This is Unfucking real. The FBI plotted to get Trump’s valet “sweaty” before going back to see Trump to fool Trump into thinking the valet was out jogging, instead of being in a secret grilling by the FBI. https://t.co/7lkbJaVoNc pic.twitter.com/6X8ikkWxVH

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) April 12, 2024

Oh, no.

The largest office building in St. Louis has sold for $3.5 million, per WSJ.

In 2006, it sold for $205 million. pic.twitter.com/Io87rdptw8

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) April 11, 2024

Whoa: the White House is calling the 4th Amendment of the Constitution a threat to National Security. This is a real memo sent out today: the yellow-highlighted sections just translate euphemism ("the Biggs Amendment") to plain language (Biggs' warrant req). (Source below in QT) https://t.co/IFMDyeW6C8 pic.twitter.com/bzRhqYnEIt

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) April 12, 2024

Read what I put in bold, and weep with joy now that Twitter harassment is now easier than ever against shithead politicians. @Landlord_Messiah @The_Homocracy because I know y'all have twitter.

How did SCOTUS rule? The Court issued one ruling for both cases. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for a unanimous court in Lindke v. Freed, and sent it and O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier back to lower courts for judges to revisit in light of SCOTUS' new guidance.

The Court issued a two-part test for evaluating the public or private status of a public official's social media account. Barrett wrote: “When a government official posts about job-related topics on social media, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private. We hold that such speech is attributable to the State only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State's behalf, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media.” In circumstances that satisfy both conditions, a government official could be sued for blocking or deleting comments on a social media account.

Barrett used a hypothetical involving a school board president to illustrate the distinction between private and public forums. Barrett wrote: “A school board president announces at a school board meeting that the board has lifted pandemic-era restrictions on public schools. The next evening, at a backyard barbecue with friends whose children attend public schools, he shares that the board has lifted the pandemic-era restrictions.” Barrett wrote the former constitutes state action, while the latter does not.

In the case of public officials' social media accounts, Barrett said context matters: “Had Freed's account carried a label (e.g., ‘this is the personal page of James R. Freed') or a disclaimer (e.g., ‘the views expressed are strictly my own'), he would be entitled to a heavy (though not irrebuttable) presumption that all of the posts on his page were personal.”

Additionally, Barrett said the way blocking works on different platforms can matter for judges trying to figure out if an account triggers the state-action doctrine. On some platforms, a blocked user can still see posts but cannot comment. On others, a blocked user is prevented from seeing any posts on the account. According to Barrett, “If page-wide blocking is the only option, a public official might be unable to prevent someone from commenting on his personal posts without risking liability for also preventing comments on his official posts.”

Socialist professor explains how to get a PS5 under socialism.

Yeah, no thanks. pic.twitter.com/jpramvLIiI

— Dylan Allman (@DylanMAllman) April 6, 2024

!anticommunists !commies

https://www.salon.com/2024/04/08/men-punching-random-women-in-nyc-a-desperate-last-gasp-of-the-male-rage-fueling-maga/

🚨 BREAKING: President Biden has reportedly called a man "f*gg*t" after he randomly began singing a Lana Del Rey song in front of him. pic.twitter.com/3SwqcWjXIZ

— misha꙳ (@schizarella) April 5, 2024

https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/1776739392717033489

pic.twitter.com/jkZ7BgwXnQ

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) April 4, 2024

This is Patrick Douglas Scruggs.

Patrick is a federal prosecutor who helped put Capitol trespassers in prison, and perpetrated the narrative that these people were grave threats to society.

In September, 2023, a driver on a bridge hit Mr. Scrugg’s car.

Mr. Scruggs got out… pic.twitter.com/DJCHkpNofM

— Brandon Straka (@BrandonStraka) April 6, 2024

https://twitter.com/Brick_Suit/status/1776369934203019370

https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1776322876120948814

You'd think he'd want to walk back Jungle Cruise or Black Adam. Instead, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is expressing some regret about his 2020 endorsement for Joe Biden for president and says he won't endorse any candidate this year.

“The endorsement that I made years ago with Biden was one I thought was the best decision for me at that time,” he told Will Cain on Fox News in an interview posted online Friday. “I thought, ‘I'm in this position where I have some influence and I felt it was my job then to exercise my influence [and] share: This is who I'm going to endorse.' I'm not going to do that. I was then, the most followed man in the world, and am today, and I appreciate that … but what that caused was something that tears me up in my guts — which is division. That got me. I didn't realize that then, I just felt like there was a lot of unrest and I'd like things to calm down."

!chuds

Former ESPN anchor Sage Steele revealed that her interview with President Biden shortly after he took office in March 2021 was “scripted” by executives at the Disney-owned network.

Steele — who was “sidelined” by ESPN later that year after she criticized the company's COVID-19 vaccine mandate and made controversial comments about former President Barack Obama — told Fox News that she was beholden to a “structured” interview.

“It was very much ‘This is what you will ask. This is how you will say it. No follow-ups, no follow-ups. Next,'” Steele told Fox, adding that each question was “gone over dozens of times by many editors and executives.”

Steele said she wasn't certain whether ESPN had sent the questions to the White House in advance of the interview.

However, she was confident that is “what happened” as her bosses at the time were so adamant that she stick to the script.

“I was told, ‘You will say every word that we write out, you will not deviate from the script,'” she said.

Representatives for ESPN declined The Post's request for comment.

Most of the questions Steele asked Biden pertained to sports leagues restoring normalcy in the wake of strict pandemic-era rules.

One of Biden's responses during the 11-minute interview, in which he said he would “strongly support” moving the Major League Baseball All-Star Game out of Atlanta because of Georgia's then-new voting law, made headlines at the time.

The GOP-backed law in question added photo ID requirements for voting absentee by mail and barred people from handing out food and water to voters in line — a move Biden characterized as “Jim Crow on steroids.”

The All-Star Game ended up being moved to Denver that year.

Steele, 51, sued ESPN and Disney after being yanked off the air, claiming she was retaliated against for her comments. The lawsuit was settled last year and the two parties “mutually agreed to part ways” — ending her 16-year tenure at the sports giant.

“Life update. Having successfully settled my case with ESPN/Disney, I have decided to leave so I can exercise my first amendment rights more freely,” she posted on X last year.

Steele, who last week launched her new podcast “The Sage Steele Show,” said her brief chat with Biden was “heartbreaking,” a reference to the oldest-sitting president's mental acuity — which has drawn even more scrutiny three years later as he readies for a rematch with Donald Trump in November.

“I think it's really heartbreaking that the people who love Joe Biden and say they truly care about him have allowed it to get to this point,” Steele told Fox.

“So I'm not even looking at this from a political angle or my beliefs in anything. This is the human side of it. And when someone is struggling, we allow them to continue to be in the spotlight and put them out there in the first place when they knew there were issues?

“Of course, they had to know. So it's a humanity thing with me where I don't care where anyone stands and what they vote for or who they believe in. Do you really care about that person? As a father, as a husband, as an everything.”

Right on par with the intelligence level of "Lock Her Up."

https://whowhatwhy.org/justice/jail-trump-get-it-over-with/

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1btck27/jail_trump_get_it_over_with/?sort=controversial