Christine
@shenanigans4ever.bsky.social
Recovering trial lawyer turned activist cookie artist
Reposted by Christine
Reposted by Christine
More reaction to Maduro’s “arrest”
January 3, 2026 at 4:16 PM
More reaction to Maduro’s “arrest”
Reposted by Christine
It's an old and obvious pattern. An unpopular president - failing on the economy and losing his grip on power at home - decides to launch a war for regime change abroad.
The American people don’t want to “run” a foreign country while our leaders fail to improve life in this one.
The American people don’t want to “run” a foreign country while our leaders fail to improve life in this one.
January 3, 2026 at 5:08 PM
It's an old and obvious pattern. An unpopular president - failing on the economy and losing his grip on power at home - decides to launch a war for regime change abroad.
The American people don’t want to “run” a foreign country while our leaders fail to improve life in this one.
The American people don’t want to “run” a foreign country while our leaders fail to improve life in this one.
Reposted by Christine
NEW: Per WSJ, U.S. national security officials confirm Ukraine did not target Vladimir Putin or his residences in a recent drone strike, despite Trump spreading Putin’s lies. www.wsj.com/politics/nat...
December 31, 2025 at 10:33 PM
NEW: Per WSJ, U.S. national security officials confirm Ukraine did not target Vladimir Putin or his residences in a recent drone strike, despite Trump spreading Putin’s lies. www.wsj.com/politics/nat...
Reposted by Christine
NEW: Jack Smith's team interviewed Giuliani, and when asked whether Rudy believed his own lies about election fraud, Jack Smith said he did not, and that neither did Donald Trump.
December 31, 2025 at 9:48 PM
NEW: Jack Smith's team interviewed Giuliani, and when asked whether Rudy believed his own lies about election fraud, Jack Smith said he did not, and that neither did Donald Trump.
Reposted by Christine
NEW: The Jack Smith deposition transcript is a devastating, point-by-point rebuttal to claims that the Trump prosecutions were “political,” as Smith details evidence of Trump’s crimes "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Jack Smith Deposition Released Outlining Evidence of Trump's Alleged Crimes 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt'
The Special Counsel makes clear there was sufficient evidence to pursue the charges
meidasnews.com
December 31, 2025 at 7:56 PM
NEW: The Jack Smith deposition transcript is a devastating, point-by-point rebuttal to claims that the Trump prosecutions were “political,” as Smith details evidence of Trump’s crimes "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Reposted by Christine
Jack Smith: I believe we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt in both cases.
December 31, 2025 at 8:15 PM
Jack Smith: I believe we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt in both cases.
Reposted by Christine
Question: But the president’s statements that he believed the election was rife with fraud—those are statements protected by the First Amendment, correct?
Smith: Absolutely not. If they are made to target a lawful government function and are made with knowing falsity, then no, they are not.
Smith: Absolutely not. If they are made to target a lawful government function and are made with knowing falsity, then no, they are not.
December 31, 2025 at 9:04 PM
Question: But the president’s statements that he believed the election was rife with fraud—those are statements protected by the First Amendment, correct?
Smith: Absolutely not. If they are made to target a lawful government function and are made with knowing falsity, then no, they are not.
Smith: Absolutely not. If they are made to target a lawful government function and are made with knowing falsity, then no, they are not.
Reposted by Christine
Smith: He was getting calls from people he trusts, people he relies on—and he still refused to come to the aid of the people at the Capitol. That’s very important evidence for criminal intent in our case.
December 31, 2025 at 10:11 PM
Smith: He was getting calls from people he trusts, people he relies on—and he still refused to come to the aid of the people at the Capitol. That’s very important evidence for criminal intent in our case.
Reposted by Christine
In case you were wondering, Jack Smith's testimony was the *opposite* of "total exoneration."
December 31, 2025 at 10:54 PM
In case you were wondering, Jack Smith's testimony was the *opposite* of "total exoneration."
Reposted by Christine
🚨BREAKING: A new court filing suggests the Department of Justice (DOJ) may have pressed criminal charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia in retaliation for a court victory that ultimately brought him back to the United States. www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/...
'It’s A Top Priority’: Unsealed Order Suggests DOJ Retaliated Against Abrego Garcia for Court Victory
Read more here.
www.democracydocket.com
December 30, 2025 at 9:30 PM
🚨BREAKING: A new court filing suggests the Department of Justice (DOJ) may have pressed criminal charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia in retaliation for a court victory that ultimately brought him back to the United States. www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/...
Reposted by Christine
Bill Barr had the reporter who broke the Epstein story surveilled. Nothing to see here, folks.
December 30, 2025 at 2:31 AM
Bill Barr had the reporter who broke the Epstein story surveilled. Nothing to see here, folks.
Reposted by Christine
Zelenskyy calls Russia’s claim of a strike on one of Putin’s residences a “complete fabrication,” a lie designed to sabotage diplomacy, justify more attacks on Kyiv, and excuse Moscow’s refusal to end the war. He warns the world must not stay silent as Russia tries to derail peace.
December 29, 2025 at 4:13 PM
Zelenskyy calls Russia’s claim of a strike on one of Putin’s residences a “complete fabrication,” a lie designed to sabotage diplomacy, justify more attacks on Kyiv, and excuse Moscow’s refusal to end the war. He warns the world must not stay silent as Russia tries to derail peace.
Reposted by Christine
this seems specifically designed to break mail-in voting (where deadlines are defined by postmark)
As of 12/24/25, USPS changed policy on when they postmark mail. Mail dropped off is no longer guaranteed a same-day postmark. Tax returns & other time-sensitive items are now stamped when they reach a regional processing center, which may be days later. Plan deadlines accordingly to avoid penalties.
USPS Announces Changes to the Postmark Date System
The United States Postal Service (USPS) has adopted a final rule (FR Doc.
share.google
December 29, 2025 at 9:51 PM
this seems specifically designed to break mail-in voting (where deadlines are defined by postmark)
Reposted by Christine
Take some time over the next few days to watch my interview with Gov JB Pritzker. I think you will learn something about politics, elections and the fight for democracy. youtu.be/oA0uttMI5rc?...
The Resistance Blueprint | Gov. JB Pritzker
YouTube video by Democracy Docket
youtu.be
December 23, 2025 at 6:51 PM
Take some time over the next few days to watch my interview with Gov JB Pritzker. I think you will learn something about politics, elections and the fight for democracy. youtu.be/oA0uttMI5rc?...
🤭
Kavanaugh goes out of his way to pen a footnote not having to deal with the case at hand.
He appears to be trying to narrow the forces he unleashed with his prior opinion allowing for race- and ethnicity-based #KavanaughStops
He appears to be trying to narrow the forces he unleashed with his prior opinion allowing for race- and ethnicity-based #KavanaughStops
December 23, 2025 at 11:59 PM
🤭
Big win for state’s rights today. www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/...
Supreme Court Upholds Block to Trump’s Chicago Military Takeover
Read more here.
www.democracydocket.com
December 23, 2025 at 11:42 PM
Big win for state’s rights today. www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/...
Reposted by Christine
Wow. Genuinely shocked, and a hugely consequential decision.
Importantly, this is a case where @martylederman.bsky.social's amicus brief appears to have made a MAJOR impact. Before he wrote it, courts were sidestepping the "regular forces" issue entirely. And that's what the Trump admin lost on.
Importantly, this is a case where @martylederman.bsky.social's amicus brief appears to have made a MAJOR impact. Before he wrote it, courts were sidestepping the "regular forces" issue entirely. And that's what the Trump admin lost on.
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
![The Government asked this Court to stay the District Court's order. After the response and reply were filed, JUSTICE BARRETT referred the application to the Court. We directed the parties to file supplemental letter briefs on an issue that the District Court had addressed but the parties' initial briefs had not: the meaning of the term "regular forces" in §12406(3). In its supplemental brief, the Government argues that the term refers to civilian law enforcement officers, such as those employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Federal Protective Service.
Respondents, echoing the District Court, maintain that the term refers to the regular forces of the United States mili-tary.
We conclude that the term "regular forces" in §12406(3) likely refers to the regular forces of the United States mili-tary. This interpretation means that to call the Guard into active federal service under §12406(3), the President must be "unable" with the regular military "to execute the laws of the United States." Because the statute requires an assessment of the military's ability to execute the laws, it likely applies only where the military could legally execute the laws. Such circumstances are exceptional: Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from "execut[ing] the laws" "except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress."
18 U. S. C. §1385. So before the President can federalize the Guard under §12406(3), he likely must have statutory or constitutional authority to execute the laws with the regular military and must be "unable" with those forces to perform that function.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreiftbhzwvn3vgwhqsi7k2paizvdw4t26ailljvovso3chqupnmj364@jpeg)
December 23, 2025 at 8:22 PM
Wow. Genuinely shocked, and a hugely consequential decision.
Importantly, this is a case where @martylederman.bsky.social's amicus brief appears to have made a MAJOR impact. Before he wrote it, courts were sidestepping the "regular forces" issue entirely. And that's what the Trump admin lost on.
Importantly, this is a case where @martylederman.bsky.social's amicus brief appears to have made a MAJOR impact. Before he wrote it, courts were sidestepping the "regular forces" issue entirely. And that's what the Trump admin lost on.
Reposted by Christine
There is no basis to withhold these images under the clear terms of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. None.
WOW: The DOJ has DELETED an image from its release of the Epstein files that shows photos of Trump in a drawer.
Yesterday, we noted that this image — file 468 — likely slipped through the cracks while officials were attempting to hide materials pertaining to Trump.
Now, it’s gone.
Yesterday, we noted that this image — file 468 — likely slipped through the cracks while officials were attempting to hide materials pertaining to Trump.
Now, it’s gone.
December 20, 2025 at 9:04 PM
There is no basis to withhold these images under the clear terms of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. None.
Reposted by Christine
This is extraordinary, heartbreaking, and a red alert warning sign for our democracy.
These people are about to be federal judges, and they refuse to answer whether the U.S. Capitol was attacked on January 6.
They say they can't comment because it's "a political controversy".
These people are about to be federal judges, and they refuse to answer whether the U.S. Capitol was attacked on January 6.
They say they can't comment because it's "a political controversy".
Sen. BLUMENTHAL: Was the U.S. Capitol attacked on January 6, 2021?
Trump nominee: *dodges*
Trump nominee: *dodges*
Trump nominee: Well, individuals entered the Capitol.
Blumenthal: You are in fear—how will you have the courage to be fair and impartial?
Trump nominee: *dodges*
Trump nominee: *dodges*
Trump nominee: Well, individuals entered the Capitol.
Blumenthal: You are in fear—how will you have the courage to be fair and impartial?
December 18, 2025 at 2:32 PM
This is extraordinary, heartbreaking, and a red alert warning sign for our democracy.
These people are about to be federal judges, and they refuse to answer whether the U.S. Capitol was attacked on January 6.
They say they can't comment because it's "a political controversy".
These people are about to be federal judges, and they refuse to answer whether the U.S. Capitol was attacked on January 6.
They say they can't comment because it's "a political controversy".
Reposted by Christine
BREAKING on MS NOW:
Jack Smith, in his opening statement to House Judiciary, says:
"Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power."
Jack Smith, in his opening statement to House Judiciary, says:
"Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power."
December 17, 2025 at 4:11 PM
BREAKING on MS NOW:
Jack Smith, in his opening statement to House Judiciary, says:
"Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power."
Jack Smith, in his opening statement to House Judiciary, says:
"Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power."
Reposted by Christine
LMAO McGovern is on fire right now 🔥🔥🔥
December 17, 2025 at 3:08 PM
LMAO McGovern is on fire right now 🔥🔥🔥