tinita54.bsky.social
LightNews LightNews
tinita54.bsky.social
@tinita54.bsky.social
81 followers 38 following 22 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
deenawinter.bsky.social
I went to all 10 of the daycares Nick Shirley featured in his viral video. I got inside 4 and found children. Lots of children: www.startribune.com/day-care-fra...
We went to some of the day cares Nick Shirley did. Here’s what we found.
Some of the 10 day cares the YouTube content creator blasted for having “no children” invited reporters in to see for themselves.
www.startribune.com
January 1, 2026 at 1:22 AM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
thorbenson.bsky.social
New York Post looks normal
New York Post article about Mamdani's wife wearing expensive boots
January 1, 2026 at 5:34 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
ericlipton.nytimes.com
Trump’s Tangled Web of Deal-Making, Policy and Riches

An illustrated guide of the first year of profiteering.

www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
Trump’s Tangled Web of Deal-Making, Policy and Riches (Gift Article)
The president, his family and some of their closest associates have engaged in a sprawling campaign of deals that stretches across industries and the globe.
www.nytimes.com
January 1, 2026 at 5:58 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
qasimrashid.com
“Can’t believe NYC elected a Muslim as mayor.”

In truth—a Black American Christian woman swearing in a Ugandan American Muslim of South Asian ethnicity as his Syrian American wife holds the Qurans he swears in on, all while standing on the steps of a subway station—is the most NYC thing imaginable.
January 1, 2026 at 11:43 AM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
rbreich.bsky.social
As Zohran Mamdani takes over as mayor of New York City, he joins his new Deputy Mayor for Economic Justice, Julie Su, to talk about building an economy that works for the many — not just a select few.
January 1, 2026 at 3:33 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
gmf1369.bsky.social
#GVerse Jack Smith says that he does not understand why #Shit4Brains would pardon people who assaulted law enforcement.

He says the people who defended the Capitol that day are heroes.

#Repost

Do you agree with Jack?
January 1, 2026 at 4:20 PM
Happy New Year to all. Wishing America finds it’s way back to full democracy.
January 1, 2026 at 5:18 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
emptywheel.bsky.social
Juicebox Jeanine went out partying last night without first filing her justification for indicting the pipe bomber in Superior Court rather than before a Federal grand jury.

The defense seems to think DOJ can't prove those were viable pipe bombs.
Jeanine Pirro wearing a really gaudy light blue rhinestone laden sleeveless thing. MINUTE ORDER as to BRIAN J. COLE, JR.: As discussed during today's proceedings, the Court was presented yesterday afternoon with a two-count indictment in this case that was returned by a D.C. Superior Court grand jury, rather than a federal court grand jury. The indictment included the same two counts charged in the criminal complaint, namely 18 U.S.C. 844(d) and 844(i). In asking the Court to accept the indictment, the government invoked D.C. Code § 11-1916(a), which provides that "[a] grand jury serving in the District of Columbia may take cognizance of all matters brought before it regardless of whether an indictment is returnable in the Federal or District of Columbia courts." The Court recognizes that Chief Judge Boasberg recently upheld the propriety of this approach based on that statute, concluding that Section 11-1916(a) authorizes local D.C. grand juries to return indictments in U.S. District Court (and vice versa). United States v. Stewart, 2025 WL 3237833 (Nov. 20, 2025). But Judge Boasberg then stayed that ruling pending appeal, stating in part that "the public interest lies in letting the Court of Appeals decide this issue before the Government moves forward both on this case and in similar fashion on other cases." See Stewart, No. 25-mj-225, Order (Dec. 9, 2025). The Court yesterday deferred a decision on whether to accept the indictment pending further briefing from the parties on the question of whether Judge Boasberg's stay order extends to the circumstances here. The parties were directed to submit briefing on that question, and the Court intends to issue a decision in short order on whether to accept the indictment as proposed. Meanwhile, the Court ORDERS that both sides shall file their respective briefs on the public docket by close of business on December 31, 2025. Either side may request redactions to their briefs the extent they believe it necessary, provided that the filing is accompanied by an appropriate motion to seal. SO ORDERED.
January 1, 2026 at 4:07 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
emptywheel.bsky.social
Jack Smith: I'm not going to be intimidated.

legacy.www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
Ms. Crockett. And, just to kind of finish up on this point, you, yourself -- I'm not 9 sure if this was discussed by the majority, but have you, yourself, been intimidated as a 10 result of the actions that you took in this case. 11 The Witness. I'm not going to be intimidated. 12 Ms. Crockett. Have you been threatened. 13 The Witness. Yes. 14 Ms. Crockett. Have you learned of other persons, whether they worked under you 15 as attorneys or other support staff, are you aware of any threats that have been made 16 against any of them. 17 The Witness. Yes.
December 31, 2025 at 9:41 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
emptywheel.bsky.social
This probably didn't work out the way Jim Jordan's staffer intended.

legacy.www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
Q The team's work, the prosecutor's work. So you subpoenaed Speaker 20 McCarthy's toll records after he became Speaker, and you sought records from 21 November 2020 through January 8th, 2021. What were you looking for with his records? 22 Like what did you do with the information you obtained? 23 A Okay. So the relevance of those records, there would be several examples, 24 but his contacts with either co-conspirators, the President, or conduits of information to the 25 President was relevant to our investigation. An example I could give you is, on January 6th, wu 1 we had information from Mark Meadows, who was present for a call where Congressman 2 McCarthy was asking for help. He was asking the President to come to his aid while the 3 Capitol was being seized. a Getting the exact tol records for when that happened was relevant for our 5 investigation both to question other witnesses about it so we had an accurate timeline and 6 also to corroborate that the call happened at approximately the time witnesses said it 7 happened. 8 Q Butts pretty significant to subpoena the Speaker of theHouse's toll records, 9 right? 10 A We followed Department policy, and we followed all legal requirements in 11 getting those records. 2 Q 1mean, you know, to get the information you're looking for, nobody disputed 13 the Speaker and the President were having communications on January 6th. So one way. 14 you could have gotten that information is you could have asked the Speaker's lawyer to look 15 at his phone records and to give you the information you needed, right? 6 A Well, you say now that nobody is disputing, but my experience in criminal 17 investigations i that people often at trial dispute things that you never thought were going 18 tobein dispute during the investigation, and so, when | conduct a criminal investigation, | 19 don'tassume there will be no disputes.
December 31, 2025 at 10:08 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
emptywheel.bsky.social
Jim Jordan, teeing up Jack Smith to explain he doesn't even know when the fucking midterms were.
The Witness. When were the midterm elections? 5 Chairman Jordan. November -- the first Tuesday after the first Monday in 6 November. 7 The Witness. I think I spoke to him both before that and after that. 8
December 31, 2025 at 10:23 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
emptywheel.bsky.social
Jim Jordan staffer: Why did you subpoena Jim Jordan's phone records?

Because Mark Meadows told us he had never seen Jim Jordan scared before.

legacy.www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
Q The team's work, the prosecutor's work. So you subpoenaed Speaker 20 McCarthy's toll records after he became Speaker, and you sought records from 21 November 2020 through January 8th, 2021. What were you looking for with his records? 22 Like what did you do with the information you obtained? 23 A Okay. So the relevance of those records, there would be several examples, 24 but his contacts with either co-conspirators, the President, or conduits of information to the 25 President was relevant to our investigation. An example I could give you is, on January 6th, wu 1 we had information from Mark Meadows, who was present for a call where Congressman 2 McCarthy was asking for help. He was asking the President to come to his aid while the 3 Capitol was being seized. a Getting the exact tol records for when that happened was relevant for our 5 investigation both to question other witnesses about it so we had an accurate timeline and 6 also to corroborate that the call happened at approximately the time witnesses said it 7 happened. 8 Q Butts pretty significant to subpoena the Speaker of theHouse's toll records, 9 right? 10 A We followed Department policy, and we followed all legal requirements in 11 getting those records. 2 Q 1mean, you know, to get the information you're looking for, nobody disputed 13 the Speaker and the President were having communications on January 6th. So one way. 14 you could have gotten that information is you could have asked the Speaker's lawyer to look 15 at his phone records and to give you the information you needed, right? 6 A Well, you say now that nobody is disputing, but my experience in criminal 17 investigations i that people often at trial dispute things that you never thought were going 18 tobein dispute during the investigation, and so, when | conduct a criminal investigation, | 19 don'tassume there will be no disputes.
December 31, 2025 at 10:14 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
emptywheel.bsky.social
This is a fairly minor point but many people bitched that DOJ was NOT coordinating with the states on fake electors cases.

That they did not laid the groundwork for this answer (which would have been elicited in any criminal trial as well).

legacy.www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
Q Did your office coordinate with State officials? 4 A Youmean interview State officials? 5 Q No, coordinate. You know, several other, you know, State probes cropped up, 6 youknow, in Arizona, in Fulton County, Georgia. And I'm wondering how you coordinated 7 those efforts. 8 A I know that we got inquiries from State authorities. I'm aware of that. My 9 recollection is that we did not share any evidence with them. And | don't think — my 10 recollection is we did not get any evidence from them. We got it from - that is my. 11 recollection, that it was all or largely from public sources. 12 Q Okay.
December 31, 2025 at 10:31 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
emptywheel.bsky.social
GOP: Did you interact with Fani Willis.
Jack Smith: Well maybe to hunt down what a criminal shithole Rudy Giuliani was to Ruby Freeman.
5 A Yeah. I've never had contact with either of those people. 6 Q Okay. Do you know if anyone on the special counsel team, on your team, had 7 contact with them after you were appointed in November of '22? 8 A I don't believe so. 9 I will just say, though, that one of the things we were investigating was things that 10 happened in Fulton County, particularly -- there was an election worker by the name of 11 Ruby Freeman. Her mother and -- she was the mother of a woman named Shaye Moss. 12 They were people that Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump targeted with absolutely false claims 13 of election fraud, claims that Rudy Giuliani later admitted he didn't have evidence for, claims 14 that he was held liable on defamation for, caused them to endure all these sort of vile 15 threats. 16 And that whole episode, as well as, sort of, the claims, the false claims, about the 17 vote count in Fulton County, we did look into that and collect evidence. I don't have a 18 recollection, as I sit here, that we interacted with the Fulton County D.A.'s Office for that, 19 but if we did, it would be only for that. 20
December 31, 2025 at 10:35 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
emptywheel.bsky.social
Surely this GOP staffer is a lawyer (if not a lawyer who represented Trump on impeachment at least once).

Maybe we'll revisit?
President ought to go get some more lawyers. Like, if he -- you know, if Todd Blanche and 9 John Lauro, if they can't -- if they can't handle all these cases, they should just go find 10 different attorneys for President Trump. 11 Were you aware of that statement by Mr. Bratt? 12 A What context was that? 13 Q In -- before the -- before the court in D.C. and Florida. Actually, Mr. Bratt was 14 in Florida. 15 A Yeah, I don't think Mr. Bratt appeared in court in D.C. 16 Q In Florida. I'm sorry. 17 A If you could direct me to specifically what he said. As I sit here now, I -- 18 Q Okay. 19 A -- I don't recall that, but I'm not -- 20 Q We can -- 21 A -- I'm not denying that happened. 22 Q Maybe we'll revisit that. But we can point you to -- 23
December 31, 2025 at 10:40 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
emptywheel.bsky.social
Stupid things Jim Jordan lawyers say when they're trying to make a case, but in turn provide useful evidence in other cases.
leave the Hill one day and, you know, they're immediately gobbled up by Big Law very 3 quickly. That just doesn't happen with Republicans. 4 Would you agree? 5 A That Republicans don't get jobs as lawyers? I mean, I'm sorry -- 6 Q At Big Law firms. 7 A I don't actually know that that's true. 8 Q Okay. 9 A I mean, again, this isn't a world I have worked in -- 10 Q Uh-huh. 11 A -- but I think there are Republicans at Big Law firms. 12 Q Okay. Republicans that represented Donald Trump zealously? 13 A I haven't kept track of that, but you'd said Republicans at law firms, so -- 14 Q Okay. 15
December 31, 2025 at 10:44 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
emptywheel.bsky.social
Trump tried to contact Josh Hawley and Bill Haggerty, and then had Rudy try to contact the rest.

legacy.www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
So let's dig down a little bit on that. Let's start on January 6. So I believe in the 6 evening -- did your investigation uncover or learn that Mr. Trump personally called 7 Members of Congress on the evening of January 6? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Do you remember who those Members were? 10 A I would have to look at the records to be sure, but, the best of my recollection, 11 he was trying to get in touch directly himself with Senator Hawley and Senator Hagerty, and 12 then there were several Senators who he directed Rudy Giuliani to get in touch with. 13 Q And who were those Senators that Mr. Trump directed Mr. Giuliani to get in 14 contact with, to the best of your recollection? 15 A To the best of my recollection -- and this comes from an email, or I think it was 16 a text maybe, that Boris Epshteyn sent to Mark Meadows, and it basically said something to 17 the effect of, "The President told the mayor to call these Senators," and they needed 18 numbers. 19 And what our investigation ultimately showed was, they sent that text after they'd 20 already started trying to call Members and didn't think they had -- and ended up 21 understanding that they didn't have the right phone numbers. 22 In fact, the message that they left for Senator Lee, which he voluntarily provided to 23 our office, that was meant for Senator Tuberville, I believe. And the message that he left 24 for Senator Sullivan, I believe it was, was for Senator -- the name's escaping me now, but it 25
December 31, 2025 at 10:56 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
emptywheel.bsky.social
Surely Jim Jordan didn't think it would go this way.
Q I want to touch on a point, because it seems like the evidence you uncovered 13 showed certain Members of Congress, including Republicans, pushing back on this assertion 14 about the big lie. 15 And I'm characterizing some of these claims about the election as the "big lie." Is 16 that okay, if I use that term? 17 A You can use whatever term you like. 18 Q Okay. I'm going to use the "big lie." 19 So do you recall any evidence, when you were talking to Mr. Giuliani, that he truly 20 believed all the voter-fraud claims that he was putting out around the country? 21 A Our evidence was, he did not. And, in fact, when we interviewed him, he 22 disavowed a number of the claims. He claimed they were mistakes or hyperbole, even the 23 claim about Ruby Freeman, where he, you know, basically destroyed this poor woman's life 24 by claiming she was a vote scammer. President Trump did the same thing in a recorded 25
December 31, 2025 at 11:00 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
emptywheel.bsky.social
Jasmine Crockett, regarding scheduling conflicts: How often is it that an accused criminal is charged in 4 different jurisdictions?
Ms. Crockett. Okay. 16 I just want to level-set, because this is going to be a record and it may be public 17 one day. 18 Considering all the years of experience that you have prosecuting, is it more often or 19 less often that you've had a defendant that has been charged in four different jurisdictions 20 with crimes? 21 The Witness. I have -- I don't know if I've had that before, but it certainly hasn't 22 been often. 23 Ms. Crockett. Okay. 24
December 31, 2025 at 11:27 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
emptywheel.bsky.social
How Rudy G's bullshit makes it clear Sidney Powell is a crank.
Another example I can give is that Sidney Powell, who's alleged as one of the 11 co-conspirators, was part of his team at the beginning of this conspiracy. Shortly after, she 12 began making statements that really nobody could credit, that were facially false. 13 And at some point, Giuliani made a statement that she wasn't on the legal team 14 anymore. And Trump at one point was on a call, President Trump, where he, if I recollect it 15 right, he muted the call and said she was crazy. 16 But then, after that point, he continued to promote her fraud claims and lawsuits. 17 He considered putting her as a special counsel, even though he'd admitted -- you know, he 18 used the word "crazy," and the statements she was making couldn't by any reasonable 19 person be viewed as true. 20 And so I think that sort of, like, claims that were so outlandish and so just fantastical, 21 continuing to push those sort of claims after they'd been disabused, was strong evidence of 22 our case. 23
December 31, 2025 at 11:39 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
emptywheel.bsky.social
Oh no, @marcelias.bsky.social!!!

You're apparently a lose bc you have not met Jack Smith.
Q: okay. And how about with Marc Elias?
January 1, 2026 at 12:06 AM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
globalcitizen1.bsky.social
www.facebook.com/share/p/1H1J...
December 31, 2025 at 6:52 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
globalcitizen1.bsky.social
www.facebook.com/share/p/1B4Q...
December 31, 2025 at 6:57 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
freakcarol.bsky.social
posting this again to speak my truth
December 29, 2025 at 10:16 PM
Reposted by tinita54.bsky.social
ethylvanny.bsky.social
December 30, 2025 at 7:58 AM