Jennifer Elsea
@jnklz.bsky.social
Legislative attorney at CRS. NatSec, IHL, international law, etc. Army Intelligence officer in previous life. Opinions mine. No skeets from this account are attributable to CRS.
Do bears have horns? I guess they could have trumpets or something. I don’t know.
November 27, 2025 at 3:39 AM
Do bears have horns? I guess they could have trumpets or something. I don’t know.
HIPAA probably violates freedom of religion, though. The right to identify people you have a deep religious conviction should suffer discrimination. Or something.
November 27, 2025 at 3:06 AM
HIPAA probably violates freedom of religion, though. The right to identify people you have a deep religious conviction should suffer discrimination. Or something.
Have an infinite series of pie! Eschew rationality!
November 26, 2025 at 2:44 AM
Have an infinite series of pie! Eschew rationality!
I think the thermostat at work has this feature.
November 26, 2025 at 12:41 AM
I think the thermostat at work has this feature.
I haven’t heard of such a rule. IRR members may be subject to activation under various authorities, but would not be subject to court martial for offenses committed while not on active duty. Only those receiving retired pay can be subject to UCMJ for offenses committed while not on active duty. AIUI
November 25, 2025 at 11:05 PM
I haven’t heard of such a rule. IRR members may be subject to activation under various authorities, but would not be subject to court martial for offenses committed while not on active duty. Only those receiving retired pay can be subject to UCMJ for offenses committed while not on active duty. AIUI
I wouldn’t think so either. My previous post said I would like to see it argued that an accurate statement of the law was automatically a diss against the prez. It wasn’t a serious suggestion of what could happen.
(The post you quoted was just filling in context because I had missed a word.)
(The post you quoted was just filling in context because I had missed a word.)
November 25, 2025 at 8:05 PM
I wouldn’t think so either. My previous post said I would like to see it argued that an accurate statement of the law was automatically a diss against the prez. It wasn’t a serious suggestion of what could happen.
(The post you quoted was just filling in context because I had missed a word.)
(The post you quoted was just filling in context because I had missed a word.)
Here’s more, on external communications (not covered by S&D).
constitution.congress.gov
November 25, 2025 at 6:52 PM
Here’s more, on external communications (not covered by S&D).
More on Speech & Debate immunity 👇
For an explanation of what activities S&D covers, see constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay...
constitution.congress.gov
November 25, 2025 at 6:38 PM
More on Speech & Debate immunity 👇
TBF, there was an effort to end hostilities within or against Venezuela went down on party lines in the Senate (SJ RES 90). H CON RES 51 would also end hostilities, including against FTOs. Congress realistically can’t enforce the 60 day clock without courts’ being willing to engage, so here we are
www.congress.gov
November 25, 2025 at 6:12 PM
TBF, there was an effort to end hostilities within or against Venezuela went down on party lines in the Senate (SJ RES 90). H CON RES 51 would also end hostilities, including against FTOs. Congress realistically can’t enforce the 60 day clock without courts’ being willing to engage, so here we are
For an explanation of what activities S&D covers, see constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay...
constitution.congress.gov
November 25, 2025 at 4:05 PM
For an explanation of what activities S&D covers, see constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay...
I can’t wait to find out whether I work for the executive branch here at LOC. I sometimes execute code and commit other verbs, so
November 25, 2025 at 3:34 PM
I can’t wait to find out whether I work for the executive branch here at LOC. I sometimes execute code and commit other verbs, so
I should have said UCMJ article. Art. 88 Contempt toward Officials (10 USC §888) prohibits commissioned officers from using contemptuous words against the Prez, Veep, MOC, SecDef, DHS Sec. gov. etc. (Uh oh).
They’re probably looking at Art. 94 (10 USC §894) Mutiny or sedition, which seems a stretch
They’re probably looking at Art. 94 (10 USC §894) Mutiny or sedition, which seems a stretch
894. ARTICLE 94. Mutiny or Sedition
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who– (1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or create...
ucmj.us
November 25, 2025 at 3:20 PM
I should have said UCMJ article. Art. 88 Contempt toward Officials (10 USC §888) prohibits commissioned officers from using contemptuous words against the Prez, Veep, MOC, SecDef, DHS Sec. gov. etc. (Uh oh).
They’re probably looking at Art. 94 (10 USC §894) Mutiny or sedition, which seems a stretch
They’re probably looking at Art. 94 (10 USC §894) Mutiny or sedition, which seems a stretch
I’m not sure PSAs are sufficiently related to legislative or oversight responsibilities. There is an article that prohibits denigrating the president. I look forward to the argument that stating the axiom about duty to refuse unlawful orders, without even mentioning the prez, is presumed to diss him
November 25, 2025 at 11:25 AM
I’m not sure PSAs are sufficiently related to legislative or oversight responsibilities. There is an article that prohibits denigrating the president. I look forward to the argument that stating the axiom about duty to refuse unlawful orders, without even mentioning the prez, is presumed to diss him
I thought it was Senator Gravel who did that, And they couldn’t prosecute him for that, but nailed him or one of staffers for something deemed outside of the Clause (private publication).
November 25, 2025 at 11:19 AM
I thought it was Senator Gravel who did that, And they couldn’t prosecute him for that, but nailed him or one of staffers for something deemed outside of the Clause (private publication).
I do not believe he stuck it out in the military long enough to earn retirement. So he would not be subject to recall.
November 25, 2025 at 11:13 AM
I do not believe he stuck it out in the military long enough to earn retirement. So he would not be subject to recall.
I hate how the bot dismisses serious research efforts and calls the question confused. For example
bsky.app/profile/jnkl...
bsky.app/profile/jnkl...
Is it possible to turn off AI assistance for searches and just get sites that, y’know, contain the search terms you enter, without commenting that you must be a total idiot for entering them? I long for Back Then.
November 25, 2025 at 11:08 AM
I hate how the bot dismisses serious research efforts and calls the question confused. For example
bsky.app/profile/jnkl...
bsky.app/profile/jnkl...
True, but refining does not help. You still get the same non-responsive hits that the bot assesses others with similar interests are want to see. It just rejects additional terms.
November 25, 2025 at 11:00 AM
True, but refining does not help. You still get the same non-responsive hits that the bot assesses others with similar interests are want to see. It just rejects additional terms.
I spend way more time swearing at my computer and exercising self-restraint to not hurl objects at it. I guess this is not a cost they have to bear, and they only need a few clicks on ads to make it worth *their* while, so I imagine it will only get worse.
November 25, 2025 at 10:57 AM
I spend way more time swearing at my computer and exercising self-restraint to not hurl objects at it. I guess this is not a cost they have to bear, and they only need a few clicks on ads to make it worth *their* while, so I imagine it will only get worse.
Because the GTMO military commissions have been such a roaring success
November 24, 2025 at 9:16 AM
Because the GTMO military commissions have been such a roaring success
Yes, the better dressed you are, the less you think you should get compensation for needless inconvenience. Common sense approach, unless you don’t have a private jet.
November 24, 2025 at 2:55 AM
Yes, the better dressed you are, the less you think you should get compensation for needless inconvenience. Common sense approach, unless you don’t have a private jet.
Maybe inject bleach
November 22, 2025 at 11:05 PM
Maybe inject bleach
Oh no not falling for that again forget it
November 22, 2025 at 6:49 AM
Oh no not falling for that again forget it