Looks more like a little kid crying “MOMMY!”
That’s like the worst drunk uncle joke ever. Bastard can’t even do humor right. Stop. Right Now!
The timing of it suggests that this is the case. From the New York times story:
The timing of the motion was notable, just two days after the same federal court had ordered the campaign to turn over in discovery all complaints of sexual harassment and gender or pregnancy discrimination from the 2016 and 2020 campaigns — materials that the defendants have long resisted handing over.
Its a garden variety civil lawsuit against the Trump business rather than against Trump himself, so it’s not really news. At any given time they are probably involved in a dozen or so such lawsuits.
Sports spectators, athletes, and managers are, ISTM, practically addicted to statistics. The last few years, thanks to Tan the Conman, show that perhaps lawyers also need to be subjected to the bubble gum card treatment. What statistics, what information should go on such a card & how would Conman’s lawyers stack up?
Isn’t that Firesign Theatre?
Most money lost? (Has to be whoever was the lead lawyer was in the New York civil case)
Most cases lost? (Not sure, Giuliani or Powell maybe?)
Most inappropriate mugshot? (Jenna Ellis)
Most likely to have his last name made fun of by late night hosts? (Chesebro)
Eastman and Giuliani have to be in contention for falling the farthest.
ISTR that Mad Magazine did something like that decades ago: “Bubblegum Cards for People Who Don’t Normally Get Bubblegum Cards.” It was people like doctors, taxi drivers, teachers, and of course, lawyers.
I don’t remember what the lawyer statistics were, but in Trump’s case, some might be “Motions allowed/denied,” “Objections sustained/overruled,” and especially for Trump’s lawyers, “Fees billed for/funds actually received.”
Remember Jim Trusty?
I dunno. I think Matthew Calamari is in the running, too.
Too bad Richard Jeni never got around to making a routine for laywers like the one he did for office workers (Youtube of Platypus Man cued up).
That’s possible, the guy “next” to him in the second photo is clearly closer to the lens than Trump is, which is why he (the other guy) is out of focus.
The worst, most sexist tactic ever used by the Doctor. (Anyway, that’s what that line brought to mind.)
I’m going to need specific quotes to appreciate the reference.
Short version, without watching the episode, is that the Doctor, whose efforts for a more peaceful solution to another invasion of earth is thwarted by the female Prime Minister of England who thanks him for his efforts, but uses other captured alien tech to destroy the invaders who had been driven off.
The Doctor is -not- happy with it, but is told it isn’t his business. The Doctor then goes to a member of the press and seemingly sincerely mentions “Don’t you think they she looks tired?” which goes viral unspeakably quickly and the prime minister is very quickly out of office.
Sexist? If he said she was ugly or shrill I would agree, but tired? That seems pretty gender neutral, and I think he could have just as easily used that on a man to similar effect. See for example Trump in this thread.
I kind of remember that episode. But did he say ‘Allons -y!’ after that?
Genuine question for the lawyers: What would typically be the procedure here? Given that, as an attorney, you’re required to uphold legal and ethical standards as an officer of the court, what are you expected to do when your client is blatantly asking you to break the law and refuse to cooperate with lawful discovery?
Do you go to the judge “in camera” and lay everything out? “We understand it’s a lawful order, and we are attempting to comply, but our client is obstructing. He will need to be compelled, potentially to the point of an actual search. And we recommend haste because we have reason to believe he’s trying to destroy the requested material.” Does attorney-client confidentiality get set aside when the client is literally asking for illegal behavior?
Or do you stay vague and trust that the judge will read between the lines? “We understand our obligations but we’re experiencing legal and ethical conflicts in our attempt to represent the client. We ask the court not to hold us responsible for the failure to disclose, and we wish to terminate our relationship with the client.” At which point the judge recognizes the “code” that the client is the problem, and there’s a need to force the issue.
How does something like this work, professionally?
As with everything legal:
It depends:)
Are you the kind of completely unscrupulous lawyer who’d accept a job from Trump?
It occurs to me the judge can solve two problems at one time. Have the trial conducted in the middle of the night and lock the Toot Fairy* up for contempt of court. All the warden has to do is make sure he can see the TV from his cell commode. He’ll be awake and he won’t be xitting or “truthing” for a solid month.
*Stolen from the title for a video on YouTube.