Thanks, I read that. At the time I posted that question, the theory was that the box was the sort containing one’s personal items from the office after being let go.
We often mistakenly think “Well, we won that court case-YAY!!”, then Trump finds some way to keep the battle alive. Is Trump going to do the same thing here in some asinine way, or is this Battle of the Blame truly dead in the water?
Did Trump ever give up on the Central Park Five?
And her coffee mug and perhaps a few family photos.
“Coffee” mug. For drinking “coffee”.
In the sense that he’s ever admitted he was wrong? No.
I thought that all practicing lawyers were sworn in as officers of the court, and that oath is binding in all aspects of court proceedings?
I even.had to get sworn in as an officer of the court when I was executor of my Mom’s estate.
The oath we take in Washington state as attorneys does not include language that would subject someone to perjury if they lie. We do promise to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct, (which prohibits lying to the court). Violating that might subject an attorney to discipline, but not a perjury charge.
Maybe she read “fulsome” in a wine review snippet at Costco…
Interesting examples; thanks. I’m not sure that I’d take any of the quoted persons as my personal writing model, but—okay.
I hadn’t known that (thanks).
Maybe Pirro identifies as a Canadian. Heaven knows there are plenty of US-Americans leaning that way, due to recent developments.
Maybe. But reading reviews would subtract from her time-available to actually drink it, so…
This is interesting, though it’s – well, not a tangent even – a departure from the OP. I think of “fulsome” as nearly always paired with “praise”, but not as captive to it as some other word pairings, e.g., “kit and caboodle”.
According to Gemini, fulsome originated in the 13th century, but had become a pejorative by the end of the 14th, but now is somewhat ambiguous. Also according to Gemini, words that only appear when paired with one specific word are called fossil words.
First thing I think of…
Folsom Prison Blues, huh?
It feels like we’ve derailed enough by now that I can point out that Pierrot (or Pirro as some people seem to spell it) is a clown. Here’s the entry in the (I’m not making this up) Clownopedia
I hear it these days in this context: “The defendant failed to provide fulsome responses to our discovery requests.” It always sounds funny (wrong) to me.
Contractor admits it messed up (not sure why, what company admits mistakes?)
Brian
I’ll assume they’re keeping the money.
Companies like this have a hard decision to make.
If they think MAGA is going to be with us into the indefinite future – and specifically if they think the GOP ticket will win, hook or crook, in 2028 – they probably, from a pure business standpoint, should stick with the vandalism story.
But if they think the Democrats are coming back, they won’t want to be legitimately disqualified for future bids.
And there always is the possibility that they have some integrity beyond political bidding considerations.
I think even admitting “We screwed up that politically motivated, no-bid, over-inflated project in which we kicked back a few million to the most corrupt president in history” will be a bit of a bar.
About as possible as me winning Powerball and Mega Millions the same week using the same numbers for both drawings.
If there is evidence they kicked back a few million, I would be interested to see it.
Once the Democrats are back in power, the rule of law, including the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) are also back. You can’t legally disqualify a bidder just because they were a GOP favorite back in the day. I think I had some overview training on when you can disqualify a bidder, oh, maybe 40 years ago – and recall little of it. But people at the company in question probably know the rules well.
No, but I’d hope you could disqualify them for outright corruption.