KC Momkin

@kc-momkin.bsky.social

Followers

Following

673

Posts

Posts Replies Media

Reposted by

KC Momkin

I will bang this drum forever: in THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE FREE: THE GERMANS, 1933-45 Milton Mayer interviewed 10 ordinary Germans after WW2 to learn how fascism took hold. There was never a moment when everyone woke up:

if you’re waiting for everyone around you to wake up, you’ll wait forever. this is how the people grinding our bones to make their bread WANT you to be. paralyzed, alienated & purposeless

Reposted by

KC Momkin

Reply to

Popehat

no such thing as illegal orders any more. Can't be, definitionally.

Reposted by

KC Momkin

This but unironically.

Reposted by

KC Momkin

The New York Times found it appropriate to publish this drivel on Independence Day just one week after the Supreme Court ruled that Republican presidents are above the law.

Reposted by

KC Momkin

This story hits a little harder now that the jury documents for Epstein's case have been released (and Trump's name is ALLLLLL over those documents). Again, mainstream media is burying this story for Trump. www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...

Jeffrey Epstein introduced me to Trump at 14, Ghislaine Maxwell accuser sayswww.nbcnews.com Testifying at Maxwell’s trial in New York City, the woman, identified by the pseudonym Jane, said she met the former president in the 1990s at his Mar-a-Lago resort.

Reposted by

KC Momkin

This is your annual advance reminder that you will never look at a photograph or video of fireworks again, nor will it be of any real interest to your social media contacts. Just look with your own gelatinous human eyes.

Reposted by

KC Momkin

Reply to

Rob

Force them to do it. Don't surrender preemptively. And also assert that whatever the DoJ does--as a part of the Executive--is presumptively legal under new Supreme Court precedent. Up-to-and-including ignoring Judicial Branch dicta.

Reposted by

KC Momkin

Either the Democrats will run Biden, or he'll say he can't continue the campaign and Democrats will run Harris. Either is newsworthy, but neither is nearly as radical as running a pro-insurrection convicted felon with legal immunity he's eager to use.

Reposted by

KC Momkin

I think it's funny that there have been all these close reads of the DNC rules about their candidates as if they are somehow set in stone. It's the party's rules! They can just change them completely! It's not the law!

Reposted by

KC Momkin

Everyone else is focused, rightly, on the threat, so let me just remind you that it will not remain bloodless, whatever the left decides to do or not to do.

Heritage Foundation president celebrates Supreme Court presidential immunity ruling: "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be" www.mediamatters.org/project-2025...

Heritage Foundation president celebrates Supreme Court immunity decision: "We are in the process of the second American Revolution"www.mediamatters.org

Reposted by

KC Momkin

Do you remember folks were picketing Supreme Court Justices' homes a couple of years ago? They're back! At Justice Roberts' home today. Short thread with video on Twitter: x.com/LiteraryMous...

Reposted by

KC Momkin

Keeping Trump out of the White House isn’t the only thing that needs doing and it isn’t enough to solve all problems facing the country & world but if it isn’t done then all those problems get exponentially worse in ways I don’t even know how to express and it scares me when people pretend otherwise

Yes, it is a big FU to lawyers, and an additional form of power grab for the courts.

The ambiguity is the point. There’s guaranteed to be an issue for appeal, both pre- AND post-trial, thus ensuring that the real rule is “a president is immune from suit so long as they’re a president we like” It’s inimical to the rule of law and makes a mockery of the entire profession

It would be nice to move beyond it one way or another and coalesce. If Biden chooses not to run (I am not saying he should, I am saying IF) it would let Biden's team focus on doing everything possible to help shore up democracy while the other candidate would have time and energy to rally people.

Biden and the Democrats need to resolve this issue no later than Monday night. Either he resigns so that Harris can run as the incumbent, or Harris, Whitmer, et al make unequivocal statements of support and confidence in Biden as the D standard bearer. We need to get this crap behind us and focus.

Reposted by

KC Momkin

Don't forget the Sharpie.

Reposted by

KC Momkin

A decision of surpassing recklessness in dangerous times, with @qjurecic.bsky.social: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-de...

A Decision of Surpassing Recklessness in Dangerous Timeswww.lawfaremedia.org The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States would have been wrong and dangerous at any time. It’s uncommonly so with Trump poised to retake power.

Is this a reasonable use of our communal resources, especially in an age of climate change? Doesn't seem like it.

The story is always the same: major tech companies tell us they care about the environment to silence criticism, then never actually follow through. Google’s emissions are up ~50% in 5 years, following similar news Microsoft is also blowing past its climate commitments.

Google’s emissions climb nearly 50% in five years due to AI energy demandwww.theguardian.com Tech giant’s goal of reducing climate footprint at risk as it grows increasingly reliant on energy-hungry data centres

Does anyone have any information about any planned activity?

Okay, I checked the MoveOn website and the Women's March website. Nothing. Is *SOMEONE* planning any kind of large-scale protest in response to 6 fascists ending American democracy? If so, could you please point me in their direction?

Reposted by

KC Momkin

Official act. Immune.

Reposted by

KC Momkin

the conservative theory of law in one headline

What is the SCOTUS plan if the President issues an order to lock SCOTUS up for an opinion he doesn't like? Are they just planning to never rule against him?

The Supreme Court is concerned about protecting the president from the people — when they should be concerned about protecting the people from the president.

Do not obey in advance. Don't make it easy.

apropos of uhhhhhhh everything, reposting this again

Reposted by

KC Momkin

It took me 24 hours to figure out what I'm feeling is grief, and "...when the Supreme Court gets to just make up stuff" is why. It's a betrayal through and through.

The problem is the ruling is so twisted, confusing, convoluted and inconsistent with the Constitution in practical reality, that it messes up the entire separation of powers. Lawyers can't lawyer their way out when the supermajority on the Supreme Court gets to just make up stuff.

So did he lie to Congress during his Senate confirmation?

The hypocrisy, it burns.

Justice John Roberts Saying The President Is 'Bound By The Law' During Confirmation Hearing Resurfaces After Immunity Rulingbit.ly John Roberts previously said presidents are "bound by the law" during his confirmation hearing.

Perhaps the cast of SNL could stage some of these scenarios for us?

Okay, folks, who is putting together the list of the funniest crimes that Biden should be committing between now and election day to highlight the absurdity of today's immunity ruling? Not the stuff like assassinations. Just stuff to make a point.

Reposted by

KC Momkin

Not that anyone particularly cares about original meaning, but think folks should still say it out loud: For all of the things that are unclear in the founding documents and unknowabilities of what the Founders intended, "the President can kill anyone or commit a coup" was *never* legally arguable

Reposted by

KC Momkin

Inviting you to ponder the craziest takeaway from Roberts’s opinion in the Trump immunity case, which is that if Trump had ordered the military, instead of the mob of his supporters, to march to the Capitol and murder Mike Pence, he’d be legally bulletproof ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/trump...

The MAGA Supreme Court Is All the Way Hereballsandstrikes.org John Roberts's opinion in the Trump immunity case should be the end of the fantasy of Roberts as the Court's committed institutionalist.

Reposted by

KC Momkin

Reposted by

KC Momkin