Sue D. Nymme

I wonder if they'd have had a better time arguing that the government installing software agents on one's phone violates the *Third* Amendment. :-)

New development: last Saturday, a federal judge in Minnesota ruled that a forcible entry by ICE was unlawful and violated the Fourth Amendment because ICE agents did not have a *judicial* warrant. Let's see where this leads.
s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26...

Yes, but… “it’s complicated.”
reason.com/volokh/2026/...

What's the story here? Because it kinda seems like he's not running because Republicans invented a fake daycare scandal. Which makes no sense.

Wordle 1,662 5/6*

⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨
⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

WordleBot
Skill 93/99
Luck 32/99

Yes, brutal. I got it in 5, but I was like "This can't be it...can it?"

It's mind-boggling that he never seems to face any consequences for his continual lies.

Whew, that's a relief.

Out of touch dude claims others are out of touch…

Apparently he missed the biting satire of Starship Troopers, too.

As a diabetic, I'd love the recipe, @mmasnick.bsky.social 😁

If that's true, then I've died of severe cancer seven times over.

Well, maybe… 🤔

Here's a screenshot of that footnote, fwiw:

The Government responds that the Attorney General’s ratification was proper because she could have “personally obtain[ed] a new indictment” on October 31 “using [the] grace period” set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3288. ECF No. 137 at 29. That statute provides in part: Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within six calendar months of the date of the dismissal of the indictment or information. Generally, “[t]he return of an indictment tolls the statute of limitations on the charges contained in the indictment.” United States v. Ojedokun, 16 F.4th 1091, 1109 (4th Cir. 2021). “An invalid indictment,” however, “cannot serve to block the door of limitations as it swings closed.” United States v. Crysopt Corp., 781 F. Supp. 375, 378 (D. Md. 1991) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Gillespie, 666 F. Supp. 1137, 1141 (N.D. Ill. 1987) (“[A] valid indictment insulates from statute-of-limitations problems any refiling of the same charges during the pendency of that valid indictment (that is, the superseding of a valid indictment). But if the earlier indictment is void, there is no legitimate peg on which to hang such a judicial limitations-tolling result.”.

Judge Currie explained in a footnote why there is no six-month grace period in Comey's case.

Judge Currie explained it in a footnote toward the end of her ruling. "A *valid* indictment insulates from statute-of-limitations problems [...] But if the earlier indictment is *void*, there is no legitimate peg on which to hang such a judicial limitations-tolling result."

Inconceivable!

There's gonna be ketchup on the walls tonight!

Look at you, adulting and being all domestic and stuff!

OMG! Superman's secret identity is… Charlie Brown!

I had a specific kind of "movement" this morning that I dedicated to Dick Cheney...

Honduran-born US citizen regrets voting for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party.

250925 Fixed No Bill

Oddly enough, the final page of the second indictment is different, and has a different Halligan signature: www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...

Docket Annotation – #3 in United States v. Comey (E.D. Va., 1:25-cr-00272) – CourtListener.com Report of a Grand Jury's Failure to Concur in an Indictment by USA as to James B. Comey, Jr. (jlan) (Entered: 09/25/2025)

It may help (or may not? idk) to notice that the two indictments handed to the judge have the same signature page. Page 2 of the final indictment (storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...) is a photocopy of p. 4 of the initial one (storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...)

Is this significant?

Also, has anyone else noticed that the signature page (p.2) of the final indictment (storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...) is LITERALLY A PHOTOCOPY of the signature page (p.4) of the original indictment (storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...)?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who caught that.

That's how I read it, too, FWIW.

#206 in United States v. Comey (E.D. Va., 1:25-cr-00272) – CourtListener.com NOTICE Correcting the Record by USA as to James B. Comey, Jr re 199 Motion Hearing,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - (Transcript, Dkt. NO, 10))(Diaz, Gabriel) (Entered: 11/20/2025)

Hi @annabower.bsky.social — did you see this? Today Halligan filed a notice that claims that the two-count indictment was signed off by the full grand jury, thus contradicting her testimony from yesterday unless I'm mistaken.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Also, has anybody pointed out yet that the signature page (p.2) of the true bill (storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...) is a literal photocopy of the sig page (p.4) of the "count 1 only" doc (storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...)?
This is where Vaala said, "It has your signature on it."

#206 in United States v. Comey (E.D. Va., 1:25-cr-00272) – CourtListener.com NOTICE Correcting the Record by USA as to James B. Comey, Jr re 199 Motion Hearing,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - (Transcript, Dkt. NO, 10))(Diaz, Gabriel) (Entered: 11/20/2025)

Hey @kenwhite.bsky.social — did you see that today Halligan filed a notice to the court to state that the full GJ *did* vote on the two-count indictment, in apparent contradiction to her testimony yesterday? How's *that* gonna fly?

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...