Jason Gottlieb
@ohaiom.bsky.social
Lawyer, musician, family man, aspiring polymath. Regulatory enforcement, litigation. Sensible crypto / tech lawyer. Appellate, NYTXW. Tweets solely my own opinion.
Everyone involved should be tried for murder in 2029
November 22, 2025 at 1:36 PM
Everyone involved should be tried for murder in 2029
Serious question, because I’ve never thought about it: is that Brady material? And if so, what wins, Brady or privilege?
November 20, 2025 at 1:09 PM
Serious question, because I’ve never thought about it: is that Brady material? And if so, what wins, Brady or privilege?
And the judge can simply order it to be produced. The judge does not have to care about what someone in the office told line prosecutors not to disclose.
November 20, 2025 at 1:08 PM
And the judge can simply order it to be produced. The judge does not have to care about what someone in the office told line prosecutors not to disclose.
The law in this area is so broken. Absolutely lost the plot.
“Shot a protester in the eye” should be the end of the inquiry. That is a bad thing. And the law should treat it as such.
“Shot a protester in the eye” should be the end of the inquiry. That is a bad thing. And the law should treat it as such.
November 20, 2025 at 11:08 AM
The law in this area is so broken. Absolutely lost the plot.
“Shot a protester in the eye” should be the end of the inquiry. That is a bad thing. And the law should treat it as such.
“Shot a protester in the eye” should be the end of the inquiry. That is a bad thing. And the law should treat it as such.
This is insane. This man belongs nowhere near a position of authority over other people.
November 20, 2025 at 1:53 AM
This is insane. This man belongs nowhere near a position of authority over other people.
Excited to see him prosecuted for conspiracy to commit murder in January 2029
November 19, 2025 at 2:49 AM
Excited to see him prosecuted for conspiracy to commit murder in January 2029
“I was sexually harassing my students and you know whatever, that’s life, but now that you all know, I’m deeply ashamed.” How genuine of him!
November 18, 2025 at 2:08 PM
“I was sexually harassing my students and you know whatever, that’s life, but now that you all know, I’m deeply ashamed.” How genuine of him!
Like how icky is it, that the thing that made him say he was ashamed was not that he did the bad thing or sent the messages, but that the bad thing and the messages became publicly known?
November 18, 2025 at 2:08 PM
Like how icky is it, that the thing that made him say he was ashamed was not that he did the bad thing or sent the messages, but that the bad thing and the messages became publicly known?
Standing beside all the incredibly gross sexual harassment is the racism! They referred to a Chinese woman as “peril,” a term with some pretty deep racist-against-Chinese roots, which they both certainly understood, the whole thing is so disgusting. (And yeah the NYT reporting sucks too.)
November 18, 2025 at 12:03 PM
Standing beside all the incredibly gross sexual harassment is the racism! They referred to a Chinese woman as “peril,” a term with some pretty deep racist-against-Chinese roots, which they both certainly understood, the whole thing is so disgusting. (And yeah the NYT reporting sucks too.)
I wouldn’t even go that far
November 12, 2025 at 2:35 AM
I wouldn’t even go that far
Congrats!! What great news for you and Maybell!
November 11, 2025 at 12:12 AM
Congrats!! What great news for you and Maybell!
As the saying goes, the Constitution is not a suicide pact; nor it is a backdoor pass to tyranny if you can just find its one weird trick. The drafters of the constitution certainly wouldn’t have meant that, and while I’m no originalist, they would be horrified by the implications of your argument.
November 4, 2025 at 1:08 AM
As the saying goes, the Constitution is not a suicide pact; nor it is a backdoor pass to tyranny if you can just find its one weird trick. The drafters of the constitution certainly wouldn’t have meant that, and while I’m no originalist, they would be horrified by the implications of your argument.
You can post forever that the rules mean there’s nothing we can do. But this isn’t a game of pinochle, where is the rules prevent you from winning, oh well, I guess you lose. It’s literally life or death for many, and the fundamental precepts of our nation at stake.
November 4, 2025 at 1:08 AM
You can post forever that the rules mean there’s nothing we can do. But this isn’t a game of pinochle, where is the rules prevent you from winning, oh well, I guess you lose. It’s literally life or death for many, and the fundamental precepts of our nation at stake.
If there are other solutions to this problem, I’m all ears. But accepting defeat and shrugging it off is a lesson to the GOP that they can simply refuse to seat anyone they don’t like, and thus control the House forever.
November 4, 2025 at 1:08 AM
If there are other solutions to this problem, I’m all ears. But accepting defeat and shrugging it off is a lesson to the GOP that they can simply refuse to seat anyone they don’t like, and thus control the House forever.
If they are going to violate the constitution in order to take away people‘s rights, I do not mind advocating for a different interpretation of the constitution that lets us protect people‘s rights.
November 4, 2025 at 1:08 AM
If they are going to violate the constitution in order to take away people‘s rights, I do not mind advocating for a different interpretation of the constitution that lets us protect people‘s rights.
Ah, that may be where we disagree fundamentally.
I do not believe, not for one second, that we should look at the GOP protecting pedophiles and murdering fisherman and kidnapping Hispanic people and building concentration camps, and conclude, “oh well, sometimes the bad guys win.”
I do not believe, not for one second, that we should look at the GOP protecting pedophiles and murdering fisherman and kidnapping Hispanic people and building concentration camps, and conclude, “oh well, sometimes the bad guys win.”
November 4, 2025 at 1:08 AM
Ah, that may be where we disagree fundamentally.
I do not believe, not for one second, that we should look at the GOP protecting pedophiles and murdering fisherman and kidnapping Hispanic people and building concentration camps, and conclude, “oh well, sometimes the bad guys win.”
I do not believe, not for one second, that we should look at the GOP protecting pedophiles and murdering fisherman and kidnapping Hispanic people and building concentration camps, and conclude, “oh well, sometimes the bad guys win.”
Again, I ask: if the GOP just refuses to seat anyone, what should Dems do? Give up? Say oh well nothing more can be done? Pursue a fruitless court case?
Sometimes you can just do things.
Sometimes you can just do things.
November 3, 2025 at 11:57 PM
Again, I ask: if the GOP just refuses to seat anyone, what should Dems do? Give up? Say oh well nothing more can be done? Pursue a fruitless court case?
Sometimes you can just do things.
Sometimes you can just do things.
Thus the alternative: Jefferies swears her in. Here, he’s the House — or at least enough “of” the House so as to declare her seated and move on.
November 3, 2025 at 11:55 PM
Thus the alternative: Jefferies swears her in. Here, he’s the House — or at least enough “of” the House so as to declare her seated and move on.
Definitely fair that you were joking, sorry.
Point remains though - if it’s a non-justiciable question for the House, then … do we just let the GOP control it forever now? How does any Dem ever get seated? Even if she’s *eventually* seated, that can’t be the answer.
Point remains though - if it’s a non-justiciable question for the House, then … do we just let the GOP control it forever now? How does any Dem ever get seated? Even if she’s *eventually* seated, that can’t be the answer.
November 3, 2025 at 11:55 PM
Definitely fair that you were joking, sorry.
Point remains though - if it’s a non-justiciable question for the House, then … do we just let the GOP control it forever now? How does any Dem ever get seated? Even if she’s *eventually* seated, that can’t be the answer.
Point remains though - if it’s a non-justiciable question for the House, then … do we just let the GOP control it forever now? How does any Dem ever get seated? Even if she’s *eventually* seated, that can’t be the answer.
Representative Grijalva won her election though; I mean you can see the difference, right?
Again, I'm not sure what you think Dems should actually *do* to get her seated? Wait a year for the courts? What if SCOTUS says it's a political question? (which your analysis says it is!)
Again, I'm not sure what you think Dems should actually *do* to get her seated? Wait a year for the courts? What if SCOTUS says it's a political question? (which your analysis says it is!)
November 3, 2025 at 6:22 PM
Representative Grijalva won her election though; I mean you can see the difference, right?
Again, I'm not sure what you think Dems should actually *do* to get her seated? Wait a year for the courts? What if SCOTUS says it's a political question? (which your analysis says it is!)
Again, I'm not sure what you think Dems should actually *do* to get her seated? Wait a year for the courts? What if SCOTUS says it's a political question? (which your analysis says it is!)
As someone who doesn’t practice in your area, I find your posts super interesting and informative, thank you
October 31, 2025 at 12:53 PM
As someone who doesn’t practice in your area, I find your posts super interesting and informative, thank you