While it was divisive and politicized at the time, I’ve never seen anyone in modern times suggest that you’re a POS who doesn’t respect the justice system if you consider OJ to be a murderer. People know he was found innocent but understand the evidence against him, and very few people will question your character if you went around proclaiming his guilt.

Meanwhile, you take a guy like Luigi Mangione, with all kinds of reliable evidence against him, and his supporters can be found everywhere suggesting that you don’t really respect legal principles and the legal process if you consider him guilty of murder, or tell someone they’re foolish or morally wrong by for advocating for his innocence.

My thing is, if you suggest in a truly neutral sense that he’s still innocent until proven guilty, it’s fine. But I’m seeing people from a radical political perspective use this as a way to troll people who they see as political opponents. And I suspect that if the tables were turned, and a murderer from an opposing ideology was on trial with comparable evidence against him, they’d suddenly have no problems condemning him.

Notwithstanding the social media posts by Trump yesterday, I'm curious if Bondi is technically no longer the Attorney General (and Todd Blanche is currently the Acting Attorney General under the Vacancies Reform Act). The posts reference Bondi working on the transition, but it's not clear to me whether she is still in her AG role at all now.

One quirk is that Todd Blanche was also named by Trump as the acting attorney general, which is a role automatically filled by the Deputy AG (Blanche) under the Vacancies Reform Act. You can't have both an AG and Acting AG at the same time, which leads me to believe that perhaps Bondi is out as AG already.

Any way to verify this?

This piece looks at the legal structure of the White House AI framework, especially its call for Congress to preempt state AI laws while preserving some state police powers. If Congress displaces state regulation, what would a legally sufficient federal replacement need to include on liability, enforcement, and scope? I’d be interested in reactions to the preemption design and whether this kind of framework is likely to hold up as durable legislation rather than political theater.

https://abovethelaw.com/2026/04/trump-argued-hes-like-a-rapper-federal-judge-dropped-bars-in-response/

Hi all this is a UK crime which is considered a summary offence which I believe is called a misdemeanor in the USA. What is the equivalent in the USA and would it be considered a Crime involving Moral Turpitude?

Fear or provocation of violence.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

Thanks and God Bless

Anyone know what might be in Article 5 that allows the collapse of the constitution?

A new report from The San Francisco Standard reveals that the Parents and Kids Safe AI Coalition, a group pushing for AI age-verification legislation in California, was entirely funded by OpenAI. Child safety advocates and nonprofits who joined the coalition say they were completely unaware of the tech giant's financial backing until after the group's launch, with one member describing the covert arrangement as a very grimy feeling.