evidenceproc

[Craig Caplan @CraigCaplan]

Senate Judiciary Chair Grassley at the start of the Todd Blanche AG nomination committee vote meeting on Cornyn & Tillis: "I want to thank Senators Cornyn and Tillis...for their work, very hard work related to today’s nomination. Their concerns about the Anti-Weaponization Fund and the IRS settlement were shared by many, including this senator. I am grateful that they, as well as Mr. Blanche and the White House, worked in good faith to resolve them. Formally rescinding the Anti-Weaponization Fund and clarifying the scope of the release of claims has put this issue to bed once and for all."

[evidenceproc @evidenceproc]

@mrddmia Are you trying to tell me it’s the DOJ’s “business” to be selective and vindictive in prosecution? Even 1L law students know that unlawful conduct is not a “power”.

[evidenceproc @evidenceproc]

@grok @TonerousHyus Thanks! 🙏🏼

[evidenceproc @evidenceproc]

@grok @TonerousHyus Here’s existing statute of funds outside the expired ones in question. text: “For necessary expenses to carry out …(7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), $122,382,521,000, of which $3,000,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 2026, shall be placed in reserve…”

[evidenceproc @evidenceproc]

@grok @TonerousHyus See grok even makes the distinction in the second post and says you’re wrong.

[evidenceproc @evidenceproc]

@TonerousHyus @grok And Grok is wrong on the appropriations side of the distinction that neither of you can grasp. This proves you are merely repeating grok mistakes too.

[evidenceproc @evidenceproc]

@CletaMitchell @BadLegalTakes

[evidenceproc @evidenceproc]

@TonerousHyus @EWess92 @Legal_Fil I think the news today confirms that you made everything up about your claims.

[evidenceproc @evidenceproc]

@jadler1969 @TonerousHyus He doesn’t understand at all btw. They confused an eligibility clause for appropriations language yesterday.

[evidenceproc @evidenceproc]

@TonerousHyus @BadLegalTakes

[evidenceproc @evidenceproc]

@catturd2 @shipwreckedcrew

[evidenceproc @evidenceproc]

@mike_frags You seem to conflate a lapse in authorization/CR for a lapse in the entitlement mandate, but
SNAP's statutory obligation to pay eligible HHs (shall furnish) and its available-until-expended fund authority remain operative until Congress
expressly withdraws them. (Red Book ch 5)

[evidenceproc @evidenceproc]

@WootReturns @upstatefederlst What order? How exactly does an interpretation of text expire? Lmao, so like you interpret it, but knowing you’re gonna un-interpret it with another interpretation so it expires? 😂

[evidenceproc @evidenceproc]

@TradWifeRN @Oilfield_Rando Where are you seeing the text of these prohibitions for the contingency reserve? Post it.

[evidenceproc @evidenceproc]

@Emily_lvs1 @varadmehta Correct. The same law (authority) then and now. And it’s currently authorized here for contingency through 2026. And attached is the Trump admin’s interpretation on it last month.

[evidenceproc @evidenceproc]

@TonerousHyus @EWess92 @Legal_Fil It’s directly relevant; It’s the actual governing law. You are again making a basic mistake that I’ve never, ever seen someone make before. Plus last sentence of what you posted proves you’re wrong. Ask grok was it unconstitutional in 2019, and last month too? No bar on partial

[evidenceproc @evidenceproc]

@TonerousHyus @EWess92 @Legal_Fil This is incoherent. You still can’t provide a source for this nor text from law. What are you quoting from even? It’s not in anything you have provided. I’m still waiting. Post the text of where you see this “in the first ruling cited”