How do Katsas and R ao get on so many panels together?
December 10, 2025 at 11:28 PM
How do Katsas and R ao get on so many panels together?
And every once in a while you can predict how SCOTUS is going rule before the oral argument even takes place. This is one of this times.
December 8, 2025 at 10:47 PM
And every once in a while you can predict how SCOTUS is going rule before the oral argument even takes place. This is one of this times.
Was there ever any doubt? Without real congressional oversight (as opposed to lip service), they literally will get away with murder.
December 4, 2025 at 2:42 PM
Was there ever any doubt? Without real congressional oversight (as opposed to lip service), they literally will get away with murder.
Why are you reporting on this nonsense? There are so many terrible things that Trump actually has done (or at least has been credibly accused of doing). Use some journalistic discretion.
December 2, 2025 at 9:18 PM
Why are you reporting on this nonsense? There are so many terrible things that Trump actually has done (or at least has been credibly accused of doing). Use some journalistic discretion.
The law also requires that within 15 days after providing the files the AG must provide a list of all docs withheld, a summary of redactions, and a list of all govt officials and public figures referred to in withheld material. That may be the more interesting deadline.
November 27, 2025 at 4:29 AM
The law also requires that within 15 days after providing the files the AG must provide a list of all docs withheld, a summary of redactions, and a list of all govt officials and public figures referred to in withheld material. That may be the more interesting deadline.
The new law states that the files must be provided within 30 days of its enactment. And it adds that within 15 days after providing the files the AG must provide a list of all docs withheld, a summary of redactions, and a list of all govt officials and public figures referred to in withheld material
November 24, 2025 at 3:31 AM
The new law states that the files must be provided within 30 days of its enactment. And it adds that within 15 days after providing the files the AG must provide a list of all docs withheld, a summary of redactions, and a list of all govt officials and public figures referred to in withheld material
The new law states that the files must be provided within 30 days of its enactment. And it adds that within 15 days after providing the files the AG must provide a list of all docs withheld, a summary of redactions, and a list of all govt officials and public figures referred to in withheld material
November 24, 2025 at 2:57 AM
The new law states that the files must be provided within 30 days of its enactment. And it adds that within 15 days after providing the files the AG must provide a list of all docs withheld, a summary of redactions, and a list of all govt officials and public figures referred to in withheld material
I agree that the fairest course of action would be to hold an evidentiary hearing, but in practice I think it will be a moot point because the case is likely to be dismissed pursuant to either the vindictive pros. motion or the unlawful appt. motion -- or both, before such a hearing could be held.
November 23, 2025 at 12:33 AM
I agree that the fairest course of action would be to hold an evidentiary hearing, but in practice I think it will be a moot point because the case is likely to be dismissed pursuant to either the vindictive pros. motion or the unlawful appt. motion -- or both, before such a hearing could be held.
This is a normal and appropriate administrative stay to give the full court a chance to address the application for a full stay pending appeal. The court may well block the order and allow the new map to be used in 2026 but the outrage you are sparking is premature. You should know better.
November 22, 2025 at 1:01 PM
This is a normal and appropriate administrative stay to give the full court a chance to address the application for a full stay pending appeal. The court may well block the order and allow the new map to be used in 2026 but the outrage you are sparking is premature. You should know better.
This is nuts.
Yesterday in the Comey hearing, prosecutors *repeatedly* confirmed that the full grand jury never saw or voted on the two-count indictment.
Now they’re claiming the grand jury *did* vote on it.
Yesterday in the Comey hearing, prosecutors *repeatedly* confirmed that the full grand jury never saw or voted on the two-count indictment.
Now they’re claiming the grand jury *did* vote on it.
November 21, 2025 at 3:08 PM
Here's what Comey's attorneys say about this in a footnote to their reply brief on their original motion for the GJ transcripts:
November 20, 2025 at 9:39 PM
Here's what Comey's attorneys say about this in a footnote to their reply brief on their original motion for the GJ transcripts:
@annabower.bsky.social would you care to comment on this?
November 20, 2025 at 9:21 PM
@annabower.bsky.social would you care to comment on this?
If I am reading this Notice correctly (and I'm not sure I am), Diaz is claiming that because the GJ foreman stated to the MJ that the GJ did vote on the operative indictment, there is no issue even though Halligan admitted in open court that the GJ did not vote on the operative indictment.
November 20, 2025 at 9:20 PM
If I am reading this Notice correctly (and I'm not sure I am), Diaz is claiming that because the GJ foreman stated to the MJ that the GJ did vote on the operative indictment, there is no issue even though Halligan admitted in open court that the GJ did not vote on the operative indictment.
He says "I dissent" no less than 16 times!
November 19, 2025 at 10:23 PM
He says "I dissent" no less than 16 times!
I believe that double jeopardy does not attach until a jury is empaneled and that therefore all the motions will be able to be appealed, but the criminal practitioners will correct me if I am wrong.
November 19, 2025 at 8:14 PM
I believe that double jeopardy does not attach until a jury is empaneled and that therefore all the motions will be able to be appealed, but the criminal practitioners will correct me if I am wrong.
Since Currie's ruling will be subject to appeal (presumably), having Nachmanoff rule on the other bases for dismissal makes sense.
November 19, 2025 at 8:04 PM
Since Currie's ruling will be subject to appeal (presumably), having Nachmanoff rule on the other bases for dismissal makes sense.
I had not realized that he was still able to move forward with the contempt proceedings despite the COA ruling.
November 19, 2025 at 7:29 PM
I had not realized that he was still able to move forward with the contempt proceedings despite the COA ruling.
Seeing this now.
bsky.app/profile/aleg...
bsky.app/profile/aleg...
The 2-count @jamescomey.bsky.social indictment is fatally flawed. Plus, Comey is entitled to the declination memo.
November 19, 2025 at 7:26 PM
Seeing this now.
bsky.app/profile/aleg...
bsky.app/profile/aleg...
Actually the motion to dismiss based on her not being legally appointed was heard last week by a different judge (Judge Currie) after being consolidated with the Leticia James motion on the same issue, and Judge Currie said she would rule before Thanksgiving.
November 19, 2025 at 7:11 PM
Actually the motion to dismiss based on her not being legally appointed was heard last week by a different judge (Judge Currie) after being consolidated with the Leticia James motion on the same issue, and Judge Currie said she would rule before Thanksgiving.
Given what was apparently confirmed today, how can you possible think that defendant Comey's right to a fundamentally fair GJ was not violated?
November 19, 2025 at 6:29 PM
Given what was apparently confirmed today, how can you possible think that defendant Comey's right to a fundamentally fair GJ was not violated?
A criminal prosecution is not a "lawsuit".
November 19, 2025 at 6:20 PM
A criminal prosecution is not a "lawsuit".
This is beyond my comprehension. And not because I am stupid.
November 19, 2025 at 5:04 PM
This is beyond my comprehension. And not because I am stupid.
If this is not an example of a prosecutor "really Fup" (whatever that means), I don't know what is.
November 19, 2025 at 5:02 PM
If this is not an example of a prosecutor "really Fup" (whatever that means), I don't know what is.
Not to mention this bit of nonsense.
bsky.app/profile/doug...
bsky.app/profile/doug...
And then there is this tidbit about the gap in the grand jury record and the bizarre sequence of events with the two different indictments.
November 18, 2025 at 1:39 AM
Not to mention this bit of nonsense.
bsky.app/profile/doug...
bsky.app/profile/doug...