ms-anon-e-mouse.bsky.social
Practing insomniac. Black woman- not one of your lil friends, but would like to be if you're cool. Nerd. Loves cosplay, books, theatre (esp. musical theatre), wittiness, justice, ethics, and sarcasm. Political & vocal, but I have cat pictures, too.
251 posts
297 followers
494 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
I gave it about 6 months
comment in response to
post
The 2 am tweets when they are both awake and rage tweeting are going to be amazing
comment in response to
post
So if Trump orders his red hats to, say, torch a Tesla dealership, does Pam Bondi prosecute or nah?
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Drake, probably.
comment in response to
post
Top notch comment. No notes.
comment in response to
post
Marco Rubio has the opportunity to do the funniest thing right now...
comment in response to
post
Who else gave D-Lon 6 months?
comment in response to
post
Thanks for the reminder.
Also, how very dare you?
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
43
comment in response to
post
Watch Republicans turn suddenly against Stand Your Ground laws and castle doctrine
comment in response to
post
Same
comment in response to
post
You know you're not fucking sorry. 😂
comment in response to
post
Every day she proves she's a better person.
I personally wouldn't be able to resist saying "I told you so" every single day before going off and minding my own business/protecting my peace.
comment in response to
post
Any day, big daddy Pope
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Personally, I didn't really like the B-613 storyline, but if ever there was a time...
comment in response to
post
All I know is that Eli Pope would NEVER have allowed things to get this far
comment in response to
post
In Australia, that's like a kitten chilling on your shoulder or a toy dog in a purse.
comment in response to
post
If he does, the acting IG after him has to be replaced by 1. Someone who was an IG before and 2. Has already been confirmed by the Senate.
Or Trump can nominate a new IG to be confirmed by the Senate. He hasn't yet tried to replace any of the ones he purged
comment in response to
post
Isn't that just alcohol?
comment in response to
post
Edit- outside of -Trump- getting rid of political appointees...
comment in response to
post
An independent agency outside of the DoD. Under law, that means the IG, not Hegseth is the agency head & outside of getting rid of political appointees, can't purge staff to hamstring the mission.
The IG is apolitical. They do the job that DOGE pretends to do
comment in response to
post
If the acting IG is fired, by law, he can only be replaced by another previous IG that has already been Senate confirmed. That means Trump can't put a crony in unless they go thru the normal Senate nomination/confirmed process.
Oh, also under law, to retain independence, the DoDIG is considered
comment in response to
post
I think the SCOTUS decision re: POTUS immunity only extends to POTUS. His appointees don't get POTUS immunity by proxy.
The problem is that we don't have a DOJ that's willing to prosecute. You can committ all sorts of crimes in front of cops if they simply refuse to do their jobs.
comment in response to
post
Both. They are dangerously unqualified for their very serious jobs and are proving that they didn't get their positions on merit every day
comment in response to
post
Well, most of us actually apply OPSEC & don't use our phones for that shit. When we need to discuss classified info, we do it in a place where we can't bring our phones in the first place.
Unlike the DEI hires in the news right now, we take our responsibilities and missions seriously.
comment in response to
post
Nope.
I hate it and barely use it.
comment in response to
post
"You people are obsessed with all of "illegal acts." Why don't you ever talk about the crimes I -didn't- commit? I didn't kill anyone today- how about some gratitude?!" - Ratcliffe probably
comment in response to
post
Fed here with a government issued iphone right now.
Signal is not installed on it.
comment in response to
post
When they said to observe OPSEC, Pete thought they said "TripleSec"
comment in response to
post
The difference is that they are being vocal & challenging in public. To show the country they're going to take the fight to Rs & say the common sense thing outloud, in public, directly to the face of the wrong-doer.
The J6 committee did exactly that.
I want to see that same energy every day.
comment in response to
post
If Democrats were smart, they'd call Hegseth to testify before Congress and someone asks him that question to his face.
I'd also like all Senators who voted against his confirmation to start their time by saying "to my Republican colleagues, 'I told you so'"
comment in response to
post
The French keep their deterrents in garages, not museums.
comment in response to
post
So glad I never got an Echo
comment in response to
post
See, if you just lay down proactively, the bully probably won't waste the energy punching you.
It helps if you have your lunch money out already so he doesn't even have to ask.
comment in response to
post
New York, you deserve so much better.
comment in response to
post
I hate to give Mitch McConnell credit for anything, but he would have NEVER done this as minority leader.
I'm a Fed employee who this will directly impact & I WANT the shut down as a sign that my party is actually going to fight Trump at every step.
Senate Dems, there's still time to blow this up
comment in response to
post
Whoever wants to run for his seat should do an in person town hall, call into his as a group to LaLota's, rebut him in real time while saying at every possible opportunity "Congressman X disrespects you he won't even be in the same room as you, but I..."
comment in response to
post
It is terrifying that the status of our democracy or not hinges on whether or not Coney Barret and Roberts are capable of shame
comment in response to
post
In light of the SCOTUS decision, are we at the part of the show where agency heads need to disobey an illegal order from POTUS if Trump decides to ignore the decision and not release the funds?
Because I don't have high hopes for Rubio standing up to Trump to follow the law.