Jeff Nall
banner
jeffmnall.bsky.social
Jeff Nall
@jeffmnall.bsky.social

Fractional CTO. Digital nomad. AI guy. 30+ years in tech. Difficult engineering problems solved immediately. The impossible takes a little longer.

#ViveLaUSA
#cancersurvivor
#freelancer 👨‍💻
#thirdparty
Palo Alto, CA but..
..currently travelling the world!
Our big, orange, special boy is treating our troops as though they are toys in a sandbox.

The DC deployment of National Guard troops was ruled illegal but the judgement was stayed pending appeal.

Those soldiers shouldn't have even been there.
November 27, 2025 at 12:17 AM
This sums it up.
November 26, 2025 at 11:57 PM
We have a draft dodger in the whitehouse treating our troops like toys in a sandbox.

What a waste of life. Sign up to serve our country and end up dead because of a pedophile's whim.
November 26, 2025 at 11:54 PM
In the name of all that does not suck, please tell me we can get those videos.

If it contains info on redacting Trumps name it'll be like the second coming of Nixon's oval office tapes.
November 26, 2025 at 1:47 AM
Adding a little complexity just heightens the fun.

"You have to set up direct deposit with The U.S. Treasury in order to receive it."

A few AI generated screen shots as evidence seals the deal.
November 25, 2025 at 11:46 PM
No, the indictment was only dismissed because of Halligan's unlawful appointment; the question over the correct indictment was presented to the grand jury was never answered. You just know they won't drop this nonsense though and appeal to SCOTUS.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
November 24, 2025 at 8:39 PM
The question over the validity of the indictment was never answered though, was it? That question remains unanswered because the indictment was dismissed for other reasons; I don't think you're correct on this one.

On Halligan's appoinment, I've no idea. Thanks for filling me in.
November 24, 2025 at 8:23 PM
Can you parse out what I'm missing? I don't pretend to be a legal scholar--just someone on the internet. I've read over it several times and I can't figure out why this wouldn't apply.
November 24, 2025 at 8:13 PM
This is the boost a potential mark Kelly presidential run needed. Boomers (via the Trump circus) still don't understand The Streisand Effect.
November 24, 2025 at 8:12 PM
Yes and no. They've 6 months to refile after the dismissal (even with the SoL.) It's all a mess. The next attempt at prosecution will surely be met with the indictment not being presented to the grand jury though.

Amazing incompetence here.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...
18 U.S. Code § 3288 - Indictments and information dismissed after period of limitations
www.law.cornell.edu
November 24, 2025 at 8:07 PM
Well done--love the circuitry on the flower.
November 24, 2025 at 2:05 AM
I worked with an organization so overcome by bugs they were making decisions to leave some pretty severe problems in the code because fixing them would introduce more problems than they would solve because they had nearly non-existent automated testing.

Still in biz, but circling the drain.
November 23, 2025 at 8:21 PM
Great legal scholars (with juris doctorates earned from staying at a Holiday Inn last night.)
November 23, 2025 at 6:36 AM
Might just be me, but this reminds me of the dinner party visited by Death in Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life so, so much.

Not any value in that observation, just had to say something.
November 21, 2025 at 4:54 AM