SectionC3

I’ll chalk that up as a yes. Wow.

On the issue of race in America or in general? I won’t get into the general issues; those are for a different time and it’s an issue that I don’t particularly care to consider in any context. The race question, however, requires additional definition. To be clear, are you saying that Obama and Trump are equally bad on the issue of race in America?

Fair point. The amicus still is a friend, but in this case the friend has a unique role to play. I mostly agree with your response.

I’ll rephrase: are Trump’s actions with respect to this issue worse than Obama’s inactions on the same issue, yes or no?

So go on record. Are Trump’s actions with respect to this issue worse than Obama’s inactions on the same issue?

Hoax. The amicus assists the court’s understanding of an issue or of the case as a whole. That’s not adversarial.

Hoax. I’m not an accomplished cork soaker/sniffer. I noticed you used the word “was” in your most recent post. That usage suggests that a previously-existing wine cork is no more. It seems as if you have gone from a little wine cork to no wine cork at all. Perhaps that has something to do with all of your anger and frustration.

You condemn Obama for what you characterize as his inaction on issues of race and refuse to condemn what any reasonable mind would see as the flagrant and obviously inflammatory actions of Donald Trump on the same issue.

It’s not those statements that are racist. It’s your hypocrisy and your support for racism and xenophobia that pulls you toward that scarlet letter.

Yeah, sure, it’s Obama’s fault. Says the guy who has no facts to support his contention that Obama’s actions contributed to this mess and who supports a president doing his best imitation of the “best” of George Wallace and the worst of Richard Nixon. The term racist is thrown around way too often and too casually in today’s society. But the position that you take here is one that inches your toward eligibility for that scarlet letter.

There was an extensive discussion. But extensive doesn’t mean complete. And the question about Obama’s active divisiveness remains unanswered. Of course, the Obama question is a convenient way to distract from the feats of the current president, which involve demonizing protestors, cowering in a bunker when the people seek his voice on an issue of social change, attempting to use the military to squelch free speech with which he disagrees, refusing to stop the veneration of loser, traitorous Confederate military figures at present-day military bases, and effectively beginning his 2020 presidential campaign in the location of the worst racial massacre in United States history. So spare me your alt-wrong BS about a bunch of snowflakes in Seattle who put up some hamfisted cardboard signs and your conspiracy theories about Antifa, the left, and anything that doesn’t fit your groupthink nonsense about Donald Trump. Reasonable minds can disagree on economic policy, the best means of border security, health care, and other policy questions and still get along. There is no reasonable mind, however, that can suggest that any inaction on the part of Obama in the racial equality field is equivalent to Donald Trump’s greatest hits in this area.

She won’t respond. She can spout off the alt-wrong cliches but she can’t back them up with those pesky little things called facts.

So short it was barely visible.

They were uninvited likely for the same reason that Trump is going to Tulsa during Juneteenth. Wink wink nudge nudge to the white supremacist scumbags who support him. Meanwhile people are protesting because there was yet another in what is becoming an overwhelming number of videos in which a black person was killed for no good reason by someone acting under color of law, and Trump's reaction is to suggest that the victim would have been pleased by some bogus economic numbers that the administration ginned up in a ham-handed attempt to distract from the one thing that has successfully unified the vast majority of this country in the past 3.5 years. A real Christian would acknowledge the righteousness of people who simply want to be treated the same as everyone else.

Hoax. I read your case. It considers charging discretion, which is immaterial here inasmuch as Flynn has pleaded guilty. Also, it occurred to me that you’re the coward here. Once I sniffed out your attempt to leave room for yourself to weasel out of obligation when Flynn is sentenced, you resorted to your usual tack of name-calling, obfuscation, and insults. Sad!

Any time you’d like to stop name-calling and start putting your crack legal mind to work is find with me.

Nope. You want to bet. You proposed terms. I will not accept your terms because they will allow you to continue to pollute this environment if the “case is not dismissed with prejudice.” Since that can never happen — it is not the case that would be dismissed with prejudice — there is no sense in taking the bet. If you’d like to put your crack legal mind to work and draft better terms, then I’ll listen to what you have to say.

Still haven’t figured out that a CASE doesn’t get dismissed with prejudice, have you?

Again, poorly drawn. Go back and figure out what might be dismissed with prejudice (hint: it’s not the case) and then we can talk again.

So if Flynn gets sentenced you go on vacation for a year? Done. Your terms are vague and poorly drawn, and I note that they include an escape hatch that would allow you to win the bet that you have proposed if Trump pardons Flynn. Apparently you are not confident that Flynn will prevail on the law here.

Me too. This Q fellow is starting to piss me off. I’ve had enough of his disrespect for the Anons.

Got any other hot tips about the “case record” to share today? Or maybe you can regale us with tales of your hoaxy logic about how a declaration is the same as withdrawing a plea. Or, better yet, explain again how a case about charging discretion is deciding case law with respect to the prosecutorial abandonment issue in the Flynn case. Keep the hits coming, my man! That’s right. We all need to know the difference between Qs and Anons. It is the path to enlightenment. Thank you, sir.

Whose practice went so well that she is . . . A journalist!

Says the journalist. Hoax! How would that help in my effort to Keep Making America Great Keep Make Again? I beg you, sir, please help me understand whether we are Again Making America Great Again or if we’re focused on Keeping America Great now.

So it’s Made in America? I don’t follow. I’’m not sure if I should focus on Again Making America Great Again or on Keeping America Great. Please help!