Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    40748
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. She is such a fucking moron.
  2. Is it possible that Bondi and these other "QMAGAts" got over their skis with this and didn't really have Trump's permiso? Of course, it would be pure MAGAt of them not to realize that this shit is bad for the boss pretty much any way you slice it.
  3. Possibly important to add "beyond a reasonable doubt." There's probably oodles of stuff in there that heavily implicates Trump and others, maybe, probably even making it more likely than not that they abused minors with Epstein. But that's not the burden of proof in a criminal case and if as a prosecutor you don't in pretty good faith believe the evidence can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, its pretty close to unethical to indict on it. And once the authorities decide not to indict, all that evidence in the normal case gets deep sixed and it stays there in perpetuity.
  4. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Really shocked he didn't file it in the WPB/Fort Pierce Division. Also, as currently written, that complaint is going to be shot into the sun without whiskey or hash browns as it inadequately pleads malice. I suppose they might get one opportunity to amend.
  5. UT used to have a similar rule, I don't see one now.
  6. Come to think of it, I'm not sure a judge is even going to release grand jury information. So this is all theater where Trump can blame another danged ol judge. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6
  7. https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/07/18/nx-s1-5471281/aca-health-insurance-premiums-obamacare-bbb-kff
  8. Yeah on KERA this morning they mentioned a $2.7M annual shortfall. Have to think that's a relatively small portion of their budget.
  9. Imagine that's true, because it wasn't necessary to name names to indict Epstein or Maxwell. It might get interesting to release transcripts where a grand jury no-billed someone like Trump if that happened. Or they presented evidence but ultimately no indictment. But the likelihood of a judge releasing that is zilch unless that person is long dead. But, if you're going to do some allegedly transparent data dump on Epstein, grand jury transcripts would seem to be a pretty key part of that.
  10. Yeah, there is some evidence that Trump was far more articulate in his younger years before the spirochetes got to his brain. Probably also applies to the signature.
  11. That's what I was driving at earlier. Had there not been the relationship between the parties, would have been an interesting question whether the Verve's sample would have infringed the original work. And one thing to always bear in mind in music copyright cases: the owner of the rights is often not the artist/authors, its a manager or record company, so not legally the same entity and often quite or completely "factually" independent (meaning doesn't need and doesn't have the blessing of the artists). The usual division is that the artists often own the "composition" copyrights (words and music), while a manager or record company owns the rights to the performance/sound recording. But that can vary quite a lot.
  12. Solid work. Pretty impressive. Are you a dirthead? And, yeah generally agree on the floodplain issue. In this particular context, it seems rather self-serving in retrospect. And, while the structure/area removal is objectively supplying data to replace FEMA's estimations, I still consider that advocacy. The data should be pretty objective and FEMA should be well-positioned to take issue with it if it is false or mischaracterized, Stranger things happen with government agencies.
  13. What about the Biden administration makes you think they'd do that? Particularly the Department of Justice? Releasing pre- or post-indictment/conviction investigation information is not normal and is against DOJ policy, as well as most state prosecuting authorities. If anything the Biden/Garland DOJ was too bound by norms. For there to have been an unauthorized leak, the information likely would have had to be outside the DOJ, ie in Congress, but it wasn't.
  14. I believe this was 100% Klein's doing and once the actual authors learned of it, did the right thing, possibly after reacquiring rights from Klein, as often happens wi superstars. That's why I put "the Stones" in quotes.
  15. To be fair, that doesn't really look like his signature. But it has changed quite a bit or varies quite a bit.
  16. Well, if he's on coumadin/warfarin, which seems likely, that's kind of possible. As I get older things make fucked up looking spots, but things like cat scratches and bushes from MTB trails, not handshakes.
  17. Interesting, who did it? Also, it appears that those floodplain "values" are based on Mystic's "appeals," rather than the floodplain initially established by FEMA. But, who's "right" on that is not a simple answer. FEMA's is pretty much a "SWAG," while Mystic's data is "site-specific," although tailored to a desired result, i.e. advocacy. The negligence case may be harder to establish than initially thought, and I think we know from prior litigation that a Kerr County jury is very sympathetic to the local Eastlands.
  18. Weird, cheap-looking shoes, too. Maybe his "fat shoes." Also, not all venous insufficiency is caused by DVT. Dammit. Because DVT can be a killer. And, I believe treatment for DVT often includes blood thinners, which can make one susceptible to fatal brain bleeds in the event of a fall or head injury.
  19. How the fuck do you know JD? You were a jarhead in the rear with the gear at the time.
  20. Interesting copyright "dilemma." Oldham duly licensed "the Stones," and the Verve duly licensed Oldham, but not the Stones and the Stones, objected. The licenses implicitly admit copying, Oldham of the Stones and the Verve of Oldham, so the case was made for the Stones, most likely. Had there not been such an implicit admission, would the samples of Oldham have been "substantially similar" to the Stones?
  21. So, yeah, this is kind of interesting. In keeping with criminal justice norms, grand jury testimony is secret, and generally stays that way unless the presiding judge grants a motion to unseal it. And the basis of such unsealing usually is some kind of imperative need, like that of another defendant, not overwhelming public curiosity and the judge tends to be obligated to redact it to protect unindicted parties. Because no motion was made previously by Blondi/Patel, that shows that this was never going to be part of the disclosure, until now. And it would seem to be a fundamental part of the disclosure. Also, I assume this is grand jury testimony seeking an indictment of Epstein and/or Maxwell, in which case it would mostly be directed at them and not third parties, who were probably kept anonymous, even to the grand jury.
  22. Having seen the story, but not knowing much else other than references to alcoholism, sounds like they got big into the "church" part and maybe kinda forgot about that whole "steps" thing. I had not connected those dots, but you're probably spot on.
  23. Addendum. I saw something credible that said donations are excluded for purposes of accounting for the roughly 22% of P5 programs/conference revenue that gives you the $20.5. And there is a 4% escalator for the first four years. Also, this settlement only has a term of 10 years.
  24. We have gotten spoiled by all kinds of criminal investigation by-product as a result of Special Counsel, where that tends to be, but isn't always, part of the deal. If you think back to just about any terminated investigation or acquittal or dismissal, we never got a whole load of evidence to speculate and conspiracy theorize about, except in the case of Special Counsel. It's just not normal. And, for those bagging on the Dems, you can probably find some of your posts bagging on them for sticking too closely to norms. Why would you expect them to have broken from norms in this particular instance? This. Is. Norm. Breaking. All that said, I'm thrilled that Dems are being political opportunists about it.
  25. They were liberal anger, though. And Biden did it!
×
×
  • Create New...