Indeed. The Right Reverend Mariann Budde, Bishop of Washington (Episcopal).
10.10.2025 22:43 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0@batesv45.bsky.social
NY lawyer. Sued Trump derivatively o/b/o U.S. on Jan. 19, 2021. Biden's DOJ moved to dismiss my case. Years later, they tried to prosecute Trump. How'd that turn out, General Garland?
Indeed. The Right Reverend Mariann Budde, Bishop of Washington (Episcopal).
10.10.2025 22:43 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0We shall see.
Much about the Comey and James indictments is unusual.
Suspect the malicious-prosecution MTD will cite it though.
10.10.2025 14:44 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0But see Justice Manual 9-11.233 - Presentation of Exculpatory Evidence
โwhen a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidenceโ
Is there a limitations problem here as well?
09.10.2025 23:41 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0Letโs not construct a conspiracy of silence around Halligan.
09.10.2025 22:19 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0But see Justice Manual 9-11.233 - Presentation of Exculpatory Evidence
โwhen a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidenceโ
Letโs not construct a conspiracy of silence around Halligan.
09.10.2025 22:05 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0Itโs DOJ policy.
See JM 9-11.233 - Presentation of Exculpatory Evidence
โwhen a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidenceโ
Query how much EXculpatory evidence Halligan presented to the grand jury?
09.10.2025 21:09 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0POTUS needs moral support tomorrow from DOJ because thereโs bad news incoming from Oslo and Stockholm.
09.10.2025 20:03 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0They know he needs reassurance today.
Because no Nobel tomorrow.
They know he needs reassurance today.
Because no Nobel tomorrow.
Correction: Friday. But point still valid.
09.10.2025 16:23 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0His โannualโ visit to Walter Reed was on April 11.
Is the one โannualโ and the other โyearlyโ? Is that how theyโre trying to โฆ mask this?
www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-st...
The last โannualโ doctorโs visit was on April 11.
www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-st...
Is all this happening because the Nobel Peace Prize is announced tomorrow?
08.10.2025 21:26 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0Make it look like a parade.
05.10.2025 18:47 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0American otherwise. Iโve only heard โkeep schtumโ from Brits.
Would be interesting to know whether it goes back, in the UK, to WW2?
Has a โloose lips sink shipsโ feel to it.
Most pundits, reporters, and nonprofit employees have employer-sponsored health plans and are not eligible for either Medicare or Medicaid. So these issues rarely matter to them directly. Leading to, as you say, shallow takes.
05.10.2025 18:20 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0This point--intent of POTUS--was the most interesting part.
How often do federal judges accuse POTUS of bad faith?
Is that conclusion comport with the notion of CJ Roberts that presidential state of mind cannot be inquired into?
Or does his notion apply only to criminal cases against POTUS?
We are about to find out whether Kavanaugh's opinion was, in effect, a test that this Administration not only failed, but apparently didn't even notice.
To be clear, I am no fan of Kavanaugh; I filed a judicial-ethics complaint against him.
I'm suggesting what _might_ be going on.
Or so one hopes.
...because Kavanugh set a _very low_ bar. And was naive in thinking this Administration would heed his rule.
But Kavanaugh is now in a position to say, I told you where my line is and you didn't even try to stay on the right side of it.
Whether that's where he intended to be is another Q. 2/3
The thing about that Kavanaugh opinion is that one can read it on two levels--normative or positive.
If it was positive, then it was laughable and obviously naive. And, quite possible, rather racist.
But was it normative--this is the way, Executive, it _ought_ to be done?
Still bad...
you mean the ban on denial for pre-existing conditions?
04.10.2025 21:34 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0Many leftish types donโt depend on the ACA. Thereforeโฆ
04.10.2025 19:14 โ ๐ 37 ๐ 1 ๐ฌ 6 ๐ 0Probably the same consultants who thought that insurers would begin sending out notices of higher ACA premiums this week.
02.10.2025 21:31 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0A lot of people on Medicaid do not realize this fact because the state program they are on has a different name.
01.10.2025 16:29 โ ๐ 2 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0How much makeup were Trump and Hegseth wearing during their speeches?
01.10.2025 02:34 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0Not clear that Anonymous is an American, given date format.
30.09.2025 18:04 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0