"Talk radio isn't a target of FCC's 'equal time' notice, Brendan Carr says"

https://www.politico.com/news/...

Still laughing. Did you really just describe my speculation about Earth #2 as "facts"?

On Earth #2, where none of things you're whining about happened, and previous administrations completely ignored his actual crimes, Donald Trump is still using the Justice Department to directly target his enemies. Your posts here are more whataboutism than causal analysis.

Look at the subpoenas they issued to the NYTimes over their reporting about the Qatari bribe jet modifications - the subpoenas were thrown out after the DOJ attorneys didn't even follow basic rules properly. There's no way any of them were thinking "we can only do this because we heard that norms were changed a decade ago."

Will not be surprised if this case goes the way of the sandwich-throwing case. Sadly, it's also possible we'll see a truly insane outcome like the Prairieland case.

Do you have any specific references for Obama's 'overt politicization' of the DOJ? My searches are only turning up right-wing new sites talking in the same vague terms you are using.

The Biden administration appointed a special prosecutor (and btw, did not prosecute all of the people using '8646'). Not sure how his following the law in relation to crimes Trump actually committed justifies Trump's orders via social media to prosecute people for made-up bullshit.

Seriously? "But Obama..."?

Here's a list of people targeted by Trump. It's not a short list, and the majority of these cases are pure bullshit:
https://abcnews.com/US/list-in...

That list doesn't include the Broadview Six, where the DOJ's grand jury manipulation was so brazenly unlawful, the DOJ is now offering to pay the defendant's attorney fees. It doesn't include numerous cases where the DOJ's lies were so ridiculous, judges are denying the DOJ the "presumption of regularity" that had previously existed.

What did Obama do that required Trump to behave like this?

"Over One Hundred Former Senior DOJ Leaders File Brief Opposing Retaliatory Comey Prosecution"
https://washingtonlitigationgr...

"More than 1,000 former Department of Justice (DOJ) officials - spanning both Republican and Democratic administrations, a majority of whom were nonpartisan civil servants - have signed a statement condemning the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. The letter calls the indictment an 'unprecedented assault on the rule of law directed by President Donald Trump.' "
https://protectdemocracy.org/w...

The DOJ took this to the grand jury at the direction of Trump. This is not normal, and should not even be legal.

There's no reasonable interpreation where '86' as a standalone statement should be taken as a violent threat. Hell, even the literal definition of the phrase does not support that.

"the peculiar circumstances involving repeated actual assassination attempts that seem to be connected to public incitement"
That's not a thing.

Some democrats: Monopolies and excessive market consolidation are bad.
Some state attorneys general: Monopolies and excessive market consolidation are bad.
You: It's proof, I tell you! That's obviously just as bad as taking millions in bribes!

An impressive feat, taking a weak argument and turning it into a truly stupid one.

Trump took obvious bribes to ok this merger.

Unless you know there's some equivalent bribery involved on the other side of this lawsuit, your weak both-sides take here is, well, weak.

That's a stupid fucking take. The people doing the rug-pull are making plenty.

"Trump made more than $1bn from crypto in first year back in office"
https://www.bbc.com/news/artic...

"How Trump made more than $1B on crypto when most of his coin's investors lost money"
https://abc7ny.com/story/how-t...

Don't know if we can blame DOGE for the explosive diarrhea, though; that may just be RFKjr.

Turns out that yes, we can blame DOGE for that:
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/0...

It was a trick question.

I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out why; I do not intend to reply any more in this thread.

The judge allowed...
Which judge?

I eagerly await your citation ....

Now you're just throwing stuff out and trying to see what sticks.

'Has some probative value' (which you got from a TV show) and 'lying about it is criminal perjury' are not the same thing.

being prosecuted ... is not a given?
Yes. I specifically said no one would prosecute *this* case. Not all lies in court are equal, and immaterial lies are specifically excluded from prosecution. And as you noted, not all punishments involve criminal prosecution.

You conveniently forgot "and misdemeanors."
No, I knew it did not have the same meaning we often associate with it today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.reddit.com/r/legal...

Your posts remind me of a former co-worker who would often state things in legal and other contexts with simple, absolute certainty, even when it was obvious to everyone that he was completely wrong. He ended up spending time in prison for tax evasion because he was so sure that his interpretation of the tax code was correct.

Have a nice day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Waving your arms around and saying 'pattern of behavior' is not how you demonstrate that something is material. A primer:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...
You may also want to refer to the notes from one of the judges in the case. They described the testimony as immaterial.

Note that this discussion about materiality is in response to your earlier claim that he committed a felony. Your claim was, to be clear, total fucking bullshit. No jurisdiction in the US would have prosecuted a statement like this in a civil case as a perjury charge, let alone as felony perjury.

And in the same vein, there's no way that sexual harassment, which is almost always a civil claim in the US, rises to the level of 'High Crime' required by the Constitution. The same is true for lying about sexual harassment.

- Material and relevant are not the same thing.

- He was not impeached for sexual harassment.