@fubar.bsky.social
Husband, Dad, Grandpa. Californian, Boomer. Navy Veteran. Atheist. Independent in a 2 party system. Love the outdoors, camping, cycling, hiking. Card carrying member ANTIFA
Reposted
8/ For God’s sake: Mike Davis again. bsky.app/profile/atru...
November 24, 2025 at 9:02 PM
8/ For God’s sake: Mike Davis again. bsky.app/profile/atru...
Reposted
7/ The replies to Mike Davis’s post complaining about the Comey & James dismissals are brutal. A sampling.
November 24, 2025 at 8:59 PM
7/ The replies to Mike Davis’s post complaining about the Comey & James dismissals are brutal. A sampling.
Reposted
In April, Mike Davis of A3P—which advises Trump on judicial nominees—griped that “These judges think that they're…gonna turn around planes” & “order [Trump] to negotiate…to bring back…MS-13 gangbangers—it's not gonna happen,” adding that Trump has a “duty” to ignore “clearly lawless orders”. 1/
Article III Project founder Mike Davis on courts: "If they want to keep fighting ... the president is just gonna ignore these lawless and dangerous orders"
www.mediamatters.org
November 24, 2025 at 8:40 PM
Reposted
20/ Note that Article 3 Project leader Mike Davis re-posted Paul Ingrassia’s message acknowledging that Trump has nominated Ingrassia to lead the Office of Special Counsel.
November 24, 2025 at 7:13 PM
Reposted
4/ Yes, the “Article 3 Project” founder Mike Davis seems thrilled at the prospect of Trump nominating Emil Bove to the federal bench.
November 24, 2025 at 7:12 PM
Reposted
Article 3 Project (A3P) president Mike Davis brags that A3P is “working closely” w/ Trump “to pick even more bold…judges in his 2d term.” A3P Senior Counsel Josh Hammer calls the “separation of church & state” a “lie” & gushes that Trump’s first 5 judicial picks are “stellar”. 1/
November 24, 2025 at 7:11 PM
Reposted
6/ Here, Mike Davis warned that “revenge is coming” to the Republicans who declined to confirm Ed Martin as the US attorney in DC.
November 24, 2025 at 7:10 PM
Reposted
2/ The dismissal is without prejudice, meaning the gov’t *could* refine the charges. But because the statute of limitations has run here, that’s complicated. The gov’t may try it under a savings provision, appeal Judge Currie’s order or both.
November 24, 2025 at 5:38 PM
2/ The dismissal is without prejudice, meaning the gov’t *could* refine the charges. But because the statute of limitations has run here, that’s complicated. The gov’t may try it under a savings provision, appeal Judge Currie’s order or both.