The only cases on point that I’m aware of are a governor and a mayor pardoning themselves for crimes that would fall under their jurisdiction. In both cases I believe the pardons were allowed to stand.

All the precedent (both cases) seems to indicate he can pardon himself.

I tend to think that a short dismissal that essentially says “your argument was not worth considering” is harsher. However this judge prefers the “start with an old historical quote to let them know just how bad it’s going to be” school of thought, which also has merit.

He could always just issue himself a blanket pardon. 

Also, it’s never a good sign for one of the parties when the opinion starts with a lengthy historical quote as flourish.

The seven days was agreed upon by the parties. Trump argued for a further stay, but the judge refused. 

41 pages is a lot to just say “stop wasting my time.”

If there’s one thing that says “winner” it’s losing to a Democrat in Kansas.

“Stand Together (but not by paying taxes or via any form of government).”

This is what they all misunderstood about Bernies appearance on Fox. His goal was to show their audience what the left actually has to offer, and by the end he had their hand picked audience agreeing with him. He showed how dumb Fox’s policies are, and the audience got an easy walk through of why single payer health…

That might be the least flattering goatee ever.

Manning. She’s arguing, through her lawyer, that she’s not going to testify because “Grand juries and prosecutions like this one broadcast an expanding threat to the press and function to undermine the integrity of the system according to the government’s own laws”. I’d like to know how.

Of course they get packaged. Experts are selected by the lawyers because they know what they want them to say. And then they are presented to the jury after long practice with lawyers.

The lost value to the restaurant is just the replacement cost, unless giving it away cost them an opportunity to sell it to someone else.

Does she ever explain how Grand Juries are a threat?

Seriously. It’s possible to disapprove of her actions without getting into Transphobic nonsense. The two things shouldn’t even be related, but somehow they find a way.

She has immunity. They can't put her in jail for anything related to what she's been jailed for in the past. And she can take the 5th on anything else. 

The Chinese economy is pretty centrally planned. They seem to be doing pretty well.