@pdgpa.bsky.social
Why couldn’t either Judge Currie or the Fourth circuit grant a stay of this dismissal ruling pending appeal? Wouldn’t that allow the other motions to proceed before J. Nachmanoff?
November 25, 2025 at 8:34 PM
Why couldn’t either Judge Currie or the Fourth circuit grant a stay of this dismissal ruling pending appeal? Wouldn’t that allow the other motions to proceed before J. Nachmanoff?
The man has a stellar sense of humor.
November 25, 2025 at 5:23 PM
The man has a stellar sense of humor.
Absolutely not what the oath pledges.
November 24, 2025 at 4:26 PM
Absolutely not what the oath pledges.
Well, he declined to sign the original Constitution *because it lacked a Bill of Rights*. He went on to contribute to the drafting of the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure).
November 23, 2025 at 10:59 PM
Well, he declined to sign the original Constitution *because it lacked a Bill of Rights*. He went on to contribute to the drafting of the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure).
This is not what “correcting the record” means. This is an attempt to withdraw an admission and substitute an obfuscation for it instead.
November 21, 2025 at 10:50 PM
This is not what “correcting the record” means. This is an attempt to withdraw an admission and substitute an obfuscation for it instead.
And a thorough, carefully written opinion.
November 20, 2025 at 6:34 PM
And a thorough, carefully written opinion.
Time to view again the excellent short documentary “Motherless” at abortionfilms.org
abortiinfilms.org
November 20, 2025 at 4:55 AM
Time to view again the excellent short documentary “Motherless” at abortionfilms.org
In America, a point of view is not and cannot be illegal. And what with the First Amendment and all, it is irrelevant to this proposition that we are in the majority.
November 19, 2025 at 6:17 PM
In America, a point of view is not and cannot be illegal. And what with the First Amendment and all, it is irrelevant to this proposition that we are in the majority.
He tried to say ”insolent,” but what he was actually thinking came out instead
November 18, 2025 at 7:13 PM
He tried to say ”insolent,” but what he was actually thinking came out instead
Orson Welles’ 1938 “War of the Worlds” was better.
November 18, 2025 at 7:05 PM
Orson Welles’ 1938 “War of the Worlds” was better.
“Insolent,” I think he was trying to say, but “insubordinate” came out of his mouth, because it’s what he actually meant
November 18, 2025 at 6:59 PM
“Insolent,” I think he was trying to say, but “insubordinate” came out of his mouth, because it’s what he actually meant
Energy- and water-efficient appliances, such as dishwashers
November 18, 2025 at 12:01 AM
Energy- and water-efficient appliances, such as dishwashers
JEE’s friends were all Democrats? Like Bannon?
November 17, 2025 at 11:05 PM
JEE’s friends were all Democrats? Like Bannon?
I think you mean that last year’s served 10, while this year’s is for 8.
November 17, 2025 at 12:58 AM
I think you mean that last year’s served 10, while this year’s is for 8.
Yes, but do you know it isn’t? I am not aware of the transcripts being released, and I would be surprised if they were, given the federal grand jury secrecy rules
November 14, 2025 at 12:21 AM
Yes, but do you know it isn’t? I am not aware of the transcripts being released, and I would be surprised if they were, given the federal grand jury secrecy rules
Would normally be the jurors’ choice, if the presentation of the case was done, whether to stay and deliberate, or to come back for that the next day
November 13, 2025 at 8:08 PM
Would normally be the jurors’ choice, if the presentation of the case was done, whether to stay and deliberate, or to come back for that the next day
No, the judge has no role in instructing a grand jury. Strangely enough, the prosecutor does that. Which is transcribed.
November 13, 2025 at 8:05 PM
No, the judge has no role in instructing a grand jury. Strangely enough, the prosecutor does that. Which is transcribed.
Are you sure the grand jury wasn’t just deliberating (and perhaps eating supper) during those two hours? Deliberations would not be transcribed.
November 13, 2025 at 7:42 PM
Are you sure the grand jury wasn’t just deliberating (and perhaps eating supper) during those two hours? Deliberations would not be transcribed.
I would add, “or any member of Congress”
November 13, 2025 at 7:37 PM
I would add, “or any member of Congress”
I think Mountbatten Windsor is his (two-part) surname.
November 13, 2025 at 4:58 AM
I think Mountbatten Windsor is his (two-part) surname.
False statement to a federal law enforcement officer in an official matter is a felony, even though without an oath it is technically not perjury
November 12, 2025 at 3:28 PM
False statement to a federal law enforcement officer in an official matter is a felony, even though without an oath it is technically not perjury
No it isn’t. Ex post facto laws by definition are criminal laws.
November 11, 2025 at 11:54 PM
No it isn’t. Ex post facto laws by definition are criminal laws.
They can sue, but a court would have to rule that the Special Prosecutor’s subpoenas were illegal, and harmed the Senators, neither of which is true. So the provision should be meaningless. Unless DOJ enters into a collusive, bad faith settlement, which again a judge would have to approve.
November 11, 2025 at 11:51 PM
They can sue, but a court would have to rule that the Special Prosecutor’s subpoenas were illegal, and harmed the Senators, neither of which is true. So the provision should be meaningless. Unless DOJ enters into a collusive, bad faith settlement, which again a judge would have to approve.