Tenth Circuit Appeals Court Says Fourth And Sixth Amendment Rights Are Meaningless When National Security Is On The Line

from the wherein-'more-than-a-half-decade'-means-'speedy' dept

A case involving the first criminal suspect to be notified by the DOJ that evidence against him was derived from Section 702 surveillance has just reached an end. The Tenth Circuit Appeals Court has decided there’s nothing wrong with the government’s FISA-enabled warrantless surveillance programs. It also says the word “speedy” can be redefined at will by the government’s national security concerns, changing the definition to “however long it takes.”

The ACLU, which helped represent the US resident whose communications were collected and intercepted with FISA court orders, summarizes the outcome of this decision:

In a sharply divided ruling, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals today wrongly held that the warrantless surveillance of Jamshid Muhtorov — a legal permanent resident whose email communications were searched by the U.S. government under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — was lawful. The court also ruled that the egregious seven-year delay leading up to Mr. Muhtorov’s trial did not violate the Speedy Trial Act.

Muhtorov, whose path to arrest involved surveillance programs exposed by Edward Snowden and an FBI informant pretending to be a terrorist sympathizer, was arrested January 21, 2012. His trial didn’t begin until May 14, 2018. He spent those six years in jail as a pre-trial detainee.

The Appeals Court doesn’t have a problem with any of this. It says the surveillance that targeted the foreign entities Muhtorov communicated with was constitutional… mainly because those rights aren’t applied to foreign surveillance targets. Muhtorov, a legal US resident, was targeted after his communications were incidentally collected, resulting in the government intercepting an untold number of emails and 39,000 hours of audio recordings.

The incidental collection of a US person’s communications is also lawful, says the Appeals Court. It says those were in “plain view,” the other end of targeted foreign communications that the government needs no warrant to obtain. If the initial action was legal, everything that flowed from it was likewise constitutional.

As for the extremely long delay between Muhtorov’s arrest to his trial, the court says, in effect, that this all would have gone a lot quicker if Muhtorov hadn’t engaged in his right to examine the evidence the government planned to use against him. That national security precautions meant he wasn’t able to actually see much of the evidence being used is somehow beside the point. The fact that the government had to gather it and run it past the district court judge shouldn’t be held against the government, the court declares.

The long dissent [PDF], written by Judge Carlos Lucero, excoriates the majority for nearly every conclusion it reached, but spends a considerable amount of time taking the court to task for deciding it was the defendant’s fault the government took so long to produce requested evidence.

I begin with approximately two years of delay that are uncontestably attributable to the government. For just over 21 months, the government did not notify Muhtorov of the involvement of § 702 evidence in the case against him. My colleagues contend that this delay “did not extend the pretrial period,” because this almost two-year delay was encompassed within the six-and-one-half-year delay caused by discovery production. This approaches double-speak: what the majority is saying is that any and all government delay is excusable because of its own delay in discovery production. As I note below, the government’s delay in discovery production is swept aside by my colleagues in conclusory terms to the end that nearly six-and-a-half years in bringing these defendants to trial is excused, thereby setting a new Sixth Amendment “standard of speed.”

That two year delay might have been even longer if not for Ed Snowden. That disclosure of the use of Section 702 surveillance was prompted by his leaks, which not only revealed what the government could obtain under Section 702, but made it clear the DOJ had completely ignored its disclosure obligations for years. As Judge Lucero notes, this delay is entirely the government’s fault. It cannot be used to justify Speedy Trial Act violations.

The government offers no explanation for its belated initial § 702 disclosure. When the government elects to bring national security cases, surely it must know, or should know, whether it is going to present § 702-derived evidence. The attendant delay in doing so cannot be attributed to the defendant.

That was one delay. The other delay was even longer.

Next, the government required four years, seven months, and eleven days to meaningfully respond to the defendant’s discovery requests. A relative pittance of information was provided within the first four years followed by massive production in August 2016. At argument, this production of discovery material was described as a “discovery dump.” Muhtorov’s counsel tell us that only then, after September 1, 2016, were they able to begin to assess the evidence against him. Additional discovery followed, extending well beyond the trial-court-imposed deadlines to the eve of trial in May 2018. Again, I recognize that the extensive nature of Muhtorov’s discovery requests can account for part of the delay, but close to five years of delay cannot be explained away by such summary acceptance of governmental excuses.

Nor should the government be excused simply because the evidence being handed over was sensitive or classified. This was a national security case from the beginning, so the DOJ should have been prepared for the additional complications of preparing and turning over this evidence. Instead, it appears to have started its CIPA (Classified Information Protection Act) evaluation of the evidence nearly four years after it had arrested and charged Muhtorov.

Nor can the factors relied upon by the majority explain the inexplicable: that the government awaited the district court’s denial of Muhtorov’s second motion to suppress on November 19, 2015 to commence its CIPA § 4 evaluation of the evidence. The government began this necessary process only after Muhtorov had been deprived of his liberty for nearly 46 months. Once it deigned to begin, the government managed to complete the bulk of these evaluations within nine months. If the government could complete all these admittedly difficult discovery tasks in nine months in 2016, why could it not have completed them in the first year following Muhtorov’s arrest? Or the second? Or the third? Reason dictates it could have.

The defense tried to speed things up on this front by asking for the appointment of counsel with security clearances that would allow them access to classified evidence. The government objected to this, resulting in even more delays. It wasn’t the only thing the government did to drag out the pre-trial procedures, all of which added up to Muhtorov serving his 11-year sentence before the court took up his appeal of his conviction.

These decisions include (1) opposing the appointment of cleared defense counsel; (2) failing to adequately resource translation services; (3) seeking a third superseding indictment on May 18, 2016 that added charges subsequently dismissed by the government; and (4) discretionary decisions within the CIPA process to restrict or deny information to the defense, including the unilateral implementation of specific techniques to protect a small portion of evidence.

The government shouldn’t get away with this, Judge Lucero argues. The bandying of buzzwords isn’t the same thing as showing justification for trial delays.

Mere incantation of the phrase “national security” does not, and should not, in and of itself justify violations of the speedy trial right. Likewise, the terms “complex discovery” and “translation difficulties” should not stand stead for the term “national security.”

The case may have been complex, but the government is still obliged to respect Muhtorov’s rights. That it took longer for the defense to parse the information it was actually able to access isn’t on the defendant. And US persons shouldn’t be expected to sacrifice one right (challenging evidence used against them) to access another (a speedy trial).

To the extent that the defense was unable to engage in the normal winnowing of issues because of the redacted or summarized nature of the discovery (and as in this case, its late provision), any delay arising from good faith motions should not be weighed against Muhtorov. Although a criminal defendant may be required to make hard strategic choices in the context of a criminal trial, the government’s heads-I-win, tails-you-lose approach to this issue cannot comport with due process.

Lucero also tackles the Fourth Amendment conclusions drawn by the majority and finds them lacking.

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the incidental collection of Muhtorov’s communications with a target of § 702 surveillance is likely reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, but I find unacceptable the majority’s decision to accept the government’s assertion that no pre-warrant querying took place in light of the complete dearth of supporting evidence in the record. […] By accepting the government’s bare assertion to resolve this dispute of fact, the majority avoids the thorny constitutional issues that querying presents.

If the defendant was unable to adequately challenge the evidence, that’s because the government has stacked the deck against defendants in national security cases. The deck was further stacked here by its refusal to allow the appointment of defense counsel with security clearances who could view the evidence firsthand. Instead, the law forces courts to examine the evidence without acting on behalf of the defendant. Accused persons are pretty much left without any representation in cases involving ex parte submissions. That cuts defendants out of the loop. Courts shouldn’t make this worse by disregarding challenges raised by parties who are working blind.

Through passage of CIPA, Congress has mandated that we step out of our traditional role as neutral arbiters overseeing adversarial presentation of issues and step into a role much closer to that of an inquisitor. As explicitly acknowledged by the government, a district court’s role in cases involving CIPA is to act as “standby counsel for the defendants.” Similarly, on appeal “we must place ourselves in the shoes of defense counsel, the very ones that cannot see the classified record, and act with a view to their interests.” Amawi, 695 F.3d at 471. The judiciary is neither institutionally suited nor resourced to fulfill this role. Yet this is the role that Congress has assigned us. Our colleague on the trial bench said it well when he described acting in this role as feeling like “an illegitimate child at a family reunion.”

[…]

If the defense does not have access to the evidence or to arguments presented by the government in ex parte proceedings because of CIPA, any failure to make arguments with sufficient specificity, to assert specific grounds before the district court, or to produce evidence to contradict the government’s presentation cannot be held against the defendant.

With limited info and, perhaps, an inability to thoroughly parse the government’s evidence, the court relies heavily on the government’s assertions. Too many of these go unchallenged, though. And when that happens, rights evaporate into the national security ether. Judge Lucero says the record — albeit not one before the court — shows the government has regularly abused its surveillance powers. That alone should have resulted in courts at both levels refusing to take government assertions about legality at face value.

Although the government presents the relevant targeting and minimization procedures for the relevant years in its classified record, it never describes in detail how and when the “acquisition” of the information occurred in Muhtorov’s case. This may be explained by the FBI’s documented history of widespread U.S. person querying and of non-compliance with its record-keeping responsibilities under its own minimization procedures. Perhaps as a result, there is no evidence in the record either that querying did not occur or that the government agents who directed or sought the traditional FISA application did not know of its existence or results. Without that information, it is impossible for us, acting as standby defense counsel, to resolve the derivative evidence question. The government’s reframing of the issue—as requiring only our evaluation of the limited basket of intercepted communications it chose to submit to the FISC—borders on disingenuous, given the breadth of the derivative evidence inquiry. Deprivation of liberty based on the government’s mere say-so is antithetical to established constitutional order.

And the majority’s refusal to consider the implications of incidentally collected US persons’ communications basically codifies mass rights violations.

My colleagues rely on the plain view and incidental overhear doctrines to countenance the use of millions of § 702-acquired communications that are stored in vast databases. This reliance risks fundamentally undermining heretofore reasonable expectations of privacy of U.S. persons whenever they communicate with another person located abroad.

Oof. If this damage is going to be undone, it will have to be the Supreme Court doing it. And historically it hasn’t shown much interest in challenging government national security claims or its bulk surveillance programs. Things look pretty dire here in the Tenth Circuit. Rights just aren’t rights when national security is involved.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Tenth Circuit Appeals Court Says Fourth And Sixth Amendment Rights Are Meaningless When National Security Is On The Line”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
62 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

"National security" is the magic phrase that makes the constitution and all other protections disappear.

Only because the government has successfully convinced the majority to never hold the government accountable for it’s actions or judgement.

"protection" n. the action of protecting, or the state of being protected.

  1. The government doesn’t protect those it deems targets or scapegoats.
  2. We’re all targets and scapegoats for government tyranny.

Remember that the next time you see a member of the "law enforcement" apparatus.

Then remember how many people will come to help you if they are wrong: 0.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Constitution Sorcery

He’s saying that since Trump gave a rambling, incoherent and embarrassing press conference that required Lysol and Dettol to issue warnings against one interpretation of his words, it’s clear that his followers are not particularly bright and can be sold anything without consequences.

I know you’re going to argue to toss over what Trump said because he didn’t literally say "inject bleach", but the fan club you’re part of didn’t see the difference. https://www.poison.med.wayne.edu/updates-content/kstytapp2qfstf0pkacdxmz943u1hs

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Constitution Sorcery

Ah. Though I put the blame on the person who took his, admittedly random, brain to mouth discussion (which should not have been on televisions in the first place) and came up with that idea: a left wing News blogger.

And when someone says ‘trump says’, a few hundred dips with an iq under 50 and a tv are likely to do that.

Rekrul says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Constitution Sorcery

Ah. Though I put the blame on the person who took his, admittedly random, brain to mouth discussion (which should not have been on televisions in the first place) and came up with that idea: a left wing News blogger.

Trump said, and I quote;

"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."

He didn’t say "bleach", however bleach is one of the mostly common disinfectants. Regardless, even if you want to argue that the words "disinfectant" and "bleach" aren’t synonymous, there’s the fact that disinfectants in general are poisonous and injecting any of them would probably be fatal.

Also, he didn’t directly say to inject disinfectant, but he did very much suggest the idea of disinfectants being injected into people as a possible way to deal with Covid.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Constitution Sorcery

Nice of you to cut off the statement. putting a fake-news period in where there wasn’t one!

"…so it would be interesting to check that, "

notice the coma!

"…, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful."

he didn’t say bleach. he didn’t say inject bleach. he definitely didn’t tell anyone to go inject anything themselves!
but you like cutting off the ACTUAL rest of the sentence where he SPECIFICALLY says medical doctors!?????

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Constitution Sorcery

Once again, the intent is clear, even though the rambling word salad allows people to deflect and pretend he meant something else other than what was clearly intended.

All that happened here is what usually happened – Trump was photographed gawping at a sign recommending UV and disinfectant on surfaces just before he took the stage. He tried what he usually does as one of his con tricks – repeats something that someone else just told him, pretending it’s a new idea he just came up with and trying to act the hero to his cult, as the people around him just run with what they were already going to do. But, in this case, the soggy mashed potato between his ears couldn’t get the facts straight, so he started repeating the things he just read about treating surfaces and tried applying them to current question in front of him about medical and internal treatments. He does seem to have realised toward the end of his ramble that giggles and facepalms were the immediate reaction and that he should probably be suggesting that doctors get involved, but he already said what he said.

That isn’t "left wing bloggers" causing problems, it’s the incompetent grifter who was way out of his depth dealing with a problem that couldn’t be solved with his usual combination of bluster and promises he never intends to pay for.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Constitution Sorcery

Trump was photographed gawping at a sign recommending UV and disinfectant on surfaces just before he took the stage

Ignores more than 20 minutes of separation..:

Look. Reality check.
Not just Fox News but PBS and CSPAN covered it without Timelapse.

The only. ONLY, and sole source that had made any sort of combination was a single conspiracy supporting far (alt) left blogger. Who’s crap pile tweet went viral in MSM.
And Mr fuck your if I get hits for cash, created a snowball of fake news story that lead to tragedy.

Grow a spine. Seriously.
There’s plenty of legitimate things to complain about with Trump.

Only fake news Clinton Biden Uber rich progressives dictators, and their sheep slaves, support this crap shite as anything remotely plausible.

Take AOC’s message on that genocidal bytch. Go away. Nobody likes her or the corporatacracy that supports her.
She and her supporters are what is killing the party.
And sticking to this flat out bull is not helping anyone.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Constitution Sorcery

"Not just Fox News but PBS and CSPAN covered it without Timelapse."

Yes, and it was equally incoherent and embarrassing in real time.

"The only. ONLY, and sole source that had made any sort of combination was a single conspiracy supporting far (alt) left blogger."

The only one you saw, perhaps. That’s the problem with you deliberately ignoring most US and all international coverage of these things – you miss the context available to everyone else.

"There’s plenty of legitimate things to complain about with Trump."

…and you’ve defended a lot of them, even though the evidence is clear. Sure, you’ll argue tiny details and pretend that if you take those things in isolation there’s no problem as though the decades-long history of him doing similar things don’t matter in context.

"Take AOC’s message on that genocidal bytch"

Whereas the spin to pretend that AOC is genocidal is pretty impressive. Weird how you guys have been so obsessed with a junior member who would have no real power if you weren’t so focussed on her, but I understand why you have to deflect from the Republicans who are way more damaging yet have real power.

Even if she was as bad as you claim, nobody would have heard of her had you people not obsessed over her. But the obsession has generated a huge amount of FUD to deflect against your own junior house members who have suggested far worse.

"Only fake news Clinton Biden Uber rich progressives dictators, and their sheep slaves"

Name calling is fun, huh? Most of us grew out of that a long time ago, but since you support playground bullies with no substance, I can understand why that’s the lev el you chose to fight on.

"She and her supporters are what is killing the party."

Whereas more intelligent people aren’t tied into the parties. It’s just when given the choice between the 2 parties in the broken system you have, then one is obviously way preferable to the alternative you support.

You and I will obviously never agree politically on things, but you do have to present slightly more compelling evidence than "well, when Trump said X, what he really meant was Y. Oh, and I voted for him because he tells it like it is!" or similar nonsense. I’d start by accepting the fact that people looked at the con man you worship without any of the filters you claim drives all opinion against him, and still came to the same conclusion based on the unedited unfiltered evidence presented.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Constitution Sorcery

I somehow doubt that the people dumb enough to start ingesting bleach because a rambling con artist suggests it might be a good idea were reading left-wing blogs, but your constant need to deflect blame is, as always, noted.

"And when someone says ‘trump says’, a few hundred dips with an iq under 50 and a tv are likely to do that."

Indeed, and if I were you I would be very concerned to realise that this is the kind of person I aligned with politically.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Constitution Sorcery

The only one you saw, perhaps.

That’s the very first place it started. The story didn’t exist before that.

Whereas the spin to pretend that AOC is genocidal is pretty impressive.

I didn’t say she was. I was referring to her comments about Clinton and the establishment power-Dems. That Clinton supports Ukraine and has direct ties in the country, a country systemically targeting native Rus peoples….

I’ve said multiple times she (AOC) would be decent if she’d get off the end of the world climate crap.

Even if she was as bad as you claim, nobody would have heard of her had you people not obsessed over her.

I think Clinton is probably one of the most well known people in history.

Name calling is fun, huh? Most of us grew out of that a long time ago

Funny. I can think of two people here who call me all sorts of things.

well, when Trump said X, what he really meant was Y.

Trump said x and meant x. The story was fantasy concocted in the head of a left wing but looking for hits.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Constitution Sorcery

"That’s the very first place it started. The story didn’t exist before that."

Again, in your world. For most others, the rambling, embarrassing, incoherent press conference that suggested internal application of things that only worked on external surfaces started with Trump’s own words.

"I was referring to her comments about Clinton and the establishment power-Dems."

You’re obviously referring to a specific comment that didn’t get much traction outside of Murdoch world so I’ll have to ask for clarification, but I’m guessing she didn’t mean what you were told she means. But, I’m willing to withhold judgement until I know what you’re referring to.

"Trump said x and meant x"

Yet, people hear those words and understand something other than his fanbase hears. It’s strange, but generally speaking my understanding is from the POV of someone outside of the cult who doesn’t have a vested interest in the interpretation. You saying that there’s some random unnamed blogger who drove 95% of the international reporting of his press conference means they were wrong doesn’t mean much without additional context. I suspect that you will be unable to provide the context that changes my interpretation of the unedited footages having not read that blogger’s post, but I’m happy to see you try.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Constitution Sorcery

Glenn Kirschner. Hardly unnamed.

Even the left-leaning politifact says false.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/11/joe-biden/no-trump-didnt-tell-americans-infected-coronavirus/

And keep in mind the follow up; happily ignored by MSM:
Trump said “It wouldn’t be through injection. We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work. But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.”

You can believe whatever you want but there is zero doubt as to the facts.

As for AOC she is well documented as no fan of the genocidal failure.
Just look up AOC vs Clinton.

Few of us who left the party over her nomination in 16, the ones who pushed Trump over the edge, and the ones who wouldn’t back the establishment puppet Biden… have all that much of a concern for her.
Again, I actually support the platform, just not her methods; not now now now, screw the consequences.

And there is little doubt the progressives are the alt left. The Alternative Left!
“The more members [the squad] gets, the less mainstream we will be able to be, and the harder it will be for us to keep the House and the White House,”~ans Dem insider to NYP

But the party has no chance of moving into power again as long as the old Dem guard keeps manipulating things.

More war. More invasions. More breaks for big business. More keep the little guy down. More taxes on the middle class. More support for small dictatorships.
It doesn’t work any more.
The idea of just enough is a modern form of slavery. The incentive and tax method is destroying cities.

Every time we have a chance to make something good happen the old rich dems fuck it up. Look at Obamacare. Look at infrastructure.
Stop blaming Republicans for the Dems infighting.

Because a large enough voting block would rather take a known entity that trends bad over good than more of the same bullshite.

AOC is a pain in the arse but she does what she says.
Trump, for all the hate, does what he says.
I’d rather know than not.
And the likes of Clinton leftovers, and that’s exactly what they are, say one thing and do the opposite. They have proven they can’t be trusted. And they support things so outlandish that we can never support them.

You can’t socialise under corporatocracy.
You can’t move forward by cutting the legs out from under the people. You need to get the corporate dems out and gone.
Until then we’ll continue to vote for the mini-trumps and deal with the bad with the good
Because Biden is just bad after bad.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Constitution Sorcery

"Glenn Kirschner. Hardly unnamed."

You didn’t name him. Looking back to sources that I might have looked at when I first saw the story, neither did they. Could it be that the person you claim was the only source for an idea was only saying what other people who saw that mess were thinking independently? I know that messes with your conspiracy theories, but it’s certainly possible…

"Even the left-leaning politifact says false."

Well, I’ll ignore the idea that a place that checks facts is automatically left-leaning as it’s too easy a target, but go to the actual facts of the matter. That article only says that Trump did not literally say to inject bleach. It does not refute the idea that it was a suggestion implied in the word salad. This is why competent leaders are important in times of crisis, a decisive message is way better than a rambling bit of nonsense that even has the person you brought in to replace the leading authority on the subject looking around as if she can’t believe what’s being said.

Again, you seem to think I didn’t see the full unedited clip. I did… and if the people who decided to ingest bleach in the numbers that had manufacturers feeling the need to tell people to knock it off got that message, I doubt it was from left wing sources.

"As for AOC she is well documented as no fan of the genocidal failure.
Just look up AOC vs Clinton."

As ever, I request actual claims, not just things you want to be true. Which genocide? What were her claims? I ask this because, for example, it’s quite a common claim on the right to say that if you oppose Israeli policy in any way you must be anti-semetic. Yet, in the eyes of anyone honestly looking at the situation there’s a big difference between criticising Israeli politics and the Jewish faith. Which policies are you scared of?

"More war. More invasions. More breaks for big business"

So, Republican policy?

"More taxes on the middle class."

Huh, I could have sworn her ideas were based on taxing billionaires. What were you reading?

"Look at Obamacare"

The half-assed compromise that, despite being based on an old Republican policy and being opposed by virtually everyone on the right still managed to deliver the most meaningful healthcare reform in decades? Not enough to stop you from spending more per capita on public systems that millions still can’t access and being the only country where people can be in real danger of medical bankruptcy, but it was a start.

"Trump, for all the hate, does what he says."

He really doesn’t. glances at the useless walls falling down that Mexico didn’t pay for

"And the likes of Clinton leftovers, and that’s exactly what they are, say one thing and do the opposite."

The fact that this comes from someone who supports such a blatantly grifting con artist as Trump will never fail to amuse me.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Constitution Sor

Could it be that the person you claim was the only source for an idea was only saying what other people who saw that mess were thinking independently

Or that nobody else was willing to jump off the cliff like that? Knowing there’s a small population in hat would do anything that trump said?
You know a lie like that could be dangerous to a small percentage.

It does not refute the idea that it was a suggestion implied in the word salad.

Ah, yes. I forget you believe in nonsense “dog whistles” and things that are said are not what they mean. You find messages where there are none.

in the numbers that had manufacturers feeling the need to tell people to knock it off…

As far as I know of it was 2. Before the MSM took off on the idea.

Which genocide

How many times must I point out the Ukrainian murder of unarmed Rus people in south east Ukraine.

What were her claims?
Who’s? I didn’t say either made claims.
I have called her genocidal.

You are again combining my comments on separate things.
But the heat between the squad and the older boomer-dems is no secret.

it’s quite a common claim on the right to say that if you oppose Israeli policy in any way you must be anti-semetic

What does that have to do with anything? Only a blind religious zealot thinks is rial is in the right to bomb unarmed civilians.
Which is part of my problem. Why so vocal about Israel’s terrorism but ignore Ukraine?

Which policies are you scared of?

Going to war with Russia over their protection of a population being systemically slaughtered? For one!

So, Republican policy?

Bill Clinton went to war. Obama went to war. So did bush.
It’s the old guard of both parties. The war machine.
Btw, Trump ended a conflict and created tentative peace with Middle East nations.
That Biden bitched it is sign the old gate is the problem!

Huh, I could have sworn her ideas were based on taxing billionaires. What were you reading?
Clinton supported taxes on everyone above $100k. She’s flopped around with numbers but she’s agreed with numbers as long as 100k.
But worse she supported taxes on services.

The half-assed compromise

…? It was older Democrats that are funded by big med and insurance groups that broke with more liberal dems and stopped progress on pushing a quality bill through. One that likely, and rightly, would have decimated the insurance industry.

glances at the useless walls falling down

Because Biden stopped construction

that Mexico didn’t pay for

You fail to comprehend the adjusted tariffs and the America first policy. It’s not literal. Moving manufacturing out of Mexico itself is Mexico paying for it. Among other things such as higher import costs.

will never fail to amuse me.

I’ll take the new or outsider over the career politician every time.
Someone who doesn’t need corporate money in party running. Someone who wouldn’t be bought.
I supported Obama for that reason as well as Trump. That Obama became tainted at the gold thrown at his feet is sad.
I voted for Perot. I didn’t like some of his policy but he was not a party dog.

You can pretend as much as you want but there’s 2 Democrat parties now. And as long as the washed up corporate cronies like Biden and Clinton and the rest of the fuck you got mine rules for thee not for me fucks refuse to get out of the way we’ll get more Trumps.

And I’m fine with that. You may not be but blame the likes of the Dem godheads for it.

Because the biggest cost, to me, of having republicans new or old is tolerating Christianity in politics.

I’ll take safe, locked, monitored borders and legal immigration over open every day.
I’ll take lower taxes vs stupid taxation every time. Because the old Dems, not the Reps, are the ones in the way of logical corporate taxes.
It’s the old guard dems that stalled the BBB bill.
It’s the old guard dems in the way of everything.

And I’d be willing to put up with end of the world climate bullshite from progressives for all the better platforms they stand by.
But I don’t for a second trust the likes of the current president and his masters to not screw me over the very second — Simply because I’m not one of them.
Because if you haven’t figured it out yet people like Clinton and Biden and Nanny Nancy really don’t give two figs for anyone but themselves and their next speech and their next book.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Constitution

Because if you haven’t figured it out yet people like Clinton and Biden and Nanny Nancy really don’t give two figs for anyone but themselves and their next speech and their next book.

But Trump is apparently such a people’s man that you’d readily take him every time over Biden and Clinton and Pelosi, despite the biggest promise that he actually delivered on was making fun of people you disagreed with and soothing your insecurities about the gender spectrum.

You have some seriously skewed priorities, but again – your comment history speaks volumes about where those lie.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Constitution

"Ah, yes. I forget you believe in nonsense “dog whistles” and things that are said are not what they mean. You find messages where there are none. "

Like that winged odal-shaped podium in that infamous CPAC with the golden Trump statue – from which the GOP talking heads were pounding out a message of blut und boden?
To anyone who’s watched those old flicks of Hitler and his stooges making speeches what the GOP does isn’t dog-whistling any longer – they’ve brought out the bullhorns.

"Fake news"? never used before in american politics – it being the strategy of choice of Goebbels whenever confronted with unflattering media. And pushed hard as a strategy in extreme right forums by holocaust deniers and adherents of that old global jewish conspiracy theory.

And Hawley raising his hand in salute to the jan 6 insurrectionists was what?

No, Lostin, there are no excuses for that crowd any longer. The GOP of today hits all of the 14 points by which you recognize dictionary-definition fascists. They’ve abandoned – completely – the principles of the party of Lincoln.

"How many times must I point out the Ukrainian murder of unarmed Rus people in south east Ukraine. "

You mean that part where armed conflicts are taking place between separatists and the kurainian army? Yeah, russian media is full of hyperbole on how evil the ukrainians are. Meanwhile western news seem rather empty about this ethnic cleansing you keep referring to. Now, I’m none too keen on Hillary but if she supported the Ukraine vs Putin’s Russia then that’s nothing more than usual US foreign policy – and the same deal which had the US supporting the lesser evil in any venue of foreign politics. Not laudable, but considering that most of the people accusing Hillary also went the distance cheering for GWB – who did far worse – that accusation rings hollow.

"Going to war with Russia over their protection of a population being systemically slaughtered? For one! "

That’s not what’s happening.
First of all there’s no systematic slaughter. There is russian-backed terrorism with all the usual outcomes of a low-intensity conflict waged within urban areas. And Putin’s interest in the Ukraine is far older than that, with Russia having strong-armed the place ever since the collapse of the USSR. In Russia’s eyes Ukraine is just another russian satellite which needs to go back to the fold.
Secondly, if Russia launches a war of aggression then that’s Russia’s choice of war and the US must respond – or send a clear message that NATO is finally over. And if that message is sent the very next second China walks into Taiwan, assured the US will stand by in fear of war. On a bigger picture, the US caving in its obligations visavi Ukraine means the US exiting the world stage.
The usual way of dealing with this sort of situation is to simply park US troops in the threatened country and wait for the presumptive aggressor to shit or get off the pot.

"Btw, Trump ended a conflict and created tentative peace with Middle East nations. "

I’m assuming you’re writing this while giggling like a maniac…because that’s not anywhere near what’s happened. What Trump did was selling out, to Russia, bits of the middle east the US has desperately tried to keep Russia out of. Syria and the Kurds, for instance. The kurds especially is perhaps the most repugnant thing Trump has done. People who’ve put boots on the ground for the US for twenty years, abandoned to the mercies of Erdogan.

"Because Biden stopped construction…"

I’m not really that impressed with Biden so far, but stopping that money hole is probably something you need to be grateful to him for. Of all the things government can waste money on, a wall which doesn’t work is probably one of the less desirable options. The question ought to be "Why a wall in the first place?" – because with every easily traversed path already fenced off since 2006 it’s utterly useless to build another speedbump in the areas which takes a determined person several days to cross already. As the chinese emperors found out, if the opposition is already willing to climb a mountain, climbing a wall on top of it is just trivial.

"You fail to comprehend the adjusted tariffs and the America first policy. It’s not literal. Moving manufacturing out of Mexico itself is Mexico paying for it."

You mean the part where the current trend is US manufacturers all moving into Mexico, calling it the "new China"?
No, Lostin, I think before you start dropping alt-right talking points on this forum you need to verify first.
What you don’t seem to comprehend is that tariffs, in the modern day and age, don’t work. All Trump’s tariffs to Mexico accomplished was nothing. Mexican imports simply ceased, and meanwhile the international took note that China slapping unreasonable tariffs on every US interest was well within the newly established precedent.

"Someone who doesn’t need corporate money in party running. Someone who wouldn’t be bought. "

So rather than the guy bought at least by an american corporation you voted for the guy who got his campaign war chest from Deutsche Bank courtesy of a bank guarantee from the russian state bank. You literally cast your vote on a guy 400 million dollars in the hole to Putin rather than someone bought by wall street?

Well, I guess Putin certainly got his moneys worth, Trump certainly was the best US president they ever had, looking at the amount of ways twenty years worth of trying to keep russia out of certain ME countries just evaporated.

"Because the biggest cost, to me, of having republicans new or old is tolerating Christianity in politics. "

Spoken just like a modern-day Martin Niemöller. Let’s all just hope it doesn’t end the same way.

"But I don’t for a second trust the likes of the current president and his masters to not screw me over the very second — Simply because I’m not one of them. "

Well, no. But here’s the thing. The democrats will further their agendas…but they will also at least try to keep the country running.
But if the current GOP wins next election…that will be the very last time you people have an election.

Unlike when Germany went down that road the US isn’t going to have anyone coming in to intercede. It’ll just close up until, hopefully, at some point you guys have yourself another revolution.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Constitu

I’m just going to skip over the Nazi angle.
Because both parties have used racial tensions. I’m not going to play that game.
Again, I won’t vote for old guard from either party because they’re all corrupt. Some more than others.

I’m also not going to play with the insurrection nonsense. Only one person was murdered and that person was a protestor.
There is zero evidence of a plan to carry out criminal overthrow of the government.
There was a large protest. A few dozen entered the building illegally.
They didn’t burn property. They didn’t loot indiscriminately.
They demanded a review of the elections. They had that right.
That some chose the wrong way to express their outrage is simply a sign that both sides can break the law.

That media around the world is ignoring truth on the ground in Ukraine is no surprise. It’s not the first time the international community tainted coverage to project.

Secondly, if Russia launches a war of aggression [sic] then that’s Russia’s choice of war and the US must respond

Why? Why must the US get involved in yet another civil war.
Seriously, screw nato if they wish to be involved in this. Supporting Ukraine is simply being on the wrong side. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is who is looking.
I understand your personal history. But could you step back a moment?
This is an ethnic minority being suppressed. And yes, being killed.
That Cold War era hate still permeates view is not surprising.

assured the US will stand by in fear of war

It’s not fear. It’s not our problem.

means the US exiting the world stage.

Good. We have our own problems to solve.

Israeli relations with mid-east Asian countries? You weren’t paying attention.
Mind you the west Asian issues are entirely the fault of the west. Overthrowing political leaders and replacing them with puppet dictators. Who were one by one overthrown and replaced by hard line Islam.
Why is it you are so high on NATO when everything they touch turns to shite.

But if the current GOP wins next election…that will be the very last time you people have an election.

Funny, I think you actually believe that.

Rekrul says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Cons

I’m also not going to play with the insurrection nonsense. Only one person was murdered and that person was a protestor.

One person was shot while trying to FORCE their way into a government building where elected members of congress were hiding from the violent mob. At least they didn’t run down and hide in a bunker when the people first started to assemble outside. Seems like I have a vague memory of someone doing that…

And what would you call people smashing their way into the capital with the express intent of stopping the results of an election from being certified in order to prevent the legally elected government from coming into power?

As for only one person being "murdered" as evidence that it wasn’t that bad, I guess the hundreds of cops who were injured by Trump’s cult members don’t count?

There is zero evidence of a plan to carry out criminal overthrow of the government.

So the fact that republican members of Congress gave prohibited tours of the capital before the Jan. 6th riot, that the organizers told their assistants to buy burner phones using cash, that Trump was already waging a campaign to overturn the election, and that Trump watched the violence unfold on TV for THREE HOURS while he refused to do anything, are all just innocent coincidences?

Trump’s big lie about the election being stolen, his speech to the crowd that day, as well as the speeches by the others who told the crowd to "fight like hell" and to have "trial by combat" are clearly what caused his cult members to attack the capital with the intention of stopping the vote counting (thereby stopping Biden from becoming president). Anyone who can’t see that is willfully blind.

At most you might be able to argue that Trump was too stupid to realize what effect his words would have on his loyal cult. Does that paint him in a better light?

They didn’t burn property. They didn’t loot indiscriminately.

They smashed windows, attacked police, ransacked offices, smeared shit on the walls…

They demanded a review of the elections. They had that right.

They had the right to assemble outside and make that demand, although at that point, the election was done and the results certified. There was nothing that was going to change the outcome at that point. They did NOT have the right to lay siege to the the capital.

That some chose the wrong way to express their outrage is simply a sign that both sides can break the law.

And by that you’re implying that the democrats cheated? Answer me this: If the democrats cheated in the last election to get Biden elected, why didn’t they use the exact same methods to get more democratic congress members elected and give themselves a filibuster-proof majority in the senate and a big enough majority in the house that they wouldn’t be in danger of losing control next year? This myth that the democrats "stole" the last election requires you to believe that there was a vast, international conspiracy to elect a democratic president while also allowing all other races to proceed unaltered. Yeah, that makes perfect sense…

And why is it that none of the republican lead audits and recounts has been able to find any evidence of all this fraud?

Why? Why must the US get involved in yet another civil war.
Seriously, screw nato if they wish to be involved in this. Supporting Ukraine is simply being on the wrong side.

Yeah, who cares if Russia flexes its military muscle and invades a formerly independent country? A more emboldened Russia is probably a good thing. And besides, I’m sure they don’t have any ambitions past Ukraine…

Good. We have our own problems to solve.

It’s nice that we live in an isolated, protective bubble, such that the rest of the world can go to shit and it won’t have any effect on us whatsoever.

Funny, I think you actually believe that.

Oh, so the fact that republicans are passing voter suppression laws, gerrymandering the hell out of their districts, purging the party of anyone who won’t go along with Trump’s big lie, and openly saying that the last election should be overturned, won’t have any effect on future elections? Good to know.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:

One person was shot while trying to FORCE their way into a government building

That’s inaccurate. The shooting happened in the interior of the building.

the results of an election from being certified in order to prevent the legally elected government from coming into power

Again inaccurate. The vast majority called for a nationwide recount of every ballot.
Mind you the lack of partisan poll watchers with eyes on ballots was a major part of the concern. People wanted confirmed answers. Not count here and there. Count them all. In front of the people who are supposed to be watching the count.
This whole thing started with the very witnesses who are supposed to be the C&B not being allowed to be actual witnesses.

hundreds of cops who were injured

So you care about police only when it fits your narrative? The few dozen injuries on Jan 6 are minimal compared to the thousands of injuries in all the prior protests.

So the fact that republican members of Congress gave prohibited tours

That’s news to me. Mind linking to something that shows members of congress actually broke any laws?

I have no idea what organisers you are referring to.

that Trump was already waging a campaign to overturn the election,

Correction, verify.

watched the violence unfold

There was no “violence”. You appear to ignore the security camera footage that has been release after desperate attempts by Democrats to hide it.
Reality time: a tiny unruly group out of thousands.
Who ultimately caused far less damage, destruction, and death than any single anti-police riot.
This with the fact that there was far less police resistance. A few cops in a single hallway had a violent confrontation with a small group of protesters.

They smashed windows, attacked police, ransacked offices, smeared shit on the walls

They didn’t burn property. They didn’t loot indiscriminately. They didn’t shoot fireworks or guns at police.

although at that point, the election was done and the results certified.

We’re votes counted in the presence of partisan poll watchers? If not the there is still room for doubt.
They could have and should have done the election the same way as they long have been. With people verifying poll counters.

And by that you’re implying that the democrats cheated

If by Democrat you refer to the anti-police protests; the violence, looting, mayhem… yes.

If the democrats cheated in the last election to get Biden elected

I have not once, ever, said I believed that as fact. I’ve always stated the likelihood was a Biden win. I also recognise the f a c t that without poll watchers the results will never be verified properly.

Whatever though process makes you think all trump voters are the same mindset is exactly why the country is ripping itself apart. Your total lack of acceptance that Democrats voted against Clinton to elect Trump.
Feel free to link to any comment where I stated the election was factually stolen.
It’s not a belief I hold or ever held.

Yeah, who cares if Russia flexes its military muscle and invades a formerly independent country?

Yep, who cares if Russia enters another country to protect people being systematically depressed by a tyrant government. Up to and including targeted murder of Rus people simply for being Rus.

Oh, so the fact that republicans are passing voter suppression laws

You won’t convince me that requiring identification is suppression.

gerrymandering the hell out of their districts

Just like happens every political change of leadership. Both parties do it every time.

purging the party

You an author?

openly saying that the last election should be overturned

Considering how many states and localities violated their own election rules?
I prefer proper recount. But at this point it doesn’t matter.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:

"That’s inaccurate. The shooting happened in the interior of the building."

That’s fair. She wasn’t shot trying to force her way into the building itself. She was shot when, as part of a mob attempting to gain access to a room where government officials were barricaded, she ignored orders to desist.

"The vast majority called for a nationwide recount of every ballot."

Yes, and when informed that there was no evidence that this was required outside of some nonsense conspiracy theories, before or after the attempted insurrection, they decided that they’d rather try and stop the legal process from being enacted.

"I also recognise the f a c t that without poll watchers the results will never be verified properly."

Did this happen when Trump was elected despite having lost the popular vote by 3 million (yes, according to the electoral rules in place at the time)? If not, why is it suddenly of concern this time around?

"I prefer proper recount"

That has been done in several states. They found nothing, and in some cases found that Biden actually had more votes than originally counted.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17 Re:

as part of a mob

I’ll give you “mob” in quotes as most video shows about 20-30 people in the room. Definitely enough to be concerning even if unarmed. But I maintain that lethal force was excessive.

…informed that there was no evidence that this was required…

Informed by those who were the victors. Is it hard to understand why so many consider that suspect?

Did this happen when Trump was elected…

Yes!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrutineer
In the US there are people know as poll watchers. These are members of a political party and act as representatives of that party. They verify the individual ballots along with the actual poll counter.
The do not have any role other than to look and voice “objection” to questionable ballots or mistaken tally.
In most states ballots that are objected to are set aside to be reviewed by two or more different poll counters.

During the 2020 election these people were forced out of line of readability of individual ballots. In some cases outside of the room or eliminated completely. In other cases such as happened in Michigan and Pensilvania counting was restarted after poll watchers were told counting was finished for the day.
In cases in California and Illinois there were more votes than ballots.
In Georgia and Pennsylvania there were more ballots than votes.

Thus without the watchers eyes there was no one but the winners and those who did the count to verify the count accuracy.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:18 Re:

That has been done in several states. They found nothing, and in some cases found that Biden actually had more votes than originally counted.

Good. Every vote would be counted. You’re under the false impression I believe trump won despite my consistent statement a win didn’t make sense statistically based on other evidence.

It’s not the winner that matters. It’s faith in the system. The 2020 election aftermath is a black eye for your voting system.
When roughly half the country, right or wrong, have lost belief in the accuracy and honesty, of the system: the system has failed.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Cons

"Only one person was murdered and that person was a protestor."

So the police officer beaten to death at the door died of what, natural causes?

"Why? Why must the US get involved in yet another civil war. "

Because wisely or not the US did guarantee Ukraine aid. I guess the "american way" is now to bullshit people as bigly as possible because talk is cheap and promises worthless? But I get it, you’re thinking "Why us, again?"
More in a realpolitik sense of things, then, allowing Russia yet another unopposed war of aggression (on top of Georgia) sends a message the rest of the world will hear. China will move on Taiwan the very minute they can confirm Russian troops enter Ukraine with the US sitting on its thumbs.

At that point Russia has acquired strategic supremacy in europe and China will have taken over, by force of arms, 63 whopping percent of the global semiconductor industry. The US will be out of the global game for keeps. Forget near-peer, you guys will henceforth be third place.
Somewhat closer to home, that will hurt or collapse parts of your economy, predicated as much of it is on the US being the world leader.

"It’s not fear. It’s not our problem."
"Good. We have our own problems to solve."

So you do. Thing is, much of what is happening in the rest of the world is or will be your problem. Legacies of times past, consequences of past meddling…none of that just goes away simply because you’re feeling sick and tired of dealing with the fights your past generations bought you.

I suppose you could try to retool the US completely. Isolate. opt out of the global market. But if you think things are bad for you personally right now then I invite you to consider the fallout of every major US corporation suddenly collapsing or evacuating because the federales don’t have their backs abroad no more.

I can – thoroughly – understand your view on the US body politic. You’re so sick and tired of crooked and inept old Hindenburg you’ve been willing to cast your vote at the strongman making all the right noises. We’ve seen that before. Plenty of times.

"Why is it you are so high on NATO when everything they touch turns to shite."

Pragmatism, really.
Remember when during Obama and GWB’s years they both found out the biggest embezzlers had their basis in the 401(k) of the common citizenry and the central banks?
The phrase Too Big To Fail was coined at the time when pale-faced fiscal ultraconservatives had to face up to the fact that allowing any of the prime movers in the shit-show to face the music – or the appropriate firing squad – would mean letting the pension funds of half the US go up in smoke.

Meaning both GWB and Obama had to bail the industry out to the tune of trillions of dollars. You guys are still paying for that today.

Which brings us to NATO. Yes, they’ve been as much of a shit-show, meddling and setting up untenable situations all over. Replacing one monster with another in the ME and Asia until the current situation emerged.

This I find deplorable. Almost as deplorable as I’ll find NATO removing itself from the board with all those tensions still in place. Past US policy maneuvered many parts of the world into a mexican standoff. Dropping your gun and just walking off won’t end well.

"Funny, I think you actually believe that."

After watching the shit-show of Trump calling republican aides in states ordering them to find him enough votes, the whole mess around trying to have the election declared invalid, and the whole buildup to where the GOP actually haven’t won the popular vote for decades and are now representing 40 million fewer americans than the dems?

Yeah, we’ve seen that buildup before, on this side of the pond. And ironically much thanks to americans then insisting europeans should never make that mistake again we still remember exactly how Mussolini, Franco and Hitler came to power.

I’ll just hope that the successor of your beer hall coup won’t prove me right here.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:

As far as I was aware the cause of death of the officer out front, the one beaten by some protesters and pulled to safety by others, was ongoing.

Because wisely or not the US did guarantee Ukraine aid.

Indirectly and directly yes. But policy shifts.
The idea that we get involved in internal conflicts of other countries, we as the West en ent, is why so much of the world is so destabilised.

You don’t have to believe the internal reports to recognise what this is in Ukraine. Russian people, the Rus, the Gyps, the minorities, are being crushed by the ruling Ukrainian government. Including targeted murder.
These people were historically part of Russia. Their for over 200 years they were subjects of Russia or it’s sub-states.
This is no different than the Israeli/Palestinian conflicts today, or the American actions against native Indian first-worlders.

As such I remain decided on Taipei. It is technically a Cold War. Like Korea. A civil war.

body politic

One thing that is lost on outsiders, and sadly main stream Democrats, is that gen x, gen y, we’re fed up.
Trump wasn’t elected. Hilary wasn’t.
For better and for worse there’s a large enough group of us to destabilise election methods. And we will keep voting for the non-party.
Like I’ve said so many time I preferred Sanders over trump but corruption and fraud kept him from being a choice. Perot started something. Put an outsider, a 3rd party on a main ticket: watch the party implode.
I’m no fan of trump the man. And many of his policies are problematic to me.
I’m no fan of Sanders’ platform either.
Blanket unbridled socialism has never worked because it quickly creates the type of kingship we see in South America.

Now does isolation work. An isolated America would quickly slip into a Russia or Korea.

But there’s a large enough group of “screw it” voters who really do tend to fall centrist that guarantee any election with a first party outsider will be close.
That gun toting socialised libertarians had faith in the same man as the handful of white suprematists… shows that.

It’s not the candidate or even the policy. It’s the outsider aspect.
The non-party-choice aspect.
Because the number of us who voted for sanders whe went on to vote for trump, twice, are more concerned with ending the modern kingship of America than the 4 years of congressional conflict it would cause with the president.

NATO

… is a lost cause relic of top down commercial politics.
Like the UN and it’s security consul; it is set up to fail by inaction.
Slowly chipped away at by forced micro-actions.
One who’s sole support over time became a religious crusade against the atheist USSR.
An organisation that is directly responsible for 99.9% of the armed conflicts worldwide today. And the vast majority since 1945.

find him enough votes

Because when records of such comments are investigated it’s so far been “missing” and not enough.

popular vote

That’s where I think the disconnect is.
There are only 4 countries on earth the size of the US; the other three being Canada, China, and Russia.
And Canada doesn’t really count based on actual population distribution.

The 10% of land, urban areas, will always win the popular vote.
But what works for the urban areas doesn’t work for the majority of the country.

Carbon output of a single factory on 10 acres of land and 500 cows on 100 acres can be close. But are very far from equal in output design.

Minimum wage in Detroit or Chicago or NY is too low. But that minimum wage in Montana Missouri is upper middle class existence.
$10/hr in Jackson(ville) Fl is very different living than $10/hr Jackson MO.

I use wages as the most visibly explainable but all aspects of governance are, and need to be, different.
The EC keeps some level of balance.
Guns in a city of millions is a problem. Remove the multi-round clip from the man in the Colorado mountains trying to keep the bear from eating his child on the back porch is also a problem. A handing won’t feed the deer hunters in Kentucky but it will protect the family walking through the mountains in northern Cali from cougars.

And $10/gal fuel will decimate the farmer who needs to harvest 250 acres of beans or corn.
We are a LONG way off from electrical tech that would translate to harvesting.

What’s interesting (and obvious) is the three countries with the same level of separation all have election concerns.

Rekrul says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Constitution

Someone who doesn’t need corporate money in party running. Someone who wouldn’t be bought.

So you’d rather support someone whose campaign is paid for by dark money coming from shady sources? Because Trump certainly didn’t finance his campaign out of his own pocket. Hell, he now has the RNC paying his personal legal bills stemming from things from before he was elected. Not to mention the constant grifting he does where he sells useless crap to his cult and begs them for money.

Because the biggest cost, to me, of having republicans new or old is tolerating Christianity in politics.

Well, that and watching the government itself be dismantled. Cut taxes for the rich, complain that the government doesn’t have enough money to pay for things like Medicare, Social Security, etc, cut as much as possible, rinse and repeat. Oh, but turn around and throw money at the military like it grows on trees.

Republicans complain that the post office isn’t profitable while ignoring that it was a republican policy that made it unprofitable. And why exactly is a government service expected to fund itself anyway? Is the military expected to turn a profit?

Oh, and let’s not forget the unending quest for power. There’s been a wave of voter suppression bills in republican controlled states. Republicans have used gerrymandering for decades to give themselves an advantage over democrats. Trump and republicans in congress literally tried to overturn the 2020 election with ZERO proof of any fraud. In fact the only cases of verifiable fraud they’d found have been republicans trying to double-vote for Trump.

Honest question: If a democrat wins the next election and the republicans claim he cheated and overturn it, would you have a problem with that? Would that be a step too far? Because that’s the way things seem to be shaping up (the overturning part).

And I’d be willing to put up with end of the world climate bullshite from progressives for all the better platforms they stand by.

Oh, so all the extreme weather we’ve been experiencing the past few years is all perfectly normal? Oh yeah, I remember when I was little and we had tropical storms coming up the east coast every couple of days. And it’s not New England ever used to regularly get snow that lasted more than a few days…

Because if you haven’t figured it out yet people like Clinton and Biden and Nanny Nancy really don’t give two figs for anyone but themselves and their next speech and their next book.

And who does Trump care about, other than himself? Certainly not the average American. And if you want to argue that he does care about average Americans, I dare you to find a single video of him interacting with average people, that isn’t a staged photo op. He doesn’t even stick around after one of his rallies to shake a few hands. Once he’s delivered his sermon, he can’t get away from his frothing cult members fast enough.

And then there’s the likes of Cancun Ted. What has he done to ensure that Texas doesn’t have a repeat of last year’s power grid failure?

Or Moscow Mitch, who stacked the Supreme Court such that it’s now poised to gut Roe vs. Wade, denying abortions to millions of women, while the same republicans who scream about protecting the lives of unborn children, will consistently vote to cut any social programs than might help the parents raise those children once they’re born.

Republicans occasionally throw their voters a bone and tell them that they’re working in their favor, then they turn around and piss on them.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Constitution

"Because Biden stopped construction"

I’ll gloss over most of your nonsense, but this is a funny one. Apart from the fact that some of the collapse happened before Biden’s inauguration and a major factor in the defunding (apart from the obvious fact that it was ineffective) was to stop the ongoing attempts to seize property through eminent domain (something a self-proclaimed libertarian should have a problem with) – what are you saying? That the wall needed constant funding to stay upright? Was it so badly designed and built that the moment money stopped appearing it just fell down?

"You fail to comprehend the adjusted tariffs and the America first policy."

No, I understand how things really work. It’s interesting to see the heavy goalpost moving that the cult is adopting to pretend their leader wasn’t a failure, but I understand what actually happened. Not least because, unlike Trump, I understand who pays for tariffs.

"That Obama became tainted at the gold thrown at his feet is sad."

So, you decided to worship the most transparent con artist in modern history as a result?

"You can pretend as much as you want but there’s 2 Democrat parties now"

Well, I don’t have my moron dictionary handy, so you’d have to define "Democrat" to me before I know whether you’re being serious or just running the "redefine words to attack what I don’t like" playbook.

"Because the biggest cost, to me, of having republicans new or old is tolerating Christianity in politics."

Religion and politics don’t mix, but the flavour of religion doesn’t really matter.

"Because if you haven’t figured it out yet people like Clinton and Biden and Nanny Nancy really don’t give two figs for anyone but themselves and their next speech and their next book."

Yet, you believe Trump did so, despite decades of evidence of his grifting ways.

You should know this by now, but the reason people supported Clinton and Biden was not because they believed they were the best people for the job or that they had everyone’s best interest at heart. It’s because the alternative was so clearly more dangerous and toxic. It would be nice if a genuinely great president was offered, but when the choices are "continue to burn the country to the ground for a bankrupt con artist’s ego" and mediocrity, people will begrudgingly go for the latter.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Constitution Sorcery

Trump said “It wouldn’t be through injection. We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work. But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.”

Any way you frame it, it’s still the ramblings of an idiot. Any disinfectant meant for sterilizing surfaces is toxic to humans. The labels of such products even tell you not to get it on your skin. Hospitals do have things that they can use to sterilize a patient’s skin, such as alcohol, but they still can’t use that to clean someone’s lungs. And even if they could, cleaning their lungs isn’t going to kill the virus that’s circulating through their bloodstream.

So, quote as much as you want, this is still a prime example of Trump putting his stupidity on full display.

Look at Obamacare.

So things were better when people were being bankrupted by medical bills and insurance companies could deny people coverage or charge them insane amounts? What’s the republican solution to that? I mean other than fighting tooth and nail to protect the drug companies and their profits…

Trump, for all the hate, does what he says.

Like getting North Korea to dismantle its nuclear program? Yeah, about that…

https://www.nytimes.com/article/north-korea-arsenal-nukes.html

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Constitution Sor

Any disinfectant meant for sterilizing surfaces is toxic to humans

https://www.sfgate.com/shopping/article/non-toxic-cleaning-and-disinfecting-products-15819270.php

So you’re also clueless.
That out of the way trump isn’t a doctor.
He has no medical background.
It was a question, not a statement of fact.
If you walk away thinking drink bleach I say whatever. This didn’t become a thing until a few days later when media picked up on the single blog twitter and went with it. The lie of the media is what motivated the mentally infirm to believe the president suggested something (that he didn’t).
Then went and tried to do what they were told he said.
I out 99.9% of the blame on the MSM and 0.1% on the staffing that made a private discussion a public event.

What’s the republican solution to that?

I don’t know. I’m not a Republican and have never heard a good plan from one.
I support free government healthcare. And 100% coverage.

Yeah, about that…

Something called, partisan bickering, gets in the way of plans.
Like it did in endlessly delaying it he southern border wall. Like it did on stopping a ban in inbound travel from the SOURCE of c19.
How’s that build back better plan going?
Didn’t see the Dems do anything about health care. We still have student loans. We also now have rocket inflation. With no real achievement. Good job there.

Obama spent 6 years doing what he promised, before turning direction. Trump spent 4 years doing what he said. And both have a wonderful track record of trying.
That congress stood in their way is a separate aspect.

Rekrul says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Constitution Sorcery

Trump said x and meant x. The story was fantasy concocted in the head of a left wing but looking for hits.

It’s so cute how you think his dimwitted cult members can listen to what Trump said and not think he said he said that injecting disinfectant might be a good idea. Especially considering that after he promoted hydroxychloroquine as a miracle Covid cure, a couple ate a fish medication containing chloroquine phosphate, killing the man.

Not to mention that a bunch of wackjobs are now drinking chlorine dioxide, which is a disinfectant very similar to bleach.

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-qanon-cult-members-are-drinking-toxic-chemicals-en-masse-13038506

Yeah, Trump fans aren’t the sharpest crayons in the box.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Constitution Sorcery

Funny how much research is being pumped into hydroxychloroquine to combat covid now. Now that trump is out of office for a year and Biden l’s response as been considerably worse in casualties.
Appears to be promising enough for federal funding!

a couple ate a fish medication

Which is very different now, isn’t it. How is someone taking something totally different his fault?

As four your little cult? It’s a cult. There’s hundreds of tiny cults around the country. And around the world.
Cults do stupid cult things. Some whip themselves because they consider it penance. Many drink toxic chemicals willingly. With or without covid as a reason. Elixirs of life, youth, sexuality, … and yes, protection.
You act like this is something new.

cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Constitution Sorcery

Really? Name 1 right that has stripped from the population of the US? And where might I find records of law enforcement ensuring that such right was not exercised by large swaths, or even a couple individuals?
Seriously, have cops actually enforced mask mandates on anyone, anywhere in the US? Because I can’t find a single incident where someone refusing to mask up getting arrested wasn’t because they threw a an absolute temper tantrum, with screaming and throwing shit (or worse yet, came back and murdered an employee for asking!)
And no one is getting scooped up in butterfly nets, or lassoed and hog tied and forcibly vaccinated either.
And while I could agree that not all shut down orders were entirely sensible and necessary, I also think expecting anyone to get the balance just right in an unprecedented situation like this is ridiculous.
800K deaths and counting, just of US citizens, more than we lost in pretty much every major war combined, and yet you still whine about what amounts to slight inconvenience to mitigate a pandemic?

Rekrul says:

Re: Re: Re: Constitution Sorcery

and "Covid Pandemic" is the magic phrase that also makes state and Federal constitutions and all other protections disappear.

Let’s pretend that the pandemic is over (unlikely to happen any time soon, but let’s pretend), exactly what pandemic related restrictions do you believe will still be imposed? Do you think that people will still be required to wear masks in public? Do you think there will still be lockdowns? Do you think that there will still be customer limits on businesses? What rules are being imposed during the pandemic that you’re afraid will be enforced forever?

Or are you saying that the people’s rights to do whatever they want are more important that public safety?

And if you don’t believe that government (local and federal) has the right to impose restrictions to end a pandemic that is killing people by the thousands, do you also believe that other restrictions on people’s freedoms should be repealed?

Should the laws against drunk driving be abolished? How about getting rid of all gun laws? Or the laws against unlicensed people having explosives? Should people be allowed to drop their pants and take a dump in the middle of a McDonald’s? How about a guy masturbating on a children’s playground?

If you don’t want to get rid of those laws, please explain why it’s OK to restrict those freedoms, but telling people to wear a mask or get a vaccine to stop a pandemic that’s killed over 800,000 Americans, is a step too far.

ECA (profile) says:

Roll the dice. Wahat are the odds

That the DOJ hadnt really done much of anything, FOR the court case.

"Muhtorov, a legal US resident, was targeted after his communications were incidentally collected, resulting in the government intercepting an untold number of emails and 39,000 hours of audio recordings. "

At 24/7, 365 days, it would take almost 4.5 years to Audio.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/21/denver-jury-jamshid-muhtorov-guilty/

He came to the USA in 2007, Arrested in 2012 as he was leaving to goto Turkey.
So they collected Everything from those 5 years into 1 LONG recording.
And he had Done no crime except working 18 hours per day as a trucker?
Would really like to see that tape.

Anonymous Coward says:

Too often, constitutional rights are defined by their exceptions

The whole point of constitutional rights is to protect everyday people against government tyranny especially during times in which the government is most poised to violate them. The fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments should be just as strong as usual in cases involving "national security", if not stronger than usual. The more serious the government’s allegations are, the more important it is for the courts to protect those rights.

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the incidental collection of Muhtorov’s communications with a target of § 702 surveillance is likely reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

The rest of Judge Lucero’s dissent is fine, but this bit is problematic. Incidental collection may be reasonable in carefully crafted investigations of specific people, but shouldn’t be the basis for a mass surveillance system intentionally designed to collect as much "incidental" information as possible, regardless of whether there is a warrant. (And might I remind you, there wasn’t a warrant in this case!)

The majority opinion also drastically expands the plain view doctrine. "Plain view" is supposed to apply only to evidence which is immediately detectable by the investigator’s human senses. It shouldn’t extend to information about US persons which "happened" to be collected in the same project or stored in the same database along with information of actual foreign suspects.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Too often, constitutional rights are defined by their ex

and inconvient ones at that as far as the government is concerned.

Which was a feature, not a bug, as the entire point was to put in place ironclad rules that were supposed to prevent the government from doing whatever they wanted, unfortunatley between corrupt and/or cowardly judges and legislators those ‘ironclad’ rules have been eroded quite a bit by this point and are far too often ‘nudged’ to the side to get them out of the way of The Good Guys.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Too often, constitutional rights are defined by their except

The whole point of constitutional rights is to protect everyday people against government tyranny especially during times in which the government is most poised to violate them. The fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments should be just as strong as usual in cases involving "national security", if not stronger than usual. The more serious the government’s allegations are, the more important it is for the courts to protect those rights.

This. The Constitution supersedes and limits government interests and powers. Government interests and powers do not supersede and limit the Constitution.

Any judge who believes otherwise is unworthy of the bench.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Plain view

I think it likely that both the "incidental collection" and "plain view" arguments boil down to: "the government listened in on foreign calls to which the defendant was a party".

i.e., they couldn’t not listen to his side. … and eliding that they targeted him once they discovered he was calling people they wanted to listen in on.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Facts?

"Did this person make contact and continue such contact, with known terrorists or their sympathisers? "

Most likely. As have you – and probably me as well – for that matter. Look up "six degrees of separation". Even at three degrees most people start finding stuff like murderers and school shooters. "Oh shit, that guy who just shot ten people went to middle school with my brother’s best friend" – stuff like that.

Something which came up under the GWB administration was that the implementation of algorithms trying to determine three degrees of contact visavi actual threats were regularly producing utterly ridiculous results; A monastery of american nuns spent years on no-fly list because they were in contact with a humanitarian aid initiative in the ME – which had members whose relatives were part of hizbollah, hamas, al-quaeda, the taliban…or who had been in contact with representatives of such factions in order to access people in need.
People with the wrong last name got flagged as being "relatives" of wanted terrorists.

That shitshow just didn’t end well. The US intelligence community amassed mountainous files on hundreds of thousands of "possible suspects" and ended up putting as many of them as it could under surveillance. A fishing expedition of monumental proportions.

But if you’re asking whether the person was actually guilty we can answer in the almost guaranteed negative.
If he was they’d have charged him rather than spend seven bloody years dragging their heels and looking increasingly like bloody morons.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Most, if not all, who attended did so unarmed.

The breach of the capital occurred without armament.
The police gave them permission to remain if they did not break the law.
Multiple calls from the protestors for calm and peaceful assembly were declared INSIDE the capital.

Video evidence of all this exists.
https://kprcradio.iheart.com/featured/walton-and-johnson/content/2021-05-18-newly-surfaced-video-reveals-police-allowed-protesters-to-enter-capitol/

There’s hours of such related footage.
From then police opening the doors and letting them in. To telling them where to stay and where to go.

But focus on the rogue group of window smashers. Outside and in!
Criminals who deserve punishment.

The reality is like most of the other protests over the last two years the 99% were peaceful.
The only wanted, demanded, to be heard.

And I agree, the idiot who crapped on the floor… throw whatever you want at that fuck.
That’s disrespectful. That’s biological terrorism.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

"Most, if not all, who attended did so unarmed."

So did most of those who attended the Pulse nightclub on a certain day. That doesn’t mean that the people who didn’t should not face consequences.

"From then police opening the doors and letting them in"

So, if you want to get away with illegal activity, just find a friendly officer willing to break the rules on your behalf? I don’t think this is what you meant to say, but it is part of what other protests were about.

"Multiple calls from the protestors for calm and peaceful assembly were declared INSIDE the capital."

The capitol building that had been violently breached by people claiming to be there to overturn democracy and commit violence against those who they disagreed with politically because someone lied to them about the result of the election?

Nobody’s saying the people who did not commit any violent action should face prosecution for violence (though they were by definition still trespassing), but they sure as hell shouldn’t get to pretend to be tourists who didn’t understand the gravity of what they were involved in either. I dare say that if this had been a BLM protest who did the same thing, you’d have a different take on the subject (though, as other events have shown, they wouldn’t have got that far).

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

That doesn’t mean that the people who didn’t should not face consequences.

We don’t disagree.

just find a friendly officer

There’s no law that was broken there. You are allowed to peacefully assemble. It’s in the constitution. And the patriot act allows law enforcement to determine where.

violently breached

That’s the problem with what the media is saying.
They’re separate concurrent actions.
Small groups of violent thugs broke the law while a vast peaceful protest took place. I have consistently said those that broke the law should be punished.
Those that broke windows, passed barriers… those that entered private halls and offices… punish them.

Those that walked in the front door with permission from the police, then walked out the front door when told to do so: should not.

you’d have a different take on the subject

No, I wouldn’t. I’ve constantly called for the law breakers to be punished.
The only difference here is in the Democrat response.
Because Jan 6 was a “mostly peaceful protest” the same as all the BLM ones.
Democrats and their media support are intentionally only showing the small violent group after ignoring the small violent groups at the BLM protests.

Here again is the issue so ignored: the general protest wasn’t against the sitting government, nor a future one.
The results of the election were questioned.
Any question, no matter how fringe, should be given 100% of the effort to investigate.
Much like 2000!

When there’s doubt, recount.

If a full nation wide recount was done there would be no Jan 6, no continuous stolen election claim. No commissions.
There would be a re-verified winner.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"There’s no law that was broken there"

At a certain point they were trespassing, at the very least. If some believed they were there with permission because cops let them through that’s understandable, but once people started wandering around with stolen property through broken windows they should have got the hint.

"Those that walked in the front door with permission from the police, then walked out the front door when told to do so: should not"

I agree. Those are not the people being criticised and prosecuted, though.

"Democrats and their media support are intentionally only showing the small violent group after ignoring the small violent groups at the BLM protests."

Many hundreds of those people have been prosecuted, and people still saw the footage. Some of which showed that the protestors weren’t actually violent but that it was actually outside groups trying to discredit them doing the violence.

Either way, even if what you say is true, I hope it’s understandable why people invading the seat of government with the express intention of disrupting the democratic process while doing things offensive to centuries of history gets more press than people looting and burning some local property that’s already being prosecuted.

"The results of the election were questioned."

Yes, and the questioning was largely based on lies with no basis in reality. I understand why Trump voters couldn’t believe that he lost, but there’s never been any realistic reason to believe that wasn’t the case.

"When there’s doubt, recount."

That has already happened. Much of it before Jan 6. Much goalpost moving was done, many claims of fraud happening before TV cameras (though never presented in a court), but no fraud. In fact, recounts have tended to show that Trump got less votes than originally counted, and the only examples of verified fraud seem to be his voters.

There has been no credible claim of fraud or miscounting, except from the people who don’t understand things like linear time and the fact that many districts were forced to count in-person votes before they counted others.

"If a full nation wide recount was done there would be no Jan 6, no continuous stolen election claim."

I don’t believe that. Since most of those claims were not based on evidence, further presentation of evidence would not sway them. You only have to look at Lindell’s hilariously failed attempts and his reactions to see that.

"There would be a re-verified winner."

Yes, it would be Biden, and we would still be hearing the same claims of fraud, with the same level of evidence.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Very few people doubt a Biden win. Very very few.
For many Republicans, and a number of independents, the result isn’t what’s actually the problem.

The fact that more Biden votes were found in places proves errors happened. It has nothing to do with Trump or Biden for a large number of the complainers. It’s the process. The integrity of the process.
Those concerned with the process would have likely been satisfied with a full national recount.
I would have been.

Myself, I didn’t/don’t question the result.
None of this would have happened at all if the doubt wasn’t a big open door in the first place.

Removing or reducing the watchers — those that watch the vote and those that watch the count — what’s what gave rise to the opportunity for a fringe idea to become mainstream in the first place.
A single snowflake that became a snow-boulder from hell.

The only thing that needs to be done now is make sure no governor nor mayor nor whatever is ever allowed to make such changes outside of law again.

Because it’s not fraud that is of concern for many. It’s the proven potential for it. The more you reduce the verification the more opportunity there is for fraud.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...