Fogbow

neonzx wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 9:37 am I still luvs Judge Tanya, even if Susie does not any more.

WTF? Me bad for inartfully stating my LOVE for Judge Chutkan. I read the opinion with glee and gratitude that we have Obama, Clinton, and Biden judges on the bench.

Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 5:20 am

SuzieC wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 11:17 pm I could not possibly love Judge Tonya Chutkan any more.

Hmm, there's an ambiguous bit of grammar! I'll go with the approval interpretation

reminds me of a facebook group I've seen around "The last thing I want to do is hurt you ...but it's on the list"

SuzieC wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:25 pm

neonzx wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 9:37 am I still luvs Judge Tanya, even if Susie does not any more.

WTF? Me bad for inartfully stating my LOVE for Judge Chutkan. I read the opinion with glee and gratitude that we have Obama, Clinton, and Biden judges on the bench.

You said it perfectly, SusieC. Per Grammarly:

“Just remember: If you’re talking about a quantity of something, use ANY MORE. If you’re talking about time, use ANYMORE.”

June bug wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 8:49 pm
You said it perfectly, SusieC. Per Grammarly:

“Just remember: If you’re talking about a quantity of something, use ANY MORE. If you’re talking about time, use ANYMORE.”

to Grammarly: there is no difference between the two in speech. In spelling yes, in pronunciation, no. The lexical space is not phonetically realized in connected speech. Or am I being unfair in expecting accuracy from pedants?

SuzieC wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 11:17 pm I could not possibly love Judge Tonya Chutkan any more.

SuzieC wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:25 pm

neonzx wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 9:37 am I still luvs Judge Tanya, even if Susie does not any more.

WTF? Me bad for inartfully stating my LOVE for Judge Chutkan. I read the opinion with glee and gratitude that we have Obama, Clinton, and Biden judges on the bench.

I know I'm just a silly geologist, but neonzx's comment isn't about grammar. It's about SuzieC's misspelling of Tanya, which was probably an autocorrect issue.

Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:36 pm reminds me of a facebook group I've seen around "The last thing I want to do is hurt you ...but it's on the list"

Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 9:40 pm

June bug wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 8:49 pm
You said it perfectly, SusieC. Per Grammarly:

“Just remember: If you’re talking about a quantity of something, use ANY MORE. If you’re talking about time, use ANYMORE.”

to Grammarly: there is no difference between the two in speech. In spelling yes, in pronunciation, no. The lexical space is not phonetically realized in connected speech. Or am I being unfair in expecting accuracy from pedants?

But SusieC was writing, not speaking.

Tell that to the voices in my head that read the writing out loud.

Chutkan good, orange man bad.

Judge Chutkan rules tfg does not have absolute immunity:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sh ... cr0257-171

Busy morning.
https://twitter.com/highbrow_nobrow/sta ... 07231?s=20

The Intellectualist @highbrow_nobrow wrote: On the morning of January 6, 2021, former President Donald Trump spoke with:

1. Stephen Bannon
2. Rudy Giuliani
3. Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH)
4. Senator Joshua Hawley (R-MO)

Scott MacFarlane @MacFarlaneNews wrote: THREAD:

In 9-page court filing, Special Counsel Jack Smith details some of the evidence he'll introduce at Trump's election conspiracy criminal trial here in Washington

Including the allegation a Trump campaign employee encouraged "rioting" in Detroit, in Nov. 2020

More ====>

Scott MacFarlane @MacFarlaneNews wrote: New Jack Smith court filing: "To ensure the destabilizing impact of his widespread election fraud claims in the run-up to the 2020 election.. defendant repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transition of presidential power if he lost the election. The Govt will offer proof"

Here's the filing
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .176.0.pdf

The filing is notice required by Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) of other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Sometimes referred to as “uncharged misconduct,” this sort of evidence is usually offered by the prosecution, not to show that the defendant is a bad guy (which isn’t ordinarily allowed **), but to show that the defendant knew what he was doing when he did what he did. It helps, supposedly, to paint a more complete picture.

** Don’t get me started on Federal/Military Rules of Evidence 413 and 414, which only apply in sex assault cases, and do allow the prosecution to present evidence of similar crimes - even baseless rumors - as character evidence to show that the defendant had the propensity to engage in acts of sexual assault. I really think those particular rules promote convictions based on the likelihood of fire among all this smoke, jury instructions on reasonable doubt notwithstanding. But that’s just me. No military appellate court ever agreed with me.

Joyce Alene @JoyceWhiteVance wrote: Trump has moved to stop any further proceedings in his DC prosecution while he appeals Judge Chutkan's rulings against him. My favorite bit is where his lawyers say they'll assume everything is stayed unless they hear back to the contrary. Oh to be the judge who gets to respond!

https://x.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/173 ... 27454?s=20

Scott MacFarlane @MacFarlaneNews wrote: No surprise. But noteworthy.

Trump is appealing Judge Tanya Chutkan’s denial of his claim of “Presidential immunity” in his election conspiracy criminal case in DC.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Gee, wouldn't it be nice if we could just make this all go away until after the election?
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL

She wants briefs.

Chutkan left off the part that it is further ORDERED that Judge Chutkan will issue the deny the motion at 08:30 on Wednesday...

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 1:53 pm

Joyce Alene @JoyceWhiteVance wrote: Trump has moved to stop any further proceedings in his DC prosecution while he appeals Judge Chutkan's rulings against him. My favorite bit is where his lawyers say they'll assume everything is stayed unless they hear back to the contrary. Oh to be the judge who gets to respond!

IANAL but Trump's motion cites Coinbase, Inc. v Bielski. That was an arbitration case and concerned section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act. It had nothing to do with appeals in criminal cases.

What has the Trump circus been missing?

SovCit, SovCit, SovCit… we got ‘em now! (pg 187)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 80.0_2.pdf

Oh, it's included because it's part of the docket.

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 12:12 pm Oh, it's included because it's part of the docket.

And permission to file was denied.