Speaking in dogwhistles is no kind of skill. It’s just leaving out a word or two. Maybe substituting one word for another. Republicans all do it. Trump is not even subtle about it, which most Republicans at least attempt to be.
Apologies – not just for inattention, but also because I normally strive to address the idea, not the poster.
As for judges being familiar with gag orders, I don’t think they are familiar with how Trump would use being gagged as a campaign issue. And I hope they don’t do something that would cause them to find out.
If it comes to it, they (the judges) should certainly not compromise their integrity for Trump. And I’m sure they won’t. Even the Trump appointed ones.
You mean like Aileen Cannon?
She may be an exception! But she did get properly admonished.
Got any other examples besides this glaring one? Because many of the Trump-appointed judges have comported themselves without regard to which administration was responsible for their appointment. As it should be and always was before Trump.
One of the worst things Turmp did was to turn every discussion into a political one. Before him, there weren’t “Trump judges” or “Obama judges” or “Clinton judges.” There were just judges.
Has the Supreme Court known about this at any point in the last 40-odd years?
I’ll give you that one. They are the most nakedly partisan of the bunch. And worse now than they’ve ever been.
And my recollection is that when I was looking at the Federal cases reporter, they always listed the president who appointed each of the SCOTUS and circuit appellate judges for each circuit.
I’ve never seen that in any official (or unofficial) reporter series in Canada.
That’s true, and I agree with you it would be better here if it weren’t listed. But what I meant was it wasn’t in the public dialogue as it is now.
Kind of a big one, no? Trump uses it as his ace in the hole, his go-to venue when he wants to pull some extra-legal shit, scaring us (rightly) into thinking “Who knows what the SC will approve of? They’re six crazy lunatics who don’t give a damn about the country.”
And people say he didn’t accomplish anything as President!
I agree. But it’s a subject for a whole 'nother thread, so I won’t say more than that in this one.
Lawyer-adjacent, then. 
Actually, probably better than a plain lawyer because you have insight as to what judges consider in making their decisions.
That is true in a newsletter I subscribe to, Ballot Access News, which is the product of one individual. Last year a case came up with (Nixon), the first I’ve seen in years. I thought, “Man, she must have been appointed at age 22.”
LOL, well, that’s probably a pretty good way to put it. I was also a lowly certified paralegal in the State of California, FWIW.
I will say this: One of the primary tasks of a judge’s assistant is to take minutes of each proceeding. In complex civil litigation cases as well as criminal, you had better understand exactly what the lawyers and judges are saying if your minutes are going to be coherent. The rulings can be parsed very fine. Judges speak as fast as litigants’ lawyers, so it can be a challenge. You can bug the court reporter for a read-back if you must, but they kind of hate it when you do. I rarely did this.
The official court reporter takes down each word verbatim and only prepares full transcripts for certain proceedings and/or if a party requests one (and pays for it). The clerk (judge’s assistant) writes a minute order for every proceeding that occurs in open court. It’s a summary of everything that went on that day in the proceeding: Who was present, who was sworn in as a witness and testified, which exhibits were presented and admitted, who argued and what the judge ruled. We are also responsible for swearing in those witnesses/jurors/interpreters and maintaining custody of exhibits.
If you ever review a court file to read what happened in court on a particular day, you’re reading a minute order prepared by a judge’s assistant.
Fuck. The Guardian reports that the grand jury is preparing to go on vacation for a month. I guess I can stop refreshing this thread multiple times daily. 
The link MulderMuffin posted earlier speculated that other Prosecutors may have asked Bragg to hold off. I’m beginning to suspect this may be true.
Otherwise why all the rumblings of an indictment, all the police barriers erected, and then…bupkis?
Though I’d lend more credibility to the notion that the whole flock of prosecutors is strategizing about timing together …
If I were Alvin Bragg, I’d do what I could to make it abundantly clear that nobody has any idea if and when an indictment is coming.
Trump already took a (feckless, in default Trump fashion) shot at creating another January 6th event. It’ll be much harder if/after he’s cried wolf a time or three, and/or if it’s clear that … nobody knows what’s coming and when.
TL;DR: I wonder if Alvin Bragg is just trying to take control over the timing of any possible indictment to keep his office, jury, and city safe(r).
The longer this drags out, the more weight I’m giving to the speculation that the various prosecutors may be coordinating with each other. If true, I’m glad. I’m really not a fan of the porn star hush money case being the first. Whatever facts and evidence there may be, it just feels more frivolous than the other pending actions. Not that I think he should be given a pass because it’s not to the level of stealing state secrets or trying to overthrow the government, but priorities, man! I’d love Fani Willis to get the ball rolling. Obviously Jack Smith is barreling ahead on J6, but he’s got a lot more investigation to do. No idea what the hold up is on the documents case. All of the evidence was in long ago.
IMHO, all the evidence was in on the J6 case, on J6. I suspect they are trying to round up Trumps henchmen, conspirators and collaborators.