"Properly read," and "properly understood," are standard right-wing phrases intended to suggest that their reading and understanding is authoritatively correct.

They use these phrases in the absence of legitimate arguments. I seem to recall Bloviating Bill Buckley being fond of them.

[Absaroka]

I was curious enough to google 'properly read second amendment', and see it used by folks on both side of the argument. So I agree about why people use it, but not so sure the habit is confined to one end of the political spectrum.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Note, however, that when you get back far enough in history, to the founding era and before, you have to be alert whenever you see, "proper." It then had, and still has in upper-class British usage, at least two distinct meanings. One is the one Bellmore wants to apply, which invokes a notion of propriety, thus also the possibility of impropriety, and hence limitation.

The other is the meaning Chief Justice Marshall said explicitly he was giving to the term in the, "Necessary and Proper," clause. That meaning was closer to, "efficacious," As Marshall said, that meant the "Necessary and Proper," clause was numbered among the extensions of the Constitution's power, not among its limitations.

For an example of Marshall's kind of use in context, think of the word used thus, "a proper blacksmith shop." That has nothing to do with propriety. It has to do with equipage and skills; the shop is, "proper," because it offers capacity to match the challenges of the typical run of work for which a customer might require a blacksmith.

During the 18th and early 19th centuries both meanings were commonplace in American English. Usually the differences of meaning become clear with attention to context.

[Joe_dallas]

LawTalkingGuy 2 hours ago

"So if you have a nice lunch somewhere and then later arrest the people who made and served you that lunch for deportation…you’re an asshole. Taking advantage of someone’s services and hospitality, and then deciding to arrest those people is an asshole move"

LTG - now do Biden and the rest of the democratic party for inviting illegal aliens to flood the country. Why did they actively encourage the mass illegal migration (albeit with subtle/unofficial invitations) , knowing that there was good chance they would be deported.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Another one who knows what the agents did was anti-social but can’t bring themselves to admit it.

[Joe_dallas]

Same mental whiplash as NG - You cant condemn the biden , the biden administration or anyone else for the active encouragement of the illegal immigration or the resulting consequences when the new administration is enforcing immigration law.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah. Whatever. Glad you wont bother to defend the ICE agents who arrested their own waiters and cooks. That's a start.

[Joe_dallas]

I am not going to defend or condemn the ICE agents.

You on the other hand want to condemn the ICE agents for performing lawful federal law enforcement, but at the same time, wont condemn Biden or anyone in the Biden administration for their active encouragement of illegal immigration. Your high level of hypocrisy is telling.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No I am condemning them for taking advantage of the services and hospitality of others only to then turn around and arrest them. If they were simply performing immigration enforcement they shouldn't have had those people cook and serve them a meal first. You can't complain about the presence of illegal immigrants but then take advantage of their services and then return their hospitality with arrest. It's pure treachery.

[Joe_dallas]

So no consequences for illegal immigration?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Okay, let’s say there is a detective, investigating a murder. The prime suspect is a contractor, and there is probable cause to arrest. But the detective hires the contractor to renovate his kitchen. After the renovation is complete he arrests the contractor.

Should the contractor be arrested for murder? Yes. Is that detective a massive asshole who should be condemned? The answer is also yes. Should the detective who hired the murderous contractor be involved in the case or arrest? Absolutely not.

Or imagine an undercover officer who actually has sex with a prostitute. Then immediately arrests them. Shouldn’t that officer be condemned because he took advantage of the service but still betrayed the provider?

You simply cannot ethically take advantage of someone’s service and hospitality knowing full well you’re going to arrest them after it’s done. That’s treachery pure and simple.

The agents did wrong not because they arrested, but because they made sure to take personal advantage of their target first. An ethical agent would not do this.

[Bob from Ohio]

They paid the bill and maybe a tip.

You act like they barged into a house, ate the food of the family's table in front of screaming kids, and then arrested them.

A commercial transaction was completed and hours later arrests were made. Do you know it was even the same agents?

You [and most libs here] are completely losing a sense of perspective.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh. Are they going to have access or be able to use that money in immigration detention? Or wherever they are sent? Are you sure they’re going to get it back?

I won’t accuse you of losing perspective because you love to revel in unethical behavior.

But for normal people this is scumbag behavior. Getting a personal benefit from the investigation target first is such immoral and low class behavior. No wonder you love it.

[Swede425]

Are you kidding?
It's hilarious!
They need to do this a lot more.
Easier to do the job on a full stomach.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What makes it funny? No seriously why is it humorous to you that someone who is supposedly against illegal immigration takes advantage of an immigrant's hospitality and service, and then turns around and arrests them? Why does that make you laugh? Would you be comfortable explaining this to a human being in real life?

[Swede425]

Well, despite my better judgement, let's assume you're a human being in real life. So, here goes:
You see, Doris, it's funny because it's ironical.
"I would like the Enchilada Platter and a regular Coke"
"And for you, senor?"
"I'll have the Wet Burrito and a regular Coke, please"
20 minutes later...
"How was everything, muchachos?"
"Terrific! Absolutely delicious!"
"Is there anything else I can get you, amigos?"
"Well...as a matter of fact..."
That's just funny, sourpuss.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s only funny if you are insanely anti-social. It’s like being the kid who drinks all the beer at a party and then calls the cops on it after getting kicked out. People who think like this are not well-liked.

[Swede425]

It's only not funny if you're a crocodile tears crying toe-rag.
Like you.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So nobody likes you, huh?

[Sarcastr0]

The law of hospitality is a really ancient tradition.

[Swede425]

So is your dumbfuckery.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I’m gonna lose my faith in Zeus or Poseidon if their wrath is not felt by the agents who did this.

[jb]

"active encouragement" but also "subtle/unofficial". In other words, not actively encouraged, just not discouraged as much as you wanted.

[Joe_dallas]

Yea right - 4x-5x increase in illegal immigration coinciding with the start of the biden administration. Coordinated effort perhaps? Odd coincidence?

[jb]

I think it is quite obvious that Biden did less to discourage illegal immigration than Trump did. Not sure why you think that's an insufficient explanation for what happened.

[Joe_dallas]

It was not a case of "less" by any stretch of your alice in wonderland imagination.

[jb]

So your theory is that Biden was trying harder to discourage illegal immigration than Trump? Not sure I'm keeping up here... (Sometimes I think y'all are arguing just for the sake of arguing.)

[Joe_dallas]

No you cant keep up - kinda hard when you ignore reality

[jb]

Okay, so Joe thinks that Biden was trying harder to keep the illegals out than Trump! Glad we cleared that up, but not sure how that comports with your notion that he was also inviting them in.

[ThePublius]

He didn't do less to discourage illegal immigration, he actively encouraged it during the campaing, urging illegals to 'surge to the border.'

"Whereas, during a 2019 Democratic presidential primary debate, President Biden
called for ``all those people seeking asylum'' to ``immediately surge to
the border'';
Whereas, during a 2019 Democratic presidential primary debate, President Biden
raised his hand when candidates were asked if their health plans will
provide coverage for illegal immigrants;
Whereas, during a 2020 Democratic presidential primary debate, President Biden
pledged support for ``sanctuary cities'' when he stated that illegal
immigrants arrested by local police should not be turned over to Federal
immigration authorities;"

And so on in :

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118sres362is/html/BILLS-118sres362is.htm

[jb]

Only one of those could plausibly be described as active encouragement, which is the first statement. And of course, he was talking about asylum-seekers, who are not illegal immigrants.

Now if your argument is that Biden actively encouraged legal immigration, yes he did that. I would also agree that the overall result of his policies was an increase in illegal immigration, and that he waited way too long to try to reverse it. But he did not actively encourage illegal immigration.

[not guilty]

Joe_dallas, whiplash is a physical injury. Where do you get the idea that it is a mental condition?

[Malika la Maize]

Whataboutism from jd, of course.

[Joe_dallas]

Quite of few commentators from the right condemn actions of republicans. On the other hand Leftists scream Whataboutism to defend their hypocrisy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The asshole is the person who did hire Americans,

[Dr. Ed 2]

Who didn't hire Americans….

But the other asshole is the person who patronize that restaurant instead of the one that does hire legal workers.

It’s like the auto repair business. There is the legitimate junkyard and then there’s the chop shop. What kind of person are you? If you buy the cheaper parts that come from stolen cars? I know what courts would say — which have said —- you’re a criminal.

With credit cards it is possible to tell, I’d like to see criminal prosecution of people who patronize establishments that are subsequently found to have employed illegal aliens.

[bernard11]

I’d like to see criminal prosecution of people who patronize establishments that are subsequently found to have employed illegal aliens.

First, there not enough jails in the country to hold all those people.

Second, how is anyone supposed to know? Do you customarily check the citizenship status of the employees before patronizing a business? On what authority? I'd kick you out if you tried that in my place, and I imagine lots of others would too.

This whole fanatical anti-immigrant aktion is just bigotry given free rein.

[Armchair]

So looks like Bill and Hillary Clinton are going to be held in Contempt of Congress for not showing up.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-republicans-hold-hillary-clinton-contempt-congress-epstein/story?id=129202858

Does this mean they're going to prison like Steve Bannon did for the same thing? Or do the laws not apply in their case?

[Frank Drackman]

Ask Eric Holder

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, ask Pam Bondi.

And as it would not be a courageous decision to merely follow the instructions of Congress, she may well prosecute.

[Martinned]

Let's see if the Regime dares to go after prominent opposition leaders like them. Obviously breaking the law is neither necessary nor sufficient to end up in jail in the US right now, so I guess if I was the Clintons I'd tell the Regime to fuck off too. (And I probably wouldn't be so nice about it.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look at the optics on this — Congress, which team Trump needs to keep on their side, has formally asked them to prosecute the Clintons. That’s what a referral is.

And Hillary Clinton is not a former president.

So you have Pam Bondi, the bubblehead bleach blonde that goes whichever way, the wind is blowing, given the opportunity to look good without having to make a courageous decision, what do you think she’s gonna do?

Is she going to defy Congress or is she going to go along and order of prosecution? This isn’t what you would do, but what someone who is totally spineless will do.

I suggest the Clintons retain competent council, soonest.

[not guilty]

"I suggest the Clintons retain competent council, [sic] soonest."

Both Clintons have long been represented by David Kendall and others of Williams & Connolly LLP. I note that the January 12, 2026 letter written on their behalf is also signed by lawyers from Jenner & Block LLP. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000019b-b7df-d15b-abff-ffdfa3490000

[John F. Carr]

The precedent was set during the last administration, you have to show up and tell Congress to fuck off instead of doing it remotely.

[David Nieporent]

You have to show up if you're asserting some sort of privilege. That's because a privilege attaches to specific questions/topics, not in gross. But if your position is that the subpoenas themselves are invalid (which is what the Clintons, via their lawyers, are arguing), then you don't. (Of course, you had better be correct.)

[not guilty]

"Criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense; it is a violation of the law, a public wrong which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both." Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 201 (1968). The House of Representatives lacks authority to punish on its own for criminal contempt. Here the contempt resolution, if passed, would direct the speaker of the House to refer the case to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia -- under the Department of Justice -- for possible criminal prosecution.

Per 2 U.S.C. § 192:

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

Because the potential sentence of confinement exceeds six months, the accused contemnor is entitled to trial by jury. Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147 (1969).

As with all criminal statutes, civil disobedience is an option for one who is willing to accept the consequences that flow therefrom. I suspect that President and Secretary Clinton do not fear standing trial before a jury of twelve men and women, good and true, in the District of Columbia.

[Sarcastr0]

Some discussion yesterday of communism vs. Naziism and how many metric turps [or whatever the standard is] of evil each has.

The question about modern commies and Nazis isn’t historical though - that’s a category error. It’s cultural.

So I think this comes down squarely that Naziism was worse, but not because of some historical measuring stick, because of the subsequent cultural processing of each differed.

In the modern era, we've basically defined our morality partially around the pole of Nazis being as evil as it gets. Communists are bad, but they don't get that axiomatic oomph. Not even fascism quite gets there, though it gets some splashback from Naziism on account of being similar systems and aesthetics.

And you can't ignore that cultural baggage. When someone embraces Naziism, it's a lot more of a purely morally nihilist move that they're embracing than when someone embraces communism (or socialism, or the Democratic Party etc.). Communism can mean different things to different people, most of them wrongheaded but so it goes. Naziism doesn't get a wide set of interpretations and cultural narratives like that.

This take is one I adopted from the author of this book:
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1836390823/reasonmagazinea-20/
His push was to contrast our current age of anti-Hitler with the pre-modern pro-Jesus, but we needn't get theological here.

[Brett Bellmore]

"So I think this comes down squarely that Naziism was worse, but not because of some historical measuring stick, because of the subsequent cultural processing of each differed."

Your argument amounts to, "Nazis are worse than Communists because people I agree with dislike them more."

As I've pointed out, while the Nazis at times may have been killing people more intensively, thanks to staying power the communists pulled ahead and eventually far surpassed them in terms of genocidal deaths. That's an objective measure.

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, it’s a dumb argument, they were both mass murderous thugs.

[Brett Bellmore]

Indeed, which is why I've always made a point of treating them both that way. I've never seen a good reason why communists in America should expect to be treated any better than fascists in America.

And yet, they have been. My generation were forced to read the Crucible in HS. I don't recall any high falutin literary excuse for why Nazis shouldn't have been purged.

[bernard11]

And how should they be treated?

My generation were forced to read the Crucible in HS.

WTF?

The play was a reaction against McCarthyism and the general madness that led to people finding Communists under the bed. It was a disastrous time for liberty in the US, Mr. Libertarian, and deserves all the opprobrium it receives.

[Brett Bellmore]

I fucking know what the Crucible was. It was a literary exercise in pretending that there were no communists to purge. It was of a piece with pretending that the Rosenbergs were innocent.

The evil of the Salem witch trials was that there were no witches, so that they could only ever falsely accuse somebody. If there actually HAD been witches, as they were understood at the time, you WOULD be justified in going after them hammer and tong.

The problem with the Crucible is that there damned well WERE communists, and they were every bit as bad as the Nazis were, and richly deserved to be purged.

A whole generation were officially propagandized to downplay the threat of communism.

[Absaroka]

"My generation were forced to read the Crucible in HS"

FWIW, I think we're close to the same age and we read Animal Farm and 1984, but not The Crucible.

[Sarcastr0]

My point is that this is a category error as applied to modern day Nazis and commies.

They have different cultural weights, independent of the historical facts.

That’s what matters for what it means if someone endorses or claims to be a Nazi it Commie.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's just crazy! Prioritizing your "different cultural weights", (Which is really just the preferences of people you agree with.) over the factual record of people murdered.

There's no "category error" here, they're both in the same category: Genocidal totalitarian political movements.

[Sarcastr0]

You aren’t reading what I’m saying.

Which is unsurprising.

This kind of inability to separate your take from society generally is why something branded as socialism is growing in popularity.

[Brett Bellmore]

Your inability to distinguish your ideological circles from society in general is what's on display here.

[Sarcastr0]

Check the polling of kids these days.

You do understand I'm not chuffed that they increasingly support socialism, right? I'm talking about understanding why, what it means (and what it doesn't mean) and how to deal with it.

You're just yelling and yelling.

Treating them like neo-Nazis is not the optimal approach.

I'm sure it's great for your overdeveloped righteousness. But not great for getting stuff done.

[Bwaaah]

If you read this, listen to Malika.

[Sarcastr0]

The book isn’t by someone on the left, you knee jerk lazypants.

You are the outlier, according to polling.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, the biggest distinction between Hitler’s regime and Stalin regime is that Hitler kept accurate records and Stalin didn’t keep any records. That leads to an issue of having a fairly accurate estimate of 12 million civilians murdered in the Holocaust, 6 million of which were Jews versus widely varying estimates of the carnage of communism.

We can estimate the carnage in China or Cambodia as a percentage of the population, but that’s not the meticulous accounting of what happened in Germany.

I also reject the distinction between communism and fascism as the Soviet Union under Brezhnev was a fascist state. Putin is a product of that era, and as to fascism somehow being different because of private ownership, one needs to only look at what happened when the Soviet era ended to see the underlying fascist ownership that de-facto existed in the Soviet Union.

Much like the color of autumn leaves, which only become apparent when the chlorophyll dies, the underlying fascism only became apparent when the communism died. Both China and Vietnam today a communist in name only, and the DPRK is nothing more than a dictatorship.

[Absaroka]

I'm recalling when you commented here that Marx really didn't have anything to do with Communism. I dunno where you get your rose colored glasses for communism, but it's weird. They both resulted in pure evil outcomes.

My mindset doesn't really rate a serial killer with twenty victims any less evil than one with thirty, but if you want to look through that lens Communism killed more people and oppresses more people for more decades.

I just don't get sane-washing Communism. I don't care if Hitler liked dogs.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha no. Marx wrote a book about Communism.

I don’t have rose colored glasses about communism. Their death toll is well abound the Nazis.

I’m talking about perception, and this what people mean when they say they are communist versus Nazi.

Marx did think communism wouldn’t require a government, if you want to know how out to lunch he was.

[Brett Bellmore]

You're talking about the perception of people who agree with you, not people in general.

[Sarcastr0]

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

Generation Z views socialism more positively than previous generations, especially in the United States. In a 2018 Gallup poll, 51% of Americans aged 18 to 29—young Millennials and older Gen Z—have a positive view of socialism, compared to 45% having a positive view of capitalism.[73] In a 2019 poll by YouGov and Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that more than half of Gen Z Americans have an unfavorable view of capitalism, and almost two-thirds said they were likely to vote for a socialist candidate

[Bwaaah]

Yeah. They're thinking of the good socialism. They're not talking about what actually happens when a government is controlled by people whose next and best foot forward is to take from others to enrich those they see as more deserving. (They call it "giving.") Who would image that could go wrong?

Anyway, I think it's helpful to count the dead bodies, and separately, the silently cowering live ones. At some level, those stats should make a difference. For you, those stats probably have to be further broken down into varying categories of winners and losers in order for you to decide whether the strategy is just or not. Maybe not?

[Bored Lawyer]

And if anyone doubted it, Candace Owen has now confirmed she has gone completely nutcase:

Candace Owens pushes theory Charlie Kirk was 'time traveller' who went to 'X-Men school'
https://www.jpost.com/omg/viral-news-from-the-web/article-883608

I was particularly amused by this bit:

Owens did not provide evidence for the assertions, which she framed within broader conspiracy themes, including an accusation that the “deep state” removed the cornucopia from the Fruit of the Loom brand logo.

See how powerful the deep state is? Their power reaches even to the tag on your underwear!

[Brett Bellmore]

I really think the problem in her case isn't opportunism, like Carson, but instead that she's literally clinically insane. I hope she eventually gets treatment.

[Bwaaah]

Johnny was always a gentleman, on the air, at least.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I’m gonna throw a conspiracy theory out here, as a hypothetical. As in “it would be interesting if it was true, but I doubt it is.”

Could the left somehow be MAKING people like Candace Owen and Tucker Carlson insane? The CIA tried to do that to Castro 60 years ago, and since then we’ve been doubling our scientific knowledge every seven years.

Doubling.

The human brain and neural network is electrical in nature. That’s a known fact, EEG‘s and EKG’s literally measure these electrical fields. Or currents, or magnetic fields generated by currents, or something — I don’t know HOW they work, only that they do, and that there is a consensus of the validity of the science behind them.

And it’s a known fact that we can interfere with the electrical system of the human brain and neural network. We’ve been doing it for over a century with the electric chair. We also have Tom Sawyer‘s electric rifle, a.k.a. TASER, and they use electricity to restart the human heart. This all has a consensus of solid science behind it.

Allegedly, we have no idea what Havana syndrome is, although it does appear to be real. At least real as perceived via its victims.

Could someone somehow use electromagnetism in some way to mess up the human brain? I’d say it’s theoretically possible, with a strong emphasis on theoretically.

And then, if I really wanted to go down the rabbit hole, there is hypnosis and CBT and Lord knows what else. While I dismiss it all as “Voodoo Science”, let’s assume the hypothetical that the Soviets (or someone) actually got somewhere with the mind control stuff that they were working on in the 70s.

Again, I emphasize that I’m addressing this only as a hypothetical.

But what is factual is that, starting with David Brock, they have been numerous rising conservative stars who have suddenly gone to the dark side. Not a statistically significant number because this is not a statistically significant population of rising conservative stars.

My question is why does this keep happening? Goldwater protocol be damned. Candace Owen is clearly insane. I can see enough with Tucker Carlson today to justify a referral, likewise, with some of the proud boys, and not for their racism.

It’s almost like our rising stars fly too close to the sun and their wings melt

[David Nieporent]

We also have Tom Sawyer‘s electric rifle, a.k.a. TASER,

Don't ever change, Dr. Ed.

[Michael P]

(deleted)

[Sarcastr0]

I read that book. Swift goes into Darkest Africa. And booooy is it racist!

[ThePublius]

"We also have Tom Sawyer‘s electric rifle, a.k.a. TASER"

It's " Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle."

[Sarcastr0]

She's currently getting very well paid to push a particular kind of facile delusion based on some component of right-wing culture (trans stuff, Charlie Kirk stuff, antisemitic stuff...)

I've read analysis of her deal. It's the kind of thing that holds together only if you really want to believe. Assuming a piece of evidence can ONLY mean this pretty outlandish thing, and doing so over and over so the outlandish conclusion seems corroborated.

Her success is both bad news for her getting treatment, and says something about the appetite for fiction from a nontrivial component of the MAGA base.

QAnon never really went away, after all.

[Commenter_XY]

She is in legal trouble, Bored Lawyer.

[Armchair]

Look at all the nice people ICE is picking up in Minnesota.

https://alphanews.org/operation-metro-surge-arrests-worst-of-worst-criminal-illegal-aliens-in-minnesota/

"According to DHS, the list includes criminal illegal aliens from Liberia, Thailand, El Salvador, Mexico, Spain, Nigeria, and Laos. Further, DHS said individuals from that group have been convicted of armed robbery of a business, burglary, indecent exposure, criminal sexual conduct, drug possession with intent to distribute, and willful reckless driving.

Among the list is Meng Khong Yang. DHS described Yang as “a criminal illegal alien from Laos with TWELVE criminal convictions including indecent exposure, possession of, manufacturing, and selling methamphetamine, selling cocaine, dangerous drugs, burglary, and fraud – impersonation.”

Additionally, Fox News reporter Bill Melugin obtained a list from ICE which documents even more individuals who have been picked up by DHS in Minnesota. According to Melugin, the list includes individuals convicted of strong-arm sodomy of a boy, sodomy of a girl under age 13, sexual assault of a child, homicide, and manslaughter."

[Sarcastr0]

According to DHS.

Vis Aloha News.

Armchair is MAGAs most perfect sucker.

I like the includes trick to try and stretch the few unsupported anecdotes they tell.

And pretending ICE in MN is doing anything immigration related right now, versus just terrorizing the city for defying them. With the admin’s enthusiastic approval.

All this stories, Armchair does not post. Not covered by alpha news I guess.

[Armchair]

I do enjoy this new schtick of Sarcastr0's. "Nothing the government says can be trusted" (Unless it's a government I agree with).

Seems like he's gone full paranoid...

[Mr. Bumble]

Like I said, the show that never ends.

[Malika la Maize]

You do get your comment cuts both ways, right?

[Mr. Bumble]

Just an observation. Make of it what you will.

[Malika la Maize]

I thought I was replying to Armchair.

[Mr. Bumble]

Noted. My bad.

[Frank Drackman]

"My Bad"?? Cultural Approbation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mr. Bumble]

"Shakespeare used the term with something like the current meaning, in his Sonnet 112:

Your love and pity doth the impression fill
Which vulgar scandal stamp’d upon my brow;
For what care I who calls me well or ill,
So you o’er-green my bad, my good allow?"

[Frank Drackman]

That's what I meant, the Blacks stole it from Willy S.

[ThePublius]

"And pretending ICE in MN is doing anything immigration related right now, versus just terrorizing the city for defying them. With the admin’s enthusiastic approval."

You are truly delusional.

[Sarcastr0]

No, you're just blind and dumb.

There's like 10 videos of Gestapo shit for zero immigration-related reason, just to cow the populace.

Are you denying those videos exist?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Gestapo shit "

You are just ignorant about what kind of things the Gestapo did. Most would make you sick to your stomach.

Some videos of knocking down a "protestor" is not Gestapo shit.

If the Gestapo was involved in the Good shooting, her lover and many of the people who posted a video would be dead or in a concentration camp.

[Martinned]

Tell me more about criminals who are out on the street when they shouldn't be.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/01/14/trump-pardons-frustrated-prosecutors/

During the first year of his second term, Trump has pardoned some of the most high-profile public corruption and white-collar defendants prosecuted during President Joe Biden’s administration, as well as some prosecuted during his own first term and some under earlier administrations.

Among them: former Republican congressman George Santos of New York, Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, former Tennessee state senator Brian Kelsey (R), and Trevor Milton, the former executive chairman of electric trucking company Nikola. One of the defining acts of Trump’s return to office has been his sweeping pardons of more than 1,500 people convicted in connection with the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, including those who assaulted police officers.
(...)
O’Malley, who retired in 2023 and described himself as a supporter of the president, said he was flummoxed by Trump’s pardoning of Schwartz, the nursing home magnate. He said that sifting through the more than 100 accounts Schwartz set up to evade taxes had required a lot of effort, and that the prosecutors and agents assigned to the case did “yeoman’s work.”

The Washington Post reported that Schwartz paid two lobbyists, right-wing provocateurs Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl, $960,000 to help secure a pardon from Trump. Schwartz still had to complete his sentence on state charges in an Arkansas prison, though the state granted him parole this week.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Pardon or commute, there is a very big difference.

If you commute a sentence, all you are doing is essentially saying “OK, you’ve been in prison, long enough.” It doesn’t mean that the person isn’t still a convicted felon, with all the consequences thereof. It only means that they can leave prison now as opposed to a few years from now.

When you realize what it cost the BOP to incarcerate someone for a year, this is also a savings to the taxpayer if you have a rational basis of presuming thay the won’t go perp again. In the case of white-collar crime, where a due diligence background check would immediately pick up the felony conviction, this is the case.

[John F. Carr]

I keep going back to the commutation of "Scooter" Libby's sentence. Bush was right that the sentence was too harsh. So are many thousands of other federal sentences.

[bernard11]

Bush was right that the sentence was too harsh.

[Libby] was subsequently convicted of four counts (one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one count of making false statements),

I don't know what a reasonable sentence would have been. Libby got 30 months, but never served a day, as Bush commuted it first. So maybe it wasn't as harsh in practice as it seemed on its face.

I agree that many federal sentences are too harsh, and I wish commutations and pardons had more to do with justice than politics.

[Absaroka]

"Schwartz paid two lobbyists, right-wing provocateurs Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl, $960,000 to help secure a pardon from Trump"

That kinda raises an eyebrow. If MegaCorp or NGO.org pays lobbyists (in house or contracted), you presume the lobbyist is buttonholing congresscritters/staffers, trying to get favorable press, etc. Nothing more corrupt than maybe picking up the tab for dinner or hosting a well catered party.

But how does one go about lobbying for a pardon? Schmooze with the justice dept. folks who recommend pardons? I'm just trying to figure out where $960000 goes for such an attempt.

[jb]

LOL, I followed some links and eventually got to this page:

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/01/14/dhs-highlights-worst-worst-criminal-illegal-aliens-arrested-yesterday-minneapolis

According to that Alphanews article, they've arrested 2000 people. Of those 2000 people, they managed to find five "worst of the worst", none of whom seem to be murders or rapists or even armed robbers. That leaves 1995 cooks or health care aides being swept up as well, but you'll credulously parrot the administration when they get lucky and happen to stumble upon an actual criminal.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and we don't care, as long as they're actually illegal aliens, we don't care that they're not rapists or murderers. Just being illegal aliens is, by itself, reason enough to deport them.

Nobody ever said only criminals would be deported. Just that they'd get priority.

[jb]

5/2000 is hardly priority.

And I get that you don't care whether they're criminals or not. I just think it's dumb and tiresome when folks like Armchair try to pretend that the administration is actually focusing on trying to deport criminals when it's abundantly clear they'd rather take the easy route and pick up folks who show up to their appointments with ICE to try to follow the process to stay here legally.

[David Nieporent]

Yeah, and we don't care

Yes, but you know that the overwhelming majority of the public does, or you wouldn't keep pretending that the government is focusing on criminals.

[bernard11]

we don't care,

Who is this "we" you pretend to be speaking for? I mean, you may not care, but others do.

Nor are you, and your "we" entitled to spread a lot of lies about immigrants' crimes, and how awful they are, and how they steal jobs, and bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Or, for that matter, brutalize and mistreat people.

Look, Brett. All this business about "just enforcing the law" is a big fat fucking lie. It's just an excuse to mistreat people MAGA dislikes.

[bernard11]

The linked article says ICE has made about 2000 arrests in Minneapolis. How many are on your list?

[SRG2]

Old man falls asleep on the job

The 79-year-old US president was caught closing his eyes and even appeared to snore in a sleepy moment during a signing ceremony in the Oval Office yesterday.

But as cabinet officials began touting what they described as the "important" benefits of higher-fat milk, the president started resting his eyes - and kept them closed for at least 17 seconds.

[Mr. Bumble]

Power nap.
17 seconds vs. four years from the previous president.

[Moderation4ever]

A big deal was made of Joe Biden failing mental and physical heath but Donald Trump gets pass? I don't believe either Biden or Trump had the stamina to make another 4 years. Time is starting to tell me I am correct.

[Bob from Ohio]

You dismissed the "big deal" so others will dismiss the bad faith criticisms of Trump's brain. We all see that Trump handles more press questions in a day than Biden in a year and shows great energy.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Handles" is doing a lot of heavy lifting considering the words that are actually coming out of his mouth.

[Bob from Ohio]

Fine, "responds to"

[bernard11]

Easy enough if it doesn't matter what you say. The cultists will suck it up, after all.

[ThePublius]

Oh, my, a whole 17 seconds! 25th Amendment!

[Moderation4ever]

Works for me.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not happening for another 370 days.

[Martinned]

What do you think is going to happen in 370 days in terms of the 25th amendment?

[Brett Bellmore]

370 days from today you pass the halfway point in Trump's term, at which point Vance could replace Trump and still remain eligible to serve two full terms himself.

[SykesFive]

That certainly should not deter Democrats! Vance shows no signs of being a strong national candidate.

Or are you saying the administration would arrange a transition?

[Bunny495]

While it is early Vance is running away with the polymarket chances of being the nominee and winning the election. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is.

[Moderation4ever]

Mark my comment. Trump is spoiling the pool and JD Vance will likely have to face the consequence. Allowing him to assume the Presidency before 2028 may help him, but if the economy is in bad shape he'll get the blame. You can say the economic indicators are good but the problem is people don't feel good and that the problem. Same one Kamala Harris faced.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm saying that Democrats can't invoke the 25th amendment, only Republicans, because the current law for invoking it requires either the President himself or his own cabinet and VP to kick things off, and he doesn't have a lot of Democrats in his cabinet.

In principle, Congress could designate some other group of people other than the cabinet, but you'd still need the VP to agree.

So if it's going to happen, it's going to happen on a schedule beneficial to Republicans in general, and Vance in particular.

[Bob from Ohio]

Never going to happen. Vance would be be beaten by DJT Jr. in the primaries.

Brutus died, that would be Vance if he co-operated in that.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that would depend on whether you could actually make a strong case for Trump genuinely having dementia. By which I mean, a case that would persuade people who even liked him, not just his enemies.

Is there any evidence Junior even wants to be President?

[Bob from Ohio]

No amount of evidence will convince most hard core Trumpists if he says otherwise.

"Is there any evidence Junior even wants to be President?"

IDK but avenging his father by beating Vance would be tempting.

Of course this is all fantasy, he does not have dementia.

[Brett Bellmore]

"No amount of evidence will convince most hard core Trumpists if he says otherwise."

Convenient the way that spares you the need to actually prove it.

[Kazinski]

He missed the momentus news about High Fat Milk?

I would have dozed off at that in high school, college, IT team meeting, at whatever age.

Ilya would describe it as "rational dozing", and actually a good thing.

[loki13]

And of course ...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/15/cbs-news-ice-officer-injuries

(From the story)...
The network’s top editor, Bari Weiss, expressed a high level of interest in the story on an editorial call Wednesday morning, according to staffers who listened.

“There was big internal dissension about the ‘internal bleeding’ report here last night,” the CBS News staffer, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said . “It was viewed as a thinly-veiled, anonymous leak by [the Trump administration] to someone who’d carry it online.”

“Felt to many here like we were carrying water for the admin’s justifying of the shooting to keep our access to our sources,” said a second network staffer, who was also not authorized to comment.

Remember- this administration, in a controversial shooting, refused to do an investigation of any kind. Moreover, they lied about it immediately. In addition, their actions have already resulted in numerous DOJ attorneys resigning. When the mainstream continues to turn against them, there is suddenly a report ... that offers no real information, has no way to verify it, is unsourced, and is only provided to allow proxies something to argue.

They lie. They lie. They lie.

Do not believe their lies.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes, we know The Guardian lies. No need for a reminder.

[Martinned]

Yes, it's definitely the Guardian that is lying here, rather than the Trump Broadcasting System.

[Mr. Bumble]

CBS is now the Trump Broadcasting System? Somebody lash down Uncle Walter's grave.

[SykesFive]

I feel like part of the reason the new CBS is not doing well is that the wrong people know about the changes. Median views seems to be this:

--Left-leaners: "CBS has been taken over by Trump apologist Bari Weiss so no way am I watching/linking/etc."

--Right-leaners: "CBS is part of the mainstream media. Communist Broadcasting Network, amirite? I'm sticking to FOX/Newsmax/etc."

[Sarcastr0]

I think you've identified the main headwind - mainstream flavored but trying to appeal to a non-manstream consuming public. I don't think those people are gettable; they already have a prefered media and it's generally a very different style than what CBS is offering.

There's also the general network news is in decline thing.

And then there's the chaotic last-minute change leadership style that, along with a leaky staff, make the network the story more than is optimal.

I'm still watching CBS Sunday Morning, and it's still a good mellow Sunday Morning chill.

[Bob from Ohio]

"new CBS is not doing well "

Changes in the evening news anchor usually mean a ratings drop so its way early to make any judgments.

[loki13]

Let's see ... other stuff. A few days ago, ICE agents used a battering ram to knock down the door of an immigrant's home and send in a heavily-armed tactical unit to arrest him ... and quickly get him on a plane to Texas (he was in Minnesota) to have him deported. They had a warrant. So ... what's the deal?

The immigrant regularly checked in at the regional immigration office- including a few days before the arrest. So there's that.

But more importantly? ICE had an administrative warrant, not a criminal warrant. They were not allowed to enter that home (let alone batter down the door and invade it with a tactical unit). While ICE can get criminal (judicial) warrants in rare cases, in almost every immigration enforcement action, they can only get an administrative warrant- like the one here. This, and many other instances like it, are just more flagrant abuses.

FWIW, in the one case that I know of where it was litigated, ICE was prohibited from even doing a "knock and talk" for purposes of arrests, although I believe that only applies to the LA area.

Now, normally I'd say that if ICE is ever at your door, don't open it and demand to see the warrant to verify that it is signed by a judge (administrative warrants are signed by officials, not judges).

But ... it's not like ICE is following the law.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why is it so hard to say "illegal alien"?

[jb]

Why is it so hard for your to say "Fourth Amendment?"

[Kazinski]

Interesting question.

"Undocumented immigrants within the United States are human. Whether they exist as "people" protected by the Bill of Rights is another question entirely."

They are not under Federal Law considered part of "the people" under the second amendment, I don't know why the analysis would be different under the 4th amendment.

[bernard11]

Whether they exist as "people" protected by the Bill of Rights is another question entirely."

Not much of one, I think.

[Moderation4ever]

Because it is a political term and not a correct legal term. This has been discussed before in the column. You insist in using the term "illegal" because like the term "Japs", "Krauts" and "Gooks", it help you think of immigrants as less than real people.

[Mr. Bumble]

Wrongo camel breath.
"Section 1252(c) of the "Aliens and Nationality" laws is titled: "Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens."
"Section 1365, titled "Reimbursement of States for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and certain Cuban nationals,..."

[ReaderY]

No, it is in fact a legal term. See for example 8 USC Sec 1325 et seq.

The United States is entitled to deport illegal aliens, and Mr. Trump is entitled to enforce the law more strictly.

I have objected to several aspects of his methods including gutting due process (grab and deport first, ask questions later), his unleashing agents on people protesting his activities and treating them as rioters and traitors, his building a large network of what are in effect concentration camps, and his overt racism and xenophobia, etc. I fear he has a broader definition of “non-Americans” thatt includes political dissidents and non-white people generally, and he is using immigration law is not as an end in itself but as a wedge to open a door to that broader agenda.

However, I think the question of whether we should have an open or a closed immigration policy is a legitimate policy question. Although Mr. Trump needs to use legal methods, respect due process and the people’s First Amendment rights, be somewhat humane about how he does things, not treat everybody who doesn’t look white or support him as a prospective alien and criminal, not keeping trying to bring in the military and use immigration-enforcement people as his personal paramilitary muscle, not use the plight of weaker people to give himself pleasure about how big and powerful he is, and just not generally be a bully and an asshole and a tyrant, nonetheless he is entitled to crack down on immigration enforcement. And he is entitled to use the term “illegal aliens.”

[ThePublius]

You are incorrect.

The term "illegal immigrant" appears within Title 8 of the U.S. Code, which governs aliens and nationality, though often alongside other terms like "illegal alien," "unauthorized alien," and "undocumented alien," with analyses showing "illegal alien" and "unauthorized alien" being more frequent in federal statutes, and specific sections like 8 U.S.C. § 1365 addressing costs for "incarcerating illegal aliens".

Here's a snippet of the actual text:

"8 U.S. Code § 1365 - Reimbursement of States for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and certain Cuban nationals
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)Reimbursement of States
Subject to the amounts provided in advance in appropriation Acts, the Attorney General shall reimburse a State for the costs incurred by the State for the imprisonment of any illegal alien or Cuban national who is convicted of a felony by such State.

(b)Illegal aliens convicted of a felony
An illegal alien referred to in subsection (a) is any alien who is any alien convicted of a felony who is in the United States unlawfully and—"

[Martinned]

Fortunately there is always the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus. O, wait...

[ReaderY]

The Supreme Court has declared that Mr. Trump has immunity for official acts.

Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution says:

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and to disqualification to hold any office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the Umited Stares; but the party convicted shall nevertheless be subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.”

A I see it, a logical reading of this clause is that if a President is convicted by the Senate following impeachment by the House, this conviction lifts his immunity and renders him subject to trial and punishment at law for all acts, including all official acts, that he would otherwise have immunity for.

[Martinned]

I guess that's one reading. I would argue that the more obvious reading is that everything following "nevertheless" suggests that the Supreme Court was completely wrong. But that's just me, what do I know?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Anyway, that is not limited to the president.

For instance, it applies to the impeachment of judges. It applies to impeachments of Cabinet members. It applies to the impeachment of subcabinet members. And so on.

Do they all have immunity for all of their official acts unless they are removed by impeachment?

What I think is a logical interpretation is that the language removes concerns about double jeopardy. They were "convicted" but still can be tried and "convicted" again.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Constitution provides a limited immunity to members of Congress. It is also logical to interpret that to mean that we shouldn't assume immunity without an express statement.

This would also fit into the overall concern for the rule of law and statements (not limited by a supermajority of the Senate removing them) about everyone, including presidents, being bound by it.

[Brett Bellmore]

We're discussing as if they were the same, two very different sorts of "immunity".

Congress, and only Congress, is given what you might call "even though it's illegal" immunity. They have a little bit of immunity to perfectly valid and constitutional laws. But only a little, and nobody else in the government has that.

The President in Trump v United States, (And I would assume other Constitutional officers, if it ever came up.) was ruled to have what you might call "because it can't BE illegal" immunity.

Because the President is granted certain powers directly by the Constitution, which is legally prior and superior to statutory law, statutory law cannot constitutionally make exercise of those powers illegal.

The President can't "illegally" veto a bill, or pardon someone, because statutory law isn't allowed to dictate what bills he can veto or how he goes about deciding who to pardon.

Judges have this: They can't illegally refuse to convict somebody of a crime, because statutes can't constitutionally tell them who to convict.

Members of Congress can't illegally vote against a bill, because statutes can't constitutionally tell them how to vote.

This sort of "because it can't BE illegal" immunity is limited to powers directly granted by the Constitution to an officer, what statutes give they can take away.

[ReaderY]

JoeFromTheBronx, Only a lawyer would have the chutzpah to take an argument that the impeachment clause strips impeached officials of any immumity they might otherwise assert and twist it into an argument that the imprachment clause confers immunity on all unimpeached officials who could potentially be impeached.

You have lawyered well, sir.

Please accept this humbly offered Chutzpah Award.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Your original comment referenced "if a President is convicted," and I noted that the clause doesn't just apply to the President. I used that to flag the problem with that suggestion. It logically would not be limited to presidents. You might have won the missed the point award.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

As a "limit the damage" addendum to Trump v. U.S., I still don't know how far that goes.

"subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment," for instance, can't mean Congress has blanket power to criminalize something a President has the power to do, even once removed by impeachment. If Andrew Johnson had the constitutional power to fire someone, the impeachment power couldn't be a way to prosecute him for it after removal.

If the president allegedly needs immunity for official acts to protect their executive power, I'm not sure how much the Impeachment Clause changes that so-called principle.

[Kazinski]

Perhaps, but no federal officials can indict or arrest the President without his consent, or execute a State warrant.

Once he has been impeached and convicted then he is fair game.

[Bob from Ohio]

"according to law.”

You left out those words. The "law" according to SCOTUS is immunity for official acts.

[jb]

That reading seems to make the rest of it meaningless, though.

[Bob from Ohio]

Only as to the president's official acts. Not to other officers and not as to personal, non-immune acts.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Why isn't ordering the military or ICE to assassinate Tim Walz an official act if it is claimed to be necessary to further immigration enforcement or stop insurrection?

[Frank Drackman]

Sounds like a good Idea

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Tim Walz could have been our vice president. Oh well.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe he can be the Vice President of his Cell Block at Florence.

[John F. Carr]

As I see it, ordering the military to nuke Minneapolis is an official act with immunity. Carrying out the order is not protected and the chain of command will need a pardon.

[ReaderY]

You are starting to see the situation. Mr. Trump is collecting precedents he can use later when such things become more normative.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nope. The acts of a constitutional officer pursuant to their constitutionally granted powers have "immunity" because, having been authorized by the Constitution, the highest law of the land, they are incapable of being illegal in the sense of violating a statute.

The clause here just establishes that if Congress impeaches somebody over an act that ISN'T constitutionally authorized, but just an ordinary crime, the double jeopardy clause isn't invoked.

[David Nieporent]

Nope. The acts of a constitutional officer pursuant to their constitutionally granted powers have "immunity" because, having been authorized by the Constitution, the highest law of the land, they are incapable of being illegal in the sense of violating a statute.

That just isn't what immunity means, though. Immunity means "Even though X is illegal, the person with immunity can't be prosecuted/sued for X." That's a different concept than "Congress cannot make X illegal."

The president isn't immune from prosecution for violating a hypothetical law that says, "It's a felony to veto a budget bill." Rather, that hypothetical law is simply unconstitutional.

[ReaderY]

Mr. Trump is claiming that ICE has absolute immunity, civil and criminal, for everything it does.

The implications of this claim are astonishing. He is essentially asserting that ICE is a kind of Gestapo or SS licensed to operate completely outside the law and untouchable by the courts. It would be legally entitled to imprison or kill anybody Mr. Trump asserts is insufficiently American, which we should all know by now means neither more nor less than insufficiently loyal to him personally.

With immunity in place, the pretense of legality could be dropped entirely and the concentration camps ostensibly used to detain illegal immigrants could be used to house dissidents, judges, and other troublemakers.

[Bunny495]

Help me understand the difference between QI/AI for civil shit and 10A stuff for criminal shit.

[Bob from Ohio]

https://www.startribune.com/white-house-expresses-anger-fbi-offers-reward-in-connection-with-damage-theft-from-government-vehicles-in-minneapolis/601564855

[ThePublius]

They arrested that guy yesterday:

https://x.com/nicksortor/status/2011962315965337694

[hobie]

Re Virginia about to pass gerrymandering amendment to favor Dems for the people to vote on:

“The problem with this effort, this rush to change our Constitution, is how blatantly obvious it is that it’s a power grab,” Delegate Wren Williams, a Republican, said. “Essentially, what you want to do is you want to game the system in response to other states.”

[bernard11]

“Essentially, what you want to do is you want to game the system in response to other states.”

Yes. And his point is what, exactly?

[Area Man]

I posted this on an article about the upcoming Hawaii gun-ban case. That case reminds me of my oft-repeated lament that gun-rights advocates don't use substantive due process as a means of expanding gun rights. Let me be clear from the outset: Substantive due process is a dumb concept. But it's been accepted as legitimate by the Court, so there's no reason to not utilize it.

So, in addition to any 2nd and 14th Amendment arguments, I would argue that I have a right to carry arms onto private property unless specifically told otherwise because such a right is an emanation from the penumbras of the Bill of Rights. I would also stamp this quote from Lawrence v. Texas at the front of my argument section:

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

Voila! I have expanded gun rights because I can search for new freedoms and break the shackles of older generations that only sought to oppress me.

Certain people might not like substantive due process (I don't), but it's right there for the taking. It either helps you get greater gun rights, or it shows the stupidity of the doctrine. Any good advocate should be utilizing it.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

McDonald v. Chicago uses the Due Process Clause to incorporate the Second Amendment. Only Thomas wanted to use the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

I don't think substantive due process is dumb. Some posts on this blog defended it on originalist grounds.

Anyway, I think a non-2A defense of a personal right to own and use firearms is sensible. It is among the common law liberties referenced by cases like Meyer v. Nebraska.

Weems v. U.S. (1908) also noted:

" Time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes. Therefore a principle, to be vital, must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it birth."

No need merely to rely on Anthony Kennedy.

OTOH, "private property" comes in various forms. The Constitution provides special protection to the home (see, e.g., D.C. v. Heller). Other types of property, including public accommodations, can be regulated to a greater degree.

[Mr. Bumble]

On a different note:
This video on the almost 100 year old Empire State Building is very cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5mkZIy-TI4&t=3s

[John F. Carr]

The federal government doesn't want the latest anti-ICE lawsuit in Chicago assigned to the same judge who ruled against the government last time. The real argument, which by convention nobody says out loud, is whether the case will be heard by a judge who definitely favors the plaintiffs or a judge who might or might not favor the plaintiffs. Judge Ellis, who heard the earlier case, doesn't like Trump-style immigration enforcement.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487571/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487571.331.0_1.pdf

My take, the plaintiffs in the latest case added an unnecessary APA claim so they could claim legal overlap with a previous case involving different plaintiffs. Once a case involves "some of the same issues of fact or law" the decision to reassign is largely up to the judge in the earlier-filed case. Does Judge Ellis want to smack down DHS again? I don't know. They aren't all activists when it comes to case assignment. A conservative judge in Texas didn't want a case that was steered to him and tried to transfer it to a liberal court. The Fifth Circuit made him take the case so its more conservative circuit precedent would apply.

[John F. Carr]

The D.C. Circuit will decide whether the authority delegated to the EPA under the "Superfund" act is too great under the major questions doctrine. The context is designation of perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid as hazardous substances which "may present a substantial danger to public health welfare or the environment." The EPA chose not to designate them as "pollutants or contaminants" but to jump straight to the hazardous material designation.

Can a group 2b substance, "possibly carcinogenic to humans", trigger the mandate for an expensive cleanup with strict liability for property owners? The Federal Register notice reassures the public that the EPA probably won't go after people who don't deserve it and the virtuous probably won't face ruinous legal defense costs. 89 FR 39129 column 3 through page 39131. But the default under CERCLA is strict liability.

In plain English, the Biden administration read the scary stories about "forever chemicals" and decided it should order them removed from the environment. The chemical industry says that's overreaching.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/epa-heads-to-court-to-defend-pfas-listing-as-hazardous-substance

The D.C. Circuit doesn't think much of limitations on administrative power. I think petitioners lose.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

There are reports of ICE being overwhelmed and corners being cut in recruitment.

I see a reboot of the Police Academy franchise. The premise of the original film was that standards were cut in obtaining police recruits.

Steve Guttenberg can come back and play the goofy commandant of the ICE training academy. Wacky hijinks will ensue.

[loki13]

I was thinking more Hogan's Heroes.

A humorous view of a detainment camp run by ICE Agent Klink.

(scene)

Agent Klink: Jose! I could have you shot for that and no DOJ attorney in the world would prosecute me! You prisoners will be released over my dead body!

Detainee Jose: It's a deal!

(canned laughter)

I mean ... if it wasn't for bad taste, we'd have no taste at all, right?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Philomena Cunk's (the British satirist) world history book had a bit on how Jesus was upset at the poor craftsmanship of his cross, being a carpenter and all.

[Frank Drackman]

Forgetting the Comedian who joked Jesus said
"Hey, I can see my house from here!!!!!!!!"

Never was really sure, was he, I mean "He" talking about his Earthly House or his Heavenly one?
When I used to do Standup (OK, for my daughters and their friends, you want a "Tough Crowd"?? try a living room of Teenage Girls)
"Can you imagine being Jesus's Paperboy?????
"Umm, Mr. Christ, umm, your Check was returned, something about your "Heavenly Father" forsaking you.....Do you still have any of that Silver the Money Lenders threw at you??? No??? OK, well I won't be able to deliver your Galilee Gazette any more,
No, I can't take your "Word"......as payment in the Afterlife....

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

You're right, they just need to shoot every one of these motherfuckers obstructing traffic in the head.
I'm actually for shooting anyone obstructing traffic (or driving down the street honking their horn) in the head.
Same with these Somalian Crooks, just line them up, see how many you can take out with 1 bullet.
You gonna call us Nazis, we'll act like Nazis.

Frank

[John 4]

“You gonna call us Nazis, we'll act like Nazis.”

You already were, which is why we call you that. You’re just growing into your britches!

[hobie]

Listen here, you are not allowed to perpetrate a savage burn on Frankie. Only hobie may do that to Frankie!

[John 4]

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

[Frank Drackman]

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now stupider for having listened to it.

[hobie]

You gotta hand it to John, Frankie. Whatever he said has sent you into a shame spiral. Now you're lashing out like a middleschooler.

[thinking to myself] God please help me understand what it takes to put Frankie into a shame spiral. Sincerely, Officer Boyd.

[grb]

Today Trump suggested other countries that don't support his Greenland lunacy will be punished with tariffs:

“I may put a tariff on countries if they don’t go along with Greenland,” he said Friday, without providing details. “We need Greenland for national security.”

This kind of thing happens when you have a mentally-ill president who suffers from accelerating cognitive decay. Some brave aide should sit the addled old halfwit down and explain he isn't getting Greenland without military force. And that would destroy both his presidency and NATO. Since his BFF Putin wants NATO eliminated, that wouldn't bother Trump. But a threat to myself might penetrate the brain fog.

Meanwhile, it's hilarious to see all the rightwingers in this forum and elsewhere who have suddenly "discovered" an urgent need to take Greenland from their orange-popsicle-tinted god. Most of them (I think) are not mentally-ill or suffering dementia. They're just sycophants, toadies, whores, weak-minded cultists, and out & out idiots. As Sarcastr0 said two days ago:

"The United States needs military access to Greenland, which it already has, to defend the Arctic, which it already does, from Russian and Chinese ships, which aren’t actually there."

[Brett Bellmore]

Getting kind of tired of this Greenland thing. Seriously, I'm actually starting to take seriously the suggestions that he's starting into dementia.

[Frank Drackman]

Was that how it started with you?

[grb]

The pointless weirdness of Frank opens a new front. It seems he's capable of expressing cogent thoughts in complete sentences with grammatically correct English - but only when taking potshots at other commentors.

But since he believes in nothing and has no substantive opinions, these potshots are a totally random thing. At this point, the only possible interest anyone can have in this loser is to wonder what kind of sad life would make this B.S. rewarding.

[John 4]

He seems to 1) be very protective of Jewish people (understandable, but he could have more nuance there), and 2) be madly in love with Donald Trump.

If you mention either in a critical fashion, he can’t help himself. He’s almost gay for Trump!!

[Frank Drackman]

1: I'm one generation removed from relatives who exited this world through a Chimney, makes you wary of peoples who think that was a good idea.
2: Yes, I'm totally, madly, in Gay Love with "45/47/(48?)" He's the POTUS I thought I voted for with Ronaldus Maximus, GHWB (only once, voted for Perot in 92') and even "W", only to get fucked up the Ass each time, in fact, "45/47/(48?)" is the only POTUS who hasn't fucked me up the Ass, but hey he's got 3 (7?) more years
3: I'm a Jew with an Irish last name, so I get to see what you Goyim say when you think we aren't around

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Almost as sad as the saps who respond to my words of wisdom.

[loki13]

I mean, I appreciate that you can find a limit somewhere. Honestly.

Because yesterday, Bunny was explaining to me that the whole Greenland thing was fine because it was just about mining liberal tears, or something.

...that said, I blame his Greenland fetish on the Mercator projection map. Because it makes Greenland so gi-normous ... larger than all of South America and as big as Africa!

Despite what you see on most maps, Africa is 14 times bigger and Greenland is a little bigger than ... Alaska (less than 50% bigger).

Of course, most of it is completely unusable, so there's that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I mean, I originally thought it was just trolling, which is objectionable in a President, but hardly amounts to evidence of dementia, but it seems to have gone beyond that.

[Bunny495]

"Because yesterday, Bunny was explaining to me that the whole Greenland thing was fine because it was just about mining liberal tears, or something."

Don't put words in my mouth. What I said was Trump's superpower was making liberal heads explode. I went on to point out the polymarkets reflect a 10% chance of America invading Greenland and asked if you were willing to put your money where your mouth is. Same question today are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

[John 4]

“Will you make bets based on the actions of a dementia-addled man who was already an absolute scatterbrained moron in the first place?”

[loki13]

And you keep missing the point.

A 10% chance is 10 percent too high. It should be zero. That is the problem. You might think it's funny, but ... this has already caused long-term damage. Sure, if Trump stops this idiotic quest to bully Greenland (and take it over by force), then it won't be the worst-case scenario.

But we have allies discussing contingency plans- things like, "How do we leverage our strength against the US? Do we refuse to let them use our bases (which are really important)? Do we tell them that they are no longer welcome at their bases (which we need to project power in the Middle East and Africa)? What about security and intelligence sharing- can they be trusted?"

These actions have consequences- not just today, but for a long time. It might be a "ha ha lulz" to you, but it matters deeply.

[OpinionsVary]

I would also point out that 10% *includes* counter action. It's only that low because Trump will see and is seeing a lot of pushback - from Congress down to Joe Public - as he moves towards that effecting his goal. People calling it a moral abomination, Europe moving troops to the island, Congress sending a delegation to reassure the Danes, that's how you keep the number at just 10%. 10% isn't a license to do nothing. It's the result of people doing something and built on the assumption people will keep doing something.

[bernard11]

I went on to point out the polymarkets reflect a 10% chance of America invading Greenland and asked if you were willing to put your money where your mouth is.

I'm willing, but Polymarket says I can't.

[Bunny495]

"...that said, I blame his Greenland fetish on the Mercator projection map. Because it makes Greenland so gi-normous ... larger than all of South America and as big as Africa!"

I blame the revisionist history about projection of a curved surface on a flat map as massive ignorance. Gerardus Mercator in 1569 produced the cylindrical Mercator projection to aid in navigation. It is still the basis for the UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) projection gold standard for maritime and aviation. Until fairly recently maps were mainly used by maritime interests and Mercator and later UTM projections were the only real alternative. Globes were the standard in classrooms to show the real relative size of land mass. Not until the woke libtards stuck their nose where it did not belong was Gerardus Mercator ever bashed, until that point he was hailed as a savior of navigators.

[loki13]

...wow.

You are blaming the "woke libtards" for ... what, exactly?

I am not bashing the Mercator projection map, by the way. Just offering a possible explanation for Trump's bizarre obsession. I mean, I know that it visually distorts the relative area of landmasses as you move away from the equator, but that's unavoidable.

I think you might need to get out more. Seriously, you think that "woke libtards" are somehow responsible for a deep anti ... um ... Mercator conspiracy because they ... stuck their nose in ... cartography?

Bruh ... everyone knows the woke libtard hipsters are into typography, not cartography. We are coming for your fonts, not your maps.

[grb]

Wow squared!

If Bunny495 doesn't want absolute crude ignorance on this subject, I'd suggest he try this:

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

It lists about three-score different types of map projections, with most of them dating well, well, back in years. The Mercator map may be be the most popular, but people have have always recognized the distortions caused by its precepts and alternatives have been proposed regularly throughout history. Is there anything more goofy and braindead than the Right's "woke" bullshit?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

In raw acreage, Greenland would still be a bigger get than the Louisiana Purchase. The map thing very well might be a big part of what attracts him.

(To be clear, I guess this should be added, raw acreage doesn't make Trump's efforts any less asinine and horrible.)

[grb]

It's YUGE!

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Trump wants the 747 from Qatar because it will be bigger than Reagan’s. Fortunately a stronger relationship with Qatar is good for America…a frayed relationship with NATO is bad for America because NATO is literally Europe volunteering to sacrifice themselves degrading an enemy of America before the enemy ever reach our shores.

[Roger S]

Why would anyone in Nato care about Greenland?

[John F. Carr]

The intermediate appeals court of Massachusetts ruled that the government was entitled to seize and destroy "Nazi and Confederate propaganda" found in the bedroom of a person being investigated for civil rights violations. The police had a search warrant for guns, saw the forbidden documents, and took them too. Disposition of items seized pursuant to a warrant is left to the discretion of a judge. Forfeiture is not limited to contraband.

Commonwealth v. Ivarson, 24-P-1152, https://www.mass.gov/doc/commonwealth-v-ivarson-ac-b24p1152/download

The case has an unusual amount of multiplicity: "In February 2023 he pleaded guilty to 111 crimes and to being a prior violent offender with one predicate offense. ... He was sentenced to ninety-nine concurrent State prison terms of from seven to nine years, followed by twelve concurrent three-year terms of probation." I liked Gorsuch's recent observation that the legal tradition at the time of the founding allowed only one felony to be charged at a time.

[ThePublius]

"The intermediate appeals court of Massachusetts ruled that the government was entitled to seize and destroy "Nazi and Confederate propaganda" found in the bedroom of a person being investigated for civil rights violations." [emphasis mine]

IANAL, but that seems unconstitutional to me, in multiple dimensions: first amendment, for speech, and fifth amendment, for a taking. What say you?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the current doctrine is that contraband can't be subject to a taking because it can't be legally owned in the first place, but I'm more than a little puzzled about how "Nazi and Confederate propaganda" could be subject to that doctrine. It's all stuff you could legally own.

The 'general law' cited in the ruling sounds grossly unconstitutional to me. But civil forfeiture law is a real constitutional mess, isn't it?

[grb]

It also seems unconstitutional to me, no matter how much a cretin the guy is.

[jb]

I agree with ThePublius for once, especially if the original warrant was only for guns.

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha, thank you for saying so.

There is, I think, a 'plain sight' aspect to searches, but that wouldn't precipitate a seizure of 1st Amendment protected items, no?

[John F. Carr]

I found the initial seizure dubious. They had a warrant for guns. If they wanted a warrant for "anything a guy who throws banana peels on a black family 's lawn might possess" they should have asked for one.

[Magister]

The link explains the basis for seizing those items.

These items were lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine, and the defendant does not contend otherwise. "Under [the plain view] doctrine, if police are lawfully in a position from which they view an object, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if the officers have a lawful right of access to the object, they may seize it without a warrant."

His hate crime was referenced; it seems reasonable that those items would be relevant to provide evidence of possible motivation for harassing the only black family in the neighborhood.

[ThePublius]

Yes, but we don't have to agree with it. I disagree with the concept of a hate crime. We are on the slippery slope to becoming like the U.K. and Germany, where some bureaucrat decides what's hateful, and can suspend rights or the constitution due to that.

The presence of repulsive objects and symbols shouldn't constitute probable cause.

[Magister]

I'm pointing out the apparent basis for this decision. I was surprised that John F. Carr seemed only interested in the lathering-the-rubes aspect of this news; "Nazi and Confederate propaganda" is not quoting the linked decision despite the quotation marks, and the items not returned could not be characterized as forbidden documents.

I don't think this is a good outcome here; unlike the guns that could be used for future crimes (criminals are often forbidden to possess firearms, and it would look very bad if he promptly shot someone with guns the police had just returned), the "Nazi and Confederate souvenirs and paraphernalia" are more likely sources for motivation to the crimes he committed than tools for future crimes. Not returning a collection of banana peels might be a reasonable step, though. "Public interest" seems a weak standard for this kind of result, but I'm not sure what would be a better one.

[John F. Carr]

I was mixing up the objects from the case with the precedent but I think I'm close enough to judge the decision fairly. Cut-and-paste gives me:

"Confederate and Nazi paraphernalia"
"Confederate flags and pins" and "World War II Nazi souvenir helmets and artifacts."

[David Nieporent]

The plain view doctrine is why it wasn't an illegal search. But the seizure of them still requires some relationship to a crime. They're not contraband — it's legal to own them — so they could only be seized as evidence of another crime. But that still requires a warrant that specifies them.

[not guilty]

The statutes at issue here provide:

(a) Whoever willfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, shall be guilty of the crime of criminal harassment and shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than 21/2 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The conduct or acts described in this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, conduct or acts conducted by mail or by use of a telephonic or telecommunication device or electronic communication device including, but not limited to, any device that transfers signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo-electronic or photo-optical system, including, but not limited to, electronic mail, internet communications, instant messages or facsimile communications.

and:

Section 37. No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with, or oppress or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth or by the constitution or laws of the United States. Any person convicted of violating this provision shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both; and if bodily injury results, shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.

According to the opinion of the Appeals Court (p.10):

The warrants issued in this case authorized searches of the defendant's house for evidence of criminal harassment and for evidence of unlawful possession of firearms, specifically, "firearms, ammunition, and any documents evidencing the purchase, sale, custody or control of those items." In executing the second warrant, the police seized some items that were not described in the warrant, but that they recognized as related to the crimes they were
investigating.

The victims here were the only black residing in the accused's neighborhood. The accused having racist materials in his home could be probative of his intent, motive, planning, preparation, and absence of mistake.

[John F. Carr]

The appeals court compared the present case to a prior case where sexual materials were taken away from a person convicted of a sex crime.

A person convicted of a crime can be ordered not to possess materials which are generally constitutionally protected. Possibly the same standard of review applies to this case where the judge's decision follows a conviction.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, as part of the sentence, it doesn't qualify as a taking if they were convicted.

The issue is that the Massachusetts law does seem to hinge on the articles being named in the warrant, though... Which was the guy's argument.

[Absaroka]

Suppose some antifa folks are convicted of a plot to blow up a bridge or electrical substations or whatever. While executing a search warrant the police find a copy of FM 5-250. Does it need to be returned after the conviction?

I'm not sure I have strong feelings either way.

[grb]

Still, cool fantasy, bro......

[Absaroka]

I typically frame examples with the politics of whoever I'm responding to in mind. If I was responding to you it would have started "Suppose some right wing militia types...". I like people to think about how things might affect them or their side. "Ask not what you want to be able to do to them, but what you want them to be able to do to you", so to speak.

[grb]

Actually, that sounds like an effective tactic......

[Magister]

The forfeiture of the defendant's Nazi and Confederate souvenirs and paraphernalia presents a closer question. "[P]roperty may not be forfeited simply because it is offensive or repugnant." Beldotti, 41 Mass. App. Ct. at 189. In addition, the connection between these items and the defendant's hate crime is more attenuated than the connection between his firearms-related items and his firearms-related offenses. As the defendant points out, he did not display Confederate or Nazi items when he criminally harassed his Black neighbors.

But there is a connection. The items illuminate the defendant's state of mind, motivations, and actions underlying his criminal convictions, see Beldotti, 41 Mass. App. Ct. at 189, and they were seized because their incriminating character was immediately apparent to the officers executing the search warrants.

Our review is limited to determining whether the judge considered the relevant factors and arrived at a decision within the range of reasonable alternatives. The judge did not order forfeiture of these items because they were offensive, and we discern no clear error in the judge's conclusion that these items were related to the defendant's civil rights and harassment offenses.

It seems that forfeiting seized property is part of the penalty for the crime for which he entered a guilty plea, albeit only if such forfeiture is in the public interest.

[Bunny495]

Interesting AI response I got

"The Minneapolis Fire Department and 911 dispatch transcripts were just made public, providing the first medical specifics of the incident that occurred on January 7. Here is the breakdown of the new information:

Medical Report Details
According to the Fire Department’s incident report, paramedics arrived at 9:42 a.m. (five minutes after the shooting) and found Good unresponsive in her car. They documented four specific injury sites:

Chest: Two apparent gunshot wounds to the right side.

Forearm: One wound to her left forearm.

Head: One "possible gunshot wound" on the left side of her head described as having "protruding tissue" and blood flowing from her left ear."

Is this another JFK magic bullet?

[Bunny495]

Later analysis is claiming a bullet entered the left forearm, passed through, and hit the right chest.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, she WAS in an auto accident after being shot, maybe they couldn't forensically determine if the damage was caused by a bullet or the accident.

[Bunny495]

I am as confused as you seem to be. The supposed explanation that the bullet hit her left forearm and right chest suggest a yoga pose I am unaware of. It also destroys the claim that she was hit three times in the face. I am not sure when the ME report will be released and Good's relatives have claimed they will hire a Dr. Baden clone for a private analysis. The ME is investigating drugs and ballistics which does require more time.

[Brett Bellmore]

The left forearm right chest bit is easy, if you remember that the 2nd and third shots entered through the driver side window.

[Magister]

Put your right hand over your heart; a bullet could easily pass through your right forearm (near your wrist) and into the left half of your chest. Apply symmetry for the left forearm and right half of the chest. Without further clarification of what part of the forearm, what part of the chest and the angle of the bullets, this hardly requires a yoga pose.

[grb]

Bunny495 : "Is this another JFK magic bullet?"

1. When people asked why ICE refused available medical attention to the murder victim, many rightwingers responded by claiming Good was already dead. This EMT report proves that wasn't the case.

2. When asked, Tom Homan said it was up to Kash Patel whether the public would ever hear the autopsy findings. So this scant info may be all we get for a long time. I suspect the autopsy report will end up on the same Island of Lost Documents where the Epstein files are hidden. This administration may be freaks, loons, and bunglers led by an halfwit, but they're competent at coverups at least.

3. So we're left with this to determine which kill shot murdered Renee Good. I'm guessing it was the third shot and the head wound. That would be the shot fired point-blank, execution-style, thru the diver-side window as the car passed well-clear of the murderer.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you Quincy.

[Bunny495]

Reading comprehension is your friend.
"1. When people asked why ICE refused available medical attention to the murder victim, many rightwingers responded by claiming Good was already dead. This EMT report proves that wasn't the case."

The EMT report indicated she had an irregular pulse that is an indication the heart is no longer pumping blood. By the time she was moved to the snow bank 3 minutes later she had no pulse and was no longer breathing.

"2. When asked, Tom Homan said it was up to Kash Patel whether the public would ever hear the autopsy findings. So this scant info may be all we get for a long time. I suspect the autopsy report will end up on the same Island of Lost Documents where the Epstein files are hidden. This administration may be freaks, loons, and bunglers led by an halfwit, but they're competent at coverups at least."

I am calling bullshit on this. The EMT's transported the body to a local hospital where she was pronounced dead and the body then went to the local ME who is currently doing the autopsy. The feds have no involvement with local EMTs or local MEs. They could not cover it up even if they wished to. Had to edit this to point out maybe the feds have plants in the EMT and ME offices. Lets go full blown conspiracy.

"3. So we're left with this to determine which kill shot murdered Renee Good. I'm guessing it was the third shot and the head wound. That would be the shot fired point-blank, execution-style, thru the diver-side window as the car passed well-clear of the murderer."

I tend to favor waiting at least till the ME report which will include ballistics and tox stuff is released. The EMT report indicated a massive blood loss and the heart not pumping blood. A shot to the heart could be responsible for this but I don't preclude the head shot as well. Bottom line is four wounds bleeding out would be fatal and even a single shot might be.

[grb]

Bunny495 : "Reading comprehension is your friend."

Then maybe you should try some.

1. There was a doctor on the scene and she was alive. What part of that don't you understand?

2. The EMT report and the autopsy findings are two different things, if that helps clear away your confusion. Given this is a very sensitive case, it's the safest of assumption the murder victim was sent to the head of the line, autopsy-wise. That meant there were preliminary autopsy findings within plus-minus two days of Good's murder. The quoted comment from Homan was whether those findings would be released. Does that help you understand?

3. FYI : A bullet into the head might also stop the heart pumping but (as we both agree) this is all speculation. I know of no way to establish or quantify this, but in similar cases I remember with this degree of public interest/notoriety, we had already heard some conclusions from the ME by this point. Not the full or final report, but the earliest findings. You might want to ask yourself why we haven't here...

[loki13]

You have to remember that this is just the on-scene paramedics' reports. It's not an autopsy.

They were likely counting holes / possible gun shot wounds at that point. It's entirely possible and likely that a single bullet created more than wound.

In addition, a single bullet can have multiple exit wounds and, sometimes, multiple entrance wounds (that's much more rare, IIRC from a forensics class I took a long time ago).

[Bunny495]

An additional complication is a bullet passed through the windshield and glass shards (I know it is safety glass) could cause damage.

[Bob from Ohio]

" paramedics arrived at 9:42 a.m. (five minutes after the shooting)"

Oh, 5 minutes, "eyewitnesses" cited by the libs here said it was 15.

[Frank Drackman]

As in not being "magic" at all? probably.
JFK's "Magic" bullet entered his upper back (bullet holes in both his Suit Coat Jacket and Shirt) exited from the front of his Neck (The "Entrance" wound of Oliver Stone) struck Connaly in the Right Chest, exited, transversed his Right Wrist, ending up in his Right Thigh, the wounds line up, no "90 Degree Turn in Mid Air" required. and it wasn't "Pristine" having a distinct dent at the base, and the decreasing Velocity as it went through JFK and various parts of Connaly explains why it wasn't more deformed than it was, and, it was a Military Full Metal Jacketed Bullet, which are designed not to deform (can't argue with Oswald's results, but I'd have chosen a Jacketed Soft Point like Jimmy Ray used on MLK Jr.

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

South Korean court on Friday sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to five years in prison on charges including obstructing his arrest, marking the first criminal verdict in a series of cases stemming from his actions during the December 2024 martial law crisis.

[MSN article]

The court found that Yoon mobilized presidential security officials to block authorities from executing a lawful arrest warrant at his residence. He was also found to have infringed on the right of nine cabinet members to deliberate on the declaration of martial law by convening only a limited number of handpicked ministers, an apparent attempt to make the meeting appear official.

A past comment referenced a separate trial in which prosecutors sought the death penalty.

[John F. Carr]

Thirteen months from act to conviction.

In recent news, the Arizona fake electors trial scheduled to begin this month is apparently on hold waiting for the state Supreme Court to decide whether that was wrong, should they not have done that? So if it happens at all it will be six years after the allegedly wrongful acts.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

American exceptionalism.

[Mr. Bumble]

The wheels of justice aren't slow, they don't exist. Still dragging things behind dogs and ponies.

[ThePublius]

Remeber "they always lie" Loki13 yesterday?

"loki13 1 day ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
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."

Well, it turns out it was all bullshit.

Oglala Sioux Chief Lied About ICE Locking up Tribe Members

No one was locking up tribe members. No supposed insistence on an agreement was made.

"But in the memo Thursday, Star Comes Out said his earlier statement had been “misinterpreted” and that there was no such demand from federal officials. He said the tribe had been in “cooperative communications” with federal officials about the issue and that federal officials had said that “one option for the Tribe to have easier access to information is to enter into an immigration agreement” with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and DHS. He did not specify what type of agreement."

https://wgntv.com/news/national/ap-us-news/ap-oglala-sioux-president-walks-back-claims-of-dhs-pressure-member-arrests/

What say you now, loki13? I'm expecting crickets, but perhaps I will be surprised.

[Sarcastr0]

-Statement that tribal members are being held by ICE
-Statement that ICE is holding them to stongman out a deal with the Tribe

::2 days later::

-Oh, never mind nothing happened and also an immigration agreement with a Native American Tribe is a normal thing to have.

Can you actually not pick up on what happened?
The eternal question with TP is whether he's this dumb, this willfully blind, or just so stubborn he turns off his common sense.

[ThePublius]

"Can you actually not pick up on what happened?"

No, explain to me what happened.

[David Nieporent]

No one was locking up tribe members. No supposed insistence on an agreement was made.

How does it turn out that it's all bullshit? Because Pajamas Media claims that DHS denies it? The only thing he said was that his talk about an immigration agreement was misinterpreted. But he did not say that they weren't locked up, and neither did DHS. They gave their usual non-denial denial: "it can’t verify claims that any of their officers arrested or 'even encountered' members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe"

[ThePublius]

For those interested, there's a Karen Read movie:

https://play.mylifetime.com/movies/accused-the-karen-read-story/full-movie

One hour, 27 1/2 minutes.

I think it's free to watch.

[ducksalad]

The woman, Adriana Camberos, was initially convicted in 2017 for her role in a scheme to sell millions of counterfeit bottles of the caffeinated drink 5-Hour Energy. After her sentence was commuted by Mr. Trump in 2021, she was convicted again in 2024 in an unrelated fraud. When she was pardoned in the new case this week, it marked the second time Mr. Trump had opened the prison gates for her.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/16/us/politics/trump-fraudster-pardon.html?unlocked_article_code=1.E1A.e0Cb.U1izMBvA2TDj&smid=url-share

The second conviction was for fraud committed as late as 2023, after she had received the first commutation.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/federal-jury-convicts-siblings-fraud-defendants-made-tens-millions-dollars-lying-0

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The siblings were charged in 2023 in a complicated scheme: They bought consumer goods from manufacturers at a steep discount, purportedly to sell them in Mexico — a legal practice. Instead, prosecutors said, the siblings sold the goods in the United States at higher prices and then committed bank and mail fraud to cover their tracks.

What about affordability? Sad.

This is another case where there is a certain gratuitous feel:

Andres Camberos was given one year of home confinement. Ms. Camberos had begun serving her sentence.

They were ordered to pay millions of dollars in restitution to the companies they defrauded.

The White House official did not respond to a question about whether the pardon would wipe away the Camberos siblings’ restitution payments, but pardons typically erase financial penalties.

So, (1) she wasn't even serving time (as a repeat offender) in prison, (2) it might erase restitution [which a pardon can avoid, if carefully drawn]

Also not surprising:

The siblings’ supporters had argued privately that they were targeted by prosecutors because Mr. Trump had wiped away Ms. Camberos’s sentence from her earlier conviction.

If you have a checklist to appeal to Trump, this would be at the top of the list. Find a way to allege a conspiracy, especially one somehow anti-Trump. Also, reasonably enough, pick the right advocates:

[last time] she enlisted two lawyers with connections in Mr. Trump’s orbit. One of them, Stefan C. Passantino, had been a deputy White House counsel in the first Trump administration. Another, Adam Katz, represented Rudolph W. Giuliani in a defamation case related to his effort to overturn Mr. Trump’s loss in the 2020 election

[Sarcastr0]

The laws are not for those that have the King's Favour.
Though plenty of benefits from the treasury for those in Favour.

You get in Favour by gifting thoughtful baubles, attending Court in Florida often, or giving public obeisance before the King's Divinely Ordained Merits.

Best, of course, is to marry into the King's family.

[DDHarriman]

Do you think he could pass his office to his wife like that Democrat Rep. Dingall did?

[ducksalad]

Yesterday it was announced that Taiwan promised to invest $250B in return for tariffs being reduced from 20% to 15%. The entire GDP of Taiwan is $900B according to Google.

Those of you into economics - how realistic is this? Those of you into law - how enforceable is it?

[Bwaaah]

Those sound like Trumpy numbers. I don't know that it's fair to apply anything other than Trumpy analysis.

"We have the greatest economy in the world. It's a great deal for them. We love Taiwan. This'll be great for both our countries."

Anyway, that was yesterday.

(Sorry. I know you wanted a response from somebody who knows something.)

[bernard11]

It's probably the same as his announcements of vast investments by foreign countries. BS.

Who is going to make these investments? Private companies? Can the Taiwanese government force them to do it? Do they really see worthwhile investments worth $250B? I doubt it. What is the time frame? One year, 100 years?

Where does a $900B economy get this $250B?

It's utter BS. Let's hope it never starts, so we avoid another Foxconn fiasco. Great negotiator, that Trump.

[grb]

This week, Fox News warned about “organized gangs of wine moms”. Apparently they've replaced Antifa as the new boogeyman (boogeywoman?) of the Right. My question is where I can find these gangs? How do I get in touch?

(They sound kinda sexy!)

[DDHarriman]

Ask hobie, he knows where you can get the signs from his foreign billionaire sponsor.

[DDHarriman]

Bombshell at the Tina Peters appeal.

The State indicted Ms. Peters using misdemeanor language.
The judge instructed the jury on the misdemeanor charge.
The juries response was guilty of the misdemeanor charge.

The State and the judge said "well, the evidence is strong enough for the felony, so we'll just convict and sentence on the felony version not the misdemeanor version.".

This is what the Democrats have been doing to us for decades, and if they get power again, I'd be surprised if they didn't just dispense with the pretenses and complete their White genocide w/o any false covering of law.

[grb]

The Right sure does love criminals. This was true even before they decided to worship an orange-popsicle-tinted lifelong crook.

[DDHarriman]

Do you think what those Democrat prosecutors did is justice or injustice?

[bernard11]

href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tina_Peters_(politician)">Peters was indicted on five felony counts and eight misdemeanors.

The judge used misdemeanor language in his jury instructions on one of the felony counts.

She was convicted of four felonies and three misdemeanors.

What else you got for us?

[DDHarriman]

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

[bernard11]

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Nice self-description, asshole.

[not guilty]

Bombshell at the Tina Peters appeal.

The State indicted Ms. Peters using misdemeanor language.
The judge instructed the jury on the misdemeanor charge.
The juries response was guilty of the misdemeanor charge.

The State and the judge said "well, the evidence is strong enough for the felony, so we'll just convict and sentence on the felony version not the misdemeanor version.".

What is your source of information there, DDHarriman? (Especially the language within quotation marks.)

[DDHarriman]

https://x.com/CannConActual/status/2011623124803150158

regarding the final quoted language. It's an inference. Clearly you should be able to tell from the tone it's a construction as no one was privy to the Democrat conspiracy to deprive the Patriot of her rights. But you can easily deduce that's must have been what happened.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Orin Kerr‬ ‪@orinkerr.bsky.social‬

BIG IN THE 4A WORLD: The Supreme Court has granted cert in Chatrie, the geofence warrant case, to decide the following Q: "Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment." (I assume this includes both whether a "search" happened and whether the warrant was lawful.)