@justjocko.bsky.social
You can redact the victims’ names and not the predators’, they literally do it all the time in cases involving minors.
November 28, 2025 at 1:04 PM
You can redact the victims’ names and not the predators’, they literally do it all the time in cases involving minors.
They should be by law - they were minors at the time of the crimes. If the administration released it with their unredacted names, they could be subject to civil penalties and lawsuits.
November 28, 2025 at 1:02 PM
They should be by law - they were minors at the time of the crimes. If the administration released it with their unredacted names, they could be subject to civil penalties and lawsuits.
More like crushed by guilt, I’d say.
November 27, 2025 at 7:10 PM
More like crushed by guilt, I’d say.
I know a couple whose “song” is Freebird. Seriously.
November 27, 2025 at 3:49 PM
I know a couple whose “song” is Freebird. Seriously.
I’m sure quite a few lawyers will do it pro bono. Look at all the immigration lawyers that stepped up.
November 27, 2025 at 3:41 PM
I’m sure quite a few lawyers will do it pro bono. Look at all the immigration lawyers that stepped up.
Chicken or small?
November 27, 2025 at 4:08 AM
Chicken or small?
Yes, not taking effect until December 11. I find this timing a bit suspicious, tbh.
November 27, 2025 at 4:05 AM
Yes, not taking effect until December 11. I find this timing a bit suspicious, tbh.
I should specify that it’s knowingly committing them in the course of your work. What makes one personally liable is the fact that you are acting outside the scope and guidelines of your position. It’s got enough possibility that they could be tied up in court and spend lots of money on lawyers.
November 27, 2025 at 3:56 AM
I should specify that it’s knowingly committing them in the course of your work. What makes one personally liable is the fact that you are acting outside the scope and guidelines of your position. It’s got enough possibility that they could be tied up in court and spend lots of money on lawyers.
Knowingly committing illegal acts that harm others makes you personally liable in many cases
November 27, 2025 at 3:53 AM
Knowingly committing illegal acts that harm others makes you personally liable in many cases
Just another example of this administration focusing on the stupidly banal, in hopes that no one will notice everything else is on fire.
November 25, 2025 at 10:38 PM
Just another example of this administration focusing on the stupidly banal, in hopes that no one will notice everything else is on fire.
You can include military and federal workers in those numbers as well, AFAIK, they’ve not received their back pay yet. And once they do, they’ve got to get caught up on their bills first.
November 25, 2025 at 10:31 PM
You can include military and federal workers in those numbers as well, AFAIK, they’ve not received their back pay yet. And once they do, they’ve got to get caught up on their bills first.
Congress can, the Pentagon alone cannot. And I seriously doubt they’d get anywhere near enough votes in Congress.
November 25, 2025 at 10:28 PM
Congress can, the Pentagon alone cannot. And I seriously doubt they’d get anywhere near enough votes in Congress.
If the Supreme Court ruling is upheld that the President can’t be federally charged for what he does in office, that only covers him. Everyone else in the administration can be charged. And he can be charged by states and sued civilly, as far as I know.
November 25, 2025 at 10:23 PM
If the Supreme Court ruling is upheld that the President can’t be federally charged for what he does in office, that only covers him. Everyone else in the administration can be charged. And he can be charged by states and sued civilly, as far as I know.
Of course. What we don’t want redacted are any of the names of the perpetrators. And you know that, you’re just trying to be an ass.
November 25, 2025 at 10:21 PM
Of course. What we don’t want redacted are any of the names of the perpetrators. And you know that, you’re just trying to be an ass.
Halligan. She’s not covered by the government, since her appointment was not valid, so she can’t use taxpayer funds for defense or penalties.
November 25, 2025 at 4:09 PM
Halligan. She’s not covered by the government, since her appointment was not valid, so she can’t use taxpayer funds for defense or penalties.
But so very on brand for Hegseth.
November 25, 2025 at 4:01 PM
But so very on brand for Hegseth.
By law, they have to remove the names of minor victims. Pretty sure they were all minors. Don’t act stupid.
November 25, 2025 at 3:50 PM
By law, they have to remove the names of minor victims. Pretty sure they were all minors. Don’t act stupid.
They’re waiting until they’ve sucked out all the money they can.
November 24, 2025 at 9:26 PM
They’re waiting until they’ve sucked out all the money they can.
A lot of the known victims have already self-identified. And the DOJ should have already redacted victim names for Maxwell’s trial. That’s a bullshit excuse and you know it.
November 24, 2025 at 9:23 PM
A lot of the known victims have already self-identified. And the DOJ should have already redacted victim names for Maxwell’s trial. That’s a bullshit excuse and you know it.
Sometimes? Dude is the definition of tone deaf politics.
November 24, 2025 at 9:19 PM
Sometimes? Dude is the definition of tone deaf politics.
That wasn’t really Trump, it was Melania and Ivanka in a Trump suit.
November 24, 2025 at 3:38 PM
That wasn’t really Trump, it was Melania and Ivanka in a Trump suit.
One of mine likes dishwashers. The first one had a glass front, the new one is brushed stainless. He has also tried the fridge (also brushed stainless), but it is apparently not as tasty.
November 22, 2025 at 11:56 PM
One of mine likes dishwashers. The first one had a glass front, the new one is brushed stainless. He has also tried the fridge (also brushed stainless), but it is apparently not as tasty.
Oh, well done!
November 22, 2025 at 3:45 PM
Oh, well done!
It’s obviously Melania in a Donald suit.
November 22, 2025 at 12:51 AM
It’s obviously Melania in a Donald suit.