Been wondering about asst AG, could be a Feb recess appt if no budget deal again.
New National Fraud Enforcement Role: In January 2026, a new DOJ division for National Fraud Enforcement was announced. This new AAG will be responsible for leading efforts against fraud affecting the government, federally funded programs, and private citizens. This position has an unusual reporting structure, directly to the President and Vice President, outside the normal DOJ chain.
Role and Appointment: Assistant Attorneys General are senior officials who head major divisions within the DOJ. They are appointed by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate, a process that can involve intense scrutiny.
IF disclosed.
Different. Found the article in Post Millenial
Plant was in Michigan. TJ Sabula per other news stories, he has a GoFundMe. Not sure these are the same, but I can’t find the American News story itself rn either.
Reminds me a bit of “may the odds be ever in your favor.”
Fiatists, I like it.
This makes more sense. Markets are closed Monday 1/19 for MLK day, too.
MAP… interesting acronym
BOST ET AL. v. ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 24–568. Argued October 8, 2025—Decided January 14, 2026
“Held: As a candidate for office, Congressman Bost has standing to chal- lenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election. Pp. 3–10.
(a) Under Article III of the Constitution, plaintiffs must have a “per- sonal stake” in a case to have standing to sue. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U. S. 367, 379. An unlawful election rule can injure a candidate in several ways: It might cause him to lose the election, require him to expend additional resources, or decrease his vote share and damage his reputation. But winning, and doing so as inexpensively and decisively as possible, are not a candidate’s only in- terests in an election.
Candidates also have an interest in a fair process. Candidates seek to represent the people, and their interest in that prize cannot be sev- ered from their interest in the electoral process. Win or lose, candi- dates suffer when the process departs from the law. The harm to can- didates from an unfair and inaccurate election is not common to all.
While voters also have a general interest in an accurate vote tally, a candidate’s interest differs in kind. Those who spend time and re- sources seeking to claim the right to voice the will of the people have “an undeniably different—and more particularized—interest” in knowing what that will is. Hotze v. Hudspeth, 16 F. 4th 1121, 1126 (Oldham, J., dissenting).
Rules that undermine the integrity of the electoral process also un- dermine the winner’s political legitimacy. The counting of unlawful votes—or discarding of lawful ones—erodes public confidence in elec- tion results and the elected representative. “[R]eputational harms” are classic Article III injuries. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 425. And they are particularly concrete for those whose very jobs depend on the support of the people. Pp. 3–6.
(b) Candidates do not need to show a substantial risk that a rule will cause them to lose the election or prevent them from achieving a le- gally significant vote threshold in order to have standing. Requiring such a showing could channel many election disputes to shortly before election day or after. Only then will many candidates be able to predict with any certainty that a rule will be outcome determinative. Yet the Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should or- dinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election. Such late-breaking, court-ordered rule changes can result in voter confusion and undermine confidence in the integrity of electoral processes. The democratic consequences can be worse if courts intervene only after votes have been counted. Counting first and ruling upon legality af- terwards is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.
Premising standing on a candidate’s risk of election loss or failure to achieve a certain vote threshold would also convert Article III judges into political prognosticators and “invite[] findings on matters as to which neither judges nor anyone else can have any confidence.” Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U. S. 684, 711 (internal quotation marks omit- ted). “[A]ccurately predicting electoral outcomes is not” a “simple” en- deavor. Id., at 712. And the limits of federal courts’ jurisdiction do not rest upon such “unstable ground outside judicial expertise.” Id., at 713.
Nor would requiring candidates to plead a substantial risk of harm to their vote share leave courts on any surer footing. Such an approach would force judges to assess whether an election rule is likely to disad- vantage a particular candidate—determinations judges are no better qualified to make than assessing a candidate’s likelihood of winning or losing. Candidates would also have to plead and prove that voters who take advantage of the challenged rule will favor their rivals, which may require divulging information about political vulnerabilities.
Faced with that prospect, many candidates are sure to wait until after votes are counted to sue.
Article III does not require this result. Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their elec- toral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns. Their interest extends to the integrity of the election—and the democratic process by which they earn or lose the support of the people they seek to repre- sent. Pp. 6–10.
114 F. 4th 634, reversed and remanded.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ALITO, THOMAS, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which KAGAN, J., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined.”
Trump about to take back the diamonds. Evidence will now be able to be presented.
Older info and threads:
https://greatawakening.win/p/17s5kGuAgV/borax-the-hidden-history-/
Outsourcing and mass import of H-1B frauds put a company into a death spiral. Products and services never improve once this process starts. It isn’t cost cutting. It makes you leaner the way cancer makes you leaner, because that’s what it is
I’m not into minecraft, either. But my son laughed and agreed. Said it’s the end, you battle a dragon.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/minecraft-how-to-make-an-end-portal
Yea. They used a pretty face.
https://x.com/7SEES_/status/2009236022811611510?s=20
https://nitter.net/thewinteranon/status/2009234648480797095?s=20
Bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2296/text
3100 page PDF (searchable; see pg 1802): https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/s2296/BILLS-119s2296es.pdf
Edit: overview, outlook. https://www.kenresearch.com/us-cognitive-electronic-warfare-market
Rand paper: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA900/RRA981-1/RAND_RRA981-1.pdf
https://nitter.net/usdol/status/2009391453181759637?s=46
Clandestine has noticed, too: https://x.com/warclandestine/status/2009397244504703197?s=46
Certainly, for many reasons.
Great. Now tell the world it was in Covid vax, too. When will the rapid response teams be in place?
Yes. Same acct also said Dan’s first podcast back will break internet. Has that formally happened yet? Guessing not, but I was never a regular listener.
I don’t know it but immediately thought of this:
So. Much. Winning.
Are we tired of winning yet?
We’re just getting started. NCSWIC, Frens!
Notable misspelling but I believe it’s an extra lowercase “l”.
u/#q150
u/#q2478