Jesse Watters on Fox News was calling (in what passes for humor on Fox News) for the UN building to be bombed or gassed in response to Trump's escalator stopping. (Best guess so far seems to be that the escalator stopped because a videographer who was going backwards up the escalator in front of Trump stumbled over the top step and accidentally triggered a safety shut-off.)
We're about to hear an avalanche of Conservative voices decrying advocating political violence, and demanding that Watters be taken off the air, right?
The New York Times thoughtfully drew our attention to the Daily Mirror's front page today. It showed a picture of the gibbering trump over a banner saying: DERANGED. Fairly accurate, I would say.
The New York Times thoughtfully drew our attention to the Daily Mirror's front page today. It showed a picture of the gibbering trump over a banner saying: DERANGED. Fairly accurate, I would say.
Signs are that the British media has started to just have had enough of Trump. His whole autism paracetamol vaccines rant was fact checked into oblivion by the BBC.
The New York Times thoughtfully drew our attention to the Daily Mirror's front page today. It showed a picture of the gibbering trump over a banner saying: DERANGED. Fairly accurate, I would say.
Signs are that the British media has started to just have had enough of Trump. His whole autism paracetamol vaccines rant was fact checked into oblivion by the BBC.
And others, the National Autism Society has produced some social media content that shreds it apart. As you might expect from a group of people including many gifted with analytical minds.
The escalator incident could have been a disaster for the Secret Service in that he was momentarily stopped and actually became a sitting duck--a stationary target. (I AM NOT SUGGESTING ANYTHING OF THE SORT).
Some MAGA commentators also complained the PA system in the assembly hall was also turned down when Trump began to speak.
The escalator incident could have been a disaster for the Secret Service in that he was momentarily stopped and actually became a sitting duck--a stationary target. (I AM NOT SUGGESTING ANYTHING OF THE SORT).
For a normal person when an escalator stops it becomes a staircase. This changes a smooth, constant trajectory into the irregular, bobbing path of a person climbing stairs. For Trump, having the escalator stop is apparently an insurmountable problem. If I were someone worried about Trump's wellbeing the fact that he can't navigate stairs would be more concerning to me than the fact that he was stationary for a few seconds on an escalator before being stationary behind a podium for almost an hour.
For a normal person when an escalator stops it becomes a staircase.
Yes, though to be fair, not a normal staircase. The rise (vertical height) of an escalator step is higher than the rise of a standard staircase step, and the tread (depth of the step) is longer on an escalator step. As a result, it does typically take more effort to walk up an escalator than it would a staircase. The higher rise and deeper tread also potentially increase the risk of tripping, simply because the steps aren’t where we’re conditioned to expect them.
Not that it should be too much of a problem for a healthy, mobile person, but it is somewhat different.
I pity the poor U.N. translators who had to translate Trumpspeak in realtime.
The New York Times thoughtfully drew our attention to the Daily Mirror's front page today. It showed a picture of the gibbering trump over a banner saying: DERANGED. Fairly accurate, I would say.
Signs are that the British media has started to just have had enough of Trump. His whole autism paracetamol vaccines rant was fact checked into oblivion by the BBC.
Ah, but the BBC are just a bunch of woke leftists, so you can’t take anything they say seriously. The only reliable source of news is YouTube. That’s how I know that the moon landings were fake and that Princess Diana was murdered by Elvis
Acetaminophen is easy to pronounce
The end is the same as minnow fin.
The front is like "Ah see da" as in
Ah see da Epstein files have not
been released yet.
Acetaminophen is easy to pronounce
The end is the same as minnow fin.
The front is like "Ah see da" as in
Ah see da Epstein files have not
been released yet.
I pity the poor U.N. translators who had to translate Trumpspeak in realtime.
My experience of watching French TV news is that the translation is usually considerably more coherent than the original.
If the translators paraphrase rather than strictly translate then it's possible to end up with the very coherent "meaningless nonsense, more nonsense, a few lies, random unfounded attack on some celebrity ... and, back to the meaningless nonsense".
Acetaminophen is easy to pronounce
The end is the same as minnow fin.
The front is like "Ah see da" as in
Ah see da Epstein files have not
been released yet.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has urgently called on hundreds of U.S. military officials around the globe for a spontaneous meeting at a Marine Corps base in Virginia next week, though the reason for the gathering remains top secret.
The unusual directive was received by top military commanders stationed around the world, ordering them to meet in Quantico on Tuesday, reported The Washington Post. There are approximately 800 U.S. generals and admirals in total. Hegseth’s order applies to “all senior officers with the rank of brigadier general or above, or their Navy equivalent, serving in command positions and their top enlisted advisers,” insiders told the Post. It does not apply to military officers who hold staff positions.
<snip>
The message shocked members of the U.S. military, who could not recall another instance in which a defense secretary summoned so many commanders for a sudden in-person meeting — especially without a clear rationale. Some warned that having so many integral military leaders in one place could pose a national security risk.
Needless to say the U.S. military possesses some very secure remote communications technology (though Secretary Hegseth may be unaware of this), so having all U.S. generals and admirals gather in one room with no explanation and little advance notice sounds kind of suspicious. There's also the issue that all American military leadership, including those overseas, will not be at their posts for a significant period of time next week.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has urgently called on hundreds of U.S. military officials around the globe for a spontaneous meeting at a Marine Corps base in Virginia next week, though the reason for the gathering remains top secret.
The unusual directive was received by top military commanders stationed around the world, ordering them to meet in Quantico on Tuesday, reported The Washington Post. There are approximately 800 U.S. generals and admirals in total. Hegseth’s order applies to “all senior officers with the rank of brigadier general or above, or their Navy equivalent, serving in command positions and their top enlisted advisers,” insiders told the Post. It does not apply to military officers who hold staff positions.
<snip>
The message shocked members of the U.S. military, who could not recall another instance in which a defense secretary summoned so many commanders for a sudden in-person meeting — especially without a clear rationale. Some warned that having so many integral military leaders in one place could pose a national security risk.
Needless to say the U.S. military possesses some very secure remote communications technology (though Secretary Hegseth may be unaware of this), so having all U.S. generals and admirals gather in one room with no explanation and little advance notice sounds kind of suspicious. There's also the issue that all American military leadership, including those overseas, will not be at their posts for a significant period of time next week.
Could be anything from a coup to giving them a dressing down for being too Black/gay/female or tolerant of the above. My money's on the latter.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has urgently called on hundreds of U.S. military officials around the globe for a spontaneous meeting at a Marine Corps base in Virginia next week, though the reason for the gathering remains top secret.
The unusual directive was received by top military commanders stationed around the world, ordering them to meet in Quantico on Tuesday, reported The Washington Post. There are approximately 800 U.S. generals and admirals in total. Hegseth’s order applies to “all senior officers with the rank of brigadier general or above, or their Navy equivalent, serving in command positions and their top enlisted advisers,” insiders told the Post. It does not apply to military officers who hold staff positions.
<snip>
The message shocked members of the U.S. military, who could not recall another instance in which a defense secretary summoned so many commanders for a sudden in-person meeting — especially without a clear rationale. Some warned that having so many integral military leaders in one place could pose a national security risk.
Needless to say the U.S. military possesses some very secure remote communications technology (though Secretary Hegseth may be unaware of this), so having all U.S. generals and admirals gather in one room with no explanation and little advance notice sounds kind of suspicious. There's also the issue that all American military leadership, including those overseas, will not be at their posts for a significant period of time next week.
Could be anything from a coup to giving them a dressing down for being too Black/gay/female or tolerant of the above. My money's on the latter.
If it's the dressing down it would qualify as the ultimate "this meeting could have been an email".
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has urgently called on hundreds of U.S. military officials around the globe for a spontaneous meeting at a Marine Corps base in Virginia next week, though the reason for the gathering remains top secret.
The unusual directive was received by top military commanders stationed around the world, ordering them to meet in Quantico on Tuesday, reported The Washington Post. There are approximately 800 U.S. generals and admirals in total. Hegseth’s order applies to “all senior officers with the rank of brigadier general or above, or their Navy equivalent, serving in command positions and their top enlisted advisers,” insiders told the Post. It does not apply to military officers who hold staff positions.
<snip>
The message shocked members of the U.S. military, who could not recall another instance in which a defense secretary summoned so many commanders for a sudden in-person meeting — especially without a clear rationale. Some warned that having so many integral military leaders in one place could pose a national security risk.
Needless to say the U.S. military possesses some very secure remote communications technology (though Secretary Hegseth may be unaware of this), so having all U.S. generals and admirals gather in one room with no explanation and little advance notice sounds kind of suspicious. There's also the issue that all American military leadership, including those overseas, will not be at their posts for a significant period of time next week.
Could be anything from a coup to giving them a dressing down for being too Black/gay/female or tolerant of the above. My money's on the latter.
If it's the dressing down it would qualify as the ultimate "this meeting could have been an email".
You have to admit it would be entirely in keeping with Hegseth's style to date.
But, who would actually receive such an email from Hegseth? The intended general, or a reporter?
I'm estimating there's a non-zero chance that this meeting was called because Hegseth accidentally hit "Reply All". It's not a big chance, but the fact that it's not zero says something.
Less than one week ago, Hegseth issued a new policy restricting journalists who cover the Defense Department at the Pentagon from gathering or reporting information (even unclassified information) unless it has been authorized for release by the government. Further, reporters have to sign a statement agreeing to the new rules or risk having their press credentials revoked. How convenient.
But the midterm elections are not until next year, aren't they? Seems a little early to be calling the military in. Unless this is a dry run for next year when he will issue an order calling in all American military to protect the voting booths from actually being used?
Top of my list is Hegseth wants a 20% reduction in the General staff. 160 of them could be getting pink slips.
To think a major power is gathering all its top brass for a meeting would make a number of adversaries wonder who is guarding the hen house. Might be a good time to cause some mischief. Pappa Bear just might see how far he can encroach on NATO air space. Panda Bear just might try to seize Tiawan. The DROKs could be tempted to send on of their nuclear missiles our way. Iran would dearly love to swat Isreal--or vice versa. Africa could heat up.
I know: Pete will tell the brass AI is taking over. They are all getting a pink slip.
There is an interesting story of when the German generals were all summoned together in 1935 and were told the Weimer constitution no longer applied and they were to swear allegiance to Hitler. Hegseth posted this story on his X account with the remark: "Cool story." More information found here.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered hundreds of generals to travel on short notice from around the world to hear him make a short speech on military standards and the “warrior ethos,” multiple people familiar with the event told The Washington Post.
It is, of course, distinctly possible that this is just some fatuous bafflegab the DoD put out after the existence of this previously secret meeting was made publicly known and they had to come up with an innocuous sounding explanation.
“It’s meant to be an eyeball-to-eyeball kind of conversation,” one person familiar with ongoing discussions said. “He wants to see the generals.”
So it's like a petting zoo, except the with military officers instead of small mammals.
Hegseth's Xitter post, referred to by @Gramps49 above, can be seen here.
As a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, if Hegseth wants to go "eyball-to-eyeball" with 800 generals/admirals, assuming he takes ten seconds per general/admiral (five to stare into his eyes and five to move on to the next officer) the process will take more than two hours. This seems like the kind of government waste Republicans are always whining about. There was also this from the article.
The timing of the event has been of particular concern: The speech is set for Sept. 30, the last day of the fiscal year. If there is a government shutdown, it could leave key staff stranded in Virginia as military commands across the globe are juggling the security implications of Russia’s war against Ukraine, Israel’s renewed offensive in Gaza and the continued threat to U.S. personnel in the Middle East, where the Houthis and other Iranian-backed militias continue to fire missiles and drones at U.S. interests.
Face it, the ROTC little man who rose no higher than Captain in the National Guard (little more than a 90 day wonder as the grunts in Vietnam would call him) wants to show who is really the boss.
As a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, if Hegseth wants to go "eyball-to-eyeball" with 800 generals/admirals, assuming he takes ten seconds per general/admiral (five to stare into his eyes and five to move on to the next officer) the process will take more than two hours. This seems like the kind of government waste Republicans are always whining about. There was also this from the article.
The timing of the event has been of particular concern: The speech is set for Sept. 30, the last day of the fiscal year. If there is a government shutdown, it could leave key staff stranded in Virginia as military commands across the globe are juggling the security implications of Russia’s war against Ukraine, Israel’s renewed offensive in Gaza and the continued threat to U.S. personnel in the Middle East, where the Houthis and other Iranian-backed militias continue to fire missiles and drones at U.S. interests.
Could that maybe be the game plan here—essentially holding the top brass hostage to force Democrats to vote to agree to GOP measures to avoid a shutdown?
In other news, Trump has finally gotten the indictment against James Comey he had been pushing for. The indictment says James Comey had lied to congress. Previous prosecutors had said there was no evidence that would convict Comey. But when you read the indictment, here, there is really nothing in it.
Trump has long held a grudge against Comey since at least 2016. He had called Comey a most vile man. I know, Trump projects a lot.
Comey's response? See you in court.
Anyone want to bet the judge will throw this out?
Meanwhile, the Epstein files have not been released.
Time keeps on Ticking into the future.
I am sure our resident lawyers can explain what is happening.
Who will be the first judge to take meaningful action against the lawyers perpetrating this waste of the court's time on Trump's behalf?
It is not going to take long. Already, the court is confused about which indictment is the true bill. US Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala has had problems wondering which bill of indictment was correct. Apparently, the Trump appointed attorney submitted two bills of indictment, one with three counts, the other with two. Here is the CBS Story of what happened.
Who will be the first judge to take meaningful action against the lawyers perpetrating this waste of the court's time on Trump's behalf?
It is not going to take long. Already, the court is confused about which indictment is the true bill. US Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala has had problems wondering which bill of indictment was correct. Apparently, the Trump appointed attorney submitted two bills of indictment, one with three counts, the other with two. Here is the CBS Story of what happened.
But I think the question @Arethosemyfeet was asking was not how long it will take a judge to throw out the indictment, but rather which judge will be the first to meaningfully discipline or sanction that attorneys who have filed these papers with the court. Sanctions seem less likely to me when a grand jury is involved.
Who will be the first judge to take meaningful action against the lawyers perpetrating this waste of the court's time on Trump's behalf?
It is not going to take long. Already, the court is confused about which indictment is the true bill. US Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala has had problems wondering which bill of indictment was correct. Apparently, the Trump appointed attorney submitted two bills of indictment, one with three counts, the other with two. Here is the CBS Story of what happened.
But I think the question @Arethosemyfeet was asking was not how long it will take a judge to throw out the indictment, but rather which judge will be the first to meaningfully discipline or sanction that attorneys who have filed these papers with the court. Sanctions seem less likely to me when a grand jury is involved.
Though I have seen allegations that the grand jury was misled about who said what, which I would assume is not permitted.
Who will be the first judge to take meaningful action against the lawyers perpetrating this waste of the court's time on Trump's behalf?
It is not going to take long. Already, the court is confused about which indictment is the true bill. US Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala has had problems wondering which bill of indictment was correct. Apparently, the Trump appointed attorney submitted two bills of indictment, one with three counts, the other with two. Here is the CBS Story of what happened.
But I think the question @Arethosemyfeet was asking was not how long it will take a judge to throw out the indictment, but rather which judge will be the first to meaningfully discipline or sanction that attorneys who have filed these papers with the court. Sanctions seem less likely to me when a grand jury is involved.
Though I have seen allegations that the grand jury was misled about who said what, which I would assume is not permitted.
No, it’s not. But given that grand jury proceedings are (supposed to be) confidential, establishing that a prosecutor intentionally misled the grand jury isn’t as straightforward as establishing, say, that a prosecutor intentionally misrepresented facts to the court.
The thing that I don't get about grand juries is why they are so one-sided, why they only hear the prosecutor's case for probable cause and not the defendant's. The defendant isn't even present. The process seems set up to mislead.
My response to @Arethosemyfeet stands. She asked Which judge will impose sanctions. My response is it should not take long to find out.
It is my understanding federal grand jury proceedings are supposed to be kept secret but there are reports of the 23 people on the GJ only 14 voted to indict Comey. Doesn't sound like the prosecutor has all that tight of a case. Understanding a Grand Jury is convened only to hear the prosecutor's findings before an indictment is handed down. Comey still will have his day in court.
----
In other news:
Apparently, Musk sold the Trump Administration his xAI program called Grok services for use in all government agencies.
My response to @Arethosemyfeet stands. She asked Which judge will impose sanctions.
He asked “who will be the first judge to take meaningful action against the lawyers perpetrating this waste of the court's time on Trump's behalf?” (Emphasis mine.)
The thing that I don't get about grand juries is why they are so one-sided, why they only hear the prosecutor's case for probable cause and not the defendant's. The defendant isn't even present. The process seems set up to mislead.
Technically, “probable cause” has to do with arrests and search warrants.
The purpose of the grand jury, at least theoretically, is to be a check on a prosecutor’s decision as to whether charges should be brought. The grand jury’s task is to decide whether the prosecution has sufficient evidence of guilt to send the case to trial, or whether the prosecution can’t make a convincing case to start with. So being two-sided isn’t really in the remit; it’s supposed to act as a green light or a red light for the prosecution.
Trial is when the defendant has the opportunity to present a defense, and where the court (a jury/petit jury or a judge) determines whether the prosecution has carried its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
@Arethosemyfeet, sorry for using the wrong pronoun. @Nick Tamen I am saying it should not take long to find out who will be the first judge to take meaningful action against the lawyers perpetrating this waste of the courts' time on behalf of Trump. My example of the trump appointed prosecutor presenting two different bills of indictment shows a judge who was about to throw the whole thing out then and there, only I know the magistrate's duty, in this case, is just to receive the indictment and make sure it is in order. Judge Michael Nachmanoff of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has set an arraignment for Oct. 9 in the case. Should not take long at all.
@Nick Tamen I am saying it should not take long to find out who will be the first judge to take meaningful action against the lawyers perpetrating this waste of the courts' time on behalf of Trump. My example of the trump appointed prosecutor presenting two different bills of indictment shows a judge who was about to throw the whole thing out then and there, only I know the magistrate's duty, in this case, is just to receive the indictment and make sure it is in order. Judge Michael Nachmanoff of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has set an arraignment for Oct. 9 in the case. Should not take long at all.
Dismissing the indictment is not sanctioning or taking meaningful actions against the lawyers. It is simply ending the procedure because the indictment fails to adequately charge any crime.
Sanctioning or taking meaningful action against the lawyers has to do with the lawyers’ own actions before and representations to the court, and means things like referring the lawyers to the disciplinary authorities of the state where they’re licensed or issuing a formal order of reprimand of the lawyer. In federal court, it can also mean a judge ordering that the lawyer can no longer appear in cases before that particular judge, suspending the lawyer’s ability to practice in that district or disbarring the lawyer from practice in that district altogether.
Yes, I know the difference between dismissing a indictment and sanctioning the DOJ. It will likely happen if the DOJ keeps coming up with these revenge cases until a court will say enough. It will likely come through the Virginia Federal District Court, since most of those indictments will be entered there, IMHO. I still stand with the comment, it will not take long for a court to begin sanctioning DOJ lawyers.
Yes, I know the difference between dismissing a indictment and sanctioning the DOJ. It will likely happen if the DOJ keeps coming up with these revenge cases until a court will say enough. It will likely come through the Virginia Federal District Court, since most of those indictments will be entered there, IMHO. I still stand with the comment, it will not take long for a court to begin sanctioning DOJ lawyers.
I see no reason to assume that sanctioning the lawyers (or DOJ) is “likely” to happen soon, much less in Virginia, where the indictment(s) came from the grand jury. It could happen, but I definitely wouldn’t bet on it.
The thing that I don't get about grand juries is why they are so one-sided, why they only hear the prosecutor's case for probable cause and not the defendant's. The defendant isn't even present. The process seems set up to mislead.
Technically, “probable cause” has to do with arrests and search warrants.
The purpose of the grand jury, at least theoretically, is to be a check on a prosecutor’s decision as to whether charges should be brought. The grand jury’s task is to decide whether the prosecution has sufficient evidence of guilt to send the case to trial, or whether the prosecution can’t make a convincing case to start with. So being two-sided isn’t really in the remit; it’s supposed to act as a green light or a red light for the prosecution.
I think my problem is I understand the system in California but not the federal system.
In California most felony cases go through the steps of 1. Charges filed, 2. Preliminary hearing before a judge, where the prosecutor presents evidence and the defendant's lawyer pokes holes in the case and the burden of proof is probable cause, 3. If the judge finds that burden is met, the case goes to trial before a jury. Grand juries are supposed to be for keeping high-profile cases out of the news before they go to trial to protect evidence or shield vulnerable witnesses, or for weak cases.
So I think my familiarity with the California state system makes the federal system look weird to me. And frankly, unfair.
Whatever his political views turn out to be, Thomas Jacob Sanford is gonna be pretty hard for Republicans to spin as a "woke socialist girlie-boy who hates everything America stands for". I suspect they're already re-writing their speeches to read "just a lone nut".
Having lived in California, I would like to chip in. There are actually two functions Grand Juries in California are responsible for. The first is to determine if a prosecutor has enough evidence to go to trial in felony cases, much like the function of the Federal GJ. The second function is to review the proceedings of county governments.
Yes, California has civil grand juries as well as criminal grand juries, two separate things -- the same body does not serve both functions.
Civil grand juries are independent watchdog bodies that look at their county governments and cities and agencies within their counties, including the prisons. They also look into citizen complaints abou all of those. In Los Angeles County it's a full-time job that lasts a year and pays $80/day (less than minimum wage -- you gotta be really public spirited to sign up for this).
Criminal grand juries in California do function the way federal ones do -- it's just that we don't use them as much. The vast majority of felony cases go through the preliminary hearing process where it's a judge determining if the prosecutor has enough evidence to go to trial and the defendant is present and their lawyer can participate.
Whatever his political views turn out to be, Thomas Jacob Sanford is gonna be pretty hard for Republicans to spin as a "woke socialist girlie-boy who hates everything America stands for". I suspect they're already re-writing their speeches to read "just a lone nut".
I think you underestimate the capacity of the far right propaganda machine. There's a reason "swift boating" entered the political lexicon and things have only got worse in the 2 decades since.
Comments
We're about to hear an avalanche of Conservative voices decrying advocating political violence, and demanding that Watters be taken off the air, right?
Signs are that the British media has started to just have had enough of Trump. His whole autism paracetamol vaccines rant was fact checked into oblivion by the BBC.
Some MAGA commentators also complained the PA system in the assembly hall was also turned down when Trump began to speak.
For a normal person when an escalator stops it becomes a staircase. This changes a smooth, constant trajectory into the irregular, bobbing path of a person climbing stairs. For Trump, having the escalator stop is apparently an insurmountable problem. If I were someone worried about Trump's wellbeing the fact that he can't navigate stairs would be more concerning to me than the fact that he was stationary for a few seconds on an escalator before being stationary behind a podium for almost an hour.
I pity the poor U.N. translators who had to translate Trumpspeak in realtime.
Not that it should be too much of a problem for a healthy, mobile person, but it is somewhat different.
Ah, but the BBC are just a bunch of woke leftists, so you can’t take anything they say seriously. The only reliable source of news is YouTube. That’s how I know that the moon landings were fake and that Princess Diana was murdered by Elvis
I believe we need an updated version of this song:
https://youtu.be/jmWLJmbytkk?si=aWxaXoRspk8G51bB
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
As we all know, but succinctly put.
The end is the same as minnow fin.
The front is like "Ah see da" as in
Ah see da Epstein files have not
been released yet.
Nah. Ah see ta, not da. Doesn't work over here.
My experience of watching French TV news is that the translation is usually considerably more coherent than the original.
Here where it matters more, it works just fine.
Needless to say the U.S. military possesses some very secure remote communications technology (though Secretary Hegseth may be unaware of this), so having all U.S. generals and admirals gather in one room with no explanation and little advance notice sounds kind of suspicious. There's also the issue that all American military leadership, including those overseas, will not be at their posts for a significant period of time next week.
Could be anything from a coup to giving them a dressing down for being too Black/gay/female or tolerant of the above. My money's on the latter.
If it's the dressing down it would qualify as the ultimate "this meeting could have been an email".
You have to admit it would be entirely in keeping with Hegseth's style to date.
I'm estimating there's a non-zero chance that this meeting was called because Hegseth accidentally hit "Reply All". It's not a big chance, but the fact that it's not zero says something.
To think a major power is gathering all its top brass for a meeting would make a number of adversaries wonder who is guarding the hen house. Might be a good time to cause some mischief. Pappa Bear just might see how far he can encroach on NATO air space. Panda Bear just might try to seize Tiawan. The DROKs could be tempted to send on of their nuclear missiles our way. Iran would dearly love to swat Isreal--or vice versa. Africa could heat up.
I know: Pete will tell the brass AI is taking over. They are all getting a pink slip.
So another example of "this meeting could have been an email".
It is, of course, distinctly possible that this is just some fatuous bafflegab the DoD put out after the existence of this previously secret meeting was made publicly known and they had to come up with an innocuous sounding explanation.
So it's like a petting zoo, except the with military officers instead of small mammals.
Hegseth's Xitter post, referred to by @Gramps49 above, can be seen here.
Trump has long held a grudge against Comey since at least 2016. He had called Comey a most vile man. I know, Trump projects a lot.
Comey's response? See you in court.
Anyone want to bet the judge will throw this out?
Meanwhile, the Epstein files have not been released.
Time keeps on Ticking into the future.
I am sure our resident lawyers can explain what is happening.
It is not going to take long. Already, the court is confused about which indictment is the true bill. US Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala has had problems wondering which bill of indictment was correct. Apparently, the Trump appointed attorney submitted two bills of indictment, one with three counts, the other with two. Here is the CBS Story of what happened.
But I think the question @Arethosemyfeet was asking was not how long it will take a judge to throw out the indictment, but rather which judge will be the first to meaningfully discipline or sanction that attorneys who have filed these papers with the court. Sanctions seem less likely to me when a grand jury is involved.
Though I have seen allegations that the grand jury was misled about who said what, which I would assume is not permitted.
It is my understanding federal grand jury proceedings are supposed to be kept secret but there are reports of the 23 people on the GJ only 14 voted to indict Comey. Doesn't sound like the prosecutor has all that tight of a case. Understanding a Grand Jury is convened only to hear the prosecutor's findings before an indictment is handed down. Comey still will have his day in court.
In other news:
Apparently, Musk sold the Trump Administration his xAI program called Grok services for use in all government agencies.
Slight problem: Grok has been known to deny the Holocaust. Hackers have gotten it to spew all sorts of fascist propaganda including discussing white genocide in South Africa. It has even called itself MegaHitler. https://www.npr.org/2025/07/09/nx-s1-5462609/grok-elon-musk-antisemitic-racist-content
To be fair: other AI programs can be tricked into similar hiccups, but it does show how we might not want Grok to help run the government.
Technically, “probable cause” has to do with arrests and search warrants.
The purpose of the grand jury, at least theoretically, is to be a check on a prosecutor’s decision as to whether charges should be brought. The grand jury’s task is to decide whether the prosecution has sufficient evidence of guilt to send the case to trial, or whether the prosecution can’t make a convincing case to start with. So being two-sided isn’t really in the remit; it’s supposed to act as a green light or a red light for the prosecution.
Trial is when the defendant has the opportunity to present a defense, and where the court (a jury/petit jury or a judge) determines whether the prosecution has carried its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sanctioning or taking meaningful action against the lawyers has to do with the lawyers’ own actions before and representations to the court, and means things like referring the lawyers to the disciplinary authorities of the state where they’re licensed or issuing a formal order of reprimand of the lawyer. In federal court, it can also mean a judge ordering that the lawyer can no longer appear in cases before that particular judge, suspending the lawyer’s ability to practice in that district or disbarring the lawyer from practice in that district altogether.
We’ll see.
I think my problem is I understand the system in California but not the federal system.
In California most felony cases go through the steps of 1. Charges filed, 2. Preliminary hearing before a judge, where the prosecutor presents evidence and the defendant's lawyer pokes holes in the case and the burden of proof is probable cause, 3. If the judge finds that burden is met, the case goes to trial before a jury. Grand juries are supposed to be for keeping high-profile cases out of the news before they go to trial to protect evidence or shield vulnerable witnesses, or for weak cases.
So I think my familiarity with the California state system makes the federal system look weird to me. And frankly, unfair.
Here is a more detailed explanation of the California grand jury system.
Civil grand juries are independent watchdog bodies that look at their county governments and cities and agencies within their counties, including the prisons. They also look into citizen complaints abou all of those. In Los Angeles County it's a full-time job that lasts a year and pays $80/day (less than minimum wage -- you gotta be really public spirited to sign up for this).
Criminal grand juries in California do function the way federal ones do -- it's just that we don't use them as much. The vast majority of felony cases go through the preliminary hearing process where it's a judge determining if the prosecutor has enough evidence to go to trial and the defendant is present and their lawyer can participate.
I think you underestimate the capacity of the far right propaganda machine. There's a reason "swift boating" entered the political lexicon and things have only got worse in the 2 decades since.