Well, there goes my head.
Apparently there are no genuinely apolitical, unbiased, independent, trustworthy, competent lawyers who have the ability to investigate the accelerating Ethics Train Wreck launched by a booze, pot and ketamine-fueled orgy at a Cornell fraternity. (Previous EA posts on the thing are here and here) Gee, I’m kinda surprised. I would have thought, with all the millions of lawyers in this country, there would be at least a couple without the flaming ethics deficits of Letitia James, the lawfare New York Attorney General appointed Special Prosecutor for the state investigation, and to handle the Cornell investigation…waaait for it…
Sally Yates!
Yes, it’s Sally Yates, the Obama Justice Department appointee who refused to execute President Trump ‘s policies in his first term when she was Acting Attorney General, then after she was fired (she should have been disbarred) joined the Axis Russian Collusion conspiracy. Ethics Alarms had several posts condemning this proudly unethical lawyer, a true Ethics Villain, like…
- Sally Yates Is Not A Hero. Sally Yates Is An Unethical Lawyer, And “Betrayal” Is Not Too Strong A Word For Her Conduct
- More On The Unethical Sally Yates: Her Conflict Of Interest Deception
- From The Sally Yates Misinformation Files: Senator Diane Feinstein, Ethics Dunce And Incompetent Elected Official Of the Month
Key quote (mine):
You do not seem to believe Lucy H. Craig dba Jane Doe.
I don’t believe or disbelieve her. I wasn’t there.
So THAT’S her name. It will be the name EA will be using from now on.
Why do we need to believe her?
And which of her contradictory statements should we believe?
No, see. It’s like abrogation. The new revelation is the one to be believed. Because the old is immediately abrogated, there is no contradiction.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
I’m surprised they didn’t pick Jack Smith.
I guess he was too busy following Bruce Springsteen around the country. Sheesh.
jvb
He would have been a better choice. But he’s a MAN. Ew.
He’s also delusional.
When I first saw the “KABOOM!” I thought it referred to Trump’s comments in Nebraska where he is alleged to have said that Iran nuking San Diego and Los Angeles would be worth the price we pay at the pump as a result of U.S. actions in Iran. Talk about hair on fire, knee-jerk Orange Man Evil Bad responses.
jvb
“Alleged.” Of course, he didn’t say it. Too much going on today as it is—that one will wait until tomorrow.
Agreed. It is quintessential TDS to ascribe nefarious intentions – wishing nuclear attacks on U.S. cities by Iran – when Trump attempted to justify U.S. actions against Iran. Trump stated that increased gas and other prices were a necessary inconvenience when you consider that Iran was developing long-range missiles that could deliver nuclear devastation to San DIego and/or Los Angeles. Interpreting what he said in any other way is simply stupid.
jvb
Well, you know there are good people on both sides of that issue…
Dang, this was supposed to be in response to jvb’s comment. Either WP is broken or I’m a dolt. Please let WP be broken…
so 1984’s censorship was “abrogation”. Nice does anyone know what the chocolate ration is and has always been?
They are increasing the chocolate ration from 43 grams to 38 grams.
We have always been at war with chocolate.
jvb