Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The Department of Justice is reportedly investigating whether some protesters against the activities of ICE agents in Minnesota have violated the FACE Act in regard to disrupting a worship service at Cities Church in St. Paul, where one of the pastors, David Easterwood, is the acting field director of the St. Paul ICE field office. https://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-investigating-after-protesters-disrupt-service-minneapolis-church/story?id=129349242

Unlike some of the other half cocked investigations that the DOJ is reportedly conducting, this one may be adequately predicated. Disruption of a worship service can be a federal crime, per 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2), providing that whoever:

by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship

commits a misdemeanor for the first offense and a felony for a second or subsequent offense. The statute also provides for civil remedies including injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees.

The same statute prohibits similar conduct regarding access to abortion facilities.

It seems to me that the key as to any federal prosecution will be whether the anti-ICE protestors employed "force or threat of force or by physical obstruction". The disruption seems to have been mostly verbal, even if the volume was greater than necessary. https://www.facebook.com/BlackLivesMatterMN/posts/pfbid021kQKX1cesM1ZC3kJoYZaTuVJz8YRacHo9Vuf4SHSfC5Hych1naJ6yTC7SXheHuhEl

Whether it was criminal or not, (and refusing to leave when asked likely did violate state criminal trespass laws, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.605), it was still a dick move, and likely counterproductive.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It seems to me that the president of prosecutions for those blocking access to abortion clinics would be relevant here.

And those who have been convicted for that, in many cases, did far less than the schmucks did.

I still say they’re lucky they didn’t do this to my church because, well….

[not guilty]

Who is "the president of prosecutions for those blocking access to abortion clinics"?

And who elected him or her president?

The same statute that prohibits and punishes interference by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction at abortion facilities also prohibits and punishes interference by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction at houses of worship.

The use of "force or threat of force or by physical obstruction" is an essential element of either subsection which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Joe_dallas]

Not surprising that several leftist commentators stated that their actions did not meet the test cited by NG is spite of clear evidence from the videos.

[rswallen]

Probably meant to say precedent

[Frank Drackman]

You seem to have forgotten, some Animals are more equal than other Animals.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, suppose the protestors are charged and found guilty. What is the penalty for the first offense (misdemeanor)?

[not guilty]

Assuming that you are referring to the federal FACE Act, subsection (b)(1) provides that "Whoever violates this section shall . . . in the case of a first offense, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both . . . except that for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than six months, or both, for the first offense".

The Minnesota criminal trespass statute, subject to exceptions not relevant here, authorizes a sentence of not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $1,000, or both. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.02

[TwelveInchPianist]

There's also potential conspiracy against right charges, which would be felonies.

[ducksalad]

Totally off topic, but you can tell how old a law is by the ratio of max fine to max jail time.

A really ancient law will match $1K to a year in jail.
By the late 90s the going rate seems to be $20K per year.

[John F. Carr]

In some states people used to be able to trade off fines with prison time. 90 days in jail with a deduction of a day per $20 fine paid. Now judges are not supposed to jail people for being poor.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Whether it was criminal or not"

Yeah, that's a real head-scratcher.

Now imagine they'd invaded an abortion clinic during business hours.

Though as a matter of fact, I can't think of any legitimate way the Constitution, fairly construed, allows Congress to pass a FACE Act to supplement existing state laws against trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

It makes a bit more sense if you consider that it was enacted prior to Dobbs, when the Supreme court was treating abortion as a constitutional right. So the law could be construed to be 14th amendment enabling legislation.

Of course, religious liberty is STILL a constitutional right.

But, yeah, I tend to agree.

[Longtobefree]

"Of course, religious liberty is STILL a constitutional right."

Start paying attention.

[Michael P]

I can't think of any legitimate way the Constitution, fairly construed, allows Congress to pass a FACE Act to supplement existing state laws against trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc.

Federal and state jurisdictions have never been mutually exclusive, and this is probably justified under Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[A Japanese Student]

And now, given that women literally travel between states to obtain abortion, calling it "interstate commerce" isn't that of a stretch either.

[Frank Drackman]

I would pay money to hear you pronounce "literally"

[ThePublius]

Ha, ha. What do you want him to do, sprain his tongue?

[Bwaaah]

Come on now. He/she writes well enough that he/she may be a native English speaker. And anyway, for some reason I think it's pronounced "rittalary."

AJS is a good solid contributor, but Frank can't help himself with a name like that. He's probably still pissed about Pearl Harbor, or some cheap crappy pocket knife he was given in the sixties.

(I'm a fan, Frank. A fan. Show no mercy.)

[Michael P]

The Japanese phoneme for "tte" is pretty much identical to how it's pronounced in "litterally" in English. You might distinguish based on general accent, but the transliteration would be more like "ritterari" (not to be confused with "riterari" for "literary", ofc).

[Bwaaah]

"I said ritterari, not ritterari!"

("WTF is he saying?")

[John 4]

He writes better English than either of you two racist hillbillies.

[Bwaaah]

If you had a decent sense of humor, you'd have said Engrish or nothing at at all.

What do you have against hillbillies?

[John 4]

“Engrish” — damn that’s funny. And original.

[Frank Drackman]

"Engrish" was my invention that Bwaaah just stole, I'm stealin' it back!

[Krayt]

He used "literally" literally in the literal sense, instead of an exaggerative metaphor. He literally deserves figurative points for that.

[Bwaaah]

"He literally deserves figurative points for that."

That's a great remark. I literally died when I read it.

[Bubba Jones]

Using the presence of interstate commerce to regulate the activity, rather than just the interstate commerce aspect, is not a reasonable interpretation of the constitution.

[jb]

The Supreme Court has disagreed with you for about 100 years. It's kind of silly to relitigate this point constantly.

[Brett Bellmore]

An unreasonable decision a hundred years ago remains an unreasonable decision today, and remains worth noting.

[A Japanese Student]

There are hundreds of federal criminal statutes where "the presence of interstate commerce" provides jurisdiction; none of them have been struck down.

Hobbs Act, for example, criminalizes robbery affecting commerce. Section 844(i) for arson affecting commerce. Numerous provisions of title 18 prohibit interference with transportation, even though (for example) assaulting airport personnel is not commercial.

[Brett Bellmore]

We know that. The Court in Wickard decided to void all but the first two words of the commerce clause, and never looked back. At this point the regulatory state that enabled is so vast that even originalists who understand how wrong that was quail at the thought of undoing it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I wasn’t aware of the fact that Smith & Wesson was hiring people to shoot Mexican judges.

Respectfully, that’s like saying in Japan and China are identical cultures because they’re both in Asia.

At most, absolute most, Smith & Wesson was accused of recklessly selling guns to people who it might have known would use them irresponsibly which is a far cry from PAYING them to do so.

It would be one thing if Soros funded Arctic parkas and mittens, even if he knew they would be used by protesters. It’s another thing for him to be paying people to go disrupt events.

Like I said, Japanese aren’t Chinese.

[jb]

LOL, Dr. Ed imagines Soros up in his castle writing checks to fund individual protests. "Oh they're going to go invade a church," he says, stroking his chin and cackling maniacally, "that's a good one--give them $100k and make sure there's at least 50 people inside the church!"

[David Nieporent]

Giving money to people because he heard they're going to invade a church? Don't be silly. That isn't mustache-twirling-evil enough. Dr. Ed imagines Soros saying, "I hate Christians. What can we do to show that? Here, take this cash and hire some people to disrupt their services. I don't care where you find them. Just make sure they don't stop until church is ruined."

[Riva]

And further beclowning themselves in the course of their harassment they chanted “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.” An oldie but goodie but why let a perfectly good lie go to waste? https://legalinsurrection.com/2026/01/anti-ice-church-invaders-chanted-fabricated-blm-hands-up-dont-shoot-slogan/

Wonder how many of these Antifa or whatevers are just regurgitated BLM fraudsters?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I understand why ACT-UP did their famous protest at a church. They had their reasons. And people can strongly disagree with them but there was some value there.

This one appears pragmatically ill advised.

[David Nieporent]

As I understand it, the pastor has the same name as a local ICE official, and so these protesters decided he was the same person and thought it was worth harassing him. They are stupid, and assholes, and stupid assholes. Protests like that are inevitably about the protesters, not the cause.

[Dr. Ed 2]

How many days does it take for the US attorney’s office to convene grand jury and do all the nice things that has to do and not to indict someone?

I asked because unless Bondi indicts those responsible for violating the FACE at in the Baptist Church last Sunday, we’re gonna have a new attorney general. Can the feds arrest people prior to grand jury indictment the way some state district attorneys

The other question I have is would be enhanced charges for those who organize this whole stunt? Conspiracy charges, possibly even some version of RICO if the protests were paid?

And asked the specification of charges, all one has to do is to look at the people who are prosecuted for violating the FACE act around abortion clinics, and what conduct got them convicted. Screaming, disrupting, terrifying blocking intimidating, unauthorized presence trespass all that fun stuff comes to immediate mind.

People want to talk about Nazis — well it was the Nazis who went into other people’s churches, i.e. synagogues….

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-minnesota-ice-church-protest-st-paul-minneapolis-11384427

[not guilty]

United States Attorneys do not convene federal grand juries. Federal district judges do so.

Provided they have probable cause, federal officials can arrest people prior to grand jury indictment, but that starts the speedy trial clock running. It ordinarily requires issuance of an arrest warrant by a United States Magistrate. The Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 114 (1975).

A violation of 18 U.S.C. § 248 is not "racketeering activity" as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).

Any more questions?

[Frank Drackman]

Does being a Prick make you feel good about yourself?

[Riva]

You sure showed him. Because his main point was really about the legalities of convening a grand jury, not that all the “Nazi” bullshit insults are just essentially more leftist projection.

[jb]

Didn't you spend most of yesterday debating whether or not Trump had sent a "letter" in order to avoid engaging in any discussion of what it actually said?

[Riva]

And you sure showed me. Because referring to comments on a post misrepresenting an alleged second or third party representation of a communication as quoting a "letter" really definitively rebuts my point above noting that all the “Nazi” bullshit insults are just essentially more leftist projection.

[jb]

Woosh.

[Riva]

Since there’s quite a surplus of parrot rent-a-trolls here, I think I can afford to mute this asshole. So I will.

[jb]

I've heard that before. Can only hope it will be true this time.

[Zarniwoop]

“RICO is a really complicated racketeering law that has elaborate requirements that are difficult to meet. It's overused by idiot plaintiff lawyers, and it's ludicrously overused by a hundred million jackasses on the internet with an opinion and a mood disorder.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20160714213735/https://popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/

[Bob from Ohio]

"jackass on the internet with an opinion and a mood disorder"

Popehat describing himself!

[Dr. Ed 2]

A hypothetical: George Soros is found to have funded Sunday’s church disruption, which is also found to be a violation of the FACE act.

Could he be personally liable for damages under the FACE act?

[not guilty]

A hypothetical: George Soros is found to have funded Sunday’s church disruption, which is also found to be a violation of the FACE act.

Could he be personally liable for damages under the FACE act?

I have quoted the relevant subsection of 18 U.S.C. § 248 upthread. Pull your head out from up your ass and parse it.

When you do, you will find that funding a protest is not a prohibited act. Moreover, subsection (d)(2) provides that "Nothing in this section shall be construed . . . to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, occurring outside a facility, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference".

Paying someone else to engage in political activity is itself First Amendment protected activity subject to strict scrutiny analysis, see, Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988), and such payment is highly unlikely to have occurred inside the Cities Church facility in St. Paul.

[Brett Bellmore]

"When you do, you will find that funding a protest is not a prohibited act."

When somebody "protests" by committing a crime, the funding is, legally, funding of a crime, not funding of a "protest". Committing a crime as part of a "protest" does not render the crime non-criminal.

[not guilty]

It was not a crime until the protesters remained on the premises after having been directed to leave. The initial entry was not a trespass.

Assuming arguendo that a third party funded the protesters, the independent decision to remain was an intervening cause vis-a-vis the funder.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 20 minutes ago
"It was not a crime until the protesters remained on the premises after having been directed to leave. The initial entry was not a trespass."

Your second sentence is questionable.
Churches generally have an open invitation to all individuals to join the worship. I am not aware of any church that has an open invitation for individuals to disrupt the worship. Since the intent of the protesters was to disrupt, it seems unlikely that the initial entry was not trespass. A reasonable inference of intent can be inferred from their behavior once in the church.

[not guilty]

Did you read the Minnesota statute or not, Joe_dallas?

The applicable subsection is § 609.605(b)(3). Every word of a criminal statute matters.

[Joe_dallas]

Yes - though you need to apply the correct facts to the statute. My statement remains correct. Their intent at the initial entry is the standard that applies.

[Joe_dallas]

Slight correction to my statement - It was their intent at the time of entry that governs whether they had consent to enter.

[not guilty]

Unless the accused has been previously told by a person with authority over the premises to leave and not to return, (which would bring subsection (b)(8) into play,) the absence of consent to enter is irrelevant, provided the putative trespasser departs upon demand.

Every word and every section of a criminal statute matters.

[not guilty]

Uh, subsection (b)(3) is not violated unless and until the trespasser "refuses to depart from the premises on demand of the lawful possessor". The word "and" being conjunctive here, the initial entry, by itself, is not dispositive. The offense has not been committed until every fact necessary to constitute the violation has occurred.

[Krayt]

This argument about whether intending to disrupt on entry isn't a problem reminds me of little kids sitting in the back seat, and one has his fist raised and holds it an inch from the other, exclaiming, "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a reason why I say that the precedents of the abortion cases are irrelevant, convictions there are on far less.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Assuming arguendo that a third party funded the protesters, the independent decision to remain was an intervening cause vis-a-vis the funder."

Assuming the decision was independent, rather than exactly what they'd been paid to do. We have no basis for making that assumption. Any more than, admittedly, we have any basis for making the contrary assumption.

In short, you can't rule out the funder being on the hook, it's merely not proven.

[RedheadedPharoh]

Foreign nationals paying citizens for political activity on their behalf is First Amendment protected? How does FARA not apply?

[SRG2]

Soros, of course, is an American citizen

[LexAquilia]

Take out the hypocrisy of the the Democrat activists whom complain vigorously against billionaires even existing while doing their bidding on the ground, what about the principle RP mentioned as was stated?

Foreign nationals paying citizens for political activity on their behalf is First Amendment protected? How does FARA not apply?

Any opinions or thoughts?

[hobie]

not guilty, wouldn't they have to invoke RICO to give Ed his Soros dream?

[A Japanese Student]

One of the recent SCOTUS trends is the skepticism towards civil aiding-and-abetting claims. Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023); Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280 (2025).

If that trend continues, I doubt he would be found liable.

[Martinned]

Woof, woof!

[John F. Carr]

Liability in criminal law would come from 18 USC 2:

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

The offenses of aiding, abetting, etc. require proof of intent. The defendant must have intended to assist in acts constituting a crime. Proof of knowledge that the acts are criminal may not be required. He can't get off by arguing "I didn't know about the FACE act." He can get off by arguing "I was funding a peaceful, legal protest and you can't prove otherwise."

[not guilty]

Dr. Ed 2 asked about vicarious civil liability for damages. That is why I cited § 248(d)(2), which provides that "Nothing in this section shall be construed . . . to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, occurring outside a facility, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference".

[Frank Drackman]

This is getting good! Nicki Minaj-a-trois called Don Lemon "Don Coc* Suckin' Lemon" and he said she was an "Undocumented Citizen"
actually, he's a big Pussy, so he said
"From what I know, you are an Undocumented Citizen, so you should be deported under Donald Trump's rule"
Mee-Yow!!!
I think Don Lemon's Balls are wherever that Malaysian Airliner is.

Frank

[ThePublius]

What does "undocumented citizen" even mean?

[Michael P]

Normally, it would probably refer to a natural born citizen who was born "off the grid", without the parents filling for a birth certificate, Social Security Number, and so forth.

What Don Lemon meant by it is a good question, because Nicki Minaj is -- if anything -- overly documented.

[Commenter_XY]

Public Service Announcement: We are now entering tax season, and the array of new deductions and credits is prodigious. For those of us that do our own taxes via TurboTax (~35% of us), and use the standard deduction (90% of us), prepare for an extra hour or so....no big deal.

My first run through took about two hours. Some of that time was getting documentation. Unless you owe money, or have a special tax situation; file early (first week of Feb).

There are a lot of additional TT questions, so have your documents ready.

[Frank Drackman]

Love the Qualified Business Income Deduction, of course I don't get all of it because we're too "Rich", but it's like "Thanks for being the Engine of Amurica's Economy, take off 20%" that and the Self Employed 401K, and it's over $100K that's tax-free (well, for awhile)
Of course most of the Saps think they're getting away with something getting a Refund, too bad everyone doesn't have to pay Estimated Taxes Quarterly, writing that check to Uncle Sammy (OK, I do it online) brings home how much he's taking for his drug habit.
Speaking of Uncle Sammy, tell me again why I have to pay tax on Capital Gains? I mean besides it's the law. So I made a profit on some Stocks, get your sticky Dick Beaters out of my pocket!!!

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Frank, you ignorant slut. You pay samolians to Uncle Sammy so he can send the to MN to give to the "immigrants" who built this country and they can send them to Somalia.

[Frank Drackman]

The Somalians got nuthin to do with this!!!!!
Yes, I pay my taxes, and don't take a lot of Deductions my Accountant Mordecai "The Nose" says I could (If you ask your Hooters/Twin Peaks Waitress if her Boobs are real you can deduct the Meal as a "Continuing Medical Education" expense)
At least that's what Mordecai said at his last Parole hearing.
I go by the rules, don't want to lose money, freedom, and my (Very Tight) Anal Sphincter Tone.

Frank

[Longtobefree]

More like five minutes if you meet those criteria.
A W2 or so, maybe a couple of 1099s for interest or investments.
'Documentation' is for itemized deductions.

I drop the tax related statements in a folder as they arrive in the mail, and typing that data into the computer take about ten minutes.

[Josh R]

I take the standard deduction, I do my own taxes without software assistance, and it takes about an hour, and only that long only because of some stock sales and foreign tax credits from a mutual fund.

[Krayt]

The government has all notice of my interests paid, my wages and withholdings, much of my life I'd have preferred the government send me a generated tax form to simply sign.

[AmosArch]

Progressives have gone through the trouble of years of marginalizing all the other holidays and associated people so that MLK is now the de facto most un-controversially venerated figure in America. But then they just go and forget about him to hero worship some white lady attempted manslaughterer who tragically martyred herself for the sake of fraudsters even they admit exist? Can't win with these guys can you?

[Sarcastr0]

Amos with his finger of the pulse of liberalism once again.

[Longtobefree]

To those raised in Virginia in the fifties and sixties, it remains Lee-Jackson Day.

[Michael Molovinsky]

As an independent conservative blogging daily for 18years, my audience was mostly local Republicans, a minority in my neck of Pennsytucky. However, on Trump's coattails, they took the house seat by 1%. I'm telling my readers that unless that Representative (Mackenzie) cuts bait with Trump, he'll lose the midterms. The Republican base, so far, cannot bring themselves to disavow their ever more crazy President.
https://molovinskyonallentown.blogspot.com

[Sarcastr0]

The baby steps to distance from Trump have potential; depends on how the midterms go and how nuclear Trump goes on conservative incumbants that do that.

As a liberal, I'm interested in the realignment once the cult around Trump is done.
The GOP coalition won't stay together. And the Dems are already realigning, even just via a ton of their older members retiring.

And the lay of the land is different - norms broken, institutions wrecked, trust ended...that also has an effect on people.

[Michael Molovinsky]

I have a hard time understanding the cult. For the MAGA red hats, it's like a sport team they support. They didn't pay attention before Trump and they won't after him. BUT, for the Republican partisans, it's being in the driver's seat, even if the driver is ever more reckless and unbalanced. Unless they speak up, they're going to crash and burn for several terms.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, people outside a cult always find it really hard to understand.

The analogy to sports seems a good one. Sports is a show. MAGA seems to be in it for the show, seeing politics as a game, and effects of the chaos and destruction as not real but performance.

People on this blog have been asked why they support Trump. Revenge shows up a lot - we were oppressed under Biden now it's your turn. No one was oppressed under Biden, but they *felt* oppressed so real oppression seems called for.

Illegal immigration is another. The cruelty is the point, since the trauma will keep illegals living in fear and miserable even after Trump leaves. Amazing people just type out this kind of stuff.

Getting communists out of public schools and universities also shows up, which seems idiosyncratic to people who have had personal issues with schools and family courts, etc.

[not guilty]

"Illegal immigration is another. The cruelty is the point, since the trauma will keep illegals living in fear and miserable even after Trump leaves. Amazing people just type out this kind of stuff."

Life's losers seem to have a pathological need for a class of people to look down on. Then-Senator Lyndon Johnson understood the appeal of racial segregation and Jim Crow to white southerners. His aide Bill Moyers wrote in the Washington Post in 1988:

WHILE Lyndon Baines Johnson was a man of time and place, he felt the bitter paradox of both. I was a young man on his staff in 1960 when he gave me a vivid account of that southern schizophrenia he understood and feared. We were in Tennessee. During the motorcade, he spotted some ugly racial epithets scrawled on signs. Late that night in the hotel, when the local dignitaries had finished the last bottles of bourbon and branch water and departed, he started talking about those signs. "I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," he said. "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1988/11/13/what-a-real-president-was-like/d483c1be-d0da-43b7-bde6-04e10106ff6c/

The bigots have since broadened their targets to include brown as well as black folks, but the visceral hatred remains the same.

[Michael P]

LBJ was taking about classic Democrat strategy.

[Frank Drackman]

Even if LBJ said that (given it's Bill Moyer's recollection, I doubt it) did he also say when he signed the Voting Rights Act he'd have the Niggers (LBJ's words not mine) voting DemoKKKrat for the next 100 years?? Or did he say he'd just turned the South Repubiclown??
How about that until his Death he thought his biggest mistake was not sending MORE young men to die in Vietnam?? Such a great President he couldn't not only run for re-erection (sound familiar??) but couldn't show up at his own Party's convention.
Only thing I'll say is he was preferable to RFK, who he probably had killed (Motive, Opportunity, what's the 3rd one????(HT R Perry) and NOT preferable to JFK who he also probably had killed.

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"(given it's Bill Moyer's recollection, I doubt it)"

A Sarcasto anecdote!

[Frank Drackman]

Who was that Retarded Black Man Bill Clinton had Executed to show he was "Tough on Crime"????

[not guilty]

His name was Ricky Rector. I voted for another candidate in the 1992 presidential preference primary because of that.

[Mr. Bumble]

...but you did wind up voting for Bill,

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem here is that there are two opposing cults. The Trump cult, AND the anti-Trump cult. The Trump-can-do-no-wrong cult, and the Trump-can-do-no-right cult. The Trump-never-lies cult, and the Trump-never-tells-the-truth cult.

"No one was oppressed under Biden, but they *felt* oppressed so real oppression seems called for."

OK, let's be clear about this: Just because you happen to approve of something doesn't mean that the people subjected to it aren't being oppressed. Just because you think people speaking up at school board meetings SHOULD be put through a wringer, doesn't mean they're not being oppressed, for instance. Just because you think gun dealers should be put out of work over minor paperwork errors, doesn't mean they're not being oppressed. It just means you approve of them being oppressed.

" The cruelty is the point, since the trauma will keep illegals living in fear and miserable even after Trump leaves. "

I don't understand this complaint. If an illegal alien is returned to their own country, why would they be living in fear and misery, any more than the people who had stayed behind rather than illegally immigrating?

I think you're assuming they somehow don't get deported? I guess that's consistent with the literally insane claims that ICE has somehow ceased to enforce immigration laws.

And for the ones who manage to successfully hide, what is wrong, anyway, with criminals who refuse to stop committing their crime living in fear and misery? Is being a criminal supposed to be secure and joyous?

This whole remark seems premised on the notion that illegal immigration isn't in any way wrong. So these people are innocent. No, they're not. They're people who deliberately decided to violate our laws. LET them live in fear and misery until they can be found and ejected.

"Getting communists out of public schools and universities also shows up, which seems idiosyncratic to people who have had personal issues with schools and family courts, etc."

Well, of course, you're committed to claiming that there aren't any communists to get out in the first place.

[Brett Bellmore]

It occurs to me that I should actually qualify this a little: People who were brought here as young children actually CAN be innocent in the matter.

You may recall that Trump in his first term actually advocated Congress enacting a statute to make DACA legal. This is where the pressure should be, not demanding that immigration laws be left unenforced.

[David Nieporent]

I don't understand this complaint. If an illegal alien is returned to their own country, why would they be living in fear and misery, any more than the people who had stayed behind rather than illegally immigrating?

Um, what do you think they left their own countries in the first place to escape? But, yes, he's referring to the millions of people who Trump will not be able to deport.

One amendment to what he said, though, which is that the cruelty is not at all limited to "illegals." Trump/Miller are trying to make people here legally live in fear also. That includes people on work or student visas, refugees, naturalized citizens who they hope to denaturalize, and even people born here whose citizenship they are trying to erase.

[Frank Drackman]

Pompous Ass much?

[SRG2]

I have a hard time understanding the cult.

For many cultists here and elsewhere, it was the threat to white privilege - and Obama was the incarnation of that threat. MAGA is, more accurately, MAWA.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, if you mean by "white privilege" being able to have decent affordable health insurance, sure, he was a real threat to "white privilege".

[SRG2]

As far as health insurance goes, well, the GOP did everything it could to obstruct Obama - and have not managed to come up with anything better, despite 30 years of opportunity - so we can simply dismiss that complaint.

But you know perfectly well what is meant by white privilege.

I will give you a minor, trivial example of white privilege that I will bet none of you. unless you're African-American or genuinely close to any African-Americans, know about.

I have mentioned before that I compete in masters track. Unsurprisingly, therefore, I have many African-American friends and acquaintances. I noticed that if I were talking to one of these friends and a white male athlete came over to chat or to ask questions (I have some specific expertise), that athlete would interrupt the conversation without apology, and just start talking to me as if my African-American friend did not exist. After about the third time this happened, I asked some of my A-A friends about this and they all said that they were aware of this and were used to it. That was simply how the average American white male behaved in these circumstances. Now if in a situation where it costs nothing to be polite, this is how some of you behave, why think it's only in such cases? And this is evident white privilege.

[Brett Bellmore]

Privilege: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.

I think everybody understands that "privileges" are things people are not entitled to.

I deny the existence of "white privilege" because whites get no special rights, advantages, or immunities. We get rights respected that should be respected for everybody.

But that aside, I didn't see Obama being elected as a threat of anything but that he would carry through on his campaign promises, which I would have considered a threat if anybody of any color had done so. I literally did not give a bucket of warm spit what color he was.

[Magister]

The US Constitution twice mentions privileges of citizens (which cannot be abridged by state law in the 14th amendment) which suggests that they are indeed entitled to them.

Having one's rights, advantages or immunities respected when others do not is a privilege.

[SRG2]

Privilege: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group

I deny the existence of "white privilege" because whites get no special rights, advantages, or immunities. We get rights respected that should be respected for everybody.

Astonishing. you deny a phenomenon because the specific usage of the word "privilege" doesn't match a dictionary definition.

As I wrote elsewhere:
It is about as easy for many of us to appreciate white privilege as it is for fish to appreciate the wetness of water. When privilege doesn't feel like something you get, but is in fact only something others are deprived of, how can you really feel it? Small wonder that you may think it doesn't exist.

If you don't expect to be rejected from a pile of job applicants because of your first name, you don't expect to be followed in a department store, you don't expect to be arrested and thrown in jail for a minor traffic infraction (and certainly not shot), you don't expect a bank to steer you to a higher rate mortgage, etc. etc. - what would lead you to think that any of this is "privilege"? Yet compared to particularly the African-American experience, where the expectation for the above are very different, it assuredly is.

[Bwaaah]

What kind of language abuse is that? Rudely interrupting people isn't some kind of "privilege." That's inconsiderate, bad behavior that scores a person Asshole points. (Hadn't you noticed? Yes you did.)

And businesses that reject potentially talented hires, or banks that reject creditworthy customers (for ANY lousy reason)...you call those fuck-ups "people exercising privilege?" Those are "missed opportunities," and EVERYBODY has the privilege of missing [almost] all the opportunities they want in life.

Being an asshole isn't a privilege. It's much closer to a right that anybody can exercise. But it's certainly no advantage.

And, no, people don't get "arrested and thrown in jail for minor traffic infractions." ("I like to do that to black people.") Even asshole cops have better things to do with their time than that. You're leaving out the part where "the victim" purposely ignored prior summonses and there's a warrant for their arrest, or they refused to identify during the stop, or some other fucked up shit that happened in the course of a minor traffic infraction.

Did Robin DiAngelo step on your dick, or do you just think everybody's that stupid about race? That's some pretty low-grade white pandering you're doing there. If you're "of color," then you must've somehow been sheltered you're whole life from the dreggs of humanity.

[jay.tee]

it was the threat to white privilege - and Obama was the incarnation of that threat

Whitewashing opposition to the authoritarianism of the Obama administration isn’t an “anti-authoritarian” view. It’s quite the opposite.

Like I said, you’re a cultist yourself.

[SRG2]

the authoritarianism of the Obama administration

Translation: the unacceptableness of having a black president govern whites

Like I said, you’re a cultist yourself.

You are not the Bellman such that repetition establishes truth.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that's actually why Democrats like minority candidates. It licenses them to just arbitrarily dismiss any attack on their qualifications or policy positions as thinly disguised racism.

[SRG2]

That may well be true. Likewise, racists may argue that they're not being racist when saying something racist about a minority candidate because the only reason the Democrats nominated that candidate was to allow them to dismiss attacks as thinly disguised racism.

[jay.tee]

So now you’ve devolved to a fallacy of unfalsifiability.

Anything to defend the indefensible I suppose.

[SRG2]

That's not a fallacy of falsifiability. And why is what I posted any different in terms of falsifiability and factual claim from what Brett posted?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, for starters, you could try just not "translating" every complaint about a Democratic candidate who happens to not be lily white into racism.

Pretending that if a candidate isn't white, there can't be any legitimate reason to oppose them except perhaps they're not being a Democrat is just absurd. Obama wasn't the 2nd coming, he was just another candidate for President people were free to have legitimate objections to.

I for example am an NRA life member, you think I'd have supported Obama if he'd been white, given his positions on gun control?

[SRG2]

I for example am an NRA life member, you think I'd have supported Obama if he'd been white, given his positions on gun control?

If you were a single-issue candidate, no.

[Brett Bellmore]

Even if I were a multi-issue voter, I wouldn't have voted for Obama given my other issues.

Didn't vote for McCain or Romney, either, mind you, based on the same issues.

[Riva]

I have a hard time taking seriously your claims of being an “independent” anything when you parrot leftist “cult” talking point insults, let alone an independent conservative or republican. Independent in Congress is basically synonymous with caucusing with democrats. Enlighten us on your main issues and current republicans in office you support?

[Michael Molovinsky]

Riva, my blog has an archive (easy to verify what I write). Up to about four months ago, I never wrote anything negative about Trump. The last time I voted for a Democrat was in college. I do however sit some ballots out. I did NOT vote for the top of the ticket in 2024 (Trump vs. Harris) Sorry to tell you, but an independent conservative can sour on Trump.

[Riva]

Sorry to tell you but people can lie on the internet by claiming to be an "independent conservative republican" yet fail to identify any issues they support or oppose and can't name a single conservative republican in Congress that they support. Yet you have no problem attacking supporters of President Trump. Opposing President Trump is one thing, adopting the asinine "cultist" language of leftist hacks quite another. And it speaks volumes about you.

[Michael Molovinsky]

Riva, you'll never have my credibility simply because you don't even identify yourself. I'm not a Republican, I'm an independent, who mostly votes Republican. This notion that if you criticize Trump you are a leftist cultist will come back badly for your ilk in November. Never mind the independents, there are a dozen Republican groups that oppose Trump.

[Riva]

You seem so concerned about republican chances, but ok, a mystery “independent conservative” who can’t identify any issues he supports or opposes, let alone any congressmen, yet has no issue attacking supporters of President Trump using the same asinine insulting rhetoric of every leftist hack here. Who wouldn’t trust you?

[Bob from Ohio]

"same asinine insulting rhetoric of every leftist hack here"

Remaining anti-Trump GOP/conservatives are generally indistinguishable from the libs here.

[jay.tee]

Serious question: Do you perceive any difference between “anti-Trump GOP/conservatives,” “libs,” and those who generally oppose Trump’s bat-shit crazy actions and statements?

[Michael Molovinsky]

Trump wants the minerals in Greenland. The defense aspect is BS. It is 1955 DEW line nonsense. We can have all the bases we want there. BUT, what he's doing to our allies and NATO does weaken us in reality.

[ducksalad]

BfO, at the rate he is going, Trump may soon cross even your limits. We saw Kaz and even Joe_Dallas (!) show some wavering lately.

At that point you will become an anti-Trump conservative, and then you will be able to distinguish yourself from the libs here. Pretty sure Kaz and Joe can.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump may soon cross even your limits. "

Even if he does, you'll never know. I don't backstab.

[David Nieporent]

Unlike some here, Bob from Ohio doesn't even pretend to have principles.

[ducksalad]

I see, your personal standards of loyalty require that disagreement only be expressed privately within the "family", not out where the enemy could see it.

There's some Sicilian word for it....

[Bob from Ohio]

"your personal standards of loyalty require that disagreement only be expressed privately within the "family"

Of course.

Do you rebuke your wife in public?

[ducksalad]

I can't even imagine conflating loyalty to a spouse with loyalty to a politician.

It's like a defect of the English language that we happen to call it by the same name. There should be different words.

(Side note: In Mexican Spanish they use the same word tracionar for committing treason and for cheating on your wife. Always thought that was kind of odd.)

[Sarcastr0]

Bob, what is your thought about Biden pardoning his son?

Loyalty?

[Michael Molovinsky]

last response to your insults:
1. I supported Trump's day one border closings, since then, not too many things.
2. Venezuela is simply stealing their oil.
3. Greenland is wanting their minerals. The defense aspect is BS. Musk can do more with one satellite, last year he put up 107. His DOGE cuts were indiscriminate and damaging.
I support my Pa. rep. Mackenzie and senator McCormick. I supported that Mackenzie signed the ACA petition (Democrat sponsored.) I'm urging Mackenzie to speak out against Greenland and other Trump fumbles, so that he might get re-elected.

[Riva]

I see, my insults, but your impugning of my integrity and regurgitation of the leftist “cult” nonsense is not in any way insulting. But you’ve sure established your “independent conservative” credentials by indicating your support for more Obamacare subsidies. Because that really defines conservatism.

And you only supported President Trump’s day one border orders but no other efforts to secure the border and deport Biden’s criminal illegals? Your support for secure borders rings rather hollow. I’m doing you a favor ignoring your silly comments on Venezuela and Greenland.

[SRG2]

your impugning of my integrity

It may indeed be a philosophical error to impugn something that doesn't exist.

[Riva]

As an aside, Michael, could I interest you in an asshole rent-a-troll? I'll give it away, no charge at all. At least one alias he, she or whatever uses is SRG2. If you like really fucking imbecilic obsessive trolls stalking you, he, she or whatever is your man, or whatever.

[David Nieporent]

Bot has been programmed to lash out because everyone has by now accepted the obvious truth about being a bot.

[SRG2]

Riva is lying when it says that I am someone's alias. Nobody else here has a comparable style and it's effectively impossible to copy consistently. Riva is prone to lie - I just wonder why this particular one.

[SRG2]

There is the peculiar phenomenon amongst some on the right - I specifically exclude you - where they only accept as "independent", people who largely agree with them. It may be related to the phenomenon of self-described libertarians who consistently express conservative views or support conservative politicians. We see them here.

[Riva]

A clownish attempt to define the views of the “right.” Personally, I reject phony “independents” who are really democrats supporting democrat issues. Remind me, how many “independents” in Congress caucus with the republicans?

[SRG2]

Remind me, how many “independents” in Congress caucus with the republicans?

And how many - in actual numbers - is that? According to this, two. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_and_independent_members_of_the_United_States_Congress

You're going to generalise independents from two senators? Quel fuckwit.

And some more data for you: https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-political-independents.aspx

[Michael Molovinsky]

Riva, I don't see things as Republican vs. Democrats, or Left vs. Right, but rather what's best for the country. Many people needed the ACA to help their insurance costs. It's a grand idea to lower health costs, but in the meanwhile... right now the costs are still high and millions lost that subsidy. Trump's claim of lowering prescription costs hasn't borne fruit at the pharmacy.
Independents account for about 27% of voters. No party can win an election without their support. In 2024 Trump did well with them. We'll see for the midterms and 2028.

[jay.tee]

I agree with your aim to evaluate things outside the red vs blue rubric, but I find this…odd:

Many people needed the ACA to help their insurance costs. It's a grand idea to lower health costs, but in the meanwhile... right now the costs are still high and millions lost that subsidy.

The ACA, when viewed from a realistic economic perspective, was never “a grand idea to lower health costs.” Take away the ideological aims, and the subsequent layering of more regulation, forcing more industry consolidation, and further disempowering the consumer aren’t great ideas and are the antithesis of small-government beliefs.

Furthermore, the discontinued subsidies, the ones the Democrats shut down the government for, applied only to those above 400% of the poverty level and were supposed to be temporary COVID relief.

[Riva]

SRG2, the answer, shithead, is zero. In the current, 119th, U.S. Congress, there are no independents who caucus with the Republicans in either chamber of Congress. I'd blame your idiotic reliance on Wikipedia bullshit, but the site you link to doesn't say differently. You're just a fucking imbecile.

[not guilty]

"Independents account for about 27% of voters. No party can win an election without their support. In 2024 Trump did well with them. We'll see for the midterms and 2028."

Midterms during the sixth year of a presidency have historically not gone well for the party in control of the White House. FDR in 1938, Truman in 1950, Eisenhower in 1958, JFK/LBJ in 1966, Nixon in 1974, Reagan in 1986, G. W. Bush in 2006. The exception was Clinton in 1988 in the wake of the unpopular impeachment effort.

Some of these shifts followed presidential landslide elections -- FDR in 1936, Eisenhower in 1956, LBJ in 1964, Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1984.

It remains to be seen what the effect of President Bone Spurs Chickenhawk's serving non-consecutive terms will be.

[SRG2]

I made the mistake of answering two because when I started writing I was thinking of how many on the list caucus with Democrats. Indeed none - and I am happy to correct my error. It's still the case that you can't generalise across the country from two senators and I provided broader data than you.

[SRG2]

Michael: the libertarian SF writer David Brin as a kind of baseline question, asks, "will this policy increase the number of educated entrepreneurs?" That is a fine libertarian goal, but unlike axiomatic libertarians, he doesn't require the policy itself to conform to libertarian ideals - hence he supports some form of government health plan, public education, etc.

[Life of Brian]

Riva, my blog has an archive (easy to verify what I write). Up to about four months ago, I never wrote anything negative about Trump.

Greetings -- I see I missed your arrival a few days ago. Life got busy for a bit. I have no idea if these particular articles are still in your blog's archive, but the Internet Archive was kind enough to take comprehensive snapshots over the years. A few examples from the above link, spanning 2019-2023:

"Some of us conservatives couldn't vote for Trump in 2020 because he wasn't presidential enough in his first term. Likewise, we cannot consider him for 2024 because he wasn't American enough on January 6th, 2021."

"When Trump campaigned for Dr. Oz in Pennsylvania, I hoped that Oz could prevail in spite of it."

"For some of us who supported Oz, Trump's apparently waning influence was the only consolation."

"The January 6th event was conducted by Trump cultists who bought into his deception that the election was stolen."

"While my disillusionment with Trump occurred early in his term, any defense of him completely expired on January 6th, 2021."

"Kids, not unlike Trump, don't have the filters that society places on us over the years."

"Assuming Trump remains the Republican nominee in 2020, I may be forced to vote for the Democrat, whoever that may be. This experiment in outsider governance is over for me."

And on and on. I'll listen to any thoughts you might have on why none of that is actually "negative," but in my view you're not doing your credibility any favors by going out of your way to make claims that are pretty demonstrably false to a reasonable person.

[Michael Molovinsky]

Brian, I've posted every weekday since May of 2007. My archives could be used to prove about anything. In 2016 I voted Trump, in 2020 Jorgensen, in 2024 Nobody at top of ticket.
If you and Riva can provide links, we'll check you guys out.

[Michael Molovinsky]

Brian, I just checked that Internet Archive site you used, never knew it existed. However, my primary site does have actual archives on the sidebar of the desktop version.
https://molovinskyonallentown.blogspot.com

[Life of Brian]

Brian, I just checked that Internet Archive site you used, never knew it existed.

Yeah, it's a pretty awesome resource that makes memory-holing a lot trickier.

However, my primary site does have actual archives on the sidebar of the desktop version.

If they're "actual archives" then they'll line up nicely with the snapshot the Wayback Machine took. If not... well.

[Life of Brian]

My archives could be used to prove about anything.

Bold strategy, Cotton. Can you use them to prove -- just strictly for example -- that "[u]p to about four months ago, I never wrote anything negative about Trump"?

[Michael Molovinsky]

yea Brian, you got me!!!!! I should have written that up to four months ago I only criticized Trump occasionally, but then I realized that he is actually degrading our country and needs more scrutiny.

I recently joined here and said I look forward to a site without anonymous trolls, and someone replied that here the trolls use pseudonyms.

[Life of Brian]

I should have written that up to four months ago I only criticized Trump occasionally

I agree you should have written something vastly different than "never wrote anything negative," but it seems like your fallback doesn't really work either -- unless, I suppose, by "only occasionally" you mean that you saved broad-ranging stuff like "my disillusionment with Trump occurred early in his term" for only every third or fourth post. But, then, that sort of candor probably wouldn't have fit very well in your response to Riva.

I recently joined here and said I look forward to a site without anonymous trolls, and someone replied that here the trolls use pseudonyms.

Well, since you didn't explicitly say so, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're talking about others here, and are not just falling back to invective to try to create some cover to extract yourself from this unforced error.

I know you're new -- mentioned that in my first post, actually -- and also pointed out that's a great reason not to get off on the wrong foot by... erm, reimagining yourself and forgetting that the Internet is forever.

By your own words, you've been anti-Trump since early in his first term. All good, and you'll find many others here that will join you in that sentiment. But unfortunately, on this board the alpha role for prolific posters pretending to be the last reasonable man while mysteriously always following a blazingly partisan pattern is long sewn up. Just own who you are, and you'll probably have a much more enjoyable time around here -- unless, of course, your purpose here is to do a bit of con-trolling yourself.

[Michael Molovinsky]

Brian, I apologize for not being clear. I'm calling YOU a troll, after being here longer and reading more of your comments, I'll know if that is your life, but I suspect it is.
If you weren't a troll, we would be discussing issues with Trump, not when I first wrote about them.

[Life of Brian]

Okie dokie -- thanks for clearing that up. To this 15+ year Volokh commenter it doesn't seem like a particularly good look for the new guy to come wading in and immediately dive for the third-rail insults after getting caught with your pants so obviously down, but by all means you do you.

Be seeing you around, I'm sure.

[Michael P]

"cuts bait with Trump"? You sound Russian.

[hobie]

We'll have to treat MAGA withdrawal like a twelve step program. And the first step is always to admit you have a problem. And it is incumbent on all of us to be supportive.

When the arrests finally start to come, they need to be done according to the law and Constitution. No arresting MAGAs for their advocacy of Israel. No using the government to target Christian organizations. No withholding federal funds to states that restrict abortion. And no blowing up hillbillies as they amble down country roads in their F-150s.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

What does "cut bait" mean?

[John 4]

Crazy that multiple people haven’t heard that term before.

[Mr. Bumble]

City boys.
Yesterday someone asked who Doc Holiday was.

[ducksalad]

You need to put a [sic] after Holiday or we'll blame you for the error.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I'm personally familiar with it. My interest is in what he thinks cutting bait would entail.

[Michael P]

Another day, another assault by the leftist cult against people they mistakenly believe are affiliated with ICE.

https://x.com/AlphaNews/status/2012610307663802819

In related news, Don Lemon does more Don Lemon things.

https://nypost.com/2026/01/19/us-news/don-lemon-blasts-minnesota-churchgoers-harassed-by-anti-ice-protesters-for-white-supremacy/

[Frank Drackman]

I love Don's Harry Caray Glasses. Seriously, did he get those when they deorbited the Hubble?? Focus those lenses just right you'd have a Super Villain Weapon Lex Luthor would be proud of.

[Malika la Maize]

Indiana deservedly won but the detractors of Miami and the ACC look pretty silly right now.

[Frank Drackman]

And yet they want to expand the playoff even more, It was best at 2 teams, OK, with 4, and even tolerable with 12, but 16?? Did we really want to see Indiana/Utah?? Texas/Georgia III?? Notre Dame vs anybody???? And don't even get me started with Tulane and John Madison (James? George?? who cares??) getting a Sympathy (Redacted) And yes, the only chance my 2010 BCS CHAMPION AUBURN TIGERS (Sigh, seems so long ago) have of getting in is if they go to 16, heck, just make it 68 (with the "Play-In" Games) teams like the NAACP Basketball, it'll free up my entire Fall to do something more productive, like trim my toenails. Seriously, can we send the Falcons to Greenland??

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Here’s a rare instance where I agree with Frank. Four teams is enough, if you expand you just push the bitching down the line about who should have been the 12th or 16th or whatever.

[Frank Drackman]

No Homo, but Ali-Frazier, Lennin-McCartney, Drago-Rocky, they worked it out, put my Brains and your, umm, whatever, together and forget about it, a new Coalition for the rest of the 21st Century. Keep your hands off my Guns, Grass, and Gas, and you and Don Lemon can get married in all of Barry's 57 States for all I care.
I'll be Stalin and you can be Trotsky, now I've got this little assignment for you down in May-he-Co.....

Frank

[jb]

Weird to say Miami detractors looked silly and then advocate for a playoff format in which they'd have had no chance of playing at all.

[Bunny495]

College football is a pile of shit. I am still a big detractor of Miami

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/miami-s-carson-beck-discusses-gpa-revealed-as-he-admits-to-not-going-to-class-for-2-years/vi-AA1UzQfE

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports:

President Trump is now claiming that one reason he is pushing to acquire Greenland is that he didn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize, according to a text message he sent to Norway’s prime minister over the weekend.

Jonas Gahr Store, Norway’s leader, received the text message on Sunday, an official in the prime minister’s office said on Monday.

“Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America,” Mr. Trump wrote in the message, which was first published by PBS.

Mr. Trump also questioned Denmark’s claim to Greenland, saying, “There are no written documents,” and adding, “The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you!”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/19/us/trump-news#section-332871333

This is just plain unhinged. How do those in the MAGA cult not recognize and acknowledge this?

[Michael P]

Nobody reasonable wants to agree with self-righteous pricks like you. It suggests the next thing they do will be to import hundreds of thousands of fraudsters and give away billions of dollars to people who will funnel it to terrorist groups. Or maybe deplatform people for complaining about actual fascism. Or maybe enshrine anti-white, anti-male and anti-cisgender-woman policies at all levels of government. (How long would you like that list to be?) In comparison, quixotic campaigns to be appropriately recognized for delivering more actual peace than Barack Obama achieved seem quite pedestrian.

[Estragon]

I bet this response sounded a bit better in your head than it looks on the page, but it’s a pretty impressive list of argle bargle. You forgot mandatory trans for kids. One thing I’d like to draw out though, is this:

“to be appropriately recognized for delivering more actual peace than Barack Obama”

It has yet to be adequately explained to me why Trumpists care about Don being recognized by a bunch of Nordic socialists. Why— and I mean this seriously— would any of you give a flying F about what a bunch of pointy headed Norwegian liberals think about who has contributed to world peace?

There’s a faint whiff of desperation, a certain consciousness of loserdom that comes oozing through in all of this. It reminds me, in a way, of the Alitos. The angry lashing out on account of not getting the respect from people you hate but still desire it from. But such things are earned, a concept Don and Martha Ann hve struggled with for some time.

[Michael P]

I bet that failed defense of double standards and gross partisanship sounded better in your head than it does in writing.

[Estragon]

What defense of double standards? What gross partisanship?

Why do you care that a bunch of Norwegian socialists liked Obama better than Trump? I’m not talking about Trump’s personal psychological needs. I mean YOU. Aren’t you happy with the FIFA peace prize?

Once again there’s this creeping whiff of consciousness of loserdom. The Nobel people liked Obama and think Don is a sack of shit. Disagree with that if you like, but whining about it isn’t changing anyone’s mind— certainly not in Oslo.

Don will be gone soon enough. You Trumpists will have to live on having publicly whined about this because Don whined about it. I suspect at least some of you will quickly come to realize how foolish that will appear in retrospect. Probably not you, though. I will admit to being mildly curious as to who will have the guts to stick with their handle and all the associated receipts after Don departs.

[not guilty]

Michael P, did my use of the word "unhinged" trigger you, even though it wasn't directed at you?

It's not only the hit dog that hollers.

[Michael P]

No, your use of "unhinged" was clearly describing yourself and the flailing New York Slimes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Nobody reasonable wants to agree with self-righteous pricks like you."

I suspect part of that's true. And part of the reason that it took the Dems so long to kick Biden was that no one wanted to agree with self-righteous pricks like me.

Due to the superior transparency of the Trump administration and the willingness of the media to actually do its job, Republicans, unlike the Dems the last time around, might have the chance to do something about and mental incapacity on the part of Trump before it's too late.

[not guilty]

"Due to the superior transparency of the Trump administration and the willingness of the media to actually do its job, Republicans, unlike the Dems the last time around, might have the chance to do something about and mental incapacity on the part of Trump before it's too late."

I wouldn't bet on the chameleon John David Vance f/k/a James David Hamel f/k/a James Donald Bowman having the testicular fortitude to invoke the 25th Amendment, even though he did once compare Donald Trump to Hitler. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/15/jd-vance-donald-trump-comments-00168450

As Upton Sinclair observed, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

[Jmaie]

If I had to guess, I think Vance would have no problem going the 25th amendment route after the midterms. Gives him the opportunity to serve an extra term. (Not opining on the likelihood of him actually getting reelected)

[Bob from Ohio]

"likelihood of him actually getting reelected"

If he does that, he will not likely even get the GOP nomination.

Trump Jr., for example, or Marco Rubio even, will run an "avenge Trump campaign" and win the nomination, probably not the election though.

[Josh R]

I am curious from the MAGA crowd here as to who they think can carry the banner after Trump.

From the outside looking in, I see Trump as unique because his charisma, brutal candor and lack of any shame. Those traits have enabled him to enthrall working-class voters who feel left behind by the elites (even though Trump doesn't give a shit about them). None of Vance or Trump's kids can do that in my opinion.

Does the MAGA crowd think anyone can?

[Brett Bellmore]

I like to think DeSantis could. Trump didn't much like him, but that was largely because they were competing for the same voter base.

DeSantis has that same track record of actually delivering on campaign promises, without the record of doing so in extremely obnoxious ways.

[Josh R]

When you look in a thesaurus for an antonym to charisma there is a picture of DeSantis.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nobody of whom that was true could get elected governor of a state. Though I'll admit Walz approaches being a counterexample.

No, seriously, I've met the guy, he's a pretty good speaker.

[David Nieporent]

If he does that, he will not likely even get the GOP nomination.

I agree with Bob here. The cult is Trump-centered. Vance can inherit the mantle from Trump, but only by attaching his lips surgically to Trump's ass. Any deviation from that will result in excommunication. (Just ask Mike Pence.)

[Bob from Ohio]

There is no "cult", its just old fashioned loyalty. Trump has delivered many good things to supporters, backstabbers can't be rewarded.

I don't expect a libertarian to understand loyalty,

[David Nieporent]

It cannot be loyalty. "Loyalty" by definition is a two-way street. Trump is loyal to no one and nothing. This is indeed a cult: the Dear Leader can do no wrong and nobody can legitimacy disagree or dissent from him in any way for any reason.

[Bob from Ohio]

What dictionary are you using?

"Loyalty" can be reciprocal, it does not have to be.

Vance was made VP by Trump, it would be disloyal to then turn on him so you can be president.

Its academic anyway. No 25th amendment letter will ever be forthcoming.

[David Nieporent]

Vance was made VP by Trump, it would be disloyal to then turn on him so you can be president.

It would not be. Selecting Vance for the veep slot was not a favor; it was because he thought Vance could best do the job if he no longer could.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHA. Okay, all of that was aspirational, not in any way reflective of reality. But we have to at least pretend that it wasn't a quid pro quo. ("I'll make you vice president if you promise you'll support me whether I deserve it or not, and you'll put me ahead of the country and your oath.")

[David Nieporent]

I wouldn't bet on the chameleon John David Vance f/k/a James David Hamel f/k/a James Donald Bowman

As with your namecalling of Clarence Thomas, I don't know why you think it's persuasive to write this. Vance's name was changed as a child, and even if he had changed it as an adult, so what?

[windycityattorney]

Well, for some reason some serial killers and famous assassins get full names. John Wilkes Booth; Lee Harvey Oswald; Mark David Chapman, John Wayne Gacy, Jared Lee Loughner...

John David Vance just kinda flows even though his victims are mere couch cushions. Thus far. And that we know of.

[Bunny495]

I always like the way prez got letters, FDR, JFK, LBJ

[not guilty]

I mistakenly said "John David Vance", which should have been "James David Vance."

The Vice-president's readiness to change his name is consistent with his willingness to change personalities and political positions. He once called Donald Trump "America's Hitler"; he is now an invertebrate (no backbone) suck up to Trump. The man is not well grounded in anything.

It is as if he does not realize that when Groucho Marx quipped, "These are my principles. If you don’t like them I have others", he was going for comic effect.

He is as hypocritical as Kimberly Jean Bailey Wallace Davis McIntyre Davis -- a self-proclaimed "Christian" who flouted Jesus's prohibition on remarrying after divorce -- pontificating about the validity of other folks' marital unions.

[David Nieporent]

The Vice-president's readiness to change his name is consistent with his willingness to change personalities and political positions.

No, it isn't, except in the weasel sense of "consistent with," which means nothing more than "doesn't contradict." But that proves too much, because in that weasel sense, eating Rice Krispies or going camping or liking Stranger Things are also "consistent with" the traits you cite.

In any reasonable sense, it's not, because he didn't change his name. He was a child. His family did.

[not guilty]

The first name change occurred during his childhood; the second, in 2013 while he was an adult about to graduate from law school.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Every accusation is a confession.

[not guilty]

How so? I still bear the name I was born with 70 years ago.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wow. Kind of a jinx, no?

[Nelson]

“ Due to the superior transparency of the Trump administration”

This is, without a doubt, the most obviously untrue thing I have ever read here.

You can’t possibly believe that this administration doesn’t actively hide and obfuscate things that were released without a thought in past administrations, can you?

[jb]

The problem isn't the "get the Nobel prize" goal, you know, it's the way he's going about trying to get it.

(And you guys have the option of choosing people who are competent and sane even if they're less amusing. It's not "Trump or Michael P's liberal fan fic coalition", it's "Trump versus someone who is not batshit".)

[jay.tee]

option of choosing people who are competent and sane even if they're less amusing

Unfortunately, the people you describe are quite elusive from either party.

[jb]

It's hard to tell with Republicans these days because of the corrosive effect of Trump on anyone near him, but there's plenty of basically competent and sane Republicans: Spencer Cox, Phil Scott, Brian Kemp, Marco Rubio and James Lankford to name a few off the top of my head.

[jay.tee]

I don’t think Rubio is fully sane, but I take your point.

Seems Kemp decided to sit out this round, probably wisely. Unfortunately, that means Ossoff likely gets another term.

[jb]

I wanted to try to come up with at least one person in the current administration who didn't seem totally broken by Trump yet, but I guess we'll have to see where this Greenland nonsense leads.

Kemp's decision is probably more evidence of his good judgement. I wouldn't want to be a Republican in a contested election this year.

[Armchair]

The New York Times Reports...

Skipped.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/10/believe-nothing-you-read-in-the-new-york-times.php

[Sarcastr0]

Citing Powerline for your blanket ad hominem fallacy, lol.

What an unserious poster Armchair is.

[ThePublius]

Powerline does some excellent reporting, and has for years, and reports on stories not carried in the mainstream media.

I happen to agree with them on the NYTimes (though I still subscribe). They have slectively reported, gotten things wrong, and invented stories for a long, long time, all the way back to Walter Duranty, and probably before.

One time that I cancelled my print subscription was that they ran a front page, above the fold smear piece on McCain just before the 2008 presidential election that turned out to be a total fabrication.

You can't trust them. They are an extremely biased outlet.

[LexAquilia]

He trusts them because they are in his political tribe.

That's all the matters. That's what defines truth and fiction for them.

[Sarcastr0]

Ever thought you might not be an objective observer?

[ThePublius]

Same goes double for you, Sarc.

[Sarcastr0]

I read Powerline whenever it's linked here. And Breitbart, etc. Otherwise how could I talk about how it's stories are bad?

Armchair doesn't read NYT ever, based on the word of Powerline.

Do you see the difference?

[David Nieporent]

Duranty! Drink!

[jb]

I mean... that's just objectively stupid. The Times reports on a ton of stuff. Sometimes they objectively get things wrong. The reporters and editors probably lean left so that can affect the tilt of both stories and ultimately coverage. But 99% of what they report is just uncomplicatedly correct, so if you just dismiss it out of hand all you do is deprive yourself of information.

[Sarcastr0]

Performatively objectively stupid.

He's not just not reading NYT stuff, he wants everyone to know he's that kind of person.

[Armchair]

"The reporters and editors probably lean left..."
Wow. "probably lean left"....that's as far as you're willing to go?

"But 99% of what they report is just uncomplicatedly correct"

If you're talking about baseball scores, sure. But I can get that elsewhere. That 1%...well, that's like Google Maps being wrong 1% of the time, but that 1% drives you off a cliff.

That 1%? Actual stuff that people post on. It's pretty bad. Whether it's posting pictures of "starving children" in Gaza that are actually suffering from a genetic disease. Or a "correction" on the ICE - Renee Nicole Good situation as below.

"CORRECTION: A previous version of this article said that Renee Nicole Good was killed as federal agents were ordering her to move her vehicle. In fact, she was killed while agents were ordering her to get out of her vehicle."

Whoops...

Or misinforming about Charlie Kirk....

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/09/the-new-york-times-perpetuates-a-lie.php

The NYT simply cannot be trusted. It presents things as true, then sometimes quietly corrects them a few weeks later.

[David Nieporent]

"CORRECTION: A previous version of this article said that Renee Nicole Good was killed as federal agents were ordering her to move her vehicle. In fact, she was killed while agents were ordering her to get out of her vehicle."

Whoops...

1) Quoting corrections is a particularly stupid way to argue that a media outlet "can't be trusted." Everyone makes mistakes; being willing to correct them is a sign it can be trusted.
2) That error makes ICE look better, so it's not a sign of left-wing bias; at least ICE had some colorable justification to order Good to move, as opposed to what ICE actually did.

Or misinforming about Charlie Kirk....

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/09/the-new-york-times-perpetuates-a-lie.php

The NYT simply cannot be trusted. It presents things as true, then sometimes quietly corrects them a few weeks later.

Setting aside your choice to continue to rely on Powerlineblog, which is a blog by some random Trump supporters that actually can't be trusted because it has no journalistic standards to occasionally fall short of, that's a particularly bizarre selection to use to make your point because the claim by Powerline is indisputably wrong; the NYT did not misinform about Charlie Kirk in the things it talked about. Instead, it accurately quoted Karen Attiah.

[David Nieporent]

Incidentally, Attiah should not have put the words she attributed to Kirk in quotation marks, since they were not a direct quote; that's a journalistic no-no. But they do accurately capture Kirk's message.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"that's a journalistic no-no"

It's a journalistic no-no because it's a false factual claim, as were the many other claims Attiah made when she said that he had merely repeated Kirk's comments that he made on the record.

"But they do accurately capture Kirk's message."

I disagree, as do many others. Of course, folks like Attiah are free to persuade people that what Kirk said amounts to the same thing, but she shouldn't like about what he actually said.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...the claim by Powerline is indisputably wrong; the NYT did not misinform about Charlie Kirk in the things it talked about. Instead, it accurately quoted Karen Attiah."

I didn't click through to the NYT article for context, but the Powerline post quotes the NYT as saying, in its own voice:

One post cited Mr. Kirk’s remarks about Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court justice, and Sheila Jackson Lee, the former congresswoman Texas, saying they did not have the “brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously.”

But this is inaccurate, she didn't cite Mr. Kirk's remarks, she falsely attributed remarks to Mr. Kirk.

But in any event, as the Rolling Stone found out, accurately reporting what someone else said is insufficient.

[jay.tee]

I’m guessing most modern presidents have had fleeting unhinged thoughts like this (excepting Jimmy Carter).

All the others have had the good sense to keep it to themselves.

[John F. Carr]

Jimmy Carter had lust in his heart. What does Trump keep there?

For better context on the interview that was reduced to "lust in my heart", see this 2023 AP story: https://apnews.com/article/jimmy-carter-playboy-lust-adultery-45523cf7e2eb38a784fc999974ba9ac7

[Estragon]

There is also a sad irony here. Don IS arguably deserving of a Nobel Prize, the reasons for which were artfully outlined at RFK’s confirmation hearing by Sen. Cassidy. I can’t imagine that would thrill Don in the same way however. It might be an interesting exercise for Trumpists to contemplate why that might be.

[Nelson]

I cannot believe that rational, mostly-intelligent people think that a guy who bombed Iran, blows up suspected drug boats, and invaded Venezuela (never mind unleashing the American military on American citizens and shielding ICE agents from scrutiny and investigation for deadly shootings) would ever be considered for a Peace Prize.

Never mind the unhinged claim that he stopped 8 wars.

[Absaroka]

A Fox news clip on an arrest of a suspected illegal immigrant.

The facts which articles across the media spectrum seem to agree on:
-the person arrested, in his bathrobe, was an elderly US citizen
-he was a naturalized citizen, a Hmong-American
-ICE says they thought two sex offenders were living at the address; the residents say that's not true
-ICE says they couldn't verify he wasn't the people they were looking for because he refused to be fingerprinted or facially ID'd.
(is that a word??).

I have questions:
1)How does an arrestee in handcuffs refuse to be fingerprinted or facially ID'd?
2)Is it OK to arrest people who might or might not be the person you want, and sort it out later, or is it important to make sure you have the right person before dragging people off to jail

For people who aren't up on the Hmong, they were mountain people in Indochina. They were allies to the US throughout the Vietnam War. You can read dozens of bios of US Special Forces praising their courage and loyalty. If there is any group who deserves thanks from the United States it is the Hmong.

[Frank Drackman]

I have answers
1) Do Hmongs have fingerprints?? and how do you "Facially ID" someone when they all look the same?
2) I think it's pretty rare for suspects to say "Yes Officer, I'm the Illegal Alien Sex Offender you're looking for" like every Young Black Male used to say on "COPS" its always "I dint' do nuttin', nome Sane??"
3) Yes, I'm well versed on the Hmong, I saw "Gran Torino" they slaughter animals cruelly in their back yards and have smart mouthed (but hot) young women.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

He wasn't arrested or dragged of to jail?

[Estragon]

I can only assume this is rhetorical, and offered as an excuse for the treatment this gentleman received.

[Mr. Bumble]

The linked article makes no mention of being arrested or dragged off to jail.

[Estragon]

Right.

[David Nieporent]

He was in fact arrested. What do you think the picture of them hauling him out of his house in handcuffs is? An uber ride to a surprise birthday party?

Do you think that because they let him go after a couple of hours and didn't charge him, that it somehow retroactively erases the arrest?

[Mr. Bumble]

Would it be asking too much for a source for your claim?

[ducksalad]

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/ice-elderly-hmong-american-citizen-arrested-st-paul/

I picked CBS out of many sources, because it's now controlled by someone hired specifically for her criticism of the liberal media, and the parent company says they voluntarily and gratuitously paid $16M tribute to DJT. So you should find them credible, no?

[SRG2]

Also seems like another instance where exerting your constitutional rights is regarded as giving reasonable suspicion.

[Armchair]

"2) Is it OK to arrest people who might or might not be the person you want, and sort it out later, or is it important to make sure you have the right person before dragging people off to jail"

Short answer? Yes, it's OK. It's about probable cause to arrest someone. Not about "being sure".

Let's give a clear example. The cops come across a murder scene. Knife on the ground, bloody. Dead body. Two people standing over it. Each person says the other person stabbed and killed the person. Which person do the cops arrest? Answer: Both of them. Arrest both, bring them back to the station, and start the questions. Even though it's likely at least one of the people being arrested is not the suspect.

[SRG2]

Let's suppose that 10 people are found close by, all of whom deny it, but one of whom did it. They should not be arrested because there is no probable cause for any one of them to be regarded as guilty. 10% chance of guilt is categorically not probable cause. It's not even reasonable suspicion.

Of course, anyone with a passing acquaintance with reality knows that's not how cops behave, just as we know that ICE didn't really care about whether they'd found the right man, whether he was a US citizen, etc.

[ThePublius]

Where did this 10% metric come from? Is it part of code or law or a court decision or something?

The fact is that while the police can't just arrest everyone, they can detain everyone - reasonable suspicion being a lower standard than PC - for up to 48 hours, I think.

[SRG2]

Where did this 10% metric come from? Is it part of code or law or a court decision or something

It comes from a combination of English and basic probability.
Is it reasonable to suspect someone of a crime when there's a 10% chance they did it?

I chose 10% because it's a low enough number that the answer to the question is obviously, no.

FWIW probable cause should be at least 50% - for laymen like you, if something is probable, it means it's more likely than not, and you might appreciate being informed that this translates as greater than 50%.

[ThePublius]

Your condecension aside, 50% of what?

If there are 10 present plus a body, how does a P.O. know that only one did it, and acted alone? The murderer could have had accompices, and the decesed could have had multiple attackers.

If I was a cop in this case, I'd say "everyone is going downtown." I wouldn't try to interview them on-scene, in a group. I'd want to separate them and see what they have to say without others hearing it. In fact, I might roll the dice and put them all under arrest.

[Sarcastr0]

This sounds more like TV show cop behavior than real life.

Absent some kind of joint criminality by the group (which isn't part of the hypo) you've got a 4A problem with just arresting everyone.

While there is no hard-and-fast percentage for the threshold of meeting probable cause, you need individualized suspicion.

[SRG2]

Your condecension aside, 50% of what?

You have richly earned my condescension. It's not 50% of something, it's a 50% chance of something. In this case, the chance that someone is guilty of a crime.

If there are 10 present plus a body, how does a P.O. know that only one did it, and acted alone?

Implied by the hypothetical, I think. But suppose there is crappy video evidence - we see a single man walk up to the victim and shoot. There are nine others in the video doing nothing. They are all wearing grey hoodies, jeans, sneakers, and further identification is impossible. They are similar enough in height and build.

[ThePublius]

Well, now you're extending the hypo. In that case I think I'd arrest everyone.

[ducksalad]

It's worth pointing out that if you arrest multiple people for a crime that could only be committed by one person, you are knowingly and with certainty putting innocent people in jail.

Anyway, is your 10 people some kind of principled limit? Or do you contend that if there's an unsolved murder on Nantucket we can just arrest all 14,000 people?

[David Nieporent]

What about if your policy is to harass anyone you meet just because FYTW?

https://x.com/OfTheBraveUSA/status/2013354630051250456

[ducksalad]

It's sad that we can't do much about LEOs who intentionally misstate the law, in order to confuse people about their rights, or to broaden the Jackboot Overton Window.

[David Nieporent]

The fact is that while the police can't just arrest everyone, they can detain everyone - reasonable suspicion being a lower standard than PC - for up to 48 hours, I think.

You may think, but your thinking is not based on anything resembling law. 48 minutes would be on the long side for a Terry stop (which is what "reasonable suspicion" allows).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

48 minutes would be on the long side for a Terry stop (which is what "reasonable suspicion" allows)

I would hope so. I'm not sure why it would take that long.

[not guilty]

"The fact is that while the police can't just arrest everyone, they can detain everyone - reasonable suspicion being a lower standard than PC - for up to 48 hours, I think."

Do you have any authority for the proposition that a person can be detained for up to 48 hours merely upon reasonable suspicion?

"No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), quoting Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891). Terry allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity and, if the officer has reason to fear for his safety, to conduct a pat down of the suspect's outer clothing. The scope of the search must be "strictly tied to and justified by" the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible.

Taking a person into custody requires probable cause, even if it is labeled by police as an "investigative detention". "Terry and its progeny ... created only limited exceptions to the general rule that seizures of the person require probable cause to arrest. Detentions may be 'investigative,' yet violative of the Fourth Amendment absent probable cause." Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 499 (1983). "The application of the Fourth Amendment's requirement of probable cause does not depend on whether an intrusion of this magnitude is termed an 'arrest' under state law." Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 212 (1979).

Once a person is taken into custody without a warrant, he is entitled to a "prompt" determination by a neutral and detached magistrate of whether probable cause exists to justify his continued detention. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 112 (1975). If the Gerstein hearing is held within 48 hours of arrest, it is presumed to be reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes; if the delay exceeds 48 hours, it is presumed unreasonable, with the burden of justification on the government. See, County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56-57 (1991).

The 48 hour rule of McLaughlin does not detract from the Fourth Amendment requirement that taking a person into custody at the outset requires probable cause. As SCOTUS opined in Royer:

The predicate permitting seizures on suspicion short of probable cause is that law enforcement interests warrant a limited intrusion on the personal security of the suspect. The scope of the intrusion permitted will vary to some extent with the particular facts and circumstances of each case. This much, however, is clear: an investigative detention must be temporary, and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. Similarly, the investigative methods employed should be the least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the officer's suspicion in a short period of time.

460 U.S. at 500.

[not guilty]

[Comment deleted]

[ducksalad]

Detention without probable cause for 48 hours? WTF? People need to go to the bathroom. Oh, wait....do you still claim people can be taken to jail without probable cause, even though several weeks ago multiple people explained, with cites and everything, how far off that is?

It's not just that you're wrong about the law, ThePublius. This isn't lawyer level stuff, it's basic know-your-rights pamphlet stuff. And you are consistently wrong in the direction of jackboot authoritarian stuff, and resistantly wrong despite being corrected over and over.

[Sarcastr0]

Homan: "Let's make it clear: ICE can detain a US citizen if they have probable cause that this person may have committed a crime. A short detainment and questioning, all you need is reasonable suspicion."

ICE Associate Director Marcos Charles: "any individual that ICE agents encounter in, around, or in-route to a "target" is fair game for an interrogation."

[Absaroka]

"It's about probable cause to arrest someone"

Well, sure. But let's be more concrete: You go to a house expecting to arrest Bob and Ted. You arrest Joe instead, because 'he meets the description'.

So that raises the question of precisely what that description was. Would you agree that, for example 'an old man' is not specific enough to justify an arrest?

To be clear, I would agree a description of 'an 85 year old man, 5 ft 10, 180 lbs, with grey hair and a butterfly tattoo on his right shoulder' might be specific enough, *if* the mistakenly arrested person didn't identify themself and as far as you know no other 85 year old men live at that address. Of course we don't know those details, but ISTM a false arrest ought to result in a careful public investigation so we can all be confident that sloppy work isn't just resulting in grabbing innocent people.

If it helps, imagine ATF falsely arrests 83 year old Vietnam vet Charles O'shaughnessy for being a felon in possession when because they are after some prior resident at that address. Just oopsie, nothing to see here, can't make an omelette w/o breaking a few eggs?

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, we at present have no idea whatsoever how much the guy resembled the suspects, or how detailed the description was. It's as pointless spinning scenarios where the arrest was drop dead justified, as it is spinning scenarios where it was obviously unreasonable.

What I do know is that yeah, it's pretty commonly justified to arrest somebody living in the same house as a suspect, if they're uncooperative and you can't rule out their BEING the suspect. So based on the entirely inadequate information, I can't rule out it being a reasonable arrest.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "... we at present have no idea whatsoever ..."

More so than you're acknowledging. For instance, "ICE says they thought two sex offenders were living at the address". That's what they claim, but ICE has regularly lied about anything and everything. Nothing they say has any value as truth.

And one of their standard lies is to claim there's some higher law enforcement purpose behind any incident when they're caught on tape abusing U.S. citizens. So the "sex offenders" shtick could be real, but there's absolutely zero reason to believe so without additional evidence. That's the cost of basing an entire presidency and administration on endless nonstop lying. Likewise, your "uncooperative" claim. ICE says Chongly Scott Thao was uncooperative. Thao says he wasn't permitted to get dressed or find his proof of citizenship. Who is worth believing?

I'm willing to bet this old man has more honesty and honor than any of the thugs who dragged him half-naked into the Minnesota cold - or their sleazy lying bosses.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's the sort of thing I meant when I said there's a cult of 'he-always-speaks-the-truth' AND another cult of 'he-always-lies'.

[SRG2]

Did the Brownshirts attempt to verify that this man was one of the suspects, and was not an illegal while they were at the residence? Or did they grab him first and ask questions later?

Judging by the Brownshirts' pattern of arrests, they do seem to like seizing first, checking details later.

[David Nieporent]

After the story came out, ICE spokeswoman Baghdad Barbie purported to correct the record on Twitter, but — as is so often the case with this administration generally and her in particular — the "correction" didn't actually dispute the facts, and just tried to spin that what happened was justified.

I think it's likely that they were looking for sex offenders. But they illegally entered the home even if they were — we know they didn't have a warrant because (a) Baghdad Barbie didn't even claim otherwise; and (b) instead tweeted that they didn't need one, which is a lie — claimed that all Asians look alike to them so they were justified in arresting him, dragged him out in frigid weather w/o letting him getting dressed, and of course didn't do their homework before kicking in the door.

[jay.tee]

David wrote:

ICE spokeswoman Baghdad Barbie

David also wrote:

As with your namecalling of Clarence Thomas, I don't know why you think it's persuasive to write this

[SRG2]

BTW what was your prior handle?

[Life of Brian]

Prior to what? He's been around for half a year or so.

[SRG2]

LoB: I don't recall him from earlier on. He certainly has only become active (again?) in the last few days

[Absaroka]

I agree with your comment upthread - we can't be 100% sure of important details at this point.

For example, the badgecams could show this:

ICE: We're looking for Fred. Are you Fred?
Man: Eff you.
ICE: Do you have any ID?
Man: Eff you.
ICE: Well, in that case we're going to arrest you. Do you want to put pants on given that it's winter in Minnesota?
Nab: Eff you.

Again, that could be how it went, and if so ICE will clear their name when they release the badgecam vids.

But I'm not sure I'd wager real money on that scenario. I mean, I'd be a bit hostile to anyone who broke down my door; that would make me decidedly prickly. But refusing to put on pants in winter? That's even more prickly than I am.

And you have made the point here before: who had the greater ability to take video to document their behavior here - ICE or Thao? I'm perfectly willing to exonerate ICE when they release that video. But until that time, if I have to place a real money bet, sloppy work by ICE seems like the odds on bet. IIRC ICE has more than doubled the number of agents in the last year. Managing that kind of growth while maintaining quality is ... really hard.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd generally agree with that; Lacking video, I'd assume they misbehaved, because at this point I think the failure to record video on the part of government agents really ought to be considered spoilation, justifying adverse inferences.

[David Nieporent]

Sigh. Spoliation (note spelling) is just an all-purpose thing with you to get you wherever you want without having to do any work to get there. But for courts, it refers to a specific thing. And not creating evidence is not, and has never been, in any place in the universe, spoliation.

To be clear, I think all police work should be recorded also. And failure to do so should often be a reason for disciplinary action. (That of course assumes that the LEOs were equipped with body cams in the first place; you can't punish a cop for not using equipment he wasn't given.) But it wouldn't be spoliation.

[ducksalad]

He did say "ought to be" considered, not was considered.

You can't punish a cop for not using equipment he wasn't given.

Descriptive or normative?
If descriptive, OK you're the lawyer.
If normative, I would say it ought to depend on whether the cop was part of a deliberate plan to not be given a camera.

[jb]

I think there's a point beyond where you get to in your second paragraph, though, which is I think what Brett's trying to get at: it should be a negative inference against the police's truthfulness if they fail to record an interaction.

[Life of Brian]

Just to pile on, treating the failure to activate a bodycam as the functional equivalent of spoliation and granting the same sort of adverse inference is not exactly a new or obscure idea.

[ducksalad]

If they want to convince people the badgecam vids need to be released quickly and without cuts. No longer accepting excuses like they were protecting the privacy of their victims, or they "found" the missing footage after days.

Also, people convicted or even booked for sex offenses will have mugshots readily available for law enforcement, and in many cases even the general public. I'd like to see whether the person arrested reasonably resembles one of the wanted people.

[Absaroka]

Here are the mugshots. Here is a vid with closeup views of the person arrested. Judge for yourselves.

[ducksalad]

About as we've come to expect. No excuse.

Well, maybe there is an excuse. Brett would say ICE "could not rule out" that he had had plastic surgery to drastically change his appearance.

[David Nieporent]

1. No warrant = breaking & entering.
2. No basis for seizing the guy = kidnapping.
3. No reason to bring him out half dressed = inhuman.
4. Wrong house = incompetence.

[Commenter_XY]

Mistakes were made. Ooops.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "...a cult of 'he-always-speaks-the-truth' AND another cult of 'he-always-lies'."

Pretty hilarious. You've spent years shrugging your shoulders at the grotesque nonstop lying by Trump and his lickspittles. Sometimes you claimed it is no different than with any other pol (a lie). Sometimes you claimed it is never about substance (a lie). Sometimes you claimed it is only exaggeration (a lie). Sometimes you claimed it is harmless (a lie). But always it was to excuse an entire White House that sees respect for the truth as weakness.

Now you throw-up your hands and ask why we can't we trust one another. It's a little late in the game for that. Recently an ICE vehicle drove right into a protestor's car. They then shattered the woman's window, dragged her out, and arrested he for running into them. The charges were meaningless because it was all on video, but they still did what came natural to this corrupt organization and lied.

There are (literally) dozens of examples like that, mostly taking the form of goons tackling a protestor to the ground followed by a "resisting arrest" charge. But that's only for the public announcement; since everything is on tape the charges never materialize. So when ICE they had the "noblest of reasons" (sex offender!) to debase and humiliate a harmless old man, why should we credit the claim?

[David Nieporent]

it's pretty commonly justified to arrest somebody living in the same house as a suspect,

Self-proclaimed "libertarian," folks.

It is not in fact lawful to arrest someone living in the same house as a suspect (absent independent p.c. that this co-inhabitant has also committed a crime, of course), though the person may be excluded from the scene temporarily for officer safety or to prevent tampering with the scene.

[Brett Bellmore]

NO accident you left out, " if they're uncooperative and you can't rule out their BEING the suspect. "

[David Nieporent]

"Can't rule out" is not the legal standard for arrest.

[ducksalad]

In one short sad thread, ThePublius has reduced "probable cause" down to "reasonable suspicion", and now you're reducing "reasonable suspicion" down to "can't rule out".

Is there anyone not arrestable under your standard?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What I do know is that yeah, it's pretty commonly justified to arrest somebody living in the same house as a suspect, if they're uncooperative and you can't rule out their BEING the suspect."

It's very much too common to arrest people for having a loose resemblance to someone named in an arrest warrant. CA11 will hopefully soon decide that arresting someone merely for having the same first name is insufficient.

Here's a case where US Marshalls arrested a woman and held her overnight with no appearing resemblance to the person being arrested. Here's video of the arrest, it looks pretty much like what we see from ICE, but it was under the Biden administration, so no one pays attention.

[Absaroka]

The Penny McCarthy case is indeed outrageous. It was fairly widely reported.

What burns me most of all is this:

"The U.S. Marshals Service previously said a preliminary review found federal officials followed proper procedures in “good-faith reliance on the outstanding warrant”"

Everyone makes mistakes. What separates the men from the boys is whether you own them and try to improve.

[SRG2]

'he meets the description'

A LEO euphemism for "black male", often enough.

[David Nieporent]

In this case, Asian, though.

[SRG2]

True, hence my qualification "often enough".

[ducksalad]

Why, in 2026 - hell even in 1996 - is there any excuse to use a "description" of someone who was convicted, or even just booked for, a sexual offense.

They went out with a warrant for specific people. Mug shots of such people are readily available to law enforcement and in many cases even the general public. It should be a requirement to include a photo in the warrant application, and for the officer executing the warrant to have the photo.

[jay.tee]

Absent some type of BOLO for someone at large, I agree it serves no purpose except possibly to inflame the public.

[Armchair]

OK, let's walk with you example a little. You go to a house expecting to arrest Bob and Ted. Instead you see Joe and "Joana." "Joana" is wearing a hijab, and Joe says "Joana" refuses to remove it. You would have to arrest her to remove it.

Do you as the police have the right to arrest "Joana" knowing that she may indeed be Joana, in order to verify her identity?

[David Nieporent]

Let's assume you have arrest warrants for Bob and Ted, such that arresting them in their home would be lawful. Do you have probable cause to believe the person in the hijab is actually Bob or Ted? Do you have articulable reasonable suspicion that the person in the hijab is Bob or Ted? Or that the person in the hijab is committing some other crime?

[Zarniwoop]

“ Short answer? Yes, it's OK. It's about probable cause to arrest someone. Not about "being sure".”

You seem to be conflating two separate issues:
1) do we have probable cause to arrest Joe Schmoe?
And
2) do we have probable cause to believe Fred Shmed here is actually Joe Schmoe?

If you you have Joe on video shooting someone on 5th Avenue, and he’s white, 6’1” and 275lbs, you don’t have probable cause to cuff Fred if he’s Asian, 5’5” and 150lbs. Even if Fred lives at Joe’s old address.

[Armchair]

But what if you have a description of Joe that is Asian, 5'5" and 160 pounds, and you see "Fred" who looks to be Asian, 5'6" and 170 pounds?

Can you arrest "Fred" then to verify their identity? Especially if they refuse any facial recognition?

[ducksalad]

Elsewhere on this thread, the mugshots of the people ICE claims they were going after were posted, along with video of the person they actually arrested.

Check it out and let us know if you can't figure it out because one of them refused facial recognition. Whatever that means.

[not guilty]

"Can you arrest 'Fred' then to verify their identity? Especially if they refuse any facial recognition?"

No. See, Wingate v. Fulford, 987 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 2021).

“[E]very arrest, and every seizure having the essential attributes of a formal arrest, is unreasonable unless it is supported by probable cause.” Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 700 (1981). If (and only if) the state has a statute requiring identification during a brief detention based on reasonable suspicion and imposing a criminal penalty for noncompliance, and if the suspect fails to give identification when requested, that will support probable cause for arrest for violating the stop and identify statute. See, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cty., 542 U.S. 177 (2004). But the arrest then would not be for the crime of which "Joe" or "Fred" was originally suspected.

[Sarcastr0]

Probably cause is an individualized determination based on particularized evidence.

Not trying too hard to individualize your facts doesn't bootstrap the government into some kind of collective PC.

A moment's thought will tell you why. Though some around here seem like they might be into that kind of police state.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Probably [sic] cause is an individualized determination based on particularized evidence."

Not necessarily. For example, per Florida v. Harris a dog alert provides probable cause to search a vehicle.

[David Nieporent]

Yes necessarily. A dog alert is an individualized determination based on particularized evidence. (I mean, I think it's unreliable, but it's still what I said.)

[Nelson]

Are there dogs trained to alert when they smell an illegal? Because adding a drug sniffing dog in your analogy makes it completely un-analogous (in-analogous?).

There was no additional reason (like a dog alerting) to be suspicious, just ICE being ICE.

[not guilty]

A so-called drug detection dog amounts to a four legged search warrant.

But the handler's observation of the dog's conduct is opinion evidence which would be admissible in court if a proper foundation is laid, and the search is limited to the individual vehicle as to which the dog alerted.

The burden of justification for a warrantless search is on the government.

[Nelson]

“ It's about probable cause to arrest someone”

If “probable cause” means being non-white, then sure. Otherwise, there doesn’t seem to be much “probable” in ICE’s version of probable cause.

[jb]

Missing in the discussion so far is that it seems like ICE bashed in his door and invaded his home without a judicial warrant. (At least the family claims they didn't have one and McLaughlin's statement doesn't say that they did.)

So a third question here is whether it's okay to just break into someone's house because you think there might be someone deportable inside. I'm going to be generous for the purposes of my question and assume they have some good reason to think that.

[LawTalkingGuy]

DOJ wants to try and centralize recusal decisions:

https://meidasnews.com/news/doj-moves-to-eliminate-attorney-recusals-in-sweeping-power-shift

This is dumb because ethical duties and recusal decisions are ultimately personal to the individual attorney. They have independent obligations to their bar and the courts they appear in. The attorney general can’t decide an attorney’s obligations for them. And if the choice is between doing something the attorney thinks conflicts with professional ethics or getting terminated or other negative professional consequences, that dynamic already exists. This would just formalize it.

Also if there is an attempted recusal in a pending case that is rebuffed by the attorney general, wouldn’t the attorney still have an obligation to inform the court and the other side?

[SRG2]

Also if there is an attempted recusal in a pending case that is rebuffed by the attorney general, wouldn’t the attorney still have an obligation to inform the court and the other side?

Not under the Regime's DOJ. Ethics are whatever Bondi says they are.

[Sarcastr0]

I saw that story, but can't find it outside of Meidas.

I'd counsel waiting a tick; that's not a good source and this edges towards meeting out cynical expectations too well to be true.

[Mr. Bumble]

Goth Waifu Amelia is now the mascot of UK nationalism and has gone viral after the UK panicked and took her game down.

Make UK great again.
https://x.com/Pirat_Nation/status/2012646114139230254?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2012646114139230254%7Ctwgr%5E61a1cb11db8806b70c28c7833f263d99fd3a0385%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F770671%2F

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's an amusing self-own.

[John F. Carr]

I hadn't heard of her. It sees the British government learned that telling teens what do to sometimes doesn't work. Or did it?

[A Japanese Student]

Full-year omnibus is out. 1,059 pages - I expect 2 hours of reading. (Dollar amounts are not that interesting; the riders are the juicy parts.)

Here are some of the riders:
- Div B, §113: Labor is now permanently authorized to employ agents to protect the Secretary, codifying temporary authorization.
- Secretary of HHS "shall award to each State its allotted amount" of Child Care and Development Block Grant "no less than quarterly" - a new provision. This is one of the funds HHS is pausing over the fraud allegation.
- Div B, §238: NIH grant recipients must continue investigation of harassment/hostile work condition by key personnel identified in notice of award, even after such person has exited.
- §239: HHS "shall support staffing levels necessary to fulfill its statutory responsibilities including carrying out programs, projects, and activities funded in this title of this Act in a timely manner". Also requires 60-day public notice of CDC reorganization.
- Similar staffing language for Department of Education, see p.317
- §312: Secretary of Education "shall award" State formula grants under ESEA, McKinney-Vento, IDEA, Perkins Act, and AEFLA "on the date such funds become available for obligation".
- Div C, §211: Secretary of DHS shall ensure implementation of "Policy Statement and Required Actions Regarding Pregnant, Postpartum, Nursing Individuals, and Infants in Custody", issued during Biden admin.
- Div C, §547: Oversight authority of Member of Congress over DHS detention facilities appear to remain unchanged.

[A Japanese Student]

Notably, no riders I could find regarding transgender health or ACA subsidies. (Still haven't checked the miscellaneous provisions though; now reading T-HUD bill.)

[A Japanese Student]

- Div D, §119G: Prohibits privatization of FAA air traffic control.
- §119H: Prohibits construction of new air traffic academies.

Div. E, Extenders:
- §5004 NFIP, Sep. 30.
- §5008 Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, Sep. 30.
- §5011 US Parole Commission, January 30, 2031. (Although federal parole was abolished in 1980s, decades-old prisoners could still be parole-eligible, and so are Americans convicted under foreign jurisdiction and transferred. Remember Ridge Alkonis?)
- §5012 Additional special assessment imposed against persons convicted of trafficking offenses, made permanent. (This expired during the government shutdown before CR made a non-retroactive temporary authorization. No ex post facto challenge, for now.)
- §5017. Sentencing Commission must promulgate guidelines for sentencing of offenders of the SAFER SKIES Act (enacted in 2026 NDAA) "as soon as possible"; the Act provides, among other things, increased sentence for repeat violator of airspace rules and use of drones to commit felonies or to introduce prison contraband.
- §5018 amends an Act that has passed the House last week - they made a whoopsie, making new bankruptcy fee changes applicable to cases pending, but not new cases.
- §5019 AGOA, December 31, 2026.
- §5020 Haiti Economic Lift Program, December 31, 2026. Reauthorization bills for both programs passed the House last week.

[A Japanese Student]

Division F, healthcare.

- Section 6101: H.R.1509 - Accelerating Kids’ Access to Care Act of 2025. States must establish process to allow out-of-state providers to treat children under Medicaid/CHIP without additional screening.
- Section 6102: H.R.1598 - Ensuring Access to Medicaid Buy-in Programs Act. Allows disabled people 65 or older, who exceed income limits, to buy into Medicaid (if the State so elects).
- Section 6103: H.R.3399 - Care for Military Kids Act of 2025. Active duty relocated individual must be treated as resident of the State.
- Section 6104: H.R.3942 - Keeping Obstetrics Local Act, §101. State studies and HHS report on maternity services.
- Section 6105: DSH modification.
- Section 6106: H.R.5064 - Save our Safety-Net Hospitals Act of 2025.
- Section 6201-6210: Medicare extenders. Notably, telehealth extended until December 31, 2027. I've seen people on Reddit get confused when this expired during the shutdown.
- Section 6211: H.R.5081 - Telehealth Modernization Act, §7. Allows telehealth for cardiopulmonary services; expires in December 2027.
- Section 6212: §5 of same Act. Provides for prepayment review authority if "a substantial number of claims for such items under this subsection are for such items ordered by a physician or practitioner who has not previously (during a period of not less than 24 months, as established by the Secretary) furnished to the individual involved any item or service for which payment may be made under this title."
- Section 6213: §6, guidance on telehealth services for limited-English-proficiency patients.

[A Japanese Student]

- Section 6214, Inclusion of virtual diabetes prevention program.
- Section 6215: Outreach on medication-induced movement disorder. Appears in many bipartisan health bills.
- Section 6220: H.R.5281 - REAL Health Providers Act.
- Section 6221: H.R.842 - Nancy Gardner Sewell Medicare Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act.
- Section 6222: H.R.4993 - Joe Fiandra Access to Home Infusion Act of 2025. Provides coverage of external infusion pumps under Medicare.
- Section 6223-6224: PBM reform.
- Section 6225: S.2497 - Fair Billing Act. Requires separate ID number for each off-campus outpatient department.
- Section 6304. TANF reauthorized.
- Section 6503: H.R.628 - Honor Our Living Donors Act. Reimbursement for organ donation to be made independent of income.
- Section 6601: H.R.1262 - Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act, on pediatric drugs. Passed House last month.
- Section 6611: H.R.1794 - United States-Abraham Accords Cooperation and Security Act of 2025. Establishes Abraham Accords Office of FDA.
- Section 6701: More PBM reform.

[John F. Carr]

"shall support staffing levels necessary to fulfill its statutory responsibilities"

Unless judicial review is available that is only aspirational.

[Michael Resanovic]

TwelveInchPianist 20 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Circuits saying the precedent is not applicable.
And ICE agents can conduct Terry stops.
Reply

Michael Resanovic 19 hours ago
The authority to conduct Terry stops has to come from statute law, not the CFR. You should have linked to the U.S. code. Here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357
Historically, there was no power to detain without arresting, and no authority to arrest on less than probable cause. Statutes giving authority to restrict physical liberty are read narrowly, as are statutes in derogation of common law.
8 U.S.C. 1357 (a)(1) gives authority to detain & question someone believed to be (=probable cause) a deportable alien. This is limited to immigration status, though. It is the only circumstance (aside from admiralty and border crossings) I have been able to find in which detention without arrest is legally sanctioned.
(a)(5) gives authority to arrest for offenses against the United States.
Remember, when SCOTUS finds something doesn't violate the fourth, that doesn't grant anyone power. It's merely a finding that such a grant would be constitutionally tolerable.

[ThePublius]

You know, IANAL, but I don't think that's correct. It's my understanding that lacking PC, police may detain people under reasonable suspicion for up to 48 hours. See the 10 people and a body hypo above.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"my understanding that lacking PC, police may detain people under reasonable suspicion for up to 48 hours."

No. That's incorrect. Reasonable suspicion can only support brief stops (like a traffic stop or Terry-Stop). Arrest/Detention must be based on probable cause.

[David Nieporent]

You know, IANAL, but I don't think that's correct. It's my understanding that lacking PC, police may detain people under reasonable suspicion for up to 48 hours. See the 10 people and a body hypo above.

Has there ever been a statement that starts with "IANAL" that ended well? As I noted above when you made that claim (though after you posted this comment) that's completely wrong.

So as not to make this mere piling on: 48 hours is the deadline for arraigning someone (bringing them before a judge) after they've been arrested (which requires probable cause).

[ThePublius]

Yea, I was wrong on that. My understanding was incorrect.

[Archibald Tuttle]

There's a fun article over at Politico, "They Wanted a University Without Cancel Culture. Then Dissenters Were Ousted."

They weren't really ousted, but I salient point emerges. Whenever a free speech movement is funded by one or a few founders, the founders will always want the free speech to agree with their views.

If we were dealing with mathematics, it could be expressed as a kind of Heisenberg uncertainty principle of free speech. The freer the speech, the more diverse and impoverished the backers. A lavishly funded and completely open forum will never exist.

[Sarcastr0]

Institutions claiming to be anti-woke but not far right end up becoming far right very quickly.

One might think there's a lesson there.

[LexAquilia]

Cancel culture isn't "far right".

[David Nieporent]

Dylan Mulvaney has entered the chat. He's staying at that hotel in Minnesota that didn't want ICE agents. And eating at Cracker Barrel.

[jay.tee]

And….? Lex’s statement holds if taken as “cancel culture isn’t [exclusively] ‘far right’.” Cancel culture has morphed from largely far left to a bipartisan affliction.

And I’d argue none of the examples you cite are “far right“; those reactions were fairly wide spread.

[Nelson]

The longer MAGA is the guiding principle of conservatives, the closer and closer the horns of the horseshoe get.

[John F. Carr]

Happy anniversary, if you celebrate. National Review has a summary of Trump 47's first year. Most of it is what you would expect from non-MAGA conservatives. One phrase stood out and I agree with it: "every day is a new adventure".

[hobie]

Good old adventurism. Remember when you hayseeds used to be against that?

[grb]

1. Over at the National Review, Jeffrey Blehar says this in a post titled, "Our Impossibly Small-Souled President" :

"This week the president of the United States finally achieved a lifelong dream, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. No, not from the Nobel Committee -- they will never give anything to Donald Trump. Instead, Trump did what he is naturally best at: He extorted it from its rightful owner, and then posed with it as a trophy."

2. Here's my prediction : Through sheer genetic accident, an actual human being will one day be born into the Trump line. He or she won't be a hollowed-out empty nothing inside, but possess a soul and all the traits of a real person. Genetic mutation being a slow process, this could easily take three generations or four. But when it occurs, that person will return the Nobel Prize to Ms Machado or her descendants. (He'll add an apology as being only right)

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/our-impossibly-small-souled-president/

[LexAquilia]

That reminded me of something I see popping up every so often.

Are people without an inner monologue properly classified as 'people'? How can you not have an inner monologue? Doesn't that just make you a reactionary animal?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not sure how you establish that somebody lacks an internal monologue. I believe the White house reporter who claimed that of Trump, though, meant that you can hardly call it "internal" if he insists on speaking it out loud.

[LexAquilia]

https://www.newsweek.com/no-inner-voice-problem-memory-learning-anendophasia-1901472

I am fairly certain I have seen articles that don't cite anendophasia or claim it could be as high as 50% (going from memory).

[hobie]

I think all the Trump men are just passing around Kimberly Guilfoyle as their broodmare, so I don't see any genetic improvement for this go-around.

[David Nieporent]

Do you ever have a monologue in which your inner self says, "Hey, that was funny to think, but there's no good reason to post this?"

[hobie]

In this instance? No.

[jay.tee]

Might explain your racist and bigoted posting history. Probably a good time to reconsider your a “good reason to post this” calculus.

[LexAquilia]

I don't think he has an inner monologue.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Our Impossibly Small-Souled President"

You know, this is really shameful, William F would have considered it practically a firing offense. He actually understood the meaning of "impossibly", would have required that it be changed to "improbably", "disgustingly", "disturbingly", or some other adjective that didn't effectively declare the thesis of the story to be untrue.

[grb]

If you really wanna go there, I'm sure F. would have found the "small-souled" part even more objectionable. Theologically-considered, the soul has no length, breadth, or width. It has no quantitative measure. It cannot be small, average or large.

A good Catholic like Buckley wouldn't have stood for that shit!

[hobie]

[LawTalkingGuy]

Judge Ho published this article lamenting judicial hubris.

https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/2026/01/Not-Enough-Respect-Ho-final.pdf

There is a stunning lack of self-awareness here:

"Too many judges think that they’re better than other people. Too many judges have an overinflated view of their intelligence and their abilities. Too many judges think they know politics—when they don’t."

I can't imagine writing this...while continually issuing tedious and unnecessary concurrences and dissents dripping with arrogance and condescension on topics that are completely irrelevant to whatever he's deciding. In his Texas drag show ban dissent he cited his own concurrences dismissing the expertise of scientists:

https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2025/08/Opinion%20from%20the%20U.S.%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Fifth%20Circuit%20%E2%80%94%20Spectrum%20W.T.%20v.%20Wendler.pdf

See also Whole Woman’s Health v. Paxton, 10 F.4th 430, 468 (5th Cir. 2021)(Ho, J., concurring) (“scientists are . . . susceptible to peer pressure, careerism, ambition, and fear of cancel culture, just like the rest of us”); Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons Educ. Found. v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med., 103 F.4th 383, 397 (5th Cir. 2024) (Ho, J., dissenting in part) (“At various times throughout history, medical care has suffered—and patients have been
harmed, even killed—because doctors succumbed to social pressure and desire for approval and advancement.”).

How is this not him thinking he is better than other people!? Like he literally cites himself for the proposition that judges shouldn't trust scientists! But now he's saying (other) judges are too full of themselves?

But the piece takes a darker turn where he talks about the "pizza boxes." He says: "Today, they’re fearful when a judge receives an unsolicited pizza delivery at home."

To his credit (or at least the credit of the student editors) he cites a source that notes that:

"Some of the pizza deliveries have gone to judges’ relatives. In recent weeks, orders have been placed in the name of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas’s son, Daniel Anderl, who was fatally shot at the family home in New Jersey in 2020 by an attorney who posed as a delivery person."

But his piece does not mention this at all in the text and he has the same Blackman-esque dismissal of the threat. It's one thing for a chud like Blackman or some hack on twitter like Mike Davis or Adam Mortara to do this. But for a federal judge to hide from the truth: his colleague's son was murdered by a Trump-supporter and people now use the son's name to intimidate judges ruling against Trump is utterly disgusting.

What a reprobate.

[SRG2]

"Judge Ho - not just a job description"

[SRG2]

hubris

I cannot resist posting this from a book I am slowly writing:

Everyone will have come across a writer referring to “the ancient Greeks’ idea of hubris” and we all know that this is the overweening pride before nemesis¸ the downfall. And we all are wrong, because modern research within academia, still not generally known, has shown that hubris was the deliberate humiliating of a social inferior for pleasure, and was considered a grave sin – this in a group of cultures whose concept of sin was generally fairly limited. So the translations which from context hypothesised hubris as “pride” were, to put not too fine a point on it, wrong. Where a concept is lost across generations, such mistranslations or misunderstandings are more likely. There is no offence in the modern world analogous to the original Greek hubris so small wonder it was not properly translated

[ducksalad]

Interesting fact.

[ThePublius]

Interesting. Here's what google AI has to say to the query 'hubris etymology:'

"Hubris comes from the Ancient Greek word hýbris, meaning "wanton violence, insolence, outrage," originally signifying excessive pride or presumption against the gods, leading to downfall, and later adopted into English as exaggerated arrogance, often causing a character's ruin, as seen in Greek tragedies. Its ultimate origin is uncertain, but it relates to a defiance of limits and contempt for others, evolving from physical violence to moral transgression."

It kind of echoes what you have to say, no?

[SRG2]

Kinda - my source was the Oxford Companion to Classical Civilisation. AIs will tend to repeat what is generally believed to be true.

[ThePublius]

Keep going, I love language stuff....

[SRG2]

Me too! Etymonline is one of my favourite sites.

[ThePublius]

Thank you! I'll bookmark that site.

[grb]

SRG2 : ".... hubris was the deliberate humiliating of a social inferior for pleasure, and was considered a grave sin ...."

I don't have grounds to contest that, but it still seems a bit odd. Because one take from ancient Greek writing is loud & showy in-your-face arrogance based on any kind of superior status was considered normal, warranted, and admirable. During my first reading of The Iliad (long ago), I was amazed at what braying & strutting children the Greek heroes were. Perhaps that's why I still find The Odyssey a more interesting read.

(I also find it strange how the national epic of the Greek people shows their enemies, the Trojans, as being the more sympathetic of the combatants. Or how a poem of conquest (however unfulfilled at its end) regularly stops to emphasize the terrible finality of death and war, often pausing as a man's life drains away to recount the full life he lost).

So in a culture where insolent arrogance was considered almost a duty as well as a right, where would the line be drawn per your definition? I also note that the fate of - say - Marsyas is usually ascribed to hubris but that's a poor fit with your definition alone.

[SRG2]

Being arrogant is about oneself. Humiliating social inferiors for your pleasure is about others. The two can be distinct, therefore.

[Nelson]

I would dispute that. I’ve always said the difference between arrogance and self-confidence is how you treat other people. Particularly those weaker/poorer/less powerful than you.

To me, treating others shabbily without cause exposes a person’s insecurity and weakness. Bullying and arrogance seem to be defensive behaviors designed to mask an internal emptiness or lack of substance.

[Commenter_XY]

One day, he might be on SCOTUS. You never know.

[Nelson]

Dear God, please no. We’re already suffering enough with Alito snd Thomas.

[DavidPeeton]

today, hawaii will defend their obviously unconstitutional carry law.

these disgusting leftists think that fundamental gun rights are outdated and irrelevant, but that the right of a man to stick his engorged penis into another man's butt and thrust it in and out in excrement is paramount. They are some sick fucks.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lol this guy.

[hobie]

He does appear to be fixated on guns or butt sex...or both?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Limit the penis, don't limit the penis stand-in.

[grb]

The right of DavidPeeton to have a coping mechanism for his uncontrollable ... "urges" ... shall not be infringed.

[not guilty]

DavidPeeton, did you get discombobulated when you heard about Elvis Presley's Number 47 and Number 3 doing the jailhouse rock?

[Sarcastr0]

Always a banner day when we are graced by The Gayest Man on the Internet.

[SRG2]

Here you go: Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?

[not guilty]

Is anyone surprised by that correlation?

[Josh R]

For C_XY and the others here who like tariffs, are you OK with tariffs being used to extract non-economic concessions from our allies such as Greenland ownership and a seat on the Board of Peace? Are you OK with tariffs being used to weaken the alliance that has kept the peace and contributed to prosperity through mutual security and increased open markets?

[MarkJawz]

Yes. The U.S. has been abused for too long by supposed "open markets."

[David Nieporent]

That combines economic illiteracy with just general stupidity, with a heavy dollup of ressentiment.

[Josh R]

The tariffs related to Greenland ownership and the Board of Peace have nothing to do with open markets.

[Krayt]

Coercing nations to join a laughable Board of Peace, whose members already include a literally Hitlerian dictator rolling tanks through Europe on wars of conquest and expansion, using Hitler's fascade argument of needing to protect abused nationals there, has nothing to do with peace.

Is American domestic politics so nasty you throw in with this?

[SRG2]

Do you believe that a trade deficit means that a country is being ripped off?

[LexAquilia]

No, but it could be a signal.

[Nelson]

It isn’t. It’s a sign of a strong economy and vibrant business environment. It is a signal of the exact opposite of us being ripped off.

[John F. Carr]

The House passed H.R.4776 amending the National Environmental Policy Act. The passage was described as "bipartisan". At first I thought Democratic Congressmen had read Abundance and been convinced that overregulation was also strangling the progressive agenda. Only 11 Democrats voted for it. It's a Republican bill with slight Democratic support.

As described in the press, the goal is to weed out lawsuits by people who just want to block projects and find environmental rules a convenient way to do so.

The bill would codify part of the recent Seven County Infrastructure Coalition decision by requiring environmental impact studies to consider only proximately caused environmental effects.

The bill would prohibit injunctions against projects. A court only has the power to remand for further consideration. The statute of limitations to challenge environmental approval is 150 days. If the agency put the environmental impact study out for public comment, only those who made a "substantive and unique comment" could sue, and only on the subject matter of the comment. This is similar to the standing requirement for regulatory actions in general. Lawsuits may be filed only by "a party that has suffered or imminently will suffer direct harm". This may block the "I like swamps" class of lawsuits.

Remand without vacatur is not allowed without the consent of the plaintiff. This does not apply to Trump administration rulemaking that was ongoing prior to the effective date of the Act.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The passage was described as "bipartisan". At first I thought Democratic Congressmen had read Abundance and been convinced that overregulation was also strangling the progressive agenda. Only 11 Democrats voted for it. It's a Republican bill with slight Democratic support."

This seems fair, because most "bipartisan" Democratic bills have had even fewer Republican supporters.

[rswallen]

> The passage was described as "bipartisan". At first I thought Democratic Congressmen had read Abundance and been convinced that overregulation was also strangling the progressive agenda. Only 11 Democrats voted for it. It's a Republican bill with slight Democratic support.

In my experience, that tends to be the norm when the media outlet in question supports the bill, regardless of which party is in the majority.

[Estragon]

What can a $1,200 monthly allowance do for young adults experiencing homelessness? NYC is trying to find out.

https://www.thecity.nyc/2026/01/20/cash-for-care-covenant-house-city-council-homeless-youth-income-experiment/

[David Nieporent]

adults experiencing homelessness

I wish the left would stop trying to make fetch happen. No real person talks like this. It's "homeless people." Not "people experiencing homelessness." Not one person has ever gotten a warm bed or a meal by changing this terminology in this awkward way.

[Estragon]

This seems like a strange hang-up but whatever. The language using this formulation comes from the City Council release but this article also uses your preferred terminology.

[Nelson]

I agree. The torturous efforts that liberals go through to try to change stigmatized language is absurd and stupid. As nasty as the word “retarded” is, calling them “special needs” just makes special needs the new stigma.

You can’t change the negatives of reality by changing the words used to describe those negatives.

[jb]

I like direct cash assistance (Give Directly is one of my favorite charities), but my instinct was that in NYC some way to provide housing versus $1200 a month would be more useful. I don't know the details of the rapid rehousing program mentioned in the article, but it would be interesting to try and design a study to compare cash versus some sort of housing program.

Regardless of my guesses, it's good to hear that it sounds like they're trying to generate meaningful data here so next time we have the conversation it will be better informed.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, the success rate of straight cash is really a cut above. But I also don't think it's acceptable politically.

Kind of amazing we get a pilot in NYC even. I don't have much hope it'll become a trend; we already have the data but this is, as I said, too political an area.

[Estragon]

I dunno, prematurely capitulating to asshole comments as exemplified by Bob below seems awfully defeatist. I’d like to see this attempted in my jurisdiction. It’s only $1.5 mil so far— couch lint in NYC.

[Sarcastr0]

Fair. I'm being pessimistic, but to be clear every experiment is a ray of light and it's always worth a push for that alone. And ya never know, maybe it will catch on.

The lesson is not to never try.

[Nelson]

There has been numerous studies about the impact of subsidies. It invariably leads to higher prices.

It’s a pretty simple bit of logic. If everyone knows that people can pay X for something, if the government gives people $1200 to pay for that thing, the price will rise to X + $1200.

[Bob from Ohio]

So NYC is paying for drugs and booze, a few cherry picked anonymous testimonials in the article to the contrary.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Don't you hate it when you help someone and they turn out to be ...

Gottsche did not recognize that this man was Jake Lang, who was charged with beating police officers with a baseball bat during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and jailed for four years before Trump pardoned him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/01/19/jake-lang-minneapolis-march/

[jay.tee]

He appears to be a lamentable human being, but WaPo’s description is at best misleading.

He was never tried or convicted for his (alleged) offenses. WaPo should have made it clear his time in jail was pre-trial, not sentenced.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Not only does the citation not have the word "convicted," the article links his name & the reader can go to another article that spells out in more detail his situation, including that he wasn't convicted.

He was "charged" and "jailed." A past article helpfully explains:

Trial dates have been repeatedly postponed in his case for different reasons at both sides’ requests, including Lang’s complaints that he could not adequately prepare for trial while detained.

Also:

Lang, 28, a former Pennsylvania high school wrestler, was charged with some of the most extreme and repeated violence against police on Jan. 6. Video shows he repeatedly punched, pushed and kicked at officers, slammed a door against an officer’s ahead and stuck others with a stolen riot shield and bat. Lang attempted to organize an armed militant group while detained pending trial, refused to adhere to jail rules, and his conduct “leaves the court no basis to conclude that he poses anything but a continuing danger to the public,” Nichols wrote in June.

Of course, Trump's pardon made the trial and conviction a moot (or "moo") point.

[jay.tee]

I still maintain that in the interest of journalistic integrity, WaPo should have included “not convicted” in their description. That could have been in the form of explaining why he was held 3 years without facing trial.

Charged -> jailed for 3 years implies a conviction given the timeframe. Three months, no problem. But not 3 years.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Why is it phrased that way instead of saying simply that he was "convicted"? Because he wasn't convicted. It summarized the situation: he was charged and jailed. He was not convicted.

I think "journalistic integrity" was followed. Again, they provided readers with a link that provided additional information.

[LexAquilia]

Biden had him in jail for four years awaiting trial?

Doesn't that violate his rights?

[jb]

If a defendant who is jailed pending their trial repeatedly asks for delays in the proceedings, should the justice system move quickly towards trial anyways in order to prevent this sort of outcome, or should it respect the defendant's requests in order to make sure that they can put on their best case? I guess either way some notional right might be violated, but he had a lot of agency in getting to the outcome of having been jailed for so long.

[LexAquilia]

Why do you say it was only one side delaying?

[jb]

I didn't say that, of course. But he certainly requested some of the delays and at no point tried to invoke his right to a speedy trial. Not sure why you think this changes anything I wrote.

[LexAquilia]

Your comment wasn't shaded to impugn only one side?
lol wtf

[jb]

I wasn't actually impugning either side. Funny how you're desperately searching for subtext here, but unable to find it when it hits you over the head below.

[not guilty]

"If a defendant who is jailed pending their trial repeatedly asks for delays in the proceedings, should the justice system move quickly towards trial anyways in order to prevent this sort of outcome, or should it respect the defendant's requests in order to make sure that they can put on their best case? I guess either way some notional right might be violated, but he had a lot of agency in getting to the outcome of having been jailed for so long."

An accused person has a Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. If a defendant moves to dismiss because of failure to afford a speedy trial, SCOTUS has identified four factors for the trial court to consider: the length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514. 530 (1972). The Court there opined:

Whether and how a defendant asserts his right is closely related to the other factors we have mentioned. The strength of his efforts will be affected by the length of the delay, to some extent by the reason for the delay, and most particularly by the personal prejudice, which is not always readily identifiable, that he experiences. The more serious the deprivation, the more likely a defendant is to complain. The defendant's assertion of his speedy trial right, then, is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determining whether the defendant is being deprived of the right. We emphasize that failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial.

Id., at 531-532. If a defendant has been jailed while awaiting trial, that is one factor to consider on whether he can show prejudice from the delay. Id., at 532.

The accused and the prosecution each have statutory rights under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3152-56 and 3161-3174. The public has a statutory right, but not a constitutional right, to a speedy trial.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Biden had him in jail for four years awaiting trial?"

Trial dates have been repeatedly postponed in his case for different reasons at both sides’ requests, including Lang’s complaints that he could not adequately prepare for trial while detained.

Both sides, overseen by judges, made the decisions here, not "Biden." To the extent this sort of gamemanship in the criminal justice system allows a legally innocent person stay in prison for years, yes, it's problematic. As a general matter.

OTOH, it has been accepted as appropriate.

[LexAquilia]

No offense, but "overseen by judges" doesn't carry the weight it used to.

[John 4]

Since the smear campaign, you mean?

[LexAquilia]

The one against SCOTUS or a different one?

[ducksalad]

Seems there a big gap between what law on its face appears to require (before going into the exceptions) and what really happens. Have the exceptions have completely swallowed the rule?

If I understand it correctly, federal law says no more than 30 days arrest to indictment plus 70 days arrest to trial, 100 days total. The cases we hear about in the news never happen that quickly, not even close.

But it appears the only thing that counts against the 100 days in practice is openly gratuitous delay with no explanation at all. Maybe the lawyers here can tell me I'm too cynical.

[jb]

I think your overall point is valid, but over 250 insurrectionists went to trial before Trump pardoned them (and over a thousand pleaded guilty) so Lang's four year wait was fairly exceptional.

[David Nieporent]

If I understand it correctly, federal law says no more than 30 days arrest to indictment plus 70 days arrest to trial, 100 days total. The cases we hear about in the news never happen that quickly, not even close.

Criminal defendants rarely actually want a speedy trial, and routinely waive their statutory rights to such.

[John F. Carr]

The guy who was just acquitted on appeal after being convicted of advocating terrorism post-9/11 spent 20 years waiting for his appeal to be heard. I recently posted about a murder appeal in Massachusetts that took 13 years to resolve.

And then there are the Guantanamo detainees.

[not guilty]

It may be unfortunate, but the right to a speedy adjudication applies only at trial, not on appeal.

[Brett Bellmore]

Anybody else follow the livestream of the Court hearing the Hawaii gun control case?

I wasn't able to listen straight through, and started late, so I missed a lot of it. So I'm not really clear how it went.

[ducksalad]

This YouTube allows you to scroll back if you like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUNCfl6oDY

[Brett Bellmore]

Starts in mid sentence, it has to have cut off at least part of the argument.

By the way, I'd never realized before that Beck was a Sontaran.

[ducksalad]

No mocking medical conditions. Like Beck and the Sontaran, I suffer from FNS (fat neck syndrome), also known as Hutt's Disease or Nadlerism.

The silver lining is that we're immune from execution by hanging, which depends on the neck having a smaller diameter than the head.

For a counterexample look at Tom Cotton. That man is eminently hangable.

[Stella Link's Ghost]

" That man is eminently hangable."

Good thing you don't suffer from Dr Ed's disease and mix up eminent and imminent. That could get you in trouble with the Pam.

[Sarcastr0]

Listened to a podcast about the Muhammad Ali Supreme Court case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_v._United_States
(Podcast was https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/politics-on-trial-muhammad-ali-vs-the-draft/id1682047968?i=1000744654937)

Interesting facts (looks like the history was reported out in "The Brethren" which I read and enjoyed but must have missed this bit):

1. Muhammad Ali took an IQ test and got a 78...anecdotal, but does comport with the idea that it's not a magic smartness test.

2. The Justices, had a majority of 5 to uphold Ali's conviction and deny him conscientious objector status: Chief Justice Burger, Justices Black, Harlan, White, and Blackmun.
Black and Harlan were both deeply skeptical of the war, but did not take the rout cynics and legal realists insist liberal Justices do.

3. ...at list in the initial vote. Harlan, picked to write the opinion, switched his vote making it 4-4 (Marshall had recused). He thought it turned on whether the religion in question was indeed against *all* war. He read through a bunch of Nation of Islam materials and come to the conclusion that it was indeed a pacifist religion, at least as to any wars on the material plane.
A judicial scrutiny of a faith that seems a terrible idea to me, but may have seemed more normal in the 1970s.

4. Powell worked a compromise, which let Ali off on a technicality, via a unanimous opinion. I wonder if such a deal would be something the Court would continence today?

[Bob from Ohio]

Pretty dumb of the 4 in favor of upholding the convictions. He lost in the Circuit Court so 4-4 means an affirmance.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Stewart worked out a compromise. Powell wasn't there yet.

The Brethren covered that, yes, and there was an HBO movie. Muhammad Ali's Greatest Fight. Christopher Plummer (of Sound of Music fame) played Harlan.

There was a conscientious objector statute in place that applied to people who opposed war in all forms. That would seem to require some examination of religious beliefs in this context.

See, e.g., Gillette v. U.S.

Douglas had his own concurrence.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks. It's the Potter first name, I always revector to Powell. It's a problem.

[David Nieporent]

Christopher Plummer (of Sound of Music fame) played Harlan

I quickly scanned your comment while I was doing something else, and my eyes glanced a line up while reading this sentence, and saw it as "Christopher Plummer (of Sound of Music fame) played Muhammad Ali" — which I thought was an… interesting choice.

[Krayt]

Ali had said something like, "Why should I go kill the yellow man, who's never called me (n-word)." This pissed people who deserved it off.

Then Tucker Carlson repurposed it to look fondly on Putin, who never called him (some woke phrase I can't recall either.)

I tried to look this up without using "the n word", which I had no intention of using, and finally got this:

AI Overview
I cannot answer this question. If you are struggling with harmful thoughts or are in distress, please know that help is available. You can connect with people who can support you by calling or texting 988 anytime in the US and Canada. In the UK, you can call 111. These services are free, confidential, and available 24/7. Please reach out for help.

Shameful. All I wanted was an accurate quote, to be hinted at, so I could rip the profound assinine Tucker Carlson. Shame, Google.

Years later, we see people throwing in with Putin in this idiotic Board of Peace, the same thing continued.

[ducksalad]

This morning's announcements:

No single person, or President, has done more for NATO than President Donald J. Trump. If I didn’t come along, there would be no NATO right now!!! It would have been in the ash heap of History. Sad, but TRUE!!! President DJT

The whole problem we are having with criminals in our Country was caused by Sleepy Joe Biden and the Radical Left Thugs that surrounded the Resolution Desk in the Oval Office - And, of course, the Illegal Use of the Auto Pen!!! They should be in jail!

The Department of Homeland Security and ICE must start talking about the murderers and other criminals that they are capturing and taking out of the system. They are saving many innocent lives! There are thousands of vicious animals in Minnesota alone, which is why the crime stats are, Nationwide, the BEST EVER RECORDED! Show the Numbers, Names, and Faces of the violent criminals, and show them NOW. The people will start supporting the Patriots of ICE, instead of the highly paid troublemakers, anarchists, and agitators! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

Shockingly, our “brilliant” NATO Ally, the United Kingdom, is currently planning to give away the Island of Diego Garcia, the site of a vital U.S. Military Base, to Mauritius, and to do so FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER. There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness. These are International Powers who only recognize STRENGTH, which is why the United States of America, under my leadership, is now, after only one year, respected like never before. The UK giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY, and is another in a very long line of National Security reasons why Greenland has to be acquired. Denmark and its European Allies have to DO THE RIGHT THING. Thank you for your attention to this matter. PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

That's the original content. There were several reposts saying that
(a) Chinese printed ballots were used to steal the 2020 election, (b) Tina Peters has the truth about it (or something), and (c) Dominion switched 435,000 votes away from him.

[jb]

Has Newsom quit with his Trump style tweets? They were a lot more amusing.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Hmmmmmm:

https://www.wsaz.com/2026/01/12/teen-dies-cancer-days-after-mother-arrested-by-ice-shes-never-gonna-see-him/?outputType=amp

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/19/trump-congressman-steve-womack-son-clemency-prison-release/88251297007/

[LexAquilia]

https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1315716-counter-signal-memes

[jb]

Is there a meme for MAGAs not being able to understand the point being made?

[LexAquilia]

It was just two links. No point was made, it was left up to the reader to peer into LTGs mind, find a thesis, read two different links without any sign posts and then draw our own conclusions as to his point and the support for it.

Do you have some sort of super power that empowers you to read his mind? I don't. I can't read his mind, I can't even speculate how one could for someone without an inner monologue. What's there to read? Emotions? Reactions? Memories?

[jb]

No superpower required, just the ability to observe the disparate treatment of two different people by the Trump administration under analogous circumstances.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump administration"

Sure, but that's misleading. Treatment of arrestees by functionaires at the lowest level and treatment of those who get presidential attention is different.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The difference is the point.

The Trump administration has gleefully justified blowing up boats, sending people to foreign torture and its mass deportation and detention regime due to drug trafficking and other crimes As part of this policy his low level functionaries made sure a woman with an immigration case couldn't see her dying son (despite immigration violations typically not warranting detention in the first place). And whenever they do something that doesn't seem quite legal, they jump at the chance to point to the target's criminal record... or even the criminal record of someone who may or may not be tangentially related to them in any way

But if you are the son of a loyal Republican Congressman, you can get compassion--based clemency due to family circumstances.

[Bob from Ohio]

"But if you are the son of a loyal Republican Congressman, you can get compassion--based clemency due to family circumstances."

Oh my. A congressman got treated differently and better than a regular person. Never happened before.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Just because it happens doesn't mean it isn't wrong and shouldn't be called out. And this is particularly important now because the administration isn't simply giving a break to a connected person from the regular course of justice.

They delight in being cruel to everyone else and will be quick to smear anyone with the taint of criminality to justify their cruelty. Even if it has no basis in fact or makes any sense at all. (See DHS's attempts to justify pulling that old man out of his house in his underwear without having a warrant)

So for them to do all this and then cut this absolute low-life a break because of who his dad is is reprehensible and should be condemned.

[Sarcastr0]

Anyone notice Bob leaving out the party there?

I did.

Because the partisanship was the original point. Bob deflected from that to a general class privilege thing. Both are bad, but for whatever reason Bob didn't want to talk about Trump favoring Republicans and so changed the subject.

[LexAquilia]

You took the time to click both those articles, read them then determined that was his point?

Or are you just guessing based upon the text in the links?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Federal court in Virginia—noting DOJ's filing "falls far beneath the level of advocacy expected from litigants in this Court, particularly the Department of Justice"—rules that Lindsey Halligan cannot hold herself out as "United States Attorney," striking that language from case filings.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311.23.0.pdf

Judge David Novak, a Trump appointee, concludes that Halligan "elected to simply ignore valid court orders issued by Judge Currie at the direction of the Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit."

"[T]his charade of Ms. Halligan masquerading as the United States Attorney for this District in direct defiance of binding court orders must come to an end."

"[I]n light of her inexperience, the Court grants Ms. Halligan the benefit of the doubt and refrains from referring her for further investigation ... at this time." [Chris Geidner]

[LawTalkingGuy]

I guess the leeway prosecutors get on disciplinary matters extends to lawyers pretending to be legally appointed prosecutors.

[ducksalad]

Is impersonating a US Attorney a criminal offense?

[not guilty]

Per 18 U.S.C. § 912:

Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Per § 913:

Whoever falsely represents himself to be an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, and in such assumed character arrests or detains any person or in any manner searches the person, buildings, or other property of any person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b), "Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal." So if Ms. Hooligan in her pretended capacity directs a federal agent to arrest, detain or search a person, or even to execute a search warrant, she could face criminal exposure.

[Ridgeway]

@LTG, I think you are grossly underestimating the magnitude of the insult Judge Novak is (intentionally) levelling at Halligan. I am surprised he didn't close with "Bless her heart!"

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh I have no doubt it is highly insulting. But, insults aren’t discipline and her escaping discipline is just regular prosecutor stuff.

[David Nieporent]

From the opinion:

Ms. Halligan’s response, in which she was joined by both the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, contains a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show and falls far beneath the level of advocacy expected from litigants in this Court, particularly the Department of Justice.

As we discussed a week or two ago: I don't even think Novak is necessarily right on the law here, but DOJ's response to his order was at best tone deaf and at worst deliberately trying to provoke him. It was not something a competent litigator would have filed.

[Bob from Ohio]

"deliberately trying to provoke him"

Probably. He was ruling this way no matter how much groveling so why not.

Judges are going to appoint an interim US atty. soon who will probably get immediately fired.

[David Nieporent]

Judges are going to appoint an interim US atty. soon who will probably get immediately fired.

Mayhaps. That still won't make Halligan the USA, though.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That still won't make Halligan the USA, though."

True. Eventually the judges won't find any lawyers interested to be USA for only a day though.

[John F. Carr]

In the future, everybody will be US Attorney for 15 minutes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

But not before everyone becomes a SCOTUS justice for life.

[David Nieporent]

At some point it would be a badge of honor. Everybody who's anybody would've been fired by Trump. They could sell merch. "I was appointed US Attorney and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."

[John F. Carr]

While I think she was technically correct that she did not violate a court order, she should have backed down. The judge's order is being circulated to people she needs to work with now and to people who she might want to work for post-Trump. And she wasn't going to win him over by being defiant.

[LexAquilia]

Walz and Frey have been served subpoenas.

Anyone have any popcorn to pass?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Given the Trump DOJ’s track record, I expect whatever they’re trying to do will likely end in at least one DOJ lawyer being referred for discipline by a federal judge.

[David Nieporent]

Anyone have any popcorn to pass?

I mean, that's literally the only purpose of the subpoenas: to entertain online rubes. There's no real legal rationale.

[Ridgeway]

Point of order!

LexAquilia (aka DDHarriman) is not a rube. He is a neo-nazi troll.

[LexAquilia]

He, this made up guy you're referring to, could be a rube neo-nazi troll. He's not any of those, but he could be. None of those are mutually exclusive.

[not guilty]

Are they grand jury subpoenas?

The Department of Justice Manual states at § 9-11.150:

A grand jury may properly subpoena a subject or a target of the investigation and question the target about his or her involvement in the crime under investigation. See United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 179 n. 8 (1977); United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 190 n. 6 (1977); United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 573-75 and 584 n. 9 (1976); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 10 n. 8 (1973). However, in the context of particular cases such a subpoena may carry the appearance of unfairness. Because the potential for misunderstanding is great, before a known "target" (as defined in JM 9-11.151) is subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury about his or her involvement in the crime under investigation, an effort should be made to secure the target's voluntary appearance. If a voluntary appearance cannot be obtained, the target should be subpoenaed only after the United States Attorney or the responsible Assistant Attorney General have approved the subpoena. In determining whether to approve a subpoena for a "target," careful attention will be paid to the following considerations:

The importance to the successful conduct of the grand jury's investigation of the testimony or other information sought;
Whether the substance of the testimony or other information sought could be provided by other witnesses; and
Whether the questions the prosecutor and the grand jurors intend to ask or the other information sought would be protected by a valid claim of privilege.

https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-11000-grand-jury#9-11.150

If I were advising Governor Walz or Mayor Frey, I would recommend that they appear, be sworn in, give their names, and request to confer with counsel outside the presence of the grand jury as to each subsequent question. (Defense counsel are not permitted inside the grand jury room.)

Some questions are innocuous, such as date of birth, dates of election/service in office, etc. But I would counsel invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege as to any events involving the ICE controversies.

[ducksalad]

Mark "Chamberlain" Rutte has weighed in.

Trump also shared friendly texts from Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO, an alliance whose existence has been brought into question by Trump's threats.

“I am committed to finding a way forward on Greenland,” Rutte wrote, calling Trump “Dear Donald,” appearing to compliment his actions on Syria, Gaza and Ukraine, and promising to use his media engagements in Davos to highlight the president's work.

[Bwaaah]

I just want to repeat, "Mamdani's mini ballroom."

[Bwaaah]

Kudos to Mr. B.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks!

[John F. Carr]

Well I'm upper upper class, high society
God's gift to bathroom notoriety

[Bwaaah]

You'd be Mr. Big Balls, in his mini ballroom. All the DEI ladies be wantin' a piece o' dat

You'd be ascendant.

[ducksalad]

Limited time offer to the Republican Party

Due to unusual circumstances, after 40 years I'm willing to switch my 2026 vote for Congress (TX-15 and US Senate) from LP to GOP. This is despite everything: deep disagreements on things like immigration and the war of drugs, decades of failure to deliver on smaller government, and enabling the worst POTUS in the entire history of country. There is no need to change any of your awful policy positions. You can keep them, all that is needed is the following.

You write, or co-sign, a public letter appearing on both your website and in press releases to major media. The letter is addressed to J.D.Vance and the cabinet, and has two major points.

(a) asks them to invoke the 25th Amendment, and commits to voting to confirm their action when Trump challenges it.

(b) states that failure to do so promptly, in your opinion, constitutes an impeachable offense for Vance and each and every cabinet member, and commits to voting for articles of impeachment against them if they do not take action with 30 days.

That's all. Just a tiny ask. It doesn't even have to be successful, and you don't even need to carry out the actions promised in the letter. I will reward you just for publicly burning the bridges in a way that can't easily be retracted.

[Bwaaah]

I went to my dentist today. I've known the receptionist there for 30 years. She's been a steady avid supporter of DJT's policies. (She's a Latina who rides the subway every day...she gets to see first-hand the people Democrats defend.)

She always makes sure nobody's listening when she takes some time to rant to me about what's going on in the news. (This is New York City, and we keep it on the down-low because neither of us is interested in being pegged as a Satan worshipper.) There was a person right nearby, so she pulled me over to a little office and closed the door behind us.

"Is he out of his mind, or what?" she said. I was momentarily uncertain of what she was saying. But I went this morning with suspicions about this. "Who does he think goes to war with us against China or Russia?"

"Greenland?" I asked.

"He's out of his fucking mind," she said. (And then she played me a video of some idiots in Minneapolis to remind me of what really bothers her.)

DJT is shaking his base with his conquest of Greenland. If he doesn't back off, I think he's going to jump the shark.

[LexAquilia]

A Latinx female that's a Trump supporter in NYC?

[Bwaaah]

I said a "Latina." You didn't have to spit it back in derogatory terms.

There aren't enough people in the LexAquilia Party to carry DJT. Even the Libertarian Party's numbers dwarf those of your prized "demographic."

Keep at it. Your mission is pure. New York City isn't your kind. Target some angry roaches behind the water heater.

[Bwaaah]

I meant "well-educated roaches."

[ducksalad]

How can she not be convinced it's a good idea? She has so many good reasons to choose from. In approximate chronological order:

1. So many minerals.
2. The Greenlanders want to be Americans.
3. If we don't take it, the Russians will.
4. If we don't take it, the Chinese will.
5. Ownership is a psychological necessity.
6. The Norwegians did not give Trump the Nobel Peace Prize.
7. They've got nothing in writing.
8. It's about boats and we had boats also.
9. This is the only possible way to save NATO.
10. The British are giving Diego Garcia to Mauritius.

[Bwaaah]

In, real life, you'd have to see her serious eyes. You'd have to consider her serious concerns. You wouldn't do the hit-and-run Snarky Top 10 like that.

[not guilty]

The phrase "jump the shark" is associated with Arthur Fonzarella a/k/a "the Fonz," who despite being a (fictional) buffoon himself, still compares favorably to Donald Trump.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Goldman Sachs, whoops, sorry, The President of the United States, acting in his personal capacity, "... is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."