Tru dat. I can see the initial meeting and Rudy having 4 scotches in those 30 minutes.
A suspended member, pending discipline proceedings.
Reciprocity just means you may not have to take the bar exam again. You still have to apply for a license in that state with whatever long list of requirements you need to be able to show. And I would assume they ask about whether you are in good standing with the bar in your current state and whether you are undergoing any disciplinary actions at the present time.
I wouldn’t want Rudy servicing me with a stick, that’s for sure.
It’s actually a shovel, borrowed from Four Seasons Landscaping.
Billed to the client.
Opinion piece from WaPO (gift link) about how Jack Smith will probably bring three charges against Trump before Georgia does:
Thank you for the gift link.
Andrew Weissman, Mueller’s lead prosecutor in the Paul Manafort case, is a friend of Jack Smith’s. He threaded (?) yesterday that he had heard “low rumblings” that the election-stealing plot indictments would fall very soon.
I’m thinking the prosecutors feel like I do at a smorgasbord. “How do I choose?”
Don’t choose - pig out, Jack!
He’s gonna need a bigger plate.
This is for pending state charges, but I think it fits here because it’s about Trump’s actions after losing the election.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/14/politics/donald-trump-fani-willis-georgia-grand-jury/index.html
Donald Trump is seeking a new court order to essentially neutralize the Fulton County investigation into the former president’s conduct after he lost the 2020 election, as potential indictments loom in Georgia…
Trump’s lawyers argued that these special grand juries are themselves unconstitutional.
“A regular Fulton County grand jury could return an indictment any day that will have been based on a report and predicate investigative process that were wholly without authority,” Trump’s lawyers argued in their filing.
In other words, ‘All that evidence makes our client look guilty. Therefore it must be thrown out because special grand juries are unconstitutional.’
“It is one thing to indict a ham sandwich. To indict the mustard-stained napkin that it once sat on is quite another,” the lawyers wrote.
What is the Trumpst obsession with ham sandwiches? What did ham sandwiches ever do to them? Seriously, I keep seeing Team Trump referring to them.
If you really are serious, it’s not a Trump ham sandwich obsession; it’s a Grand Jury ham sandwich obsession.
That’s a reference to a common legal adage, “A DA could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.” The implication being that grand juries just do whatever the DA tells them to.
Ah. I thought this was something Team Trump/Republicans came up with. I had no idea it was coined by a judge back in 1985. (And I’ve never seen Bonfire Of The Vanities.) And I see that the ‘ham sandwich’ line is specifically used to impugn grand juries. Thanks.
Yes, but what about the ketchup-splattered walls of the dining room? Can they indict them?
So Trump would be the mustard-stained napkin in this analogy?
Yellow mustard.
Because Trump isn’t an elitist like that Dijon loving Obama.
In a solid gold mustard pot with a platinum mustard spoon like everyone uses.
Because Trump isn’t an elitist.
Don’t - the movie was complete crap. Brian DePalma IIRC. The book on the other hand was very good.
Did you mean to misspell ass-wipe?