Engorgeous George

Today should be the zenith, then finals come around and concerns for summer palns start to take precedence. The professional protesters the "students" without enrollment will try to remain, but the rank and file, they wil lturn their attention to other matters.

Cousin's fourth snap this year could be like Rodger's fourth snap last year. Penix may see the field quite soon. Still, if the Falcons wanted Penix I don't know how they did not engineer a trade down of at least a few slots, but maybe their was no grading partner to be had.

I took a few moments yesterday to compare and contrast the coverage of the trail, and the Supreme Court hearing on Fox, MSNBC and CNN. We live in two diverse realities.

Chicago could not help but to come out of day one looking good given two choices in the top ten, nor could Minnesota with two choices. Tonight is Green Bay's opportunity to shine with four choices.

But not Atlanta?

Packers did what the Packers do which is to defy the predictions of the experts, again.

Nope, because the have a rookie at quarterback. Rookie quarterbacks do tghings like when elway tried to take the centgersnap from a guard or when Sanchez butt fumbled. They lock in on recievers leading to intgerceptions, and they habitually run out of the back of the pocket leading to sacks for mssive yardage loss and lotgs of strip sacks. Are they set to see a big jump in the second year, certainly.

I had heard discussions, knew this was feasible, just had zero ideo that the ability was so accessible to idiots like me.

I would take the position that it is unconscionable to allow the danger to continue for even one day.

I had no idea imitation voices could be generated so easily.

I find the judge setting the contempt hearing off into the future interesting from a philosophical point of view. If the gage order is meant to protect witnesses and court personnel why would the judge not take the matter up immediately? By setting the hearing off for a week after considering it for a week he is allowing the witnesses and court personnel to be in ongoing danger for two weeks. Either that or he is tactically acknowledging there is no danger.

Is it? It seems like the civil tort of libel, but is it a crime, and if so which one?

A nonresponsive answer. Would be an interesting question as to whether to object as the next answer might be worse, not better.

It will be interesting to see this fleshed out. Will the indictment be amended? will the unindicted become indicted? Will deals for testimony be cut? This could be an interesting story for some time.

The difference between rancid ground chuck and dry aged kobi beef tenderloin.

My mail order bride would have signed a pre-nup and would understand she is a prop. The evangelical vote has nowhere else to go, though they could stay home. Karen McDougal is so fine those folks who were not high-fiving me would at least be understanding of my human frailty.

To my memory there were this many associated with ending Apartheid and demanding university endowments divest from companies doing business with South Africa. Maybe my memory is skewed by the campuses I was associated with and those I visited.

Full agreement.

We have always recognized the potential for bias, thus challenges for cause to the potential jurors, preemptory challenges to the potential jurors, and changes of venue. We are not changing up anything now. Sorry but you are simply factually wrong.

Succinctly summarized.

Biden is an example of the Peter Principle being applied to the ultimate useful idiot, emphasis on the idiot, and now the idiot has diminished faculties.

You are entitled to your opinion. As for moving the trial to Nashville I never advocated that . They could have moved it to Westchester county. They would not have gotten jurors who have never heard of Trump, but they would have gotten a jury pool of approximately 50% democrats and 50% republicans in trial uniquely impacting politcal affiliations. Your holding on to what has never before happened in a matter involving something which has never before happened is interesting. They say you are a lawyer. Do some lawyrering. What is the reason for a change of venue? Is it to obtain as unbiased a jury as is practical in a trial where it appears likely that the jury will be skewed if the trial is not moved? if so, and we both know it is so, this trial should have been moved. Why are so many afraid of a fair trial or a trial without a skewed jury? We both know the answer I suppose, that being one partisan for Trump on the jury will in this day and age result in a hung jury. Partisans for Trump are as unlikely to be reached by evidence in this trial just as partisans for Biden do not even need the evidence to convict. How the rule of law can prevail in this charged environment I do not know but I would hope it would start with lawyers at least acknowledging the purpose of changes of venue.

Nor have I. The question is whether a person is likely to get a fair trial based on opinions being formulated and hardened due to infamy or pretrial publicity. This is a matter of first impression, or nearly so, where politics is so inextricable woven into the fabric of the case and the defendant that the politics of the jurors is essentially tantamount to having prejudged the matter. The general principle of fundamental fairness, of not having prejuded the matter before the evidence is presented is the question and on that question there should have been a change of venue.

Interesting development.

In historic cases I have real concerns over the appearance of a bias, whether there may actually be one or not.