Reposted by EJ
So many iconic Pelosi moments- ACA, IRA, ARRA, the '06 and '18 midterms... but for me it's the night of 1/6/21.
We were waiting to see how many days until they could return to the Capitol to finish certifying the election.
She told us, "tonight." I still tear up thinking about how that felt.
We were waiting to see how many days until they could return to the Capitol to finish certifying the election.
She told us, "tonight." I still tear up thinking about how that felt.
November 6, 2025 at 6:01 PM
So many iconic Pelosi moments- ACA, IRA, ARRA, the '06 and '18 midterms... but for me it's the night of 1/6/21.
We were waiting to see how many days until they could return to the Capitol to finish certifying the election.
She told us, "tonight." I still tear up thinking about how that felt.
We were waiting to see how many days until they could return to the Capitol to finish certifying the election.
She told us, "tonight." I still tear up thinking about how that felt.
Reposted by EJ
And the truly craziest thing abt this cave is that someone seeing the invasion of Chicago firsthand, Dick Durbin, doesn't understand this.
seems to me that those democrats inclined not to fight perceive themselves as living through a somewhat ordinary cycle of presidential overreach and backlash and not something much more significant and dangerous
November 10, 2025 at 1:49 PM
And the truly craziest thing abt this cave is that someone seeing the invasion of Chicago firsthand, Dick Durbin, doesn't understand this.
Reposted by EJ
So, if there's a scale of 1-100 of Dem likelihood to fight and achieve something on a shutdown.
The day before the shutdown, R's and pundits would have assigned it a "1".
Now it's a "5".
That's better, but not yet a credible negotiating threat.
The day before the shutdown, R's and pundits would have assigned it a "1".
Now it's a "5".
That's better, but not yet a credible negotiating threat.
November 10, 2025 at 2:51 PM
So, if there's a scale of 1-100 of Dem likelihood to fight and achieve something on a shutdown.
The day before the shutdown, R's and pundits would have assigned it a "1".
Now it's a "5".
That's better, but not yet a credible negotiating threat.
The day before the shutdown, R's and pundits would have assigned it a "1".
Now it's a "5".
That's better, but not yet a credible negotiating threat.
Reposted by EJ
I don't know when I'll write it up, but among the things Rudy Giuliani got pardoned for is destroying the lives of Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss.
November 10, 2025 at 6:22 PM
I don't know when I'll write it up, but among the things Rudy Giuliani got pardoned for is destroying the lives of Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss.
Reposted by EJ
What a great few weeks it’s been for people once pardoned by Trump.
@nytimes.com @nbcnews.com @npr.org @politico.com
@nytimes.com @nbcnews.com @npr.org @politico.com
November 10, 2025 at 8:39 PM
What a great few weeks it’s been for people once pardoned by Trump.
@nytimes.com @nbcnews.com @npr.org @politico.com
@nytimes.com @nbcnews.com @npr.org @politico.com
Reposted by EJ
The section on ratification is genuinely interesting, legally, if you ignore how ridiculous it was that Trump's corrupt AG tried to do this on Halloween.
But don't ignore that point. It makes it funnier.
But don't ignore that point. It makes it funnier.
![In any event, Section 3288 would not allow the government to reindict Mr. Comey if the
indictment were dismissed. The grace period is triggered only if an “indictment is found,” 18
U.S.C. § 3282; but here, the purported indictment was void ab initio. And the government cannot
“grant itself a six-month extension of the statute of limitations . . . simply by filing a patently
defective and meaningless charging document.” United States v. Gatz, 704 F. Supp. 3d 1317, 1330
(S.D. Fla. 2023). Moreover, Section 3288 states that “[t]his section does not permit the filing of a
new indictment . . . where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment . . .
within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations, or some other reason that
would bar a new prosecution.” Id. (emphasis added). That proviso applies here. Using an illegal
appointment to procure an indictment days before the statute of limitations expires—thus
depriving a person of repose—is precisely the type of “reason” that must “bar a new prosecution”
under Section 3288. Indeed, Section 3288 expressly precludes reindictment when the first
indictment was filed after expiration of the statute of limitations. To give that provision meaning,
the statute must also bar new prosecutions when a void purported indictment is secured simply to
prevent the statute of limitations from expiring. Any other reading would “obliterate the statute
of limitations.” United States v. Clawson, 104 F.3d 250, 252 (9th Cir. 1996).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bbp2b224lro3bfnzcqwwnkfo/bafkreicgoi3ach4g57sawfhxuzmf5egz77ank37ejclx3iw3ogbweciuce@jpeg)
November 10, 2025 at 9:56 PM
The section on ratification is genuinely interesting, legally, if you ignore how ridiculous it was that Trump's corrupt AG tried to do this on Halloween.
But don't ignore that point. It makes it funnier.
But don't ignore that point. It makes it funnier.
Reposted by EJ
More on a shiv that Abbe Lowell will deploy that Pat Fitz will not, in my experience: You cowards refuse to disavow Trump.
![In faulting Attorney General James for “try[ing] to bootstrap” a Section 546 violation into
a violation of the Appointments Clause, the government betrays a fundamental misunderstanding
of how the two provisions relate. The government again attempts to slay a strawman in
emphasizing that “not every action in excess of statutory authority is ipso facto in violation of the
Constitution.” Br. 23 (citation omitted). That is not what Attorney General James argues.
Attorney General James’s theory of a constitutional violation is grounded in the plain text of the
Appointments Clause and does not, as the government mistakenly claims, provide that “every
statutory violation would become a constitutional violation.” Br. 23 (emphasis omitted). The
Appointments Clause dictates that inferior officers like U.S. Attorneys can be appointed only 1)
by the President “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,” or 2) through a process that
Congress has properly authorized “by Law.” An appointment that comports with neither of these
pathways violates the Appointments Clause. In United States v. Trump, 740 F. Supp. 3d 1245,
1304 (S.D. Fla. 2024), the district court recognized that if an inferior office is appointed in a
manner that does not comply with any statute, her appointment violates the Appointments Clause. The government contends that Attorney General James’s theory of Appointments Clause
violations is too broad, but tellingly, it does not argue that Trump was incorrectly decided.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bbp2b224lro3bfnzcqwwnkfo/bafkreida3uqnncjcuhs6frzefj7s2ktupte4iaoqi7x2z5n56vjtfqlysy@jpeg)
November 10, 2025 at 10:49 PM
More on a shiv that Abbe Lowell will deploy that Pat Fitz will not, in my experience: You cowards refuse to disavow Trump.
Reposted by EJ
Here's a gift link, because I am furious about this. Everyone needs to ask Josh Hawley about this provision AND call him out for lying when he claims his phone was "tapped." Call logs are not phone taps.
Spending Bill Would Pave Way for Senators to Sue Over Phone Searches
www.nytimes.com
November 11, 2025 at 3:24 AM
Here's a gift link, because I am furious about this. Everyone needs to ask Josh Hawley about this provision AND call him out for lying when he claims his phone was "tapped." Call logs are not phone taps.
Reposted by EJ
MSNBC reported Schumer's office felt that the longer that shutdown went on, the more likely it was that people would start to blame the Dems.
My kingdom for Democrats that don't govern out of fear. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The American people are far braver than their reps.
My kingdom for Democrats that don't govern out of fear. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The American people are far braver than their reps.
November 10, 2025 at 2:18 AM
MSNBC reported Schumer's office felt that the longer that shutdown went on, the more likely it was that people would start to blame the Dems.
My kingdom for Democrats that don't govern out of fear. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The American people are far braver than their reps.
My kingdom for Democrats that don't govern out of fear. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The American people are far braver than their reps.
Reposted by EJ
If I’m being completely honest, I didn’t blame the Democrats before they caved. But I do blame them now.
MSNBC reported Schumer's office felt that the longer that shutdown went on, the more likely it was that people would start to blame the Dems.
My kingdom for Democrats that don't govern out of fear. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The American people are far braver than their reps.
My kingdom for Democrats that don't govern out of fear. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The American people are far braver than their reps.
November 10, 2025 at 1:18 PM
If I’m being completely honest, I didn’t blame the Democrats before they caved. But I do blame them now.
Reposted by EJ
Update: In 3 recent editorials, WaPo failed to disclose owner Jeff Bezos's interest in the matter under discussion.
WaPo added one disclosure after @bgrueskin.bsky.social called it out.
Two weeks after my story, the other two editorials still have none. And the paper still won't say why
WaPo added one disclosure after @bgrueskin.bsky.social called it out.
Two weeks after my story, the other two editorials still have none. And the paper still won't say why
'Washington Post' editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties
Three times in the past two weeks, editorials at the 'Washington Post' failed to disclose that they focused on matters in which owner Jeff Bezos had a material interest.
www.npr.org
November 10, 2025 at 10:56 PM
Update: In 3 recent editorials, WaPo failed to disclose owner Jeff Bezos's interest in the matter under discussion.
WaPo added one disclosure after @bgrueskin.bsky.social called it out.
Two weeks after my story, the other two editorials still have none. And the paper still won't say why
WaPo added one disclosure after @bgrueskin.bsky.social called it out.
Two weeks after my story, the other two editorials still have none. And the paper still won't say why
Reposted by EJ
maybe all you referees who didn’t want to publish our paper on programmatic subsidies in competitive authoritarian regimes want to know what happens when regimes do this
President Trump has again floated giving out rebates from tariff funds, but sending direct payments to Americans would be difficult and ultimately unlikely.
Here’s what’s going on with tariffs and the pledge of dividends:
Here’s what’s going on with tariffs and the pledge of dividends:
Trump floated tariff rebates for Americans. That faces many challenges.
President Trump's plan to give Americans tariff rebates faces significant challenges and may not happen.
www.washingtonpost.com
November 11, 2025 at 12:05 AM
maybe all you referees who didn’t want to publish our paper on programmatic subsidies in competitive authoritarian regimes want to know what happens when regimes do this
Reposted by EJ
More fun with Trumpy numbers.
He's floated sending $2,000 checks to every household, "except rich ones," whatever that means, financed by tariff revenues.
It would cost $265 billion. Tariff revenue since Liberation Day has totaled $151 billion.
Bit of a shortfall.
He's floated sending $2,000 checks to every household, "except rich ones," whatever that means, financed by tariff revenues.
It would cost $265 billion. Tariff revenue since Liberation Day has totaled $151 billion.
Bit of a shortfall.
November 11, 2025 at 12:06 AM
More fun with Trumpy numbers.
He's floated sending $2,000 checks to every household, "except rich ones," whatever that means, financed by tariff revenues.
It would cost $265 billion. Tariff revenue since Liberation Day has totaled $151 billion.
Bit of a shortfall.
He's floated sending $2,000 checks to every household, "except rich ones," whatever that means, financed by tariff revenues.
It would cost $265 billion. Tariff revenue since Liberation Day has totaled $151 billion.
Bit of a shortfall.
Reposted by EJ
This is another ¶ that could blow up later.
The stated purpose of this prosecution is to assume due process doesn't exist.
The stated purpose of this prosecution is to assume due process doesn't exist.
![The government’s only other argument against dismissal with prejudice depends on
upending one of the most basic and fundamental premises of our criminal justice system: the
presumption of innocence. The government asserts (ECF No. 138 at 42) that dismissal with
prejudice would “thwart[] the public’s interest in the enforcement of its criminal law” because it
would allow Mr. Comey “to escape accountability for lying to and obstructing Congress.” But
the assumption that Mr. Comey must be guilty—before any public airing or testing of its
evidence—disregards bedrock principles underlying our system of justice. The government’s
unfounded assumptions of guilt cannot excuse its egregious constitutional violations.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bbp2b224lro3bfnzcqwwnkfo/bafkreidami7adtw4qw72bhbq3zlejpolb7fxxue3idfbmli6xcxtpst4py@jpeg)
November 11, 2025 at 12:05 AM
This is another ¶ that could blow up later.
The stated purpose of this prosecution is to assume due process doesn't exist.
The stated purpose of this prosecution is to assume due process doesn't exist.
Reposted by EJ
Right, the answer isn't to abandon the party to these weasels.
The answer is to flood the party with people who will take it over and transform it.
The answer is to flood the party with people who will take it over and transform it.
Hey, a lot of people are talking about changing affiliation from Democratic to Independent.
Let me tell you why you shouldn’t do that in Colorado.
One of the main ways to get a primary challenge candidate on a ballot is to caucus for your party. You need to be registered as a Dem to caucus.
Let me tell you why you shouldn’t do that in Colorado.
One of the main ways to get a primary challenge candidate on a ballot is to caucus for your party. You need to be registered as a Dem to caucus.
November 10, 2025 at 4:49 PM
Right, the answer isn't to abandon the party to these weasels.
The answer is to flood the party with people who will take it over and transform it.
The answer is to flood the party with people who will take it over and transform it.
Reposted by EJ
“We’ll see.”
We’re supposed to accept that Democratic leadership allowed this caliber of strategist to negotiate a deal with the most diabolical, mendacious group of politicians in American government.
We’re supposed to accept that Democratic leadership allowed this caliber of strategist to negotiate a deal with the most diabolical, mendacious group of politicians in American government.
Shaheen: "We've heard from a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that they're willing to come to the table, they're willing to work with us once the govt is open to get this done. We've heard the same thing from the White House. So now we'll see if they're really gonna work w/us"
November 10, 2025 at 4:23 PM
“We’ll see.”
We’re supposed to accept that Democratic leadership allowed this caliber of strategist to negotiate a deal with the most diabolical, mendacious group of politicians in American government.
We’re supposed to accept that Democratic leadership allowed this caliber of strategist to negotiate a deal with the most diabolical, mendacious group of politicians in American government.
Reposted by EJ
After @katieporteroc.bsky.social called out Sean Duffy for letting private flights fly while canceling commercial flights, WSJ reports some private flights will be canceled for as long as shutdown lasts (which could be a week, even if the House approves this deal).
www.wsj.com/business/air...
www.wsj.com/business/air...
November 10, 2025 at 11:31 AM
After @katieporteroc.bsky.social called out Sean Duffy for letting private flights fly while canceling commercial flights, WSJ reports some private flights will be canceled for as long as shutdown lasts (which could be a week, even if the House approves this deal).
www.wsj.com/business/air...
www.wsj.com/business/air...
Reposted by EJ
This comes after @katieporteroc.bsky.social called Sean Duffy out for NOT doing this.
The Federal Aviation Administration will limit business jets and other private flights to some of the country’s largest airports to ease strains on air-traffic personnel.
FAA Limits Private Aircraft Flights at Major Airports
The restrictions will affect private jet flights at a dozen airports, including Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, and Chicago’s O’Hare, according to the National Business Aviation Association trade group.
on.wsj.com
November 10, 2025 at 11:02 AM
This comes after @katieporteroc.bsky.social called Sean Duffy out for NOT doing this.
Reposted by EJ
This isn’t very hard, folks.
November 10, 2025 at 12:09 AM
This isn’t very hard, folks.
Reposted by EJ
An Ohio writer returned to her hometown to see what she’d missed. It was a lot ohiocapitaljournal.com/2025/11/04/a...
An Ohio writer returned to her hometown to see what she'd missed. It was a lot • Ohio Capital Journal
Author Beth Macy returned to Urbana, Ohio to write a memoir about her hometown. She was shocked at the despair she found — and how little she knew. Her new book, “Paper Girl,” explores what’s…
ohiocapitaljournal.com
November 9, 2025 at 6:01 PM
An Ohio writer returned to her hometown to see what she’d missed. It was a lot ohiocapitaljournal.com/2025/11/04/a...
Reposted by EJ
Rep. Yassamin Ansari has set up a table and this sign outside Speaker Johnson’s office.
November 6, 2025 at 6:22 PM
Rep. Yassamin Ansari has set up a table and this sign outside Speaker Johnson’s office.
Reposted by EJ
Arguing against extending ACA funds, GOP senators are circulating charts showing insurer profits rising since the enhanced subsidy began.
Bernie @sanders.senate.gov appears fascinated to learn that they consider this a problem, saying they should then cosponsor his Medicare For All bill.
Bernie @sanders.senate.gov appears fascinated to learn that they consider this a problem, saying they should then cosponsor his Medicare For All bill.
November 7, 2025 at 11:34 PM
Arguing against extending ACA funds, GOP senators are circulating charts showing insurer profits rising since the enhanced subsidy began.
Bernie @sanders.senate.gov appears fascinated to learn that they consider this a problem, saying they should then cosponsor his Medicare For All bill.
Bernie @sanders.senate.gov appears fascinated to learn that they consider this a problem, saying they should then cosponsor his Medicare For All bill.
Reposted by EJ
Tish James' comparators, part 1: Paxton, Wicker, Bessent.
November 7, 2025 at 10:45 PM
Tish James' comparators, part 1: Paxton, Wicker, Bessent.
Reposted by EJ
New — While some states have received SNAP benefits for November and USDA is supposedly pushing through all federal payments soon, that doesn’t erase the psychological terror of the last few weeks.
I spoke with 20+ SNAP recipients in 16 states about preparing for a possible future with no food:
I spoke with 20+ SNAP recipients in 16 states about preparing for a possible future with no food:
The voices of SNAP
Recipients have become political pawns. They explained, in their own words, what Trump withholding funds has been like.
www.thehandbasket.co
November 7, 2025 at 10:55 PM
New — While some states have received SNAP benefits for November and USDA is supposedly pushing through all federal payments soon, that doesn’t erase the psychological terror of the last few weeks.
I spoke with 20+ SNAP recipients in 16 states about preparing for a possible future with no food:
I spoke with 20+ SNAP recipients in 16 states about preparing for a possible future with no food:
Reposted by EJ
The current GOP lie is that they’re going to replace Obamacare with something better.
Bullshit. In all of the majorities they’ve had since Obamacare passed, they’ve never once tried to replace it.
They’ve tried to repeal it a whole bunch, but never actually make it better.
Bullshit. In all of the majorities they’ve had since Obamacare passed, they’ve never once tried to replace it.
They’ve tried to repeal it a whole bunch, but never actually make it better.
November 9, 2025 at 1:04 AM
The current GOP lie is that they’re going to replace Obamacare with something better.
Bullshit. In all of the majorities they’ve had since Obamacare passed, they’ve never once tried to replace it.
They’ve tried to repeal it a whole bunch, but never actually make it better.
Bullshit. In all of the majorities they’ve had since Obamacare passed, they’ve never once tried to replace it.
They’ve tried to repeal it a whole bunch, but never actually make it better.