dcbc

I read just over 8 million earlier. Trump has 4 million plus truth followers. By comparison, he has over 80 million follows on Twi'x. To quote Gordon Gekko, it's a dog with fleas.

It seems not an ideal way to do it, which drives my assumption that that's exactly what's going on. Habba-Dabba set the whole thing up.

But doesn't the SPAC buy his shares and then take the company public itself. I saw the six month hold mentioned above, but I thought he cashed out when the SPAC acquired T/S. I'm like a different Donny here, out of my element.

. . . with oversight from the SEC, which is an odd twist. Hiding in plain sight?

*Serious post: I have the most basic understanding, but don't the spac investments go into escrow until the acquisition and IPO of the acquired entity is complete? The fact that he already has applied to sell his interest seems like it would put a pretty definite timeline on the "dump" part of this equation. Seems like any benefit as an investment vehicle will be quite short lived given the market share/size of T/S. Clearly, there's a reason I'm not in this business.

Or get them to repair/recone the speaker.

I resemble that remark.

Not traditionally. But consider the beneficiary. And, like a makeshift dildo, can't anything be used for attempted money laundering if you're dumb/brave enough? Also, if the lead-in, dog-baby-talk to that earlier post wasn't a tell, I was being quite facetious, even after the "In all seriousness line." It was a statement based on an assumption of bad faith among all those involved.

Holy cow!

First statement: true Remainder: don't nobody know shit but Cannon and whatever cabal is pulling the strings of justice on this one, or, just as likely, Cannon alone or not at all, and it's all flowing from the answer to the first statement. I think the latter two (either she's acting based on bias or she's acting based on incompetence are the most likely. Optimistically, I think its a mixture of incompetence and erring on the side of the defendant in the first-filed prosecution of a former President in U.S. history. If there's money involved, it likely will come to light at some point, and she's not as robust a figure as Clarence Thomas to withstand the fallout.

Who's a good boy? You're a good boy! Yes you are! Want to go for a walk? Outside? Car ride? Squirrel!!! That make sense? In all seriousness, I believe it's called "money laundering." And I hope the SEC is watching this go down with great interest.

I waited to respond to these posts because I've posted about Stanley's plenty before (I live in Tyler and eat there with some frequency). I also was taken aback by your take (and Greenspoint's) on the ribs versus the brisket since I abandoned the ribs a couple of years ago for their consistent mushiness and have found the brisket to be greatly improved over the last five years. So I hit it up for lunch today, I got there at about 11:45 a.m. and only had a few people in front of me (it's a bit rainy, which helped). I got half-a-pound of brisket off the point and 3 baby backs (they threw in the fourth for free). Side of potato salad because I like their potato salad. Here's my 2024 take: Holy shit, they fixed the ribs! The "best baby backs" description may be pretty apt. Tender, fantastic flavor, and just a bit crispy on the outside. I'm glad they changed whatever was causing that mush (I suspected long holding periods). Or maybe lunch is the time to order them. Either way, great show! The brisket was very good---super tender with a nice bark. It was a little more salt-present today versus the 70/30 pepper forward briskets you get elsewhere or compared to what I remember its flavor being from previous visits. I don't mind that though, and it wasn't overly salty for my taste. Overall, it was very flavorful and melted in my mouth, moreso even than the brisket I had last week at Terry Blacks. So I'd push back on the "mediocre" sentiment on that one. I've had their lean brisket plenty of times as well, and it's quite good too. But if it's just me, I order from the point and am consistently happy with what I get. As for the sausage: Since I moved away from their ribs, I've had it plenty. It's not bad, but it's nothing special. For a while, it was a German blend made for them by a local meat market. I seem to recall they switched suppliers at some point and may have switched again recently. But I could see it being received as mediocre. It's fine, but not special. They also have hot links because it's east Texas. I've had them when they've sold out of sausage before but don't bother with them otherwise. P.S. Ah, the Clucker. I've had plenty of them and highly recommend them. Most of the time, I want brisket, ribs, and sausage though. But if it's someone's only visit, I recommend getting one and some to-go boxes.

Part of the answer is that jeopardy doesn't "attach" until the jury is empaneled and sworn. So anything she does now does not prevent charges from being refiled. The concern is if she puts a bunch of confusing stuff in the charge that results in his acquittal, retrying him for such crimes may result in double jeopardy.

Some of us are just exceptional multi-taskers.

What could possibly go wrong. The irony is that Trump may inadvertently save the country from Gilead.

Let's chalk it up to a lucid interval on my part.

Let the first Surly Lawyer who hasn't had to deal with a high level of trial court fuckery during his/her career step forward. I've spent my career observing the good, the bad, and the ugly, and Cannon's decision-making hasn't approached a level of weirdness or what-the-fuck that I've seen on the ugly end of the spectrum when considered in a vacuum. The difference is that this case is important for our country and I'd like to think we deserve way better (some might argue we are getting what we deserve). But as someone pointed out, there is a reason for judicial review. We are in an awful hurry here, and the anxiety we who are concerned citizens feel is real. Her fuck-ups are magnified. Hopefully, they will be corrected, either by her or someone above her pay-grade. But those of us in the business have seen it all. If the stakes weren't so damned high, it would be a bit more laughable.

I'd be in over my head too. But in that circumstance, I'd fall back on "no reason to reinvent the wheel" and K.I.S.S. And, at least in my realm, I'd be willing to posit that appellate experience does not wholly prepare someone to excel in a trial setting, nor does trial experience wholly prepare someone to excel in an appellate setting, particularly at the judge level. There are people who do both well at the practice level. See, e.g., BrisketTexan, et al. But they are distinct skill sets.

It's either one, the other, or both. I don't think neither is an option. Optimistically, I tend to think that she was appointed for her loyalty as opposed to her potential as a skilled jurist and that she's in way over her head in this case, i.e., doesn't know what the hell she's doing.

Smiles Sovietly

Those schisms always were there. He just made them feel more at home in the light of day. Aside: we left our UMC church after twenty years when it split off to the Global Methodist Church in 2022.

So is the only option for the Government to seek mandamus relief? The judge has no discretion to misstate the law to the jury, and you've just made a good case for inadequate appellate remedy. It would mean more delay, but that beats the alternative. I know they aren't actually jury instructions at this point, but just looking down the road.

Please don't say that out loud again. That absolutely is the strongest play for him. It's already a religious experience for his ilk, and I don't even want to imagine a reality with him on TV (more than he is now) with people sending him tax exempt money instead of in a cell talking about crawdads and (deconstructed) hamburders.

Looks like Schedule III is a go. It's not the goal line, but it's progress. Link-Link-Pass

Eventually, TRUMP TO CELLMATE: And when there were no crawdads to be had, we ate hamburders.