quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
who decides to kamikaze?

I’m searching my memory now, and it’s sort of vague, but wasn’t there an incident some years ago in which some of those fine folks flew aircraft into buildings? Someplace? Help me, guys, I’m old and feeble.

During 9/11 when two US fighters were sent up with the mission of stopping the airliner that was still in the air, both were unarmed and it was reported that the pilots agreed between them that they would ram the plane if it was necessary to take it down. If rational American armed forces members can decide to do that for an important enough reason, I’m pretty sure that someone who absolutely believes he will be in Paradise the moment after would be willing to do something similar.

OK, guys.

https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1923019509092450573

The Governor of Georgia has signed SB 244 into law, which means the Trump legal team could now force Fani Willis to pay their attorney fees in the "RICO" case she brought against him.

The law states: "(b) If the disqualification of the prosecuting attorney results in the criminal case being dismissed against the defendant who filed the motion for disqualification due to improper conduct, the defendant who filed the motion for disqualification shall be entitled to an award of all reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by the defendant in defending the case.

(c) The defendant who filed a successful motion for disqualification of a prosecuting attorney based upon the misconduct of such prosecuting attorney shall file a motion for reasonable attorney's fees and costs upon the termination of the underlying criminal case. The judge to whom the criminal case was assigned shall consider such motion for reasonable attorney's fees and costs and shall award such reasonable attorney's fees and costs as provided under this Code section to such defendant."

The science fiction editor John Campbell observed that it’s not power per se that corrupts, but rather immunity.

Anything that reduces the immunity that corrupt attorneys have—and especially prosecutors—makes me smile.

Would that not be ex post facto?

quote:

Would that not be ex post facto?

Them’s the words that came to my mind.

But tell me: hasn’t every single one of the prosecutors who declared open lawfare on Trump prior to his re-election been shown to be as corrupt as the mafia? Fani, Letitia, what about Alvin Bragg?

^The joke that "they" are guilty of whatever "they" accuse you of isn't funny anymore. I hope Willis and James and the rest of them are brought to justice.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:

quote:

Would that not be ex post facto?

Them’s the words that came to my mind.

But tell me: hasn’t every single one of the prosecutors who declared open lawfare on Trump prior to his re-election been shown to be as corrupt as the mafia? Fani, Letitia, what about Alvin Bragg?

A convincing argument could be made that these were among those with the most to lose. Those most easily exposed to a determined investigation.

You could also extrapolate that they were selected to be the most public of them all when things went south.

Judge Stephanie Raines of the federal District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled President Trump CAN use the Alien Enemies Act (ACA) to deport terrorists!

I'm looking for a short form summary, but this Court made basically the same argument I did on the use of the AEA.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...PdrbD25rGCuouvwrs%3D

Supreme Court Wrestles With Nationwide Injunctions in Birthright Citizenship Case

The justices pressed the Trump administration about how courts would proceed without nationwide injunctions.

The Supreme Court on May 15 grappled with how far federal judges could go in issuing sweeping blocks on policies such as President Donald Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship.

Their comments came during oral argument over the administration’s request that the high court remove three nationwide injunctions on Trump’s order.

Those nationwide blocks are among the many issued by federal judges that have halted a range of Trump administration policies.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who argued for the Trump administration, told the justices that nationwide injunctions had been used in ways that exceeded judges’ authority under Article III of the Constitution. More specifically, he and others have criticized nationwide injunctions for granting relief on a broad basis rather than just for the parties before the court.

Some of the justices, however, expressed concern about how other people purportedly harmed by Trump’s policy would get relief without a nationwide block.

At least two justices—Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor—indicated that they believed Trump’s order limiting birthright citizenship breached the 14th Amendment and that large numbers of people were therefore harmed by it.

The hearing was unusual in that it focused less on legal arguments on whether Trump’s birthright citizenship policy runs afoul of the 14th Amendment and instead concentrated on the legality of the practice of nationwide injunctions. More in-depth questions about birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment will continue playing out in the court system.

Kagan told Sauer that if she were in his shoes, there was no way she would bring the case to the Supreme Court and noted that multiple federal judges had ruled against the administration. Following some intense questioning from Kagan, Justice Neil Gorsuch said she asked questions better than he could. Both of them seemed concerned that without nationwide injunctions, those affected by the order would have to undergo a lengthy legal process to get relief.

Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to push back on this point, saying that the Supreme Court had intervened quickly in previous cases, suggesting it could provide quick relief in the future.

This is a breaking story and will be updated.

This guy is a former federal prosecutor, generally he's pretty good on reading federal court cases and predicting the outcome or explaining things.

https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/.../1923075200209518927

Pentagon
Hundreds of Migrants Face Charges Under Trump-Era Military Border Zone Policy
By Common Defense Staff
May 15, 2025

In a controversial move with sweeping implications, the Department of Justice has charged several hundred immigrants with unauthorized entry into newly established military zones along the U.S.-Mexico border in New Mexico and western Texas.

The charges stem from a new enforcement strategy rolled out in late April by the Trump administration, which transferred jurisdiction over specific border lands to the military and authorized the temporary detention of immigrants by U.S. troops.

The designated National Defense Areas (NDAs), now under the control of U.S. Army commands based at Fort Bliss in Texas and Fort Huachuca in Arizona, represent a dramatic escalation in the federal government’s approach to border enforcement.


Migrants crossing into these areas illegally now face national security-related charges that can carry up to 18 months in prison — in addition to the six-month penalty for unlawful entry.

While U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) continues to make the actual arrests, the presence of military oversight introduces a legal complexity that has yet to be fully tested in court.

According to an official from the federal public defender’s office in Las Cruces, approximately 400 cases have already been filed in criminal court, with defense attorneys now seeking the dismissal of charges that they argue are both unprecedented and overreaching.

Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth, based in Las Cruces, has requested legal input from both federal prosecutors and defense attorneys on how to interpret and apply the standard of proof for these new trespassing charges.

https://www.commondef.com/2025.../?utm_source=talkred

This message has been edited. Last edited by: downtownv,

^^^ That sounds like a clickbait ad that got copied and pasted. He should edit that line out.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:

quote:

Dennis Quaid’s #1 Warning for Americans

MORE NEWS: Judge Accused of Aiding Illegal Alien Now Faces Prison and $350K Fine [WATCH]

The Wisconsin moron who sacrificed her career for a violent illegal. Indicted, she faces six years in Club Fed and a fine.

She claimed immunity today. No shit.

I just issued a ruling that revoked her immunity.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
^^^ That sounds like a clickbait ad that got copied and pasted. He should edit that line out.

yup missed the nonsense. It happens...

^^^ And the link to the article?

Fucking piece of trash. The numbers "86 47" were just some "Cool shell formation", huh? Of all the nice things you could post during your beach walk, you chose to posted some numbers and pretended you don't know the meaning?

EX-FBI chief Comey’s ‘86 47’ social media post condemned by White House as attempt to put ‘hit’ on president

By Alec Schemmel | Fox News
Published May 15, 2025 6:49pm EDT | Updated May 15, 2025 7:16pm EDT

Former head of the FBI James Comey is getting lambasted online after he shared a social post that many people perceived as a "hit" on President Donald Trump's life.

The post included the numbers "86 47" etched in the sand at a beach using seashells. "Cool shell formation on my beach walk…" Comey captioned the Thursday post.

While to some people the numbers may appear innocuous, "86" is frequently used as a call sign for murdering or getting rid of someone, while "47" is for the 47th President of the United States.

Following backlash on social media over the post, including from at least one lawmaker who called for Comey to be arrested, Comey deleted the post shared to his Instagram and put up a message addressing it.

"I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message," the subsequent post from Comey read. "I didn't realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down."

The FBI, where Comey used to work before he was fired by Trump during his first term, had no comment on the matter, but it was also apparent that people at the top levels of the agency were aware of the post. However, Trump's new FBI director, Kash Patel, acknowledged on X that agency personnel were "aware" of Comey's post.

"We are in communication with the Secret Service and Director Curran," Patel added in his post. "Primary jurisdiction is with SS on these matters and we, the FBI, will provide all necessary support."

White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Cabinet Secretary Taylor Budowich also weighed in on X.

"While President Trump is currently on an international trip to the Middle East, the former FBI Director puts out what can clearly be interpreted as ‘a hit’ on the sitting President of the United States—a message etched in the sand," she wrote on X. "This is deeply concerning to all of us and is being taken seriously."

"Arrest Comey," Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., added in his own post about the matter.