TwiceHorn

Eh not so sure about that last. Arch has some strengths and I think he will wind up being a much better or more consistent QB than Ewers, but I am not convinced that as a young and inexperienced player, he will immediately make up for Ewers' shortcomings. I think the Sark/Arch Elko/Reed comparison is invidious. Ewers' and Arch run the same offense. Wiggy and Reed basically do not, or their strengths are such that they effectively don't run the same offense. The difference between Ewers and Arch is not so stark. I suppose you can give Elko credit for taking a flyer on Reed, but the degree of success there was dependent on the completely different styles of Weigmann and Reed and the somewhat incomprehensible fact that Kelly didn't prepare for Reed despite Weigmann's injury history and Reed's recent playing time.

To put this in perspective, all of the crimes except the NY hush money case occurred right around January 2021, and a bit thereafter. The January 6 case was brought August 1, 2023. The documents case June 8, 2023. The Georgia case August 21, 2023. The NY hush money case in April 2023. For all intents and purposes, they were filed at the same time. At that point it should have been obvious to everyone that few if any of the cases would be tried before the election and none would result in a final (appeals exhausted) conviction until after the election. The only of those cases where "political dithering" has been alleged is the January 6 case, some with the hush money case, which ironically was brought first, but also the most remote from the date of the crimes. Let's say that political dithering delayed the January 6 indictment an entire year, which I think is unrealistic given the novelty of the case and the level/scope of investigation required, see Willis' case filed at the same time. So that would have placed it in August 2022, which realistically doesn't alter the timeline sufficiently to insure a trial before the election, much less exhaustion of appeals to final conviction. And that's with a no-bullshit judge that is "fair" to likely biased against Trump. The immunity question was always going to hamstring and prolong that prosecution. And it would have done so even without the ridiculous immunity established by SCOTUS. No dithering has been alleged with regard to the classified documents case, but a case involving more than 100 classified documents was always going to be a slow-go, Aileen Cannon or not. She just made it that much worse. Whatever dithering occurred didn't actually affect the outcome much.

Also, you need to extract pleas from that nine months. If you looked at jury trials, it would be considerably longer.

Yeah, it's a problem inherent to the system. One, we don't have enough courts and trial dates to dole out. Two, due process takes some time. Three, a defendant can exploit one and two to compound the delays. So, delay is often to be expected, particularly in complex, high-profile, or significant cases, like death-penalty or former presidents. Can call it "okey dokeing" if you want I guess, but it should be the expectation rather than a surprise. Lawdogs have that expectation, others don't. Also, that study is of mostly state cases. States have many more courts than the federal system, and most of the criminal courts are dedicated to criminal cases, unlike the federal system. They also handle more cases than the federal system. Which brings up another factor. Federal judges have a mixed criminal and civil docket. A whole lot of them come from civil backgrounds and are somewhat unprepared to manage criminal cases. And, civil cases are largely "self-paced" and tend to require less management than a criminal case that is heavy on motions and dilatory tactics. Finally, being a civil judge that "puts up with no bullshit" has fewer due process limitations than the same trait in a criminal case, so I think federal judges are less likely to be sticklers in a criminal case.

Somehow Scipio's stuff always seems revelatory and to make a lot of sense to me. /fanboi

Well, if that were true, I think you'd hear more grumbling from the Mannings, like the media outlets keep trying to generate from whole cloth. Unlike the current trend of vying to start as a true freshman under threat of portaling out, the Mannings seem to place value in the old school redshirt year and careful development culminating in two or three years of QB1 starting followed by a profitable NFL career.

Well, again, the reason the trials have taken so long is first, the nature of the crimes is such that exhaustive investigation was required (1/6 anyway, not so much the documents case brought with all deliberate speed). Second, prosecuting a former president raises questions that have never been answered before. Even had we had a more favorable Supreme Court, these questions would still have had to be answered and delay inheres to that process. And, even had we somehow reached trial verdicts in very short order, the outcome would remain uncertain pending appeals of these very same issues. So, yeah the delay sucks. but more broadly speaking, I don't think the opposite proposition would be very appealing outside of these cases. In retrospect, even had the cases been brought in 2021, there was ZERO chance of final convictions before the election. And more people could have and should have predicted that so you could have collectively prepared your anus.

They are two separate problems, yes. But they're not necessarily wrong. Just "wrong" as applied here.

Slow is the nature of criminal trials, if you are a defendant that has the means and desire to enforce your rights. The "means" part is a different discussion, though.

Well, as usual, you want to waive whatever protections we offer defendants in our criminal system because you don't like the defendant. One of those protections is we don't air incriminating evidence until trial when the defendant has the opportunity to defend him or herself. Other than what's legally necessary to support an indictment and for the government to respond to pretrial motions, such as this. These rules are concocted for YOUR benefit, and mine, should we ever run a foul of the criminal justice system. No prosecutor anywhere has a duty or obligation, quite the contrary, to publicly air evidence prior to trial. If not for the immunity ruling, you would never have seen this evidence, until trial. The trials have been delayed, and that sucks, but that's not an automatic excuse to start airing grand jury testimony. Addendum: "Justice delayed is justice denied" is such a useless phrase. The very nature of due process of law is delay. Once you introduce the concept of due process, delay is inevitable. Then you get into unanswerable questions like how much is too much? Is the 21 year delay in executing Robert Roberson too much due process?

Mostly true, but someone's always throwing "troll" and "moron" bombs early in the threads.

You left off Miriam Adelson's 100M. https://www.timesofisrael.com/miriam-adelson-gives-100-million-to-trump-campaign-making-good-on-reported-pledge/ Definitely not elites. No way.

Thought this was thought-provoking, although I have a hard time with a chick who goes by Katty Kay. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjr430gry81o This in particular: So for some voters, this November’s election has turned into a referendum on gender norms, and the social upheavals of recent years. This seems particularly true for the voters Kamala Harris has a tough time reaching: the young men who live in a world that is rapidly changing for, well, young men. Seems like maybe all the trans campaign ads are a subtle way of saying "we can't have a woman president." One thought it provoked. I disliked HIllary at the time, very possibly as a result of suppressed misogyny. HOWEVER, the notion that a woman president was undesirable for any reason never entered my conscious calculus.

Fucking stop. I am fairly sure that is grand jury testimony. It is therefore secret and also probably a couple of years old, at least. The criminal process proceeds largely out of public view until the trial. Clearly, they have this evidence, they've had it, and they are using it against him. They just didn't show it to you before and a bizarre procedural oddity under which the prosecution has to go on record with its evidence before trial is the only reason you're seeing this.

All you really need to know about Izzy.

I'm guessing if there's "politics" involved, it's a commitment to the Manning family not to play Arch before he's "ready."

https://texastech.com/sports/football/roster/reese-burkhardt/12989 Andalusia, AL, population 8850. Parents are Auburn grads.

Well, it's possible that good Quinn shows up, too. The unpredictable nature of Quinn Ewers is fucking everything and everyone up, including Sark. We had bursts of good Quinn yesterday, but not good Quinn all through the game. I thought after that first drive, he might have turned the corner. Seems reasonable, yes. Either the run game or hitting a couple of deep balls.

As evidenced by Project 2025, their actual policy proposals are wildly unpopular. They've been able to stealthily and incrementally inject christofascism into state governments like Texas using unelected officials. Paxton and Abbott are doing things in the open now and drawing criticism and suspicion and without Trump mobilizing the rurals they may finally start to lose their grip. Without Trumpism, they won't have that ability to get elected on his coattails and using his idiot-savant rhetoric. It's going to be something to see.

That's a great piece of evidence, right there. And demonstrates the kind of digging you have to do to prove a case like this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Haha you tell Carton not to make everything race-based, yet you are the one that brought up "strong white dudes" and first-generation Indian immigrants. Also, not sure your point here. I'd guesstimate the immigrant has a higher likelihood of success than the white dude, based on effort. But the Indian may lack the generational wealth and certainly the white privilege of the white guy.

My theory is that he sees talent and execution, on the practice field, and gameplans based on what he really believes the team can execute. I think he is a bit spoiled by having worked with Alabama talent in that sense. I think this was exacerbated when he first got here and we had a lot of "paper" or theoretical talent that, for whatever reasons, couldn't get it done on the field. Then he has game time players that execute at a level considerably below his expectations, Ewers being a fine, but not the only, example. His choice then seems to be to dumb down the game plan or try to force his players to execute in the manner in which he thinks they're capable. He usually chooses the latter. I think this explains some of his decisions not to "take the points," but hope that his players can have an epiphany of execution that they can utilize for the rest of the game. It seems to be true that when they are executing, it builds on itself. But they aren't executing on a very consistent level right now, Ewers because injury/head case and OL possibly because they are encountering adversity and athleticism for the first time.

Don't you see, he's "negotiating." Sheesh.

While simultaneously shitting himself and pissing down his leg.

Seems like there's two types of that scene.