@klynner.bsky.social
A mom mediating and deciphering the messages of: my children, global issues and national concerns. Former non-profit director and grant writer.
Reposted
Admittedly, the racketeering part of the ruling is focused primarily on Durham Report stuff.
But it overlaps with what Trump wants to charge in SDFL.
But it overlaps with what Trump wants to charge in SDFL.
![No “real relation” exists between any earlier proceeding and
this suit. Trump presents as candidates the Federal Election Commission’s action against the Clinton campaign, Durham’s prosecution of Sussmann, and the Danchenko and Clinesmith prosecutions. None of these proceedings are, or even resemble, a racketeering action. At best, they are actions involving some of the conduct that Trump incorporates into his racketeering claim. But none
of these actions are even prosecutions of a racketeering predicate
act. The Commission’s action objected to the Democratic National
Committee’s and Clinton campaign’s “mischaracteriz[ation] . . . of
certain disbursements,” and at most establishes that the campaign relayed funds through Perkins Coie to opposition research. And the
Sussmann, Danchenko, and Clinesmith prosecutions for making
false statements to federal officials are relevant only to discrete
parts of Trump’s claims. These facts do not amount to a racketeering enterprise or a racketeering conspiracy.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bbp2b224lro3bfnzcqwwnkfo/bafkreibepte6iij37rkftpy7jnvo24dfzf3lt2gygfva7my6q5ev5xthy4@jpeg)
November 26, 2025 at 3:41 PM
Admittedly, the racketeering part of the ruling is focused primarily on Durham Report stuff.
But it overlaps with what Trump wants to charge in SDFL.
But it overlaps with what Trump wants to charge in SDFL.
Only $1 million? Tisk. Not enough to cause change in their actions.
November 26, 2025 at 4:43 PM
Only $1 million? Tisk. Not enough to cause change in their actions.
Reposted
It's sort of ironic because Halligan screwed up prosecuting a fake crime, likely because of inexperience (and malice).
Willis was very experienced and she screwed up a real, serious crime because she thought she could get away with sleeping with her subordinates.
Willis was very experienced and she screwed up a real, serious crime because she thought she could get away with sleeping with her subordinates.
November 26, 2025 at 4:36 PM
It's sort of ironic because Halligan screwed up prosecuting a fake crime, likely because of inexperience (and malice).
Willis was very experienced and she screwed up a real, serious crime because she thought she could get away with sleeping with her subordinates.
Willis was very experienced and she screwed up a real, serious crime because she thought she could get away with sleeping with her subordinates.
Since NYTs is now into editorializing, here's the opinion edit for "retribution" - petty revenge without a reason.
November 26, 2025 at 12:25 PM
Since NYTs is now into editorializing, here's the opinion edit for "retribution" - petty revenge without a reason.
Reposted
“They claimed they were saving taxpayers money, but what they were doing was hiding the ball about who is buying the government,” www.nytimes.com/2025/11/26/u...
A Year Later, Donors to Trump’s Transition Come to Light
www.nytimes.com
November 26, 2025 at 12:00 PM
“They claimed they were saving taxpayers money, but what they were doing was hiding the ball about who is buying the government,” www.nytimes.com/2025/11/26/u...