Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

Good morning losers

[Moderation4ever]

You woke up grumpy. Have another cup of coffee.

[Frank Drackman]

Wrong, imagine it like the guy who said "Good morning Viet-Nam!!!!!!!!!"
Actually he was grumpy, hope I don't end up like he did.

[Bwaaah]

You really don't get Frank Drackman at all. Actually, if you read that as grumpy, so much goodness in life is getting butchered in your brain.

For me, the day portends goodness just for the fact that it doesn't start with but one more sullen NG tome.

[SRG2]

What's to get? He's a bigot in the early stages of dementia who thinks he's funny and satirical.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm not a Bigot.
Well, maybe a little bit, but who isn't?? and if you say you aren't you're the worst type of Bigot, the Hypocritical variety.

[Bob from Ohio]

"he's funny and satirical"

Yes he is. They don't always hit but often do.

[Bwaaah]

Yep. SRG2 implies there's something wrong with finding Frank Drackman funny and satirical. SRG2 must have a rich sense of humor. He must be a real connoisseur of "funny."

I have a niece who was born sneering. Her first words to me were, "Can you not?" Thirty years later, she's usually nice enough to say nothing at all to me. But alternatively, when she can't hold back, she still says, "Can you not?" And that's all she's got.

When god was handing out lightheartedness, she said to him, "Can you not?"

It would be funny to see my niece and SRG2 stand together to discuss, and seriously agree, that Frank Drackman is not funny. I'd like a little video of that...to capture their seriousness.

[SRG2]

To be funny or satirical, you actually have to be funny or satirical. On the other hand one can always get cheap laughs by aiming at agreed-upon targets. How do we know that Charlie Kirk had wanted to die a pirate? The last thing he said was "aaaarrrghhh".

[Kazinski]

Has the Overton window shifted that once more it is acceptable to advocate and agitate for Violent Revolution, again?

Its hardly the first time, it was pretty widespread in the 70's, but lost a lot of steam when the Vietnamese war ended and the hanger-ons decided they didn't have skin in the game anymore.

But it seems the last few years its back, and its OK to be violent again on the left. The support for Luigi Mangione was the first real sign, the wave of support for murdering someone in cold blood because you don't like their business. A business with a government mandated business model I might add and heavily regulated on just what products they have to offer too.

I don't think it is much of an insight that quite a few of the people out on the streets chasing ICE are not that committed to offering shelter to immigrants, after all probably a good part of them were supporting Bernie when he was nearly as anti immigrant as Trump. I think it is more opposing anything and everything Trump, and of course e!listing undocumented immigrants in their cause of violent revolution. Most immigrants (legal.or illegal) are pretty apolitical so they need an issue near and dear to their hearts.

Is violent Revolution cool again?

And I certainly am not pretending there isn't a far right revolutionary cohort, but it is not now, nor do I think it ever has been for than just a fraction of a percentage of support, while I would estimate the fraction supporting violent revolution on the left would go into high single digits, or even the low teens.

[Frank Drackman]

If you’d spit on Alex Pretti and kicked out the taillight of his Prius (no, wait he’s an ICU RN making 6 figures probably a Tesla or Volvo EV) he’d have probably shot you.
And since when did VA Nurses become Florence Nightengale? Remember “Born on the 4th of July”? (I was actually born on July 4th, having a big Shindig this year, everyone’s invited)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank raises a good point, he should’ve been fired from the first incident where he allegedly obtained the purported broken rib.

And this isn’t the 70s anymore, nurses do get six figure salaries, and a lot of them do not deserve it.

[Frank Drackman]

1: 6 figures isn't that much anymore, "$100,000" is technically "6 figures"
2: Even with "45/47/(48?)" VA reforms its still virtually impossible to fire a VA Employee short of something really horrible, like physically abusing a Veteran or praying in front of an Abortatoreum
3: Look at when he got his RN, after several years of trying to get a PhD, he's one of the Nurses who's certain he's smarter than the Idiot Doctors (many are, he isn't, I mean "wasn't") especially when 90% of the Doctors today are Jug-Lish and Kumar.
4: Because I'm Psychic I'll predict Pretti's Tox Screen, +SSRI, +SNRI, +ADD Med, +THC (Of Course) and probably a little of the Colombian Nose Candy, of course it'll be harder to find than Jerry Nadler's (Redacted)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

There are rumors that he was fired, which are being denied. I wonder the extent to which the charges made against him are legitimate, but the VA did nothing about them.

[SRG2]

There are rumours he kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.

[Frank Drackman]

He did act like someone who hadn't got much sleep lately

[Dr. Ed 2]

Congresscritter Omar is either the most irresponsible and self-centered person on this planet, or she knew that she was going to be sprayed with vinegar.

It’s one or the other.

Let’s assume she didn’t know. This is 2026, not 1926 — terrorism is real, and as a Congresscritter, she’s dealing with the consequences of that on a daily basis. Back in 1926 anybody who wanted to could walk right into Congress, young people often ate their lunch on the steps — but not today. She knows she has to wear a special pin to identify herself as a member of the Congress.

She was 20 years old at the height of the Anthrax scares, and remember that not all of those were hoaxes, people died. As a member of Congress, the US Capitol Police have (or should have) told her about the ever present danger of chemical attacks.

If she wants to recklessly endanger herself, well, it’s a free country.
But she has no right to endanger everyone else, and it was the height of irresponsibility not to presume that there’s something hazardous in the air of that room — unless she knew what the mystery liquid was.

And she is from Somalia, not South Portland, the Somalia. We’re throwing sulfuric acid — battery acid — in people‘s faces is one of the many lovely things they do there. Again, it’s a free country and she has the right to ignore her own safety and well-being, but not that of her audience. So for acid fumes do nasty things I could do even more nasty things if they mix with salt which in the winter time is gonna be on track in on that floor.

She’s either the most irresponsible self centered person on this planet — or she knew. Maybe didn’t organize it but at least knew that ALL he was gonna do was spray her with vinegar, not follow up with a knife, not have something lethal in the syringe, not be somebody whom her security should already have been responding to before it got this far.

So which is it?

[Frank Drackman]

That attack was more fake than that “Faces of Death” Video from the 80’s

[Dr. Ed 2]

I know.

I’m merely pointing out what we are expected to believe if it wasn’t.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on. It was a stupid attack by a nutcase felon who didn't like her. Everything we've learned about the idiot since says, "Yeah, he'd be stupid enough to do that."

I hear he was in financial trouble. Maybe he was looking for free room and board for the next ten years.

[Frank Drackman]

I think he was expecting someone to stop him, loved how he did the "Curley Shuffle" before he advanced to the Podium.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And Brett, he would’ve died as well if it had been a BioChem attack.

I come back to what I initially said, she either is the most irresponsible person possible, or she knew it was only vinegar.

[Life of Brian]

That he has a screw or two loose seems like a distraction. Were it staged, they certainly wouldn't pick someone in a suit with a Harvard MBA.

In my view this is about her, and how her response simply didn't line up in any way at all with someone who actually had just been sprayed by a nutcase and genuinely had no idea with what.

And "financial trouble" cuts both ways.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you look at the Smollett fraud, that's how that sort of thing actually goes down: They were willing to do it because they didn't anticipate being caught. Once they were caught, they spilled the beans.

This guy did it under circumstances that guaranteed his being caught. You don't hire somebody to do something that they're guaranteed to be caught doing, because even if they're stupid enough to do it, they WILL blab to cut a deal.

This guy simply didn't like her, and genuinely was that stupid. I think it's irrational to believe it was faked.

The fact that I don't like her politics, and think she might even be guilty of financial corruption herself, doesn't enter into this. It isn't plausibly a hoax.

[Life of Brian]

Not quite tracking why it's irrational to think an irrational person in financial trouble may have acted irrationally. But we'll see how it plays out.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It doesn’t have to be a hoax for her to have known it was going to happen.
One possibility is that one of her staffers came across the perp ranting in a bar or on some social media about how he was going to do this. Yes, there are people that stupid.

Another possibility is that one of her people, knowing that the perp hated her, encouraged him to do this, sort of like what the FBI did to get the reported attempt to kidnap or kill the Michigan governor.

You take someone who said unbalanced is this, it’s not hard for a cute girl to talk him into most anything, and she has AWFULs supporting her.

[Zarniwoop]

One possibility is that Grampa Ed flew to MSP, knowing that there would be a town hall, and bought the whacko a few drinks at a bar while extolling that it was said whacko's PATRIOTIC DUTY!!1! to attack Omar. Yes, there are people that stupid.

It's easy to pull ridonkulous scenarios right out of one's posterior orifice.

[bernard11]

Someone has to make sense here.

Thanks, Brett, for taking the job on.

[loki13]

You know, Brett, it's truly heartening to me that you're still with planet reality.

That's more than I can say about some of the commenters here.

[Moderation4ever]

Would she be more believable if she had taped a piece of medical gauze on her ear for a week?

[Mr. Bumble]

I suppose you would have been happier if instead of gauze Trump wound up in a body bag like Corey Comperatore.

[Martinned]

Yes, of course. What's the point of the 2nd Amendment if not that?

Or, to quote a recent NRA tweet:

The American Revolution began with taxes and representation, but it was ultimately a fight for freedom.

As British Authorities moved to disarm the populace, Americans realized a hard truth: disarmed people are incapable of defending liberty.

(For the record, I in no way endorse this description of history. The point of quoting this tweet is the political philosophy of it.)

[Michael P]

Is your theory that George III or Jeffrey Amherst had ceded power to his political opponent after a crooked election and was about to be popularly elected? Or that, contrary to all evidence, Donald Trump wants to disarm Americans?

[Martinned]

Trump doesn't want to disarm Americans, but apparently does believe that only criminals have a reason to walk around with a gun, and that it is OK for ICE to shoot people because they have a gun.

(I can't make sense of the first sentence in your comment. It's pure gibberish.)

[Michael P]

So your comment was phenomenally stupid instead of offering any real analogy between Trump and the causes of the American Resolution. Unsurprising.

Remember: The assassination attempts against Trump were when he was a candidate, not the President.

[Martinned]

What part of "I'm not quoting this tweet because of the history of it" do you not understand? I was not offering an analogy between the American Resolution and anything.

[Michael P]

Do you remember which moron on the Internet asked "What's the point of the 2nd Amendment if not that?" just before quoting that?

[Martinned]

I apologise for quoting the whole tweet, including context, to make my point about the NRA arguing that the 2nd amendment is for "defending liberty". I can see how that might have confused a single-digit IQ internet troll like you.

[Michael P]

I explained why your first comment was phenomenally stupid, you don't have to repeat the proof.

[Kazinski]

Trump's pro gun sympathies aren't organic, but he sees gun owners as a natural constituency that the democrats have driven into his camp, so he wants to keep it that way.

But anyone who spent most of his life in a profoundly anti-gun culture like NY, and also spent most of his adult life with armed security that had no problem getting permits, and well placed faith that most others would be refused is going to have trouble understanding the real wants and needs of the people and their views about what their rights are.

He isn't anywhere near perfect he is just substantially better than 98% of democrats on the issue, and only because he wants our continued support, and he knows if he betrays us he will definitely lose that support.

[Martinned]

Trump's [] sympathies aren't organic

FIFY

[Martinned]

if he betrays us he will definitely lose that support

Given how much time you spent in recent weeks defending him while the US Regime was doing the exact thing you now say you would never tolerate, I'm sceptical of the claim that the Regime could do anything to lose your support.

[Kazinski]

It doesn't surprise me that you are confused about the responsibilities that are attendant to going armed.

When you go armed you have a heightened responsibility to obey the law. There are federal and state laws that add draconian penalties for committing a crime while armed. There are a long list of crimes that you may get a suspended sentence or charges dismissed for, but get 5 years or more in jail for if you are armed, legally or not.

Being armed legally instantly becomes illegal when you decide to commit another crime. Even "just" spitting on an officer and breaking a taillight for instance.

[bernard11]

When you go armed you have a heightened responsibility to obey the law.

Does that also go for ICE?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it's actually kind of obnoxious that Trump, without a pro 2nd amendment bone in his body, is operationally more pro-gun than 90% of Republican office holders, just because he doesn't have any principles that get in the way of doing what his voters want, while a lot of Republican office holders do have such principles, they just lie to the voters about them.

That said, he is now a lame duck, and after this fall won't even have to worry about blowback in the form of losing Congress, so he may just stop caring about what people like me think.

[Martinned]

Trump, without a pro 2nd amendment bone in his body, is operationally more pro-gun than 90% of Republican office holders

Is he, though? I mean, again, this is the guy who's backing ICE after they took away a protestor's gun and then summarily executed him. It's difficult to imagine anything a Republican office holder could do that would be less "pro 2nd amendment".

[Brett Bellmore]

Look at, for instance, the fact that the USPS will now carry firearms. That could have happened under previous Republican administrations, nothing stood in the way.

But it didn't happen.

There's been a legal process for decades now to allow felons to get their federal gun rights restored if they can provide evidence that they're not a danger. Congress, including Republican Congresses, has routinely prohibited the BATF from spending any money to actually implement that.

Trump directed the AG do to it in their place. Any previous Republican President could have done that, but didn't.

Under Trump, the DOJ has stopped defending the constitutionality of most gun control laws, taking the opposite side instead. Any previous Republican President could have done that, but didn't.

[jb]

Brett--presumably this is mostly just "Stephen Miller likes guns" rather than Trump caring one way or the other. It's unlikely that Trump is actually pandering ahead of the midterms, so it's probably a bit more durable than you think.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I blame the rioters and their damn whistles for creating the situation that led to the accidental shooting of that criminal felon, who purported to be a nurse.

[Moderation4ever]

I have said that political violence is unacceptable and no one should be afraid to speak because they might be attacked. Those conspiracy theorist who suggest the Butler, PA attack was planned to make candidate Trump look good are full of BS. Likewise the conspiracy theorist who suggest the attack on Ilhan Omar was faked are just as full of BS. The continued divisive and vitriolic rhetoric from all sides is unacceptable. Senator John McCain was never more right and courageous than when he said of his opponent ""decent family man and citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues".

[Frank Drackman]

With that Turban? You could make enough Garrotes to have a "Veto Proof Majority" with that thing.
I mean Tourniquets.
Let me shoot you in the Ear with a 5.56, see how you like it.
Didn't you see "Fight Club"???(Every "Real" Man has seen Fight Club, the best can pull a Quote for any situation, I'll demonstrate:
"Dr. Ed had "Bitch Tits")
Where does Ed Norton punch Brad Pitt for the first time??
On the Ear.
(" Motherfucker! You hit me in the ear! Ow, Christ... why the ear, man?")
Lot of Nerve Endings there

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

It was a licensed medical doctor that did that.

Someone with a MD license to lose if he got caught fabricating a nonexistent injury, and a reputation to lose, even if he didn’t lose his license.

[David Nieporent]

You have very strange notions, even within your delusions.

[David Nieporent]

Which is it is that you're a lunatic who takes one belief about the facts — generally a 100% incorrect one at that — and spins out elaborate, lurid fantasies of a schizophrenic based on that one belief.

To be clear, she did not endanger anyone. She did not order that the doors be locked and anyone be prevented from leaving. This is all in your head.

[John F. Carr]

She grew up in a place where children didn't get 20 minutes a day to play in padded playgrounds with all the fun equipment removed. Trump would use a vulgar word to describe her homeland, full of danger and anarchy.

[Bob from Ohio]

"her homeland, full of danger and anarchy"

Caused in large part by the regime her father was a senior officer in.

"My dad was a bad man so I'm a refugee!" Whee!

[Dr. Ed 2]

The real question is do we or do we not still believe in the concept of rule of law in this country?

We had the caravans of illegal aliens who knew that we were not the type of people who would simply machine gun them all, and that if they overwhelmed the border guards, they get into the country with impunity. So they came storming in, essentially giving us the middle finger.

Their presence in this country is a violation of federal law, it continues to be if the word “illegal” is to continue to mean what it always has.

So now they cry, hard hardship that was sending them back when they never should’ve been here in the first place. That’s like the auto thief claiming hardship when we take his stolen car away from him or the rapist claiming hardship to both himself and his family when we throw him in jail for his crime.

And as to the AWFULs — the Affluent White Female Urban Leftists — they might want to take a few minutes to think about their own personal self interests. Forget short skirts, the people they want to see imported in this country have a cultural belief that any woman who isn’t escorted by a man deserves to be raped, and domestic violence is a God-given male prerogative.

American women enjoy rights and freedoms that women nowhere else in the world have. Forget letting them drive automobiles, we allow them to fly 747s and F-15s. Do they really want to lose all of this and instead live the cloistered life of a woman in Central America or the Arab world?

And one other thing about the AWFULs — an hour after male semen is deposited in a woman’s body, various male hormones can be detected in her blood. How dare we suggest that biology is destiny, and the problem these women have is a lack of a husband depositing the semen….

[SRG2]

The real question is do we or do we not still believe in the concept of rule of law in this country?

Given the frequency with which the Regime flouts the law and violates judicial rulings - not to mention Trump's own criminality - the answer is, "our belief is highly selective".

[David Nieporent]

The real question is do we or do we not still believe in the concept of rule of law in this country?

If we did, that stopped when a convicted felon was elected president.

Forget short skirts, the people they want to see imported in this country have a cultural belief that any woman who isn’t escorted by a man deserves to be raped, and domestic violence is a God-given male prerogative.

Ed, you tried to look at Central America but accidentally looked in a mirror instead. These are your beliefs, not theirs.

Do they really want to lose all of this and instead live the cloistered life of a woman in Central America or the Arab world?

Seriously, have you ever even met a Hispanic person? What on earth are you talking about?

And one other thing about the AWFULs — an hour after male semen is deposited in a woman’s body, various male hormones can be detected in her blood. How dare we suggest that biology is destiny, and the problem these women have is a lack of a husband depositing the semen….

I know this is misogynist because… look at the source. But I don't know what this actually means.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If we did, that stopped when a convicted felon was elected president."

Huh? There's no law against electing a convicted felon as president. And in any event, the court found that his felonies were so innocuous that he didn't merit any punishment.

Trump as given due process and paid his debt to society. You guys should leave him alone.

[bernard11]

And in any event, the court found that his felonies were so innocuous that he didn't merit any punishment.

Care to give us a rundown of which courts found what, because that's not the way I remember it. Start with the Mar-a-Lago case.

[Bob from Ohio]

"On January 10, 2025, Donald Trump was sentenced in New York to an "unconditional discharge" for his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, avoiding jail time, fines, or probation
. Judge Juan Merchan imposed this sentence, which keeps the conviction on his record but imposes no further penalties, acknowledging the unique legal circumstances" Google AI

He was never "convicted" of anything else.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Start with the Mar-a-Lago case."

Why? Trump wasn't convicted of anything in the Mar-a-Lago case. I was responding to the comment referring to him as a convicted felon.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Activists are calling for a national strike to protest ongoing immigration enforcement presence and President Donald Trump’s handling of mass deportations. The strike, which is set to go down this Friday (Jan. 30), follows a general strike organized in Minnesota just last week."
Are the usual suspects honoring this by boycotting the Open Thread?

[Frank Drackman]

I heard Nurse Pretti hasn't shown up for work all week.

[Frank Drackman]

I did say "Good morning Losers" and so far it's only been you, me, Kaz, and Dr. Ed.

[hobie]

I ain't supporting anything. If I need something that day, I'm gonna buy it. What I cannot tell is whether you support the boycott or not. I ask because you hayseeds regularly boycott everything under the sun.

[LexAquilia]

My dollars are the best tool I have to tell a company I do or do not like them.

General strikes and boycotts are commie bullshit. You aren't telling a company you don't like them, you're intentionally creating cruelty for people to make a point to politicians.

But then again, Democrats do that shit all the time. Cruelty is their point.

[Bwaaah]

I agree with all that, except that "cruelty is their point." Kindness is their point. Cruelty is their effect. And as intellectual idealogues, effect means little and intent means everything. (It looks good to them, especially on TV.)

"Burn it down, for a better tomorrow."

[David Nieporent]

Cruelty is their point.

This is just Voltage! being Voltage!. He isn't smart enough to come up with any ideas on his own, so he just takes whatever has been said about his side and repeats it back as "I know you are but what am I?"

[LexAquilia]

Explain to me the motivation behind the Washington Monument Syndrome?

Can you pls? Can you also address my point about how the difference between a typical 'right-wing' boycott and a 'left-wing' one?

Am I wrong?

[Swede425]

Imagine all that coffee not getting made and all those public elementary school kids not getting indoctrinated.
The horror.
The horror.

[Moderation4ever]

I read that Republican in Congress want to change voting laws including allow rank choice voting. Because being on of the two major parties they don't want to lose their monopoly on power.

[bloocow2]

Even if the motivation for it is dodgy, I hope it happens! Ranked choice is so much better overall than first-past-the-post voting.

[Mr. Bumble]

We don't need no stinkin' Chinese menu voting.

[Frank Drackman]

Ranked Choice is what kept Miami out of the ACC Title game despite being the best team in the Conference.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't like it because I think it rests on a mistaken conception of the typical voter's preferences: Your average voter probably doesn't HAVE ordered preferences beyond the 1st place. Or sometimes last place...

Also, anything that adds complexity to counting votes increases suspicions about the honesty of the tally.

I think it would be better to just include the option of voting "none of the above", and mandate that the election be held again with all the candidates originally on the ballot barred from running if it wins.

[Frank Drackman]

Remember in the 1968 Erection Cam-pain most Wallace Voter's 2d choice wasn't Nixon, but LBJ.
Not that surprising, Wallace was a DemoKKKrat and supported the War, and if there's anything LBJ was for, it was the War.
And anyway, RFK was dead.
To bad LBJ didn't run, letting the Kamala Harris of 1968, Humbert Humphrey take the "L" (amazingly, I think Humphrey's voice was even more annoying than Kamala's)

Frank

[Martinned]

Well, most voters don't have ordered preferences beyond the 1st place in a system that discourages both them and politicians from thinking about more than two options. The existence of ordered preferences is endogenous...

[Brett Bellmore]

Considering that the marginal value of voting is approximately zero, I really doubt your average voter is going to put in the effort.

I am, of course, not your average voter, and Ranked Choice would have me voting Libertarian again.

[Sarcastr0]

People don’t operate on marginal value that much.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, obviously, since people actually vote.

But people typically don't put much work into looking at the candidates, either. And ranked choice voting requires them to put that work in, to work.

Better just to have actual runoff elections if nobody gets a majority, that prompt people to take another look at the new lineup.

[David Nieporent]

Better just to have actual runoff elections if nobody gets a majority, that prompt people to take another look at the new lineup.

That is not what delayed runoff elections do.

[Martinned]

I think a different voting system would result in different candidates (and parties) standing for election, and in the media reporting on those candidates. That would land with voters for the same reasons it does now: entertainment, the TV remote is broken, etc.

[bloocow2]

I think most people, when given an actual choice between more than two things, will take to the notion of preferences.

Ranked choice means that their votes will matter more overall. And candidates will spend more time courting *everyone*, because enough people putting you as their second preference might end up mattering a lot! It's a pretty good system!

(I'm also in favour of compulsory voting, but I don't want to cause too much drama today)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Duty to Vote by Julia Maskivker was interesting.

I think we have a civic duty to vote. This is not the same thing as a law requiring it. We have various moral duties that are not enforced by law. Still, I'm intrigued by the general idea.

Ranked choice voting also seems sound. I particularly don't like that certain House primary races, which often are in effect the determining race, are decided by smallish pluralities. In a race that already has a very small turnout.

A notable NYC House race appears to be likely to be a crowded field. The result might be a winner with less than 30% of the vote. Ranked choice voting, as used in NYC city primary elections, would be a suitable approach.

[jb]

This is a weird take from you in particular. I guess you probably just don't consider yourself "average".

But think back to when you supported the Libertarian party. Were you generally indifferent to whether the Republican or Democratic candidate were to be elected if the Libertarian candidate were not?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I just considered it important enough that ONE of them get replaced by the LP, that I was willing to accept that I might not be very marginally reducing the odds of the one I disliked less losing to the one I disliked more.

Once the chance of the LP actually pulling that off vanished, my basis for that acceptance vanished, too.

[Moderation4ever]

But Brett the voter has the option to only vote for a single candidate if that is their choice. A record number of voters (45%) are now identifying as independents and they are losing their option to vote for the person they wish to vote. No voting system is perfect and so state and local governments should have the option to use the method that best serves their people.

[bernard11]

I don't like it because I think it rests on a mistaken conception of the typical voter's preferences: Your average voter probably doesn't HAVE ordered preferences beyond the 1st place. Or sometimes last place...

Well, many probably don't, but they don't have to list more than one candidate. But ranked choice does give third-party voters the chance to vote their preference without feeling like it's a waste. It also, I think, gives a better picture of the electorate.

I agree, too, with Martinned, below, that we don't really know the effects, because our system is structured around FPTP, and that affects our entire political system - the nature of campaigns, the fact that we only have two parties that matter, etc.

You don't vote Libertarian any more, even though you would like to, presumably because you think it futile. How many others refrain for the same reason? Ranked choice would bring these people out of the woodwork, and maybe surprise us all. Even if the Libertarians didn't win a seat, that might lead to some changes, as politicians, and maybe voters, paid more attention.

As to the suspicion of fraud business, I don't think it's a major issue, but one way to address it is for politicians to stop making BS accusations of fraud, and for their supporters and fellow party members not to parrot them.

[SRG2]

Republicans are opposed to ranked choice voting because on one occasion their candidate lost because of it, which is enough in their moronic eyes to damn it forever.

[Life of Brian]

That was a weird comment to drop in the middle of a thread that literally started: "I read that Republican in Congress want to change voting laws including allow rank choice voting."

[SRG2]

Are you aware that many Republicans are not in Congress?

FWIW I found that Republican posters on VC and the main Reason pages were almost universally opposed to RCV,

[Life of Brian]

Oh, if you're just talking at the voter level, I don't know that you're going to find any significant bloc in the major parties in favor of RCV (if they even know what it is). In my experience it's almost exclusively pushed by third parties, for obvious reasons.

[Magister]

You could look at https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/endorsers/?endorsers=federal-officials which seems to have a good number of Democrats, from Joe Manchin to Elizabeth Warren. Republicans endorsing seem to mostly be the former kind (office holders or members of the Republican party).

One argument for it is that it could promote more positive campaigning; if there are only 2 viable choices, attacking the other party is as good as promoting your own. Negative campaigning is pretty much the Republican brand, so of course they would hate it.

[Life of Brian]

SRG2 clarified he was talking about non-politicians (that was the "at the voter level" bit in my post), so I don't quite understand how posting a list of endorsing politicians is relevant.

[Magister]

It's kind of weird to respond like that after saying " In my experience [ranked choice voting]'s almost exclusively pushed by third parties, for obvious reasons." If a significant number of politicians in a major party are pushing this, it's not because they think it is putting off, or will put off, their voters.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Negative campaigning is pretty much the Republican brand, so of course they would hate it."

Funny about how negative campaigning is the brand of the party generally accused of being Nazis, isn't it. Calling people Nazis isn't negative campaigning?

[Magister]

The party who called their opponents groomers and worse? At least there's a basis for calling the current Republicans Nazis; they talk and act like Nazis. Both sides raise significant money from big donors, including the side that wants campaign finance reform and the side that wants more dark money in politics.

[Magister]

Like Life of Brian, I read the initial comment as suggesting that Republicans want to allow ranked choice voting, but lower down it is clarified that they want to forbid allowing it, as they have done in places below the federal level.

[SykesFive]

Please note the bill introduced by Republicans would BAN ranked choice voting.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Ranked choice is so much better overall than first-past-the-post voting."

The 2 richest, most powerful nations of the last 250 years have had first-past-the-post voting.

Second rate, loser countries have rank choice voting.

[SRG2]

Post hoc fallacy, idiot.

[Bob from Ohio]

Not at all. The election method led to the two party system, which created stable government, no bunch of micro parties like in other systems.

Stable governments create prosperity and power.

[David Nieporent]

Even if the motivation for it is dodgy, I hope it happens! Ranked choice is so much better overall than first-past-the-post voting.

You misunderstood. The GOP want to abolish rank choice voting.

[Magister]

Where did you read this? Republicans have been steadily opposed to ranked choice voting, and have banned it in some states that they control.

[SykesFive]

I think the commenter actually meant Republicans want to ban RCV (by changing the laws that allow it).

[jb]

Indeed.

The bill would also ban ranked choice voting in federal elections. The system, in which voters rank their top choices of candidates rather than voting for a single person, is used in some statewide elections in Maine and in Alaska and a smattering of local elections across the country.

[Kazinski]

I might be ok with ranked choice voting if the voter isn't required to rank his choices if he doesn't want to.

It seems like compelled speech to me if the voter is required to rank more than his preferred candidate for his vote to count.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in EV news:
"Tesla is ending production of the Model S sedan and Model X SUV, CEO Elon Musk announced Wednesday during the company’s quarterly earnings call.

The company will make the final versions of both electric vehicles next quarter, he said, adding that his company will offer support for existing Model S and Model X owners “for as long as people have the vehicles.”

“It’s time to basically bring the Model S and X programs to an end with an honorable discharge, because we’re really moving into a future that is based on autonomy,” he said. “So if you’re interested in buying a Model S and X, now would be the time to order it.”

The Model S and Model X are both built at the company’s Fremont, California factory. Once production ends, Tesla will build Optimus robots in the same factory space, according to Musk. Production of Tesla’s Cybertruck, which is made at the company’s factory outside of Austin, will continue."
https://techcrunch.com/2026/01/28/tesla-is-killing-off-the-model-s-and-model-x/

[Brett Bellmore]

So they'll continue selling the model 3, model Y, and Cybertruck.

Well, the Cybertruck is Musk's vanity project, which explains why it's being retained, but 3 and Y accounted for 97% of Tesla sales last year, so I wouldn't read much into this. S and X just weren't selling.

[Life of Brian]

Well, the Cybertruck is Musk's vanity project, which explains why it's being retained

I've always thought it looked like the result of a drunken bet.

[Malika la Maize]

Tesla's profit dropped 46% year over year, the company revealed in its earnings update Wednesday evening.

That was not exactly a surprise — in fact, it was better than most analysts had expected. Tesla had already reported sales for the quarter, which showed the continuation of a slump that stretched through much of the year. More revenue from other parts of the company, like a growing energy storage business, haven't made up for the fact that Tesla's not selling as many cars as it used to.

Tesla, once the undisputed global leader in electric vehicle sales, has lost that crown as its brand reputation has soured and competition — particularly from China — has grown more intense.

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/28/nx-s1-5684154/tesla-earnings-2025

[Brett Bellmore]

Making a profit selling electric cars in the US is actually pretty impressive, given how bad the market for them turned out to be once the subsidies and mandates dried up.

The last few years Tesla has been a substantial majority of EV sales in the US. Last year it dropped to under 50%, but I suspect that was in large part due to the other manufacturers who are getting out of the market selling off their stock at a loss.

It will be telling to see what their EV market share ends up at this year, in the new, unsubsidized market.

[Malika la Maize]

You should check out the article I linked too, it goes pretty broadly into Tesla’s challenges:

Musk’s damage to the brand
The brand being associated with robotaxis and self driving, which are unpopular
Competitors getting better
The Green New Deal subsidies drying up
Etc.,

[Brett Bellmore]

The subsidies drying up will damage the entire EV market, or rather, stop artificially boosting it, so shouldn't have an impact on Telsa's market share in that market, though of course it will hurt Telsa's share of the entire passenger car market.

It is somewhat troublesome for Musk that most of his market consists of 'liberals', and liberals, unlike conservatives, can't separate politics and commerce, will make buying decisions based on whether the company's owner doesn't share their politics, rather than product quality and price.

My view is that, if the self driving actually works out, it will not be a problem anymore. A lot of seniors around who would love the independence of having their own "chauffer" after driving becomes problematic.

But, really, he's going all in on autonomous robotics, the cars are envisioned to just be car shaped robots.

[Sarcastr0]

Tesla cannot fail, only be brought down by the extra partisan liberals in Brett’s head.

No, he is not aware of the irony.

[Brett Bellmore]

Malika's "damage to the brand" is literally that liberals don't like Musk's politics. So go yell at him, instead.

[Malika la Maize]

The party of personal responsibility!

Musk went out of his way to repeatedly alienate a huge share of potential customers.

[Sarcastr0]

And, like, behavior economics are a thing that exists; it's a factor in people's buying choices up and down the political spectrum.

The idea that the left especially cares only about politics in their consumption is
1) a misunderstanding of how the psychology of buying works, and
2) made up with respect to liberals being extra partisan.

Last survey I heard, conservatives were marginally more likely to 'cancel' a brand than liberals. I can dig up that study if people want.

[Malika la Maize]

There was an editor Hidden Brain that talked about how if you were a Packers fan and then happened to read about a public figure saying they were a Packers fan your favorability of them would shoot up. The idea that Musk didn’t get that what he was doing was going to alienate those whose values he was maligning is incredible.

[Jmaie]

I don’t know what polling you’re referring to, but I personally know probably two dozen people who have evinced an opinion on this matter. This group is a mostly even mix of conservative and liberal. The liberal side cares deeply about a company’s politics, as example neither my wife or daughter have stepped inside a target in quite a while, due to their DEI stance. Same goes for Amazon. The conservative folks have not so much stated an opinion, it’s mostly just eye rolling.

Yes, this is anecdotal. Dismiss it to your heart’s content.

[bernard11]

Just more of Brett's, "Liberals are evil and stupid, conservatives are virtuous and sensible" tic. Plainly ridiculous.

If I don't buy a Tesla because I prefer not to put any money (a very small amount, I understand) in Musk's pocket, or to be seen driving one because some might infer that I am a Musk fan, that's perfectly rational decision.

Economics, certainly consumer behavior, is about preferences, not money. Money is simply a constraint on your preferences. It's quite reasonable to spend money to satisfy our preferences, including by buying a more expensive car to avoid buying a Tesla. Is it foolish to buy car A at a higher price than B because you like its looks better? To buy steak instead of chicken because you like the taste?

No. It's not (as long as you can afford it in an opportunity cost sense.)

[Joe_dallas]

Brett Bellmore 29 minutes ago
"The subsidies drying up will damage the entire EV market, or rather, stop artificially boosting it"

"Artificially boosting it" is a correct assessment.

The subsidies artificially shift the demand curve upward, whereby the seller is able to sell the EV at significantly higher price than where the natural supply and demand curve cross. The price paid by the buyer, net of the gross sales price less the tax subsidy, is close to the price where the supply and demand curve naturally cross (before the subsidy). The net effect is most, but not all , of the subsidy benefit goes to the seller in the form of higher sales price.

[hobie]

I'd like to get a Chinese EV - they have really cool features - but daddy is protecting Elon's domestic market. So who knows when I'll see a Chinese EV.

[Brett Bellmore]

You shouldn't anticipate getting a Chinese EV any time soon, given the national security issues. At least Chinese routers can't physically assault people.

[Malika la Maize]

You don’t think it might have been Musk having trouble with separating commerce and politics?

“unlike conservatives”

You’re kidding right? The same people that hyperventilated when Cracker Barrel tried to add fake sausage or change their sign? Who swore of the football over the kneeling thing? Who ran the Dixie Chicks off the country charts back in the day? I mean, conservatives even wanted to rename French fries over politics for Jeebus’ sake. That’s some amazing myopia.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "... liberals, unlike conservatives, can't separate politics and commerce ..."

Is my memory playing tricks on me, or did the Right launch a furious holy jihad against Bud Lite because they had one brief internet ad targeted at tiny niche audience?

[David Nieporent]

liberals, unlike conservatives, can't separate politics and commerce,

I hear liberals will sometimes have a tantrum and stop drinking an entire brand of beer because of a single tiktok video from someone they didn't like endorsing it.

[SRG2]

I wonder what the market in the US would be like if Chinese EVs were not tariffed - and why you neglected to mention this.

[Life of Brian]

What Chinese cars of any kind were sold here prior to the tariffs?

[SRG2]

TTBOMK there were always tariffs, but they increased markedly under Trump. Presumably you accept the implied point that even without incentives, etc. but with free trade, the market for EVs would not dry up, because of Chinese imports.

[Life of Brian]

My probably too-subtle point was that there may well be reasons other than tariffs that there's never been a market for Chinese cars here. You don't have to be particularly old at all to remember the Yugo debacle.

[SRG2]

You may well be right about Chinese cars in prior generations - though it's hard to tell. But the current generation of Chinese EVs is a very different case.

[Brett Bellmore]

The current generation of Chinese EVs, especially with drive by wire, have to be evaluated in light of the Chinese tendency to include back doors and undocumented wireless connectivity in everything they ship; Drones, routers, solar power setups, even lightbulbs.

Personally, I don't want to star in a remake of Maximum Overdrive if China decides to invade Tawain and wants a distraction.

[Life of Brian]

I'm not all that familiar with Chinese EV brands, but from a quick sweep they appear to have hit the market fairly recently --- i.e., the past several years, which in the automotive is a blink of an eye in terms of judging actual long-term quality and reliability. And there's no telling whether the current models comply with the not-minor US regulatory regime, and if not what it would cost to make them do so.

At a high level, I'm about as skeptical of this as I am of any promise of a free lunch.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Looking at the ongoing saga of the MBTA‘s Chinese made red and orange line cars makes me sort of reluctant to buy a Chinese automobile.

You also wonder if the Chinese automobiles would meet American safety standards. That’s one of the things that did in the old version of the VW bug, emissions being the other.

The old version of the VW bug had the gas tank in the front of the vehicle, as the engine was in the back. The most common of collision is a vehicle running into something, a front and collision. In the VW this sprayed gasoline all over the passengers, which sort of diminished survivalibility…

[Life of Brian]

My grandfather briefly owned a Karmann Ghia. Beautiful car, but a death trap on wheels.

[Mr. Bumble]

"You also wonder if the Chinese automobiles would meet American safety standards."
They won't be allowed in unless they do. Some Chinese made vehicles are already here under the Buick and Volvo brands.

[Life of Brian]

Some Chinese made vehicles are already here under the Buick and Volvo brands.

Yeah, I wasn't including cars like that in this discussion. Those are just manufactured in China to another country's specifications.

[jb]

Trump put tariffs on Chinese EVs in his first term (and Biden extended them), so they've effectively existed for as long as the Chinese EV brands have been making a serious attempt at selling consumer EVs internationally.

[Life of Brian]

From what I see, the pre-2024 tariff rate was 25%, which is of course applied to the wholesale import value. So you're talking maybe a 15-20% delta in my actual cost.

EVs have classically been toys for the rich -- that's certainly how Tesla reached critical mass. If these are objectively desirable vehicles, there should be a good number of them already here despite an additional tip-your-server margin. Where are they?

[jb]

That's the whole point of the Chinese EVs, though--they operate in a different market segment because they're much cheaper than the competition. They're not trying to compete with Teslas, they're trying to compete with cheap IC cars. So a few thousand dollars makes a big difference in how attractive they are.

[Life of Brian]

Apparently "much cheaper" is within the 15-20% band, as I worked out above, or they would have been here regardless.

Unless you're saying they're much cheaper because they're much shittier, which just takes me back to my opening comment about Yugos.

[jb]

They're not like Yugos, but they are like a Toyota Corolla or a Skoda Fabia, whereas a Tesla is like a Cadillac CT4/5 or a BMW 3/5 series. People who can afford Teslas aren't looking at BYDs.

If Corollas were suddenly 20% more expensive, it would probably be pretty hard for them to compete with entry-level models from other brands.

BYD just passed Tesla in global market share. The fact they have a product that people want to buy at the price they normally sell shouldn't be that controversial of a point.

[Life of Brian]

BYD just passed Tesla in global market share.

Aggregate statistics are the devil's playground. Let me know if anything dramatically different happened in 2025, but Wikipedia tells me the top 4 countries for BYD sales in 2024 were China [duh] at ~3.5M, Brazil at ~75k, Mexico at ~40k, and Thailand at ~25k -- all known bastions of safety regulations.

Which I will once again gently try to bring into the discussion: Just saying a BYD is in the class of a Corolla doesn't say how it stacks up long-term against a Corolla, in a crash test against a Corolla, or much of anything particularly relevant to the factors real-world US buyers are going to consider beyond just price.

[jb]

BYD is also outselling Tesla in Europe.

[Life of Brian]

More context-free statistics. This link in your article says, for that particular month, Tesla had 1.2% of the market and BYD 1.3%. So out of 800k cars sold across all of Europe (which countries?) in August 2025, BYD sold about 10.4k to Tesla's 9.6k. That really doesn't seem like a compelling example of the supposed pent-up demand you're arguing.

It also appears (from a quick spot check -- happy to see better data) that a BYD sells in Europe for about double the price it does in China, so hopefully you're not just looking at domestic pricing as you think about where they might fall in the US market sans tariffs.

Nothing on safety? Hopefully that matters at least a little.

[Bunny495]

There is a lot to unwrap here. But first a disclaimer that I am a Tesla Model Y owner and the only regret is the resale value seem really bad due to better technology in EVs.

As has been mentioned as an older and not quite as nimble as I use to be driver FSD has been a God send; it drives way better than I do. In fact it drives better than almost anyone with shockingly good accidents per mile driven statistics. I am convinced Tesla is light years ahead of anything else.

This raises the issue of FSD v the stuff the chinks are trying to push. While the lidar BYD/other use has real advantages the implementation is questionable. One of the earlier gripes about FSD in Teslas was it obeyed the laws. It stopped at stop signs, it did not follow the standard stop light procedure that red means stop, green means go, and yellow means go faster; instead it would stop at a yellow light. It also went 70MPH on interstate while most of the traffic viewed that as a road block to be passed as quickly as possible. It always let cars cut in front or merge into a lane of traffic. It stopped for jwaylers and those crazy electric scooters that seem to think they have the ultimate right-of-way. As FSD evolved it has the option of modes selection. Sloth never exceeded the speed limit, Chill was 35 in a 30 zone, Standard was maybe 39 in a 30 zone, Hurry was move with the traffic in a 30 zone maybe up to 55, Mad Max was just what it sounded like.

While there is something of a stereotype of Chinese drivers being ultra cautions the BYD lidar literally can judge distance to the millimeter and will cut off cars even if that means missing by inches, it will aggressively barge into moving traffic without hesitation. But to comply with what the current Chinese government wants it will never exceed the speed limit. So basically it is that jerk driver that will cut you off and then force you to tailgate and never get out of the way. In essence the worst of both worlds.

As an aside my Model Y will go from 0-60 in 2.8 seconds and do 155MPH; at least that what legit sources claim though I have never come close to either. There are plenty of Youtube videos with Teslas blowing Mustangs and Vettes out of the water on a 1/4 mile drag strip. But the biggest shock for me was how big the thing was and how much room there was inside. A quick look at my posting history will confirm I would never be mistaken for a libtard. I bought while channeling my inner Patton when he described the 761 as "they can shoot". The damn thing works. It is way cheaper to operate (especially if you have a close by 120v outlet to charge it overnight while sleeping) and when I am using FSD I no longer curse and shake my fist at the clowns that cut me off in heavy traffic.

As for Musk I have given up trying to second guess him. The only thing I am sure about it the Patton assessment of the 761, "they can shoot".

[Malika la Maize]

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California filed a formal civil rights complaint on Thursday against Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, charging that he had illegally discriminated against Armenian Americans in Southern California with a recent video in which he appeared to tie the community to health care fraud.

In a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Newsom charged that Dr. Oz, a former TV talk show host, “spewed baseless and racially charged allegations” as he stood outside a popular bakery in the Van Nuys neighborhood of Los Angeles and charged that about $3.5 billion worth of fraud had taken place in hospice and home care in the area.
In the video, which was posted on official government social media accounts on Tuesday, the camera pans to nearby businesses with signs in Armenian script advertising credit repair and flatbread. Dr. Oz, whose own parents emigrated to the United States from Turkey, asserts that the fraud being committed “is run, quite a bit of it, by the Russian Armenian mafia.”

“You notice the lettering and language behind me is of that dialect,” he says in the video.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/29/us/newsom-oz-fraud-armenians.html

[Frank Drackman]

Good Morning fellow loser, running on CPT today?

[Bob from Ohio]

"formal civil rights complaint "

Oh, is Oz an employer or supervisor of Gov Hairspray? Or a co-worker?

Did not know that you can make a free range complaint.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The magistrate judge who empowered the Trump administration to seize Georgia election records and cart them away has opened the door to incalculable mischief. The Georgia attorney who failed to seek an immediate appeal of that order, and a stay from the District Court, was incompetent.

No judicial authority in the nation—including the Supreme Court—is properly empowered to put election materials into the hands of one election party without continuous supervision—let alone to give a losing party custody of the records to do with as they please in private, indefinitely.

The implications of that are staggering. I cannot understand why the error is not obvious to everyone.

Election records are not properly the power of any government official. They are held by the state conducting the election. But the state is meant to act on behalf of the jointly sovereign people, whose records they are. The state assures election fairness by keeping all its election materials securely stored, or when they are actively in use, in plain sight of the public and the parties to the election.

They are not the state's records, they are not any court's records, and of course they are not ever, for even a moment, intended to be in the unobserved custody of one of the parties to the election.

Why any court would suppose it had power to do such a thing is beyond me. I hope Georgia can get it together to demand by appeal immediate relief, return of all the records, and a complete accounting from every person who had access to them, to say what has been done. Whatever copies may have been made should be ordered destroyed. No argument based on this ultra vires access granted to Trump should be entertained in any court for more time than it takes to eject whatever lawyer brings it in.

This stinks. And it promises stinky consequences unless a court rebukes it immediately, and erects a barrier to assure none of that information can be used with an eye to affect any legal outcome. Anyone who supposes otherwise need only imagine what they would think if this were a privilege granted to their worst legal enemy.

[Frank Drackman]

The Rat smells his own Cheese first

[Kazinski]

More transparency is better, l hope you recall the Florida post mortem recount in 2000 where they allowed an accounting firm.access to all the Florida ballots, so an independent private organization could recount all the votes by the 4 different competing standards.

Here is the PBS report on that effort:
"Media Recount: Bush Won the 2000 Election
Nation Apr 3, 2001 9:34 AM EST
In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

The study, conducted by the accounting firm of BDO Seidman, counted over 60,000 votes in Florida's 67 counties, tabulating separate vote totals in several standards categories.

While the USA Today report focused on what would have happened had the Florida Supreme Court-ordered recount not been halted by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Herald pointed to one scenario under which Gore could have scored a narrow victory -- a fresh recount in all counties using the most generous standards."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/media-jan-june01-recount_04-03

By your standards such transparency and accountability would never have need allowed, and although the 2000 Florida election is still.controversial, the access to election materials to double check official counts did resolve the issue for all but the most partisan conspiracy theorists.

[Brett Bellmore]

Their starting point for analyzing these things is the unshakable premise that there's nothing to find. And that Trump secretly agrees with them about that!

That leaves doing something underhanded as the only available explanation for anything election related he does.

I note that it took over 4 years to find out that Fulton county hadn't signed the tapes. OK, since there was a subsequent actual recount, that specific violation doesn't really matter, but it demonstrates that real election irregularities can go undetected for years, if nobody goes looking for them.

The confidence that there's nothing to be found is totally irrational.

The second issue is the use of voting machines that are known to be insecure. Halderman literally hacked a voting machine right in court to show how easy it was. And their response wasn't to stop using them, it was that they'd get around to replacing them when they wore out.

That's why they freak out the instant anybody gets a look at the software: They KNOW it's insecure, and don't want the public knowing it, too.

[jb]

"They" is doing a lot of work to obfuscate the situation here.

Who insisted on using voting machines even after Halderman's demonstration? Why, it was the Republicans over the strong objections of Democrats who were pushing for paper ballots:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/28/georgia-voting-machines-safe-1241033

[Joe_dallas]

2000 Florida election
Absolutely no fraud?
fwiw - very difficult to get hanging chads and dimpled chads when punching one ballot at a time. Very easy to get dimpled and hanging chads when punching multiple ballots at a time. There were quite a few dimpled chads without scratch marks from the stylis.

[jb]

Haha. See, Kaz? Even if you allow full transparency it does nothing to satisfy the kooks.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, it was reported at the time that it was absurdly easy to just take a stack of 20 or so ballots, push a stylus into a particular location, and convert no votes into Gore votes, or spoil votes for anybody else.

And, yeah, only the top ballot got a stylus mark, since the ones below were being pushed out by the chad from the ballot above them. And if you didn't push hard enough, the bottom ballots ended up with hanging chads.

[jb]

That may have been reported at the time, but now go back and read what Kaz posted. When they allowed dimpled chads to be counted it increased Bush's lead!. In other words, it directly contradicts the theory that there were a bunch of extra Gore votes that would have been created this way--if anything it implies there would have been fraudulent Bush votes.

[David Nieporent]

Who reported such an obviously ridiculous claim? Take a stack of 20 pieces of paper — ordinary paper, even though ballots are thicker than that — and try to push a hole through it with a stylus.

[LexAquilia]

Previously, only Democrats had custody.

Now the good guys do too.

[not guilty]

The search warrant authorizes seizure of evidence concerning violations of 52 U.S.C. §§ 20511 and 20701. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26513986-1-28-26-fulton-warrant/#document/p1 Specifically, it lists the things to be seized at Attachment B:

All records relating to violations of Title 52, United States Code, §§ 20701 and 20511 those violations occurring after October 12, 2020, [emphasis added] including:

a. All physical ballots from the 2020 General Election in Fulton County; including, but not limited to: absentee ballots to include envelopes; advanced voting ballots, provisional ballots; in-person election day ballots; emergency ballots; damaged or destroyed ballots; duplicated ballots; or any other ballot that was used to cast a vote;

b. All tabulator tapes for every voting machine used in Fulton County; including, but not limited to; zero tapes, opening tapes, closing tapes and any other tabulator tape printed from a voting machine utilized during the 2020 General Election in Fulton County;

c. All ballot images produced during the original ballot count beginning on November 3, 2020, the recount, and any other ballot images that were created from ballot scanning from the 2020 General Election in Fulton County;

d. All voter rolls from the 2020 General Election in Fulton County from absentee, early voting, in person, and any other voter roll that indicates voters: to whom an absentee ballot was issued, from whom an absentee ballot was received, or who participated in advanced voting or election day

As for 52 U.S.C. § 20511, that statute deals with knowing and willful intimidation, threats, or coercion, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, as to any person regarding the right to vote in an election for federal office, or with election fraud or attempts to defraud. As regards the 2020 election, such a prosecution there is in all likelihood barred by 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a).

I don't understand the purpose of a warrant to seize purported evidence of a time barred prosecution.

[LexAquilia]

>I don't understand the purpose of a warrant to seize purported evidence of a time barred prosecution.

Maybe it's going to be prosecuted under a different statute but that was the search scope? Surely the magistrate issuing the warrant would've seen what you see, right?

Just spit-balling.

[not guilty]

"Maybe it's going to be prosecuted under a different statute but that was the search scope? Surely the magistrate issuing the warrant would've seen what you see, right?"

The five-year statute of limitations at 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a) applies to all non-capital federal crimes except where Congress specifically specifies otherwise.

The statutes specified in the search warrant, 52 U.S.C. §§ 20511 and 20701, are plainly subject to § 3282(a).

[Brett Bellmore]

My understanding is that the actual prosecution, if it every happened, would revolve around a failure to comply with mandated election records retention, the timing of which would place the failure still within the statute of limitations.

[David Nieporent]

My understanding is that the actual prosecution, if it every happened, would revolve around a failure to comply with mandated election records retention, the timing of which would place the failure still within the statute of limitations.

NG and I discussed that possibility in yesterday's thread. The problem with that theory is that the documents the warrant permits the seizure of don't have anything at all to do with that. Whatever ballots are currently in Fulton County's possession tell us nothing about when other ballots were discarded.

[not guilty]

As I wrote yesterday, hypothetically, an officer of election who failed to keep the required records during the time between January of 2021 and September of 2022 could be timely prosecuted. I wonder, though, what would evince probable cause that evidence that the records were missing then would now located at The Office of the Clerk of Court.

I suppose that is not impossible, but I think it would be tricky. If the records were missing during that window of time, how likely is it that there is present evidence of that past absence?

A warrant to search premises must be supported by probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will presently be found on the premises to be searched.

[Life of Brian]

opened the door to incalculable mischief

Oh, come on. What mischief could possibly arise from simply verifying the results of the Most Secure Election Ever™?

[Brett Bellmore]

The claim is that this is a dry run for 2026, when the DOJ will start swooping into contested precincts on election night, preventing the vote from being tallied in key Democratic areas.

[LexAquilia]

"preventing the vote from being tallied" ... there's a presumption that shouldn't be made.

"preventing the vote from being fraudulent" is the proper take.

[Life of Brian]

when the DOJ will start swooping into contested precincts on election night, preventing the vote from being tallied in key Democratic areas

Prevent it from being tallied in the freeform way they've become accustomed to, perhaps....

Where's NG to talk about a hit dog hollering when you really need him?

[Bob from Ohio]

"when the DOJ will start swooping into contested precincts on election night"

That's silly, its ICE agents shooting voters that's planned.

[not guilty]

"The magistrate judge who empowered the Trump administration to seize Georgia election records and cart them away has opened the door to incalculable mischief. The Georgia attorney who failed to seek an immediate appeal of that order, and a stay from the District Court, was incompetent."

The issuance of a search warrant is not appealable. Since there is not a criminal proceeding pending, a person or entity aggrieved by the search can make a motion for return of property under Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g), which is treated as a civil proceeding.

[David Nieporent]

The Georgia attorney who failed to seek an immediate appeal of that order, and a stay from the District Court, was incompetent.

One cannot "appeal" a search warrant.

[Frank Drackman]

Love how Sergeant Major Pepper-Waltz is suddenly Knob-Slobbing the only man who can Pardon him when he's inevitably facing a long Term at Allenwood (He and Bobby Menendez would make a great Euchre team, but keep an eye on Bobby, he cheats)

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

The New York City police said they had charged a man with reckless endangerment and attempted assault on Thursday after he rammed his vehicle repeatedly into the headquarters of Chabad Lubavitch, the Hasidic Jewish group, in Brooklyn.

All four charges against Dan Sohail, 36, will be considered hate crimes, the chief of detectives, Joseph Kenny, said on Thursday at a news conference in Manhattan…

But people who knew Mr. Sohail, including his father and several Chabad rabbis, said he had not shown any outward signs of hatred toward Jewish people and had recently told them he wanted to convert to Judaism. The man appeared to be emotionally disturbed during the incident, according to three law enforcement officials with knowledge of the investigation.

Mr. Sohail, who had worked as a forklift driver, made several trips to synagogues, religious schools and even Jewish holiday celebrations in New York and New Jersey over the past several months, they said. He repeatedly claimed he was interested in converting to Judaism, or that he was Jewish and that God had instructed him directly to come pray.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/29/nyregion/chabad-brooklyn-car-ramming.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Sounds like he was off his meds.

[Frank Drackman]

Borrowing from the Late/Great Adam Sandler (at least his character in "Uncut Gems")
"Dan Sohail???
NOT a Jew, but guess who is? Hall of Famer Rod Carew (he converted)"

Frank

[rswallen]

Assume for a moment that he has converted to Judaism. Does that mean he is longer capable of committing hate crimes against other Jews? Are Catholics incapable of committing hate-crimes against Baptists because they are both Christian? Or Sunnis against Shia (and vice versa)? Is hate-crime legislation inapplicable to incidents of sectarian conflict?

[Commenter_XY]

The man appeared to be emotionally disturbed during the incident, according to three law enforcement officials with knowledge of the investigation.

That is the most relevant part to this sorry saga.

Dan Sohail needs psychological and emotional assessment (and counseling). He will be in prison for a while.

[Malika la Maize]

This was a night Cooper Flagg figures he'll be talking about with his former Duke roommate Kon Knueppel for decades.

That's probably true for almost everyone at the American Airlines Center who witnessed the thrilling display Thursday night in the first NBA meeting between the Rookie of the Year front-runners.

Flagg, the No. 1 pick, had 49 points, the most in NBA history by a teenager, breaking the Dallas Mavericks' rookie record he shared with Mark Aguirre, whose No. 24 was retired in a halftime ceremony during the game.

But Knueppel, the No. 4 pick, finished with 34 points and made the critical plays in the final moments to help the Charlotte Hornets earn a 123-121 win, their fifth straight. He forced Flagg into committing a turnover with 7.6 seconds remaining and hit the winning free throws after drawing a foul on his friend in transition.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/47775535/knueppel-hornets-get-last-word-vs-flagg-49-points-mavs

[Frank Drackman]

No jokes about their mothers screwing Black guys?? You're disappointing me Queenie.

[Malika la Maize]

They’re non-crazy successes Frank from well adjusted families, not like you. Different treatment warranted all around.

[Frank Drackman]

I love these "Well Adjusted" families, then one day Dad takes an Ax and kills everyone. The Police ask the neighbors, "What happened here!!?!?!?!?!?!?? What kind of Man was he?????"
"He was a Quiet Man, a very Quiet Man"
"Well Adjusted" though, so was Richard Cory

Frank

[hobie]

One can only imagine what kind of monster upbringing would produce a person like our Frankie

[Bob from Ohio]

"their mothers screwing Black guys"

The fathers are black? Both look whiter than Liz Warren.

[Magister]

You do know that mothers can screw people who are not the fathers of their children, don't you?

[Frank Drackman]

I do, I screwed yours last night.

[Sarcastr0]

The New York Public Library saw a 529% spike in “Heated Rivalry” downloads on Sunday after Mayor Mamdani plugged the book during his livestreamed snow storm press conference Sunday, according to a public library spokeswoman.
https://www.nydailynews.com/2026/01/26/after-mamdanis-snow-day-plug-heated-rivalry-book-downloads-surge-at-ny-public-library/

LOL. I see some people are finding a fun way to spend their their blizzard.

[Bob from Ohio]

Seems like a weird way to come out of the closet for Mayor Lenin. These days you don't have to imply it.

[Sarcastr0]

Hey now, straight guys can watch the gay hockey movie too. Love is love, as they say.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

That's one way to keep warm during the unusually low temperatures we are having.

[Sarcastr0]

Seems a growth market, ifyouknowwhatimean.

Just as lots of straight guys like lesbian porn, it turns out lots of straight women like gay romances.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, NASA will be flying Orion manned with the current heat shield, the one that suffered severe cratering in the last test.

Reportedly the problem was that parts of the shield were not permeable, so gasses generated during charring built up inside the material and blew it apart. Ablative testing in an arc jet facility confirmed that this only happens at relatively low levels of heating, where the heat has a chance to penetrate into the interior before charring the exterior.

The same testing apparently confirmed that even in the event of cratering, the next layer under the heat shield would keep the craft safe.

So they've adjusted the reentry profile to be more aggressive. And the next Orion capsule will have a uniformly permeable shield that shouldn't exhibit this failure mode.

But, somewhat concerningly, they redacted almost the entire executive report into the original investigation.

Yeah, I don't find that even a little reassuring.

[John F. Carr]

"The same testing apparently confirmed that even in the event of cratering, the next layer under the heat shield would keep the craft safe."

I am thinking of Feynman's criticism of Space Shuttle management. Post-flight examination found an O-ring in a solid rocket booster was burned one third of the way through. Management thought that meant the part had a factor of three safety margin. Feynman thought the part wasn't supposed to erode at all and there was already a failure.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I agree. This absolutely demonstrates the same mentality that led to the Challenger disaster. They might get lucky this time, but they're still taking unreasonable chances with astronauts' lives in order to keep the schedule.

The thing is, even with cratering, the heat shield made it down on the original low stress reentry profile. To prevent cratering, they're bringing it in on a higher stress reentry profile, so that the shield ablation will stay ahead of heat penetration.

It's not a crazy idea, there are a lot of things that work like that. Like if you spill water into a pan that's hot enough to exhibit the Liedenfrost effect, it will last a lot longer than a cooler pan.

But if the shield craters anyway, under the steeper reentry you can probably kiss it goodbye.

[SRG2]

FWIW I used to recommend the Feynman Appendix to financial risk management colleagues.

[Martinned]

I guess Trump noticed what his BS was doing to the dollar exchange rate...

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/30/economy/kevin-warsh-nominated-fed-chair

[Kazinski]

If Trump gets his way the dollar will go down further because lower US interest rates naturally puts pressure on the dollar.

The dollar is still above what it was in 2022, when the Fed had started raising rates and everyone knew more rate hikes were coming.

I am also getting ready to start pivoting out of bonds, both corporate and treasuries as I take some capital gains as interest rates decline.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't get it, Dollar's "Strong" well that's great, who doesn't like a "Strong Dollar"??
US Companies trying to sell stuff Overseas, that's who, and umm, maybe peoples who own Stock in those Companies? Or have 401K/Roths with Mutual Funds?
Only time a "Strong Dollar" is good for me is when I go Overseas (I know, not often enough) Weak Dollars great for Exports, and for taking money from those annoying Japanese Tourists, "Hey Wang, what's with the Pictures? it's a Parking Lot!!"

Frank

[Martinned]

If Trump gets his way the dollar will go down further because lower US interest rates naturally puts pressure on the dollar.

I understand that, and I'm glad that you do too, but I suspect Trump sees a lower dollar as a personal offence against (the size of) his manhood. Wanting lots of mutually inconsistent things is kinda his MO.

[Commenter_XY]

Eurotrash, we want a lower dollar.

[David Nieporent]

Why would we want a lower dollar? Then we can't buy as much with it. The point of having money is to buy stuff.

[SRG2]

It's hard to understand this choice. Warsh is amply qualified, has much relevant experience, isn't a TV pundit, isn't a blonde bimbo, etc and hence meets none of the usual criteria for a Trump nomination.

As we know that Trump thinks that the people counting his money should be Jews, perhaps he believes the Federal Reserve should go back to the modern tradition of having Jewish chairs.

[Martinned]

Or he's using the Supreme Court's approach of declaring that the Fed is different, because.

Or he's given in to the powerful lobby from all of his cabinet members who are worried about their billions evaporating. Trump is basically the only one in the Regime with a industrial-scale grift. The others have strong motivations to curtail the crazy at least as far as the Fed is concerned.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump thinks that the people counting his money should be Jews"

Smart guy.

[Riva]

Wrong. It was Democrat BS that led to 4 years of stagflation, no real wage growth, and higher prices. "Democrats love to talk about 'affordability,' but they are the ones who have driven up prices through policies that have expanded the money supply while restricting production of goods–a lethal combination. Once again, President Trump is on the right track." https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/01/its-warsh.php

[SRG2]

It was Democrat BS that led to 4 years of stagflation, no real wage growth,

A lie. There were two post-Covid years of no real wage growth.

From BLS:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2009 3.7 3.3 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.7 4.0 3.9 2.7 0.2 -0.9
2010 -0.6 0.1 -0.5 -0.5 -0.2 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.3
2011 0.4 -0.3 -0.8 -1.2 -1.4 -1.3 -1.3 -1.7 -1.8 -1.5 -1.4 -1.0
2012 -1.3 -1.1 -0.4 -0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 -0.5 0.1 0.4
2013 0.4 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.0 0.4
2014 0.5 1.3 0.5 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.9 1.3
2015 2.3 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4 1.9 1.8
2016 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7
2017 -0.1 -0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.6
2018 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.4
2019 1.7 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.2 0.6
2020 0.5 0.7 2.0 7.7 6.4 4.3 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.0
2021 3.8 3.6 1.8 -3.3 -2.5 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.4 -0.8 -1.3 -1.9
2022 -1.8 -2.5 -2.4 -2.4 -2.7 -3.4 -2.7 -2.7 -2.8 -2.6 -2.0 -1.4
2023 -1.7 -1.2 -0.4 -0.4 0.3 1.6 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.7
2024 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.6 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.1
2025 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.7 (A) 0.9(P) 1.1(P)

[Riva]

That period when inflation outpaced any nominal gains (for those in Rio Linda that means no real wage growth) is known by some as the Biden administration.

[SRG2]

You claimed 4 years. There weren't. You're a liar.

[Commenter_XY]

So basically, immediately after The Cauliflower was elected, there was 2.5 years of negative real growth. Great. Thanks for the confirmation that The Cauliflower was an economic nemesis.

Anything else, SRG2?

[SRG2]

I suspect you'll find that this was not restricted to the US and was a post Covid consequence. Also not what nemesis means, peasant.

Finally, there's always a lag. First few months of Trump1 would still have been part of the Obama economy, and the first few months of Biden would still have been part of the Trump1 economy - some of which he can't be blamed for because much as he fucked up wrt Covid, he wasn't responsible overall.

But this is all obvious, which is why you can't see it.

[LexAquilia]

Brennan's lawyers are whining to the Chief Justice about "forum shopping".

lol, get bent insurrectionist. Let's hope we finally see justice for what the Democrats did in 2016 & 2020.

[LexAquilia]

Hakeem Jeffries, the most powerful Democrat in the House is out there calling for a sitting Cabinet member to be "put on ice permanently". He's doing this in public.

They're not even dog whistling their calls for political terrorism and violence anymore.

Tulsi in Fulton spooked a bunch of folks.

[Michael P]

Maybe he meant she should be put on ICE permanently.

[Life of Brian]

I'm fully expecting a bevy of patient explanations of how restaurant workers have been using "put it on ice" for decades to mean chilling food to extend its lifespan, and that's all Jefferies possibly could have meant.

[SykesFive]

Ackshually . . . .

https://grammarist.com/idiom/put-on-ice/

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/thesaurus/put-on-ice

According to reference volumes, the main sense is to delay, postpone, slow down.

[Malika la Maize]

Yeah, and in the context of a recent push by Democrats to hold up funding for ICE and the name of the agency. It’s a pathetic attempt at weak sauce reverse judo.

[Life of Brian]

According to reference volumes, the main sense is to delay, postpone, slow down.

Right. But "permanently" delaying or postponing something is an oxymoron, and I doubt you really think he was suggesting she should just be slowed down. So clearly he wasn't using the term in its main sense.

And your idiom link includes the sense of killing someone, as does this one, so I'm not sure how that moves the ball forward.

Bottom line, he got what he wanted: red meat for the masses, and immediate cover from the plausible deniability apologists.

[SykesFive]

You seem to be imagining Hakeem Jeffries is seen as some kind of tough street-fighter by "the masses" but in fact he's considered to be a safe-seat weakling who constantly caves. So on "his side" this plays as a lame pun. Ice, get it?

But I mean if you want to have this fantasy of Hakeem Jeffries then I guess I shouldn't ruin it for you.

[Life of Brian]

Oh, come on. He was literally trumpeted as the second coming of Obama (and again in 2023, both "talented legal minds" and "brilliant orators"), dramatically chaired the Jan. 6 made-for-TV kangaroo hearings, and literally just did an in-your-face confrontation for the cameras just a few months ago.

"Lame, constantly caving weakling" is a pretty interesting pivot.

[LexAquilia]

That was his dog whistle to the crazies. Just like that infamous 'Omar Nod' that every body is talking about now where she gave the go ahead to that patsy.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, even the lunatics have given up on that bizarre conspiracy theory. It's only the deliberate liars who are still saying it.

[rswallen]

> "permanently" delaying or postponing something
Wasn't that basically the tactic of Senate Republicans concerning confirmations during the Obama administration?

[Malika la Maize]

Pathetic. It clearly means in the sense of put something on hold and delay with an ICE pun thrown in. Mikie Q slinking to his American Renaissance comrades level is to be expected but this is pretty sad for you.

[Bob from Ohio]

clearly!

[Frank Drackman]

I'll give Hakim the Bad Dream this much, apparently that is his real name, unlike the Late/Great Kwasi Mfume, who was born "Frizzell Tate"(much cooler Jazz name IMHO)
or Chaka Fattah, (born Arthur Davenport, "Arthur Davenport"??? you can't be "Down with the Struggle" if your name's Arthur Davenport)

Frank

[Michael P]

We ought not forget Nkechi Amare Diallo, either. Why be boring white Rachel Anne Dolezal when you can change your name and identify as Black?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, and you got a wonder WHY Tulsi spooked them.

Are they worried about what she might find, or do they perhaps not even know what might be there for her to find?

[Magister]

Not unreasonable to worry about what they might make up. Maybe they'll find Trump's Michigan Man of the Year award.

[Michael P]

WSJ: "Mamdani says NYC is facing an unexpected $10 billion projected budget deficit and plans to push state lawmakers to hike taxes [...]"

Unexpected? Lots of us expected him to cause a deficit.

[Martinned]

True, but that's mostly because there are lots of idiots on the internet who think the Mayor is in charge of the NYC budget.

[Ska]

The mayor doesn't do much to dissuade them, considering how he promises to set up free services, set ceilings on private transactions (or attempt to prevent them altogether), and manifest new programs out of thin air.

[Frank Drackman]

Speaking of Idiots, it was Man-damn-he who blamed the previous Mayor for the Deficit. Seriously, go plug a hole in a Dyke.

Frank

[Michael P]

From https://www.ibo.nyc.gov/content/how-the-budget-is-made:

The Mayor's executive role in city management includes developing the annual Expense, Revenue, and Capital Budgets, and implementing each year's Adopted Budget.

Morons on the Internet suggest the mayor has little influence in the budget.

[jb]

Morons on the Internet apparently unaware that Mamdani has yet to propose a budget in NYC.

Just so you guys will stop beclowning yourselves again for a few minutes, here's a NY Post piece critical of the way Mamdani is handling the deficit that was at least written by someone familiar with NYC finances so it can blame him for things he's actually responsible for:

Mayor Zohran Mamdani assembled the City Hall press corps Wednesday to announce his shock at finding a $12 billion budget hole . . . that everyone worth his salt has been flagging for a year.

Heck, a hole that Mayor Eric Adams warned about in 2023 at the height of, and as a result of, the migrant crisis.

[Commenter_XY]

Speaking of idiots on the internet, Eurotrash...

[SRG2]

It's unclear whether that hole is the result of existing budget or his proposed budget. Socialist POS he may be, but you can't blame him for a deficit arising from an existing budget.

[Kazinski]

You can blame him when he spends more money than the budget allows. The budget is a blueprint if he builds an extra wing that's not on the plans that isn't the architects fault.

[Martinned]

You can blame him when he spends more money than the budget allows.

Yes. In a US-style separation of powers system it is the executive's job to spend only the money appropriated by the legislature. I'm glad you agree.

[Frank Drackman]

Somewhere there's a Dyke that needs a hole plugged.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and Martinned is just the one for the job.

[jb]

The projected deficit is based on the status quo, i.e. what he's inheriting from Adams. Mamdani hasn't added anything to it yet, so it would be silly to blame him for it at this point.

This is a little like Michael P trying to blame Spanberger for a broken sewage pipe (in another state) a couple of weeks into her term. We should hold leaders accountable, but not for problems they clearly had nothing to do with.

[Life of Brian]

From a quick look, the game appears to be that Mandami is claiming that Adams "underfunded" various social programs that of course need more funding than Adams had allocated to him.

So that's a "shortage" in his desired budget, not the existing one.

[Ska]

Dipping into that first envelope early. Pretty sure Mamdani will need to have that letter laminated with the amount of times he's going to refer to it.

[jb]

No, "underfunded" means that Adams didn't pay the actual costs of the program in the previous year, which pushes a shortage into future years.

Mamdami's ploy here is to try to get more money from Albany and increases taxes so he has more revenue to work with, but the deficit number has nothing to do with any of his policies--it is purely a statement of the status quo that he is inheriting.

[Life of Brian]

No, "underfunded" means that Adams didn't pay the actual costs of the program in the previous year, which pushes a shortage into future years.

Did you read the article I linked? It explicitly says Mamdami is talking about Adams' 2026 numbers for discretionary spending programs, and arguing they're lower than the "known costs" that are "actually required."

That sort of circular reasoning just renders the concept of a budget meaningless.

[jb]

If you know your roof has a hole in it, and you don't put money aside for the repair, would it be unfair to say that you didn't set aside money for "known costs" that are "actually required".

Mamdani is probably exaggerating the numbers, as he's trying to make the case for tax increases and more money from Albany. But as I linked to above, even the NY Post acknowledges there is a large pre-existing problem. The Citizens Budget Commission thinks the gap might only be $8 billion. So there's some political posturing going on, but the deficit we're talking about now is generally has nothing to do with his (expensive) agenda outlined during his campaign.

[Life of Brian]

So when you said Adams "didn't pay the actual costs of the program in the previous year," you meant he didn't salt away money for it in the future? That wasn't exactly clear.

But as I linked to above, even the NY Post acknowledges there is a large pre-existing problem

That snark-heavy, fact-light article didn't say much, but it did link to another NYP article that said: "New York has been on a spree lately, much of it funded by once-in-a-lifetime federal bonanza grants tied to the pandemic. But those giveaway days are gone, and Washington’s far more likely to reduce what it sends this way, so both city and state must now face some serious belt-tightening."

So were we to dig up the actual figures, I suspect we'd find that Adams just restored the budget back to pre-bonanza levels--that rather novel concept of planning to spend no more than you bring in.

But as we all know, in the political world there's no such thing as a temporary spending increase -- it just becomes the new expected baseline. And dollars to donuts, that's exactly what Mamdami is doing.

[John F. Carr]

The Massachusetts legislature routinely underfunds programs and passes a supplemental budget. They used to not appropriate money for snow removal until the winter was over. One year contract snow plow drivers went on strike because their pay was routinely six months late.

The city where I used to live didn't budget money to heat a school in the winter. The school board wanted to hire an extra teacher and knew that somebody would bail them out if winter came that year.

[Malika la Maize]

Not a fan of his but he’s only been mayor for a month, how much that is his to own?

[Mr. Bumble]

Don "squeeze my lemon till the juice runs down my leg" was arrested last night by federal authorities.
https://nypost.com/2026/01/30/us-news/ex-cnn-host-don-lemon-arrested-for-minnesota-church-invasion/

[Martinned]

Sure, keep arresting journalists and telling the rest of the world about their free speech problems. /s

[SRG2]

To the cult, chilling free speech is a feature, not a bug.

[Bored Lawyer]

If "free speech" means breaking into a church, harassing the worshippers, and yelling at the children, then, yeah, I am for "chilling" that.

[jb]

"Breaking into a church"? Was this a church that went into lockdown once services started? I'm sure that some of those exists, but most churches I'm aware of want people to be able to come in so they leave the doors open to the public.

And was Lemon harassing the worshippers or yelling at children? I thought the complaint was that he was telling people that the protest was Constitutionally protected and hence he was at least aware of what the plans were.

Look, I don't think interrupting a church service is appropriate and it seems plausible that some of the protestors violated the FACE act. But journalists, even journalists sympathetic to the protestors, can and should be allowed to be present at illegal protests to help the public understand what's going on without risking legal jeopardy.

[Bob from Ohio]

"sympathetic "

He was a participant.

[Joe_dallas]

Lemon wasnt there as a journalist
HE was actively involved in the FACE Act Crime. Filming the crime while committing the crime isnt being a journalist.

[jb]

So you're theory is that just being present when a FACE act violation happens makes you also guilty of a FACE act violation? By your theory, do you think Paul Vaughn was rightfully convicted? If not, how do you distinguish his case from Lemon's?

[Joe_dallas]

JB - Thats not what happened - Lemon was an active participate in the crime.

[jb]

In what way? And once again, how do you think it's meaningfully different than Vaughn's case?

[Joe_dallas]

Watch the video instead of displaying your stupity.

[jb]

Thanks for the very Joe conclusion to this discussion.

[Joe_dallas]

JB - Why ignore the actual facts in the case. At least 5 or 6 people have corrected you on the facts whereby you continue to base you analysis on facts which you know are erroneous.

[David Nieporent]

Why ignore the actual facts in the case.

If you had any actual facts, you'd cite them, instead of telling other people to do your homework for you by saying "watch the video." But you don't have any actual facts, because you never do, because you're bookkeeper_joe.

[Joe_dallas]

Yes to the cult, chilling free speech is a feature.

Lemon was participating in an act trying quell free speech

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not like free speech means you have to let journalists commit ordinary crimes.

[not guilty]

Brett, what "ordinary crimes", if any, do you claim that Mr. Lemon committed, and by what conduct?

[Armchair]

Violation of the FACE act. Duh.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Brett, what "ordinary crimes", if any, do you claim that Mr. Lemon committed, and by what conduct?

NG - that is an exceedingly stupid question - He video taped himself committing the crime.

[not guilty]

Joe_dallas, do you have an answer that doesn't beg the question of what conduct is criminal?

What federal statutes, if any, do you claim that Mr. Lemon violated, and by what specific conduct?

[Joe_dallas]

NG - your questions on the subject get progressively stupider.
How many people have stated the appropriate statute?

[not guilty]

I know what statutes are charged. Why do you repeatedly run away from the question about "by what conduct?" as to Don Lemon?

[Joe_dallas]

NG - You know the fucking answer -

I and several other individuals have explained it you multiple times.

A - He was involved in the planning
B - he was an active participate.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ali Bradley@AliBradleyTV
NEW: @DHSgov to @NewsNation
“Don Lemon is being charged with 18 USC 241, Conspiracy to Deprive Rights, and 18 USC 248, Violation of the FACE, interfering by force of someone’s First Amendment rights.”

[not guilty]

Boob from Ohio, I know what statutes are being charged. I am asking, by what particular conduct did Mr. Lemon himself violate these federal statutes.

The FACE Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2), does not make "aggravated reporting" a crime. Nor does it prohibit "aggravating interviewing".

[Bob from Ohio]

The indictment says he blocked people from leaving. Overt act 28.

There are other acts alleged too. You can read, read them.

Like you say, let a jury decide!

[David Nieporent]

The indictment says that he was standing in the door asking questions. You know, like a journalist does. But how does that satisfy any of the elements of the charges?

[Life of Brian]

Ackshully, the indictment does NOT say he was "standing in the door asking questions."

Overt Act 28, which Bob cited, says: "At one point, LEMON posted himself at the main door of the Church, where he confronted some congregants and physically obstructed them as they tried to exit the Church building to challenge them with 'facts' about U.S. immigration policy."

Why in the world you feel compelled to so brazenly misrepresent things that are so easy to verify is really beyond me.

[David Nieporent]

You understand that the lack of quotation marks means that I wasn't quoting it, right? I was describing it.

[LexAquilia]

"Journalist" isn't an official class of people who get to break the law.

The UK is a dumpster fire on speech issues. Go there and fix your own fucking house.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don Lemon, journalist; hahahahahahahahaha.

[Bob from Ohio]

"journalists"?

Lemon is a podcaster, before that he was a talking head.

[Joe_dallas]

claiming to be a journalist doesnt allow the person to commit a crime

He wasnt exercising his rights under 1A

[Kazinski]

When journalists break the law they need to be held accountable.

And lets not forget there were independent journalists covering Jan 6th embedded with activists just like Lemon, they were prosecuted by the DOJ despite their protestations.

So now there is recent precedent in very similar circumstances for prosecution.

If you were not concerned then I don't see any reason to be concerned now.

[LexAquilia]

Fuck yea! I hope he gets the ol' Roger Stone treatment.

[SRG2]

According to Radley Balko, the arrest warrant was thrice denied. The DoJ had to go judge-shopping, it seems.

[ThePublius]

So you don't think Lemon did anything wrong? You buy his 'journalist' backpedalling on this? You know, there's plenty of video implicating him in helping to plan and execute this intentional disruption of a worship service. Why do you side with the obvious bad guy? Is your party and movement allegiance that strong, that you blind yourself to obvious wrongdoing?

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think I've seen evidence establishing your 'planned and executed' theory here.

Donuts aren't going to carry that weight.

What I have seen is support coming largely from people who also support shooting and killing protesters for not complying. So I kind

Why do you side with the obvious bad guy?
Evil donuts?

Your post and anger are showing what this really is - punishing defiance than any actual crime.

[ThePublius]

"Don Lemon admitted on video that he knew the protest was targeting a church, suggesting he wasn’t merely documenting events but was aware of the planned disruption in advance. That detail is now fueling DOJ scrutiny over whether he crossed the line from journalist to participant."

"So this is what we are doing...." Not a journalist, but a participant, involved in the planning. Watch the video:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTs3DrZjkQN/

It is and 'actual crime' to forcibly disrupt a religious service. It has nothing to do with free speech rights.

Have you seen the video of the actual disruption? This is not O.K.

[Sarcastr0]

You said: planned and executed.
Now you're saying 'knew about.'
He didn't use force, so your statute doesn't seem on point.

I guess when the real crime here is defiance, no need stick to any particular criminal narrative.

[ThePublius]

He implicated himself in the vide when he said "So this is what we are doing...."

He was party to a group that used force, forcibly preventing parents from reaching their children, and so on.

And what do you mean "your statute?"

[Sarcastr0]

Your theory of implication doesn’t wash, as I established above.

Knowing is not enough.

Try again.

[Bob from Ohio]

"established"

Asserted, you mean.

[ThePublius]

Doesn't wash with you, which is utterly meaningless. And, as Bob from Ohio points out, you didn't establish anything, you simply asserted it.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm saying stuff about your comments, and what they do and don't establish.

You've failed to establish any criminality by Lemon. You've taken a number of runs at it and failed each one.

First you said he planned and executed. Offering zero facts.
Then you said he knew. Which isn't a crime.
Now you're posting below basically that a bad thing happened and he knew about it, which makes him bad.

That's not only not illegal, it's you once again being a child crying that being a bad guy should be a crime.

You haven't really established he's bad, other than by your own personal outrage.

[ThePublius]

Don't take my word for it Sarcastr0, just see the indictment when it's unsealed. What he did was serious enough and potentially illegal enough that a grand jury in Minnesota indicted him. What more do you want?

And, you continue to lie, and mischaracterize what I've said. I never said being a bad guy was a crime. I referred to his conduct. And I'm not outraged. I'm just putting it out there. You pretend as if you can read peoples minds long-distance, and then besmirch them with your childish insults. That's doesn't wash.

[Sarcastr0]

You may need to look at the standard for an indictment, chief.

If you're leaning on that for sole proof of guilt, that's not gonna work.

[Life of Brian]

You may need to look at the standard for an indictment, chief.

This is an exceptionally lame way to try to duck out of a thread about whether there was even sufficient evidence to arrest Lemon.

[Joe_dallas]

Lemon participated in the planning.

[not guilty]

So what if he did?

[ThePublius]

It means he conspired with others to break the law, that's what.

[Joe_dallas]

Astonishing that NG fails to grasp that participating in the planning of the crime is also a crime.

[Bob from Ohio]

"He didn't use force"

He blocked people from leaving.

Threat of force also fits the statute. What do you think a burning cross is?

You cal yourself a christian. These Christians did not deserve this.

[David Nieporent]

Being aware of the planned disruption in advance is not factually or legally equivalent to participating in the planned disruption.

It is and 'actual crime' to forcibly disrupt a religious service.

Yes. Now if you (or this DOJ) only knew what the meaning of "forcibly" was. That's why DOJ keeps getting embarrassed with no true bills and acquittals.

[ThePublius]

He implicated himself in the video when he said "So this is what we are doing...."

[Joe_dallas]

he participated in the planning.

[ThePublius]

"“You have to make people uncomfortable.”

This was former CNN journalist Don Lemon’s take on protesters who invaded and disrupted a church service in St. Paul, Minn."

"“You have to make people uncomfortable.”

This was former CNN journalist Don Lemon’s take on protesters who invaded and disrupted a church service in St. Paul, Minn."

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/don-lemon-wants-you-to-squirm-62dc30f8?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqd9qAUX-Yzp4TvmLOwXeqNYruDZ_w7tMGbyc_zo8_vCmhK4ixwS2ykwbGaS-i4%3D&gaa_ts=697cea4a&gaa_sig=Xr6LsGF0Igxm5WfSGgXkcHh0aTiJqegxVLOQTLppp65nblrCDHqhIe9_OPE_HlAQJ-XtEsTNOpgn8D7MA2da9A%3D%3D

[Sarcastr0]

Again, you basically admit you just want to punish defiance.

We don’t have a law about that.

Because we are a free country. Despite people like you.

[ThePublius]

Hey, I wasn't empaneled on the grand jury that indicted him! I'm not the only one who believes he broke the law.

Jim Treahcer:
"The only people whose First Amendment rights have been infringed here are the congregants at the church Don Lemon invaded. He was part of the planning, he trespassed and refused to leave, and he called those churchgoers “white supremacists.” To make matters worse, he’s even profiting from his crimes. And we know everything he did because he was stupid enough to record it the whole time."

https://jimtreacher.substack.com/p/don-lemon-arrested-for-breaking-the

And you see what you did there, again, Sarcastr0? You don't address the matter at hand. You don't try to refute what I've said. You just attack and insult me. So childish.

[Sarcastr0]

"the church Don Lemon invaded"

So this guy is a liar, then.

I'm reading what you say, and what you say is the statutes don't matter only your anger does.

That's no way to be.

[ThePublius]

I'm not angry, "dude," why don't you just address the issue.

It was an invasion: "an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity."

It's clear that Lemon participated in the invasion as well as the planning thereof.

I don't know what your issue is. Are you just being contrary, or do you support what Lemon and his gang did? Do you hate Christians? What is it?

[Sarcastr0]

Don Lemon didn't invade shit, TP.

And as is often the case, your 'clearly' is not only not clear, it's straight lacking any evidence.

As you seemed to concede above, when you want from 'participated and planned' to 'knew about.'

Now you're backsliding.

I think we're done; any more would be circular.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Don Lemon didn't invade shit, TP."

Well, he entered without permission and didn't leave when asked.

[Life of Brian]

No, silly rabbit, he was just there REPORTING on OTHER people who entered without permission and refused to leave when asked. What's the poor guy supposed to do, abandon his story?

[David Nieporent]

It's clear that Lemon participated in the invasion as well as the planning thereof.

Which aspect of it did he plan? Did he pick the target? Did he select the people who would be involved? Did he acquire church floor plans? Did he formulate tactics?

[Commenter_XY]

It is Ok for the Man of Science, TiP. Surprised much? Not me.

[SRG2]

"My party and movement"? I have neither.

[ThePublius]

So you don't identify as a Democrat and a progressive?

[SRG2]

I don't know whether he did anything wrong. I'm happy to leave it to a proper investigation. But I do know that if you have to keep hunting for someone to sign a warrant, that's generally not a good sign.

[jb]

They didn't go judge shopping, they went to a grand jury.

[not guilty]

The New York Post article linked by Mr. Bumble does not indicate what statute(s) Mr. Lemon is charged with violating.

The arrest starts the statutory speedy trial clock running, such that an indictment of criminal information must be filed within 30 days. If the matter is presented to a grand jury, it is not a foregone conclusion that a true bill will be found.

[not guilty]

Politico is reporting:

White House aide James Blair seemingly confirmed in a post on X that Lemon was indicted by a federal grand jury, even though charges against the journalist weren’t on the public docket at the time of his post.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/30/don-lemon-arrest-minnesota-protest-00756892

Some other persons are charged in Minnesota by warrant with violating 18 U.S.C. § 241, conspiracy against rights. Venue in a conspiracy case exists in any district where an overt act is alleged to have occurred. I wonder whether the DOJ presented the Lemon matter to a grand jury outside of Minnesota.

[ThePublius]

I read that a grand jury in Minnesota indicted him.

[Mr. Bumble]

Somewhere there was mention of the Enforcement Act of1871 (Klu Klux Klan Act). So far it seems like nothing more is being reported.

[John F. Carr]

Is the indictment unsealed yet? The news reports don't have it and CourtListener is slow today.

[John F. Carr]

It's online now. Case 0:26-cr-00025 in the District of Minnesota.

The prosecution can prove Lemon was generally aware of what was going on. The indictment makes a case for state law trespass and possibly assault. Proving he had the specific intent to violate federal rights will be harder.

https://www.scribd.com/document/990012124/Don-Lemon-Indictment

[David Nieporent]

Thanks for posting this. This makes some of the people look like assholes, but is pretty flimsy for the federal crimes charged and is virtually nonexistent for Lemon. The indictment of Lemon is essentially that he knew what the protesters' target was and didn't reveal it in advance.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lemon appears to be obstructing the pastor while interviewing him (why else would be accuse the pastor of pushing him?).

It's not definitive, but we'll see what the pastor's testimony says.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Journalists make deals with sources about what the journalist can reveal and when he can reveal it all the time, so if the DoJ is planning to argue that Lemon agreeing not to reveal the plan in advance makes him part of the alleged conspiracy, that’s not good for freedom of the press.

The indictment also claims Lemon’s interview tactics included obstructing people so they couldn’t leave. If true, that might be illegal, but I don’t see how it can be an attempt to interfere with the exercise of religion at a place of religious worship, which is the crime charged. The indictment claims that Lemon physically obstructed congregants as they tried to exit the building, which couldn’t possibly interfere with their ability to exercise their religion “at a place of worship,” i.e. inside the building.

[ThePublius]

"As CBN News reported, the protesters disrupted the sacred moment by shouting, intimidating, and terrorizing churchgoers, even going after the young children in attendance.

The mob of more than 20 rowdy protesters has been accused of committing crimes by violating the sanctity of the church service and infringing on the constitutional right to worship. Now there are details about what those protesters did and said that made the experience so terrifying for the families who were in church to worship God on January 18.

The arrest affidavit filed against Nekima Valdez Levy-Armstrong, Chauntyll Louisa Allen, and William Scott Kelly says activists in the group told children that their parents were "Nazis" and were "going to burn in Hell."

The document was filed by a Special Agent with the Department of Homeland Security who was conducting an investigation into the incident. It says the perpetrators "intimidated, harassed, oppressed, and terrorized the parishioners, including young children, and caused the service to be cut short and forced parishioners to flee the church out of a side door, which resulted in one female victim falling and suffering an injury."

The affidavit describes multiple examples of children in the church with looks of terror and anxiety on their faces, and adults trying to comfort them. In some cases, parents were blocked from reaching their children.

William Scott Kelly is accused of reportedly yelling, "This ain't God's house. This is the house of the devil." The activists believed one of the church's pastors is an agent for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

A victim from the church also reports Kelly screaming "Nazi" in people's faces, and telling children directly, "Do you know your parents are Nazis? They're going to burn in hell."

According to a report from KARE 11, the activists blocked stairs so parents could not reach their children, and one parent said "his children are traumatized.""

https://cbn.com/news/us/federal-affidavit-church-invaders-blocked-parents-kids-told-them-their-parents-were-nazis

Don Lemon was not a journalist covering this, he was an active participant, as is evidenced by his statements before the invasion, and his conduct during, including haranguing the pastor on camera.

"Don Lemon didn't just go in and film the invasion. He also asked questions of the pastor, while he urged Lemon and others to leave.

After the invasion, Lemon said the church complained because it had "entitlement" from "white supremacy.""

https://x.com/Tyler2ONeil/status/2017243461716443149

[Krayt]

A victim from the church also reports Kelly screaming "Nazi" in people's faces, and telling children directly, "Do you know your parents are Nazis? They're going to burn in hell."

According to a report from KARE 11, the activists blocked stairs so parents could not reach their children, and one parent said "his children are traumatized.""

Oh oh! OH OH!

Suing lawyers looking to funnel money into their pockets over speech, engage!

[Mr. Hook]

“Canada’s not doing well; they are doing very poorly, and you can‘t look at China as the answer to this,” Trump continued.
“I know China very well, President Xi is a friend of mine, I know him very well…The first thing they’re going to do is say you are not allowed to play ice hockey anymore. That’s not good. Canada’s not going to like that,” the president added.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/panicked-trump-79-ramps-up-deranged-hockey-warnings-to-canada/

That's "Dr" Ed-level analysis/prediction.

[Ska]

*Blustery Trump noises* "...not allowed to play ice hockey..."

Canadians: Gentlemen, you had my curiosity. Now you have my attention.

[Bob from Ohio]

"analysis/prediction"

Its not either, its a jokey comment. Canadians have proven they lack any sense of humor.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The target of a bully typically doesn’t think the bully’s “jokes” are very funny. And the bully typically tries to disguise their meanness by claiming “it’s just a joke” when called out for poor behavior.

As usual you’re just like any other goon. But in this case it’s particularly pathetic because it’s not even your own bullying joke you’re simping for: it’s someone else’s!

[windycityattorney]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rump-files-10b-lawsuit-against-irs-over-alleged-tax-return-leaks-major-news-outlets

Trump sues IRS for 10billion! The biggest grift yet?

Future prediction: Trump settles with himself for 3billion and claims he saved US taxpayers 7billion.

"But he donates his presidential salary."

This should be impeachable just for the attempt even if it proves ultimately unsuccessful. What the fk?

[Swede425]

Do it.
Impeach him.

[Krayt]

The only truly impeachable thing going back to Nixon would have been militarily invading Greenland and causing a conflict with NATO, without Congressional approval of some sort.

Crying wolf for jejune, sophomoric political reasons is catching up with people, decades in the making.

[Armchair]

Just because he's president, that doesn't mean he gives up his rights as a private citizen.

If there was negligence on the part of the IRS that led to his tax returns (and others) being illegally leaked and doing him harm he has the right to sue. If he waits till after his term is over, that may exceed the statue of limitations. So, he needs to bring the case now.

[windycityattorney]

Maybe you can explain how the damages are 10billion dollars Armchair? Even assuming negligence (actually I believe a 3rd party contractor was indicted for the breach possibly even convicted already) what are the main factors in a negligence action? Duty, breach, causation, damages?

Assume the first 3. The reporting I have seen indicates Trump's net worth has increased since becoming president again. What with his crypto (untraceable bribe) company, memecoins, international deals for golf courses and buildings - oil slush fund, all the pardons he sold... a few hundred million here and a few hundred there...we are talking real money, no?

I AM SUING THE UNITED STATES FOR ELEVENTY TRILLION DOLLARS the damage to my reputation was so bad I was re-elected.

Clown car shit, armchair.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump settles with himself "

Blame Congress. It used to vote to appropriate money for settlements but that is too hard. Better to set up an open ended judgment fund controlled by the executive. Beats working!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Making a full list of his impeachable offenses might compete with one of his more rambling social media posts in length.

[Mr. Bumble]

The internet never forgets (but I bet these fools wish it would).
Montage of talking heads when Trump announces his decision to run for president.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIOWE2z6ri8&t=1s
Via Ann Althouse.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, people don't realize how much of what the say and do is recorded for posterity. In litigation, emails are a very common source of discovery, and often reveal a lot in a case. I have seen it many, many times.

[John F. Carr]

I worked for a large company that was involved in high profile litigation. The corporate email servers deleted everything after a short period. We were told to copy messages elsewhere if we wanted to keep them. Lazy discovery demands -- "give me all email messages with the word 'destroy' --- would get little. If I had an incriminating message on my laptop it would be invisible unless somebody knew to ask me about it.

"Destroy" was one of the words we were taught to avoid in antitrust training. I did not have the ability to affect corporate policy. I did have the ability to write something that would look bad in court if the company's anti-discovery defenses failed.

Smaller employers without so much fear of litigation outsourced communication to Google and Slack. Google and Slack gets loads and loads of subpoenas and investigative demands. Slack offered a special account type for customers in highly regulated industries where all communications needed to be made available to investigators. If you had that type of account deleting a message would only hide it. When the feds came calling, they would know that you once conspired to order takeout on company time.

[Bored Lawyer]

Another wrinkle to hallucinated citations. A federal judge issued an Order to Show Cause against a NY attorney and his local counsel in PA. Local counsel fessed up, so got off. NY counsel didn't, so got sanctioned.

Another thing that local counsel has to worry about.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7422624617225400320/

[David Nieporent]

Not relating to AI, but years ago a firm I was at got bit by acting as local counsel and trusting the primary firm to do its job professionally. It did not. We got off with a warning, but it really highlighted the fact that what's all too common practice — primary counsel supplying a brief for filing at the last minute, and filing it after a cursory review — is untenable. (It was a favor for a friend, so we didn't even get paid for acting as local counsel! Though I think that ultimately helped us avoid any sanction.)

In the case you linked to, the judge seemed particularly miffed that the NY attorney blamed it on a recent law grad she had hired rather than accepting personal responsibility for the brief the attorney personally signed. But also, even after the issue should've been obvious because the the adversary flagged it, she took no corrective action. If your adversary points out that one of your citations is fabricated, don't look the other way and hope nobody cares! Immediately check that, and every other citation, and issue an immediate mea culpa.

[John F. Carr]

A federal judge says Luigi Mangione can't be executed for his crime because prosecutors did not allege a crime of violence in the indictment. They charged him with stalking, which is not a crime of violence. Even if it is done violently. Crime of violence is a technical term in federal law. There were serious arguments in the federal courts about whether manslaughter was a crime of violence.

https://apnews.com/article/mangione-unitedhealthcare-death-penalty-dismissed-killing-1d17a30d0297acda29fc82dbf54d2677

Under longstanding Supreme Court precedent intentionally killing somebody is not enough to justify execution. Prosecutors have to prove something more. We ended up with a complicated system with a lot of arguing over facts that shouldn't matter.

[Bored Lawyer]

Federal charges in a case like this are often convoluted. There is no general federal murder statute (except in certain, special locations), so prosecutors have to find some way to charge what amounts to murder.

[John F. Carr]

In my opinion, Mangione is not guilty of the federal stalking charge.

[Frank Drackman]

My Asshole says he is

[LawTalkingGuy]

Big win for DOJ (although they won’t see it that way). They’re much more likely to get a conviction and appellate affirmance now. Asking for death specs in this case was ridiculous and would be a huge waste of time and resources.

Somewhat related: they still haven’t decided whether to pursue the death penalty in Vance boelter’s case despite having way more potential aggravating factors. Which leads me to believe that 1) as a moral matter they don’t think assassinating democrats is actually that big of a deal 2) they don’t want to go to a capital trial because it’ll inevitably raise the salience of the case and involve discussion of Boetler’s background which won’t look too good for them. 3) they also don’t want to enter a favorable plea deal now because that will also look bad. 4) The US attorney’s office has been hollowed out and demoralized and they don’t have competent people with the time to pursue a capital prosecution.

[John F. Carr]

Boelter's indicment is also based on stalking and the serious charges fail if stalking is not a crime of violence. As in Mangione's case the so-called "stalking" is use of the Internet to plan a trip.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

They made a big deal about encouraging the death penalty, including encouraging states to do so.

They released someone in prison for life to a state (the Biden Administration refused) & the state executed him last year.

But other than that, not seeing much on the federal death penalty front. TBF, it took them to near the end of the first term (and then there was a rush to execute a bunch of people) to execute people.

I do recall them doing something to make life harder for the people that Biden took off death row. Not sure the latest there.

[David Nieporent]

Big win for DOJ (although they won’t see it that way). They’re much more likely to get a conviction and appellate affirmance now.

Why? If capital punishment were on the table they'd get a death qualified jury, which much research shows is more likely to convict. Best case scenario for the prosecution is to pursue the death penalty but get a life sentence. You get all the aforementioned benefit without the extra legal scrutiny that death sentences receive.

[not guilty]

The federal charges against Luigi Mangione have been sketchy from the outset. (The state charges, OTOH, appear to be a slam dunk.)

The DOJ may have filed its death notice in order to put a shaky case before a death qualified jury.

A jury from which all veniremen, who have scruples against imposition of the death penalty, have been excluded for cause is more likely to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, in that the excluded prospective jurors are statistically more likely to acquit.

As an aside, if Mangione is convicted of both state and federal charges, he is likely to be housed first in a federal facility until any federal sentence expires. With some notable exceptions, federal prison facilities are generally more comfortable than state prisons.

[Commenter_XY]

Suppose the Feds try Mangione and fail. Does the state get another bite at the apple? Is that double jeopardy?

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court of Panama is kicking the Chinese out of the Panama Canal. Last year Trump wanted to take back the canal to save it from Chinese influence.

Al Jazeera: "The court ruled that the laws and acts underpinning the concession contracts between the state and the Panama Ports Company (PPC) for the development, construction, operation and management of the two port terminals violated the country’s constitution."

Panama Ports Company is a subsidiary of Hong Kong's CK Hutchison Holdings.

https://apnews.com/article/panama-canal-ports-us-china-b5fe3cdcc1fce45dbf1b0843a620830a
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/30/panama-court-rules-chinese-control-of-canal-ports-unconstitutional

[LexAquilia]

Another Church domestic terrorist got arrested.

Get fucked you CCP funded revolutionaries.

It's so funny to hear her going "I have kids, it's scary". No shit you cock-eyed bitch. Now describe what you were doing to those White kids in that church.

About time these Democrat terrorists get a little taste of accountability.

Fuck yea!

[ReaderY]

Remember, folks, that in Nazi Germany was filled with people just like this, just as gleeful about the payback the Jews were getting for all the destruction they had supposedly done to poor Germany and just as triumphantly happy about their downfall.

Talk just loke this leads to firing squads, gas chambers, mass execution. This man talks like he would would be very happy and would get a huge erection slowly burning Democrats alive for the sheer fun of watching them scream with the pain.

THIS is an indication of the evil Donald John Teump has wrought on this country. THIS is why Hitler is the only fair or reaonable comparison.

This talk is Nazi talk. Mass-murder talk. There is no other fair or reasonable or rational way to describe it. Nazi talk, plain and simple. Propaganda that dehumanizes the victims to help pave the path that leads to mass murder.

Republicans should not think they will be able to get away with their lives when talk like this is afoot. Both Hitler’s Night of the Long Knives and Stalin’s purges were mass-murder events of people who up to that point weew their allies. The same could happen here.

[LexAquilia]

Just happy, that's all.

Bear with me. It's good to see these people going to jail after what they did and what those Democrat judges tried to do.

[LexAquilia]

Wow, you totally edited your comment out from under mine. wtf How dishonest to not even mark it as edited, knowing what my reply was.

[ReaderY]

Donald John Trump, a private individual, is suing the United States for 10 billion dollars over the disclosure of his tax returns which he claims is the United States’ fault. However, Donald John Trump, the President of the United States, is under the unitary executive theory in complete command of any defense the United States may provide to this lawsuit. He can, for example, dictate every word that the United States files in its response papers and/or order the United States to default or settle for the full amount. And he can immediately fire any US attorney who disobeys his command and order his replacement to withdraw any nonconforming filing or defense.

In light of this, is there any Article III standing here? Article III standing requires the parties to have an actual controversy, which requires an actual difference of interests. When nominally adverse parties collude in going through the formalities of a lawsuit to create a judgment both parties want, there is no genuine controversy.

In light of this, do Article III courts have jurisdiction to entertain a lawsuit between a sitting President and the United States? Under the Unitary Executive Theory, the entire executive department of the United States is essentially an alter ego of the President. While they are nominally different entitles so far as technical corporate formalities are concerned, they have not merely a privity but such a complete identity of interests such that if the Unitary Executive Theory is taken seriously, it would seem to follow as a matter of logic that a genuine, justiciable controversy can never arise between them.

The courts should either dismiss the case as non-justiciable under Article III standing requirements or stay it until a different President enters office so that the parties no longer have a complete identity of interests.

[Swede425]

He has a strong case.
I hope he settles for just a few billion and saves the tax payers some money.
Hopefully, a lesson will be leared here by miscreant liberals who want to use the apparatus of government to go after their political enemies.
But that's the problem with libs; they never lear.

[John F. Carr]

If the court does not sua sponte dismiss the case the Justice Department can settle it. It's not clear to me that there is no standing. Let's imagine a Secret Service golf cart ran over Trump's foot. Should Trump be able to sue?

Here is the case: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72207870/trump-v-internal-revenue-service/
It is assigned to Judge Kathleen M. Williams.

[ReaderY]

And if “the Justice Department” doesn’t settle it for enough, Trump can simply fire the lawyer involved, lather, rinse, and repeat, until “the Justice Department” does.

[Absaroka]

"Let's imagine a Secret Service golf cart ran over Trump's foot. Should Trump be able to sue?"

Is there a corporate law equivalent? ACMECorp's limo driver drive's over the CEO's foot. Can the CEO sue and then direct a yuuuuge settlement?

[John F. Carr]

I think so. If the amount was too obviously inflated the IRS might consider the payment to be taxable.

[jb]

If the amount is inflated, how is that different from inflating your expense report? I recognize that the IRS would also tax that, but wouldn't it be fraud as well?

[John F. Carr]

Settlements can include an amount for pain and suffering.

In theory, punitive damages and pain and suffering are taxable while compensatory damages for out of pocket expenses are not. If the case goes to judgment the division is clear. If the case is settled, the lawyers can describe the payment any way they like and the IRS will generally go along. If you have a case that's worth ten million dollars in taxable payments you may be better off settling it for six million if the defendant's lawyer agrees to classify the payment as not taxable.

My understanding is, the IRS reserves the right to audit and reclassify settlements. A CEO blatantly ripping off his company might catch auditors' attention. Otherwise, the auditors don't have time.

[jb]

$10 billion is an amount I presume most auditors would pay attention to?

But I think you're answering a different question anyway, which is at some point does the divergence an auditor might pick up on become big enough that it's actually fraud?

[John F. Carr]

Fraud is based on mental state. Millions of people commit tax fraud every year. They know they have unreported income and they don't include it on the tax return. If the amount is small the government will have a hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the taxpayer intentionally concealed them.

When does an inflated settlement become so obviously wrong that the jury can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody committed fraud? I don't know.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Is there a corporate law equivalent? ACMECorp's limo driver drive's over the CEO's foot. Can the CEO sue and then direct a yuuuuge settlement?"

CEO doesn't have ultimate power in a corporation. Board might need to approve settlement depending on charter and bylaws. (And they could certainly fire the CEO too)

CEO and board have fiduciary duties to the corporation. Even if the board approves the CEO's "settlement" there might be challenges to the settlement by shareholders. It might constitute waste. A court might not consider this within the scope of the business judgment rule.

[David Nieporent]

Is there a corporate law equivalent? ACMECorp's limo driver drive's over the CEO's foot. Can the CEO sue and then direct a yuuuuge settlement?

He can. But unless he's the sole shareholder the others will have some say, just as if the CEO looted the corporate treasury for any other personal benefit.

(And if he is the sole shareholder, what's the point? He's moving money from one pocket to the other. (I suppose there could be some tax benefits to doing so.))

[LexAquilia]

I can't see how he loses.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Also under unitary executive theory, he was ultimately responsible for leaks because he had complete control over the IRS when they occurred.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I know Don Lemon is the news of the moment, but I have been thinking of another "Lemon."

The infamous Lemon Test that used to be the rule for Establishment Clause cases. The test arose from a funding case, the opinion written by Chief Justice Warren Burger.

The three-part test spoke of secular purposes, primary effects of advancing or inhibiting religion, and excessive entanglement. It was announced in Kennedy v. Bremerton (praying coach case) that it was no longer the rule. To allude to a famous reference by St. Scalia, is the horror movie monster truly dead?

And, how far gone is it? For instance, the Fifth Circuit en banc seems ready to deem Stone v. Graham (Ten Commandments in public school rooms) as defunct too, since it significantly relied on the secular purpose prong of Lemon.

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2026/01/5th-circuit-en-banc-hears-challenges-to.html

It might ultimately reach the Supreme Court. If so, we might see how far things go. After all, the purpose and effect prongs of Lemon go back to Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), involving bible reading and saying the Our Father.

Bible reading has some "history and tradition" going for it, though the history was somewhat unpleasant, including punishing Catholic school children for rejecting readings from Protestant Bibles. One possible reading:

1 Corinthians

Chapter 6

1When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers! 2Don’t you realize that someday we believers will judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can’t you decide even these little things among yourselves? 3Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life. 4If you have legal disputes about such matters, why go to outside judges who are not respected by the church? 5I am saying this to shame you. Isn’t there anyone in all the church who is wise enough to decide these issues? 6But instead, one believer sues another—right in front of unbelievers!

[John F. Carr]

If the Fifth Circuit faithfully follows Supreme Court directives, it will consider Stone v. Graham good law despite its foundation being undermined. That's part of the law of applying Supreme Court case law.

If I had to bet on the outcome after the Fifth Circuit rules and the Supreme Court has its chance, I would take "schools keep their displays."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Prof. Michael Dorf reposted an older essay of his arguing that there is no constitutional right of protesting while armed (and it is bad on policy grounds) recently.

He defends his position using history and tradition. He realizes the Calvinball nature of that technique, including as applied by those responding to the killing of Alex Pretti.

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2026/01/is-there-right-to-armed-protest-should.html

Some media explainers have also noted that some states (and DC) do have laws against guns at protests. Minnesota is not among them. One article quoted David Kopel.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/fact-checking-fbi-director-patels-claim-that-guns-are-barred-at-protests

Dorf's post includes a link to a recent news segment showing evidence that ICE is using racist tropes in its recruitment.

https://youtu.be/TNh_jl3QePI

[Life of Brian]

Kudos to him for ultimately sticking to his guns, despite all the obligatory rounds of "oooh, will he or won't he" throat clearing in the middle.

[M L]

What is an "autism business"? Does anyone know?

https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2026/01/30/feds-descend-on-little-mogadishu-lewiston-maine-to-probe-somali-fraud/

"Paul Munyura arrived in Maine claiming to be a refugee in 2019.

In 2024, his autism business pulled in $17.3M. He owns multiple properties, including rentals and an $800k home, and his 3rd car is a Mercedes Benz G-Wagon.

Did I mention he owes $280k in back taxes?"

[Frank Drackman]

Actually it's his Art-ism business, see, he's "Artistic" and he's a Veterinarian because he doesn't eat Meat.

[M L]

No wonder autism is getting so popular these days.

[jb]

You can start your own!

https://www.behaviorbusinessbuilder.com/

And once you do you can join the Autism Business Association:

https://autismbusinessassociation.com/

Seems like it's a business that employs people that help kids with autism. Hope that helps!

[M L]

Amazing. Check out all these people pillaging our tax dollar...I mean, conducting successful autism businesses, all in tiny Maine, all just during the Biden admin!

https://x.com/SteveRob/status/2014874790398722319/photo/2

[jb]

Wow, that's wild. An immigrant came to this country and started a successful business?!? That Elon Musk sure must be a scammer. And we better beware all of that fraudulent Chobani yogurt. Good thing Meta bought WhatsApp or we'd have yet another scam app out there!

I have no idea whether Paul Munyura's business is legitimate or if he's pulling a Rick Scott, but your sheer incredulity that a black guy from another country could possibly have started a medium sized business is pretty telling.

[Life of Brian]

Who said anything about him being black?

From refugee in tattered garments to a high-6-figure income in 4 years (with probably around a tripling of his income in the final year alone) is absolutely plausible in tech or some other high-margin industry.

In state-funded social services? Nope, full stop.

[Sarcastr0]

This is free of actual facts of what happened.
You just make some assumptions based on demographics and timeline and decide.

That's fucked up, man.

[Life of Brian]

Spin up a pro forma for us, then. Show us how easy it would be.

You either have no clue exactly how low-margin Medicaid-funded residential support services are, or you're just playing your normal oppositional games.

[Sarcastr0]

So unless I can write a fan fiction based on scanty information, your assumptions are right?

Haha fuck off.

[Life of Brian]

All the necessary building blocks are out there in the public space, chickenshit: reimbursement rates; average wages; average facility costs.

The noisy withdrawal just confirms you already know good and well what even a ballpark estimate would show.

[jb]

Who said anything about him being black?

Just a coincidence the cases that Michael P chooses to highlight, I guess.

From refugee in tattered garments to a high-6-figure income in 4 years (with probably around a tripling of his income in the final year alone) is absolutely plausible in tech or some other high-margin industry.

In state-funded social services? Nope, full stop.

Now, Rick Scott started off with more resources, I'll grant you. But he went from putting $125K in working capital in 1988 to buying up hospital chains worth billions of dollars in the low-margin hospital business in only 5 years. That seems a lot more impressive than going from 0 to a few hundred thousand in a similar amount of time.

Or if we want to do an immigrant in an even lower-margin business, Chobani went from 0 to $1B in sales in 3 years, funded by an SBA loan.

[Life of Brian]

Dunno what the obsessive whataboutery about Rick Scott is, and without looking I'm super sure you're very objectively and accurately describing not only the trajectory of whatever that business was but also that he was "buying up hospital chains worth billions of dollars" with his own personal grubstake he grew from the $125k. I'm also absolutely positive the founder of Chobani had just applied for asylum in the US the year before he started the company.

But all that aside, describing US health care services and frou-frou Greek yogurt as "low margin" was the biggest howler I've read in ages.

[jb]

Dunno what the obsessive whataboutery about Rick Scott is, and without looking I'm super sure you're very objectively and accurately describing not only the trajectory of whatever that business was but also that he was "buying up hospital chains worth billions of dollars" with his own personal grubstake he grew from the $125k.

I don't know that much about Rick Scott either, other than he did a bigger Medicaid/Medicare fraud than all of the Somalis in America combined, and what Wikipedia says about the start of his career:

In 1988, Scott and Richard Rainwater, a financier from Fort Worth, each put up $125,000 in working capital in their new company, Columbia Hospital Corporation;[31] they borrowed the remaining money needed to purchase two struggling hospitals in El Paso for $60 million.[32] Then they acquired a neighboring hospital and shut it down. Within a year, the remaining two were doing much better.[25] By the end of 1989, Columbia Hospital Corporation owned four hospitals with a total of 833 beds.[32]

In 1992, Columbia made a stock purchase of Basic American Medical, which owned eight hospitals, primarily in Southwestern Florida. In September 1993, Columbia did another stock purchase, worth $3.4 billion, of Galen Healthcare, which had been spun off by Humana Inc. several months earlier.[33]

I'm also absolutely positive the founder of Chobani had just applied for asylum in the US the year before he started the company.

He did not, but what's that got to do with anything? Asylum is based on a fear of persecution in your home country, not being poor or bad at business. A lot of the South African asylees coming to the US last year owned farms and nice houses, for example. In fact, in many cases their argument is that they're being targeted because of their wealth.

But all that aside, describing US health care services and frou-frou Greek yogurt as "low margin" was the biggest howler I've read in ages.

Hospital margins seem to hover in the single digit range* and about 40% lose money. Chobani is better at about 20% EBITDA, so I guess we'll call it "average" margin since that roughly matches the S&P. But it's nowhere near tech companies like Google, Meta or NVIDIA that do 2-3x that.

* And A LOT of hospital income comes from the government, just like autism businesses. I'm not sure why you expect them to have significantly higher margins.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, so you don't really know anything about Rick Scott or what actually happened, and are just parroting a scrupulously unbiased and not-angry-at-all Wikipedia screed. Got it. And thanks for confirming there was no actual growth of the $125k to the billions -- that seemed clear enough.

Asylum is based on a fear of persecution in your home country, not being poor or bad at business. A lot of the South African asylees coming to the US last year owned farms and nice houses, for example. In fact, in many cases their argument is that they're being targeted because of their wealth.

Yeah, not here:

The Bethel Christian Center in Westbrook opened its doors to asylum seekers and refugees and treated them to a Thanksgiving feast.

"I'm so excited to be here," said Paul Munyura.

Munyura and his family celebrated Thanksgiving for the first time Sunday, at the Bethel Christian Center.

He is grateful for the warm meal and to be surrounded by friends in his new, safe home.

Munyura came to Maine with his family in May.

He said he escaped a life in central Africa that was characterized by poverty and violence.

According to his LinkedIn profile, he sold insurance for Family First Life from 2020 to late 2022 (google them for a good time -- they apparently have a reputation for preying on recent immigrants and he likely didn't make much at all). That's consistent with his website, which says "Copyright 2022" and was first captured in March 2023.

And we're supposed to believe that after coming over here to escape poverty and farting around as an insurance agent for a couple of years, he suddenly he stood up a genuine business that somehow managed to bill Medicaid $3.4M in that short remainder of 2022, $12M in 2023, and over $17M in 2024?

Someone who doesn't even bother paying his taxes?

Whatever. Utterly unlike Rick Scott, this dude's getting indicted.

[jb]

Dude, you need to take a Xanax or something. Not sure why you think that Wikipedia synopsis is angry; it just summarizes a set of transactions in a way that actually seem quite favorable to Scott.

And while Rick Scott did not get indicted, his company did settle with the Bush DOJ to resolve what they described as the largest health care fraud case in US history. I guess if you're going to rip off the US government, it's better to do it in the billions than the millions so that at the end all you have to do is quit your job and become a Republican politican.

But I guess go on with your incredulity that poor people escaping to the US can't live out the American dream. I personally find the vision of America where Andrew Carnegie can come from Scotland, start off life earning $1.20 a week as a bobbin boy and end up with an industrial behemoth inspiring. You'd probably have been one of the Know Nothings trying to keep him out of the country.

[Life of Brian]

You can keep throwing rags-to-riches platitudes into the ring to your heart's content.

But I just happen to know a great deal about the ins and outs of this particular industry, and for all the reasons I've explained and many others I haven't, this is on the top 3 list of things that never, ever legitimately happened.

Stay tuned for indictments.

[Life of Brian]

a business that employs people that help kids with autism

Or, a business that [often] employs people and that [always] bills state-funded programs for services for kids swept in to the ever-expanding and absolutely not purpose-driven definition of autism.

Any graph of incidence over time you choose to look at is similarly implausible -- here's one example.

[Mr. Bumble]

Next up, transportation companies.

[Sarcastr0]

So your beef isn't with this guy, it's with the discipline of psychiatry in general?
Because I don't think this guy is responsible for that graph.

You're just all over the map, eh?

[Life of Brian]

Two different comments; two different topics; two different replies! How in the world do I do it?

You really don't ever even try to get into substance, do you? Always just picking and bitching about imaginary issues of form.

[John F. Carr]

I don't know about this particular autism business.

There is a huge amount of education money for students with disabilities. An autism diagnosis can be expensive for the student's school. Mild cases are handled in house with extra counseling and a second teacher in a classroom. Severe cases get sent to outside facilities.

[Life of Brian]

The website of the business listed in ML's X link is here, and advertises residential support/independent living services; both ADLs (on the milder side) and around-the-clock care/supervision (generally a group home model).

They're a signatory on an April 1, 2025 letter to Congress from "Community Providers" urging rejection of Medicaid cuts.

They don't make any mention of one-on-one school-based services, and those are generally a lot harder to come by in my experience (the money comes directly out of the school's budget, so they push back a lot harder on what and how much is actually required). Medicaid-funded in-home services generally just require a diagnosis and some box-checking by a case manager, so that's usually the path of least resistance.

[Frank Drackman]

Don Lemon, only one who gets himself arrested FOR the Body Cavity search.

[Mr. Bumble]

Did Melinda Gates divorce Bill because he gave her an STD?
More "Epstein files" released (3 million).

[not guilty]

The New York Times reports today:

The Justice Department said on Friday that it will conduct an investigation into the death of Alex Pretti, a Veterans Affairs nurse whose killing by federal agents in Minneapolis resulted in a national backlash against President Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/30/us/minnesota-ice-protests-minneapolis

Let's hope the investigation will not be a whitewash, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yeah, nobody wants a whitewash like the murder of Vicki Weaver.

[SRG2]

"We've already written the report, when do you want to hold the investigation?"

[Bwaaah]

Even without an investigation, you already know what that report needs to say if you're to lend it any credibility.

You, and the voice that you parrot, are of like kind.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

This should be standard stuff when the government kills someone in an officer-related incident. But this Administration doing basic run-of-the-mill professional things is repeatedly not standard.

[Mr. Bumble]

"This should be standard stuff when the government kills someone in an officer-related incident."
You're kidding, right.
See Ruby Ridge and Waco among others.

[SRG2]

Fuckwit, there were Federal investigations into both Ruby Ridge and Waco.

[Mr. Bumble]

Back at you fuckwit and you forgot Michael (I lost my weapon in the men's room) Byrd. And, in those three cases the the federal investigation found no one liable for the murders of American citizens (including children in Waco).
If the same conclusions are reach in the Minneapolis homicides will you be OK with it or have you joined the chorus saying the victims were murdered?

[SRG2]

Fuckwit (but I am delighted you've picked this up - it's a fine word), I was pointing out that there were investigations - even biased and partisan ones. You implied no investigation.

[Life of Brian]

Let's hope the investigation will not be a whitewash

Genuine question: is there any result short of prosecuting the agents that you would NOT consider a "whitewash"?

[Life of Brian]

STILL WAITING, NOT GUILTY....

[I crack myself up sometimes. Actually quite a bit of the time.]

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Sorry Kevin.

Catherine O'Hara, the actress, has died.

[Ska]

I'm not going to do a Christopher Guest mockumentary marathon one month apart from the last one.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bummer!
Age 71. Too soon.

[ThePublius]

New liberal and Democrat euphemism for illegal immigrants, including criminal illegal immigrants: 'our neighbors.'

[Sarcastr0]

An estimated 87% to 95% of Somalis in Minnesota are U.S. citizens, with the majority residing in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/5-things-to-know-about-the-somali-community-in-minnesota-after-trumps-attacks

ICE is harassing all of them.

And yeah, they're neighbors to a lot of people. White people, even.

So, less a euphemism and more a thing that is true.

[MarkJawz]

If they are citizens, they shouldn't be. Americans didn't vote on creating a refugee system to bring trash in. Muslim beliefs and African genes. What can go wrong?

[John 4]

MAGA: “They keep calling us racist!”

[ThePublius]

I never said anything about Somalis or citizens. WTF are you talking about?

Liberal mayors and governors are euphemistically referring to illegals as 'neighbors.' That's a fact.

[Magister]

If you were actually worth a moment of their time, liberal mayors and governors could just as easily retort that they "never said anything" about people here illegally, no matter who you think they were talking about. "Our neighbors" are people who are being improperly harassed by ICE.

[hobie]

We like to refer to them as 'mostly peaceful tourists exercising legitimate political discourse'

[SRG2]

You object to the humanising frame.

[LawTalkingGuy]

People who live in my neighborhood are my neighbors regardless of any other status.

They’re certainly more of my neighbor than an out of state federal agent.

[Sarcastr0]

They continue to tiptoe up to race traitor rhetoric.

[ThePublius]

And Sarcastr0 plays the race card. I was wondering when....

[LawTalkingGuy]

At the beginning of Trump 2, right-wing pseudo-intellectuals and reply guys would post that “heat map” meme every time some liberal demonstrated empathy for an immigrant or something. Besides misunderstanding the study the map was based on, these same accounts seem mystified that a lot of people are upset that student and his family from a local grade school are in immigration detention and don’t care that as much that this furthers federal policy or benefits some abstract ideal about what the country ought to “look” like.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

ICE, as I noted, has used racist rhetoric in its recruitment materials.

[hobie]

Bro, I live in an all-black hood. Neegroes are my neighbors. The people that scare the hayseeds so much that they have to walk around armed at all time. Naturally, these aren't the mythic neegroes Publius' pappy trained him to hate/fear. They're just normal people. Here's a hint: if you are kind and polite, the neegro is kind and polite right back to you.

[Commenter_XY]

It is sophistry, nothing more.

Uninvited neighbors is 100% accurate.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, all of my neighbors are uninvited. I don't vet the people who move in next door. Not sure what your point is.

[Bob from Ohio]

Some good news

https://insiderpaper.com/guterres-warns-un-risks-imminent-financial-collapse/

[Bunny495]

I was just about to post that. It must be a real kick in the dick for libturds, but that assumes they have dicks.

[LexAquilia]

The New World Marxist Order is collapsing.

That will be Trump's greatest achievement. The EU is collapsing. The UN is collapsing.

Fuck all those cunts.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Why are you so mad at the EU that you’re coming up with an elaborate fantasy that Trump is making it “collapse.” Nothing of the sort is happening. And even if it was: why do you care?

[Commenter_XY]

The UN, not the EU. Totally different.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Lex claimed the EU was collapsing.

[LexAquilia]

If six states decided to form their own federal compact, you'd think something was wrong with our Union too, no?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Not necessarily. Sounds like standard federal politics. Big Powerful states are frustrated by smaller ones and want to make things easier for themselves.

But in any event? Why is the EU collapsing an “achievement” for Trump? Why does its mere existence make you angry?

[LexAquilia]

It existing doesn't make me angry. Just your stupid strawman.

The EU has subverted sovereignty and isn't democratic at all, only bureaucratic. It's designed to oppress and enrichen elites.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Fuck all those cunts.“

Things you say when you’re totally not angry.

“The EU has subverted sovereignty and isn't democratic at all, only bureaucratic. It's designed to oppress and enrichen elites.”

Wait til I tell you about the United States.

[LexAquilia]

You don't assign me my emotions. What an arrogant prick.

Whatabout

[LexAquilia]

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/01/29/germany-proposes-two-speed-eu-to-hasten-defense-buildup/

>Germany is spearheading an initiative to create a “two-speed” European Union, proposing that a core group of six major economies bypass the bloc’s traditional consensus-based decision-making to accelerate defense cooperation and industrial competitiveness amid mounting geopolitical pressures.

That's the EU collapsing

[jb]

Sounds more like NATO collapsing TBH.

[Mr. Bumble]

Remember when Trump first came into office and said he would not let China control the Panama Canal. Well, the Panama Supreme Court just ruled that the contracts with CK Hutchison, the Chinese company that was running the ports at either end of the canal, were unconstitutional and will be canceled.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

For over 30 years, the federal government restricted immigration enforcement at houses of worship and other sensitive locations, acknowledging that to carry out raids, arrests, and surveillance at those locations could deny people of faith access to their places of worship and violate religious freedom rights.

Soon after taking office, the Trump administration abruptly reversed course and abandoned these longstanding protections, giving ICE agents discretionary power to use their “common sense” and decide whether to carry out enforcement actions at or near houses of worship.

The lawsuit details how ICE agents have arrested people in church parking lots and during preschool pickup, and even attempted arrests while pastors were preaching. These actions have caused church attendance to decrease, forced congregations to lock their doors, and silenced the ministries that make worship communities safe for all people, regardless of their immigration status.

https://www.washlaw.org/religious-groups-sue-administration-over-immigration-raids

[Life of Brian]

The lawsuit details how ICE agents have arrested people in church parking lots and during preschool pickup, and even attempted arrests while pastors were preaching.

The actual complaint is here. Plenty of stories about parking lots and one story about preschool pickup (which apparently wasn't even in the parking lot, so not clear how far they're suggesting the zone should extend), but the last one is a bit of a puzzler. Several arrests that were outside churches, so perhaps "while pastors were preaching" is correct in a temporal sense but it's not immediately clear what relevance that has other then a rhetorical point.

Anyway, maybe we could do this: exactly the same go/don't go zones in and around churches will apply to both ICE agents and protestors. A little something for everyone.

[John F. Carr]

They are looking for another DACA case - a custom becomes a vested interest and any attempt to take away established rights can be delayed by litigation until a change of administration restarts the litigation clock.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The article includes links to statements and the complaint. As should be done when available in each of these articles.

More here:

https://democracyforward.org/work/legal/religious-groups-sue-trump-administration-over-ice-enforcement-in-houses-of-worship/

[Life of Brian]

They really don't do their credibility any favors by so calculatingly overstating their case.

They write a huge check in the big, blaring headline: "Religious Groups Sue Trump Administration Over ICE Enforcement in Houses of Worship" -- and then fizzle out with the same generic language about parking lots and school pickup.

Maybe I missed the big smoking gun in the complaint where agents actually entered a church? Typically you lead with your most persuasive evidence, so hopefully they didn't bury it somewhere in a footnote.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

To be clear, the complaint spells out the long policy in place "at or near sensitive community locations such as schools, places of worship, and funerals or other religious ceremonies."

In policy going back to 1993, which the Trump Administration, which is regularly quite open on how it respects religion more than past administrations, revoked.

Moving past a headline (in standard headline font), the complaint spells out multiple cases, including guns pointed at clergy, children being present when a parent is arrested in previously protected areas. I don't know exactly what the preaching bit is about but the examples in the complaint are rather concering.

The website linked notes what is "allowed," changes "at" houses of worship, and so forth. Then, as does the complaint, it talks about the effects of the new policy. Which groups like the Rutherford Institute find troubling.

The previous policy, as applied to schools, makes the reference to preschool pick-ups more understandable.

[Life of Brian]

To be clear, the complaint spells out the long policy in place "at or near sensitive community locations such as schools, places of worship, and funerals or other religious ceremonies."

Sure, and if that's what they're actually challenging, great. But as I said, they don't do their credibility any favors when, instead of being honest about what they're actually challenging, they instead throw out "IN HOUSES OF WORSHIP" chum for the gossiping headline-skimmers. It comes across as though they really don't believe in the actual merits of their case.

[John F. Carr]

"and silenced the ministries that make worship communities safe for all people, regardless of their immigration status"

As a matter of policy, if the church is harboring illegal aliens ICE should bust down the doors and if the church is just allowing them to attend services ICE should remain at a polite distance.

But the law, either as written or as invented by the courts, may have a different answer. As a matter of constitutional law the government is subjecting the church to the same secular laws anybody else has to endure. As a matter of statutory law, I have no guess what the courts will say about the RFRA once the appeals are done.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"As a matter of policy, if the church is harboring illegal aliens ICE should bust down the doors and if the church is just allowing them to attend services ICE should remain at a polite distance."

There is usually no need to "bust down the doors," so they should not do that as policy, particularly given the sensitive nature of religious locations, which are (optionally in many cases) treated sensitively legally in various contexts, including for purposes of taxation.

Congress doesn't "subject" churches in the same way as others in various respects. Including under the FACE Act, which is carefully applied to them in particular.

This is a matter of policy in various cases, not constitutional demand, per Oregon v. Smith, etc. though constitutional concerns sometimes influence the legislation in some fashion.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Interesting tidbit.

The FACE Act applied to clinics has a commerce hook since clinics are businesses. The constitutionality, as applied to churches when purely private action is involved, seems trickier.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/01/don-lemon-arrest/685840/

[Brett Bellmore]

I would have said the opposite: Since freedom of religion IS a constitutional right, the FACE act can be regarded as 14th amendment enabling legislation, but basing laws having to do with intrastate commerce on the interstate commerce clause has always been BS.

[Life of Brian]

The irony in liberals finally suggesting after half a century of gleeful tent-cameling that all of a sudden there might actually be some sort of limit to Commerce Clause authority is really rich. And as strangely omitted by the Atlantic author, the 8th Circuit, like at least 7 others, has already held the FACE Act was within Congress's Commerce Clause power. US v. Dinwiddie, 76 F. 3d 913 (8th Cir. 1996).

I'm sure Lemon and the other defendants will take another too-cute swipe at it, but as we discussed a couple of years ago, the original FACE Act pertained only to abortion clinics, and they added the church subsections to get enough votes to pass it. No way SCOTUS is going to yank the rug out from under that sort of logrolling deal (followed by 30 years of settled expectations that the statute was indeed constitutional) via that sort of pinheaded rationale.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I clicked the case link. We are told:

Regina Rene Dinwiddie is an opponent of abortion who, for many years, has protested outside of Planned Parenthood of Greater Kansas City ("Planned Parenthood"), a clinic where abortions are performed.

As the Atlantic article notes:

Here, though, the Justice Department is leveraging a lesser-known portion of the statute that provides similar protections for freedom of religion in places of worship. Kyle Boynton, who recently departed from his position as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division, told me that this provision of the FACE Act has never been used—probably because “it’s plainly unconstitutional” as an overreach of Congress’s authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.

As I already said, clinics are businesses, with an interstate commerce link, so are an easier case to make constitutionally. Of course, some conservatives/libertarians would push back on it.

I suppose somehow a church has some commercial link, but it is harder. YOU, not the article seem to be missing something.

"Liberals" voted for the FACE Act, so I suppose that many would be okay with this as a whole. Court liberals dissented in multiple Rehnquist/Roberts Court Commerce Clause opinions.

The article flagged a problem based on current precedent. The irony might be in the other direction. Now, consistently applying the rules is "pinheaded," and SCOTUS won't apply it because of some political compromise. They didn't respect that in Shelby v. Holder. But Calvinball rules might apply.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, I understand the too-cute argument.

But in the real world, making a telephone call or browsing a website has been held to constitute interstate commerce. SCOTUS even said that growing pot in your own backyard was enough!

This is going nowhere.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

You made a claim about the article missing something & I spelled out that you are the one ignoring what the point is.

The article cites "a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division," spelling out the concern. Something that has "never been used."

As I said, "interesting tidbit."

[Life of Brian]

As always, stay tuned!