The 2009 endangerment finding has functioned as a regulatory sledgehammer. Once greenhouse gases were deemed pollutants under the Clean Air Act, the EPA gained sweeping powers to regulate industries across the board. The consequences were dire: entire coal towns were hollowed out, energy costs soared, and American manufacturers faced stiff competition from overseas producers who were not burdened by similar regulations.

That last part is the key. We should note the two largest emitters of carbon in the world right now are China and India, and neither country cares much about what American and European climate scolds think — nor do they care about American EPA pronouncements. And there's no reason why they should. While the American left shouts in outrage at the very idea of American leaders putting American interests first, they are strangely silent when China and India put Chinese and Indian interests first. //

anon-d2ue
3 hours ago
In the 1970s, one could say the EPA was the model of a successful government agency, it made a large, measurable, and noticable impact in improving the quality of air and water. By the mid-1980s, it really should have been “Mission Accomplished” with the EPA budget winding down to maintenance of what had been achieved and some funding to research and regulate emerging risks from new chemicals, toxins, etc. Instead, the Agency just kept growing, growing, and growing with marginal, if any, benefit to improving the environment or human health, but at tremendous cost to the economy and federal budget.

Never before has the Department of Justice, prior to the conclusion of criminal proceedings against a defendant—and absent a litigation-specific reason as appropriate in the case itself—sought to disclose outside the Department a report prepared by a Special Counsel containing substantive and voluminous case information. Until now. According to the Department, this camera disclosure to four members of Congress is necessary right now—before the conclusion of criminal proceedings—because Attorney General Garland has “limited time” left in his tenure as the head of the Department and wishes “to comply with the historical practice of all Special Counsel,” and also because there is “legislative interest in information about Special Counsel investigations, in order to consider possible legislative reforms regarding the use of special counsels” [ECF No. 703 p. 3 n.2].11 These statements do not reflect well on the Department. There is no “historical practice” of providing Special Counsel reports to Congress, even on a limited basis, pending conclusion of criminal proceedings. In fact, there is not one instance of this happening now [see Tr. 21, 26]. During argument before this Court, counsel misleadingly referenced Congressional testimony by Special Counsel Weiss in 2023 as a purported example of such “historical practice” [Tr. 26]. But Special Counsel Weiss—after opposition by the Department—ultimately agreed to testify on limited matters, repeatedly refusing to answer questions regarding ongoing litigation in order to prevent prejudice to “the rights of defendants or other individuals involved in these matters.”12 13 [Tr. 40–41]. Here, there has been no subpoena from Congress to the Department for Volume II. There is no indication of pending legislative activity that could be aided by the proposed disclosure of Volume II to the specified members of Congress. There is no memorialization of any conditions of confidentiality as referenced by the Department. Indeed, there has been no record provided of an official request by members of Congress for review of Volume II in the manner proposed by the Department.14 To the contrary, some of the same members to whom the Department wishes to present Volume II have urged Attorney General Garland to release Volume II to the public immediately, even if doing so requires dismissal of the charges as to Defendants Nauta and De Oliveira. Supra n.10. In short, the Department offers no valid justification for the purportedly urgent desire to release to members of Congress case information in an ongoing criminal proceeding. //

Meanwhile, on the other side of the balance, there are two individuals in this action, each with constitutional rights to a fair trial, who remain subject to a live criminal appeal of this Court’s Order Dismissing the Superseding Indictment. 11th Cir. Appeal No. 24-1231. The Department has not sought leave to dismiss that appeal, initiated by the Special Counsel, and there has been no indication by any government official in this case that the Department will not proceed on the Superseding Indictment should it prevail in the Eleventh Circuit or in subsequent proceedings.15 These Defendants thus retain—as all parties agree—due process rights to a fair trial that would be imperiled by public dissemination of Volume II. Yet the Department nevertheless insists upon disclosure of Volume II to members of Congress now, promising that conditions of confidentiality, “contingent on their good faith commitment,” will protect against the potential for prejudice [ECF No. 703 p.5]. And if Volume II gets released in whole or in part to the public in contravention of those promises, the Department assures, then Defendants need not worry because this Court can “cure” any damage caused by crafting jury instructions in the future and/or dismissing the charges [ECF No. 703 pp. 5–6]. These assertions flounder on multiple levels and do nothing to detract from the obvious. Given the very strong public interest in this criminal proceeding and the absence of any enforceable limits on the proposed disclosure, there is certainly a reasonable likelihood that review by members of Congress as proposed will result in public dissemination of all or part of Volume II. //

This Court lacks any means to enforce any proffered conditions of confidentiality, to the extent they even exist in memorialized form. And most fundamentally, the Department has offered no valid reason to engage in this gamble with the Defendants’ rights. The bare wishes of one Attorney General with “limited time” in office to comply with a non-existent “historical practice” of releasing Special Counsel reports in the pendency of criminal proceedings is not a valid reason. And surely it does not override the obvious constitutional interests of Defendants in this action and this Court’s duty to protect the integrity of this proceeding. Even less clear is why the Department would defend this position notwithstanding its own Justice Manual, which expressly directs against disclosing substantive case information in a criminal case “except as appropriate in the proceeding or in an announcement after a finding of guilt.” //

Prosecutors play a special role in our criminal justice system and are entrusted and expected to do justice. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935); Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 696(2004); Robert H. Jackson, Attorney General of the United States, Speech to the U.S. Department of Justice, The Federal Prosecutor (Apr. 1, 1940), available athttps://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches-attorney-general-robert-houghwout-jackson. The Department of Justice’s position on Defendants’ Emergency Motion as to Volume II has not been faithful to that obligation.

Matt Viser
@mviser
·
Follow
President Trump sits and takes question after question from reporters in the Oval Office, something that almost never happened with President Biden.
7:53 PM · Jan 20, 2025

Chris D. Jackson @ChrisDJackson
·
Replying to @mviser
[Biden] Literally did the same thing on his first day.

10:08 PM · Jan 20, 2025

Matt Viser @mviser
·
Replying to @ChrisDJackson
The transcript from that day indicates Biden spoke for less than 3 minutes and took 1 question.
10:30 PM · Jan 20, 2025

During my morning perusal of X, I came across a post from Chaya Raichik's "Libs of TikTok" account that I thought really summed up a change we didn't just feel, but saw. With the Biden administration out and the Trump administration in, a change of aesthetics occurred, and it began with the Trump family.

Melania Trump was, as always, the definition of beauty, grace, and poise, but so did Ivanka Trump, as usual. In fact, all the Trump women looked incredible, from Melania to Kai Trump. A really great moment from yesterday, that went under the radar, was when the Trump family was sitting on the stage at Capitol One stadium. Trump hadn't arrived yet, but the crowd was showering the family with praise. The camera displayed a family that looked clean, healthy, happy, and beautiful. //

It wasn't that long ago that we were being force-fed something entirely different and being told that it's good and beautiful.

The Biden family is corrupt. So corrupt that it apparently needed pardons, and with that corruption came people who displayed the opposite of beauty. In fact, it spit in the face of beauty in order to push non-conventional "beauty." //

Libs of TikTok @libsoftiktok
·
Class is back.
5:45 AM · Jan 21, 2025

Understand, this isn't just about a beauty standard, this is about a path America could take. This is literally a "which way, Western world" moment.

To further solidify my point, I want to show you how the degeneracy of the Biden family produced outward ugliness that was often a politically-based rejection of tradition and goodness.

Back in June, I compiled a list of deviants the Biden administration had attracted, some of whom it even employed. //

The outward aesthetic matched the inward state of the soul. The Biden administration chose ugliness in so many forms because its corruption and degenerate politics caused a physical display of resistance to traditional beauty.

To make myself clear here, beauty can come in many forms, but even a person who people would consider to be less than attractive can be beautiful thanks to an inner goodness that shines through. Class and morality go a long way in outward presentation.

Roald Dahl had a very interesting quote about this:

“If a person has ugly thoughts, it begins to show on the face. And when that person has ugly thoughts every day, every week, every year, the face gets uglier and uglier until you can hardly bear to look at it.

A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts it will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.”

etba_ss
8 hours ago

I understand the hesitancy to question those who claim to be representatives of their faith and I often share it, but it's okay to speak truthfully about those who are actively manipulating Christianity for their own selfish ends.

We, as Christians, have to be willing to do this. It isn't just allowed, but it is required. These people are agents of Satan intent on leading people astray. We have have significant theological differences and still acknowledge we serve the same God and are all Christians. People like this woman are not. This stuff is heresy and it sticks a finger in God's face and declares that He is wrong and they know better. Sure, they pretend to group it all around love and kindness for their neighbor, but it is all a lie. We should remember that from the very beginning, Satan loves to use a little bit of God's word, twist it, distort it and then lead people astray. We see that with Adam and Eve in the garden and we see it again when he tempts Jesus.

We must call this stuff out. When at all possible, we should reject this garbage and refuse to sit in attendance and listen to it. There is no such thing as an interfaith prayer service. You can have an interdenominational prayer service, but not an interfaith one. Christianity holds that Jesus is THE way, THE truth and THE life. No one comes to the Father but through Jesus. So if you are praying to "mother god" or Mohammed or even rejecting Jesus as the Son of God, we cannot have a prayer service together. That doesn't mean we hate each other and slit each others throats or we can't be good friends or neighbors, but we aren't going to pray together.

Heresies were a problem even in the early Church. Paul repeatedly dealt with various heresies. That was when there are a real societal cost to being a Christian. In a society where there isn't a big societal cost for being a Christian like the United States (yet), these heresies run wild. You don't have much of a problem with them in the Middle East where claiming to be a Christian is really dangerous and very few would do so who weren't actual followers of Christ.

KJSpeed etba_ss
6 hours ago
A million upvotes etba!

To your point of Christians calling this charlatan out - isn’t that exactly what we expect Muslims to do when an Imam goes off the rails? The same standard should also apply to Christians.

This case will certainly go before the Supreme Court, and however it is decided, the case will carry implications that will affect American immigration policy for many years — and if the court finds for the plaintiffs, we should note that ending birthright citizenship will require a constitutional amendment. A lot is riding on this for both sides.

Birthright citizenship is generally not the rule in most of the world, but in the Americas, it seems to be widely accepted; Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and indeed most of the New World seem to have some form or another of birthright citizenship. We should note, though, that most of these countries aren't beset with millions trying to gain illegal entry to take advantage of these policies. //

WilliamRD
7 hours ago
Indians and their children didn't get citizenship until 1924 when congress passed the Indian citizenship act. . There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

Snowblind WilliamRD
6 hours ago
Except Indians born on a reservation are not born in the US.

Snowblind WilliamRD
2 hours ago
But they were sovereign nations unto themselves at the time the 14th was ratified.

The Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 ended that, but again, at the time of the 14th amendment they were not. //

Mike Ford
5 hours ago edited
"...subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..."
Jurisdiction thereof has TWO components:

1. Legal jurisdiction and;

2 Sovereign Jurisdiction or citizen allegiance.

If my buddy Ward goes to Germany and walks into the Hürtgen Forest with his trusty guide gun and attempts to get himself a boar, the Politzi will arrest him.

1. He will be charged under German Law, which has legal jurisdiction over that act in Germany (and he also may be subject to U.S. law (especially if he is a Soldier and outside SOFA boundaries)).

2. He will NOT lose his citizenship...ie, the U.S. retains SOVEREIGN jurisdiction over him.

Now...let's take a Colombian couple who dash across the border and evade ICE. She (not he..."he's" can't do that) drops a baby on U.S. soil. The baby is a Colombian citizen. Period. Full Stop.

Why? Because the couple and the baby are not subject to the full/complete (legal AND sovereign, jurisdiction of these United States.

This issue has been made needlessly complex by leftists and their lawyers.

It's time to end this travesty...by specific legislation or a SCOTUS decision that defines a U.S. citizen as anyone who is born to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen on the date of that birth.

I'm sorry for the bad acts of Democrats that have resulted in children who were born here and know no other country. That ain't our problem.

Send their parents and them back to country of origin. If they want to come here, get in line like the mother of my children, my sisters-in-law (from Central America) and a brother-in-law from Austria...all of whom own businesses,, employ folk and pay way too many taxes.

This isn't hard. We are making it so. //

MN-Gal2022 ConservativeInMinnesota
6 hours ago
Hey!

i think it was you who had posted some context from the authors of the amendment.

If I recall correctly they specifically said this did not apply to those here illegally.

do you still have the text of that explanation?

ConservativeInMinnesota MN-Gal2022
2 hours ago
It was. Here it is for reference:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

What it means in the words of Senator Jacob Howard who co-authored the 14th Amendment:

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

What it means in the words of Senator Trumbull who co-author the 14th Amendment on the “subject to the jurisdiction”:

not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. //

David135
5 hours ago
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens....

If being born on USA soil was sufficient, the line would simply be....
All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens..

Obviously, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means something besides the accepted understanding of birthright citizenship.

John Q. Public David135
4 hours ago
People trying to suggest that they wasted the ink and calligraphy on that line for absolutely no reason are insane.

But they know no matter what they do, they cannot prevent all seamen deaths. So they must devise a way to show that, when that catastrophe happens, they have done everything they could to prevent it. They require detailed analyses showing that any possible mistake or failure by man or machine will not result in a seaman death.

They require that all vendors go through an expensive and restrictive certification process. The yard is no longer free to bid anyone it wants to. Newcomers need not apply. The incumbent vendors enjoy a deep regulatory moat. Their focus becomes maintaining the paperwork required to preserve that moat. Cost is determined by amount of paperwork not quality.

The OSD writes detailed process requirements dictating just how components will be manufactured and who can do that work. They imposes multiple layers of paperwork documenting that all their procedures have been followed. Any change has to go through a long list of sign offs, requiring reanalysis of anything that might be affected. How long these approvals will take is anybody's guess.

They instruct their inspectors to reject any departure from an approved drawing no matter how trivial or beneficial. If an OSD inspector does not show up for a required test, the test has to wait until he does.

What do you think will happen to our shipyard's productivity? I can tell you what will happen. The carefully choreographed system will be thrown into chaos, and grind to a virtual halt. Cost will increase by an order of magnitude or more. Quality will deteriorate drastically. The ships will be delivered years late. They will rarely perform to spec, some will not perform at all.

Why can I tell you what will happen? US naval shipyards resemble Korean yards on the surface but they are controlled by something that looks very much like the OSD system. In fact, the OSD system is modeled on the Navy system. I spent the first decade or so of my career, working within this system. I saw the focus on process rather than substance. I saw the waste. I saw inexplicable decisions go unchallenged. I saw obvious errors turned into profit centers. I saw promotions based not on output, but on keeping the paperwork clean. I saw horribly bloated initial prices followed by enormous overruns. I saw schedules busted by months and then by years. I saw ships that did not work. I saw everybody involved stridently defend the system.

Thank God the OSD does not run nuclear power. We'd have no chance of solving the Gordian Knot.

Germany is decommissioning its closed nuclear plants, but opportunities for restarting remain. New energy demand and news of Three Mile Island's revival have improved the outlook for closed plants. No significant technical barriers prevent Germany’s nuclear restart, but swift action is needed.

Germany shut down its last nuclear plants on April 15, 2023, and is making significant progress in decommissioning 31 reactors. After years of producing enough electricity for its own needs and exporting the surplus, Germany imported 9 TWh net in 2023 and as of November 25, 2024, increased imports to 25 TWh net. The German economy is expected to shrink by 0.2% in 2024, following a 0.3% decline in 2023. A 2024 survey by Germany’s DIHK Chambers of Industry and Commerce shows a rising number of businesses are considering reducing production or relocating out of Germany.

A German nuclear restart depends solely on political will. The two most urgent measures include an immediate moratorium on the dismantling of reactors and an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act to allow nuclear power plants to be operated again.

Germany once operated one of the world's largest nuclear power fleets and was a leading provider of nuclear technology. However, public opposition halted nuclear expansion by 1990, leading to a phase-out agreement in 2002. Despite a brief runtime extension under Chancellor Merkel in 2009, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted her to make a rapid reversal of her previous policy, with Germany committing to shut down all nuclear plants by the end of 2022.

To replace nuclear power, Germany planned to rely on a mix of coal, wind, solar, and Russian natural gas from pipelines. The country aimed to gradually phase out coal while increasing renewables and using natural gas as a bridge fuel. However, this strategy faced a significant setback when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, disrupting Germany's plans for cheap Russian gas imports. This crisis sparked public debates about extending nuclear plant operations. Nevertheless, Germany's last nuclear reactors ceased electricity production on April 15, 2023.

The shutdown of Germany’s nuclear plants has had major impacts. Before the final nuclear closures, Germany had been a net exporter of electricity. Now, Germany is a net importer, relying on its neighbors for power. Imports in 2024 have nearly tripled those of 2023 before the start of December. Ironically, about half of this imported energy came from France, Switzerland, and Belgium, where nuclear power provides a substantial portion of the electricity supply.

There is a case to be made for going much further, to return the federal government to what the Founders intended; to pare it once more back to its proper constitutional boundaries. This will go beyond trimming the fat; this will involve cutting the imperial colossus our federal government has become down to the bone, and then paring away some of the bone.

For the first installment of this series, let us discuss the proper role of government.

Some years back, I heard a comment that has stuck in my head ever since: “What government does for anyone, it should do for everyone, or it should do for no one.” This, in a nutshell, sums up the proper relationship of government to the citizens. //

is not the proper role of government to shield people from the consequences of their bad decisions. There will always be a need for a modern, prosperous society to care for the truly helpless, such as people disabled through no fault of their own, children with no adults to care for them, and so forth. But the lazy, the indigent, the irresponsible – they have no moral claim on the fruits of the labor of the industrious. The government, and only the government, has the power to tax – to claim a portion of your resources with the force of law, with the implied threat of armed force if you try to abstain. In our age of ever-increasing welfare entitlements, that government has claimed a portion of every taxpayer’s proceeds toward just such a shield – requiring the industrious to toil longer and harder to support the indigent. //

It is the nature of government to grow, to become ever more intrusive; it is the nature of government that it is inefficient, even wasteful. Examples of this abound. Our republic was founded on the overriding principle that government must be constrained. No less an authority on the founding principles of our nation than George Washington said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” He was exactly correct; and the American people must remember that however dangerous, government and its various elected and appointed officials and their hirelings are our servants, not our masters. And if necessary, we should call on them to remember, as well. That is why the federal government should — must — be once more returned to its original constitutional limits.

"Those who wished to stop our cause have tried to take my freedom and, indeed, to take my life," said Trump. "Just a few months ago, in a beautiful Pennsylvania field, an assassin's bullet ripped through my ear."

"I felt then and believe even more so now that my life was saved for a reason: I was saved by God to make America great again," Trump said. //

There was talk in the RedState live blog about whether that moment deepened Trump's faith. It appears that it did. Trump's words in his speech indicate a man who, if he didn't believe before, truly does now.

Moreover, this should be a wake-up moment for a lot of Americans. There is something far bigger than us guiding events. Trump was sworn in today, but God is the one who is truly in charge. We might have elected Trump, but God appointed him. That was made clear when the "millimeter miracle" as Pastor Lorenzo Sewell so eloquently put it during his prayer, happened in Butler. //

redstateuser
21 hours ago
As an American, and even as a Christian, I've always held back from the stated notion or suggestion that God preferred The United States of America, as that seemed in my mind to diminish the humanity of all other people in all other countries who, as my faith informs me, are just as sacred in God's eyes as is any American.
However, I must blend in to my belief the comments I've read over many years from those in other countries who indeed look up to the United States of America and who do so I must believe with no disrespect to themselves, to their fellow citizens, or to their country. I don't think I truly grasp the depth of this. It's not easily evident to me but a slow realization of how the might and intent of a well-functioning United States of America is admired, wanted, and even needed by other peoples around the world, as a force for good and a model for imitation.
So, to the extent that such admiration is actually true, I can allow the idea that God could prefer the size and might of The United States of America to succeed and be deserved of such admiration, and that He would prefer this over other less benevolent political alternatives existing in the world. As long as I don't allow ego to adulterate what I am trying to say, perhaps I can allow this blending to occur in my Christian beliefs.
I've tried to state this well. I hope I have done well enough.
Thank you.

Sarcastic Frog redstateuser
19 hours ago
I can appreciate your struggle with this.
God has a chosen people: Israel.
Having said that, at various times God has "chosen" a person or a nation to do certain things. That doesn't make them "better" than another person or nation; to the contrary, it puts a much greater burden of accountability on that person or nation. Anybody bragging about "preference" doesn't know what they're talking about.

Public Citizen redstateuser
17 hours ago
This nation was founded by Godly and God Fearing Men.
The remarks of Sarcastic Frog are pertinent.
I would add that even Israel has been subject to God's Chastisement from time to time.
The USA, because of its founding and foundational principals has served as God's Chosen Implement from time to time.
It's my belief that even Joe Biden has been one of those implements, serving as a tool to teach a nation straying from its founding principals the consequences of such waywardness.
We now have before us a time to set our collective house in order and return to those principals, including those GODLY PRINCIPALS that made this nation the Great Nation that it has been in the past.

I think placing high-profile and very credible critics inside the military's civilian bureaucracy may prove to be a masterstroke. First, it rubs the noses of those who toadied to the forces of DEI, CRT, transgenderism, and every other social science fad in their own ordure every day just by their existence. Much like Biden and Kamala had to sit at the front of a packed auditorium during Trump's inauguration and listen to him castigate their loathsome term in office, Scheller and Lohmeier will condemn the people who punished them every day by just existing. Second, their presence in the upper reaches of DOD will encourage whistleblowers to report on people who are part of the resistance. Finally, if Scheller and Lohmeier can impart a fraction of their passion for military virtues to the Armed Services, they will have done the nation an everlasting favor.

Just before entering the Capitol Rotunda for the swearing-in of Donald J. Trump, outgoing President Joe Biden issued a few more pardons - including to a number of his family members: James B. Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John T. Owens, and Francis W. Biden. //

justpaul
21 hours ago
Joe Biden just admitted his entire family is corrupt and guilty.

And now they can all be called to testify against him without the protection of the Fifth Amendment. //

GBenton surfcat50
20 hours ago edited
Their guilt is a win even if they individually escape justice. In the larger war to take America back, their collective and efficient admission all at once of their guilt may well accelerate the restoration of this country and strip their defenders of even a shred of cover.

It's official - the Biden crime family and crime syndicate.

The Democrat party narrative ends in disgrace. Now it's time to drive a stake through the heart of Marxism. //

GreenLanternMD
21 hours ago edited
This is actually a huge gift to Trump, who stood to lose whether his DOJ prosecuted Biden’s criminal associates or not. Now, while they tacitly admit to the commission of crimes, he can expose them without being accused of prosecuting his enemies, and, had he not prosecuted them, having to explain why he was not seeking consequences for their treasonous behavior. Now that’s on Biden and his co-conspirators.

Naturally, Melania Trump won the day—it’s a little like pitting Brett Favre against a middle school flag football team, but thems the rules—in her long navy silk-wool coat under a cream blouse designed by New York–based designer Adam Lippes, and that matching hat by Eric Javits. How this woman was able to pull off a topper that not only obscured half of her face but looked so sharp it might be the understudy for a circular saw is a testimony to Slovenian bone structure and understanding one’s angles.

Not since Lincoln’s stovepipe has a hat been so well-worn in our nation’s capital. Though this one did a better job of protecting her from unwanted contact—including from her own husband. Melania finished off the look with black leather gloves and navy Manolo Blahnik pumps. Notes? None. The memes are already legion, including ones comparing the first lady to Carmen Sandiego. //

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania senator John Fetterman rolled up in a look that if he were anyone else, would have been grounds for censure. He was in gray athletic shorts, a black hoodie, and running shoes. At the presidential inauguration. But alas, Fetterman has fashion immunity, granted by the most high, to wear wherever the hell he wants.

Milley, the retired Army general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who on several occasions subverted orders from his Commander-in-Chief, had his portrait removed from the Pentagon within two hours of President Donald Trump's inauguration.

The portrait's removal has been confirmed by CNN and Reuters. It had been revealed just 10 days ago. //

Of those pardoned by Biden, Milley stands out as having taken actions that could reasonably be described as treason. It is far from hyperbole in the case of the former Joint Chiefs Chair.

Milley, according to a book titled "Peril," assured his counterpart, General Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army of China, in the final days of Trump's first term that the United States military would not strike the communist country. Even if Trump ordered such actions based on his assessment they were in the best interest of the defense of America.

Perhaps most astonishing was the quote from that book, which shows Milley was willing to warn China — a hostile foreign nation — if an attack was in the works. //

Trump's nominee for FBI Director, Kash Patel, in an exclusive interview with RedState, suggested Milley contravened authorization from then-President Trump regarding the deployment of the National Guard on January 6th.

Milley had claimed the National Guard was deployed to the Capitol at “sprint speed.”

However, congressional testimony from Brig. Gen. Aaron R. Dean II, then the Guard’s adjutant general, suggested the deployment was stalled for the sake of optics, as evidenced by several calls to Ryan D. McCarthy, the Secretary of the Army at the time, to commence deployment going "directly to voice mail.". //

MyDogsMum TXavatar
7 hours ago
Does the pardon exempt him from a dishonorable discharge?

Mike Ford MyDogsMum
6 hours ago edited
Yes. A dishonorable requires conviction by a General Court Martial. A GCM is part of the same federal “sovereign.”

The Biden pardon precludes that
Streiff and I had that phone conversation earlier today.

Having said that, the pardon removes his self incrimination protection and do he can be compelled to testify regarding anything he has done prior to the Biden pardon.

Carey J Dolfin9999
6 hours ago
The Fifth Amendment only protects you from self-incrimination, which requires legal jeopardy. The pardon removed the legal jeopardy, making it impossible for him to incriminate himself. Therefore, he can be required to testify about ANYTHING he has knowledge of, or face Contempt of Court/Congress charges. If he lies under oath, he is subject to perjury charges.

Years ago, when I read The Mythical Man-Month, I found lots of stuff which I already knew from other sources. However, there were also new things in there, despite the book being from 1975. One of them was:

The Surgical Team

Mills proposes that each segment of a large job be tackled a team, but that the team be organized like a surgical team rather than a hog-butchering team. That is, instead of each member cutting away on the problem, one does the cutting and the others give him every support that will enhance his effectiveness and productivity.

This is a very interesting pattern for organizing a software development team, but I never found it described in any other Software Engineering book, not even mentioned anywhere.

Why is that?

Trump has long promised to issue mass pardons for convicted J6ers once he was back in office, but as RedState's Bob Hoge reported Sunday, he ran into some interference from fellow Republicans like Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who argued pardons should not be given to those who attacked law enforcement.

Undaunted by the resistance, Trump plowed ahead with his plan as soon as he set foot back in the Oval Office. Trump was certainly emboldened by the fact that his predecessor, Joe Biden, blew all standards and norms to shreds by pardoning his son, Hunter, and various other family members. Pardon-palooza was on.

Officially, President Trump has commuted the sentences of Proud Boys and Oath Keeper members and issued "a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021" for other defendants. Or, as Trump has called them in the past, J6 "hostages."

For this final installment in the inauguration series, we talk about the inaugural balls.

The new order maintains that "the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States" and centers on two specific scenarios:

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

I’m guessing it would take quite a lot to cross California Democrat Sen. Adam Schiff’s ethical line because in Donald Trump’s first term and in the subsequent corrupt J6 Committee, the long-necked Democrat proved that he was willing to do just about anything to “get Trump.” As fierce and nasty a partisan as you could find in The Swamp, Schiff was a leader of both impeachment trials against the 45th president—now the 47th president—and for years promised evidence of Russia collusion that he never produced.

We're still waiting, Adam.

He is so dishonest that the House censured him in 2023, making him only the 25th House lawmaker to face the punishment in U.S. history.

But evidently, Adam has found someone even more corrupt than himself: former (oh, I type that with such glee!) President Joe Biden, who has thrown out a slew of pardons in his waning days in office. Even Schiff was able to see that the pardons were not in the best interests of the country: //

He tries to claim that Biden’s J6 Committee pardons were “unnecessary” and “unwise” because he and fellow committee members, former Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) and Liz Cheney (R-WY) did such “important work.” But if it was so important, why did Trump become president on Monday despite your stunning conclusions, and why does Biden feel the need to give you a preemptive pardon? A classic Shakespeare quote comes to mind, Adam: You "doth protest too much, methinks." //

When one of the most ethically challenged people ever to cast a cloud over Congress says you've crossed a line, you've really, really crossed a line. //

It wasnt me
43 minutes ago
He doesn't have to accept the Pardon.

Submitted by another.
In the 1915 Supreme Court case Burdick v. United States, the Court ruled that a pardon carries an "imputation of guilt". The Court also stated that accepting a pardon was "an admission of guilt". //

Black Magic
8 minutes ago
“I continue to believe that the grant of pardons to a committee that undertook such important work to uphold the law was unnecessary, and because of the precedent it establishes, unwise,”

Buuuut......I'll take it.

President Trump's State Department transition team has asked scores of bureaucrats to resign from their positions no later than noon on Monday. The focus of the changes seems aimed at gutting the notoriously recalcitrant, hidebound, and, yes, leftist State Department staff and preventing any centers of resistance from forming as Marco Rubio builds his team. //

Rubio's team is forcing out basically all of State's second tier leadership and replacing them with handpicked personnel, including people called out of retirement. //

GBenton
3 hours ago
Should I call a doctor NOW? This has lasted since November 5th and shows no signs of letting up.

Damocles GBenton
3 hours ago
I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the weekends.... and I diagnose you with Winning!
Right now there is no cure, so enjoy...