Typical post of a loon using half truths and touted by you as if it means anything. Which it doenst Reread his points
So he suggests: "...some of those requests were small, and for an unknown reason were all kept under seal." and then goes on to hypothesise "...implying that she intentionally worked to build an unnecessary backlog."
Two things logical flow...to those who are logical...not you
1. When you say "some" of the things were "small"..and then, when given the chance...only stipulate one...a logical assumption might be that maybe there was ONLY one. Not necessarily...maybe the space in the article limited him but he alludes to no others and so its a reasonable assumpton.
However when he "implies", it means a particular thing and yet provides no evidence or ancillary support. So set it aside as Grade A busllshyte
2. However what is for certain is when he used the word "some" it tells us...the ones he complained about being small were only a part of a larger body of things. Given she is a judge of good standing and there were no issues with her until she started to make calls that ran contrary to the "GET TRUMP" narrative...it follows then the other motions and there may be a very large # and NOT TRIVIAL at all like the one he alluded to - led to the delays
And then enters @thecurious1 who takes that hodgepodge of loosely-connected nonsense and suggests with certainty, "Judge Cannon sits on simple routine requests for 9 months then complains about backlog." and never once recognises the biased and unfounded statement he burped out in reflex.,
