Cornell Law ‘14. Financial regulation, law, politics, България, and now featuring fatherhood.
1,290 followers 404 following 5,388 posts
view profile on Bluesky
It took the largest police force in the country nearly a week to identify and find a guy who committed a high profile murder in broad daylight in the middle of one of the most heavily surveilled metros anywhere, on an island no less. It seems entirely possible that they don’t catch this guy soon.
I have no idea what it is you’re even arguing anymore. My comment was that it is wrong for POTUS to say speech he doesn’t like caused this immediately followed by he’s going to use his government power to go after all who caused it, because that’s saying he’s going to use the gov to go after speech.
I agreed on Pelosi’s assailant. I wouldn’t be so confident on it not being MAGA, especially if your entire argument is that comparing him to Hitler inspired this. If what makes me feel better? We don’t know anything about the assailant, they haven’t been caught! www.newsweek.com/maga-pastor-...
The Paul Pelosi assailant was, the assassin in MN wasn’t, he was an American and a Republican. And we don’t actually know anything about whoever assassinated Kirk, it’s not like he didn’t have MAGA enemies (and really, most political assailants in the US are like the Pelosi assailant, just crazy).
it was, maybe it wasn’t, but just as I condemned his murder, I would absolutely condemn a Democratic president saying his administration was going to go after people saying things like what Kirk said in response to those acts.
Was Kirk’s rhetoric towards Dems what resulted in a guy putting a hammer through Paul Pelosi’s head (which Kirk then promptly made gay jokes about) or in that guy assassinating the MN House Dem leader and her husband, and attempting to assassinate two more (which Kirk promptly lied about)? Maybe…
The President of the United States is saying (in the same address where he extols the virtues of free speech) that the government considers anyone comparing “Americans like Charlie to Nazis” as directly responsible for this, and that the government will find them.
The problem is that Kash himself probably does not understand these terms despite his own history as a prosecutor, which explains why he used a definite article like “the” instead of an indefinite article like “a”.
Cool that the FBI director’s information in an ongoing manhunt for a likely political assassin is hours behind not just social media, but actual mainstream news sources.
Glorifying violence or harm violates Bluesky’s Community Guidelines. We review reports and take action on content that celebrates harm against anyone. Violence has no place in healthy public discourse, and we’re committed to fostering healthy, open conversations
All politics and political parties aside,,, a very sad yet timely post just a few hours ago. Better gun protection laws are needed in this country. Everyone was sending their thoughts and prayers to Charlie Kirk and that didn’t help,,, RIP.
My feed is almost entirely people condemning violence and telling others not to celebrate this.
Obviously we don’t know the motive of the shooter, but assuming it was someone just opposed to his politics, it’s contemptible. Charlie Kirk isn’t even some actually influential person, he’s political entertainment for a bunch of people who already believe what they believe.
A little 585 pride warming my heart
“It is not enough that a law is just, nor that the judge should be convinced of its justice; those from whom obedience is expected should have that conviction too.” -Tertullian
There are a lot of complexities to our relationship with Qatar, but whether or not it survives this, the calculus Qatar uses to justify the US base to its population is the same as it is for a lot of countries: the US presence protects us from attack. That argument is a lot weaker now.
That’s fantastic!
Wow Bluesky, I log on and instantly am shown a random @jcsalterego.bsky.social post as part of a banner, like that’s what I want to see (it is what I want to see).
TBH I’m a little shocked, I thought he’d just dig in, maybe try to get Trump to go along.
“a man in the House is a gentleman” Which one? (I’ll see myself out)
I originally told a convenience store clerk and she said she’d call the fire department, but I got concerned that they didn’t call and didn’t want our hotel to burn down so I called the utility myself and they dispatched someone. I didn’t look for a data plate but it’s the only pole at that address
I told the convenience store lady and she said she’d call the fire department, so I feel I’ve done my civic duty!
Yale Law School never beating the “they don’t teach law at Yale” allegations
Hey, so, the power line outside my hotel is, uh, sparking? Anyone know if this is normal or if I should call someone?
Bill Ackman soon:
That said, it’s still illegal for a U.S. person to trade unregistered futures that don’t qualify for an exemption.
Typically there has to be a duty to protect the insider information. So, you can’t front-run your employer, but if you’re a major corn producer and you know diseases wiped out all your crop, you can probably buy corn futures and benefit when the price bumps on the news….
I thought poly market banned US Persons from participating?
Look, he asked to be referred to as the sow, so I’m going to call him a sow.
Incredible that they pretend that the folks who are using the military to absurdly escalate the war on drugs are going to stop mission creep by the military by calling it the department of war.
This is how Hegseth should be referred to exclusively from now on. He wants to be the sow, so be it.
I was really hoping for that Zuck-Musk MMA fight, I figured the world would end from collective embarrassment and that would be that
No sir you don’t understand, it’s not considered healthcare. Sir, why are you clutching your stomach?
They put bases in Kamchatka, but got rid of Pituffik/Thule
Ok, but that’s worse. He gets why not knowing about it would be worse, right?
It was compelling enough for you to avoid actually addressing it *yet again*
As I said from the start, and as you continue to ignore, incumbents have power unrelated to their actual performance or qualifications that give them a significant advantage over challengers.
How did Larson earn the retirement of the prior holder of his seat?
5 U.S.C. § 101 The Executive departments are: The Department of State. The Department of the Treasury. The Department of Defense. The Department of Justice. [etc.] 10 U.S.C. § 113 (a)(1) There is a Secretary of Defense, who is the head of the Department of Defense [...]
If there’s now a Department of War and Hegseth wants to be the head of it, I think he needs to be renominated and reconfirmed, per the Constitution.
He’s saying they have to earn him retiring, you dipshit. Him stepping down doesn’t magically result in a successor, they fight in a primary without an incumbent, just like he did when he first got it.
Nobody gets handed the seat when the incumbent decides not to run, what the hell are you talking about?
(The one in Riyadh, since that’s apparently a common name for famous houses).
He’s looking to trade Gracie Mansion (which he’s gonna lose no matter what) for Quincy House.
“After much consideration, I have decided to seek a taxpayer-funded mansion in a place where my lifestyle (of accepting bribes) is not shunned, but embraced!”
Pointless exercises? In MY federal civil procedure? Well, I never!
IOW, if the factual allegations are in Paragraphs 1-78, and then Paragraph 79 is Count I, and Paragraph 80 is Count II, Count III can incorporate Paragraphs 1-78, but if it incorporates 1-80, its improper, because 79 and 80 aren't actually factual allegations relevant to Count III
of Count I and Count II, which are almost certainly not actually relevant factual assertions that form the basis of Count III, so at the very least, their allegations in Count III shouldn't include the actual language of Counts I and II, even if they include the same factual bases as those counts
Not exactly, what she's saying is that each count needs to specify what facts are actually incorporated into the count and not include those facts that aren't relevant to that specific count. Because, say, Count III, incorporated all prior paragraphs, it also incorporated the legal assertions...
Seems rather pointless if the only actual complaint is that they incorporated the paragraphs that specifically include the prior counts. If its appropriate to incorporate the entire body of the factual allegations in each count, is OC really disadvantaged by incorporating the prior count language?
Seems sorta odd that she didn't actually cite the rules under which she was doing this, presumably FRCP 8(a)(2) and/or 10(b).
If I had my way, we’d go from saying “haha the Jimmy John’s noncompete is cute but not enforceable” to saying “haha the Jimmy John’s noncompete is cute but it’s TREBLE DAMAGES” but nobody will appoint me as a federal judge.
I still don’t get why they aren’t seen as a straightforward contracts and conspiracies in restraint of trade under the Sherman Act.
“You’ve got to earn it” is such unadulterated bull. Larson didn’t defeat an incumbent to get his seat in Congress! Incumbents have advantages that are unrelated to their qualifications for the role or general support from their constituents, they have current power that corporate donors covert.
How about taking all the time, money, and resources put into this, and use it to help the city’s homeless population before Abbott decides to execute them to prove his MAGA bona fides.
Reading the city’s explanation here, I’m still baffled as to why this was necessary. The city seal was very recognizable, and is already on everything. I guess I don’t live there anymore, so it’s not really my problem, but still. Seems silly.
I took a supplemental offer from my agency only because it came from our agency head, who has explicit statutory authority to create independent compensation schemes.
What’s funny is I know a fair number of folks who left that were far more likely to be loyal to Trumpism than those that stayed. Taking the DRP required at least a little faith in a promise from Trump and Musk, for starters.
Here's a piece I wrote rebutting the premise: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/repe...
A good article that I’m going to nitpick here, you should switch around the FDIC and the OCC in this sentence if you’re going to use respectively, since national banks are supervised by the latter and state nonmembers banks are supervised by the former.
Yeah, honestly we’d seen it 10 minutes in to his replies, we just didn’t know it really wouldn’t change.
Just Trump blithely posting that an alliance we’ve spent decades trying to keep from forming has formed and includes a country we had carefully curated to be at least neutral.
I thought this might be fake but it isn’t! He really said this!
I have one as well and I always try to address it, but throw the illiterate at the end, that way others know I’m not just insulting him, I’m accurately describing him.
For the umpteenth time, you are not a source more authoritative on the jury verdict than the jury verdict sheet from the court it was returned in. You have lost this debate.
And yet not a single one related to the criminal trial of Trump that is more authoritative than the jury verdict sheet and shows that verdict to be a lie. You lose.
Welp, you’ve lost the debate by repeatedly refusing to provide a single source more authoritative than the jury verdict sheet from the court in which it was rendered in that shows the verdict is a lie. I gave you over a dozen chances to do so, and you refused, or were unable to. You lost.
Again, you are not a source more authoritative than the verdict sheet from the court.
You are not more authoritative than the jury that rendered a unanimous verdict, bud.
Here you go: www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/p... No provide something at least as authoritative as that Judy verdict from the court in which it was rendered saying otherwise.
Proof that it is not a lie is right here: www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/p... Now you provide your proof from a single source as authoritative as that document’s source. And keep in mind, you are not as authoritative as a court, so your threads post doesn’t qualify.
When did congress declare such a war? What is the statutory authority? Or do you disagree with the Constitution explicitly placing the power to declare war and provide for the regulation of military forces with congress?
This isn’t responsive to my question.
Proof is right here, bub. And you have yet to provide a single source more authoritative than the unanimous jury verdict from the court it was rended in demonstrating it is false or a lie. Instead you just post a thread link that doesn’t have such a source. www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/p...
At least not without a note from its parent…er…Congress.
so Department of War is more like a nickname. like, DOD’s teacher wouldn’t be allowed to call it Department of War in Florida.
He’s purporting to rename the Department of Defense, despite its name being established by statute. I’m pretty sure overriding explicit acts of the legislature is quite “king-like”.
Also, this has confirmed for me that anyone that fell for O’Keefe’s schtick before is a credulous moron. Like, I do believe what that guy is saying is likely true, but it’s pretty obvious he’s just talking out of his ass.
Wait, why would O’Keefe do this, doesn’t it hurt Trump?
Rebuttal: not a single thing in those images is sourced to anything more authoritative on the jury verdict than the actual jury verdict form from the court. Please provide such a source showing that Trump’s guilty verdict is a lie, or admit you were wrong.
Stop lying, it’s not in there. Nowhere do you provide a m source more authoritative than a jury verdict from the court it was rendered in that says the verdict from the jury in Trump’s criminal trial is a lie. This is how you lose a debate, refusing to give specific evidence to specific arguments.
This is how you lose a debate, you refuse to provide specific responses to specific arguments, and instead refer others to some long post you wrote and claim it’s in there, because you can’t actually support your own claims with specific evidence.
I have, you’ve refused to respond with anything authoritative, you just lie and claim there’s a source more authoritative than the jury verdict in your threads post. This is how you lose a debate. You tell others to find your source for you, rather than explicitly citing it bsky.app/profile/whey...
Why can’t you provide an actual source at least as authoritative as an actual jury verdict from the court? Also at least one of your images has absolutely nothing to do with his criminal case, yet you’ve repeatedly posted it in response, why?
Buddy you have refused to do this one simple thing since I first engaged with you. You’re the only one lying here. Shut up until you can provide a valid source more authoritative than a jury verdict that shows the verdict is a lie, as you claimed. bsky.app/profile/whey...
You’re joking, right? reason.com/2025/08/25/t...
Invalid reply to proven facts.
Should be easy for you to pull out the court issued document or other document of greater authority than a jury that says the unanimous jury verdict I showed you is “a lie” then, right? Why can’t you do that? I can’t find such a source document in your ranting “article”.
No, that’s just a screenshot of your own statement. As we’ve discussed, you baldly asserting something doesn’t make it a fact.
What have they officially released? Please link to it.
We’re discussing what was reported by them, they are clearly a reliable source of what they themselves have said, and they quoted the officials.
He quite explicitly did not say they were “all” opinion pieces, who are you talking to?
There are few things more unAmerican than saying someone who’s naturalized isn’t American. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States.
Which one issued by a court says the jury verdict from the criminal conviction is invalid? Why can’t you just say which one it is? What else am I to conclude but that you are lying?
You say while literally providing just screenshot bs.
blocked and reported
Your own definition of fascism is that it involves "opposing democratic, liberal, socialist, and communist systems". Are you saying she opposes herself? bsky.app/profile/nomo...