Is the unsealing of the Trump prosecutor brief the October Surprise?
In every modern presidential election, there is what has become known as the “October Surprise.” It has become such a regular part of the late election season that it is only a surprise if there is not one.
In years gone by, the surprise was some unanticipated and unplanned event – such as the economic crash that catapulted Barack Obama into the presidency over John McCain. Sometimes the surprise is the result of a dubious action by a person or agency with an arguably partisan perspective – such as FBI Director Comey’s reopening the Hillary Clinton case on the eve of the 2016 election, only to abruptly close it again.
Now we have the unsealing of the 190-page prosecutorial brief against President Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith. There is only one reason Smith asked the brief to be unsealed in October – and Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed to do so – and that is to influence the outcome of the presidential race to Trump’s detriment.
There are many reasons why this action at this time was inappropriate and outrageous. But there can be no question as to its political motivation. That is clear because there is no compelling reason for the one-sided prosecutorial brief to be made public.
This is not a verdict on the issues. Under the American system of justice, the defendant – in this case Trump — is perceived to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That essential part of the process will not take place until after the election. Trump will have no opportunity to defend himself against the charges before the election.
The document does not establish guilt – and many of the allegations are highly disputable. There is even a question as to whether this revised brief will pass muster with the Supreme Court, which has recognized a level of immunity for presidents acting in an official capacity. Whether the actions cited in Smith’s brief are private or presidential is still debatable even as crafted in this latest revision.
In fact, it is unprecedented for the prosecutor to reveal their case before the defense has asked for – and have adjudicated – a dismissal request. Smith was running over rules and tradition to get this brief into the public sector.
In addition, the Department of Justice has a policy against taking action in matters close to an election. It is Rule 9-85.500 states (highlight added):
“Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”
Smith is attempting to influence public opinion ahead of the election in violation of the DOJ’s own rules … period.
Smith well knows that political operatives and biased media will use the information as campaign fodder. Democrats and the left-leaning media will not remind voters that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. They will not offer up the defense arguments.
MSNBC radical left-winger Lawrence O’Donnell has already played judge and jury, declaring that the prosecutorial brief proves Trump to be criminally guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That arrogance (from a guy who personifies arrogance) is not only a lie, but a contemptuous disregard for the entire American judicial system.
Trump can get into hyperbole in his criticism of the Justice Department as an agency driven by political influences, but he is not always wrong – and certainly not wrong in this case.
Those in charge of the Justice system are not only supposed to avoid political bias, but even the appearance of political motivations. In this instance, the DOJ and the courts have gone far beyond a mere appearance – and have waded into the murky waters of politicized justice – or more accurately injustice.
While the action is intended to hurt Trump, it is the Department of Justice that loses credibility. It makes a mockery of Attorney General Merrick Garland’s recent proclamation that the DOJ operates only on law and evidence – immune to political influences and other considerations. (I will pause while you regain your composure.)
I do not always agree with Trump’s accusations against all of the various prosecutorial offices that have gone after him – but in this case, he is spot on. This is nothing less than an effort to use (abuse) the justice system for political purposes – to influence an election.
Is this the October Surprise – or is there more to come?
So, there ‘tis.
The author poses a question that he already has his answer; no plain speak here.
The facts are that the dates have been chosen by Trump and Trump’s Supreme Court. The case was scheduled to start, March 2024. Trump tossed hundreds of pages of motions, objections, most of which were tossed as frivolous, but had to be adjudicated. Then Felon Trump’s SCOTUS reached out, picked up his appeal on immunity after the lower court denied Trump unanimously, numerous times.
Felon Trump’s SCOTUS delayed two months before hearing arguments. They heard Trump’s Colorado case in a week.
Felon Trump’s SCOTUS then delayed two months before ruling. They ruled Trump’s Colorado case in two weeks.
The SCOTUS ruling is THE ONLY REASON Jack Smith had to review and re-evaluate the Trump charges which he did in this brief. Felon Trump’s SCOTUS ruling is along party lines with many seeing the outcome as weird and frightening in the enhanced Presidential powers provided. Trump made the appeal and the Trump SCOTUS picked the schedule, and the SCOTUS ruling forced Smith to reply. The Trump SCOTUS delayed for months after answering the Trump Colorado case in weeks. And the author wants to blame DOJ, politics, anything but Trump, who is a felon, and deserves little consideration just because he ponied up a few thousand signatures and a few thousand bucks to get on the ballot. Pretty cheap way to avoid prosecution during the election season.
And now Trump and the author whine about it and the DOJ not following it’s own rules. This could have been done in March of 2024 if Trump wanted it to. Twas Trump’s delay, his SCOTUS enabler, that picked the date.
Live with it.
Give me a break. Stop enabling digital rapist sexual abusing felons to become our Federal rulers.
Dangerous Frank, the Stranger Danger – IF Smith brings the “October Surprise” out now, that will be considered a crime, a felony for election interference. Trump is NOT a rapist, however, that is what you men do. Can’t keep your pants zipped up, at least a great many rapist men do just like you, Frank. Don’t even say you are not that way or ever did it either in high school or other school or in any time as an adult. I would more say you are the rapist, not Trump. You may have to prove your accusations against the real President of the United States Republic in a court of law. Remember what I told you before, I am watching you, closely. You are a weak man, Frank. Always have to have the spotlight. You don’t even care who you hurt with your trash speech. Again, as before, you reap what you sow. We all see right through you.
Stranger (than ever) Frank … According to CNN legal analyst, you are full of poop as usual. He blamed AG Garland for waiting almost three years to start the case. That was the BIG delay. Tying the SCOTUS to the delay in the Colorado case is just bs. Everything in my commentary is true and your response is all partisan spin and fabrication. Trump attorney filings were normal legal actions. Smith broke the rules and tradition to get the dubious document out to influence the election. Even the judge said the request was unusual, but approved it anyway. No other explanation. This action by Smith was pure politics. Your anal(ysis) is just wrong …as is so often the case.
Finally, the author attempts a fact-laced, fact-base response. Bravo. Funny he sources CNN since he seems to hate this source, calls them all sorts of demeaning names, laughs as their ratings fall and says Lemon sucks lemons. I guess when the chips are down, another case of sacrificing character in order to win, win, win.
But he won’t win because my aim is true. And I am not looking to win, just to uncover the truth.
First — he claims my facts are lies, spin, and fabrication. He claims I tied the CO and DC cases together, I did not. They are just two SCOTUS cases that involved Trump, had a certain priority to them, and were handled as noted, with the dramatically different schedules as noted. The author does not deny that. The reader may question why two things that look similar in priority end up looking very different in schedule.
The author states Trump attorney filings, over 100 pages of them are indeed normal legal actions. They are legal, as I stated previously. They are not normal as proven by how many were tossed as frivolous. The only significant one held serious was shot down by every court it came to UNTIL Trump’s SCOTUS picked it up and did a 180 and more.
As far as your commentary, fact-wise, as being true, I stated as much. Twice. My facts are correct too, I stated as much, and you have offered no tangible proof to the contrary.
“Even the judge said the request was unusual, but approved it anyway” stated the author without a source, who the judge was, and what specific request he’s talking about or who even made the request. Seems like “the weave.”
Some facts on Garland and the wait to indict. First, the crime is 1/6/2021 or earlier. According to the filings, November of 2020 to January 2021. Now, this is a concealed crime so expecting an arrest as if he’s holding up a bank without a mask is ludicrous. The Congressional Report was not out until 12/2022 so that would be the earliest as that’s when Congress sent the criminal referral to DOJ. The FBI failed in this by delaying their investigation for over a year. That’s Republican Christopher Wray’s watch, you do the math.
Hey, it’s the President, it’s got to be right, it’s politically charged, and he’s teasing his run in 2/21 to ice any investigation. To scare prosecutors, he entered the race earlier than any other candidate in our own personal history for the past 50 years. Felons can be cagey.
The indictment hits 8/23, plenty of time to legally dispatch before 11/24.
Syracuse University states the average time tween referral and indictment for white collar federal crimes is 452 days. Trump’s referral was 12/22 making the time to indict on 8/23 look speedy against the average, especially when you consider this is the President.
And then the court time after 8/23 is all on Trump. Smith and the Court were ready, willing, and able to go in March of 2024, plenty of time before the election which is a guaranteed win if Trump is innocent.
So it appears you are whining about being treated as average? And the election affecting delay is mostly on Trump. And CNN is who you rely on for opinion? I know this world is killing you, but trust me, my aim is true, I hit the mark, and I source my stuff.
Good luck as Chutkan has decided to release the underlying evidence Smith provided to support his recharacterization of the Trump DC case in response to that most strange SCOTUS ruling enhancing the powers of the Presidency to cover crimes while in office. There is a 7 day stay to allow Team Trump to appeal. Team Trump’s first appeal was denied as meritless.
So, if you are miffed over this release as an October surprise, wait till you see the evidence. I expect a moment right out of “Scanners.”
Danger …. I find that people who insist that they only tell the truth are not truth tellers. And you are the proof because you tell a lot of untruths — especially when attempting to characterize me and my writing. You claim that I hate CNN. You are obvious lying since you have read my comments for ages. My assessment of them as a platform compared to others is that they lean left … FOX leans right and MSNBC is off the charts as a propaganda platform. I have been critical of some reports and of some personalities … but also of FOX at times. You also make the arrogant mistake of believing your opinions are facts. Frankly, you are a stranger to the truth … a danger to civil and honest discourse … and not even in the running for a veritas award.
Also … LOL. Liars get caught. You recently said you have only joined PBP a short while ago, a few weeks? And yet you refer to commentaries I wrote months and months ago. LMAO Pick up You four Pinocchios at the door — you have earned permanent possession. LOL. You really make me laugh — at least when I am not feeling sorry for you and your pitiful obsession,.
Amazingly weird that once again the author relies on his personal experience to judge others, and the world: “I find that people who insist that they only tell the truth are not truth tellers.” Wow, proof positive that he’s correct in his own mind. And then, for the most part, he attacks the person, the person’s opinions, but not the facts and evidence presented. They must be rock solid.
His “proof because you tell a lot of untruths — especially when attempting to characterize me and my writing. You claim that I hate CNN.” OK, that’s one example when you have lots. And it’s incredibly recent. And it’s my opinion, can my opinion be wrong? A lie? I said you seem to hate. You read “I hate CNN,” there’s a difference. I said seems, you felt hate, and you went with your feelings instead of comprehending the actual words. You probably do that a lot.
And based on this incredible leap of logic, you conclude I do not have an honest discourse.
My aim is true. My facts are righteous. My opinion is mine and not prosecutable as a lie by the likes of you, or anyone.
Yes, Stranger Danger has recently joined PBP. Amazingly, SD knows how to search PBP for past articles. So much for your Pinocchio’s.
You seem to think that I think opinions are facts. Pretty sure I even noted how I disagreed with your opinion but could not call it a lie as it is opinion. So, I am not sure where you fabricated that factoid.
As proof, read lower where I said: “I do not fault the author on his facts presented. I do question his opinion, but cannot deny him his. If he wants to support a felon for President, a felon (sic) who. But I do add some facts that the author has avoided in his quest to put a felon in the White House because the author likes his policies. A felon who cannot vote for himself. A felon who if his wins will be a commander in chief that cannot own a gun. A guy who can’t work in many hospitals, most law enforcement, or your local schools. But hey, if he’s got great policies, what the fuck.” I do not deny the author, or anyone else, their opinion but I might add some facts.
You say I am a “danger to civil and honest discourse … and not even in the running for a veritas award,” but you rarely attack my facts except to say my opinions are not truthful, a virtual impossibility. And if you see me having anything less than honest discourse, feel free to point it out. You are sorely lacking so far.
As to you hating CNN. You have never have written a positive story about CNN that I can find except to say new management fired the people you recommended. Back-handed compliment at best. Along the way, some sound bites: “They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. I would add this correlation. Doing the old, failed thing again and expecting different results is insanity on steroids.” I can feel the love. Or “I was clearly looking at a propaganda piece,” gotta love those guys. Or “CNN is continuing to use so-called documentary to sell left-wing propaganda.” Perhaps “hate” should have read “never a nice word for CNN,” but it sure seems like you have a hard-on for them. MSNBC worse. Not many media bias/fact checkers seem as stringent as you.
Again, good luck finding all those things you seem to hate about my discourse imagined in your writings. Good luck shooting me down on the facts so you can get your win. You see, dear author, I am not going for the win. I seek illumination and enlightenment in your dark reality.
Stranger … You are a piece of work….LOL. You write …”My aim is true. My facts are righteous. My opinion is mine and not prosecutable as a lie by the likes of you, or anyone.” What a bunch of SELF righteous arrogant bull poop. You say you searched PBP for my past articles. You mean you are so obsessed that you are going back reading my commentaries — which amount to more than 2500 per year for the past 7 years. That is more than 18,000 commentaries … and that does not include hundreds of commentaries on other PBP sites. AND you respond to virtually every other writer on PBP — although not as frequently as moil — on a daily basis. Even I underestimated the level of your obsession with PBP. Oh … and you are a miracle worker since PBP does not have a search engine.
So …. You are claiming that as a new recruit to PBP, you have continued the Stetson writing pace and reviewed hundreds — if not thousands of my past commentaries — in the past couple weeks without a search engine? LMAO
Your irrational obsession with being the anti-PBP proves that your claim to seek illumination and enlightenment is just another bald faced lie.
And if you have followed my commentaries for more than a couple weeks, you would know that hate is not in my character. Perhaps just a bit of projecting on your part.
If you are not Frank Stetson … which I believe your are … you will at least get the same response …. to be ignored.
Again, for the umpteenth time, the author attacks the person because he is unable to rebut the righteous facts that my true aim has unveiled.
He gets emotional squawking about defecation for the second time in a single thread. Interesting. Weird. He is amazed that one might search PBP on the word CNN to see what the author has said in the past and that the search engine parses between his 18,000 commentaries which apparently has been his life for the past seven years. That’s seven stories a day which seems a tad high even for this guy.
And no, dear author, I have never read your work anywhere else. Apparently the author is not only flummoxed by the search concept, he has never noticed the search box at the top of the recent article and comment menu’s. It is labelled SEARCH.
Yes, Stranger Danger is new to PBP, very good dear author. Yes, he writes at a Stetson pace from what I can see. No, he used the PBP search engine for five minutes to research that question you had. And the only lies you point out after reading my mind are about my personality, writing style, and quantity. You seem fascinated with anonymous names investing much time in discussing the principles of fake names, multiple names, and even ascribing cowardice in how fake names are used. Weird. Like over the top fascination with names. Well, it sure beats talking facts, for you, I guess. Gotta go with your strengths I guess.
And again, you note that your facts are true —- this is the fourth time I agreed with you on that, for this story, starting with my early posts on this thread. But for some reason you feel the need to repeat that over and over. As I said, on this story your facts are as true as mine, although I would contend your aim is off if you think this is some ploy of Chutkan, through Smith, to make Trump lose the election. But that’s your opinion, wrong as I have shown it to be. It’s still yours to hold, own, and espouse.
The important rules being broken round here, the traditions being crushed would be:
Voting for a felon: a guy who can’t own a gun, work for the police, in most schools, and a lot of hospitals.
Voting for a sexual abusers who gets off forcing his fingers up the vaginas of strangers in a dangerous fashion.
Voting for a guy who cheated his University students, used his charity fund like a piggybank, and ran a business cracking up over 30 felonies cheating customers and competitors alike.
Pretending abortion is not an important issue, especially for women, more so for younger women. Apparently you avoided my true aim on that one too. Bravo.
You assail me on my character, but your vote shows us much about yours.
My aim is true. My facts are righteous. You may have your opinion about my anonymous character, feeling good about tying me to some anonymous devil from your past, my daily use of PBP which I guess you see as a bad thing which, given your life, seems weird. But you have not refuted my facts on your story rendering the issue in a new light from what you espoused.
And you call me a lot of little nasty names and such because that’s all you seem to do.
I suggest you just ignore me since you are unable to hold a real discussion on the issues, using facts, and instead attempt to reach your goal: win, win, win, but demeaning others. But my aim is true, you have proven that, and my shots will continue to ring out across your bow even as you refuse to respond. You are not the boss of me. Never will be.
Stranger …. Touche. You got me on the number of commentaries. I added a zero and the math went down from there. Should be about 250 to 300 commentaries per year…not 2500. On the high side about 2100 over 7 years. You are right. Even I could not write at that pace. LOL
Think Hillary Clinton and 2016 just before Election Day.
What’s done to cook the goose. The gander shouldn’t complain when water in the pot turns hot.
No matter what Horist words may spin. It’s like a hurricane contained in a teacup. This too, little cup, will pass.
The author takes the side of the prosecuted adjudicated felon, sex abuser, and defamer while whining that the law done him bad by doing law. He provides his master’s side of the story as the victim, poor, weak, old, feeble Trump. He laments that DOJ is not following its rules. Well, my friend, they are rules, more like guidelines, not laws. And here, the supposed victim has changed the guidelines on his rights to speedy trial by delay, delay, delay. That effects our rights to his speedy trial too; we need to put this to rest. Enough delay. And now he whines about the outcome he himself has forced. And he says the world is against him when it’s brutally, and I do mean brutality, that he’s got SCOTUS in his pocket and that’s the most powerful entity in our justice system. So, fuck off with the victim stuff.
I do not fault the author on his facts presented. I do question his opinion, but cannot deny him his. If he wants to support a felon for President, a felon who But I do add some facts that the author has avoided in his quest to put a felon in the White House because the author likes his policies. A felon who can not vote for himself. A felon who if his wins will be a commander in chief that cannot own a gun. A guy who can’t work in many hospitals, most law enforcement, or your local schools. But hey, if he’s got great policies, what the fuck.
Let’s remember who Trump is: he is the most impeached President in history. He is a felon. His business has dozens of felonies. He has multiple judgements against him for fraud, tax evasion, defamation, sexual abuse of a digital rape kind, and more. He has cheated his students, he has cheated the poor by treating his charity as a piggy bank, and more. Even if you said he’s the victim of a corrupt judicial and political system, come on….. Read the cases. He’s guilty as sin many times over in these cases as proven by the evidence presented many times in many cases.
Trump’s mantra: delay, delay, delay. Delay long enough that prosecutors will come and go, taking him to trial is just not profitable because you never get to trial. His mentor, Roy Cohn, left him with rules. The three rules are: “Attack, attack, attack”; “Admit nothing, deny everything.” Finally, “No matter what happens, you claim victory and never admit defeat,” Cohn says. He adds, “You have to be willing to do anything to anyone to win.” Part of that formula was delay, delay, delay. One can wonder where getting yourself shot fits in that mantra. But I digress.
All legal. Just like Chutkan’s release of the document that was forced by Trump’s delayed SCOTUS decision forced by Trump’s immunity plea delay is totally legal. And there’s even more to release.
Some facts the author overlooks.
Trump was indicted in August of 2023. This trial was to begin in March of 2024, well out of the way of the election. We were good to go until: Trump threw hundreds of pages of motions and objections by October of 23 and as each fell by the wayside, mostly of a frivolous nature, he threw more.
The immunity motion, humorous in that Trump is leaving office on 1/6/2021, chugs along until February of 2024 when the final appeals court rightly turned him down. The case would continue and finish before the election. A speedy trial would benefit Trump and the nation with the election.
The court wrote: “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.” It was an unanimous decision.
The ruling was unanimous but the court gave team Trump a week for getting a SCOTUS stay.
Also in February of 2024, the SCOTUS in an emergency setting offered to hear Trump’s Colorado ballot case, heard arguments immediately during the first week of February and ruled three weeks later that Trump can remain on the ballot — three weeks from argument to decision favoring Trump, one month post announcing they would hear the case.
Go back in time: a week before, the SCOTUS stepped in and said it would hear arguments on Trump’s immunity motion. It’s February. They said they will entertain arguments two months out. In April. After doing Trump’s ballot case in three weeks. Two months versus one week for the Colorado Trump case.
Time passes. Two months.
At the end of April, over two months since taking the case, the SCOTUS hears arguments on April 25, 2024.
Time passes. Two more months.
On July 1st, the SCOTUS rules in Trump’s favor in one of the strangest SCOTUS rulings on Presidential powers broadening immunity for all sorts of crimes while in office.
In total Trump’s SCOTUS delays the case by over four months after deciding the ballot case in less than three weeks. Now tell me who’s on first for politicizing justice and pushing this trial right up to the election, or beyond. The SCOTUS decision is not unanimous, but divided on party lines.
Because of the SCOTUS delay and decision, Chutkan is forced to ask Smith to recharacterize the case given the SCOTUS delay and ruling. Smith complies and Chutkan opts to release the submission to benefit citizens to know what they should already know given the case went to trial in March of 2024. It is Smith’s ascertains, evidence, but does not prove Trump guilty. Trump needs to get to court to do that and he delays, delays, delays. And then whines about reaping what he sows in terms of timing. It’s not that he’s denying the data, he just does not like the date. Wah!
I only hope she releases the supporting evidence that was submitted at the same time. And if the author or anyone else has an issue with it, take it to court. Let’s get it on instead of Trump continuing to delay. This old man can’t debate. He won’t do interviews except FOX friendly. And he pleads innocence while avoiding the court where he can actually prove it. And as far as DOJ breaking its own rules; if Trump gains office, that will be the least of DOJ offenses, so good for you to get what you will give.
But don’t tell me DOJ is persecuting this man who games the system every chance he has and then whines that the system is against him. Poor, poor, weak, old, feeble Trump can’t take the heat. Get the fuck out of the kitchen then.
Again, the author’s facts are correct as far as I can see. So are mine. Most important, read Smith’s submission; it’s frightening on so many levels.
Stranger Frank … Same old rant you have been spewing for months — even if you are taking the route of a coward by hiding behind yet another pseudonym. Or is it a nom de plume … or just an alias. I guess you just ran the old phony name into the ground.
I have only been here for a few weeks.
I have not talked squat about the timing on this case until now.
You do not contradict any facts here, you do not present any facts here, just your obsession that Stranger Danger is Frank Stetson is a hiding coward phony. Stranger Danger is his own anonymous entity. He tells the truth, shows you the facts, and you can respond.
Most often, the best you can do is spew insults and names.
So, no response. Boring.
I should add the ridiculous nature of calling an anonymous name a coward when you call yourself Joe Gilbertson all the time. How many of your companion pundits here are anonymous with fake names, no bio’s, often not a pic, or sometimes an AI generated pic to hide their race.
Face it bud, you be surrounded by cowards.
Or maybe it’s you. Sha-la-la-la-la
Stranger Than Ever … My commentary provided the facts surrounding the release of the prosecutorial brief. I was not criticizing the use of a screen name but changing it to pretend to be someone else. And as far as your nonsensical claims, I have written under my own name …. never used anyone else’s name … I am not Joe Gilbertson …. I write my commentates, not AI…..and as far as I know, you are just spreading bullpoop. I have no idea who or what you are talking about — and apparently neither do you.
Weren’t there a number posts noting your article under Gilbbertson’s name where you acknowledged it and changed it?
Maybe that was another Horist.
Or maybe you gaslighting again like when you publish under Gilbertson.
Danger … I will make an exception to my generally ignoring you to clarify your misconception. I never write under the name Joe Gilbertson …and he never writes under Horist.. We are two different people. Occasionally there is a glitch in the system that applies the wrong name … and the matter is corrected post haste. If the commentary ends with “So, there ’tis.” it is my commentary …and should have my byline. BTW… how did you know of the mistaken bylines since they occurred before you alleged you were following PBP? Hmmm?
The author should not make exceptions to his rules. That’s like Chutkan releasing the Prosecutorial recharacterizations of the Trump indictments forced by the Trump SCOTUS as requested by Trump trying to avoid appearing in court. He avoids court, press interviews, debates, he’s da man. Strong man. She broke her own rules and the author got his knickers in a serious knotted condition. But when he breaks his own rules, that’s OK. Sure.
The author is also obsessed with proving my fake name is really another fake name because the author feels that’s a measure of the man. And it’s the man, not the issues, facts, and figures, that’s seems more important to the author. Although I cannot read his mind, nor am I attempting to read his mind. I am not reading his mine, I said SEEMS as in “seems to me.”
But to answer his silly irrelevant question about a trivial item: the author asks: ” how did you know of the mistaken bylines since they occurred before you alleged you were following PBP?” You would think he would learn after his last dilly-do where he didn’t even know PBP has a search engine, much less use it.
I had said: “Weren’t there a number posts noting your article under Gilbbertson’s name where you acknowledged it and changed it?” It was a question spurred by yet again another search into something where the Horist/Gilbertson conundrum came up in a post nearby. I think he denied it then, as is his way. And I was not sure, based on a skim and scan, so I asked the question to which the author admits his guilt but says, don’t matter, we fixed it fast. So, if you fixed it fast, does that mean it did not happen? Sure, I will give you the 180 mulligan. I didn’t care anyway; name blame is your issue. I deal in facts and issues, not personalities like you.
Frank Stetson …. Give up the hiding behind a new screen name. You writing is a give-away. Same long rants. Same personal obsession with moi. Same writing on other writer’s commentaries. Same bs claims to being devoted only to truth and facts. (that’s a good one..lol) Your (you think) cute childish twists on my name. You literary fingerprints are a match in every way. As Joe Gilbertson correctly predicted to your melodramatic won’t-have Frank-to kick-around-anymore farewell speech … you would be back. Hell … you never left. At least you new name is better suited. You are stranger than ever.