05.07.2025 03:56 — 👍 861    🔁 266    💬 36    📌 16

These are the senators who collaborated with the GOP.

Schumer
Fetterman
Cortez Masto
Durbin
King
Shaheen
Gillibrand
Schatz
Hassan
Peters

Don’t let them forget it. No peace for them.

14.03.2025 20:57 — 👍 59351    🔁 19911    💬 4055    📌 2302

Netflix thinks they are slick, raising prices again but trying to keep it hush hush. I am about to to cancel them completely because this is ridiculous. they have had numerous prices hikes in the past couple years far outpacing other streaming services

12.03.2025 01:49 — 👍 0    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

The People Carrying Out Musk’s Plans at DOGE

Save this NYT’s piece as a comprehensive list of the names behind DOGE—the unsanctioned agency dismantling our government and not actually efficient or transparent about waste or fraud. DOGE IS THE FRAUD!

02.03.2025 17:25 — 👍 4717    🔁 2803    💬 373    📌 182

This is Marco Rubio explaining how the USA promised to defend Ukraine forever if they got rid of their nuclear arsenal left after the Soviet Union fell.

This is why lil marco was sinking into the couch. He was hoping we wouldn’t find it…so don’t RT right now this very second.

02.03.2025 16:55 — 👍 54283    🔁 37184    💬 2038    📌 3085

I don't see much point in arguing which elderly racist white man is technically responsible for this particular fuckup

19.01.2025 05:00 — 👍 1767    🔁 362    💬 5    📌 39

Feels like -3° 🥶 ❄️ 🎄

22.12.2024 05:35 — 👍 136    🔁 3    💬 36    📌 3

It’s definitely holiday season, because family is getting on my nerves

23.12.2024 03:35 — 👍 3    🔁 0    💬 0    📌 0

Dear Mr. Sauer: I am writing in response to your letter dated November 26, 2024, regarding the above-referenced action. This Office will not stipulate to vacate the final judgment already entered by Supreme Court, New York County, in this action or otherwise seek to dismiss the action. As you know, this is a civil enforcement action under Executive Law § 63(12) against the Trump Organization, a business headquartered in New York, and its top executives concerning those defendants' fraudulent and unlawful actions to misleadingly inflate defendant Donald J. Trump's personal net worth in business transactions for the purpose of obtaining more favorable terms on loans and insurance policies than they otherwise would have received. This civil enforcement action was filed following a multiyear investigation by the Office, and multiple courts have rejected claims that the investigation or action were brought in anything other than good faith. See People v. Trump Org., Inc., 205 A.D.3d 625, 626-27 (1st Dep't 2022); Trump v. James, No. 1:21-1352, 2022 WL 1718951, at *12-14 (N.D.N.Y. May 27, 2022). Following summary judgment and an eleven-week bench trial, Supreme Court concluded that Mr. Trump and the other entity and individual defendants violated § 63(12). The court also entered final judgment ordering various forms of equitable relief. Defendants appealed from Supreme Court's post-trial final judgment. That appeal has been fully briefed and argued in the Appellate Division, First Department, and the parties are now awaiting a decision from the First Department. Your letter presents no basis for this Office to seek to vacate the final judgment or to dismiss this action. First, Mr. Trump's upcoming inauguration as the next President of the United States has no bearing on the pendency of defendants' appeal in this action. This civil enforcement

action is not a criminal action, and Supreme Court did not impose any criminal sanction on Mr. Trump or any other defendant. Accordingly, the various actions taken by the Special Counsel's office or the District Attorney's Office of New York County in the respective criminal cases brought by those offices against Mr. Trump are irrelevant here. Contrary to your suggestion, the pendency of defendants' appeal during Mr. Trump's term as President fully comports with the U.S. Constitution. The final judgment concerns only business conduct undertaken by entities that are part of the Trump Organization and individual defendants who were acting on behalf of the Trump Organization. The judgment thus does not concern any conduct related to Mr. Trump's first term as President. Nor does it implicate any conduct that Mr. Trump might undertake after his upcoming inauguration. Presidents do not have immunity from civil lawsuits arising from unofficial conduct, and such lawsuits may proceed while the President is in office. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 694 (1997); Zervos v. Trump, 171 A.D.3d 110, 128 (1st Dep't 2019); see also Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 615-16 (2024). Regardless, Mr. Trump's upcoming inauguration is irrelevant to the judgment rendered against the fourteen other defendants found liable by Supreme Court in this action. There is also no merit to your claim that the pendency of defendants' own appeal will impede Mr. Trump's official duties as President. The ordinary burdens of civil litigation do not impede the President's official duties in a way that violates the U.S. Constitution. See Clinton, 520 U.S. at 705-06; Zervos, 171 A.D.3d at 125-26. In any event, Mr. Trump does not face any such litigation burdens here. The trial is over, final judgment has been rendered, and defendants' appeal to the First Department has been fully submitted and argued. Mr. Trump's official duties will not be impeded while awaiting the First Department's decision. Nor wi…

The NY Attorney General has REJECTED Trump's bid to dismiss his $500M civil fraud judgment post-election. The AG stated that Trump's presidency doesn't shield him from civil litigation over non-official conduct, per the Constitution and multiple court precedents.

10.12.2024 17:20 — 👍 14836    🔁 3308    💬 432    📌 229