Emi And The Desert Crow

MTG has gone on a tear! She’s appropriately reflecting the rage I feel, which isn’t something any “I reject this war…but the Ayatollah was bad” statement can ever do.

🤣 I’m like…really invested in the Massie-Khanna team now lol (I need the good people of KY-04 to reject the MAGA candidate in the primary, please and thank you. Yeah I have major policy differences with Massie on most things, but damn will he stand on his principles!)

I really dread to think lol. Why are they so damn good at making perfume feel SUBLIME?!? 😆

I tried archive earlier and couldn’t get it to load for some reason! Thank you for the kind offer! I gave in and subscribed lol 🤭

It is expensive, I will pay for quality journalism. Two things I’m sadly addicted to: quality journalism and quality perfume 😆 Nobody ask me how much money I’ve given Guerlain in the past 12 months lol

I briefly got distracted…then remembered I was meant to be doing this.

I paid $79.99 to access this article 😅 (I have been meaning to subscribe for a while though)

Behold my gift link! www.theatlantic.com/politics/202...

(The Daily Beast is piggybacking off of an article in The Atlantic which I’ve only been able to read the first paragraph of because I don’t have a subscription. Fuck it, I’ll have to go and pay 😆)

Sinister Trump Plot to Steal GOP Rebel’s Staff Revealed Rep. Thomas Massie alleges a pressure campaign that included poaching his own staff.

The “most transparent administration in history” tried to lure away his staff as part of a campaign to stop the release of the Epstein Files.

www.thedailybeast.com/sinister-don...

The line from the law firms (“Under no circumstances should the government's unexplained about-face provide a basis for an extension of its brief”) is highly relevant because DOJ has a filing due on Friday.

Yes, sadly, because it doesn’t really have the option to say no. The original motion to dismiss was still to be decided, so there’s no prejudice to the law firms (the key point) and whether to pursue the appeal is up to the appellants. But the court will be wise to any more games.

MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS APPEALS Defendant-Appellants respectfully move to withdraw their motion to voluntarily dismiss these consolidated appeals. Counsel for Defendant-Appellants reached out to counsel for Plaintiff-Appellees for their position. All Plaintiff-Appellees oppose stating, "Plaintiffs- Appellees oppose the government's unexplained request to withdraw yesterday's voluntary dismissal, to which all parties had agreed. Under no circumstances should the government's unexplained about-face provide a basis for an extension of its brief." Regardless of Plaintiff-Appellees position, this Court has not yet granted the motion to dismiss, and it is the prerogative of Defendant-Appellants to pursue this appeal. In addition, there is no prejudice to Plaintiff-Appellees in the Court granting this motion. This Court should grant this motion to withdraw.

WTF is going on at DOJ?! Yesterday they moved to dismiss the appeal of all the law firm cases and now they want to withdraw that motion to dismiss, because “it is the prerogative of Defendant-Appellants to pursue this appeal.”

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