No… “prosecutors can apparently get away with violating the law.” This implies she thinks the rule of law still exists to be violated. It’s not a violation unless you live in a Republic. You don’t. You live under a tyrant who claimed that he is the law.

You’re conflating “rule of law” and the existence of laws.

And right now, federal law does not exist. I think lawyers are having a hard time accepting this… let me know when you reach stage 2.

The law does exist. Those following it are fewer in this administration than you can count on one finger.

I don’t think you’re winning your case

Habeas corpus does not currently exist in the U.S. And currently, neither do the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th & 10th amendments.

What’s your solution? And if your response is “people in the streets,” I’m all for it. A multi-pronged response is necessary.

My god, you might be the most tedious and pedantic person on the whole internet. User muted.

You seem pleasant… 🙄

@candidus00.bsky.social Serendipitous that this was posted yesterday? Perhaps. Food for thought.

Acquiescing to tyranny (as you’re doing) is not the solution.

The first step is admitting there’s a problem. I find it disheartening that you’re confusing recognition of something as acquiescence. Do you think ppl at AA acquiesce to alcoholism?

We have admitted there is a problem. I just believe you’re feeding into a dangerous narrative by ignoring nuance.

And I’m saying that you have not. The Weimar Constitution existed till 1945…

Again, no nuance.

Good day.

Don’t get me started on AA.

Is that a yes?

If it were, I would have said so.

It was a yes or no question… I’m finding this tiresome & suspect you’re being argumentative for the sake of it. Good day.

Your question was tangential at best. While I’ve answered your question to your distaste, you’ve avoid my question entirely.

Knotty—quit while you’re still under water. Yo.

Nah.