This week in lawfare
-
@jon-nyc apparently the attorney who's representing this government is rather...inexperienced. His previous position was something tax-related.
Is the DOJ going to go after all the "8647" merch on Amazon?
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=8647&crid=2U5TLYPYC1MQY&sprefix=8647%2Caps%2C182&ref=nb_sb_noss_1
I love you long time.
-
As with Trump's past life, the law is to be used a bludgeon - a tool that a minimum requires the adversary to spend a great deal of time and money in self defense. On a recommendation of John Kiriakou I've started reading this book that pretty much says if they want to come after you, you've probably done something that qualifies. Kiriakou tells the story of a woman on Hawaii who had a whale watching business. Someone posted a video of whale watching on her boat when a passenger blew a whistle. That violated a federal law - and over the next few years she essentially lost everything to legal expenses. If they want to destroy you, they can - and will. Discretion of prosecutors is not always reasonable. Another case I heard of was of a woman who when she was 10 years old was bullied by boy. In an act of revenge, she pulled down his pants on a playground. As a 10 year old, she was prosecuted for a sex crime and required to be listed as a sex criminal. She ended up having to leave the country. Even the boy involved admitted it had NOTHING to do with sex.
-
As with Trump's past life, the law is to be used a bludgeon - a tool that a minimum requires the adversary to spend a great deal of time and money in self defense. On a recommendation of John Kiriakou I've started reading this book that pretty much says if they want to come after you, you've probably done something that qualifies. Kiriakou tells the story of a woman on Hawaii who had a whale watching business. Someone posted a video of whale watching on her boat when a passenger blew a whistle. That violated a federal law - and over the next few years she essentially lost everything to legal expenses. If they want to destroy you, they can - and will. Discretion of prosecutors is not always reasonable. Another case I heard of was of a woman who when she was 10 years old was bullied by boy. In an act of revenge, she pulled down his pants on a playground. As a 10 year old, she was prosecuted for a sex crime and required to be listed as a sex criminal. She ended up having to leave the country. Even the boy involved admitted it had NOTHING to do with sex.
-
@jon-nyc apparently the attorney who's representing this government is rather...inexperienced. His previous position was something tax-related.
Is the DOJ going to go after all the "8647" merch on Amazon?
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=8647&crid=2U5TLYPYC1MQY&sprefix=8647%2Caps%2C182&ref=nb_sb_noss_1
Ken White put it this way:
No rational person could see that and say “the former director of the FBI is saying he’s going to kill the President"!”
I could now cite to you a legion of cases for that proposition, finding rhetoric far more concerning than this protected by the First Amendment, analyzing language and context to show this is protected. But it wouldn’t matter, would it? If you are a minimally rational person, you don’t need to see the precedent, and if you’re a cultist, no amount of precedent matters to you. -
A deep investigation into a single screenshot.
Agent 1: “Look, those shells spell out numbers!”
Agent 2: “OMG you’re right!!!!”
Agent 3: “Guys, you’re not gonna believe this.. Come look at this Urban Dictionary entry for 86…”
This FBI and our DOJ partners pursued a rigorous investigation that followed the facts - and now Mr. Comey will be held fully accountable for his actions. Thank you to our investigators, Acting AG Todd Blanche, and the Eastern District of NC for their diligent and professional work.”
-
@Horace one thing I've seen on X is that FBI has not revealed all the evidence that was presented to the GJ. Either FBI feels like they have a stronger case (they don't bring charges without a more than reasonable chance of success), or, as in the case of Kiriakou, the process.
A theory is that Comey was using that to promote his book that is coming out this month.
I love you long time.
-
@Horace one thing I've seen on X is that FBI has not revealed all the evidence that was presented to the GJ. Either FBI feels like they have a stronger case (they don't bring charges without a more than reasonable chance of success), or, as in the case of Kiriakou, the process.
A theory is that Comey was using that to promote his book that is coming out this month.
-
@Horace one thing I've seen on X is that FBI has not revealed all the evidence that was presented to the GJ. Either FBI feels like they have a stronger case (they don't bring charges without a more than reasonable chance of success), or, as in the case of Kiriakou, the process.
A theory is that Comey was using that to promote his book that is coming out this month.
one thing I've seen on X is that FBI has not revealed all the evidence that was presented to the GJ.
Do you believe that? The indictment makes no mention of any other evidence or even the existence of any other evidence.
A theory is that Comey was using that to promote his book that is coming out this month.
I’m curious how that theory goes. He posted a photo on instagram in the summer of 2025 to call attention to his book coming out in the summer of 2026?
Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
-
one thing I've seen on X is that FBI has not revealed all the evidence that was presented to the GJ.
Do you believe that? The indictment makes no mention of any other evidence or even the existence of any other evidence.
A theory is that Comey was using that to promote his book that is coming out this month.
I’m curious how that theory goes. He posted a photo on instagram in the summer of 2025 to call attention to his book coming out in the summer of 2026?
one thing I've seen on X is that FBI has not revealed all the evidence that was presented to the GJ.
Do you believe that? The indictment makes no mention of any other evidence or even the existence of any other evidence.
A theory is that Comey was using that to promote his book that is coming out this month.
I’m curious how that theory goes. He posted a photo on instagram in the summer of 2025 to call attention to his book coming out in the summer of 2026?
Well, if Trump doesn't want anybody to buy his book, he's certainly going about it the right way.
-
one thing I've seen on X is that FBI has not revealed all the evidence that was presented to the GJ.
Do you believe that? The indictment makes no mention of any other evidence or even the existence of any other evidence.
A theory is that Comey was using that to promote his book that is coming out this month.
I’m curious how that theory goes. He posted a photo on instagram in the summer of 2025 to call attention to his book coming out in the summer of 2026?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login