dcbc

I was about to make some crack about having seen some other short films about her. Then, my inner Butthead took over and said:

If you go back and read Brisket's post from the other day, the decision making fits. The judge is protecting this record from appeal. Assuming that the fact they had sex is relevant, I'm not sure there's any contrary evidence to that fact in evidence. To the extent that's the case, any details about the encounter would only serve to bolster the veracity of her testimony. But such details, inasmuch as they are salacious, might also be considered under the rules of evidence to be prejudicial to the point that such prejudice would outweigh their relevance to the issues in the case, which could be a potential ground for appeal that the judge wisely is trying to head off. At this point, they got plenty in, and don't let the cries from the media that the judge "chided her" about staying on track. That happens plenty, and it's unlikely to sway a jury. Now, if they challenge her veracity on cross or if Trump takes the stand and denies anything happened, it possibly opens the door for the rest of the story. TLDR, this isn't a case of Ward being a little hard on the Beaver. This is a judge who believes Trump is going to lose and who is protecting this record from reversible error. And, of course, we all want to see Trump dragged down with this testimony. But, ultimately, letting it get too bad may help him on appeal.

Nice Porky's reference. But could we call it a Tallywhacker?

Well, he hasn't testified . . . yet. Let him do so and open the door for the second round of Stormy that he wasn't up to taking on in 2006. He denies it, and maybe she gets to take the stand again and describe the mushroom in great detail. If he denies it, this trial might go about as well for him as that trial went for Michael Jackson and the dong inspections. That's the play. We double-dog dare you to testify.

The prosecution isn't missing a trick here. Before Friday, this will be brought up, and I expect that the judge will admonish Trump about why proceedings were cancelled for Friday and that if it is shown he used his son's graduation as artifice to hit the campaign trail, he could be held in contempt and fines already have been determined to be a deterrent in prior contempt proceedings.

The dominant party just moves it to the side.

. . . and record the call to post on Surly.

Haven't seen anyone mention John Mulaney's: Everybody's in L.A. "Look, you either come do bad things with me and Herb Albert, or you don't come at all!" -Lou Addler Edit to say that this is, without a doubt, the best talk show of all time.

Can't believe I never saw this. Outstanding!

Shorter line and shorter wait, but Stanley's is like that. One cashier for dine-in and one for to-go. Line hack is to call in your order from the line and go have a drink at the bar. But you end up eating your food out of a styrofoam container, which isn't ideal. But if you wait in line, it's reasonably quick, you speak your soup in a loud, clear voice, you pay, and your food comes out to you pretty quickly, and you have a chance to order your drink at the bar while you wait. It's not the worst.

And let the people of Trump declare, "Our Gawd is a bigly Gawd!"

This, all day long. Of course, Chapter one in The Secret of Success on Appeal is called "Win at Trial." The rest of the chapters have to do with what happens if you don't. It's also the reason that he's trying to avoid jail for contempt if at all possible and why he's being careful in tailoring the gag order. The last thing he wants is an interlocutory appeal with a possible stay of trial with a jury empaneled. Sure, it's a long shot, but Trump doesn't care about the odds (insert failed casino joke here).

I can fix her.

I remember it like it was yesterday. I know I'm mixing movie references at this point.

The most ridiculous thing I ever did was take your mom to a nice seafood dinner and never call her again. Just kidding. I called her again.

Yes. Because a prosecutor is not allowed to comment on a defendant's decision not to testify. So a short hearing where the defendant takes the stand for the limited purpose of acknowledging through a short Q&A admonishment, either with his attorney or the judge, that he understands his rights in this regard necessarily has to occur with no jury present.

It's pretty standard to put a criminal defendant on the stand (outside the jury's presence) and admonish them on the privilege against self-incrimination and right not to testify (and that the prosecution can't bring that up in front of the jury), and if Blanche doesn't request to have Trump on the stand outside of the jury's presence to get his understanding of these rights on the record, the judge likely will.

At some point, the analogy falls apart sadly. Just remember the judge sits on the case, we stand.

/Tenzing Norgay

Hear that, @South Austin? Don't quit that law gig for the NBA. But seriously, all the best to you and SA, Jr. in navigating this.

Cool! Turn that bad boy up past 4 and it will:

This video is long and not terribly exciting, but it really goes through how interactive the interactive volume controls and tone control is on a 5e3. There's a lot you can do with them, and it can be almost frustrating at times.

Is that a Twin Reverb and a Deluxe or is there a deluxe version of the Twin Reverb? Not being snarky. I just haven't heard of a Twin Reverb "Deluxe"?

I knew him and David Beebe. He was a year behind me in school, but he took several years off between high school and college to tour with BBS. When I was a senior, he was a freshman at UT and we had a biology class together. He's super nice and a great drummer. /I was trying to fix the spelling when you replied.