Sotek

MTG announced, *today*, she's resigning in January.

If I were Xinis I would be tempted to offer a compromise: Liberia's allowed, but if he gets refouled, Ensign and Rubio go to jail until he is returned to the country. Somehow I doubt they'd take that deal.

"I was *instructed* not to confirm or deny".

That extra layer matters!

If it were dismissed without prejudice there would be a six-month window as is standard for cases dismissed without prejudice post-sol.

But zero chance of that - it's gonna be dismissed with prejudice and the question now is what the show cause orders look like.

(that is, I was a snot-nosed brat in the year 2000, that was approximately when I graduated high school. but I knew it was real-and-prevented because I paid attention.)

Oh yeah, to be clear, I was aware of the efforts as a snot-nosed brat who was also a total nerd. But a lot of people who didn't pay attention and weren't tech-adjacent enough to be forced to be aware weren't.

It's just the problem of averting a disaster making people ask if it was a problem at all.

TBF people were saying that *in* the year 2000, since basically nothing of significance broke.

The enormous efforts taken to achieve that result were invisible to a lot of people!

California is also nakedly doing it for partisan advantage, which is the thing that was blessed by SCOTUS.

If the Republicans don't like it, well, I welcome them passing a law to ban gerrymandering! Until then... we fight back on the grounds they started.

Oh yeah, there is a lot of dumb corruption happening here for sure. Them appealing it at all is dumb, but it's valid to appeal to that guy. Just, like... he's going to say no, because their arguments suck.

Because the one judge is in charge of the overall case and appointed the other judge to review potentially-prejudicial content that he himself should potentially not be seeing. But the judge who is in charge is the one who is in charge of the case.

They absolutely can ask here, but it won't work.

That would make sense, yeah.

Does this suggest they no-billed the entire indictment and then Lindsey edited it without their knowledge?

But also, how would that have happened without one of the jurors finding out about the subsequent case and contacting the court to raise questions...?

"final minutes" is also comically underselling. "final hours"! It was more than two hours! at that point I think you have to just engage adverse inference and throw the indictment away.

Given the timing of the indictment vis a vis the statute of limitations, any dismissal would almost certainly be with prejudice for Comey, and that's basically the only feasible remedy.

(Tish James's didn't have SoL games so her indictment could be without prejudice if it's for *that* reason.)

it's about that lawsuit yeah.

Massive, multiplayer, and online. Checks out.

If he opposed it, then why did he let the Whip vote for it?

That's the BS.

Step down as leader if you can't control your caucus.

If you *can*, which we all know you did, then resign completely.

Am I crazy or is their logic exactly backwards? Given that the shutdown is likely to end shortly, that's just another reason that they should pay full SNAP benefits right now!

because the alternative is letting the full SC make a hasty stay and then sit on it indefinitely. at least this way it has an expiration.

Yup, it just has to be proven that he received it. You can't evade service by electing not to, once it's provably given to you you're served.

My first reading of that was that she was just eliding the actual feminine names but in retrospect that doesn't make grammatical sense so I have no idea now.

Right, they're appealing and asking for a stay. That's them being shitty people but it's not contemptuous as long as they comply if they don't get it. (and if they get it, well, that's not contemptuous either, merely *contemptible*)

Most of them have been less explicit about what is required, have had longer deadlines, and a decent number *have* been complied with before hitting the point of compulsion.

But this point, we're looking at a very explicit warning with no discretion and a short timeframe. not a lot of wiggle room.

with an order like this, I think the answer is "tomorrow" if they don't comply.

I mean... yeah. But at some point the shutdown is going to have to end. Either the GOP ends the filibuster, or the GOP offers a deal that Democrats can agree to.

I don't mind Dems talking as long as they're not compromising on what matters.

I mean it's not great, the shutdown is not great, but how can you agree to a deal when the other side demands the power to renege on any deal and has already done so?

if the Republicans want to open the government unilaterally, they have that power. If they don't want to do that . . .

counterpolnt: they have held firm for a record long shutdown so far.

When I've been protesting my sign has been a picture of the statue with the tail end of that poem on it.

I think it's a pretty simple sentiment that just ... captures the fundamental un-Americanness of what's going on these days.

I mean, it's straightforward: Trump wants to starve poor people to cause riots. The people who are ordered things by courts are going "we are following the rules despite what Trump said, please don't punish us for the shit he said."

which... well this is best outcome for the moment I think.