Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1d ago
Here is the FBI agent affidavit in support of probable cause for his arrest. The evidence breaks down like:
1. Based on Cole's credit card transaction history he purchased all the parts that were themselves part of the bombs as well as other safety tools one might use to make a bomb across 2019/2020. Sample paragraph (not gonna quote all of them):
Both pipe bombs were manufactured using a 1” x 8” galvanized pipe with markings consistent with a particular manufacturer’s (the “Pipe Manufacturer”) product labeling. COLE purchased a total of six galvanized pipes of this size and shape on or about June 1, June 8, and November 16, 2020. The purchases were made at two different Home Depot location in northern Virginia. According to the Pipe Manufacturer, approximately 26,000 of these items from Pipe Manufacturer were sold in 2020, and over 22,000 of these items were sold to Home Depot.
(continue for the end caps, wiring, steel wool, kitchen timers, etc.)
2. Analysis of cellphone data shows that Cole's phone was connected to towers in the vicinity of where the bombs were placed at the same time surveillance footage shows the bomb planter in the area. Sample paragraph (5 or so of these, covering from 7:39 to 8:24):
At approximately 7:39:27 p.m., the COLE CELLPHONE interacted with a particular sector of Provider tower 59323, which faces southeast (approximately 120˚) from its location at 103 G Street, Southwest in Washington, D.C. (“Sector A”). Also at 7:39:27 p.m., the COLE CELLPHONE interacted with a particular sector of Provider tower 126187, which faces east (approximately 90˚) from its location at 200 Independence Avenue, Southwest in Washington, D.C. (“Sector B”). Video surveillance footage shows that at approximately 7:39:32 p.m., the individual who placed the pipe bombs walked westbound on D Street, Southeast and then turned southbound on South Capitol Street, Southeast. These locations are consistent with the coverage areas of Sector A and B.
3. A license plate reader caught Cole's vehicle in the area shortly before the first security camera footage captures the bomb planter. Cole's cell phone also starts communicating with towers in the area shortly after.
COLE is the registered owner of a 2017 Nissan Sentra with a Virginia license plate. On January 5, 2021, at approximately 7:10 p.m., COLE’s Nissan Sentra was observed driving past a License Plate Reader at the South Capitol Street exit from Interstate 395 South, which is less than one-half mile from the location where the individual who placed the devices was first observed on foot near North Carolina and New Jersey Avenues, Southeast at 7:34 p.m. Approximately 5 minutes later, at 7:39:27 p.m., the COLE CELLPHONE began to interact with Provider towers in the area.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2d ago
Sounds like your coworker needs to learn about pescetarianism.
I admit I'm struggling a little to understand what the actual policy change is here. Downthread @ToaKraka posted this USCIS Policy Alert. That Policy Alert points to this Presidential Proclamation as the source of the 19 countries. That Presidential Proclamation was issued all the way back in June. So the National Guard shooting was the impetus for USCIS to implement a 6-month-old Presidential Proclamation? I guess I'm also finding it a little hard to follow as, like, a matter of logic. An Afghan national who started working with the US in 2011 in Afghanistan and was brought to the United States in 2021 along with a bunch of other US-allied Afghans then was granted asylum in 2025 and shoots two national guardsmen later that same year, therefore we must restrict immigration from Burma. Huh?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3d ago
What was the legal justification for killing them?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3d ago
If it is not a "war", if the people the admin is blowing up are not lawful combatants nor achieving military objectives, then it is murder instead.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3d ago
I mean, the Post's reporting is that the order was to kill everybody. That doesn't sound like the killing of the two initial survivors was incidental. That may turn out to be wrong, of course, but if it's accurate I am pretty confident saying it's a war crime.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3d ago
Someone online pointed out that 18.3.2.1 of the Department of Defense Law of War Manual reads:
The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal. Similarly, orders to kill defenseless persons who have submitted to and are under effective physical control would also be clearly illegal. On the other hand, the duty not to comply with orders that are clearly illegal would be limited in its application when the subordinate is not competent to evaluate whether the rule has been violated.
That second strike, if it happened, is literally in the manual as an example of an illegal order that would be a violation of the laws of war. I am as-yet unclear on how involved Trump or Hegseth were in this operation but it sounds like, minimally, everyone in the chain of command between Admiral Frank Bradley and whomever actually executed the strike is, at least, a war criminal.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4d ago
I've worked with probably a dozen or so Indian coworkers over the years and this does not describe any interaction I've ever had with them. I am also deeply skeptical that a kiwi farms post from a thread entitled "The India Menace - Street shitting, unsanitary practices, scams, Hindu extremism & other things" which cites no evidence is going to contain accurate generalizations about Indians.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4d ago
I'm not sure how common it is but it's something of a running joke among Indian immigrants at my company. That you go from having servants who do all the cooking, cleaning, etc to the United States where you have to do all of that yourself, even if lots of other amenities are available that aren't in India. "Yea the air isn't smoggy all the time, but I have to clean my own toilet!"
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
8d ago
I mean, maybe I'm the weird one but I don't think being hypothetically willing to do certain things is worth much compared to actually doing things. Would I kill a stranger to protect my wife? Sure. Do I think I will ever have to actually do that? Almost certainly not. Does that fact, like, oblige some gratitude or something on my wife's part? Create some responsibility to me? I don't think so. If it were a thing I actually had done, especially more than once, I would think differently but I don't think my hypothetical willingness generates much of an obligation on the part of others.
There's a CHH substack post that gets at a pretty similar theme (if anyone knows how to un-paywall substack articles let me know): You'll Kill Marauders, But Will You Change a Diaper?
The gist is that a lot of men seem to envision being a husband or father as entailing a lot of willingness to do violence and their contribution to these roles as being that willingness. This is, however, not a practical description of what is required to be a husband or father in a developed country. It's not to say that willingness is bad, but it is not something that is likely to be very useful.
But anyway, I think there are quite a few modern-day men who imagine fatherhood in all its glory, but are mostly imagining being a lord from Game of Thrones. In 2025, fatherhood means picking a kid up from school, buying a new backpack, and signing them up for swimming classes. I get that some men won’t do that, but even in the most trad households, fatherhood is remarkably light on the killing or even “protecting.” Yes, it’s good in theory for a man to be capable of protecting his family, but your average man will never be in a situation where he has to do that, whereas he will be in many situations where he has to attend his teenager’s terrible improv show or similar.
In fact, if your ultimate goal is keeping your children safe (and I think that’s a good goal) the most important dangers to avoid are things that fail to scratch the itch for grandiose violence. This includes things like carseat safety, pool safety, and social media. That’s not to say it’s useless to know how to take down a potential aggressor on the street (I’ve written before about the fact that unhinged stranger aggression in cities isn’t something to ignore) but in all likelihood, the biggest dangers to your children will be boring things: cars, pools, unsecured firearms, and mental illness leading to self-harm. No swords required!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
9d ago
There was also some reporting by Punchbowl claiming other Republican members may resign as well. The House is currently 219-213 in favor of Republicans. With Democrats expected to win 2 upcoming special elections for currently empty seats and Republicans expected to win an upcoming special election for a currently filled seat. With those results and down MTG the House would stand at 218-215. Republicans would only be able to afford to lose one vote on any legislation and four resignations would give Democrats the majority.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
10d ago
Has this objection been used before? Conversely, have previous administrations gotten away with repeated interim positions?
The opinion talks a little about the history. Pre-1986 there was no mechanism for the Attorney General to appoint USAs at all. Between 1986 and 2006 it seems there were a couple times the Attorney General re-appointed someone, but no one challenged it. In 2006 Congress abolished (c)(2) and (d) altogether. Then in 2007 it brought them back.
I seem to recall Trump I having a lot of trouble filling similar positions. Trump II has done a much better job on that front, so I’m a little surprised that they left the goal open. With control of the Senate, Republicans had to have the option, right?
For Halligan, specifically, I think there were timing issues. Siebert resigned on 9/19 and the statute of limitations for Comey's charges would be up on 9/30. So that's ~7 business days to get Halligan confirmed in the Senate and secure an indictment. Halligan was ultimately appointed the 22nd and the indictment was docketed on the 25th.
For the others, part of the problem is that the way they've made them "Acting" officials under the FVRA means they can't go ask the Senate for confirmation. The FVRA generally prohibits the nominee for a position from also serving as an "Acting" official in the role they are nominee for, subject to some exemptions that don't apply here.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
10d ago
New updates in the Comey and James cases. Both indictments dismissed because Lindsey Halligan was not lawfully appointed as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and so all her actions as such are void and without effect. Comey and James opinions. Though the two are substantially identical, having both been authored by the same judge. These dismissals are without prejudice meaning the government can try and secure further indictments. Although, in Comey's case this faces some additional hurdles since the statute of limitations for his offense expired several days after the first indictment against him was secured.
Note that a similar dispute is playing out in New Jersey with respect to the appointment of Alina Habba as United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey and in Nevada with respect to Sigal Chattah's appointment as United States Attorney for the District of Nevada. These cases are a little more complicated than Halligan's due to implications of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act but they arose due to circumstances like what Halligan is facing now.
At the heart of these disputes is 28 USC 546 which provides:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant.
(b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent.
(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of—(1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or
(2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.
(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.
The dispute is principally about whether the Attorney General is permitted to make successive 120-day appointments or whether the Attorney General gets a single 120-day appointment and then when that expires the District Court makes the appointment as to who shall be United States Attorney. In Halligan's case Erik Siebert had already been appointed for 120 days earlier this year and was appointed by the district court upon expiration of that appointment. He then resigned under pressure to prosecute James and Comey, whereupon Bondi purported to appoint Halligan under 28 USC 546. Naturally, the court finds that Attorney General Bondi has had her 120 day appointment and so authority to appoint a new USA for EDVA lies with the district court.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
13d ago
FYI I'm not American if you mean that as a personal 'you'. I'm just observing what I see in Anglo countries more generally. But of course many Americans have their own ideas of what it means to be an American!
I did intend that more in royal-you kind of way, not necessarily you specifically. I appreciate the clarification.
Most of the time, more people think this way. But there is a window - broader than the Overton window - that you have to stay inside, or you lose the Mandate of Heaven.
I assert that:
The judiciary must, most of the time, make decisions that people broadly agree with and produce outcomes that they broadly like. This is a fundamental and unappreciated requirement of the Rule of Law.
Perhaps I should take a different tact. My impression, based on polling, is that Trump's deployment of the National Guard to DC is not just unlawful, it is also unpopular. Here is a Quinnipiac poll from August finding voters disapprove 56-41. Here is an NPR-Ipsos poll from late September showing a disapproval of 47-37 for DC that rises to 52-34 when the question is about National Guard deployment to "your local area." To the extent Trump's resistance to the judiciary is premised on having popular support over them, I do not think that is the case with this issue.
I find this essay very revealing on the topic. It mentions at one point an interview with Captain Preston, a minuteman who had fought against the British.
Thanks for the article! I'm enjoying it so far.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
13d ago
Yes, that is the answer of one faction. The answer of the other faction is that they do not trust Jia Cobb and her ilk to determine what is and is not lawful and correct (and they do not always believe that those are the same thing). You can hate that people think that way, but they do in fact think that way.
I have no doubt that people think that way. I think that way about a great many decisions of our current Supreme Court. But I think the government should obey them anyway. I thought the Supreme Court judgement striking down Biden's student loan forgiveness was not a well reason decision, but it still would have been wrong of him to say to hell with the court and do it anyway.
If you think we should only have a judiciary if the judiciary makes decisions you agree with and produces outcomes you like and when that doesn't happen we should instead have a single executive take the law and its determinations into their own hands then I think you are anti-American. You are clearly opposed to the fundamentals of the American experiment and what it means to be an American.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
13d ago
Suddenly announcing that illegal orders from the President shouldn't be followed may literally be a hypothetical claiming that to the extent the orders are unlawful they don't need to be followed. But what it actually means is "the President is giving out illegal orders now and they should be disobeyed now," even if the speech doesn't literally include the word "now".
The quoted section is just a factual description of what is occurring, according to the branch of government charged with making that kind of determination.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
13d ago
All of this is happening in the context of a serious battle for authority on a grand scale. Whether the troops should (that's a moral should, not a legal should) be listening to their elected president Donald Trump or U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb is precisely the issue in question.
To ask this question is to answer it: Jia Cobb, until some court above her says otherwise. The President is not above and superior to the judiciary. You want to know why people say Trump wants to be king? Shit like this. Apparently Donald J. Trump is to be the sole arbiter of what the law is and what is legal and illegal and no one may gainsay him!
If you see the world in that way, what is this video saying? Firstly, this video wouldn't be made if the makers didn't think that Trump was giving illegal orders, or was about to do so. So they're not just speaking about a hypothetical, they're standing up and saying, "Either the orders you're being given now, or the orders you're going to get soon, are illegal and you should ignore them". They are not only attacking the president and by extension those who voted for him, they are deliberately attempting to usurp his power of command.
The constitution does not give the President, or any official, the power to give orders contrary to itself or to law. To the extent the President's orders are unlawful, he has no authority to give them.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
14d ago
Prior to the determination by a single circuit court judge that the deployment was illegal, would it have been the role of the individual members of the national guard to evaluate the constitutional authority of the deployment and decide whether to obey orders based on their own individual evaluation?
If soldiers are not empowered to push back on illegal orders before carrying them out then the prohibition on doing so is toothless.
Given the overturn rate of the DC circuit courts on appeal in this administration, how confident should we be that the deployment will remain “illegal” after appeal?
I think it's pretty good. Just about every court to consider the question has come to the same conclusion. In Oregon and California and DC and Chicago. None of them, to my knowledge, overturned by either the relevant circuit or SCOTUS.
I'm just gonna post a transcript here because the reaction to this seems insane to me.
[Video opens with the six congresspeople (Elisa Slotkin, Mark Kelly, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, Jason Crow) identifying themselves and giving their military/intelligence backgrounds] We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community. Who take risks each day to keep Americans safe. We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military. But that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this constitution. Right now, the threats to our constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders [Kelly]. You can refuse illegal orders [Slotkin]. You must refuse illegal orders [Deluzio]. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution. We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you're serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back. Because now, more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don't give up [Kelly]. Don't give up [Deluzio]. Don't give up [Crow]. Don't give up the ship [Slotkin].
Characterizing the speech above as a call for a coup or sedition seems crazy. Like, courts have held that some of the orders Trump has given the military on American soil are unlawful! That is literally a thing that is happening! Trump is, as literally as possible, giving the military illegal orders as determined by a court of law. This is not even getting into the boat strikes that I think are straightforwardly murder. "If the president tells you to do something illegal, as he has already done, you must not do it." "THIS IS TREASON!"
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
16d ago
Technically the house in question is in Virginia, but I still see a distinction between the language and your description. I don't think James contests her was the legal occupant of the property, but it's not clear to me that being the legal is the same as having control over the occupancy or use. Like, the legal owner can presumably evict the legal occupant, right? Which would seem to entail control over occupancy. Downstream of that it seems like the property owner could also lawfully restrict the legal occupants use of the property. I've had rental agreements that prohibit using the rented property for commercial purposes, for example.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
16d ago
I don't think they apply in a case where the owner is aware of and consents to an individuals occupancy.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
16d ago
I am also not familiar with the case law but I would be pretty surprised if the existence of tenant protections meant that every act of renting constituted an agreement that the renter had "control over the occupancy or use of the property." That would functionally make it impossible to rent any second homes issued with conforming loans in states with such protections, which I am skeptical is how this language is understood to operate.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
17d ago
Note the slight of hand in paragraph 6 of the indictment that you quote, emphasis added:
The loan was originated by OVM Financial under a signed Second Home Rider, which required JAMES, as the sole borrower to occupy and use the property as her secondary residence, and prohibited its use as a timesharing or other shared ownership arrangement or agreement that requires her to either rent the property or give any other person any control over the occupancy or use of the property.
I assume it is not in dispute that James did not use the property as a timeshare or other shared ownership arrangement. The critical text does not prohibit James from "renting" the property, it prohibits her from entering into an agreement that requires her to rent it (or to give another control over the occupancy or use of the property). James' behavior is only violation of that paragraph if she went beyond renting and entered into an agreement with her family member that required her to to rent to them or gave the that family member control over the occupancy or use of the property.
Of course, it's also not hard to look up the standard Fannie Mae Second Home Rider which provides, in relevant part:
6. Occupancy. Borrower must occupy and use the Property as Borrower’s second home. Borrower will maintain exclusive control over the occupancy of the Property, including short-term rentals, and will not subject the Property to any timesharing or other shared ownership arrangement or to any rental pool or agreement that requires Borrower either to rent the Property or give a management firm or any other person or entity any control over the occupancy or use of the Property. Borrower will keep the Property available primarily as a residence for Borrower’s personal use and enjoyment for at least one year after the date of this Security Instrument, unless Lender otherwise agrees in writing, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld, or unless extenuating circumstances exist that are beyond Borrower’s control.
Another way the renting may have been legal is if the lender agreed in writing to permit her renting.
Without saying too much I'll say I've been part of an effort by my employer to use LLMs to identify security issues. They do a good job analyzing pieces of code in isolation for particular issues but a limited context window prevents them from finding end to end issues. For example, the LLM might flag that there's no input validation for function XYZ, but that's because the input validation happened much earlier in the scenario. Thinking about this the reverse way, generating exploits, probably means assuming that you've gotten the payload you want in the place where it will be parsed how you want which can often be the hard part.
As an aside Jesus Christ this is ugly code. I am very glad the brief time I spent working with Javascript was with Typescript.
More options
Context Copy link