Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The Washington Post reports:

The Justice Department is planning to issue subpoenas for Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey as part of an investigation alleging that the two Democratic leaders are impeding federal law enforcement officers’ abilities to do their jobs in the state, two people familiar with the matter confirmed Friday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/01/16/trump-minnesota-walz-frey-criminal-investigation/

I have asked before, and no MAGAt has been able to answer, so I will ask once more: what federal criminal statute(s) have Governor Walz and Mayor Frey arguably violated?

[bloocow2]

I admire you for sticking it out in these threads, even when you know that a lot of the responses are going to be inaccurate at best, hateful and borderline psychotic at worst. I genuinely don't know how you do it; you have a much higher tolerance for that sort of thing than I do! Keep it up!

[not guilty]

Thank you. When my critics get hateful instead of responding to substance, I know that I have won. It's their way of crying uncle.

[Frank Drackman]

Keep telling yourself that, it's better than the Truth.

[not guilty]

See what I mean?

[Mr. Bumble]

Poor you!

[Bwaaah]

When courts rule contrary to your cock-sure, consistently one-sided theories, that makes little rules of thumb like that look like nicely matched ornaments on your papery costume.

[Commenter_XY]

Article is paywalled.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Note, I am not a fan of this law, it is too easily abused. But it remains a law on the books, NG.

The other legal avenue I see is obstruction.

[not guilty]

"By force" is a critical phrase there. It remains true, however, that 18 U.S.C. § 2384 is a conspiracy statute, the gravamen of which is an intentional agreement to accomplish a conspiratorial objective, with the intent that such objective actually be achieved.

Suppose, XY, that you were a United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota. What evidence would you adduce to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Governor Walz and Mayor Frey intentionally agreed, with one another or with other persons, to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof?

How would you propose to make out a prima facie case sufficient to go to a jury in the District of Minnesota?

Have at it, my friend.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I am not a lawyer. As I said, I am not a fan of seditious conspiracy b/c it is ripe for abuse (and I am sure it has been). One day, the shoe will be on the other foot; it is better to leave that charge alone. Obstruction...we'll see. It could also be political gamesmanship, and there is nothing at all.

As long as ICE operations continue unabated, and we remove criminal illegal aliens from this country, I don't really care about the legal machinations of the DOJ. The country voted for this...the vast majority of people detained by ICE are criminals; murderers, rapists, child molesters, domestic abusers, drug dealers, gangbangers, identity thieves, etc. These illegal aliens are not people we want here.

[not guilty]

Thank you for your candor, XY.

I haven't yet seen a MAGAt who can answer the question, "If you were a prosecutor, what evidence would you adduce?"

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there is at least as much evidence that Walz is responsible for anti-ICE violence, as there is that Trump was responsible for the rioters who broke into the Capitol building on Jan 6th.

Which is to say you could claim his rhetoric is encouraging it, you could declare him morally responsible, but in terms of legally relevant evidence suitable for a trial, bupkis.

With the proviso that said legally inadequate amount of evidence was reached in the latter case despite months of surveillance of the parties actually responsible, while, so far as I know, the leadership of the anti-ICE rioters are are not heavily infiltrated by the FBI and having their communications monitored. So, who knows what additional evidence of Walz involvement could surface if somebody actually looked for it?

[not guilty]

Brett, I have asked before, and no MAGAt has been able to answer, so I will ask once more: what federal criminal statute(s) have Governor Walz and Mayor Frey arguably violated?

[DDHarriman]

Jack Smiths application of the law can be directly applied here. They have made public, and thus surely private, statements targeting lawful government functions in furtherance of political gain.

Further, Walz commanding his deployed National Guard troops to wear high viz is his wink amd a nod to the violent Democrats as to which law enforcement agents should be tartgeted.

[Josh R]

Smith's case was predicated on a conspiracy of knowing falsehoods intended to stop a government function. What knowing falsehoods have Walz and Frey made to further a conspiracy to stop lawful ICE activity?

[Michael Ejercito]

The lie is that ICE is doing kidnappings.

[Josh R]

In order to make the case, the prosecutor would have to show (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Walz knew this was a lie and intentionally told it in order to stop ICE from performing its government function.

[Michael P]

Look at this fucking hypocritical sealion.

[Malika la Maize]

Harriman? Yeah, but surprised to see you finally call out your fellow American Renaissance conference-goer on it.

[Brett Bellmore]

You've been repeatedly answered, too. If you can ignore the earlier answers, you'll ignore mine, so, what's the point?

Insurrection, if he he has gone one inch past merely encouraging the attacks on ICE.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The DOJ probe is focusing on whether Walz and Frey, among other Minnesota officials, violated 18 U.S.C. § 372, which prohibits conspiring “to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof,” CBS News reported. Walz and Frey reportedly have been subpoenaed as part of the investigation, The Washington Post reported."
https://dailycaller.com/2026/01/16/doj-reportedly-investigating-tim-walz-jacob-frey-for-obstruction/?_gl=1*1tds671*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTgwOTc0MjU2Ni4xNzY4NzM4NjY4*_ga_B906X4P4C5*czE3Njg3Mzg2NjckbzEkZzAkdDE3Njg3Mzg2NjckajYwJGwwJGgw

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link and for making more of a good faith attempt to answer my question than your fellow MAGA cult commenters.

The gravamen of 18 U.S.C. § 372* is conspiracy to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat any of the acts or omissions that that phrase modifies. That requires an intentional agreement to use force, intimidation, or threat in order to carry out the conspiratorial objective.

Do you claim that Governor Walz and Mayor Frey have agreed that they or anyone "conspiring" with them should do that? If so, where is the evidence of any such agreement?
_______________________
* "If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both."

[Bwaaah]

NG: "Brett, I have asked before, and no MAGAt has been able to answer, so I will ask once more: what federal criminal statute(s) have Governor Walz and Mayor Frey arguably violated?"

This, you ask after Brett answered the question and indicated that, as a practical matter, Walz is not reasonably indictable. Take inventory of your deafness.

[Magister]

I think there is at least as much evidence that Walz is responsible for anti-ICE violence, as there is that Trump was responsible for the rioters who broke into the Capitol building on Jan 6th.

So, there's an 845 page Congressional report and a Senate majority vote to convict in impeachment that falls short only because it's delayed until after Walz leaves office and Senators can pretend that's the reason to let him off the hook? Or just incitement on social media and in speeches ("fight fight fight ... fight fight fight") following a campaign of forgery and intimidation of government officials?

Brett Bellmore's overriding dishonesty is pretending that he hasn't superglued his lips to Trump's behind.

[Sarcastr0]

I do think Brett's convinced himself that he's not a MAGA apologist, and is just calling them like he sees them.

He's sincere.
But just because he doesn't see he's a tool, doesn't mean he isn't a tool.

[not guilty]

The Dunning-Kruger Effect can be a bitch. Just as Brett can be Trump's bitch.

[Brett Bellmore]

There are legal standards for guilt when it comes to crimes. The only legal standard for guilt when it comes to impeachment is, "Do 67 Senators dislike you?", and they couldn't even clear that bar.

My point is simple: By the standards that Democrats use to accuse Trump of J-6, Walz is guilty as hell. Fortunately for Walz, those are not the standards used in trials, so he's safe.

[Magister]

I think there is at least as much evidence that Walz is responsible for anti-ICE violence, as there is that Trump was responsible for the rioters who broke into the Capitol building on Jan 6th.

This was about evidence. Now look at where those goalposts are!

Some Republicans in the Senate voted to impeach Trump; others voted against that explicitly because he was no longer in office, not because they thought he was innocent. Find us the actual elected Democrats in the US or Minnesota Senates who think Walz is guilty of an impeachable offense. Find us the speeches and tweets by Walz that advocated violating rights and led to violence rather than trying to protect rights and discourage violence.

You can't do it, Brett, because you have sold your soul to Dear Leader Trump.

[Magister]

The country voted for this

The country voted for bringing prices down on day 1, and instead got ICE attacks on citizens, in a bait-and-switch scheme.

[Sarcastr0]

the vast majority of people detained by ICE are criminals; murderers, rapists, child molesters, domestic abusers, drug dealers, gangbangers, identity thieves, etc.

Quite a list! who are you trying to convince?

The country voted for this wrong - check the polling. A plurality now wants to abolish ICE. That means this isn't what most people voted for.

I don't really care about the legal machinations of the DOJ
Yeah, we know.

One day, the shoe will be on the other foot
Politics is not revenge. You're fucked up, man.

[rswallen]

It is possible that the feds have received information indicating that either the Governor or the Mayor have told state/local police not only to not actively help federal LEOs, but also to not enforce laws in and around areas where federal LEOs are operating while they are operating. That could, at least in theory, fall under the part that says "by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States".

The theory would be something along the lines of this:
1) The mere presence of ICE is leading to pockets of lawbreaking and lawlessness, which in turn is preventing, hindering, and/or delaying ICE duties and operations
2) The State and/or local municipality have laws against this lawlessness/law breaking.
3) The reason that they are refusing to enforce these laws is because of the presence of ICE.
4) The normal state of affairs being that these laws are enforced (as evidenced by them being enforced in areas without the presence of ICE), refusing to enforce them in areas where ICE is present thus falls under the use of force to prevent, hinder or delay federal.. etc etc.

Dunno if it would hold up in a court of law or that it should. Just a theory as to what they might be thinking.

[not guilty]

So inaction by state and local law enforcement equals force???

Are you drunk?

[Frank Drackman]

Have you given up Buggery???
And even if he is, after a while he'll be Sober, you'll still be Stupid.

[rswallen]

No, the force would be on the part of the officials telling the state/local LEOs to do nothing, thus allowing the pockets of lawlessness to prevent/hinder/delay etc.

Its the difference between unintentionally not doing something about lawlessness and intentionally preventing anything from being done about lawlessness because of whom the lawlessness is being directed at. Granted, its a fine line and would require extraordinary evidence, and even then a court perhaps could or should reject the theory, but you did ask.

[not guilty]

The late Clara Peller famously asked, "Where's the beef?"

So I will ask, "Where's the force??"

It ain't in directing someone to do nothing, doofus!

[Michael P]

It requires either gross ignorance or unmitigated dishonesty to ask "where's the force" in Minneapolis protests.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-allegedly-assaulted-flagpole-minneapolis-anti-ice-agitators-violent-parking-garage-attack is the left targeting a civilian.

https://yournews.com/2026/01/10/6076677/minneapolis-police-retreat-as-anti-ice-rioters-overrun-downtown-area-following/ indicates that the local and state government is conceding territory to the rioters, and that the rioters repay that by attacking the police.

There was the TdA couple who used their vehicle to attack ICE agents.

You guys, including specifically Walz and Frey, endorse and advocate this kind of mob violence, so it makes you look like stooges when you pretend to not know about it.

[Sarcastr0]

'the left' is not Minnesota.
And conceding territory is not use of force.
TdA is not Minnesota, and also thusfar a pure allegation.

No use of force by the state in evidence.

Sorry, Mr. believes everything DHS poops on twitter.

[jb]

The whole premise is so dumb anyway, since the cops in Minnesota are, in fact, doing normal cop things. Arresting protestors:

https://nypost.com/2026/01/10/us-news/minneapolis-mayor-jacob-frey-says-far-right-agitators-led-to-nearly-30-people-arrested-during-chaotic-protests/

Getting between protestors and ICE:

https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/right-wing-protestor-chased-minnesota/

And Walz mobilized the National Guard!

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/17/us/ice-shooting-minneapolis-protests-renee-good-hnk

[Mr. Bumble]

@jb
"And Walz mobilized the National Guard!"
...have they been deployed?

[jb]

Not yet! Hopefully it won't be necessary.

[not guilty]

"It requires either gross ignorance or unmitigated dishonesty to ask 'where's the force' in Minneapolis protests."

Of course I am asking where's the force in what rswallen foolishly posited: "the force would be on the part of the officials telling the state/local LEOs to do nothing, thus allowing the pockets of lawlessness to prevent/hinder/delay etc."

Officials telling someone not to do something -- whatever the wisdom or lack thereof of such an instruction -- does not constitute force. Indeed, if such an instruction had been given, it would have been, "Avoid using force."

Are you too dumb to get the point there, Michael P?

[rswallen]

Does the analysis change if instead of me saying "do nothing", I say "not carry out their normal law enforcement activities during times of protest and unrest"?

Again, I am specifically pointing to the difference in how such protests are policed, and how the causal factor in how and whether they are policed seems to be the presence of federal law enforcement activities (specifically ICE). Its the difference in the use of force that is at issue.

[jb]

Of course there's no actual evidence of such a difference. In fact, one of Michael P's articles talks about protestors attacking the police!

[not guilty]

Does the analysis change if instead of me saying "do nothing", I say "not carry out their normal law enforcement activities during times of protest and unrest"?

No, rswallen, the analysis of whether Governor Walz and/or Mayor Frey used or directed the use of force does not change one iota there.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 7 hours ago
"So inaction by state and local law enforcement equals force???"

Are you drunk?

NG - Are you drunk?
That is a question that we should be asking you,
or a better question is whether you are seeking mental health care for your inane delusions?
- Walz, Frey, et al are not encouraging "inaction". They are actively encouraging resistance , interference, impeding federal law enforcement.

[Brett Bellmore]

1) The mere presence of ICE combined with the governor's rhetoric concerning them.

The argument would be that Walz is encouraging hostility towards ICE, and then ordering that the rioters be left free to act on that hostility, and that this renders their force legally his. That he doesn't escape legal responsibility by using proxies.

It is not much different from the arguments deployed against Trump in respect to J-6. And you'll note that the Biden DOJ didn't think they had a case for an insurrection prosecution against Trump.

But is anybody claiming the Trump DOJ is as careful?

[not guilty]

"1) The mere presence of ICE combined with the governor's rhetoric concerning them."

That pesky First Amendment be damned, Brett?

[DDHarriman]

Walz's rhetoric was targeting a lawful government function. No 1st Amendment protections allow that.

[Josh R]

The First Amendment protects speech targeted at lawful government functions.

[not guilty]

"Walz's rhetoric was targeting a lawful government function. No 1st Amendment protections allow that."

Is that as true as everything else you have said, DDH?

[Michael P]

NG, as you are aware, a consist is complete upon the completion of one over act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The members of the conspiracy who did not engage in that act are still liable; appeals to the First Amendment are unavailing.

You should trade in your law degree for something worth more, like toilet paper.

[Michael P]

"a conspiracy is complete, and one overt act

[DDHarriman]

Hollywood Upstairs Law School will just issue him another for the $50 tuition. He will then go back to operating the "I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm!" at the local strip mall.

[not guilty]

Michael P and DDHarriman, when and where did you get your law degrees? And how many hundreds of appellate court briefs have you written?

[not guilty]

"NG, as you are aware, a consist is complete upon the completion of one over act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The members of the conspiracy who did not engage in that act are still liable; appeals to the First Amendment are unavailing."

Actually, a federal conspiracy offense requires an overt act only is the statute so specifies, such as 18 U.S.C. § 371. See, e.g., Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209 (2005). Where an overt act is required, it must be that of at least one of the actual conspirators, not that of another person. Some of the statutes discussed upthread, such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 372 or 2384, do not include an overt act requirement. (This point is germane to showing the extent of your ignorance, Michael P.)

A criminal conspiracy requires that the putative conspirators actually and intentionally agree to commit at least one crime. What the government must prove is that there was a mutual understanding, either spoken or unspoken, between two or more people, to cooperate with each other to commit the object crime. This is essential. The following discussion is helpful:

A general outline of the elements of a criminal conspiracy has been well stated in 15A, C.J.S. Conspiracy § 1 et seq. to be: (1) An object to be accomplished. (2) A plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object. (3) An agreement or understanding between two or more of the defendants whereby they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means.

A conspiracy has been characterized, rather than defined, as a partnership in criminal purposes, as a partnership in crime, and as a criminal partnership.

The unlawful combination being the gist of the conspiracy, it follows that there must be an agreement of some kind willingly entered into by the parties to it. There must be unity of design or purpose, a concert of will and endeavor, comprising what has been agreed to.

Mere knowledge or approval, without participation, does not make one a party to a conspiracy. Mere association does not establish a conspiracy, but there must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. If, in Judge Learned Hand's well-known phrase, a man is to be held for joining others in a conspiracy, "he must in some sense promote their venture himself, make it his own, have a stake in its outcome. The distinction is especially important today when so many prosecutors seek to sweep within the drag-net of conspiracy all those who have been associated in any degree whatever with the main offenders. That there are opportunities of great oppression in such a doctrine is very plain, and it is only by circumscribing the scope of such all comprehensive indictments that they can be avoided." United States v. Falcone, 109 F.2d 579, 581 [(2d Cir. 1940).]

A connection must be based on proof of the conspiracy alleged. Where one conspiracy is specifically charged, proof of different and disconnected ones will not sustain a conviction. To allege against a number of persons generally that they have conspired to cheat and defraud does not enable the prosecution to prove several conspiracies each affecting different contracts and different persons or groups of persons interested in the contracts, unless all the contracts and the wrong purposes in respect of them form parts of the same combination.

United States v. Bostic, 480 F.2d 965, 968 (6th Cir. 1973).

Michael P, suppose you are a federal prosecutor drafting an indictment to submit to a grand jury in the District of Minnesota as to an alleged criminal conspiracy including Governor Walz and Mayor Frey. Riddle me this:

What conspiracy statute(s) would you charge?

What is the object of the conspiracy?

Are there conspirators other than the Governor and the Mayor? If so, who in particular?

What facts evince any meeting of minds between Governor Walz and Mayor Frey that the object offense should be carried out?

When did the conspiracy begin?

Has the conspiracy ended? If so, when?

[Brett Bellmore]

"It is not much different from the arguments deployed against Trump in respect to J-6. And you'll note that the Biden DOJ didn't think they had a case for an insurrection prosecution against Trump."

I wasn't arguing that it was a great case. I was arguing that Democrats would be hypocrites to dismiss it so easily.

[Malika la Maize]

Ah, I see you answered my question below.

[MarkJawz]

Yes, turnabout is fair play.

Don't expect Republicans to respect the 1st Amendment when the Democrats refuse to do so.

Jesus turns the other cheek. We don't have to.

[Malika la Maize]

We’re a Christian nation, except the MAGAns I guess.

[David Nieporent]

Don't worry; literally zero people on the planet expect Republicans to respect the 1st Amendment.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your power to know what everyone thinks is astounding.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - does 1A protect against the active encouragement of criminal activity?

never mind - you know the answer to that.

[David Nieporent]

Generally, yes, it does. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

[Joe_dallas]

Ignoring the second prong of the courts holding perhaps?

The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.

"A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

[David Nieporent]

Ignoring the second prong of the courts holding perhaps?

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[Josh R]

Given that both prongs must be satisfied, how does the second prong help you if the speech is protected by the first prong?

[Sarcastr0]

governor's rhetoric

Oh hey Brett coming out against speech and pro-comandeering all at once.

Nothing makes the authoritarians preen like ICE. Actual deportations are well in the rearview mirror, but they want to jail a state government for not going along when they shoot citizens.

[Malika la Maize]

So you also think it’s in the nature of Smith’s obstruction case? I mean, you’d have to have evidence he was pushing for something other than First Amended protected protests, right?

[not guilty]

Jack Smith's obstruction case involved far more than the January 6, 2021 protests. The overall scheme dated back to the preceding December and included long term efforts to corruptly induce Congress not to certify the electoral count.

Some of that involved First Amendment protected speech; the bulk of it did not. Solicitation to commit a crime, even if it involves speech or writing, is not First Amendment protected. Speech which is itself integral to criminal conduct is not protected. As SCOTUS has opined in United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 762 (2023):

To the extent that clause (iv) reaches any speech, it stretches no further than speech integral to unlawful conduct. “[I]t has never been deemed an abridgement of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.” Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 502 (1949). Speech intended to bring about a particular unlawful act has no social value; therefore, it is unprotected. [United States v.] Williams, 553 U.S. [285,] 298 [(2008).] We have applied this principle many times, including to the promotion of a particular piece of contraband, id., at 299, solicitation of unlawful employment, Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 388 (1973), and picketing with the “sole, unlawful [and] immediate objective” of “induc[ing]” a target to violate the law, Giboney, 336 U.S., at 502.

United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 762, ___ (2023). The Court in Giboney opined:

It is true that the agreements and course of conduct here were, as in most instances, brought about through speaking or writing. But it has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed. . . . Such an expansive interpretation of the constitutional guaranties of speech and press would make it practically impossible ever to enforce laws against agreements in restraint of trade, as well as many other agreements and conspiracies deemed injurious to society.

446 U.S. at 502 [Citations omitted.]

When speech or expression itself is the object of a putative conspiracy, that cannot be criminally punished unless the speech itself is unprotected. (For example, distribution of obscene material, perjury, defamatory falsehood, possession of pornography depicting actual children, etc.) Speech or expression in furtherance of conduct which includes non-speech elements may be treated differently and is evaluated on a case by case basis.

[not guilty]

I'm sorry for the formatting error there. The comment should read:

Jack Smith's obstruction case involved far more than the January 6, 2021 protests. The overall scheme dated back to the preceding December and included long term efforts to corruptly induce Congress not to certify the electoral count.

Some of that involved First Amendment protected speech; the bulk of it did not. Solicitation to commit a crime, even if it involves speech or writing, is not First Amendment protected. Speech which is itself integral to criminal conduct is not protected. As SCOTUS has opined:

To the extent that clause (iv) reaches any speech, it stretches no further than speech integral to unlawful conduct. “[I]t has never been deemed an abridgement of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.” Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 502 (1949). Speech intended to bring about a particular unlawful act has no social value; therefore, it is unprotected. [United States v.] Williams, 553 U.S. [285,] 298 [(2008).] We have applied this principle many times, including to the promotion of a particular piece of contraband, id., at 299, solicitation of unlawful employment, Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 388 (1973), and picketing with the “sole, unlawful [and] immediate objective” of “induc[ing]” a target to violate the law, Giboney, 336 U.S., at 502.

United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 762, ___ (2023). The Court in Giboney opined:

It is true that the agreements and course of conduct here were, as in most instances, brought about through speaking or writing. But it has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed. . . . Such an expansive interpretation of the constitutional guaranties of speech and press would make it practically impossible ever to enforce laws against agreements in restraint of trade, as well as many other agreements and conspiracies deemed injurious to society.

446 U.S. at 502 [Citations omitted.]

When speech or expression itself is the object of a putative conspiracy, that cannot be criminally punished unless the speech itself is unprotected. (For example, distribution of obscene material, perjury, defamatory falsehood, possession of pornography depicting actual children, etc.) Speech or expression in furtherance of conduct which includes non-speech elements may be treated differently and is evaluated on a case by case basis.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let’s keep this really simple.

I presume it is illegal to park your car sideways in the street in Minneapolis, Minnesota so as to block traffic. I’m not going through the municipal and city and state codes looking for it, I just presume it’s a violation of something.

I didn’t see any city or state effort to prevent Ms NoGood from parking her vehicle sideways blocking the street, QED they were enforcing said, regulations audiences laws or whatever.

[Joe_dallas]

I am reposted a response from David NoGood from yesterday to show one the many pathetic examples of NoGood habitually lying.

David NoGood stated ".. - while the agent was moving his ass from the right to the left."

I pointed out that would be clockwise

David NoGood replied "I've read this three times, and I still can't figure out how bookkeeper_joe doesn't know that from right to left is counterclockwise."

Since David NoGood specifically stated "his" that meant that he was describing the movement from the agents position, not the from Good's point of view. That is clockwise.

Not only does David NoGood lie about what he originally stated.

[Magister]

You are a moron; the agent moving right to left was in the same frame of reference as the driver turning the wheels from left to right.

[Joe_dallas]

Wrong - why defend the most prolific liar on the event. David NoGood hasnt made an honest statement on the event in over 10 days. I doubt that he ever will. He has shown zero propensity to be honest.

[Joe_dallas]

mag - David NoGood specifically used the term "his" in a manner which means it was written from the perspective to the agent.

[Magister]

Joe_dallas is lying as well as stupid.

The original statement involving "right to left" was from not guilty.

The driver moved her wheels from the left to the right -- while the agent was moving his ass from the right to the left.

Any normally intelligent human being would realize that left and right are the same in each half of that sentence. Joe_dallas is not at all intelligent.

David Nieporent's only contribution a few comments later in that exchange was

"- while the agent was moving his ass from the right to the left."

The second part of your statement is wrong - its as if neither you or DN have made even a rudimentary effort to tell the truth. neither of you have earned a merit badge for honesty.

The video show he was moving in a counter clockwise rotation around the car, not a clockwise rotation.

I've read this three times, and I still can't figure out how bookkeeper_joe doesn't know that from right to left is counterclockwise.

with the blockquote within that from Joe_dallas's comment. The only appearance of "his" is qualifying ass in the quote of Joe_dallas quoting not guilty, and not qualifying right or left; the right and the left were the same in both halves of not guilty's statement.

[David Nieporent]

David NoGood stated ".. - while the agent was moving his ass from the right to the left."

bookkeeper_joe manages to combine lying with illiteracy. I stated no such thing, as anyone can go to the thread and see.

And of course it does not say from his right to his left at all. It says from the right to the left. Which is counterclockwise.

[Joe_dallas]

You wrote it as if it was written from the agents perspective -
let pretend that you wrote something else

[David Nieporent]

Once again, I didn't write it at all, retard. And nobody could be illiterate enough to think it was from the agent's perspective, which would require switching perspectives in mid-sentence.

[Magister]

I linked to the comment from not guilty in the previous Open Thread above; apparently Joe_dallas preferred to continue spewing the same incorrect claims rather than responding to my comment.

[not guilty]

"You wrote it as if it was written from the agents perspective -
let pretend that you wrote something else"

I wrote it, not David. And I made clear that I was writing about the driver's perspective -- she, and no one else, was the one moving the car's wheels from left to right. The agent was moving from the driver's right to the driver's left.

[Frank Drackman]

Treason for one, "Adhering to the Enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort" (US Const Art III Section 3)
Evidence?? that'll come out in the trial

Frank

[bloocow2]

So, is this a joke?

[Frank Drackman]

Your post? a pretty bad one.
And I'm talking about the "Collusion" of Tampon-Tim, the Mayor, and their Somali Overlords.

[not guilty]

"Evidence?? that'll come out in the trial"

What evidence would you present to a grand jury in Minnesota to get a treason indictment, Frank?

Treason is defined by statute at 18 U.S.C. § 2381:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

How have Governor Walz and/or Mayor Frey levied war against the United States?

To which enemy of the United States have Governor Walz and/or Mayor Frey adhered?

By what manner and means have Governor Walz and/or Mayor Frey offered aid and comfort to that enemy? When and where did that happen?

Please be specific?

[DDHarriman]

They are targeting lawful government functions.

[Davedave]

Acts of treason, as committed wholesale by ICE agents, are not lawful government functions.

It's awful, but amusing, watching people in the US point-blank deny obvious facts recognised by basically everyone outside the US. ICE is part of Trump's coup apparatus, being used to overthrow the democratic, law-constrained government of the United States. ICE agents are committing treason, as are their supporters.

[Mr. Bumble]

That's dumb even for you.
Agents of the federal government, enforcing federal law as enacted by Congress are not committing treason.

[not guilty]

"Acts of treason, as committed wholesale by ICE agents, are not lawful government functions."

I wouldn't say that the ICE thugs are committing acts of treason. They are not levying war against the United States or adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere.

The protesters in Minneapolis and elsewhere which the ICE thugs are beating are Americans, not enemies of the nation.

The horror conveyed by some words and phrases should not be trivialized by applying them casually to facts not meeting the threshold of meaning. IMO these include the Holocaust, genocide, lynching and blood libel. "Treason" has a defined meaning in American law, and its use should be confined to those defined circumstances.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A global war on terror was authorized by the US Congress, that’s a declared war. Terrorist, therefore, are the enemy combatants.

All you need is for one of the illegal aliens ice is trying to grab to be on some terrorist watch list and that’s a comfort to the enemy. And as it’s almost certain that at least one of these thousands of people is, there is your treason charge.

[David Nieporent]

A global war on terror was authorized by the US Congress, that’s a declared war.

It was not. Why are you so stupid?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Frank.

If you can't answer my questions about the essential elements of treason, man up and say so.

[Dr. Ed 2]

NG I have a very simple answer —- the same laws the people arrested for January 6 who hadn’t even been there or accused of breaking.

[DDHarriman]

The law alleged broken in the indictment. I hear its referenced in the article. Did you try there first?

[Kazinski]

While I am.skeptical of this theory, knowledgeable legal minds have said that lying with the intent to impede an "important government function" constitutes fraud.

[Josh R]

True. What knowing lie has Walz or Frey said?

[Mr. Bumble]

That Minneapolis has been invaded (or words to that effect) by ICE?

[Josh R]

In order to make the case, the prosecutor would have to show (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Frey knew this was a lie and intentionally told it in order to stop ICE from performing its government function.

[jay.tee]

Of course Frey and Walz know ICE hasn’t invaded Minneapolis. Likewise, they know ICE agents are not kidnapping people off the streets. (I’m sure they’ve spouted plenty more nonsense too)

They’re ratcheting up their rhetoric to rally their base against Trump.

Even though they’re knowingly lying, it’s still not a crime. Just incredibly stupid and pathetic. They, along with Trump and his administration, need to grow up, tone down the rhetoric, and actually lead.

[Riva]

An unserious comment from an unserious troll (or rent-a-troll?). What is the suggestion? That state and local officials (Walz, Frey, and others) could never engage in an intentional and/or coordinated effort to interfere with federal immigration agents? That there are no federal statutes relating to a conspiracy against and/or obstruction of federal officers? Or is this some kind of idiotic sealioning? Ok let’s play this idiotic game, there are multiple statues potentially at issue, just to name a couple: 18 U.S.C. § 372 – Conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer and possibly 18 U.S.C. § 111 – Forcibly assaulting, resisting, or impeding federal officers.

And, of course, there’s also the industrial level fraud enabled by Walz and other Minnesota officials. They’re not getting away with that no matter how much they try to exploit various obstructive and violent distractions.

[not guilty]

Riva, every essential element of a federal crime must be proven, including criminal conspiracy offenses.

Do you posit that Governor Walz and/or Mayor Frey have themselves used force to assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with any federal official? If so, when and where do you claim that they did so? If not, they did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 111 -- which is not a conspiracy statute -- at all.

As for 18 U.S.C. § 372, that statute provides:

If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means [that is, by force, intimidation, or threat] any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both. [Emphasis added.]

The adverbial phrase, "by force, intimidation, or threat," modifies everything that comes thereafter. That means that the forcible, intimidating or threatening means by which the conspiratorial goal is to be accomplished is not only an objective of the conspiracy, but is part of the mens rea of the conspirators in forming the agreement in the first place.

What force, intimidation or threat do you posit that Governor Walz and Mayor Frey intentionally and explicitly agreed to use, Riva?

[Bored Lawyer]

I must say, your comments are in bad faith. The whole point of an investigation is to see what evidence there is. Demanding that there be enough evidence to convict BEFORE an investigation is even launched is backwards.

And who says there has to be a criminal violation. There could be civil issues, like misusing federal funding.

[SRG2]

Preventing the implementation of a Trump or Neue OKW order or policy is criminal per se. obviously.

[Sarcastr0]

There needs to be a predicate for an investigation or else it’s harassment.

Ffs that’s the whole whining claim about the Trump investigations. Falsely, but if that’s a legit argument this is not in bad faith.

[Riva]

Unlike the Russian collusion fraud, there are plenty of predicates here based on the public statements, threats and conduct of Walz, Frey and other state officials. And that's just what we know from the public record. And, as an aside, Walz is probably more worried about the shit load of predicates for future fraud investigations.

[Krayt]

There needs to be a predicate for an investigation or else it’s harassment.

This assumes the predicate came out through some natural observation rather than a concerted effort to dig, dig, dig into a political opponent. That's the whole point of warrant requirements. Kings of yore knew they just had to dig deeply enough and they could find some violation of uppity opposition, who had power and wealth. The 4th isn't protecting against the planting of fake evidence.

[Krayt]

Not unrelated: discovering something, then holding it in reserve until a more politically opportune moment to use against your irritating opponent.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm aware your take on Trump's legal travails is as zealous as any MAGA, since it tickles your priors about government being inherently evil.

Can't offer reason or facts to someone who didn't use them to arrive at his current position.

[Krayt]

All I have is reason and facts, all across the Earth and through all history. That is the basis, and the sooner people realize it, the better.

There's nothing I can say to sway motivated power mongers to be anything other than cover story-specialist liars. You pick your goal for power reasons, then conjure into existence a cover story to make it seem other than raw, motivated power agglomeration.

Dr. Chandra: HAL was told to lie, by people who find it easy to lie.

[Kazinski]

What was the predicate for the Russiagate investigation?

[Magister]

It was the combination of George Papadopoulos telling an Australian diplomat that the Russians had dirt on Clinton in the form of many emails, followed by Wikileaks releasing such emails; combined with other unusual ties between Trump campaign aides and Russian agents. "There was a growing body of evidence that a foreign government was attempting to interfere in both the process and the debate surrounding our elections" which justified the investigation (which ultimately led to conviction of a number of people, despite Trump's attempts to obstruct it).

Were you unable to do an internet search, or is there some Bumble-level gotcha you're trying to set up?

[jay.tee]

It was the combination of George Papadopoulos telling an Australian diplomat that the Russians had dirt on Clinton in the form of many emails

That never happened. The Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, completely refuted the falsified account that ended up “justifying” the first FISA warrant.

The rest of your post is equally bunk. Do yourself a favor and read Judge Boasberg’s mea culpa, admitting none of the FISA warrants should have been granted due to fabricated “evidence” and intentional omissions.

[David Nieporent]

That is, of course, false. And the FISA warrants were about Page, not Papadopoulos.

[jay.tee]

Why do you continue to lie about this, David?

The warrant was predicated on Papadopoulos’s encounter with Alexander Downer, the details of which were fabricated in the FISA warrant.

Downer agreed the statement ascribed to him in the FISA warrant was untrue.

Just a small extract from one of Boasberg’s memos:

Last December, the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General issued a comprehensive report examining, among other things, applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for authority to conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. person Carter W. Page. The OIG found that those applications contained significant factual inaccuracies and omissions relevant to whether there was probable cause to believe Page was an agent of the Russian government. There is thus little doubt that the government breached its duty of candor to the Court with respect to those applications.

https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Misc%2019%2002%20Opinion%20and%20Order%20PJ%20JEB%20200304.pdf

[Michael Ejercito]

Probable cause is the standard.

[not guilty]

"I must say, your comments are in bad faith. The whole point of an investigation is to see what evidence there is. Demanding that there be enough evidence to convict BEFORE an investigation is even launched is backwards."

A federal investigation undertaken without at least reasonable suspicion to believe that a federal crime has been committed is at best a waste of resources. An investigation undertaken by two or more people in retaliation for the subject's public criticism of President Bone Spurs Chickenhawk could itself evince a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 241.

As SCOTUS has opined:

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

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, ___ (2006).

[Josh R]

18 U.S.C. § 111 seems like the best candidate.

[Michael Ejercito]

Obstruction

Conspiracy to commit obstruction.

[Bunny495]

After a perhaps ill-informed visit to Berkely/Oakland where I was involved in a traffic stop by Oakland Police of a Mercedes Benz diesel car due to exhaust issues, I had a conversation with my Daddy and Grandmother. I claimed the FBI had a dossier on me to which my Daddy replied, 'you are really a nobody if the FBI does not have a dossier on me' and my Grandmother replied, 'you can't turn around without breaking some law'. This legal philosophy has been codified in the famous quotation 'a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich'. I am aware of some recent failures like the famous sandwich thrown at a fed as well as a homeless man shining a key ring laser at a helicopter and being found not guilty but there have been far more successes.

To answer NG's question state and local pols and their agencies have taken actions to hinder ICE enforcement and there is little dispute over these claims. ICE vehicles cannot legally park in state or local owned parking lots as the result of direct orders of Waltz and Frey. When I hear any crap about the feds not cooperating with state and local government, I am calling bullshit. City Park administrators have created an online database for real time reporting ICE agent's locations. The city of Miami (not Miami/Dade County) has about the same population as Minneapolis/St Paul and about three times the number of police officers. Not only does Minneapolis/St Paul stand out with an undermanned police force but the pols have made it clear where the police should concentrate their efforts.

A massive amount of circumstantial evidence exists that state and local government have created rules to hinder ICE operations and coordinate with groups like ICE Watch. Ask yourself what the response would have been when Ike and JFK tried (and succeeded) in integrating schools in the South and local and state governments acted like this. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[SRG2]

A massive amount of circumstantial evidence exists that state and local government have created rules to hinder ICE operations and coordinate with groups like ICE Watch.

A massive amount of circumstantial evidence exists that state and local government have created rules to prevent ICE operations from violating constitutional rights.

[JohnSmith97]

I'm disappointed, NG. Shouldn't this be a 20 paragraph screed telling us that the DoJ is totally awful and wrong (when an (R) is president, anyway..)?

[not guilty]

Politico has an interesting interview with my preferred candidate for the 2028 candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, Governor Andy Beshear of Kentucky. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/01/16/andy-beshear-2028-presidential-race-kentucky-00732356?nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nname=playbook&nrid=0000015a-a3ec-d593-abdf-efff778a0000

Politicians reared in the South grow up steeped in patriotism and in respect for religion and military service. That translates well to winning general elections.

And Governor Beshear has more authenticity in his little finger than the chameleon James Donald Bowman a/k/a James David Hamel a/k/a James David Vance has in his whole body.

[Frank Drackman]

He'll do about as well as AlGore did.

[not guilty]

Frank, Albert Gore, Sr. was reared in Smith County, on the Cumberland Plateau in Middle Tennessee.

Albert Gore, Jr. was reared in Washington, D.C.

[Frank Drackman]

I sure AlGore was reared in more places than that

[SRG2]

Al Gore would have beaten Bush in 2000 had there not been the notorious butterfly ballot, which had nothing to do with merits. Gore did well enough to win.

[Mr. Bumble]

But he didn't.

[SRG2]

Indeed not, but his failure to win was the equivalent of a football team losing a match owing to referee's decisions rather than being beaten by a better side.

[ducksalad]

Meh. I think it's a mistake to focus on that butterfly ballot just because it was the object of contention and it was unusual. In a national election there are hundreds of other random factors equally important that we just ignore: order of names on the ballot, weather, local sports events, when the polls close, spoiled ballots, etc.

One could pick (and I emphasize the word pick) one that went the other way and say that if hadn't been for that Bush's margin would have been large enough to make the butterfly ballot irrelevant. Or the reverse.

An elections expert at the time pointed out that elections measure public opinion, measurements inherently have error, and this one was within the margin of error.

(Side note - in an election with physical ballots ~1% of voters manage to screw it up so badly you can't tell who if anyone they intended to vote for. Machine results just prevent you from detecting mistaken lever pulls, missed button pushes, random spasmic jabbing at the panel, and drool stains.)

All we can say is that it was close and Gore was competitive.

[Josh R]

We can definitively say a plurality of Florida voters left the voting booth believing they voted for Gore. And if Gore won a plurality in Florida, he would have won the election.

[jay.tee]

You can say that, but it would be a lie.

[Josh R]

An outright lie? Provie it.

[jay.tee]

Your claim, your proof. No one else has been able to so you’d be the first.

[SRG2]

I didn't bring up, until this post, the purging of voter rolls - that also swung Florida to Bush.

[Frank Drackman]

In 2000 "W" carried Florida by 538 Votes (2 of those Me and Mrs. Drackman's)
In 2024 "45/47/(48?)" carried Florida by >1,500,000 Votes
Those "Changing Demographics" at work!

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Beshear is really the Governor of Louisville.
Take out Louisville and he lost the state in a Landslide.
He's also not sufficiently Pro-Ham-Ass to have any chance in the DemoKKKrat Primary.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Pathetically predictable.

Frank Drackman 21 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
What Restaurant did you run?
"Joe Shit the Ragman's Shit House"???
I'd run that by a Focus Group next time.
Let me explain it to you, like the Simpleton that you are.
Try your stupid statement, but with a Twist,
"After this, I wouldn't serve Niggers, Spicks, Towelheads, or Chinks in my restaurant even if I had 100% Niggers, Spicks, Towelheads, and Chinks running the place and Moe-hammed as Chef."
You don't like ICE? Great, alot of people don't like Niggers, Spicks, Towelheads, or Chinks either.

Frank

Reply

Malika la Maize 20 hours ago
Any excuse for the slurs. Tomorrow though he’ll be crying over Black Baby Holocaust and the DemoKKRats.

We deserve better wannabe edgelords.

Reply Edit

[Frank Drackman]

So I said "Nigger", so did Barry Hussein in his Best Selling Auto-Erotic Biography, "Wet Dreams of my Father"
Report him,
I'm sorry, "Him"
Got big plans for MLK Jr Day??? Practicing what he preached? Cheating on his (still grieving, come on, it's been 57 years) Wife with White Hookers???
oh, almost forgot,

Frank

[DDHarriman]

Paste Sarcastr0 s comment the other day where he went on and on about how even he hates niggers.

[DDHarriman]

P.s. it's not a "black baby holocaust". It's a cleansing of White society. I've donated so much to the PP in my local nigtown they renamed MLK Jr Blvd after me.

[Malika la Maize]

In your nightgown? Or your mom’s?

[DDHarriman]

nig-town, you know like all of Southern India.

[Malika la Maize]

Your mom’s nightgown you wear is of a Southern Indian style?

[bernard11]

Take out Louisville and he lost the state in a Landslide.

These sorts of "arguments," or whatever they are, are tiresome and stupid. (See also "If you don't count California.")

Louisville is part of KY. People who live there are Kentuckians. Their votes in statewide elections count just as much as those of other KY voters.

[Magister]

Yes, one popular form of this "argument" is to color counties (or other subdivisions) based on their popular vote, pretending that square miles rather than people vote.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've actually cited him in the past as a reasonable Democratic candidate for President. Not that I'd like him to be President, but he's not a nutcase.

But in the modern Democratic party, not being a nutcase may be disqualifying.

[Bwaaah]

Even the Democratic would-be machine doesn't know what candidate it will cough up after its reactionary twists and turns and spasms push through some residual byproduct. They'll be scared of socialists, and of anybody who doesn't show fealty to socialists. It's like watching an identity crisis give birth.

[Sarcastr0]

So disaffected!

[Bwaaah]

To be clear and reach beyond mere name-calling, I'm a very-much affected liberal. Can you not see the morass of identity politics? Your name-calling exemplifies it. Even seeking common ground with me undermines your rules about superficial distinctions.

[Magister]

A "liberal" who rushes to criticize those who are not right wing and to defend right wing nonsense in a comment section filled with right wingers already offering plenty of both, is not a liberal. There's no such thing as "self hating liberal" because that would mean they're not a liberal, just as Bwaaah is not a liberal. Pretending to be a staunch long time liberal who fell away over some trivial misrepresentation of a minor liberal position is as convincing as pretending to be a Nigerian prince.

[Bob from Ohio]

"he's not a nutcase"

Let's see how he answers "can a man get pregnant".

"Indeed, Beshear vetoed one of the most draconian anti-LGBTQ+ bills in the U.S. in March 2023, saying the bill’s provisions against gender-affirming care represented “too much governmental interference” in private healthcare decisions — even though the Republican-controlled legislature overruled that veto less than a week later. In 2022, Beshear similarly vetoed a bill to bar trans girls from school sports, which was later overruled as well. Earlier this year, Beshear also issued an executive order banning conversion therapy."

https://www.them.us/story/andy-beshear-kentucky-governor-democratic-party-nyt-op-ed

He's just he Dem counterpart of Romney and Charlie Baker and Larry Hogan, nice weak GOPers picked to check Dems a smidge with a supermajority legislature to override anything important.

Less than zero chance of getting nominated and would be a Walz like influence on the campaign.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Lawyers, Guns & Money Blog has a Kentucky contributor (the "guns"/foreign policy guy) who sometimes talks about local politics.

A Southern/border state governor like him would be an ideal choice. Democrats need to find a way to skim off a few more states, including as safety valves for places like Pennsylvania. This is true in the Senate, too. See, e.g., the race in Alaska.

"Politicians reared in the South grow up steeped in patriotism and in respect for religion and military service."

We are seeing many such people, though Republicans pretend to monopoly on the area. Multiple promising young and upcoming Democratic politicians in Congress and in statehouses served in the military (also places like the CIA), have respect for religion, and (since some around here are so concerned about it) are quite comfortable with guns.

Biden fit the times in 2020, resulting in his large popular vote victory. The midterms and 2028 will warrant another type.

[AmosArch]

Modest Proposal: OpenBordersLand

Somin and Co are always screeching about how wonderful complete and unrestricted open borders is. Well why don't they show us? Surely there has to be a easier way than catfighting for years with an entrenched opposition in existing countries. So why not found your own?

With much of the Western world establishment in support there should be enough political capital to set aside a sizeable area for an open borders experiment. Say maybe in Europe since they seem to like it there so much.

Set aside some land. Build up some housing and infrastructure. And deposit some supplies.

There will be two central mandatory rules
1. The first rule that anybody who wants to can come over and stay around at least for the duration of the experiment.
2. The second rule will be that there will be absolutely no border or immigration control whatsoever no matter how full it becomes or how empty it remains or what happens inside or outside. Anyone and everyone regardless of background or activity or criminal record will be allowed to come and go as they please no matter what. If someone murders someone else and they want to stay, well they'll have to find some way to lock them up on site.

WIth that set the timer for say 10 years and see if it becomes the sci fi paradise utopia Somin and Co claim.

They get to prove their point to everyone and help out some future rocket scientist refugees they claim the US is always missing out on. It will pave a much easier path for open borders in the countries they fight so hard to implement them in. And of course theres going to be all the profit from all the money generated and tons of cutting edge scientific breakthroughs from the inevitable utopia. Whats to lose?

[Sarcastr0]

There is one other person on this comentariat who favors open borders.

The rest is you excluding the middle between open borders and Stephen Miller’s paper bag test authoritarian police state reign of terror.

Having and enforcing immigration laws isn’t actually like what’s going on here.
You do love your strawmen, so I’ll leave you to it.

[DDHarriman]

>Having and enforcing immigration laws isn’t actually like what’s going on here.

Stop targeting a lawful government function with your illegal rhetoric.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, we got a taste for four years of what the Democrats' alternative to open borders was, and it was widely disliked enough to propel Trump back to the White House.

Let's not humor the pretense that Democrats actually want our immigration laws enforced, only in some kinder and gentler fashion. Given the opportunity to demonstrate this, they largely stop enforcing them, instead.

Somin is unusual in that he'll openly advocate for open borders. Most people who want them understand that they're unpopular enough that you have to pretend that you're trying to have controlled immigration and 'failing'.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh hey you excluded the middle, based on your personal view being the only legitimate one.

You think terror tactics are good because you want immigrants to live in fear even if policies change.

So you're out of this debate. You've shown yourself too evil to talk policy.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Biden administration's record high levels of illegal immigration excluded the middle, I was just refusing to ignore it.

[Bwaaah]

Nice try at skating by Brett's argument. The Democrats can't enforce immigration laws when people are watching. It looks too much like militaristic people in dark uniforms with thick vests and guns arresting innocent looking people. And in reality, it can't look any other way (unless they switch to plain clothes and nighttime-only arrests).

The Democratic center cowers under the threat of the look of law enforcement...especially the agony of a brown guy being seized by a group of white guys.

(That race thing is all you and them, Sarc. Don't expect me to pretend that's not a big part of your game.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"you're out of this debate"

Who named you debate judge?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Who named you debate judge?" It's just Il Douche being a douche.

[Brett Bellmore]

This is actually a great proposal. No need to risk the viability of an existing nation to test open borders theories.

I've long thought it a pity that we can't set up small "test countries" to actually try out various proposed policies, instead of risking what already is shown to work by adopting them.

[Malika la Maize]

We had open borders for a good chunk of US history.

[Brett Bellmore]

A good chunk of US history when

1. Our population density was much lower.
2. We were not a welfare state.
3. Travel was enormously more expensive relative to people's resources.
4. Neighboring states you could walk here from were similarly situated.

Not at all comparable to our present situation.

[Malika la Maize]

You like to play this two ways, don’t you?

If we’re talking about federal power or bureaucracy you say “we need to go back to the good old days,” but when someone points out those days had less immigration restrictions you say “well, the world has changed so much we can’t do that!”

[Brett Bellmore]

What I want is for us to go back to complying with the Constitution, and if that doesn't work out we can formally amend it, instead of grossly violating it and rationalizing that we aren't.

None of the factors I listed above are relevant to that rule of law argument.

As I've argued before, rationalizing lying about what a constitution means isn't the same as actually amending it, because you have to staff the government with people who are alright with rationalizing lying about the meaning of the highest law of the land.

And you have to expect that deficit of character to affect all that they do, not just constitutional interpretation.

Old joke in conservative circles: "The Constitution has it's problems, sure, but it's better than what we have now."

We cannot have honest government so long as this goes on, because we can't have government by honest people. That's why I have long advocated a constitutional convention, though I fully expect I will like what emerges from it less than I do the current Constitution. But at least what emerges might actually be honestly followed for a while, allowing for at least the possibility of government by honest people.

[AmosArch]

So you think all laws should be exactly the same and unchanged for 1776 and 2026 America?

[Malika la Maize]

No, but if someone is going to say “let’s try an experiment to see if open borders can work” they’re missing that experiment was a big chunk of US history.

[Mr. Bumble]

Never heard of Ellis Island and the Stairs of Separation?

[Malika la Maize]

How long do you think we’d been a country by 1892?

[ducksalad]

Open borders experiment-
US 1776-1882.

Closed borders experiments-
East Germany 1961-1989
North Korea 1953-present

[Mr. Bumble]

You forgot a few.
Chinese Exclusion Act 1882 (renewed 1892 Geary Act)
Immigration Act of 1891:
Denies entry to immigrants judged to be mentally defective, mentally ill, poor or “likely to become a public charge,” sick with contagious diseases, criminals, and polygamists
Establishes Bureau of Immigration under the Department of the Treasury to administer immigration laws
Immigration Act of 1917
1924 Johnson-Reed Act
https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1283

[ducksalad]

If you were responding to me, I think I have my dates correct.

[bernard11]

Arithmetic quiz for Bumble:

Check all numbers in this list which are greater than or equal to 1882:

_ 1882
_ 1891
_ 1892
_ 1917
_ 1924

[Mr. Bumble]

@ducksalad:
...and you would be wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

And my point is that entirely relevant conditions were radically different at the time. Do you care to refute that?

[ducksalad]

The radically different condition was that the federal government was of a smaller size and scope, properly aligned with the constitution.

The nativists use its modern expanded size and scope as an excuse to be against immigration ("can't risk immigrants going on welfare") but then use immigration as an excuse to expand the size and scope of federal government ("let's hire a huge number of federal officers, start having them patrol the streets on a regular basis, and move toward a federal police power").

[David Nieporent]

The nativists use its modern expanded size and scope as an excuse to be against immigration ("can't risk immigrants going on welfare")

Some fake libertarians like Brett use this argument (often quoting Friedman out of context), but as I — and others — have repeatedly pointed out, the fake libertarians would never apply this logic to any libertarian positions they sincerely liked. They would never say, "Well, sure, I think the RKBA is important, but… we can't actually allow private gun ownership as long as there's all these drugs out there." Or, "We need to lower taxes, but… we can't until we get rid of the immigrants."

[ducksalad]

Yup.

[AmosArch]

Setting aside a ministate for an open borders test while an ambitious venture is quite manageable next to the challenge of turning a preexisting country pure open borders and there of course the endless excuses that are possible with opponents easily sabotaging or scaling back efforts in such places. So anybody who dismisses a pilot experiment of this type as too hard is being disingenuous or they know it will fail and just want to skip ahead to ruining a real country for whatever reason.

[Sarcastr0]

I do think that kind of project will fail. I am not in favor of open borders. Shock and transition costs alone are a huge issue.

I am also not in favor of ICE's tactics. Denaturalizing people. Staking out to status hearings; invading schools and hospitals; strutting around in paramilitary gear and shooting people; targeting the press for filming them; countless Kavanaugh stops.

Both things can be true.
At this point, opinion polling is that most Americans agree with me.

[Longtobefree]

Perhaps you have heard of "states"?
Your proposal is exemplified with California/New York vs. Florida/Texas.

[Frank Drackman]

NY Times has a close up photo of Rebecca Good's Honda Pilot, showing that the bullet not only penetrated the windshield, Ms. Good, but also the leather front seat.
Gonna really hurt the resale value.

Frank "Hello, is this Safelite??????"

[Dr. Ed 2]

It’s worth five more with bullet hole in it.

My guess, just a guess, is it’ll go for six figures.

[Frank Drackman]

Sort of like that "Bonnie & Clyde" car (anyone know what happened to the actual one? I've seen replicas in Vegas and the Museum near the spot they were executed)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

AWFUL

Affluent
White
Female
Urban
Leftist

Of course, I prefer to refer to them as Delta Charlies, which of course stands for “Dumb _unts.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/17/us/politics/white-women-conservatives.html?unlocked_article_code=1.FFA.w1Qn.6c2HwD-1tFuI&smid=url-share

[Frank Drackman]

Oh, we're playing "Acronyms"????
What does "NBA" stand for??

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

I think Frankie signs his comments in a forum that already posts the handle with each one to remind himself of what personality he’s performing here.

MAGA attracts the crazy.

[Frank Drackman]

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, but what should I expect from someone who can't tell an entrance from an exit???
It's a tribute to Kerouac (Google that Shit) who also didn't have Engrish as his First Language, who only produced one of the major works of 20th Century Amurican Literature, and when he would send short pieces to the "Men's Magazines" of the day (Remember "Argosy"???, I'm probably their last surviving reader)
He's end each piece with "Jack"
Oh, and Jack, Billy Faulkner, Ernie H, also occasionally Es-chewed (rhymes with "Eff You") the Rules of Engrish Grammar, so I'm in good company.

So that's "The Rest of the Story" (HT P. Harvey)

[Malika la Maize]

You forgot to sign it Frank.

[Frank Drackman]

I was being Ironic, funny how your kind doesn't have that personality trait.

[Malika la Maize]

Sure Frankie, sure.

[Malika la Maize]

Yes, we know what an impotently angry incel you are.

[DDHarriman]

Literally everything is better than stinky pajeets. It's like a historical record or something. Jews became universally hated after about 100 years of them living among humans. Niggers became hated after a generation of pulling them out of Africa.

But stinky pajeets? It's like 10 years and now stinky pajeets are universally hated more than kikes and nignogs. And kikes sacrifice White children and subvert whole White socities!

You've managed to become more reviled than Jews and blacks in record fashion. Congrats.

[Malika la Maize]

A sadder, white supremacist incel shows up! It’s like a jenga tower of nutjobs.

I don’t know what makes Harriman/Lex/Chuck cry more, that Indians in America are more successful than him (a low bar admittedly) or that his beloved Trump kicked him in public.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/11/us/politics/trump-maga-republicans-antisemitism.html

[DDHarriman]

How does cow shit taste? Why do so many of you pajeets eat it?

[Malika la Maize]

Your mom is serving you cow shit? Well, if you live under her roof…

[DDHarriman]

If that were true why would be asking a filthy, rapey, stinky pajeet what it tastes like?

[Malika la Maize]

“Why would be?” Are you ESL? I’m beginning to think your hatred of foreigners might be self-hate instead of your anger at their relative success to your failure.

[Malika la Maize]

When Dan Bongino was named the FBI’s second-in-command last year, the right-wing podcaster’s fan base hailed it as a monumental victory. Bongino, it seemed, would finally be empowered to confront the “deep state” cabal he had long blamed for some of Washington’s darkest mysteries, including sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s death.

Now, having stepped down as deputy director after less than a year in the job, Bongino is returning to an audience in rebellion. Many online have pilloried him for not exposing the conspiracies or jailing the villains he had once decried in hundreds of tweets and Rumble streams…

Before being named to the No. 2 spot in the FBI, Bongino had gained online traction by touting his background as a Secret Service agent and delving into some of the online right’s most popular storylines — none more so than the Epstein case, which he said in 2023 was like a “tick burrowing under my skin.”

He dismissed the official finding that the disgraced financier had killed himself, portraying that as a cover-up to protect political elites whom he saw as complicit in Epstein’s crimes. On his podcast in 2023, Bongino urged his followers to “keep the heat” up on the case because so many “in the Washington swamp” were lying and wanted “this thing to go away.”

In December, after the FBI arrested a suspect in a January 2021 D.C. pipe-bomb planting who had no evident connection to government circles, Fox News host Sean Hannity asked Bongino about his past claim that it had been an “inside job.” The suspect later said he had placed the bombs because he was frustrated with the U.S. political system.

“I was paid in the past, Sean, for my opinions, that’s clear, and one day I’ll be back in that space — but that’s not what I’m paid for now,” Bongino said. “I’m paid to be your deputy director, and we base investigations on facts.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/01/17/dan-bongino-podcast-fbi/

[Michael Molovinsky]

Rather than join the discussion about the legality of what's happening in Minnesota, I'm preoccupied with the psychology. When Kristi Noem strutted in tight clothes in front of the prisoners in El Salvador, it was apparent that this administration and ICE was as much theater as enforcement. Since then Trump has doubled down with Venezuela and threats against Greenland. From commenters at my blog, I know that Trump support is from the low information MAGAs and ultra partisans, who are so elated to be in power that they are overlooking Trump's absurdities. Consequently, I believe the mid-terms will be a blue tidal wave.

[DDHarriman]

>When Kristi Noem strutted in tight clothes in front of the prisoners in El Salvador

You sound like you suffer from AGP. Does it turn you on to imagine your fat ass squeezing into her tight dress? Do you wish all those criminal illegals would give you the same googoo eyes hot Kristi gets?

Are you wearing panties and stockings right now?

[Frank Drackman]

She "strutted in tight clothes"???
Man, you've got a dirty mind, it's like me saying Minnie-Apolis Mayor Jacob Fry looks like he just woke up from a week long Cocaine-Gay-Sex-Bender with Hunter Biden (admit it, he does)
She's got a great body for 54 (better than most of todays 24 yr old women) and enjoys showing it off, like I do with mine.
Don't hate us because we're not Fat Fucks like you. (I know, it's your "Metabolic Syndrome")

Frank "where's my HGH?!?!?!?"

[Malika la Maize]

“She's got a great body for 54”

And a face with as much work done on it as a house on HGTV.

[Mr. Bumble]

If she eschewed (H/T F. Drackman) the glamour look and went liberal woman dyke would it have changed anything?

[Malika la Maize]

First of all, “liberal dykes” are often incredibly hot. Secondly, Noem likely wouldn’t have her current job if not for tailoring her look (to put it gently), the Trump administration likes a certain Barbie look.

[Frank Drackman]

Gotta agree with you there, Rachel Madcow was a cutie in Highschool

[Mr. Bumble]

Love the pearl necklace and "bottle blond" hair.

[Frank Drackman]

I'd love to give Rachel a Pearl Necklace.
Back in my woman-chasing days I'd often try out my "Rap" on a Rug-Muncher, I'd even present it that way,
"Hey Lindsay, I know you're into eating at the "Y" but can I try out my new Rap?"
Of course I'd go into it without waiting for her consent, that's what real "Alpha Dog" Men do.
And they'd usually have some good advice, who better to know the way to a Woman's Vagina than a Woman who knows her way to Women's Vagina's??
Even dated a Lesbo for a few months in Med Screw-el, the short hair, no makeup, Softball Letter at Alabama? Pretty much every Softball player was like that.
Oh, the "No Physical Contact"??? that was pretty much all the chicks who went out with me.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

I think she's a little flat chested for a good pearl necklace but enjoy your fantasy.

[Bunny495]

Wow, a dem shaming females with plastic faces. Nancy is the poster girl for a face with more work done than a house on HGTV. I have to say at closing time at the local bar I would jump on Kristi and run out the door if I saw Nancy.

[DDHarriman]

You do look great in a dress, Frank. I agree.

[Michael Molovinsky]

Frank, unrelated to this post, but since you're replying, allow me to ask! Yesterday, before I posted on the previous Open Thread about trolls, I noticed that you used expletives describing different ethnicities. Furthermore, no one took you to task about it? Did they all know that you were joking, or did they all know reprimanding you would be a wasted effort?

[Sarcastr0]

Most of the liberals have him muted. The conservatives do not attack those with whom they share a cause.

[Mr. Bumble]

...because muting shows how much you care.
Once a douche always a douche or douche in uno, douche in omnibus.

[Malika la Maize]

Michael P 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
No surprise that the gender confused troll demands double standards in a deranged comment. Back on mute it goes.

Reply

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems juvenile no matter who does it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The conservatives do not attack those with whom they share a cause."

Sure, not liberals though. They are truth tellers.

No enemies to the left was a liberal slogan before you were born.

Plus, you have stated that you do not police your side.

[Michael P]

What do you think you are, the second coming of the Tone Police? One of the other losers here already tries hard -- although with definite partisan bias -- to fill that (invented) role.

[Michael Molovinsky]

As a new participant, I was just curious if it was racism or sarcasm? And as I stated in the previous Open Thread, I appreciate the name handles, the ownership of comments.

[Michael P]

That's a lot of words for "yes, absolutely".

[Malika la Maize]

Mikie Q believes there can be no enemies to the right and is therefore just fine with the racism and anti-Semitism posted here regularly as long as it comes from someone he thinks is on his “side.” Sadly that goes for a lot of MAGAns here and in the movement in general. That’s why you get things like Fuentes ascent.

[DDHarriman]

It could also be race realism.

Your choice is a false one. It isn't a binary. Even lefty bootlicker Komment Karen Sarcastr0 was on here the other day talking about even HE hates niggers.

[jay.tee]

Good lord man, even hobie and not guilty only allow their inner racism to occasionally enfuckify this forum.

We get it: you’re a raging racist. You don’t need to prove it to us every fucking post.

[Malika la Maize]

“What do you think you are, the second coming of the Tone Police? One of the other losers here already tries hard -- although with definite partisan bias -- to fill that (invented) role.”

Knocking Publius, wow.

[Frank Drackman]

I was being Ironic, funny how many people don't get that, I think being able to recongize Irony is genetic, like being able to taste "bitter" or a disgust for Mayonnaise.
I was merely pointing out that the Fucking Idiot who wouldn't serve ICE Agents is the same as the Guy who wouldn't serve (Redacted), (Redacted), (Redacted) and (Redacted)
Myself, I don't mix Business with Politics, if the Ayatollah Khomeni, Adolf Hitler, and Osama Bin Laden could Pass Gas competently (i.e. profitably) I'd hire them in a second over some Seymour Hersh-en-Feld-Epstein who takes hour long lunch breaks.
I know they're dead, I'm talking a Theoretical World in which the Ayatollah, Fuhrer, and Bid Laden were newly grad-je-ma-ated Anesthesiologists applying for a position.
Seriously, I hired a Nigerian, who's so dark, when they turn the lights down during the Laparoscopic Cases you can only see her when she Smiles.

Frank

[Michael Molovinsky]

Frank, I'll chalk you up to being provocative. If the Hersh-Epstein line is serious, then I think of you as Frank Dreckman, that's yiddish.

[SRG2]

I unmuted him a short while ago and hadn't bothered to mute him again. He's a Naumannite - that is, a follower of Max Naumann. He and DDHarriman are mirror images of each other except that Harriman is specifically an anti-Semite, which is why Frank does actually post against him, unlike the rest of the cultists here, who find bigotry and racism more tolerable than objecting to tariffs, for example.

[Frank Drackman]

Funny how I'm a follower of someone I'd never heard of until you mentioned him.

[Sarcastr0]

Everything is gender.

https://www.instagram.com/reels/DTaV0qrkSQP/

[hobie]

It's like we elected the 700 Club as president. All the tacky gold. The self-enrichment. A parade of bimbos with big hair and enough makeup to cause Tammy Faye to blush. And a constituency raised on religious superstition ready to suspend disbelief yet again.

[Malika la Maize]

Fun trivia fact I realized yesterday: of the 8 (now six) franchises in the NFL Divisional Round of playoffs only one (the Texans) is from a “Red State.”

[Frank Drackman]

Great, change the Constitution so only States with NFL teams get to vote.
How did Indiana and Florida go?

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

You mean the minor leagues?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Speaking as a Patriots fan, the Texans do not look minor league to me. Find out later today.

[Malika la Maize]

That was in reference to the CFP. As to the Texans they can’t play the way they did against the Steelers whose anemic offense couldn’t make them pay for Stroud’s turnovers and beat New England.

[Frank Drackman]

How's it feel having to explain your comments to an Idiot? I got your "Minor League" Reference.

[Malika la Maize]

I have plenty of practice responding to you.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, you and Mrs. Drackman, if you weren't a Gay Black Dude, I'd consider a 3-way.

[DDHarriman]

How do Jack Smiths theories on 'targeting a lawful government function' not apply to the Democrats and their paid retards targeting a lawful government function with their rhetoric and actions towards ICE?

Or was it just another case of Democrat lawfare?

[rswallen]

Was it a sound theory then, and therefore now? Or was it a bunk theory then, and therefore also now? You can't have one without the other.

[DDHarriman]

Well alot of thoughtful and non-partsian Democrats around here thought it was sound and have never swayed. I am choosing to defer to their passionate defenses of Smith over the years.

[Malika la Maize]

So what Trump is doing is wrong now, glad you concede that.

Why are white supremacist always so inferior? We deserve better spokespersons.

[rswallen]

So it was a just prosecution of Trump then and is a just prosecution of Waltz/Frey now? Or not for either?

[DDHarriman]

What do the previous defenders of Smiths theory say?

Do you know what the passionate defenders of the theory say about applicability?

[Malika la Maize]

He can’t answer.

Why are white supremacist always so inferior? We deserve better spokespersons.

[Michael P]

The left normalized it, so the left deserves to experience it. They have shown they won't behave like adults until they suffer the same consequences they inflict on others.

[Malika la Maize]

This is Mikie Q’s way of demonstrating and defending his only principle: partisanship.

And notice once again rushing to white knight our resident anti-Semite white supremacist. No enemies to the right!

[Michael P]

No surprise that the gender confused troll demands double standards in a deranged comment. Back on mute it goes.

[Malika la Maize]

Mikie Q confuses double standards with asking him why he can’t demonstrate any standard other than partisanship. But when he’s white knighting for his white supremacist comrades he gets confused.

[Josh R]

I answered this above and in prior threads (feel free to only reply once): Smith's case relied on knowing lies from Trump and company (otherwise, the First Amendment would have protected Trump's speech). What are the knowing lies from Walz, Frey and company?

[Malika la Maize]

Past presidents have their names attached to federal buildings, naval ships, monuments, libraries, scholarships, White House rooms and currency, among other official federal designations.

But the recent rash of Trump namings, while the president is still in office, makes him very unusual among American presidents, who tend to wait for others to honor them after their presidencies have concluded.

“Throughout Western history, the idea of commemorating and adulating yourself has been considered gauche,” said Jeffrey Engel, a historian at Southern Methodist University.

Take the case of government buildings. Several have been named for presidents in recent history, but none had been named after a sitting president. The quickest turnaround was for Kennedy, who was memorialized soon after his assassination. And currently, aside from presidential libraries, no federal buildings have been named or are planned to be named for Richard Nixon, Barack Obama or Joe Biden. Mr. Trump already has two.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/13/upshot/trump-renaming-presidents-comparisons.html

[Michael Molovinsky]

Malika, I believe that Trump will be studied for a long time after his presidency, in multiple disciplines. I agree foremost in psychology and political science. Hopefully, the damage he has caused can be rectified, and stronger safeguards can be put in place against future would be monarchs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Obama is the antichrist.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, it's absolutely stupid that he's going around naming stuff after himself while still alive. Happily, he will legitimately be unqualified to run for President in 2028, and the GOP is unlikely to find anybody as narcissistic.

Meanwhile, what are the odds that the Democratic party will find somebody who isn't determined to attack 1 or more enumerated constitutional rights?

[hobie]

IIRC, a few years ago there was like a group of seven or so ex-military that thought it would be a good idea to sneak into Venezuela and depose Maduro all by themselves. They got caught immediately and into the prison they went. I'm wondering if we freed those goofs? Regardless, this turn of events must have made them the happiest people on earth.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Been watching football.

It's too dangerous, and refs doing a bad job are part of the danger. In the Broncos – Bills game there were multiple shocking helmet-to-helmet hits, with nary a call. The only way to make that work is at players' long-term health expense.

Also, some of the officiating does stuff that leaves too much room to criticize fairness. In the just-played Broncos – Bills game flagrant pass interference by both teams went uncalled for four quarters, until refs decided to penalize lesser pass interference to hand the game to Denver during the OT. It was a great game otherwise. WTF? Why end it with one side surprised and justifiably angered by an abrupt change in officiating standards?

I am neither a Bills nor a Broncos fan, but I had invested a few hours to see how an increasingly interesting back-and-forth masterpiece of a game came out. It should have been decided by the teams slugging it out during the remaining overtime. What did happen was a disappointment.

More generally, why continue an entertainment that features during each game multiple instances of life-altering injuries, exploited by game sponsors as commercial breaks? There probably ought to be a football tackling zone pretty much like the baseball strike zone. Tacklers and blockers should target shoulders to mid-thighs, basically. And out of respect for player health, there should be no cuts to commercial breaks during the pauses needed to attend to player injuries. Such a change would not make much difference if there were far fewer injuries, which there ought to be.

Also more generally, why tolerate Inconsistent rule enforcement which calls into question game outcomes? The rule on pass coverage ought to be zero contact between players until ball contact, unless everyone contesting the pass has his eyes locked on a ball which is already evidently catchable in the next split second. No more grabbing jerseys, hooking arms, and pushing off, all the way down the field.

[Malika la Maize]

A problem is that a very natural way to take down someone is to “go for the legs” or low and people will naturally often lower their heads.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yeah. It would change the game. That's the point.

A mutual center-of-mass collision can be destructive for both players. So high and low hits affecting balance get the job done without having to dissipate mutual momentum instantly at the expense of the colliders' bodies.

But heads and knees are especially vulnerable. A rule to protect those zones, and instead direct the conflict toward the center of mass would result in less confrontational tackling, lest the tacker be injured himself.

I suspect lower limb injuries could be further reduced by outlawing cleats, by the way. A knee-level hit obviously delivers higher leverage if the foot is anchored in place than if the foot can give way.

If fans can't reconcile themselves to a game more skill-oriented than spectacle-oriented, then maybe the game is not worth saving. As it stands now, there is too much need to follow injury reports and depth charts to stay up-to-date on teams' prospects.

The Bronco's well-earned chance to achieve a national championship probably just evaporated on the next-to-last play of a playoff game the Broncos won. Given a choice, would Bronco's fans trade a season of less spectacular hits for a quarterback who need not watch the Super Bowl while rehabbing? I don't know.

[Frank Drackman]

Are you kidding? Todays NFL and College is like Junior High Fag Foo-Bawl (that's what the Real Foo-bawl Coach called it) compared to the NFL of the 60's and 70's.
Check out the Video of Franco Harris's "Immaculate Reception" in the 72' Divisional Round (can you believe it wasn't televised in Pittsburgh??) There's a great "All-22" Video of it on the You-Tubes, without Jack Tatum's "Targeting" of the Steeler Running Back, it never would have happened.
You remember Jack "The Assassin" Tatum? same guy who turned Darryl Stingley into a Quadriplegic, Tatum died age 61 (no CTE, Diabetes/Heart Disease) Stingley at age 55 of complications from his Spinal Cord injury.
2 Amazing facts about the Tatum/Stingley Hit,
1: it was a PRE-SEASON Game,
2: no penalty called, not because of Incompetent Refs, but because the hit was legal at the time (1978)

Frank

[Bunny495]

I always question comments about athletics from those who seem to be non-athletes. I can still recall my 10th grade JV coach telling the team 'Injuries are like bad zebras, they are part of the game'. You need to get up to speed on what Spicoli was told, 'learn it, know it, live it'.

[Frank Drackman]

I loved the "No Shirt...No Shoes... No DICE!?!?!?!?!?"

[Michael P]

Did any of the people here who incorrectly asserted that Becca Good was Renee Good's wife apologize for pushing that incorrect propaganda?

[Malika la Maize]

Propaganda? So she was her “significant other” not her wife. How would that change the moral or legal calculus?

[ThePublius]

Uh, because "wife" is a legal term, defining a woman in a state-recognized, lawful marriage, establishing specific rights (inheritance, property, medical decisions) and responsibilities? Could that be it?

[Malika la Maize]

And how does that change the analysis of her shooting?

[ThePublius]

It doesn't and that's not what this thread is about. Read Michael P's O.P. again. And don't try to deflect this thread into something else.

[Malika la Maize]

We wouldn’t be talking about Good’s relationship sans her shooting, ya goof.

[hobie]

Like with all MAGA killings, we strip the victim of all the trappings of their humanity to make the exercise palatable.

"It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have," [and then when they're dead, we start stripping the rest]

[Malika la Maize]

I mean, if it was justified it doesn’t become more or less so because the person with her was or wasn’t married to her. It’s just the kind of irrelevant pedanticism Mikie Q loves I guess.

[Michael P]

If Becca Good had accepted those responsibilities, that whole confrontation might have turned out differently. In her own words: "I made her come down here. It’s my fault."

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, no spouse would ever think they made their spouse go anywhere!

Tell us you’re not married without telling us you’re not married.

[Bob from Ohio]

"How would that change the moral or legal calculus?"

It impacts the way the death is received. We have hundreds [thousands?] of years of cultural sympathy for widows. Girlfriends, not so much.

[Bunny495]

Riddle me this Batman, has Becca Good apologized for 'pushing ... incorrect propaganda' that she was Renee Good's wife?

[David Nieporent]

Did any of the people here who incorrectly asserted that Becca Good was Renee Good's wife apologize for pushing that incorrect propaganda?

First, as far as I can tell the only source for the claim they weren't married is Julie Kelly. Which means that there's no reason to believe it's true.

Second, in what way was that "propaganda"? How would their status as partners — registered or otherwise — or spouses change any aspect of the story in any way?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Here's a source.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This country is so close to a revolution that it is not funny.

[Frank Drackman]

4 Non Blondes said that 30 yrs ago.

[ThePublius]

I agree. We are seeing the seeds of this only yesterday in Minnesota where two protesters, including a U.S. senate candidate for Florida were attacked and bloodied by a mob.

Minnesota will be the 21st century Fort Sumter, with the governor and Minneapolis mayor openly defying and threatening the federal government, and raucous mobs violently attacking conservative protesters and interfering with federal law enforcement agents.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, Ed, TP.

The Civil War 2 brigade keeps growing, and it's all MAGA.

[ducksalad]

Bass Pro has everything they need:

Guns
Camo
Red sunglasses

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I'm sorry, when did Walz switch parties? I must have missed it.

[ThePublius]

How did Ilhan Omar get so rich so quickly?

"Republicans want to know how Somali-born Omar (D-Minn.) and her politically-connected husband Tim Mynett went from nearly broke to being worth up to $30 million in just a year, according to her 2024 disclosure forms."

Impossible without theft or fraud or graft.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/01/ilhan-in-handcuffs.php

[Malika la Maize]

She strikes me as a rabble-rouser akin to MGT, but Onalso doubt a “news” story titled ILHAN IN HANDCUFFS is going to be a good one on this question.

[Frank Drackman]

it's "MTG" or are you copying my intentionally getting peoples I don't like names wrong? (First saw it with Paul Newman's character in "The Sting" repeatedly getting Robert Shaw's character's name wrong, "way to go Lon-a-han!!!!!!"

Frank

[Michael P]

Not even cattle futures have that kind of growth potential!

[Malika la Maize]

Pikers compared to crypto!

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-family-reportedly-1-billion-213107964.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGtUAvdd1Y5GvOUo79xAnIPWmVhjgC3yp_CjWIwQo7FWYAbiPPwZa3nAUF7aKYZL9KaZj0uiuZL-WsDliiPmjoRzzAV9znUOABRpvYzqO4EaC__gXczeafVEpfe2y8ZbW_QE-QCT0YqlL8yBD3B126zk9OAklrtcPU9FIO4v2T8Z

[ThePublius]

So first you doubt the source of the story, then you whatabout it. That kind of thing is what's turned this blog to shit.

[Malika la Maize]

I was whatabouting Mikie’s Clinton reference.

And yeah, I doubt the usefulness of a source with that title, the question is why wouldn’t you? If you ask me that kind of credulous reliance on obviously biased sources does more to ruin this blog.

[ThePublius]

The absolute best, longest term, consistent reporting on Omar and fraud in MN has been from Powerline blog. Read the story. It is not biased, except perhaps in your view in that the writer conveys that if, indeed, Omar has corruptly enriched herself she should end up in handcuffs. It's actually pretty clear and simple.

[Malika la Maize]

You don’t think that’s a plainly biased headline?

[Michael P]

No, I think it's just the spammy leftist trolls who shit up the blog. As I write, 39 of 135 comments are muted, with about 31 of them from a single spammer who clearly needs a hobby other than harassing commenters on a libertarian blog.

[Malika la Maize]

Mikie wants his safe space!

[DDHarriman]

I bet there's a really stupid stinky comment under that grey box ^^^^

[Michael P]

The system doesn't let you respond to muted comments, champ.

[DDHarriman]

Yours doesn't? Mine does.

[Frank Drackman]

It's Dingle Dick Hairy-man's World and we're just living in it.

[ThePublius]

So, can we get past Malika the troll's distraction and deflection and discuss Omar's skyrocketing wealth?

I suspect it's related to the $9B fraud that has been perpetrated in Minnesota. I can imagine no other way for her to accumulated such wealth so quickly other than criminally.

[Malika la Maize]

“ I can imagine no other way for her to accumulated such wealth so quickly other than criminally.”

That speaks to your lack of imagination more than anything else. It’s not common for people to become millionaires in a few years but it certainly isn’t unheard of.

[ThePublius]

Occam's razor. If it looks at first glance like theft, it probably is.

[Malika la Maize]

Probably is doing a lot of work there.

Really, you’ve never heard of a couple getting rich before? You assume everyone of them did it via theft?

[John 4]

ThePublius is only interested in the burgeoning wealth of brown politicians.

[Sarcastr0]

I suspect it's related to the $9B fraud that has been perpetrated in Minnesota.

The right's appetite for their own fan fiction is insatiable.

[hobie]

"After returning to office, Donald Trump’s net worth jumped to $7.3 billion, up from $3.9 billion in 2024, according to a tally that Forbes published in September."

https://time.com/7342470/trump-net-worth-wealth-crypto/

[ThePublius]

More whataboutism. Can we stay on topic? (Probably not, due to blog rot.)

[hobie]

You are correct. That was a blatant whatabout. Okay, let's see what substantial evidence this article proposes.

Looks like its the husband who pulled in all the dough.

"Suspicions arise, in part, because Mynett [the husband] does not seem to own any businesses that have been successful or that could possibly account for so much sudden wealth"

Okay, so the guy made some bucks somehow, and MAGA don't like it or the cover story. Gotcha.

"It is important to note that to date, there is zero evidence of any politicians sharing in the Feeding Our Future largesse, or any of the other frauds. Still, there are obvious reasons why Omar, in particular, could have been paid off."

Heh. Will that be all, Publius?

[DDHarriman]

Her husband started a VC fund and then got $30M dropped in his lap overnight.

Tada! Now you know more than you did. Why do you worship and protect millionaires and billionaires? Aren't you revolutionary types against millionaires and billionaires?

[SRG2]

A non-cultist appropriating the cultist sacrament of Whataboutism - that's blasphemous, I agree.

[Sarcastr0]

TP posts Powerline a lot. He gets wrecked a lot, since they act as stenographers for Comer's lies.

But TP is not one to learn from repeated humiliations.

Here's a more balance analysis:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/learn-read-ilhan-omar-denies-170100384.html

It's not pro-Omar by any stretch but it points out:
1. The largest asset takes a venture capital business of which her husband is co-owner and puts the whole wealth on him.
2. The second is a winery, also co-owned by her husband. Also reported as the full value.

Beyond that bit of monkeying with numbers, while both businesses jumped in value, they're both investment-heavy ventures, so that's not at all impossible without any foul play.

Famous names and connections have a power to attract assets independent of any wrongdoing. That's capitalism for you.

[DDHarriman]

Capitalism, not graft or corruption. What a typical little revolutionary. Always projecting their failures onto the Other.

Have you thought about posting with more integrity?

[Bob from Ohio]

"not at all impossible "

Its also possible.

Speaking of husbands, Muslim women are forbidden from marrying non-Muslims. She wears that dumb scarf but is actually as observant as the Jews at the infamous Trefa Banquet.

[Sarcastr0]

Its also possible.

You don't make criminal accusations based on something not being impossible.

She wears that dumb scarf but is actually as observant as the Jews at the infamous Trefa Banquet.
You're Gatekeeping Islam now?

[Bob from Ohio]

No, just her.

[Riva]

But apparently she’s very grateful and respectful to the country that has been so generous to her…wait a second…I might have gotten that backwards:
https://x.com/rncresearch/status/2012710831536910511

She needs a distraction from Minnesota fraud as much as Walz I guess.

[Bunny495]

As a work-study student I was employed as a forensic accountant. One case I clearly remember was a high level government employee was charged with inflating valuations and the claim was made that it amounted to something being worth four milling when it was only worth one million to which she responded it was worth two million and the state AG replied 'way wrong answer'.

Point is both Omar and Trump's wealth/richness/whatever are more on paper than real. Omar's winery valued between 1-5 million (quite a spread that is easy to call bullshit on) generated under 15K in income. Same goes for the LLC valued at 5-25 million (again I am calling bullshit on the spread) but generating no income in the last filing. As for Trump's assets I would never attempt to wade through the Gordian knot it presents. I am convinced it makes Omar's filings look simple in comparison.

There is no way Omar is worth 30 million. The LLM may turn out to be worthless given the lack of expertise it's employee(s) have not to mention it will likely be put under the microscope by Trump's DOJ. I am not sure how to assess the 7.3 to 3.9 jump for Trump, but I am convinced a lot of it is on paper.

[David Nieporent]

1-5 million (quite a spread that is easy to call bullshit on) generated under 15K in income. Same goes for the LLC valued at 5-25 million (again I am calling bullshit on the spread)

To be clear, when I read an estimate of something with a huge spread (say, there are between 1 million and 10 million Broncos fans in New jersey), my reaction is always, "Whoever says this has no fucking clue what the right number is and he's just guessing."

But in this particular case, the spreads are not because people don't know the answer (though they might not) but simply because that's the category that one reports. The public official lists his/her assets on the financial disclosure form, and checks off a column. There's no opportunity, let alone requirement, to narrow it down. The official thus isn't saying, "I don't know whether it's $5,000,001 or $25,000,000." The official is saying, "It's somewhere in that range."

(A sample form is here. See page 5, block B.)

[Frank Drackman]

Great Analysis, always wondered why I'm worth a legitimate several Million, and I still have to Schlep to my Gate like every one else, but the Supposedly "Broke" "45/47/"48?" had his own private 757.
Of Course I still shop for Groceries in person, (Mrs. Drackman can't lift those heavy Cat Litter containers) pay Cash, AND tip the Cashier and Grocery Bagger (who I DON'T make Schlep my groceries to the Car, so he gets $$$ and a break, do any of you Hockey Pucks do that???)

Frank

[hobie]

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Sc6cRF9dYydFX4SY6

Westminster Kennel Club champion devotes Best in Show medal to Trump.

In unrelated news: Trump scratches out JFK's name on tombstone with his own. "JFK was a horrible president. A terrible one. He treated this cemetery very unfairly. By effacing this stone, I will make this grave great again!"

[Frank Drackman]

I did the math once for how many BTU's JFK's "Eternal Flame" has wasted, and it has gone out during torrential rains and blizzards, so it's not even really "Eternal" (I won't even get to the 2d Law of Thermodynamics)

[Bored Lawyer]

That's a BLACK dog. Clearly Westminster is racist!

[But that was funny.]

[John 4]

I wonder what awards Trump will extort or make up for himself this coming week.

[DDHarriman]

I'm going to award him the first inaugural Proto-Americana Award.

He really is the archetype of the ideal American:
1.) Billionaire
2.) Bangs porn stars
3.) TV Celebrity
4.) Golf pro
5.) Hot model wife
6.) 6'6" Chad for a son
7.) President, not once but twice
8.) Survives ruthless bloody assassination attempt
9.) Survived atleast two soft-coup attempts
10.) Likes McDonald's and Diet Coke

The only thing missing is his Bald Eagle shaped super jet that can transport him hypersonically through space across the country in 4 minutes.

[DDHarriman]

The European Authorities out there screaming "Greenland is for the Greenlanders" will arrest you for saying "Germany is for the Germans" or "Britian is for the British"

FYSA

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha, so true.

[DDHarriman]

Do you believe in empiricism, science, and data?

https://x.com/Martin_Sellner/status/2012795234573226149

This is not happening naturally. It is only possible because millions of voices are censored, thousands are persecuted and imprisoned. We are not dying of old age. We are being murdered.

Can't refute the facts.

[Frank Drackman]

What are the Odds Tampon-Tim finishes his Term?
I mean his current Gubernatorial one, not his future Federal Prison one.

Frank

[Bunny495]

All the cool kids go here for odds. You need to get out more

https://x.com/polymarket/status/2012594059538309234

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, I know Polymarket, so what are the Odds for what I asked???

[Frank Drackman]

As an Auburn fan I feel horrible for Bo Nix(had the Broncos giving 1.5 and took the “Over”)
Maybe he can go in the Portal and play with Oregon again.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Intermission?

[Bob from Ohio]

Brownshirts in action. Abusing a minority.

https://x.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/2012644193408012652

[Sarcastr0]

Kind of a negative argument, if this pathetic gruel is the best you can put up against ICE’s goon squad tactics.

[Bob from Ohio]

Bunch of whites made a non-white take off his clothing because they disagreed with an innocuous patriotic statement.

The SA did this type of thing.

[ThePublius]

What makes this "pathetic gruel?" Did you watch the video, read the stories? "Take that off and you won't get hurt." Fighting words?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I added some further comments in the last open thread about substantive due process & Justice Clarence Thomas's views on the concept.

One thing that sometimes is cited is Loving v. Virginia. People sometimes use it to suggest rank hypocrisy.

The fact that Thomas (as is Ketanji Brown Jackson, though I have my doubts they have couple get togethers too often) is in an interracial marriage is sometimes cited. Sometimes crudely.

These accounts often are at least somewhat overblown. I'll quickly note that crudeness in my view gets old fast. It's done. I'm not a purist. But for me, it quickly gets tiresome. It is just unpleasant. Okay.

Thomas has a reputation as someone friendly to staff members and a nice colleague. Does he have some personal beliefs and qualities I find problematic? Yes. That doesn't mean I think he is merely a caricature who is never right, a Scalia lapdog type, and so on.

Anyway, I commented about Loving v. Virginia last time, including how you need not support substantive due process to agree with the opinion. See also. Yes. On that, he makes a reasonable argument.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/28/justice-thomas-and-loving-v-virginia/

Another criticism is that original understanding would deem the opinion wrong. First, substantive due process and equal protection law follow different tracks in reference to the usage of history.

The "deeply rooted" theme often cited when applying substantive due process makes tradition more important.

Second, people do point to some original understanding.

https://conlaw.jotwell.com/originalism-and-interracial-marriage/

As noted there, overall, the case is mixed. There was a strong societal understanding that interracial marriage was not protected. Social equality was separate. There were exceptions. But the exceptions were soon largely overwhelmed within about a decade.

A potentially broad view of the amendment would ultimately take time to develop. Like it did for a variety of other things, including sexual equality, where a few advocates (including the Chief Justice of the U.S., who dissented in Bradwell v. Illinois) took a broad view.

Anyway, for those who prefer original understanding, there is good evidence to show marriage was among the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. And, people realized the amendment would develop over time with respect to specifics. They spoke in general terms.

It is left to us, the living, to apply them. Anyway, that is how things worked out, and appropriately so.

[Magister]

Thomas has a reputation as someone friendly to staff members and a nice colleague.

Well, except for Anita Hill, and the coworkers who backed up her allegations, and an unknown number who did not come forward.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, you repeatedly read about people with good reputations who have also done horrible things to other people.

Have there been reports of Justice Thomas being horrible to certain members of his staff? That's specifically what I am referencing.

To forestall confusion, I am not a fan of Thomas in a variety of ways. I don't think he should have been confirmed (above and beyond ideological reasons) & think the ProPublica-related stuff was impeachment-worthy.

I do hold that he is not merely a caricature.

[Magister]

You know, I wasn't the one who brought up his reputation without qualification, so which of us is presenting a caricature? It may be that, having achieved the highest position possible (he's not going to be Chief Justice), he has no need to trash other people as he did with his own sister, is happy to trash the entire country's constitutional rights, prefers to suck up to Harlan Crow, and doesn't choose to abuse people beneath him who he presumably has the sole say in hiring.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I didn't say you were providing a caricature.

My second comment said that I think (1) he shouldn't have been confirmed, (2) impeachment was fine. My first comment noted that he had "personal beliefs and qualities I find problematic."

But go right ahead, add more bad stuff about him, if you like. Some people still, even with all the fair stuff to cite, caricature him. It's at some point a tad counterproductive.

My comment was about Justice Thomas. The reputation I cited (which is well documented in court literature) was about his time on the Court. BTW, I think he does continue to "trash" certain people these days, too.

[Magister]

Saying in reply to me that he's not a caricature, but not saying that I said that? I don't know why you would bring that up except as an oblique criticism of my comment.

He could be very nice in a lot of aspects of his life that are completely irrelevant. He shouldn't have been confirmed, he shouldn't remain a justice, and he should probably be prosecuted for the bribes. Whatever else he does is not relevant.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, she was treated so badly she followed him from job to job. [/sarc]

They started out together at the Department of education, where the alleged harassment supposedly happened. Then he moved to EEOC, and what did she do, say, "Thank God! I'm finally free of that creep!"?

No, she switched jobs to follow him.

[Magister]

You are happily ignorant of what women then who wanted a career had to put up with. What can be tolerated in a boss for career advancement is different than what is appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice.

[Roger S]

Perhaps all the other employers recognized her as incompetent, and she thought that she could blackmail Thomas into a promotion.

No one backed up her story.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe she was the creepy stalker getting revenge for being rebuffed.

But she changed jobs to follow him, and in my book that makes any claim she was being harassed dubious.

[Magister]

Colleagues backed up her allegations. Brett swallows any lie the right wing puts out there, no matter how disconnected from facts.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Poll numbers were cited regarding ICE.

Some debate over what that means. Do people want to get rid of ICE or just the current way ICE is being used? Can the needle truly be threaded? Should it?

Opposition often is a combination of things. There is also the general concept of an Overton Window. Is there a big enough opening for change, if the relevant parties (including the Supreme Court, to cite the writings of Jack Balkin) are willing to do it?

If such people do change things, the poll numbers can be parsed, but often the public will accept the results.

[Bunny495]

Fleeing faster than the French Army.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/german-soldiers-to-leave-greenland-after-team-completes-mission/ar-AA1UrCih

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The spokesman for the command and control centre said that the team had completed its mission. "The results of the reconnaissance will be analysed in the coming days."

Is this the "better type of troll" our new friend is looking for?

[Bunny495]

Translation, lets get out while the getting is good. There were big headlines praising Germany for sending troops to Greenland. Turns out it was a 15 man team that basically did nothing and left almost as soon as they arrived. Sugarcoating as an intel operation is nothing more than cover. The upcoming J D Vance visit will likely last longer.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The non-troll (pushing past references to the "French Army") is that a small German force was there, had a certain job to do, and did it.

It did not "flee." At least, going by the actual article as compared to some "translation" of it.

And, it is somewhat notable there is a "reconnaissance" mission to Greenland to collect information and have it analyzed. Which is not completed.

[ThePublius]

Yea, 15 Germans were there for about a day and completed their reconnaissance. I believe that. /sarc

What's more believable is that it was simply a gesture, a show of force.

I wonder what equipment, vehicles, aircraft, etc., they brought with them.

Note, it would take a whole day or more just to disassemble, load, unload, and reassemble helicopters into and out of the AIrbus A400M.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Yup, Greenland is still here. Job done, let's get back home."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Details, instead of talking about fleeing like the French Army, would be fine. It can very well be in some fashion a "show of force" or message overall, which is done by having a quick reconnaissance mission, that wasn't meant to be a long-term thing and/or responsive to ongoing events.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in yet another case of lying liars lie:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15463777/California-governor-race-Democrat-candidate-Eric-Swalwell-lying-living-state.html

[ThePublius]

This story deserves a few quotes, as few will click the link"

"...US Rep. Eric Swalwell is facing one major hurdle in his bid to succeed Gavin Newsom - allegedly he doesn’t actually live there."

"...a new lawsuit filed by conservative activist and filmmaker Joel Gilbert claims the ‘home address’ listed on Swalwell’s election paperwork is actually a lawyers’ office.

Gilbert claims the Democrat’s real abode is a $1.2 million, six-bed mansion in Washington, D.C. which he shares with his wife Brittany Watts, 40, and their three children.

According to the complaint, the swish property was listed as the couple's 'principal residence' when they took out a mortgage in April 2022."

"'So either he's guilty of mortgage fraud in Washington, DC, or he's ineligible to run for Governor of California, he can't have it both ways.'"

I say make him pay. He should be prosecuted for mortgage fraud.

[Sarcastr0]

Random legal filings count as evidence only to those who don't care about facts.

[ThePublius]

Oh, and what are those facts, Sarcastr0 (or should I call you AdHominem0?).

Are you refuting that Swalwell doesn't own property in California, and that his listed residence is a law office? Or are you refuting that he asserted that the house in D.C. was his primary residence on his mortgage application? Or both? And on what basis? Please show your work.

Methinks you are just being contrary, because you don't like me and you love progressive, liberal, lying, Democratic politicians.

[Magister]

Swalwell claims he owns a residence in California. From Swalwell v. Pulte:

The allegations in Pulte’s referral are patently false. Indeed, Representative Swalwell explicitly disclaimed any intent to occupy the District of Columbia home as his primary residence in a sworn affidavit attached to his mortgage agreement. That affidavit made clear that the home would be his wife’s primary residence—not his own. Representative Swalwell was and remains a permanent resident of California.

As to listing a mailing address he doesn't live at; that seems prudent for someone who has been a target of Donald Trump's social media attacks and, as a member of Congress, among the targets of his January 6th insurrection.

[David Nieporent]

According to the complaint, the swish property was listed as the couple's 'principal residence' when they took out a mortgage in April 2022."

"'So either he's guilty of mortgage fraud in Washington, DC, or he's ineligible to run for Governor of California, he can't have it both ways.'"

Or, actually, he can. Because whether a particular house is one's "principal residence" for the purposes of a mortgage has absolutely no connection to whether one is an inhabitant of a state for the purposes of the U.S. constitution.

EDIT: People have made this claim about other members of Congress, but I see in this case the claim is about him being eligible to be governor. So I should say "whether a particular house is one's 'principal residence' for the purposes of a mortgage has absolutely no connection to whether one is a resident of a state for the purposes of the California constitution."

(After all, the very language "principal residence" implies that one can have another residence!)

[Mr. Bumble]

So where is his CA home? There should be a record somewhere (voter registration?) if he represents a district in CA as a congressman.

[David Nieporent]

No idea. But contrary to what the guy raising the complaint claims, one does not need to own a home in the state one represents. One can rent. One can stay in one's mother's basement.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or his lawyers office?

[ThePublius]

You're such and incredible partisan apologist. Wow.

[David Nieporent]

It is weird how you think accuracy is partisan.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Did you bother to read what he wrote?
The "big brains" of Bumble and Publius tag team-up against DMN and still can't grasp the situation, thus cementing their positions as the top two contenders of Clueless Lay Person of the VC!
Who will come out on top?
(Dr. Ed has already garnered GOAT Emeritus status in this category).
Great fun for the whole family!
How 'bout them Patriots!

[ThePublius]

Yes, of course I did read what he said. But why, if Swalwell was renting an apartment in CA, or living in his mother's basement, would he give his residential address as a law office? And it is contended that the couple declared the D.C. home as their primary residence, not the wife alone.

Can't you grasp that? Go ahead, refute it if you can, don't simply mock those who don't buy it.

[David Nieporent]

But why, if Swalwell was renting an apartment in CA, or living in his mother's basement, would he give his residential address as a law office?

Without my having seen the document in question, did it say he was living in the law office, or did it list that as his mailing address?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, the comment says it was listed as his "home address."

[David Nieporent]

Well, the comment says it was listed as his "home address."

The comment is… not accurate. I went and looked it up. Here's the form: As you can see, Swalwell does indeed list what a quick google will confirm is the office address of Greenberg Traurig in Sacramento. But the field on the form where that is listed does not in fact say, "Home address."

And nothing on the form even implies that the prospective candidate should put his home address on there, as opposed to his campaign address. And this campaign website lists the Greenberg Traurig address as the address for Eric Swalwell for Governor 2026.

I have no idea whether Swalwell actually has a residence in California. But I do know that this series of gotcha attempts by the GOP to spin "So-and-so said one thing on one form and a different thing on a different form that asks for different information, so therefore I've uncovered fraud!" are just sad.

[BrotherMovesOn]

ThePublius, with all due respect I would only suggest you read, or re-read, what DMN said about this particular hub bub.
The reports (of "impropriety") you seem to jump on immediately often times evaporate upon even cursory inspection. Much like Representative Comer's breathless (and seemingly endless) accusations that never seem to go anywhere. Remember the $4000 check for an auto loan to a relative that was supposed to be damning evidence of a Biden crime family?
He's selling bologna and you're always buying it.
Jeez, don't be so gullible.

[DDHarriman]

Gender identity is mutable.
Sexual orientation is mutable.

Why are these protected classes, whose main argument for support of even having them is their immutability?

[David Nieporent]

Religion is mutable, but that doesn't mean you get to discriminate against Catholics.

[Frank Drackman]

Those Fish Eating-Priest-Child-Molesting-Enablers???
Well I sure can, Oh and Hitler was Catholic, so there’s that.

Frank

[ThePublius]

I wonder, though; while gender is protected, is gender identity (a made up concept) protected?

[ThePublius]

You know those no-go zones in Sweden and France? They may be coming to America.

"In a chilling series of social media posts on Saturday night, Minnesota state senator and former Minneapolis mayoral candidate Omar Fateh pledged to make the Cedar Riverside neighborhood of his city a "no-go zone for white supremacists.""

"But let’s not be naive. Omar Fateh is not talking about the Ku Klux Klan or even the Proud Boys here. He is almost certainly talking about anyone who supports President Donald Trump and the operations of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Twin Cities."

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/david-marcus-sorry-omar-fateh-were-not-doing-somali-run-no-go-zones-minnesota

Minnesota is truly fucked up, thanks to the Somali hordes.

[DDHarriman]

I read somewhere that the old Somalia Marxist patronage regime just relocated to Minnesota.

It makes sense. There's a sitting Somalia congressman whose defrauding us off in America with a daycare center.

It's gross, and the Democrats don't care. They get votes. illegal or not.

[ThePublius]

If Trump and Hegseth really wanted to play hardball, they could cut off, suspend all maintenance and support contracts for military equipment deployed by countries participating in Operation Arctic Endurance, Germany, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Canada, and the UK. Planes, helicopters, weapons systems, electronics, etc., etc. No support, training, service, spare parts. You're on your own.

Oh, and no NATO money, either.

[ducksalad]

Info on combat aircraft from Wikipedia so not definitive, but:

German Air Force - current planes all Panavia and Eurofighter. They have 35 F-35s on order so the result of your plan would be US/Lockheed out a few billion dollars.

Swedish Air Force - Current planes all Saab.

Norwegian Air Force - Mostly F-35.

Netherlands Air Force - Mostly F-35.

Canada Air Force - Mostly lesser US planes

UK Air Force - Mostly Eurofighter with some F-35 in service and some on order.

But that's not the main point. The main points are that (a) we make money off the services you want to cut off, and (b) other countries, not just the ones you listed, will see the danger in buying US equipment.

Having said all that, I agree that Trump and Hegseth might consider implementing this own-goal maneuver.

[ThePublius]

"When principle is involved, be deaf to expediency."

- Commodore Matthew Fontaine Maury

[ThePublius]

"German Air Force - current planes all Panavia and Eurofighter. They have 35 F-35s on order so the result of your plan would be US/Lockheed out a few billion dollars."

The Luftwaffe currently uses the Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules for tactical airlift.

"Swedish Air Force - Current planes all Saab."

The Swedish Air Force (Flygvapnet) currently operates American-made support aircraft, specifically the Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules for transport and the Sikorsky UH-60M Black Hawk (HKP 16) for utility/special operations

"UK Air Force - Mostly Eurofighter with some F-35 in service and some on order."

UK's Royal Air Force (RAF) currently operates several key American-designed aircraft, most notably the F-35B Lightning II (a joint project with the U.S.) and the C-17A Globemaster III transport.

[ThePublius]

Maybe the U.S. should just snatch Khamenei as we did Maduro.

[jay.tee]

Moral and legal objections aside, Venezuela is militarily the (low) minor leagues compared to Iran.

[ThePublius]

Yes, that's probably so. I wonder if the U.S. incorporated some kind of remote kill switch into all that U.S. gear they have. 🙂

[JoeFromtheBronx]

In antebellum times, immigration was largely the concern of individual states. Congress had limited rules in place regulating shipping that touched on immigration.

States put various limits on incoming transients. New York v. Miln (1837) referenced a local law that attempted to suppress the ingress of "paupers, vagabonds, and possibly convicts."

There were also laws to guard against the diseased coming in.

Some states, especially Southern ones, banned blacks, including free blacks from abroad, from entering the state.

There were some laws in place that, at least on paper, were intended to block "open borders."

[ThePublius]

Is anyone going to go to the Melania movie?

https://www.amazon.com/salp/melaniamovie?hhf&dclid=CjkKEQiAprLLBhDQ7bDht8_BqOsBEiQAZuq-PJv1iysCErA-Z4SUxIgjjahZr5MyHVGi2XmfFi9JBajw_wcB&gad_source=7&utm_campaign=34940334&utm_source=10413985&utm_medium=436867481&utm_content=247673410&tag=reasonmagazinea-20

[SRG2]

I'd rather go to OnlyFans, tbh

[Mr. Bumble]

Melania is on Only Fans?

[Frank Drackman]

Ironic thing is in Slovenia that's who checks your bag at the airport.
For the mentally slow, I'm saying Slovenia has hot chicks, even the older ones who do menial work.

[Frank Drackman]

Did anyone really read Cums-a-lot Harris's Book?
Or Sleepy Joes "How to go 10 yrs with Prostrate Cancer and not get Diagnosed until it's Incurable"

Frank