Looks like it’s a “Hillary for Prison” button, actually.
It’s a “Hillary for Prison” button. It’s what passes for wit in their circles
ETA: Ninja’d!
OK that makes sense, I couldn’t read the small print at the bottom.
I thought the same thing. I couldn’t find a clearer picture.
The there should be a ‘Local Boobs’ under that picture.
Log Cabin Republicans have slipped in appearance, like the 6 January crowd. FOB was appalled at their dress.
Without having read the link, I assume the Supreme Court decided to not hear the case on the grounds that it’s an internal matter for Congress to work out, and they are not deciding anything about the merits.
ETA: Okay, I read the article now. It mentions:
Aye; and:
As is typical, the high court said nothing in rejecting the challenge Monday.
I don’t see this as bad news:
ATLANTA (AP) — Judges have approved a request for a special grand jury by the Georgia prosecutor who’s investigating whether former President Donald Trump and others broke the law by trying to pressure Georgia officials to throw out Joe Biden’s presidential election victory.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis last week sent a letter to county superior court Chief Judge Christopher Brasher asking him to impanel a special grand jury. Brasher issued an order Monday saying the request was considered and approved by a majority of the superior court judges.
From the Raw Story account:
I assume their proceedings will be top-secret like other grand juries (aside from leaks), and nothing will be known until they issue their report. I hope they are able to do this faster than that, well in time for this year’s mid-terms.
Yes, it’s the timing that’s the bad news–they don’t even start for four months, and as you say, after they begin there will be quite a delay until any findings are made public.
The other bad news is that it’s Georgia that’s trying to hold Trump accountable–not, so far as we can see, the federal Department of Justice.
(Yes, we are all well aware of the ‘Garland is simply good at keeping DOJ business from leaking’ claims. We all shall see, eventually, if he has any intention of making a pass at holding GOP office-holders and appointees accountable for their various attempts to subvert the Constitution.)
To clarify, grand jury deliberations are secret, but what sometimes or often happens is that folk called before the grand jury leak, well gossip, about their participation, and they are free to do so.
I thought even that was forbidden. (Yet leaks commonly happen anyway.)
To clarify, this is a Georgia special grand jury, separate and distinct from a Georgia regular grand jury. The special grand jury is not empowered to indict. Rather, their purpose is to issue subpoenas compelling attendance for testimony and document production. The proceedings will be overseen by a judge, unlike a regular grand jury which is overseen only by the prosecution.
This special grand jury will sit only until the judge in the case decides they have served their purpose. Since Raffensberger and others have stated they will not testify unless subpoenaed, I imagine that’s the purpose of this particular special grand jury.
Nopers. Grand jury testimony is secret, but the person who gave it is unencumbered from discussing it. This is for California but I’d bet it’s general:
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/witness-and-grand-jury-secrecy
Perhaps? close to 100% of grand jury leaks are from witnesses (because they can)
The special grand jury won’t convene in Atlanta until May 2? Seems an awfully long time from now. I hope the DA and her staff do all their prep work on the front end so the SGJ can come in and hit the ground running.
In one of my Fantasies of Competence™ that work was done before the SGJ was requested.
Drives me nuts. What more evidence to they need? Trump has admitted to his ‘perfect’ phone call. We have a recording of it.
It was an attempt to subvert an election. Should be a slam dunk.
The Fifth Amendment is definitely back in fashion among conservatives.
Maybe, I’m wrong but the lawyer for the University also seems pretty inept there.
The whole idea of tenure is that professors should have highly protected political speech. Here, the lawyer is making the argument that any political statement by a professor, using the school’s email server is ipso facto contraband and should be handed over to anyone for any purpose that could merit getting that professor into trouble for getting into political discussions.
That seems like a pretty bad precedent and it’s difficult to see why anyone who regularly represents universities would make that argument, short of being so partisanly enraged as to forget all logic.
The reasonable standard, is to follow the same standard as is the norm: If a lawyer is consulting on how to commit a crime then that is not protected by client-attorney privilege. So long as the school has received an appropriate warrant and can trust that a special master will be appointed to ensure that the contents are narrowly reduced down to discussions of criminal activities, they’re willing to abide by the law.