Poor Trump. Now the Brits are not sharing their intelligence on the Caribbean because of T's illegal undeclared war on lightly armed (if at that) speed boats in off South America.
Hey, Mr. Trump, seems like you promised every American taxpayer would receive a $5,000 dividend from the DOGE cuts. Now you are promising $2,000 tariff dividends? Sounds like you are getting desperate.
Oh, and the United States does not own 94% of the Gulf of America Mexico's shoreline.
Breaking: House Democrats on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee have released three Epstein emails which allege Trump knew about the girls and even spent several hours in one of his houses with one of the victims. Story Here.
With the expected swearing in of Arizona's elected congresswoman Adelita Grijalva today, there should be enough signatures on a House Discharge Petition to start the process of releasing the Epstein files to the general public.
Followed by no action by anybody - after all, this is the man who said (IIRC) that he could go outside the White House and shoot, with impunity, anyone on the street.
From what one can see from this side of the Pond (which is probably through a glass, darkly IYSWIM) he appears unassailable.
Followed by no action by anybody - after all, this is the man who said (IIRC) that he could go outside the White House and shoot, with impunity, anyone on the street.
The precise location of his hypothetical was Fifth Avenue in NYC.
Followed by no action by anybody - after all, this is the man who said (IIRC) that he could go outside the White House and shoot, with impunity, anyone on the street.
The precise location of his hypothetical was Fifth Avenue in NYC.
OK - I stand corrected, but my point remains. I appreciate that it's only my impression from this side of the Pond, but the wretched man seems to be beyond the reach of any form of justice.
I think that will depend on who controls both chambers of Congress after the mid terms. Only takes a simple majority (218) of Representatives to impeach, but 2/3 of the Senate to convict.
If he can survive that, I do not think the history books will be too kind to him in the end.
If he can survive that, I do not think the history books will be too kind to him in the end.
You're rather optimistically assuming that there will be such things as historians or books in the future.
I can’t imagine why there wouldn’t be. There have been lots of despotic regimes who tried to exert total control over how they were perceived, and they all failed.
Hitler, Stalin, et al couldn’t destroy history or books, despite being ruthlessly competent and good at what they did. What makes you think Trump is any more likely to succeed?
If he can survive that, I do not think the history books will be too kind to him in the end.
You're rather optimistically assuming that there will be such things as historians or books in the future.
I can’t imagine why there wouldn’t be. There have been lots of despotic regimes who tried to exert total control over how they were perceived, and they all failed.
Hitler, Stalin, et al couldn’t destroy history or books, despite being ruthlessly competent and good at what they did. What makes you think Trump is any more likely to succeed?
Trump has the advantage of presiding around what seems to be a climate tipping point. Humanity's long-term ability to produce things like academic literature is in some doubt at this point.
If he can survive that, I do not think the history books will be too kind to him in the end.
You're rather optimistically assuming that there will be such things as historians or books in the future.
I can’t imagine why there wouldn’t be. There have been lots of despotic regimes who tried to exert total control over how they were perceived, and they all failed.
Hitler, Stalin, et al couldn’t destroy history or books, despite being ruthlessly competent and good at what they did. What makes you think Trump is any more likely to succeed?
Trump has the advantage of presiding around what seems to be a climate tipping point. Humanity's long-term ability to produce things like academic literature is in some doubt at this point.
We are certainly optimistic aren't we @Crœsos? Trump is definitely trying to control academics in the US, but even in his quibble with the BBC, he is finding his influence is very limited. He has been trying to bring down the NY Times, but they have yet to bend the knee. Trump certainly will not have any control over universities in Europe.
His time is limited. We may go through a mini dark age over the next few years here, but we will get through it.
Trump has the advantage of presiding around what seems to be a climate tipping point. Humanity's long-term ability to produce things like academic literature is in some doubt at this point.
Humanity’s long-term ability? All of humanity, in every corner of the world?
Yes, that's kind of what a global climate crisis means. While the effects may not be uniform, they'll likely be catastrophic no matter where you are. Donald Trump is certainly doing his best/worst to exacerbate the situation, but even absent his actions we're most likely screwed.
If he can survive that, I do not think the history books will be too kind to him in the end.
You're rather optimistically assuming that there will be such things as historians or books in the future.
I can’t imagine why there wouldn’t be. There have been lots of despotic regimes who tried to exert total control over how they were perceived, and they all failed.
Hitler, Stalin, et al couldn’t destroy history or books, despite being ruthlessly competent and good at what they did. What makes you think Trump is any more likely to succeed?
Trump has the advantage of presiding around what seems to be a climate tipping point. Humanity's long-term ability to produce things like academic literature is in some doubt at this point.
He has been trying to bring down the NY Times, but they have yet to bend the knee.
If that's true they've got a funny way of showing it.
Trump has the advantage of presiding around what seems to be a climate tipping point. Humanity's long-term ability to produce things like academic literature is in some doubt at this point.
Humanity’s long-term ability? All of humanity, in every corner of the world?
Yes, that's kind of what a global climate crisis means. While the effects may not be uniform, they'll likely be catastrophic no matter where you are. Donald Trump is certainly doing his best/worst to exacerbate the situation, but even absent his actions we're most likely screwed.
Sorry, I thought you were using climate metaphorically there—a global attitude or mindset that is anti-academia.
Trump has the advantage of presiding around what seems to be a climate tipping point. Humanity's long-term ability to produce things like academic literature is in some doubt at this point.
Humanity’s long-term ability? All of humanity, in every corner of the world?
Yes, that's kind of what a global climate crisis means. While the effects may not be uniform, they'll likely be catastrophic no matter where you are. Donald Trump is certainly doing his best/worst to exacerbate the situation, but even absent his actions we're most likely screwed.
Well, here is a little bit of good news, from the International Energy Administration. The production of CO2 has more or less flattened out, but that's not to say climate change will get worse before it gets better.
Yes, Trump is holding things back, but he will eventually be gone. It is my hope the next administration will bring more sanity to the issue.
Trump has the advantage of presiding around what seems to be a climate tipping point. Humanity's long-term ability to produce things like academic literature is in some doubt at this point.
Humanity’s long-term ability? All of humanity, in every corner of the world?
Yes, that's kind of what a global climate crisis means. While the effects may not be uniform, they'll likely be catastrophic no matter where you are. Donald Trump is certainly doing his best/worst to exacerbate the situation, but even absent his actions we're most likely screwed.
Well, here is a little bit of good news, from the International Energy Administration. The production of CO2 has more or less flattened out, but that's not to say climate change will get worse before it gets better.
I suppose that's the "glass half full" take on that data. The "glass half empty (and leaking)" observation is that global CO2 production has "flattened out" at what is still a record high. In other words we've stabilized CO2 production at a level higher than the historical levels that caused the climate crisis in the first place. Whether this counts as "good news" depends on your perspective, I guess. It seems more like "not the worst possible news" to me.
Trump has the advantage of presiding around what seems to be a climate tipping point. Humanity's long-term ability to produce things like academic literature is in some doubt at this point.
Humanity’s long-term ability? All of humanity, in every corner of the world?
Yes, that's kind of what a global climate crisis means. While the effects may not be uniform, they'll likely be catastrophic no matter where you are. Donald Trump is certainly doing his best/worst to exacerbate the situation, but even absent his actions we're most likely screwed.
Well, here is a little bit of good news, from the International Energy Administration. The production of CO2 has more or less flattened out, but that's not to say climate change will get worse before it gets better.
I suppose that's the "glass half full" take on that data. The "glass half empty (and leaking)" observation is that global CO2 production has "flattened out" at what is still a record high. In other words we've stabilized CO2 production at a level higher than the historical levels that caused the climate crisis in the first place. Whether this counts as "good news" depends on your perspective, I guess. It seems more like "not the worst possible news" to me.
I think the positive spin is that a peak must be reached before there can be a fall. And particularly important, it looks like China's emissions may have peaked.
Had nothing been done at the time of the Paris Accord, there would likely have been a 4 degree F increase by 2040. Now that would definitely have been catastrophic! Now it is expected to be around a 2 degree F increase given the changes that have taken place. I still think, once Trump is gone, the US can play catch up. We might not keep it at 1.5, but all is not lost.
The problem is that ultimately it's the total carbon released into the atmosphere that counts, reaching a net zero point doesn't undo the emissions before then. Emissions while the world ignores the science create a bigger problem down the road - playing catch up means going further. Four more years of not even doing the easy things (eg: installing renewables to generate electricity - which is easy because not only is the technology proven, it has the benefit of being cheaper and so will cut electricity bills, assuming you don't have the daft wholesale price model we use in the UK) is going mean that we either need to reach net zero sooner, or rapidly exceed net zero to carbon negative.
I wonder if trump really has nothing to fear from the release if the epstein files?
We shall see.
That he hasn't had them released speaks volumes.
Indeed. It may be sheer oppositional defiance disorder, like with his tax returns, but the most likely explanation is that there's something (or multiple somethings) that's truly devastating in there. We have to remember how deeply enmeshed MAGA and QAnon are with each other. The conceit of QAnon is that there is a powerful network of pedophiles who secretly run everything and that Donald Trump is the hero who is going to expose everything and mete out severe punishments. Anything particularly devastating from the Epstein files might shatter his coalition of supporters.
Here's just a fact: Trump met with Rep. Lauren Boebert in the Situation Room to pressure her not to sign the House discharge petition.
She had already signed the discharge petition. And I do not think she met with Trump directly. The news reports I saw said she met with administration officials including Bondi and Patel. My bet is Bondi and Patel did not want Trump in the room because of what he might have said.
Trump is saying the friends of Epstein should be investigated. He named some high profile Dems. Some news outlets are saying that Trump is using this to delay the release. Any part of the files under investigation cannot be released if they are being investigated and of course Trump could include some self incriminating things in that. He has said the politicians will be able to see what they are legally entitled to.
News reports are saying Trump is now saying he does not care if the Epstein files are released. But, as @Hugal says, as long as there are ongoing investigations, they will likely be held up.
If trump doesn't care about the files, surely this means that they have been sanitised in anticipation of their release?
Or does it mean, "If I don't care, then you shouldn't care either. This is the new moral order for all of us"?
My guess is it's another variation on the "nothing to see here" routine he's been reverting to every time someone asks him about the Justice Department's Epstein files.
It is estimated Trump was mentioned 1,500 times in the released Epstein emails.
Trump supporter: So, he is mentioned 1500 times, it does not prove anything.
Me: Dude., if your pastor was mentioned 1500 times, you would be changing your congregation.
If your child's teacher was mentioned 1500 times, you would be changing schools.
Heck, if your coffee shop owner was mentioned 1500 times you would be looking for a new coffee shop.
(Should the full file be released, I wonder how many more times he will be mentioned.)
I also see a Federal Panel of three judges has refused to allow the Texas redistricting to go forward because of racial gerrymandering.
The U.S. Supreme Court as currently composed has an extra-Constitutional rule of thumb that racial discrimination is okay as long as no one actually puts into writing that's what they're actually doing. Guess what the Trump administration did.
As Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, explains in the court’s opinion, Texas lawmakers initially “didn’t have much appetite to redistrict on purely partisan grounds” — even as Trump urged them to do so. But Texas Republicans appear to have changed their mind after the Justice Department sent a letter last July to Texas’s top officials, which demanded that the state redraw several districts to change their racial makeup.
That letter, as I’ll explain in more detail below, misread a federal appeals court opinion to mean that the state was required to remake its maps. According to Judge Brown’s opinion, “it’s challenging to unpack the DOJ Letter because it contains so many factual, legal, and typographical errors.” He added that “even attorneys employed by the Texas Attorney General — who professes to be a political ally of the Trump Administration — describe the DOJ Letter as ‘legally[] unsound,’ ‘baseless,’ ‘erroneous,’ ‘ham-fisted,’ and ‘a mess.’”
In reality, the Supreme Court has long held that “if a legislature gives race a predominant role in redistricting decisions, the resulting map” is subject to the most skeptical level of constitutional review and “may be held unconstitutional.” When the Justice Department told Texas to redraw several of its congressional districts to change their racial makeup, it ordered Texas to give “race a predominant role.” Oops.
We'll see if this violation of the Stringer Bell rule is sufficiently blatant to shame John Roberts and the Roger Taney Five to hold to their previously stated principles.
Those who are interested in reading Judge Brown's opinion can do so here.
The Epstein law mandates the DOJ to release the files within 30 days. However, the DOJ can still refuse to release the files if they are related to an ongoing investigation. Since Trump wants the Democrats to be investigated, Bondi will have the excuse to keep the files locked up until after 30 days. Mark my words.
That's called severability in the trade; you just redact the portions that apply to persons under investigation. Mentions of Trump and Epstein would be released.
Or in other words, one bad apple does not spoil the bunch.
That's called severability in the trade; you just redact the portions that apply to persons under investigation. Mentions of Trump and Epstein would be released.
Or in other words, one bad apple does not spoil the bunch.
Except when it does spoil the bunch, or at least a credible claim that it spoils the bunch can be made. I’ve seen it happen many times. Shoot, I’ve successfully withheld documents on that basis many times.
That's called severability in the trade; you just redact the portions that apply to persons under investigation. Mentions of Trump and Epstein would be released.
Or in other words, one bad apple does not spoil the bunch.
Except when it does spoil the bunch, or at least a credible claim that it spoils the bunch can be made. I’ve seen it happen many times. Shoot, I’ve successfully withheld documents on that basis many times.
I beg to differ and refer the Act's text, Sec. 2(1) of which clearly states "The Attorney General may redact or withhold the segregable portions of records which..."
Which at worst is ample grounds for litigation if a record is withheld in entirety.
Comments
I wonder why that is? The man is such a bigly target for satire...
Maybe they're waiting until he has a pop at King Charles for being beastly to brother Andrew.
Hey, Mr. Trump, seems like you promised every American taxpayer would receive a $5,000 dividend from the DOGE cuts. Now you are promising $2,000 tariff dividends? Sounds like you are getting desperate.
Oh, and the United States does not own 94% of the Gulf of America Mexico's shoreline.
Jackass.
With the expected swearing in of Arizona's elected congresswoman Adelita Grijalva today, there should be enough signatures on a House Discharge Petition to start the process of releasing the Epstein files to the general public.
More information likely to follow.
From what one can see from this side of the Pond (which is probably through a glass, darkly IYSWIM) he appears unassailable.
The precise location of his hypothetical was Fifth Avenue in NYC.
OK - I stand corrected, but my point remains. I appreciate that it's only my impression from this side of the Pond, but the wretched man seems to be beyond the reach of any form of justice.
I think that will depend on who controls both chambers of Congress after the mid terms. Only takes a simple majority (218) of Representatives to impeach, but 2/3 of the Senate to convict.
If he can survive that, I do not think the history books will be too kind to him in the end.
You're rather optimistically assuming that there will be such things as historians or books in the future.
I can’t imagine why there wouldn’t be. There have been lots of despotic regimes who tried to exert total control over how they were perceived, and they all failed.
Hitler, Stalin, et al couldn’t destroy history or books, despite being ruthlessly competent and good at what they did. What makes you think Trump is any more likely to succeed?
Trump has the advantage of presiding around what seems to be a climate tipping point. Humanity's long-term ability to produce things like academic literature is in some doubt at this point.
We are certainly optimistic aren't we @Crœsos? Trump is definitely trying to control academics in the US, but even in his quibble with the BBC, he is finding his influence is very limited. He has been trying to bring down the NY Times, but they have yet to bend the knee. Trump certainly will not have any control over universities in Europe.
His time is limited. We may go through a mini dark age over the next few years here, but we will get through it.
Yes, that's kind of what a global climate crisis means. While the effects may not be uniform, they'll likely be catastrophic no matter where you are. Donald Trump is certainly doing his best/worst to exacerbate the situation, but even absent his actions we're most likely screwed.
If that's true they've got a funny way of showing it.
Well, here is a little bit of good news, from the International Energy Administration. The production of CO2 has more or less flattened out, but that's not to say climate change will get worse before it gets better.
Yes, Trump is holding things back, but he will eventually be gone. It is my hope the next administration will bring more sanity to the issue.
I suppose that's the "glass half full" take on that data. The "glass half empty (and leaking)" observation is that global CO2 production has "flattened out" at what is still a record high. In other words we've stabilized CO2 production at a level higher than the historical levels that caused the climate crisis in the first place. Whether this counts as "good news" depends on your perspective, I guess. It seems more like "not the worst possible news" to me.
I think the positive spin is that a peak must be reached before there can be a fall. And particularly important, it looks like China's emissions may have peaked.
We shall see.
This headline in BBC news today "Feud erupts between Trump and ally Marjorie Taylor Greene ahead of Epstein files vote."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wv4dx05q5o#global-navigation-more-menu
That bar is not high.
It's not a bar. It's a ditch.
Yes, this is good. Elite fracture can bring change. And the Epstein files might be the issue that fractures the MAGA base.
Indeed. It may be sheer oppositional defiance disorder, like with his tax returns, but the most likely explanation is that there's something (or multiple somethings) that's truly devastating in there. We have to remember how deeply enmeshed MAGA and QAnon are with each other. The conceit of QAnon is that there is a powerful network of pedophiles who secretly run everything and that Donald Trump is the hero who is going to expose everything and mete out severe punishments. Anything particularly devastating from the Epstein files might shatter his coalition of supporters.
Dafyd. Hell Host
She had already signed the discharge petition. And I do not think she met with Trump directly. The news reports I saw said she met with administration officials including Bondi and Patel. My bet is Bondi and Patel did not want Trump in the room because of what he might have said.
Or does it mean, "If I don't care, then you shouldn't care either. This is the new moral order for all of us"?
My guess is it's another variation on the "nothing to see here" routine he's been reverting to every time someone asks him about the Justice Department's Epstein files.
Trump supporter: So, he is mentioned 1500 times, it does not prove anything.
Me: Dude., if your pastor was mentioned 1500 times, you would be changing your congregation.
If your child's teacher was mentioned 1500 times, you would be changing schools.
Heck, if your coffee shop owner was mentioned 1500 times you would be looking for a new coffee shop.
(Should the full file be released, I wonder how many more times he will be mentioned.)
But look for the DOJ to refuse to release them because of "ongoing investigations."
I also see a Federal Panel of three judges has refused to allow the Texas redistricting to go forward because of racial gerrymandering.
The U.S. Supreme Court as currently composed has an extra-Constitutional rule of thumb that racial discrimination is okay as long as no one actually puts into writing that's what they're actually doing. Guess what the Trump administration did.
We'll see if this violation of the Stringer Bell rule is sufficiently blatant to shame John Roberts and the Roger Taney Five to hold to their previously stated principles.
Those who are interested in reading Judge Brown's opinion can do so here.
Today, I have seen FB posts saying people should yell, "Quiet Piggy" wherever he goes. He does not get out of his bubble to much, though.
Or in other words, one bad apple does not spoil the bunch.
I beg to differ and refer the Act's text, Sec. 2(1) of which clearly states "The Attorney General may redact or withhold the segregable portions of records which..."
Which at worst is ample grounds for litigation if a record is withheld in entirety.