My previous question was removed because of the link. My question is who enforces this? If you have infinite resources (Musk) and a sitting Governor (Abbott) who forces the hand - by Thursday - to release these files? How does the law work here?

A bipartisan group of US lawmakers have warned American banks, port authorities, and fuel-industry groups against facilitating imports of Russian diesel, raising the prospect of congressional investigations and legal action over President Donald Trump’s decision to ease restrictions on Russian fuel.

In letters sent to the chief executives of major US banks and the heads of several port authorities, the lawmakers warned that importing Russian diesel could violate federal law and expose companies to civil and criminal liability.

They also said the imports would raise national-security concerns by providing Moscow with revenue to help finance its war against Ukraine.

"When Tessa is raped by a colleague, her world implodes and it’s made clear just how brutal the British justice system can be for women, who, according to Rape Crisis, have a one in four chance of being sexually assaulted, while only 2.7% of reported rapes result in charges being brought."

Could this be legal?

Suppose I hold $1 million and give $1,000; I might owe roughly $300 in taxes, making the political contribution cost $1,300.

If a billionaire gives $1 million, the tax could be 100 percent—so $1 million in tax and $2 million total.

For someone like Zuckerberg with $100 billion or more, the tax might be 10 times higher, so a $1 million donation would incur $9 million in taxes.

For a trillionaire like Elon, a $500 million donation could be taxed at 100 times, totaling $50 billion.

This approach might prevent wealthy individuals from interfering with elections.

We should also apply this to anything with value: a tweet ad, a commercial, or similar items, using the cost as the donation amount.

Comey is charged in the new case with knowingly communicating information related to national defense to a person not entitled to receive it. He also is charged with conspiring with others to violate the law against sharing such information.

Now the judge has ruled that French law applies, looks like the lawsuit is pretty much dead.

WASHINGTON – No additional trees can be removed for now from a public park and golf course that President Donald Trump has said he will close and convert into a “world championship” course, a federal judge ordered on Monday.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, temporarily barred the Interior Department from making major alterations at East Potomac Park and ordered the government to give her 10 days’ notice before closing the course or making any further modifications to the grounds.

“Rarely, if ever, has the United States Department of Justice urged a federal court not to believe the sitting President. Not to believe him that a cabinet secretary has ‘developed’ a federal land project. Not to believe him that the secretary’s agency will destroy a historic golf course already on the land. Not to believe him that ‘Restoration work’ will begin ‘IMMEDIATELY!’ Not to believe him that the course ‘will be closed’ for over a year. Not to believe what the President has repeatedly told the American public,” Reyes wrote. “And yet, here we are. This started as a case about golf. That good walk spoiled. But it has become much more. It now forces the Court to reconcile assertions by President Donald J. Trump with the sworn testimony of multiple government employees and the argument of senior Department of Justice attorneys.”