73 Comments
User's avatar
Ellen Kandel's avatar

I misread your reference to Justices Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch to refer, instead, to Alita, Thomas and Grouch. Not sure why I feel a need to share this, but there it is. Ba humbug.

Expand full comment
US Blues's avatar

I call Justice Clarence Thomas “Clearance” Thomas because he’s definitely for sale to rich magas.

Expand full comment
Jocelyn B's avatar

Ellen, thanks for the chuckle! Bah Humbug!

Expand full comment
Marianne Burke's avatar

Thanks for making me feel more comfortable about laughing like a 12 year old about the Dick Act!! These giggles are sorely needed & appreciated! :)

Expand full comment
Naomi Siegel's avatar

I'm glad it wasn't just me who snickered at that.

Expand full comment
Potter's avatar

You must be as cross-eyed as I am lately with all of this. I just want us to wake from this nightmare. It's not just Trump. This cannot go on for three more years. This is actually a coup.. we are being robbed.

Expand full comment
david wells's avatar

Alita, Thomas, and Grouch. Isn't that one of the law firms that caved in to this administration, Ms Ellen?

Expand full comment
Scott Gilbert's avatar

"Alita, Thomas and Grouch" sounds like one of those law firms that advertise on late, late night TV that make their money "chasing ambulances."

So, in that spirit, Ha Bumbug.

Expand full comment
JoyLynn's avatar

I hope Riley is feeling much better and you are all enjoying your holidays with family and friends.

Expand full comment
Jay Kuo's avatar

no more throwing up, so that’s a big improvement already!

Expand full comment
maggie towne's avatar

😊❤️

Expand full comment
Charles Bastille's avatar

Great explainer on the national guard case, as usual. I've been looking forward to your take on this.

The info on the amicus brief was especially helpful, although I'm still surprised by the court's decision. They've had plenty of good arguments presented to them before, and instead of ruling more appropriately, it's like they place a phone call to Susie Wiles and ask, "What should we do?"

Maybe her interviews freaked them out. Maybe the grifter's sober drunkenness has freaked them out. Maybe Epstein is freaking them out. Maybe...

... I'll try to be optimistic during the rest of the holidays.

Merry Christmas to those celebrating!

Expand full comment
Jay Kuo's avatar

I guess a win is a win.

Expand full comment
Charles Bastille's avatar

I'll take it!

Expand full comment
Jocelyn B's avatar

Right: we'll take what we can get!

Expand full comment
Ada Fuller's avatar

I hope the tide is starting to slowly turn toward lawfulness. Enjoy all the babies and dogs — that is definitely a little slice of heaven for the holidays!

Expand full comment
Cheryl Johnson's avatar

⬆️"I hope the tide is starting to slowly turn toward lawfulness. "

... and away from awfulness!

Expand full comment
Pattipo's avatar

Looks like we're gonna need a LOT of popcorn. The Epstein files are not going away, and more and more is coming out!

Expand full comment
Potter's avatar

I disagree with that story. That is just one opinion of someone who does not get what is happening to the country. It's a coup. The economic figures cannot fix the situation.

Expand full comment
Richard Knox's avatar

Thanx for this, Jay, very helpful. Now...take a break!

Expand full comment
Lance Khrome's avatar

The "note to Nassar" clearly was one of the more bizarre bits of info emerging from this drop...I mean, is there a perv network within the US prison system? And the wording, with this — "We shared one thing...our love & caring for young ladies and the hope they'd reach their full potential."...oy vey!

Way OTT, and the note ends about trump and his interest in "young, nubile girls", which prolly is the only bit of truth in the entire note.

Expand full comment
Anne Bear's avatar

The voice of that letter is so bizarre, and it actually reminds me of Trump's very bizarre voice in the birthday letter. I'm not in any way implying that Trump wrote that postcard (and his voice has changed a great deal since then). But.... well.... it's so weird.

Expand full comment
Jocelyn B's avatar

Also: YUK. (I wonder if they even know the definition of "nubile." Probably not.

Expand full comment
Dave_B_Quick's avatar

I was a Federal inmate n the 1980's (conspiracy to distribute marijuana). At that time inmates were not allowed to correspond with other inmates. This type of correspondence would have been intercepted before it left the first prison, or, if it slipped through somehow, on arrival at the destination prison. Perhaps this was not mailed from prison, but was posted from Virginia by Epstein's lawyer, then returned to sender by the destination prison? Or, of course, maybe just a clumsy cover for murder.

Expand full comment
Kim Carlson's avatar

The use of the term "militia" in some of the paragraphs has me wondering again about the meaning of its use in the 2nd Amendment.

Expand full comment
US Blues's avatar

Same

Expand full comment
Colleen McGloughlin's avatar

Jay, you are in my home county now! Wishing you and your beautiful family, especially Riley and Ronan, a most wonderful Christmas. Maybe some snow for a sledding adventure. Wave to the mountains for me.✨

Expand full comment
Ruth's avatar

Enjoy those little babies and all the family time. You deserve it! And yes we are so thankful for you, a law geek who makes it a little more easy to understand these complicated times. Thank you! And happy holidays!

Expand full comment
pts's avatar

"Those with knowledge of the investigations need to testify..."

Yes. And Patel needs to be raked over the coals, fired, and charged with perjury.

Expand full comment
D Epp's avatar

Merry Christmas, happy holidays and peaceful celebrations to the Kuo extended family, and to all his readers here!

Jay, your babies won't remember this on their own, and some day when they're grown will look with fondness and amusement at the memories you've recorded. It's good to hear Riley is feeling better and I hope she's fully recovered when the magic day arrives.

Expand full comment
Katharine's avatar

Great piece and analysis! Thanks especially for the thorough readout on the amicus and SC decision - very interesting. Quick note - TFO likely refers to Task Force Officer, who are state and local officers assigned to federal task forces with special agents.

Expand full comment
Jay Kuo's avatar

Oh, thanks! I’ll correct that.

Expand full comment
Michael G's avatar

The wording and logic of the SC shadow docket ruling on the deployment of National Guard units to Chicago, triggers yet another reaction from me every time I see a court ruling using the term “militia” as defined and codified by Federal law.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So here again we have the Militia Act of 1903, President Roosevelt’s intent in asking Congress to establish such a law in 1901, Professor Lederman’s amicus brief, and the SC’s ruling all referring, directly or indirectly, to the National Guard as the Militia.

Up until the rise of the NRA and the gun ownership rights movement, the Second Amendment was understood to mean gun ownership for state militias (National Guard). The populace of 1775 owned primarily long guns for hunting, keeping the fox out of the henhouse, and scaring off the rare horse thief, not numerous gangs of twenty something year olds roving our streets nightly, breaking into our houses, and shooting each other and the rest of us for the fun of it. Original textualists should take note.

Bear in mind a Google search of the internet today is over populated with websites friendly to gun rights and ownership. But you can find an excellent May 20, 2014 article by Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice and crossposted by Politico Magazine taking the correct historical interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Expand full comment
Jocelyn B's avatar

Thank you, Michael G, for this reminder.

Expand full comment
Debbie's avatar

Have a great holiday with the family!

About the Nassar letter, on one hand it’s just bizarre enough that it could be real. It’s beyond belief someone could make that up out of thin air, much like the birthday card.

On the other hand, if it’s fake, wouldn’t the DOJ have already investigated and determined that years ago? If so, why wouldn’t that info be included in the release of docs, even if it was inconclusive?

Can’t imagine who could benefit both from naming Trump as a sex offender and also affirming an impending jail suicide.

Guess we will never know. But that 2 hour investigation was simply amazing. We’ll probably see a lot more of in the coming weeks with the release of more files.

Expand full comment
Jocelyn B's avatar

I have been wondering some of the same things, Debbie. What a world, what a world.

Expand full comment
Anne Bear's avatar

Thank you so much for this clear-eyed analysis. Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Expand full comment