John Fortman
@johnfortman.bsky.social
Episcopal insurance geek who likes music and making stuff.
No matter what direction the economy goes, myriad “experts” will claim they could see it coming from miles away.
November 30, 2025 at 2:48 PM
No matter what direction the economy goes, myriad “experts” will claim they could see it coming from miles away.
Has anyone even seen an episode of All In The Family?
November 27, 2025 at 11:54 PM
Has anyone even seen an episode of All In The Family?
For all our faults, we haven’t abandon the goal of our centuries-long journey. The weird small people taking us backward, grasping at retribution and malice, will be gone someday. There will be messes to clean up, but maybe we will begin heading in the right direction again.
November 27, 2025 at 3:39 PM
For all our faults, we haven’t abandon the goal of our centuries-long journey. The weird small people taking us backward, grasping at retribution and malice, will be gone someday. There will be messes to clean up, but maybe we will begin heading in the right direction again.
If code 18…whatever extends the statute six months here, then prosecutors could eff up a case just so it is dismissed, to intentionally extend the statute.
It defies common sense that the law allows
It defies common sense that the law allows
November 27, 2025 at 3:17 PM
If code 18…whatever extends the statute six months here, then prosecutors could eff up a case just so it is dismissed, to intentionally extend the statute.
It defies common sense that the law allows
It defies common sense that the law allows
AI should do a better job of deep faking Trump.
November 27, 2025 at 12:27 PM
AI should do a better job of deep faking Trump.
Lindsey could become a monster expert on overcoming due process violations in this case alone.
November 26, 2025 at 8:14 PM
Lindsey could become a monster expert on overcoming due process violations in this case alone.
So… Gov. prosecutors could intentionally eff up just to get another six months to indict?
November 25, 2025 at 12:55 PM
So… Gov. prosecutors could intentionally eff up just to get another six months to indict?
This would seem to be a too easy way for a prosecutor to extend a statute of limitations deadline.
November 24, 2025 at 5:56 PM
This would seem to be a too easy way for a prosecutor to extend a statute of limitations deadline.
Who tf is @paulsperry.bsky.social ?
November 24, 2025 at 5:34 PM
Who tf is @paulsperry.bsky.social ?
No. It’s not the same. SecDef can’t (or should not) abuse his position by threatening a service member for practicing his first amendment rights and his legal and moral duty.
November 24, 2025 at 5:21 PM
No. It’s not the same. SecDef can’t (or should not) abuse his position by threatening a service member for practicing his first amendment rights and his legal and moral duty.
Monrovia, CA - where no one needs ice scrapers.
November 23, 2025 at 7:30 PM
Monrovia, CA - where no one needs ice scrapers.
Porter seems to be really good at alienating dems.
That is all.
That is all.
November 21, 2025 at 3:19 PM
Porter seems to be really good at alienating dems.
That is all.
That is all.
I think they no-billed the whole first indictment *because* of count 1. They may have been good with counts 2&3, but that would require a different indictment doc.
November 19, 2025 at 8:08 PM
I think they no-billed the whole first indictment *because* of count 1. They may have been good with counts 2&3, but that would require a different indictment doc.
I think they vote on indictments, not counts.
November 19, 2025 at 7:34 PM
I think they vote on indictments, not counts.
I’m not a lawyer and could be totally wrong, but this is my thinking.
November 19, 2025 at 7:26 PM
I’m not a lawyer and could be totally wrong, but this is my thinking.
They might, but there is a question of statute tolling. The sloppy work is the result of rushing to get an indictment before the Statute of Limitations for the charge ran out on 9/30. A new indictment would be too late.
November 19, 2025 at 7:24 PM
They might, but there is a question of statute tolling. The sloppy work is the result of rushing to get an indictment before the Statute of Limitations for the charge ran out on 9/30. A new indictment would be too late.
@annabower.bsky.social needs to show us her cozy fireplace or I’m not watching.
(Plus, I’ll probably be working…)
(Plus, I’ll probably be working…)
November 19, 2025 at 7:01 PM
@annabower.bsky.social needs to show us her cozy fireplace or I’m not watching.
(Plus, I’ll probably be working…)
(Plus, I’ll probably be working…)
At least
This is what I gather.
This is what I gather.
November 19, 2025 at 6:43 PM
At least
This is what I gather.
This is what I gather.
signed it. But that second indictment was never actually before the GJ, so it’s not legitimate.
So we hear there were enough votes, but we don’t have real documentation there were enough votes.
So we hear there were enough votes, but we don’t have real documentation there were enough votes.
November 19, 2025 at 6:42 PM
signed it. But that second indictment was never actually before the GJ, so it’s not legitimate.
So we hear there were enough votes, but we don’t have real documentation there were enough votes.
So we hear there were enough votes, but we don’t have real documentation there were enough votes.
We actually don’t know. The indictment with three counts was no-billed because of the first count, we hear. We *hear* that the GJ would indict on counts 2 & 3 of that indictment, however no real vote was actually officially taken. Then a second indictment was crafted and the GJ foreperson
November 19, 2025 at 6:42 PM
We actually don’t know. The indictment with three counts was no-billed because of the first count, we hear. We *hear* that the GJ would indict on counts 2 & 3 of that indictment, however no real vote was actually officially taken. Then a second indictment was crafted and the GJ foreperson
Other than names of unindicted individuals, can someone say why the entire statements in question are redacted?
November 18, 2025 at 3:23 AM
Other than names of unindicted individuals, can someone say why the entire statements in question are redacted?
I would have thought it had something to do with sharpies and auto pens, but I guess not.
November 17, 2025 at 1:39 AM
I would have thought it had something to do with sharpies and auto pens, but I guess not.