mstrobel.bsky.social
26 posts
17 followers
14 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Exactly my reaction. Shifted my entire mood.
comment in response to
post
Everyone knows you never take more than a fifth of a fentanyl tablet đ€Ș
comment in response to
post
Good on them for refusing, but why resign? Why not force the Department to fire them?
comment in response to
post
On a related note, does Guantanamo, Cuba count as a âthird countryâ? Hasnât the government used its non-U.S.-soil status to its advantage in the past?
comment in response to
post
ICE transferred them to Guantanamo, then DoD removed them to El Salvador. Not seeing a plausible way this holds up.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
To tip your chauffeur for burying the dog you told him to run over?
comment in response to
post
If he ever gets back stateside, the defamation suits are gonna be epic.
comment in response to
post
Like, they get an actual TV police show trope handed to them on a silver platter. Probably the most interesting thing theyâll deal with all year, and thereâs ZERO interest in doing actual police work?
comment in response to
post
If the Ms. Jensen actually knew Mr. Read, sheâd obviously know sheâd be found out for such a ridiculous false report. Seems to me they should have gotten her on the phone and asked her to describe the guy. Hair, eyes, height, what the (nonexistent) tattoo on his arm looks like, etc.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
That was a pretty weak answer, honestly. He talks about due process like itâs just a concept and not the thing keeping U.S. citizens from being grabbed off the street and sent to die in a foreign gulag.
comment in response to
post
My school didnât have the drills or metal detectors yet, but we werenât allowed to use backpacks except when arriving and departing for the day. 1998-2002.
comment in response to
post
Normally, yes. Though when you have two branches of government abandoning the rules-based system we chose over beating each other with sticks, why should they still be entitled to protection from the sticks? That was part of the agreement they abrogated.
comment in response to
post
Right, that was my take as well. Given the choices of lying, oath breaking, and abrogating duty to client, he basically threw his client under the bus. And to your other commentâyou may be right, and when his hopes failed to materialize, he may even have hoped for *this* outcome.
comment in response to
post
And when faced with such a choice, the smart and ethical move is simply not to play.
comment in response to
post
Without having read the entire exchange or any of the briefs, I think the problem isnât that be actually broke his oath, but that he put himself in a position where he would likely have to choose between breaking his oath or his duty to his client. It looks to me like he chose the second option.
comment in response to
post
He certainly has a style. To the extent that I, a non-lawyer who reads a handful of briefs a year for âfunâ, could have identified him as the author even without his obnoxious letterhead.
comment in response to
post
Too much cruft. I found Jonathan V. Lastâs writeup to be a much more concise and damning summary of the death of the American empire:
www.thebulwark.com/p/the-americ...
comment in response to
post
Petition to rename as âTrumpâs Follyâ
comment in response to
post
Thank you for the coverage, good sir!
comment in response to
post
Sheâs a lady, but she appreciates the sentiment all the same đ
comment in response to
post
Itâs working. Every day it becomes more difficult to keep track of all the batshit things this administration has been up to.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
In his position, I would have just joined in the emoji exchange and otherwise said nothing. Wait and see if anyone even noticed.
comment in response to
post
No matter how I approach the problem, it feels impossible to design a government that is truly immune to bad faith actors. At least not without also overhauling our voting system so it doesnât encourage two-party control (e.g. a RCV variant without an electoral college).