The same journalist wrote a piece last summer titled “The seeds of this political disaster were sown decades ago”. I can’t read it due to the paywall, but judging from the title, they may not have been completely complacent.

Take the sentence “Police accused John Doe of inciting a lynch mob to attack the alleged rapist“. The police aren’t alleging that the victim was a rapist, they’re saying the rape allegation was part of the context of their own accusation against John Doe.

If an act is described as an accusation, it’s already implied that everything within the description is an allegation by the accusers. But if something within the description is itself labeled as “alleged”, that nested allegation becomes part of scenario the accusers are reconstructing.

All of it is being alleged—that’s what an accusation is.

But they’re not accusing her of arranging sex with boys who were allegedly wearing masks, they’re accusing her of arranging sex with boys who were actually wearing them. In the context of the act of which she’s accused, there were no allegations.

“Alleged” isn’t idempotent—every time you add it, it modifies the meaning.

prosecutors accuse her of arranging group sex with middle and high school boys as young as 13 years old while they allegedly wore Scream masks.

Can someone re-train journalists on the use of “allegedly”? The accusation is that she did these things, not that she is alleged to have done them.

Sprinkling the word around with no logical consistency just trains people to ignore it, which defeats the purpose.

They’ll be fine with a crash as long as they’re convinced it’s hurting someone else more.

He’s not just a journalist, he’s the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic. He’d be risking the whole publication, not just himself.

Maybe he was afraid that if he kept lurking they’d eventually charge him with espionage.

“Mother of Exiles” would have been a cooler name than “Statue of Liberty”.

Is Trump aware that ‘Ukrainian nuclear plants’ includes Chernobyl?

I’m assuming it was originally for use by the private security personnel, since they knew where it was and apparently expected to be able to access it.

And/or, the institute may have a strict no-guns policy and the safe is for visitors to store their firearms when entering.

Yeah, but you’d think that doing something like this would impact their ability to get future clients.

At one point Monday, the firm’s prior private security firm — whose contract was ended after it coordinated with DOGE — also appeared at the building, at one point “proceed[ing] to walk toward the Institute’s gun safe,” pushing USIP staff to ignite its lockdown policy.

Are all private security firms that corruptible?

I don’t remember the Constitution defining “slamming” as part of the system of checks and balances.

It hasn’t reduced their ability to extract wealth from the existing economy, but it’s reduced their potential rate of future expansion.

This is how Trump will spin his failed conquest of Greenland: it was really just a ploy to extort eggs from Denmark.

Yes, but so far the Washington Post (unlike the Times article Trump shared) isn’t openly advocating for purging gays from the military.

It was the right-wing Washington Times, not the Washington Post.

I don’t agree that they should be eliminated. They’re there for a reason.

Prohibition was there for a reason. Witches were tried for a reason. Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia for a reason.

Having a reason doesn’t make it right.

“It’s what anyone else would do.”

The winner in the general election will almost certainly be a Democrat, but California has an open, top-two primary. If left-leaning voters can unite behind a second Democratic candidate, and Republican voters split their votes between two or more candidates, it’s plausible that the general election could come down to Harris and a second Democrat to her left.

Republicans who have already demonized Harris after the 2024 campaign might then vote for the other Democrat, just on the basis of their negative view of Harris—so Harris being in the race could swing the election further to the left.