leh-nerd skin-erd

How did I miss this gem on 11/17? 🤣 Ben Cartwright didn’t see color, ya sick b*stard!

In a unanimous vote, BillSy’s next comment would be he voted in lockstep with the conservatives on the court. A one trick pony is limited to one trick (it’s in the name, that’s how I know). There’s a process to deal with this, but certainly a subpoena is a subpoena. We agree, yes or no?

Clear, yes, and kudos to you for finding your way to your point. Perhaps next time just get to it earlier.

I think all is acceptable to some until you get to the point where you suggest that the 1/6 committee was not completely forthright, honest, open and transparent. In spite of mountains of evidence about the relative trustworthiness of politicians of all stripes over the history of our country, they see purity of cause and clarity of purpose. I admit to laughing about liberals lining up with Liz Cheney, that's just bonus money.

You didn't ask about Liz Cheney, or the 1/6 committee. Why the presto chango, Fergie? Did you lose track of your rants today? Pence is a politician, and the full weight and power of the federal government is coming to bear on him in the post 1/6 world. He also had that pesky "I didn't know I couldn't have classified docs in my possession" thing, so I tend to believe his testimony would by nature serve his own best interests. I don't see that as a particularly controversial take. In addition, the article mentions how he talked about hurting his friend, potentially skipping 1/6 entirely, how he figured Trump knew his position on a variety of issues, and what he actually meant to say in his book. As for "degrees of lunacy and lying", this creative phrase is long on casting aspersions, yet woefully lacking in substance. If you have something, say it, otherwise stop being such a wuss.

You sound like a dreary dullard. (jk-thanks for engaging on this subject. It helps me think some of these things through. Btw, a good friend of mine is a litigator in NYS govt, a brilliant guy and he says the same thing.)

Well, it's not 'free speech' and 'tension' so much as manipulation of the system by the prosecution. You're the lawyer, and you latched on to the beauty of the placement of the comma. I get that, I really do. However, when members of the Smith team leak selective information from hours of testimony, context is completely missing as if it doesn't matter or is irrelevant. It's as underhanded as anything Trump might say or do, but it goes unchecked while his behavior is presented as dangerous. I see it less as tension, more as institutional arrogance. While not Trump or SC related, I recall listening to a story after George Zimmerman shot Travon Martin. The footage was edited to make it appear that Zimmerman volunteered that Travon was black. What they cut was the 911 dispatcher asking for a description of TM. One version is not the same as the other. Why not just play the tape? I'm pro-law and order, and recognize the difficult job that prosecutors often have in front of them. I simply don't see the need for tactical leaks, and as a result, tend to wonder why they feel manipulation is necessary in this case?

Thank you.

I'm all for "triable issues of fact" (and thank you Your Honor for dumbing it down for me!). What I'm against, generally, is the slow, steady, consistent drip of selected pieces of confidential information, fed to willing members of the media, who cut, copy and paste testimony purported to be accurate sandwiched between carefully crafted prose to paint a picture that may or may not be true. The government is THE government. The prosecution holds virtually every card here. Jack Smith and his team could run this trial for the next 5 years, completely **** it up, and it would not cost them a dime. The budget is unlimited. The availability of experts, some fair, others not, is endless. The opportunity for elevating one's position in the hyper-partisan world of DC politics is huge. The defendant, of course, risks everything. Freedom, family, fortune. If the case is as rock solid as it seems to be, why the need to prosecute this case through innuendo and taint the jury pool with leaks and speculation? That's what some people call "icky".

That was your Jordan reference? 🤣 When you cleverly replace the J with a G I really have no idea what you're talking about, or where your mind is taking you. There is a process for dealing with congressmen who ignore subpoenas. It's being followed, and punishment, if warranted, follows. Stay tuned.

So, just a humble observation--the fact that "litigation can be fun" is part of the problem here. In the eyes of the voting public, there is generally a high degree of skepticism in the fairness of our system, often for good reason. Part of the shading certainly comes from belief in a candidate, belief that the system is rigged one way or the other, or that "you guy" is getting screwed while the other guy is above the law. The reality is, however you see it, you're probably right. When you add in the obvious nature of strategic leaking, snippets and tidbits of testimony, it feels an awful lot more like the National Enquirer than the work of The Department of Justice. The lady in the photo may be visually impaired, but she sure seems chatty.

Nah, it's far from over. One could argue that it's just getting started. You're correct on the Biden Crime Family angle, of course. That's the smart political play. I ignore the 5 or 7 regular memes in BillSy's repertoire, but mindless posting for some is an art form. In fairness, while he whiffed on the Peas song, he linked a music video, not a meme.

You said that, yesterday. Remember? You said that, yesterday. And again today, in the same message? You seem stuck here. Three Jordan references and a Black Eyed Peas song unrelated to the subject matter. It's like kindness is your kryptonite.

I haven’t heard that song before, but even if I had, I would not have shared the lyrics as it was not relevant to the message I was sending to you. I offer the following in the spirit of friendship and respect associated with the first Peas song I mentioned: Some things in life are complicated with deep, hidden meanings. Sometimes, though, a song is just a song.

Here’s my feedback: The SC leaks like a sieve, and the leaks are carefully designed to shape the narrative and public opinion in a way that should be unnecessary. It’s not the first time this has happened. The writer of this piece offers partial quotes without context, sandwiched with narrative designed to manipulate the reader, and fails to include the questions asked. We have seen this before, many times, and thinking people should proceed with caution. Pence’s comments are undoubtedly self-serving, but he did the correct thing and certified the election. Generally, I think it’s interesting that the placement of a comma draws intense scrutiny, but politicians removing top secret/classified information while senator, VP, and President, losing track of multiple documents and exposing national secrets is considered acceptable behavior.

Maybe. I don’t know the man. Now, sing with me: So I can ask myself, really, what is going wrong With this world that we livin' in? People keep on givin' in Makin' wrong decisions, only visions of them dividends Not respectin' each other, deny thy brother A war is goin' on, but the reason's undercover The truth is kept secret, and swept under the rug If you never know truth, then you never know love Where's the love, y'all? Come on (I don't know) And where's the truth, y'all? Come on (I don't know) And where's the love y'all?

The process has to be honored, and a subpoena is a subpoena. If it’s a sham hearing, the truth will eventually be revealed.

Well, there's broken silence By thunder crashing in the dark (crash in the dark) And this broken record Spin endless circles in the bar (spin 'round in the bar) This world can hurt you It cuts you deep and leaves a scar Things fall apart, but nothing breaks like a heart (Hmm) and nothing breaks like a heart

I like a good Magoo reference as much as anyone, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out you've gone from suggesting I said something, then suggested I was implying something, then introduced the notion that perhaps I tripped into making you think I said or implied something. This was after unleashing a string of censored obscenities over whatever perceived slight or misunderstanding you felt may have been visited upon you. Sometimes, words are just words, delivered as intended, with no hidden meaning behind them.

We agree here. Justice was served.

Text to BillSy: Yes, thank you. Regards, Kyle

I would love to see where I said what you said I said about what you said. I said, quite clearly, that I didn’t follow the thought process you laid out. In civilized conversation, this is often viewed as attempt to understand the perspective of another. The risk of course is that the other party may nor wish to engage in dialogue, may misconstrue the attempt as condescending or hyper-aggressive, may misunderstand the context as offered, or in some cases, flip their lid. Lid, flipped. I read what you wrote, understand that you felt the 10/7 attacks were horrific, and replied as I did. Nothing you’ve shared here changes anything. It happens.

Rumor is it’s because Clarence Thomas is conflicted.

I can’t really follow your thought process here. The innocent victims of the horrors of 10/7–men, women, children, infants deserve no less consideration for the atrocities visited upon them than do victims of the holocaust. The way I look it, if you string together multiple instances of exactly this type of savagery, violence and degradation—and I’d suggest Hamas gleefully embraces just such a plan—it’s not long before hundreds become thousands, thousands become tens of thousands, and tens of thousands become hundreds of thousands. A mentor of mine said one time “Just because someone else eats a bigger **** sandwich than mine doesn’t make mine taste any better.

For the best…you never know what a guy like Joe will say (touch/do) with all those tall women around. Plus, you put “WNBA” on a teleprompter, you gotta be thinking he says “Winbuh” more times than not.