@callicoon.bsky.social
Oh I see. Did you mean $200 million, not $2 billion?
February 8, 2026 at 10:34 PM
Oh I see. Did you mean $200 million, not $2 billion?
By DM do you mean the Daily Mail? That’s not a credible source. It’s like the UK version of the National Enquirer.
February 8, 2026 at 10:27 PM
By DM do you mean the Daily Mail? That’s not a credible source. It’s like the UK version of the National Enquirer.
18 x 10 is $180 million. Where do you get the $2 billion?
February 8, 2026 at 2:04 PM
18 x 10 is $180 million. Where do you get the $2 billion?
Deplorable even
February 7, 2026 at 2:51 PM
Deplorable even
It’s not just the law. It’s our Constitutional right to be free from searches and seizures without a properly issued warrant.
February 3, 2026 at 10:59 PM
It’s not just the law. It’s our Constitutional right to be free from searches and seizures without a properly issued warrant.
Well reasoned decision.
February 1, 2026 at 3:51 AM
Well reasoned decision.
Supporting the President should not be a criterion for the job of ausa.
January 31, 2026 at 4:58 PM
Supporting the President should not be a criterion for the job of ausa.
F Trump and his boss Putin.
January 29, 2026 at 12:45 AM
F Trump and his boss Putin.
“alleged” crimes … he was convicted ffs. Those allegations were proven; he committed those crimes.
January 18, 2026 at 4:23 PM
“alleged” crimes … he was convicted ffs. Those allegations were proven; he committed those crimes.
What gives me pause is that the Supreme Court might agree with the imbecilic argument that the courts have no enforcement power. But realistically it is more likely to agree on the standing point. Either way, this lawsuit will go nowhere.
January 17, 2026 at 4:43 AM
What gives me pause is that the Supreme Court might agree with the imbecilic argument that the courts have no enforcement power. But realistically it is more likely to agree on the standing point. Either way, this lawsuit will go nowhere.