phallusyfallacy.bsky.social
LightNews LightNews
phallusyfallacy.bsky.social
@phallusyfallacy.bsky.social
64 followers 320 following 3 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by phallusyfallacy.bsky.social
sarahkendzior.bsky.social
It's true that Garland did nothing about Trump and Epstein while being completely aware of the crimes. The crimes were public information! Garland was installed to protect the DOJ, which protects Trump and Epstein. It's explained in this free 2023 article. sarahkendzior.substack.com/p/servants-o...
Servants of the Mafia State
Merrick Garland, Jamie Gorelick, and the truth
sarahkendzior.substack.com
December 25, 2025 at 12:24 PM
Reposted by phallusyfallacy.bsky.social
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Again, from Michael Grynbaum, here is Sharyn Alfonsi's full email.

It must be read:
News Team, Thank you for the notes and texts. I apologize for not reaching out earlier. I learned on Saturday that Bari Weiss spiked our story, INSIDE CECOT, which was supposed to air tonight. We (Ori and I) asked for a call to discuss her decision. She did not afford us that courtesy/opportunity. Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices. It is factually correct. In my view, pulling it now-after every rigorous internal check has been met is not an editorial decision, it is a political one. We requested responses to questions and/or interviews with DHS, the White House, and the State Department. Government silence is a statement, not a VETO. Their refusal to be interviewed is a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story. If the administration's refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a "kill switch" for any reporting they find inconvenient. If the standard for airing a story becomes "the government must agree to be interviewed," then the government effectively gains control over the 60 Minutes broadcast. We go from an investigative powerhouse to a stenographer for the state. These men risked their lives to speak with us. We have a moral and professional obligation to the sources who entrusted us with their stories. Abandoning them now is a betrayal of the most basic tenet of journalism: giving voice to the voiceless. CBS spiked the Jeffrey Wigand interview due to legal concerns, nearly destroying the credibility of this broadcast. It took years to recover from that "low point." By pulling this story to shield an administration, we are repeating that history, but for political optics rather than legal ones. We have been promoting this story on social media for days. Our viewers are expecting it. When it fails to air without a credible explanation, the public will correctly identify this as corporate censorship. We are trading 50 years of "Gold Standard" reputation for a single week of political quiet. I care too much about this broadcast to watch it be dismantled without a fight. Sharyn
December 22, 2025 at 4:00 AM
Reposted by phallusyfallacy.bsky.social
guyoron.net
The Homeless Remembrance Project has been holding monthly and yearly vigils for more than two decades. They will be meeting at Victor Steinbrueck Park near Pike Place Market. Note that the numbers in the flyer aren't updated with November data.
candlelight vigil: , PLEASE STAND WITH WOMEN IN BLACK ON THE SOLSTICE, Sunday, December 21st, “National Homeless Persons’ Memorial Day!” This year already at least 245 homeless/temporarily housed people have died outside/in public/by violence. These deaths demand a reckoning. Please join us at our annual Women in Black Solstice Vigil and Ritual on Sunday, December 21st, to honor ALL who’ve died this year. We’ll start with an informal ritual at sunset (4:21 PM) at the Tree of Life (Victor Steinbrueck Park, north of Pike Place Market), and then do our silent, candlelight vigil from 5-6 PM at Westlake Park (4th/Pine, NE corner). There’ll be an aftergathering nearby with food and fellowship courtesy of our Health Care for the Homeless partners.
December 21, 2025 at 8:51 PM
Reposted by phallusyfallacy.bsky.social
michaelhobbes.bsky.social
If I see a rat in my fucking toilet there is no way I'm going to calmly close the lid and go get some Palmolive
www.facebook.com/KCPubHealth/...
December 20, 2025 at 10:35 PM
Reposted by phallusyfallacy.bsky.social
unraveledpress.com
What do you even say anymore
Baker hasn’t been charged in the fatal shooting of his partner or the bar fight. He has been stripped of his policing powers but only after he allegedly called a nearby business posing as an investigator and tried to obtain video footage of what happened in the bar. Yolanda Rivera’s attorneys pointed to Baker’s lengthy record of disciplinary complaints, seizing on another incident, in which he was accused of accosting a woman at a bar in December 2022 and flashing a gun at her after she refused to date him. The woman stopped cooperating with investigators, and the case was closed.
December 12, 2025 at 12:37 AM
Reposted by phallusyfallacy.bsky.social
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
🚨Judge Xinis finds that, incredibly, Mr. Abrego Garcia was never ordered deported in 2019. She notes that every since this saga began all the way back in March, the government has NEVER been able to produce any evidence that the immigration judge actually issued a removal order.
B. No Order of Removal Exists for Abrego Garcia No such order of removal exists for Abrego Garcia. When Abrego Garcia was first wrongly expelled to El Salvador, the Court struggled to understand the legal authority for even seizing him in the first place. At the first hearing in Abrego I, the Court inquired of Respondents’ counsel: The Court: I want to ask, though, the very specific question, if there is a final order of removal, what . . . document got this process started? There is no warrant for his arrest by an order of removal. There is no statement of probable cause. There’s no charge. There’s no report that says that anyone saw Mr. Abrego Garcia doing anything illegal or criminal. So what is the actual document that gave these officers the authority to start this process? Counsel: That is not in the record, and the government has not put that into the record. And that’s the best I can do. Abrego I, ECF No. 33 at 21:11–22. The Court continued to press counsel about the existence of a removal order and was told plainly that none can be found: The Court: Okay. So if there’s a Title 8 removal order, there would be an order of removal that’s being executed, and we don’t have one for Mr. Abrego Garcia, right? . . . Do you have that order? . . . Is it in the record? Counsel: I do not have that order. It is not in the record. Id. at 23:7–24:4. Since that time, Respondents have never produced an order of removal despite Abrego Garcia hinging much of his jurisdictional and legal arguments on its non-existence. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 68–69; ECF No. 32 at 10, 15–17, 27; ECF No. 87 at 11–12. Indeed, Respondents twice sponsored the testimony of ICE officials whose job it is to effectuate removal orders, and who candidly admitted to having never seen one for Abrego Garcia. See ECF No. 107 at 30:16–22 (testimony of Cantú) (“Q: Based upon your many years of experience you described to us, you know what a final order of removal looks like, right, sir? Cantú: I do. Q: And have you seen a final order of removal in regard to Mr. Abrego Garcia? Cantú: I have not.”). See also Abrego I, ECF No. 234 at 46:6–12 (testimony of interim Assistant Director for ICE Removal Operations, Thomas Giles (“Giles”)) (“Q: You have not seen the final order of removal, have you, sir? Giles: What do you mean by that? Q: I mean, you have not seen a piece of paper that represents the final order of removal vis-a-vis Mr. Abrego Garcia, correct? Giles: No, I have not.”).15 Based on this, the Court concludes that no order of removal exists.
December 11, 2025 at 4:13 PM