AkivaMCohen

If this is substantiated every single justice department attorney who touched the filings denying jurisdiction should be disbarred unless they're individually willing to put in a sworn statement declaring that they were told something different and identifying who lied to them about it

Zohran Mamdani is very much not an antisemite. Signed: Your very very Zionist and Jewish friend.

"Look, not in a racist way, but some groups of people are just naturally designed for farm work. Why would anyone think that's racist"

Can only imagine being a Republican congresscritter and just watching the White House cut attack ad after attack ad for your opponent's election campaign

Unironically love my opposing counsel, who called me back after a meet and confer today because he forgot to ask how my family in Israel is doing (which reminded me to ask about his extended family in Iran). He's wrong about EVERYTHING substantive, of course, but just a good human being

This thread should be the death-knell for Platner's claim that the army didn't ban him for the Nazi tattoo and for his defenders' claims that he didn't know it was a Nazi tattoo. It's the reason he was barred from re-enlistment, and he knew it. He's a liar who deliberately kept a Nazi tattoo.

It's amazing how much effort certain people put into ignoring everything they claim to believe when ignoring it is needed to avoid recognizing something as antisemitic

Exactly 1 post to go from "Israel is blackmailing Trump into this" to express and wild antisemitic noticing, must be a coincidence

Good. This is appropriate. The reason those are licensed professions is that we recognize the danger of letting an untrained human dispense legal or medical advice. That danger does not disappear when the advice is dispensed by an LLM. In fact, the danger multiplies

Mad King shit, per the usual

This is not technically a war crime; an unarmed combatant is not hors de combat (out of the action) sufficiently to make targeting them illegal. And had the IRIS Dena returned home it would have immediately armed up and joined the fight. But blowing up an unarmed ship vulnerable because of a joint

"if they rise, they rise"

1) if? 2)this isn't even on the list of most morally culpable crimes this one administration committed, since it was merely a reckless war crime rather than an intentional one. Though it's certainly among the most awful outcomes