Unfortunately it appears the OP of this “analysis” just asked Gemini to put this stuff together, and it may be a hallucination (whoops).

https://www.reddit.com/r/Epstein/comments/1r4ydko/epstein_files_2001_canyon_forensic_volume_audit/https://www.reddit.com/user/4gnomad/

They’re one of my favorites!

Might be Hawaiian domino damselfish. They like hanging out near coral, in groups about 10 - 15 ft down. Their faces remind me of pugs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dascyllus_albisella

Regulation guides market behavior.

If the market was already behaving in the desired way, then removing the regulation does nothing.

If removing the regulation allows “market forces to drive production”, then the market was not behaving in the desired way and that’s probably why the regulation existed in the first place.

Fuel efficiency standards create a floor that would not be there otherwise.

That and lead exposure.

Guess my hogs will be going hungry.

False equivalency.

People in Diddy’s camp are making a naked ploy to baselessly undermine the credibility of the prosecution - presumably because Diddy is cooked - and we’ve got some folks here lapping it up.

That is him saying the lawyer said something that should never be said by a lawyer.

Yes. Implying the prosecution is racially motivated with no evidence to support it, doing so by calling them a “six pack of white women” is indeed inappropriate. Add onto that the particulars at play here? I’m with the judge, pretty outrageous.

This judge could have said the same to any lawyer in any case.

Yeah, but they didn’t.

Would it have been appropriate then? If it wasnt Diddy’s case?

Depends on the case.

1. He stands accused, not convicted, which may not matter to you but it should

Correct. By over 100 people, many of whom were minors when they were allegedly sexually abused.

Me defending the lawyer’s ability to make comments on the racial politics of the situation really has nothing to do with Diddy in any way,

I agree with your argument in the abstract, but given the nature of the case I don’t think I’d be choosing to carry water here.

a judge who is uncomfortable with the fact that there are valid criticisms to be had surrounding race and the courts.

Or, have you considered it could be that the judge is familiar with the circumstances of the case, and in this instance finds the defense’s argument unsubstantiated, gross, and totally inappropriate?