<Feb.7-- “This is more deadly,” he said. “This is five per — you know, this is 5 percent versus 1 percent and less than 1 percent, you know. So, this is deadly stuff.”>

<Feb. 26 -- Coronavirus task force briefing: "This is a flu. This is like a flu." "It's a little like the regular flu that we have flu shots for. And we'll essentially have a flu shot for this in a fairly quick manner.">

<Feb. 26 -- Coronavirus task force briefing: "We're going very substantially down, not up, when you have 15 people and the 15 within a couple days is going to be down to close to zero, that's a pretty good job we've done.">

<Feb. 26-- The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!>

<Feb. 27 -- "One day -- it’s like a miracle -- it will disappear. And from our shores, we -- you know, it could get worse before it gets better. It could maybe go away. We’ll see what happens. Nobody really knows." >

<whiteshark: <The Bore> has done his duty - <The Bore> may go.>

<ATLANTA — A federal appeals court temporarily blocked Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, on Sunday from testifying in the investigation into efforts by President Donald J. Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia. The appeals court instructed a lower court to determine whether Mr. Graham should be exempt from answering certain kinds of questions, given his status as a federal lawmaker.

A federal appeals court temporarily blocked Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, on Sunday from having to testify before a special grand jury in Atlanta.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit gives a temporary reprieve to Mr. Graham, who has been fighting prosecutors’ efforts to bring him before a special grand jury. After a protracted bout of legal sparring, Mr. Graham, at the end of last week, appeared to have failed in his efforts to remain above the matter and had been expected to testify behind closed doors on Tuesday in a downtown Atlanta courthouse.

Mr. Graham has argued, among other things, that he should be exempt from testifying under the U.S. Constitution’s speech and debate clause, which prohibits asking lawmakers about their legitimate legislative functions. The appeals court laid out further steps on Sunday that must be taken before Mr. Graham gives any testimony.

First, the court ruled, a Federal District Court must determine whether Mr. Graham is “entitled to a partial quashal or modification of the subpoena to appear before the special purpose grand jury” based on the speech and debate clause issue. After that, the appeals court said, it will take up the issue “for further consideration.”

Lawyers for Mr. Graham have said that he was informed by Fulton County prosecutors that he was a witness, not a target, in the case.

Even so, prosecutors want Mr. Graham’s testimony for a number of reasons. Among them are two phone calls that he made just after the 2020 election to Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, in which Mr. Graham inquired about ways to help Mr. Trump by invalidating certain mail-in votes.

They also want him to answer other questions about what they have called “the multistate, coordinated efforts to influence the results of the November 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere.” Prosecutors have said in court documents that they expect Mr. Graham’s testimony “to reveal additional sources of information” related to their investigation.>

We need <everyone> to have the same views, and no one is allowed to speak otherwise.">

I was not talking about his post at all, i was referring to his wanting to troll the Rogoff page.

Looks like this is still heah; as I told you, <I> will choose--or not--to excise your, ah output.

<....When you look in the mirror you will not like what you see -- dishonesty.>

Classic projection.

When Democrats get involved...not so much. (Remember the Georgia Senate elections.)>

(guilty as charged.)>

Those days are done with and I propose to disregard his effluvium as far as possible.

<perfidious/chancho>

<AJ's> only "offense" was bragging about his chess play and chess analysis.

I'm not sure that was ever an offense to begin with?

Never knew he had a channel Over There.

<perfidious>

Yes well that was one of the main problems- <youtube's> "shoot first ask questions later (if we get around to it)" copywrong policy.

The notion that <AJ> would be violating someone's copyright with a chess video of all things is laughable. Even if he did I'd be shocked if it were an intentional violation.

On Youtube once you are accused, the verdict is defaulted to a violation. It is then up to the uploader to file a complaint, which is never addressed.

The cg.com members who filed false copyright claims against <AJ> were fully aware that under the "Safe Harbor" Digital Millenium Copryight Agreement the video would automatically be deleted- this mainly to protect youtube (google) from an actual copyright violation, for which youtube could be financially liable.

<perfidious> Bit of a miscommunication here, I think?

I am speaking only of Google corporation, who owns and runs <youtube>.

Since no youtube material can be published at cg.com- only linked- the copyright issue I'm talking about has nothing to do with cg.com.

Cg.com could only be held liable for copyright infringement if they published a photo or a video. So if you provide a link to a photo, you are not publishing anything. But if you publish an actual photo, such as a picture of a player on a player page, then cg.com could be held liable for copyright infringement.

<AJ's> youtube chess videos were only ever linked at cg.com- none were ever published here.

Cg.com had nothing to do with any of this.

The dectractors merely exploited a feature of the DMCA, which again has nothing specifically to do with cg.com- it is a legal agreement that covers all American intellectual properties published online.

Google does not send out warnings for copyright infringement. They just delete the material first, then send you a notice that your material has been deleted.

It's up to you to get your published material re-published on youtube. Again, Google owns youtube eh?

The glitch is that youtube does not care about your deleted material. They never reinstate the material they deleted. Ever.

So you can see why this was such a problem for <AJ>. Niether he nor cg.com had any control over google/youtube deleting his youtube chess videos based on false copyright claims levied by cg.com members to google/youtube.

Your over there regimen sounds salubrious!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasci....

The "Law and Order" Pretzeldent is allowing all this talk of violence.