Senior writer at Slate covering courts and the law. Co-host of the Amicus podcast. Dad.
Mark Joseph Stern
Loading...
The ACLU filed suit on behalf of a Florida man who was wrongly arrested due to a false facial recognition match, and the alleged facts are a doozy storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
The Civil Rights Division says hey, we sure did make some factually incorrect statements in a warrant application in the Cities Church case, but pobody's nerfect! storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
On the Washington Post editorial page, no Republican ever just does something bad; their action must have been prompted by an equally bad thing done by a Democrat. So who's really to blame? It's the perfect example of brain-dead centrism. Both sides suck, so who's to say which is worse?
BTW this error illustrates a trick I've noticed in these editorials: Any criticism of a Republican must be accompanied by criticism of a Democrat, and the Democrat will often be blamed, at least in part, for whatever bad thing the Republican did. I see why "tearfully conceded" was so tempting here.
Journalists used to complain that Twitter was their assignment editor. Elon's manipulation of the algorithm to punish real reporting actually freed us from that loop. But for some reason the WaPo editorial board evidently remains glued to X as a reliable barometer of public sentiment. It just isn't.
More broadly, the WaPo editorial board has adopted a certain tone and set of fixations that are rewarded by the X algorithm. Haughty, dismissive, obsessed with trivial stuff they deem offensive to free market dogma (a burger ad ban in Amsterdam? really?) while studiously ignoring Trump's corruption.
I'm stuck on this—the WaPo editorial board uncritically repeated a lie that right-wing rage merchants manufactured by selectively editing a video then splattering it across X. It seems these guys' brains have been so cooked by Elon's algorithm that they can no longer identify MAGA-manipulated slop.
Here's the part where the prosecutors identify the grand jurors who won't vote to indict, then dismiss them one by one so they can secure an indictment from those who remain (you need a minimum of 16) www.documentcloud.org/documents/28...
Now here is a grand juror doing the 5th Amendment proud www.documentcloud.org/documents/28...
The first grand jury proceeding in the Broadview Six case began with a *textbook example* of forbidden prosecutorial vouching. Misconduct from the start. Just incredible stuff.
