If you haven't already done so, watch every episode and contrast what the Patriots were fighting against to what Trump is trying to accomplish.

My thoughts on the Interim Order in Trump v. Illinois open.substack.com/pub/executiv...

Here’s @jackgoldsmith.bsky.social take on what comes next (maybe):

Hey 👀 “regular forces” is, you know, regular forces! Military ones! More to the point, §12406 does not expand authority to call the NG into federal service to “execute the law”in situations where using regular troops wouldn’t be permitted, so, unless the Insurrection Act is appropriately invoked

So, what will Trump do? talkingpointsmemo.com/news/supreme...

@leahlitman.bsky.social @martylederman.bsky.social filed the "regular forces" amicus that, IIRC, @jnklz.bsky.social was the first to flag.

BREAKING: WATCH the full 60 Minutes CECOT segment here. This was sent to me anonymously. It appears to be the segment CBS' Bari Weiss killed. www.muellershewrote.com/p/watch-the-...

NSF is about to dismantle NCAR at Russell Vought's direction to protect the fossil fuel industry. It's hard to communicate just how much NCAR does, so let's take a look: I've never worked at NCAR, and I've worked with NCAR researchers once ever. What scientific discoveries has NCAR made possible? 👇

Please read this piece by the National Review’s Jim Geraghty, if you never read anything else. www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-...

@danboriscreates.bsky.social By Daniel Boris.

@martylederman.bsky.social What murder statutes?

Just when observers thought Trump was on the ropes, he's still standing strong. Thus far, Congress, the SCOTUS, powerful corporations, large law firms, prestigious universities, world leaders, have all bent the knee. Say what you want about this dude, his pursuit of complete power continues unabated

Grand Jury (aware of Trump's Revenge Tour) Nullification. 😆

Trump & Hegseth will skate ... once again.

“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth seems to be a war criminal. Without a war. An interesting achievement.” The latest from George F. Will:

Note also that Comey's lawyers have argued that DOJ is wrong as to 18 U.S.C. 3288's applicability here. From their reply: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

DOJ Flouts Court Order on Trump’s Illegally Installed Attorney newrepublic.com/post/203649/... via @newrepublic.com

@nkorpett.bsky.social @rparloff.bsky.social & James Pearce, does the appeal divest Judge N of jurisdiction to decide the separate issues of vindictive prosecution, "no indictment," "fundamentally ambiguous" questioning by Cruz, etc. because of Judge C's unrelated order disqualifying Halligan?

Griggs rule (Judge N divested from deciding only "those aspects of the case involved in the appeal" -> disqualification of Halligan) or Coinbase rule (divestiture if the "entire case is essentially involved in the appeal"). Can Judge N rule on vindictive prosecution? @chrisgeidner.bsky.social

Dismissed w/o prejudice. Can the govt seek to reindict since, as of today, the statute of limitations has expired. Does the govt have a statutory "grace period" to reindict? Also, any reindictment can't be by Halligan unless decision reversed on appeal. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Evidentiary hearing held to determine if, in fact, a grand jury returned a "true bill." That's what I am recommending the court do in the @jamescomey.bsky.social prosecution -- evidentiary hearing to determine exactly what grand jurors did, and didn't, do. scholar.google.com/scholar_case...

1. Does the record as it currently exists establish that at least 12 grand jurors voted to indict @jamescomey.bsky.social of the two crimes set forth in the operative indictment? If the record is ambiguous on this issue, should the court (1) dismiss the case; (2) hold an evidentiary hearing and

Is there "grave doubt" that any (purported) decision to indict was "substantially influenced" by Halligan's misconduct? storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

If you think that the Epstein records are going to be publicly released anytime soon, think again.

Utter Incompetence; Putrid Malice; and Unbridled Arrogance all wrapped in one "Stalking Horse" Hack. Career prosecutors throughout the country must be laughing uncontrollably as this moron, oblivious to realty, digs a deeper and deeper hole of infamy for herself.

The length of the deliberations in relation to the length of Halligan's presentation is important in determining if Halligan's errors and misconduct were harmless or not.

Yes @annabower.bsky.social more reasons that an evidentiary hearing with Halligan, grand jurors, and others testifying under oath and subject to cross-examination. That's the only way for the magistrate or district court judge to determine the truth.

Was entire GJ required to actually have operative indictment in deliberation room even if they previously had the 3-ct indictment; 12 voted to indict on cts 2 & 3 which are identical to cts 1 & 2 in the operative indictment that all grand jurors never saw? storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Were Cruz's questions "fundamentally" ambiguous as a matter of law (requiring dismissal of the indictment) or only "arguably" ambiguous (not permitting dismissal)? storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Another suspicious event that, when coupled with the other events disclosed at today's hearing, require an evidentiary hearing where Halligan and grand jurors (especially the foreperson) must testify so the judge can obtain a truthful account of what led to the purported indictment.

@annabower.bsky.social why would the magistrate have directed the foreperson to add the "Count 1 only" notation? Who wrote in blue ink?

@annabower.bsky.social Did 12 grand jurors ever vote to indict Comey on the two counts? If that question can't be answered on the current record, a hearing where the grand jurors were questioned may be required. Similar to when trial jurors are questioned regarding potential juror misconduct.

The 2-count @jamescomey.bsky.social indictment is fatally flawed. Plus, Comey is entitled to the declination memo.

@lawrenceodonnelljr.bsky.social brilliant: "The Dictatorial Grip" has been broken.

What will SCOTUS do?

"Outrageous government conduct" in violation of "fundamental fairness" required by the Due Process Clause = Dismissal of indictment against James. Solid motion by Abbe Lowell's team. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

1. @mitchellepner.bsky.social & @klasfeldreports.com please explain how Comey's 4th Am. right not to be subjected to unreasonable search or seizure could have been violated by an unreasonable search or seizure of his attorney, Richman's devices? Can you cite a case where an indictment was dismissed

Obtaining dismissal of an indictment based on prosecutorial misconduct before a grand jury is a monumental uphill lift. Cumulatively, what "Stalking Horse" Hack Halligan did may be the virtually unheard of instance of a prosecutor engaging in serious misconduct requiring dismissal of the indictment.

@lizdye.bsky.social The Griffin rule prohibiting a prosecutor from commenting on a defendant's refusal to testify is limited to trials. It has never been extended to grand jury proceedings. And, under Bank of Nova Scotia, it's almost impossible to get indictment dismissed bc of prosecutor screw-up.

Were Cruz's questions to @jamescomey.bsky.social "fundamentally ambiguous" or "arguably ambiguous"? If the former, dismissal as a matter of law. If the later, jury question. Although Comey makes a strong argument, IMO, under 4th Cir. precedent, jury question storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

@jamescomey.bsky.social should request that the district court hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if Halligan or anyone else in Trump's DOJ wilfully misplaced or refused to surrender the transcript of this crucial gap. scholar.google.com/scholar_case...