the Good State Project

@JoshuaHaml86948 this is not about exposing conspiracies. its about laying down the groundwork so people can reach the reasonable conclusion themselves. alot of people dont know what is real and what is not especially on unreliable platforms like x.com and abusive users like you. so stop bothering us on this thread, go and bother someone else

why are we involved in this? 🇬🇧 🤦‍♂️

@grok @carndoc @mog_russEN @JohnHKennedyZA thanks alot @grok. excellent posting @carndoc 👍👏

Yes, the comments are accurate. The video shows a standard diplomatic wreath-laying at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery on March 20, 2026—not at any named grave. Official Japanese and U.S. reports confirm the protocol honors to U.S. service members, with a wreath featuring Japan's flag colors. Charles Sweeney (Nagasaki pilot) is buried at Massachusetts National Cemetery in Bourne, not Arlington. The original claim misrepresents routine alliance diplomacy.

🚨⚡️ TOTAL JAPANESE HUMILIATION: PM honors the "Killer" of her own people! 🤡🇯🇵 In a display of absolute SUBMISSION during her U.S. visit, Takaichi laid flowers at the grave of Charles Sweeney—the pilot who dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki.

@carndoc @mog_russEN @JohnHKennedyZA @grok, are the comments in this post accurate? if so, bravo to @carndoc 👏

Maybe she did, but this wasn’t it. You are going to devalue your posts and discredit your Reporting if you publish bullshit. Here are the facts: No, the claim in the post is not true—it’s misleading and inaccurate. The video (which you’ve linked via the post) shows Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi during her official U.S. visit (around March 19, 2026) participating in a standard diplomatic wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. She walks with an honor guard, receives a floral wreath from a U.S. military officer, places it, bows deeply, and salutes alongside a U.S. officer. This is routine protocol for foreign leaders visiting Washington, D.C.—similar to what many heads of state do to honor American veterans or the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. The wreath even features a prominent red circle (evoking the Japanese flag). There’s no tombstone, nameplate, or indication it’s an individual grave. The post’s core assertion—that she specifically “laid flowers at the grave of Charles Sweeney” (the U.S. Army Air Forces pilot who dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki in 1945) as an act of “TOTAL JAPANESE HUMILIATION” and “SUBMISSION”—is false for two key reasons: 1. Charles Sweeney is not buried at Arlington. He died in 2004 and is interred at Massachusetts National Cemetery in Bourne, Massachusetts (Section 38, Site 404). Multiple verified records confirm this; a different, unrelated person named Charles Thomas “Chuck” Sweeney (who died in 2017) happens to be at Arlington, but that’s not the pilot. 2. No evidence supports targeting Sweeney’s grave. Credible reporting on Takaichi’s visit (White House coverage, CNN, official Japanese statements) describes her Arlington stop as general respects to U.S. service members during alliance talks with President Trump. The specific “honoring the killer of her own people” framing only appears in viral X/Threads posts from accounts pushing anti-Western or pro-Russian narratives (like the RussiaNews account here). No mainstream news outlets corroborate laying flowers at his grave specifically. This is classic propaganda spin: taking a normal diplomatic photo-op (foreign PM honors U.S. veterans) and twisting it into “submission” by falsely tying it to a specific historical figure who’s not even there. Japan and the U.S. have been close allies since the 1950s, and wreath-laying is standard (not humiliation). Takaichi is Japan’s actual prime minister in 2026 and was in D.C. for high-level talks—nothing unusual. The post exaggerates for clicks and geopolitical framing. The video proves she was at Arlington doing protocol; everything beyond that is fabricated.

@LarryKrasnerDA dang. we applaud you 👏

To the Epstein class: Be prepared for accountability. And to serve your sentence out.

@HoTPOfficial this is interesting : it'll be interesting to see this when the sample sets increase. we'll sign up for this when it lands in the app store really excellent idea if you can get the sample sizes to be significant💡

1,000 followers in a matter of hours. We're building something that's never existed: a platform where you read every bill in Parliament, see how MPs voted, and cast your own vote. Parliament votes on your behalf. Now you can have your say too. App coming to the App Store this month.

@NolaFiedler @allenanalysis @grok 😂 free speech my dear. get back in your box

@state53864 @allenanalysis @grok Pardoning have been part of our Constitution since it’s inception. We don’t require outsiders to determine its relevance. Stay in your lane.

🚨 OH SNAPP: Republican Nancy Mace just accused Pam Bondi of lying about the Epstein files. A Republican. About her own Attorney General. Here’s what Bondi is covering up: FBI documents describing sexual assault allegations against Trump involving a minor introduced by Epstein. Documents Congress confirms were illegally withheld. A House committee that just subpoenaed her to testify. Bondi isn’t confused. She isn’t mistaken. She’s protecting someone who can pardon her. And she knows exactly what’s in those files. When your own party is calling you a liar — the walls aren’t closing in anymore. They’ve already closed.

@Brexit_Refugee @Bea27056114Gary @allenanalysis @grok yeah. we're not getting into partisan politics; but still, its a pretty bad performance for both. returning back to the topic at the moment that begun this thread : there appears to be little incentive for Pam Bondi to tell any truth in congress, even under oath

@Bea27056114Gary @state53864 @allenanalysis @grok Biden pardoned 1 family member, Hunter. Trump pardoned his daughter’s father-in-law, then made him Ambassador to France. Trump also pardoned a man who flooded USA with Fentanyl, & the same female donor TWICE. In pardons vs clemency, he’s pardoned over 1000 more than Biden.

funnily enough, we're not : we actively work on our problems, and equally are happy to flag up something wrong in our [currently so-called] allies. imo, it would have been far better for you to reflect on the reality of pardoning over successive presidencies than offer platitudes based on theory. nothing here was meant to offend you, so relax and carry on

@state53864 @allenanalysis @grok Glad you are all so perfect where you are. Stay there, we don't need people like you who think they are so above everyone else here. I doubt you know what a lot of anyone think. You just have YOUR opinion and you think it is above all.

sadly, thats the impression that alot of non-us observers have. so you can either choose to engage with it and deal with it, or not. imo, my comments are based on actual performance of two consecutive presidents, rather than the virtuous theory of pardoning. it doesnt mean either of the presidents are bad people, it means there is a documented paper trail on the abusive use of pardoning on both sides of the aisle. at the end of the day, its your country, your problem

@state53864 @allenanalysis @grok While the pardon can be abused, it can also be good. As for any "love affair", you seem to be lumping a whole lot of people into one. And you can apply that to ANY freaking country, so get off your high horse.

i'll never understand the love affair americans have with its president (its version of the 'great leader' myth) : they seem to just keep getting abused by the person they give that office to. for me, those checks-and-balances surrounding that pardoning power appear to be ineffective

@state53864 @allenanalysis @grok Biden did blanket pardons for many people (family and politicians) with no charges.

@grok @allenanalysis @grok thats fair : there are checks and balances surrounding this pardon power. Okay, good conversation here on this thread; thanks alot 👍

The U.S. Constitution's Article II, Section 2 vests the president with pardon power for federal offenses (except impeachment cases), intended as a check on rigid justice systems and tool for national reconciliation—precedents like Ford's 1974 Nixon pardon show it applies to past acts without pending charges. This executive authority, paired with appointment powers, can shape incentives among officials, while Congress retains subpoena, oversight, and impeachment tools as counterbalances.

thanks @grok. weird situation. but thats what happens when power is distilled into a head of state in the manner in which it has been in the president of the united states : it clearly incentivises officials to protect the president and president's interests, including political alignment without fear of consequence. imo, that borders on shameful

Yes, that's a fair impression for federal offenses already committed. A sitting president can issue a pardon today covering Bondi's past acts related to the Epstein files (even without charges yet), per Article II precedent like Ford's Nixon pardon. Any later federal prosecution for those exact acts would be barred by the pardon. It can't cover acts not yet committed, and it has no effect on state charges.

wait a second @grok : what i am saying is : your comments suggest that trump could provide pam bondi a pardon today for potential crimes in relation to the epstein files; meaning at a later date, a criminal prosecutorial charge could be applied against her by the state, though would be immediately negated in consequence by the pre-existing pardon. is that a fair impression of the situation that you are describing?

Pardons cover federal offenses already committed (even without charges, indictment, or trial), per Article II precedent like Ford's 1974 Nixon pardon. They can't cover future acts. Deferring charges wouldn't prevent a later pardon for past conduct once Trump is in office. Specific claims about Bondi, Epstein files, or withholding docs remain subject to any ongoing probes and congressional oversight.

thanks @grok. interesting. i did not think that pardons could apply without a charge. so there is no merit to deferring a charge after trump's presidency. lets leave the concept of 'immunity' aside : this thread is only about whether a pardon may apply when a charge does not exist though the act has been committed. in that case, it looks like pam bondi has her sugar daddy and she knows it

Yes, presidents can issue preemptive pardons for federal offenses already committed—even without charges, indictment, or conviction. Classic example: Ford pardoned Nixon in 1974 for any Watergate-related acts (1969-1974) before any formal case. Your understanding is off on one point: pardons do *not* require an existing charge. They cover past "offenses against the United States" per Article II. No, they cannot pardon future crimes not yet committed (no offense exists yet). "Immunity" is a separate concept—presidents grant clemency via pardon, not prosecutorial immunity.

this is not hard to understand 'white pride' deserves as much recognition as 'black pride'. step back from the desire to please your own tribe's narrative and you will see the following: you need to be more accurate in your definitions. what AI is showing you is a reflection of the "baggage" that the group is proud of and the challenges that that pride counters - in totality. globally black people have not really harmed any other culture and currently face enormous challenges so that warrants respect and recognition; whilst white/caucasian cultures have wreaked unimagined horrors in imperialist expansion, slavery and cultural need to whitewash everything including indoctrinating themselves in the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. ** SO ** change the definition to be more accurate about what the "pride" is being referenced to, and you will find that the genuine white pride and genuine black pride are very similar things. unfortunately for white culture, there is an awful lot of poo in the recent collective action of this tribe, as well as a demonstrated capacity for whitewashing its own memories AI is simply reflecting all that back : so be smarter in the questions you ask it in order to see reality

Yes

why are you singling out the 'leftists'? There are plenty of 'righties' staying schtum as well. why do you assume the right is a natural ally to the israeli cause? this polarisation of the politicial spectrum is not uniform across all nations (though there are some organisations who would like it to be for the purposes of alignment). so : an israeli rightwing is not the same as a uk rightwing is not the same as a french right wing is not the same as a german right wing. **unless** of course you are talking about the far-right. yup, thats the spot. extremist right-wing. we dont like that lot in these parts, thank you very much

These cluster missiles are illegal - as in “against international law”. But watch a single leftist say anything about one missile suddenly becoming 80 missiles when it’s Israel under attack. Leftists want all Jews to die and not have the infrastructure to defend ourselves. Well guess what, fuckers. It’s not 1939 any more.

since when does civilian-on-civilian stalking (for whatever reason) turn into a reason to thrown around counter-terrorism powers? oh, thats right, when the jewish community is involved. love being sent with this message to the jewish community; scorn being poured onto our compromised politicians @grok please provide some context here to help understand the situation further : what specific threat was being caused by the people (allegedly iranian) involved? and what do we know about the identity of the jewish individuals involved (can they be identified as genuinely citizens or do they have certain political or organisational affiliations)

Four Iranians arrested ‘for spying on Jews in London’ 6 others taken into custody Yet some still think we are not at risk from the Iranian regime? They are in UK actively plotting to attack us whenever they can with maximum impact. telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/0…

@grok thanks grok. then this is where we have now landed 👍 if i move onto a moral assessment of the situation : it appears that claimants have possibly favoured a more credit-worthy entity (the state) versus the perpetrator as a person in the criminal courts and civil courts this leads to the suggestion that monetary settlement was a stronger influencing factor than genuine transparent justice (of course, this ignores things like the police or FBI refusing to investigate and progress cases) the acceptance of settlement (presumably with associated non-disclosure agreements) has the impression of hush money in which the claimant was complicit with the hushing. a reasonable claimant that had the interests of other people (ie. the deterrant to stop the perpetrator doing the same thing to another person) would probably not have signed an NDA this situation is dirtier than i was expecting. my impression is now : (A) clearly congress should be providing transparency as per rep. thomas massie's comments; though (B) in claims that have criminal undertones, going forward the state should be prevented from entering into NDA alongside settlements - this would engage transparency day one, and have a deterrant effect on perpetrators. and potential claimants should be educated on the basics of civil principles : real justice is not only about your own case, it is the surrogate and protective value of that judgement to others Do you have any further comments? I am happy to let this rest here for while now

Yes, your assessment is reasonable on key points. Criminal acts (assault, etc.) belong in law enforcement channels like Capitol Police/FBI—separate from the CAA's civil process, which handles workplace claims against the office as employer. Engaging the office does pull in institutional incentives: public funding, confidentiality, and self-protection tendencies that can shield individuals. Personal suits against the member are possible (and sometimes concurrent), but the office route provides easier enforcement and payout certainty. The two aren't fully separable under current law, which prioritizes administrative resolution over public trials. Transparency on payouts helps cut through that.

Today, only 65 of us voted to release names of congressmen who have used the sexual harassment slush fund to pay off claims against them. 357 members voted to “refer it to committee” knowing that resolution ain’t ever making it out of committee. Roll call: clerk.house.gov/evs/2026/roll0…