I would like to state for the record that the “thrust” double entendre in my post above was entirely inadvertent and I didn’t notice it until I went back to re-read.
If it had been deliberate, I would have said the prosecution’s thrust with Pecker had penetrated more deeply than expected. I probably would also have said that the defense’s attempts to lick Pecker regarding his timelines and terminology had failed to produce much of a result.
That is all.