I was having lunch with a friend who told me that Donald Trump will be the greatest president in U.S. history.
That means he will be surpassing Lincoln. The peroration of Lincoln’s 2nd inaugural address in 1865 was:
“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
…a friend who told me that Donald Trump will be the greatest president in U.S. history.
Well, if there’s one thing everyone can agree on, it’s that Trump definitely seems to be the most polarizing president in U.S. history.
I know it’s easier said than done, but over the next 4 years, I hope people at least try to make an effort to remember there’s more that unites us, than divides us.
I feel that Obama was just as much polarizing, but if you disagreed with his policies, you were labeled as “Racist” even if not. People stopped talking about him due to the mislabeling. Main reason why Obama is known as the “Divider-In-Chief”. Instead of Hope, he gave us division. Instead of “Change” for the better, it was Change for the Worse.
The constant misinformation by Mainstream Media about Trump didn’t help either. Taking snippets out of context made him look worse than he was. Feeding into the TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) just encouraged people to treat people on the opposite side as evil.
While I’m sure there might be someone on the Right that did the same, I only remember the Left (Far Left) ostracizing members of Trump’s administration and refusing service. However, when Whoopi Goldberg had a order turned down initially (the bakery’s boiler was down for repair, and they couldn’t fulfill the order), she assumed it was because of her politics. Ironically, her and her fellow Lefties on the View refused to allow Sylvester Stallone on their show to talk about his new season BECAUSE OF HIS POLITICS! Double Standards anyone?
@kawichris650@TimothyB It’s always seemed that, for him, the divisiveness and anger is precisely the point. No matter what one thinks of other past presidents, none of them had divisiveness as the goal.
@kawichris650@MarkDaSpark I regret to say that Goldberg spouting nonsense is not a justification for Trump. It works no better than when you were little and tried “But he hit me first!!!” on your mom.
If you insist on bringing Obama into this, what were some things he said about Republicans that were at the same level of maturity as “Gavin Newscum” or Trump’s Easter and Thanksgiving tweets?
Perhaps I object to Trump because I’m deep down a Reagan-Republican.
It may seem surprising to some that he was even friends with some of
his political foes. I remember him saying to then House Majority
Leader Thomas “Tip” O’Neil that “we may fight during the day, but that
ends at 6 o’clock”. After 6 o’clock we are just 2 Irishmen having a
beer”.
Which they did on occasion.
I think what drove his detractors nuts was that fact that he just
ignored them. Didn’t feel the need to go swinging at anyone who said
disparaging things about him. And the term “dunce”, “actor”, or
“cowboy” were pretty common things said about him. He just ignored
them.
@kawichris650@MarkDaSpark@TimothyB That’s a good summary of my instinctive distaste for him and my long-held conclusion (since his announcement in 2015) that he’s unfit for office.
@kawichris650@klezman@MarkDaSpark Is it unfair that I also hold the President of the United States to higher standards than I do to some second-rate actor?
On their face, I just cannot see how Obama’s unfiltered words were more divisive than Trump’s.
I understand that everyone sees speeches through their filter bubble but as a matter of writing, Trump speaks about vindictiveness and retribution continuously.
I cannot imagine anything worse than pardoning the people already convicted for their Jan 6 actions. It makes any violence on Trump’s behalf acceptable. It fundamentally undermines the idea of justice and the justice department.
An inability by his supporters to accept that so many of Trump’s actions have been fundamentally illegal is a big piece of my TDS, a term I learned in this forum.
That’s because back then, we WERE “agree but disagree” mode, until Bush 2. Since then, it’s gotten worse. And under Obama, it got worse, with any disagreements being labeled “racist”!
And I’m not that sure that it wasn’t Obama’s plan to divide us.
But Reagan got in his shots at Democrats in general … Reagan jokes
@kawichris650@MarkDaSpark I repeat: If you insist on bringing Obama into this, what were some things he said about Republicans that were at the same level of maturity as “Gavin Newscum” or Trump’s Easter and Thanksgiving tweets?
Moments ago, Trump referred to the January 6th insurrectionists as “hostages.” Considering all of the true hostages still waiting to be released in Israel, I think it’s highly distasteful, disrespectful, and a disservice to everyone that has ever been a legitimate hostage.
I don’t believe Trump is oblivious in regards to the weight his words hold. So it’s infuriating when he repeatedly pours gasoline on the various flames he comes across, rather than attempting to extinguish them.
@kawichris650 I used to think he was oblivious. His repeated infractions have put that thought onto the trash heap. He’s clearly a verbal arsonist who thrives on keeping fear and anger at the forefront. It’s terrible for the nation, imo.
@kawichris650 Trump effectively created his own brown/blackshirts by condoning and now pardoning violence done on his behalf. Everyone who laughed at the evocations of fascism should be ashamed. They are probably not.
It’s a sad day for our country. It could get much worse, especially since the fight has been taken out of so many of us. The foxnews/oan/podcast propaganda is a tragedy.
For some reason, the wall street journal remains one of the better newspapers. who’d of thunk.
@kawichris650 It depends. Trump’s assumption is that foreign countries will lower their prices to compensate for the tariff. (Or somewhat lower them to partially compensate.) They would do that so as not to lose the US market for their products. (Or if they need imports from the US, so as not to see them cut off.) It may well work on countries without other trade options.
Walmart, for one, has warned that they have been negotiating the best deals possible for years, so there may not be much give left to protect Walmart shoppers from price increases due to tariffs.
So yes, I’d expect costs-of-living to rise. This will affect the poor much more than the affluent.
At one point Trump claimed that tariffs could bring in enough income to allow the elimination of income tax. That would enrich citizens - being most beneficial people in high tax brackets.
@kawichris650@TimothyB It doesn’t quite work that way either.
Tariffs are not paid by countries, they’re paid by those importing the good from places subject to tariffs. If the company producing the good is also the importer then they have some ability to absorb the tariffs but the costs get passed along to consumers. They don’t hurt foreign governments except indirectly via taxes and whatnot, and they can hurt foreign companies and also domestic companies who source goods from foreign countries.
The end result is what Tim said, though - our cost of living will rise. The government will take in more money, but lowering income taxes during a time of massive deficits and debt is unwise. If those tariffs can reduce the deficit and debt then that seems like something with a long term benefit even if there’s short term pain.
The real test for people being rational will be whether they think the economy is “great” when prices for all sorts of goods go up 10-30% and inflation is unlike anything we’ve seen since the 1970s.
@kawichris650@klezman@TimothyB While I won’t quibble with any of your analyses, I believe you are making an implicit assumption that Trump cares about, or even considers, economics in making his pronouncements. His priorities are to keep all attention focused on him and feed red meat to his base.
@davirom It was the obvious “Now, all I know about magnets is this: Give me a glass of water, let me drop it on the magnets, that’s the end of the magnets”
@davirom@kawichris650@TimothyB I figured you are more than aware of the difference but I have this issue where I strive for precision and clarity. Sometimes it’s annoying (to me and to others).
Yes, you’re right, of course, that it’s not actually monetary inflation that makes prices go up. But as we’ve seen in the last nearly 5 years post-COVID, the general population doesn’t understand that and all they see is “bacon more expensive” and apparently blame the president.
@kawichris650@klezman@TimothyB The question (largely answered) is whether the improved climate for American made goods offsets the loss from exporting to other countries. On some goods, it might be a wash. Everything will likely be more expensive, though some sectors producing specific items good see job/wage growth. Idk.
So, I’ve been reading. (Oh, oh!) More specifically, I’ve been binge-reading Yuval Noah Harari - starting with “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind” and going through his following books. I’ve read enough of his work that I’m starting to get an idea of some of his views and biases. (Right now, I’m half-way through “Nexus” but had to put it down for a bit because I was getting too depressed.)
To draw you in, I recommend starting with “Unstoppable Us, Volume 1”, which is a young-adult version of the first half of “Sapiens”. It’s a quick read and makes the transition to “Sapiens” itself easy. It turns out he has written “Sapiens” three times: the original book, a young adult-version in two volumes, and a graphic novel in three volumes (with himself as a character!). He has made quite the Harari brand for himself.
In his book “21 Lessons for the 21st Century”, Harari has a chapter on immigration. Perhaps, he’s more focused on immigration issues in Europe than in the US, and maybe immigration issues are seen differently in Europe after the Syrian Refugee crisis. He labels the two viewpoints as “pro-immigration” and “anti-immigration”, which I think is a bit biased, since at least among the conservatives of my acquaintance, the view isn’t “anti-immigration” but “follow the rules” immigration. I think it would be more accurate to use the labels “strict immigration” and “lax immigration”, though that may be biased in the other direction.
Harari outlines the disagreements of the two viewpoints as three stages/terms/conditions plus a bonus debate about how well the terms have been fulfilled.
The host country lets immigrants in.
In return, immigrants must embrace at least the core norms and values of the host country, even if it conflicts with their traditional values.
If the immigrants assimilate to a sufficient degree, over time they become equal and full members of the host country. ‘They’ become ‘us’.
And yay! I don’t have to type up all the details, because an excerpt of that chapter is here:
@TimothyB That’s a framework that fits both the American and Canadian immigration experience. But like most frameworks, it’s too general to be particularly useful in developing things like policy.
To your other point, I am more liberally-inclined than you but I agree about “follow the rules” immigration. That doesn’t mean (and shouldn’t mean) that we have to blindly toss out every human who’s managed to get here illegally. Aside from the insurmountable logistical issues and creating a humanitarian crisis it would also cripple our economy.
@klezman I think that what Harari is saying is that until what each of those three steps really means for a particular host country - defined and spelled out - it isn’t possible to develop coherent policy. Otherwise, we just end up with people talking past each other.
What was my other point? I wasn’t aware I was making one. Did you interpret me as saying “that we have to blindly toss out every human who’s managed to get here illegally”?
No, if I’m a Burke-style conservative, then I want to avoid large disruptions, partly because they tend to be significantly harder on the poor. I’d want incremental steps in the right direction, but again, without defining immigration and then defining policy, I don’t know what the right direction is.
@TimothyB Makes sense, yes, that you’d have to spell those things out to be able to develop coherent policy.
By your other point, I meant about the labels of the immigration stances. I took it another step as to what my version of “follow the rules” could look like.
My twist on this, after working on office/process automation for years, is “If you are going to have perfect enforcement of rules, then you need to have perfect rules”.
Oh, and for “follow the rules”, the discussions I was thinking of were only about the entry step. We never even got to the next two steps - this was long before Harari’s book came out, and I never even tried to think through the process.
@TimothyB It’d truly be something if the rules and enforcement were perfect, for anything. This is doubly apparent now that I’m at a large company with many many rules.
And heard/agreed on the entry step. That’s really what 99% of the hubbub is about here anyway. As one who did go through the proper system I have quite strong impressions of what does and does not make sense alongside ways to improve things. At least for the segments of the system I’ve personally encountered.
@klezman The thing is that automated systems can approach perfect enforcement, with no consideration of the appropriateness of the rule. At least human bureaucrats can be reasoned with (or bribed).
(And I’ve just spent an afternoon wrangling over private medical insurance. I have yet to have an encounter with government bureaucracy that felt this disjointed.)
In your experience of immigration, what made sense or didn’t?
Trump Pardons Silk Road’s ‘Dread Pirate’ Ross Ulbricht
President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he granted an unconditional pardon to Ross Ulbricht, the mastermind behind the cryptocurrency-fueled online drug bazaar Silk Road, in return for the political support he received from the crypto and libertarian realms.
@chipgreen I had to look that guy up. I’m not seeing the similarities, though. This just looks like buying your freedom despite being completely guilty of the crimes for which you’ve been sentenced. nd yeah, I’m sure there are some conditions attached. I shudder to think of what they are.
@klezman
Kevin Mitnick was a famous hacker, who was turned into a government asset to help prevent, identify and mitigate hacking attempts against the USA. Since Elections fall under the umbrella of Homeland Security, we received periodic CyberSecurity training, some of which was administered by Mitnick before his passing in 2023.
I believe Trump will use the Silk Road guy to help identify/fight bad actors on the dark web and may even tap into his bitcoin expertise along the way.
@canonizer@chipgreen Yeah, conditional release and keeping the leverage would make more sense if that was Trump’s plan. I really wish I could believe that Trump was playing 5-D chess while the rest of us were playing checkers, but the experience to date doesn’t bear that out. E.g. the reporting that Trump was tired of dealing with the details of pardoning Jan. 6 violent criminals and so he just said “fuck it, release them all”. (https://www.axios.com/2025/01/22/trump-pardons-jan6-clemency appears to be the original source)
You do realize that Biden had OVER 8,000 pardons during his 4 years? Far more than any President.
Although Jimmy Carter’s list Excludes over 200,000 pardoned for Vietnam draft evasion.
But yes, Trump’s unilateral pardon of all Jan. 6th detainees does seem excessive … until one realizes what “violent” criminals? Because remind me how many of the 2017 inauguration & 2020 Rioters err, “protestors” that caused billions of damage and 29 deaths were convicted?
@canonizer@chipgreen@klezman@MarkDaSpark
I’m not sure I follow the thought process at the end of your comment, starting at “….until”. Are you arguing that pardoning all Jan. 6th insurrectionists/rioters/tourists was not excessive if someone looks at charges, or lack of, from events that are not associated with anything to do with Jan 6th?
One of my biggest pet peeves with politics, and society as whole, is the constant whataboutism. The discussion, and what we should hold our LEADERS to, should be what is right and wrong, not what some other group would do if in a similar situation. We must stop condoning wrong/criminal decisions/acts by saying the other side would have done the same or worse. This evening I just watched Mitch McConnell on 60 Minutes use that very logic to justify never allowing a vote on Garland for SCOTUS. What a horrible way to lead a major US Institution.
And regarding the 2017 inauguration protests/riots, there were charges and 1 round of cases until the rest of the charges were dropped because the prosecutors could not get a conviction.
@chipgreen@klezman@MarkDaSpark the thing is I don’t think anyone is defending everything Biden did. Certainly pardoning his son after promising not to is hard to swallow, though i think the sin was the promising and not the pardoning. Likewise, i don’t think there are many who approve pardoning the January 6 committee or elected officials.
I can disavow many of biden’s actions and I’m not sure why Republicans can’t do so with trump. You can cheer for the picks that are hostile to their cabinets (education, energy etcetera) while being more forceful about Kennedy, Patel, Gabbard, etc.
Putting musk in spitting distance of basically anything important, but most recently government payments, is astonishing and begs the question of why?
I’m sure most have already heard, but for those who haven’t…
A tragic accident occurred Wednesday night when a commercial passenger jet was preparing to land at Reagan National Airport and there was a mid-air collision with a Black Hawk military helicopter. The jet had 60 passengers, two pilots, and two flight attendants on board. The Black Hawk helicopter had 3 crew members on board. A rescue operation began promptly, but it has now become a recovery operation.
In a press conference on Thursday, Trump was quick to accuse DEI policies and democrats for the accident even though he has no evidence to support his claim.
His behavior is absolutely appalling. Bodies are literally still in the Potomac River.
Trump acknowledged an investigation is still underway. So a reporter asked Trump how can he come to such a conclusion and Trump said, “Because I have common sense.”
Trump also said for some jobs, especially an air traffic controller, “They have to be at the highest level of genius.”
If only the same could be said for being the president of the United States.
@canonizer@kawichris650 yeah his behaviour continues to be absolutely appalling. Blaming having a diverse workforce? Come on.
How about blaming the fact that they pushed the head of the FAA to resign and are promoting loyalty to trump over skills and knowledge?
While I wholeheartedly agree that Trump is a horrible human, I still try to keep an open mind in an attempt to understand those that voted for him.
I’m sure some of his voters agree he’s not a great person, but they likely viewed him as the lesser of two evils during the 2024 election. I sincerely believe -they- believed he would do what’s best for this country, despite the fact that he continues to demonstrate he primarily only cares about himself.
As unfortunate as it is, there are some parts of the population that don’t want a female president, or a person of color. Even if those two factors aren’t relevant, it’s clear many people believe ANY republican is better than any democrat. It’s part of the polarized political climate we’re in, which Trump has been fostering for at least the past decade.
Whether people like it or not, we’re stuck with the Trump show for the next four years (at least this is his final season). Hopefully the next president is better qualified and does more to bring both sides together.
@kawichris650@klezman@rjquillin the above comment regarding not wanting to be told where to fly was a joke about the desire to thin ranks in the government.
there were no changes to recruiting during biden’s term. There were no changes to crediting or testing. Dog whistling that common sense dictates lowering the standards for women and people of color before the wreckage is cold is despicable
@kawichris650 I’m sorry, he has stopped federal funds flowing to blue states; he has pardoned the most violent prisoners to create a personal army; he has illegally fired congressionally created appointments; he has given a private citizen with numerous conflicts access to payments to private citizens.
The helicopter’s path has also drawn scrutiny. The military said the maximum altitude for the route the helicopter was taking is 200 feet (61 meters) but the collision occurred at an altitude of around 300 feet, according to flight tracking website FlightRadar24.
.
Trump weighed in on Friday, saying that the helicopter involved in the crash was flying too high. “The Blackhawk helicopter was flying too high, by a lot. It was far above the 200 foot limit” Trump said in a Truth Social post.
.
Senator Maria Cantwell, the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, questioned the safety of military and commercial flights separated by as little as 350 feet (107 m) vertically and horizontally.
.
Radio communications showed that air traffic controllers alerted the helicopter about the approaching jet and ordered it to change course.
Obviously the cause cannot be pinpointed yet, but based on the facts and evidence thus far, DEI policies were NOT the cause of the crash. For Trump to make such claims, is his way of politicizing the tragic event and trying to grow the political divide.
Trump has promoted violence on many occasions, but I think “fighting fire with fire” will just leave us with a scorched Earth. Neither side should be condoning or resorting to violent acts. My two cents.
Obviously the cause cannot be pinpointed yet, but based on the facts and evidence thus far, DEI policies were NOT the cause of the crash. For Trump to make such claims, is his way of politicizing the tragic event and trying to grow the political divide.
And furthermore, it is the height of racism and sexism to claim that “DEI policies” could possibly have caused a crash. (Absent some strange combination of evidence that, say, DEI policies somehow require ATC to put people in harm’s way.) One of the biggest reasons my disdain for Trump reached the height it has was his politicization of everything, including covid.
“The lawsuit doesn’t allege incompetent controllers were hired instead of CTI graduates. Instead, it states that the CTI graduates weren’t given the opportunity to demonstrate their competency.”
Also, given it’s most of a year post-filing I’d like to see the disposition of the suit. Just because a lawsuit is filed doesn’t mean it has merit.
“More than 3,000 top-performing, motivated applicants lost out because they weren’t members of this ethnic club. After Congress forced the FAA to drop the quiz in 2018, many former applicants reapplied and have since become controllers. Their careers were set back several years for no good reason.”
So even if true, this stopped a long time ago and is no longer relevant for the events of this week.
"Meanwhile, Randy Babbitt - who served as the 16th administrator of the FAA - on Thursday claimed that diversity has ‘nothing to do’ with ATC hiring.
‘There are very strict requirements for air traffic control. It’s a two-year process. It’s intensive. It’s a lot of training,’ he told NewsNation.
Babbitt said it is ‘important’ to remember that the FAA has very, very high standards to be an air traffic controller’.
‘Airlines hire a lot of people, but not all of them are going to be pilots. The FAA hires a lot of people, not all of them can be controllers,’ he added. "
This is the point. Blaming the DEI bogeyman is just beyond the pale meanspirited.
@kawichris650@klezman@rjquillin oh, hey, air traffic controllers were also offered buyouts. Despite the accident, apparently we have too many according to the Trump administration.
It’s honestly a sticky situation, and it rarely ever arises here. How should Casemates honor freedom of speech, while also providing a platform that is welcoming and respectful for everyone? There have to be guardrails to some extent.
Out of curiosity, I found these Terms of Use:
You may post or submit comments, reviews, ideas, questions, images, photos, and other content so long as the content complies with the law and with these Terms. You grant Mediocre a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sub-licensable right to use, reproduce, publish, distribute, display, modify, and adapt any content you post or submit. Mediocre reserves the right (but not the obligation) to edit or delete any content you post or submit.
.
No unlawful or prohibited use. You may not use the Site in any manner that (is):
libelous, defamatory, abusive, threatening, hateful, harassing, obscene, pornographic, or otherwise violative of any law or right of any third party;
infringes, reveals, or otherwise violates any intellectual property, copyright, trademark, or trade secret of any third party;
damages, degrades, threatens, or otherwise interferes with the Site through viruses, worms, trojan horses, or other software, routines, algorithms, or methodologies;
comprises commercial solicitation, unlawful solicitation, political communications, or any form of spam;
fraudulent, abusive, or otherwise illegal.
@kawichris650 I don’t dispute that CM has the right, but not the obligation, to edit or delete posts. Nor do I disagree with the laundry list of reasons they may choose do so, though many of them are nebulous and broad to the point of being meaningless. For instance, I would call FritzCat’s comment, which was offensive to some, to be hyperbolic and perhaps satiric, but not anything on the list. “Could be interpreted as offensive” is not on the list. What is on the list is “political communications”, so should this forum be taken down? (That is a rhetorical question.)
@kawichris650 Point taken. To my mind, comments lose the benefit of the doubt when the person doubles down on it, or takes some action in furtherance of the comment. Trump has made comments which he, or the people who clean up after him, have later said something to the effect of “JK”. [e.g., search Trump flip flops]
Trump is stopping congressionally approved monies from flowing, illegally closing independent agencies, and dismantling trade. I’m glad Republicans elected someone to fix the border and trade.
They are breaking the fucking law. What is wrong with so called conservatives? Speak up. It’s going to get worse, not better, with more of his grifter incompetents running agencies.
I’m just sick of all of the ‘i believe in the Constitution’ people who haven’t read it and don’t understand what that means.
@canonizer This is what bugs me the most. When the so-called arguments against what Democratic presidents have done in the last couple decades were around them “not following the law”, this is particularly galling. I expect all the “law and order” conservatives to be every bit as up in arms about Trump’s blatantly illegal activities as they were about Obama’s or Biden’s. Or maybe it was never about that?
@klezman I want to say I was surprised at the pro-Hamas brainwashing from the university protestors, but far too many are not taught to use critical thinking by their professors or teachers.
That’s the rub, getting true educators that aren’t biased Left or Right, but teach critical thinking.
Too far Right, we get those that cheered on Communist Witch-hunts in the 50’s. Too far Left, we get those that cheer on Anti-semites and terrorists, and think segregated dorms are great.
@MarkDaSpark Did you read the article? The whole point is that antisemitism is not a disease of the left, it’s a disease of society. Both the farther right and left engage in antisemitism and the entire purpose of the article is to point out that politicising antisemitism leads to exactly the kind of societal degradation we’re seeing now.
@canonizer
You really need to relax. Even Joe Biden said “everything’s going to be ok”. You have sounded like Chicken Little ever since the election. Take a deep breath, seriously. Now calling half the country a “cancer” is a bit too far and seems to have emboldened @FritzCat to suggest that Trump supporters are sub-human.
Worse yet, @FritzCat is calling for John Wilkes Booth? I find that highly disturbing and offensive, especially given the previous assassination attempt(s) on Trump.
I request that our moderator @rjquillin remove that comment.
I seem to have the unenviable superpower that red-tribers instinctively think I’m blue and blue-tribers instinctively think I’m red. As a result, I’ve gotten hatred spewed upon me from both sides. I’d very much like people to calm down.
The media - both red and blue - are not our friends. They want to “maximize engagement”.
@canonizer Maybe it will help to remember, when you see predictions of gloom and doom, that the blue media was basically wrong every single time in 2024. From Biden being sharp and “laser-focused” to “this ruling will be the end of Trump”. Perhaps a level of doubt, now, is in order?
@canonizer@chipgreen@TimothyB I find it interesting that comments I took as (more or less) tongue in cheek are being taken as more serious by those who prefer Trump. I’m not saying I know what was in their heads when posting, just that the reactions are interesting.
@klezman The trouble is that even if those comments were tongue in cheek, they play right into extremists’ hands, fanning the flames. If @canonizer was worried about the potential for Trump to start a dictatorship, that’s just the sort of stuff to justify a national emergency to suppress treason - we are already in a state where half the country seems ready to believe any conspiracy that indicates their “enemies” are “evil”, from pizzagate to 2000 mules.
Tim, I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about wrt the media. No journalists were saying positive things about biden’s health, only that he was our only choice in the absence of a competitive primary. And without convictions in Georgia (in an unnecessarily complicated rico case that was thrown out for made up conflict) or Florida there were never any legal knockouts. Once McConnell failed to join Democrats in a post election impeachment and Cannon fabricated hurdle after hurdle in the documents case and the supreme court concocted an immunity decision without regard for law or precedent it was pretty unlikely to find a knockout.
@canonizer
You seem like a nice person. It makes me a little bit sad to think that this is possibly affecting your daily life and mental well-being. I hate that politics are so polarizing these days. Enjoy your life! I am not saying to ignore the things that upset you altogether, but don’t let the man get you down!
In our parents’ time, most Americans leaned right or left but were fairly close to the center. I keep thinking that this wild political pendulum ride we have been on for the past 25 years or so will eventually lose momentum and find center again. It certainly hasn’t happened yet, but I will continue to hope.
@chipgreen chip, I appreciate the sentiment and even push myself in that direction at times.
I think war is more unlikely than resolution, which keeps me up.
For the burn it down types at the top, I just don’t get how they felt so wronged that they wanted to reorganize the country and world. They already had money and influence. Was the need to pay taxes such a burden?
@canonizer
Sadly, I do believe that the eventual destruction of mankind will be brought about by mankind itself. But I am banking on that not happening for at least a couple hundred years.
@canonizer@chipgreen@davirom And when you’re not a targeted/disfavoured group. Like transgendered people. Two of my closest friends happen to be trans and they are freaking the fuck out, justifiably as best as I can tell.
@canonizer@davirom
I can understand that sentiment but if you are talking about me, specifically, I can tell you that I have never voted for Trump. Not in 2016, not in 2020 and not in 2024. I have very mixed feelings, but yes I do prefer him over Biden or Harris. I wrote Nikki Haley in on my ballot.
Also, some things are moving in my preferred direction while others are not. I am happy that they are curbing illegal immigration. Not sure how I feel about the tariffs. Very worried about not supporting Ukraine.
@canonizer@chipgreen@davirom
I find the illegal immigration narrative to also be interesting and somewhat counterfactual. Border encounters in the last few months of Biden’s term were lower than at the end of Trump’s (and, iirc, lower even than before COVID).
If, otoh, you’re referring to him trying to round up people I’m of a mixed view. I have a rather nuanced view of the whole thing given my experience with the immigration system. I am not a fan of illegal immigration, and I think the Democrats lost their way by refusing to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. That said, trying to round up people en masse who are otherwise law-abiding is counterproductive. It will raise prices. It will break up families. It could even tank the economy. It will cause people who are sick to not get help for fear of deportation and it will cause people who witness crimes to not come forward for fear of deportation.
My personally preferred solution is that people who’ve been here > x years and who are crime-free are given legal status but not a path to citizenship. Call it a partial amnesty if you must, but it’s a pragmatic solution to a largely intractable problem.
Tim, I honestly have no idea what
you’re talking about wrt the media.
You need a better news source, then. I recommend the Daily Show, since Comedy Central seems to have higher journalistic standards…
At the beginning of the year - long before the debate - questions about Biden’s age were met with assurances relayed unquestioningly in the media that he was sharp, on the ball and laser focused.
The ruling I was referring was the New York fraud trial in February. With a fine of $350 million, people in the media were speculating this would bankrupt him. (Right up until he got fine reduced by half and Truth Social going public doubled his net worth.)
Sadly, I credit/blame Jon Stewart for helping Trump get elected. His rude response to Dick Cheney urging moderate Republicans to vote for Harris got used as a tool to keep them from making crossover votes.
@TimothyB, so many thoughts. Republicans favored Trump well over 90% so asking for Cheney’s non-existent constituency to cast votes for THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY was nonsense. No one ever liked Dick Cheney - he stepped from the backroom to the Vice Presidency without any public adoration.
As far as Stewart is concerned, I’ve heard people blame him for making fun of Crossfire as the cause of our present bifurcation making people less willing to talk cross party for fear of embarrassment. That feels like a stretch to me.
As far as why Trump was elected, there are lots of reasons. Presently, I’m blaming Dana White/Joe Rogan not putting Harris on his podcast after saying he’d invited her and she went to Austin for that purpose. Turns out ultimate fighters are a bunch of pussies when it comes to listening to multiple opinions. Before that I was blaming Musk’s blatantly illegal vote contest in PA. Before that I was blaming Harris for not letting Walz get out more. They did so many things wrong but, I guess most of the blame goes to Biden because he was the one who stole that time from all of us.
Republicans successfully painted every Democrat as a scary trans intersex monster but when Democrats tried to do the same to Republicans as swastika toting white supremacists it didn’t stick (or those labels weren’t seen negatively).
I heard a comment a while ago that has stuck with me. The law doesn’t protect us - at best it gives us recourse.
Every GD day! Today, the creation of a sovereign wealth fund, something that Clinton (with surplus and for social security) and Obama (participation in saved companies) were essentially excoriated for 30 years ago.
I would like to stop complaining but there’s something unprecedented every day and they are virtually all things that would drive Republicans nuts. He’s comparing it to building it to Saudi Arabia’s, which he knows is a slush fund because Jared was given 2 billion dollars to run.
Anyway, situational normal, canonizer continues his meltdown.
First law of Trumpodynamics,
every action is met with a very not equal
overreaction, thus throwing off
our ability to know when shit is
actually getting real,
Now, look, I have a lot of fear
that as this term goes on, things are
going to get a little fascisty.
And we must be vigilant. But part of
vigilance is discernment.
@canonizer@TimothyB FWIW, this is more or less the message I’ve been giving people. Although every day is full of outrageous things, constantly expressing the outrage is unhelpful. The real question is how we drive this authoritarian (and potentially fascist) president’s agenda out the door. Anger/outrage without plans is just performative. We should get to work.
@TimothyB
Just responding to klez’s call to arms to block the maybe-Fascist’s agenda. Seemed like a blanket statement and I was already curious why he (klez) never comments on Trump’s extremely pro-Israel regime, despite being understandably very concerned with anti-Semitism.
@chipgreen - I’m Jewish and have a great deal of family in Israel. I don’t believe anyone in leadership was pro hamas, certainly not Biden, who kept armaments flowing to Israel without pause.
I believe that little has been worse for Israel’s security than Netanyahu. Expanding throughout the West Bank has made conflict unavoidable and the previously proposed 2 state solution. Bush required that Gaza hold elections in ~2007 and we ended up with Hamas, which has not relinquished their hold since. Netanyahu played appeasement to Hamas for 15 years, sending money through Qatar.
Given that Hamas’s tentacles touch everything in Gaza, it is not surprising that some of the money trickled into UNWRA and other international agencies.
I don’t believe moving the embassy to Jerusalem served any purpose.
Being pro Israel should not mean they can do whatever they want. It’s a client state and should sometimes be treated accordingly.
@canonizer@chipgreen
I largely agree with canonizer’s analysis. Netanyahu has been an utter disaster for Israel on the world stage. Israelis are free to disagree, of course, as many have. But I’ll note that Netanyahu’s electoral strategy is eerily similar to Trump’s. Although since he did it first, maybe the causation is reversed.
My initial comment should have been more carefully worded - I should have said that blocking Trump’s agenda is critical with respect to demonizing individuals/vulnerable groups, doing things that will wreck the economy, make us less safe, and t hose things that are blatantly illegal. Like a broken clock, Trump occasionally hits on things that, for me, are the right direction.
But I also don’t trust Trump one bit. He currently sees his interest as being aligned with Bibi’s. That could change in a heartbeat given Trump’s mercurial nature. I’ll take a solid supporter of Israel like Biden any day over somebody who could decide on a whim to just stop all aid to the country. (The jury was decidedly out on how Harris would have approached Israel, so I am not commenting on what she maybe would have done.)
To throw a somewhat different spin/discussion, at what point do people start focusing on the way our government currently functions (or lack thereof) instead of the specific individuals currently in control? Over the past few decades our federal legislature has become so ineffective that it has lost most of its ability to create/pass laws to govern and fund our country. Instead, we are essentially being governed by executive orders that change whenever there’s an administration change. According to the Constitution, the main purpose of the executive branch is to enforce and implement the laws created by Congress, not to create, implement, and enforce its own laws.
If you watched any of the morning news shows, there’s a reason the current administration kept saying that tariffs on Canada and Mexico are about fentanyl and not trade, it’s because they need to classify this a “national emergency” for the president to unilaterally impose them. I’m not sure who gets to decide what classifies as a national emergency, but this sure seems like a big stretch to bypass the Constitutional duties of a different branch of government. A much stronger case can definitely be made regarding tariffs on China.
Instead of conservatives and liberals taking turns at being upset at the Executive branch, why are “We the People” not more upset at the Legislature branch for ceding their duties to the President? It no longer acts as an equal branch of government, seemingly behaving like we have a monarchy with Congress doing the biding of the current president due to fear of “getting primaried”. Which leads me to what I believe are the biggest issues with our government, the money in the system (why can 1 billionaire’s threat to fund an opponent mean more than the opinion of thousands) and the degree of gerrymandering (yes, it’s always been around, but not to the current degree with the computing power and available data).
@dirtdoctor I think this gets lost because the “who is in charge right now” situation has gotten rather likely to produce dire consequences for many.
That said, I wholeheartedly agree that what you describe is a large part of the underlying problem. The solutions are also monstrously easy: enlarging Congress, direct election of the president by popular vote, instant runoff ranked choice voting like in Alaska, jungle primaries like in California, and maybe mixed-member proportional districts as political scientists have suggested. And banning political gerrymandering, of course. But where’s the political will? The reforms above don’t benefit any one party and will help ensure the legislative branches more accurately reflect the desires of the people.
@canonizer@dirtdoctor the point is the the outcome better reflects the will of the people. Doesn’t say anything about whether I agree with the will of the people!
@canonizer This is why I’ve been having a hard time seeing today’s Republican party as having any principles. Many things they’ve been espousing for years (decades?) as their inviolable principles seem to fall by the wayside now that they have power. But we shouldn’t be surprised given how the Republican party completely folded in both of Trump’s impeachments.
U.S. government officials privately warn Musk’s blitz appears illegal
The billionaire’s DOGE team has launched an all-out assault on federal agencies, triggering numerous legal objections.
Updated
February 4, 2025 at 5:52 p.m. EST
By Jeff Stein, Dan Diamond, Faiz Siddiqui, Cat Zakrzewski, Hannah Natanson and Jacqueline Alemany.
Tony Romm, Emily Davies, John Hudson and Lisa Rein contributed to this report.
The chaotic blitz by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has triggered legal objections across Washington, with officials in at least a half-dozen federal agencies and departments raising alarms about whether the billionaire’s assault on government is breaking the law.
Over the past two weeks, Musk’s team has moved to dismantle some U.S. agencies, push out hundreds of thousands of civil servants and gain access to some of the federal government’s most sensitive payment systems. Musk has said these changes are necessary to overhaul what he’s characterized as a sclerotic federal bureaucracy and to stop payments that he says are bankrupting the country and driving inflation.
But many of these moves appear to violate federal law, according to more than two dozen current and former officials, one audio recording, and several internal messages obtained by The Washington Post. Internal legal objections have been raised at the Treasury Department, the Education Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the General Services Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the White House budget office, among others.
“So many of these things are so wildly illegal that I think they’re playing a quantity game and assuming the system can’t react to all this illegality at once,” said David Super, an administrative law professor at Georgetown Law School.
Specific concerns include the terms of the “deferred resignation” Musk’s team is offering to purge the civil service — which experts say runs afoul of federal spending law — and whether Musk’s staffers will use Treasury’s payment system to reverse spending that has already been approved. (Two federal employee unions sued Monday to block DOGE from accessing that system. Late Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrote to Congress that DOGE associates have only “read-only” access to it.) Several federal officials said they were worried about DOGE’s taking control of government systems that hold Americans’ personal information, including student loan data, and others have raised privacy concerns about the agency’s vow to use artificial intelligence on government databases. In other instances, officials have raised concerns that DOGE associates appeared to violate security protocols by using private email addresses or not disclosing their identities on government calls.
At a more fundamental level, several legal experts and government officials expressed alarm over how Musk’s team appears to operate as a strike team, outside typical agency rules and constitutional checks on executive power.
“The big-picture constitutional worry is that there is a kind of shadow executive branch that is existing and operating and exercising power outside of the channels the Constitution and the statutes that Congress authorized,” said Blake Emerson, a professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law.
On Monday, the White House confirmed that Musk has been designated a “special government employee,” a status typically conferred on outside advisers from the private sector. Under a Trump executive order, the U.S. Digital Service, a White House office established during the Obama administration to consult on federal technology, has transformed itself into the U.S. DOGE Service. Democrats in Congress have raised objections to some of DOGE’s actions, but Republicans, who control both chambers, have not moved to rein in its activities.
In a sign of potential unease over how DOGE’s early moves are being perceived, President Donald Trump and Musk have defended the billionaire’s influence and the legality of their actions. Musk has alleged that much of the government is already violating federal law and that his efforts are a needed corrective, for instance asserting over the weekend, without offering evidence, that USAID is a “criminal organization” that should be shut down and that Treasury’s career staffers routinely commit federal crimes. Trump has also denied that Musk will be able to use his government influence to expand his personal fortune, though he did not point to specific guardrails against that.
“Those leading this mission with Elon Musk are doing so in full compliance with federal law, appropriate security clearances, and as employees of the relevant agencies, not as outside advisors or entities,” a White House spokesperson said.
“If there’s a conflict, then we won’t let him get near it,” Trump told reporters Monday. “We’re trying to shrink government, and he can probably shrink it as well as anybody else, if not better. Where we think there’s a conflict or there’s a problem, we won’t let him go near it.”
DOGE challenges federal spending law
Despite Trump’s assurances, federal officials have widespread concerns about the legality of many of the Musk team’s actions, though career staffers don’t have the power to do much about it.
Part of the concern has centered on the Treasury Department’s powerful payment systems, which are responsible for disbursing more than $6 trillion across the country every year. In private communications last week, a DOGE representative asked the most senior Treasury career official to halt foreign aid payments that Musk allies believed violated Trump’s executive orders, two people familiar with the matter said.
David A. Lebryk, who was at the time the acting treasury secretary, told Musk’s team that the department does not have the authority to cancel payments authorized by federal agencies, the people said. Lebryk was later ousted by Trump officials, and Bessent has since agreed to hand access to the system to DOGE officials.
On X this weekend, Musk defended using Treasury’s systems to shut down federal payments because, he said, some of those payments are being made incorrectly. “Career Treasury officials are breaking the law every hour of every day by approving payments that are fraudulent or do not match the funding laws passed by Congress,” he wrote.
Musk also pointed to U.S. law governing how payments are made. Inside Treasury, several officials mocked Musk’s tweet, which states that the U.S. government is required to complete payments properly certified by federal agencies — exactly the point Lebryk made.
Bessent wrote Congress on Tuesday that the payment system had not rejected any payments submitted by other agencies, and that no payments for Social Security or Medicare had been affected. The administration has notified recipients via several agencies that it will comply with a court injunction reversing a White House attempt to freeze all federal grants.
But Musk’s repeated statements that Treasury officials need to unilaterally shut down payments already approved by Congress and requested by agencies have alarmed numerous officials within the government, who note that the Constitution explicitly gives spending power to Congress.
Unilaterally terminating federal disbursements via Treasury’s payment networks would also almost certainly violate a 1974 budget law and due-process protections for grantees, current and former officials say.
Resignation bid prompts legal concerns
Musk’s rapid actions have prompted other concerns within the administration as well. Last week, his allies at the Office of Personnel Management sent an email to much of the federal workforce offering to pay employees’ salaries through September if they quit now. The proposal is intended to accomplish Musk’s goal of “mass head-count reductions” in the civil service.
The memo, which bypassed typical channels, provoked greater internal legal concerns that have not previously been reported. Administration officials point out that the OPM does not have the legal authority to guarantee payments to employees — a responsibility that rests with the agencies where people work. Additionally, the executive branch cannot specifically guarantee spending not yet approved by Congress, legal experts say. Government funding is currently set to expire in March, well before the end of September.
Last Thursday, a group of officials with the White House budget office — including career employees as well as political employees appointed by Trump — met with OPM officials, two people with knowledge of the meeting said. While the meeting was described as cordial, several career budget officials told The Post that they have concerns about the legality of the offer. (Russell Vought, Trump’s pick to lead the budget office, was not at the meeting. His nomination has not yet been confirmed by the Senate.)
The budget office has also received numerous questions from agency officials asking it to confirm the legality of the OPM’s offer, and some budget personnel have not been sure how to respond. On Tuesday, the OPM circulated an FAQ document specifically addressing legal concerns, in a sign that those worries may be widespread.
“They’re promising to pay people through Sept. 30, when they only have authority to spend through March 15 — it’s clearly a violation of the law,” said Charles Kieffer, who spent several decades across administrations in the OMB and worked for Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Federal employees have expressed alarm over whether some of the provisions of the contract are actually enforceable, including a portion stating that an employee “forever waives, and will not pursue through any judicial, administrative, or other process, any action” based on their employment, according to an agreement reviewed by The Post.
“The legality is the fundamental question, and nobody has any good answers,” said one staffer at a federal agency. “We’re being required to resign with more outstanding questions than answers, and our leadership knows it. They just say that OPM has ‘communicated that it is legal.’”
A spokeswoman for the OPM, which is being run by Musk’s allies, defended the proposal.
“Union leaders and politicians telling federal workers to reject this offer are doing them a serious disservice,” said spokeswoman McLaurine Pinover. “This is a rare, generous opportunity — one that was thoroughly vetted and intentionally designed to support employees through restructuring.”
‘We don’t know who these people are’
As Musk’s representatives have sought an increasing amount of data from a greater number of federal agencies, their actions have also spawned concerns about the security of classified or sensitive government systems.
Inside the Education Department, some staffers are deeply alarmed by the fact that DOGE staffers have gained access to federal student loan data, which includes personal information for millions of borrowers. Some employees have raised the alarm up their chain of management, several staffers told The Post.
DOGE team members may not be properly authorized under the Privacy Act of 1974 to see the data, experts said. That law says federal agencies cannot disclose an individual’s private information from a set of government records without the written consent of the person.
Under the law, all federal agencies are required to safeguard even unclassified information and ensure that it does not reach third parties or “unauthorized persons,” said Robert S. Metzger, chair of the cybersecurity and privacy practice group at Rogers, Joseph and O’Donnell, a Washington law firm.
Wired has reported that a handful of 19-to-24-year-old engineers linked to Musk’s companies, with unclear titles, could be bypassing regular security protocols. Trump on his first day in office signed an executive order granting interim “Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information” security clearances to an unknown number of individuals on a list compiled by the White House counsel’s office. But people within the government have said they don’t know how much access the DOGE employees should have.
“When persons who are not federal employees and do not possess requisite credentials are allowed into key federal systems, they are gaining access to information to which they are not legally entitled,” Metzger said. “The idea that unvetted persons can go to any federal agency and demand access to information — if they can do that simply because of presidential directive or the mandate of the U.S. Digital Service, it’s frankly preposterous.”
DOGE staffers using their personal email accounts and not identifying themselves by their last names have been involved in recent weeks in interviewing government technology staffers, including at the GSA, according to two federal workers. That has also triggered legal concerns within the federal bureaucracy, in part because of fears that sensitive information could be divulged to private actors.
“We have very strict security protocols about how to deal with non-gov emails, non-gov participation, refusal to identify yourself in a meeting,” said one person, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters. “They’re asking you to share code you’ve written for partner agencies. We don’t know who these people are.”
In an all-hands meeting with his GSA staffers Monday, the director of the agency’s technology arm — Thomas Shedd, an eight-year alumnus of Tesla, Musk’s electric-car company — said the concealment of those names is deliberate.
“As I mentioned in the Slack channel, we’re afraid of those folks’ names getting out and their personal lives being disrupted, which is exactly what happened last week, which is really unfortunate for them,” Shedd said in the meeting, according to a recording obtained by The Post.
Another employee in that meeting raised concerns that Shedd’s plans to overhaul the login system for federal systems could run afoul of the 1974 privacy law. Shedd responded that the idea was for users to consent to sharing their data, but the employee’s concerns underscored how his vision needed greater clarification.
“If we had a roadblock, then we hit a roadblock. But we should push forward and see what we can do,” he said.
Shedd told employees they should be prepared for work demands to become “intense” after cuts across the government, prompting one to ask if it is illegal to work more than 40 hours a week. He told them to follow HR guidance.
The use of AI to analyze government data also raises privacy protection concerns, according to one official worried that DOGE will deploy the technology on a database overseen by their agency. The new administration has already accessed sensitive data from the database, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity given fear of reprisal.
“It’s like a wild, wild West in contrast to the measured approaches that federal agencies have been taking to mitigate the misuse or harm of AI,” the official said.
Throughout his career, Musk has frequently made aggressive business decisions with little regard for immediate legal fallout. His firings and mass layoffs of Twitter staff in 2022 invited lawsuits, including one that alleged the company had not abided by early-warning requirements for large-scale layoffs. Musk’s sudden firing of the company’s executive suite, including its CEO, upon his takeover led to a different lawsuit alleging that he had failed to issue tens of millions in severance they were owed.
Twitter was also sued for failing to pay millions in rent after Musk’s takeover, as the billionaire enacted steep cost-cutting.
Changes at U.S. agencies prompt legal concerns
Many of the officials being forced out of the administration have also registered legal objections to DOGE’s actions.
At USAID, officials have objected to what they characterize as an illegal attempt to reconstitute federal agencies established by statute. By summarily merging USAID with the State Department, Trump officials are bypassing Congress, which creates federal agencies and is the only entity empowered by law to close them.
“DOGE instructed me to violate the due process of our employees by issuing immediate termination notices to a group of employees without due process,” wrote Nicholas Gottlieb, the director of employee and labor relations at USAID, in an internal email. Gottlieb also wrote that he had urged the USAID administrator to “desist from further illegal activity.”
At the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces civil rights laws against workplace discrimination, one official warned in a widely circulated internal email Monday about the legality of recent government actions. Like other agencies, the EEOC has been under major pressures; Trump fired two of its three Democratic commissioners last week, and the acting chairwoman sought to roll back some of the Biden administration’s protections for transgender people, moves that several lawyers told The Post are illegal.
“I swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States and the Commission serves the people of the United States,” an administrative judge at the agency wrote to EEOC acting chair Andrea R. Lucas, in a previously unreported message. “If you want to continue following the illegal and unethical orders of our president and the unelected leader of ‘doge’ that’s on you.”
An EEOC staffer said that the email and a follow-up note from a colleague expressing support were deleted from their inboxes. An agency spokesperson declined to comment on internal emails but said that staff were reminded Monday not to send “unauthorized all-employee emails.”
Jocelyn Samuels, who was fired as an EEOC commissioner last week, said she was worried about reports of DOGE getting access to sensitive personnel records at agencies such as the OPM and Treasury, noting the legal safeguards that should be in place.
“Medical records and disability information are supposed to be maintained absolutely confidentially and only shared on a need-to-know basis,” said Samuels, who is weighing whether to challenge her firing.
@canonizer@kawichris650 This whole thing is absolutely terrifying. I don’t trust Musk even the tiniest little bit, especially with our private data. This is obscenely illegal and the WSJ article is pulling its punches by not calling it out more directly.
@canonizer@kawichris650@klezman
Hey, I bet conservatives would be just fine with the next Democratic president hiring George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, or Mark Cuban as a special government employee and providing them with the same info and clearances.
“The opposition party is the media,” former Trump White House political strategist Steve Bannon told PBS’ Frontline back in 2019, during Trump’s first term in office. “And the media can only — because they’re dumb and they’re lazy — they can only focus on one thing at a time.”
“And all we have to do is flood the zone,” Bannon said. “Every day we hit them with three things, they’ll bite on one, and we’ll get all of our stuff done.”
@kawichris650@klezman it’s so fucked up that Democrats have to care up the intelligence agencies which basically exist to undermine progressive causes and create collateral damage
Kash Patel, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be FBI director, was paid $25,000 last year by a film company owned by a Russian national who also holds U.S. citizenship and has produced programs promoting “deep state” conspiracy theories and anti-Western views advanced by the Kremlin, according to a financial disclosure form Patel submitted as part of his nomination process and other documents.
Sign up for Fact Checker, our weekly review of what’s true, false or in-between in politics.
Documents obtained by The Washington Post show that Patel received the money from Global Tree Pictures, a Los Angeles-based company run by Igor Lopatonok, a filmmaker whose previous projects include a pro-Russian influence campaign that received money from a fund created by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The payment to Patel came as he participated in a documentary that Lopatonok produced depicting Patel and other veterans of the first Trump administration as victims of a conspiracy that “destroyed the lives of those who stood by Donald Trump in an attempt to remove the democratically elected president from office.”
The six-part series, titled “All the President’s Men: The Conspiracy Against Trump,” aired in November on right-wing broadcaster Tucker Carlson’s online network. In one segment, Patel vowed to “shut down the FBI headquarters building and open it up as a museum to the ‘deep state.’”
Follow World news
Follow
The details surrounding the payment to Patel, which have not previously been reported, add to the questions Democratic lawmakers and many veteran national security experts have raised about his nomination. If Patel is confirmed, the agency responsible for defending against Russian espionage operations inside the United States would be led by someone who months earlier had taken money from a perceived ally of the Kremlin.
“Mr. Patel has gone above and beyond in this advice and consent process,” said Erica Knight, Patel’s spokesperson, in response to questions from The Post. “That includes countless meetings with Senators, disclosing and reporting all sources of income, submitting hundreds of pages of documents, replying to hundreds of pages of questions for the record, and testifying for six hours with multiple rounds of questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Senate has evaluated all potential conflicts and concerns. Mr. Patel looks forward to a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee this Thursday and being swiftly confirmed by the Senate so he can start working to refocus the FBI on making our country safer.”
Lopatonok did not respond to requests for comment.
A spokesperson for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee’s chairman, said in a statement: “As part of the nominations process, Patel has complied with all financial disclosure requirements. The Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Justice have reviewed and approved his financial disclosures. Any effort to raise concerns about Patel’s financial disclosures should be dismissed as an obvious smear campaign.”
The Judiciary Committee’s planned vote this week on Patel’s nomination was delayed until next week amid objections raised by Democratic members of the panel. Democrats have broadly opposed Patel’s nomination, portraying him as an extremist with scant leadership experience who would use the FBI to retaliate against people he and Trump view as adversaries.
Sen. Dick Durbin (Illinois), the committee’s top Democrat, has said the committee should bring Patel back for additional questioning, including about the ongoing investigation and removal of Justice Department and FBI officials who worked on Jan. 6 cases.
As FBI director, Patel would hold one of the highest-ranking positions in an administration that has signaled potential reversals on U.S. policy toward Russia. Trump has questioned U.S. support to Ukraine amid concerns among U.S. and European officials that he may seek to end the war on terms favorable to Moscow. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi moved swiftly to dismantle a special unit established during the Biden administration to enforce sanctions on Russia and pursue violations by pro-Putin oligarchs.
The payment Patel received is listed as an “honorarium” on a financial disclosure report submitted to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, an agency tasked with reviewing financial disclosures for Senate-confirmed nominees within the executive branch.
The disclosure report, along with an ethics agreement he signed, provide a more detailed look at Patel’s income and work than the written answers he provided to senators’ questions ahead of his confirmation hearing last month. Both the disclosure report and ethics pledge were completed last month, but they were not made publicly available until they were posted on the Office of Government Ethics website two days after Patel’s hearing.
In his paperwork, Patel described consulting work for clients including Trump’s media company and the Qatari Embassy and writing books. Patel wrote that he stepped away from some of his activities already and would stop other work while serving as FBI director, while also pledging to divest his interests in companies including Apple, Eli Lilly, Palantir and Meta, the parent company overseeing Facebook and Instagram.
Patel did not vow to entirely sever himself from the businesses and enterprises he worked on between Trump’s two terms, however. He wrote that he would continue receiving royalties and licensing income for the books he has published and also said he would retain stock in a Cayman Islands-based company where he had worked as a consultant.
Lopatonok, a native of Ukraine who moved from Russia to Los Angeles in 2008, has been unapologetic about the pro-Russian stance of his projects.
In a podcast interview last year, Lopatonok acknowledged that he had been accused of being “a Russian asset, a Kremlin agent, etcetera” because of the pro-Russian angles of his films. “I don’t care, because I believe that people of the world need to have alternative vision from a mainstream media narrative,” he said.
Lopatonok traveled to Moscow at least three times between 2012 and 2014, according to his social media posts, and was publicly critical of the 2014 protests in Kyiv that ousted the country’s pro-Kremlin president. In October that year, Lopatonok released “Maidan Massacre,” a film that sought to counter widely established findings that pro-Russian forces and mercenaries were behind the killings of dozens of anti-government activists during the protests.
Film director Igor Lopatonok during the Rome Film Festival in 2021. (Vittorio Zunino Celotto/Getty Images)
In 2019, Lopatonok and a partner released another documentary, “Revealing Ukraine,” that adhered to Kremlin talking points. At its premiere in Italy, Lopatonok appeared on the red carpet with Viktor Medvedchuk, a wealthy Ukrainian former lawmaker and Putin ally who appeared in the film. Medvedchuk was later charged with treason in Ukraine but was transferred to Russia in 2022 in a prisoner swap.
Months after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Lopatonok began circulating a proposal for a new project that would seek “to stop the process of financing the war, stop the supply of weapons and the flooding of Ukraine with money from the United States and its satellites,” according to a document obtained by The Post.
That proposal was sent to a member of the team of Dmitry Peskov, the longtime Putin spokesman and deputy administration chief of the Kremlin. The proposal carried instructions indicating that its contents should be approved by Peskov, according to two European intelligence officials familiar with the document who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.
In the document, Lopatonok wrote that he already had approval and support from their partner of “many years,” including the powerful director of a Russian state television channel, as well as from Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko.
Peskov did not respond to a request for comment. It’s unclear how the Kremlin responded to Lopatonok’s proposal.
In March 2023, Lopatonok was named artistic director of a Russian influence campaign that received about $31,000 in funding from a foundation that Putin created for cultural initiatives, according to records obtained by The Post. The campaign, titled “To Russia With Love,” solicited online videos as part of a contest to counter depictions in Western media of “how terrible it is to live in Russia and how good it is to move to the West,” according to a funding application document.
Lopatonok, 57, has faced repeated financial difficulties, including a lawsuit from a former business partner alleging theft of funds. Lopatonok denied the allegations, countersued, and the case was settled. In 2018, Lopatonok twice filed for bankruptcy, according to court documents.
Other records indicate that Lopatonok is linked to a recently formed company in Russia. Last year, Vera Tomilova, a film producer who has frequently partnered with Lopatonok, registered a company called Global 3 Pictures in Moscow. The name resembles that of the Los Angeles-based company that paid Patel, Global Tree Pictures. Russian registration records list a Lopatonok email account as a point of contact. Tomilova did not respond to requests for comment.
Tomilova co-wrote and co-produced the “All The President’s Men” series and praised Patel’s role in it, saying in an online post that he “is a great human and he can see things clear and fair.” Carlson, the former Fox News host whose online network aired the program, has used his broadcasts to voice support for Russia in its war with Ukraine and traveled to Moscow last year for an interview with Putin.
In a brief telephone interview, Carlson said his network struck a deal with the filmmakers to broadcast the documentary series but was not involved beyond that. “I literally know nothing about this,” Carlson said. “I didn’t make the film, and I certainly didn’t pay Kash Patel.”
Neil Patel, the chief executive of TCN, told The Post that the network paid the producers for the film on a “performance-based” arrangement. He declined to say how much was paid.
The Moscow production company, Global 3 Pictures, has established accounts with the Russian state-owned bank VTB, according to records published by Russia’s Federal Taxation Service. VTB has been a target of U.S. Treasury sanctions since 2014, when Russia illegally annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea.
Subsequent restrictions imposed in 2022 ban U.S. citizens from engaging in any transactions with VTB without prior approval from the U.S. government.
Kash Patel gained prominence during Trump’s first term as a combative staff member on the House Intelligence Committee who played a key role in Republican efforts to discredit investigations into Trump’s ties with Russia. In a lengthy interview in the “All The President’s Men” documentary, Patel disparages U.S. intelligence assessments that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign to boost Trump’s candidacy.
Patel goes on to describe Russia and China as “dynamic adversaries of ours” but says that Moscow is not among the United States’ “true enemies,” a designation he applied to Iran, terrorist groups including al-Qaeda and narcotics traffickers.
Other participants in the documentary included Trump’s former campaign adviser Stephen K. Bannon, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who resigned in early 2017 after making false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.
Documents filed as part of Giuliani’s bankruptcy proceedings show that Lopatonok’s Global Tree Pictures provided Giuliani’s company, Giuliani Communications, with $100,000 in two installments to be a speaker in the docuseries. A spokesperson for Giuliani did not respond to requests for comment.
Perhaps it’s time to do a “fun” post in this thread. (And I’m inspired by RJ who made an “utter nonsense” comment earlier.)
Of Donald Trump’s books “Trump: the art of the comeback”, which talks about his going from a state of debt to being back on top of the world, may best describe his struggle. Here is an excerpt:
TRUMP’S TOP TEN COMEBACK TIPS
PLAY GOLF It helped me relax and concentrate. It took my mind off my problems; I only thought about putting the ball in the hole. And, the irony is, I made lots of money on the golf course–making contacts and deals and coming up with ideas.
STAY FOCUSED I am convinced that if I had maintained the same work ethic I had during the 1970s and most of the 1980s, there would have been no recession for me. I wasn’t focused and really thought that life and success just came hand in hand. I thought I was better than the rest. When I began to relax and take it a little–or perhaps a lot–easier things got began to fall apart.
BE PARANOID I have noticed over the years that people who are guarded or, to put it more coldly, slightly paranoid, end up being the most successful. Let some paranoia reign! You’ve got to realize that you have something other people want. Don’t let them take it away.
BE PASSIONATE This is a key ingredient to success and coming back. If you don’t have passion about who you are, about what you are trying to be, about where you are going, you might as well close this book right now and give up. Go get a job and relax, because you have no chance of making it. Passion is the essence to life and certainly the essence of success.
GO AGAINST THE TIDE When I decided to keep 40 Wall Street as an office building, everyone in lower Manhattan was converting their buildings to residential space–and with good reason. The apartment market is hot as a pistol. I decided to head in the exact opposite direction, and now I am signing up tenants at rents far higher than anything I expected.
GO WITH YOUR GUT Some of the greatest investors I have ever known invest by instinct, rather than research, study, or hard work. If you look back over history, this is the way the greatest fortunes have been built. People had ideas that they truly believed in.
WORK WITH PEOPLE YOU LIKE If you go to the office and don’t find the energy in the people you are with, it is highly unlikely that you will be energized toward success.
BE LUCKY I hate to put this in the book because it can’t be acquired. People who inherit fortunes are lucky; I call them members of the lucky sperm club. But you can help coax luck into your life by working hard and being at the right place at the right time.
GET EVEN During the bad times, I learned who was loyal and who wasn’t. I believe in an eye for an eye. A couple of people who betrayed me need my help now, and I am screwing them against the wall! I am doing a number…and I’m having so much fun.
ALWAYS HAVE A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT Anyone in a complicated business should be institutionalized if he or she gets married without one. I know firsthand that you can’t come back if you’re spending all your time fighting for your financial life with a spouse.
@canonizer@klezman
I am reminded of my great disappointment with Obama’s failure to keep his pledge to have the most transparent administration in American history.
I voted for him in his first term. GW turned me. After 9/11, we had nearly the entire World on our side. GW took that global goodwill and stomped on it by invading Iraq with false claims of WMDs. The “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive strikes, along with his “You’re either with us or against us” mantra to the rest of the World disgusted me.
Furthermore, we left a skeleton crew in Afghanistan, eventually allowing the Taliban to regain control in the region.
Enter Obama… I really thought he would work hard to gain back the goodwill that Bush had squandered. Instead, he largely continued Bush’s foreign policies, while seeming to be almost solely focused on cramming the ACA down our throats in its eventually bastardized form. As Nancy Pelosi infamously said. “You have to read the bill to know what’s in it”. So much for transparency. This was to be (and I suppose is) his legacy.
He ignored Gitmo and basically neglected Afghanistan and Iraq, but somehow won a Nobel Peace Prize? For what, exactly?
Just throwing something besides “Trump, evil, fascist, nazi, brownshirts, blitzkrieg, where’s an assassin when you need one” into the mix.
From what I understand, virtually every new admin comes in with their version of a blue ribbon committee focused on cutting wasteful spending. When no one is ultimately willing to address entitlements, there isn’t an easy path. Ultimately, you are only discussing less than 1/4 of the federal budget if you are unwilling to touch the military, entitlement spending and debt service. Throw in the interstate highway system and I’m not totally sure how much discretion is left at that point. (edited to add this/can’t confirm the veracity: [budget in pictures][1])
USAID’s $50B budget is not the problem. It has been called, and liked acted as, a CIA front for much of its history. It exists to expand US soft power, in start contrast to China’s belt & road initiative. Certainly, intelligent minds can disagree with its existence and goals. I hope few would like to see it changed overnight.
I’m in relative agreement that Obama was not the strongest on foreign policy. He did not want to take responsibility for an action in Syria, preferring to defer to Congress after drawing his own line in the sand. Congress didn’t want to commit either after the decade of conflict following Bush’s election. He did not want to pull the plug in the middle east despite having no clear objectives or significant success in nation building.
One of my biggest beefs with Obama was his assault on the free press and willingness to imprison journalists. I’m not sure if that led directly to the hostile environment we now inhabit but it didn’t help.
On doge, Elon described himself as the most transparent while not actually offering any guidance on who was running anything or what they were doing or how they evaluated already approved spending seems dishonest to me. If he can find 10 people claiming to be 150 year old while claiming SS (and not 10 instances of a reused SSN or other negating factor), I will be shocked. His x millions to Gaza on condoms was just a lie. He is there to enrich and entrench himself inside government infrastructure. He’s closer to a terrorist than savior.
But Obama? Idk, seems like blaming Obama for things (or Bush or Clinton or Bush or Reagan) is getting a little long in the tooth at this point.
Trump unwinding law by executive order seems astonishingly unconstitutional. Laying the groundwork to ignore judicial review is even worse. Decrying Obama and Biden tyranny feels quaint, selective and wholly inaccurate to me despite the crickets from the gentlepersons in Congress who daily ignore their responsibilities in their coequal branch of government.
@chipgreen I appreciate your participation here and sharing your insight. Sincerely.
This part stood out to me, when you mentioned:
The “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive strikes, along with his “You’re either with us or against us” mantra to the rest of the World disgusted me.
I can’t help but feel Trump is the epitome of that mantra, and hardly anyone is safe from it. Look how he turned on Giuliani, Pence, and various other individuals and businesses.
I’ll admit I’m far from an expert, and I’m not all that enthusiastic about politics. However, in my humble opinion, it seems politics have become more polarized than ever due to the way Trump thinks/speaks/acts, and the way his mantra influences others in the Republican party.
You know what they say about one bad apple…
A random (or not so random) thought:
Imagine if we could magically rewind the clock back to 2015 when Trump first started campaigning. If I remember correctly, weren’t there almost 20 other Republican candidates for presidency? Surely one of them would have been a better fit.
@canonizer@klezman
Thanks for the reply. I wasn’t trying to blame Obama for the current state of affairs. Just randomly spouting off after being triggered by the word “transparent”, haha. Many have contributed to where we are today. Love the tldr!
@kawichris650
The 24/7/365 news cycle, which birthed opinion based news out of necessity, is responsible for starting the extreme polarization in politics, IMHO.
It’s only fitting, for better or worse, that a media master like Trump should come along and manipulate the masses by effectively playing the media like a violin. He has absolutely ratcheted the polarization to new levels.
The Trump Train is a white-knuckle ride, more in line with a roller coaster than a train. I am partly excited and partly terrified, but hoping for the best!
@chipgreen@kawichris650 I think every administration has pledged, and perhaps even HOPED, to be more transparent than their predecessor. It’s probably harder than it appears at first blush.
On doge, Elon described himself as the most transparent while not actually offering any guidance on who was running anything or what they were doing or how they evaluated already approved spending seems dishonest to me. If he can find 10 people claiming to be 150 year old while claiming SS (and not 10 instances of a reused SSN or other negating factor), I will be shocked. His x millions to Gaza on condoms was just a lie. He is there to enrich and entrench himself inside government infrastructure. He’s closer to a terrorist than savior.
^^ This.
While I agree with several of the points above, the question remains - where is the line where Trump/Musk/et al will have gone far enough that you no longer support them?
@canonizer@chipgreen@kawichris650@klezman Far be it from me to edit Klez, but the real question in my mind is when Trump/Musk/et al will have gone far enough for a handful of Republican House and Senate members to no longer support them? A handful is all it would take for congress to resume its oversight function.
@canonizer@chipgreen@davirom@kawichris650 No apologies needed. I agree this is probably the most important short term question. Even if I agree that canonizer’s answer is likely true - if there was a line you’d think he would have crossed it already.
@canonizer@davirom@kawichris650@klezman
Trump plays to his base, who are passionate about certain issues. I think that his supporters are willing to look past the questionable tactics, as long as he is addressing their issue(s). Others are so polarized that they approve of anything that pisses off the “lefty loonies”. He is definitely appeasing that faction! Still others are begrudgingly and/or hesitantly supportive, such as myself. There are still some Never Trumpers in the party as well, but they are far less vocal than they used to be.
IIRC, somewhere around 70% of Americans didn’t want Trump OR Harris/Biden. Don’t be fooled into thinking that all Republicans love Trump. But they are not likely to badmouth him. Just as you guys never want to discuss what’s wrong with the Democratic party or polarizing figures like Biden, Harris, etc. Should we assume no gaffe was too great to sway your unwavering support just because you didn’t publicly denigrate them? Because that’s what you’re assuming with Trump.
I don’t see anyone complaining about Gavin Newsom’s zero emissions mandate. Do you all have electric cars already? If not, why not? Do you want to be forced to buy one? Am I to assume that no mandate is a step too far for Newsom to lose support from Democrats?
@canonizer@chipgreen@davirom@kawichris650 Sure, the first paragraph seems, to me, mostly accurate. Although “questionable tactics” dramatically underplays “ignoring the constitution” and “refusing to follow the laws”. The rest is whataboutism and I’m not interested in that, even if I’m happy to talk climate change related policy separately.
It’s a (potentially deadly) serious question - what is too far for this administration? How many laws broken or constitutional provisions ignored or court orders ignored will be too many?
@chipgreen First, let me establish my “lefty loonie” cred: I live in California, I have solar panels on my roof, I drive an EV and until I got that last year, I drove nothing but hybrids since 2002.
To address your last point first, I disagree with the zero emissions mandate more on practical than ideological grounds. The infrastructure does not exist now, nor is it expected to exist in time to support as many EVs as CA theoretically would have, What does exist is often out of order and/or may be brand specific, though that seems to be changing. Regarding California politics in general, we are cursed with a governor and super-majorities in both houses of the same party. There are no guardrails to protect the center-right from the ultra-loonies elected from the left equivalent of the district that elected e.g. MTG. So we get things like statewide rent control and an insurance crisis. Jerry Brown was the adult in the room and whatever else I may think about Schwarzenegger, he kept a lid on some of the shenanigans.
To your other points, how is anyone supposed to know if there is such a thing as Republican disapproval of Trump if not one Republican will “badmouth” him?* Democrats do more than discuss what is wrong with the party or its leaders, they/we force them out as happened to Biden, Franken, and Melendez. Harris was not the perfect candidate (she lost) but is there any doubt that had she won we would not now be facing a constitutional crisis?
Don’t get me started on Mitch McConnell. He may have spoken an ill word about Trump but when it comes to voting he is right there for him. From his (thankfully failed) commitment to make Obama a one-term president by the expedient of not bringing Obama’s bills to a vote, to blocking Garland from the supreme court, and beyond. The guy may dislike Trump because they are so much alike.
@canonizer@davirom@kawichris650@klezman
It’s not “whataboutism”. I discussed what I wanted to discuss, just as you did. Dismiss those comments if you wish, but I wasn’t trying to deflect your question. I simply chose not to answer it.
@davirom
I was just making a generalization. Most people would rather criticize “the other side” than examine what’s wrong on their own side of the fence. It’s human nature. Also, I was referring more to the general public than other elected officials. There were certainly some Republican pols who spoke out against Trump in his first term. That didn’t work out very well for most of them, so I can understand why there are mostly crickets this time.
@chipgreen can correct me (or disagree with me) if he thinks I am wrong, but here’s one possible way of looking at it.
Trump’s contagious mantra of “you’re either with me or against me” has caused many people on the Trump train to take the stance that he can do no wrong. It’s like they’ve written him a blank check. There doesn’t seem to be a line. Even when Trump DOES do something that would normally be viewed as crossing the line, the Trump train passengers look the other way because:
a) They feel it doesn’t directly impact them on an individual basis. (No significant change in their day-to-day life.)
and/or
b) They’ve been lead to believe any form of Trump “crossing the line” is peanuts compared to what the “liberal loonies” would do.
So they fully support Trump (or in some cases just tolerate him).
Perhaps the line might be if/when Trump does something drastic enough that it causes a direct and negative impact on their personal lives. Even then, they might still tolerate it because they’d probably feel like there’s not much they could do about it.
If Trump did do something drastic enough to piss off a majority of his peeps, perhaps they could find strength in numbers and attempt to do something about it. But why would Trump exile himself like that? It’s very unlikely to happen.
Edit: Those thoughts were mostly in regards to regularly “average Joe” citizens.
A handful is all it would take for congress to resume its oversight function.
So if Trump did something drastic enough to directly negatively impact a few Republicans in congress, perhaps they’d find their backbone and stand up against Trump. However, most of them would consider that political suicide (due to the whole Trump mantra thing again) so that too is very unlikely to happen.
@chipgreen@kawichris650@klezman With regard to the “average Joe”, the test will be when, inevitably, Trump/Musk get around to gutting Social Security and Medicare, whether by incompetent administration, understaffing, executive order, or some other way. I agree with Chip with regard to Republican politicians (paraphrasing here), they have learned from seeing their colleagues who spoke out tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail not to be the one who breaks ranks.
@chipgreen@davirom@kawichris650 I can easily see all the above being true. But it still doesn’t answer my question. Which is the simplest question of all: for you, what would be too far or too much or “too illegal” for Trump to attempt before you say “this guy is no good”? It’s truly a person to person question. I agree the congress critters are clearly spineless. I hope pure selfishness isn’t the line where it takes somebody who leans/votes Republican to say “enough”.
@canonizer@davirom@kawichris650@klezman
The question was asked of Trump supporters in general. I felt no obligation to answer it or to take the discussion in your preferred direction.
But I will address it now. January 6, 2020 was too far for me, and played a large part in my choosing not to vote for Trump. The fact that I hesitantly support him now is in spite of January 6th. As for what is too far now, my best answer to that is that I feel like I will know if if I see it, but I hope not to see it.
@davirom@kawichris650@klezman
I do feel like there is an aspect of “Trump being Trump” that allows him to get away with saying and doing things that others would not.
I also know people in my personal life who get away with saying things that would be considered offensive coming from others. Same sort of thing on a much lesser scale.
@canonizer@chipgreen@davirom@kawichris650 Well, you once upon a time were a Trump supporter, I suppose, even if reluctantly. Thank you for answering. I’m really trying to understand where people are coming from and how they think.
So is trying to rewrite the 14th Amendment not too far for you because you think the courts won’t let it happen or some other reason?
What happens if/when the administration outwardly defies court orders?
And damn…that Truth Social post is full on authoritarian. Shudder.
@canonizer@davirom@kawichris650@klezman
I believe in birthright citizenship. But I also believe it has been taken advantage of by many immigrants who come here illegally with the specific intent of having anchor babies in order to get free stuff.
@canonizer@chipgreen@davirom@kawichris650 Isn’t the point of the constutition so that we don’t have to “believe” in it? It’s written there in plain (but old) English.
I agree that “anchor babies” are problematic, and as somebody who came here through legal immigration I have no love for illegal immigrants. But the 14th amendment doesn’t contain wiggle room for those people, for better and for worse. I also don’t know how large the “problem” actually is - real stats, not from Fox News or OAN.
On a related note, those who call themselves both classical liberals and modern or Reagan conservatives also claim that following the law is of paramount importance. So I’d to understand what people think about Trump’s actions so far with respect to the actual laws of the United States. No whataboutism accepted here - this is only about the Trump administration in 2025.
So far, every court that’s considered and ruled on a challenge to a Trump action has found that the administration has acted illegally and/or unconstitutionally. One judge yesterday determined that the administration was outright ignoring a court order to resume all disbursements that are part of existing law. Do you think it’s okay that they are ignoring the courts? Do you agree with what Vance and Musk have said about ignoring the courts more broadly?
All these quotes are from law360, a legal news site, in the past week or so:
“A Rhode Island federal judge ruled Monday the Trump administration is not complying with the court’s temporary restraining order barring a freeze on funding for federal grants and programs, ordering the administration to immediately restore the frozen funds.”
“A D.C. federal judge on Tuesday ordered federal agencies to revive public health webpages and datasets taken offline as part of the Trump administration’s effort to root out references to “gender ideology.”
In a 21-page decision, Senior U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said the doctor advocacy group challenging the abrupt removals was likely to prevail on its claims that the actions violated federal law.”
“Attorneys and constitutional experts say the warning lights “are blinking red” after Vice President JD Vance and Trump confidante Elon Musk took to social media to attack the independence of the judiciary over the weekend.
Both men seemed to be responding to multiple federal judges’ recent decisions to block some of President Donald Trump’s policies and executive orders when they posted Sunday on Musk’s social media platform X that judges shouldn’t be able to control the executive branch, in the case of Vance, or that some judges should be fired, in the case of Musk.
…
Vance’s post isn’t even accurate, according to Goodwin, because courts can, in fact, intervene if military generals engage in illegal conduct, such as barring people of Latin descent from serving in the U.S. military.”
Regarding Musk and DOGE access to the Treasury payment system in her order granting a restraining order: “The Court’s further assessment is that, again for the reasons given by the States, the States have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, with the States’ statutory claims presenting as particularly strong.”
“A Washington federal judge on Thursday became the latest judge to block President Donald Trump’s order limiting birthright citizenship amid a legal challenge by four states, keeping enforcement on hold and calling out the president for trying to amend the U.S. Constitution “under the guise of an executive order.”
U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, who first suspended enforcement of the executive order with a two-week restraining order on Jan. 23 that was set to expire, on Thursday called the presidential order “clearly unconstitutional” when granting the preliminary injunction bid from the bench in the case brought by Washington, Illinois, Arizona and Oregon.
Judge Coughenour’s decision follows a similar move by a Maryland federal judge Wednesday, enjoining the federal government and its agents from implementing the executive order ahead of its purported Feb. 19 effective date.
“It has become ever more apparent that to our president the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals,” Judge Coughenour said at a hearing Thursday. “The rule of law is, according to him, is something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain.”
…
“We are all citizens subject to the rule of law,” Judge Coughenour said. “No amount of policy debate can change that. And the fact that the government has cloaked what is effectively a constitutional amendment under the guise of an executive order is equally unconstitutional.”
“If the government wants to change the exceptional American grant of birthright citizenship, it needs to amend the Constitution itself. That’s how the Constitution works, and that’s how the rule of law works,” the judge added. “Because the president’s order attempts to circumscribe this process, it is clearly unconstitutional.””
It is extremely unusual for judges to use language this strong either in court or in their decisions.
So again, without reference to whether you agree with the aims here, is it alright that the Trump Administration isn’t even making an attempt to do things legally and that they’re threatening to ignore legal rulings? If not now, then what would be the red line for you?
(Footnote: the laws can be changed if the Congress does it, this is not in dispute. This is about whether the administration is following the laws or even making a good faith effort to do so.)
@rjquillin oh, the argument is that Biden ended the Constitution by trying to reconfigure student loan forgiveness after seeing it scaled back by the judiciary at every turn even though he accepted the scaling back each time? Loan forgiveness was pared back dramatically from biden’s initial plan.
I’m not sure that’s the same as overturning functioning statute by eo.
No one is questioning the legality about the ping pong game of overturning a previous administrations EO, even if there are partisan takes on things like opening/closing federal lands for energy exploration.
Look I’d love to end all change below quarters. The Times did a huge piece last year about the expense of keeping pennies in circulation last year. If it is actually a bi partisan issue we should be able to find a legislative solution if one of required.
@canonizer@rjquillin
Trump has directed the treasury to halt the production of pennies.
AFA student loan forgiveness, I am strongly opposed. People entered into legal agreements for those loans, the terms of which were acceptable to them. The loans are not the problem - the high cost of attending college is the problem. Do something to reduce costs for current and future students! Loan forgiveness is simply a way to buy votes.
@chipgreen@rjquillin I would love to see costs reined in. I understand the desire to reduce the amount/number of loans to non professional degrees less likely to easily repay them. I don’t have great responses to these questions but to offset the cost of higher ed would likely require greater budgeting for education, which is not on the table. Certainly many minds have worked towards solving the problem but, maybe like revising healthcare, the appetite for making sweeping changes is limited. And, additionally, the recent tax law changes allowing people to use 529 funds for primary/secondary strips those benefit from planning for higher ed as well.
In terms of buying votes, Donald Trump required stimulus checks to go out with his signature. Like everything he does other than breathing oxygen, it was at best questionably legal.
Trump has directed the treasury to halt the production of pennies.
Much as I agree pennies are stupid and a waste of money, does Trump have executive authority to do this or does it require a statutory change?
Student loan forgiveness is a very difficult subject. The entire system, imo, needs to be scrapped and restarted. It is entirely unfair, for example, that a borrower can pay their payments for a decade and somehow be in more debt than when they started. And while I am in partial agreement with the argument of “they signed a contract”, I am also in partial agreement with the argument of “these people could spend that money on things that benefit the country and small businesses and and and”. Like many other problems in society, taking a parochial approach is unlikely to yield good solutions. We need a healthy dose of pragmatism in these discussions. Immigration is another topic where my view is that both sides have valid points but neither side has a useful solution.
@canonizer@chipgreen@rjquillin This is in response to Isn’t student loan foregiveness just buying votes…Isn’t everyone trying to buy something? Lobbyists are buying whatever is their agenda. Billionaires putting money into coffers are buying preferential treatment, or in some cases, no retaliation. The system sucks. Both parties are at fault.
With as much as the guy likes to put his name on things (casinos, vodka, university, fragrances, magazine, mattresses, etc.) I’m surprised he didn’t try to do this…
Food for thought: Would anyone have stopped him if he had tried?
@canonizer The guy is a nutbar. However, if he can focus more research on how things like ultraprocessed food, plastic, and fossil fuels are driving terrible health outcomes then at least it won’t be a total loss. Even if people no longer get vaccinated against completely preventable disease.
Same as Trump’s first term unfortunately. He doesn’t care (nor wants to put in any effort) to find people that are qualified. It’s all about money, kissing the ring, and quid pro quo.
@kawichris650@klezman Thank god Mitch has finally joined the resistance! We can all sleep at night knowing that the former majority leader can’t swing a single extra vote.
@canonizer@kawichris650@klezman Mitch should have had balls during the first term. In case you forgot, revisit such issues as impeachment, Supreme Court, etc. Too little, too late.
This is very much in my area of expertise, and many of the answers to the questions posed in this order are already known in the scientific community. The real question is whether the couple crank theories (e.g., effects of electromagnetic radiation) will get all the attention.
The most important question, though, is whether the massive economic implications of the already known science are going to appeal to this administration. Ending the childhood chronic disease burden (and the adult one, for that matter) means dramatically curtailing the use of pesticides, plastics, and many other chemical classes. It also means ending ultraprocessed food’s widespread availability and lower cost compared to real food.
I am highly skeptical this will lead to any real change, but if this is done in an intellectually honest way and if the Trump administration implements what I see as the inevitable recommendations from an intellectually honest and scientifically rigourous report then I will be the first in line to applaud the administration.
(For this one thing only. It would not, in my mind, excuse the rampant lawbreaking, exposure of private information, and breaking the government.)
@davirom Interesting that although they obliquely call Trump a fascist (or at least behaving like one) the Kennedy Centre is the thing that spurred them to act??
@rjquillin With the caveat that I haven’t read much about it, sounds like Adams is a corrupt p.o.s. and Trump ordering it dismissed is corruption in the first degree. Possibly bribery, if the agents/prosecutors who’ve resigned are to be believed.
This is precisely what politicization and weaponization of the justice department looks like.
@canonizer@rjquillin Having now read them, it’s truly terrifying what has transpired. A Scalia-taught lawyer calling the administration out on bribery.
I’m sure you can find them elsewhere online. After sushi I may take a look.
I want to talk today about the media’s coverage of the Trump-Vance-Musk coup.
I’m not referring to coverage by the bonkers right-wing media of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and its imitators.
I’m referring to the U.S. mainstream media — The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, National Public Radio — and the mainstream media abroad, such as the BBC and The Guardian.
By not calling it a coup, the mainstream media is failing to communicate the gravity of what is occurring.
Thursday’s opinion by The New York Times’ editorial board offers a pathetic example. It concedes that Trump and his top associates “are stress-testing the Constitution, and the nation, to a degree not seen since the Civil War” but then asks: “Are we in a constitutional crisis yet?” and answers that what Trump is doing “should be taken as a flashing warning sign.”
Warning sign?
Elon Musk’s meddling into the machinery of government is a part of the coup. Musk and his muskrats have no legal right to break into the federal payments system or any of the other sensitive data systems they’re invading, for which they continue to gather computer code.
This data is the lifeblood of our government. It is used to pay Social Security and Medicare. It measures inflation and jobs. Americans have entrusted our private information to professional civil servants who are bound by law to use it only for the purposes to which it is intended. In the wrong hands, without legal authority, it could be used to control or mislead Americans.
By failing to use the term “coup,” the media have also underplayed the Trump-Vance-Musk regime’s freeze on practically all federal funding — suggesting this is a normal part of the pull-and-tug of politics. It is not. Congress has the sole authority to appropriate money. The freeze is illegal and unconstitutional.
By not calling it a coup, the media have also permitted Americans to view the regime’s refusal to follow the orders of the federal courts as a political response, albeit an extreme one, to judicial rulings that are at odds with what a president wants.
There is nothing about the regime’s refusal to be bound by the courts that places it within the boundaries of acceptable politics. Our system of government gives the federal judiciary final say about whether actions of the executive are legal and constitutional. Refusal to be bound by federal court rulings shows how rogue this regime truly is.
Earlier this week, a federal judge excoriated the regime for failing to comply with “the plain text” of an edict the judge issued last month to release billions of dollars in federal grants. Vice President JD Vance, presumably in response, declared that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
Vance graduated from the same law school I did. He knows he’s speaking out of his derriere.
In sum, the regime’s disregard for laws and constitutional provisions surrounding access to private data, impoundment of funds appropriated by Congress, and refusal to be bound by judicial orders amount to a takeover of our democracy by a handful of men who have no legal authority to do so.
If this is not a coup d’etat, I don’t know what is.
The mainstream media must call this what it is. In doing so, they would not be “taking sides” in a political dispute. They would be accurately describing the dire emergency America now faces.
Unless Americans see it and understand the whole of it for what it is rather than piecemeal stories that “flood the zone,” Americans cannot possibly respond to the whole of it. The regime is undertaking so many outrageous initiatives that the big picture cannot be seen without it being described clearly and simply.
Unless Americans understand that this is indeed a coup that’s wildly illegal and fundamentally unconstitutional — not just because that happens to be the opinion of constitutional scholars or professors of law, or the views of Trump’s political opponents, but because it is objectively and in reality a coup — Americans cannot rise up as the clear majority we are, and demand that democracy be restored.
@klezman NPR has its own reasons to tread lightly even though only about 1% of its funding comes from the government. With the weaponizing of the FCC, attracting too much attention would at best be a distraction, all the way through wasting resources on defense, to revocation of licenses.
All the rest of the named publications are owned or controlled by multi-billionaires: Wapo=Bezos, New Yorker=Newhouse, The Atlantic=Jobs, NYT=Ochs-Sulzberger, LA Times=Soon-Shiong. It is possible those owners see their fortunes entwined with Trumps’. That is true at least for Bezos and Soon-Shiong, the former with multiple government contracts (AWS) and the latter with multiple patents and patent applications. I haven’t done the deep dive into the others.
At any rate I can see the reasons for the, shall we say, hesitancy, Reich calls out falling into 4 categories:
Agreement with Trump
Complicity (a step short of agreement)
Fear of repercussions
Actual threats (no way for us peons to know what the billionaires say to each other in private. It would be tacky, but that is no bar to Trump.)
@rjquillin The WSJ referred to it regularly as a riot. I’ll try to use that as my benchmark rather than the Times going forward to satisfy conservatives here as a point of reconciliation. And I canceled my sub to WaPo so am less likely to share those.
What does it say about these so-called peaceful tourists strolling peacefully through a peaceful DC if there are validated concerns about the safety of government officials going forward from reprisals of the peaceful January 6 peaceful demonstrators?
To their credit, they finally called J6 a riot, not an insurrection.
Why is calling that event anything other than an insurrection so important to you? What, precisely, was the aim of the riot/violence/storming the Capitol on January 6, 2020? Does it meet any of the definitions below?
Definitions of insurrection from…
Webster: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
Cambridge dictionary: an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence
Collins: a rising up against established authority; rebellion; revolt
Britannica: a usually violent attempt to take control of a government
Webster’s 1828 (a Christian theological site claiming to use the original version of Webster’s dictionary): A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.
@klezman@rjquillin I mean the Arizona case on election interference was the clear first step, which was going to be followed by Georgia, though it played out because a baseless claim of conflict that was upheld due to obstruction.
Even if no one was charged, it does not change the fact that Trump told a group of supporters to stop Mike Pence from ratifying the election after spending months attempting “legal” solutions to losing. Sounds like his creative attempt to stay in power, through state, judicial and, ultimately, physical manipulation in defiance of the election results was a something or other.
They could have at least hung Mike Pence. Can’t trust those insurrectionists with anything, really, when it comes down to it.
Brock, 55, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel from Grapevine, Texas, was convicted on a felony count of obstruction of an official proceeding. He entered the Senate chamber wearing military gear and looked through papers on senators’ desks. Part of the evidence against him was drawn from his actions leading up to the insurrection. Days before he traveled to Washington, Brock posted what prosecutors described as threatening messages on social media.
.
One message, dated Dec. 27, 2020, said, “I prefer insurrection at this point.” A second message, on Jan. 5, said that “our second American Revolution begins in less than two days.”
There are countless unedited (and lengthy) videos from that day and the videos don’t lie. Trump on the other hand, has proven himself to be a compulsive liar. He knows darn well J6 was not a “day of love.”
I was hoping this video could be embedded, but I guess it can’t due to it being a YouTube “short.” It’s less than a minute in length.
@canonizer@klezman@rjquillin Of all the things to try to defend, I still don’t understand why conservatives try to minimize what happened on January 6th. The active, purposeful intent to overturn a free and fair election should disqualify any individual from ever holding office again, no matter their political affiliation. Free elections are the basis of our democracy, and a significant portion of the country was okay with someone not honoring the results. Continues to boggle my mind that the Republican primary process wasn’t even close, and that so many people were okay with nominating Trump to represent them in the presidential election. Seeing @chipgreen response about Jan 6th crossing the line does give me some hope, and I guess I can understand a diehard conservative voting Trump in the presidential election, but the primary process is different.
I will not excuse those that did damage or harm, they deserve fair justice for deeds committed, but not for inflated charges; and I disagree with the blanket dismissals without review.
However, can you cite any that were convicted, or even charged, must less convicted, for the statute I referenced for “insurrection”?
I’d like to see reference to them if any exist as I believe that charge was not filed for any. I could be wrong, but I’ll stand by my statement lacking any evidence it was applied.
@canonizer@chipgreen@dirtdoctor@rjquillin In addition to the above, I was making an argument about meaning, not a legal argument. Although sometimes I play a lawyer on calls for work, I have no formal legal training and would not dare to think I know the legal ins and outs of the statutory criminal definition of the term “insurrection”.
Just the plain meaning of the word is what I’m looking for. The same wording that one would use in everyday speech.
@klezman
Were there “bad actors”? Yes, absolutely; a small minority.
Were some Trump supporters? Quite likely.
Was the event an “Insurrection”? No, except it seems in the eyes of much of the media and those attempting to play it as such.
Some?? Was anybody involved not a Trump supporter?
Sorry, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Ok, so you’ve made an assertion but didn’t explain it or support it with any evidence or proof. Agreeing to disagree can only come after a thorough exposition of one’s views, subject to mutual examination in an open and honest exchange of ideas and views. I remain persuadable.
One question to ponder as you (maybe) think about a more full response - how many people involved in the storming of the Capitol on January 6 to prevent the exercise of the Congress’s legal authority would have had to do it with that specific intent for it to be, in your eyes, insurrective behaviour? (to adverbify it)
I hope I’m not missing your point. It seems you believe J6 wasn’t an insurrection on the basis that no one was charged on that specific statute, that you know of. You also expressed your distaste for inflated charges, and I will agree with you on that. I honestly don’t know how an average person would access detailed information on the specific charges for all of those people. So I can’t provide evidence, one way or the other.
As I previously stated though, it’s not unheard of for charges to get reduced or dismissed due to a variety of legal strategies, political reasons, etc.
Even if no one was charged with that specific statute, I’m curious why you seem solely focused on that as a litmus test. It doesn’t change the fact that Trump knowingly and repeatedly made false claims about the election being stolen, which incited the events on January 6th. Trump knows very well the weight his words hold and the influence he has on his base. There is no plausible deniability.
As @klezman mentioned, the actions of the people that day certainly match the various definitions of the word “insurrection.” If not an insurrection, why else were those people storming our nation’s capital?
As I mentioned previously, participants themselves even used the word “insurrection” to describe what they were doing on January 6th, under the direction/influence of Trump. There is evidence of that. I included one example in my previous post.
There are Republicans that have also acknowledged it as an insurrection. So it’s not just liberals that see it as such.
In the end, it was an attempt at an insurrection. Just because it wasn’t successful, doesn’t make it any less so.
@kawichris650@rjquillin
OK, so I scanned the Newsweek article. I find it interesting that at the top they say it was all three: insurrection, protest, and riot. I agree with that characterisation.
I note that the article was written before the House Select Committee did its work and had its hearings and released its report. I think that answers some of the questions those authors had outstanding at the time of their writing.
But this also revealed to me one of the potential sources of what seems like us talking past each other. Upthread, you said “sure, there were a few bad apples” on Jan 6. To me, given my biases, I hear that as completely dismissing the enormity of what happened that day. Perhaps what you’re saying is more like “only a small number of the assembled protesters became rioters or insurrectionists”, and in that regard I agree. One of my weaknesses is failing to specify those thing that I take for granted, of which that is one.
So I happily apologise if I’ve unintentionally implied that somehow I thought all or nearly all 120,000 people there that day (Newsweek’s number) were insurrectionists. I’ve never thought that.
So let’s take my questions as all applying only to the portion of people who were rioters. I will even exclude those people who, seeing the Capitol buildings breached, milled around in places normally open to the public. How many people does it take acting with the intent to deny the Congress the ability to do its job in certifying the election for it to be called an insurrection? Or is this question not even correct because attempting to do what they tried to do categorically, in your mind, not an insurrection?
(Rather than posting the entire lengthy article, I’m quoting the key points to keep this relatively short.)
Research finds that the best people at making predictions (did you know that there are prediction tournaments?) aren’t those who are smartest but rather those who weigh evidence dispassionately and are willing to change their minds.
.
Likewise, math whizzes excel at interpreting data — but only so long as the topic is banal, like skin rashes. A study found that when the topic was a hot one they cared about, like gun policy, they blundered. Passion swamped expertise.
.
There are a number of biases in play, including the “I’m not biased” bias. That’s when we believe we’re more objective than others, and it particularly traps intelligent people.
.
“These biases don’t just prevent us from applying our intelligence,” Grant writes. “They can actually contort our intelligence into a weapon against the truth. We find reasons to preach our faith more deeply, prosecute our case more passionately, and ride the tidal wave of our political party.”
.
There’s reason to think that American men may be particularly vulnerable to this intellectual arrogance. In one study, teenagers around the world were asked to rate their mastery of 16 areas of math, including three that don’t exist: “declarative fractions,” “proper numbers” and “subjunctive scaling.” Those who boasted of their skill in nonexistent fields were disproportionately male, affluent and North American.
.
Both left and right often see the world, indignantly, through a tidy moral prism, but the world is messier than that.
.
The world is complicated, and we should all be cautious about shoehorning facts into our ideological constructs.
That’s from a 2021 NYT article and here’s the link if anyone’s interested, although I’m guessing there’s likely a paywall.
@canonizer@kawichris650 I think I read this back in 2021, actually. It makes many valid points, of course. And I always try to keep aware of my biases. Since I do predictive modelling for a living, I hope I’m able to keep things somewhat dispassionate and minimally biased!
I think that’s also part of why I can relentlessly push people to voice their opinions - it helps me check my biases and I always appreciate trying to see things from others’ points of view.
These biases don’t just prevent us from applying our intelligence,” Grant writes. “They can actually contort our intelligence into a weapon against the truth.
For example, the discussion above about the tourists in DC that happened to wander into the wrong place back on Jan 6…
Back on December 4th, Brian Thompson (CEO of United Healthcare) was assassinated. This isn’t new news to most of you I’m sure.
Here’s what is new…
The preemptive legal fundraiser for Luigi Mangione (the alleged shooter) has been growing and has now surpassed $480,000.
I understand the tragic incident is drawing attention to the many issues with our nation’s healthcare system, but I’m honestly shocked by how many people condone what he (allegedly) did. Especially to the extent that people have donated money to help cover his defense costs.
It’s not even a matter of people thinking “they got the wrong guy.” On the contrary, it seems they are supporting him because they think he did something good. The prison has been overwhelmed with supporters sending him letters, photos, and books. So many in fact, that Mangione made a public request for his supporters to refrain from sending books, and to limit the number of photos they send him.
I won’t go as far as saying the sky is falling, but I don’t think this bodes well for our society. What is the world coming to?
@kawichris650 I’m curious why you’re surprised. The failures of our ability to deliver healthcare and/or the indebtedness from receiving care touches almost every family in the country.
The alternatives feel very far away - move to catastrophic plans and hope a free market sorts out the price of ongoing care; dispossess private insurance by mandating single payer; or continue cobbling together what we currently have, where various 3rd parties negotiate both with and against the patient’s interest for providing care.
On the most basic level, health insurance takes money out of the healthcare industry so there’s less to go around for patients and providers. But I’m not sure providers give a single fuck, as they have largely consolidated into massive monoliths as well.
I’m curious why you’re surprised. The failures of our ability to deliver healthcare and/or the indebtedness from receiving care touches almost every family in the country.
And that is a justification for murder?
(crap! accidentally posted and now I’m up against the 5-minute edit timer - I’m going to have to reply to myself…)
@canonizer@kawichris650@TimothyB I do not hear anything remotely “justifying” murder. Explaining is not equivalent to justifying.
I agree with the basic premise, though, that the sympathy and funds being thrown at this (alleged) premeditated murderer/assassin does not bode well for society. But then again, look at how many people voted for Trump, a politician who embodies the spirit of hurting others. Another thing that doesn’t bode well for society.
@canonizer@kawichris650 It’s just another face of the same drives that cause some people to minimize or condone Jan 6: Trying to change the outcome of an election by force is justifiable if I like the direction of the change. The system is corrupt, so destruction is the only option.
By the way, ever hear the phrase “You become what you hate”?
@klezman I think the connotations of “I’m curious why you’re surprised.” are not mere explanation. The implication is that support for a murder is natural and normal.
@kawichris650@TimothyB populism strikes me as a natural outgrowth of extraordinary wealth disparity. The promise of middle class is fully elusive now to much of the country. You cannot just work a job (or even two), afford to purchase a house, save for college and et cetera.
A plurality or majority of the country is pay check to pay check with 0 or negative net worth. At some point, you get a revolution. That will probably lead to an authoritarian leftwing or authoritarian rightwing government, neither of which will ultimately improve the lives of the people on the bottom half.
The Elon populists would have us believe that the country is freeloading off the top decile of wealth, despite not paying personal taxes (or corporate taxes, depending) but through their job creation/cost reduction/life improvement efforts.
The Bernie populists believe that the opportunities given to the ultra wealthy to make those fortunes should be more widely distributed.
Anyway, eventually something has to give. Let them eat cake and all.
Edit: I say this as a liberal with respect for institutions and not a leftist. But the concentration of wealth encouraged by both D and R politicians after 40 straight years of lowering taxes has not served the public interest.
@TimothyB Whataboutism is decidedly contagious, yes. I despise it because it fundamentally evades dealing with the substance of a claim/argument/point.
But I still don’t see “I’m curious why you’re surprised” as equivalent to condoning behaviour. I am not surprised one bit that somebody who’s been wronged by a health insurance company attacks a high-ranking member of said company. I am also not surprised that many agree with the attacker’s point of view and/or plight, regardless of whether they also believe the attacker was justified in their attack. None of that empathy or awareness or understanding means that I condone attacking that man. Far from it.
populism strikes me as a natural outgrowth of extraordinary wealth disparity…
This. And the entire post. That consequence of high wealth inequality is also very strongly supported by research. I also am not a leftist, and in my native Canada I am somewhat right-leaning, even though that makes me left-leaning here.
I am not surprised one bit that somebody who’s been wronged by a health insurance company attacks a high-ranking member of said company.
“We have no indication that he was ever a client of United Healthcare, but he does make mention that it is the fifth largest corporation in America, which would make it the largest healthcare organization in America. So that’s possibly why he targeted that company.”
@kawichris650@klezman@TimothyB just to bookend the conversation, I am not saying that I support targeted assassinations of the wealthy. Anger eventually bubbles over into violence - that is why liberals raised the fear of stochastic violence. If you spew hate at a captive audience long enough, you will find someone willing to do violence.
But I will say that the ultrawealthy fear this unrest, which is why they play geographical arbitrage and build self sustaining compounds in far flung locales.
@klezman Fair enough. We might be talking past each other at this point.
Or maybe we speak different dialects of English!
For me “I am not surprised one bit that you got a speeding ticket” implies that the speeding ticket was deserved. Similarly, “I am not surprised one bit that Brian Thompson was murdered” implies he had it coming.
Perhaps Canadian-English has less imputed blame than American-English - we just love casting blame here!
@canonizer@kawichris650@klezman@TimothyB
You might be considered right-leaning in a major Canadian metropolis, like Toronto, but I assure you that you would not be considered right-leaning in rural areas such as Alberta’s prairie region. Much like in the US, where the vast majority of liberals are concentrated in and around major cities.
@kawichris650 Well, let’s see what conservatives have to say about it, then. I am quite curious.
Psychologically speaking, though, people tend to not react well when they’re being told they’re acting contrary to their stated beliefs/morals/principles.
@kawichris650 It’s been plain for all to see if they want to - Trump has always admired strong authoritarian leaders. That can work, at least sort of, in a corporation. But when you apply it to a country it becomes problematic - something I thought nearly all Americans agreed on.
(it is not when a private company like facebook or twitter chooses to ban nazi propaganda accounts in 2012-2017; obviously they’ve updated their respective terms of use with respect to nazi accounts more recently)
Members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are planning to sue the DOJ. Any financial settlement (or decision to settle) gives Trump the power to fund a personal armed militia
Here’s a story about the potential suit and news of Tarrio’s most recent arrest.
@rjquillin Isn’t that one of those right wing talk radio guys? I barely recognise the name so I wouldn’t be surprised if I was way off on that recollection.
Is this a good pick in your eyes?
What of the people pardoned after being convicted for rioting on Jan 6 who are now saying they’re going to sue the justice department? Do you think they have a valid case?
@rjquillin interesting bits to mention given that you didn’t also say “yes, he’s a right wing media personality”.
From Wikipedia:
Bongino was criticized by former colleagues at the Secret Service for using his Secret Service background as part of his run for political office and for his claim of having secret information based on conversations he overheard in the Obama White House.[11][12][3] A former colleague criticized him for trying to use his proximity to President Barack Obama in his political career: “He’s trying to draw attention to himself and he’s hijacking the Secret Service brand. That’s all he’s got going for him.” Bongino said he had access to “high-level discussions” in the White House.
My very brief reading makes this look like yet another Trump loyalist being given a position he is not qualified for by traditional metrics.
I was having lunch with a friend who told me that Donald Trump will be the greatest president in U.S. history.
That means he will be surpassing Lincoln. The peroration of Lincoln’s 2nd inaugural address in 1865 was:
“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
How does President Trump’s address compare?
@TimothyB
Well, if there’s one thing everyone can agree on, it’s that Trump definitely seems to be the most polarizing president in U.S. history.
I know it’s easier said than done, but over the next 4 years, I hope people at least try to make an effort to remember there’s more that unites us, than divides us.
@kawichris650 I hope so, but in his book “Originals”, Adam Grant quotes Sigmund Freud:
“It is precisely the minute differences in people who are otherwise alike that form the basis of feelings of strangeness and hostility between them.”
(A quoted quote! How can I go for one more level of indirection? This was in chapter 5 in the section “The Narcissism of Small Differences”)
@kawichris650 @TimothyB
I feel that Obama was just as much polarizing, but if you disagreed with his policies, you were labeled as “Racist” even if not. People stopped talking about him due to the mislabeling. Main reason why Obama is known as the “Divider-In-Chief”. Instead of Hope, he gave us division. Instead of “Change” for the better, it was Change for the Worse.
The constant misinformation by Mainstream Media about Trump didn’t help either. Taking snippets out of context made him look worse than he was. Feeding into the TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) just encouraged people to treat people on the opposite side as evil.
While I’m sure there might be someone on the Right that did the same, I only remember the Left (Far Left) ostracizing members of Trump’s administration and refusing service. However, when Whoopi Goldberg had a order turned down initially (the bakery’s boiler was down for repair, and they couldn’t fulfill the order), she assumed it was because of her politics. Ironically, her and her fellow Lefties on the View refused to allow Sylvester Stallone on their show to talk about his new season BECAUSE OF HIS POLITICS! Double Standards anyone?
@kawichris650 @TimothyB It’s always seemed that, for him, the divisiveness and anger is precisely the point. No matter what one thinks of other past presidents, none of them had divisiveness as the goal.
@kawichris650 @MarkDaSpark I regret to say that Goldberg spouting nonsense is not a justification for Trump. It works no better than when you were little and tried “But he hit me first!!!” on your mom.
If you insist on bringing Obama into this, what were some things he said about Republicans that were at the same level of maturity as “Gavin Newscum” or Trump’s Easter and Thanksgiving tweets?
Perhaps I object to Trump because I’m deep down a Reagan-Republican.
Here’s a quote I just found at https://thelexicans.wordpress.com/2024/09/04/reagan-memories/
Can you imagine that about Trump?
@kawichris650 @MarkDaSpark @TimothyB That’s a good summary of my instinctive distaste for him and my long-held conclusion (since his announcement in 2015) that he’s unfit for office.
@kawichris650 @klezman @MarkDaSpark Is it unfair that I also hold the President of the United States to higher standards than I do to some second-rate actor?
@kawichris650 @MarkDaSpark @TimothyB More than fair, imo.
I hate having to tell my kids that the President of the USA is not a good person and the like.
@kawichris650 @MarkDaSpark @TimothyB
On their face, I just cannot see how Obama’s unfiltered words were more divisive than Trump’s.
I understand that everyone sees speeches through their filter bubble but as a matter of writing, Trump speaks about vindictiveness and retribution continuously.
I cannot imagine anything worse than pardoning the people already convicted for their Jan 6 actions. It makes any violence on Trump’s behalf acceptable. It fundamentally undermines the idea of justice and the justice department.
An inability by his supporters to accept that so many of Trump’s actions have been fundamentally illegal is a big piece of my TDS, a term I learned in this forum.
Hey, 4 more years of fun. woo hoo.
@kawichris650 @TimothyB
That’s because back then, we WERE “agree but disagree” mode, until Bush 2. Since then, it’s gotten worse. And under Obama, it got worse, with any disagreements being labeled “racist”!
And I’m not that sure that it wasn’t Obama’s plan to divide us.
But Reagan got in his shots at Democrats in general … Reagan jokes
@kawichris650 @MarkDaSpark I repeat: If you insist on bringing Obama into this, what were some things he said about Republicans that were at the same level of maturity as “Gavin Newscum” or Trump’s Easter and Thanksgiving tweets?
@kawichris650 @MarkDaSpark @TimothyB labeled racist by who? I don’t think this was the case. Need evidence to support this tbh
Moments ago, Trump referred to the January 6th insurrectionists as “hostages.”
Considering all of the true hostages still waiting to be released in Israel, I think it’s highly distasteful, disrespectful, and a disservice to everyone that has ever been a legitimate hostage.
I don’t believe Trump is oblivious in regards to the weight his words hold. So it’s infuriating when he repeatedly pours gasoline on the various flames he comes across, rather than attempting to extinguish them.
@kawichris650 I used to think he was oblivious. His repeated infractions have put that thought onto the trash heap. He’s clearly a verbal arsonist who thrives on keeping fear and anger at the forefront. It’s terrible for the nation, imo.
@kawichris650 Trump effectively created his own brown/blackshirts by condoning and now pardoning violence done on his behalf. Everyone who laughed at the evocations of fascism should be ashamed. They are probably not.
It’s a sad day for our country. It could get much worse, especially since the fight has been taken out of so many of us. The foxnews/oan/podcast propaganda is a tragedy.
For some reason, the wall street journal remains one of the better newspapers. who’d of thunk.
In the inauguration speech tonight, Trump said he would “tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens.”
That sounds great and all, but how can that truly be the end result?
Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but here’s my basic understanding of the circumstances…
A: To offset the taxes and tariffs, foreign countries will simply raise prices to keep their bottom line the same.
B: Which means the entire United States population will end up paying MORE for products imported here.
C: So in the end, the money from the taxes and tariffs enriches the U.S. government, NOT the citizens.
It really seems like a roundabout way for the government to take more money from the population, while avoiding any backlash of raising taxes.
@kawichris650 It depends. Trump’s assumption is that foreign countries will lower their prices to compensate for the tariff. (Or somewhat lower them to partially compensate.) They would do that so as not to lose the US market for their products. (Or if they need imports from the US, so as not to see them cut off.) It may well work on countries without other trade options.
Walmart, for one, has warned that they have been negotiating the best deals possible for years, so there may not be much give left to protect Walmart shoppers from price increases due to tariffs.
So yes, I’d expect costs-of-living to rise. This will affect the poor much more than the affluent.
At one point Trump claimed that tariffs could bring in enough income to allow the elimination of income tax. That would enrich citizens - being most beneficial people in high tax brackets.
@kawichris650 @TimothyB It doesn’t quite work that way either.
Tariffs are not paid by countries, they’re paid by those importing the good from places subject to tariffs. If the company producing the good is also the importer then they have some ability to absorb the tariffs but the costs get passed along to consumers. They don’t hurt foreign governments except indirectly via taxes and whatnot, and they can hurt foreign companies and also domestic companies who source goods from foreign countries.
The end result is what Tim said, though - our cost of living will rise. The government will take in more money, but lowering income taxes during a time of massive deficits and debt is unwise. If those tariffs can reduce the deficit and debt then that seems like something with a long term benefit even if there’s short term pain.
The real test for people being rational will be whether they think the economy is “great” when prices for all sorts of goods go up 10-30% and inflation is unlike anything we’ve seen since the 1970s.
@kawichris650 @klezman @TimothyB While I won’t quibble with any of your analyses, I believe you are making an implicit assumption that Trump cares about, or even considers, economics in making his pronouncements. His priorities are to keep all attention focused on him and feed red meat to his base.
@klezman Yes, to be more correct I should have said “foreign producers will lower”.
By the way, I used “cost of living” rather than “inflation” since Rob called you on that the last time this topic came up.
@kawichris650 There’s a decent overview of tariffs here:
https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/tariffs-explained-by-economics-professor-trade-expert/
@davirom What?!? Next you will be telling me that magnets are still magnets, even if they get wet!
@TimothyB I tried to look it up, but other than the obvious, I don’t get the reference?
@davirom It was the obvious “Now, all I know about magnets is this: Give me a glass of water, let me drop it on the magnets, that’s the end of the magnets”
@davirom @kawichris650 @TimothyB I figured you are more than aware of the difference but I have this issue where I strive for precision and clarity. Sometimes it’s annoying (to me and to others).
Yes, you’re right, of course, that it’s not actually monetary inflation that makes prices go up. But as we’ve seen in the last nearly 5 years post-COVID, the general population doesn’t understand that and all they see is “bacon more expensive” and apparently blame the president.
@kawichris650 @klezman @TimothyB The question (largely answered) is whether the improved climate for American made goods offsets the loss from exporting to other countries. On some goods, it might be a wash. Everything will likely be more expensive, though some sectors producing specific items good see job/wage growth. Idk.
Immigration
So, I’ve been reading. (Oh, oh!) More specifically, I’ve been binge-reading Yuval Noah Harari - starting with “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind” and going through his following books. I’ve read enough of his work that I’m starting to get an idea of some of his views and biases. (Right now, I’m half-way through “Nexus” but had to put it down for a bit because I was getting too depressed.)
To draw you in, I recommend starting with “Unstoppable Us, Volume 1”, which is a young-adult version of the first half of “Sapiens”. It’s a quick read and makes the transition to “Sapiens” itself easy. It turns out he has written “Sapiens” three times: the original book, a young adult-version in two volumes, and a graphic novel in three volumes (with himself as a character!). He has made quite the Harari brand for himself.
In his book “21 Lessons for the 21st Century”, Harari has a chapter on immigration. Perhaps, he’s more focused on immigration issues in Europe than in the US, and maybe immigration issues are seen differently in Europe after the Syrian Refugee crisis. He labels the two viewpoints as “pro-immigration” and “anti-immigration”, which I think is a bit biased, since at least among the conservatives of my acquaintance, the view isn’t “anti-immigration” but “follow the rules” immigration. I think it would be more accurate to use the labels “strict immigration” and “lax immigration”, though that may be biased in the other direction.
Harari outlines the disagreements of the two viewpoints as three stages/terms/conditions plus a bonus debate about how well the terms have been fulfilled.
And yay! I don’t have to type up all the details, because an excerpt of that chapter is here:
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/11/how-can-we-ignore-the-pressing-reality-of-immigration-in-an-increasingly-globalised-world/
Thoughts?
@TimothyB That’s a framework that fits both the American and Canadian immigration experience. But like most frameworks, it’s too general to be particularly useful in developing things like policy.
To your other point, I am more liberally-inclined than you but I agree about “follow the rules” immigration. That doesn’t mean (and shouldn’t mean) that we have to blindly toss out every human who’s managed to get here illegally. Aside from the insurmountable logistical issues and creating a humanitarian crisis it would also cripple our economy.
@klezman I think that what Harari is saying is that until what each of those three steps really means for a particular host country - defined and spelled out - it isn’t possible to develop coherent policy. Otherwise, we just end up with people talking past each other.
What was my other point? I wasn’t aware I was making one. Did you interpret me as saying “that we have to blindly toss out every human who’s managed to get here illegally”?
No, if I’m a Burke-style conservative, then I want to avoid large disruptions, partly because they tend to be significantly harder on the poor. I’d want incremental steps in the right direction, but again, without defining immigration and then defining policy, I don’t know what the right direction is.
@TimothyB Makes sense, yes, that you’d have to spell those things out to be able to develop coherent policy.
By your other point, I meant about the labels of the immigration stances. I took it another step as to what my version of “follow the rules” could look like.
@klezman “Burke argued that leaders should exercise caution, taking into account the specific circumstances and context of each situation rather than adhering rigidly to abstract principles.”
My twist on this, after working on office/process automation for years, is “If you are going to have perfect enforcement of rules, then you need to have perfect rules”.
Oh, and for “follow the rules”, the discussions I was thinking of were only about the entry step. We never even got to the next two steps - this was long before Harari’s book came out, and I never even tried to think through the process.
@TimothyB It’d truly be something if the rules and enforcement were perfect, for anything. This is doubly apparent now that I’m at a large company with many many rules.
And heard/agreed on the entry step. That’s really what 99% of the hubbub is about here anyway. As one who did go through the proper system I have quite strong impressions of what does and does not make sense alongside ways to improve things. At least for the segments of the system I’ve personally encountered.
@klezman The thing is that automated systems can approach perfect enforcement, with no consideration of the appropriateness of the rule. At least human bureaucrats can be reasoned with (or bribed).
(And I’ve just spent an afternoon wrangling over private medical insurance. I have yet to have an encounter with government bureaucracy that felt this disjointed.)
In your experience of immigration, what made sense or didn’t?
@TimothyB What made sense or didn’t…this requires some thought for it to not be just a kvetch session. Would probably work better with glass in hand!
No corruption to see here…
Headline from Law360…
@klezman
I see him turning into a Kevin Mitnick type. You don’t think that pardon is truly unconditional?
@chipgreen I had to look that guy up. I’m not seeing the similarities, though. This just looks like buying your freedom despite being completely guilty of the crimes for which you’ve been sentenced. nd yeah, I’m sure there are some conditions attached. I shudder to think of what they are.
@klezman
Kevin Mitnick was a famous hacker, who was turned into a government asset to help prevent, identify and mitigate hacking attempts against the USA. Since Elections fall under the umbrella of Homeland Security, we received periodic CyberSecurity training, some of which was administered by Mitnick before his passing in 2023.
I believe Trump will use the Silk Road guy to help identify/fight bad actors on the dark web and may even tap into his bitcoin expertise along the way.
@chipgreen @klezman pardoning him seems to remove any leverage. Has Trump not seen White Collar, the prescient Matthew Bomer vehicle???
@canonizer @chipgreen Yeah, conditional release and keeping the leverage would make more sense if that was Trump’s plan. I really wish I could believe that Trump was playing 5-D chess while the rest of us were playing checkers, but the experience to date doesn’t bear that out. E.g. the reporting that Trump was tired of dealing with the details of pardoning Jan. 6 violent criminals and so he just said “fuck it, release them all”. (https://www.axios.com/2025/01/22/trump-pardons-jan6-clemency appears to be the original source)
@canonizer @chipgreen @klezman
You do realize that Biden had OVER 8,000 pardons during his 4 years? Far more than any President.
Although Jimmy Carter’s list Excludes over 200,000 pardoned for Vietnam draft evasion.
But yes, Trump’s unilateral pardon of all Jan. 6th detainees does seem excessive … until one realizes what “violent” criminals? Because remind me how many of the 2017 inauguration & 2020 Rioters err, “protestors” that caused billions of damage and 29 deaths were convicted?
@canonizer @chipgreen @klezman @MarkDaSpark
I’m not sure I follow the thought process at the end of your comment, starting at “….until”. Are you arguing that pardoning all Jan. 6th insurrectionists/rioters/tourists was not excessive if someone looks at charges, or lack of, from events that are not associated with anything to do with Jan 6th?
One of my biggest pet peeves with politics, and society as whole, is the constant whataboutism. The discussion, and what we should hold our LEADERS to, should be what is right and wrong, not what some other group would do if in a similar situation. We must stop condoning wrong/criminal decisions/acts by saying the other side would have done the same or worse. This evening I just watched Mitch McConnell on 60 Minutes use that very logic to justify never allowing a vote on Garland for SCOTUS. What a horrible way to lead a major US Institution.
And regarding the 2017 inauguration protests/riots, there were charges and 1 round of cases until the rest of the charges were dropped because the prosecutors could not get a conviction.
@chipgreen @klezman @MarkDaSpark the thing is I don’t think anyone is defending everything Biden did. Certainly pardoning his son after promising not to is hard to swallow, though i think the sin was the promising and not the pardoning. Likewise, i don’t think there are many who approve pardoning the January 6 committee or elected officials.
I can disavow many of biden’s actions and I’m not sure why Republicans can’t do so with trump. You can cheer for the picks that are hostile to their cabinets (education, energy etcetera) while being more forceful about Kennedy, Patel, Gabbard, etc.
Putting musk in spitting distance of basically anything important, but most recently government payments, is astonishing and begs the question of why?
I’m sure most have already heard, but for those who haven’t…
A tragic accident occurred Wednesday night when a commercial passenger jet was preparing to land at Reagan National Airport and there was a mid-air collision with a Black Hawk military helicopter. The jet had 60 passengers, two pilots, and two flight attendants on board. The Black Hawk helicopter had 3 crew members on board. A rescue operation began promptly, but it has now become a recovery operation.
In a press conference on Thursday, Trump was quick to accuse DEI policies and democrats for the accident even though he has no evidence to support his claim.
His behavior is absolutely appalling. Bodies are literally still in the Potomac River.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190020
Trump acknowledged an investigation is still underway. So a reporter asked Trump how can he come to such a conclusion and Trump said, “Because I have common sense.”
Trump also said for some jobs, especially an air traffic controller, “They have to be at the highest level of genius.”
If only the same could be said for being the president of the United States.
@kawichris650
Conservatives don’t want air traffic controllers. Who is the government to tell planes where they can fly?
@canonizer @kawichris650 yeah his behaviour continues to be absolutely appalling. Blaming having a diverse workforce? Come on.
How about blaming the fact that they pushed the head of the FAA to resign and are promoting loyalty to trump over skills and knowledge?
@kawichris650 @klezman
Everyone who voted for him is getting what they wanted. They can suffer with the rest of us.
Trump and his fans are a cancer on the country and world.
@canonizer @kawichris650 @klezman
Utter nonsense
https://simpleflying.com/faa-air-traffic-controller-applicants-lawsuit/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/feb/1/editorial-faa-turned-away-qualified-air-traffic-co/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14345859/FAA-chiefs-recruiting-people-targeted-disabilities-year.html
@canonizer
While I wholeheartedly agree that Trump is a horrible human, I still try to keep an open mind in an attempt to understand those that voted for him.
I’m sure some of his voters agree he’s not a great person, but they likely viewed him as the lesser of two evils during the 2024 election. I sincerely believe -they- believed he would do what’s best for this country, despite the fact that he continues to demonstrate he primarily only cares about himself.
As unfortunate as it is, there are some parts of the population that don’t want a female president, or a person of color. Even if those two factors aren’t relevant, it’s clear many people believe ANY republican is better than any democrat. It’s part of the polarized political climate we’re in, which Trump has been fostering for at least the past decade.
Whether people like it or not, we’re stuck with the Trump show for the next four years (at least this is his final season). Hopefully the next president is better qualified and does more to bring both sides together.
@kawichris650 @klezman @rjquillin the above comment regarding not wanting to be told where to fly was a joke about the desire to thin ranks in the government.
there were no changes to recruiting during biden’s term. There were no changes to crediting or testing. Dog whistling that common sense dictates lowering the standards for women and people of color before the wreckage is cold is despicable
@kawichris650 I’m sorry, he has stopped federal funds flowing to blue states; he has pardoned the most violent prisoners to create a personal army; he has illegally fired congressionally created appointments; he has given a private citizen with numerous conflicts access to payments to private citizens.
We are in the midst of a civil war.
@rjquillin
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/investigators-seek-salvage-aircraft-after-deadly-washington-crash-2025-01-31/
Obviously the cause cannot be pinpointed yet, but based on the facts and evidence thus far, DEI policies were NOT the cause of the crash. For Trump to make such claims, is his way of politicizing the tragic event and trying to grow the political divide.
@canonizer @kawichris650 “those that voted for them” is proper English. “those who voted for him” would imply that they are fully human.
@canonizer @kawichris650 Where’s a <redacted> when you need him?
@FritzCat
Trump has promoted violence on many occasions, but I think “fighting fire with fire” will just leave us with a scorched Earth. Neither side should be condoning or resorting to violent acts. My two cents.
@kawichris650 @rjquillin
And furthermore, it is the height of racism and sexism to claim that “DEI policies” could possibly have caused a crash. (Absent some strange combination of evidence that, say, DEI policies somehow require ATC to put people in harm’s way.) One of the biggest reasons my disdain for Trump reached the height it has was his politicization of everything, including covid.
@canonizer @kawichris650 @rjquillin
https://simpleflying.com/faa-air-traffic-controller-applicants-lawsuit/
“The lawsuit doesn’t allege incompetent controllers were hired instead of CTI graduates. Instead, it states that the CTI graduates weren’t given the opportunity to demonstrate their competency.”
Also, given it’s most of a year post-filing I’d like to see the disposition of the suit. Just because a lawsuit is filed doesn’t mean it has merit.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/feb/1/editorial-faa-turned-away-qualified-air-traffic-co/
“More than 3,000 top-performing, motivated applicants lost out because they weren’t members of this ethnic club. After Congress forced the FAA to drop the quiz in 2018, many former applicants reapplied and have since become controllers. Their careers were set back several years for no good reason.”
So even if true, this stopped a long time ago and is no longer relevant for the events of this week.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14345859/FAA-chiefs-recruiting-people-targeted-disabilities-year.html
"Meanwhile, Randy Babbitt - who served as the 16th administrator of the FAA - on Thursday claimed that diversity has ‘nothing to do’ with ATC hiring.
‘There are very strict requirements for air traffic control. It’s a two-year process. It’s intensive. It’s a lot of training,’ he told NewsNation.
Babbitt said it is ‘important’ to remember that the FAA has very, very high standards to be an air traffic controller’.
‘Airlines hire a lot of people, but not all of them are going to be pilots. The FAA hires a lot of people, not all of them can be controllers,’ he added. "
This is the point. Blaming the DEI bogeyman is just beyond the pale meanspirited.
@kawichris650 @klezman @rjquillin oh, hey, air traffic controllers were also offered buyouts. Despite the accident, apparently we have too many according to the Trump administration.
https://apnews.com/article/jet-helicopter-crash-air-traffic-controllers-caee8a1e14eb5d156725581d41e6a809
@canonizer @FritzCat @kawichris650 @rjquillan @chipgreen Unless FritzCat consented to the redaction, I am saddened that censorship has come to CM.
@davirom
It’s honestly a sticky situation, and it rarely ever arises here. How should Casemates honor freedom of speech, while also providing a platform that is welcoming and respectful for everyone? There have to be guardrails to some extent.
Out of curiosity, I found these Terms of Use:
@kawichris650 I don’t dispute that CM has the right, but not the obligation, to edit or delete posts. Nor do I disagree with the laundry list of reasons they may choose do so, though many of them are nebulous and broad to the point of being meaningless. For instance, I would call FritzCat’s comment, which was offensive to some, to be hyperbolic and perhaps satiric, but not anything on the list. “Could be interpreted as offensive” is not on the list. What is on the list is “political communications”, so should this forum be taken down? (That is a rhetorical question.)
@davirom
Perhaps. Only Fritz knows the true intent of the post.
Devil’s advocate: Some people might say Trump’s offensive comments are just hyperbole, until they aren’t…
It’s a slippery slope when giving the benefit of the doubt.
@kawichris650 Point taken. To my mind, comments lose the benefit of the doubt when the person doubles down on it, or takes some action in furtherance of the comment. Trump has made comments which he, or the people who clean up after him, have later said something to the effect of “JK”. [e.g., search Trump flip flops]
Trump is stopping congressionally approved monies from flowing, illegally closing independent agencies, and dismantling trade. I’m glad Republicans elected someone to fix the border and trade.
They are breaking the fucking law. What is wrong with so called conservatives? Speak up. It’s going to get worse, not better, with more of his grifter incompetents running agencies.
I’m just sick of all of the ‘i believe in the Constitution’ people who haven’t read it and don’t understand what that means.
@canonizer This is what bugs me the most. When the so-called arguments against what Democratic presidents have done in the last couple decades were around them “not following the law”, this is particularly galling. I expect all the “law and order” conservatives to be every bit as up in arms about Trump’s blatantly illegal activities as they were about Obama’s or Biden’s. Or maybe it was never about that?
Fuck antisemitism.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/25/opinion/antisemitism-left-right.html?unlocked_article_code=1.t04.zrRB.-bPZXFV9IrOo&smid=url-share
(link bypasses paywall)
@klezman I want to say I was surprised at the pro-Hamas brainwashing from the university protestors, but far too many are not taught to use critical thinking by their professors or teachers.
That’s the rub, getting true educators that aren’t biased Left or Right, but teach critical thinking.
Too far Right, we get those that cheered on Communist Witch-hunts in the 50’s. Too far Left, we get those that cheer on Anti-semites and terrorists, and think segregated dorms are great.
Oh, and need trigger warnings!
@MarkDaSpark Did you read the article? The whole point is that antisemitism is not a disease of the left, it’s a disease of society. Both the farther right and left engage in antisemitism and the entire purpose of the article is to point out that politicising antisemitism leads to exactly the kind of societal degradation we’re seeing now.
@canonizer
You really need to relax. Even Joe Biden said “everything’s going to be ok”. You have sounded like Chicken Little ever since the election. Take a deep breath, seriously. Now calling half the country a “cancer” is a bit too far and seems to have emboldened @FritzCat to suggest that Trump supporters are sub-human.
Worse yet, @FritzCat is calling for John Wilkes Booth? I find that highly disturbing and offensive, especially given the previous assassination attempt(s) on Trump.
I request that our moderator @rjquillin remove that comment.
@chipgreen I agree with you.
I seem to have the unenviable superpower that red-tribers instinctively think I’m blue and blue-tribers instinctively think I’m red. As a result, I’ve gotten hatred spewed upon me from both sides. I’d very much like people to calm down.
The media - both red and blue - are not our friends. They want to “maximize engagement”.
@canonizer Maybe it will help to remember, when you see predictions of gloom and doom, that the blue media was basically wrong every single time in 2024. From Biden being sharp and “laser-focused” to “this ruling will be the end of Trump”. Perhaps a level of doubt, now, is in order?
@canonizer @chipgreen @TimothyB I find it interesting that comments I took as (more or less) tongue in cheek are being taken as more serious by those who prefer Trump. I’m not saying I know what was in their heads when posting, just that the reactions are interesting.
@klezman The trouble is that even if those comments were tongue in cheek, they play right into extremists’ hands, fanning the flames. If @canonizer was worried about the potential for Trump to start a dictatorship, that’s just the sort of stuff to justify a national emergency to suppress treason - we are already in a state where half the country seems ready to believe any conspiracy that indicates their “enemies” are “evil”, from pizzagate to 2000 mules.
@canonizer @TimothyB This is a reasonable take, imo.
@chipgreen on the one hand, I agree with you that I sound like chicken little.
@TimothyB
Tim, I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about wrt the media. No journalists were saying positive things about biden’s health, only that he was our only choice in the absence of a competitive primary. And without convictions in Georgia (in an unnecessarily complicated rico case that was thrown out for made up conflict) or Florida there were never any legal knockouts. Once McConnell failed to join Democrats in a post election impeachment and Cannon fabricated hurdle after hurdle in the documents case and the supreme court concocted an immunity decision without regard for law or precedent it was pretty unlikely to find a knockout.
@canonizer
You seem like a nice person. It makes me a little bit sad to think that this is possibly affecting your daily life and mental well-being. I hate that politics are so polarizing these days. Enjoy your life! I am not saying to ignore the things that upset you altogether, but don’t let the man get you down!
In our parents’ time, most Americans leaned right or left but were fairly close to the center. I keep thinking that this wild political pendulum ride we have been on for the past 25 years or so will eventually lose momentum and find center again. It certainly hasn’t happened yet, but I will continue to hope.
@chipgreen chip, I appreciate the sentiment and even push myself in that direction at times.
I think war is more unlikely than resolution, which keeps me up.
For the burn it down types at the top, I just don’t get how they felt so wronged that they wanted to reorganize the country and world. They already had money and influence. Was the need to pay taxes such a burden?
@canonizer
Sadly, I do believe that the eventual destruction of mankind will be brought about by mankind itself. But I am banking on that not happening for at least a couple hundred years.
@canonizer @chipgreen I think it’s easier to advocate being calm and enjoying life while policies are moving in one’s preferred direction.
@canonizer @chipgreen @davirom And when you’re not a targeted/disfavoured group. Like transgendered people. Two of my closest friends happen to be trans and they are freaking the fuck out, justifiably as best as I can tell.
@canonizer @davirom
I can understand that sentiment but if you are talking about me, specifically, I can tell you that I have never voted for Trump. Not in 2016, not in 2020 and not in 2024. I have very mixed feelings, but yes I do prefer him over Biden or Harris. I wrote Nikki Haley in on my ballot.
Also, some things are moving in my preferred direction while others are not. I am happy that they are curbing illegal immigration. Not sure how I feel about the tariffs. Very worried about not supporting Ukraine.
@canonizer @chipgreen @davirom
I find the illegal immigration narrative to also be interesting and somewhat counterfactual. Border encounters in the last few months of Biden’s term were lower than at the end of Trump’s (and, iirc, lower even than before COVID).
If, otoh, you’re referring to him trying to round up people I’m of a mixed view. I have a rather nuanced view of the whole thing given my experience with the immigration system. I am not a fan of illegal immigration, and I think the Democrats lost their way by refusing to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. That said, trying to round up people en masse who are otherwise law-abiding is counterproductive. It will raise prices. It will break up families. It could even tank the economy. It will cause people who are sick to not get help for fear of deportation and it will cause people who witness crimes to not come forward for fear of deportation.
My personally preferred solution is that people who’ve been here > x years and who are crime-free are given legal status but not a path to citizenship. Call it a partial amnesty if you must, but it’s a pragmatic solution to a largely intractable problem.
@canonizer
You need a better news source, then. I recommend the Daily Show, since Comedy Central seems to have higher journalistic standards…
At the beginning of the year - long before the debate - questions about Biden’s age were met with assurances relayed unquestioningly in the media that he was sharp, on the ball and laser focused.
The ruling I was referring was the New York fraud trial in February. With a fine of $350 million, people in the media were speculating this would bankrupt him. (Right up until he got fine reduced by half and Truth Social going public doubled his net worth.)
(Slight diversion.)
Sadly, I credit/blame Jon Stewart for helping Trump get elected. His rude response to Dick Cheney urging moderate Republicans to vote for Harris got used as a tool to keep them from making crossover votes.
@TimothyB, so many thoughts. Republicans favored Trump well over 90% so asking for Cheney’s non-existent constituency to cast votes for THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY was nonsense. No one ever liked Dick Cheney - he stepped from the backroom to the Vice Presidency without any public adoration.
As far as Stewart is concerned, I’ve heard people blame him for making fun of Crossfire as the cause of our present bifurcation making people less willing to talk cross party for fear of embarrassment. That feels like a stretch to me.
As far as why Trump was elected, there are lots of reasons. Presently, I’m blaming Dana White/Joe Rogan not putting Harris on his podcast after saying he’d invited her and she went to Austin for that purpose. Turns out ultimate fighters are a bunch of pussies when it comes to listening to multiple opinions. Before that I was blaming Musk’s blatantly illegal vote contest in PA. Before that I was blaming Harris for not letting Walz get out more. They did so many things wrong but, I guess most of the blame goes to Biden because he was the one who stole that time from all of us.
Republicans successfully painted every Democrat as a scary trans intersex monster but when Democrats tried to do the same to Republicans as swastika toting white supremacists it didn’t stick (or those labels weren’t seen negatively).
I heard a comment a while ago that has stuck with me. The law doesn’t protect us - at best it gives us recourse.
Every GD day! Today, the creation of a sovereign wealth fund, something that Clinton (with surplus and for social security) and Obama (participation in saved companies) were essentially excoriated for 30 years ago.
I would like to stop complaining but there’s something unprecedented every day and they are virtually all things that would drive Republicans nuts. He’s comparing it to building it to Saudi Arabia’s, which he knows is a slush fund because Jared was given 2 billion dollars to run.
Anyway, situational normal, canonizer continues his meltdown.
@canonizer Maybe this will help or maybe just fuel the meltdown…
Jon Stewart On Whether Dems’ “Trump Is a Fascist” Accusations Are Warranted | The Daily Show
A couple snippets:
@canonizer @TimothyB FWIW, this is more or less the message I’ve been giving people. Although every day is full of outrageous things, constantly expressing the outrage is unhelpful. The real question is how we drive this authoritarian (and potentially fascist) president’s agenda out the door. Anger/outrage without plans is just performative. We should get to work.
@canonizer @klezman @TimothyB
What about his pro-Israel, anti-Hamas agenda?
@chipgreen I feel like I’m walking into the middle of a conversation, here - could you elaborate?
@TimothyB
Just responding to klez’s call to arms to block the maybe-Fascist’s agenda. Seemed like a blanket statement and I was already curious why he (klez) never comments on Trump’s extremely pro-Israel regime, despite being understandably very concerned with anti-Semitism.
@chipgreen - I’m Jewish and have a great deal of family in Israel. I don’t believe anyone in leadership was pro hamas, certainly not Biden, who kept armaments flowing to Israel without pause.
I believe that little has been worse for Israel’s security than Netanyahu. Expanding throughout the West Bank has made conflict unavoidable and the previously proposed 2 state solution. Bush required that Gaza hold elections in ~2007 and we ended up with Hamas, which has not relinquished their hold since. Netanyahu played appeasement to Hamas for 15 years, sending money through Qatar.
Given that Hamas’s tentacles touch everything in Gaza, it is not surprising that some of the money trickled into UNWRA and other international agencies.
I don’t believe moving the embassy to Jerusalem served any purpose.
Being pro Israel should not mean they can do whatever they want. It’s a client state and should sometimes be treated accordingly.
@canonizer @chipgreen
I largely agree with canonizer’s analysis. Netanyahu has been an utter disaster for Israel on the world stage. Israelis are free to disagree, of course, as many have. But I’ll note that Netanyahu’s electoral strategy is eerily similar to Trump’s. Although since he did it first, maybe the causation is reversed.
My initial comment should have been more carefully worded - I should have said that blocking Trump’s agenda is critical with respect to demonizing individuals/vulnerable groups, doing things that will wreck the economy, make us less safe, and t hose things that are blatantly illegal. Like a broken clock, Trump occasionally hits on things that, for me, are the right direction.
But I also don’t trust Trump one bit. He currently sees his interest as being aligned with Bibi’s. That could change in a heartbeat given Trump’s mercurial nature. I’ll take a solid supporter of Israel like Biden any day over somebody who could decide on a whim to just stop all aid to the country. (The jury was decidedly out on how Harris would have approached Israel, so I am not commenting on what she maybe would have done.)
@canonizer @klezman
I belatedly agree with much of what you both posted. Thanks for expanding your thoughts on Israel.
To throw a somewhat different spin/discussion, at what point do people start focusing on the way our government currently functions (or lack thereof) instead of the specific individuals currently in control? Over the past few decades our federal legislature has become so ineffective that it has lost most of its ability to create/pass laws to govern and fund our country. Instead, we are essentially being governed by executive orders that change whenever there’s an administration change. According to the Constitution, the main purpose of the executive branch is to enforce and implement the laws created by Congress, not to create, implement, and enforce its own laws.
If you watched any of the morning news shows, there’s a reason the current administration kept saying that tariffs on Canada and Mexico are about fentanyl and not trade, it’s because they need to classify this a “national emergency” for the president to unilaterally impose them. I’m not sure who gets to decide what classifies as a national emergency, but this sure seems like a big stretch to bypass the Constitutional duties of a different branch of government. A much stronger case can definitely be made regarding tariffs on China.
Instead of conservatives and liberals taking turns at being upset at the Executive branch, why are “We the People” not more upset at the Legislature branch for ceding their duties to the President? It no longer acts as an equal branch of government, seemingly behaving like we have a monarchy with Congress doing the biding of the current president due to fear of “getting primaried”. Which leads me to what I believe are the biggest issues with our government, the money in the system (why can 1 billionaire’s threat to fund an opponent mean more than the opinion of thousands) and the degree of gerrymandering (yes, it’s always been around, but not to the current degree with the computing power and available data).
@dirtdoctor I think this gets lost because the “who is in charge right now” situation has gotten rather likely to produce dire consequences for many.
That said, I wholeheartedly agree that what you describe is a large part of the underlying problem. The solutions are also monstrously easy: enlarging Congress, direct election of the president by popular vote, instant runoff ranked choice voting like in Alaska, jungle primaries like in California, and maybe mixed-member proportional districts as political scientists have suggested. And banning political gerrymandering, of course. But where’s the political will? The reforms above don’t benefit any one party and will help ensure the legislative branches more accurately reflect the desires of the people.
@dirtdoctor @klezman my only experience has been Eric Adams so I’m not yet a ranked choice stan.
@canonizer @dirtdoctor the point is the the outcome better reflects the will of the people. Doesn’t say anything about whether I agree with the will of the people!
Where is the whole “THEY DON’T TEACH CIVICS ANYMORE” crowd when Trump tries to disband departments, created by statute, with executive orders?
Things continue to be great and we’re definitely not in an active constitutional crisis.
@canonizer This is why I’ve been having a hard time seeing today’s Republican party as having any principles. Many things they’ve been espousing for years (decades?) as their inviolable principles seem to fall by the wayside now that they have power. But we shouldn’t be surprised given how the Republican party completely folded in both of Trump’s impeachments.
@canonizer
U.S. government officials privately warn Musk’s blitz appears illegal
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/02/04/elon-musk-government-legal-doge/
Probably a paywall
@canonizer Here’s the article for everyone…
U.S. government officials privately warn Musk’s blitz appears illegal
The billionaire’s DOGE team has launched an all-out assault on federal agencies, triggering numerous legal objections.
Updated
February 4, 2025 at 5:52 p.m. EST
By Jeff Stein, Dan Diamond, Faiz Siddiqui, Cat Zakrzewski, Hannah Natanson and Jacqueline Alemany.
Tony Romm, Emily Davies, John Hudson and Lisa Rein contributed to this report.
The chaotic blitz by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has triggered legal objections across Washington, with officials in at least a half-dozen federal agencies and departments raising alarms about whether the billionaire’s assault on government is breaking the law.
Over the past two weeks, Musk’s team has moved to dismantle some U.S. agencies, push out hundreds of thousands of civil servants and gain access to some of the federal government’s most sensitive payment systems. Musk has said these changes are necessary to overhaul what he’s characterized as a sclerotic federal bureaucracy and to stop payments that he says are bankrupting the country and driving inflation.
But many of these moves appear to violate federal law, according to more than two dozen current and former officials, one audio recording, and several internal messages obtained by The Washington Post. Internal legal objections have been raised at the Treasury Department, the Education Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the General Services Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the White House budget office, among others.
“So many of these things are so wildly illegal that I think they’re playing a quantity game and assuming the system can’t react to all this illegality at once,” said David Super, an administrative law professor at Georgetown Law School.
Specific concerns include the terms of the “deferred resignation” Musk’s team is offering to purge the civil service — which experts say runs afoul of federal spending law — and whether Musk’s staffers will use Treasury’s payment system to reverse spending that has already been approved. (Two federal employee unions sued Monday to block DOGE from accessing that system. Late Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrote to Congress that DOGE associates have only “read-only” access to it.) Several federal officials said they were worried about DOGE’s taking control of government systems that hold Americans’ personal information, including student loan data, and others have raised privacy concerns about the agency’s vow to use artificial intelligence on government databases. In other instances, officials have raised concerns that DOGE associates appeared to violate security protocols by using private email addresses or not disclosing their identities on government calls.
At a more fundamental level, several legal experts and government officials expressed alarm over how Musk’s team appears to operate as a strike team, outside typical agency rules and constitutional checks on executive power.
“The big-picture constitutional worry is that there is a kind of shadow executive branch that is existing and operating and exercising power outside of the channels the Constitution and the statutes that Congress authorized,” said Blake Emerson, a professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law.
On Monday, the White House confirmed that Musk has been designated a “special government employee,” a status typically conferred on outside advisers from the private sector. Under a Trump executive order, the U.S. Digital Service, a White House office established during the Obama administration to consult on federal technology, has transformed itself into the U.S. DOGE Service. Democrats in Congress have raised objections to some of DOGE’s actions, but Republicans, who control both chambers, have not moved to rein in its activities.
In a sign of potential unease over how DOGE’s early moves are being perceived, President Donald Trump and Musk have defended the billionaire’s influence and the legality of their actions. Musk has alleged that much of the government is already violating federal law and that his efforts are a needed corrective, for instance asserting over the weekend, without offering evidence, that USAID is a “criminal organization” that should be shut down and that Treasury’s career staffers routinely commit federal crimes. Trump has also denied that Musk will be able to use his government influence to expand his personal fortune, though he did not point to specific guardrails against that.
“Those leading this mission with Elon Musk are doing so in full compliance with federal law, appropriate security clearances, and as employees of the relevant agencies, not as outside advisors or entities,” a White House spokesperson said.
“If there’s a conflict, then we won’t let him get near it,” Trump told reporters Monday. “We’re trying to shrink government, and he can probably shrink it as well as anybody else, if not better. Where we think there’s a conflict or there’s a problem, we won’t let him go near it.”
DOGE challenges federal spending law
Despite Trump’s assurances, federal officials have widespread concerns about the legality of many of the Musk team’s actions, though career staffers don’t have the power to do much about it.
Part of the concern has centered on the Treasury Department’s powerful payment systems, which are responsible for disbursing more than $6 trillion across the country every year. In private communications last week, a DOGE representative asked the most senior Treasury career official to halt foreign aid payments that Musk allies believed violated Trump’s executive orders, two people familiar with the matter said.
David A. Lebryk, who was at the time the acting treasury secretary, told Musk’s team that the department does not have the authority to cancel payments authorized by federal agencies, the people said. Lebryk was later ousted by Trump officials, and Bessent has since agreed to hand access to the system to DOGE officials.
On X this weekend, Musk defended using Treasury’s systems to shut down federal payments because, he said, some of those payments are being made incorrectly. “Career Treasury officials are breaking the law every hour of every day by approving payments that are fraudulent or do not match the funding laws passed by Congress,” he wrote.
Musk also pointed to U.S. law governing how payments are made. Inside Treasury, several officials mocked Musk’s tweet, which states that the U.S. government is required to complete payments properly certified by federal agencies — exactly the point Lebryk made.
Bessent wrote Congress on Tuesday that the payment system had not rejected any payments submitted by other agencies, and that no payments for Social Security or Medicare had been affected. The administration has notified recipients via several agencies that it will comply with a court injunction reversing a White House attempt to freeze all federal grants.
But Musk’s repeated statements that Treasury officials need to unilaterally shut down payments already approved by Congress and requested by agencies have alarmed numerous officials within the government, who note that the Constitution explicitly gives spending power to Congress.
Unilaterally terminating federal disbursements via Treasury’s payment networks would also almost certainly violate a 1974 budget law and due-process protections for grantees, current and former officials say.
Resignation bid prompts legal concerns
Musk’s rapid actions have prompted other concerns within the administration as well. Last week, his allies at the Office of Personnel Management sent an email to much of the federal workforce offering to pay employees’ salaries through September if they quit now. The proposal is intended to accomplish Musk’s goal of “mass head-count reductions” in the civil service.
The memo, which bypassed typical channels, provoked greater internal legal concerns that have not previously been reported. Administration officials point out that the OPM does not have the legal authority to guarantee payments to employees — a responsibility that rests with the agencies where people work. Additionally, the executive branch cannot specifically guarantee spending not yet approved by Congress, legal experts say. Government funding is currently set to expire in March, well before the end of September.
Last Thursday, a group of officials with the White House budget office — including career employees as well as political employees appointed by Trump — met with OPM officials, two people with knowledge of the meeting said. While the meeting was described as cordial, several career budget officials told The Post that they have concerns about the legality of the offer. (Russell Vought, Trump’s pick to lead the budget office, was not at the meeting. His nomination has not yet been confirmed by the Senate.)
The budget office has also received numerous questions from agency officials asking it to confirm the legality of the OPM’s offer, and some budget personnel have not been sure how to respond. On Tuesday, the OPM circulated an FAQ document specifically addressing legal concerns, in a sign that those worries may be widespread.
“They’re promising to pay people through Sept. 30, when they only have authority to spend through March 15 — it’s clearly a violation of the law,” said Charles Kieffer, who spent several decades across administrations in the OMB and worked for Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Federal employees have expressed alarm over whether some of the provisions of the contract are actually enforceable, including a portion stating that an employee “forever waives, and will not pursue through any judicial, administrative, or other process, any action” based on their employment, according to an agreement reviewed by The Post.
“The legality is the fundamental question, and nobody has any good answers,” said one staffer at a federal agency. “We’re being required to resign with more outstanding questions than answers, and our leadership knows it. They just say that OPM has ‘communicated that it is legal.’”
A spokeswoman for the OPM, which is being run by Musk’s allies, defended the proposal.
“Union leaders and politicians telling federal workers to reject this offer are doing them a serious disservice,” said spokeswoman McLaurine Pinover. “This is a rare, generous opportunity — one that was thoroughly vetted and intentionally designed to support employees through restructuring.”
‘We don’t know who these people are’
As Musk’s representatives have sought an increasing amount of data from a greater number of federal agencies, their actions have also spawned concerns about the security of classified or sensitive government systems.
Inside the Education Department, some staffers are deeply alarmed by the fact that DOGE staffers have gained access to federal student loan data, which includes personal information for millions of borrowers. Some employees have raised the alarm up their chain of management, several staffers told The Post.
DOGE team members may not be properly authorized under the Privacy Act of 1974 to see the data, experts said. That law says federal agencies cannot disclose an individual’s private information from a set of government records without the written consent of the person.
Under the law, all federal agencies are required to safeguard even unclassified information and ensure that it does not reach third parties or “unauthorized persons,” said Robert S. Metzger, chair of the cybersecurity and privacy practice group at Rogers, Joseph and O’Donnell, a Washington law firm.
Wired has reported that a handful of 19-to-24-year-old engineers linked to Musk’s companies, with unclear titles, could be bypassing regular security protocols. Trump on his first day in office signed an executive order granting interim “Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information” security clearances to an unknown number of individuals on a list compiled by the White House counsel’s office. But people within the government have said they don’t know how much access the DOGE employees should have.
“When persons who are not federal employees and do not possess requisite credentials are allowed into key federal systems, they are gaining access to information to which they are not legally entitled,” Metzger said. “The idea that unvetted persons can go to any federal agency and demand access to information — if they can do that simply because of presidential directive or the mandate of the U.S. Digital Service, it’s frankly preposterous.”
DOGE staffers using their personal email accounts and not identifying themselves by their last names have been involved in recent weeks in interviewing government technology staffers, including at the GSA, according to two federal workers. That has also triggered legal concerns within the federal bureaucracy, in part because of fears that sensitive information could be divulged to private actors.
“We have very strict security protocols about how to deal with non-gov emails, non-gov participation, refusal to identify yourself in a meeting,” said one person, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters. “They’re asking you to share code you’ve written for partner agencies. We don’t know who these people are.”
In an all-hands meeting with his GSA staffers Monday, the director of the agency’s technology arm — Thomas Shedd, an eight-year alumnus of Tesla, Musk’s electric-car company — said the concealment of those names is deliberate.
“As I mentioned in the Slack channel, we’re afraid of those folks’ names getting out and their personal lives being disrupted, which is exactly what happened last week, which is really unfortunate for them,” Shedd said in the meeting, according to a recording obtained by The Post.
Another employee in that meeting raised concerns that Shedd’s plans to overhaul the login system for federal systems could run afoul of the 1974 privacy law. Shedd responded that the idea was for users to consent to sharing their data, but the employee’s concerns underscored how his vision needed greater clarification.
“If we had a roadblock, then we hit a roadblock. But we should push forward and see what we can do,” he said.
Shedd told employees they should be prepared for work demands to become “intense” after cuts across the government, prompting one to ask if it is illegal to work more than 40 hours a week. He told them to follow HR guidance.
The use of AI to analyze government data also raises privacy protection concerns, according to one official worried that DOGE will deploy the technology on a database overseen by their agency. The new administration has already accessed sensitive data from the database, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity given fear of reprisal.
“It’s like a wild, wild West in contrast to the measured approaches that federal agencies have been taking to mitigate the misuse or harm of AI,” the official said.
Throughout his career, Musk has frequently made aggressive business decisions with little regard for immediate legal fallout. His firings and mass layoffs of Twitter staff in 2022 invited lawsuits, including one that alleged the company had not abided by early-warning requirements for large-scale layoffs. Musk’s sudden firing of the company’s executive suite, including its CEO, upon his takeover led to a different lawsuit alleging that he had failed to issue tens of millions in severance they were owed.
Twitter was also sued for failing to pay millions in rent after Musk’s takeover, as the billionaire enacted steep cost-cutting.
Changes at U.S. agencies prompt legal concerns
Many of the officials being forced out of the administration have also registered legal objections to DOGE’s actions.
At USAID, officials have objected to what they characterize as an illegal attempt to reconstitute federal agencies established by statute. By summarily merging USAID with the State Department, Trump officials are bypassing Congress, which creates federal agencies and is the only entity empowered by law to close them.
“DOGE instructed me to violate the due process of our employees by issuing immediate termination notices to a group of employees without due process,” wrote Nicholas Gottlieb, the director of employee and labor relations at USAID, in an internal email. Gottlieb also wrote that he had urged the USAID administrator to “desist from further illegal activity.”
At the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces civil rights laws against workplace discrimination, one official warned in a widely circulated internal email Monday about the legality of recent government actions. Like other agencies, the EEOC has been under major pressures; Trump fired two of its three Democratic commissioners last week, and the acting chairwoman sought to roll back some of the Biden administration’s protections for transgender people, moves that several lawyers told The Post are illegal.
“I swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States and the Commission serves the people of the United States,” an administrative judge at the agency wrote to EEOC acting chair Andrea R. Lucas, in a previously unreported message. “If you want to continue following the illegal and unethical orders of our president and the unelected leader of ‘doge’ that’s on you.”
An EEOC staffer said that the email and a follow-up note from a colleague expressing support were deleted from their inboxes. An agency spokesperson declined to comment on internal emails but said that staff were reminded Monday not to send “unauthorized all-employee emails.”
Jocelyn Samuels, who was fired as an EEOC commissioner last week, said she was worried about reports of DOGE getting access to sensitive personnel records at agencies such as the OPM and Treasury, noting the legal safeguards that should be in place.
“Medical records and disability information are supposed to be maintained absolutely confidentially and only shared on a need-to-know basis,” said Samuels, who is weighing whether to challenge her firing.
@canonizer @kawichris650 This whole thing is absolutely terrifying. I don’t trust Musk even the tiniest little bit, especially with our private data. This is obscenely illegal and the WSJ article is pulling its punches by not calling it out more directly.
@canonizer @kawichris650 @klezman
Hey, I bet conservatives would be just fine with the next Democratic president hiring George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, or Mark Cuban as a special government employee and providing them with the same info and clearances.
@canonizer @kawichris650 Anyone else have the word “blitzgrieg” come to mind?
@canonizer @davirom
This clip made me laugh.
@canonizer @davirom @kawichris650 Colbert has always been really funny. His Trump impression is pretty good, too.
Turns out Steve Bannon was explicit about it:
@davirom bannon is continually transparent in his designs. It’s interesting and scary.
So for those who voted for Trump or voted for somebody other than Harris, is this what you voted for?
Is there anything Trump can do that’s literally illegal that you will call out?
@klezman
At the rate that he’s trying to force out federal workers, it’s like a reboot of The Apprentice.
@kawichris650 @klezman it’s so fucked up that Democrats have to care up the intelligence agencies which basically exist to undermine progressive causes and create collateral damage
What you get when you hire people in sensitive jobs without a pretense of security clearance
https://www.wsj.com/tech/doge-staffer-resigns-over-racist-posts-d9f11a93?st=1bEN1E
Kremlin Kash Patel
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/02/07/patel-fbi-russia-lopatonok/
Kash Patel, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be FBI director, was paid $25,000 last year by a film company owned by a Russian national who also holds U.S. citizenship and has produced programs promoting “deep state” conspiracy theories and anti-Western views advanced by the Kremlin, according to a financial disclosure form Patel submitted as part of his nomination process and other documents.
Sign up for Fact Checker, our weekly review of what’s true, false or in-between in politics.
Documents obtained by The Washington Post show that Patel received the money from Global Tree Pictures, a Los Angeles-based company run by Igor Lopatonok, a filmmaker whose previous projects include a pro-Russian influence campaign that received money from a fund created by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The payment to Patel came as he participated in a documentary that Lopatonok produced depicting Patel and other veterans of the first Trump administration as victims of a conspiracy that “destroyed the lives of those who stood by Donald Trump in an attempt to remove the democratically elected president from office.”
The six-part series, titled “All the President’s Men: The Conspiracy Against Trump,” aired in November on right-wing broadcaster Tucker Carlson’s online network. In one segment, Patel vowed to “shut down the FBI headquarters building and open it up as a museum to the ‘deep state.’”
Follow World news
Follow
The details surrounding the payment to Patel, which have not previously been reported, add to the questions Democratic lawmakers and many veteran national security experts have raised about his nomination. If Patel is confirmed, the agency responsible for defending against Russian espionage operations inside the United States would be led by someone who months earlier had taken money from a perceived ally of the Kremlin.
“Mr. Patel has gone above and beyond in this advice and consent process,” said Erica Knight, Patel’s spokesperson, in response to questions from The Post. “That includes countless meetings with Senators, disclosing and reporting all sources of income, submitting hundreds of pages of documents, replying to hundreds of pages of questions for the record, and testifying for six hours with multiple rounds of questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Senate has evaluated all potential conflicts and concerns. Mr. Patel looks forward to a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee this Thursday and being swiftly confirmed by the Senate so he can start working to refocus the FBI on making our country safer.”
Lopatonok did not respond to requests for comment.
A spokesperson for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee’s chairman, said in a statement: “As part of the nominations process, Patel has complied with all financial disclosure requirements. The Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Justice have reviewed and approved his financial disclosures. Any effort to raise concerns about Patel’s financial disclosures should be dismissed as an obvious smear campaign.”
The Judiciary Committee’s planned vote this week on Patel’s nomination was delayed until next week amid objections raised by Democratic members of the panel. Democrats have broadly opposed Patel’s nomination, portraying him as an extremist with scant leadership experience who would use the FBI to retaliate against people he and Trump view as adversaries.
Sen. Dick Durbin (Illinois), the committee’s top Democrat, has said the committee should bring Patel back for additional questioning, including about the ongoing investigation and removal of Justice Department and FBI officials who worked on Jan. 6 cases.
As FBI director, Patel would hold one of the highest-ranking positions in an administration that has signaled potential reversals on U.S. policy toward Russia. Trump has questioned U.S. support to Ukraine amid concerns among U.S. and European officials that he may seek to end the war on terms favorable to Moscow. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi moved swiftly to dismantle a special unit established during the Biden administration to enforce sanctions on Russia and pursue violations by pro-Putin oligarchs.
The payment Patel received is listed as an “honorarium” on a financial disclosure report submitted to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, an agency tasked with reviewing financial disclosures for Senate-confirmed nominees within the executive branch.
The disclosure report, along with an ethics agreement he signed, provide a more detailed look at Patel’s income and work than the written answers he provided to senators’ questions ahead of his confirmation hearing last month. Both the disclosure report and ethics pledge were completed last month, but they were not made publicly available until they were posted on the Office of Government Ethics website two days after Patel’s hearing.
In his paperwork, Patel described consulting work for clients including Trump’s media company and the Qatari Embassy and writing books. Patel wrote that he stepped away from some of his activities already and would stop other work while serving as FBI director, while also pledging to divest his interests in companies including Apple, Eli Lilly, Palantir and Meta, the parent company overseeing Facebook and Instagram.
Patel did not vow to entirely sever himself from the businesses and enterprises he worked on between Trump’s two terms, however. He wrote that he would continue receiving royalties and licensing income for the books he has published and also said he would retain stock in a Cayman Islands-based company where he had worked as a consultant.
Lopatonok, a native of Ukraine who moved from Russia to Los Angeles in 2008, has been unapologetic about the pro-Russian stance of his projects.
In a podcast interview last year, Lopatonok acknowledged that he had been accused of being “a Russian asset, a Kremlin agent, etcetera” because of the pro-Russian angles of his films. “I don’t care, because I believe that people of the world need to have alternative vision from a mainstream media narrative,” he said.
Lopatonok traveled to Moscow at least three times between 2012 and 2014, according to his social media posts, and was publicly critical of the 2014 protests in Kyiv that ousted the country’s pro-Kremlin president. In October that year, Lopatonok released “Maidan Massacre,” a film that sought to counter widely established findings that pro-Russian forces and mercenaries were behind the killings of dozens of anti-government activists during the protests.
Film director Igor Lopatonok during the Rome Film Festival in 2021. (Vittorio Zunino Celotto/Getty Images)
In 2019, Lopatonok and a partner released another documentary, “Revealing Ukraine,” that adhered to Kremlin talking points. At its premiere in Italy, Lopatonok appeared on the red carpet with Viktor Medvedchuk, a wealthy Ukrainian former lawmaker and Putin ally who appeared in the film. Medvedchuk was later charged with treason in Ukraine but was transferred to Russia in 2022 in a prisoner swap.
Months after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Lopatonok began circulating a proposal for a new project that would seek “to stop the process of financing the war, stop the supply of weapons and the flooding of Ukraine with money from the United States and its satellites,” according to a document obtained by The Post.
That proposal was sent to a member of the team of Dmitry Peskov, the longtime Putin spokesman and deputy administration chief of the Kremlin. The proposal carried instructions indicating that its contents should be approved by Peskov, according to two European intelligence officials familiar with the document who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.
In the document, Lopatonok wrote that he already had approval and support from their partner of “many years,” including the powerful director of a Russian state television channel, as well as from Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko.
Peskov did not respond to a request for comment. It’s unclear how the Kremlin responded to Lopatonok’s proposal.
In March 2023, Lopatonok was named artistic director of a Russian influence campaign that received about $31,000 in funding from a foundation that Putin created for cultural initiatives, according to records obtained by The Post. The campaign, titled “To Russia With Love,” solicited online videos as part of a contest to counter depictions in Western media of “how terrible it is to live in Russia and how good it is to move to the West,” according to a funding application document.
Lopatonok, 57, has faced repeated financial difficulties, including a lawsuit from a former business partner alleging theft of funds. Lopatonok denied the allegations, countersued, and the case was settled. In 2018, Lopatonok twice filed for bankruptcy, according to court documents.
Other records indicate that Lopatonok is linked to a recently formed company in Russia. Last year, Vera Tomilova, a film producer who has frequently partnered with Lopatonok, registered a company called Global 3 Pictures in Moscow. The name resembles that of the Los Angeles-based company that paid Patel, Global Tree Pictures. Russian registration records list a Lopatonok email account as a point of contact. Tomilova did not respond to requests for comment.
Tomilova co-wrote and co-produced the “All The President’s Men” series and praised Patel’s role in it, saying in an online post that he “is a great human and he can see things clear and fair.” Carlson, the former Fox News host whose online network aired the program, has used his broadcasts to voice support for Russia in its war with Ukraine and traveled to Moscow last year for an interview with Putin.
In a brief telephone interview, Carlson said his network struck a deal with the filmmakers to broadcast the documentary series but was not involved beyond that. “I literally know nothing about this,” Carlson said. “I didn’t make the film, and I certainly didn’t pay Kash Patel.”
Neil Patel, the chief executive of TCN, told The Post that the network paid the producers for the film on a “performance-based” arrangement. He declined to say how much was paid.
The Moscow production company, Global 3 Pictures, has established accounts with the Russian state-owned bank VTB, according to records published by Russia’s Federal Taxation Service. VTB has been a target of U.S. Treasury sanctions since 2014, when Russia illegally annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea.
Subsequent restrictions imposed in 2022 ban U.S. citizens from engaging in any transactions with VTB without prior approval from the U.S. government.
Kash Patel gained prominence during Trump’s first term as a combative staff member on the House Intelligence Committee who played a key role in Republican efforts to discredit investigations into Trump’s ties with Russia. In a lengthy interview in the “All The President’s Men” documentary, Patel disparages U.S. intelligence assessments that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign to boost Trump’s candidacy.
Patel goes on to describe Russia and China as “dynamic adversaries of ours” but says that Moscow is not among the United States’ “true enemies,” a designation he applied to Iran, terrorist groups including al-Qaeda and narcotics traffickers.
Other participants in the documentary included Trump’s former campaign adviser Stephen K. Bannon, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who resigned in early 2017 after making false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.
Documents filed as part of Giuliani’s bankruptcy proceedings show that Lopatonok’s Global Tree Pictures provided Giuliani’s company, Giuliani Communications, with $100,000 in two installments to be a speaker in the docuseries. A spokesperson for Giuliani did not respond to requests for comment.
Another day, another grift from Trump.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/09/us/politics/trump-crypto-memecoin.html?unlocked_article_code=1.vk4.PYDw.hLdPKxBMae_E&smid=url-share
@canonizer Did anybody not see this coming?
So Thom Tillis says that yeah Trump is violating the Constitution but we should quit our bellyaching?!
Classical liberals where are you on this?
Perhaps it’s time to do a “fun” post in this thread. (And I’m inspired by RJ who made an “utter nonsense” comment earlier.)
Of Donald Trump’s books “Trump: the art of the comeback”, which talks about his going from a state of debt to being back on top of the world, may best describe his struggle. Here is an excerpt:
TRUMP’S TOP TEN COMEBACK TIPS
PLAY GOLF It helped me relax and concentrate. It took my mind off my problems; I only thought about putting the ball in the hole. And, the irony is, I made lots of money on the golf course–making contacts and deals and coming up with ideas.
STAY FOCUSED I am convinced that if I had maintained the same work ethic I had during the 1970s and most of the 1980s, there would have been no recession for me. I wasn’t focused and really thought that life and success just came hand in hand. I thought I was better than the rest. When I began to relax and take it a little–or perhaps a lot–easier things got began to fall apart.
BE PARANOID I have noticed over the years that people who are guarded or, to put it more coldly, slightly paranoid, end up being the most successful. Let some paranoia reign! You’ve got to realize that you have something other people want. Don’t let them take it away.
BE PASSIONATE This is a key ingredient to success and coming back. If you don’t have passion about who you are, about what you are trying to be, about where you are going, you might as well close this book right now and give up. Go get a job and relax, because you have no chance of making it. Passion is the essence to life and certainly the essence of success.
GO AGAINST THE TIDE When I decided to keep 40 Wall Street as an office building, everyone in lower Manhattan was converting their buildings to residential space–and with good reason. The apartment market is hot as a pistol. I decided to head in the exact opposite direction, and now I am signing up tenants at rents far higher than anything I expected.
GO WITH YOUR GUT Some of the greatest investors I have ever known invest by instinct, rather than research, study, or hard work. If you look back over history, this is the way the greatest fortunes have been built. People had ideas that they truly believed in.
WORK WITH PEOPLE YOU LIKE If you go to the office and don’t find the energy in the people you are with, it is highly unlikely that you will be energized toward success.
BE LUCKY I hate to put this in the book because it can’t be acquired. People who inherit fortunes are lucky; I call them members of the lucky sperm club. But you can help coax luck into your life by working hard and being at the right place at the right time.
GET EVEN During the bad times, I learned who was loyal and who wasn’t. I believe in an eye for an eye. A couple of people who betrayed me need my help now, and I am screwing them against the wall! I am doing a number…and I’m having so much fun.
ALWAYS HAVE A PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT Anyone in a complicated business should be institutionalized if he or she gets married without one. I know firsthand that you can’t come back if you’re spending all your time fighting for your financial life with a spouse.
Does anyone agree that doge is transparent?
@canonizer Transparently nasty and unethical, you mean? Then yes!
@canonizer @klezman
I am reminded of my great disappointment with Obama’s failure to keep his pledge to have the most transparent administration in American history.
I voted for him in his first term. GW turned me. After 9/11, we had nearly the entire World on our side. GW took that global goodwill and stomped on it by invading Iraq with false claims of WMDs. The “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive strikes, along with his “You’re either with us or against us” mantra to the rest of the World disgusted me.
Furthermore, we left a skeleton crew in Afghanistan, eventually allowing the Taliban to regain control in the region.
Enter Obama… I really thought he would work hard to gain back the goodwill that Bush had squandered. Instead, he largely continued Bush’s foreign policies, while seeming to be almost solely focused on cramming the ACA down our throats in its eventually bastardized form. As Nancy Pelosi infamously said. “You have to read the bill to know what’s in it”. So much for transparency. This was to be (and I suppose is) his legacy.
He ignored Gitmo and basically neglected Afghanistan and Iraq, but somehow won a Nobel Peace Prize? For what, exactly?
Just throwing something besides “Trump, evil, fascist, nazi, brownshirts, blitzkrieg, where’s an assassin when you need one” into the mix.
@chipgreen @klezman
From what I understand, virtually every new admin comes in with their version of a blue ribbon committee focused on cutting wasteful spending. When no one is ultimately willing to address entitlements, there isn’t an easy path. Ultimately, you are only discussing less than 1/4 of the federal budget if you are unwilling to touch the military, entitlement spending and debt service. Throw in the interstate highway system and I’m not totally sure how much discretion is left at that point. (edited to add this/can’t confirm the veracity: [budget in pictures][1])
USAID’s $50B budget is not the problem. It has been called, and liked acted as, a CIA front for much of its history. It exists to expand US soft power, in start contrast to China’s belt & road initiative. Certainly, intelligent minds can disagree with its existence and goals. I hope few would like to see it changed overnight.
I’m in relative agreement that Obama was not the strongest on foreign policy. He did not want to take responsibility for an action in Syria, preferring to defer to Congress after drawing his own line in the sand. Congress didn’t want to commit either after the decade of conflict following Bush’s election. He did not want to pull the plug in the middle east despite having no clear objectives or significant success in nation building.
One of my biggest beefs with Obama was his assault on the free press and willingness to imprison journalists. I’m not sure if that led directly to the hostile environment we now inhabit but it didn’t help.
On doge, Elon described himself as the most transparent while not actually offering any guidance on who was running anything or what they were doing or how they evaluated already approved spending seems dishonest to me. If he can find 10 people claiming to be 150 year old while claiming SS (and not 10 instances of a reused SSN or other negating factor), I will be shocked. His x millions to Gaza on condoms was just a lie. He is there to enrich and entrench himself inside government infrastructure. He’s closer to a terrorist than savior.
But Obama? Idk, seems like blaming Obama for things (or Bush or Clinton or Bush or Reagan) is getting a little long in the tooth at this point.
Trump unwinding law by executive order seems astonishingly unconstitutional. Laying the groundwork to ignore judicial review is even worse. Decrying Obama and Biden tyranny feels quaint, selective and wholly inaccurate to me despite the crickets from the gentlepersons in Congress who daily ignore their responsibilities in their coequal branch of government.
Anyway, my $.02
edit/tldr: Trump evil, brown shirts, etc
[1]: https://www.federalbudgetinpictures.com/where-does-all-the-money-go/ "budget in pictures"https://www.federalbudgetinpictures.com/where-does-all-the-money-go/
@chipgreen I appreciate your participation here and sharing your insight. Sincerely.
This part stood out to me, when you mentioned:
I can’t help but feel Trump is the epitome of that mantra, and hardly anyone is safe from it. Look how he turned on Giuliani, Pence, and various other individuals and businesses.
I’ll admit I’m far from an expert, and I’m not all that enthusiastic about politics. However, in my humble opinion, it seems politics have become more polarized than ever due to the way Trump thinks/speaks/acts, and the way his mantra influences others in the Republican party.
You know what they say about one bad apple…
A random (or not so random) thought:
Imagine if we could magically rewind the clock back to 2015 when Trump first started campaigning. If I remember correctly, weren’t there almost 20 other Republican candidates for presidency? Surely one of them would have been a better fit.
@canonizer @klezman
Thanks for the reply. I wasn’t trying to blame Obama for the current state of affairs. Just randomly spouting off after being triggered by the word “transparent”, haha. Many have contributed to where we are today. Love the tldr!
@kawichris650
The 24/7/365 news cycle, which birthed opinion based news out of necessity, is responsible for starting the extreme polarization in politics, IMHO.
It’s only fitting, for better or worse, that a media master like Trump should come along and manipulate the masses by effectively playing the media like a violin. He has absolutely ratcheted the polarization to new levels.
The Trump Train is a white-knuckle ride, more in line with a roller coaster than a train. I am partly excited and partly terrified, but hoping for the best!
@chipgreen @kawichris650 I think every administration has pledged, and perhaps even HOPED, to be more transparent than their predecessor. It’s probably harder than it appears at first blush.
@canonizer @chipgreen @kawichris650
^^ This.
While I agree with several of the points above, the question remains - where is the line where Trump/Musk/et al will have gone far enough that you no longer support them?
@canonizer @chipgreen @kawichris650 @klezman Far be it from me to edit Klez, but the real question in my mind is when Trump/Musk/et al will have gone far enough for a handful of Republican House and Senate members to no longer support them? A handful is all it would take for congress to resume its oversight function.
@chipgreen @davirom @kawichris650 @klezman
There’s no line. Republicans are just trump supporters.
@canonizer @chipgreen @davirom @kawichris650 No apologies needed. I agree this is probably the most important short term question. Even if I agree that canonizer’s answer is likely true - if there was a line you’d think he would have crossed it already.
@canonizer @davirom @kawichris650 @klezman
Trump plays to his base, who are passionate about certain issues. I think that his supporters are willing to look past the questionable tactics, as long as he is addressing their issue(s). Others are so polarized that they approve of anything that pisses off the “lefty loonies”. He is definitely appeasing that faction! Still others are begrudgingly and/or hesitantly supportive, such as myself. There are still some Never Trumpers in the party as well, but they are far less vocal than they used to be.
IIRC, somewhere around 70% of Americans didn’t want Trump OR Harris/Biden. Don’t be fooled into thinking that all Republicans love Trump. But they are not likely to badmouth him. Just as you guys never want to discuss what’s wrong with the Democratic party or polarizing figures like Biden, Harris, etc. Should we assume no gaffe was too great to sway your unwavering support just because you didn’t publicly denigrate them? Because that’s what you’re assuming with Trump.
I don’t see anyone complaining about Gavin Newsom’s zero emissions mandate. Do you all have electric cars already? If not, why not? Do you want to be forced to buy one? Am I to assume that no mandate is a step too far for Newsom to lose support from Democrats?
@canonizer @chipgreen @davirom @kawichris650 Sure, the first paragraph seems, to me, mostly accurate. Although “questionable tactics” dramatically underplays “ignoring the constitution” and “refusing to follow the laws”. The rest is whataboutism and I’m not interested in that, even if I’m happy to talk climate change related policy separately.
It’s a (potentially deadly) serious question - what is too far for this administration? How many laws broken or constitutional provisions ignored or court orders ignored will be too many?
@chipgreen First, let me establish my “lefty loonie” cred: I live in California, I have solar panels on my roof, I drive an EV and until I got that last year, I drove nothing but hybrids since 2002.
To address your last point first, I disagree with the zero emissions mandate more on practical than ideological grounds. The infrastructure does not exist now, nor is it expected to exist in time to support as many EVs as CA theoretically would have, What does exist is often out of order and/or may be brand specific, though that seems to be changing. Regarding California politics in general, we are cursed with a governor and super-majorities in both houses of the same party. There are no guardrails to protect the center-right from the ultra-loonies elected from the left equivalent of the district that elected e.g. MTG. So we get things like statewide rent control and an insurance crisis. Jerry Brown was the adult in the room and whatever else I may think about Schwarzenegger, he kept a lid on some of the shenanigans.
To your other points, how is anyone supposed to know if there is such a thing as Republican disapproval of Trump if not one Republican will “badmouth” him?* Democrats do more than discuss what is wrong with the party or its leaders, they/we force them out as happened to Biden, Franken, and Melendez. Harris was not the perfect candidate (she lost) but is there any doubt that had she won we would not now be facing a constitutional crisis?
@canonizer @davirom @kawichris650 @klezman
It’s not “whataboutism”. I discussed what I wanted to discuss, just as you did. Dismiss those comments if you wish, but I wasn’t trying to deflect your question. I simply chose not to answer it.
@davirom
I was just making a generalization. Most people would rather criticize “the other side” than examine what’s wrong on their own side of the fence. It’s human nature. Also, I was referring more to the general public than other elected officials. There were certainly some Republican pols who spoke out against Trump in his first term. That didn’t work out very well for most of them, so I can understand why there are mostly crickets this time.
@canonizer @chipgreen @davirom @kawichris650 so why won’t you answer the question, then?
@klezman
@chipgreen can correct me (or disagree with me) if he thinks I am wrong, but here’s one possible way of looking at it.
Trump’s contagious mantra of “you’re either with me or against me” has caused many people on the Trump train to take the stance that he can do no wrong. It’s like they’ve written him a blank check. There doesn’t seem to be a line. Even when Trump DOES do something that would normally be viewed as crossing the line, the Trump train passengers look the other way because:
a) They feel it doesn’t directly impact them on an individual basis. (No significant change in their day-to-day life.)
and/or
b) They’ve been lead to believe any form of Trump “crossing the line” is peanuts compared to what the “liberal loonies” would do.
So they fully support Trump (or in some cases just tolerate him).
Perhaps the line might be if/when Trump does something drastic enough that it causes a direct and negative impact on their personal lives. Even then, they might still tolerate it because they’d probably feel like there’s not much they could do about it.
If Trump did do something drastic enough to piss off a majority of his peeps, perhaps they could find strength in numbers and attempt to do something about it. But why would Trump exile himself like that? It’s very unlikely to happen.
Edit: Those thoughts were mostly in regards to regularly “average Joe” citizens.
However, as @davirom mentioned…
So if Trump did something drastic enough to directly negatively impact a few Republicans in congress, perhaps they’d find their backbone and stand up against Trump. However, most of them would consider that political suicide (due to the whole Trump mantra thing again) so that too is very unlikely to happen.
@chipgreen @kawichris650 @klezman With regard to the “average Joe”, the test will be when, inevitably, Trump/Musk get around to gutting Social Security and Medicare, whether by incompetent administration, understaffing, executive order, or some other way. I agree with Chip with regard to Republican politicians (paraphrasing here), they have learned from seeing their colleagues who spoke out tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail not to be the one who breaks ranks.
@chipgreen @davirom @kawichris650 I can easily see all the above being true. But it still doesn’t answer my question. Which is the simplest question of all: for you, what would be too far or too much or “too illegal” for Trump to attempt before you say “this guy is no good”? It’s truly a person to person question. I agree the congress critters are clearly spineless. I hope pure selfishness isn’t the line where it takes somebody who leans/votes Republican to say “enough”.
@canonizer @davirom @kawichris650 @klezman
The question was asked of Trump supporters in general. I felt no obligation to answer it or to take the discussion in your preferred direction.
But I will address it now. January 6, 2020 was too far for me, and played a large part in my choosing not to vote for Trump. The fact that I hesitantly support him now is in spite of January 6th. As for what is too far now, my best answer to that is that I feel like I will know if if I see it, but I hope not to see it.
@chipgreen @davirom @kawichris650 @klezman
I wanted to get it from the source, the first time I’ve clicked on a truth social link
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114009179225169296
@davirom @kawichris650 @klezman
I do feel like there is an aspect of “Trump being Trump” that allows him to get away with saying and doing things that others would not.
I also know people in my personal life who get away with saying things that would be considered offensive coming from others. Same sort of thing on a much lesser scale.
@canonizer @chipgreen @davirom @kawichris650 Well, you once upon a time were a Trump supporter, I suppose, even if reluctantly. Thank you for answering. I’m really trying to understand where people are coming from and how they think.
So is trying to rewrite the 14th Amendment not too far for you because you think the courts won’t let it happen or some other reason?
What happens if/when the administration outwardly defies court orders?
And damn…that Truth Social post is full on authoritarian. Shudder.
@canonizer @davirom @kawichris650 @klezman
I believe in birthright citizenship. But I also believe it has been taken advantage of by many immigrants who come here illegally with the specific intent of having anchor babies in order to get free stuff.
@canonizer @chipgreen @davirom @kawichris650 Isn’t the point of the constutition so that we don’t have to “believe” in it? It’s written there in plain (but old) English.
I agree that “anchor babies” are problematic, and as somebody who came here through legal immigration I have no love for illegal immigrants. But the 14th amendment doesn’t contain wiggle room for those people, for better and for worse. I also don’t know how large the “problem” actually is - real stats, not from Fox News or OAN.
On a related note, those who call themselves both classical liberals and modern or Reagan conservatives also claim that following the law is of paramount importance. So I’d to understand what people think about Trump’s actions so far with respect to the actual laws of the United States. No whataboutism accepted here - this is only about the Trump administration in 2025.
So far, every court that’s considered and ruled on a challenge to a Trump action has found that the administration has acted illegally and/or unconstitutionally. One judge yesterday determined that the administration was outright ignoring a court order to resume all disbursements that are part of existing law. Do you think it’s okay that they are ignoring the courts? Do you agree with what Vance and Musk have said about ignoring the courts more broadly?
All these quotes are from law360, a legal news site, in the past week or so:
“A Rhode Island federal judge ruled Monday the Trump administration is not complying with the court’s temporary restraining order barring a freeze on funding for federal grants and programs, ordering the administration to immediately restore the frozen funds.”
“A D.C. federal judge on Tuesday ordered federal agencies to revive public health webpages and datasets taken offline as part of the Trump administration’s effort to root out references to “gender ideology.”
In a 21-page decision, Senior U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said the doctor advocacy group challenging the abrupt removals was likely to prevail on its claims that the actions violated federal law.”
“Attorneys and constitutional experts say the warning lights “are blinking red” after Vice President JD Vance and Trump confidante Elon Musk took to social media to attack the independence of the judiciary over the weekend.
Both men seemed to be responding to multiple federal judges’ recent decisions to block some of President Donald Trump’s policies and executive orders when they posted Sunday on Musk’s social media platform X that judges shouldn’t be able to control the executive branch, in the case of Vance, or that some judges should be fired, in the case of Musk.
…
Vance’s post isn’t even accurate, according to Goodwin, because courts can, in fact, intervene if military generals engage in illegal conduct, such as barring people of Latin descent from serving in the U.S. military.”
Regarding Musk and DOGE access to the Treasury payment system in her order granting a restraining order: “The Court’s further assessment is that, again for the reasons given by the States, the States have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, with the States’ statutory claims presenting as particularly strong.”
“A Washington federal judge on Thursday became the latest judge to block President Donald Trump’s order limiting birthright citizenship amid a legal challenge by four states, keeping enforcement on hold and calling out the president for trying to amend the U.S. Constitution “under the guise of an executive order.”
U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, who first suspended enforcement of the executive order with a two-week restraining order on Jan. 23 that was set to expire, on Thursday called the presidential order “clearly unconstitutional” when granting the preliminary injunction bid from the bench in the case brought by Washington, Illinois, Arizona and Oregon.
Judge Coughenour’s decision follows a similar move by a Maryland federal judge Wednesday, enjoining the federal government and its agents from implementing the executive order ahead of its purported Feb. 19 effective date.
“It has become ever more apparent that to our president the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals,” Judge Coughenour said at a hearing Thursday. “The rule of law is, according to him, is something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain.”
…
“We are all citizens subject to the rule of law,” Judge Coughenour said. “No amount of policy debate can change that. And the fact that the government has cloaked what is effectively a constitutional amendment under the guise of an executive order is equally unconstitutional.”
“If the government wants to change the exceptional American grant of birthright citizenship, it needs to amend the Constitution itself. That’s how the Constitution works, and that’s how the rule of law works,” the judge added. “Because the president’s order attempts to circumscribe this process, it is clearly unconstitutional.””
It is extremely unusual for judges to use language this strong either in court or in their decisions.
So again, without reference to whether you agree with the aims here, is it alright that the Trump Administration isn’t even making an attempt to do things legally and that they’re threatening to ignore legal rulings? If not now, then what would be the red line for you?
(Footnote: the laws can be changed if the Congress does it, this is not in dispute. This is about whether the administration is following the laws or even making a good faith effort to do so.)
@klezman
Judge Coughenour really hit the nail on the head.
@chipgreen @rjquillin I’d like to know what of the above is fine with you vs troubling or other?
Student loans…
@rjquillin link? The fire hose is too strong.
@canonizer
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/the-student-loan-forgiveness-saga-how-the-litigation-played-out-and-what-s-next
@rjquillin oh, the argument is that Biden ended the Constitution by trying to reconfigure student loan forgiveness after seeing it scaled back by the judiciary at every turn even though he accepted the scaling back each time? Loan forgiveness was pared back dramatically from biden’s initial plan.
I’m not sure that’s the same as overturning functioning statute by eo.
No one is questioning the legality about the ping pong game of overturning a previous administrations EO, even if there are partisan takes on things like opening/closing federal lands for energy exploration.
Look I’d love to end all change below quarters. The Times did a huge piece last year about the expense of keeping pennies in circulation last year. If it is actually a bi partisan issue we should be able to find a legislative solution if one of required.
.
@canonizer @rjquillin
Trump has directed the treasury to halt the production of pennies.
AFA student loan forgiveness, I am strongly opposed. People entered into legal agreements for those loans, the terms of which were acceptable to them. The loans are not the problem - the high cost of attending college is the problem. Do something to reduce costs for current and future students! Loan forgiveness is simply a way to buy votes.
@chipgreen @rjquillin I would love to see costs reined in. I understand the desire to reduce the amount/number of loans to non professional degrees less likely to easily repay them. I don’t have great responses to these questions but to offset the cost of higher ed would likely require greater budgeting for education, which is not on the table. Certainly many minds have worked towards solving the problem but, maybe like revising healthcare, the appetite for making sweeping changes is limited. And, additionally, the recent tax law changes allowing people to use 529 funds for primary/secondary strips those benefit from planning for higher ed as well.
In terms of buying votes, Donald Trump required stimulus checks to go out with his signature. Like everything he does other than breathing oxygen, it was at best questionably legal.
@canonizer @chipgreen @rjquillin
Much as I agree pennies are stupid and a waste of money, does Trump have executive authority to do this or does it require a statutory change?
Student loan forgiveness is a very difficult subject. The entire system, imo, needs to be scrapped and restarted. It is entirely unfair, for example, that a borrower can pay their payments for a decade and somehow be in more debt than when they started. And while I am in partial agreement with the argument of “they signed a contract”, I am also in partial agreement with the argument of “these people could spend that money on things that benefit the country and small businesses and and and”. Like many other problems in society, taking a parochial approach is unlikely to yield good solutions. We need a healthy dose of pragmatism in these discussions. Immigration is another topic where my view is that both sides have valid points but neither side has a useful solution.
@canonizer @chipgreen @rjquillin This is in response to Isn’t student loan foregiveness just buying votes…Isn’t everyone trying to buy something? Lobbyists are buying whatever is their agenda. Billionaires putting money into coffers are buying preferential treatment, or in some cases, no retaliation. The system sucks. Both parties are at fault.
With as much as the guy likes to put his name on things (casinos, vodka, university, fragrances, magazine, mattresses, etc.) I’m surprised he didn’t try to do this…
Food for thought: Would anyone have stopped him if he had tried?
@kawichris650
You forgot wine!
@kawichris650 @rjquillin When i was in Florida last year, i saw wine with his name on it. So, done that…
@jmdavidson1 @kawichris650
Pretty sure @chipgreen has some bottles, or had
How was the Trump wine? @chipgreen
Worth the tariff?
@kawichris650
They make some great sparklers. Beautiful winery in Charlottesville, VA. Been going there since Trump was still starring in The Apprentice.
Amazing panoramic views from the lawn. The picture doesn’t really do it justice.
@kawichris650 probably not
Bear killing, whale carving, vaccine grifting Kennedy confirmed. Thankfully the dark days are also in the future and not just the past.
@canonizer The guy is a nutbar. However, if he can focus more research on how things like ultraprocessed food, plastic, and fossil fuels are driving terrible health outcomes then at least it won’t be a total loss. Even if people no longer get vaccinated against completely preventable disease.
@canonizer @klezman
Same as Trump’s first term unfortunately. He doesn’t care (nor wants to put in any effort) to find people that are qualified. It’s all about money, kissing the ring, and quid pro quo.
@kawichris650 @klezman Thank god Mitch has finally joined the resistance! We can all sleep at night knowing that the former majority leader can’t swing a single extra vote.
@canonizer @kawichris650 @klezman He’s as useless as a…Democrat.
@canonizer @kawichris650 @klezman Mitch should have had balls during the first term. In case you forgot, revisit such issues as impeachment, Supreme Court, etc. Too little, too late.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/top-u-s-prosecutor-in-manhattan-resigns-after-being-ordered-to-drop-eric-adams-case-766412d4?st=b87rGF
This should be interesting: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/establishing-the-presidents-make-america-healthy-again-commission/
This is very much in my area of expertise, and many of the answers to the questions posed in this order are already known in the scientific community. The real question is whether the couple crank theories (e.g., effects of electromagnetic radiation) will get all the attention.
The most important question, though, is whether the massive economic implications of the already known science are going to appeal to this administration. Ending the childhood chronic disease burden (and the adult one, for that matter) means dramatically curtailing the use of pesticides, plastics, and many other chemical classes. It also means ending ultraprocessed food’s widespread availability and lower cost compared to real food.
I am highly skeptical this will lead to any real change, but if this is done in an intellectually honest way and if the Trump administration implements what I see as the inevitable recommendations from an intellectually honest and scientifically rigourous report then I will be the first in line to applaud the administration.
(For this one thing only. It would not, in my mind, excuse the rampant lawbreaking, exposure of private information, and breaking the government.)
Just reminded that when Obama tried to block Fox News from White House press briefings other news operations boycotted… And potus relented.
Haven’t seen any such reciprocity from the current reality antagonistic Trump mouthpiece press corps.
Grift grift grift
https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/trump-family-election-cash-bonanza-2f5f8714?st=DyupDP
The Baptists (!) speak out.
@davirom Interesting that although they obliquely call Trump a fascist (or at least behaving like one) the Kennedy Centre is the thing that spurred them to act??
@klezman Maybe the last straw for them?
Thoughts re: the dismissal request of NYC Mayor Adams?
@rjquillin With the caveat that I haven’t read much about it, sounds like Adams is a corrupt p.o.s. and Trump ordering it dismissed is corruption in the first degree. Possibly bribery, if the agents/prosecutors who’ve resigned are to be believed.
This is precisely what politicization and weaponization of the justice department looks like.
@rjquillin clearly the prosecutors thought they had a valid case and that the dismissals damages us.
@canonizer @rjquillin I don’t know if these are visible outside the paywall, and I haven’t read them yet.
Letter of resignation from a prosecutor - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/02/13/us/doc-annotation-letter-to-bondi.html
response to resignation - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/02/13/us/doc-annotation-memo-from-bove.html
@canonizer @klezman
paywall, both
@canonizer @rjquillin Having now read them, it’s truly terrifying what has transpired. A Scalia-taught lawyer calling the administration out on bribery.
I’m sure you can find them elsewhere online. After sushi I may take a look.
@canonizer @rjquillin
Link to both letters in their original PDFs, no paywall: https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/13/politics/read-acting-us-attorney-resignation-letter-doj-response/index.html
From Robert Reich
Friends,
I want to talk today about the media’s coverage of the Trump-Vance-Musk coup.
I’m not referring to coverage by the bonkers right-wing media of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and its imitators.
I’m referring to the U.S. mainstream media — The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, National Public Radio — and the mainstream media abroad, such as the BBC and The Guardian.
By not calling it a coup, the mainstream media is failing to communicate the gravity of what is occurring.
Thursday’s opinion by The New York Times’ editorial board offers a pathetic example. It concedes that Trump and his top associates “are stress-testing the Constitution, and the nation, to a degree not seen since the Civil War” but then asks: “Are we in a constitutional crisis yet?” and answers that what Trump is doing “should be taken as a flashing warning sign.”
Warning sign?
Elon Musk’s meddling into the machinery of government is a part of the coup. Musk and his muskrats have no legal right to break into the federal payments system or any of the other sensitive data systems they’re invading, for which they continue to gather computer code.
This data is the lifeblood of our government. It is used to pay Social Security and Medicare. It measures inflation and jobs. Americans have entrusted our private information to professional civil servants who are bound by law to use it only for the purposes to which it is intended. In the wrong hands, without legal authority, it could be used to control or mislead Americans.
By failing to use the term “coup,” the media have also underplayed the Trump-Vance-Musk regime’s freeze on practically all federal funding — suggesting this is a normal part of the pull-and-tug of politics. It is not. Congress has the sole authority to appropriate money. The freeze is illegal and unconstitutional.
By not calling it a coup, the media have also permitted Americans to view the regime’s refusal to follow the orders of the federal courts as a political response, albeit an extreme one, to judicial rulings that are at odds with what a president wants.
There is nothing about the regime’s refusal to be bound by the courts that places it within the boundaries of acceptable politics. Our system of government gives the federal judiciary final say about whether actions of the executive are legal and constitutional. Refusal to be bound by federal court rulings shows how rogue this regime truly is.
Earlier this week, a federal judge excoriated the regime for failing to comply with “the plain text” of an edict the judge issued last month to release billions of dollars in federal grants. Vice President JD Vance, presumably in response, declared that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
Vance graduated from the same law school I did. He knows he’s speaking out of his derriere.
In sum, the regime’s disregard for laws and constitutional provisions surrounding access to private data, impoundment of funds appropriated by Congress, and refusal to be bound by judicial orders amount to a takeover of our democracy by a handful of men who have no legal authority to do so.
If this is not a coup d’etat, I don’t know what is.
The mainstream media must call this what it is. In doing so, they would not be “taking sides” in a political dispute. They would be accurately describing the dire emergency America now faces.
Unless Americans see it and understand the whole of it for what it is rather than piecemeal stories that “flood the zone,” Americans cannot possibly respond to the whole of it. The regime is undertaking so many outrageous initiatives that the big picture cannot be seen without it being described clearly and simply.
Unless Americans understand that this is indeed a coup that’s wildly illegal and fundamentally unconstitutional — not just because that happens to be the opinion of constitutional scholars or professors of law, or the views of Trump’s political opponents, but because it is objectively and in reality a coup — Americans cannot rise up as the clear majority we are, and demand that democracy be restored.
What are your thoughts?
@klezman NPR has its own reasons to tread lightly even though only about 1% of its funding comes from the government. With the weaponizing of the FCC, attracting too much attention would at best be a distraction, all the way through wasting resources on defense, to revocation of licenses.
All the rest of the named publications are owned or controlled by multi-billionaires: Wapo=Bezos, New Yorker=Newhouse, The Atlantic=Jobs, NYT=Ochs-Sulzberger, LA Times=Soon-Shiong. It is possible those owners see their fortunes entwined with Trumps’. That is true at least for Bezos and Soon-Shiong, the former with multiple government contracts (AWS) and the latter with multiple patents and patent applications. I haven’t done the deep dive into the others.
At any rate I can see the reasons for the, shall we say, hesitancy, Reich calls out falling into 4 categories:
@davirom This all makes sense. But dammit, they have a responsibility.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/deal-reached-to-protect-names-of-fbi-agents-in-jan-6-probes-0547b4b9?st=GtD2iS
@canonizer
To their credit, they finally called J6 a riot, not an insurrection.
@rjquillin The WSJ referred to it regularly as a riot. I’ll try to use that as my benchmark rather than the Times going forward to satisfy conservatives here as a point of reconciliation. And I canceled my sub to WaPo so am less likely to share those.
What does it say about these so-called peaceful tourists strolling peacefully through a peaceful DC if there are validated concerns about the safety of government officials going forward from reprisals of the peaceful January 6 peaceful demonstrators?
@canonizer @rjquillin Reminds me of something I saw yesterday (Note: this is entirely in jest!):
@Mark_L @rjquillin lol
@canonizer @Mark_L
Babylon Bee?
@canonizer @rjquillin Affirmative (you can see it in the fine print just above the picture).
@canonizer @Mark_L
not with my eyes in the morning!
But from where else might this come…
@Mark_L @rjquillin It’s funny to me because I’m sure I read it in the opposite light.
@canonizer @rjquillin
Why is calling that event anything other than an insurrection so important to you? What, precisely, was the aim of the riot/violence/storming the Capitol on January 6, 2020? Does it meet any of the definitions below?
Definitions of insurrection from…
Webster: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
Cambridge dictionary: an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence
Collins: a rising up against established authority; rebellion; revolt
Britannica: a usually violent attempt to take control of a government
Webster’s 1828 (a Christian theological site claiming to use the original version of Webster’s dictionary): A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.
Interesting examination of the issue and history of the application of the term “insurrection” from Time: https://time.com/6137604/history-insurrection-jan-6/
@canonizer @klezman
Were any charged, or convicted, with insurrection per
18 U.S. Code § 2383
Why not?
@klezman @rjquillin I mean the Arizona case on election interference was the clear first step, which was going to be followed by Georgia, though it played out because a baseless claim of conflict that was upheld due to obstruction.
Even if no one was charged, it does not change the fact that Trump told a group of supporters to stop Mike Pence from ratifying the election after spending months attempting “legal” solutions to losing. Sounds like his creative attempt to stay in power, through state, judicial and, ultimately, physical manipulation in defiance of the election results was a something or other.
They could have at least hung Mike Pence. Can’t trust those insurrectionists with anything, really, when it comes down to it.
@rjquillin
I’m sure you are aware it’s quite common for charges and sentences to get reduced or dropped for a multitude of reasons.
Regardless of political affiliation, and on a global scale, the consensus is quite clear about what happened on January 6th.
Of course not ALL of the participants were there with violent intentions, but thousands of them were. They knew exactly what they were doing.
The following quote is a snipet from:
https://www.thewellnews.com/law/courts-ruling-would-reduce-sentences-for-some-jan-6-capitol-insurrectionists/
There are countless unedited (and lengthy) videos from that day and the videos don’t lie. Trump on the other hand, has proven himself to be a compulsive liar. He knows darn well J6 was not a “day of love.”
I was hoping this video could be embedded, but I guess it can’t due to it being a YouTube “short.” It’s less than a minute in length.
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/AQ4sNVzY7oU
@canonizer @klezman @rjquillin Of all the things to try to defend, I still don’t understand why conservatives try to minimize what happened on January 6th. The active, purposeful intent to overturn a free and fair election should disqualify any individual from ever holding office again, no matter their political affiliation. Free elections are the basis of our democracy, and a significant portion of the country was okay with someone not honoring the results. Continues to boggle my mind that the Republican primary process wasn’t even close, and that so many people were okay with nominating Trump to represent them in the presidential election. Seeing @chipgreen response about Jan 6th crossing the line does give me some hope, and I guess I can understand a diehard conservative voting Trump in the presidential election, but the primary process is different.
@kawichris650
It seems perhaps you missed my point.
I will not excuse those that did damage or harm, they deserve fair justice for deeds committed, but not for inflated charges; and I disagree with the blanket dismissals without review.
However, can you cite any that were convicted, or even charged, must less convicted, for the statute I referenced for “insurrection”?
I’d like to see reference to them if any exist as I believe that charge was not filed for any. I could be wrong, but I’ll stand by my statement lacking any evidence it was applied.
@canonizer @chipgreen @dirtdoctor @rjquillin In addition to the above, I was making an argument about meaning, not a legal argument. Although sometimes I play a lawyer on calls for work, I have no formal legal training and would not dare to think I know the legal ins and outs of the statutory criminal definition of the term “insurrection”.
Just the plain meaning of the word is what I’m looking for. The same wording that one would use in everyday speech.
@chipgreen @dirtdoctor @klezman @rjquillin
I don’t understand any of it and I’ve been wrong about everything.
Hegseth is blaming the Democrats for a notice about a tax under payment. Trump almost certainly twisted the irs into auditing Comey and Mccabe.
The central tenant seems to be anything trump does is good and the rest is bogeymen.
@klezman
Were there “bad actors”? Yes, absolutely; a small minority.
Were some Trump supporters? Quite likely.
Was the event an “Insurrection”? No, except it seems in the eyes of much of the media and those attempting to play it as such.
Sorry, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
@klezman @rjquillin attempted
Trump told the crowd to stop the ratification. It feels closer to text book than far-fetched. Get that Mike pence to do the right thing!
And that is on top of his months of lawfare
@rjquillin
Some?? Was anybody involved not a Trump supporter?
Ok, so you’ve made an assertion but didn’t explain it or support it with any evidence or proof. Agreeing to disagree can only come after a thorough exposition of one’s views, subject to mutual examination in an open and honest exchange of ideas and views. I remain persuadable.
One question to ponder as you (maybe) think about a more full response - how many people involved in the storming of the Capitol on January 6 to prevent the exercise of the Congress’s legal authority would have had to do it with that specific intent for it to be, in your eyes, insurrective behaviour? (to adverbify it)
@klezman
From Newsweek
@rjquillin
I hope I’m not missing your point. It seems you believe J6 wasn’t an insurrection on the basis that no one was charged on that specific statute, that you know of. You also expressed your distaste for inflated charges, and I will agree with you on that. I honestly don’t know how an average person would access detailed information on the specific charges for all of those people. So I can’t provide evidence, one way or the other.
As I previously stated though, it’s not unheard of for charges to get reduced or dismissed due to a variety of legal strategies, political reasons, etc.
Even if no one was charged with that specific statute, I’m curious why you seem solely focused on that as a litmus test. It doesn’t change the fact that Trump knowingly and repeatedly made false claims about the election being stolen, which incited the events on January 6th. Trump knows very well the weight his words hold and the influence he has on his base. There is no plausible deniability.
As @klezman mentioned, the actions of the people that day certainly match the various definitions of the word “insurrection.” If not an insurrection, why else were those people storming our nation’s capital?
As I mentioned previously, participants themselves even used the word “insurrection” to describe what they were doing on January 6th, under the direction/influence of Trump. There is evidence of that. I included one example in my previous post.
There are Republicans that have also acknowledged it as an insurrection. So it’s not just liberals that see it as such.
In the end, it was an attempt at an insurrection. Just because it wasn’t successful, doesn’t make it any less so.
@rjquillin
Regarding the Newsweek link…
Quora post about Newsweek
It’s not just one person’s view. There’s an overall consensus when you look at the extended comments.
@kawichris650 @rjquillin
OK, so I scanned the Newsweek article. I find it interesting that at the top they say it was all three: insurrection, protest, and riot. I agree with that characterisation.
I note that the article was written before the House Select Committee did its work and had its hearings and released its report. I think that answers some of the questions those authors had outstanding at the time of their writing.
But this also revealed to me one of the potential sources of what seems like us talking past each other. Upthread, you said “sure, there were a few bad apples” on Jan 6. To me, given my biases, I hear that as completely dismissing the enormity of what happened that day. Perhaps what you’re saying is more like “only a small number of the assembled protesters became rioters or insurrectionists”, and in that regard I agree. One of my weaknesses is failing to specify those thing that I take for granted, of which that is one.
So I happily apologise if I’ve unintentionally implied that somehow I thought all or nearly all 120,000 people there that day (Newsweek’s number) were insurrectionists. I’ve never thought that.
So let’s take my questions as all applying only to the portion of people who were rioters. I will even exclude those people who, seeing the Capitol buildings breached, milled around in places normally open to the public. How many people does it take acting with the intent to deny the Congress the ability to do its job in certifying the election for it to be called an insurrection? Or is this question not even correct because attempting to do what they tried to do categorically, in your mind, not an insurrection?
Some food for thought…
(Rather than posting the entire lengthy article, I’m quoting the key points to keep this relatively short.)
That’s from a 2021 NYT article and here’s the link if anyone’s interested, although I’m guessing there’s likely a paywall.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/03/opinion/progressives-conservatives-think-again.html
@kawichris650 I’m probably guilty of all of this. See above hysteria.
@canonizer @kawichris650 I think I read this back in 2021, actually. It makes many valid points, of course. And I always try to keep aware of my biases. Since I do predictive modelling for a living, I hope I’m able to keep things somewhat dispassionate and minimally biased!
I think that’s also part of why I can relentlessly push people to voice their opinions - it helps me check my biases and I always appreciate trying to see things from others’ points of view.
@kawichris650 Isn’t that just Dunning Kruger?
@FritzCat @kawichris650 Isn’t Dunning Kruger is a simple overestimation of ability?
For example, the discussion above about the tourists in DC that happened to wander into the wrong place back on Jan 6…
Back on December 4th, Brian Thompson (CEO of United Healthcare) was assassinated. This isn’t new news to most of you I’m sure.
Here’s what is new…
The preemptive legal fundraiser for Luigi Mangione (the alleged shooter) has been growing and has now surpassed $480,000.
I understand the tragic incident is drawing attention to the many issues with our nation’s healthcare system, but I’m honestly shocked by how many people condone what he (allegedly) did. Especially to the extent that people have donated money to help cover his defense costs.
It’s not even a matter of people thinking “they got the wrong guy.” On the contrary, it seems they are supporting him because they think he did something good. The prison has been overwhelmed with supporters sending him letters, photos, and books. So many in fact, that Mangione made a public request for his supporters to refrain from sending books, and to limit the number of photos they send him.
I won’t go as far as saying the sky is falling, but I don’t think this bodes well for our society. What is the world coming to?
@kawichris650 I’m curious why you’re surprised. The failures of our ability to deliver healthcare and/or the indebtedness from receiving care touches almost every family in the country.
The alternatives feel very far away - move to catastrophic plans and hope a free market sorts out the price of ongoing care; dispossess private insurance by mandating single payer; or continue cobbling together what we currently have, where various 3rd parties negotiate both with and against the patient’s interest for providing care.
On the most basic level, health insurance takes money out of the healthcare industry so there’s less to go around for patients and providers. But I’m not sure providers give a single fuck, as they have largely consolidated into massive monoliths as well.
@canonizer @kawichris650
And that is a justification for murder?
(crap! accidentally posted and now I’m up against the 5-minute edit timer - I’m going to have to reply to myself…)
@canonizer @kawichris650 @TimothyB I do not hear anything remotely “justifying” murder. Explaining is not equivalent to justifying.
I agree with the basic premise, though, that the sympathy and funds being thrown at this (alleged) premeditated murderer/assassin does not bode well for society. But then again, look at how many people voted for Trump, a politician who embodies the spirit of hurting others. Another thing that doesn’t bode well for society.
@canonizer @kawichris650 It’s just another face of the same drives that cause some people to minimize or condone Jan 6: Trying to change the outcome of an election by force is justifiable if I like the direction of the change. The system is corrupt, so destruction is the only option.
By the way, ever hear the phrase “You become what you hate”?
@klezman I think the connotations of “I’m curious why you’re surprised.” are not mere explanation. The implication is that support for a murder is natural and normal.
I suppose whataboutism is contagious.
@kawichris650 @TimothyB populism strikes me as a natural outgrowth of extraordinary wealth disparity. The promise of middle class is fully elusive now to much of the country. You cannot just work a job (or even two), afford to purchase a house, save for college and et cetera.
A plurality or majority of the country is pay check to pay check with 0 or negative net worth. At some point, you get a revolution. That will probably lead to an authoritarian leftwing or authoritarian rightwing government, neither of which will ultimately improve the lives of the people on the bottom half.
The Elon populists would have us believe that the country is freeloading off the top decile of wealth, despite not paying personal taxes (or corporate taxes, depending) but through their job creation/cost reduction/life improvement efforts.
The Bernie populists believe that the opportunities given to the ultra wealthy to make those fortunes should be more widely distributed.
Anyway, eventually something has to give. Let them eat cake and all.
Edit: I say this as a liberal with respect for institutions and not a leftist. But the concentration of wealth encouraged by both D and R politicians after 40 straight years of lowering taxes has not served the public interest.
@TimothyB Whataboutism is decidedly contagious, yes. I despise it because it fundamentally evades dealing with the substance of a claim/argument/point.
But I still don’t see “I’m curious why you’re surprised” as equivalent to condoning behaviour. I am not surprised one bit that somebody who’s been wronged by a health insurance company attacks a high-ranking member of said company. I am also not surprised that many agree with the attacker’s point of view and/or plight, regardless of whether they also believe the attacker was justified in their attack. None of that empathy or awareness or understanding means that I condone attacking that man. Far from it.
@canonizer @kawichris650 @TimothyB
This. And the entire post. That consequence of high wealth inequality is also very strongly supported by research. I also am not a leftist, and in my native Canada I am somewhat right-leaning, even though that makes me left-leaning here.
@klezman
“We have no indication that he was ever a client of United Healthcare, but he does make mention that it is the fifth largest corporation in America, which would make it the largest healthcare organization in America. So that’s possibly why he targeted that company.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspect-ceos-killing-was-not-insured-unitedhealthcare-company-says-rcna184069
@kawichris650 @klezman @TimothyB just to bookend the conversation, I am not saying that I support targeted assassinations of the wealthy. Anger eventually bubbles over into violence - that is why liberals raised the fear of stochastic violence. If you spew hate at a captive audience long enough, you will find someone willing to do violence.
But I will say that the ultrawealthy fear this unrest, which is why they play geographical arbitrage and build self sustaining compounds in far flung locales.
@TimothyB I forgot that. Regardless, the gist of the argument remains. My condemnation of violence and murder also remains.
@klezman Fair enough. We might be talking past each other at this point.
Or maybe we speak different dialects of English!
For me “I am not surprised one bit that you got a speeding ticket” implies that the speeding ticket was deserved. Similarly, “I am not surprised one bit that Brian Thompson was murdered” implies he had it coming.
Perhaps Canadian-English has less imputed blame than American-English - we just love casting blame here!
@TimothyB Ha! Maybe
@canonizer @kawichris650 @klezman @TimothyB
You might be considered right-leaning in a major Canadian metropolis, like Toronto, but I assure you that you would not be considered right-leaning in rural areas such as Alberta’s prairie region. Much like in the US, where the vast majority of liberals are concentrated in and around major cities.
@canonizer @chipgreen @kawichris650 @TimothyB I’m using the national political parties as my proxy. The only one I’ve never voted for? The (far left) NDP.
bUt the DemOcRats lawfare something something.
wild: https://www.wsj.com/business/media/trump-media-truth-social-rumble-lawsuit-brazil-supreme-court-justice-15c60fe1
This sums up the sense of whiplash many are feeling: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/5151253-conservatism-used-to-mean-something-now-its-just-whatever-trump-says/
No paywall.
Very curious to hear folks’ thoughts on this one.
And relatedly, here’s more evidence of the thought and speech police on the right: https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5152978-new-york-university-college-republicans-resign/
@klezman
Sounds like an accurate summary to me. Unfortunately, conservatives probably won’t see it as such.
@kawichris650 Well, let’s see what conservatives have to say about it, then. I am quite curious.
Psychologically speaking, though, people tend to not react well when they’re being told they’re acting contrary to their stated beliefs/morals/principles.
So the Ukraine started the war, …hmmmm the insanity continues…
@marjoryk
I my opinion, he was talking on the fly, and out of his ass.
I don’t think anyone has ever told him “Think before you speak.” Or perhaps people have and he just isn’t capable (or refuses to do so).
I wish this was 100% in jest, but unfortunately it seems Putin does have quite an influence on Trump.
@kawichris650 It’s been plain for all to see if they want to - Trump has always admired strong authoritarian leaders. That can work, at least sort of, in a corporation. But when you apply it to a country it becomes problematic - something I thought nearly all Americans agreed on.
Here’s a very short clip for those who haven’t seen this yet.
@kawichris650 Wow…the lies and arrogance are impressive.
@kawichris650 Fortunately, we’re sending in half-baked negotiators…to negotiate with Russia’s best.
@FritzCat @kawichris650 No need to send the best when the outcome is predetermined.
@kawichris650 in my opinion he lied like always. I’m not sure he’s capable of telling the truth.
On his 83rd birthday, Mitch McConnell announced today he will not seek reelection in 2026.
Republican senators are an accurate representation of their constituency.
@canonizer Elaborate?
@klezman they are unserious people. confirming Patel is just another example.
@canonizer Ugh…I hadn’t seen that he was confirmed. Let’s get ready for more vendettas! Woohoo!
I’ve been reading a bit more from The Hill lately. What do y’all who vote/have voted for the GOP have to say about this take?
https://thehill.com/opinion/5127332-conservative-party-revolution/
@klezman Chesterton also said:
“The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly. The rich have always objected to being governed at all.”
@davirom Definitely apropos to today’s issues…
@davirom @klezman
There’s at least one rich guy that seems to prefer to do the governing (despite not even being elected.)
The photo is in jest…
The usps was organized in article I of the constitution. The usps is not a business.
This is what an actual infringement of the 1st amendment looks like: https://newrepublic.com/post/191787/trump-doj-threatens-democratic-congressman-garcia-elon-musk-dick-pic
(it is not when a private company like facebook or twitter chooses to ban nazi propaganda accounts in 2012-2017; obviously they’ve updated their respective terms of use with respect to nazi accounts more recently)
@canonizer Wow
@canonizer Weaponizing the DOJ much?
Members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are planning to sue the DOJ. Any financial settlement (or decision to settle) gives Trump the power to fund a personal armed militia
Here’s a story about the potential suit and news of Tarrio’s most recent arrest.
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/enrique-tarrio-arrest-proud-boys-reunion-b2702574.html
something something treason, brown shirts et cetera
Dan Bongino Picked to Be Deputy Director of FBI
@rjquillin Isn’t that one of those right wing talk radio guys? I barely recognise the name so I wouldn’t be surprised if I was way off on that recollection.
Is this a good pick in your eyes?
What of the people pardoned after being convicted for rioting on Jan 6 who are now saying they’re going to sue the justice department? Do you think they have a valid case?
@klezman Ex NYC cop and Secret Service detail for Obama
@rjquillin interesting bits to mention given that you didn’t also say “yes, he’s a right wing media personality”.
From Wikipedia:
My very brief reading makes this look like yet another Trump loyalist being given a position he is not qualified for by traditional metrics.