Robb Jones

King Charles III: In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time and the UNSC was united in the face of terror, we answered the call together, as our people have done so for more than a century. Shoulder to shoulder through two world wars, the Cold War, Afghanistan, and moments that have defined our shared security. Today, that same unyielding resolve is needed for the defense of Ukraine and her most courageous people.

I hate that this has come to North Carolina. This is teeming with First Amendment problems. Strip away the defendant's name and what remains is a two-count federal indictment that pleads the wrong mens rea, ignores the governing Supreme Court precedent, and asks a jury to convict based on the most sinister available reading of an ambiguous photograph captioned as something else entirely. Counterman v. Colorado (2023) requires the government to prove the speaker subjectively understood the threatening character of his communication. This indictment alleges only what a "reasonable recipient" would think — an objective standard the Court expressly rejected. Watts v. United States forbids decoding political speech into its most menacing possible meaning. This indictment does exactly that. Judge Flanagan sits in New Bern and has spent two decades on the federal bench taking charging documents seriously. A facially deficient indictment against any defendant — much less this one — is not going to find a friendly audience. Expect her to "86" this assault to the First Amendment and criminalization of protected speech.

...There has been a suggestion in early reporting that Comey might be charged over his image of shells spelling 86 47. That would be a tough case given the likely First Amendment challenge that the statement (even if it had a lethal meaning) was still protected speech...

I’ve seen a lot of takes on this, and frankly, some of them miss the mark. I’m concerned about the moral and legal arguments being made on X, I’ve served in Special Operations. I’ve built a business. And in Congress, I’ve refused to trade stocks because I believe integrity actually matters. So I’m going to say this plainly in hopes it is helpful for some to achieve moral clarity.  There are two separate issues: 1. What this Special Operator allegedly did. 2. Whether elites and insiders are held to the same standard as everyone else. Let’s talk about what the Special Operator allegedly did. In short, he made a straight line from Top Secret, compartmented, classified information, to profit. While on the surface this certainly fits the definition of trading on insider information, there is something far more concerning here.  Polymarket bets are not sophisticated, we’re not talking trading oil futures, short-dated call options, or leveraged ETFs, they are utterly simplistic, and absolutely public. An outsized bet with longshot odds threw up a star-cluster to authorities. That same star-cluster is both identified, monitored, and potentially, reacted to by our adversaries. By allegedly placing this bet, this Special Operator endangered his brothers in arms, period. I find that morally reprehensible. How could you EVER trust this guy and trust is everything in Special Operations.  To build the company that allowed my family to realize our version of the American dream, which I started while on active duty, I didn’t leverage classified information to do it. I certainly didn’t put any of my brothers at risk for my personal gain, and never would have considered doing so. I didn’t serve in Special Operations for the money, I did it out of duty. And I didn’t start my company to make money, I started it to solve people’s problems. This guy, from the absolute safety of an operations center back at Ft. Bragg, selfishly tried to solve his own problems at the risk of everyone on black helicopters facing extreme risk over Venezuela that night. Blue Falcon.  In Congress, I have access to insider information. Do I trade on it? No. That Special Operator shouldn’t have either. Now the second issue: accountability. Americans are right to be angry about double standards. They see powerful people profit, evade consequences, and play by different rules. That cynicism is real, and the double standard is a danger to the future of our country. But corruption elsewhere is not a defense for corruption here. The answer to selective accountability is not zero accountability. It is equal accountability. If we excuse wrongdoing whenever someone else got away with it, we stop being a nation of laws and become a nation of excuses and pardons. Hold everyone accountable. Equally. No exceptions.

▪️PAM BONDI—“The [Florida] Bar rejected a well-founded complaint against her last year on the premise that it doesn’t go after lawyers while they occupy federal constitutional office. Soon, she’ll be out.” – “JON MAY, the Boca Raton lawyer who filed the first complaint against her, said Thursday he will file another with the Bar, ‘significantly revised’ to include a wealth of new examples of professional misconduct. The Bar’s closure letter last June acknowledged he could refile ‘once the above-named lawyer no longer serves in such a position.’” “May’s original complaint to the Bar was co-signed by 70 prominent legal ethics professors, former judges and lawyers. They included former FLORIDA SUPREME COURT chief justices Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince and a former president of the American Bar Association, MARTHA BARNETT. Their complaint cited lawyers who quit the DOJ or were fired by Bondi for refusing unethical orders.”

Trump’s primary criterion in selecting an Attorney General will be subservience to the White House’s wishes. Anyone hoping for more than that is going to be very disappointed.