Jason Gottlieb

I think the “legally correct” answer is that you need a good-faith basis to allege it. I think the practical answer is that judges so rarely enforce Rule 11 that it might as well be “fine unless deliberately lying AND the judge is in a bad mood.” (Not just for PJ, more generally!)

Bo Nix, Jalen Hurts, Jared Goff, Dak Prescott, why do NFL quarterbacks seem to have a higher than average percentage of made-up fake names, buncha Bobsun Dugnutt dudes if you ask me

Absolutely cannot wait for our Commerce Secretary to learn about, you know, commerce

Morrison Cohen Digital Assets Litigation Tracker Keeps watch on all the latest cryptocurrency and blockchain litigation developments.

Hi crypto friends, in case you missed it, come see the recently revamped Morrison Cohen Digital Assets Litigation Tracker - now searchable, sortable, set-printable, links galore.

For crypto lawyers, journalists, academics, data nerds, and really bored people. cryptotracker.morrisoncohen.com

One would think, yes, super impressive basho

I used to think the idea of a kompromat tape of Donald Trump was a bit silly, but now I’m thinking Zohran has it? 🙃

Everyone involved should be tried for murder in 2029

Serious question, because I’ve never thought about it: is that Brady material? And if so, what wins, Brady or privilege?

And the judge can simply order it to be produced. The judge does not have to care about what someone in the office told line prosecutors not to disclose.

The law in this area is so broken. Absolutely lost the plot.

“Shot a protester in the eye” should be the end of the inquiry. That is a bad thing. And the law should treat it as such.

This is insane. This man belongs nowhere near a position of authority over other people.

Excited to see him prosecuted for conspiracy to commit murder in January 2029

“I was sexually harassing my students and you know whatever, that’s life, but now that you all know, I’m deeply ashamed.” How genuine of him!

Like how icky is it, that the thing that made him say he was ashamed was not that he did the bad thing or sent the messages, but that the bad thing and the messages became publicly known?

Standing beside all the incredibly gross sexual harassment is the racism! They referred to a Chinese woman as “peril,” a term with some pretty deep racist-against-Chinese roots, which they both certainly understood, the whole thing is so disgusting. (And yeah the NYT reporting sucks too.)

I wouldn’t even go that far

Congrats!! What great news for you and Maybell!

Well yes.

Boy are all these ICE stormtroopers going to be surprised when they learn that murder and kidnapping are also state crimes that can’t be pardoned by the president

As the saying goes, the Constitution is not a suicide pact; nor it is a backdoor pass to tyranny if you can just find its one weird trick. The drafters of the constitution certainly wouldn’t have meant that, and while I’m no originalist, they would be horrified by the implications of your argument.

You can post forever that the rules mean there’s nothing we can do. But this isn’t a game of pinochle, where is the rules prevent you from winning, oh well, I guess you lose. It’s literally life or death for many, and the fundamental precepts of our nation at stake.

If there are other solutions to this problem, I’m all ears. But accepting defeat and shrugging it off is a lesson to the GOP that they can simply refuse to seat anyone they don’t like, and thus control the House forever.

If they are going to violate the constitution in order to take away people‘s rights, I do not mind advocating for a different interpretation of the constitution that lets us protect people‘s rights.

Ah, that may be where we disagree fundamentally.

I do not believe, not for one second, that we should look at the GOP protecting pedophiles and murdering fisherman and kidnapping Hispanic people and building concentration camps, and conclude, “oh well, sometimes the bad guys win.”

Again, I ask: if the GOP just refuses to seat anyone, what should Dems do? Give up? Say oh well nothing more can be done? Pursue a fruitless court case?

Sometimes you can just do things.

Thus the alternative: Jefferies swears her in. Here, he’s the House — or at least enough “of” the House so as to declare her seated and move on.

Definitely fair that you were joking, sorry.

Point remains though - if it’s a non-justiciable question for the House, then … do we just let the GOP control it forever now? How does any Dem ever get seated? Even if she’s *eventually* seated, that can’t be the answer.

Representative Grijalva won her election though; I mean you can see the difference, right?

Again, I'm not sure what you think Dems should actually *do* to get her seated? Wait a year for the courts? What if SCOTUS says it's a political question? (which your analysis says it is!)

Tag yourself, I’m literally “nasally voiced Ivy League regulatory lawyer” lol

(The Heritage Foundation can go pound sand, it’s darkly ironic that they’re calling anyone else the “least impressive” anything)

As someone who doesn’t practice in your area, I find your posts super interesting and informative, thank you