I see your point now. I thought you were differentiating between what the Q drop is and this statement... but instead, you are calling out that it would be a Grand Jury indictment from NY... so it is odd to state the SC.
Sometimes I’m dense....I totally missed that implication, thank you.
I’m not Q-drop savvy enough to know your substantiation for this. Can you share your insights and why/how you came to that conclusion?
I’m assuming you are right.... I would just like to understand better.
Its in the statement not in the q drop.
I see your point now. I thought you were differentiating between what the Q drop is and this statement... but instead, you are calling out that it would be a Grand Jury indictment from NY... so it is odd to state the SC.
Sometimes I’m dense....I totally missed that implication, thank you.
Yes the supreme court thing threw me too. I guess that the Judge is from the NY supreme court. I dont know how they swing it in NY.
I don't know either... But it is an interesting point .... Especially given the ambiguity of the statement.