Jon Eisenberg 🇺🇦🪧
@jon-eisenberg.bsky.social
💙Retired MN atty (🏛️ litigator, 🩺FDA/health law), 🟰civil rights, ⚖️civil liberties,♀ women’s, 🏳️🌈LGBTQ & 🏳️⚧️ trans rights, 🌳environment, ☮️peace, 🛑 torture, 🗽DEMOCRACY, 🚙RVer 🏕️camp🗳️vote! ⚽️MNUFC 🏀Wolves🏀Lynx ⚾️Twins 🎶music 🇺🇦 🌻 🇨🇦.
RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES ALREADY!
December 10, 2025 at 5:33 AM
RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES ALREADY!
So they are going to ask for passwords??
December 10, 2025 at 5:30 AM
So they are going to ask for passwords??
‘Amid affordability hoax’
December 10, 2025 at 5:27 AM
‘Amid affordability hoax’
We used to.
The primary U.S. agency reviewing foreign acquisitions of American companies for national security risks is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), with the power to recommend blocking deals that threaten national security, a power ultimately held by the President.
The primary U.S. agency reviewing foreign acquisitions of American companies for national security risks is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), with the power to recommend blocking deals that threaten national security, a power ultimately held by the President.
December 9, 2025 at 10:49 PM
We used to.
The primary U.S. agency reviewing foreign acquisitions of American companies for national security risks is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), with the power to recommend blocking deals that threaten national security, a power ultimately held by the President.
The primary U.S. agency reviewing foreign acquisitions of American companies for national security risks is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), with the power to recommend blocking deals that threaten national security, a power ultimately held by the President.
Got it. I’ve done that too!
December 9, 2025 at 10:38 PM
Got it. I’ve done that too!
I hate to tell the U.K., but …
December 9, 2025 at 10:37 PM
I hate to tell the U.K., but …
The new law about the Epstein documents really have nothing to do with this issue, which concerns why Noem violated the court’s anti-deportation order.
December 9, 2025 at 6:20 PM
The new law about the Epstein documents really have nothing to do with this issue, which concerns why Noem violated the court’s anti-deportation order.
Correction: DOJ refused to disclose it, because she, the client, did not approve them disclosing it. It’s at the very top of this thread.
December 9, 2025 at 6:14 PM
Correction: DOJ refused to disclose it, because she, the client, did not approve them disclosing it. It’s at the very top of this thread.
She didn’t resign. She didn’t lawfully hold the position at all. She was and is still a big nothing.
December 9, 2025 at 5:47 PM
She didn’t resign. She didn’t lawfully hold the position at all. She was and is still a big nothing.
Right, she chose not to disclose it. I assume you agree she can’t claim reliance on advice of counsel without saying what the advice was and waiving the privilege?
December 9, 2025 at 4:13 PM
Right, she chose not to disclose it. I assume you agree she can’t claim reliance on advice of counsel without saying what the advice was and waiving the privilege?