I watched that podcast and didn't see it. Given that it was a prosecution over a difference of opinion over what constitutes discussion of "sanctions" in a cal

I watched that podcast and didn't see it. Given that it was a prosecution over a difference of opinion over what constitutes discussion of "sanctions" in a call they had a recording of, with only an FD-302 for evidence of what was said, where the only copy was from months after the fact. I don't know that I listened to every podcast, so you an point out a quote if there was one, but I sure don't remember anything like the word "chickensh-t" coming up. Instead, there were a lot of longwinded debates over who had the better substantive argument for how long a prosecution that was dismissed could be maintained by the court. Which seems patently absurd given that they are violating separation of powers there. But it's political, so concerns about a judge playing prosecutor were simply tossed out the window? What was the end result of that supposed to be, anyway? A criminal referral... to the people dropping the case? Those seem like awfully big concerns to sweep away in a mealy-mouthed discussion of substantive factors where he honestly didn't sound like he was taking a side. And I'm pretty sure we've both been listening to him for a long time, since I sorta think it was one of your comments a really long time ago that made me start reading his stuff. Do you really not see any changes? I'd say his tone started changing about the time he had that feud and split with his former friend Clark.