@lakebrody.bsky.social
Some of it was written at the WH to be sure.
August 12, 2025 at 4:02 AM
Some of it was written at the WH to be sure.
Republicans in Congress leave town to avoid a vote on Epstein. But it’s somehow not okay for Democrat state legislators to leave town? Hmmm. Ongoing hypocrisy from the far right.
August 9, 2025 at 4:43 PM
Republicans in Congress leave town to avoid a vote on Epstein. But it’s somehow not okay for Democrat state legislators to leave town? Hmmm. Ongoing hypocrisy from the far right.
Senator Grassley for years has claimed to be the champion of whistleblowers, and yet here he chose to dismiss credible evidence from 3 whistleblowers to enable a vote. Disgraceful. Senate Republicans never would have voted to confirm someone with this baggage if nominated by a Democrat.
July 30, 2025 at 2:28 AM
Senator Grassley for years has claimed to be the champion of whistleblowers, and yet here he chose to dismiss credible evidence from 3 whistleblowers to enable a vote. Disgraceful. Senate Republicans never would have voted to confirm someone with this baggage if nominated by a Democrat.
So true. And Senator Grassley, who for years has claimed to be the champion of whistleblowers, chose to dismiss 3 credible whistleblowers to enable this disgraceful vote. He and his fellow Republicans who voted in favor have no principle.
July 30, 2025 at 1:58 AM
So true. And Senator Grassley, who for years has claimed to be the champion of whistleblowers, chose to dismiss 3 credible whistleblowers to enable this disgraceful vote. He and his fellow Republicans who voted in favor have no principle.
It’s yet another stain on Republican members of Congress, who never would have confirmed someone with this same baggage if nominated by a Democrat. They have no principle.
July 30, 2025 at 1:50 AM
It’s yet another stain on Republican members of Congress, who never would have confirmed someone with this same baggage if nominated by a Democrat. They have no principle.
It’s unconscionable. Republicans never would have voted for someone with the same baggage appointed by a Democrat. No principle.
July 30, 2025 at 1:34 AM
It’s unconscionable. Republicans never would have voted for someone with the same baggage appointed by a Democrat. No principle.
It’s so shameful. Senator Grassley has for years claimed to be the champion of whistleblowers, and yet in the face of evidence from 3 credible whistleblowers Senator Grassley put his head in the sand and deliberately chose to excuse the inexcusable to give Trump what he wanted. No integrity.
July 30, 2025 at 1:32 AM
It’s so shameful. Senator Grassley has for years claimed to be the champion of whistleblowers, and yet in the face of evidence from 3 credible whistleblowers Senator Grassley put his head in the sand and deliberately chose to excuse the inexcusable to give Trump what he wanted. No integrity.
It’s so shameful. Senator Grassley has for years claimed to be the champion of whistleblowers, and yet in the face of evidence from 3 credible whistleblowers Senator Grassley put his head in the sand and deliberately chose to excuse the inexcusable to give Trump what he wanted. No integrity.
July 30, 2025 at 1:31 AM
It’s so shameful. Senator Grassley has for years claimed to be the champion of whistleblowers, and yet in the face of evidence from 3 credible whistleblowers Senator Grassley put his head in the sand and deliberately chose to excuse the inexcusable to give Trump what he wanted. No integrity.
And Trump floats all of these things to distract when the news for him is bad on a host of other fronts. Always has. Always will. Don’t take his bait. Keep the focus on ALL the bad surrounding him.
May 11, 2025 at 6:09 PM
And Trump floats all of these things to distract when the news for him is bad on a host of other fronts. Always has. Always will. Don’t take his bait. Keep the focus on ALL the bad surrounding him.
Donald’s anger is manifest in name-calling always because even at age 78 he has never outgrown being the “liddle” playground bully.
April 26, 2025 at 2:53 PM
Donald’s anger is manifest in name-calling always because even at age 78 he has never outgrown being the “liddle” playground bully.
It’s notable the WH says he “probably” is MS-13, because they clearly can’t prove it.
April 20, 2025 at 11:18 PM
It’s notable the WH says he “probably” is MS-13, because they clearly can’t prove it.
Right. It’s really rich for Alito to whine about procedural niceties that don’t seem to bother him when he joins the majority to grant emergency relief.Given the government’s behavior of late, the majority did not agree with his point here that there was no reason for the Court to have acted hastily
April 20, 2025 at 3:56 AM
Right. It’s really rich for Alito to whine about procedural niceties that don’t seem to bother him when he joins the majority to grant emergency relief.Given the government’s behavior of late, the majority did not agree with his point here that there was no reason for the Court to have acted hastily
Reposted
"But it only applies to official acts"
"But it only provides a presumption"
"But it doesn't apply to officials below the president"
LMAO. Look at what is happening all around us.
"But it only provides a presumption"
"But it doesn't apply to officials below the president"
LMAO. Look at what is happening all around us.
April 16, 2025 at 2:30 AM
"But it only applies to official acts"
"But it only provides a presumption"
"But it doesn't apply to officials below the president"
LMAO. Look at what is happening all around us.
"But it only provides a presumption"
"But it doesn't apply to officials below the president"
LMAO. Look at what is happening all around us.
It’s a misapplication of the privilege. The state secrets privilege is designed to protect against PUBLIC disclosure of sensitive national security information, not to prevent disclosure to the court. In decades the gov has never once declined to give such information to an Article III judge.
April 14, 2025 at 12:52 AM
It’s a misapplication of the privilege. The state secrets privilege is designed to protect against PUBLIC disclosure of sensitive national security information, not to prevent disclosure to the court. In decades the gov has never once declined to give such information to an Article III judge.
That is absolutely correct. And the government has never once declined to give an Article III judge sensitive and classified national security information even when asserting the state secrets privilege.
April 14, 2025 at 12:31 AM
That is absolutely correct. And the government has never once declined to give an Article III judge sensitive and classified national security information even when asserting the state secrets privilege.