Профиль

Tucker Carlson/Alex Jones 2028

Be thankful law-school-grad Jim Jordan never had a client (never having passed the bar), though we are still stuck with him being the chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

Google: We hacked 6 companies Grok: We hacked yr mom.

POLITICO: "Cornyn wants to clarify that the audit protections only applies to the parties named in Trump’s suit, and that it only applies to returns already filed" IF accurate, it seems Cornyn is fine with Trump getting a pass on the $100M in dispute with the IRS. www.politico.com/live-updates...

… Clarification: Not InfoWars, which is now an Onion property, but The Alex Jones Show, which I still think of as InfoWars even though he doesn’t own the name and IP etc now.

I'm laughing because I've long said Dems are terrible at branding. (While Trump is so good at it, and even after all this time Dems still haven't figured it out.) And now this??? Though on the upside, maybe this is recognition of the problem, which proverbially must occur before fixing it.

NEW —> Democratic Senate candidates pursue a new strategy in rural states: Dropping out It’s happening in Nebraska & Idaho. Efforts underway to replicate in MT & SD. Dem brand is so tarnished there Ds have no shot. But independents may—in 1 on 1 vs Rs. www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...

At the time in 2021 & 2022, even with Covid going, I thought it fit. Though maybe b/c when I worked there, there were regularly more bills of substantive significance, yet modest public notice, being considered and passed. A time when trees on the Senate floor weren't filled.

I'm not saying it'd be a slam dunk for Trump, but we know he loves vague phrasing, vague terms. Blanche couldn't come out and say, "The plaintiffs are now olly olly oxen free," but as it's written it gives Trump a lot to work with to argue that's what it means.

Yes, they could. But as a practical matter, w/o this doc, THAT would have to be on paper. Here we have a paper that does it, and w/ great breadth. It includes "Lawfare" and "Weaponization" w/ no definitions in the doc, but w/ Trump's repeated use of the terms to include criminal prosecution.

Yes, but aren't there assurances the IRS/Treasury can give to someone that would preclude criminal prosecution by DOJ?

Also: "is either there by accident or they meant to write the first part differently". Wouldn't Trump get the benefit of the vagueness? And as Blanche would know that, he'd have an (illicit) incentive to write it vaguely.

"C. The [US] RELEASES […] and FOREVER DISCHARGES each of the Plaintiffs from, and is hereby FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED from prosecuting or pursuing […] by reason of, with respect to, in connection with, OR WHICH ARISE OUT OF […] (2) Lawfare and/or Weaponization;" That arguably includes criminal.

Why Trump’s AG pick is in trouble: Trump is prioritizing immunity for him and his family from prosecution over getting his AG confirmed. www.bloomberg.com/news/article...

In the context of the Senate today, this is my favorite substantive part of that debate. (and tbh, I'm proud that this was my first thought even before I read Byrd's comment)

Wait, WTH did I do with 3??? 4/

While Harvard grad John Pickering was a judicial officer, he was the very first impeachee convicted, and the grounds, in part, were incapacity – though some disagree about that. Here's Article 4 of his impeachment; he was convicted on all four articles. #SRules

1) Yes. 2) There are precedents "all over the place" on that.

But no word on an endorsement yet from the bowlers.

@eotaxprof.bsky.social 😀👍🏻