shewhomustbeobeyed wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 8:36 pm Sorry about bitchu link, VPN still works. Gab shut out vpns.

Have you seen anything on this?

https://odysee.com/@SJWellFire:a/437Whatnexteod:1

https://rumble.com/v6vbocd-wearing-spyw ... lance.html

https://odysee.com/@Dr.TomCowan:8/Are-T ... -Correct:a

https://rumble.com/v6thkst-unveiling-th ... expla.html

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-uk-is-no-lo ... xpression/

A Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post employee is charged with possession of child pornography.

The FBI took 48-year-old Thomas LeGro into custody Thursday after searching his home on Alton Place in Northwest D.C.

Agents seized a laptop computer containing 11 videos depicting child pornography, the FBI said. The laptop belongs to LeGro, according to a federal criminal complaint.

When agents entered the house, they saw what appeared to be fractured pieces of a hard drive in a basement hallway and the empty cover of a hard drive in a basement office, according to the criminal complaint. LeGro was in the doorway at the top of the stairs to the basement.

The complaint describes six of the videos agents discovered and reveals the FBI had been watching LeGro’s internet activity since May 8.

LeGro, a deputy director of video for the Post, was part of a team of journalists who won a Pulitzer in 2018 for coverage of Judge Roy Moore and his run for the U.S. Senate in Alabama in 2017, which he lost. Several women accused Moore of sexually assaulting them when they were underage.

"The Post understands the severity of these allegations, and the employee has been placed on leave,” the publication said in a statement to News4.

A magistrate judge on Friday ordered LeGro held until a detention hearing scheduled for Wednesday.

LeGro asked for a public defender, but the judge indicated he may not qualify, so for now, it's unclear who will represent LeGro.

Amy Coney Barrett dismisses Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent on nationwide injunction decision

Justice Amy Coney Barrett dismissed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent to a new Supreme Court decision that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against the executive branch, a problem that the Trump administration has faced for months.

Jackson claimed lower courts do not have limits on their authority to issue universal injunctions, writing that the executive branch should always comply with said injunctions.

Barrett did not entertain her liberal colleague’s argument.

“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote in the 6-3 majority opinion. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

“No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,” Barrett continued. “But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.”

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that district courts exceeded their power by issuing universal injunctions against President Donald Trump’s executive order to take away birthright citizenship for children of those who entered the country illegally. The court did not rule on the merits of the birthright citizenship case.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Barrett in the majority opinion. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Jackson in the dissenting opinion.

Barrett continued critiquing Jackson’s reasoning and cited the Judiciary Act of 1789, which requires judges to observe their limits on judicial authority. Barrett said Jackson “skips over that part” because the law “involves boring ‘legalese,'” as Jackson put it.
“Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,'” Barrett concluded. “That goes for judges, too.”

https://www.brighteon.com/9fcc728c-38a4 ... dc94644d59