Tessera
Folgen

Ryan Deem

@ryandeem.bsky.social

DC Sports Fan Pun Expert

6003 Posts3209 Follower846 Folgt
Aaron Rupar@atrupar.com · 8h ago

Wow — listen to these new comments from Trump. Thanking Putin, trashing Zelenskyy, characterizing Russia as eager for peace and Ukraine as intransigent. The mask is totally off.

Chris Geidner@chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 5h ago

As I said to someone else recently, I eagerly look forward to a time when I never need to think about Rahm or Gavin again. (I get that, as governor of California, that’s not an option right now as to Newsom.)

CalMatters@calmatters.org · 6h ago

Gavin Newsom backs measure to kill the billionaire tax and ban future wealth taxes Gov. Gavin Newsom isn't just fighting the billionaire tax. He's backing Prop. 42, which would ban future wealth taxes in California, too.

James@gravitysra1nbow.bsky.social · 20h ago

We’re already helping to fund the Russian war effort and we’ve basically ended all other aid to Ukraine. Why the fuck should the Ukrainians care about our threats anymore.

Shipwreck@shipwreck75.bsky.social · 20h ago

US warned the Ukrainians that Washington might cut off intelligence sharing with Kyiv if it will continue strikes on Russian refineries. The Americans also informed their Ukrainian counterparts that the US was set to lift sanctions on Russian diesel and that Moscow intended to lift its export ban.

Shipwreck@shipwreck75.bsky.social · 20h ago

US warned the Ukrainians that Washington might cut off intelligence sharing with Kyiv if it will continue strikes on Russian refineries. The Americans also informed their Ukrainian counterparts that the US was set to lift sanctions on Russian diesel and that Moscow intended to lift its export ban.

UNITED24@u24.gov.ua · 14h ago

In 2022, people wondered how long Ukraine would stand. Today, they ask what Ukraine can teach them. NATO has opened a joint center to apply Ukraine’s battlefield experience, the Pentagon sends personnel to learn drone warfare, and our experts help Gulf partners down Iranian Shaheds🧵

Bild
Jared@jaredmcclain.bsky.social · 3d ago

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);
Jared@jaredmcclain.bsky.social · 3d ago

It's been a struggle for reporters to get DHS to provide the names of officers who violate people's civil rights. Now, in our case against DHS's construction-site raids, the government is arguing in court that its employees names are "confidential" and should not be made public during litigation.

DHS's position on the protective order: "We cannot agree to the striking of this provisions. The phone numbers, physical addresses, full legal names, and email addresses of current and former employees in the federal government ... should be confidential."