That headline is rubbish, so I assume the article is as well.

If I believed in God I’d simply know Trump is the antichrist, but it doesn’t matter. Trump seems to have absolute immunity for every crime, every scandal, every ghastly thing he says. Things have never and will never “look bad” for Trump until he’s dead, and if he dies while he’s President, rest assured JD Vance will be worse.

Saying they got the right guy. (:

Yeah, but that’s what they said about the Unabomber.

I read the article, didn’t find the excerpt, then searched via CTRL-F for both ‘clothes’ and ‘handcuffed’ and got nada — six hours ago, but it’s there now. I envision hot, loud arguments over censorship at the <i>Times</i>, but more likely it was just a glitch.

I do not find the paragraph about cutting off Hernández’s clothes, taking pictures of him, then leaving him handcuffed and naked. Cut from the paper’s coverage after initial publication?

Read the article, to meet a genuine wingnut who ought to be disbarred instead of being AG.

He actually praised Allah, though of course only intending to insult Muslims.

Might tucker out after a few months, but I’ll at least start by checking every bill at the bank and asking for exchanges. “Give me currency without that scumbag’s signature, please.”

I do hope it’s not a competition.

People who don’t necessarily want a public record of their every purchase.

The Guardian is a bit better than average, but this “exclusive” is the same media bullshit seen everywhere — the pretense that Trump is a serious politician with serious thoughts and a serious agenda. He’s not, and the pretense is preposterous.

My dad died in 1993, but this really brought back the memories, thanks.

Fortunately, this will be the only instance of terrorism inspired by the ongoing war in Iran, he said sarcastically.

Brilliant — thanks. (:

This is true and very well said. I don’t understand the accompanying graphic, however.

If your hopes rely on the Democratic Party, all is already lost.

It’s a chance to bring suffering and perhaps death to the weakest and most vulnerable, so there was little doubt how the Republican Supreme Court would rule.

The article doesn’t quite answer the headline’s question, so I will: Why are they prosecuting non-violent protesters? Because cops are cops, so local cops support ICE, and prosecutors are virtually always on the cops’ side. There is no-one in government who actually believes you have a right to peacefully protest, unless you luck into a judge who still has a soul.

And I’ve always wondered … why?

The Congressional habit of yielding power seems so at odds with… everything I’ve ever seen and (pretend to) understand about human nature.

Tariffs are a Congressional function. They’ve handed limited tariff authority to the White House, pre-Trump, but Trump’s tariffs are beyond those bounds, and were illegal via common sense long before the Supremes heard the case.