Whey Standard
LightNews LightNews
wheystandard.bsky.social
Whey Standard
@wheystandard.bsky.social
1.4K followers 450 following 7K posts
Cornell Law ‘14. Financial regulation, law, politics, България, and now featuring fatherhood.
Posts Replies Media Videos
wheystandard.bsky.social
Hoping to be able to post this
Still from the movie “the dark knight” of a truck that says “Slaughter is the best medicine”
November 26, 2025 at 5:28 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
Hey I saw that yesterday! Good thing this guy never served I guess, because otherwise DOD might be having him recalled to active duty to prosecute him!
Donald J. Trump + @realDonaldTrump • 16h LOYALTY TO THE CONSTITUTION THE UNITED STATES BOLDLY BROKE WITH THE ANCIENT MILITARY CUSTOM OF SWEARING LOYALTY TO A LEADER. ARTICLE VI REQUIRED THAT AMERICAN OFFICERS THEREAFTER SWEAR LOYALTY TO OUR BASIC LAW, THE CONSTITUTION. WHILE MANY OTHER NATIONS HAVE SUFFERED MILITARY COUPS, THE UNITED STATES NEVER HAS. OUR AMERICAN CODE OF MILITARY OBEDIENCE REQUIRES THAT, SHOULD ORDERS AND THE LAW EVER CONFLICT, OUR OFFICERS MUST OBEY THE LAW. MANY OTHER NATIONS HAVE ADOPTED OUR PRINCIPLE OF LOYALTY TO THE BASIC LAW. THIS NATION MUST HAVE MILITARY LEADERS OF PRINCIPLE AND INTEGRITY SO STRONG THAT THEIR OATHS TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION WILL UNFAILINGLY GOVERN THEIR ACTIONS. THE PURPOSE OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY IS TO PROVIDE SUCH LEADERS OF CHARACTER. 711 5.14k ) 18.2k ←
November 24, 2025 at 6:04 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
Foreign grifters watching America like Cristof watching Truman
Christof from the Truman show with the words “I know you better than you know yourself” overlaid
November 24, 2025 at 2:38 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
Hell, technically you posted this today! You were literally complaining that he “didn’t define it”. Not that he defined it inaccurately, but that he didn’t define it. Which he didn’t, and he was not asked to do.
Flantastic @scaniam67.bsky.social Follow No. You fail. You were given the opportunity to read and you failed. One person stated that we should look up the definition of socialism, and the followup was a dipshit meme that didn't define it. You fail, sir. You have shown yourself to be incompetent or illiterate. I don't care which. Nov 23, 2025 at 12:10 AM 1 quote 2 ฿ 1 ① ...
November 24, 2025 at 3:01 AM
wheystandard.bsky.social
Oh, “the comment”? Here are the two posts I addressed in my post that you replied to about “the implication”. Which one of these were you claiming that “the implication” of was that the definition of socialism was wrong?
Patricia @pattidezgn4u.bsky.social • 17h I refuse to endorse Socialism. You may want to research what Socialism is ffs. 6 ①1 ① • .. garybutler.bsky.social @garybutler... • 17h Bluesky Elder "Socialism is a scare word [Republicans] have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people. When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan 'Down With Socialism' on the banner of his 'great crusade,' that is really not what he means at all. What he really means is, 'Down with Progress - down with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal,' and 'down with Harry Truman's Fair Deal.' That is what he means" - Harry Truman • 1 0 1 Flantastic @scaniam67.bsky.social • 16h ...
November 24, 2025 at 2:15 AM
wheystandard.bsky.social
There are three posts in the thread above the one where you inexplicably bitch about one of them not containing a definition. Here they all are below. Which one is your illiterate ass claiming says anything about a “definition”? Ken’s, Patricia’s, or Gary’s?
Ken Klippenstein @kenklippenstein... • 19h Bluesky Elder Hakeem Jeffries was literally voting for a resolution condemning socialism while this meeting was taking place Patricia @pattidezgn4u.bsky.social • 17h I refuse to endorse Socialism. You may want to research what Socialism is ffs. garybutler.bsky.social @garybutler... • 17h Bluesky Elder "Socialism is a scare word [Republicans] have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people. When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan
November 22, 2025 at 6:02 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
Not to mention all of the many times the government stated in writing that the court was making a mistaken assumption that the second indictment went before the grand jury:
The confusion arises solely from the magistrate judge's misinterpretation of the administrative correction removing Count One from the indictment after the grand jury returned a true bill on Counts Two and Three. That adjustment simply reflected the grand jury's vote; it was neither unusual nor improper. Courts do 2 not abandon the presumption of regularity based on misunderstandings contradicted by every factual source. Contrary to croncous news articles and the defendant's assumptions, there was only one indictment presented to the grand jury. See Dkt, No. 10 at 5-6; Dkt. No. 188-1 (Doclaration of Lindsey Halligan). As explained in detail by the U.S. Attorney, she only presented the indictment once and the grand jurors only deliberated once for an extended period of time. Dkt. No. 188-1. That fact has been confirmed by the court reporter. See Gov. Ex. 1 (email from court reporter). The proposed indictment included three proposed counts, but the grand jury did not retum a truc bill on original Count One, as the foreperson explained during the return of the indictment. See Dkt, No. 3; Dkt, No. 10 at 3, 5-6. As a result of the grand jury's determination that probable cause existed to believe that defendant had committed two of the charges set forth in the proposed indictment, the draft indictment was amended to remove the first count and keep the remaining two counts on which the grand jury had concurred. "Nevertheless, that is what transpired. Dt No. I. This was not, as the magistrate judge opines, an unusual series of events" and is fully explained by the U.S. Attomey's declaration, the court reporter's recollection, the grand jury coordinator's discussion with the grand jury foreperson, and the grand jury foreperson's explanation in court. Consequently, the presumption of regularity associated with grand jury procodings is not an issuc. and the grand jury's vote on the two counts of the operative indictment should not be disturbed. Rule 6(c) (3)(E) (i) does not au…
November 20, 2025 at 10:48 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
I wouldn’t have put it in at all if I were Nachmanoff until this comment from the government last night. Don’t baldly tell me the thing that two of my magistrates (one of whom is a 24 year veteran prosecutor) and I all called out as unprecedented is “not unusual”.
from the indictment after the grand jury returned a true bill on Counts Two and Three. That adjustment simply reflected the grand jury's vote; it was neither unusual nor improper. Courts do
November 20, 2025 at 5:03 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
I think the response to that will be that in Russell v. US, SCOTUS seemed to separate out a change that's "merely a matter of form", which suggests at least some changes to the document are ok.
In Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 82 S. Ct. 1038 (1962), the Supreme Court held that a bill of particulars cannot cure a fatally imprecise indictment. The bill of particulars fully serves the functions of apprising the accused of the charges and protecting him against future jeopardy, but it does not preserve his right to be tried on a charge found by a grand jury. The Court again cited the passage from Bain,referred to "the settled rule in the federal courts that an indictment may not be amended except by resubmission to the grand jury, unless the change is merely a matter of form,"" and stated: "* * * To allow the prosecutor, or the court, to make a subsequent guess as to what was in the minds of the grand jury at the time they returned the indictment would deprive the defendant of a basic protection which the guaranty of the intervention of a grand jury was designed to secure. For a defendant could then be convicted on the basis of facts not found by, and perhaps not even presented to, the grand jury which indicted him. * * * 12 In Bain, Stirone and Russell the Supreme Court has shown that it takes seriously, and requires to be enforced rigorously, the Fifth Amendment's command that a defendant to a charge of "infamous crime" be tried only on an "indictment of a Grand Jury." But here, appellants argue, the defendants were tried on an indictment drawn by an Assistant United States Attorney on the grand jury's instruction ("presentment") that they be charged with grand larceny. Only the foreman saw and approved the actual indictment, which set out the facts thought to constitute the essential elements of the crime. Thus, argue appellants, the indictment was "found," not by the grand jury, but by the prosecutor, operating under the grand jury's bare instruction to indict for grand larceny.
November 20, 2025 at 4:41 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
Whatever I think of what the court will ultimately decide about how the Comey indictment return happened, this, from the government, is a hell of a thing to say when two magistrates AND THE ART III JUDGE have said that they've never seen it happen before:

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
from the indictment after the grand jury returned a true bill on Counts Two and Three. That adjustment simply reflected the grand jury's vote; it was neither unusual nor improper. Courts do
November 20, 2025 at 3:41 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
The substantive part of what is mostly a personal rant about the majority, the plaintiffs, and plaintiffs' counsel. Having read the majority, you may recognize this criticism of it as "absolute bull"
The plaintiffs' theory is both perverse and bizarre. They actually contend that if the Republicans are sincere about gaining more seats, they could have drawn not five, but six, seven, or eight additional seats and that the reason they did not is that the real reason is racial animus. The absurdity of that notion speaks for itself. Yet it's all that the plaintiffs and Judge Brown have to offer to defeat the State's claim that the 2025 lines were drawn for the sake of politics and not race.
November 19, 2025 at 10:57 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
Judge Smith: "the only evidence of racial gerrymandering Judge Brown could point to was that Republicans could've gerrymandered more!"

Actual Judge Brown opinion: "DOJ explicitly told them to do it for racial reasons, and everyone from Abbott on down said that's why they did it"
The plaintiffs' theory is both perverse and bizarre. They actually contend that if the Republicans are sincere about gaining more seats, they could have drawn not five, but six, seven, or eight additional seats and that the reason they did not is that the real reason is racial animus. The absurdity of that notion speaks for itself. Yet it's all that the plaintiffs and Judge Brown have to offer to defeat the State's claim that the 2025 lines were drawn for the sake of politics and not race. Earlier this year, President Trump began urging Texas to redraw its U.S. House map to create five additional Republican seats. Lawmakers reportedly met that request to redistrict on purely partisan grounds with apprehension. When the Governor announced his intent to call a special legislative session, he didn't even place redistricting on the legislative agenda. But when the Trump Administration reframed its request as a demand to redistrict congressional seats based on their racial makeup, Texas lawmakers immediately jumped on board. On July 7, Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), sent a letter ("the DOJ Letter") to the Governor and Attorney General of Texas making the legally incorrect assertion that four congressional districts in Texas were "unconstitutional" because they were "coalition districts"-majority-non-White districts in which no single racial group constituted a 50% majority. In the letter, DOJ threatened legal action if Texas didn't immediately dismantle and redraw these districts-a threat based entirely on their racial makeup. Notably, the DOJ Letter targeted only majority-non-White districts. Any mention of majority- White Democrat districts-which DOJ presumably would have also targeted if its aims were partisan rather than racial-was conspicuously absent. Two days later, citing the DOJ Letter, the Governor added redistricting to the special session's legislative agenda. In doing so, the Governor explicitly directed the Legislature to draw a new U.S. House map to resolve DOJ's concerns. In other words, the Governor explicitly directed the Legislature to redistrict based on race. In press appearances, the Governor plainly and expressly disavowed any partisan objective and instead repeatedly stated that his goal was to eliminate coalition districts and create new majority-Hispanic districts. The Legislature adopted those racial objectives. The redistricting bill's sponsors made numerous statements suggesting that they had intentionally manipulated the districts' lines to create more majority-Hispanic and majority-Black districts. The bill's sponsors' statements suggest they adopted those changes because such a map would be an easier sell than a purely partisan one. The Speaker of the House also issued a press release celebrating that the bill satisfactorily addressed DOJ's "concerns." Other high-ranking legislators stated in media interviews that the Legislature had redistricted not for the political goal of appeasing President Trump nor of gaining five Republican U.S. House seats, but to achieve DOJ's racial goal of eliminating coalition districts. The map ultimately passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor-the 2025 Map-achieved all but one of the racial objectives that DOJ demanded. The Legislature dismantled and left unrecognizable not only all of the districts DOJ identified in the letter, but also several other "coalition districts" around the State. For these and other reasons, the Plaintiff Groups are likely to prove at trial that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map. So, we preliminarily enjoin Texas's 2025 Map.
November 19, 2025 at 10:19 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
From the majority:
Earlier this year, President Trump began urging Texas to redraw its U.S. House map to create five additional Republican seats. Lawmakers reportedly met that request to redistrict on purely partisan grounds with apprehension. When the Governor announced his intent to call a special legislative session, he didn't even place redistricting on the legislative agenda. But when the Trump Administration reframed its request as a demand to redistrict congressional seats based on their racial makeup, Texas lawmakers immediately jumped on board. On July 7, Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), sent a letter ("the DOJ Letter") to the Governor and Attorney General of Texas making the legally incorrect assertion that four congressional districts in Texas were "unconstitutional" because they were "coalition districts"-majority-non-White districts in which no single racial group constituted a 50% majority. In the letter, DOJ threatened legal action if Texas didn't immediately dismantle and redraw these districts-a threat based entirely on their racial makeup. Notably, the DOJ Letter targeted only majority-non-White districts. Any mention of majority- White Democrat districts-which DOJ presumably would have also targeted if its aims were partisan rather than racial-was conspicuously absent. Two days later, citing the DOJ Letter, the Governor added redistricting to the special session's legislative agenda. In doing so, the Governor explicitly directed the Legislature to draw a new U.S. House map to resolve DOJ's concerns. In other words, the Governor explicitly directed the Legislature to redistrict based on race. In press appearances, the Governor plainly and expressly disavowed any partisan objective and instead repeatedly stated that his goal was to eliminate coalition districts and create new majority-Hispanic districts. The Legislature adopted those racial objectives. The redistricting bill's sponsors made numerous statements suggesting that they had intentionally manipulated the districts' lines to create more majority-Hispanic and majority-Black districts. The bill's sponsors' statements suggest they adopted those changes because such a map would be an easier sell than a purely partisan one. The Speaker of the House also issued a press release celebrating that the bill satisfactorily addressed DOJ's "concerns." Other high-ranking legislators stated in media interviews that the Legislature had redistricted not for the political goal of appeasing President Trump nor of gaining five Republican U.S. House seats, but to achieve DOJ's racial goal of eliminating coalition districts. The map ultimately passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor-the 2025 Map-achieved all but one of the racial objectives that DOJ demanded. The Legislature dismantled and left unrecognizable not only all of the districts DOJ identified in the letter, but also several other "coalition districts" around the State. For these and other reasons, the Plaintiff Groups are likely to prove at trial that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map. So, we preliminarily enjoin Texas's 2025 Map.
November 19, 2025 at 10:06 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
Forgot alt text:
The plaintiffs' theory is both perverse and bizarre. They actually contend that if the Republicans are sincere about gaining more seats, they could have drawn not five, but six, seven, or eight additional seats and that the reason they did not is that the real reason is racial animus. The absurdity of that notion speaks for itself. Yet it's all that the plaintiffs and Judge Brown have to offer to defeat the State's claim that the 2025 lines were drawn for the sake of politics and not race.
November 19, 2025 at 9:49 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
Well, that and the on record statements of the governor who called the special session for redistricting and the legislators that passed it. But other than that...

This dissent is just straight-up lies that assumes folks didn't read the majority opinion.

electionlawblog.org/wp-content/u...
November 19, 2025 at 9:49 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
according to the article, the foreperson told the judge that in open court. Would be nice if they just published the transcript of the indictment return hearing.
filed in court. He was indicted on two other counts - making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding - after 14 of 23 jurors voted in favor of them, the foreperson told the judge.
November 19, 2025 at 8:37 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
Don’t worry, the man one has a guy’s name on it
6 pack of mikes hard lemonade
November 18, 2025 at 12:20 AM
wheystandard.bsky.social
I’m shook
Pikachu looking shocked
November 16, 2025 at 12:46 AM
wheystandard.bsky.social
Besides being disgusting, this is just straight false, as some of Epstein’s victims stated they were 13.
In reference to Epstein, Kelly rightly noted that "we have yet to see anybody come forward and say I was under 10, I was under 14." She was also correct to say, "There's a difference between a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old."
November 15, 2025 at 4:07 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
Jennifer Aniston drinking a giant Pepsi in office space
November 13, 2025 at 11:45 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
He should call Stephen
stephen Verified Purchase great product Reviewed in the United States on September 11, 2024 I used this to build a pig rotisserie and it worked great. It was gear reduced further another 8-1 and it easily spun 120lb of meat for hours and never got hot. The speed controller was very nice unlike others that simply are a adjustable resistor and starve the motor of... See more 10 people found this helpful Helpful • Share Report
November 13, 2025 at 10:39 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
I see google had also not seen the phrase until Fetterman's team came up with it:
From google.com: "ventricular fibrillation flare up" -fetterman × Al Mode All Images Videos Shopping Short videos Forums More v Tools + No results found for "ventricular fibrillation flare up" -fetterman.
November 13, 2025 at 6:37 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
Eh, he’s been mixed on immigration. When given the chance this past June, he didn’t really criticize ICE, he said this, which was a bit hypocritical:
"Those people that are doing illegal things in America and that are foreigners, they are not smart, because when you come to America, you're a guest, and you have to behave like a guest," he said. "When I go to someone's house and l'm a guest, then I'll do everything I can to keep things clean and to make my bed and do everything that's the right thing to do rather than committing a crime or being abusive or something like that," he said. "That doesn't really work in this country."
November 11, 2025 at 11:47 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
lol this is Arnold Schwarzenegger, whom today’s ICE would call a criminal illegal alien, given he’s on video smoking pot when he was still a noncitizen. I don’t recall when the video was taken, but it was included in Pumping Iron, released in 1977, 6 years before he naturalized.
Homeland Security @DHSgov Answer the call. X.com Protect The West JOIN. ICE. GOV With a picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger
November 11, 2025 at 4:20 PM
wheystandard.bsky.social
One of the first to very publicly denounce the deal has received more than that

Why is AIPAC funding relevant here?
RUBEN GALLEGO AZ-SEN [D] Lobby Total: $379,877 AIPAC, DMFI, GCSC, JAC, NORPAC & more Next Election: 2030
November 10, 2025 at 3:41 PM