johnlichtenstein

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

@jessesingal The Claude advice is spot on and the writing really clear.

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

@fiago7 Ted's Montana Grill Downtown Atlanta

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

@dilanesper @kcjohnson9 Donald Trump is too old though. Even if Democrats say so.

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

@EsotericCD Mills really seems like a good candidate to go against Collins.

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

@downesphoto @nadasurf @aimeemann Concrete Bed, leading off the next album, seems to continue this discussion.

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

@NancyRomm Unlike other people who live in Jersey?

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

The u after q is ridiculous. We should we're "qeen", "qiet".

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

@katrosenfield Maybe they could permit it in the sense of requiring a permit. Panhanlers should need 2000 hours of training and pass an exam for a permit.

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

@MattWelch The mistake is not refilling it from Gulf of California

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

@OwenGregorian Spaces is becoming nearly non-functional

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

@daveweigel Tax brackets don't work like that but SNAP, childcare subsidies, and ACA can create situations where a raise lowers income.

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

@bendreyfuss Stop. The thing is this is an ordinary coat. It doesn't matter if he got this one from a nice tailor. Which maybe he did because he looks good.

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

@gerardtbaker A lot of people confuse rates and accumulations. Ackman isn't making this mistake.

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

@thatjenmonroe "Adults"

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

@mattyglesias Did a cat write this?

[Sam E. Antar @SamAntar]

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
47 illegal leaks. Nine newsrooms. One coordinated operation.

Full Investigation with Receipts ➡️https://t.co/mGjUdSIp9D)

Who inside the Department of Justice coordinated with Letitia James's legal team, Reuters, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and New York Times to sabotage their own prosecution?

A federal judge cited "news reports" as her source for what a U.S. Attorney privately communicated to DOJ leadership.

Those news reports came from anonymous government sources who broke federal law.

The same leaks made it into Abbe Lowell's legal filings. Into the Congressional Record. Into a federal judge's ruling.

47 illegal leaks. Every one of them helped James. Zero helped the prosecution.

I have the receipts.

I documented every leak. I traced the pipeline. I followed the trail from anonymous sources → headlines → defense motions → amicus briefs → congressional letters → a federal judge's ruling.
This is the story they don't want you to read.

THE PIPELINE
Here's how it worked:
▪️Government insiders illegally leaked to reporters
▪️Reporters published, knowing the disclosures were criminal
▪️Defense counsel cited the media reports in court filings
▪️Amicus briefs repeated the leaked claims
▪️A sitting Congressman cited the same leaks in official correspondence
▪️A federal judge cited "news reports" in her ruling

That's not journalism. That's information laundering.

THE MEDIA'S FOUR-MONTH SILENCE
I published my first investigation on February 8, 2025 — documenting phantom mortgages, mathematical impossibilities, and contradictory sworn statements.

Between February and mid-September, nine major newsrooms published nothing.

No investigative reports. No document analysis. No examination of the evidence sitting in public databases anyone could access.

Reuters didn't look. The New York Times didn't look. The Washington Post didn't look. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC — none of them looked.

They weren't investigating. They were waiting.

Waiting for the phone calls from anonymous sources inside DOJ.

When the leaks came, they published instantly. When the documents were there all along, they were silent.

That's not journalism. That's stenography for saboteurs.

THE SABOTAGE
The media portrays Erik Siebert and career prosecutors as principled officials who "stood up" to political pressure.

But Siebert had access to 40 years of documentary evidence. Five months of FBI investigation with subpoena power. 115,000 pages of documents.

He concluded "insufficient evidence."
Then someone leaked that conclusion to nine newsrooms.

There are only two explanations:
▪️Option 1: Siebert never seriously reviewed the evidence. His "insufficient evidence" conclusion was worthless — and whoever leaked it was disseminating a conclusion based on nothing.
▪️Option 2: Siebert reviewed the evidence, recognized it supported charges, and refused to act. His refusal wasn't principled — it was protection of a politically powerful defendant.

Either way, someone leaked his conclusion to nine newsrooms on the same day he resigned.

That's not coincidence. That's coordination.

That's not whistleblowing. That's sabotage.

THE LOWELL STANDARD
Abbe Lowell dismissed my evidence as "uncorroborated findings of an internet investigator."

My sources: Property records from county clerks. ACRIS filings accessible to anyone. Financial disclosures on government websites. Mathematical impossibilities anyone can verify.

But in his Motion to Dismiss, Lowell cited as authoritative legal evidence:

ABC News citing "sources familiar with the matter"
CNN citing "a source familiar with the matter"
Washington Post citing anonymous officials
MSNBC citing government insiders

Public records anyone can verify = "uncorroborated."
Anonymous sources committing federal crimes = credible enough for federal court.
That's the Lowell Standard.

WHAT EVERY OUTLET IGNORED
The indictment documented James making contradictory sworn statements about the same property:
▪️To the bank: "Second home" for personal use
▪️To the insurance company: "Owner-occupied"
▪️To the IRS: "Rental property" with "zero personal use days"
▪️To NY State: "Investment" property

Four sworn statements. Four different classifications. Mathematical impossibility.

Reuters didn't report it. The New York Times didn't report it. The Washington Post didn't report it. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC — not one of them reported it.

Lawfare's Molly Roberts — a journalist with no law degree — called the case "dangerously weak" without mentioning it. The amicus briefs ignored it.

Congressman Garcia's letter ignored it.

Every outlet that called this case "weak" did so by burying the strongest evidence.

That's not journalism. That's protection.

THE HALLIGAN TRAP
Someone leaked misleading grand jury information to the New York Times.

Lawfare's Anna Bower amplified it on Twitter, calling it "important exculpatory evidence."

Prosecutor Lindsey Halligan tried to correct the false narrative — while explicitly refusing to disclose grand jury material. She followed the law.

Lawfare's response? A 30-minute piece framing her as the villain.

The leakers faced no consequences. The prosecutor who followed the rules became the story.

They amplified narratives built on criminal leaks. They attacked the prosecutor who followed the law.

THE AMICUS BRIEFS
Four coordinated briefs. Former federal judges.

Former DOJ officials. Congressional leaders.

Every single one cited newspaper articles as evidence.

Every single one repeated claims from anonymous sources who broke federal law.

Not one mentioned the 115,000 pages of documents.

THE 115,000 PAGES
November 14, 2025: James's lawyers filed a motion requesting more time to review discovery. The reason? "More than 17,000 documents and 115,000 pages."

November 17, 2025: Three days later, James filed her Motion to Dismiss claiming "insufficient evidence."

Three days after requesting more time to review 115,000 pages, she claimed there wasn't enough of it.
The defense's own filings contradicted each other. But the leak narrative was too strong. No one noticed.

THE CONGRESSMAN
November 19, 2025: Congressman Robert Garcia sent an official letter demanding investigation of Bill Pulte.

His sources? The same leaked media reports.

Garcia cited anonymous government sources to demand investigation of public-records research.

He even demanded "all communications and documents relating to…any communications with Sam Antar."

My communications? Public property records. County clerk databases. Government websites.

Garcia wants to investigate that — while treating 47 illegal leaks as established fact.

The irony writes itself.

THE QUESTION NO ONE IS ASKING
The media is running stories about whether Pulte, Martin, or others improperly coordinated with outside parties.

But the documented coordination — the coordination with receipts — flowed in the opposite direction.

Government insiders leaked to reporters. Reporters published knowing their sources were committing federal crimes. Defense counsel cited the media reports. Amicus briefs amplified them. A Congressman repeated them. A federal judge referenced them.

That's coordination. That's a pipeline. And the media was the delivery mechanism.

THE BOTTOM LINE
The indictment was dismissed on a procedural technicality — the Appointments Clause. Not the evidence. Not vindictive prosecution. A technicality.

I expect DOJ will return with a superseding indictment covering the other properties — this time during the 2026 election cycle. The dismissal didn't save James. It only delayed the inevitable.

The evidence remains. The documents haven't changed.

The reporters know who leaked. They're protecting their sources.

Their sources are the saboteurs.

And the same outlets now investigating "prosecutorial misconduct" published 47 instances of illegally leaked government information — while ignoring the public documents proving James's guilt that sat in databases anyone could access.

They had a choice: verify the documents or publish the leaks.

They chose the leaks.

Every. Single. Time.

Full investigation: https://t.co/mGjUdSIp9D

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

@TonyClimate Whales, sunflowers, peanuts, all of it: abiogenic, obviously.

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

@RichardHanania Hunting dogs are notoriously unreliable witnesses.

[johnlichtenstein @chipotlepickle]

@LionsofLaw @MichaelAArouet If he had retired at 65, he should have been able to expect to live to 120