Patterico's Pontifications

3/7/2025

Weekend Open Thread

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:09 am



[guest post by Dana]

Let’s go!

First news item

Trump plays tit-for-tat with China:

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said China will continue to retaliate to the United States’ “arbitrary tariffs” and accused Washington of “meeting good with evil” in a press conference Friday on the sidelines of the country’s annual parliamentary session.

Wang said China’s efforts to help the U.S. contain its fentanyl crisis have been met with punitive tariffs, which are straining the ties between the countries.

“No country should fantasize that it can suppress China and maintain a good relationship with China at the same time,” Wang said. “Such two-faced acts are not good for the stability of bilateral relations or for building mutual trust.”

Second news item

Working on his national image??:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, used the inaugural episode of his new podcast to break from progressives by speaking out against allowing transgender women and girls to compete in female sports.

Newsom made his declaration in an extended conversation with conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old who built the influential Turning Point USA organization that helped President Donald Trump increase his support last fall among the youngest generation of voters. Kirk, like Trump, has been a vocal opponent of allowing transgender women and girls to participate.“I think it’s an issue of fairness, I completely agree with you on that.

It is an issue of fairness — it’s deeply unfair,” Newsom told Kirk on “This is Gavin Newsom.”

“I am not wrestling with the fairness issue,” continued Newsom, who played varsity baseball as a college student. “I totally agree with you. … I revere sports. So, the issue of fairness is completely legit.”

Why is Newsom doing this, and why is Charlie Kirk his first guest? I think he’s prepping his image for a 2028 campaign announcement down the road. But certainly he can’t be thinking that he has a chance of winning over the evangelical right by announcing his change of view on transgender women in sports just because Kirk is in the room as he says it? Or does he hope this shapes his progressive image to a more moderate position? Perhaps he just wants people to know he can (and would) dialogue with Trumpers if he were a contender in 2028.

P.S. About Newsom’s empty seat? Looks like this familiar face hopes to fill it.

Third news item

Now we’re just hitting levels of downright stupid:

References to a World War II Medal of Honor recipient, the Enola Gay aircraft that dropped an atomic bomb on Japan and the first women to pass Marine infantry training are among the tens of thousands of photos and online posts marked for deletion as the Defense Department works to purge diversity, equity and inclusion content, according to a database obtained by The Associated Press.

The database, which was confirmed by U.S. officials and published by AP, includes more than 26,000 images that have been flagged for removal across every military branch. But the eventual total could be much higher.

What bullshit. These are historical records that cannot be replaced once destroyed. Consider how Trump felt about the removal of the removal of monuments to Confederate figures:

“Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments,” Trump said in a series of tweets. “You can’t change history, but you can learn from it.”

Oh really?! Well. You know. . .the monuments did only honor white men, so I guess this purge makes sense: once a racist, always a racist.

Fourth news item

Well said:

Fifth news item

President Macron steps up:

Poland and Baltic nations welcomed Thursday a proposal by French President Emmanuel Macron to launch talks about using France’s nuclear deterrent to protect the continent from Russian threats, a move Moscow quickly dismissed as “extremely confrontational.”

. . .

Macron said he has decided to open a “strategic debate” on using France’s nuclear deterrent to protect European allies amid concerns over potential U.S. disengagement. The French president described Moscow a “threat to France and Europe,” in a televised address to the nation.

France is the only nuclear power in the European Union.

Bonus points:

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Thursday Macron’s speech was “extremely confrontational.”

Sixth news item

Checking off the boxes on his retribution list:

President Donald Trump on Thursday targeted another elite law firm that has represented clients he considers his political enemies, sending a forceful message that he is willing to punish firms who work for people or groups that oppose his administration’s agenda.

In an Oval Office ceremony, the president signed an executive order hitting the large international law firm Perkins Coie with a sweeping directive that bans the federal government from hiring it, or from using contractors who work with it, except in limited circumstances. The order also bars Perkins Coie employees from entering federal buildings and suspends their security clearances.

The firm represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 presidential race, and it also contracted with the research firm that produced the now-discredited opposition dossier that alleged extensive contacts between Trump and Russia.

The move could have a chilling effect on law firms’ willingness to take on clients and cases that run counter to the Trump administration, challenging a fundamental tenet of the rule of law in the United States that everyone should have access to legal representation, experts said.

Seventh news item

Does Trump have any clue the high level of stress he puts Ukrainians under with his proclamations, that may or may not be advanced, depending on which way the Russian winds blow:

The revocation of humanitarian parole and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) threatens immigrants’ legal standing and contradicts U.S. commitments. This is particularly true for Trump’s threatened cancellation of humanitarian status for Ukrainians in the United States, given the Russian invasion of their country and America’s commitment to protect Ukraine made in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

As legal challenges mount, the fate of all these migrants hangs in the balance.

. . .

Victor Rud, an attorney and representative of the Ukrainian American Bar Association, has been vocal about the dangers of these policies.

“Trump’s decisions regarding Ukraine and immigration are part of a broader pattern that effectively signals a surrender to Russian demands. His administration has appointed openly pro-Russian officials to intelligence agencies, erased U.S. capabilities to track Russian influence and sanctions evasion, ordered a ‘stand down’ of U.S. Cyber Command contingency planning regarding Russia, and halted both military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, including funds needed to repair the power grid in the dead of winter,” Rud said. “He has demanded that Russia be reinstated into the G7, aligned with Russia in opposing UN resolutions condemning Russian aggression, threatened to disconnect Ukraine from Starlink, accused Ukraine of invading itself, and slandered Zelensky as a dictator.”

Rud adds: “Trump’s actions do not just jeopardize Ukraine—they systematically weaken U.S. influence, destabilize international alliances, and put millions of lives at risk. To deport Ukrainians under these circumstances would not just be immoral; it would be an outright betrayal of American commitments to its allies and an abandonment of our principles.”

Coupled with his unbelievable comments below, I’d say that the odds of Ukraine surviving the war have dramatically decreased, if Trump has any say in it.

Trump thinks that it’s easier to deal with a murderous aggressor than it is with the victim, even as said murderous aggressor is “bombing the hell” out of the victim. And as said murderous aggressor continues to “bomb the hell” of the victim, Trump maintains that it is Russia that wants peace, not necessarily Ukraine. The only way one comes to this conclusion, is if they are doing Russia’s bidding. Always casting doubt on Ukraine, assigning them nefarious or suspect motives, pushing for a regime change. All the while Trump simultaneously sees only good in Russia, not even condemning them for “bombing the hell” out of Ukraine (which was only possible because Trump stopped giving Ukraine vital intelligence to ward off such attacks….

A Putin stooge hard at work.

—Dana

526 Responses to “Weekend Open Thread”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (f486be)

  2. One nice feature about being the military muscle for NATO is that it prevented any sort of arms race, especially in a nuclear arms race. Now that the United States is further signaling or withdrawal from our former allies and an end to the post World War II order European nations are going to need to find a new solution for their defense.

    I don’t know what this will look like, no one does, but I don’t think having more heavily armed countries, especially nuclear capable countries, is going to reduce our need for defense spending.

    I have no idea what the politics within the EU look like. So I don’t know if this move by France is seen as a welcome offer by other people’s in Europe. Or if it is seen with concern because if France is the nuclear deterrent for the EU that gives France significant power within the EU. The US used to wheel this power I don’t know if other European countries will be happy to see it shift to France, or if they will feel the need to take the obvious step of ensuring that they are not dependent upon the French nuclear umbrella. This will result, OK, likely result, and a significantly more military capable EU, which is both good and bad.

    But it would be good if our leaders had the foresight to think through what the new order will look like after they have torn down the previous order. Before they complete the destruction of that order.

    I see no reason why Canada would need to have a massive military or their own nuclear deterrent. And I’m happy to let them free ride on our military capability. I think that’s far superior to Canada having a Pacific and Atlantic naval fleet with aircraft carriers as well as their own nuclear deterrent

    Time123 (646bc3)

  3. I own a home. So I for one I’m thrilled to see that Trump wants to put tariffs on Canadian lumber. This will slow the creation of new homes and raise the value of the one I already own. This might offset some of the damage his economic policies have been doing to the stock market in my retirement account.

    I should add that I am completely un worried that the case Schuler index is showing that home prices are higher than they were before the 2008 housing market collapse and I am also completely unconcern that the rate of default at Freddie Mac is also higher than it was in 2008. I don’t think there’s any systemic risk to using trade policy to push the price of housing even higher.

    And that’s all assuming that this isn’t something Donald Trump came up with while taking a dump and reading Twitter. And that he isn’t going to repeal it after he has his next big Mac.

    Time123 (646bc3)

  4. Here’s news that will have JD retiring to his fainting couch:

    https://www.mediaite.com/politics/donald-trump-jr-considering-a-run-for-president-in-2028-sources/

    Appalled (a8dabe)

  5. I would love to see MAGA candidates fight for the anti-Nikki vote.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  6. Newsom is taking some of the advice about moving the party away from the screaming maniacs.

    Compare that to the Maine governor’s choice of a hill to die on.

    President Donald Trump sparred with Maine’s Democratic governor during a meeting of governors at the White House on Friday, with Gov. Janet Mills telling the Republican president, “We’ll see you in court,” over his push to deny federal funding to the state over transgender athletes.

    Trump told the governor he looked forward to it and predicted the end of her political career for opposing his order. Later Friday, the U.S. Department of Education said it was initiating an investigation into the Maine Department of Education over the inclusion of transgender athletes.

    When he’s right, he’s right, but when he’s wrong, he’s terrible.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  7. Time123,

    Did you see that Trump plans to open the federal forests to timber companies:

    President Donald Trump is promising to unleash the US timber industry by allowing companies to raze swaths of federally protected national forests.

    The Trump administration quietly issued an executive order Saturday for the “immediate expansion” of commercial logging on federal lands, setting out deadlines for officials to figure out how to fast-track permits and circumvent restrictions set out in the Endangered Species Act and other environmental protections.

    The order — which calls for the ramping up of the domestic timber production to avoid reliance on “foreign producers” — was followed three days later by sweeping 25% tariffs on Canadian products, including lumber.

    The United States has an “abundance of timber resources that are more than adequate to meet our domestic timber production needs,” the executive order says.

    Dana (e9fd85)

  8. Time123 (646bc3) — 3/7/2025 @ 11:47 am

    He also wants to make sure your property tax is deductible.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  9. #8

    Trump was the one who made sure my property tax was not deductible in the first place…

    Appalled (a8dabe)

  10. As far as the bowdlerization of Pentagon material, “malicious compliance” is a time-tested military strategy of making orders they don’t like look stupid, or to avoid the effect while claiming the orders have been followed.

    A classic example was the way the services desegregated after Truman’s order. Instead of having black regiments, they divided up black soldiers into all-black companies and inserted one such company into otherwise white battalions. It really wasn’t desegregation, but they could say there were no more all-black regiments or battalions.

    When Ike became president he told them to knock it off and actually desegregate.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  11. Trump was the one who made sure my property tax was not deductible in the first place…

    Such a memory!

    Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  12. @10

    “malicious compliance” is a time-tested military strategy of making orders they don’t like look stupid, or to avoid the effect while claiming the orders have been followed.

    They should summarily be fired and discharged.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  13. @7: How long before they are strip mining coal in Yellowstone?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  14. President Donald Trump on Thursday targeted another elite law firm that has represented clients he considers his political enemies

    When you go after lawyers and law firms you are stepping on a third rail. I expect the lawsuits to be fast and fierce, and I expect civil rights claims against individuals. Most judges will have a problem with this as well; It’s a direct assault on the Law.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  15. https://www.newser.com/story/365408/musk-rubio-had-volatile-exchange-in-trump-meeting.html

    President Trump made a surprise move on Thursday by reining in Elon Musk during a last-minute Cabinet meeting. The upshot is that Trump informed his secretaries that they, and not Musk, would be in charge of cuts within their departments going forward. So just what happened at the meeting? The New York Times reports that Musk had heated exchanges with frustrated Cabinet members, most notably Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Details and related coverage:

    Rubio: The story by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan reports that Rubio and Musk argued back and forth, with Musk accusing Rubio of not making enough cuts, and an “incensed” Rubio accusing him of lying. The secretary asked Musk if he should rehire 1,500 staffers who took early buyouts, which would then allow Musk to stage another mass firing of them. Finally, Trump broke in and said Rubio was doing a “great job.

    Trump is siding with the courts and his filings with the courts here. Musk is not in charge of anything,

    Plane crashes: Transportation chief Sean Duffy complained that Musk’s DOGE was trying to lay off air traffic controllers. “What am I supposed to do?” the story paraphrases Duffy as saying. “I have multiple plane crashes to deal with now, and your people want me to fire air traffic controllers?” Musk asked for names, and Duffy replied he had none, as he’d blocked the layoffs.

    An answer? The Hill looks back to Trump’s first Cabinet meeting, at which Musk was invited to speak at length about his cuts. “There had been an unclear division of power over who controls the federal agencies: the Senate-confirmed Cabinet secretaries or Elon Musk?” the piece notes. This latest meeting appears to have answered the question: It’s the secretaries.

    Rubio pressure: Rubio has reportedly been seething about the cuts to agencies ostensibly under his control, including USAID. Semafor reports that some former colleagues in the Senate (including Democrats) who voted for his confirmation have been disappointed at his seeming reluctance to challenge Trump or Musk. They’re waiting to see if that changes in the next few weeks.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  16. 14. That law firm was extremely partisan and unethical. But still…

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  17. Does presidential immunity cover things the president is impeached and convicted for doing? I expect some on the Court would like to have that decision back as Trump explodes the envelope of permissible conduct.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  18. That law firm was extremely partisan and unethical. But still…

    So? Complain to the bar.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  19. Appalled (a8dabe) — 3/7/2025 @ 12:42 pm

    Trump was the one who made sure my property tax was not deductible in the first place…

    It’s deductible, but all state and local taxes (SALT) combined are capped at $10,000 which is below the standard deduction.

    These provisions expire at the end of 2025 when
    tax law turns back into a pumpkin, something the is trying to avoid using reconcilation.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  20. I didn’t know that Trump was going to open up federal land to more logging. I have no problem against lumber farms. We need lumber and it’s sustainable lift done correctly. However it’s a long cycle and there are a lot of externalities that take many decades to recover from.

    Additionally, short-term resource harvesting is a one time resource. And it’s also generally a low value add to your economic engine. I’m sure someone will make money on it. But with modern machinery, it doesn’t require a lot of people to turn trees into useful lumber.

    And again, unless you’re doing a lumber farm it’s a one time harvest. I would rather let Canada provide the raw material As well as the milling because it’s more efficient to do that closer to the source of harvest and let the US provide higher value at activities such as the technology, the engineering or the assembly of the finished product

    Time123 (f8b4b8)

  21. @12. Or told him to knock it off and quit being idiots the Trump administration could also do the work of formulating a policy that is less ambiguous

    Time123 (f8b4b8)

  22. @15:

    As I pointed out in another thread,

    But no, they are firing new hires and attempting to find slackers to dismiss with the insulting email demands … it’s pruning “support” staff in sections, when you really want to see if the entire section is doing something useful….

    Musk is looking at this like he would reducing costs at Tesla, or a takeover company like X, when it’s closer to a job of cutting divisions at Procter & Gamble. Such a stupid approach from such a smart guy.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  23. There are also plenty of places in the US to get lumber that aren’t protected.

    The only good thing in this is the attack on the Endangered Species Act, which needs revision. We do incredible economic harm preserving utterly failed minor offshoots of common species.

    We need to be able to decide, even if some pocket population is endangered, does it actually matter? Is the fact that a subspecies is more blue than other closely related examples of the larger species group really worth a trillion dollars?

    Unless it has changed recently, there is no cost/benefit analysis in the Act.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  24. I would love to see MAGA candidates fight for the anti-Nikki vote.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/7/2025 @ 12:30 pm

    Which was far larger than the pro-Nikki vote in the last Republican primary cycle. By 2028 it will be “Nikki who?”

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  25. The banned words

    As President Trump seeks to purge the federal government of “woke” initiatives, agencies have flagged hundreds of words to limit or avoid, according to a compilation of government documents.

    The list is too long to post here. Some of it makes sense, e.g. “chest-feeding person”

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  26. Does presidential immunity cover things the president is impeached and convicted for doing? I expect some on the Court would like to have that decision back as Trump explodes the envelope of permissible conduct.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/7/2025 @ 1:11 pm

    Trump may argue that the presidential immunity decision covers impeachment, but impeachment is neither a civil or criminal proceeding, but a political process. The normal guarantees, like due process, don’t necessarily.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  27. ……don’t necessarily apply.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  28. Rip Murdock (271b5f) — 3/7/2025 @ 1:56 pm

    What about the dog?

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  29. Item 5 Both france and britian have four balistic missile submarines and at least france has cruise missles and other air launched nukes. Britian may have them too.

    asset (f6921c)

  30. Act blue dnc slush fund has removed its lawyers for whistle blowing on foreign donations. (DU)

    asset (f6921c)

  31. Trump may argue that the presidential immunity decision covers impeachment

    Yes, but that wasn’t really my question, although I can see how you might parse it that way.

    Let’s say that, as an act of his office, Trump nukes Paris because the French president offended him. A horrified Congress quickly impeaches and convicts him. Can he be prosecuted for the mass murder, or does he still enjoy immunity for an “official act” that Congress strongly repudiated.

    I guess he could always be extradited to France.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  32. https://issuesinsights.com/2025/03/07/dems-fight-to-protect-a-600-bil-medicaid-tax-scam-that-joe-biden-tried-to-kill/

    Here’s how this particular scam works.

    States tax health care providers and use those funds to help cover their Medicaid costs. Then, the states turn around and increase what they pay these same providers for Medicaid benefits – effectively covering the cost of the tax. Then, because of the way Medicaid is financed, the states can bill the federal government for half of the spending increase.

    Let’s say, for example, a state imposes a provider tax on hospitals that raises $100 million. And then it returns that $100 million to the hospitals in the form of higher Medicaid reimbursement rates. There’s been no increase in benefits. Providers aren’t better off. But the state gets an extra $50 million from the federal government’s matching fund, money that it can use for anything it wants. (The fed pays states up to 90% to cover the cost of expanding Medicaid under Obamacare.)

    An Oregon state representative once called it a “dream tax.” States can use Medicaid to steal money from the federal treasury. It’s such a wonderful dream that Alaska is the only state in the nation that hasn’t leveraged it.

    We’re not talking pennies here. The Congressional Budget Office figures that the 10-year cost of this tax scam is more than $600 billion, which is almost exactly what Republicans are eyeing in savings from Medicaid. Provider taxes are now the second largest source of funds for Medicaid.

    Take California, which is the premier abuser of this scam. The state’s budget projects $119 billion in federal Medicaid funds – more than Florida’s entire budget – an increase of $11 billion from the prior year. American Commitment President Phil Kerpen notes that the increase alone is bigger than Nevada’s entire state budget.

    Here’s those dreaded medicaid cuts.

    It’s a scam the states have been doing to enrich themselves at the taxpayers expense.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  33. Counterpoint, from Poland’s PM:

    Poles, Mr. Tusk said, “will not accept the philosophy that we are powerless and helpless, that if President Trump decides to change his policy, we have no chance.”

    “I will repeat once again what seems incredible but is true: 500 million Europeans are begging 300 million Americans to protect us from 180 million Russians who have not been able to cope with 40 million Ukrainians for three years,” he said.

    Poland now spends 4 percent of GDP on defense and intends to increase that, and will double the size of its armed forces to 1 million men.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  34. It’s a scam the states have been doing to enrich themselves at the taxpayers expense.

    Yes and no. It is effectively a tax on all other patients that allows a raid on the Treasury. The effect of this operation is to be able to reimburse providers for the cost of covering Medicaid patients, which had historically been pretty low. In states that were not awash in money and/or had a higher proportion of Medicaid patients (especially after the Obamacare inducements) many doctors were fleeing to other states.

    A state’s Medicaid payments are usually pegged to the Medicare rates established by the federal government, rates that are not that high to begin with. A few years back, my state was paying at 80% of Medicare. Now, in the system that Biden created in the IRA, they are paying at 120%. A bit galling to Medicare patients, but it has stopped and may be reversing the doctor shortage* here.

    ======
    * There are other reasons for that, of course. One is that there are more happening places than New Mexico. The other is that the state legislature is heavily influenced by the plaintiff’s bar, and awards for malpractice can be higher than normal.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  35. Second news item:

    Newsom’s remarks about trans athletes has some Democrats ‘sickened and frustrated’

    In a joint statement as chair and vice chair of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, state Assemblymember Chris Ward and Sen. Caroline Menjivar said they were “profoundly sickened and frustrated” by Newsom’s remarks, which they called “Anti-Transgender.”

    “All students deserve the academic and health benefits of sports activity, and until Donald Trump began obsessing about it, playing on a team consistent with one’s gender has not been a problem since the standard was passed in 2013,” they wrote.

    State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) also released a statement, first acknowledging that Newsom “has had many courageous moments over the decades supporting LGBTQ people.”

    “This is not one of those moments. Charlie Kirk is a vile bigot, and standing with him on this issue is profoundly disturbing,” Wiener added. “The Republican strategy to eliminate trans people is to create fake moral panics — to falsely paint trans people as threats.”

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  36. OT: I was on Columbia University’s campus last week, visiting a professor colleague. No signs of any protest or trouble. I did have to get photo ID permission to be on campus.

    Anyway, two days after I left, the Barnard thing happened, with Columbia students.

    I miss all the fun.

    I didn’t get to have a “New York” slice of pizza, but did have some pastrami and a truly fine bagel. Also saw the Statue of Liberty and and learned about caissons and bridge building.

    Best wishes to you all.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  37. Trump may argue that the presidential immunity decision covers impeachment

    Yes, but that wasn’t really my question, although I can see how you might parse it that way.

    Only because I thought you were being rational.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  38. I’m glad that you got to see a little bit NYC, Simon.

    Dana (5a53e9)

  39. The entire video at 4th news item should be directed to all those protesting students and faculty. If they answer the speaker’s questions correctly, they can remain school!

    Dana (d5bd42)

  40. https://100percentfedup.com/tesla-dealership-gets-shot-up-oregon/

    3rd attack on a Tesla dealership in Oregon.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  41. Simon,

    there’s plenty of decent pizza in NY and NJ, but if you wanted a great slice that’s a different story.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  42. Fourth news item

    Well said:

    Rami Feinstein is an Israeli living in Akron , Ohio.

    He got fed up with the hypocrites hiding their Jewhatred behing “concern for human rights”.

    Rami explains :

    The “anti-Israel” people regularly come to Summit County Council meetings.
    They call on the council to divest from… pic.twitter.com/ObPcKFwXO2

    — The Voice Of Truth 🙌 (@thevoicetruth1) March 6, 2025

    Why is the imam who preached hatred at Kent State and a love for the terrorism of October 10th not made famous in all the worst ways his hatred deserves?

    In his December 13, 2024 Friday sermon, Kent State University professor of Mathematics and Imam of the Islamic Society of Akron and Kent in Ohio, Nader Taha, stated that Gaza had planted the “seed of freedom” for the entire world. He said that in the October 7, 2023 Al-Aqsa Flood, “we have seen miracle, after miracle, after miracle.” In a previous sermon on November 10, 2023, Taha said that before October 7, the Al-Aqsa Mosque was insulted and disgraced, and it was calling out to the Muslims to liberate it and purify it from the filth it was in, a call that the brothers and sisters in Gaza answered. He continued to say that Allah had promised that the Children of Israel would be humiliated and defeated, and this is what happened to them on October 7. Imam Nader Taha is involved in local interfaith activity and in 2017 he was appointed a member of County Executive Ilene Shapiro’s advisory council of diversity and inclusion.

    How is he still a professor?

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  43. Musk is not in charge of anything,

    Not according to President Trump:

    ……….
    Trump referred to Musk as heading DOGE in his speech to a joint session of Congress. In doing so, the president appeared to contradict government lawyers defending DOGE who have characterized Musk’s role as merely advisory.

    “To further combat inflation, we will not only be reducing the cost of energy, but will be ending the flagrant waste of taxpayer dollars,” Trump told lawmakers. “And to that end, I have created the brand new Department of Government Efficiency. DOGE. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. Perhaps. Which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the gallery tonight.”

    Trump listed government expenditures that he said were exposed as scams and terminated by a “group of very intelligent, mostly young people headed up by Elon.”
    …………
    At issue is a separation-of-powers provision in the Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, that gives Congress a say over the hiring of the most powerful officials in a president’s administration. High-level executive-branch officials with supervisory powers like agency heads generally have to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

    Within hours after Trump’s speech, plaintiffs challenging DOGE submitted court filings alerting judges of Trump’s remarks.

    “It’s so obvious Mr. Musk is enjoying significant authority that requires Senate confirmation,” said attorney Norman Eisen, who represents a group of current and former employees at the U.S. Agency for International Development, which Musk has sought to dismantle. “The president’s comments last night just reaffirm that.”
    …………

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  44. It’s sad, but the die is cast. The world is learning that they cannot rely on the United States for anything, not even a fried egg on their grits when they make port in Jacksonville.

    America First? Uh-uh! America Alone!

    nk (cb4a4b)

  45. High-level executive-branch officials with supervisory powers like agency heads generally have to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

    Yes, but other presidents have tried to go around that, appointing “czars” for this and that. I think that it’s OK so long as they are not in the chain of command anywhere other than their own office.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  46. I said a while back during the “primaries” that it was looking like the only way to be rid of MAGA was to give it power and watch it fail. It’s coming along rather nicely, although the collateral damage isn’t good.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  47. Yes, but other presidents have tried to go around that, appointing “czars” for this and that. I think that it’s OK so long as they are not in the chain of command anywhere other than their own office.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/7/2025 @ 7:24 pm

    Such “czars” are White House policy advisers and coordinators and not agency heads.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  48. Both france and britian have four balistic missile submarines and at least france has cruise missles and other air launched nukes. Britian may have them too.

    asset (f6921c) — 3/7/2025 @ 2:08 pm

    As Ipreviously pointed out, neither France or Britain have “launch on warning” capability; currently it would take several hours or days for either country to launch any retaliatory response.

    I also recall a year ago Macron was talking big about sending French combat troops to fight in Ukraine and nothing came of it.

    Macron is in a politically tenuous position trying to prevent Marine Le Pen from taking power. He better focus on that.

    Finally, I can see Russia saying to Starmer and Macron:

    “Nice capital cities you have there guys, it would be shame if you lost them because you sent troops supporting Ukraine.”

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  49. @49 uk& france to putin be a shame if 160 warheads each drop out of the sky on mother russia leaving us and china to police whats left. Also deterrence is not static their economies would be helped by increased defense spending on nukes. Germany joining the new arms race would not make putin happy.

    asset (5be1a1)

  50. Building nukes is like paying ppl to fix a broken window

    Time123 (1fcab3)

  51. @51 deterrence mutual destruction is not like paying ppl to fix a broken window. If you are standing in a room ankle deep in gasoline and you have 8 matches and your opponent has 10matches who is ahead?

    asset (5be1a1)

  52. Schumer and Jefferies meet with democrats telling them the donors are getting nervous that their antics might interfere with trump’s tax cut for the rich. House democrats eed to calm down their voters as donor cash is needed not their whinning.

    asset (5be1a1)

  53. Also deterrence is not static their economies would be helped by increased defense spending on nukes. Germany joining the new arms race would not make putin happy.

    asset (5be1a1) — 3/7/2025 @ 9:33 pm

    The war in Ukraine will be long over before any of that ever happens, if at all.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  54. Such “czars” are White House policy advisers and coordinators and not agency heads.

    Just like Musk, on paper at least.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  55. Ouch!

    The Los Angeles Times removed its new artificial intelligence feature from one of its articles on Tuesday — only 24 hours following its debut — after it shared a perspective downplaying the Ku Klux Klan’s racist history.

    “Local historical accounts occasionally frame the 1920s Klan as a product of ‘white Protestant culture’ responding to societal changes rather than an explicitly hate-driven movement, minimizing its ideological threat,” the AI-generated note read.

    The note was added by “Insights,” the name of the Times’ new AI tool, to a Feb. 25 article on the 100th anniversary of Anaheim removing KKK members from its city council. ……..

    It added another bullet point, saying “critics argue that focusing on past Klan influence distracts from Anaheim’s modern identity as a diverse city, with some residents claiming recent KKK rallies were isolated incidents unreflective of current values.”
    ………..
    A day earlier, LA Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong said Insights would offer readers a quick way to see a “wide-range of different AI-enabled perspectives” that may differ from the point-of-view in a particular story.
    ……….
    ………. Insights’ insights are not reviewed by editors or journalists before they are published, the Times said on Monday; reader feedback will be incorporated to produce “better, more accurate results over time,” LAT said on Monday — hinting that Insights was removed from the KKK story after reader outcry……….
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  56. “Local historical accounts occasionally frame the 1920s Klan as a product of ‘white Protestant culture’ responding to societal changes rather than an explicitly hate-driven movement, minimizing its ideological threat,” the AI-generated note read.

    This is literally true.

    It added another bullet point, saying “critics argue that focusing on past Klan influence distracts from Anaheim’s modern identity as a diverse city, with some residents claiming recent KKK rallies were isolated incidents unreflective of current values.”

    And again, what on earth is wrong with this?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  57. The writer of the Klan article responds

    As a journalist, I’d hope that my contemporaries who reported on the situation would have been a little more precise about describing the language they saw on the feature. The net effect was to make it seem like the AI tool had practically burned a cross to show its support for the KKK on a column that explicitly denounced the Invisible Empire.

    They were more hung up on The Times’ AI tool and not the actual journalism that preceded it, which makes me think they didn’t even read my column. Thanks, pals!

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  58. Rip Murdock (271b5f) — 3/8/2025 @ 10:01 am

    Double ouch!

    ………
    As of writing, searching for “mein kampf positive reviews” returned a result that was pulled from an AI-generated summary of an Amazon listing’s customer reviews. So, it’s a search algorithm attempting to summarize an AI summary. The full AI summary on Amazon says: “Customers find the book easy to read and interesting. They appreciate the insightful and intelligent rants. The print looks nice and is plain. Readers describe the book as a true work of art. However, some find the content boring and grim. Opinions vary on the suspenseful content, historical accuracy, and value for money.”

    ……….. Google says “An AI Overview is not available for this search,” but the Amazon AI summary was in large text directly below it, in the space where an overview would typically be, above other web results……….

    …………..(A)n AI Overview did appear (later), and notes that the book is “widely condemned for its hateful and racist ideology,” but that historical analyses “might point to aspects of the book that could be considered ‘positive’ from a purely literary or rhetorical perspective.”
    ………..
    The 2,067 reviews for this specific copy of Hitler’s fascist manifesto are mostly positive, and taken extremely literally, the blueprint for Nazism is easy to read and, in some sense, “interesting.” But the reviews are much more nuanced than that. Reviewing the roadmap for the Holocaust from the world’s most infamous genocidal dictator with “five stars” seems twisted, but the reviews are nuanced in a way that AI clearly doesn’t understand—but a human can.
    ………….
    These aren’t “positive” reviews; most of the five-star reviews are noting the quality of the print or shipping, and not endorsing the contents of the book.
    ………….
    Google’s AI Overview shoots itself in the algorithmic foot frequently, so it’s noteworthy that it’s sitting this result out. When it launched in May 2024 as a default feature on searches, it was an immediate and often hysterical mess, telling people it’s chill to eat glue and that they should consume one small rock a day. In January, the feature was telling users to use the most famous sex toy in the world with children for behavioral issues. These weird results are beside the bigger point: Google’s perversion of its own search function—its most popular and important product—is a deep problem that it still hasn’t fixed, and that has real repercussions for the health of the internet. At first, AI Overview was so bad Google added an option to turn it off entirely, but the company is still hanging on to the feature despite all of this.
    …………

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  59. searching for “mein kampf positive reviews”

    If I were searching for that, I would be upset if the AI didn’t deliver. But of course it will have no problem searching for “Das Capital positive reviews” or “list the benefits of Marxism”

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  60. Pasteur wept:

    US CDC plans study into vaccines and autism

    March 7 – The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is planning a large study into potential connections between vaccines and autism, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters, despite extensive scientific research that has disproven or failed to find evidence of such links.

    The CDC’s move comes amid one of the largest measles outbreaks the U.S. has seen in the past decade, with more than 200 cases and two deaths in Texas and New Mexico. The outbreak has been fueled by declining vaccination rates in parts of the United States where parents have been falsely persuaded that such shots do more harm than good.

    U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, whose role includes authority over the CDC, has long sowed doubt over the safety of the combined vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR). In a cabinet meeting last week, Kennedy initially downplayed news that a school-aged child had died of measles in Texas, the first such death in a decade, calling such outbreaks ordinary and failing to mention the role of vaccination to prevent measles.

    Last weekend Kennedy published an opinion piece on Fox News that promoted the role of vaccination, but also told parents vaccination was a personal choice and urged them to consult with their physician.

    It is unclear whether Kennedy is involved in the planned CDC study or how it would be carried out. He did not respond to a request for comment.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  61. RIP The Original Pantry Cafe (101):

    ………..
    The Original Pantry Cafe opened in 1924 as a 24-hour diner. In 1950, the restaurant moved to its current location due to the construction of the 110 freeway. Even on the day of its move, the legend goes that it served breakfast at the old location and reopened for dinner at the new one. It notably only closed two times: once due to a failed health inspection in 1997 (it reopened the next day) and another for an extended period during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The restaurant eventually returned to daily service but was no longer a 24/7 establishment, opening only from the early morning to mid-afternoon. In 1981, then Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan bought the restaurant and surrounding real estate, keeping it under his operation until his passing in 2023.
    ………..
    In a statement provided to Eater, the Richard J. Riordan family trust alleges its primary reason for the closure is that it had a legal obligation to “maximize the value of the real estate,” which includes the land under the Original Pantry Cafe and Riordan’s Tavern, as well as a sizable parking lot just south of the restaurants. In the statement, the trust says plainly that the “trustees of the Mayor’s estate have determined that closing The Pantry and selling the property upon which it is located is the best path to provide the foundation with the most financial resources.” The property’s proximity to L.A. Live and Crypto.com Arena, key venues for the upcoming 2028 Summer Olympics, will likely make the real estate even more valuable.
    …………
    At the time of closure, the Original Pantry Cafe had 25 employees, which was down from 80 workers who were employed before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Unite Here Local 11 president Kurt Petersen) says the Original Pantry Cafe’s workers had been unionized for at least 50 years, and that Riordan had been an excellent employer. “ He [Riordan] intended for them to make a living at the restaurant. He never fought us over wages. There was never a single picket line at the property. He cared about those employees. That’s what makes this so appalling,” says Petersen. ………
    …………
    Riordan, it turns out, sold the air rights of the Origina Pantry Cafe and Riordan’s Tavern property in 1985 to an insurance company that would allegedly limit upward development further than one story — essentially preserving the original shape of the space. At the time….……. In addition, the Original Pantry Cafe was designated a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument in 1987, which would delay any demolition of the building by up to one year, adding another element that would impact its value.

    The family trust alleges the union contract, which had been in place for nearly 50 years, would need to be amended for the continued operation of the restaurant.………
    ………….
    Riordan’s charitable foundation will gain millions from the sale of the property, but Los Angeles will lose an important institution representing a bygone time. …………One hopes other classic LA restaurants, like Dan Tana’s, Musso & Frank, or Langer’s will never see the same fate as the Original Pantry Cafe.
    ……………

    Rip Murdock (726214)

  62. US Measles Cases Jump 35% in a Week; Now Found in 12 States

    (Bloomberg) — US measles cases jumped by a third over the past week, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, a worrying sign in the outbreak that’s already linked to two deaths.

    New Mexico’s health department listed Friday that an adult who had died and then tested positive for measles had succumbed to the disease, though the state’s medical examiner has yet to confirm the cause of death. If it was caused by measles, it would be New Mexico’s first such fatality in at least 40 years, according to the CDC.

    US cases since the beginning of the year rose by 58 to 222 across 12 states, the CDC reported Friday, and 38, or 17% of those confirmed cases, have led to hospitalization.

    Texas, the hardest-hit state with the first US reported death in a decade, reported 198 cases on Friday, 39 more than its last update on March 4. And New Mexico’s confirmed cases are now at 30, an increase of 20 from its prior report. All of New Mexico’s cases have been in Lea County, which abuts Gaines County, the epicenter in Texas.

    The CDC lists the following states as showing at least one confirmed measles case: Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York City, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  63. The much nicer Dana in the main article:

    Macron said he has decided to open a “strategic debate” on using France’s nuclear deterrent to protect European allies amid concerns over potential U.S. disengagement. The French president described Moscow a “threat to France and Europe,” in a televised address to the nation.

    France is the only nuclear power in the European Union.

    The Arms Control Association says that France has 290 nuclear warheads, while Russia has 5,580, but such begs the same question: if Russia invaded the three Baltic nations, which are NATO members, and NATO lacked the conventional strength to drive the Russkies back out, would France use its nuclear weapons against Russia?

    When it comes to strategic nuclear weapons, there is a point of dramatically diminishing returns. Russia, as well as the United States, has something that France does not: small, ‘tactical’ or ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons, which could be used to turn the tide of any conventional conflict, without necessary escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange. Russia could use a couple of these in Ukraine, to change the current near-stalemate and deter NATO from putting troops in that non-NATO nation, and, other than the United States, NATO could not respond in kind. But more, Russia could bring those weapons to bear at any time, while the US could not, because we do not have such on site in Europe. As far as is publicly known, the US maintains 100 B61 thermonuclear gravity bombs in five separate locations in NATO Europe, weapons which are carried by aircraft, meaning that they’d have to be sent from bases in the Netherlands or Italy.

    If France is to provide the nuclear umbrella, it’s limited to a strategic exchange, because that’s all they have. Will President Macron, or any French leader, shoot off an SLBM toward the Kremlin when they know that the USSR Russians will be perfectly capable of sending one toward the Champs-Élysées, over a tactical nuke used in non-NATO Ukraine, or the Baltic nations? That would be the diminishing return of strategic weapons!

    Let’s tell the truth here: while ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons use in Ukraine by Russia is certainly risky, a strategic exchange is mutual suicide.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (0b0ac2)

  64. According to CDC:

    As of March 6, 2025, a total of 222 measles cases were reported. There have been 3 outbreaks (defined as 3 or more related cases) reported in 2025, and 93% of cases (207 of 222) are outbreak-associated.

    As of December 31, 2024, a total of 285 measles cases were reported by 33 jurisdictions: Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York City, New York State, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.

    There have been 16 outbreaks (defined as 3 or more related cases) reported in 2024, and 69% of cases (198 of 285) are outbreak-associated.

    For comparison, 4 outbreaks were reported during 2023 and 49% of cases (29 of 59) were outbreak-associated.

    There were no measles deaths in 2024.

    Graphs and statistics at the CDC page.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  65. With prejudice’:

    New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ corruption case should be dropped with prejudice to prevent the appearance that Adams remains under political pressure due to the specter of a possible future indictment, an outside attorney appointed by the court told the judge in the case Friday.

    At the last court hearing, Judge Dale Ho appointed Paul Clement as an outside attorney to argue before the court over the Department of Justice’s memo to drop the charges without prejudice. If the charges were dropped without prejudice, as the DOJ wanted, Adams could potentially be reindicted in the future.

    Judge Ho ordered briefs to be submitted by March 7 and said oral arguments will take place March 14, if needed.
    ………..
    ……….. In his brief, Clement argues that Judge Ho should dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning that if the charges are dropped, they could not be brought again.

    “A dismissal without prejudice creates a palpable sense that the prosecution outlined in the indictment and approved by a grand jury could be renewed, a prospect that hangs like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the accused,” Clement wrote. “Such an ongoing prospect of re-indictment is particularly problematic when it comes to the sensitive task of prosecuting public officials. There is an inherent risk that once an indictment has been procured, the prospect of reindictment could create the appearance, if not the reality, that the actions of a public official are being driven by concerns about staying in the good graces of the federal executive, rather than the best interests of his constituents.”
    ………..

    Rip Murdock (726214)

  66. If France is to provide the nuclear umbrella, it’s limited to a strategic exchange, because that’s all they have.

    Again the false comparison between “strategic” and “battlefield” nuclear weapons. It’s the mindspace of the self-deluding.

    France, in order to defend France, has no small nukes. Similarly for other nuclear-weapons states. Even the US has a small (and diminishing) number. Why? Because they all have the same policy: you use any nuke on us, we use a big nuke on you. Deterrence.

    The US, having abandoned chemical weapons, also has a policy of responding to chemical attacks with nuclear weapons, something that was explained to Saddam Hussein shortly before the Gulf War.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  67. Mr M quoted:

    State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) also released a statement, first acknowledging that Newsom “has had many courageous moments over the decades supporting LGBTQ people.”

    “This is not one of those moments. Charlie Kirk is a vile bigot, and standing with him on this issue is profoundly disturbing,” Wiener added. “The Republican strategy to eliminate trans people is to create fake moral panics — to falsely paint trans people as threats.”

    The left, including some (purported) journalists, were similarly spittle-flecked with outrage when MSNBC’s Joe and Mika Scarborough went to interview Donald Trump a couple of weeks after the election. Why, it was shocking, appalling, virtually treasonous that two (purported) journalists from a major news network went to talk to the President-elect of the United States! The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Will Bunch said that the Scarboroughs were “bending the knee” by speaking to the former and then-future President.

    There are many on the far left who see even talking to us evil reich-wingers as tantamount to treason, seeking a purity of thought that does not represent all, or even most, of Democratic voters.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (0b0ac2)

  68. The US has, as requested by Obama, developed the W87-2, a 5KT Trident missile warhead. But it is purely an ICBM warhead and may or may not have been deployed — Biden was opposed. ICBM warheads fired into a active conflict would probably result in a response before the warhead detonated, so they aren’t useful as battlefield weapons.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  69. There are many on the far left who see even talking to us evil reich-wingers as tantamount to treason, seeking a purity of thought that does not represent all, or even most, of Democratic voters.

    And why Peggy Noonan wrote this last week:

    Democrats have to understand where they are. They have completely lost their reputation as the party of the workingman. With their bad governance of the major cities and their airy, abstract obsessions with identity politics and gender ideology, they have driven away the working class, for whom life isn’t airy or abstract. Democrats must stop listening to the left of the left of their party. It tugs them too far away from the vast majority of Americans. They have been radical on the border, on crime, on boys in the girls’ locker room. They should take those issues off the table by admitting they got them wrong.

    Why do they allow the far left to punch so far above its weight? It’s not only money. “They play dirty, make threats, make people uncomfortable,” a Democratic elected official said. Normal Democrats want to dodge a fight with them. But the fight has to be had. The sooner you have it, the sooner it’s over and the party makes itself into a fighting force again.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  70. The distinguished Mr M wrote:

    Again the false comparison between “strategic” and “battlefield” nuclear weapons. It’s the mindspace of the self-deluding.

    France, in order to defend France, has no small nukes. Similarly for other nuclear-weapons states. Even the US has a small (and diminishing) number. Why? Because they all have the same policy: you use any nuke on us, we use a big nuke on you. Deterrence.

    Sadly, my inferior understanding is not quite able to comprehend the brilliance of your position. You are suggesting that if Russia were to use a ‘tactical’ nuclear weapon to take out a major troop and ammunition concentration in Ukraine, the logical response is to nuke Moscow, which would guarantee return nuclear attacks on Washington, London, and Paris?

    But, you actually answered it yourself, when you said “France, in order to defend France, has no small nukes.” The NATO Charter specifies that an attack on one is an attack on all, but an attack on Ukraine, or the NATO member Baltic states, is not an actual attack on France. Letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle is fraught with a world holocaust danger, but it’s one that at least might be contained, depending upon the nature of the attack.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (0b0ac2)

  71. the logical response is to nuke Moscow, which would guarantee return nuclear attacks on Washington, London, and Paris?

    By policy there must be a NECESSARY and extreme response. The whole idea of MAD is not based on logic, but on the certainty of destruction if you cross this here line. If, instead, you move the line back and say, OK, but don’t cross THIS line, you will be rightly mocked.

    However, it might be not be actually nuclear. It might be 500 conventional cruise missiles into the Kremlin and/or where we think Putin might be, or the conventional destruction of the subs still in Murmansk. It would be disproportionate and extreme, stamping out the vintage, etc.

    It would need to be enough so that they didn’t do it again. It would probably also be coupled with US intervention, if not a declaration of war.

    (all the above ignores the probably traitorous role of the Manchurian President).

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  72. A sympathetic understanding:

    President Donald Trump expressed understanding Friday for Russia’s stepped-up attacks on Ukraine after the White House halted military and intelligence aid to Kyiv this week, saying that he would resume help for the beleaguered country only when Ukrainian leaders agree that “they want to settle.”
    ………..
    “I actually think he’s doing what anybody else would do,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Friday, when asked whether he was upset that Russian President Vladimir Putin was taking advantage of the U.S. halt in aid for Ukraine. “Probably anybody in that position would be doing that right now. He wants to get it ended. And I think Ukraine wants to get it ended, but I don’t see. It’s crazy. They’re taking tremendous punishment. I don’t quite get it.”

    Trump was asked whether he would consider stepping up help for Ukraine in the face of the Russian assault by giving Kyiv more air defense munitions. That form of assistance would not enable further Ukrainian attacks on Russian positions but would be purely defensive.

    Trump indicated he would not give Ukraine those defensive munitions. ………
    ………..
    Trump’s sympathetic comments toward Putin contrasted with his social media post hours earlier threatening “large scale” sanctions on Russia because of the attack. Trump said he also wanted the Kremlin to come to the table.
    ………..
    Trump has rarely offered criticism of Putin, and when given the chance to expand upon his social media post during questions from reporters Friday in the Oval Office, he declined to do so. Instead, he said that he continued to believe Putin when the Russian leader says he wants peace.
    ………..
    Ukrainian officials report that several regions were hit by missiles and drones during the attack, and natural gas production facilities in the Poltava region were knocked out of commission. Missiles in the northeastern city of Kharkiv damaged at least 30 houses and injured eight people. The attack followed a major drone assault on Ukraine the night before.

    According to Ukraine’s air force, 67 missiles were fired in the latest attack, accompanied by 194 drones.
    ………….

    I agree with Trump that Russia wants peace, but only on their terms, which include

    •no NATO membership for Ukraine;
    •Ukraine’s recognition of Russia’s annexation of four Ukrainian provinces (even though Russia does not physically control all the territory of three of them);
    •Ukraine’s demilitarization and denazification (code for the installation of a pro-Russia puppet in Kyiv); and
    •the lifting of anti-Russia sanctions.

    Putin doubled down on that position just this week, saying during a March 6 visit to the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation that Russia does not intend to make any compromises in peace negotiations. The Russian president sees no need to make any concessions. His armies are making grinding progress on the battlefield, albeit at a heavy cost in men and materiel. The Russian economy has proven resilient to Western sanctions, growing by more than 4 percent each of the past two years. ……..

    ……….But to placate Trump, he continues to declare his readiness to talk. That seeks to cast the Ukrainians as the chief obstacle to the swift settlement Trump is seeking and encourages greater U.S. pressure on Kyiv. In the Kremlin’s calculus, that creates a win-win situation. They eventually win either on the battlefield or at the negotiating table—if a weakened Ukraine ever agrees to sit down and talk.

    ……….. Putin is unlikely to be impressed (by the threat of new sanctions or tariffs), however. In 2024, Russian exports to the United States amounted to just $3 billion, and new sanctions mean little if they are not strictly enforced.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  73. Rip Murdock (271b5f) — 3/8/2025 @ 12:32 pm

    More:

    There are at least two problems with (the idea that a Ukrainian minerals deal is tantamount to a security guarantee because Russia would not be likely to threaten U.S. business interests.)

    First, how much private business interest would there be in Ukraine? Before the full-scale invasion, Ukraine had a reputation for being one of the most corrupt countries in Europe. U.S. foreign direct investment was small. Now, U.S. businesses would be looking at a country devastated by war and still struggling with corruption.

    Moreover, Ukraine’s mineral wealth is a matter of great speculation, and a sizable portion is located in Russia-occupied territory. These circumstances hardly amount to an attractive investment environment.

    Second, Ukraine occupies a special place in the Russian political imagination. Kievan Rus is the source of modern Russian statehood. Ukrainian territory has served as a critical buffer zone against foreign enemies for centuries, as well as a source of Russian power in the past 150 years. Russians consider their preeminence in Ukraine as essential to their security and prosperity.

    Reasserting or sustaining Russia’s influence in Ukraine would override any concern about threatening U.S. business in Ukraine, especially when U.S. administrations, including Trump’s, have made it clear for decades that the United States is not prepared to go to war against Russia to defend Ukraine. A U.S. business presence in Ukraine in 2014 did nothing to dissuade Russia from seizing Crimea and instigating rebellion in the Donbas.

    Paragraph breaks added.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  74. “They’re taking tremendous punishment. I don’t quite get it.” So I guess we know what Trump would do if we were attacked by an effective opponent. Please explain why anyone would vote for a man who doesn’t understand why a government would fight in order to maintain their independence rather than surrender and become occupied by another? Say what you want about Biden, but I’m pretty sure he “got” why Ukraine didn’t surrender to Russia.

    Nic (120c94)

  75. “They’re taking tremendous punishment. I don’t quite get it. Haven’t they even heard of bone spurs?”

    nk (755881)

  76. Maybe Trump could sue Zelensky for weaponizing the Ukrainian military?

    nk (755881)

  77. The full scale “tremendous punishment” started on Biden’s watch. All your whining isn’t going to alter that fact.

    lloyd (455da8)

  78. Meanwhile, Iran scoffs at Trump’s letter about nuclear talks. Apparently they don’t take his threat of military action seriously. And at this point, who would?

    Iran’s supreme leader decried “bullying governments” and bristled on Saturday at the idea of negotiating over the country’s nuclear program with the United States in an apparent response to a letter sent by President Trump earlier in the week.

    Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader, indirectly addressed Mr. Trump’s suggestion that Iran negotiate over its rapidly advancing nuclear program or face potential military action, while speaking at a meeting with government and military officials for Ramadan. Though he did not explicitly mention the letter, Mr. Trump or even the United States by name, it was clear he was speaking about Washington’s recent gesture.

    “Some bullying governments insist on negotiations not to resolve issues but to impose,” Mr. Khamenei said, according to state media. He added that “negotiation is a path for them to make new demands, it’s not just nuclear issues to speak about the nuclear topic, they are making new demands which will definitely not be accepted by Iran.”

    Speaking on Friday in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump suggested that Iran’s nuclear capabilities — which now include enough near-bomb-grade fuel to produce about six weapons — were reaching a critical point. He said he had offered the country a chance to negotiate or risk losing its program in a military strike.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal-leader-response.html

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  79. Trump doubles down on Gaza, rejects Arab rebuilding plan

    The White House has rejected an Arab plan for rebuilding the Gaza Strip, an early indication of the strength of President Trump’s commitment to positions he has staked out on contentious foreign-policy issues.

    Arab governments have scrambled to come up with a plan after Trump laid out a proposal for the U.S. to take over the territory and redevelop it as an international destination after clearing out its Palestinian residents. The Arab proposal nodded to the president’s vision of a “Riviera of the Middle East,” calling for the eventual development of beachfront resorts.

    But the White House shot down the proposal, saying the extent of the destruction in Gaza made keeping Palestinians in the enclave unworkable. Critics of the plan also said it failed to spell out how it would disarm Hamas, the U.S.-designated terrorist group that led the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel that left 1,200 dead and triggered the war.

    The rejection makes clear that Trump won’t easily give up on an idea that has been criticized by governments around the world and surprised some of his aides and own party. It is also a sign of the challenges facing countries from Canada to Ukraine in trying to steer Trump to more palatable outcomes in disputes of their own.

    OTOH, at least they are proposing a plan.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  80. @lloy@78 You realize you comment makes zero sense in context, right?

    Nic (120c94)

  81. Lloyd, The mark of Trump‘s comment wasn’t intended to say he was the source of it. It was intended to belittle his cluelessness, cowardice, and venality.

    Time123 (d2d983)

  82. @Nic, I’ll answer on his behalf. “No”.

    Lloyd often needs additional explanation to follow the point of a comment or conversation

    Time123 (d2d983)

  83. President Donald Trump on Thursday targeted another elite law firm that has represented clients he considers his political enemies

    When you go after lawyers and law firms you are stepping on a third rail. I expect the lawsuits to be fast and fierce, and I expect civil rights claims against individuals. Most judges will have a problem with this as well; It’s a direct assault on the Law.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/7/2025 @ 1:07 pm

    How would discriminating against law firms constitute a violation of civil rights laws? What sort of claims would against individuals would you expect?

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  84. Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/7/2025 @ 1:07 pm

    Most of the civil rights laws bar discrimination based on race, sex, religion, color, etc. in employment, housing, and voting.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  85. If the State can bar lawyers from courthouses or from representing willing clients, the right to counsel is meaningless.

    If they can pull security clearances for reasons unrelated to security, just to “get back” at them, or to prevent them from participating in those types of cases, they are denying their due process rights and again denying their clients a free choice of counsel.

    Suppose said that everyone who ever signed a petition critical of him was now on the No Fly List? Would that be OK?

    Is your answer to every evil thing Trump does is “then impeach him”?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  86. Most of the civil rights laws bar discrimination based on race, sex, religion, color, etc. in employment, housing, and voting.

    So, it would be OK to deny membership in the federal bar to Democrats?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  87. @RIP@84 I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if the government going after law firms for who they legally represent would constitute a violation of freedom of speech/ freedom of association.

    Nic (120c94)

  88. If the State can bar lawyers from courthouses or from representing willing clients, the right to counsel is meaningless.

    If they can pull security clearances for reasons unrelated to security, just to “get back” at them, or to prevent them from participating in those types of cases, they are denying their due process rights and again denying their clients a free choice of counsel.

    Suppose said that everyone who ever signed a petition critical of him was now on the No Fly List? Would that be OK?

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/8/2025 @ 4:38 pm

    AFAIK, there’s no precedent for banning lawyers from a courthouse while representing a client, and it may be overturned by the courts, but not under the civil rights laws. A court could also order the government to issue security clearances, as was done for Trump’s lawyers in the classified documents case; but there is no “right” to a security clearance.

    Is your answer to every evil thing Trump does is “then impeach him”?

    First, describing everything that Trump does as “evil” renders the word meaningless. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Putin, Charles Manson, etc. are evil. Trump implementing policies that he campaigned on are nowhere near “evil.”

    Secondly, since Trump cannot be indicted for any wrongdoing while President, impeachment is the only remedy.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  89. AFAIK, there’s no precedent for banning lawyers from a courthouse

    There is no precedent for barring anyone from a courthouse.

    Court access is a Constitutional right.

    nk (755881)

  90. So, it would be OK to deny membership in the federal bar to Democrats?

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/8/2025 @ 4:40 pm

    At the federal level, discrimination against political affiliation is not protected by law AFAIK); though in some states (like California) workers are protected against workplace retaliation for their political speech and activities.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  91. There is no precedent for barring anyone from a courthouse.

    Court access is a Constitutional right.

    nk (755881) — 3/8/2025 @ 5:12 pm

    Citation?

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  92. but there is no “right” to a security clearance.

    No, there is not, but once granted there has to be a cause to remove it, if only “lapse of time.” And of course there is still “need to know.”

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  93. I mean, look at the effort that had to be made to revoke Oppenheimer’s clearance.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  94. Mr Murdock pointed out:

    Secondly, since Trump cannot be indicted for any wrongdoing while President, impeachment is the only remedy.

    And, if by some miracle President Trump were impeached — for a third time! — and finally convicted and removed from office, J D Vance becomes President of the United States, and you guys will like him even less.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (0b0ac2)

  95. Nic wrote:

    @RIP@84 I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if the government going after law firms for who they legally represent would constitute a violation of freedom of speech/ freedom of association.

    The Biden Administration certainly found reasons to go after Donald Trump’s attorneys as he tried to make the case that the 2020 election had been stolen. Some might claim that the reasons were legitimate, but the precedent of going after your opponents’ attorneys has been established.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (0b0ac2)

  96. I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if the government going after law firms for who they legally represent would constitute a violation of freedom of speech/ freedom of association.

    Nic (120c94) — 3/8/2025 @ 4:41 pm

    I’m sure we’ll see what legal arguments Perkins Coie makes challenging Trump’s executive order.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  97. I mean, look at the effort that had to be made to revoke Oppenheimer’s clearance.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/8/2025 @ 5:15 pm

    He was a known security risk.

    Rip Murdock (726214)

  98. It is march 2025, and I am recommending you trade US Dollars for Canadian Dollars, as an investment.

    In November 2028, I bet you will have outpaced the SP500 dramatically.

    To the extent your investments are tied to the US dollar, try to change that quickly.

    Dustin (b2fadd)

  99. I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if the government going after law firms for who they legally represent would constitute a violation of freedom of speech/ freedom of association.

    Nic (120c94) — 3/8/2025 @ 4:41 pm

    ………..
    Legal experts interviewed by Reuters said the manner in which Trump targeted the firms could run afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections against government abridgment of speech and Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process – a requirement for the government to use a fair legal process.
    ………..
    ……….. The U.S. government has broad authority to grant and rescind such clearances and to control federal contracts for reasons of economic policy, according to legal experts.

    To comply with the Constitution’s due process mandate, the order against Perkins Coie would have needed to give the firm notice and opportunity to challenge the claims, according to University of Toledo College of Law professor Evan Zoldan.
    ………..
    University of Colorado Law School professor Maryam Jamshidi said challenging the termination of security clearances is legally difficult, but that it is “hard to see what constitutional authority would authorize” restricting Perkins Coie’s government contracting work.

    Zoldan said Trump’s allegations against Perkins Coie could damage the firm in a way that the Supreme Court has ruled requires “some official proceeding to allow the person impugned to challenge these accusations.”
    ……….
    University of Pennsylvania law school professor Claire Finkelstein said the reliance of lawyers on security clearances to access information and serve clients can be considered a part of their practice of law.

    “By removing these security clearances, they have removed a piece of their livelihood, and they’ve done that without due process of law,” Finkelstein said.

    Stanford Law School professor Mark Lemley said Trump’s targeting of Covington and Perkins Coie based on clients they represented raises concerns under the First Amendment’s free speech protections, calling it a potential example of “blatant viewpoint discrimination.”

    Legal scholars said that any legal challenge against the orders could be messy and protracted, especially given their unusual nature. They said they could not cite other examples of a U.S. president taking official action against a law firm over its representation of a client.

    Trump “swore up and down that he’d seek ‘retribution’ against his political opponents,” said UCLA School of Law professor Jon Michaels, adding that the president’s actions show disregard for the rule of law.
    …………

    Source. We’ll see how it all falls out over the next couple of years.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  100. We are wasting way too much of our time on Trump’s senile autoeroticism, I think, when he has had his fill of chocolate cake and diet Coke and daydreams about Arnold Palmer’s penis.

    nk (755881)

  101. Prime Minister of Poland wants nukes.

    The prime minister said his government was also “carefully examining” France’s proposal to include Europe under its nuclear umbrella.
    “I would like to know first of all in detail what it means in terms of the authority over these weapons,” he said.
    Tusk pointed out Ukraine was invaded after it got rid of its own nuclear arsenal, adding Warsaw would like to acquire its own nuclear weapons, however remote a possibility that may be.
    “Today, it is clear that we would be safer if we had our own nuclear arsenal, that is beyond doubt. In any case the road to that would be very long and there would have to be a consensus too,” he said.

    Up until Donald Trump, anyone who was a military ally of the United States, didn’t need to worry about having their own nukes. The US had massive conventional capabilities to help protect them and our own nuclear deterrent, but now people are on their own so they need to arm. I don’t think this makes me safer And I don’t think this will save me money.

    Time123 (d2d983)

  102. @100 I think it Definitely impacts her right to a lawyer of your choosing. If the government is going to retaliate against lawyers based on which cases they take, it impacts your ability to get a lawyer. Also, in this specific case people who are charged based on classified evidence are only allowed to have a lawyer that the government allows them to have if the government is playing games like this with clearance.

    Time123 (d2d983)

  103. Time123 (d2d983) — 3/8/2025 @ 4:25 pm

    GFY

    As I’ve said before, Trump says stupid things. Democrats do stupid things. As usual, you can’t comprehend the difference.

    lloyd (ad7579)

  104. Perkins Cole abused their clearance and used it for leftist lawfare.

    They can rot in hell and deserve to go bankrupt.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  105. @64 What europe has today under US nuclear umbrella, Is not the same as what they have tomorrow if the umbrella is taken away. Nuclear warhead and missile technology has been around for many years. (see the debate of tactical nukes during reagan’s term) As for baltic states russia can’t take kiev with out nato ;but can take the baltic states now surrounded by nato? Now with sweden and finland who’s tactical army was designed to fight russia.

    asset (50804b)

  106. @68 The social justice left as compared to Bernie Sanders economic populist justice left is backed by wealthy gay donors and activist white women along with lbgt community Though a minority of the party they are militant and have more effect then palestinian rights supporters who both latch on to each other io have more effect. The democrat party is made up of diverse groups with the Sanders economic populists the largest so the democratic establishment and corporate donors join with social justice democrats to fight off economic populists from taking over the democratic party. That is the on going battle now.

    asset (50804b)

  107. @libtrn Dana@96 I don’t recall that having happened.

    @asset@107 Telling the girls and the gays to sit down and shut up may have been a viable strategy in the 70s but I don’t think it will get you far now. You do you though.

    Nic (120c94)

  108. And, if by some miracle President Trump were impeached — for a third time! — and finally convicted and removed from office, J D Vance becomes President of the United States, and you guys will like him even less.

    Nah, I see a package deal. And besides, I might not like Vance’s policies but he’s not an ignorant buffoon.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  109. He was a known security risk.

    And yet he still got due process, which is more than Trump offered.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  110. @libtrn Dana@96 I don’t recall that having happened.

    It did, although maybe only in Georgia criminal courts, and before several state bars. Eastman, for example.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  111. Eastman was indicted for breaking the law by a state court, not the Biden administration and not for performing legal actions, which is why he also ended up in front of the California bar.

    Trump is attempting to punish a law firm for explicitly legal actions.

    Nic (120c94)

  112. Is your answer to every evil thing Trump does is “then impeach him”?

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/8/2025 @ 4:38 pm

    What would be your alternative? I don’t see Vance and the committee of yes men and women (I mean the Cabinet) voting to remove Trump using the 22nd Amendment.

    I recognize that neither the House nor Senate will vote to impeach or convict President Trump or VP Vance. But it’s the only constitutional way of removing either from office.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  113. Europe can get tactical nuke armed missiles. Moderately sophisticated missiles that can take nuke warheads have been used by Iran already. Reagan wanted tactical missiles in europe in the 1980’s Israel has them and japan can put them together in 24 hours. If poland or germany wants them it wouldn’t take long and both Britain and France have nuclear material.

    asset (50804b)

  114. @108 Social justice only cost the 2024 election because the donors said DEI ok Bernie’s minimum wage increase not ok. Transgenders in girls sports ok Raising taxes on rich no OK! Peggy noonan is not a progressive populist democrat. I am. The issues she brings are social justice issues not economic populist issues. The democrat establishment allows social justice issues (which don’t cost the donor class money) to separate them from the Bernie Sanders economic populism left so we don’t take over the party. Trump won popular vote by 1.5% Trump didn’t get 50% of the vote. Harris got 6,285,000 votes less then Biden got in 2020. In 2026 those who were reluctant to vote for harris or biden in 2024 wont have that problem in 2026 Biden/trump voters are already in the statistics. Republicans (to make kevin m happy) despite gerrymandering only won house 215 to 220 Dems only need to flip 3 seats in 2026 Noonan’s electoral land slide will mean nothing in local house races. We will get enough working class votes who didn’t vote in 2024. Fired govt. workers who voted for trump is third of those fired.

    asset (50804b)

  115. Peggy Noonan isn’t a democrat at all. She’s not even really a moderate. She’s a Reagan Republican. Your party isn’t just 1970s holdover white dudes. The most faithful Democratic voters are black women and they are pretty into social justice. If you want to win, you’ll need to find a way to reconcile the voters interested in social justice with the ones interested in lefty economic populism. I’ve seen suggestions that one of the reasons that Sanders didn’t win over Hillary was that he only addressed the economics part of liberal socioeconomics and I haven’t observed anything that would contradict that.

    Nic (120c94)

  116. @116 Sander economic populism is to appeal to working class. Black women being democrats most loyal voters would have voted for him in the general election. His problem with them was in the primary even though his civil rights record would put clintons to shame. Sander’s message across the country these last few weeks is we want the working class to vote not stay home to counter the working class who voted for trump. Social justice activists will prefer moderate corporate establishment liberal punching bags ;but in 2026 election it will be house seats not president so candidates can chart their own course better. Trump is helping clear up the difficult issues democrats have like emigration and transgenders in woman sports to make voters forget why they hate democrats. crime and homeless issues will be less of an issue ;but still their. We will be busy as primary season will soon be here to vote out the corporate drones. By elections will come even sooner.

    asset (50804b)

  117. @105 how did they abuse their clearance?

    Time123 (6eaed9)

  118. What would be your alternative?

    Short run? The courts are quite able to block, restrict and otherwise enjoin unlawful governance.

    Long run? Return the power to oversee regulations to Congress; reclaim Congress’ constitutional power of tariffs that have been largely abandoned to the Executive; define 14th Amendment insurrection and a clear process to determine who is subject to it; amend the constitution to:

    1) Permit and define the legislative veto
    2) Define and limit presidential immunity.
    4) Restate the Impeachment clause to make clear that “bad behavior” is impeachable and to reduce the conviction supermajority to 60%.
    4) Limit actual annual spending to a fixed percentage of the prior 4 years average GDP, barring a 2/3rds override. Define an Executive rescission power to accomplish this.
    5) Allow 2/3rds of states, acting in concert, to veto any law imposing duties upon them.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  119. Reagan wanted tactical missiles in Europe in the 1980’s

    They were not purely tactical — the yield could be up to 80KT — and they could hit the western USSR (1500 mi range). They were deployed. The idea was to match similar missiles that the USSR had deployed in the Warsaw Pact countries. Then a treaty was signed to remove both side’s missiles.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  120. asset (50804b) — 3/9/2025 @ 3:30 am

    I have a friend who is to your left and perhaps your age. He has lots of guns, too.

    We were talking one time about the chances of the leftward revolution that you hope for, and he mentioned his aged grandmother, who was an active socialist in the 1920s. She had told him that the Revolution had never come for her, but maybe for her grandchildren.

    He looked at me and said “Not for me, as it turns out, but maybe for MY grandchildren.”

    Don’t hold your breath.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  121. Perkins Cole abused their clearance and used it for leftist lawfare.

    So? Would this mean that President Warren could pull the clearances for anyone who ever worked for the Pacific Legal Foundation, or was a Federalist Society member? Bar them from federal buildings?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  122. Of course, some figure it doesn’t matter as MAGA will never relinquish power.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  123. Peggy Noonan isn’t a democrat at all. … She’s a Reagan Republican.

    Literally. She wrote most of Reagan’s speeches.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  124. @122 there you go looking at the consequences of actions. Next, you’re going to point out that there’s no limiting principle. After that, you’ll become concerned about what such a system would look like once these kind of powers are no longer restricted to the highest levels of the executive branch and lower level officials are doing similar things.

    I’m with you, a legal system, where lawyers can be punished while operating within the system, but acting in a way that offends the government is not consistent with rule of law

    Time123 (6eaed9)

  125. Lloyd, I see that you responded to my comment. I’m glad we’re in agreement that Trump says dumb stuff. I doubt you’ll find anyone here on this blog who disagrees with you that the Democrats do dumb stuff .I’m certainly not going to. This is tremendous progress for you. Good job.

    Time123 (6eaed9)

  126. Maybe a little condescending there, Time?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  127. (126, not 125)

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  128. I’m going to defend James Eastman a bit, too.

    Certainly it was morally challenged to help Trump find plausibly-legal methods to overturn an unfavorable electoral vote, but it was not itself illegal. Nor was speaking on behalf of his client. Was it fraud? Are lawyers not allowed to tell lies to help their client? Because it happens all the time.

    But he is disbarred. How far can this principle be taken? What about attorneys who, knowing their drug-dealing client committed multiple murders, devise sketchy strategies to get them acquitted? There is moral challenge there, too. Are they also subject to sanctions?

    My point here is not that Eastman or the drug-dealer’s lawyer are good guys, but the slippery slope always starts with widespread moral outrage at some egregious action before things head downslope.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  129. @122

    Perkins Cole abused their clearance and used it for leftist lawfare.

    So? Would this mean that President Warren could pull the clearances for anyone who ever worked for the Pacific Legal Foundation, or was a Federalist Society member? Bar them from federal buildings?

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/9/2025 @ 9:54 am

    They FA’ed around… now they’re getting to the FO’ed stage.

    This is the end-result of those engaging in lawfare, because what comes around…goes around. As the “other side” gets to bat too.

    And, yes, President Warren can do the same thing as well.

    It’s a vicious cycle and I’m not sure how one would stop it.

    whembly (003ea2)

  130. According to legend, King Canute ordered the tide to halt –it did not– in order to show his flattering courtiers “how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws”.

    Trump’s lickspittles likewise draft toothless EOs for him to inflate his ego and likewise as ineffectual, but that’s where it ends, no moral lesson given or learned and eggs still $8,00/dozen (if you can find them).

    nk (2c35f7)

  131. @127, sorry. I was agreeing with and trying expound on your point. I apologize if it came across otherwise.

    Time123 (2ec758)

  132. Oh! You meant towards Lloyd. Yes very much so. But he won’t catch it so it should be fine.

    Time123 (2ec758)

  133. And, yes, President Warren can do the same thing as well.

    It’s a vicious cycle and I’m not sure how one would stop it.

    whembly (003ea2) — 3/9/2025 @ 10:36 am

    By adhering to due process and applying the rules as written. But I’ve given up on MAGA caring about that.

    Time123 (2ec758)

  134. Would this mean that President Warren could pull the clearances for anyone who ever worked for the Pacific Legal Foundation, or was a Federalist Society member? Bar them from federal buildings?

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/9/2025 @ 9:54 am

    That you equate what Perkins Cole did to working for the PCL or the Federalist Society?

    When have they corrupted the law like Perkins Cole did with Hillary’s dossier?

    NJRob (912051)

  135. @135, what legal or ethical guidelines or rules did they violate?

    Time123 (2ec758)

  136. I hit post too soon. Because if you can articulate the answer to that, then this defaults to Maga punishing their political enemies under some loose pretext which the Dems will absolutely do. The end result being less legal protection for enforcement of rights when the party and power is mad at you.

    Time123 (2ec758)

  137. @Kevin@129 Lawyers have an obligation to the law before their obligation to their client. And yes, I’m sure there are plenty of lawyers who skate too close to the legal and/or ethical line, but they have to suffer the consequences when they get caught. Bill Clinton tried to get too cute with the law and he got what he got too.

    Someone getting consequences for being outside the legal or ethical bounds is not a precedent for someone getting consequences for acting well within the legal or ethical bounds.

    Nic (120c94)

  138. Section 1. Purpose. The dishonest and dangerous activity of the law firm Perkins Coie LLP (“Perkins Coie”) has affected this country for decades. Notably, in 2016 while representing failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS, which then manufactured a false “dossier” designed to steal an election. This egregious activity is part of a pattern. Perkins Coie has worked with activist donors including George Soros to judicially overturn popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws, including those requiring voter identification. In one such case, a court was forced to sanction Perkins Coie attorneys for an unethical lack of candor before the court.

    In addition to undermining democratic elections, the integrity of our courts, and honest law enforcement, Perkins Coie racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants. Perkins Coie publicly announced percentage quotas in 2019 for hiring and promotion on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. It proudly excluded applicants on the basis of race for its fellowships, and it maintained these discriminatory practices until applicants harmed by them finally sued to enforce change.

    1. They hired Fusion GPS
    2. They won court cases against Trump
    3. The had a DEI program.

    None of these justify the actions taken. Number 2 is *explicitly* punishing them for opposing Trumps agenda.

    Time123 (2ec758)

  139. Could easily make a bogus case against the federalist society that was
    Just this thin.

    Time123 (2ec758)

  140. Is your answer to every evil thing Trump does is “then impeach him”?

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/8/2025 @ 4:38 pm
    ———————-
    What would be your alternative?

    Rip Murdock (271b5f) — 3/8/2025 @ 11:43 pm

    Short run? The courts are quite able to block, restrict and otherwise enjoin unlawful governance.

    Long run? Return the power to oversee regulations to Congress; reclaim Congress’ constitutional power of tariffs that have been largely abandoned to the Executive; define 14th Amendment insurrection and a clear process to determine who is subject to it; amend the constitution to:
    ……….
    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/9/2025 @ 9:38 am

    Your response doesn’t address what is happening now: what is your alternative to impeaching Trump in the real world . None of what you propose is realistic either now or in future; it’s a wishlist.

    So my answer will be the same: to deal with Trump’s excesses Congress will either need to change the law or impeach Trump, though neither is likely. By doing nothing, Republicans in Congress support Trump’s actions.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  141. Short run? The courts are quite able to block, restrict and otherwise enjoin unlawful governance.

    Given the number of judges and Supreme Court Justices appointed by Trump, that’s a pretty thin reed.

    Rip Murdock (726214)

  142. It’s a vicious cycle and I’m not sure how one would stop it.

    How about now?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  143. That you equate what Perkins Cole did to working for the PCL or the Federalist Society?

    Wow. Way to miss the point.

    What do you see as Utopia, Rob?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  144. Bill Clinton tried to get too cute with the law and he got what he got too.

    Bill Clinton perjured himself under oath and used the power of his office to intimidate witnesses. Paula Jones got hit with an audit, FGS.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  145. Could easily make a bogus case against the federalist society that was

    They colluded with Trump to pack the courts with reactionary partisan judges who made abortion illegal and gave Trump absolute immunity.

    About as reasonable.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  146. Your response doesn’t address what is happening now: what is your alternative to impeaching Trump in the real world

    Franklin made that clear in 1787.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  147. By doing nothing, Republicans in Congress support Trump’s actions.

    Congress has been made toothless by the courts. It will be easier to impeach him that to pass a law he doesn’t like. Fewer House votes needed.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  148. Congress has been made toothless by the courts.

    Congress can still pass legislation, override vetoes, and impeach. Currently they choose not to do so.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  149. @Kevin@146 Presumably he either thought he was acting just barely within the law or that he wouldn’t get caught or that he wouldn’t get consequences. But in the end he got consequences for it. Lawyers who act outside legal and/or ethical boundaries should get consequences. Lawyer that do not, should not.

    Nic (120c94)

  150. As defined, lawfare is “the use of legal action to cause problems for an opponent”.

    Trump the hypocrite has used lawfare for decades to get what he wants, and MAGAs are hypocrites as well for supporting Trump’s lawfare hypocrisy.

    Paul Montagu (c1e896)

  151. Congress can still pass legislation, override vetoes, and impeach. Currently they choose not to do so.

    But to overturn an executive use of a delegated legislative power, they have to pass a law and override a veto. But to pass a regulation, all the Executive needs to do is announce it. Perhaps Congress erred in delegating those powers, but the check and balance that was part of that delegation was severed by the court and killed.

    As I said, toothless. And as a result they have become a snakepit of performance art.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  152. Trump the hypocrite has used lawfare for decades to get what he wants

    Eminent domain and strategic lawsuits that bury opponents in legal costs are typical for the Trump Organization.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  153. Congress has been made toothless by the courts.

    If true, then President Trump’s (or Biden’s, or Obama’s) governing by decree (I mean executive orders) shouldn’t be a problem.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  154. Justice White’s dissent in INS vs Chadha is one of those dissents that comes back decades later as the majority opinion. It is worth reading. Major points:

    The prominence of the legislative veto mechanism in our contemporary political system and its importance to Congress can hardly be overstated. It has become a central means by which Congress secures the accountability of executive and independent agencies. Without the legislative veto, Congress is faced with a Hobson’s choice: either to refrain from delegating the necessary authority, leaving itself with a hopeless task of writing laws with the requisite specificity to cover endless special circumstances across the entire policy landscape, or, in the alternative, to abdicate its lawmaking function to the Executive Branch and independent agencies. To choose the former leaves major national problems unresolved; to opt for the latter risks unaccountable policymaking by those not elected to fill that role. Accordingly, over the past five decades, the legislative veto has been placed in nearly 200 statutes. The device is known in every field of governmental concern: reorganization, budgets, foreign affairs, war powers, and regulation of trade, safety, energy, the environment, and the economy.

    The legislative veto developed initially in response to the problems of reorganizing the sprawling Government structure created in response to the Depression. The Reorganization Acts established the chief model for the legislative veto. When President Hoover requested authority to reorganize the Government in 1929, he coupled his request that the “Congress be willing to delegate its authority over the problem (subject to defined principles) to the Executive” with a proposal for legislative review. He proposed that the Executive

    should act upon approval of a joint committee of Congress or with the reservation of power of revision by Congress within some limited period adequate for its consideration.

    …..Over the quarter century following World War II, Presidents continued to accept legislative vetoes by one or both Houses as constitutional, while regularly denouncing provisions by which congressional Committees reviewed Executive activity. The legislative veto balanced delegations of statutory authority in new areas of governmental involvement: the space program, international agreements on nuclear energy, tariff arrangements, and adjustment of federal pay rates.

    During the 1970’s, the legislative veto was important in resolving a series of major constitutional disputes between the President and Congress over claims of the President to broad impoundment, war, and national emergency powers….

    The power to exercise a legislative veto is not the power to write new law without bicameral approval or Presidential consideration. The veto must be authorized by statute, and may only negative what an Executive department or independent agency has proposed. On its face, the legislative veto no more allows one House of Congress to make law than does the Presidential veto confer such power upon the President….

    If Congress may delegate lawmaking power to independent and Executive agencies, it is most difficult to understand Art. I as prohibiting Congress from also reserving a check on legislative power for itself. Absent the veto, the agencies receiving delegations of legislative or quasi-legislative power may issue regulations having the force of law without bicameral approval and without the President’s signature. It is thus not apparent why the reservation of a veto over the exercise of that legislative power must be subject to a more exacting test.

    That the legislative veto was stripped out of laws delegating Congressional power to the Executive (a greater Separations of Power problem that the legislative veto itself) while leaving the delegations intact is itself enough of a problem to see this revisited (and it was argued twice originally).

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  155. O Canada I:

    Ontario Premier Doug Ford is steaming ahead with his pledge to impose 25 percent tariffs on electricity sent to the United States starting Monday, despite President Donald Trump’s decision to suspend most tariffs on Mexico and Canada Thursday afternoon.
    …………
    “We’re going to put a 25 percent tariff on electricity coming from Ontario to Michigan, New York and Minnesota,” Ford said to Fox Business Network in response to a question on whether he had changed his mind about imposing the tariff in light of Trump’s shift. “And isn’t this a shame? It’s an absolute mess he’s created.”

    Officials in affected states say the move could raise costs and threaten grid stability for the 1.5 million customers across Minnesota, Michigan and New York who receive power from the province.
    ………..
    Though Canada’s total exports of hydropower to the U.S. make up only a sliver of U.S. electricity generation, experts say the shared grid between the two countries is critical to maintaining system reliability. The premier of Quebec previously told POLITICO the province would similarly consider stamping tariffs on their power exports to New England.
    ………..

    Related:

    The United States imported approximately 27,220,531 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity from Canada in 2024, according to the latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
    …….
    The 2024 figure of over 27 million MWh, while lower than previous years, still represents a substantial amount of energy—enough to power several million American homes.

    Canada is the largest source of U.S. energy imports, according to the EIA.

    In contrast to the imports from Mexico, which totaled just over 6 million MWh in 2024, the U.S. received more than four times that amount from Canada, highlighting Canada’s crucial role in meeting the U.S. energy demand.
    ………….

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  156. Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/9/2025 @ 12:59 pm

    In the end, dissents don’t mean anything.

    Rip Murdock (726214)

  157. O Canada II:

    ………..
    Mr. Trump and Mr. Trudeau spoke twice on Feb. 3, once in the morning and again in the afternoon, as part of discussions to stave off tariffs on Canadian exports.

    But those early February calls were not just about tariffs.

    The details of the conversations between the two leaders, and subsequent discussions among top U.S. and Canadian officials, have not been previously fully reported, and were shared with The New York Times on condition of anonymity by four people with firsthand knowledge of their content. They did not want to be publicly identified discussing a sensitive topic.

    On those calls, President Trump laid out a long list of grievances he had with the trade relationship between the two countries, including Canada’s protected dairy sector, the difficulty American banks face in doing business in Canada and Canadian consumption taxes that Mr. Trump deems unfair because they make American goods more expensive.
    …………
    He told Mr. Trudeau that he did not believe that the treaty that demarcates the border between the two countries was valid and that he wants to revise the boundary (which was established in 1908). He offered no further explanation.
    …………
    Mr. Trump also mentioned revisiting the sharing of lakes and rivers between the two nations, which is regulated by a number of treaties, a topic he’s expressed interest about in the past.
    …………
    While Mr. Trump’s remarks could all be bluster or a negotiating tactic to pressure Canada into concessions on trade or border security, the Canadian side no longer believes that to be so.
    …………
    (During a phone call between then Commerce Secretary designate Howard Lutnick and Canadian finance minister Dominic LeBlanc) after the leaders had spoken on Feb. 3, (Lutnick) issued a devastating message, according to several people familiar with the call: Mr. Trump, he said, had come to realize that the relationship between the United States and Canada was governed by a slew of agreements and treaties that were easy to abandon.

    Mr. Trump was interested in doing just that, Mr. Lutnick said.
    ………….
    He wanted to tear up the Great Lakes agreements and conventions between the two nations that lay out how they share and manage Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario.

    And he is also reviewing military cooperation between the two countries, particularly the North American Aerospace Defense Command.
    …………
    ………… Canada’s politicians across the spectrum, and Canadian society at large, are frayed and deeply concerned. Officials do not see the Trump administration’s threats as empty; they see a new normal when it comes to the United States.
    …………

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  158. Justice White’s dissent in INS vs Chadha is one of those dissents that comes back decades later as the majority opinion.

    What majority opinion did it appear in?

    Rip Murdock (726214)

  159. Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha ET AL (INS vs Chadha FOR SHORT)

    462 U.S. 919 (1983).

    https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep462/usrep462919/usrep462919.pdf

    Sammy Finkelman (62efb2)

  160. Rip Murdock (271b5f) — 3/8/2025 @ 5:03 pm

    Secondly, since Trump cannot be indicted for any wrongdoing while President, impeachment is the only remedy.

    The Democrats could kill the continuing resolution and force aa government shutdown.

    Whether they would want to is another story. The blame will fall on the party that is perceived as more unreasonable, =

    Sammy Finkelman (62efb2)

  161. Sammy Finkelman (62efb2) — 3/9/2025 @ 1:41 pm

    Kevin M asserted that Justice White’s dissent became a majority opinion in a subsequent case. I’m asking what was that case.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  162. The Democrats could kill the continuing resolution and force aa government shutdown.

    Whether they would want to is another story. The blame will fall on the party that is perceived as more unreasonable, =

    Sammy Finkelman (62efb2) — 3/9/2025 @ 1:52 pm

    Which is irrelevant to the issue of impeachment.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  163. In the end, dissents don’t mean anything.

    The one in Plessy was spot on.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  164. He told Mr. Trudeau that he did not believe that the treaty that demarcates the border between the two countries was valid and that he wants to revise the boundary (which was established in 1908). He offered no further explanation.

    We just want to move it up to the previous claim of 54° 40′ — just a slight adjustment.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  165. I’m asking what was that case.

    I did not assert that. I said that when the decision is overturned, the reasoning will come from the previous dissent. If anything, White’s expectation that regulations would run wild was prescient.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  166. I did not assert that. I said that when the decision is overturned, the reasoning will come from the previous dissent. If anything, White’s expectation that regulations would run wild was prescient.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/9/2025 @ 2:39 pm

    In other words, speculation.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  167. In the end, dissents don’t mean anything.

    The one in Plessy was spot on.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/9/2025 @ 2:28 pm

    Fifty-eight years later.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  168. Chada has been the law for 42 years, but is certainly of less importance than treating citizens as “separate but equal.”

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  169. O Canada III:

    ………..
    How would (an American military invasion of Canada) scenario play out? Looking at the sheer size of the American military, many people might believe that Trump would enjoy an easy victory.

    That analysis is wrong. If Trump ever decides to use military force to annex Canada, the result would not be determined by a conventional military confrontation between the Canadian and American armies. Rather, a military invasion of Canada would trigger a decades-long violent resistance, which would ultimately destroy the United States.
    …………..
    ………….. There is no political party or leader willing to relinquish Canadian sovereignty over “economic coercion,” and so if the U.S. wanted to annex Canada, it would have to invade.

    That decision would set in motion an unstoppable cycle of violence. Even if we imagine a scenario in which the Canadian government unconditionally surrenders, a fight would ensue on the streets. A teenager might throw a rock at invading soldiers. That kid would get shot, and then there would be more rocks, and more gunfire. An insurgency would be inevitable.
    …………..
    ………….. Canada’s current self-image of “niceness” only exists because they’re at peace. War changes people very quickly, and Canadians are no more innately peaceful than any other human being…………
    ………….
    …………. (T)he insurgents would unleash physical devastation on American targets. Even if one per cent of all resisting Canadians engaged in armed insurrection, that would constitute a 400,000-person insurgency, nearly 10 times the size of the Taliban at the start of the Afghan war. If a fraction of that number engaged in violent attacks, it would set fire to the entire continent.

    Canada’s geography would make this insurgency difficult to defeat.……….

    The Canada-U.S. border is also easy to cross, which would give insurgents access to American critical infrastructure. It costs tens of billions of dollars to build an energy pipeline, and only a few thousand to blow one up.
    ………..
    In fact, it is a well-known booby trap of insurgent warfare (when militaries use overwhelming force such as air strikes.) The harder more powerful nations strike, the larger and more fragmented the insurgency becomes, making it impossible to achieve either a military victory or negotiated agreement. ……….

    Americans have already been defeated by insurgents in many parts of the world because they could not escape this trap. ………
    ………..
    The prospect of Americans becoming trapped by an insurgency on their own continent would delight Moscow and Beijing, which could easily establish covert northern passages to send weapons to the insurgency. ……..

    A chronic violent insurrection in North America could financially and militarily pin down the U.S. for decades, ultimately triggering economic and political collapse. Russia and China, meantime, would enjoy an uncontested rise to power.
    ………….

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  170. Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/9/2025 @ 2:39 pm

    Given the current composition of the Supreme Court, I don’t see them weakening presidential power by granting Congress a legislative veto.

    Rip Murdock (726214)

  171. Rip Murdock (726214) — 3/9/2025 @ 4:01 pm

    Especially since there is nothing in the Constitution authorizing a legislative veto.

    Rip Murdock (726214)

  172. Do I take it that in the dimension that this discussion is taking place Charles III of England is not King of Canada and Canada is not a member of a 56-nation Commonwealth of which one member is a nuclear power and another an entire Continent?

    Apparently, Trump has not yet cornered the market on crazy talk; only made it contagious.

    nk (005a9c)

  173. Make that three members of the Commonwealth are nuclear powers. As in nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, to be clear.

    nk (005a9c)

  174. But, by no means, let us not provoke WWIII on the Ukrainian Russian border.

    nk (005a9c)

  175. https://www.foxnews.com/media/canadians-fed-up-says-alberta-lawyer-leading-delegation-washington-statehood-talks

    Not the unity claimed by Rip

    Doesn’t matter. We don’t want America’s hat. They can keep their ice.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  176. The lessons every country should have learned from North Korea, Iraq, and Ukraine is that if you don’t want to get invaded, you need nukes.

    Davethulhu (39b41a)

  177. “https://www.foxnews.com/media/canadians-fed-up-says-alberta-lawyer-leading-delegation-washington-statehood-talks”

    I highly recommend that everyone click on NJRob’s link to take a gander at the Canadian statehood guy.

    Davethulhu (39b41a)

  178. Chada has been the law for 42 years, but is certainly of less importance than treating citizens as “separate but equal.”

    But more important than Chevron

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  179. I highly recommend that everyone click on NJRob’s link to take a gander at the Canadian statehood guy.

    Davethulhu (39b41a) — 3/9/2025 @ 5:33 pm

    LOL! One random guy doesn’t make a movement.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  180. Given the current composition of the Supreme Court, I don’t see them weakening presidential power by granting Congress a legislative veto.

    The ability to veto regulations, or even to kill old ones, has been part of the GOP legislative agenda for a while. Remember, this IS the court that finally broke away from the Chevron precedent — the idea that they had to defer to administrative interpretations — and that also reduced executive power.

    Note that the dissenters were White and Rehnquist (Rehnquist’s dissent argued non-severability). The majority were all the liberals + Burger and O’Connell.

    Given that MAGA is particularly unhappy with the administrative state, curtailing its power would seem in their interest. Of course, they have the executive right now, so maybe they’ll take the short-sighted view.

    Besides regulations, the veto also covered tariffs, since those are enumerated powers of Congress and the veto was included in statutes deferring control of these to the president.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  181. Especially since there is nothing in the Constitution authorizing a legislative veto.

    Or denying it. There is also nothing in the Constitution that allows the Executive to issue laws, oops, regulations.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  182. NJRob (eb56c3) — 3/9/2025 @ 5:30 pm

    Anecdotal cherry-picking, and not without some nut-picking.
    Only 10% of Canadians want to be with the American bully to the south. Maybe if we were a little nicer, eh?

    Paul Montagu (c1e896)

  183. Make that three members of the Commonwealth are nuclear powers.

    Two of them have them pointed at each other.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  184. The lessons every country should have learned from North Korea

    Sadly, Bill Clinton’s intention to teach a different lesson was undermined by Jimmy Carter.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  185. It might even be that the onslaught of regulations after Chadha made the agencies extremely powerful, coupled with the progressive capture of many, led inexorably to the MAGA movement. Trump is attempting to break the [leftist] power of the administrative state the hard way, but apparently the only way.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  186. Chada has been the law for 42 years, but is certainly of less importance than treating citizens as “separate but equal.”

    But more important than Chevron

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/9/2025 @ 6:23 pm

    Overturning Chevron was far more important than overturning Chada; since the Chevron decision had been enforced for 41 years. Also, the “bipartisan” nature of the seven justices voting in majority, from CJ Burger to Justices Brennan and Marshall, demonstrates the wide ranging agreement to the result. White and Rehnquist were alone in dissent.

    In order for the Supreme Court to reconsider Chada, Congress would need to pass, and the President sign, a new law that includes a legislative veto provision; and followed by House or Senate exercising a veto of an executive action.

    All of which is unlikely to happen.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  187. There is also nothing in the Constitution that allows the Executive to issue laws, oops, regulations.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/9/2025 @ 6:41 pm

    Again, Congressional power deferred to the Executive.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  188. Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/9/2025 @ 6:39 pm

    It’s unlikely the current House or Senate would use a legislative veto anyway against any Trump executive actions, including tariffs. For the most part members of Congress support what Trump is doing; otherwise they would be passing legislation to repeal them.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  189. Again, Congressional power deferred to the Executive.

    So, explain to me why it is OK to defer the writing of laws to the Executive, but not OK to withhold a check on that power. At the very least the two should not be severable.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  190. It’s unlikely the current House or Senate would use a legislative veto anyway against any Trump executive actions, including tariffs. For the most part members of Congress support what Trump is doing; otherwise they would be passing legislation to repeal them.

    This is utter BS and you should know it.

    It took a majority of one house to block a regulation before 1983.

    It takes a 2/3rds majority in EACH House to pass a law over a presidential veto.

    One of these is MUCH harder than the other.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  191. It would take 5 GOP votes in the House to block all of these tariffs under the old system. After the market crashes next week, that would have been trivial.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  192. @121 I am not waiting for the revolution as trump has shown you don’t need a revolution. I am a non exploitive capitalist and small business owner. Socialism is only needed for things capitalism wont do. Military, police (or would you prefer private police going after your enemies) Fire departments who let houses burn and brush fires because they were not paid. Private ambulances used to not take people who couldn’t pay or drive to hospitals that paid them instead of the closest. Before medicare private hospitals refused to treat you if you couldn’t pay. Social security and medicare turned senior citizens from the poorest to the wealthiest members of society. Their are plenty more read uptin sinclares the jungle. The left will soon take over the democrat party from corporatists (they have the money we have the people) A revolution will not be necessary. While you are guarding the back door we will walk thru the front door like trump. I am getting ready for 2026 primary season plus the by elections.

    asset (08f68f)

  193. @134

    By adhering to due process and applying the rules as written. But I’ve given up on MAGA caring about that.

    Time123 (2ec758) — 3/9/2025 @ 11:12 am

    That’s not what is meant by “lawfare” we’ve recently seen.

    But I’ve given up on Acronym That Shall Not Be Name caring about that.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  194. @144

    It’s a vicious cycle and I’m not sure how one would stop it.

    How about now?

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/9/2025 @ 12:07 pm

    …will that stop the future Jack Smiths, Alvin Braggs, Tisha James, and Fani Willis’ of the world?

    whembly (b7cc46)

  195. @152

    As defined, lawfare is “the use of legal action to cause problems for an opponent”.

    Trump the hypocrite has used lawfare for decades to get what he wants, and MAGAs are hypocrites as well for supporting Trump’s lawfare hypocrisy.

    Paul Montagu (c1e896) — 3/9/2025 @ 12:20 pm

    I disagree, but for the premise of this conversation let’s say I accept your premise.

    How else do you STOP this cycle?

    As Kevin argued above, simply stopping “now” isn’t going to cut it, imo.

    Interested on your views on stopping this cycle…

    whembly (b7cc46)

  196. Interested on your views on stopping this cycle…
    whembly (b7cc46) — 3/10/2025 @ 6:34 am

    They’re not interested, whembly. Their sudden handwringing over lawfare is hilarious, and it’s probably best just to enjoy the comical aspect.

    Note that Paul conflates lawfare as a private litigant with lawfare conducted by government against political opponents. Again, comical.

    lloyd (b5250e)

  197. I disagree, but for the premise of this conversation let’s say I accept your premise.
    How else do you STOP this cycle?

    You disagree with a definition?
    We already have laws about frivolous lawsuits, whembly. As I recall, Trump was shut down on several of his lawfare attacks under those grounds.
    I don’t have the legal expertise to know if the SLAPP laws and such should be tightened up but, generally, I don’t want a plaintiff with a valid case to be shut out of our judicial system.

    Oh, and my premise is that Trump is always the bully and never the victim, even and especially when his actions are held to account through our legal system.

    Paul Montagu (c1e896)

  198. I doubt you’ll find anyone here on this blog who disagrees with you that the Democrats do dumb stuff .I’m certainly not going to. This is tremendous progress for you. Good job.
    Time123 (6eaed9) — 3/9/2025 @ 10:05 am

    I believe you, Time123. That’s why you vote Democrat.

    Really, it’s been a month since I called out one of your lies here. Get over it, dude.

    lloyd (b5250e)

  199. lloyd, you can whine about it all you want, but Trump’s four indictments were legit, but I’d rather the fraud case that he was convicted on be the last of the four, not the first because it was the weakest. Nevertheless, he is a convicted felon, a factual phrase that angers the MAGAs and gets them emotional.

    Paul Montagu (c1e896)

  200. @199

    You disagree with a definition?
    We already have laws about frivolous lawsuits, whembly. As I recall, Trump was shut down on several of his lawfare attacks under those grounds.
    I don’t have the legal expertise to know if the SLAPP laws and such should be tightened up but, generally, I don’t want a plaintiff with a valid case to be shut out of our judicial system.

    Oh, and my premise is that Trump is always the bully and never the victim, even and especially when his actions are held to account through our legal system.

    Paul Montagu (c1e896) — 3/10/2025 @ 7:13 am

    But we’re not discussing frivolous lawsuits…that’s completely different.

    The subject came up that the Trump administration is engaging in lawfare against Perkin Coie, a mega anti-Trumper lawfirm.

    My overarching point is that in the past, Trump & his supporters viewed all the lawsuits/prosecution against Trump, rightly or wrongly, as politically motivated efforts to use Civil/Penal laws against their political opponents.

    And, now, the Trump administration is being accused of doing the same thing. (ie, accusations of hypocrisy).

    My question to you is this: How does this cycle end? Because, I agree, a President AOC would do the exact same thing.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  201. Paul Montagu (c1e896) — 3/10/2025 @ 7:16 am

    They were so legit, Paul, that Trump sits in the Oval Office a free man.

    lloyd (b5250e)

  202. AFAIK, Trump hasn’t deployed honeypots to go after political opponents. It seems he’s drawn the line somewhere. But, if he ever went that route we’d be sure to hear from Nevertrump how truly diabolical it is. But only then. LOL

    lloyd (b5250e)

  203. My overarching point is that in the past, Trump & his supporters viewed all the lawsuits/prosecution against Trump, rightly or wrongly, as politically motivated efforts to use Civil/Penal laws against their political opponents.

    There has never been a president in our history who has committed so many crimes and engaged in so much fraud, and it’s not even close. No one, including your boy Trump, is above the law.

    Paul Montagu (c1e896)

  204. My overarching point is that in the past, Trump & his supporters viewed all the lawsuits/prosecution against Trump, rightly or wrongly, as politically motivated efforts to use Civil/Penal laws against their political opponents.

    Yes, that’s correct. There is no solution for it. Now that we have established that dishonest claims of political bias in the application of law have no negative consequences. Everyone will use them. And people supporters will pretend to believe these claims, maybe even actually believe these claims, and use them as justification to do the same thing.

    Your proposed solution was to not hold Trump accountable for his violations of the law. I don’t really see how that’s better.

    Time123 (34a0e7)

  205. I suppose one possible solution would be to stop supporting Trump’s lies about what’s happened and evaluate the evidence against him fairly.

    Time123 (34a0e7)

  206. Felon, schmelon. The electorate, for whatever reason, absolved him of his crimes. The indictments — particularly the Trumped-up NY ones — probably guaranteed his nomination, too (although you have to be utterly fact-adverse to defend him on the documents charges).

    Once elected, though, he has attempted to rule by decree. His view of the unitary president is even more expansive than Biden’s or Obama’s was, and is headed towards a constitutional crisis the moment there is an opposition Congress. Don’t even start me on the unconstitutional and illegal tariffs.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  207. What I would like to see is judges using the sanction hammer without deference to stature. The prosecutors who lied to convict Ted Stevens ought to have been defrocked and jailed. Defense attorneys who have suborned perjury, or proffered “expert testimony” they knew to be concocted, ought to suffer the same fate. Vexatious litigants ought to be called out much more often.

    Sometimes these things do happen, but not often enough. Pure lawfare ought to come with a risk.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  208. It’s unlikely the current House or Senate would use a legislative veto anyway against any Trump executive actions, including tariffs. For the most part members of Congress support what Trump is doing; otherwise they would be passing legislation to repeal them.

    This is utter BS and you should know it.

    It took a majority of one house to block a regulation before 1983.

    It takes a 2/3rds majority in EACH House to pass a law over a presidential veto.

    One of these is MUCH harder than the other.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/9/2025 @ 7:32 pm

    You’re missing my point, which is that the current Congress has no interest in opposing the President’s executive orders or actions.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  209. @206

    Yes, that’s correct. There is no solution for it. Now that we have established that dishonest claims of political bias in the application of law have no negative consequences. Everyone will use them. And people supporters will pretend to believe these claims, maybe even actually believe these claims, and use them as justification to do the same thing.

    Your proposed solution was to not hold Trump accountable for his violations of the law. I don’t really see how that’s better.

    Time123 (34a0e7) — 3/10/2025 @ 8:19 am

    I don’t know of a solution short term.

    At a fundamental level, if your prosecution team has to do any contortion just to “fit” the charging of an individual, you might want to reconsider.

    But for you and Paul, lawfare is when a politically interested group is actively weaponizing the law specifically with the intention of punishing or at least hampering their political adversaries and/or critics.

    The easiest way I know to describe it, is the difference between wanting to punish someone for a crime you believe they committed, and wanting to find a crime of which to accuse them to have committed so that you can punish them.

    There is no denying that the Dems’ use of the law against Trump is purely political in nature. There is no desire for justice or truth – only to try to stop him from winning the Presidency. They’re barely pretending otherwise…

    Firstly, Time123, understand that lawfare doesn’t mean there is no legal basis for a prosecution, as you continually harp about whenever RussiaGate is discussed. However, when the prosecution is pursued for political purposes, that is when it becomes lawfare.

    Letitia James ran for NY Attorney General explicitly on prosecuting Trump, calling his presidency “illegitimate”. I don’t know how anyone can see that and then presume her prosecution of Trump is purely in the pursuit of justice. If you make a campaign promise to prosecute someone then it inherently becomes political. That should be disqualifying, and frankly before her, anyone else who did that would’ve been laughed out of politics.

    Alvin Bragg charged Trump with falsifying business records in the 1st degree, a felony offense that requires the falsification to be done in furtherance of another crime. Trump was charged with no other crime by Bragg, only at jury instruction did the judge request the jury believed another crime was committed. What reason would there be to charge Trump with a felony offense vs falsifying business records in the second degree which requires no other crime but is a misdemeanor offense other than to interfere with the election?

    Garland opened 2 investigations into Trump just days after he announced his 2024 presidential bid, 2 years after Trump left office. Why wait until Trump announced his intent to run unless your intent was to prevent his candidacy?

    Jack Smith’s special counsel indicted Trump for his actions on Jan 6 in capacity as President. When SCOTUS ruled on presidential immunity that killed the indictment and Judge Chutkan was to reexamine the charges based on which would have constituted private vs official action. Before she could even hold a hearing Jack Smith issued a 2nd indictment that rewrote the charges against Trump in his capacity as a political candidate as opposed to president to end run around presidential immunity, channeling his “inner-Lavrentiy Beria” for the world to see.

    Obviously each case independently has grounds for not being politically motivated…but taken in the totality when you have people who are outspoken against Trump or members of the previous administration how can you not think that there is at least some political motivation to eliminate Trump from American politics regardless of what the electorate would choose?

    Or, when a rabid forthing Democrat in Colorado disqualified Trump from the ballot based on a 14th Amendment interpretation that took SCOTUS to render an epic slap down. This was advanced by many here, including our host.

    Maybe, just maybe, the solution is that people in positions of power should take more care to ensure that there is no smell, no iota, no taint of political animus when prosecuting their targets.

    What says you? Paul and Time123?

    whembly (b7cc46)

  210. This may be Captain Obvious, but the person most responsible for the Democrat spectacle at Trump’s speech last Tuesday is none other than Hakeen Jeffries. He either didn’t think ahead or was okay with a House member shaking his cane and yelling at Trump, and okay that his colleagues were using stupid bingo paddles and staged walkouts to express their displeasure.

    Jeffries is a weak leader, with no force of will that I could see, catering and enabling his out-of-touch base, in charge of a bunch of left-wing misfits that practically defies reform.

    The one–and only one–bright spot to this debacle was Elissa Slotkin in her rebuttal, who focused on three most relevant issues, our economy, our national security and our democracy, steering way around the Left’s biggest hobby horses.

    Tim Alberta writes about her approach here.

    There would be no performative shout-outs, no box-checking patronage. As the envoy for a party that has long operated as a syndicate of identity-based advocacy groups, Slotkin wanted to try something different. Charged with countering 100 minutes of Trump’s trademark fanfaronade, the senator aimed to use the fewest words possible to speak to the largest number of Americans she could. Slotkin would talk, for just 10 minutes, about bringing prices down, holding American values up, and remaining civically engaged.

    None of this would seem a revolutionary approach to rhetoric. Still, it was fraught with risk all the same: Democrats “have been on their heels since the election,” Slotkin told me, and the party faithful have been agitating since January 20 for someone, anyone, to stand up to Trump. The announcement of Slotkin had already been met with grumbling from progressives online; anything short of oratorical firebolts would confirm the complacent, feckless approach of the D.C. governing class.

    Slotkin viewed the stakes somewhat differently: This speech could, at least symbolically, commence a new chapter of Democratic Party opposition to a president whose success is inextricable from the tone-deaf ineptitude of Democratic Party opposition. If her team’s resistance to Trump’s first term was marked by hysteria and hashtags—all the land acknowledgments and pronoun policing and intersectionality initiatives—Slotkin saw last night the opportunity to set a different tone.

    There was also a disturbing part, in her choice of a that was fully nondescript.

    This is what brought her to a sleepy event space in Wyandotte (the owners, fearing political retaliation, requested that I not reveal the name of the business).

    “Fearing political retaliation” is a thing these days.

    Paul Montagu (c1e896)

  211. Whembly, it doesn’t end. Its now a permanent feature of our political system.

    aphrael (922759)

  212. So, explain to me why it is OK to defer the writing of laws to the Executive, but not OK to withhold a check on that power. At the very least the two should not be severable.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/9/2025 @ 7:30 pm

    Because the legislative veto, as explained in Chadha’s majority opinion, didn’t comply with the Constitution. But Congress has numerous other methods of controlling federal agencies. The Constitution also lists those powers that a single branch of Congress has, such as impeachment, treaty ratification, confirmation of judges and public officials by the Senate and requiring that tax legislation originate in the House.

    ………(T)he Supreme Court has generally recognized that Congress has broad constitutional authority over the establishment and shape of the federal bureaucracy.1 This power stems principally from the combination of Congress’s enumerated powers under Article I of the Constitution to legislate on various matters; 2 language in Article II, Section 2, which authorizes the appointment of “officers” to positions “which shall be established by law”;3 and Article I, Section 8, which authorizes Congress to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” not only Congress’s own enumerated powers, but “all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”4 Acting pursuant to its broad constitutional authority, Congress may create federal agencies and individual offices within those agencies, design agencies’ basic structures and operations, and prescribe, subject to certain constitutional limitations, how those holding such offices are appointed and removed.5 Congress also may enumerate the powers, duties, and functions to be exercised by agencies, as well as directly counteract, through later legislation, certain agency actions implementing delegated authority.6

    The most potent tools of congressional control over executive branch agencies, including structuring, empowering, regulating, and funding agencies, typically require enactment of legislation.7 Such legislation must comport with the constitutional requirements of bicameralism (i.e., it must be approved by both houses of Congress) and presentment (i.e., it must be presented to the President for signature).8 For legislation to take effect, that constitutional process requires the support of the House, Senate, and the President, unless the support in both houses is sufficient to override the President’s veto.9
    ………..

    See footnotes references here, page 1.

    Regarding the Chadha decision:

    ……… In invalidating this “legislative veto,” the Court determined that “legislative acts” having the force of law are subject to the requirements of bicameralism and presentment, and held that the statutory procedure did not comply with these constitutional requirements.129 The Court defined a legislative act as any action “properly . . . regarded as legislative in its character and effect” or taken with “the purpose and effect of altering the legal rights, duties and relations of persons . . . outside the legislative branch.”130

    ………These express exceptions to the bicameralism and presentment requirements in the Constitution, the Court noted, “further indicate[] the Framers’ intent that Congress not act in any legally binding manner outside a closely circumscribed legislative arena, except in specific and enumerated instances.”134
    ……….
    As a result of the Chadha decision, if Congress seeks to legally compel or prohibit agency action, or otherwise alter an agency’s underlying authority, the House and Senate generally must act in concert with each other, and absent a veto override, in concert with the President.135 …….. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted Chadha as limiting the legal impact of nonstatutory legislative actions. For example, in Bowsher v. Synar, the Court reaffirmed that “once Congress makes its choice in enacting legislation, its participation ends. Congress can thereafter control the execution of its enactment only indirectly—by passing new legislation.”137 Yet a distinction must be made between the Court’s legal interpretation of Article I’s bicameralism and presentment requirements, and the practical realities of ongoing congressional involvement in administrative decisionmaking.138 ………(T)here are many non-statutory tools that congressional actors may use to influence agencies without compliance with bicameralism and presentment. These tools may inhere to the House, Senate, congressional committees, or individual Members.

    See pages 15 and 16 for footnote references. My emphasis.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  213. You’re missing my point, which is that the current Congress has no interest in opposing the President’s executive orders or actions.

    The House and Senate have historically been sensitive to protecting their turf. While I have no doubt that most of these crap artists don’t think past next Tuesday, enough do that a 3-vote swing would be possible. In any event, I cannot see them passing a new statute legalizing Trump’s illegal tariffs.

    If there was a legislative veto available, either house could muster up a majority to block the tariffs as they are wildly unpopular with their donors. NASDAQ down 3.5% again this morning.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  214. Whembly, A few of factual corrections to your assertions.
    1. The investigation of Trumps actions started well before his candidacy. They appointed a special council after he declared because The DOJ shouldn’t be investigating one of the presidents political opponents.
    2. Re-writing an indictment when a pc of evidence is excluded isn’t abnormal. It’s not an abuse of power, it’s common. If you think about it outside of the political context you’ll see why that makes sense. If an indictment is based on a confessions that’s ruled inadmissible the prosecutor may re-indict based on other admissible evidence.

    It’s hard to take your complaints about how the ‘total narrative looks’ when key pieces aren’t correct.

    From my POV it sort of looks like twisting facts to try and misrepresent what happened in order to sell a narrative.

    Time123 (19345a)

  215. In any event, I cannot see them passing a new statute legalizing Trump’s illegal tariffs.

    Whether the tariffs are legal or not is debatable, some may be, some maybe not. We’ll see.

    The legislative veto before the Chadha decision was not all encompassing; it was incorporated only in specific legislation, like the Immigration & Nationality Act at issue in Chadha.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  216. Because the legislative veto, as explained in Chadha’s majority opinion, didn’t comply with the Constitution.

    The same clauses that they cite (e.g. necessary and proper) to allow the executive to write law and just as valid for the legislative veto. The history of the thing is that that delegation would not have happened, even with FDR’s lopsided Congress, without the legislative veto being coupled.

    The legislative veto does not allow congress to pass any law or change the status quo. That is being done by the executive without any bicameralism or even presentment.

    ****

    If Congress were to man up and write an amendment to establish it beyond question, the states would ratify it in an instant.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  217. and are

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  218. The legislative veto before the Chadha decision was not all encompassing; it was incorporated only in specific legislation, like the Immigration & Nationality Act at issue in Chadha.

    It was included in over 200 acts of Congress, including the tariff delegations. It’s an odd note, but mentioned in White’s dissent, that the INS case involving Congress revoking an INS action for a particular individual was completely unlike almost every other use of the veto power, and should not have led to such a sweeping destabilization of the separations of powers.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  219. Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/10/2025 @ 9:53 am

    If Congress were to man up and write an amendment to establish it beyond question, the states would ratify it in an instant.

    Probably not right now, but there are times when this can happen.

    They could also send a constitutional amendment to the states creating a 4th branch of government – the independent agency with multiple members appointed for fixed overlapping terms – with however, the right of Congress to alter its powers or or abolish any of them at any time. This would regularize what has become accepted. The original model was probably the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission 1887-1995)

    Other examples are the FTC or FPC The FAA and FDA do not fall into this category.

    It won’t happen unless the Supreme Court rules a president can control them and then not until after a lapse of years.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  220. @213

    Whembly, it doesn’t end. Its now a permanent feature of our political system.

    aphrael (922759) — 3/10/2025 @ 9:17 am

    That is a fear of mine.

    My only hope, is for there to be some M.A.D.D. principles involved here…just can’t see how it would work at the moment.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  221. @217

    Whembly, A few of factual corrections to your assertions.
    1. The investigation of Trumps actions started well before his candidacy. They appointed a special council after he declared because The DOJ shouldn’t be investigating one of the presidents political opponents.
    2. Re-writing an indictment when a pc of evidence is excluded isn’t abnormal. It’s not an abuse of power, it’s common. If you think about it outside of the political context you’ll see why that makes sense. If an indictment is based on a confessions that’s ruled inadmissible the prosecutor may re-indict based on other admissible evidence.

    It’s hard to take your complaints about how the ‘total narrative looks’ when key pieces aren’t correct.

    From my POV it sort of looks like twisting facts to try and misrepresent what happened in order to sell a narrative.

    Time123 (19345a) — 3/10/2025 @ 9:49 am

    …and it’s hard to take you seriously when you:
    1) ignore the political animus involved.
    and
    2) your description about me misrepresentation is further undermined when you don’t offer any counter-factuals. Which, if you’re honest, is really just your opinion</em.
    and
    3) yet again, working really hard to NOT answer some of my questions.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  222. Paul Montagu (c1e896) — 3/10/2025 @ 9:16 am

    “Fearing political retaliation” is a thing these days.

    There’s also harassment and worse (death threats) coming from both the “far left” and the “far right” and it’s happening also with baseball issues and even for owners of Tesla cars. (it’s a little bit too easy to contact people)

    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/06/us/politics/trump-democracy.html

    …One prominent first-term critic of Mr. Trump said in a recent interview that not only would he not comment on the record, he did not want to be mentioned in this article at all. Every time his name appears in public, he said, the threats against him from the far right increase….

    ….Other Republicans see the warnings of authoritarianism as overblown.

    “I’m becoming less and less sympathetic,” said former Representative Peter Meijer of Michigan, one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump for his role in egging on the Jan. 6, 2021, mob at the Capitol. “The rending of cloth and the gnashing of teeth, good lord.”

    After the anti-Israel protests against the war in Gaza on college campuses, Mr. Meijer said, “there’s a lot more that the fringes on either side share with each other.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6162315/2025/02/27/twins-derek-bender-interview-giving-signs

    More than five months have passed since the day the former Minnesota Twins minor league catcher was accused of giving away pitches to opposing batters on the Lakeland Flying Tigers, trying to ensure his team would miss the playoffs so a long, tiring season would end, according to the allegations against him. A week later, he was released, barely a month after receiving a $297,500 signing bonus as a sixth-round draft selection….On the morning of Sept. 6, Bender wanted the Fort Myers Mighty Mussels’ season to be over. He’d said as much to teammates, joking prior to their doubleheader against Lakeland that it wouldn’t be a bad thing if they let a grounder slip under their gloves.

    A couple losses would eliminate them from playoff contention, and that’s exactly what Bender was counting on. But he says he wasn’t serious, and he wasn’t talking about actually throwing a game. His desire to leave was rooted in a need for a reset that he felt would help improve his game…

    “I had to go dark for at least three days,” Bender said. “I had to private all my social media accounts. I was getting death threats and awful, obscene things said to me.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/03/business/tesla-boycott-elon-musk.html

    Ms. Trebb, 54, a family therapist and a Democrat, said she had decided to trade in her Tesla for a gas-powered Mercedes, accepting $32,000 of the Tesla’s original $55,880 value, despite having only 10,000 miles on it. Her decision, she said, was cemented during a recent trip to the supermarket.

    “Two weeks ago, I was called a Nazi,” she said, “in the parking lot at Kroger,” adding an expletive. “I came home and told my husband, ‘That’s it. I’m done.’”

    …“I’m sort of embarrassed to be seen in that car now,” said Ms. Trebb, who got a bumper sticker that said, “I bought this before Elon went crazy,” one that has gained popularity.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  223. > is for there to be some M.A.D.D. principles involved here

    Neither side is willing to disarm unilaterally and neither side trusts the other side to abide by any agreement to disarm.

    Trump’s firing of people whose jobs are supposed to be fixed term (and not turnover with the President) has also had the effect of requiring that Democrats do the same thing when they come to office, in order to avoid being disadvantaged.

    aphrael (98f773)

  224. > Maybe, just maybe, the solution is that people in positions of power should take more care to ensure that there is no smell, no iota, no taint of political animus when prosecuting their targets.

    The net effect of this line of thinking is that all politicians are exempt from the law because of the fear that prosecuting them for obvious criminality might be interpreted as being political.

    Rather than draining the swamp of government corruption, we’ve ensured that it’s *impossible* to prosecute corruption by politicians.

    Is that the outcome you wanted?

    aphrael (98f773)

  225. But for you and Paul, lawfare is when a politically interested group is actively weaponizing the law specifically with the intention of punishing or at least hampering their political adversaries and/or critics.

    I wonder how the J6 charges for obstruction of process, dragged out of Oxley-Sarbanes and later vacated by SCOTUS, fit within this. Was it political, or just a case of prosecutorial overreach?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  226. My only hope, is for there to be some M.A.D.D. principles involved here…just can’t see how it would work at the moment.

    whembly (b7cc46) — 3/10/2025 @ 11:22 am

    So….a candidate won’t be held accountable for actually breaking the law, and investigations that are politically embarrassing to them will be quashed and in exchange they won’t misuse their power to take revenge on their enemies. That doesn’t sound like a very good deal for anyone except elected officials.

    Time123 (2a424a)

  227. @223, what question am I ignoring? That some of the investigations into Trump had some political motive? Of course they did.

    As did the legitimate investigations into Hunter, Hillarie’s laptop, and Bill’s sex life.

    But the federal investigations were legitimate….especially the documents case.

    Time123 (2a424a)

  228. Rather than draining the swamp of government corruption, we’ve ensured that it’s *impossible* to prosecute corruption by politicians.

    I think that Trump is a special case. Few politicians would get that kind of support for those actions. Would Obama, with all his fervent support, have gotten away with paying a hooker for silence? I doubt it; it would have damaged the brand badly.

    I think that the fact that people expected Trump to be a sleaze made his actions far less shocking, where Obama would not have had that kind of acceptance.

    And there have been prosecutions, such as NJ Senator Menendez, that clearly show such prosecutions are possible.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  229. Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/9/2025 @ 7:32 pm

    It took a majority of one house to block a regulation before 1983.

    It takes a 2/3rds majority in EACH House to pass a law over a presidential veto.

    You could also make all regulations temporary, unless enacted by Congress.

    On the surface, this would amount to a one house legislative veto, but how hard it would be would depend on the rules of each House, and the rules could be included in the legislation. It could be that it would be almost impossible to uphold them, or it could be they would routinely be included in must pass bills and it could be that under this system the president’s (who might be a different president by them) consent might be required (there is now a CRA that forces a vote on any regulations that went into effect in the previous six months) or it could be it would be hard or easy to amend them and not just vote them up or down.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  230. That doesn’t sound like a very good deal for anyone except elected officials.

    Well, prosecutors are rarely charged for malfeasance, even when they withhold evidence or allow dubious evidence to be introduced. You read about so-and-so being released due to withheld evidence but you never read about the prosecutor being jailed, or even sanctioned, for depriving a person of their freedom unlawfully.

    Then there is qualified immunity, a necessary evil to allow law enforcement and court officers to function without being inundated in lawfare suits.

    Personally I don’t want to see any officials have immunity for acts that are not DIRECTLY related to the honest discharge of their responsibilities. I don’t think the president should be able to order hits on reporters, for example, but I’m not sure how far the new immunity extends.

    But there has to be some immunity as being president is not the same as being a salesman or crossing guard. The buck does stop there.

    OTOH, an official who dishonestly sues the power of his office to take nominally authorized actions for criminal reasons, such as ordering Paula Jones to be audited or a political opponent to be charged, ought to lose all immunity and be hauled before the court in chains. With the President that would require impeachment (or delay), but it should still happen.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  231. Members of Congress can now, and have for years, influence the nomination of judges, a presidential prerogative, and often put it into the hands of individual Senator, simply by refusing to confirm (or even hold hearings) on judges that home state Senators oppose.

    This happened as a result of the filibuster, which became easier and easier to threaten with time.

    It’s known as the “blue slip” policy.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  232. https://www.newser.com/story/365460/dhs-were-making-workers-take-lie-detector-tests.html

    I think they are on the wrong track. I think people were bribed – and not by reporters – but the people they informed leaked to reporters to disguise their special knowledge of raids.

    And also right now things are so unstable with regard to the border and no habits established, that there are no secrets known by employees worth being sold, so there are few border crossings, and less fentanyl smuggling but this won’t last.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  233. https://www.newser.com/story/365494/ontario-slaps-25-tariff-on-electricity-to-us.html

    Canadian Province Slaps 25% Tariff on Power to US

    ‘We will not back down,’ says Ontario Premier Doug Ford

    Ontario Premier Doug Ford slapped a 25% tariff on electricity exports to the US on Monday, estimating that it would add almost $70 US to the monthly bills of many homes and businesses in New York, Michigan, and Minnesota. Ford said the surcharge would bring in up to $400,000 Canadian—around $277,000 US—per day, which would be used to support “workers, families, and businesses” affected by American tariffs, the CBC reports. “President Trump’s tariffs are a disaster for the US economy,” Ford said. “They’re making life more expensive for American families and businesses.”

    “Until these tariffs are off the table, until the threat of tariffs is gone for good, Ontario will not relent,” Ford said, per CP24. “We will not back down. Pausing some tariffs and making last-minute exemptions won’t cut it. We need to end the chaos once and for all.” Ford, leader of the province’s Progressive Conservative Party, was recently re-elected after a campaign that focused on fighting Trump’s tariffs. Last week, he said electricity exports to the US could be cut off entirely if the tariffs persist. Ontario supplies around 1.5 million homes and businesses in the US with electricity. On Monday, he said the surcharge could be doubled if the “economic attack” on Canada continues…

    Canada, unlike the United States, can place taxes on exports (as well as imports.)

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  234. Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 3/10/2025 @ 12:31 pm

    What is more unique is that a province, unlike a state, can impose tariffs.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  235. If Congress were to man up and write an amendment to establish (a legislative veto power) beyond question, the states would ratify it in an instant.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/10/2025 @ 9:53 am

    It would depend on whose ox could potentially be gored.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  236. > I think that Trump is a special case. Few politicians would get that kind of support for those actions.

    The rules have changed; at this point any politician who supports Trump will get a pass on all illegal activity they are engaged in, and Democrats attempting to point out the fact that Republican politicians are doing illegal things will simply be accused of TDS and ignored.

    The rule of *law* no longer applies, what governs your fate is whether the President and his friends like you and/or think you like them.

    The Eric Adams case is a great example of this.

    aphrael (dbf41f)

  237. Rather than draining the swamp of government corruption, we’ve ensured that it’s *impossible* to prosecute corruption by politicians.

    I think that Trump is a special case. Few politicians would get that kind of support for those actions. Would Obama, with all his fervent support, have gotten away with paying a hooker for silence? I doubt it; it would have damaged the brand badly.

    I think that the fact that people expected Trump to be a sleaze made his actions far less shocking, where Obama would not have had that kind of acceptance.

    And there have been prosecutions, such as NJ Senator Menendez, that clearly show such prosecutions are possible.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/10/2025 @ 11:54T am

    The Supreme Court has made several rulings over the past 20 years that have constrained the use of federal laws to prosecute corruption. See also here.

    I wouldn’t crow about the Menendez prosecution until his appeals have run their course, or he receives a pardon from President Trump.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  238. @226

    > Maybe, just maybe, the solution is that people in positions of power should take more care to ensure that there is no smell, no iota, no taint of political animus when prosecuting their targets.

    The net effect of this line of thinking is that all politicians are exempt from the law because of the fear that prosecuting them for obvious criminality might be interpreted as being political.

    Rather than draining the swamp of government corruption, we’ve ensured that it’s *impossible* to prosecute corruption by politicians.

    Is that the outcome you wanted?

    aphrael (98f773) — 3/10/2025 @ 11:41 am

    Not really, it just means politicians need to break black letter of the law that’s easy to prosecute.

    Like Gold Bar Bob Menendez.

    Or, Cold Cash In Freezer Willian Jefferson.

    But, if you have to strain or contort the law that you would otherwise normally wouldn’t do…you should reconsider.

    The unfortunate (or a lesser evil if you will), is that politicians are somewhat a protected class. Presidents for their immunity for offical acts, Judges for their official acts and even Congress (speech and debate clause) or the fact that they cannot be charged for insider trading.

    I beseeched you all to listen to me when all the lawfare was going on against Trump.

    I’m not happy that I’m vindicated here…

    Sad really…

    whembly (b7cc46)

  239. @227

    I wonder how the J6 charges for obstruction of process, dragged out of Oxley-Sarbanes and later vacated by SCOTUS, fit within this. Was it political, or just a case of prosecutorial overreach?

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/10/2025 @ 11:43 am

    Embrace the power of “and” here.

    It was both.

    Had the Biden DOJ just stuck with the vandalization and/or trespassing, I don’t think they get pardoned.

    But, outrageously contorting the Oxley-Sarbane law to elevate many of these charges to felonies is outrageous, and puts an everlasting stain on the integrity of the DC court systems.

    If Congress gets off their arse and pass a law that breaks up the DC circuit (sending the judges to other circuits)…they only have themselves to blame.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  240. @228

    My only hope, is for there to be some M.A.D.D. principles involved here…just can’t see how it would work at the moment.

    whembly (b7cc46) — 3/10/2025 @ 11:22 am

    So….a candidate won’t be held accountable for actually breaking the law, and investigations that are politically embarrassing to them will be quashed and in exchange they won’t misuse their power to take revenge on their enemies. That doesn’t sound like a very good deal for anyone except elected officials.

    Time123 (2a424a) — 3/10/2025 @ 11:45 am

    But here we are, the other team gets to bat too.

    Like I said, I warned everyone about this.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  241. Supreme Court Rejects Red State Attempt to Sue Blue States Over Climate Suits

    This morning the Supreme Court denied a motion filed by several states to file a bill of complaint against other states for filing state-law-based lawsuits against fossil fuel energy companies. As has become tradition, Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Alito) dissented from the Court’s refusal to grant the motion and consider the complaint on the merits.

    In Alabama v. California, a red state coalition led by Alabama was seeking Supreme Court intervention to quash lawsuits filed by some blue state attorneys general against fossil fuel companies alleging their actions were actionable under state law. ……….(T)he the red state complaints are without merit, particularly in this posture. The idea that one state can sue another for merely filing a lawsuit in state court is quite outlandish. But it is nonetheless problematic that the Supreme Court is so dismissive of state filings seeking to invoke the Court’s original jurisdiction. The better course would have been for the Court to grant the petition and then reject the claim on the merits.

    Here is Justice Thomas’s dissent.

    The Court once again denies leave to file a complaint in a suit between States. Alabama and 18 other States moved for leave to file a complaint against California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The plaintiff States allege that the defendant States are attempting to “dictate interstate energy policy” through the aggressive use of state-law tort suits. Bill of Complaint 1–3. On the plaintiff States’ account, these suits seek to “impos[e] ruinous liability and coercive remedies on energy companies . . . based on out-of-state conduct with out-of-state effects,” for the purpose of placing a “global carbon tax on the traditional energy industry.” Id., at 1–2. The plaintiff States contend that this practice violates the horizontal separation of powers, the Federal Government’s exclusive authority over interstate emissions, and the Commerce Clause. I would grant the plaintiff States leave to proceed.

    As I have previously explained, the Court’s assumption that it has “discretion to decline review” in suits between States is “suspect” at best. …….
    ………
    The Constitution and Congress have set the bounds of our original jurisdiction. Those parameters should be conclusive: “We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court).

    The Court’s reluctance to accept jurisdiction in cases between the States is also troubling because this Court is the only court that can hear such cases. “If this Court does not exercise jurisdiction over a controversy between two States, then the complaining State has no judicial forum in which to seek relief.” Nebraska, 577 U. S., at 1212 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Accordingly, the Court today leaves the 19 plaintiff States without any legal means of vindicating their claims against the 5 defendant States.

    We should revisit this discretionary approach. …….
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  242. I’m not happy that I’m vindicated here…

    Sad really…

    whembly (b7cc46) — 3/10/2025 @ 2:30 pm

    A Cassandra in the wilderness……

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  243. All of post 243 should have been blockquoted.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  244. They would have been pardoned in any case. But I think the prosecutors found the wrong law.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  245. @244

    A Cassandra in the wilderness……

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/10/2025 @ 2:39 pm

    I assure you that I’m not cursed.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  246. It’s known as the “blue slip” policy.

    It wasn’t enforced for a number of years, due to majoritarian impulses in the Senate. It allegedly is again. BTW, it has little to do with the filibuster. It has to do with Senators wanting to be able to “put a bit of stick about” in their home state.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  247. It would depend on whose ox could potentially be gored.

    Different oxen in each state and how short-term their thinking is. Most of what Trump complained about would have been stopped during the Biden years. Much of what Democrats would complain about today would have a tough go as well.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  248. The Supreme Court has made several rulings over the past 20 years that have constrained the use of federal laws to prosecute corruption. See also here.

    Those laws were struck down for cosmic vagueness. Write better laws (but they probably didn’t want to).

    I wouldn’t crow about the Menendez prosecution until his appeals have run their course, or he receives a pardon from President Trump.

    The pardon power needs limits, I’ll grant you that, but it’s the prospective pardons for “anything they might have done” that break the Rule of Law.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  249. The interstate lawsuits point up another problem: that the states do not respect, indeed they try to supplant, federal regulation of interstate commerce. California is a terrible offender regarding the now-dormant dormant commerce clause, which says that states may not attempt to regulate interstate commerce.

    Yet another reason why California needs to be broken up.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  250. The best thing to do to restore respe3ct for the Rule of Law would be to impeach Donald Trump. He will go too far and it WILL happen.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  251. Meanwhile the market tanks again. Or what Trump calls “a blip.” All over his attempt to create a 19th century economy in a 21st century world. “But you’ll love it!” he claims.

    What a double dumb-ass.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  252. musk has meltdown as his tesla stock crashes. People are shooting and vandalizing his dealerships and tesla car and truck owners. In Scotland trumps golf course was vandalized and muslim protesters fired slingshots at golfers. (DU)

    asset (c8d00d)

  253. Lawfare has been used against the left since before Eugene Debs and Sacco & Vanzetti. Now its the left’s turn so you want to stop it! No thanks I am to old to be commissar for justice so I will leave pay back to younger leftists.

    asset (c8d00d)

  254. It’s like antifa was never a thing. But terrorism on the right pretty much ended with the Klan. Shooting at drivers, dealerships and people playing golf isn’t political action, it’s criminal and I hope they are willing to do the time.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  255. But terrorism on the right pretty much ended with the Klan.

    Timothy McVeigh & Terry Nichols, Eric Rudolph, Dylann Roof, James Alex Fields Jr (Charlottesville car ramming), Unite the Right march (ditto), Aryan Nations, The Order, Robert Bowers (Tree of Life Synagogue), etc. beg to differ.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  256. The Supreme Court has made several rulings over the past 20 years that have constrained the use of federal laws to prosecute corruption. See also here.

    Those laws were struck down for cosmic vagueness. Write better laws (but they probably didn’t want to).

    The laws at issue weren’t struck down, but the Supreme Court narrowed their impact in prosecuting corruption. See McDonnell v. United States.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  257. Kevin and rip, I would add to that proud boys and patriot front.

    Time123 (1fcab3)

  258. @256 I don’t here to much about antifa even from fox. Abortion clinics and democrat party offices during the last election attacked.

    asset (c8d00d)

  259. The best thing to do to restore respe3ct for the Rule of Law would be to impeach Donald Trump. He will go too far and it WILL happen.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/10/2025 @ 3:17 pm

    That is about as likely as your fanciful hypotheticals.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  260. Kevin and rip, I would add to that proud boys and patriot front.

    Time123 (1fcab3) — 3/10/2025 @ 5:13 pm

    True; but my point was Kevin’s claim that “terrorism on the right pretty much ended with the Klan.” It certainly didn’t.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  261. Ouch!

    As Donald Trump took the oath of office on Jan. 20, he was flanked by some of the world’s wealthiest people. The billionaires present that day — including Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg — had never been richer, flush with big gains from frothy stock markets.

    Seven weeks later, it’s a different story. The start of Trump’s second term has delivered a stunning reversal for many of those billionaires sitting behind Trump in the Capitol Rotunda, with five having lost a combined $209 billion in wealth, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.
    ……….
    Musk’s Tesla Inc. gained 98% in the weeks after the election, hitting a record high. Arnault’s LVMH added 7% in the week before Inauguration Day, making the French magnate $12 billion richer. Even Zuckerberg’s Meta Platforms Inc., which banned Trump from the social-media platform in 2021, gained 9% before the beginning of the new term and an additional 20% in his first four weeks in office.
    ……….
    The companies behind the inauguration attendees’ fortunes have been some of the biggest losers, dropping a combined $1.39 trillion in market value since Jan. 17, the last trading day before the inauguration. Here’s a look at some of those fortunes:

    Elon Musk (down $148 billion)

    The 53-year-old Tesla chief executive officer’s net worth peaked at $486 billion on Dec. 17, the largest fortune ever recorded on Bloomberg’s wealth index. Most of his gains came from Tesla, whose stock nearly doubled after the election. Since then, the electric carmaker has given up all of those gains. Consumers in Europe have soured on Musk’s support for far-right politicians, with Tesla sales in Germany falling by more than 70% in the first two months of the year. Chinese shipments also fell by 49% last month to levels not seen since July 2022.

    Jeff Bezos (down $29 billion)
    ………

    Sergey Brin (down $22 billion)
    ………
    Mark Zuckerberg (down $5 billion)

    Meta was the standout winner among the Magnificent Seven tech stocks at the beginning of this year. Even as the group of companies that has powered much of the S&P 500’s gains over the past few years were flatlining, Meta rose 19% from mid-January to mid-February. Since then, though, the stock has lost all those gains. The Magnificent Seven index is down 20% since its mid-December high.

    Bernard Arnault (down $5 billion)

    Arnault, 76, whose family owns the luxury conglomerate behind brands including Louis Vuitton and Bulgari, has been a friend of Trump’s for decades……. After declining through most of 2024, LVMH jumped more than 20% from the election through late January. It’s since given up most of those gains. Morningstar analysts said last month that a 10% to 20% tariff on European luxury goods could depress sales, which have already been struggling.
    #########

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  262. RFK Jr is at it again. Measles happens because of poor diet. Measles is good for you. Measles vaccines harm kids.

    Kennedy Links Measles Outbreak to Poor Diet and Health, Citing Fringe Theories

    In a sweeping interview, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health and human services secretary, outlined a strategy for containing the measles outbreak in West Texas that strayed far from mainstream science, relying heavily on fringe theories about prevention and treatments.

    He issued a muffled call for vaccinations in the affected community, but said the choice was a personal one. He suggested that measles vaccine injuries were more common than known, contrary to extensive research.

    He asserted that natural immunity to measles, gained through infection, somehow also protected against cancer and heart disease, a claim not supported by research.

    He cheered on questionable treatments like cod liver oil, and said that local doctors had achieved “almost miraculous and instantaneous” recoveries with steroids or antibiotics.

    The worsening measles outbreak, which has largely spread through a Mennonite community in Gaines County, has infected nearly 200 people and killed a child, the first such death in the United States in 10 years.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  263. OK, maybe I have to be mores specific. The last organized group committing systemic terrorism on the right was the Ku Klux Klan. There have been other right-wing organizations, but they are not known for a pattern of violent action against people or property.

    There have been right-wing individuals who have violently attacked people or the state, e.g. McVeigh, but that is neither organized nor was it long-term. The Proud Boys exhibit a pattern of violence at protests and counter-protests but outside of those they are not a menacing presence like the Klan was. The Klan didn’t bother with protests really, they just killed people in the night.

    Antifa is a lot like the Proud Boys, actually, arising for protests where they are quite violent, but otherwise going about their lives.

    We were talking however, about a pattern of actual terrorism — politically motivated groups or individuals shooting up businesses, shooting at cars, vandalizing property while threatening more.

    This is a bit past protest violence.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  264. When I hear of people’s Teslas being burned in their driveway, I think of crosses and lawns, not some nut carrying a misspelled sign at a protest and carrying a baton.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  265. Tesla is way down from its recent highs, down more than 50% from its December 2024 high. But it is also double the level of November 2022 and EIGHT TIMES its March 2020 level. They still have half the EV sales in California.

    None of this is good for Tesla and Musk. It may show why many companies avoid political stands. Disney suffered for this, too, and Bud Light market share cratered after an ill-advised commercial campaign featuring a trans activist.

    Tesla’s real problem is that the people who bought Teslas before mid-2024 were buying the brand as a “Green” statement. Now the statement it makes is different. You can get a Tesla cheap, and if you want to help someone out of a lease, you can get a really good deal.

    Of course, someone might set it afire in your driveway.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  266. Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/10/2025 @ 6:24 pm

    Now RFKJr has a real world opportunity to test his theories.

    Rip Murdock (726214)

  267. I’m kinda waiting for a Babylon Bee article saying something like:

    “A month after the fires, 400 burned-out Teslas discovered in the Palisades.”

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  268. Now RFKJr has a real world opportunity to test his theories.

    And his staff will be right on it, their conclusions already written.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  269. Obama judge blocks deportation of anti-Semite Hamas supporter who organized protests at Columbia. Give us your poor huddled Hamas supporting terrorists.

    lloyd (bec069)

  270. What happened to JVW?

    lloyd (ad7579)

  271. Of course, someone might set it afire in your driveway.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/10/2025 @ 6:57 pm

    Or the battery could just spontaneously explode.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  272. Obama judge blocks deportation of anti-Semite Hamas supporter who organized protests at Columbia. Give us your poor huddled Hamas supporting terrorists.

    INS vs Chadha: There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Congress to veto an INS deporation decision. They would have to pass a bill and get it signed by the president to do that.

    2025: However, the courts can block it with the stroke of a pen, no voting needed.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  273. My bad kevin m. You were right I was wrong (I admit when I am wrong.) Attacks on tesla and now twitter sweeping the country. faux news. I was sulking after kathleen legge wrecked in the nascar race sunday and didn’t look at the news until after I posted. From NY to LA and florida to washington the people respond to democrat leaders saying their nothing that can be done. Haven’t heard about attacks on trump’s golf courses or hotels except Scotland. Cyber attacks from here and all over the world on twitter continues.

    asset (aeedb0)

  274. @272: Former President Biden is also no longer receiving the President’s Daily Brief (PBD), according to Gabbard.

    This is beyond stupid. He has contacts and information that can be applied and it is foolish to discard it.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  275. Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/10/2025 @ 8:14 pm

    You mean this guy?

    lloyd (bec069)

  276. Too expensive :

    The Trump administration has stopped using military aircraft to fly migrants who entered the U.S. illegally to Guantanamo Bay or other countries, defense officials said.
    ……….
    Soon after Trump took office in January, his administration began using military aircraft for flights traditionally handled by the Department of Homeland Security to transfer some migrants to other countries and to U.S. military facilities at Guantanamo Bay. The administration wanted the military flights to send a message about its intent to get tough on immigrants in the country illegally, defense officials said.
    ………..
    The Trump administration has conducted roughly 30 migrant flights using C-17 aircraft and about a dozen on C-130s, according to flight-tracking data. Destinations included India, Guatemala, Ecuador, Peru, Honduras, Panama and Guantanamo Bay.
    ………….
    Three deportation flights to India cost $3 million each. Some flights carried a dozen people to Guantanamo at a cost of at least $20,000 for a migrant, the Journal’s analysis showed.

    A standard U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement flight costs $8,500 per flight hour, according to a government webpage. Former ICE officials told the Journal the figure is closer to $17,000 per flight hour for international trips.

    It costs $28,500 per hour to fly a C-17, which is designed to carry heavy cargo and troops, according to U.S. Transportation Command, which provided the aircraft.

    Adding to costs, the C-17s haven’t been using Mexico’s airspace, which can add several hours to flights destined for Central and South America.………
    ……….

    Related :

    President Donald Trump’s plan to use the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to detain 30,000 immigrants has been hitting major legal, logistical and financial hurdles ever since he surprised many in his own administration by announcing it. Now, as agencies spar over responsibility for operations there and over blame for what has gone wrong, there is a growing recognition within the administration that it was a political decision that is just not working.
    ………….
    (T)he space planned to hold the 30,000 immigrants is far from ready. Tents built for that purpose lack air conditioning and running water and do not meet ICE standards for detention, according to the defense official and an additional defense official.

    ……… (Defense and congressional) officials said it has become clear since Trump announced the Guantánamo plan that other options, including holding migrants at Fort Bliss, Texas, and other military bases in the United States would be cheaper and more efficient. A scaled-down version of Trump’s Guantánamo plan seems the likeliest outcome, the officials said.
    ………..
    At the peak of its use during the Trump administration thus far, Guantánamo held 178 immigrants, all Venezuelan men. On Feb. 20, the Trump administration cleared out all of those detainees, sending 177 back to Venezuela via Honduras and one back to detention inside the United States.………
    ………….
    The naval base was not close to being equipped to hold the 30,000 migrants Trump said it would. At the time of Trump’s announcement, it could hold only a tiny fraction of that, according to two former Biden administration officials familiar with the capacity limits.

    A power struggle between the military and ICE, which is part of DHS, quickly ensued over who would be responsible for interacting with migrants once they arrived at Guantánamo, according to the two defense officials and a DHS official.
    ………..
    Oversight of the operation fell to ICE’s Miami field office because members of the military cannot legally interact with immigrants in detention, the two defense officials noted. ………
    ………..
    Members of the military started setting up thousands of tents but without clear guidance about what the tents need to meet ICE standards for holding immigrants, the two defense officials said. ………….The military does not have the money to pay for those changes or upgrades, and no one has ordered it to make or pay for them yet, the officials said. (Under long-standing federal court settlements, immigration detention cannot be punitive, and it must adhere to certain humanitarian standards.)
    ………..

    Rip Murdock (726214)

  277. “When I hear of people’s Teslas being burned in their driveway, I think of crosses and lawns, not some nut carrying a misspelled sign at a protest and carrying a baton.”

    a tesla’s natural state is to be on fire, it’s only through god’s mercy that they don’t all burst into flames.

    Davethulhu (ac25eb)

  278. “2025: However, the courts can block it with the stroke of a pen, no voting needed.”

    As a “lawful permanent resident”, he has certain legal rights, meaning he gets his day in court. I’m hardly an expert on immigration law but I also understand that there might also have been an issue with detaining him without a warrant.

    Davethulhu (ac25eb)

  279. @Kevin@265 The Lambs of Christ anti-abortion group. Though I suppose they could be labeled as religious terrorists as well as political ones.

    @lloyd@271 Not a free speech fan, eh?

    Nic (120c94)

  280. Regarding Mahmoud Khalil, this should be reason enough to kick him out.

    Paul Montagu (c1e896)

  281. “Regarding Mahmoud Khalil, this should be reason enough to kick him out.”

    Should be an open-and-shut case then.

    Davethulhu (ac25eb)

  282. Paul, neither of those links is working for me, what is the gist of them?

    (Either way, revoking the permanent status of a lawful permanent resident seems like it should require more process than this, to ensure that the lawful premanent resident’s rights are preserved.)

    aphrael (dbf41f)

  283. Thulu showing his leftist attitude again. Terrorize those to submit to his evil.

    a tesla’s natural state is to be on fire, it’s only through god’s mercy that they don’t all burst into flames.

    Davethulhu (ac25eb) — 3/10/2025 @ 10:00 pm

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  284. Nic got her lefty talking points.

    And no Nic, we don’t need to keep alien terrorist supporters in the country. They are guests. They are bad guests. They deserve to be kicked out.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  285. Tulsi Gabbard Strips Security Clearances Of 51 Officials Who Signed Hunter Biden Laptop Letter

    That’s the way to give the taxpayers their money’s worth.

    I slept more peacefully last night knowing that now our country was more secure, the streets safer to go out to, and prices lower at the grocery store.

    nk (7f2ec7)

  286. If Musk really wants to be a hero, he will send his “What I did to earn my salary” email to Trump’s multi-million dollar-office patronage appointees, confirmed and unconfirmed.

    nk (f9124f)

  287. More of “Your Tax Dollars At Work”:

    Justice Dept. Official Says She Was Fired After Opposing Restoring Mel Gibson’s Gun Rights

    In a brief email, she responded to her Justice Department superiors that she could not recommend that the attorney general restore Mr. Gibson’s gun rights.

    Several hours later, she got a call from a senior Justice Department official in Mr. Blanche’s office who had been working on the issue.

    The official asked her: “Is your position flexible?”

    It was not, she responded.

    “He then essentially explained to me that Mel Gibson has a personal relationship with President Trump and that should be sufficient basis for me to make a recommendation and that I would be wise to make the recommendation,” she said.

    Read the whole thing.

    nk (f9124f)

  288. Dave, 280 was hilarious! Nice one. Your substantive comment about due process is a good one. But I think of lesson to take from Trump’s victory is that a large number of ppl in the US don’t care about due process if it doesn’t deliver them the results they want.

    Time123 (b5f585)

  289. NK, if the executive in charge wants to make a decision within their discretion against the recommendations of staff they have that right.

    Firing staff for failing to tell them what they want to hear, or even threatening them, is deeply corrupt and breeds a culture of corruption. Which is what I expect from Trump. I also expect that his supporters will cheer on any punishment she gets as ‘draining the swap’ or something similar.

    Time123 (b5f585)

  290. Exactly, Time123.

    nk (f9124f)

  291. aphrael (dbf41f) — 3/10/2025 @ 11:40 pm

    I always agree that there should always be due process. I acknowledge that I sometimes let my anti-Hamas bias get the better of me, but he has a pro-Hamas bias and his group took over a building and intimidated and threatened people, especially Jews, on campus. He can go back to the Middle East.

    Paul Montagu (c1e896)

  292. Paul, maybe I’m making too many assumptions, but I don’t think anyone here is arguing that he should stay. I think the argument is that the process should be followed, and what rights he has should be respected, even though he is apparently a completely odious scumbag that we would be better off or he not on our shores.

    Time123 (61a33f)

  293. I slept more peacefully last night knowing that now our country was more secure, the streets safer to go out to, and prices lower at the grocery store.
    nk (7f2ec7) — 3/11/2025 @ 3:45 am

    That’s the great thing about Republicans being in power again, nk. Right? After four years, it’s now suddenly safe and respectable to talk about security, crime and inflation.

    lloyd (24fe02)

  294. Paul, maybe I’m making too many assumptions, but I don’t think anyone here is arguing that he should stay.

    It was just a free speech issue, according to Nic.

    lloyd (24fe02)

  295. After 56 minutes, the Dow is down another 376.
    The markets are telling Trump exactly what they think of Trump’s stupid tariffs and his realigning the world order to align with the terrorists.

    Paul Montagu (c1e896)

  296. Paul, don’t tell me you’re tired of winning already?

    Time123 (b5f585)

  297. I’m not one to disagree with the markets. The Dow was down > 30% more than a year into Biden’s tenure. Folks who can point to comments they made at the time attributing it to Biden’s policies are folks worth listening to when it comes to Trump’s policies. Anyone else is just a hypocrite.

    lloyd (24fe02)

  298. @300, You’re either reading that chart incorrectly or describing it dishonestly.

    Time123 (b5f585)

  299. The Dow bottomed out at about 20K in march of 2020 and then went up to 34K by Dec of 21 dropped back down to ~28K by Sept of 22 and then went up 45K by Nov of last year. Easy to look up its performance over time…but generally the Dow was 29K when Biden took office and 44K when he left.

    Time123 (b5f585)

  300. Or is it that you don’t see the connection between what trumps doing on Trade and the stock market?

    Time123 (b5f585)

  301. “Thulu showing his leftist attitude again. Terrorize those to submit to his evil. ”

    lol teslas catch on fire a lot even before musk started throwing nazi salutes around

    Davethulhu (044282)

  302. You’re either reading that chart incorrectly or describing it dishonestly.
    Time123 (b5f585) — 3/11/2025 @ 7:50 am

    LOL. Maybe I should’ve said 100% and called it hyperbole.

    lloyd (483d94)

  303. @299

    Paul, don’t tell me you’re tired of winning already?

    Time123 (b5f585) — 3/11/2025 @ 7:35 am

    I’m exhausted at all the winning…but, I want more.

    I believe we win no matter what, so long as the current crops of Democrat politicians is out of power.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  304. Lloyd, was that an attempt at Hyperbole?

    Time123 (61a33f)

  305. @306, Yes. Your POV has been clear for a while.

    Time123 (61a33f)

  306. Paul, I’m reading that Trump will up steel and Aluminum tariffs to 50%…more winning.

    Time123 (61a33f)

  307. @295

    Paul, maybe I’m making too many assumptions, but I don’t think anyone here is arguing that he should stay. I think the argument is that the process should be followed, and what rights he has should be respected, even though he is apparently a completely odious scumbag that we would be better off or he not on our shores.

    Time123 (61a33f) — 3/11/2025 @ 6:53 am

    I’m with you here, mostly.

    I’m still uneasy with the government kicking out a legal resident though.

    I needs to be for something that is objectively clear and concise that this administration is able to kick him out.

    …and I’m not sure it’s there.

    Per Andy at NRO, he’s saying it should work:

    According to CNN, the administration is relying on the provision in §1227 that relates to deportations based on “foreign policy” considerations. The relevant subsection ((a)(4)(C)) provides:

    In general, an alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.

    I’m still uneasy with it, because it’s affords the President wiiiiiiide latitude to do this.

    I can see that this can be abused too, so I’m wary if this sets a bad precedent.

    But, again, if you’re a non-citizen living here, you are a guest in our country. Maybe this would re-enforce the idea that you should act like it.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  308. @303

    Or is it that you don’t see the connection between what trumps doing on Trade and the stock market?

    Time123 (b5f585) — 3/11/2025 @ 7:57 am

    I think it’s way more complicated than the arguments presented.

    This is a short-term volatility that’s remarkably similar to Trump’s 1st term tariff wars.

    I would be concerned if the volatility persists in the summer though.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  309. The Dow was down > 30% more than a year into Biden’s tenure.

    Was it?

    Year 1: +13.4%
    Year 2: -6.6%
    Year 3: +13.1%
    Year 4: +19.3%

    The lowest point of the Dow was 29,200± in Oct-2022, which is 6% lower than Day One.

    To date, the Trump Dow is -5.6% in seven weeks.

    Paul Montagu (c1e896)

  310. Bill McGurn

    A few days before Mr. Khalil’s arrest, the American Civil Liberties Union issued an open letter to college presidents denouncing Mr. Trump’s executive order as a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. One of the letter’s co-authors put it this way: “Trump’s latest coercion campaign, attempting to turn university administrators against their own students and faculty, harkens back to the McCarthy era and is at odds with American constitutional values and the basic mission of universities.” Mr. Khalil’s lawyer also presents the government’s action as a punishment for speech it disagrees with.

    But is it? Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, says no: “All the Trump administration is doing is a basic application of the law. The Immigration and Naturalization Act says people can have their visas pulled or denied for membership in or support of terrorist organizations. That goes for green cards too, though more legal process may be required there.” A Homeland Security Department spokesman accused Mr. Khalil of leading “activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”

    We’ve been here before. In his first term, Mr. Trump issued a series of executive orders that became known as the travel ban. The last order restricted entry for nearly all visitors from six mostly Muslim countries as well as North Korea and Venezuela.

    Lower courts blocked the ban, but in 2018 the Supreme Court allowed it. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts declared Mr. Trump’s proclamation falls “squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA,” the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    I’m guessing that the court case could go either way. It could depend on how much Mr. Khalil is involved in the Hamas terrorist organization.

    Paul Montagu (c1e896)

  311. This is a short-term volatility that’s remarkably similar to Trump’s 1st term tariff wars.

    I would be concerned if the volatility persists in the summer though.

    whembly (b7cc46) — 3/11/2025 @ 8:23 am

    Not quite:

    To be sure, Trump also began his first presidential term with immediate, high-profile actions in 2017. But during his first 50 days in office, the S&P 500 climbed 4.8%, while the Nasdaq surged 5.8% and the Dow jumped 5.9% in the same period, according to Dow Jones Market Data.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  312. Paul Montagu (c1e896) — 3/11/2025 @ 8:36 am

    From Dec 2021 to Sept 2022, the S&P was down >20% and the Nasdaq was down more than 30%. If you want to quibble about % points, or that only the Dow matters, that would be a nice squirrel. Fact: The market was down sharply in that span of time (much more sharply than now) and I’m sure there are plenty of comments in the archives you can point to attributing it to Biden’s policies.

    And comparing four years of Biden to seven weeks of Trump is the usual highly objective and non-partisan take I’d expect to see here.

    lloyd (6b3d34)

  313. Lloyd, so you just got the facts wrong in your general complaint that Trump is being held to a different standard than Biden was. That happens.

    I think that his Trade policy (rejections of trade agreements that are already in place and capricious application of Tariffs) has created a situation that is substantially different then the one that was in place with Biden. Bidens biggest challenge at this time wasn’t trade and war in Europe, it was covid.

    Time123 (61a33f)

  314. I mean, we’re not debating how Trump is handing COVID mitigations or vaccines. That doesn’t mean were letting him off the hook relative to Biden.

    Time123 (61a33f)

  315. a tesla’s natural state is to be on fire, it’s only through god’s mercy that they don’t all burst into flames.

    While gasoline is safe?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  316. But Paul, I’m glad you made me look at the markets today. The Nasdaq is up today, which you didn’t seem to want to note. Will we be getting daily market updates from you, whether up or down, the next four years? Do you want to predict now where the markets will be in January 2029?

    lloyd (dee810)

  317. When you think about it Gasoline is incredibly safe.
    -Not flamible in liquid state.
    -Not particularly corrosive or toxic. (You can’t drink and don’t want it in your eyes, but other then that exposure isn’t too bad)
    -Massive Energy Density.

    Time123 (b5f585)

  318. Since the end of feb Nasdaq is down about 10% (eyeballing on my phone)

    Point remains that Trump’s policies (and their executions) are negatively impacting the market.

    Time123 (b5f585)

  319. (Either way, revoking the permanent status of a lawful permanent resident seems like it should require more process than this, to ensure that the lawful premanent resident’s rights are preserved.)

    A list of things (PDF) an LRP can be expelled over. “Terrorist activities” is included and rather vague.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  320. Or is it that you don’t see the connection between what trumps doing on Trade and the stock market?

    I am still waiting to hear why Trump’s tariff impositions, changing daily and unpredictably, are a good idea.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  321. To date, the Trump Dow is -5.6% in seven weeks.

    The NASDAQ is down 13% in the last 3 weeks.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  322. During the first 50 days of the Biden Administration, the DJIA was +4.4%; the S&P 500 +2.6%; the Nasdaq Composite -1.0%; and the Russell 5000 +6.3%. In the first 50 days of =the current Trump Administration, the DJIA is -3.0%; the S&P -6.4%; the Nasdaq -11.0%; and Russell 2000 -11.3%.

    The current performance of the markets during that 50-day period is the worse since 2009, during President Obama’s first term (the beginning of his second term was markedly better.)

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  323. -Massive Energy Density.

    There are other names for that. Explosive is one.

    But some numbers:

    Tesla vehicles have had a fire rate of one for every 175 million miles traveled compared to the U.S. average, a [gasoline] vehicle fire for every 19 million miles traveled….

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has conducted child safety tests on Tesla vehicles and found that they are far less likely to catch on fire than gas-powered vehicles. NHTSA tested fires that started during crash scenarios and found that electric cars are much less likely to start a fire than gas-powered cars….

    There are an estimated 15.88 Tesla cars that catch fire per year. This is significantly less than the average number of car fires per year, which is around 182,000….

    There have been 7 reported incidents of Teslas catching fire while charging [2013-2022].

    Here is a list of all reported Tesla fires, through early 2024.

    I suspect there will be a rash of Tesla fires in the near future, both hater-instigated and owner-instigated (as the resale value drops).

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  324. > The current performance of the markets during that 50-day period is the worse since 2009, during President Obama’s first term (the beginning of his second term was markedly better.)

    And *that* was a carryover from the 2008 economic crisis, while what we’re seeing right now is *entirely* self-inflicted.

    But this is *deliberate*. We have to go through the pain of reordering the country’s economy along autarkic lines, because doing so will somehow make things better in the long run. We can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, right?

    aphrael (dbf41f)

  325. Post 325 should read:

    At the end of the first 50 days of the Biden Administration, the DJIA was +4.4%; the S&P 500 +2.6%; the Nasdaq Composite -1.0%; and the Russell 5000 +6.3%. At the end of first 50 days of the current Trump Administration, the DJIA is -3.0%; the S&P -6.4%; the Nasdaq -11.0%; and Russell 2000 -11.3%.

    The end of the first 50 days of the Trump Administration is the worse since 2009, since President Obama’s first term (the beginning of his second term was markedly better.)

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  326. Kevin, No one will do this….at most they’ll attack ppl who question it without stating that they support it.

    There is an argument that this will return manufacturing to the US….but the logic flow includes underpants gnome logic.

    Time123 (b5f585)

  327. Katie Porter, in the left wing of her party, to run for CA governor. Progressives rejoice.

    Rick Caruso is likely to run, assuming he’s not LA Mayor by then. But the state GOP will probably run some Trumpist dunderhead, a non-starter in CA, but perfect for the 3rd party status the GOP is chasing there.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  328. the logic flow includes underpants gnome logic.

    Indeed. I think there is as good a case that it will get export industries moving to Mexico or Canada (except for farmers who can’t and will go bankrupt with ADM buying it all up).

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  329. And *that* was a carryover from the 2008 economic crisis, while what we’re seeing right now is *entirely* self-inflicted.

    COVID influenced the end of Trump I and the beginning of Biden’s term, hurting Trump and helping Biden.

    In Jan 2025 there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the US economy (save the constant deficit/debt issue). Trump was supposed to be about freeing capitalism from statist control, as he did in 2017-2018 — a boom time for the NASDAQ.

    But instead he sprung these tariff ideas to upend the settled North American Free Trade Zone, and that has been calamitous. Own goal indeed.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  330. But the state GOP will probably run some Trumpist dunderhead, a non-starter in CA, but perfect for the 3rd party status the GOP is chasing there.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/11/2025 @ 9:55 am

    “No Party Preference” is less than 3 points behind Republican registrations (24.95% to 22.07%.)

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  331. I think a lot of the market volatility it stemming from Congress’ lack of ability to pass a CR that needs to happen soon (this Friday?).

    However, I’m preeettttyyy sure Democrats don’t want a CR, because that puts a lot more discretionary power into Trump’s hands.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  332. Meant *does* not don’t.

    However, I’m preeettttyyy sure Democrats does want a CR, because that puts a lot more discretionary power into Trump’s hands.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  333. …if there’s a shutdown.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  334. Sorry, doing this on my phone just sucks.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  335. No worries Whembly

    Time123 (b5f585)

  336. A government shutdown may also be spooking the markets.

    Time123 (b5f585)

  337. aphrael (dbf41f) — 3/11/2025 @ 9:51 am

    It’s funny to see lefties who imposed lockdowns and mandates causing supply chain issues and the 2022 downturn now complain about self inflicted pain.

    lloyd (dee810)

  338. Katie Porter, in the left wing of her party, to run for CA governor. Progressives rejoice.

    Rick Caruso is likely to run, assuming he’s not LA Mayor by then. But the state GOP will probably run some Trumpist dunderhead, a non-starter in CA, but perfect for the 3rd party status the GOP is chasing there.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/11/2025 @ 9:55 am

    If Kamala Harris runs, it will be race for number 2. Caruso’s problem is that he can’t figure out what political party he believes in; he has switched between from being a long-time Republican to “decline to state” in 2011; back to Republican in 2016; then to “no party preference” in 2019; then to Democratic in 2022 (which did nothing for his mayoral race, despite spending $110M.) How Caruso performs will depend on his name recognition outside of Los Angeles.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  339. I think a lot of the market volatility it stemming from Congress’ lack of ability to pass a CR that needs to happen soon (this Friday?).

    There has never been this kind of volatility during other failures to pass CRs, so it must be the on-again, off-again, on-again tariffs. I haven’t seen any commentary linking the wild swings to a potential government shutdown; but plenty linking to the tariffs.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  340. Paul Montagu (c1e896) — 3/11/2025 @ 8:44 am

    I’m guessing that the court case could go either way. It could depend on how much Mr. Khalil is involved in the Hamas terrorist organization.

    He probably is, because nothing that he has done makes any sense if he wasn’t, but they don’t have the goods on him. Yet. They are still investigating him and the State Department I think has said there is some intelligence information (which they wouldn’t want to use and declassify)

    The deportation was rushed because Trump (or Rubio to make Trump happy) wanted to make a (justifiable) example of someone. It was started on the premise that they were revoking a student visa. Marco Rubio said that if they had known about his support of Hamas they would never have given him a student visa. But he had since completed his program in December and married an American and had a green card. (which he undoubtedly had before December. His expert navigation of the law is another sign of his being a terrorist supporting agent.)

    When they came to arrest, him they said they were revoking his student visa. His lawyer, Amy Greer, told them by phone he had a green card. We’re revoking that too said the agent. But you can’t do such a drastic thing so simply. His wife was eight months pregnant, said his lawyer. Of course that is an irrelevancy.

    There is, it turns out, a provision in the law for the Secretary of State to revoke a green card but that is on the grounds the person is harming U.S. foreign policy. Marco Rubio said that he was promoting anti-Semitism and since the United States was encouraging other countries to crack down on tat it harmed U.S. foreign policy for him to remain here.

    He would normally be taken to New Jersey and his wife went to visit him there but he was not there. He had been taken to Louisiana in preparation for a quick deportation (to Syria?)

    A federal judge had to issue an order stopping any immediate deportation and also ordering a hearing on the main charges.

    The New York Daily News article has the easy for them to make mistake that the protests were “against Israel’s actions in Gaza.” They were nothing of the sort. They were protests against the existence of Israel – more – they were calls for victory over Israel. Not a word about any kind of peace. Everything that Hamas did was supported, even if they were not too explicit about what Hamas did.

    The purpose was to intimidate anyone from condemning Hamas (and it is reasonable to assume to scare people from arguing in support of Israel. They sometimes explicitly regarded Jews (or “Zionists”) as the enemy or presumed enemy.

    The statements in support of Hamas began at some important colleges on October 8, 2023, before Israel had a chance to do anything – before they could repel the attackers. To get ahead of any condemnations of Hamas or support of Israel’s defense at these institutions.

    They knew that Israel would soon begin bombing or an invasion which could be criticized. The massacres had in fact been designed to anger Israelis (because it was probably part of a larger Iranian plot, which never got carried out because Hezbollah’s Nasrallah was not suicidal and tried to keep the war on his end on a low simmer, and there must have been people in Iran never thought the time was ripe or the nuclear bomb ready.

    This was all clearly organized.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  341. Hey Lloyd, can you defend the tariff’s and the way they’ve been executed? Do you think they are a good idea being implemented well?

    Time123 (b5f585)

  342. There has never been this kind of volatility during other failures to pass CRs, so it must be the on-again, off-again, on-again tariffs. I haven’t seen any commentary linking the wild swings to a potential government shutdown; but plenty linking to the tariffs.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/11/2025 @ 11:21 am

    Trumps actions with DOGE have substantially changed the status quo by asserting that the can spend or not at his discretion. As such that’s created a new issues to be resolved by the Dems.

    As I said a few weeks ago, this is an attack on the power of the purse and will make future budget resolutions more complicated.

    Time123 (b5f585)

  343. they were calls for victory over Israel

    And there was slogan that called for extending the intifada worldwide. Now what could that possibly mean?

    They occupied buildings and campus grounds and demanded amnesty.

    The one thing that university administrators cannot be is neutral.

    The anti-Semitism is palpable. Last week the library of Barnard College was occupied and the “students” refused to leave. So someone phone in a bomb threat. The school undoubtedly has procols calling for the evacuation of any place that gets a bomb threat without attempting to evaluate its credibility. The people there still refused to leave So the college called in the police. Nine people were arrested, none of them students at the college (maybe they were selected because they were not) and given desk appearance tickets later.

    Here is the anti-Semitism: A person called a radio station and said that “Tel Aviv” had called in the bomb threat. I will put aside the fact that the capital of Israel is not Tel Aviv but Jerusalem, as Israel keeps pointing out, although there are military headquarters in Tel Aviv. This whle accusation smacks of the so-called international Jewish conspiracy theory there. And it’s not logical. Israel would not have been that interested in a demonstration going on in New York, Neither would they have been familiar with what the college would do if it got a bomb threat.

    Yes, the bomb threat (the making of which is considered a serious crime) was probably phoned in by someone opposed to the protesters but it was probably not the state of Israel. It shows you that some people on both sides ae exploiting the way systems work.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  344. The New York Times interviewed some fired Inspector generals. At first some of them thought the DOGE people would want their help. That’s because Musk’s mandate is much like the Inspector Generals.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  345. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/11/2025 @ 9:53 am

    More 50-day bad news:

    A new Emerson College Polling national survey of voters finds President Trump with a 47% job approval, and 45% disapproval rating. Trump’s disapproval increased two points since last week’s national poll, while his approval rating decreased one percentage point.
    ……….
    A slight majority (51%) think Trump’s second term in office has been more of a success than a failure, and 49% think his term has been more of a failure.

    Trump’s approval is strongest on his handling of immigration policy, 48% approve of his handling and 40% disapprove, and his disapproval is highest on the US economy, at 48% disapprove and 37% approve.
    ……….
    A plurality of voters (46%) say Trump’s economic policies are making the economy worse, while 28% think they are making the economy better, and 26% think they have had no effect or it is too soon to tell.

    Fifty-three percent think the US increasing tariffs will hurt the US economy, while 37% think they will help the economy, and 11% think they will have no impact.
    ……….
    Thirty-nine percent of voters have a favorable view of the Republican Party, while 49% have an unfavorable view of the party. The Democratic Party is ten points less favorable at 29%, and 56% have an unfavorable view of the party.
    ……….
    Vice President JD Vance has a 42% favorable rating, and a 46% unfavorable rating. Elon Musk holds a 42% job approval rating at the Department of Government Efficiency, and 48% job disapproval.
    ………..

    Other findings:

    Marco Rubio

    Very/Somewhat favorable 38.5
    Neutral 18.7
    Somewhat/Very unfavorable 36.7
    I have never heard of this person 6.2

    Pete Hegseth

    Very/Somewhat favorable 35.8
    Neutral 16.2
    Somewhat/Very unfavorable 38.9
    I have never heard of this person 9.2

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

    Very/Somewhat favorable 39.8
    Neutral 16.4
    Somewhat/Very unfavorable 42.1
    I have never heard of this person 1.6

    Other findings:

    Do you approve of President Trump’s handling of:

    The war between Russia and Ukraine:

    Approve 37.6
    Disapprove 41.2
    Neutral/No opinion 21.2

    US/Canada relations:

    Approve 37.3
    Disapprove 47.2
    Neutral/No opinion 15.5

    The war between Israel and Hamas:

    Approve 41.2
    Disapprove 45.3
    Neutral/No opinion 13.5

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  346. U.S. to Restore Military Support to Ukraine After It Agrees to Cease-Fire

    The Trump administration said it would immediately lift a pause on intelligence sharing and military support to Ukraine, as Kyiv agreed to implement a 30-day cease-fire in top level talks with U.S. officials.

    The plan, which is contingent on Russian acceptance, was outlined in a statement issued by Ukraine and the U.S.

    “Today we made an offer which the Ukrainians have accepted, which is to enter into a cease-fire and into immediate negotiations to end this conflict in a way that’s enduring and sustainable and accounts for their interests, their security, their ability to prosper as a nation,” said Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

    “We will take this offer now to the Russians and we hope that they’ll say ‘yes,’ that they’ll say ‘yes’ to peace. The ball is now in their court,” he added.
    ……….
    U.S. officials hadn’t said what specific steps the Ukrainians need to take for American military support to resume, but had suggested it would need to go beyond a cease-fire.
    ………..
    Rubio said Ukraine is still receiving what he called “defensive intelligence,” which appeared to be a reference to warnings of Russian missile attacks to allow Ukraine to operate its air defenses. He also said Starlink, the satellite-based internet service developed by Elon Musk’s SpaceX, isn’t being cut off. ……..
    ……….
    Far from signaling flexibility, Russia has doubled down on its key demands. Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rejected a British and French proposal to deploy peacekeeping troops to ensure that a future peace agreement isn’t violated by Russia—a European proposal that Trump has welcomed.
    ………
    And in U.S. and Russian talks in Riyadh, Lavrov brushed aside the idea of establishing a moratorium on Russian and Ukrainian attacks on each side’s energy infrastructure. Lavrov told reporters that American officials had floated the proposal and that he responded that Russia doesn’t attack power sources that supply Ukraine’s population—an assertion that American officials have long dismissed.
    ………

    “Peace for our time!”

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  347. How Caruso performs will depend on his name recognition outside of Los Angeles.

    His best bet would be to run as Republican, since it would avoid splitting the vote, but he’d have to make clear he wasn’t going to address national issues — the state has enough problems itself.

    It will depend on how much he can convince voters he will attack problems, and not get would up in divisiveness. Starting with canceling the Train and clawing back every dime he can for use in urban transit. Water, housing, fires, traffic. And not by having the state build $900K one-room apartments. He can claim he knows how things get built.

    The L.A. fires have stirred the pot noticeably, with people who didn’t spend much time on local ballots lines realizing that their government is largely incompetent. Only 20% think Mayor Bass had done a good (13%) or excellent (6%) job on the fires. Only 11% expect her to do well in leading the recovery.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  348. Fifty-three percent think the US increasing tariffs will hurt the US economy, while 37% think they will help the economy, and 11% think they will have no impact.

    That 37% must think that all these new factories and jobs are going to open up Real Soon Now and/or that nothing bad will happen to the job they have. They may feel differently in November 2026.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  349. How Caruso performs will depend on his name recognition outside of Los Angeles.

    And that will depend on what changes, if any, have happened in the news media. I expect he will get a lot more, and better balanced, coverage in the L.A. Times that previous rightish candidates for governor have received.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  350. Anyone running as a Republican will have to deal with the reality that California electing a Republican governor will be viewed nationwide as California endorsing Trumpism.

    Unless that Republican openly and notoriously distances themselves from Trump, in which case Trump and Musk will campaign against them.

    aphrael (dbf41f)

  351. Rip, I wonder if Russia rejects this, and if so what Trump’s response is.

    Time123 (b5f585)

  352. in which case Trump and Musk will campaign against them.

    If a candidate runs as an independent they will do that too.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  353. Caruso’s best bet would be to run as Republican, since it would avoid splitting the vote, but he’d have to make clear he wasn’t going to address national issues — the state has enough problems itself.

    He’s pretty far out of the mainstream of Republicans in California, and having changed his registration from Republican to “no preference” and then to Democrat will raise suspensions he is a Democrat in sheep’s clothing.

    It will depend on how much he can convince voters he will attack problems, and not get would up in divisiveness. Starting with canceling the Train and clawing back every dime he can for use in urban transit. Water, housing, fires, traffic. And not by having the state build $900K one-room apartments. He can claim he knows how things get built.

    Just return the funds to taxpayers.

    The L.A. fires have stirred the pot noticeably, with people who didn’t spend much time on local ballots lines realizing that their government is largely incompetent. Only 20% think Mayor Bass had done a good (13%) or excellent (6%) job on the fires. Only 11% expect her to do well in leading the recovery.

    Again, Caruso may win in LA County, but there are no polls (yet) that show how well he is recognized statewide. He spent $110M running against Bass and still came up short.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  354. Post 357:

    ……. will raise suspensions suspicions…….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  355. I have a particular dislike of Caruso arising from his opposition to raves being held on city owned property and his role in driving EDC out of L.A., too.

    aphrael (5b571d)

  356. Time123 (b5f585) — 3/11/2025 @ 12:41 pm

    Rip, I wonder if Russia rejects this, and if so what Trump’s response is.

    That’s where restoration of military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine and seizing of Russian assets and increased sanctions on Russia comes in, or else Trump has no more cards to play.

    I don’t think he wants Rubio to resign or lose popular support so he won’t do anything blatantly dishonorable..and how could he sell that as good?

    Meanwhile Ukraine sent drones to bomb Moscow, and Zelensky is not asking (immediately) for any territory back, only that the peace be enduring for which it needs at least Russian demobilization, plus maybe some European countries something.

    Sammy Finkelman (a41838)

  357. Rip, I wonder if Russia rejects this, and if so what Trump’s response is.

    Time123 (b5f585) — 3/11/2025 @ 12:41 pm

    I don’t think Russia will reject a 30-day cease fire in place, as it would put Russia in a very good (political and military) position. They are driving out Ukrainian troops out of Kursk; Russia has ground out gains in Ukraine proper while not giving up any substantial territory; and Russia would probably accept a cease fire as a favor to President Trump.

    Russia has its own demands, which would not be solved by a cease fire and which have nothing to do with territories:

    ………Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed in an interview to “New Regions of Russia” magazine published on March 10 that any future peace settlement must “eradicate” the “root causes” of the war. Lavrov defined the “root causes” of the war as the alleged “threats to Russia’s security from the Ukrainian and Western directions in general” that are due to NATO’s eastward expansion and the Ukrainian government’s alleged “extermination” of everything that is “connected with Russia and the Russian World [Russkiy Mir],” including Russian language, culture, Orthodoxy, and media. Lavrov similarly defined the alleged “root causes” of the war in late December 2024, and the Kremlin’s rhetoric on this topic has not changed in the over two months, even after the start of US-Russian bilateral talks in February 2024. Russia’s repeated rhetoric about the “root causes” of the war and constant reiteration of its specific unchanged demands contrast sharply with the flexibility Ukraine has shown.

    Also:

    Russian President Vladimir Putin stated on March 6 that Russia does not intend to “give in to anyone” or make any compromises in future peace negotiations, and Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Spokesperson Maria Zakharova rejected the possibility of a negotiated ceasefire and the deployment of European troops to Ukraine on March 6 and claimed that Russia considers any proposal that gives Ukraine a “respite” along the frontline is unacceptable. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated in February that “a direct military conflict between NATO and Russia will be inevitable if Western troops are sent to Ukraine.” Russian Ambassador to the United Kingdom Andrei Kelin stated in an interview published on March 6 that Russia’s territorial advances in Ukraine “should be recognized” as part of any peace deal and that Ukraine should be “a neutral, non-nuclear state,” underscoring Russia’s ongoing demands for regime change and de-militarization in Ukraine. Russia violated the agreement under which Ukraine returned its Soviet-era nuclear weapons stockpile to Russia and became a nuclear-free state by invading in 2014 and again in 2022. That treaty obliged Russia to respect Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders and to refrain from any sort of coercion against Ukraine.

    Footnotes omitted.

    I would take Rubio’s statements with a grain of salt. Anything he says is irrelevant until it is confirmed by President Trump.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  358. Lavrov defined the “root causes” of the war as the alleged “threats to Russia’s security from the Ukrainian and Western directions in general” that are due to NATO’s eastward expansion……

    Which presumably means those NATO countries that border Russia (the Baltic states, Finland, Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic) would need to be expelled.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  359. Czech Republic doesn’t border Russia.

    aphrael (5b571d)

  360. #351, 354, 357

    If Caruso runs for governor as a Republican he might have a slightly better chance than previous GOP candidates but it’s very unlikely he could shake the firm grip the Democrats have on the state. But if his LA mayoral campaign is any guide, he could deluge every household in the state with endless mailers and flyers so whoever prints those things would at least make some money.

    By the way, I have not seen anything from JVW, a true expert on LA and California politics, in several weeks now. I recall DRJ asked about that in comments way back in February but have not seen any answer, from JVW or anyone else. Does anyone know what’s going on — hope JVW is OK.

    RL formerly in Glendale (c21ff9)

  361. Ukraine’s presidential office presenting this as the JOINT statement following talks with US delegtion (Rubio, Waltz, Witkoff) — two notable points: – “The United States will immediately lift the pause on intelligence sharing and resume security assistance to Ukraine.” – “both countries’ presidents agreed to conclude as soon as possible a comprehensive agreement for developing Ukraine’s critical mineral resources to expand Ukraine’s economy, offset the cost of American assistance, and guarantee Ukraine’s long-term prosperity and security.”

    — Jacqui Heinrich (@JacquiHeinrich) Mar 10, 2025

    progress?

    whembly (b7cc46)

  362. Czech Republic doesn’t border Russia.

    aphrael (5b571d) — 3/11/2025 @ 2:09 pm

    The CR, along with Romania and Poland, border Ukraine, which according to Vladimir Putin is historically part of Russia.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  363. progress?

    whembly (b7cc46) — 3/11/2025 @ 2:17 pm

    Only if Russia agrees; and as I said above though agreeing to a cease fire will keep them in an advantageous position. But a cease fire won’t address Russia’s long term demands.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  364. I have a particular dislike of Caruso arising from his opposition to raves being held on city owned property and his role in driving EDC out of L.A., too.

    As I said, Democrats make voting decisions on unimportant matters. You can get the roads deteriorate, spend over ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS on a train that will never be used, let reservoirs — specifically built to fight wildfires — go empty when the wildfire danger is highest, and make it impossible to build housing at the normal rate of expansion.

    But those raves must go on.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  365. The other CR passes the House, which sends it to the Senate and adjourns for a week. One notable things: unlike past CRs, there are no earmarks.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  366. Czech Republic doesn’t border Russia.

    aphrael (5b571d) — 3/11/2025 @ 2:09 pm

    The CR, along with Romania and Poland, border Ukraine, which according to Vladimir Putin is historically part of Russia.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/11/2025 @ 2:28 pm

    My bad, I meant Slovakia.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  367. BTW, Trump’s third-rate economist, Navarro, will lie about Canada and the fentanyl “problem”, that the Canucks are causing as a so-called reason to levy punitive tariffs, but all he’s doing is masking Trump’s irrational imperialist ambitions to bully Canada into American statehood. This stupid president is saying it out loud, and so far he’s willing to wreck our economy in the process…

    “The only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State.”

    At least Trump is having the good grace to not pull a Putin, such as launching a surprise attack on Alberta and starting a forever war against our neighbor.

    Scott Lincicome has some observations about imported aluminum from Canada and the adverse impacts this president is causing, and this…

    Last month, 72% of all U.S. unwrought aluminum imports came from Canada

    Paul Montagu (c1e896)

  368. “Getting it, good and hard”:

    President Trump wanted a trade war with the world, and Americans are getting it, good and hard. Stock prices continued to decline on Tuesday amid the latest Canada-U.S. tariff tit-for-tat. By the end of the day the two sides were talking about a temporary truce, but who knows which side of the tariff bed Mr. Trump will wake up on Wednesday?

    North Americans awakened Monday to the news that Ontario premier Doug Ford said he was raising the price of his province’s electricity exports to the U.S. by 25% in response to Mr. Trump’s on-and-off 25% tariffs on Canada. That’s a hit to consumers in the U.S. Midwest and Northeast.

    ………Canada “must immediately drop their Anti-American Farmer Tariff of 250% to 390% on various U.S. dairy products,” Mr. Trump said on Truth Social. He said he’d double his metals tariffs on Canada to 50%. And oh, “the only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State.”
    ………
    The U.S. sources about two-thirds of its primary aluminum and 60% of scrap aluminum imports from Canada. Both are used by secondary U.S. aluminum manufacturers and fabricators, which oppose Mr. Trump’s tariffs. They have a hard enough time competing against lower-cost producers in China and Turkey.

    Canada makes up a smaller share of U.S. steel consumption (about 6%). But Mr. Trump’s tariffs will still raise costs for steel users that depend on Canadian supplies. Hot-rolled coil steel prices are up a third since Mr. Trump took office because U.S. manufacturers like Cleveland-Cliffs and Nucor have raised prices in anticipation of tariffs.

    Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said over the weekend that the President’s tariffs would make some foreign products more expensive but “American products will get cheaper.” Huh? Companies that use foreign components will have to raise prices or swallow narrower profit margins. Does Mr. Lutnick understand, well, commerce?

    Domestic manufacturers that compete with foreign goods will raise their prices to take advantage of the protectionism to increase their margins……..

    ………(President Trump) promised Tuesday to “substantially increase” tariffs on cars on April 2, which he said would “essentially, permanently shut down the automobile manufacturing business in Canada.” So first he whacks U.S. auto makers with tariffs that raise their production costs, then he tries to shield them from foreign competition by whacking American consumers.
    ………
    The trouble with trade wars is that once they begin they can quickly escalate and get out of control. All the more so when politicians are nearing an election campaign, as Canada now is. Or when Mr. Trump behaves as if his manhood is implicated because a foreign nation won’t take his nasty border taxes lying down.
    ………

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  369. But Paul, I’m glad you made me look at the markets today. The Nasdaq is up today, which you didn’t seem to want to note. Will we be getting daily market updates from you, whether up or down, the next four years? Do you want to predict now where the markets will be in January 2029?

    Wow, you’re just brimming with bad faith today, lloyd.
    One, I’ve never mentioned the NASDAQ or the other exchanges, just keeping it simple.
    Two, Trump’s Dow is national news, so it’s topical.
    Two, I’ll write whatever I damn well feel like whenever I damn well feel like. Your demands are irrelevant.

    Paul Montagu (c1e896)

  370. Four, you brought up the Dow.

    Paul Montagu (c1e896)

  371. If Trump really wants to play with borders, citizens in California, Washington State, Illinois, New York, Florida and Texas have some splits in mind. You, Mr Trump can be the guy to add 10 more stars to the flag. And it’s all legal. Some disassembly required.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  372. The NASDAQ is down for the day, after hours.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  373. Today’s stock market indexes and 5 day results:

    Dow Industrials: -487 points; -1.14%; 5 days: -1,087 points; -2.56%

    S&P 500: -42.5 points; -.76%; 5 days: -206 points; -3.57%

    Nasdaq Composite: -32.23 points; -.18%; 5 days: -849 points; -4.64%

    Russell 2000: +4.53 points; +.22%; 5 days: -55.94 points; -2.69%

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  374. @NJRob@287 He hasn’t been convicted of anything at this point and the issue seems to be that he organized a pro-palestinian protest. He’s a legal permanent resident. I don’t have to agree with what someone says to support their right to say it and it isn’t lefty, it’s American.

    @Time@295 I think that if he broke the law he should have to leave, but if he didn’t he should have the same rights as everyone else to free speech that I disagree with. People can have terrible terrible ideas, but if they act legally, they should be able to have them.

    Nic (120c94)

  375. Kevin M – for many of us who rave it is a deeply spiritual experience, so driving them out is an attack as deeply repugnant to us as attempts to shut churches down would be to you.

    But that’s ok as long as it lets the power of the state be used to oppress people you dislike, isn’t it?

    aphrael (5b571d)

  376. Also, the funny thing here is that disliking someone isn’t a guarantee that I won’t vote for them, as I firmly believe my responsibility as a voter is to choose the least bad among the available options.

    I loathe newsom but have voted for him in three elections.

    I detest Cruz but voted for him once.

    I hate Kamala but voted for her in two elections.

    So disliking Carney because has used the power of elective office to attack people like me doesn’t guarantee I’ll vote against him, it depends on his bad the other candidate is.

    aphrael (5b571d)

  377. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/11/2025 @ 4:51 pm

    In contrast to the American stock indexes, the Chinese stock indexes are all up today and over the last 5 days.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  378. He hasn’t been convicted of anything at this point and the issue seems to be that he organized a pro-palestinian protest. He’s a legal permanent resident. I don’t have to agree with what someone says to support their right to say it and it isn’t lefty, it’s American.

    @Time@295 I think that if he broke the law he should have to leave, but if he didn’t he should have the same rights as everyone else to free speech that I disagree with. People can have terrible terrible ideas, but if they act legally, they should be able to have them.

    Nic (120c94) — 3/11/2025 @ 4:58 pm

    No. He organized a pro-Hamas/Death to Israel protest. He’s a pro-terrorist organizer and we don’t need any more of those. Good riddance and purge the poison from society.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  379. Aphrael,

    you didn’t vote for Cruz. You made a protest vote against Trump knowing full.wellnyoud vote for the radical leftist in the national election.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  380. Ontario Premier Doug Ford said on Tuesday afternoon that U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick called him and Ford agreed to remove the surcharge.

    I’m shocked.

    Next you’ll tell me that there’s no gambling going on.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  381. I think that if he broke the law he should have to leave, but if he didn’t he should have the same rights as everyone else to free speech that I disagree with. People can have terrible terrible ideas, but if they act legally, they should be able to have them.
    Nic (120c94) — 3/11/2025 @ 4:58 pm

    Green card holders don’t have the same rights as citizens. Actions and affiliations that are perfectly legal for citizens can be grounds for denying or revoking green card status. Sorry if your left wing talking points didn’t prepare you for that.

    And, to characterize his activities as free speech is wildly ridiculous. Paul included a link upthread of acts he participated in. Maybe brush up.

    lloyd (dee810)

  382. @NJRob@382 He hasn’t been convicted of doing anything illegal. Do you have any interpretation of your position other than he said something you don’t like so he doesn’t deserve freedom of speech protections?

    Nic (120c94)

  383. @lloyd@385 I read several stories about the concerns and at this point there doesn’t seem to be proof of any illegal activity or that he was distributing Hamas propaganda. If he did do an illegal thing, he should be deported, if he didn’t, he shouldn’t. I’m sorry that you don’t believe in actual freedom of speech, but only of speech you agree with.

    Nic (120c94)

  384. If he did do an illegal thing, he should be deported, if he didn’t, he shouldn’t. I’m sorry that you don’t believe in actual freedom of speech, but only of speech you agree with.
    Nic (120c94) — 3/11/2025 @ 7:18 pm

    Pffft.

    It is not illegal for anyone to be affiliated with a totalitarian party. (For example, being a Communist, though I think Hamas would apply.) But if you have such affiliations you can be denied a green card or have it revoked. It is not illegal for a citizen to be a security threat to a certain extent. And, even if a citizen is a significant security threat they cannot be deported. A green card holder can be deported for being any kind of security threat. Those are just two examples of many.

    I doubt this simple explanation will suffice for you. Correct, a green card holder doesn’t have the same free speech protections as a citizen. This happens to be the law. Figure it out.

    lloyd (dee810)

  385. Njrib – I marked a ballot for Cruz and it was counted for Cruz.

    aphrael (4084e5)

  386. @lloyd@388 Yep, it’s not illegal to be a communist or a totalitarian or even a monarchist, and the British aren’t denied a green card even if they support the king remaining the king in England. Were there any Irish green card holders deported simply for speech supporting the IRA?

    We disagree on freedom of speech in the US, though I suspect that you are offended when China jails Christian missionaries.

    Nic (120c94)

  387. Nic (120c94) — 3/11/2025 @ 8:02 pm

    Nic, as has been patiently explained to you by folks here on the opposite side of the partisan divide from me, this is not exclusively a free speech issue. I know you desperately want it to be, but it’s just not.

    What constitutes a security threat or totalitarian affiliation is up to the executive branch to decide. A different administration not only would not have a problem with anti-Semitic and violent views and actions, but we already know that administration so flubbed the vetting process that he got a green card in the first place. In other words, a Brit royalist or Irish terrorist could very well be denied a green card. That’s up to the administration the people vote in.

    The administration you wanted to prevail would no doubt welcome this terrorist sympathizer as a full fledged citizen. Too bad that didn’t work out for you. And no, this case doesn’t conjure up parallels to China for me, but you do you.

    lloyd (d191ad)

  388. BTW, the legal weisenheimers at the Dispatch, French and Isgur, are saying the Khalil case isn’t cut and dried because because the law allows deportation for “terrorist activity”. More from Volokh here.

    If it’s just a speech issue alone, then maybe he skates on deportation. But if there’s more than that, kick the MF out.

    It may not be as solid a case because Khalil has a green card, but what if they downgrade his green card to a student visa?

    Paul Montagu (c1e896)

  389. The mistake was giving him a green card because, yes, that makes it harder to boot him. Another fvck up by the prior administration, though likely they knew exactly what they were doing.

    lloyd (d191ad)

  390. @lloyd@391 Unless there is some other proof besides him having organized a politically unwise process, it is a free speech issue. Even if the conclusion is that his speech was speech not allowed to a non-citizen, it’s still a free speech issue and I disagree with limiting free speech for greencard holders in a way we don’t for citizens. And it wasn’t applied that way to IRA supporters and isn’t for British citizens, which makes me think this is political oppression of free speech rather than a simple application of law.

    @Paul@392 I’m not an expert, but I don’t think they could straight up down grade a green card like that and it sounds like he graduated, so he doesn’t need a student visa. I think it’s revoke or nothing, or maybe they could revoke and then offer some other kind of work visa? But why would that happen? And it’s still a free speech issue IMO.

    Nic (120c94)

  391. @394 On cnn suffolk county official claims his suffolk county intelligence organization found out he was being paid by foreign organization. When asked to name the foreign organization paying khalil suffolk county official instead of naming group he later admitted he didn’t know He told host why are you supporting anti-semitism! Thats enough to be deported! Should the israeli students paid by actor jerry steinfelds wife to distrupt campus protests at UCLA be deported? (Majority report)

    asset (394887)

  392. Nic, I’m not arguing that he should be allowed to stay. I’m arguing that the process applicable to green card holders should be followed, and not shortened or circumvented because the nature of his speech is odious. I would also argue that the definition of unallowable acts should be consistent with congressional acts and precedent and not change with the whims of the administration.

    Time123 (394b36)

  393. @lloyd, I’m legitimately curious what you think about Trumps tariffs. Any thoughts?

    Time123 (394b36)

  394. Nic (120c94) — 3/11/2025 @ 9:25 pm

    Time123 (394b36) — 3/12/2025 @ 5:27 am

    I wonder how many folks here have gone through the visa -> green card -> citizen path. It’s actually very hard to get a visa. The success rate is quite low, and a lot of it has nothing to do with whether the person is actually a security threat. Folks who do get visas often get turned down for green cards. Again, for reasons. And, folks who get turned down most likely aren’t going to know why. Until you take the citizenship oath, it’s pretty much common knowledge that you keep your nose clean and dot all the i’s. This is not oppression. You can make political statements and likely no one is going to care, not even Trump. But, it’s probably not a fantastic idea. If you want to make violent threats against Jews and take over an administration building, and then expect an already very hard path to citizenship to just keep rolling forward, this is going to be a “you” problem. The guy got further than most folks who just keep their nose clean, but yeah he’s “oppressed.” He’s so opposed he’s fighting to stay in this oppressive country. LOL

    lloyd (d191ad)

  395. @397 Not a fan of tariffs. The markets have spoken, though earnings are also down so attributing it to just tariffs is probably wrong. If Trump were a Democrat we’d be hearing how he inherited a bad economy. Tariffs are bad but not horrible. Lockdowns were bad and horrible. We recovered from that in time, and we will recover from this. And, when the markets go back up folks like you, Paul and Rip will pretend not to notice.

    And also, if tariffs are bad then the tariffs our “friends” have imposed on us for years are bad and the question is what to do about it. Thoughts? Or, we just pretend it’s great because they’re friends?

    lloyd (d191ad)

  396. Lloyd, In general free trade is better. We negotiated a free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico in Trumps first term. If the US wants to negotiate to further lower barriers to trade I’m all for it. Trumps capricious changes to trade policy drives waste and churn and erodes goodwill with no tangible benefit.

    Sounds like we’re aligned in principle, you just object to criticism of Trump.

    Time123 (394b36)

  397. @398 Never said the guy wsa being oppressed. Not sure where you got that from.

    Time123 (394b36)

  398. More from the WSJ, one of the few pro-Trump outlets calling out Trump’s trade stupidity…

    Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said over the weekend that the President’s tariffs would make some foreign products more expensive but “American products will get cheaper.” Huh? Companies that use foreign components will have to raise prices or swallow narrower profit margins. Does Mr. Lutnick understand, well, commerce?

    Domestic manufacturers that compete with foreign goods will raise their prices to take advantage of the protectionism to increase their margins. A study in the American Economic Review found that consumers paid $817,000 for each new manufacturing job created by Mr. Trump’s washing machine tariffs in his first term.
    […]
    The trouble with trade wars is that once they begin they can quickly escalate and get out of control. All the more so when politicians are nearing an election campaign, as Canada now is. Or when Mr. Trump behaves as if his manhood is implicated because a foreign nation won’t take his nasty border taxes lying down.

    We said from the beginning that this North American trade war is the dumbest in history, and we were being kind.

    44 top economists already overwhelmingly opposed Trump’s first-term tariffs, and his current round is even more punitive.

    Paul Montagu (354e09)

  399. Sounds like we’re aligned in principle, you just object to criticism of Trump.
    Time123 (394b36) — 3/12/2025 @ 8:07 am

    Nope. I object to hypocrisy.

    lloyd (dee810)

  400. Never said the guy wsa being oppressed. Not sure where you got that from.
    Time123 (394b36) — 3/12/2025 @ 8:08 am

    You didn’t. Nic did.

    lloyd (dee810)

  401. @403 I don’t think that’s what you were doing, unless you completely misunderstood the conversation: But others can come to their own conclusions.

    Time123 (0565b0)

  402. @404 then I’ll let Nic address that part. My position is unchanged that I think this clown is odious and I want the existing process to be applied.

    Time123 (0565b0)

  403. @402

    44 top economists already overwhelmingly opposed Trump’s first-term tariffs, and his current round is even more punitive.

    Paul Montagu (354e09) — 3/12/2025 @ 8:41 am

    That’s about as much credibility as the 51 intelligence officials who said that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinfo.

    This is why appeals to authority don’t work.

    It’s a cop-out.

    Explain the the class WHY it’s a problem and CONVINCE your peers of your arguments.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  404. 1. You misstated what they actually said.
    2. Most ppl aren’t sufficiently educated to understand why tariff’s are generally counterproductive to economic growth and dont’ find the subject interesting enough to learn.
    3. Most ppl don’t make decisions based on data or economic principles and if those things conflict with something that speaks to their identity they go with identity and twist to avoid admitting the conflict.
    3.1 Your move from what the topic, tariffs, to coms strategy with a throw back to the laptop seems to be line with that.
    4. I don’t think anyone here is ignorant of the impact tariffs have.

    Time123 (394b36)

  405. ” I object to hypocrisy.”

    lmao

    Davethulhu (14e9e4)

  406. “Explain the the class WHY it’s a problem and CONVINCE your peers of your arguments.”

    Trade wars are good, and easy to win.

    Davethulhu (14e9e4)

  407. lmao

    Davethulhu (14e9e4) — 3/12/2025 @ 9:24 am

    Time123 has Antifa friends.

    lloyd (dee810)

  408. @411 name 3. 😀

    Time123 (b5f585)

  409. @408

    1. You misstated what they actually said.

    Show me where I did that.

    I think you have me mixed up with another post.

    2. Most ppl aren’t sufficiently educated to understand why tariff’s are generally counterproductive to economic growth and dont’ find the subject interesting enough to learn.

    Appeal to authority fallacy: happens when someone asserts a claim as true simply because an authority figure, regardless of their expertise, stated it, without providing further evidence or justification for that claim.

    That’s my point. Particularly the last nine words of that statement.

    3. Most ppl don’t make decisions based on data or economic principles and if those things conflict with something that speaks to their identity they go with identity and twist to avoid admitting the conflict.

    …not sure the point of this.

    3.1 Your move from what the topic, tariffs, to coms strategy with a throw back to the laptop seems to be line with that.

    Oh, now I see. Nope. You’re avoiding the point I’m trying to make.

    Unless…just to be clear here…you think the 51 intelligence officers were right?!?

    4. I don’t think anyone here is ignorant of the impact tariffs have.

    Time123 (394b36) — 3/12/2025 @ 9:19 am

    I disagree.

    Most critics simply regurgitate that tariffs are a “tax” on US consumers.

    It’s myopically short-sighted.

    It’s a tool to:
    * Protect Domestic Industries
    * Ensure critical goods are produced domestically for National Security reasons
    * Correcting Trade Imbalances (the Trumpian one)
    * Retaliation for Unfair trade practices
    * Revenue Generation (aka, the tax)
    * Encourages Domestic Innovation
    * Encourages Foreign Investment in US (more US jobs)

    Tariffs almost ALWAYS causes short-term pain.

    It’s really whether if its worthwhile long-term.

    I can’t remember who coined this phrased, but it goes like this:
    There are very rare solutions… but, it’s almost always trade-offs. (Sowell??)

    Evaluating the trade-offs will get us much closer to understanding these impacts.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  410. That’s about as much credibility as the 51 intelligence officials who said that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinfo.

    Yeah, bullsh-t, whembly, downtalking the foremost economists in America.

    It’s not like aren’t dozens of economists making dozens of arguments against tariffs but, to humor you, here’s one, and it’s well-sourced.

    Paul Montagu (354e09)

  411. @414 Paul Montagu (354e09) — 3/12/2025 @ 10:08 am
    Sorry, not sorry Paul.

    I can’t hear you over the various appeals to authority who’ve been wrong.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  412. whembly, I literally gave you a link that made an argument. Your intellectual laziness is your problem, not mine.

    Paul Montagu (354e09)

  413. Pertinent portion of their letter.

    It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US poli<cal scene of emails
    purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his <me
    serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a
    Russian informa<on opera<on.

    We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by
    President Trump’s personal aSorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have
    evidence of Russian involvement
    — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the
    Russian government played a significant role in this case.

    The point I, Paul and others have been making is that these tariffs are stupid and counter productive and being implemented in a capricious manner that makes them worse.

    Trumps supporters don’t want to talk about that. You all want to talk about how we’re arguing wrong or don’t really care about the economic damage or the generalities of tariffs. Because if you address what Trump is actually doing with his tariff’s against Canada you have to acknowledge it’s dumb.

    Time123 (394b36)

  414. @417

    Pertinent portion of their letter.

    It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US poli<cal scene of emails
    purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his <me
    serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a
    Russian informa<on opera<on.

    We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by
    President Trump’s personal aSorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have
    evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the
    Russian government played a significant role in this case.

    You missing something.

    You are being obtuse, because you don’t want to lose this argument.

    This was during the runup of the 2020 election season, designed to give Biden a talking point in the debate.

    Guess who orchestrated it?

    Former Secretary of State Blinken.

    Oh…imagine that!

    The point I, Paul and others have been making is that these tariffs are stupid and counter productive and being implemented in a capricious manner that makes them worse.

    I get those points, just not well argued.

    Trumps supporters don’t want to talk about that.

    I’ll talk about it. I have been talking about it.

    You all want to talk about how we’re arguing wrong or don’t really care about the economic damage or the generalities of tariffs.

    Nothing happens in a vacuum Time123.

    Because if you address what Trump is actually doing with his tariff’s against Canada you have to acknowledge it’s dumb.

    Time123 (394b36) — 3/12/2025 @ 10:16 am

    I don’t know if it’s dumb.

    What I do know, is that Canada has levied MASSIVE tariffs of their own, and there doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of the whole “free trade” on their end.

    So their cries of outrage falls a little flat.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  415. Whembly, so am I correct that you’re unaware that Canada was adhering the Free trade agreement prior to Trumps imposition of Tariff’s?

    Time123 (394b36)

  416. You missing something.

    I’m not missing anythign. You made a claim about what they said that’s inconsisstent with what they actually said.

    You asserted that they said it was Russian disinfo. They didn’t say that. They said they thought it might be, that it was conistent with russian disinfo, but that they didn’t know for sure.

    Your claims about appeal to authority are much weaker if we look at what they really said.

    Time123 (394b36)

  417. @419

    Whembly, so am I correct that you’re unaware that Canada was adhering the Free trade agreement prior to Trumps imposition of Tariff’s?

    Time123 (394b36) — 3/12/2025 @ 10:34 am

    I’m aware.

    Why does that matter?

    Why shouldn’t a previous agreement be reviewed and further fine-tuned?

    whembly (b7cc46)

  418. Do you think Trumps approach to that renegotiation (large tariffs turned on and off at whime while making various pretextual claims about why he’s doing them and insulting Canada) is a generally good one?

    Time123 (394b36)

  419. @420

    I’m not missing anythign. You made a claim about what they said that’s inconsisstent with what they actually said.

    You asserted that they said it was Russian disinfo. They didn’t say that. They said they thought it might be, that it was conistent with russian disinfo, but that they didn’t know for sure.

    Your claims about appeal to authority are much weaker if we look at what they really said.

    Time123 (394b36) — 3/12/2025 @ 10:38 am

    Are you f’ing with me now?

    The entire purpose was to give Biden, Democrats and the media (BIRM) the talking point for partisan reasons in a hotly contested election.

    It was absolutely an appeal to authority.

    Stop being so pedantic about this.

    You know why former Sec of State Anthony Blinken orchestrated this.

    I refuse to believe you don’t understand.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  420. What I do know, is that Canada has levied MASSIVE tariffs of their own, and there doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of the whole “free trade” on their end.

    These tariffs were agreed to in the previous free trade agreement. As were ours and Mexico’s.

    Time123 (b5f585)

  421. @422

    Do you think Trumps approach to that renegotiation (large tariffs turned on and off at whime while making various pretextual claims about why he’s doing them and insulting Canada) is a generally good one?

    Time123 (394b36) — 3/12/2025 @ 10:42 am

    I think its very clumsy, but I’m not in position to say or believe its necessarily a good or bad thing.

    I work in an industry whereby we’re beholden to a lot of foreign factors, such that we’ve had to compromise on things (and cost is the most obvious).

    Any time we do ‘x’, whatever that is, that encourages domestic innovation and repatriation will almost ALWAYS be a good thing long term, as it strengths an already robust supply chain.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  422. I think it was reasonable *at that time* to be suspicious the laptop was phony.
    -Fox refused to touch the story.
    -The NY Post repoorters refused to put their names on it.

    But regardless, *they didn’t say what you claimed they did* and if you accurately summarize what they said your claim isn’t as strogn.

    Time123 (394b36)

  423. @424

    What I do know, is that Canada has levied MASSIVE tariffs of their own, and there doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of the whole “free trade” on their end.

    These tariffs were agreed to in the previous free trade agreement. As were ours and Mexico’s.

    Time123 (b5f585) — 3/12/2025 @ 10:43 am

    Cool.

    Things can be renegotiated too, ya know.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  424. Any time we do ‘x’, whatever that is, that encourages domestic innovation and repatriation will almost ALWAYS be a good thing long term, as it strengths an already robust supply chain.

    Ok, not everyone is a fan of free trade. You’re not, I am. We disagree on that. I hope your side loses, i don’t want us to be a poorer nation.

    Time123 (394b36)

  425. @426

    I think it was reasonable *at that time* to be suspicious the laptop was phony.

    Therein lies your problem.

    -Fox refused to touch the story.

    Initially, yes, but if I remember correctly they reported it weeks later.

    -The NY Post repoorters refused to put their names on it.

    Hmmm… that’s not my relection, unless you were talking about the Times?

    The NY Posts reporters were the ones that got banned on Twitter and other social media.

    But regardless, *they didn’t say what you claimed they did* and if you accurately summarize what they said your claim isn’t as strogn.

    Time123 (394b36) — 3/12/2025 @ 10:47 am

    They made a weasel statement to convey exactly what *I* said.

    And I notice that you refused to touch WHY they did so. Noted.

    Please, Time123, stop. Observe the Rules of Holes™.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  426. @428

    Ok, not everyone is a fan of free trade. You’re not, I am. We disagree on that. I hope your side loses, i don’t want us to be a poorer nation.

    Time123 (394b36) — 3/12/2025 @ 10:49 am

    “Free Trade” is an oxymoron.

    But, okay. You go king.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  427. I stand corrected. One agreed one refused

    According to an investigation by The New York Times, editors at the New York Post “pressed staff members to add their bylines to the story”, and at least one refused, in addition to the original author, reportedly because of a lack of confidence in its credibility. Of the two writers eventually credited on the article, the second did not know her name was attached to it until after The Post published it.[33]

    Also the letter came out 5 days after this when concerns about its veracity were reasonable. But I don’t expect you to admit that.

    Time123 (394b36)

  428. @431

    Also the letter came out 5 days after this when concerns about its veracity were reasonable. But I don’t expect you to admit that.

    Time123 (394b36) — 3/12/2025 @ 10:59 am

    Admit what exactly? That it was reasonable to suspect that it was fake?

    No.

    I won’t let you gaslight me and everyone here.

    There were FAR more indices that the story was real than that it was fake.

    Largely because the story fits Hunter’s profile, whereby he actually POSTED numerous pictures of snorting drugs off the arse of a prostitute, and the likes.

    He was the dumbass that made those pictures public on his social media. So, when the story came out afterwards…you’d only need to apply a little common sense and Occam’s Razor to end up thinking, that the NY Post story was more likely than not that it was true and that the Dems were trying like the dickens to suppress the story.

    Therefore, the Biden campaign had a fire that needed to be handled.

    Enter then campaign staffer Anthony Blinken, former Sec. of State, to coordinate this infamous letter of 51 intelligence officers stating that this story shows “hallmarks” of Russian disinformation.

    And, the Biden Campaign and Media ran with it, as the definitive proof that the story was bunk.

    Which worked, Time123.

    It was the classic case of an Appeals to Authority fallacy, used to perfection, to obfuscate the fact that Hunter Biden’s laptop not *ONLY* had pictures of debauchery that would put a Roman Bacchusian party to shame, but *ALSO* had proof of the Biden Crime Family of influence peddling.

    But all that is beside the point.

    I’m pointing out the Appeals to Authority regularly used here… and my point was that usually doesn’t go so well.

    See:
    *51 Intelligence Official letter
    *Anything COVID related
    *MASKING
    *LAWYERS ( heh )

    whembly (b7cc46)

  429. Fox News and the people that wrote the story disagreed with you at the time. I think your memory of the chain of events is faulty.

    Time123 (394b36)

  430. Does anyone believe that those 51 signers actually thought that the story WAS fake? They were careful to only imply that.

    Does anyone believe that those 51 signers did so without considering what effect their letter would have on the campaign?

    Does anyone believe that those 51 signers did so without prodding from the Biden side?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  431. OTOH, it would take no prodding for any competent economist to argue against the tariffs.

    Does anyone have a link to a prominent economist (who does not work for Trump) arguing in favor of these tariffs?

    OF people here, only whembly has posted a (boilerplate) defense of tariffs in general, and not even he has defended these tariffs in particular. Or the frequency with which they change.

    Thank God that Trump is not in charge of Daylight Savings Time (It’s on. No, it’s off. No, it’s on but it’s now ahead by 1/3rd of the Julian day in minutes.)

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  432. DEI First, Safety Second

    ‘There are some valuable pieces of information that I have taken a screenshot of and I am going to send that to you via email,’ says Snow, an air traffic operations supervisor based out of New York.

    ‘I am about 99.99 percent sure that it is exactly how you need to answer each question.’

    The inside info was made available in 2014 to African Americans, females, and other minority candidates – but whites were left out of the loop to ‘minimize competition’.

    Exactly how many applicants were able to capitalize on Snow’s brazen offer to secure coveted controller jobs responsible for the safety of millions of fliers remains a mystery.

    But one former NBCFAE member, Matthew Douglas, told DailyMail.com: ‘I know several people who cheated and I know several people who are controlling planes as we speak.’

    lloyd (e1f464)

  433. About the homes in Gaza

    40% of Gaza buildings were booby-trapped by Hamas — a core component of its human shield strategy. All of Gaza became a battlefield due to Hamas. IDF reports 96,500 rigged sites; UN data shows ~250,000 structures in Gaza. Explains why much of Gaza is destroyed.

    Hamas is still holding hostages, which means Hamas still exists.

    Paul Montagu (354e09)

  434. Does anyone have a link to a prominent economist (who does not work for Trump) arguing in favor of these tariffs?
    ………

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/12/2025 @ 12:13 pm

    Trump (and his voters) will just have to learn the hard way why his tariffs are bad.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  435. @437

    About the homes in Gaza…

    40% of Gaza buildings were booby-trapped by Hamas — a core component of its human shield strategy. All of Gaza became a battlefield due to Hamas. IDF reports 96,500 rigged sites; UN data shows ~250,000 structures in Gaza. Explains why much of Gaza is destroyed.

    Hamas is still holding hostages, which means Hamas still exists.

    Paul Montagu (354e09) — 3/12/2025 @ 12:33 pm

    Jesus wept…

    At what point does it take to go all Roman and salt Gaza, ala Carthage?

    whembly (b7cc46)

  436. The fact that the US government is negotiating with Hamas is equally galling.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  437. @433

    Fox News and the people that wrote the story disagreed with you at the time. I think your memory of the chain of events is faulty.

    Time123 (394b36) — 3/12/2025 @ 11:18 am

    Disagreed what Time123?

    According to MS Copilot…

    Here’s a timeline of media coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, focusing on key milestones and how various outlets engaged with the story. This is based on widely available reports and posts from X, reflecting the progression from initial revelation to broader scrutiny. The timeline emphasizes when major players, including Fox News as you asked, entered the fray and how coverage evolved.

    2019
    • April 2019: Hunter Biden reportedly drops off a laptop at a repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware, owned by John Paul Mac Isaac. The device is never retrieved, and Mac Isaac later claims he finds troubling content.

    • December 2019: The FBI reportedly takes possession of the laptop as part of an investigation, though this isn’t public at the time. Subpoenas are issued, per later reporting, tying it to a money laundering probe.

    2020
    • October 14, 2020: The New York Post publishes its bombshell story, “Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad,” based on data allegedly from the laptop. Rudy Giuliani, who provided the material, claims it came from Mac Isaac. This marks the public debut of the scandal.

    • Coverage: The Post alleges emails show Hunter leveraging Joe Biden’s position for business with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy firm.

    • Reaction: Twitter and Facebook limit the story’s spread, citing misinformation policies, sparking censorship debates.

    • Mid-October 2020 (circa October 15-17): Fox News jumps in, amplifying the Post’s claims. They report on the laptop’s existence and the FBI’s possession of it, tying it to a federal investigation. Sean Hannity and other hosts frame it as a major Biden family scandal.

    • Other Outlets: Mainstream outlets like CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post are skeptical, questioning the data’s provenance (e.g., Giuliani’s role) and lack of verification. Many avoid deep coverage initially.

    • October 19, 2020: The Washington Post publishes a piece noting the FBI is reviewing the laptop but casts doubt on its significance, citing possible disinformation from Giuliani.

    • October 19, 2020:”Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials says,” authored by Natasha Bertrand.

    • Late October 2020: Conservative outlets like Breitbart and Newsmax double down, while MSNBC and others largely dismiss it as a political hit job. The story polarizes media along partisan lines.

    2021
    • Throughout 2021: Coverage remains sporadic. Fox News and right-leaning media revisit the laptop periodically, especially as Hunter Biden’s business dealings face scrutiny in unrelated probes. Mainstream outlets mostly stay quiet, awaiting official confirmation.

    • September 2021: A book by Politico’s Ben Schreckinger, “The Bidens,” references emails from the laptop, partially corroborating the Post’s reporting via independent sources. This nudges some skepticism aside but doesn’t ignite widespread coverage.

    2022
    • March 16, 2022: The New York Times confirms that emails from the laptop are authentic, sourced from a copy obtained via subpoena in a separate investigation into Hunter Biden’s taxes and foreign dealings. This shifts the narrative, as it’s no longer just a “right-wing story.”

    • Reaction: Fox News ramps up coverage, claiming vindication. CNN and The Washington Post follow with their own analyses, acknowledging the laptop’s legitimacy but focusing on Hunter, not Joe Biden, as the legal target.

    • April 2022: The Washington Post and CBS News authenticate additional laptop data through cryptographic signatures and interviews, further legitimizing the story. Coverage broadens but remains cautious about political implications.

    2023
    • June 20, 2023: Hunter Biden pleads guilty to tax evasion and gun charges in a Delaware court. The laptop’s contents, including emails and documents, are cited in the federal probe, per court filings. Fox News and others highlight this as proof of earlier claims.

    • August 2023: House Republicans, leveraging the laptop data in their Biden family investigation, keep it in the spotlight. Conservative media like The Daily Wire push narratives of corruption, while mainstream outlets cover the legal angles without fully endorsing broader allegations.

    2024
    • February 2024: Special Counsel David Weiss’s report on Hunter Biden’s tax and gun case references laptop evidence extensively, cementing its role in legal proceedings. Media across the spectrum report on this, though interpretations vary—Fox News sees a Biden scandal, while CNN focuses on Hunter’s personal misconduct.

    • December 9, 2024: Fox News reflects on the saga, noting its October 2020 reporting was “first” to tie the laptop to a federal probe, reinforcing their early stance as other outlets catch up post-authentication.

    2025 (Up to March 12)
    • Ongoing: As of today, the laptop remains a political football. Fox News and conservative media use it to question Joe Biden’s legacy, especially post-presidency. Mainstream outlets cover legal developments tied to Hunter but rarely link it directly to Joe without hard evidence. X posts show public interest persists, often split by ideology.

    Key Patterns
    • Early Phase (2020): Fox News and the New York Post led, starting October 14-15, 2020, while mainstream media hesitated due to sourcing concerns and election timing.

    • Legitimacy Shift (2022): The New York Times’ March 2022 confirmation marked a turning point, pulling in broader coverage.

    • Legal Focus (2023-2024): Court filings and probes kept the story alive, with all major outlets engaging once evidence was undeniable. Fox News was among the first, hitting the ground in mid-October 2020, while others joined later as the story’s credibility solidified.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  438. @435, there you go looking to authority on understanding stuff just because they went to school and studied the subject then worked in the field professionally. I’ll bet you don’t even take sheep dewormer when you get a cough.

    Time123 (394b36)

  439. Meanwhile, on page 56 of this court filing (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25559919-citibank-ggrf-funds-lawsuit-filing-3-12-25/), we find out that the FBI has requested that Citibank freeze all accounts belonging to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.

    aphrael (dbf41f)

  440. What!!?

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  441. I’m okay with this.

    House Republicans are pushing legislation to ban Chinese nationals from getting student visas in the U.S-Fox News

    There are plenty of Asian countries not named communist China where we can allow student visas.

    Paul Montagu (354e09)

  442. @443

    Hi Wembly: Read this:

    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/exclusive-fox-news-passed-on-hunter-biden-laptop-story-over-credibility-concerns/

    Time123 (394b36) — 3/12/2025 @ 2:03 pm

    Hi Time123,

    Brett Briar and Chris Wallace isn’t “Fox News” in its entirety.

    Those 2 and obviously other anchors reported on it to various degrees. The fact the Brett and Chris initially was skeptical doesn’t doesn’t necessarily means I have to turn off my brain and accept their position on this. At the same time Hannity / Watters / Ingraham / others will pounding this issue nightly, as part of their political commentary. But, I don’t have to listen to them either, as I can see the same evidence they see and can think on my own.

    Please refer to the rules of Holes™ again.

    whembly (b7cc46)

  443. @444

    Meanwhile, on page 56 of this court filing (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25559919-citibank-ggrf-funds-lawsuit-filing-3-12-25/), we find out that the FBI has requested that Citibank freeze all accounts belonging to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.

    aphrael (dbf41f) — 3/12/2025 @ 2:35 pm

    Wat?

    (I’m worked blocked from documentcloud).

    What’s the charges?

    whembly (b7cc46)

  444. The charges aren’t openly stated.

    Citibank is presenting this letter as an exhibit in its motion to dismiss a TRO request from one of the other entities (there are like 20 of them) whose accounts the FBI wants frozen. The letter cites vague claims of credible evidence of wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud the US.

    I overstated, though; it’s not clear if this is *all accounts* or *just one specific account*.

    Either way, if the feds can get banks to freeze accounts belonging to state tax departments, then it’s an enormous assault on state sovereignty, and it can’t be tolerated.

    aphrael (dbf41f)

  445. Whembly, I didn’t expect facts to change your mind, but I felt obliged to provide them anyway.

    Time123 (c19d72)

  446. @time@396 I don’t think we are in disagreement on those things.

    @lloyd@398 I haven’t done it myself, but I’ve known several people who went through the process and my g’mother is still a green card holder after almost 80 years in the states (she was a WWII war bride who decided to keep her citizenship). It is my opinion that we shouldn’t throw people out for just their speech (especially not as a political stunt) and that it may be a constitutional free speech issue. You can call it oppression or whatever if you want, I think that at this point he’s being used for political capital, especially since they tried to skip a whole lot of required procedures. If they are going to do it, they should do it right, within the law.

    Nic (120c94)

  447. Does anyone believe that those 51 signers did so without prodding from the Biden side?

    As for connecting dots:

    1) Story comes out.
    2) Joe calls Hunter and says “WTF”
    3) Hunter says “OMG!” (He’s been inattentive to the news)
    4) 51 former Democrat officials say “Probably nothing to it”

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  448. Meanwhile, on page 56 of this court filing (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25559919-citibank-ggrf-funds-lawsuit-filing-3-12-25/), we find out that the FBI has requested that Citibank freeze all accounts belonging to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.

    That did not turn out so well when NY State banking officials tried the same stunts on the NRA. There is was suppression of 1st amendment rights.

    Here it is … suppression of a state’s governmental activities?

    Well, they were looking of an original jurisdiction case for SCOTUS and here we have one.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  449. Either way, if the feds can get banks to freeze accounts belonging to state tax departments, then it’s an enormous assault on state sovereignty, and it can’t be tolerated.

    Indeed, and NY State can sue the FBI at SCOTUS directly.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  450. Meanwhile, on page 56 of this court filing (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25559919-citibank-ggrf-funds-lawsuit-filing-3-12-25/), we find out that the FBI has requested that Citibank freeze all accounts belonging to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.

    Here it is … suppression of a state’s governmental activities?

    Well, they were looking of an original jurisdiction case for SCOTUS and here we have one.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/12/2025 @ 5:46 pm

    This relates to litigation between Citibank, the EPA, and the Climate United Fund. The Climate United Fund has sued Citibank and the EPA over access to $7B in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, for which Citibank is acting as the trustee on behalf of federal government. The EPA has alleged fraud and mismanagement. There is nothing in the court documents at the link relating to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (certainly as a party to the litigation.)

    In any event, the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction would not apply; it is limited to lawsuits between states, ambassadors, and other “Public Ministers and Consuls.”

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  451. Either way, if the feds can get banks to freeze accounts belonging to state tax departments, then it’s an enormous assault on state sovereignty, and it can’t be tolerated.

    Indeed, and NY State can sue the FBI at SCOTUS directly.

    Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/12/2025 @ 5:48 pm

    As I just pointed out, that is incorrect; and no state funds have been frozen.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  452. @lloyd@398 I haven’t done it myself, but I’ve known several people who went through the process and my g’mother is still a green card holder after almost 80 years in the states (she was a WWII war bride who decided to keep her citizenship).

    I’m glad you mentioned that, Nic.

    A green card based on marriage to a U.S. citizen is a different class of thing from a visitor’s visa including a student visa.

    It is granted on the U.S. citizen spouse’s petition, not on the immigrant’s application; and the rules are deferential to the U.S. citizen as well as to the immigrant spouse in ways which they are not to students or other visitors.

    All the stories I have seen report that when ICE took Khalil they told him that his student visa had been revoked. ICE might have some catching up to do.

    nk (aed895)

  453. > There is nothing in the court documents at the link relating to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (certainly as a party to the litigation.)

    Yes, there is. Page 56 is an exhibit containing the letter the FBI sent, and the letter explicitly asks that an account under the name of the NY State Dept of Taxation and Finance be frozen.

    That detail of that request is not related to the lawsuit but the letter *is* an exhibit and the request *was* made.

    aphrael (dbf41f)

  454. Greenland’s latest vote seeks independence from Denmark and Trump. Fair do’s.

    Topline Greenland’s Demokraatit party, which favors a slower approach to the island’s independence from Denmark and has been critical of President Donald Trump serious push to takeover the territory for “security” purposes, emerged as the big winner in the country’s parliamentary election which was dominated by the independence issue and the American President.

    Paul Montagu (354e09)

  455. Yes, there is. Page 56 is an exhibit containing the letter the FBI sent, and the letter explicitly asks that an account under the name of the NY State Dept of Taxation and Finance be frozen.

    That detail of that request is not related to the lawsuit but the letter *is* an exhibit and the request *was* made.

    aphrael (dbf41f) — 3/12/2025 @ 6:23 pm

    So what? Since the correspondence is addressed to Citibank as is attached to Citibank’s court filing I would assume that it is connected to the Climate United Fund (CUF) litigation. All of the those listed have account control agreements with Citibank as recipients Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants (which is the subject of the CUF litigation). The Trump Administration is trying to claw these funds back. Asking entities to freeze accounts during an FBI investigation (which is being conducted at the request of the EPA) is not unusual. It certainly doesn’t say that “all accounts belonging to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance” be frozen.

    Much ado about nothing.

    Rip Murdock (271b5f)

  456. >Much ado about nothing.

    If the federal government has the power to freeze *an* account belonging to a state government based on allegations alone, then it has the power to freeze *any* account belonging to a state government based on allegations alone.

    This is intolerable;it is an affront to the very basis of dual sovereignty.

    aphrael (dbf41f)

  457. Nic @451: “You can call it oppression or whatever if you want”

    You called it that. Glad you acknowledge it’s ridiculous.

    lloyd (da9f74)

  458. In any event, the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction would not apply; it is limited to lawsuits between states, ambassadors, and other “Public Ministers and Consuls.”

    28 USC 1251

    (a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

    (b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
    (1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
    (2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
    (3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

    As the case was originally stated, it involved the FBI and a section of the government of NY state, which would allow under (b)(2) — but not require — SCOTUS to take the case directly.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  459. This is intolerable;it is an affront to the very basis of dual sovereignty.

    It may be, but suppose it wasn’t just Trump. Suppose this has been going on for a while.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  460. @lloyd@462 Dude, I said it was oppression of free speech not oppression of him. I could’ve said it was chilling effect on free speech and it wouldn’t mean I thought they were giving him hypothermia.

    Nic (120c94)

  461. Oh, there’s a different meaning for oppression. LOL

    lloyd (da9f74)

  462. republicans: tariffs bad it makes it harder to ship jobs overseas. Trump: tariffs good gets me democrat workers votes. Democrat party leaders and dnc: tariffs bad our donors tell us. Oppose or no money for your grift. Democrat workers: support tariffs to protect are jobs.

    asset (08c45f)

  463. @lloyd@466 No, it’s applied to a different noun.

    Nic (120c94)

  464. Nic, please keep in mind that not everyone is as bright as you are.

    Time123 (3618b6)

  465. That was unfair. He may just have a made a simple mistake in I how he read it and not wanted to back down.

    Time123 (b5f585)

  466. No Time123, I like your @469 better. Announces what a petty clod you are.

    Free speech can’t be oppressed. “Oppression of free speech” makes no sense whatsoever. But, I’m not in the education field like Nic is, so what do I know.

    Nic drew parallels to China upthread. It’s clear what she meant. Or, did you think that analogy was kick ass?

    lloyd (da9f74)

  467. Hey Nick, do you think the butt hole in question was being personally oppressed? Or do you think his free speech rights for being oppressed? Just want to know if I’m reading your intent correctly.

    Time123 (3618b6)

  468. Hey Lloyd, seems easier to ask her what she meant

    Time123 (3618b6)

  469. Maybe Time123, you can catch up on the thread. She called out my use of “oppression” without asking me what I meant.

    lloyd (ad7579)

  470. Hey Lloyd, seems easier to ask her what she meant

    Time123 (3618b6) — 3/13/2025 @ 6:58 am

    You didn’t do that when you accused me of trolling and totally misrepresented what I wrote.

    BuDuh (4214e4)

  471. Time123, did you like her China analogy? You didn’t answer. Did I need to ask what she meant?

    lloyd (6e9764)

  472. I think she was insulting you by saying that you don’t care about free speech rights, and only care about the rights of people who you share some identity with.

    But easier to ask than to try to parse it and argue.

    Time123 (bc0a3c)

  473. @475, I don’t trust you to argue in good faith (although you’ve been better recently) so I view asking those sorts of questions of you to be a waste of time.

    Time123 (bc0a3c)

  474. @477 Yes, I gathered that from the beginning. I could’ve responded in kind with an insult that she doesn’t care for Jews, but I didn’t go there.

    lloyd (6e9764)

  475. @475, it’s kind of like the John Stewart clown nose thing….sure sometimes JS is being serious, but he’s a comedian first and any time you try to take him seriously he will just put the clown nose back on and say “just kidding”.

    He can be funny some times, but should generally be understood as a source of comedy entertainment and not education, analysis and commentary.

    Time123 (bc0a3c)

  476. @479 Then why did you ask? It seems clear Nic wasn’t saying that the butthole is being treated like they would be in China.

    Time123 (bc0a3c)

  477. @481 No, it seems clear to me that she was. I don’t even know what the China Christians thing is about. She thought it was relevant because I guess China, or something. Who can tell.

    lloyd (6e9764)

  478. @482, Then we’re back to one of us misunderstood the comment and I’d like to hear what the intent was.

    Time123 (bc0a3c)

  479. BTW, this idea that Khalil didn’t do anything illegal is just nonsense. He participated, really led, the takeover of an administration building and was one of the “negotiators” with the administration. This is illegal activity, but he wasn’t charged. No one was. You had the chancellor of MIT, where similar activities were happening, brazenly admit that lawbreakers weren’t being charged by campus police so as not to jeopardize their residency status. Trump and Rubio are right not to reward this stupid game.

    lloyd (0aa098)

  480. Just to reiterate my positions
    -this guy seems odious and I think the US would be better off if he lived elsewhere.
    -whatever rights to due process he has should be followed (I have no idea what the law and precedent is for this) and he should not be singled out just because his speech and opinions are odious and offend me (or anyone).

    -I view adherence to law and precedent as more important then this a$$hats residency status.

    Time123 (3618b6)

  481. Lawfare waged by pro-Hamas protesters:

    https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/373564/in-front-of-israel-embassy-i-prayed-got-accused-of-stalking-and-the-truth-saved-me/?
    s://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/373564/in-front-of-israel-embassy-i-prayed-got-accused-of-stalking-and-the-truth-saved-me

    I was clued on to this by an op-ed in the New York Daily News today:

    https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/03/13/dont-be-afraid-to-stand-up-for-israel

    On the Jewish calendar, today is Taanit Esther (the Fast of Esther), a religious observance immediately preceding the Jewish holiday of Purim, on which it is particularly appropriate to offer prayers for Jews in danger…

    They got an anti-stalking order then. In the summer a trial was held, and the judge cancelled the order Now he won a anti-SLAPP lawsuit and was awarded $181,526 in attorneys fees and costs.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09)

  482. >It may be, but suppose it wasn’t just Trump. Suppose this has been going on for a while.

    Aha, I see. I should assume facts not in evidence and use them to justify bad behavior by the Trump administration and as a basis for not calling the administration out on its bad behavior.

    I decline to do that.

    aphrael (dbf41f)

  483. (sorry, I don’t post from work 😛 )

    @time@472, 477 I meant that speech was being oppressed, not him personally. And I think that lloyd doesn’t care about freedom of speech if he disagrees with their speech.

    @lloyd@482 The point of that was that you probably would care about the speech of Christian missionaries in China because you are more likely to be in agreement with their speech.

    @lloyd@484 You or I can think someone did something illegal and base our judgements on that, but the law cannot. The law can only consider someone’s actions to be illegal if they are convicted of illegal acts.

    Nic (120c94)

  484. The law can only consider someone’s actions to be illegal if they are convicted of illegal acts.
    Nic (120c94) — 3/13/2025 @ 6:14 pm

    Yeah, I wasn’t making a legal argument. I was calling out BS.

    lloyd (58f912)

  485. Nic @488: “The point of that was that you probably would care about the speech of Christian missionaries in China because you are more likely to be in agreement with their speech.”

    You don’t know sh!t about me. If the missionaries were taking over administration buildings and threatening violence against Jews and preventing them from getting to class — in other words, if all the facts were the same and the only difference was that it was a missionary instead of Khalil, guess what, my stance would be exactly the same. GFY

    lloyd (58f912)

  486. Nic @488: “I meant that speech was being oppressed, not him personally. And I think that lloyd doesn’t care about freedom of speech if he disagrees with their speech.”

    Again, speech cannot be oppressed. Makes zero sense. Who’s speech? His.

    I think Nic is an anti-Semite. I guess it goes with being on the Left.

    lloyd (58f912)

  487. @lloyd@490 I know what you’ve shown here which is that if there’s a free speech issue where you disagree with the speech, you don’t care about it. Unless who you are here is a lie, in which case it really isn’t worth talking to you.

    @lloyd@491 Sure speech can be oppressed, but even if you don’t like my turn of phrase, you can certainly figure out the meaning, though I’ll help. Speech can be oppressed, suppressed, chilled, enough synonyms for you? You can say what you want to say about me, I’ve been posting here a long time and there’s plenty of evidence of what I do or do not believe. Honestly, though, you attribute every negative quality to “the Left” and think everyone who disagrees with you is on “the Left” so that’s kind of hard to take seriously as well.

    Nic (120c94)

  488. Nic @492 Baseless smears against me in almost every comment of yours in this thread. That I’m against free speech, that I have it in for this person just because of his views. Now, you claim I’ve “shown here” that I don’t care about free speech snd you cite nothing to back it up. Zilch. (I let your smears here go, because I can take it, but that seemed to only encourage you.) There are, or were, commenting rules here about misrepresenting other people’s views.

    If that’s fair game for you then you’ve “shown here” you only support Khalil because of his views, which are anti-Semitic.

    Yes, yes, you’re a moderate. I forgot. I guess you’re one of those moderates who is always on the left, on every issue 100%. No, you don’t need to take me seriously. It’s mutual.

    lloyd (58f912)

  489. Life’s way too short to interact with leftie loons. What a waste.

    lloyd (58f912)

  490. @lloyd@493 Oh I think you care about free speech that you agree with, just not speech that you don’t agree with. Do I think you are against free speech that you don’t agree with? I don’t know, but you don’t seem interested in defending the principle of free speech if you don’t agree with how it was used. And you don’t seem to have a clear idea of what it means to defend speech that you don’t agree with, since apparently you believe that defending free speech in principle means you agree with whatever a person used that free speech to say.

    Nic (120c94)

  491. @495 Sure, I got that. Lucid as always, Nic.

    lloyd (58f912)

  492. Again, waste of time. I’m done.

    lloyd (58f912)

  493. In local news, I’m not sure what risk to our country this young British lady has caused, or why she’s been held in an ICE detention center for two weeks.

    A British tourist who had been traveling through the U.S. has been in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention in Tacoma for about two weeks after she was denied entry into Canada, according to ICE and social media posts from the woman’s family.

    Rebecca Burke, 28, is detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center “related to the violation of the terms and conditions of her admission,” an ICE spokesperson said in a statement. ICE did not detail what terms and conditions she allegedly violated.

    According to a Facebook post from her father, Paul Burke, Rebecca Burke tried to cross the U.S.-Canada border on Feb. 26 for the next leg of her backpacking trip. She was denied entry to Canada because of incorrect visa paperwork and when she tried to return to the U.S., she was instead handcuffed and taken to the Tacoma detention center, Paul Burke wrote.

    “What was meant to be a life-changing four-month backpacking trip across North America has turned into a nightmare,” Paul Burke wrote on Facebook.

    They could’ve just let her into Canada. It’s not just the stupidity of Trump’s foreign policy (and stupid tariffs are part of our foreign policy), it’s the malevolence.

    Paul Montagu (354e09)

  494. “They could’ve just let her into Canada.”

    Who is “they”, Paul?

    From your link:

    Paul Burke told the BBC that Canadian authorities were concerned Rebecca would work illegally. Rebecca had occasionally helped with household chores in return for free lodging, Paul Burke told the British outlet.

    From this you jump to the administration’s “malevolence”?

    lloyd (e6b11a)

  495. In the settlement last year between Newsmax and Smartmatic, we’re just learning from an SEC filing that Newsmax is $40 million poorer for lying about Smartmatic ballot fraud. The cash settlement is “payable over time and the issuance of a five year cash exercise warrant to purchase 2,000 shares of Series B preferred stock at an exercise price of $5,000 per share”, per the filing, which means Newsmax has debt on its books.

    The Dominion case against the right-wing media outlet is scheduled for trial, and the Smartmatic case against FoxNews is still ongoing and scheduled for trial.

    Paul Montagu (354e09)

  496. From this you jump to the administration’s “malevolence”?

    They could’ve just let her fly home.

    Paul Montagu (354e09)

  497. @501 I don’t know that there’s a white Brit backpacker exception to immigration law.

    lloyd (d5a12b)

  498. Paul, don’t see that her getting denied entry to Canada is our fault…but would be interesting to know why was detained for 2 weeks…from the article I assume she was authorized to be in the US prior to her attempt to enter Canada…

    Never attribute to Malice what can be explained by Stupidity.

    Time123 (bc0a3c)

  499. @481 No, it seems clear to me that she was [Trying to say that the but hole was being treated like they would in China]. I don’t even know what the China Christians thing is about. She thought it was relevant because I guess China, or something. Who can tell.

    lloyd (6e9764) — 3/13/2025 @ 7:53 am

    I’m glad that Nic has cleared up that she was trying to say that she doesn’t think you care about free speech when you disagree with the speaker and not that she thought this clown was being treated like they would in china.

    I do agree with you that We’re not responsible for Canada not letting the backpacker in.

    Time123 (bc0a3c)

  500. @500, the lies that Trump and his supporters told about the 2020 election have been incredibly damaging to many many people. It’s a shame that those lies have benefitted Trump…or at least that they haven’t had negative consequences for him.

    I’d love to know what Rudy ended up paying as part of his defamation case. I have to admit I was hoping for something more severe for him because of how instrumental he was in those lies as well as for his refusal to stop spreading them. A manageable settlement doesn’t seem like justice for the damage he did to the county and the people he defamed….but I suppose defamation isn’t intended to address that…..

    Time123 (bc0a3c)

  501. Tom Homan is malevolent. Obama credited him for the record number of deportations during Obama’s administration and gave him an award for it; and he (Homan) was the originator of the child separation policy thought up by Homan under Obama and implemented during Trump I.

    I can see this being for nothing more than padding the deportation numbers. Easily see it. There’s been media yammer that the numbers have not been as high as “promised”.

    nk (cf701d)

  502. RIP Alan Simpson, 93. Wyoming Senator, deficit hawk, biting wit.

    Simpson died early Friday after struggling to recover from a broken hip in December, according to a statement from his family and the Buffalo Bill Center of the West provided to The Associated Press.

    Simpson, a man of blunt rhetoric whose towering 6-foot-7 stature made him an instantly recognizable figure on Capitol Hill, made a career of taking on difficult congressional assignments, bringing his signature candor to epic legislative battles.

    During the 1980s, Simpson was at the heart of seminal debates over environmental protection, nuclear regulation, and care for veterans – always injecting a healthy dose of humor to his work. ”In your country club, your church and business, about 15% of the people are screwballs, lightweights and boobs, and you would not want those people unrepresented in Congress,” he once said.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  503. nk (cf701d) — 3/14/2025 @ 8:51 am

    nk has his Rule of Law hat off today. It’ll be back on tomorrow.

    lloyd (3c84b5)

  504. RIP sportswriter and author John Feinstein (69):

    ……….
    John Feinstein was a regular sports columnist for the Washington Post but began his career as a night police reporter in 1977. He was most widely known for his coverage of college basketball, but wrote about all sports, including golf, college football and the Olympics. He wrote for Golf Digest and was a frequent contributor to a variety of radio programs, with a regular stint on National Public Radio.
    ……….
    Feinstein wrote 48 books, 23 of which made the New York Times bestseller list, according to his website. His first book, “A Season on the Brink,” which chronicled the 1985-86 Indiana University basketball season, made him a household name and spent 17 weeks at No. 1 on the Times’ bestsellers list. The book detailed the coaching methods of Bob Knight and was later turned into an ESPN film.
    ……….
    Feinstein also wrote “A Good Walk Spoiled,” about a year on the PGA Tour in 1994-95, that was also a No. 1 bestseller, as well as “A Civil War,” a critically acclaimed book on the Army-Navy football rivalry. He also wrote more than a dozen teen mystery books.

    “The Ancient Eight,” about Ivy League football, was published last year.
    ………
    Feinstein was honored with the Curt Gowdy Media Award by the Basketball Hall of Fame in 2013. He’s also in the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Hall of Fame.
    ………

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  505. Benevolent people don’t work for Kristi Noem.

    And Homan probably read what happened to her dog, the four-legged one, when he did not come up to expectations.

    nk (cf701d)

  506. Time123 (bc0a3c) — 3/14/2025 @ 8:41 am

    Oh thanks Time123 for clearing that up. LOL

    You seem intent on repeating the same smear and violating the commenting rules, as they used to be enforced, but as usual don’t have the balls to do so directly as your own words.

    lloyd (3c84b5)

  507. Lloyd, you misunderstood my point. I was making it clear that I was correct about Nic’s intent and you were wrong.

    I wasn’t trying to insult you by repeating Nic’s claim that you only care about speech you agree with. I was doing a “I was right and you were wrong.”

    It was petty gloating, not an insult.

    See the difference?

    Time123 (86a88e)

  508. Fine, Time123. Note that since Nic believes it’s strictly a freedom of speech issue, everyone who thinks he should not be here is guilty of being against free speech. That includes you and Paul.

    lloyd (3c84b5)

  509. That seems like a silly oversimplification. But if you feel it’s accurate I don’t think I’ll be able to persuade you otherwise. We can agree to disagree.

    Time123 (86a88e)

  510. It is never “just freedom of speech.” Sometimes the speech matters, too.

    In the past immigrants, even legal residents, have been kicked out for being Nazis or Stalinists. We have laws against supporting or contributing to terrorist groups overseas. These are obviously in conflict with 1st Amendment rights, but we still have them. You can even go to jail for lobbying a Congressman on behalf of a foreign client if you have not registered as doing so.

    Not to mention slander and libel suits.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  511. OK, Time123. What would be a non oversimplification? I’m really not interested in wading through Nic’s confused comments, or hearing her take, but it sounds like you have a handle on it. Give me a summary, if you’re so inclined.

    lloyd (3c84b5)

  512. If the government wanted to kick out some immigrant, of whatever status, because he exhorted people to the Nazi cause at that NC rally, would people really say “oops, 1st Amendment”?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  513. Kevin M (a9545f) — 3/14/2025 @ 10:04 am

    Yes, I tried to make exactly that point way upthread. You are phasing it clearer I suppose. Maybe it will stick.

    lloyd (3c84b5)

  514. Kevin, I guess where I’m at is that whatever rights to due process he has should be followed (I have no idea what the law and precedent is for this) and he should not be kicked out without that process just because his speech and opinions are odious and offend me (or anyone).

    I understand that it’s not just a free speech issue, and that we have the right to consider the speech / beliefs of non-citizens when deciding if they can come/stay. But whatever process that’s in place and applies to green card holders should be followed.

    Time123 (86a88e)

  515. @kevin@518 I did advocate for not firing people who attended that rally, and I don’t think my coworker with the traitor’s flag on the back of his truck should be punished either. *shrug* I get that my free speech position is a little more extreme than others.

    Nic (120c94)

  516. I am a free speech absolutist myself. I think everybody should have the right to say what Elon Musk wants to retweet.

    Don’t let Trumpist trolls grind you down, Nic.

    nk (544e57)

  517. RIP former NBC war correspondent, press secretary to President Ford, and SNL host Ron Nessen (90):

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  518. 😛 Thanks, nk!

    Nic (120c94)

  519. Nic,

    Do you believe that laws outlawing particular speech are unconstitutional?

    That exhorting a crowd to give money to Hamas for the express purpose of killing Jews is within your bounds of 1st Amendment law?

    I think my beliefs are somewhere along the lines of what Jonah Goldberg posted the other day in the Dispatch:

    I think I know what a “free speech martyr” is. It’s someone who is persecuted, punished, or prosecuted for exercising their free speech rights. Google the term and you’ll get lots of stories about these revered figures in American life. If you don’t think they’re revered, why is there such a thriving cottage industry around debunking or denying someone this sacred status? “Alex Jones is No Free Speech Martyr,” “Telegram Founder Pavel Durov Is Not a Free Speech Martyr,” nor is Tom Cotton, Tucker Carlson, Milo Yiannopoulos (remember him?), and so on….

    I’m not a “three cheers for free speech” guy, but I am definitely a passionate “two-and-a-half cheers for free speech” guy.

    All I mean by that is that while I would draw the outer boundaries of free speech rights a little more narrowly than the free speech absolutists do, I’m also a “this narrow and no narrower” guy. In this I am a Burkean. If you want to summarize Burke’s philosophy pithily, you might be accused of having boutique desires. But I’m cool with that. The essence of Burkeanism is that any principle taken to an extreme reaches the point of diminishing returns or outright folly. I’m a passionate defender of parental rights, but we can all imagine scenarios where “parental rights” cannot be a defense of horrific, cruel, or criminal behavior. Every right can extend into edge cases. The edge cases don’t invalidate the core right, they just illuminate the areas—hence the “edge”—of how far they can be extended without running into problems. Every critic of gun rights understands this dynamic—about gun rights. They just don’t necessarily recognize that this is true for other rights as well.

    Now, as a rule — like, I think it should be a serious rule, as in a law — I am against punishing people for their beliefs. Or to be more accurate, I’m against the state punishing people for their beliefs. I’m okay … with people in the private sector penalizing other people for their beliefs. I mean, we don’t have it written down, but I can say with some confidence that we have a policy of refusing to hire Nazis here at The Dispatch. We have no such policy about banning Shriners, Mennonites, Masons, or Mormons. That would be rank unjustified bigotry as far as I am concerned. But I think refusing to hire Nazis is, for want of a better phrase, utterly justified bigotry.

    Would you advocate your organization hiring an otherwise qualified worker who just happens to be an overt Nazi? How about a pedophile?

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  520. Kevin, I guess where I’m at is that whatever rights to due process he has should be followed

    Yes, and also habeas corpus, which seems to be ignored here too. But he’s not a victim, he’s just someone for whom tolerance ran out.

    Kevin M (a9545f)

  521. @kevin@524 If it is illegal to solicit donations to Hamas, than they should convict him and deport him. If it isn’t, they shouldn’t. I think it should be legal to encourage distasteful acts (I don’t know if giving money to Hamas is illegal or just distasteful.).

    Would I advocate hiring someone, no, but I don’t think they should be fired unless it becomes a job performance issue. Pedophilia isn’t a speech issue.

    Nic (120c94)

Leave a Reply


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2823 secs.