Engorgeous George

Interesting that your point is, in part, that the students at elite universities are gullible and uneducated. Sadly, I tend to agree. In the end I do not think this makes them unique, historically. We all, or at least most of us, tended towards our passions when we were young. Age tempered our passions with experience.

Trump kept the files for what, two years. Biden had them for decades. Trump moved the files around Mara Lago, Biden moved them to numerous locations besides his unsecured home including if memory holds maybe China Town and Penn. Trump showed them to hussies and potential donors or to anyone he could to enhance his self-esteem. Biden to a biographer to enhance his place in history (I wonder if he told the biographer about the cannibals?) You are trying to draw distinctions which are not realy there. This is not to excuse Trump, but to hold Biden responsible as well. Frankly they should hold Pence and any others responsible as well. Playing fast and loose with secured documents ought to be a high crime, for all who do so.

The Rolling Stones

The incessant and tiresome back and forth b!tching between the usual suspects got me thinking. What is the average size house. A google search says 2400 sq. ft. plus or minus. That means I live in a house which is smaller than average. With the 3 & 1/2 car garage and the 750 sq. ft. of stone patios and porches it does not feel small, but it is, apparently, smaller thn average. My place up in the hills is even smaller. That is a Tough Shed, a stone patio, and a Morton building. I had at one time thought of building a home there, but have not gotten around to it and likely never will.

I don't feel I learned anything about saltwater fishing.

I'm picturing these finance guys as bank tellers and Coinstar machine service people.

For a moment I tried to picture whether Nixon might be among the cheaters. I imagined him, in his inimatable voice asking some trollop for specific sexual acts. I may never recover.

She auditioned and failed.

These women, the types that are ambitious and looking for an easy entre to fame and fortune and who show up in the hotel suites of Trump, Tyson or Cosby are not victims. They were looking to victimize. That is not a refutation of your point that Trump is a sleazy a-hole, just a refutation of the predator part. When both parties enter the arena with eyes open there is no predator and no prey. just two opportunists.

Pretty much going to need his own private plane and police escorts through traffic to make this work. Wait, .....

Interesting. A fascinating call back to a simpler time. I wonder, if Trump got a palne in the air with a short message how Judge Merchane would respond to that. Would unascribed sky writting or plane towing of banners fall within his gag order? I mean if the message is suspected by readers as coming from Trump but not directly ascribed to him is it a violation. Well at any rate I appreciate the use of creative media. I wonder if we will see a return of the Trump Baby parade balloon. Frankly I think some vendor might do well selling down sized copies as helium ballons outside the courthouse.

Thank you. I have not checked in with CNN in a while. I will do so for a bit to get their perspective on updates. I did watch a panel on CNN last evening for a bit while flipping away from the NBA games. Some of their expert panalist seemed to believe the prosecution was going quite poorly while others were of the exact opposite opinion. The coverage of matters I have seen on MSNBC and on FOX have been uncompromising and serving of their end of the political spectrum, while CNN has entertained, at least a bit, some actual discussion.

You seem to be getting blow by blow interpretations of the testimony taking palce. Would you be willing to share the source you are viewing for this?

I would anticipate nothing less. They are concentrating on providing political commentary. Were they capable to concentrate of the legal process, to separate it from the odious slimeball that is Trump they might give another analysis. Still, disagreeing with my legal conclusions is something I am use to. Lots of very qualified lawyers have over the years. In the end, however, I have almost universally been upheld on appeal. Still, this matter is far from over and who really knows the final outcome.

A target rich environment, but a witness likely very willing to ignore the question and to respond in a self-serving and nonresponsive manner, much like Fanny Willis did in that hearing. I doubt judge Merchane can controll what's coming. I doubt Ms. Necheles can either. Should be interesting. The defense needs to be very careful their questions do not solicit the same prejudicial information the judge struck earlier or they will weaken their arguments on appeal. My questioning of her would be simply was she emplyed by Trump Enterprises. Did she have any inside or direct knowledge on how the funds she recieved were designated on the Trump Enterprises books. When she says no I would dismiss her in a talking motion looking right at the jury and I would say, "The defense dismisses this witness as she has no testimoney or knowledge remotely relevant to the highly imaginative and wholly unique charges brought in this political persecution of my client." Yes I would be admonished. I might even elicit a mistrial motion from the Prosecution, a motion I would join in. I have been admonished before. Its not so bad.

Is there a distinction to be made between business records reporting requirements and campaign finance reporting requirements? I think there is. Trying to morph business record reporting requirements into campaign finance reporting requirements seems a misuse of the purpose of the statutes. Did Trump violate camnpaign finance reporting requirements? It seems he did not. Now the state is trying to prosecute the one as the other when never the twain shall meet.

As I understand matters the judge has stricken some of her testimony and he, himself, the judge has interposed objections to other parts of her testimony. If so, this simply confirms what I wrote this morning, her testimony is irrelevant and likely to be highly prejudicial and this was foreseeable yet the judge allowed the testimony to be solicited. This should have lead to a mistrial. It will lead to reversal on appeal. The court and the prosecution are now engaged in a pointless exercise and they have to know it. Both should be sanctioned when this is over as the court process is punishing and expensive and should not be used solely to be punishing and expensive. Both the Court and the prosecution have an obligation to see that the process not continue for the sole end goal of having the process be punishing. This is shameful and will be seen in the future to ber so. It will be taught in law schools as an example of what not to do.

Like orca fat? https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=45dd26ae0b8a152aJmltdHM9MTcxNTA0MDAwMCZpZ3VpZD0xZTgzYWM4Yy1mZTBmLTY2NGUtMTc3Mi1iZWVhZmYzNTY3MDYmaW5zaWQ9NTUwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=1e83ac8c-fe0f-664e-1772-beeaff356706&psq=like+orca+fat&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cueW91dHViZS5jb20vd2F0Y2g_dj1haDVTekk1RjhnOA&ntb=1

I get that you do. And I think her motivation, while interesting and potentially titillating is irrelevant to proving the charges, from a legal perspective and standard that is. What I think does not matter at this point as the judge has apparently ruled. What I think may matter at an appellate stage but not right now, not in the face of the court's ruling.. When I tried cases I tried to protect ther record from appeal. I wanted to win and to have the win hold up. This prosecution team and this judge seem to me unconcerned with protecting the eventual verdict on appeal, presuming they get a verdict.

Well off to do my morning routine. it will be interesting to see the developments on this when I get back in 3 or 4 hours. I imagine the Trump "walk out" news conference for lunch will be interesting.

Whether she accepted it or not is irrelevant. Whether it was made or offered, and from which funds, and with what intent is relevant, if one believes the charges, but her state of mind is irrelevant.

No, I see the point of the trial, I was simply noting what I see as yet more reversible error by the judge. Just another log on that fire.

Maybe they will. maybe, before buying a dog folks who have heard his perspective will wonder whether keeping a dog in the city is a wise choice.

As I understand coon hounds their bark is literally designed to be such that one can locate that dog, in the dark of night, as it has gone far afield chasing and eventually treeing raccoons. It is designed to carry.

I fail to see the relevance regarding how she felt about having sex with Trump.