Emi And The Desert Crow

Thanks!

I have no idea what that is 😆

Some guy named Charles on Twitter posting a screenshot of Thomas Massie’s tweet saying “the U.S. is attacking Iran according to AP” — he then linked to the AP article. Charles suggested Massie’s post is indicative of him knowing about the strikes two hours before “they were officially announced” (I know, it’s painfully stupid). Then Laura Loomer retweeted Charles and said: Thomas Massie needs to be investigated. Who is leaking to Massie? Leaking classified information is a crime. @PeteHegseth @POTUS Good god above, spare me this insanity (I said that bit. Not Laura).

Jesus Christ. It was the Associated Press, Laura.

He posted a link to a news article, from a legitimate news outlet, reporting on the news in real time. IT LITERALLY SAYS “ACCORDING TO AP” OHMYGOD

Every time I think we’ve hit peak stupidity, I discover there are yet more depths to mine.

FFS

The War Powers Resolution remains operative. Absent an imminent threat, conducting air strikes without even consulting Congress, let alone obtaining authorization, places the president at the “lowest ebb” of authority under Justice Jackson’s concurrence in Youngstown.

5/5

Congress has authorized hostilities in that period, and the Supreme Court recognizes that the Declare War Clause includes congressional authorization of limited operations short of all-out war.

4/5

There have been no formal declarations of war since WWII, but no one could seriously argue the U.S. hasn’t waged war since then.

3/5

“Hostilities” can constitute war without a formal declaration (Bas v. Tingy). Air strikes against a sovereign nation, where the president has explicitly said to expect U.S. casualties (because that “often happens in war”), are quite obviously hostilities.

2/5

The Korean War was never formally declared; it was “police action.”

The Vietnam War was never formally declared; it was “military advisers” assisting “operations.”

There is no war in Ukraine, only a “special military operation.”

This is a rhetorical trick.

1/5

Netanyahu Calls Iran Strikes Necessary To Prevent War He Just Started

Netanyahu Calls Iran Strikes Necessary To Prevent War He Just Started

NYT live blog: The constitution grants Congress alone the power to formally declare war, something that even Republicans on Capitol Hill have sought to remind Trump of this week. In his video remarks, the president indicated that he understood this operation to be a war, citing the possibility of American "casualties that often happens in war." His declaration that "no president was willing to do what I am willing to tonight" speaks to the likely unilateral decision-making from the White House.

“The constitution grants Congress alone the power to formally declare war… In his video remarks, the president indicated that he understood this operation to be a war, citing the possibility of American "casualties that often happens in war."”

NYT headline: U.S. AND ISRAEL STRIKE IRAN

He ripped up the nuclear deal then bombed Iran when they wouldn’t agree to a new one.

Yes, it has. And it could still be used now, but everyone involved has decided they want to ignore it, avoid the Senate, and direct inflammatory barbs at judges instead.

Yes Todd, it has been that way “for decades”. Then you lot came along and it changed. This is very much a You Problem.

12/12

No one is trying to prevent the president from appointing U.S. attorneys. Blanche says the process for making appointments “has been seamlessly and repeatedly used for decades”.

11/12

So who is really going “rogue” and “unilaterally” appointing people, completely bypassing the proper process?

10/12

Yes, the District Courts have appointed U.S. attorneys recently, because these guys have been playing games in an effort to install people who had no hope of being confirmed by the Senate (Habba, Halligan etc…there are quite a few now).

9/12

The Department of Justice and federal courts routinely handle interim appointments through consultation that respects the separation of powers. Now, in a few rogue districts, judges have abandoned this time-honored process and unilaterally decided to appoint a temporary U.S. attorney of their choice. It should come as no surprise that when judges inappropriately act unilaterally, the outcome is simple: A prosecutor selected solely by the judiciary will not remain in office. Todd Blanche Washington

This paragraph is particularly infuriating. Abiding by the statute is being branded as a “rogue” action.

8/12

This is also supported by Supreme Court precedent: Edmond v. United States and Morrison v. Olson (for now…the right of the Court hates this decision), as well as a case in the First Circuit, United States v. Hilario.

7/12

In light of this interpretation the U.S. Attorneys can be considered to be inferior officers, since 28 U.S.C. § 519 authorizes the Attorney General to direct all U.S. Attorneys in the discharge of their duties. In this context the Supreme Court suggested nearly 100 years ago in Ex Parte Siebola, 100 U.S. 371, 397 (1879), that Congress could vest the authority to appoint U.S. Marshals in the Attorney General. The status of the U.S. Marshals is quite closely related to that of the U.S. Attorneys. See 28 U.S.C. § 569(c). Since the beginning of the Republic, Congress has not exercised its discretionary power to vest the appointment of U.S. Attorneys in the Attorney General. This failure to exercise that discretionary power, however, does not create customary constitutional law precluding Congress from exercising that authority. As Justice Story stated (id., § 1535): In one age the appointment might be most proper in the President; and in another age, in a department. LEON ULMAN Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel

A 1978 OLC memo states that U.S. attorneys are “inferior officers” because they are overseen by superiors — the Attorney General “direct[s] all U.S. Attorneys in the discharge of their duties.”

6/12

the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The Appointments Clause of the Constitution allows for this: “…Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers… in the Courts of Law.”

5/12

Well, yes. But the statute doesn’t say that a judicially-appointed U.S. attorney is *accountable* to the judiciary. Congress enacted the statute to prevent chaos in the courts and paralysis in the affected judicial district. It wasn’t enacted to remove executive oversight.

4/12

He says: ““Executive power belongs to the president…U.S. attorneys wield that power…They are therefore accountable to the president, not to the judiciary.”

3/12

(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.

“If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.”

2/12

Re "Blanche Abruptly Fires U.S. Attorney in Virginia" (news article, Feb. 22): As the deputy attorney general who recently announced President Trump's firing of James W. Hundley after his appointment as interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, I must make the core matter discussed in this article clear. Our Constitution leaves no ambiguity: Executive power belongs to the president of the United States. U.S. attorneys wield that power when they prosecute crimes and represent the United States in federal court. They are therefore accountable to the president, not to the judiciary.

Since our founding, Congress has periodically legislated processes to address vacancies. Specifically, whenever there is not a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney in place, district court judges are authorized to appoint a temporary U.S. attorney. The president retains, as he should and must, the power to remove any U.S. attorney, even one appointed by the judges. This process has been seamlessly and repeatedly used for decades, including since Jan. 20, 2025, when President Trump began his second term. The Department of Justice and federal courts routinely handle interim appointments through consultation that respects the separation of powers. Now, in a few rogue districts, judges have abandoned this time-honored process and unilaterally decided to appoint a temporary U.S. attorney of their choice.

It should come as no surprise that when judges inappropriately act unilaterally, the outcome is simple: A prosecutor selected solely by the judiciary will not remain in office. Todd Blanche Washington

Oh good lord, Todd Blanche has had a letter to the editor published in the NYT.

This is disingenuous; he’s implying that any judicial appointment of a U.S. attorney is inherently suspect and a subversion of regular order. But it’s explicitly permitted by statute (28 U.S.C. § 546(d)).

1/12

Judge Vows to End Trump Administration’s Noncompliance ‘One Way or Another’

“The court is not aware of another occasion in the history of the United States in which a federal court has had to threaten contempt — again and again and again — to force the United States government to comply with court orders.”

www.nytimes.com/2026/02/26/u...

He’s been advocating for Gonzales to resign and giving interviews (those Manu Raju style, off the cuff hallway chats) saying that the only reason Johnson is avoiding the issue is because the GOP majority is so slim. Fact check: true. Power matters more than morals to the supposedly devout Speaker 🤮

🤣

I feel that the article 'Exclusive: FBI obtained Kash Patel and Susie Wiles phone records during Biden administration' lacks some critical context. Kash Patel was designated as one of Trump's representatives to the National Archives on June 19, 2022 (letter of designation available on the National Archives website) and left that role in October 2023. This encompasses the timeframe that he mentions regarding the Special Counsel obtaining his toll records. Patel had been very vocal about his intention to obtain classified records from NARA at Trump's direction, so that he could publish them on his website (first reported by ABC News, August 17, 2022).

Susie Wiles was mentioned in the Mar-a-Lago indictment as the "representative of [Trump's] political action committee" who was shown a classified map in 2021 (as reported by CNN on June 29, 2023). Both these pieces of information give context as to why the Special Counsel may have obtained their toll records during the course of his investigation. Kind regards,

What I sent (didn’t want to risk getting caught by a spam filter, so I had to direct them to the sources rather than link them).

I have no idea why the text is annoyingly formatted with huge gaps between paragraphs.

2/2