Jc G
@jcgaylor.bsky.social
Legal nerd that loves raccoons and the Constitution.
Is it possible that not everything is a “distraction”? That the government can and needs to do two separate things concurrently?
December 26, 2025 at 5:40 PM
Is it possible that not everything is a “distraction”? That the government can and needs to do two separate things concurrently?
Is a journalist writing a piece on her “messing with” her?
Do you support a free press?
Do you support a free press?
December 11, 2025 at 9:47 AM
Is a journalist writing a piece on her “messing with” her?
Do you support a free press?
Do you support a free press?
The House passed a bill that would fund the government. It was held up in the Senate, due to the filibuster.
October 21, 2025 at 8:24 AM
The House passed a bill that would fund the government. It was held up in the Senate, due to the filibuster.
No, I didn’t. I have nothing to hide.
But, if you feel I stated something incorrect in this thread, I’m happy to discuss it.
Also, it’s adorable the little gate nicknames you guys come up with. So cutsie!
But, if you feel I stated something incorrect in this thread, I’m happy to discuss it.
Also, it’s adorable the little gate nicknames you guys come up with. So cutsie!
August 30, 2025 at 1:02 AM
No, I didn’t. I have nothing to hide.
But, if you feel I stated something incorrect in this thread, I’m happy to discuss it.
Also, it’s adorable the little gate nicknames you guys come up with. So cutsie!
But, if you feel I stated something incorrect in this thread, I’m happy to discuss it.
Also, it’s adorable the little gate nicknames you guys come up with. So cutsie!
Not everyone that disagrees with you is a bot. Thats such a lazy, leftist tactic to avoid confronting facts you’re unwilling to recognize.
Enjoy your echo chamber.
Enjoy your echo chamber.
August 30, 2025 at 12:31 AM
Not everyone that disagrees with you is a bot. Thats such a lazy, leftist tactic to avoid confronting facts you’re unwilling to recognize.
Enjoy your echo chamber.
Enjoy your echo chamber.
No, I did not broadly suggest limits.
This all started because Trump’s actions were labeled as “Stalin or Putin” actions, both of which notoriously ignored or violated legal limits.
Using the statutory language to determine appropriate behavior is sensible (to normal, non-deranged people).
This all started because Trump’s actions were labeled as “Stalin or Putin” actions, both of which notoriously ignored or violated legal limits.
Using the statutory language to determine appropriate behavior is sensible (to normal, non-deranged people).
August 30, 2025 at 12:30 AM
No, I did not broadly suggest limits.
This all started because Trump’s actions were labeled as “Stalin or Putin” actions, both of which notoriously ignored or violated legal limits.
Using the statutory language to determine appropriate behavior is sensible (to normal, non-deranged people).
This all started because Trump’s actions were labeled as “Stalin or Putin” actions, both of which notoriously ignored or violated legal limits.
Using the statutory language to determine appropriate behavior is sensible (to normal, non-deranged people).
Not everyone that disagrees with you is a bot.
Again, what have I said that’s incorrect, pray tell?
Again, what have I said that’s incorrect, pray tell?
August 30, 2025 at 12:28 AM
Not everyone that disagrees with you is a bot.
Again, what have I said that’s incorrect, pray tell?
Again, what have I said that’s incorrect, pray tell?
Except that I’m correct. You haven’t identified one thing I’ve said that is wrong.
You dislike the truth, dislike me for pointing the truth out, and for wrecking your echo chamber.
I wish you well, and that you mature one day!
You dislike the truth, dislike me for pointing the truth out, and for wrecking your echo chamber.
I wish you well, and that you mature one day!
August 29, 2025 at 11:42 PM
Except that I’m correct. You haven’t identified one thing I’ve said that is wrong.
You dislike the truth, dislike me for pointing the truth out, and for wrecking your echo chamber.
I wish you well, and that you mature one day!
You dislike the truth, dislike me for pointing the truth out, and for wrecking your echo chamber.
I wish you well, and that you mature one day!
Pray tell, what have I said that is factually incorrect?
August 29, 2025 at 11:39 PM
Pray tell, what have I said that is factually incorrect?
Everything I’ve said is factually correct.
If you’re angry with me, it’s because you dislike the truth.
If you’re angry with me, it’s because you dislike the truth.
August 29, 2025 at 11:37 PM
Everything I’ve said is factually correct.
If you’re angry with me, it’s because you dislike the truth.
If you’re angry with me, it’s because you dislike the truth.
No, I’m not.
I’m correcting your mistaken beliefs. I can understand why you wouldn’t care for that.
I’m correcting your mistaken beliefs. I can understand why you wouldn’t care for that.
August 29, 2025 at 11:36 PM
No, I’m not.
I’m correcting your mistaken beliefs. I can understand why you wouldn’t care for that.
I’m correcting your mistaken beliefs. I can understand why you wouldn’t care for that.
No, I didn’t. The law only entitles former VPs to 6 months of protection. She received 6 months of protection.
Therefore, the law was followed. That’s not horseshit. It’s the truth.
Therefore, the law was followed. That’s not horseshit. It’s the truth.
August 29, 2025 at 11:36 PM
No, I didn’t. The law only entitles former VPs to 6 months of protection. She received 6 months of protection.
Therefore, the law was followed. That’s not horseshit. It’s the truth.
Therefore, the law was followed. That’s not horseshit. It’s the truth.
I didn’t say the law *limits* it to 6 months. The law only entitles them to 6 months.
Yes, Biden was within his rights to extend it. Trump is within his rights to rescind that extension.
Again, the law was followed.
Yes, Biden was within his rights to extend it. Trump is within his rights to rescind that extension.
Again, the law was followed.
August 29, 2025 at 11:34 PM
I didn’t say the law *limits* it to 6 months. The law only entitles them to 6 months.
Yes, Biden was within his rights to extend it. Trump is within his rights to rescind that extension.
Again, the law was followed.
Yes, Biden was within his rights to extend it. Trump is within his rights to rescind that extension.
Again, the law was followed.
Former presidents are entitled to lifelong protection.
The rest is discretionary. Biden could have revoked the familial extentions.
Harris was only legally entitled to 6 months of protection. She received that.
The law has been enforced.
The rest is discretionary. Biden could have revoked the familial extentions.
Harris was only legally entitled to 6 months of protection. She received that.
The law has been enforced.
August 29, 2025 at 10:51 PM
Former presidents are entitled to lifelong protection.
The rest is discretionary. Biden could have revoked the familial extentions.
Harris was only legally entitled to 6 months of protection. She received that.
The law has been enforced.
The rest is discretionary. Biden could have revoked the familial extentions.
Harris was only legally entitled to 6 months of protection. She received that.
The law has been enforced.
When has Leavitt argued against gay marriage?
August 29, 2025 at 10:41 PM
When has Leavitt argued against gay marriage?
Except that isn’t the sequence of events.
Biden extended the protection detail for the benefit of a political ally. Trump reversed that discretionary measure.
She received the 6 months of protection that federal law entitles her to.
Biden extended the protection detail for the benefit of a political ally. Trump reversed that discretionary measure.
She received the 6 months of protection that federal law entitles her to.
August 29, 2025 at 10:37 PM
Except that isn’t the sequence of events.
Biden extended the protection detail for the benefit of a political ally. Trump reversed that discretionary measure.
She received the 6 months of protection that federal law entitles her to.
Biden extended the protection detail for the benefit of a political ally. Trump reversed that discretionary measure.
She received the 6 months of protection that federal law entitles her to.
Yes, he did.
Federal law only entitles former VPs to 6 months of SS protection. She received that.
www.congress.gov/110/plaws/pu...
Federal law only entitles former VPs to 6 months of SS protection. She received that.
www.congress.gov/110/plaws/pu...
www.congress.gov
August 29, 2025 at 10:35 PM
Yes, he did.
Federal law only entitles former VPs to 6 months of SS protection. She received that.
www.congress.gov/110/plaws/pu...
Federal law only entitles former VPs to 6 months of SS protection. She received that.
www.congress.gov/110/plaws/pu...
Federal law entitles former presidents to lifelong protection.
VPs are only entitled to 6 months of protection.
VPs are only entitled to 6 months of protection.
August 29, 2025 at 6:23 PM
Federal law entitles former presidents to lifelong protection.
VPs are only entitled to 6 months of protection.
VPs are only entitled to 6 months of protection.
Federal law provides former Presidents with SS protection for life.
It only provides former VPs with 6 months of protection.
It only provides former VPs with 6 months of protection.
August 29, 2025 at 6:20 PM
Federal law provides former Presidents with SS protection for life.
It only provides former VPs with 6 months of protection.
It only provides former VPs with 6 months of protection.
The law entitles former Presidents to lifelong SS protection.
The law entitles former VPs to 6 months of SS protection, which Harris received.
The law entitles former VPs to 6 months of SS protection, which Harris received.
August 29, 2025 at 6:14 PM
The law entitles former Presidents to lifelong SS protection.
The law entitles former VPs to 6 months of SS protection, which Harris received.
The law entitles former VPs to 6 months of SS protection, which Harris received.
Trump followed the law. You said that’s a “Stalin or Putin tactic” which isn’t a rational thought, unless the statutory period itself is a “Stalin or Putin” tactic.
I’m not trolling nor a Nazi. I’m engaging in discourse, and providing an alternative perspective; I know how much you dislike that.
I’m not trolling nor a Nazi. I’m engaging in discourse, and providing an alternative perspective; I know how much you dislike that.
August 29, 2025 at 5:58 PM
Trump followed the law. You said that’s a “Stalin or Putin tactic” which isn’t a rational thought, unless the statutory period itself is a “Stalin or Putin” tactic.
I’m not trolling nor a Nazi. I’m engaging in discourse, and providing an alternative perspective; I know how much you dislike that.
I’m not trolling nor a Nazi. I’m engaging in discourse, and providing an alternative perspective; I know how much you dislike that.
Biden is the one that decreed Harris’ protection be extended beyond the limit set by law.
Trump is the one enforcing the statutory law.
Trump is the one enforcing the statutory law.
August 29, 2025 at 2:57 PM
Biden is the one that decreed Harris’ protection be extended beyond the limit set by law.
Trump is the one enforcing the statutory law.
Trump is the one enforcing the statutory law.
Federal law states that Vice Presidents are entitled to protection for only 6 months after leaving office.
Is our law a “Stalin and Putin tactics”?
Is our law a “Stalin and Putin tactics”?
August 29, 2025 at 2:56 PM
Federal law states that Vice Presidents are entitled to protection for only 6 months after leaving office.
Is our law a “Stalin and Putin tactics”?
Is our law a “Stalin and Putin tactics”?
He’s enforcing the normal statutory timeline for SS protection of former Vice Presidents (6 months)
August 29, 2025 at 2:55 PM
He’s enforcing the normal statutory timeline for SS protection of former Vice Presidents (6 months)