Engorgeous George

Truely amazing. Still, just allegations at this time. Or reports of allegations. Who knows how it will develope, how it will be fleshed out in the end?

Interesting development.

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that Homan's footspeed over uneven ground is something less than average.

I was subject to random testing. Additionally my work computer had a key stroke logger for random audits and my phone was subject to inspection. That said, certainly there are Prosecutors who are not squeaky clean.

Only on two matters. It is also intersting to me in that she prosecuted Trump under novel theories that the SOL could be extended. Also, if her primary residence is in Virginia, 500 miles from her Albany office there is a question of whether she is qualified to be N.Y.'s A.G. Now I suspect this will all get resolved without her losing office or going to jail. I just find it interesting in that she has apparently engaged in behavior highly analogous to that for which she prosecuted Trump.

The whole matter brings to mind the rendition arguments from a few years back.

Were I an attorney opposing the defamation suit I would note that Alex Jones was commenting to gain notoriety for financial gain which is different than government officials commenting on policy matters within their purview when being asked by an interested national press. When i stated I don't recall any analogous cases I meant cases specifically against government officals.

It is fine with me if his family tries. All I will say about the E. Jean Carroll matter is that in the law there are always outlier cases, exceptional cases that come to have little or no precedential value. I suspect hers is one such case. The results of individual lawsuits, individual verdicts are not particularly precedential, appealate ruling s are more so, but even those on unusual or outlier caseddo not govern matterds. Still, a good thought by you. if an attorney was trying to make the case you are hoping to make thye may well trot out that case as an example in support of their suit.

I have no reason to believe that 'facilitate" means "do everything we can". Had the Court meant "do everything within the Administration's power" they could easily have so said.

He can try. The law does grant a great deal of leeway, a partial privilege really in matters of public interest, and this would be one such matter. I have no reason to believe he would be successful if he tried. I can think of no analogous case being successful. That said, civil torts was not really my area of practice. Also, if I recall defamation is a personal action not one carrying over to family. I don't recall too many suits being successful by family members even for disparaging inaccurately, unfairly, and with intent to injure the recently deceased. I am fairly certain that in this political and legal environment his family could find a lawyer to bringa case not for defamation per se, but for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Such a suit might even find a judge willing to allow it to go forward. On apeal such a suit would run into trouble as government officials are allowed to debate the important issues of the day.

To my mind asking would fulfill facilitating if coupled withpayment of costs and arranging transportation. I am unclear whether asking is required by the term facilitate. perhpas an offer of costs and transportation alone would be sufficient. I don't know. frankly I don't think anybody currently knows. I think the Courts will have to clarify matterds. likely after a new round of orders and appeals.

To facilitate seems different than to accomplish, complete or effectuate. I know of no case interpreting the word "facilitate" as used by the Court, in this context. I do know that to facilitate a crime mean to remove barriers to it be carried out. I do know that one can facilitate an as yet and perhaps never completed act.

So do you care to make a suggestion? Semiturgid George? Soft Serv George? What?

I scoff at the language police. They hope to quiet thought opposed to their own. They hope to shame others, to make others defensive, to waste intellectual and emotional resources of others. Ii tend not to comply. In the end even when new terms are adopted in an attempt to frustrate and shame speech (they would say to advance understanding and dialog) any connotations they hope to escape rapidly reattach to the new, politically correct term.

I am waiting for the Trump Administration to handle criminals Running Man style.

I'm 66 and have never needed help before. Lately I would need help but I have not bothered. I mean why get all dressed up when you have no place to go

Let's just say I am not as on alert as I was back then. Now it takes a Sydney Sweeny in harem wear to catch my attention. Back in the day the tiniest budding drew intense scrutiny.

I am a bit surprised that the Governor does not have 24/7 on-site, in person protection of his residence.

And an eye for boobs as a youngster.

If I understand that acronym I would suggest you may have inappropriate temperment for the bench.

Tattoos, a nearly permanent record. Not as permanent as the record administrators in grade school tried to convince me I was fouling up when in 4th grade Art class I drew Kathy McLaughlin with boobs. She had 'em so I drew them.

I hope the withholding of funds does not adversely affect harvard's remedial math program for incoming freshmen. Strange, but i remember a time when Harvard was pretty strict on SAT and ACT math scores to obtain admission.

I am going to need further "receipts" before i will lend this any credence. I do not anticipate those "receipts" being forthcoming.

One more such attack or attempted attack and we may need Hammer Control. Fortunately I have all the hammers I will ever need so I will not need to rush on out and buy a few in anticipation of legislative controls.

Perhaps it was opposed at the time due to a shortage of rubber stamps reading "Appeal Denied, deport Immediately". until the Magistrates can be properly equiped to do thier jobs their is no sense in firing them. Think of the termporary full employment for lawyers opportunities. Each Magistrates courtroom would need probably two prosecutors and two State appointed defense attornies. This could end up employing maybe 50,000 attorneys. At say $200,000 per year for salaries and benefits that would be 10 billion dollars a year while the program lasted.