Sue Gregory
LightNews LightNews
suegreg.bsky.social
Sue Gregory
@suegreg.bsky.social
130 followers 130 following 52 posts
NY Dem, photographer, book reader, wannabe writer. Happy place: Adirondacks
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Sue Gregory
blakegendebien.bsky.social
I’m the dairy farmer running in the special election to replace Elise Stefanik in New York’s 21st Congressional District.

Can you repost this, give me a follow, and help spread the word?
March 3, 2025 at 10:41 PM
Reposted by Sue Gregory
calltoactivism.bsky.social
Holy shit. I asked Jasmine Crockett what she would tell Elon if she could.

This was her answer:
calltoactivism.bsky.social CALL TO ACTIVISM @calltoactivism.bsky.social · Feb 25
NEW: I just asked Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett if she had a message to Elon Musk.

What would she say to him? Here was her answer:

“Fuck off.”
February 25, 2025 at 6:37 PM
suegreg.bsky.social
So Rep Claudia Tenney (NY 24) working hard for her constituents wants Trumps birthday to be a federal holiday…wtf.
February 16, 2025 at 9:14 PM
Reposted by Sue Gregory
progressforall.bsky.social
This is the most important message you will hear during this crisis. I urge you to share it with everyone you know, here and on other media. Copy the link and share via email. Trump is already consolidating power in authoritarian ways unheard of in our history. We must stand together and stop him!
January 31, 2025
YouTube video by Bernie Sanders
youtu.be
February 1, 2025 at 12:33 AM
Reposted by Sue Gregory
thejenniwren.teamlh.social
Priceless and pithy take Lori!
January 25, 2025 at 9:23 PM
Reposted by Sue Gregory
meidastouch.com
The NY Attorney General has REJECTED Trump's bid to dismiss his $500M civil fraud judgment post-election. The AG stated that Trump's presidency doesn't shield him from civil litigation over non-official conduct, per the Constitution and multiple court precedents.
Dear Mr. Sauer: I am writing in response to your letter dated November 26, 2024, regarding the above-referenced action. This Office will not stipulate to vacate the final judgment already entered by Supreme Court, New York County, in this action or otherwise seek to dismiss the action. As you know, this is a civil enforcement action under Executive Law § 63(12) against the Trump Organization, a business headquartered in New York, and its top executives concerning those defendants' fraudulent and unlawful actions to misleadingly inflate defendant Donald J. Trump's personal net worth in business transactions for the purpose of obtaining more favorable terms on loans and insurance policies than they otherwise would have received. This civil enforcement action was filed following a multiyear investigation by the Office, and multiple courts have rejected claims that the investigation or action were brought in anything other than good faith. See People v. Trump Org., Inc., 205 A.D.3d 625, 626-27 (1st Dep't 2022); Trump v. James, No. 1:21-1352, 2022 WL 1718951, at *12-14 (N.D.N.Y. May 27, 2022). Following summary judgment and an eleven-week bench trial, Supreme Court concluded that Mr. Trump and the other entity and individual defendants violated § 63(12). The court also entered final judgment ordering various forms of equitable relief. Defendants appealed from Supreme Court's post-trial final judgment. That appeal has been fully briefed and argued in the Appellate Division, First Department, and the parties are now awaiting a decision from the First Department. Your letter presents no basis for this Office to seek to vacate the final judgment or to dismiss this action. First, Mr. Trump's upcoming inauguration as the next President of the United States has no bearing on the pendency of defendants' appeal in this action. This civil enforcement action is not a criminal action, and Supreme Court did not impose any criminal sanction on Mr. Trump or any other defendant. Accordingly, the various actions taken by the Special Counsel's office or the District Attorney's Office of New York County in the respective criminal cases brought by those offices against Mr. Trump are irrelevant here. Contrary to your suggestion, the pendency of defendants' appeal during Mr. Trump's term as President fully comports with the U.S. Constitution. The final judgment concerns only business conduct undertaken by entities that are part of the Trump Organization and individual defendants who were acting on behalf of the Trump Organization. The judgment thus does not concern any conduct related to Mr. Trump's first term as President. Nor does it implicate any conduct that Mr. Trump might undertake after his upcoming inauguration. Presidents do not have immunity from civil lawsuits arising from unofficial conduct, and such lawsuits may proceed while the President is in office. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 694 (1997); Zervos v. Trump, 171 A.D.3d 110, 128 (1st Dep't 2019); see also Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 615-16 (2024). Regardless, Mr. Trump's upcoming inauguration is irrelevant to the judgment rendered against the fourteen other defendants found liable by Supreme Court in this action. There is also no merit to your claim that the pendency of defendants' own appeal will impede Mr. Trump's official duties as President. The ordinary burdens of civil litigation do not impede the President's official duties in a way that violates the U.S. Constitution. See Clinton, 520 U.S. at 705-06; Zervos, 171 A.D.3d at 125-26. In any event, Mr. Trump does not face any such litigation burdens here. The trial is over, final judgment has been rendered, and defendants' appeal to the First Department has been fully submitted and argued. Mr. Trump's official duties will not be impeded while awaiting the First Department's decision. Nor wi…
December 10, 2024 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by Sue Gregory
badbrad2024.bsky.social
💯
jayd456.bsky.social Jason Wiley 🏳️‍🌈 @jayd456.bsky.social · Oct 9
🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️🫡🇺🇸
November 11, 2024 at 3:07 PM
suegreg.bsky.social
Twiggy and Oliver The Orange
November 10, 2024 at 4:21 AM