SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (783855)12/20/2023 6:27:24 AM
From: Bob  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793568
 
170 inconsequential names maybe?



To: Tom Clarke who wrote (783855)12/20/2023 8:46:57 AM
From: Stock Puppy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
sm1th

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793568
 
The judge's order is pretty clear, but it begs the question - why only 170 names, why not all of them?


Well the rest are Democrats and we can't have the good guys indicted, can we?



To: Tom Clarke who wrote (783855)12/20/2023 10:02:19 AM
From: sm1th1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Tom Clarke

  Respond to of 793568
 
why only 170 names


The names and identifying information of 10 “J. Does” listed will remain sealed because they are alleged minor sexual abuse victims who have not publicly spoken about their experiences. In those cases, “the public interest does not outweigh the privacy interests of the alleged minor victim,” the court said.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News