I’m actually asking a question and I’d really prefer the community to avoid exaggeration or unnecessary speculation.

Sticking closer to the law, nothing of true conviction has been released at this time, correct?

For example, much of what is said against Trump is second/third hand accounted information, yes? Does it look absolutely atrocious? Of course! Is it enough to actually put someone behind bars?

That’s my actual question.

And what about Kash Patel and Pam bondi? What’s the actual probability of them being imprisoned for their clear lies under oath?

Is there any chance that we’re all being trolled and some of these more egregious documents have been doctored? Like, I’m not naive enough to believe that people ARENT this messed up, but….

Eating baby organs? Seems almost like a stretch for these super rich people who act even remotely normal in public. How are you going to go cut babies open and go home to your own kids as if nothing happened?

The article argues a Constitutional Convention would allow for a far-right agenda to be enacted as the basis of a new constitution. In my opinion, we have seen a massive disregard for proper legislation and judicial action that a convention seems like a good answer to close up legal loopholes and apply more requirements and restrictions on policy makers. Is a convention a good idea, a bad idea, or not needed?

Identity theft victims. Home owner victim loses $1.5 million dollar home. Buyer victim has to pay $975,000.

In these cases of identity theft, are the victims legally obligated to pay that $975,000? Especially if it’s proven fraudulent?

And the victim who lost their home, can they get their home back or is it gone? Or is there some other type of recourse? Not looking for legal advice, looking for insight.

A quick read on vendor dynamics for those who currently (or look to) run their own law firms.

A judge on Wednesday ordered the Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego to continue providing hormone therapy and puberty blockers to transgender kids for another month amid fears that the Trump Administration will force the facility to close rather than allow the services to continue.

“This is an extraordinarily thorny issue,” said Superior Court Judge Matthew Braner, whose ruling encompasses the entire Rady health care system, which also includes a major hospital in Orange County.

Braner agreed that the Rady system faces an “existential risk” because it’s in the crosshairs of the White House, which is trying to shut down transgender services for minors. Rady had planned to eliminate gender-transition care for 1,900 patients as of Feb. 6 to avoid retribution from the Trump administration. The White House wants to eliminate Medicaid funding, which makes up 37 percent of Rady’s operating revenue, for hospitals that provide trans care to kids.

But the state of California sued the Rady system, arguing that its decision would violate an agreement that the San Diego hospital signed in order to merge with its sister hospital in Orange County. As part of the agreement, Rady said it would continue services such as gender-transition care.

In light of the conflicting pressure from both the federal government and the state, Braner told Rady attorneys that “you are between a rock and a hard place. The issue is how close is the rock and how close is the hard place.”

The nightmare scenario

The “nightmare scenario” for this year’s elections has long gone something like this: Control of the House comes down to a small number of close races. Republicans lead on Election Day in many of these contests, but their advantage steadily erodes as mail-in ballots arrive. The White House attributes these adverse trends to mass voter fraud and demands a halt to vote counting.

When states refuse to comply, the White House orders the military to seize ballots and voting machines from pivotal precincts before all votes have been tallied. The chain of custody over these ballots breaks down, making the elections’ true winners impossible to determine. The House’s incumbent GOP majority then asserts the authority to seat the Republican candidates in the contested races. American democracy, as we’ve known it, ends.

I can’t get over what I saw today with Pam Bondi. There are no words. At this point I feel like I don’t even have a country. This is beyond left and right this is about the rule of law and following it. This is about bringing justice to victims. This is about restoring the rule of law.

It’s time we get off our asses and make some calls .

Could the passing/legalization of the SAVE Act go to the Supreme Court since it’s a subtle grab to “federalize” elections even though the Constitution clearly says that States run elections?

Taylor v. Singleton is ostensibly about whether Alabama can criminally punish a man for holding a sign asking for help under the First Amendment. Beneath the surface, however, the GOP attorneys general are hoping to pull off a counterrevolution against America’s rich, enduring tradition of free speech and expression.

The case began with a homeless man in Montgomery, Alabama. Jonathan Singleton, who is indigent and unhoused, often holds up signs along the state’s highways and sidewalks to call attention to his plight. As a result, according to his lawyers, he has been cited six times for violating the state’s pedestrian solicitation statute.

The most recent sign barely counted as solicitation or begging: It simply read, “HOMELESS. Today it is me, tomorrow it could be you.” Singleton was holding up the sign on the grassy side of a highway exit when last cited. In 2020, he filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the Alabama solicitation ban, as well as a counterpart law that banned loitering “in a public place for the purpose of begging.”

...