Mayor of Slot Rocks
@mayorofslotrocks.bsky.social
I assume Comey will argue that where the indictment was filed by Halligan then it was a nullity and there was a "failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations".
We will see.
We will see.
November 25, 2025 at 12:26 AM
I assume Comey will argue that where the indictment was filed by Halligan then it was a nullity and there was a "failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations".
We will see.
We will see.
Me, looking for Republicans who "value traditionally conservative principles of constitutionally limited government":
a man in a suit and tie is standing in a room holding his jacket
ALT: a man in a suit and tie is standing in a room holding his jacket
media.tenor.com
November 24, 2025 at 7:19 PM
Me, looking for Republicans who "value traditionally conservative principles of constitutionally limited government":
a man in a suit and tie is standing in a room holding his jacket
ALT: a man in a suit and tie is standing in a room holding his jacket
media.tenor.com
November 24, 2025 at 7:19 PM
Me, looking for Republicans who "value traditionally conservative principles of constitutionally limited government":
I'm assuming the "without prejudice" is also without prejudice to Comey asserting statute of limitations defense.
So, de facto with prejudice unless reversed on appeal.
So, de facto with prejudice unless reversed on appeal.
November 24, 2025 at 7:15 PM
I'm assuming the "without prejudice" is also without prejudice to Comey asserting statute of limitations defense.
So, de facto with prejudice unless reversed on appeal.
So, de facto with prejudice unless reversed on appeal.
Probability that Trump offered her a de facto bribe to step down: 99.99%
November 22, 2025 at 11:57 PM
Probability that Trump offered her a de facto bribe to step down: 99.99%
Correction. As long as Trump *says* the rivals are a threat to National Security.
Far be it for Roberts & Co. to second guess the Executive.
Far be it for Roberts & Co. to second guess the Executive.
November 21, 2025 at 7:29 PM
Correction. As long as Trump *says* the rivals are a threat to National Security.
Far be it for Roberts & Co. to second guess the Executive.
Far be it for Roberts & Co. to second guess the Executive.
I find it amazing that people still treat federal courts as some sort of legal gold standard.
November 21, 2025 at 3:57 PM
I find it amazing that people still treat federal courts as some sort of legal gold standard.
Strategy?
We are a decade in. How are there actual people who still do not understand Trump.
We are a decade in. How are there actual people who still do not understand Trump.
November 20, 2025 at 8:41 PM
Strategy?
We are a decade in. How are there actual people who still do not understand Trump.
We are a decade in. How are there actual people who still do not understand Trump.
Wait. Who are the people making this argument? I genuinely have never seen a single person argue that the housing issue suddenly emerged in 2022.
Mostly people argue that housing costs have gotten progressively worse (primarily for new homeowners) over decades.
Mostly people argue that housing costs have gotten progressively worse (primarily for new homeowners) over decades.
November 20, 2025 at 8:34 PM
Wait. Who are the people making this argument? I genuinely have never seen a single person argue that the housing issue suddenly emerged in 2022.
Mostly people argue that housing costs have gotten progressively worse (primarily for new homeowners) over decades.
Mostly people argue that housing costs have gotten progressively worse (primarily for new homeowners) over decades.
I knew you couldn’t explain your argument yesterday.
Thanks, but there was no need for you to come back just to say farewell.
Thanks, but there was no need for you to come back just to say farewell.
November 19, 2025 at 6:11 AM
I knew you couldn’t explain your argument yesterday.
Thanks, but there was no need for you to come back just to say farewell.
Thanks, but there was no need for you to come back just to say farewell.
As soon as I pointed out that he couldn’t identify a single law or rule that protected an innocent defendant from the coercion, he blocked me.
November 19, 2025 at 1:00 AM
As soon as I pointed out that he couldn’t identify a single law or rule that protected an innocent defendant from the coercion, he blocked me.
People like Robert Black have their identities tied up in federal courts being holy shrines of the law.
They don’t want to admit that the federal system is fundamentally dysfunctional, and basically designed to convict anyone the government wants convicted.
They don’t want to admit that the federal system is fundamentally dysfunctional, and basically designed to convict anyone the government wants convicted.
November 19, 2025 at 1:00 AM
People like Robert Black have their identities tied up in federal courts being holy shrines of the law.
They don’t want to admit that the federal system is fundamentally dysfunctional, and basically designed to convict anyone the government wants convicted.
They don’t want to admit that the federal system is fundamentally dysfunctional, and basically designed to convict anyone the government wants convicted.
As I said elsewhere, states have their own problems: overburdened and underfunded public defenders, dumb judges, etc.
But if you have a good lawyer, with the resources to fight charges, you will usually be better off in state court. Between lesser trial penalty and (usually) less competent D.A.
But if you have a good lawyer, with the resources to fight charges, you will usually be better off in state court. Between lesser trial penalty and (usually) less competent D.A.
November 19, 2025 at 12:56 AM
As I said elsewhere, states have their own problems: overburdened and underfunded public defenders, dumb judges, etc.
But if you have a good lawyer, with the resources to fight charges, you will usually be better off in state court. Between lesser trial penalty and (usually) less competent D.A.
But if you have a good lawyer, with the resources to fight charges, you will usually be better off in state court. Between lesser trial penalty and (usually) less competent D.A.
Can we also agree that you have not identified a single law or rule that would protect someone from being indicted merely on probable cause?
That the sole mechanism protecting innocent people from requiring a trial is the professional stigma that a AUSA might face from losing a trial?
That the sole mechanism protecting innocent people from requiring a trial is the professional stigma that a AUSA might face from losing a trial?
November 19, 2025 at 12:42 AM
Can we also agree that you have not identified a single law or rule that would protect someone from being indicted merely on probable cause?
That the sole mechanism protecting innocent people from requiring a trial is the professional stigma that a AUSA might face from losing a trial?
That the sole mechanism protecting innocent people from requiring a trial is the professional stigma that a AUSA might face from losing a trial?
Can we agree that if prosecutors brought indictments every time they had probable cause, the 97% rate would be overwhelming evidence of coercion?
November 18, 2025 at 11:56 PM
Can we agree that if prosecutors brought indictments every time they had probable cause, the 97% rate would be overwhelming evidence of coercion?
There is a time and a place for a plea bargain. But a 97% plea rate is facial evidence of a dysfunctional system.
Either: 1. the system coerces innocent defendants to plead guilty, 2. prosecutors are too risk-averse, or 3. a combination of the two.
Either: 1. the system coerces innocent defendants to plead guilty, 2. prosecutors are too risk-averse, or 3. a combination of the two.
November 18, 2025 at 11:37 PM
There is a time and a place for a plea bargain. But a 97% plea rate is facial evidence of a dysfunctional system.
Either: 1. the system coerces innocent defendants to plead guilty, 2. prosecutors are too risk-averse, or 3. a combination of the two.
Either: 1. the system coerces innocent defendants to plead guilty, 2. prosecutors are too risk-averse, or 3. a combination of the two.
What losses?
Federal criminal cases are rarely tried. A federal prosecutor does not need confidence that an indictment can be won at trial. Only that a defendant will admit guilt to avoid a much harsher sentence.
Federal criminal cases are rarely tried. A federal prosecutor does not need confidence that an indictment can be won at trial. Only that a defendant will admit guilt to avoid a much harsher sentence.
November 18, 2025 at 11:30 PM
What losses?
Federal criminal cases are rarely tried. A federal prosecutor does not need confidence that an indictment can be won at trial. Only that a defendant will admit guilt to avoid a much harsher sentence.
Federal criminal cases are rarely tried. A federal prosecutor does not need confidence that an indictment can be won at trial. Only that a defendant will admit guilt to avoid a much harsher sentence.
What juries? 97% of cases result in plea bargains.
If federal prosecutors had to actually try cases to get convictions then I would not be complaining.
If federal prosecutors had to actually try cases to get convictions then I would not be complaining.
November 18, 2025 at 11:27 PM
What juries? 97% of cases result in plea bargains.
If federal prosecutors had to actually try cases to get convictions then I would not be complaining.
If federal prosecutors had to actually try cases to get convictions then I would not be complaining.
Instead you assume that prosecutors apply this standard themselves. And thus post-indictment coercive practices are okay. Because they are being applied to people who you assume are guilty.
November 18, 2025 at 11:25 PM
Instead you assume that prosecutors apply this standard themselves. And thus post-indictment coercive practices are okay. Because they are being applied to people who you assume are guilty.
Is this not you? “Prosecutors generally only bring criminal charges when overwhelming evidence of guilt exists”
That is not the legal standard.
If you don’t want indictments without “overwhelming evidence” then make that the standard.
That is not the legal standard.
If you don’t want indictments without “overwhelming evidence” then make that the standard.
November 18, 2025 at 11:25 PM
Is this not you? “Prosecutors generally only bring criminal charges when overwhelming evidence of guilt exists”
That is not the legal standard.
If you don’t want indictments without “overwhelming evidence” then make that the standard.
That is not the legal standard.
If you don’t want indictments without “overwhelming evidence” then make that the standard.
I don’t understand your question. I’ve said several times that I find the system to be unfair and coercive. And I’ve provided examples (e.g. trial penalty).
The only response that I’ve heard so far is “Don’t worry. You can trust prosecutors not to charge anyone who isn’t guilty.”
The only response that I’ve heard so far is “Don’t worry. You can trust prosecutors not to charge anyone who isn’t guilty.”
November 18, 2025 at 11:07 PM
I don’t understand your question. I’ve said several times that I find the system to be unfair and coercive. And I’ve provided examples (e.g. trial penalty).
The only response that I’ve heard so far is “Don’t worry. You can trust prosecutors not to charge anyone who isn’t guilty.”
The only response that I’ve heard so far is “Don’t worry. You can trust prosecutors not to charge anyone who isn’t guilty.”
It isn't about the quality of the lawyering that is the problem.
The primarily problem is that both federal criminal law and procedure are fundamentally unfair and morally offensive. The entire process is designed to coerce guilty pleas, and it is wildly successful.
The primarily problem is that both federal criminal law and procedure are fundamentally unfair and morally offensive. The entire process is designed to coerce guilty pleas, and it is wildly successful.
November 18, 2025 at 10:08 PM
It isn't about the quality of the lawyering that is the problem.
The primarily problem is that both federal criminal law and procedure are fundamentally unfair and morally offensive. The entire process is designed to coerce guilty pleas, and it is wildly successful.
The primarily problem is that both federal criminal law and procedure are fundamentally unfair and morally offensive. The entire process is designed to coerce guilty pleas, and it is wildly successful.
I didn't say that they are interchangeable. I said that simply going to a top law school, which is a prerequisite for the job, does not make one more ethical or less ambitious.
Although I am awfully curious about this "evidence." Is there some objective data supporting your view?
Although I am awfully curious about this "evidence." Is there some objective data supporting your view?
November 18, 2025 at 9:58 PM
I didn't say that they are interchangeable. I said that simply going to a top law school, which is a prerequisite for the job, does not make one more ethical or less ambitious.
Although I am awfully curious about this "evidence." Is there some objective data supporting your view?
Although I am awfully curious about this "evidence." Is there some objective data supporting your view?