According to Bret Baier, the Harris team would allow a 25 interview of Vice President Kamala. It turned out to be only 20 minutes, and it started late such that the turnaround presented a logistical problem of airing a live to tape interview unedited.
Baier: So we were waiting at 4:55. At 5:17 the vice president walked out. It did feel like icing the kicker or trying to. pic.twitter.com/QiKhNsJ9kc
— Acyn (@Acyn) October 17, 2024
I’m not a fan of candidates dancing. Not Kirsten Gillibrand. Not Kamala Harris. And certainly not Donald Trump. But there is a difference between a few moments of awkward dancing and what happened at Trump’s Town Hall in Oaks, Pennsylvania.
But what about the Pentagon Papers, you ask? A damn good question. It exposed a massive conspiracy underlying the Vietnam War, one that the public needed to know. And wasn’t “Deep Throat” a hero, telling Woodward and Bernstein to “follow the money”?
But that was a long time ago, when the whistle-blower was the oddity, and what the whiteblower revealed was big. Huge. Compelling journalists to reveal their sources could have significantly changed the course of history back then. Is it still true today? Continue reading
Most lawyers would consider burning evidence in a backyard barbecue outside the scope representation. Indeed, most lawyers would be astute enough, reasonable enough, to distinguish crimes committed by lawyers to be distinct from lawyers ethically representing despised clients. Kate Shaw does not.
Lawyers today have come of age in a legal profession that takes seriously its ethical obligations. That wasn’t always the case. In fact, it was the Nixon White House counsel John Dean’s question to the Senate Watergate Committee — “How in God’s name could so many lawyers get involved in something like this?” — that set in motion a reckoning for the legal profession. Watergate led to an extensive American Bar Association study and a set of ethics guidelines that to this day provide the foundation of the ethics instruction for law students and lawyers.
Does an invited speaker at university have the right to speak without disruption? Do the people who want to prevent a hated invited speaker from speaking have the right to disrupt the event to prevent the hated invited speaker from speaking? Harvard has apparently come up with a middle ground.
A quick note before we begin—Harvard University is committed to maintaining a climate in which reason and speech provide the correct response to a disagreeable idea. Speech is privileged in the University community. There are obligations of civility and respect for others that underlie rational discourse. If any disruption occurs that prohibits speech the disrupters will be allowed for up to 10 minutes. A warning will be issued to all disturbers at the 5-minute mark explaining that the protesters are disrupting the event and ask them to stop. Any further disruption that prevents the audience from adequately hearing or seeing the speakers will lead to the removal of the disrupters from the venue.
Prefatory Note: After re-reading this I get the impression it might make me look extremely petty. To those perpetual sticks in the mud I say this: Like you’ve never enjoyed a healthy bit of schadenfreude before. Laugh a little.—CLS
Chief Deputy Ernesto Miranda has a nice ring to it, the man mused as he parked his car in the brand new “Employee of the Month” parking space at the Mud Lick, Alabama Sheriff’s Department. The title, parking space and pay raise he’d just earned all came after a recent stellar performance evaluation and some heavy arguing on Miranda’s part that civilians needed a clear demarcation between Sheriff Templeton’s second in command—him—and the rest of the rank and file at the Department. Sheriff Roy, always a believer in order in the chain of command, saw merit in the argument. Continue reading
There’s little question that Trump could, if someone around him demonstrates a modicum of competence in government, be a threat to democracy, whether by malevolence, ignorance or inconvenience. After all, insurrections are hardly the sort of thing that happens in a democracy when the election doesn’t go your way. But Trump’s ham-handed governance isn’t the only threat, even if it’s the most obvious because he lacks the capacity to conceal it behind rational rhetoric.
The other greatest threat to democracy is presented by two Harvard law profs of dubious renown and worse credibilty. No, not Larry Tribe. I guess “Harvard law prof” isn’t sufficient to narrow it down anymore. But I digress. Continue reading
Would it come as a surprise that a not insignificant percentage of lawyers are what one might graciously call “aggressive”? For trial lawyers, it’s something of a job requirement. After all, what we do requires us to push pretty hard against the tide, the other side telling us in no uncertain terms that we’re wrong about pretty much everything we do, just as we do the same to them.
But where once this was considered the nature of the job, a study by the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism (via David Lat) says it’s because some lawyers and judges are bullies and other lawyers are victims of bullying. Continue reading
Ed. Note: Five years ago, Judge Richard Kopf wrote about a criminal defense lawyer in his courtroom, David Tarrell. At the time, David saw Judge Kopf’s post, but still being on the CJA panel and Judge Kopf having yet to retire, he wasn’t sure what the appropriate response would be. Years have since passed, Judge Kopf has retired and David finally thought it time to respond.
Dear Judge Kopf,
It’s been five years since you wrote a post on this blog about a time when I appeared before you and in that post you vehemently (but also erroneously, in my opinion) claimed that any “empathy that [you] once had had been burned out of [you].” That wasn’t the only thing you were clearly incorrect about, in fact, your honor. Continue reading
Trump proxies were asked a simple, straightforward question on the Sunday morning interview shows: Did Trump lose the 2020 election? Mike Johnson couldn’t say it. Tom Cotton couldn’t either. Vance wouldn’t do so the Wednesday before. To be fair, the interviewers pressed the question, refusing to let them dodge and weave without notice, but they were not going to answer no matter what.
Last night, Kamala Harris was interviewed by Bill Whitaker on 60 Minutes. On the one hand, at least she had the gumption to show up and be asked questions. On the other hand, she dodged every one of them, refusing to give a straight answer no matter how Whitaker pushed. She was given the opportunity to finally establish what she stood for on a very large media platform and chose instead to regurgitate the same canned vagaries that have left so many to question why she should be president. Continue reading