I hope that's the case. There is always some reticence to definitively kick cases on what could arguably be considered "procedural" grounds (and I appreciate that this "procedure" is the very due process guaranteed by the Constitution, but nevertheless). But I don't see how they have a choice.

Steptoe represented Sandwich Guy. Apparently pro Bono.

Hats off to them.

Yes. That is what I was saying. There's no way a court is going to decide that "some deviations are okay." They might not want to end it now, on those grounds, but I don't see how they have a choice.

The fact that the SOL has since run... I mean, the court can't countenance this. It's Pandora's Box.

It can decide one of two things: (1) the Grand Jury MUST vote on the actual indictment (easy, binary); or (2) the court must have a whole new set of nuanced rules for every deviation.

1 wins.

"Slavery was bad, okay?! There, I said it! Can we now move on to the fact that America is awesome?!?! THAT is what the museum should be about! Gawd!"

Listen, I'll say this: yes, voting against everyone would be nice, but if it's going to have no effect, and a Senator thinks their "no's" will have ring out more if they "yes" the less egregious, that's not disqualifying to me.

I'm for most electable D. I don't claim to know who that is / will be.

This is the key. Epstein Estate, other recipients, and whistleblowers in the govt. are the ballgame.

They need to feel the risk--perhaps the near-certainty--that any fraudulent disclosure will be promptly called out, somehow, some way.

For the zillionth time, R morons: read a book.

JFC.

Yeah, but who is really "falling for it"?

She's saying things that are helpful -- because she's an R (rightly) blaming R's. Leveraging those comments is smart. That's all I see people doing. (Not touting her as BFF material.)

Senator, you all know that whatever you get from Trump's DOJ is going to be scrubbed. I assume there's a plan to expose that farce -- likely from others who know / have unscrubbed copies.

Yeah. Not hard.

There is a distinction between those who provide "services" (suppliers, doctors, nurses) and insurers, who act as an intermediary between the patient and those services.

Single payer is the answer. No profit incentive -- just admin. costs.

You want concierge on top, out-of-pocket, fine.

Great! I'm fairly certain that I, an individual person, can fairly negotiate good and clear coverage for a good price with an insurer with thousands of lawyers, in-house doctors and scientists, knowledge of every medication, procedure, and ailment, and impenetrably dense policy documents.

Progress!

This guy should be in a position to call BS on some of it. The estate has its own receipts.