I thought the whole point of twitter was condescending threads that speculate on everything?
You have the right of it.
In this case at least, Popehat was a federal prosecutor so he does kinda know what’s going on in this instance.
Not to mention, as we’re all aware, voluntarily talking to the law rather, than just letting your lawyer deal with it, is a phenomenally bad idea. [Insert “don’t talk to the cops professor” video here.] Most particularly because “I acted within the bounds of the law” is almost certainly, in at least some minor but federal offense-y way, incorrect.
I think the objection is that he assumes a whole bunch of things that he doesn’t actually know, then mocks her in a 9-tweet rant. Maybe she’s being stupid or naive, but probably the way to deal with that is just to say hey, you should not go to the meeting before you talk to a lawyer, and maybe you should not go to it all, and if you do take the lawyer, be very careful here, thanks g’bye. I get that the other way is more fun and entertaining, but it is pretty arrogant when it’s all said and done.
One man’s rant is another man’s “this is a phenomenally bad idea, and for the benefit of the folks in the cheap seats here’s some reasons why” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Also, all the people cheering her on.
Snark, is of course and unfortunately, the currency of the realm.
Well, sure. But pointing out that snark is snark can’t be wrong, can it?
Here are the ‘reasons why’, which are so reasonable!
https://twitter.com/popehat/status/1531085204189638658?s=21&t=0IbXpZoP8hVl7Br47GTaKw
https://twitter.com/popehat/status/1531085205070438402?s=21&t=0IbXpZoP8hVl7Br47GTaKw
He’s just trying to help her. And a man doing this to a woman on Twitter, when he doesn’t even know what she does and doesn’t know? Well, there’s a word for that.
I like reading Popehat’s twitter feed, but “arrogant” and “condescending” would be pretty accurate words to describe him, I think. Anyone who doesn’t understand the law as well as he does is an idiot to be mocked, even if it’s just some twitter rando (this is the entire shtick of “Bad Legal Takes” which he re-tweets often, for example), which is kind of punching down.
I do, too! It’s just that this particular one was jarring, and now I’m looking at some of the others with side eye.
Well, what usually happens is someone who knows nothing about the law starts a fight with lawyers in their area of expertise and then calls all the lawyers stupid for knowing more than they do.
Which leads to a lot of Twitter lawyers having a pretty short fuse when it comes to people being stupid and wrong about the law. And also a lot of them find enjoyment in it. Ari Cohn’s hobby is making fun of people on Twitter who think the First Amendment should only work for their political tribe, for example.
It’s always a plus when the jury comes back with this:
“Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,” she added, saying the government “could have spent our time more wisely.” A second juror told The Post that in the jury room, “everyone pretty much saw it the same way.”
Expect Trump Republicans to totally appeal that acquittal to the 5th Circuit. Expect a 3-judge panel to overturn the acquittal.
(Yes, I know. It’s a joke.)
I do wonder if anything will happen to the multiple people Durham forced to perjure themselves (or admit to previous perjury in interviews or before Congress) on the stand.
Obviously, nothing will happen to Durham.
Bees are now legally classified fish in California.
So… Fish tanks?
It’s a misleading, yet fun headline. From the article:
Commission note, however, the technical definition in section 45 [of California’s Fish and Game Code] includes mollusks, invertebrates, amphibians, and crustaceans, all of which encompass terrestrial and aquatic species
The accurate, yet less funny, determination is that Bees are legally covered as “invertebrates”…
Which also means it covers the GOP
ba dum tsh.
Fish vomit.
On the plus side, bound Supreme Court briefs are really pleasing to read. And when you read hundreds of the things, that matters.
There are provision for filing in forma pauperis for people who cannot afford the fees. In those cases, you can file on old fashioned 8.5x11.
If you are ever in a situation where you want to file something in the Supreme Court, you want to get the Supreme Court Practice treatise and read it carefully. Lots of valuable information there.