Gromnir

it's highly unlikely there will be more trials related to epstein, and that woulda' been the situation even if the doj were not complete compromised. the sex trafficking and assault cases against epstein and ghislaine maxwell were the strongest options for the government. epstein died in jail and so did his case. what most people don't realize is that right up until ghislaine were found guilty, prosecutors and court observers were not certain they would get a conviction. the events o' the case is more remote now, but even when ghislane were being tried, you had to rely on witness testimony about events many years past, witnesses who were traumatized young women at the time o' the crimes. understandably, the witnesses in the maxwell case were less effective than one might hope. any new case would involve statute o' limitations issues as well as the fact that every single time you prosecuted somebody new, you would need to again put on the stand women with lingering emotional trauma who is needing recollect facts from two decades remote, witnesses who would be subject to brutal cross exam over and over and over again. the feds won a conviction o' ghislane maxwell, and afterwards the prosecutors no doubt shared a collective sigh o' relief. no new case based on temporal remote release o' "epstein files" is gonna be stronger than what the doj managed to put together in their pursuit o' a ghislaine maxwell conviction, and the conviction o' ghislane maxwell were more o' a crapshoot than the doj ordinarily undertakes. an ethical doj motivated to put wrongdoers behind bars would be highly reluctant to pursue additional charges which had low chances o' conviction but a near guarantee o' further traumatizing victim witnesses. is the reason(s) why the biden doj did not pursue further indictments. HA! Good Fun! ps while ghislaine maxwell were being investigated and prosecuted, the doj and wh were effective precluded from releasing, "the files." after the conviction, when it became obvious no further prosecutions would be pursued, doj policy precluded release. is privacy laws at issue, but more relevant is the fact the doj has a standing policy against releasing investigation materials where the reputation o' individuals who they has chosen not to pursue charges could be damaged, individuals who got no day in court to defend themselves.

more legal weirdness and for those who cannot get past the paywall, a smidge... The memo, which was completed in late summer, is said to open with a lengthy recitation of claims submitted by the White House, including that drug cartels are intentionally trying to kill Americans and destabilize the Western Hemisphere. The groups are presented not as unscrupulous businesses trying to profit from drug trafficking, but as terrorists who sell narcotics as a means of financing violence. Based on such claims, the memo states that Mr. Trump has legitimate authority to determine that the United States and its allies are legally in a formal state of armed conflict with “narco-terrorist” drug cartels, according to the people who have read the document. The rest of the memo’s reasoning is based on that premise. ... most parents is aware o' the Because I Said So doctrine of authority, but am thinking it is a bold approach to suggest it constitutes a legal sufficient rationale for the killing o' 80 people sans any proof that they is posing an imminent threat o' violence to americans. HA! Good Fun!

'cause there is no, "apart from the legal specifics." Congress has passed a law which requires special consideration for americans with disabilities. lack o' conversational spanish knowledge is not a disability for purposes o' the various fed laws which address accommodations for those with disabilities. why do you distinguish 'tween english and spanish as to which is requiring translation? am not knowing the exact number, but is more than 300 languages which is the primary language of american citizens. ( @Elerond, "177 indigenous languages" refers to those spoken by "native americans," or whatever is the label this week. Gromnir, for instance, understands enough lakota that we can follow the gist o' a conversation between our aunts who is aged 84 and 90 respective, but we sure as hell cannot carry on a conversation with them. am doubting there is more than 1500 living persons who are able to legit speak lakota, and that number shrinks every year.) regardless, trump passed an executive order in march o' this year which purports to make english the official language o' the US. at the very least, the trump executive order invalidates a clinton era eo which made translation services for non english speakers more readily available. so you got no specific Congressional law which would require interpreters to translate legislators who is exercising their first amendment rights to speak howsoever the f they wish, while simultaneous you got a Presidential eo which, at least until challenged, makes english the official language o' the US while specific diminishing translation services for non-english speakers. is not an "apart from the legal specifics," question. HA! Good Fun!

keep in mind this is worse than it appears 'cause is an attempt to redefine the pardon power so that it applies to state crimes. for the entire history o' the US, it has been understood that a President may only pardon an individual for violations of federal law. as such, those who would commit crime on behalf o' trump knowing he could pardon them for fed crimes might nevertheless hesitate if they believed they would be subject to the laws of new york or california. am suspecting this is another story which gets far less coverage than it deserves. after jan 6 and changpeng zhao, this fells like more o' the same, right? is not more o' the same. HA! Good Fun!

am suspecting you identify what the moderate democrats (other than fetterman) want. keep in mind this ain't the first ever government shutdown, and historically, the minority loses every single time. not kidding. the minority always loses. the thing is, losing has rare ever hurt the minority... just ask tea party republicans who got a shutdown over obamacare and then crushed democrats in the midterms. if Gromnir were looking at the current situation complete dispassionate, we could find a good argument for why the moderate democrats who caved did the right thing from a strategic pov. the initial stated reason for the shutdown from democrats always looked impractical to us and they didn't have any kinda exit strategy worked out short o' extending aca subsidies. democrats were gonna have to cave eventual, so says history and the fact democrats have souls which meant that seeing hundreds o' thousands and even millions o' americans suffering woulda' been difficult for democrats to bear for long. shutdown Congress meant that the executive had more practical power and the billions in (illegal) tariff monies which were already collected by the treasury could be dispersed as trump saw fit w/o any legislative oversight. most americans blamed the shutdown on trump and the republicans, and the recent elections showed that there is a whole lotta frustration with trump and his party, so moderate democrats likely figure they already achieved some kinda win but that a continued shutdown were just gonna lead to anger at both democrats and republicans. gotta keep in mind that just 'cause americans are angry at trump does not mean they are happy with democrats. additional, same as we don't want scotus to save trump from his tariff stoopid, if democrats successful force aca subsidies to continue through 2026, then those americans current facing huge health care premium increases will have never suffered, and am guaranteeing that by the 2026 elections those not suffering americans will have already forgotten that democrats saved 'em from trump. am knowing it is horrible to play politics with american's health care coverage and snap benefits, but the democrats need to find a way to guarantee that voters see republicans as responsible for their suffering, and with our complete polarized media landscape, that is a tougher chore than you might believe. am knowing people rare follow our advice about checking fox news for stories and paying particular attention to the reader/viewer feedback/comments section, but am betting most american democrats and europeans have no idea just how siloed is the information maga and even moderate republicans is getting these days. we have no shared reality, but real pain is difficult to svengali away with a fox and friends segment. etc. is not difficult for us to make an argument as to why the moderate's playbook has value. period. 'course american politics is more emotional than it has been in a long time. facts matter less than emotional gratification. we gotta work extreme hard to explain why american farmers continue to vote trump when they were doing so much better under biden, but paradoxical, facts ignore reality. american farmers vote trump 'cause that is what rural, white americans do, and if you are the one farmer speaking up and arguing that biden were better for farmers, then you are gonna be ostracized by the community... and look what trump has done to get that one trans kid in iowa from competing against girls... it doesn't need to make sense, 'cause facts is less important today than has been the case for a long time. unfortunate, democrats and libs who rage at the obtuse maga zealots are similar invested in their team winning the shutdown fight... and maybe not even winning. democrats need to see their team fight for a change. cave to republicans and trump is a betrayal by democrats 'cause the fight is more important than the outcome. am able to make a sound argument as to why a prolonged shutdown were not good for democrats, but is it more true that voters needed to see democrats fight. caving now makes the previous weeks o' shutdown look pointless and weak. democrats never did have an exit strategy, so... edit: this should be meaningful, but it isn't. even in 2018, is no way we ever woulda' imagined this kinda overt corruption. and for all those silently whatabouting... whatever. HA! Good Fun!

Why I Am Resigning ... When I became a senior judge in 2013, my successor was appointed, so my resignation will not create a vacancy to be filled by the president. My colleagues on the United States District Court in Massachusetts and judges on the lower federal courts throughout the country are admirably deciding a variety of cases generated by Trump’s many executive orders and other unprecedented actions. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly removed the temporary restraints imposed on those actions by lower courts in deciding emergency motions on its “shadow docket” with little, if any, explanation. I doubt that if I remained a judge I would fare any better than my colleagues. ... I resigned in order to speak out, support litigation, and work with other individuals and organizations dedicated to protecting the rule of law and American democracy. I also intend to advocate for the judges who cannot speak publicly for themselves. I cannot be confident that I will make a difference. I am reminded, however, of what Senator Robert F. Kennedy said in 1966 about ending apartheid in South Africa: “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope.” Enough of these ripples can become a tidal wave. And as Nobel Laureate Seamus Heaney wrote, sometimes the “longed-for tidal wave of justice can rise up, and hope and history rhyme.” I want to do all that I can to make this such a time. ... am highly recommending reading the linked in its entirety. am knowing the "tidal wave of justice" ain't gonna happen today or tomorrow, and the disappointment am left with as our fellow americans shrug off improbable new trump administration excesses and indignities is beyond the scope o' our capacity to fully convey. what is it gonna take to make a difference? even so, with each additional attendee o' a no kings march and every time another mark l. wolf publicly declares their outrage, am a bit more hopeful those seeming trivial acts of resistance build towards something meaningful.

this sounds like a reagan republican position. not a criticism btw, just a recognition at how different the politics of immigration has become in a couple decades. keep in mind, based on 2024 predictions, social security will likely run dry o' money in a decade, or a bit less. is a dirty and not-so-secret truth that illegal immigrants, who pay taxes and thus support social security, do not benefit from the program. seeing as how nobody has come up with a politically practical solution for the looming social security collapse, and recognizing that illegal immigrants is offering substantial aid in preventing the grim reaper from visiting social security, there has been little motivation to end such a beneficial if unbalanced relationship 'tween the US and illegals. also, if you got ~50% o' the country convinced that immigrants is a drag on local economies, take jobs from americans, commit violent crime at disproportionate rates, and eat the local cat and dog population, universal amnesty for immigrants is gonna be a tough political sell. alternatives to "give everyone a ssn," is hb-1 and h2-a programs, which seeks to provide greater access o' temporary work visas to foreigners looking for work opportunities in the US. most illegal immigrants in the US is people who came here legal. individuals overstaying hb-1, f-1, m-1 and h2-a visas represent the majority o' illegals, but ice and cbp ain't raiding google or intel campuses. if there were a simple and political viable solution, somebody woulda' implemented it decades past. the problem is that illegal immigration is simultaneous a boon for the US economy and a political landmine nobody has wanted to touch until recent. exacerbating the issue in 2025 is that 'tween fears o' widespread cartel violence and the embrace o' the great replacement theory by fox viewers, not to mention a widespread misapprehension about who illegal immigrants is regardless o' political identification, solutions has become increasing unlikely. HA! Good Fun!

two amusing tweets and HA! Good Fun!

am genuine disappointed, but not with the verdict. jeanine pirro taking this to a jury were vulgar, and am glad the jury functional told the government to, f-off. however, now that there has been a verdict, we won't be able to talk about how insane it is that sandwich guy were on trial for... aside, am knowing it sounds odd, but am hopeful the Court allows trump to do his tariffs. yes, trump's tariffs is unconstitutional, but that hasn't stopped this Court from changing precedent and/or for altering the clear meaning o' the text o' the Constitution to benefit trump. declare trump's tariffs unconstitutional saves trump from himself and then the president may also blame any subsequent economic pain on the Court's interference. americans need to feel economic pain to realize trump ain't some kinda business mastermind playing 3-d chess while every other country is playing checkers. it would be unfortunate that just as increased costs from trump's tariffs begin hurting ordinary americans, the Court could swoop in and save him... although if they sit on this and then final deliver their opinion in july, that could be ideal. HA! Good Fun!

sandwich guy trial, after two days of jury deliberation, still hasn't produced a verdict. ... somebody (multiple bodies?) on this jury does not want to punish the defendant. am gonna admit we had to look up fed criminal misdemeanor assault, 'cause that is literal something we never saw when we worked criminal. am suspecting the fact nobody has ever needed give jury instructions for misdemeanor assault is the reason why this ludicrous trial has stretched to five freaking days. the fed statute for criminal misdemeanor assault, pretty much has the same elements as common law civil battery: an act by the defendant intent to commit the act by the defendant-- not accidental contact a harmful or offensive touching lack o' consent by the plaintiff... of course since this is criminal, there is no plaintiff, so instead you got the victim. that's it, and same as civil (which means we are talking about money damages instead o' loss o' liberty for the defendant,) the standard o' review for the tryer of fact is a reasonable person standard insofar as what constitutes a harmful or offensive touching, although you need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. our "pretty much" is doing some heavy lifting and is what has caused confusion, 'cause as is typical, when yahoos write laws, they feel need to add... flair. every word matters. the final jury instructions read pretty much what we got above, but... regardless, am personal rooting for sandwich guy, but this isn't a tough call which needs multiple days o' deliberation... save that at least somebody on the jury most certain doesn't want to find this guy guilty. yeah, there were not even the possibility o' meaningful harm in the sandwich toss, and proving that sandwich guy intended to harm the cbp officer is beyond mere improbable, but is difficult to imagine the reasonable person who wouldn't see being pelted with a sandwich as punctuation to a verbal tirade as constituting an offensive act. however, we will note the court messed this whole thing up by providing less than clear jury instructions, which again, is surprisingly understandable seeing as how none o' the lawyers or the judge has needed to consider jury instructions for criminal misdemeanor assault previous to the start o' the sandwich guy trial. in any event, if somebody we trusted had told us that this would be, at minimum, a five day trial, we woulda' suggested they were chemical altered. HA! Good Fun! ps a reminder, a misdemeanor may include jail time up to one year. as such, from the defendant's pov, this is hardly the nothingburger people would reflexive assume it to be.

am tending to agree, but am gonna note specific and glaring exceptions such as the 2020 georgia senate races which had gop candidates fail not just 'cause they were terrible but also precisely 'cause of trump. 'ccording to exit polls, people in georgia were voting against trump as much as they were voting for the dem candidates. similar, given the current situation in virginia with the government shutdown and doge cuts still impacting the state, am suspecting that trump being on the ballot woulda' resulted in even worse numbers for republicans. is also noteworthy that the guy running for govenor in nj were active distancing from trump https://www.jack4nj.com/ and https://www.jack4nj.com/endorsements bottom o' the page is the one mention o' trump... until he made a tv commercial which backfired. that said, democrats recent did a post mortem which revealed that if the US had australian style compulsory voting, trump's win over kamalla harris woulda' been considerable larger. democrats understandably focused instead on how small the gains for trump were overall and the fact dems were doing increasing well with reliable college educated voters, but am thinking that downplaying the fact that americans as a whole were in fact more pro trump than the election results showed should be disturbing and something 'pon which democrats need to focus. like bartimaeus, am tending to view the low-info trump supporter as a challenge when am trying to describe 'em in a positive light. am hesitant to call 'em "deplorables," but am admitting frustration over their seeming willful ignorance and what looks like approval of cruelty and bigotry. viewed in the best light possible, am recognizing how since the pandemic hit, trump fans has had some kinda idealized recollection o' the first three years o' the trump Presidency, and many wanted a return to that time. even in 2020, many people were already nostalgic for 2017? 'course, is noteworthy that while being cruel towards trans people and foreigners remains acceptable in many instances, the low-info trump voters are increasingly disapproving o' much o' the ice and cbp tactics they are seeing on tv and the internet. the low-info voter's ambivalence to all the trump administration corruption is baffling, but there has been a shift amongst the rogans, theo vaughns and others regarding immigration efforts. furthermore am gonna suggest most o' the low info folks is increasing frustrated that trump hasn't brought back 2017 any better than did biden. polls is consistent showing disapproval with trump on economic issues, which has never been the case. "rome wasn't built in a day," was the excuse for continued economic pain in april of 2025, but it is now november, and tariff impacts is just starting to hit. trump were able to drag other republicans up in part 'cause they benefited from his improbable mystique as a successful business man who would ensure economic prosperity. is not fair or accurate, but republicans has typical been more trusted on economic issues. that said, while the great recession weren't bush's fault, he took the blame. post pandemic inflation were mostly not biden's fault, but biden and kamala took the blame. the current economic issues is in fact almost entire the fault o' one guy: djt. polls reveal that unlike in the past when voters blamed the economic downturn on the chinese or corona, this time americans blame trump. is different. given the issues in virginia, trump on the ballot likely wouldn't have helped. in the next few years, do you believe the economic and immigration situation in the rest o' the country gets worse or better? the economic solution for the wh looks to mirror the tech bros pov: the inevitable ai miracle will fix all problems, so am also wondering if republicans have a plan for dealing with the hits they are taking amongst latino voters, 'cause their mid-term playbook is dependent on their gerrymandering efforts more than anything else. if republicans cannot count on latinos in 2026, than the redistricting efforts might be less effective than anticipated, especial as many o' their maps assume that trump gains with latinos is a locked-in feature. heck, even marjorie taylor greene is complaining about how republican leadership is ignoring the needs and concerns o' real republican voters particular in regards to medicaid and snap funding... although it is noteworthy that her previous votes made the medicaid cuts possible, so... regardless, while am agreeing with you that trump has been effective in bringing out low info voters who like him v. anybody else by a large margin, the situation in virginia suggests that accessing those individuals woulda' led to similar and maybe even worse results for republicans last night. HA! Good Fun!

Mapping a Democratic sweep across Virginia, New Jersey and New York for those who cannot get past the paywall, in both new jersey and virginia, every county shifted towards democrats in the governor races including big shifts in heavily latino counties which were trump wins in 2024. in the scotus tariff arguments, ... 'cause J. Gorsuch has been in a coma for the past +9 months. in any event, the so-called textualist majority o' the Court appears skeptical o' trump's claims that he has authority to impose his tariff scheme. HA! Good Fun!

gonna suggest the most underreported story o' the night is the two georgia democrats who got better than 60% o' the vote in a statewide election. In an Upset, Democrats Oust Two Republicans on Georgia’s Utility Board Since 2007, no Democrat has served on the commission, whose members have six-year terms. But the two Democratic candidates tapped into anger over rising electric bills at a time when prices have risen sharply across the country. keep in mind that steve bannon and other maga whisperers is flipping out about this result in particular. HA! Good Fun!

*chuckle* who wouldn't want to live under shakira law? ... gonna admit we hadn't heard that reference in a while. HA! Good Fun! ps am hopeful the mikie sherrill results help convince a few people that avoiding woman candidates for President 'cause americans is too misogynistic has become less tenable. 'course am gonna admit that mikie sherrill and abigail spanbeger (who both overperformed kamala harris by a big margin) is kinda our ideal candidates... couldn't get more close to checking every box than if were created in a test tube. both is sooper smart, improbable competent and moderate. ... also, am gonna admit we frequent write mikie sherril's name as jackie sherrill, for the obvious but unforgivable reason. pps am not sure what to make of jay jones also out performing kamala harris.

*chuckle* if your initial responses were noteworthy better, the posts where you irrelevant were discussing biden, talking about horse mouths and making stuff up about dementia and the MoCA, that schtick might be a smidge more compelling. well, am glad we final reached a seeming conclusion. more significant is the sandwich guy case, jeanine pirro, the dc us attorney, resubmitted as a misdemeanor and is having a full jury trial to prosecute. ... HA! Good Fun! ps is surprising difficult to find a decent news story on the case. Grand juries in the city’s federal courthouse have declined to indict several people who were accused of assaulting federal officers this year. Judges have criticized Pirro’s office for rushing to charge others with felonies, only to downgrade or dismiss the charges after the defendants spent time in jail. Last month, a trial jury acquitted a D.C. woman, Sydney L. Reid, of the same misdemeanor charge Dunn is facing: assaulting a federal agent. Reid was rowdily protesting an immigration arrest outside the D.C. jail when a female FBI agent scraped her hand against a wall. Grand jurors refused to indict Reid on three occasions, and the trial jury quickly found her not guilty of misdemeanor assault. The U.S. attorney’s office initially sought to charge Dunn with felony assault of a federal agent, for which the maximum prison sentence would have been eight years. But grand jurors declined to indict Dunn, and prosecutors downgraded the charge to a misdemeanor, which does not require grand jury approval. Dunn faces a maximum penalty of one year in jail, fines and probation if convicted. ... The CBP agent, Gregory Lairmore, was fully armed, wearing a bulletproof vest, and was with almost 20 other law enforcement officers, according to court records. “The sandwich kind of exploded all over my uniform,” Lairmore testified Tuesday. “It smelled of onions and mustard.” Defense attorney Sabrina Shroff questioned that testimony during cross-examination, displaying a photo of the sandwich lying on the ground, almost entirely inside its wrapper, after it was hurled. “In fact that sandwich hasn’t exploded at all,” she said. Lairmore maintained that he had “mustard and condiments on my uniform, and an onion hanging from my radio antenna that night.” ... anymore and am unable to excuse a paywall violation. alternative: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/man-who-threw-sandwich-at-federal-agent-in-d-c-says-it-was-a-protest-prosecutors-say-its-felony-assault Dunn was released from custody but rearrested when a team of armed federal agents in riot gear raided his home. The White House posted a highly produced “propaganda” video of the raid on its official X account, Dunn’s lawyers said. Dunn’s lawyers have argued that the posts by Bondi and the White House show Dunn was impermissibly targeted for his political speech. They urged U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to dismiss the case for what they allege is a vindictive and selective prosecution. Nichols, who was nominated by Trump, didn’t rule on that request before the trial started Monday. ... there is video o' the guy throwing the sandwich at the cbp officer, so is an uphill battle to fight the assault.