MK

@mlkelly.bsky.social

Silence is not an option - Artist Amy Sheryl...Retired English teacher, political and news junkie, feminist, children's book writer, progressive Dem, defender of Democracy. No DMs, please.

@thisdudeabides.bsky.socialReposted by @mlkelly.bsky.social

Trump/Krasnov found a way to send American taxpayer dollars to Russia at his discretion. The fuel doesn’t even matter in this equation. What does it take to call out the treason?

@angrystaffer.bsky.socialReposted by @mlkelly.bsky.social

Shit! 😳 Let’s make this nationwide.

MeidasTouch@meidastouch.com

Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA): "At this point in time in 2022, a little over 200,000 Virginians had voted. At this point in time in 2026, approximately 450,000 Virginians have voted early."

@jennycohn.bsky.socialReposted by @mlkelly.bsky.social

Lula (president of Brazil) “asked the court to investigate possible support from the Rockbridge Network, a [Peter Thiel-backed] conservative U.S. donor network co-founded by…JD Vance. It said a political organizer tied to the group works at Flávio Bolsonaro’s campaign headquarters...” 10/4/26 …1/

@andycraig.bsky.socialReposted by @mlkelly.bsky.social

It's already illegal. Congress banned it near-unanimously in 2022. That law allows the ban to be lifted only if Russia withdraws from Ukraine. He's simply breaking the law that's already on the books.

David S. Bernstein @dbernstein.bsky.social

Republican US Rep Brian Fitzgerald tweets that he will introduce a bill to block purchases of Russian oil. Don Bacon (R-Neb) tweets that he will co-sponsor. Obviously this won’t happen during campaigning recess (and Trump could veto anyway) but interesting push-back on Trump.

@maggiemcneill.bsky.socialReposted by @mlkelly.bsky.social

The term everyone is dancing around is "secret police", a hallmark of totalitarian regimes.

Jared@jaredmcclain.bsky.social

Things got more insane just about as soon as I posted this last night. DHS is now arguing that we cannot even put the names of ICE officers in our lawsuit against those officers. Their position is that, if a defendant works for DHS, they cannot be named in a lawsuit. Never seen anything like it.

All this time, while Defendants have refused to identify Does 4 and 5 or respond to Leo’s discovery requests, the six-month statute of limitations on his FTCA claims has nearly expired. So, on October 6, Leo sought Defendants’ consent to file an amended complaint that (1) adds his FTCA claims against the United States and (2) adds the names of Does 1, 2, and 3. These minimal changes are shown in a redline attached to this filing. Defendants, however, refused to consent to Leo’s amendments because there is not a protective order in place. One of Defendants’ positions with respect to the protective order is that the “full legal names” of all government employees “should be confidential.” (ECF 109, at 2). That position, apparently, means that Defendants even oppose Leo identifying specific officers in his lawsuit against those very officers based on their misconduct in carrying out their public duties. Because Defendants will not consent to Leo’s amendments, Leo has filed this motion for leave.Justice also requires granting Leo leave to name the Doe officers as defendants. Despite DHS’s remarkable position that all government employees’ names are confidential, parties routinely sue government employees by name. In fact, Rule 10(a) “requires a complaint to ‘include the names of all the parties.’” Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 322 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)). “Lawsuits are public events.” Id. Rule 10(a) “protects the public’s legitimate interest in knowing all of the facts involved, including the identity of the parties.” Id. Only in an “exceptional case” can a party’s name be withheld from the public. Id. And that bar is even higher for public employees since their employment “diminishes their privacy interests” given “the corresponding public interest in knowing how public employees are performing their jobs.” Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984);
2
Older posts