I keep thinking that these are the latest in a long line of violehnt white supremacists. And how Whiteness erases its traces to seem seamless.

I only saw these photos of segregationists from the Civil Rights Movement era as an adult. https://t.co/j2YdXSBpXv

Thread of terrorist leaders if they were drugs

Osama bin Laden - weed

old school, a true classic, kinda boring, your parents probably talk about it a lot

Ayman Al-Zawahiri - Rohypnol

old, creepy, puts you to sleep in ten minutes flat, once he comes out nobody is having a good time and the police needs to get involved

Abubakar Shekau - Crack

very high energy, much bigger than anyone ever thought it'd be, for when the original is too elitist for you, speaking in tongues is just part of the deal

Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi - Alcohol

everyone knows about it, easy to pretend it's not a problem until it's A REAL BIG PROBLEM, not great for the waist line, when it ends it's messy and children probably get hurt

Let's remember that L. Lin Wood - according to a lawsuit filed by three attorneys who worked with/for him - allegedly called them to his house at 1 a.m. in the midst of a personal crisis, they sat with him to make sure he was okay, and tthe next day he fired them all via email.

Let's also recall that, shortly thereafter, according to the same Complaint, it is alleged he held a 3.5 hour phone call wherein he - again according to the Complaint - verbally berated these attorneys nonstop.

Then proceeded, the attorneys who worked with him allege, to send multiple abusive email messages to them with unhinged ramblings about Almighty God guiding him.

Note: Literally ANY email that includes the words "you are the ones who are crazy, not me" is immediately suspect.

Sidenote: Voicemails that insist an action seems crazy but really isn't and makes completely sense are, in my general experience with domestic abuse cases, red flags.

Campaigner leading court action aiming to prove Scotland does not need WM’s blessing to hold an indyref has called on the Lord Advocate Jas Wolfe to say exactly who he represents, after a Court of Session judge yesterday described a motion as a “fishing diligence”.

Keatings:the most concerning aspect of the hearing was the refusal by Wolffe’s counsel to stipulate WHO the Lord Advocate is representing. “He was convened in this action to represent the interests of Scottish Parliament, NOT the Scottish Government."

Keatings: "We have a Lord Advocate (representing Scots parliament) being represented by ScotGov Legal Directorate (representing ScotGov), where Lord Advocate is supposed to be representing Scots Parliament but is advancing arguments on behalf of ScotGov, who have withdrawn!"

Keatings: “ScotGov seem to have dusted themselves in Lord Advocate coconut, & are trying to pass themselves off as a Scottish parliamentary snowball," antithetical to principle of separation of powers, as Lord Advocate spent more time wearing his “SG hat” than his parliament one

Keatings: although Wolffe is in Scottish Cabinet, his post is NOT supposed to be political: “I need say no more than my legal counsel Aidan O’Neill QC said in the hearing ... that the Lord Advocate seems to be a ScotGov mouthpiece.."

I love the smell of a leaked legal service opinion in the morning

The conclusion: the EU Council legal service says that it's OK for the Brexit deal to be concluded with the UK by the EU only, not needing Member States' participation

The reasoning: the legal service distinguishes between competences reserved to Member States, and competences shared with the EU. For the latter, the EU has the choice of concluding an EU-only treaty.

The legal service summarises the prior case law backing up its interpretation.

It refers to the Weddell case, concerning competence to conclude a treaty on the Antarctic environment, where Member States *could* be involved. But that was based on the particular legal features of the Antarctic treaty; and the UK is not Antarctica.