Open Thread

Sorry for the late post: Our auto-posting for some reason glitched out today, so I'm posting this manually.

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

...and their off.

[ThePublius]

'they're off...' 🙂

[Mr. Bumble]

Doh! Thanks, English is so hard.

[NvEric]

Unless 'their' refers to people ending work or not working today, etc..

[David Nieporent]

You should fire that autopost guy; he keeps falling down on the job.

[Mr. Bumble]

Can't. DEI hire.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes. I thought it was still Monday.

[Frank Drackman]

CPT, it's a real thing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Maybe he just needs to be reinflated occasionally.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Justice Department on June 29 sent a Letter (full text) to the President of the International Criminal Court reiterating that the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute and has never consented to the Court's jurisdiction. It emphasizes that the U.S. will oppose any attempt to assert ICC authority over any U.S. person.

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2026/07/doj-letter-emphasizes-us-rejection-of.html

250 years ago, we spoke of "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" and "acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

We currently feel we are special. The rules don't really apply to us.

This is not an ideal situation. I support a presidential candidate who agrees that the rules will apply.

Certain safeguards might be required. I'm open to fleshing out the details. But this is not the way.

[ThePublius]

"We currently feel we are special. The rules don't really apply to us."

Well, yes, obviously, if we didn't ratify the treaty, none of that applies to us! What's so hard to understand about that? You think some European body can make rules, and even if we don't agree those rules apply to us?

[David Nieporent]

Well, yeah. We didn't ratify the French penal code, but if I kill a hobo when I'm in Normandy on vacation, I would expect to be prosecuted.

[ThePublius]

What does that comment have to do with anything we're discussing? Of course, when you're in France you're subject to French law. But nowhere on earth is a U.S. citizen subject to ICC 'regulations.'

[bernard11]

Yeah. One might almost say that while in France he is subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

[ThePublius]

Yea, except when a woman is in France, and subject to French law, if she gives birth there her child is not a French citizen.

[not guilty]

So what, Pubes?

[jb]

Yeah, funny how different countries have different citizenship laws. Do you think we should shred the 1st Amendment because the UK has a state religion?

[ThePublius]

Are you guys kidding? You didn't get that bernard11 was making an oblique reference to the 14th Amendment? Geez!

[John 4]

Everyone got it. I think you’re just too dumb to understand the ripostes.

[bernard11]

France follows its Constitution. We follow ours.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, when you're in France you're subject to French law. But nowhere on earth is a U.S. citizen subject to ICC 'regulations.

I don't know what "regulations" you mean, but if France makes people in France subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC, then someone in France is in fact subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC, regardless of what one is a "citizen" of.

[Bob from Ohio]

"then someone in France is in fact subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC, regardless of what one is a "citizen" of"

Oh? Got a US case that says that?

[TwelveInchPianist]

" if France makes people in France subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC, then someone in France is in fact subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC, regardless of what one is a "citizen" of."

Not if they're part if an invading Army.

In addition, if France "makes people in France subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC" with respects to acts done under the jurisdiction of a different sovereign, that sovereign might not recognize France's jurisdiction, and might take steps to prevent France from purporting to exercise that jurisdiction.

[Frank Drackman]

Be better to kill a Mime, nobody likes them anyway.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...but if I kill a hobo when I'm in Normandy on vacation, I would expect to be prosecuted."

But not if you're storming the beach on June 6.

There is no American Vacationer's protection act.

And yes, it has to be 1944.

[hobie]

We follow the rules Israel lays down for us without any formal treaty.

[JazzboDepew]

Hear hear, comrade Brother. When ZOG moves the Pentagon under Israeli control with Section 240, we're all fucked. Permanently.

[Frank Drackman]

I liked your Lexi Aquafina name better.

[Life of Brian]

The statutory scheme cited in the letter has been in place since 2002. To my eye, it says seven ways from Sunday that the US does not recognize any supposed authority of the ICC and won't cooperate with it in any manner.

Maybe give it a quick read and let us know if you think this letter actually breaks any new ground.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The quote says "reiterating."

So, okay? (Without going into the weeds.)

I said that I think the policy is suspect.

[Bwaaah]

"I said that I think the policy is suspect."

That, too, is not news.

[Life of Brian]

I thought you said you wanted a Presidential candidate "who agrees that the rules will apply." What does that practically mean to you when Congress has already said the opposite?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The statement reiterated -- no breaking of new ground -- that the U.S. will not follow the rules many other nations follow.

That we are special. We don't have to follow those rules.

I don't think that is ideal. I want a presidential candidate to announce they will (perhaps with certain safeguards) support following the rules other nations follow.

I think my comment as a whole, not parts of it or assumptions about it (e.g., that I'm saying the Trump Administration is breaking new ground), spells this out.

[ThePublius]

So, we should give up the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, and so forth, to "follow the rules many other nations follow?" Get lost!

[Life of Brian]

I agree your original comment seemed pretty clear; I just wanted to double check that when you wrote it you actually understood that you're hoping for a President that seeks to commit our nation to acts specifically contemplated and expressly prohibited by Congress.

[Bwaaah]

"That we are special. We don't have to follow those rules."

This nation, much like other nations, chooses the external rules and authorities by which it will abide. You call that being "special." I call that being "sovereign."

To me, it is a responsibility of our government to never delegate ultimate authority over our interests. In the end, even our treaties should be broken if that is ultimately sensible to our interests. (That's also a good reason to be very restrained in making promises we might not be able to keep.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"Things which Independent States may of right do."

Like not ratifying a treaty that we oppose, for instance, and therefore not being bound by it.

[Drewski]

I, too, would want a presidential candidate to agree the rules will apply. Such as judicial review, being tried before a jury, and a probable cause requirement for arrest, things the Rome Statute does not allow but the Constitution requires.

[Malika la Maize]

Russia unleashed waves of missiles and drones at Ukraine early Monday, killing at least 22 people in attacks that exposed widening gaps in the country's air defenses more than four years into Moscow's full-scale invasion, authorities said.

https://www.npr.org/2026/07/06/g-s1-132088/russian-missile-drone-attack-kyiv-ukraine

January 21, 2024. Rally in Rochester, New Hampshire.
“I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled before I even take office.” -Trump

[ThePublius]

"In a January 2022 press conference, former President Joe Biden suggested a "minor incursion" by Russia into Ukraine might result in a weaker response from the U.S. and its allies due to potential disagreements."

[Malika la Maize]

What a pathetic fail of a whataboutism.

[ThePublius]

In response to your pathetic beating of a dead horse.

[Malika la Maize]

The dead horse you want to dismiss is Trump saying over fifty times he’d end the war by day one of his taking office. Well, here we are, July 2026 and the war is still raging.

[ThePublius]

Yea, so what? Biden hasn't cured cancer yet, either. All politicians say shit on the campaign trail.

[Malika la Maize]

Not every of them says things as dumb and as much as Trump.

[Nelson]

Biden never said he could cure cancer.

Much of what Trump says, especially in international relations, are claims of all the things only he can accomplish that fail completely.

[ThePublius]

That's bullshit. He said, repeatedly, that if he was elected, 'we' would cure cancer.

[Krayt]

Fair enough. He overstated the progress. Honestly I have no idea if they increased cancer research. Public and private investment in it and heart disease and diabetes is already at insane levels. In my libertarian moments, cutting back on such research is at the end of the list, somewhere near feeding kids of single moms with deadbeat dads.

But Biden didn't then actively cut back on funding of the research, the way Trump and Republicans did on aid to Ukraine.

The one with the plenary power to decide foreign policy, and the other branch that can fund aid and decide war if it wants, chose to throw in with a dictator rolling tanks into Europe using the exact same argument Hitler did -- protecting his dear ethnic nationals living there.

So let us accept, lock, stock, and stupidly, everything in this Biden whattabout, and it's still no where near as insideous as actively and deliberately harming cancer research, the equivalent of our leaders' apparent desires with Ukraine.

[shawn_dude]

Not to be argumentative, but a Trump supporter (of which I am not one) could argue that weakening Ukraine by withholding support would end the war faster by giving it to Putin.

“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful,” Trump said in a radio interview with “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show.” “He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.” -- Donald Trump

[Krayt]

Not to be argumentative, but a Trump supporter (of which I am not one) could argue that weakening Ukraine by withholding support would end the war faster by giving it to Putin

Yeah, I'm glad he wasn't in charge during WWII. Giving up vast tracks to a dictator, hundreds of millions of lives dumped into dictatorship, is nothing honorable.

[Drewski]

Gee, I thought you were opposed to foul language, fuckwad. Anyway he didn't say that, asshat. He called it a "long-term goal" and a "moonshot," you piece of smelly shit.

[hobie]

That's a double whataboutism, Pubes. You whatabouted your own whatabout. Pretty impressive.

[Nelson]

“ Yea, so what? Biden hasn't cured cancer yet,”

And Kennedy didn’t get us to the Moon. What’s your point?

There’s a reason they’re referred to as “moonshot” projects.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/moonshot-words-were-watching

[Mr. Bumble]

...and you're still commenting on it.
Giddyap!

[Malika la Maize]

Because he hasn’t delivered, I get you don’t care how much he lies.

[Glaucomatose]

Unfortunately Russia didn't pursue a minor incursion; they invaded Ukraine with a large portion of their military might, attempted to capture Kiev, and have cost both themselves and Ukraine hundreds of thousands of lives.

Trump called it "very smart" at the time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Where is the UN in all of this?

[Malika la Maize]

Ask Trump, he said he’d have this fixed over and over again before he took office.

[Mr. Bumble]

Giddyap!

[Malika la Maize]

Bumble is too dumb to get that if a pol says they are going to do something by date X and they didn’t then it’s fine to bring it up every day that passes that they haven’t it’s fine to bring it up any day after X.

Also, it’s notable that Bumble didn’t complain about Trump making such a reckless, stupid boast over 50 times as Trump beating a dead horse.

[Mr. Bumble]

Let me know when Trump posts here and I will.

[Bwaaah]

At 46th and 1st.

[Sarcastr0]

The evolution of Trump supporters on Trump promises:

"Trump's right! He and only he can do this! I believe him utterly."

"Trump has been undermined by the perfidious left but I have faith he can overcome and bring it home."

"Trump didn't mean it. I never thought he could do it myself because I understand him. He talks big and that's what I love about him."

"But Biden"

"Why are you bringing this up again? It's old news!"

It is a sad display.

[ThePublius]

1. are you replying to me? I can't tell with this thread;
2. who are you quoting? I don't think I ever said any of those things.

As far as bringing up the Biden stuff, how about the daily bringing up by Malika the Trump stuff. Aren't even you tired of this?

[Estragon]

Some of your fellow travelers find being reminded of your genocidal comments tiresome. Do you think that’s a good reason to forget all about what you said?

[Bob from Ohio]

Hey, how does a sniper shoot straight down into the top of a skull?

Publius made a comment no one but you recalls that he cannot implement in any event. You swallowed a a Hamas approved propaganda piece without thinking.

[Estragon]

“no one but you recalls”

Seems like you recall. I can provide some choice excerpts again if you have forgotten. Or would you find that tiresome? Publius remembers every evening when he touches himself.

In the end, you’re the one defending the absolute moral black hole who has repeatedly come into this ostensibly legal blog to post about the desirability of murdering children.

[Bob from Ohio]

I only recall your tedious, incessant comments.

"absolute moral black hole"

That's you. Choosing the Hamas side. .

How did that bullet enter straight down thru the top? Seems like an easy question.

[Estragon]

Appeal to incredulity is an obvious logical fallacy. I already gave you a possible explanation for the single X-ray in a long article with a lot of pictures: maybe the victim was ducking. You can feel free to inform us of your expertise in forensic pathology at any time. Otherwise I might just be willing to take the word of large European press orgs and interviews with dozens of medical doctors over some misanthropic asshole on the internet who loves Pinochet and Don Corleone. Characterize that however you wish.

Just to refresh your recollection:

“No one wants these Palestinians. No Arab country is willing to take them in. They have no historical claim to the land of Israel.
Things will never be settled there until they are wiped out. It's sad to say, but if it's labeled genocide by the world, so be it. It's survival for Israelis. If we wiped out all Nazis would that be called genocide? If the Palestinians are relocated to some other country, like South Sudan, do you think their murderous intentions and actions would cease?”

There was some pretty heinous doubling down after this, as well.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't see anything about Hamas. Just wiping out all the Palestinians.

Wrapping yourself in layers of detached posting is no excuse.

[hobie]

That's three whatabouts!

[TwelveInchPianist]

He's arguing with the Trump supporters in his head. It gets weird when he starts masturbating.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

SCOTUS still doing things ...

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Texas to continue to enforce, at least for now, a law that requires app stores to verify its buyers’ ages and obtain parental consent for minors to download apps and to purchase paid content within those apps.

In a pair of brief, unsigned orders issued on Monday afternoon, the justices turned down requests to reinstate orders by a federal judge in Austin that barred the state from implementing the law. There were no public dissents from the orders.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/07/supreme-court-allows-texas-to-enforce-law-requiring-age-verification-and-parental-consent-on-app/

[Mr. Bumble]

SC summer school?

[not guilty]

The New York Times reported yesterday:

Graham Platner, the Democratic nominee for Senate from Maine, said he was taking time to “reflect” on his political path forward as his support swiftly eroded after a woman accused him of rape.

In a video posted on social media, Mr. Platner called the account “false” even as he acknowledged the threat it posed to his candidacy in a tight race that could determine control of the Senate in November.

“Regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting but mindful of the political reality it will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward,” he said.

It was not immediately clear whether Mr. Platner intended to continue his campaign against Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican. He has until July 13 to withdraw from the race, and if he does the state Democratic Party has until July 27 to replace him on the ticket, according to Maine state law. The leadership of the state party urged him to withdraw.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/07/06/us/platner-campaign-accusation?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20260706&instance_id=178298&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=222618&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f

In today's NYT:

In a private call with his campaign staff on Monday evening, Mr. Platner did not announce plans to withdraw but implied such a decision would be coming, according to three people familiar with the conversation. He said that he believed he still had leverage to influence which candidate would replace him on the ticket and wanted to ensure that the movement his campaign had built would continue, the people said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/07/us/politics/graham-platner-maine-senate.html

It's time for Platner to take one for the team. The Senator elected from Maine this November in all likelihood vote on whether to confirm the nominees to succeed Clarence Toady and/or Scam Alito on SCOTUS. To have Susan (Kavanaugh lied to me) Collins in that role is completely unacceptable.

[Frank Drackman]

It's "He said/she said", his mistake was letting her live. How long would it take Al Franken to establish Maine Residency? I hear he's available.

[Michael P]

How long does it take for someone to asphyxiate (not drown) in the back of a submerged car?

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, let me get back to you on that one.

[Sylvie1]

Well, be prepared to accept the "unacceptable." Collins will take it - and continue her good service to us Mainers. Platner is a pile of bull hockey.

[Bob from Ohio]

NYT covered for him in their earlier article. Emphasized the former GOP "operative" and soft pedaled the rape victim so bad that she went to Politico.

GOP women are an out group that the NYT does not think are fully human.

[Malika la Maize]

They shouldn’t generalize from Ann Coulter.

[apedad]

Is Ann still around?

Last thing I heard from her, she was on a comedy roast 10 years ago.

"Ann's against gay marriage. What's your thinking on that? If I can't get a husband, they shouldn't, either?"

"Why is Ann Coulter here tonight? Because the right-to-lifers wanted everyone to see what an abortion looks like up close."

"Ann Coulter, if you're here, who is scaring the crows away from our crops?"

[Drewski]

That was the Rob Lowe roast, right? That was hilarious. Coulter was trying to huck her book, and the other guests ended up roasting her as much or more than Lowe while the audience booed everything she said.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Don't forget:
"'You do look great though, you are almost as thin as Donald Trump's chance of winning the election.'"

[Nelson]

It’s the Democrats, so they probably won’t keep pushing the corrupt, criminal candidate that their extremist wing nominated.

In related news, Ken Paxton is still the GOP candidate for Senate in Texas.

[not guilty]

Good point. I wonder whether the Texas GOP will revive the slogan that Gov. Edwin Edwards coined while David Duke was running against him: "Vote for the crook. It's important!"

[hobie]

Saw a quick vid of Paxton yesterday walking around London with the mistress. Unfaithful sexual deviants seem to be a thing. The Dems keep banishing theirs and the MAGAs keep electing theirs. I think Platner should remain in the race. He'll get MAGA crossovers

[ducksalad]

Seriously, I don't care much about someone already separated taking a trip with his girlfriend.

This, on the other hand:

https://www.texastribune.org/2026/07/07/ken-paxton-voting-election-law/

Despite his own warnings, Paxton appears to have used an address where he did not live while voting in six elections in the past two years, including in May’s runoff that made him the Republican nominee for U.S. senator, according to records obtained by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune.

State Sen. Angela Paxton said in a 2025 divorce filing that Paxton, whom she accused of adultery, moved out of their Collin County home a year earlier. But Paxton continues to list the home’s address in the northern Dallas suburb on his voter registration. Angela Paxton declined to be interviewed. A source close to the Paxtons said the attorney general has not moved back into the home since leaving.

It's not a minor technicality. Ken Paxton himself has boasted of prosecuting others for using fake addresses to vote:

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/edinburg-mayor-wife-arrested-organized-illegal-voting-scheme

https://www.krgv.com/videos/edinburg-mayor-wife-charged-for-engaging-in-organized-election-fraud/

Also, poll workers in Texas are instructed to ask the voter if they have moved:
https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/advisory2017-15.shtml

Assuming he voted in person and the poll worker followed that guidance, what did he tell the poll worker?

[not guilty]

Good catch, ducksalad.

[ducksalad]

The Tribune caught it, I just read it. Knew about the case he prosecuted because I live in Edinburg, it was our mayor. (Who BTW did deserve to be prosecuted, IMO.)

[jay.tee]

It’s the Democrats, so they probably won’t keep pushing the corrupt, criminal candidate that their extremist wing nominated.

Where have you been? None of facts and allegations that establish Platner is a piece of shit is new.

You just chose to ignore it until his ability to win the seat evaporated. Maybe I shouldn't even give you that much credit - many Democrats would still support and vote for him.

[David Nieporent]

Where have you been? None of facts and allegations that establish Platner is a piece of shit is new.

You mean, you knew before yesterday that he had raped Jenny Racicot?

[jay.tee]

You mean, you knew before yesterday that he had raped Jenny Racicot?

You can't possibly be that dumb, can you? Or are you?

[David Nieporent]

Is that a "Yes, I knew that, but I kept it to myself until everyone else knew" or an "No, I didn't know that, and therefore my claim that everyone already knew he was a criminal is false"?

[jay.tee]

Your response makes it clear you can't even read a post.

So I'll take that as a yes, you are that fucking dumb.

[hobie]

I don't think that answered his question, Jay. You backpeddling?

[jay.tee]

See above - and ankle biting on an obviously dumb post by David makes you even dumber than David.

[hobie]

David, you know you got 'em licked when all they shout is 'Squirrel!'...and the continue to shout 'Squirrel!'

[bernard11]

Jay,

You're a hopeless moron, even incompetent at trolling. I wish you would GTF out of here.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You mean, you knew before yesterday that he had raped Jenny Racicot?"

No, before that we thought he only got violent with Republican women.

[Nelson]

“ You just chose to ignore it until his ability to win the seat evaporated”

I never ignored it. The few times I mentioned Platner I openly said he was a bad candidate and probably a worse person. Of course 8’m not a Democrat so it’s easier for me than them.

“ many Democrats would still support and vote for him.”

Yes, I mentioned them. The extremist wing of the party. The socialists and the ones so blind with hate for Trump that they’ll sell out any principle to get the job done.

MAGA, but on the left.

[jay.tee]

MAGA, but on the left

Well said.

[Kazinski]

"They told me if I supported Trump we’d end up with neo-Nazi rapists as Senate candidates, and they were right."

But I might ask you Nelson, just what are the allegations against Paxton? And were they fully investigated?

Yep:
"Justice Department declined to prosecute Ken Paxton in final weeks of Biden’s term, AP sources say

The federal investigation had been the most serious inquiry still facing Paxton, who settled a securities fraud case and was acquitted of corruption charges in the Texas Senate in 2023 following a historic impeachment."
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/04/03/ken-paxton-federal-charges-dropped-biden/

[shawn_dude]

A political acquittal by friendly partisans in today's political climate is no indicator of innocence.

[Estragon]

These allegations are extremely troubling. I hope this is the end of Platner’s life in politics.

I would think people of decency anywhere would find the idea that someone who engaged in this conduct could be in a position of political power in this country to be completely unacceptable:

“Later in the evening, [she] told investigators, she saw [him] "acting inappropriately," rubbing women's legs, and "giving off a 'creeper' vibe," according to the report.

In her statements to police, [she] described how memories of that night came back to her. Of the visit to Knuckles bar, she said, "that's when things got fuzzy."

She told police that she recalled arguing with [him] near the pool, saying it was about how he was treating women at the conference. Doe remembered [him] telling her "that he was a nice guy," according to the report.

"[Doe] stated the next memory she had was when she was in an unknown room," according to the police report. "[Doe] did not know where she was and how she got to the room. [He] was in the room with her."

The report states that the woman said [he] asked who she was texting with and took her phone. Doe told police that she then tried to leave the room, but [he] blocked the door.

"[Doe] remembered saying "no" a lot. [Doe] stated she did not remember much else. [Doe's] next memory was when she was on a bed or a couch and [he] was over her. [His] dog tags were hovering over her face."

[David Nieporent]

ISWYDT.

[Kazinski]

Kind of wonder what's in it for Platner if he withdraws?

It would be right in character for him to just say fuck it, and stay in.

[Kazinski]

It looks like there is a hostage situation developing:

"Maine Democratic candidate Graham Platner appears to be holding the Democratic Party hostage — refusing to drop out after he was accused of rape unless he gets to approve his successor to run for the Senate, The Post has learned.

A source familiar with the campaign discussions said Platner, his campaign and political strategist Morris Katz are deliberating about the Maine Democrat dropping out but only if his replacement has the same anti-Israel, left-wing values that he does.

And the clock is ticking for Dems — there’s a deadline of Monday for Platner to withdraw and be replaced on the ballot, according to state election law."

https://nypost.com/2026/07/07/us-news/accused-rapist-graham-platner-lists-demands-to-dems-as-he-weighs-dropping-out-of-maine-senate-race/

[Mr. Bumble]

"...there’s a deadline of Monday for Platner to withdraw and be replaced on the ballot, according to state election law."

Does not apply to Democrats. See New jersey when Frank Lautenberg replaced Robert Torricelli.

[not guilty]

No, Kazinski and Bumble. Monday, July 13 is the withdrawal deadline. In the event of withdrawal, the deadline for replacement is Monday, July 27.

And Texas statutes indeed do not apply to candidates for federal office in New Jersey, regardless of party affiliation.

[Mr. Bumble]

What do Texas statutes have to do with Maine or New Jersey?

[not guilty]

Right. I should have said Maine statutes, not Texas statutes. Neither applies to candidates for federal office in New Jersey, regardless of party affiliation.

Apologies for my brain fart.

[ducksalad]

There's sort of a tradition of wives taking over an office/candidacy if the husband is/was popular but is no longer available. Wonder if that's what he's holding out for.

[David Nieporent]

And the clock is ticking for Dems — there’s a deadline of Monday for Platner to withdraw and be replaced on the ballot, according to state election law."

That is only the deadline for the Democratic Party to replace him if he withdraws. If he dies or is medically unable to continue, there's no deadline. Someone ought to gently remind him that Hillary took out Scalia with a pillow and she can take Platner out too.

[Jmaie]

Heh.

[apedad]

Federal appeals court in Georgia upends Alabama family restrictions for convicted parents

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a major ruling Monday, declaring that the fundamental right of parents to live with their children extends to all parents, including those with past convictions for child pornography.

In an en banc decision, the court tackled a challenge to the Alabama Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act. The 2011 state law permanently bars adult sex offenders convicted of offenses involving a child from residing or staying overnight with any minor. Because the law’s definition of a “sex offense involving a child” includes child pornography, the restriction applied directly to plaintiff Bruce Henry, permanently preventing him from living with his young son.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/federal-appeals-court-in-georgia-upends-alabama-family-restrictions-for-convicted-parents/ar-AA27kvgh?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=6a4d14227abb4bce8cfbd5456bce7add&ei=254

I think - in this particular case - this is a correct decision.

The father completed all the penalties, i.e., five years in prison, supervised release, completed a sex offender treatment program, etc.

The story doesn't mention the mother's input or other support systems, e.g., grandparents, friends, clergy, etc., but I'm assuming those play a role too.

[Bob from Ohio]

"father completed all the penalties"

One of the penalties is that sick fucks like him cannot live with minor children. So he did not complete all the penalties, did he?

[Nelson]

Fortunately for a large number of priests, they don’t live with children.

Of course the fact that the Church has hidden most of them from us probably helps them avoid sex offender registries entirely.

[JazzboDepew]

And teachers, and homosexuals. Way more of those molesting children.

[Nelson]

If you mean the percentage of priests who rape children is lower than teachers or homosexuals, you’re very wrong.

Since there are roughly 35 million gay people, 3 million K-12 teachers and 30,000 priests in America, there will obviously be more raw numbers for teachers and gays. But the rate of pedophiles is much higher among priests, even just counting the ones that the Church fails to hide and protect from investigation and prosecution.

[Bob from Ohio]

Whataboutism.

[Nelson]

No, just continuing to keep the fact that thousands of children, like my father when he was nine, have been raped by priests. The selective outrage of conservatives on this topic is nauseating. Just look at Minus for a prime example.

[Drewski]

Weird that you failed to mention him violating probation twice by accessing child porn and then attempting to do so again. You personal friends with this guy? Anyway he probably isn't getting off the hook on remand.

The case isn't really about him though. It's a rambling, sprawling "history and tradition" manifesto that analogizes--at length--parenting while unwed to jacking off with child porn to reach its conclusions, which are largely based on a lack of precedent. As much as I hate to agree with Pryor, his dissent is clear and persuasive.

[Mr. Bumble]

Meanwhile, is Cocaine Mitch dead or alive and is the China Doll now by his side?
https://x.com/Cheering4Change/status/2074216771830116772

[Frank Drackman]

So Laura Loomer says he's "Brain Dead", well she should know, she's a Neurologist.
OK, if he's "Brain Dead" he's Dead, he shouldn't still be in a hospital sucking down precious scarce Healthcare Resources.
So I'm guessing he's not "Brain Dead" (such a mis-used term, it's really bad when Laymen try to use Technical terms)
SO, Sleepy Joe Biden, as bad as he is/was, isn't "Brain Dead"
to be "Brain Dead"
to be "Brain Dead" you need the following,
1. Ascertainment that the patient has sustained a catastrophic, permanent brain injury caused by an identified
mechanism that is known to lead to brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) (7a and 13a)
☐Yes ☐No
Etiology:
2. Neuroimaging consistent with mechanism and severity of brain injury (inpatients with primary posterior fossa
injury, neuroimaging should demonstrate catastrophic supratentorial injury) (7c and 40)
☐Yes ☐No
3. Observation for permanency
a)≥48 hours after acute brain injury(particularly hypoxic ischemic brain injury)for patients ≤2-years-old (8)
b)≥24 hours after hypoxic ischemic brain injury for patients ≥2-years-old (9b)
c)A sufficient amount of time after brain injury to ensure there is no potential for recovery of brain function as
determined by the evaluator based on the pathophysiology of the brain injury (9a)
☐Yes ☐No
Observation period (hours):
4. Core body temperature≥ 36C(fo r≥24 hours for patients whose core body temperature has been ≤35.5°C [10a
and b])
☐Yes ☐No Value:
5. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥100mm Hg and mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥75mm Hg for adults/SBP and
MAP≥5th percentile for age in children (for patients on venoarterial ECMO:MAP ≥75mm Hg for adults/MAP≥
5th percentile for age in children) (11b and 11c)
☐Yes ☐No Value:
6. Exclusion of pharmacologic paralysis (if administered or suspected) through use of train-of-four stimulator or
demonstration of deep tendon reflexes (12a)
☐Yes ☐No ☐ Not indicated
7. Drug levels for medications that may suppress central nervous system function are therapeutic/subtherapeutic (if
available), pentobarbital level is <5 mcg/mL (if the patient received pentobarbital) and at least five half-lives for
all other such drugs have passed (longer if there is renal/hepatic dysfunction or if the patient is obese or was
hypothermic); (12a)
☐Yes ☐No
8. Alcoholbloodlevel≤80mg/dL(ifclinicallyindicated)(12a) ☐Yes ☐No ☐ Not indicated
9. Toxicology screen (urine and blood) is negative (if clinically indicated) (12a) ☐Yes ☐No ☐ Not indicated
10. Exclusion of severe metabolic, acid-base, and endocrine derangements; (12a) ☐Yes ☐No
11. Areasonableattempthasbeenmadetoinformthepatient’sfamilyoftheplantoperformaBD/DNC examination
(35a)
☐Yes ☐No
Prerequisite Summary (check one):

[ducksalad]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5957438-mcconnell-thune-barrasso-health/

It seems he's conscious and talking. Either that or a whole bunch of senators are in on the conspiracy.

[Mr. Bumble]

...or his staff used AI to fake it.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Two Supreme Court justices will testify on Capitol Hill next week, marking the first time since 2019 that members of the high court will testify on their annual budget request to Congress.

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan will appear July 14 before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, which has jurisdiction over the annual spending measure that funds the Supreme Court, according to a scheduling announcement from House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.).

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/07/07/congress/scotus-to-congress-00988557

[not guilty]

Bob Bauer and Jack Goldstein have proposed that Congress enact a statute which would limit the President's power to pardon himself for criminal wrongdoing. The proposed statute would provide:

The President’s grant of a pardon shall not be accepted by any federal court of the United States, nor deprive any such court of jurisdiction over any criminal or civil matter, nor operate to confer on the President any legal immunity from investigation or prosecution, where such pardon is granted—

(A) To himself or herself, or

(B) To any other person or entity in any investigation in which the President is a subject or target or in any prosecution in which the President is an unindicted co-conspirator.

https://www.execfunctions.org/p/the-serious-legal-risks-to-president?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3516088&post_id=205692265&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1jcc17&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Whether such a statute would or would not be constitutional has yet to be determined. The separation of powers concerns would be novel and significant. I believe that the question would not arise as a justiciable Article III case or controversy unless and until:

(1) Congress enacts the statute (presumably having to override a presidential veto);

(2) The President issues a self-pardon despite the statute;

(3) A federal grand jury indicts the President after he leaves office; and

(4) The former President moves to dismiss the indictment based upon his issuance of the self-pardon.

A dismissal of the indictment would be appealable by the government; the denial of a pretrial motion to dismiss would likely be subject to an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

The existence of such a statute would possibly deter a President from issuing a self-pardon, but I suspect that President Trump would nevertheless issue such a purported self-pardon.

[Bob from Ohio]

Like most stunt laws, easy to get around.

POTUS sends letter to VP temporarily giving up office. Acting President issues pardon. POTUS sends 2nd letter to VP reclaiming authority.

No self pardon.

[not guilty]

I suspect that Donald Trump's vanity and hubris would preclude him from transmitting to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office pursuant to section 3 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

[Mr. Bumble]

Whether such a statute would or would not be constitutional has yet to be determined.

[apedad]

ng, you're forgetting that Trump has no shame but there's nothing anyone can do at this point.

The only solution is to accept whatever BS Trump is doing then the next Dem president should go just as nuts with pardons.

Then both Dems and Reps (and the people) will be pissed off enough to get an amendment passed that restricts presidential pardons - period, e.g., so not an Acting President or any future presidents.

[David Nieporent]

POTUS sends letter to VP temporarily giving up office.

Not quite how the 25th amendment works, but I suppose legal details are too complicated for a lawyer.

[Bob from Ohio]

Close enough, I'm not long winded like NG. Everyone got the point. I'm not writing a brief in a case.

[not guilty]

I wonder, Bob. Have you ever tried a lawsuit from its inception to its conclusion?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Bob. Have you ever tried a lawsuit from its inception to its conclusion?

Have you ever written a brief on appeal?

[hobie]

I recall in Trump's first term he refused to be sedated for his colonoscopy because it would have required he relinquish control to Pence for an hour or so.

[not guilty]

Like most stunt laws, easy to get around.

POTUS sends letter to VP temporarily giving up office. Acting President issues pardon. POTUS sends 2nd letter to VP reclaiming authority.

No self pardon.

Actually we have had something close to that. Alexander Haig has been widely suspected of brokering Gerald Ford's pardon of Prick Nixon in exchange for Nixon's resignation. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fords-pardon-still-controversial/

Of course, Nixon did not try to regain power after leaving office.

[SRG2]

I cannot conceive how the current SC would not recognise that the pardon power extends to self-pardons (as long as Trump is president).

[not guilty]

"I cannot conceive how the current SC would not recognise that the pardon power extends to self-pardons (as long as Trump is president)."

Under present Department of Injustice policy, a sitting president cannot be indicted, so the question could not arise until Trump leaves office. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution

[shawn_dude]

Though, he could at least pardon anyone that might be used to gather evidence against him via immunity deals.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know why people think this helps. A pardoned person would lose any benefit of the privilege against self-incrimination, so no "immunity deal" would be necessary. (And a pardoned person would still be prospectively liable for contempt/obstruction/etc. if he refused to cooperate going forward.)

[Brett Bellmore]

"Whether such a statute would or would not be constitutional has yet to be determined."

Only in the most trivial sense. It's about the most obviously unconstitutional proposed law I've ever seen.

[not guilty]

Uh, outside of Bizarro Brett Bellmore World, a determination of unconstitutionality of a federal statute requires an actual lawsuit between adverse parties. As Justice Kavanaugh opined in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021):

Under Article III, federal courts do not adjudicate hypothetical or abstract disputes. Federal courts do not possess a roving commission to publicly opine on every legal question. Federal courts do not exercise general legal oversight of the Legislative and Executive Branches, or of private entities. And federal courts do not issue advisory opinions. As Madison explained in Philadelphia, federal courts instead decide only matters “of a Judiciary Nature.” 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 430 (M. Farrand ed. 1966).

In sum, under Article III, a federal court may resolve only “a real controversy with real impact on real persons.” American Legion v. American Humanist Assn., 588 U.S. 29, ___ (2019) (Gorsuch, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 10).

594 U.S. at 423.

If Congress did enact the proposed law, the only litigant who would have standing to challenge its constitutionality would be a President who in fact had issued a self-pardon. And that standing would not ripen into an actual controversy unless and until that President had been indicted by a federal grand jury.

[Brett Bellmore]

Entirely outside of bizzarro world, a statute presuming to deny the President exercise of a power unambiguously granted to him by the Constitution is hilariously unconstitutional.

Congress can impeach a President. They cannot subtract from his constitutional powers short of that. The pardon power is as plenary as it gets.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Meanwhile ...

"Johnson: House GOP ‘looking at all angles’ after Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling"

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5954723-birthright-citizenship-legislative-fix/

[Krayt]

The SC would and should step back and say we have no say in this, nor does Congress, as the power does not have any limitations on who it can be used on, nor for Congress to dictate its use any more than any other direct presidential power.

If it happened, people would create an amendment forbidding such. This may be the way it goes. Call your senators and demand action now.

[JazzboDepew]

In other words, it's the STFDWOBDL Act, "Stop Trump From Doing What Obama/Biden Did Law"

[David Nieporent]

Exactly. Except of course that neither Obama nor Biden did that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"(B) To any other person or entity in any investigation in which the President is a subject or target or in any prosecution in which the President is an unindicted co-conspirator."

Biden's pardon of his own son would likely implicate this, because a number of charges he might hypothetically be subject to probably would involve him as an unindicted co-conspirator.

[Sarcastr0]

Likely AND hypothetically!

[David Nieporent]

Nope. None. Zero. Zilch. We know that because the House GOP investigated Joe and Hunter Biden as thoroughly as its possible for a human being to be investigated, and they couldn't manage to find even a tiny bit there tying Joe to any illegal activities of Hunter.

[not guilty]

"(B) To any other person or entity in any investigation in which the President is a subject or target or in any prosecution in which the President is an unindicted co-conspirator."

Biden's pardon of his own son would likely implicate this, because a number of charges he might hypothetically be subject to probably would involve him as an unindicted co-conspirator.

As to what offense(s) charging Hunter Biden did any federal grand jury name Joe Biden as an unindicted co-conpirator, Brett?

[ducksalad]

Two related questions:

1. Suppose a president makes no public announcement that he has pardoned himself. After leaving office, he is indicted. He then states that he orally gave himself a pardon on the morning of his successor's inauguration. As evidence, his wife and some former staff testify that he told them about it at breakfast that day. Is he off the hook?

2. A self-pardon goes out from the WH of a badly aged president. After he leaves office, it is alleged that he was mentally and/or physically unfit to know what was going on, and that his wife and former staff used an autopen to sign a pardon they wrote up themselves. Is he off the hook?

[not guilty]

"1. Suppose a president makes no public announcement that he has pardoned himself. After leaving office, he is indicted. He then states that he orally gave himself a pardon on the morning of his successor's inauguration. As evidence, his wife and some former staff testify that he told them about it at breakfast that day. Is he off the hook?"

The defendant former president there would need to raise the issue in a pretrial motion to dismiss for a defect in instituting the prosecution under Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(2)(A). The burden of persuasion would be on the accused.

The trial court would need to hold a pretrial hearing under Rule 12(d). The Court could require presentation of in person testimony. Any witness called by the accused would be subject to cross-examination. The government could call additional witnesses, who would similarly be subject to cross-examination by the defense.

Rule 12(d) provides that "When factual issues are involved in deciding a motion, the court must state its essential findings on the record." The trial court could believe or disbelieve any witness, in whole or in part.

If the indictment were dismissed, the government could appeal as of right pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731. If the motion to dismiss were denied, the ruling would likely be subject to an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

[SRG2]

The USMNT got what they deserved last night. They were poor.

[Frank Drackman]

Good, we don't have to pretend to care anymore.
In Actual Sports Braves lost a close one to the Mets, still in First Place, All Star Break can't come fast enough

[Bob from Ohio]

"Good, we don't have to pretend to care anymore."

Some of us never pretended.

Though the pre-game Euro angst over "red card" was amusing.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Some of us never pretended.“

Right, they just constantly reminded people about how much they don’t care to show how much they don’t care.

[Bob from Ohio]

So long as people post about kickball, you'll just have to suffer my responses.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You get how lame that is, right? Please tell me you understand that.

[Bob from Ohio]

Don't care. It amuses me.

just mute me if i annoy you so much

[Estragon]

Bob was so busy not caring he actually dropped into the Cassell thread to favorably compare Don to murderous mafiosi. This was intended to be a flattering comparison!

The degree to which Trumpists have completely internalized Don’s own poisoned mental vision of himself is one of the many things that still manage to astonish me even at this rather advanced date.

[Bob from Ohio]

The Godfather is a great character. Its a great quote too.

[Estragon]

“The Godfather is a great character”

So is Col Kurtz.

So when you favorably compared the leader of your political movement to a mafia boss, which attributes of his “character” did you have in mind? You already pointed to corrupt deal making and vigilante justice. Anything else?

[John 4]

Media illiteracy and conservatism: name a more iconic duo.

[Malika la Maize]

Deserves got nothing to do with it.

[Bob from Ohio]

What sport?

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://theonion.com/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-televisi-1819565469/

[jay.tee]

The USMNT got what they deserved last night. They were poor.

Agree, the (much) better team won. The USMNT looked like a JV team. Lots of standing around, watching the ball. Pulisic was especially pathetic while on the pitch. A stiff breeze was enough to blow him off the ball.

Compare that to today's early match: Egypt definitely didn't get what they deserved. FIFA is doing its best to ruin the World Cup.

If you're an Argentina fan, I guess you hold your nose and be happy you've advanced.

If you're a fan of the game, the officiating was tragically bad and completely ruined the outcome.

If you're an Egyptian fan, I can't imagine the anger and disappointment.

[SRG2]

Egypt were robbed - no question.

[Mr. Bumble]

The man who might have been Florida's governor.
"Ex-Florida Democratic Governor Nominee Andrew Gillum Busted In Alabama For Drug Possession"
https://www.tmz.com/2026/07/07/former-florida-governor-candidate-andrew-gillum-arrested-for-drug-possession-in-alabama/

[Michael P]

Substance dependency is a terrible thing to do to oneself. I hope he gets help to recover and get clean, so that he doesn't end up like Daveigh Chase.

[ThePublius]

Elizabeth Warren wants to retract her endorsement of Graham Platner but she doesn’t want to look like an Indian giver.

Also Warren on Platner: "that's my kinda man."

[ThePublius]

The Left Has a New Narrative About Graham Platner, and Scott Jennings Just Nuked It

Matt Margolis | 9:38 AM on July 07, 2026

"It probably won’t be long before Graham Platner drops out, and the left has settled on a shiny new narrative about him. It goes something like this: Poor, unsuspecting Democrats had no earthly idea who this guy was, and gosh darn it, somebody forgot to vet him. That's the fairy tale they're spinning now that Platner's Senate campaign is circling the drain, and we can't let them get away with it.

On CNN's Anderson Cooper 360°, Alyssa Farah Griffin claimed that "Democrats did not do their due diligence in vetting this man and now their path to the Senate looks significantly bleaker because they went all-in on this one."

Seriously?

That's a blatant lie. The vetting happened. Since he entered the race, a steady trickle of damning information about Platner has dripped into public view, and Democrats ignored every drop. The Nazi tattoo. The unhinged internet posts. His presence on an app widely known as a playground for predators. The domestic abuse allegations. Any one of those would end a Republican's career in about 45 seconds. Democrats looked at the entire pile and decided he was their guy.

And it’s not like Democrats didn’t have a choice.

The New York Times exposé dropped on June 4, and Maine’s primary elections were on June 9. Gov. Janet Mills (D-Maine) may have suspended her campaign before that, but she was still on the ballot. Democrats knew and made their choice.

So, when Anderson Cooper asked whether Maine Democrats could nominate a replacement without alienating Platner's supporters, Scott Jennings zeroed in on Griffin’s vetting excuse and reduced it to rubble.

"The only thing I disagree with is when she said that he hadn't been vetted," Jennings said. "No, he had been vetted. All of the things that have been stated — it was all out in the public, and people like Ro Khanna, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Tim Walz, 'The Bulwark,' 'Pod Save America' — all of these people came together to overlook it all, to explain it all, to rationalize it all."

Jennings kept up the well-earned reaming. "He was vetted. People knew all these things, and a whole bunch of Democrats in Maine showed up and voted for him anyway," he pointed out. "You already signed off on Nazi tattoo, a self-described communist, somebody who's had rape fantasies, somebody who has been on a social media platform known as a playground for predators, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on."

Then he identified the one variable that changed. "And the difference between this accuser and the previous one is simply this: She's a liberal," Jennings said. "It's okay, I guess, for Democrats that their candidates assault conservatives."

His conclusion left nothing standing: "They knew it, and they signed up for it, and I don't know why they're backing away from this scumbag today when they had already signed off on all that other crazy behavior."

He's right, and everyone knows it. The Democrat Party made a calculated bet that a Nazi tattoo and a trail of ugly allegations wouldn't matter as long as Platner kept the seat in play. The bet went bust, and now the same people who placed it want you to believe they never saw the ledger.

This is the party that spent a decade lecturing the rest of us that "character matters," but character never mattered to these people. It was a talking point. That’s why they stood behind a guy with an actual Nazi tattoo for so long. Maine voters didn’t care. They chose him over Gov. Janet Mills, for crying out loud.

Character didn’t matter until the polls showed that Collins was starting to win the race. Remember that the next time a Democrat climbs onto a soapbox to talk about character and decency.

The problem isn’t that Democrats didn’t vet Platner; it’s that they did."

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2026/07/07/scott-jennings-nukes-the-dems-new-narrative-about-graham-platner-n4954751

[hobie]

PDS?

[shawn_dude]

Since Democrats actually care about this kind of thing, your schoolyard taunting will sting a little. And then they'll remember that the MAGA movement elected someone who attempted a coup rather than concede an election loss, a person who also raped at least one woman, who has files with his name on them in the FBI's hands alleging sex and abuse with at least one minor girl, who paid a porn star for sex while his wife was pregnant with his youngest son, and who has famously bragged about wanting to tap his own daughter. And all of this one known before he was elected.

So the problem is that the Republicans didn't vet Trump, it's that they didn't care where he stuck his stubbly little member with or without consent.

[ThePublius]

"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he told Maine Democrat Graham Platner to end his Senate bid on Tuesday, in the wake of a POLITICO report that a woman who Platner dated said he forced her to have sex with him.

“I have spoken with Graham Platner about the best path forward for Maine. In light of these very serious allegations, I have recommended that he step aside,” Sanders said in a statement."

Sanders is full of shit. He was all-in on this guy when he thought he had a chance to win.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/07/bernie-sanders-graham-platner-drop-out-00988638

[David Nieporent]

Sanders is full of shit. He was all-in on this guy when he thought he had a chance to win.

Wait, so he favored a guy before the guy was accused of rape, but wants the guy to drop out after he has been accused of rape? I understand why that would confuse MAGA, who stand by Trump even harder the more evil he is revealed to be.

[ThePublius]

No, Platner was credibly accused of all kinds of shit while Sanders, Warren, et.al. in the Democratic party stood by him. Don't you follow the news?

[David Nieporent]

No, Platner was credibly accused of all kinds of shit

So you're not playing dumb? You really don't understand the difference in kind between being a jerk and being a rapist?

[Bob from Ohio]

He committed domestic violence

"Lyndsey Fifield, a former girlfriend of Platner and conservative activist, alleged that Platner physically abused her, including twisting her arm behind her back and blocking her from leaving a room."

https://wgme.com/news/local/woman-who-accused-platner-of-abuse-blames-nyt-for-claims-being-dismissed-maine-fundraising-sexually-explicit-messages-democrats-senate-race-republicans-susan-collins-tattoo

Is there no democrat you won't defend? Don't answer, its rhetorical.

[David Nieporent]

Defend? I didn't support him before this either. I don't like populists to begin with, and the Nazi tattoo was a dealbreaker.

[Bob from Ohio]

"difference in kind between being a jerk"

You said all he did was to be a jerk. I think Ms. Fifield's allegations go beyond jerk.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“ You really don't understand the difference in kind between being a jerk and being a rapist?”

Rapists aren’t jerks?

[Magister]

If being a jerk were a crime, then it would probably be a lesser included offense. But it's not a crime, which would be part of the difference in kind.

[hobie]

Since you only operate in whatabouts:

Dear AI, how many women have accused Trump of sexual assault?

"At least 26 women have publicly accused Donald Trump of sexual misconduct, including rape, unwanted groping, forcible kissing, and other non-consensual sexual contact spanning from the 1970s to the 2010s.Prominent public records tracking these claims, such as the Wikipedia Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations entry, log incidents alleged by at least 28 different women."

[MoreCurious]

Amazing! It's been 57 minutes since you posted that, Hobie, and not one Trumpist has jumped in to say "But, but, but whatabout ..." Is everyone on a siesta?

[hobie]

They seem to loathe politicians that grab pussies. So I thought I'd share.

"I love the sound of crickets in the morning. It sounds like...victory."

[Mr. Bumble]

What do you think you won?

[John 4]

The argument, you dumb fuck.

[Mr. Bumble]

Booby prize for the boob.

[Brett Bellmore]

You would think that if a guy sexually assaulted at least 26 women, at least ONE of them would have reported it to the police at the time. Maybe recorded it in their diary. One or two I could see it, but as the numbers mount up, the complete lack of any contemporaneous evidence becomes incredibly unlikely if the assaults actually happened.

For at least 26 women to have failed to do this... I find it easier to believe that 26 women were willing to falsely accuse somebody they dislike, safe in the knowledge that they did not face any legal risk in doing so.

In short, I don't believe all women. Women are just as capable of lying as men, and just as capable of lying about rape as any other topic.

[Magister]

You could look at Harvey Weinstein; few of his more numerous victims went on record, with law enforcement or publicly, until long after. The power to retaliate against those who complained was eventually the reason for the pendulum swinging over to "believe all women", which is a pithier slogan than "don't automatically disbelieve every woman".

Donald Trump? Confessed to sexual assault in the Access Hollywood tape, but you still voted for him.

[ducksalad]

I find it easier to believe that 26 women were willing to falsely accuse somebody they dislike, safe in the knowledge that they did not face any legal risk in doing so.

Great opportunity for Platner. According to your theory, he just needs 25 more women to accuse him of sexual assault years back, with no contemporaneous evidence, and he's off the hook.

Should be easy to recruit that many volunteers.

[Sarcastr0]

You've got a 1980s understanding of how women should react to being raped.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not an argument.

[Nelson]

If anyone else is going to the National Constitution Center for the panel discussion and wants to introduce themselves, I’ll be there. I’m an overweight 50-something with curly hair wearing a yellow shirt and black pants.

I’m opinionated, but kind, so even if you don’t agree with me I’d love to meet you.

[jay.tee]

Nice sentiment, and wish I could be there.

Hope you enjoy the event! Let us know how it goes.

[Nelson]

The event is about to start, but there was free food (sliders and chips and chickpea salad) and drinks, so it’s off to an excellent start!

[Nelson]

I’m back home and I really enjoyed the panels.

I was worried that, as a non-lawyer, a lot of things would go over my head, but they were all good about not using a lot of legal shorthand or jargon (or perhaps the various lawyers here have managed to shove enough lawyer-speak into my brain bin that I was able to follow along). It was also kinda cool to have a Conspirator on each panel. Another thing I liked was two of the panels included lawyers who argue cases in front of SCOTUS, which I thought was an interesting and different perspective on things.

Panel 1: The Supreme Court’s 2025-26 Term

The first panel was by far the most rollicking and freewheeling. They definitely came out guns blazing with strong opinions and the knowledge to back it up. Hearing opinions from a wider view (a SCOTUSblog editor and a lawyer who argues cases in front of SCOTUS to go with two law professors, one being Conspirator Keith Whittington) was a nice touch. As I said, including advocates on the panels was something I liked.

There was some deeper analysis of what the cases this term meant in relation to longer-term movements by the conservative legal community (particularly unitary executive, non-delegation, and major questions doctrines) and which cases were teed up to be the first of a pair or a trilogy of future cases.

One case that was specifically mentioned as part one of a two-part (or part two of a three part) series was the transgender athlete case. This term they decided that states *may* ban trans women from women’s sports in the states that already *did*. The predicted next case will be if states *must* ban trans athletes from women’s sports in states that *didn’t* pass such bans.

Panel 2: The Supreme Court and Executive Power

For some reason David French wasn’t there, but the other three carried the load. Ilya Somin was funny talking about the tariff case, since he had to start with the disclaimer that he wrote a blog (right here at the VC) that said the law Trump used didn’t say “tariff”, had never been used to authorize tariffs, was problematic due to the Non-Delegation Clause, and that someone should file a lawsuit about it.

He said he was looking forward to reading about whoever ended up filing the suit and maybe kibitzing about it in a paper, but then ended up being the one doing the work on the case (VOS Selections v Trump) that was combined with another to became Learning Resources v Trump. He didn’t say who roped him into it, but it was definitely funny. Julian Mortenson was an unexpected surprise. While I think I could guess his personal opinions on the cases he discussed, he presented the each side’s arguments so simply, strongly, and evenhandedly that I could get it wrong. It was impressive. Gillian Metzger was equally strong and the confusion of the near-homophones Gillian/Julian caused a laugh. This was probably my favorite panel.

The topic, and the consensus of all three that the expansion of Executive power within the Executive branch was a purposeful direction this Court has continued to advance (although they differed on whether that was a good thing) was an unwelcome reality for me.

Panel 3: Civil Discourse and the Supreme Court

This was my “could have been shallow, but ended up substantive” panel. While they discussed, briefly, some of the public controversies and the rumors of discord within the Court (with an acknowledgment that the Dobbs leak increased distrust), they quickly moved on to discuss some serious topics, including the responsibility of commentators and academics to present accurate, reasoned, and thoughtful analysis rather than hot takes and the favorite zingers in the opinions (Conspirator Jonathan Adler was particularly strong on this point) since the typical American isn’t reading the hundreds of pages of the decisions for themselves. They are looking to commentators and legal scholars to parse rulings and, in a strange parallel to what NFL writers say about judging the draft as soon as it’s done, commentators shouldn’t focus on “who won” the case but rather what the ruling means in the big picture.

They also had an interesting discussion of what, process-wise, the Court could do to help counter the hot takes and motivated misanalysis. There were three that stuck out to me: take more cases (they take far fewer cases than in the past). To paraphrase, fewer cases gives them enough time to write 70 page dissents and 90 page concurrences. If they stayed busier they wouldn’t have the time to write so much in one case. One suggestion was to print shirts that said “More Cases, Less Concurrences”.

The second was to release the cases further apart so each could be the focus of the court-watchers, allowing them the time to read each one separately and analyze them better. They mentioned that social media and instant gratification culture (my words, not theirs) pretty much assured that the “fastest over best” responses wouldn’t stop, but at least the substantive responders could have a fighting chance.

The third was that, as the cases are read aloud in the Court by the Justice writing they majority opinion (and sometimes the dissent) with a short explanation of the opinion, releasing those recordings immediately would let the actual reasoning get a head start on the semi-informed keyboard warriors. Apparently these recordings aren’t released until the fall after the term ends, which makes no sense to me.

The moderator on this one did the best job of the night. As the last panel, which also started late (surprise, lawyers and law professors ran long), she had a lagging audience. But she kept the discussion moving and did an excellent synopsis-as-question routine that helped the panelists build off of each other. It ended up sounding more like a conversation about the problems the Court has (some self-inflicted) and thoughts about possible ways they could help themselves (or at least get out of their own way). Like they were discussing a mutual friend who is making some bad decisions, but you really want to see get better.

That post was probably too much, but that is one of my faults. Bottom line? I really enjoyed it and will do it again next year.

[John 4]

Have fun. Watch out for Frankie. (He’ll be the one out front who lives in a garbage can and wears week-old spaghetti as a toupee.)

[Kazinski]

New Yorkers were clearly warned that under Mamdani NY would become unstable and collapse.

Right on schedule:
https://abc7ny.com/post/midtown-east-buildings-evacuated-construction-workers-find-buckling-beams-21st-floor-nyc/19463640/

[ducksalad]

Going to be in NYC for a few days, starting two weeks from now. Accompanying someone afraid to travel alone to a meeting, so free 9-5 with no plan.

Any recommendations for stuff to see, other than watching out for buckling beams and communists? Preferably stuff without long lines to get in. Haven't been there in decades.

[ThePublius]

Metropolitan Museum of Art
American Museum of Natural History
New York Botanical Garden (in the Bronx)
Bronx Zoo
9/11 Memorial & Museum

(I grew up in NYC, these are great places.)

[ducksalad]

Thanks, they all sound like great suggestions.

The person we're "chaperoning" is going to an animal rights meeting so perhaps we'll have to skip the zoo, or at least find a cover story.

Hoping the temperatures will stay suitable for outdoor stuff, weather.com says today will top out in the 70s.

[Nelson]

If you want an interesting art museum, the Frick is quite impressive. It’s an old mansion with the art placed all over the very high walls, so it’s a fascinating way to see pieces. It has some impressive rooms as well, but the way the art is presented and the quality of the pieces is the highlight. Similar to the Barnes in Philly, but not impressionists.

I haven’t seen the Met’s new (as in acquired years ago, because I’m old) impressionist collection, but I’ve heard it’s impressive. Particularly since they went from none to a sweet collection in a heartbeat (or lack thereof).

[ducksalad]

Thanks. Are the "timed tickets" hard to get?

[Nelson]

I don’t know. My partner does the planning because I am very ADD and she is not.

[Mr. Bumble]

The Frick Museum is housed in Henry Clay Frick's former mansion.
Per Wiki:
Henry Clay Frick (December 19, 1849 – December 2, 1919) was an American industrialist, financier, and art patron. He founded the H. C. Frick & Company coke manufacturing company, and later became chairman of the Carnegie Steel Company. Frick's management of Carnegie Steel was characterized by vehement opposition to unions, a trait reflected most notably by his violent suppression of the Homestead Strike. In the later years of his career as an industrialist, he was instrumental in the founding of U.S. Steel, which became the world's largest steel manufacturer.[1][2][3]
He was also blamed for the Johnstown flood.
Thought you'd like to know.

[hobie]

I wonder how he got that building to collapse? Is he...like...Magneto or something?

[Bored Lawyer]

If he can take credit for the Knicks winning, he can take responsibility for a building collapse. Neither of which, in reality, he has any control over.

Now the city-owned housing, he does.

[Nelson]

“ New Yorkers were clearly warned that under Mamdani NY would become unstable and collapse.”

OK, as horrible as the real situation is, that was funny.

[David Nieporent]

Trump appointed judge quashes one of the many frivolous, unethical DOJ subpoenas relating to the 2020 election:

The DOJ essentially asks the Court to turn a blind eye to the DOJ’s investigation of nonspecific allegations and/or crimes which have no possibility of a conviction. In essence, the DOJ’s argument is that it would be proper for a grand jury to investigate a time-barred crime, indict a defendant or defendants, and allow pretrial procedures to begin, when the conclusion is inevitable—the statute of limitations on the relevant crimes has run. Therefore, the DOJ asks the Court to use its already scarce judicial resources on what would be a dead-end prosecution. The Court is not convinced that it must ignore the clear existence of a time bar against any hypothetical crimes.

Basically, DOJ demanded that Fulton County produce full personal identifying information of every single person who was in any way involved in the 2020 election in any capacity. Judge¹ said, "Ha, no."
​
​
¹No bullshit about "blue slips," either. This was a Trump-appointed judge at a time when both Georgia senators were Republicans.

[Zarniwoop]

It's a good read. Accessible to lay readers.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.359862/gov.uscourts.gand.359862.37.0_3.pdf

[Kazinski]

Nigel Farage had a busy day:

Resigned from Parliament.

Announced his re-election campaign.

[ducksalad]

Odd system over there. Looks like all the major parties are saying they won't challenge him because it's a stunt.

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://www.texastribune.org/2026/07/07/ken-paxton-voting-election-law/

Some people will call this hypocrisy. It’s not actually. Being a crusader against supposed election fraud while simultaneously violating election law is entirely consistent with the ideology to which Paxton subscribes.

There are many ways to evaluate this behavior but it comes down to a fundamental belief that the only people who have any right to exercise political power are Ken Paxton and people like him. Therefore he doesn’t have to follow voter registration rules because it doesn’t really matter what the rules are: the only person whose vote should always count is Ken Paxton’s. Everyone else needs to strictly adhere to the rules Ken Paxton announced to validly participate in elections. But at the end of the day the exercise of political power can only be exercised by Ken Paxton and the people he thinks should also exercise it. Therefore, even if everyone else follows his rules and casts a “valid” vote, he doesn’t need to because ultimately only his vote is truly valid. Accordingly any election results he disagrees with are necessarily the product of fraud and are inherently illegitimate. He by contrast can never commit fraud because his vote is the only one that ever counted.

[ducksalad]

Mentioned above that he has issued press releases in the past bragging about prosecuting people for voting using a fake address.

[Kazinski]

Its not a fake address, he is going through a divorce, he is still legally entitled to use it as his address, as the article states:

"“So long as you truly intend to return, I think you’re fine,” said Beth Stevens, an election lawyer who worked for the Harris County clerk and the Texas Civil Rights Project. “When you start doing things that suggest, ‘Oh, I’ve fully moved. I’m just wink-wink saying I intend to return,’ that’s when you get into questionable territory.”

[shawn_dude]

If his estranged wife says she's told him he'll never be welcome back, does that change the math? If he's seen dating other women who don't live at that address, does that change the math? He was thrown out for adultery.

[ducksalad]

There's also buying a $2.4M house in the next county, having the address for his trust moved to the new house, and living in it according to the neighbors. Also, if he just needed to spend nights somewhere else while he's in the doghouse, presumably he's got a place to stay in Austin where he's got a full-time job.

But let's be fair. He could be planning to destroy his wife in the divorce proceedings, get the old house for himself, and move back in.

There are points on both sides. He should be given the chance to tell his side of the story to a jury. Or (trying to be reasonable here) he could just issue a press release that the old house is his and he intends to evict his wife and take it back.

[Sarcastr0]

AP-NORC poll | 6/11-6/17

Jewish Americans polled

Favorables (net)
Josh Shapiro +20
Zohran Mamdani +5
Donald Trump -39
Benjamin Netanyahu -27

https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2074527875194114516

[hobie]

Hayseeds: "Them Jews are antisemitic tranny terrorists!"

[ReaderY]

MR. Trump has released yet another piece of paper styled as an “executive order,” this one purporting to withhold federal funds from states who won’t do what Mr. Trump wants them to do. This is once again wholly unauthorized by Congress. The current “order” purports to require states and localities to comppy with Mr. Trunp’s ideas about how elections should be held.

I recommend courts do two things:

1. Dismiss preemptive lawsuits on grounds that what Mr. Trump chooses to scribble on White House stationary is his own private business and nobody else’s concern.

2. If, on the other hand, the administration should actually attempt to enforce Mr. Trump’s private scribblings, the courts ahould come down very hard. They should severely sanction licensed attorneys who cause unnecessary delay amd harassment by frivolously raising defenses long since recognized as nonsense. They should behave in a way that sends a clear message this nonsense won’t be tolerated any more.

[bernard11]

I don't know the mechanism, but he is definitely abusing states that didn't vote for him.

Rhode Island leaders are blasting the Trump administration for refusing to provide federal disaster aid for the record blizzard that buried the state under 37.9 inches of snow in February.

President Trump denied Rhode Island’s request for a major disaster declaration on July 2 while approving more than $846 million in disaster relief funds for nine Republican-leaning states, the four Democrats in the Rhode Island delegation said in a joint statement.

US Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse joined Representatives Seth Magaziner and Gabe Amo in saying the blizzard slammed Rhode Island on Feb. 22-23 with the intensity of a category 2 hurricane, causing power outages for tens of thousands of Rhode Islanders, resulting in two deaths, and causing more than $19 million worth of damage.

they noted the Trump administration refused to issue a major disaster declaration for New York, a state led by Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul. And they cited Urban Institute data that shows 84 percent of disaster requests from states that voted for Trump in 2024 have been approved by his administration, compared to just 41 percent from states that voted for Kamala Harris.

Slimeball.

[ReaderY]

Congress said that the President “may” declare a disaster in respone to a request by a state governor. That means he has no obligation to. In giving the President complete discretion to declare a disaster or not. So they fully enabled him to use declare a disaster only when requested to do so bu y governors who are his personal friends. Congress maxe it completely legal to

They may have been complete gullible idiots to give him this level of discretion. But they did.

This situation is different. Here the President is imposing conditions on the release of Congressionally appropriated funds that were not enacted by Congress. That’s illegal for the President to do.

[bernard11]

As usual, the subtle legalities don't interest me.

Trump decided to punish RI for not supporting him. And it's not like he withheld some highway funds or something, bad enough, we are talking about disaster relief.

I'm sure the MAGAt's are gloating and giggling over this - they're assholes after all - but denying Americans disaster aid because of how their state voted is really as scummy as possible.

When does a politician become such a slimeball that we refuse to support him no matter how much we like his policy ideas? Platner has obviously gone over the threshold. Apparently for MAGAt's it's impossible for Trump to do so.

[Zarniwoop]

I'm sure the MAGAt's are gloating and giggling over this - they're assholes after all - but denying Americans disaster aid because of how their state voted is really as scummy as possible.

Agreed. And also short-sighted: imagine how MAGA would hooOOoowl at the moon if Pres AOC were to deny "discretionary" disaster relief for red states that happen to get hit by hurricanes. Like TX, LA, AL, FL, GA, SC, maybe up to NC.

That's not a good basis for running a gov't.

[David Nieporent]

Hey, remember when people pretended that Iran (allegedly) killing a lot of civilian protesters justified Trump's illegal war? I mean, it's obviously true because Trump cares a lot about human rights.

The Iranian American Legal Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit alleging that the Trump administration has been sharing confidential information about Iranian asylum seekers with the Iranian government.

https://x.com/ABC/status/2074525878462095574

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

You shouldn’t brag about killing civilians like Trump and Hegseth…and then kill 160 school girls early in a military operation. Why would anyone ever surrender to a foe that kills little girls?? They obviously can’t be held to their word…so even a coward would fight till the death after you slaughter a school full of little girls.

[ReaderY]

As Trump said in a 1990 Playboy interview anout the Chinese government crackdown on the Tiananman Square protesters,

“The Chinese government almost blew it. Then they put it down with great strength. They were viscious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country right now is perceived as weak…as being spit on by the rest of the world.”

The Iranian government similarly has been viscious, has been horrible, but has been very strong. What’s not to like about strength?