Twitter | Search | |
southpaw
I award footnote 23 no points, and I’d like to see whoever thought they could get away with it in my office.
Reply Retweet Like More
Eric Koch Jun 2
Replying to @nycsouthpaw
Gotta admire how everyone around Trump regresses into “7th grader who didn’t do the reading”
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Walters Jun 2
Replying to @nycsouthpaw
"Many people are saying."
Reply Retweet Like
David Leheny Jun 2
Replying to @nycsouthpaw
If I’d known one could do this I’d have published a lot more articles by now.
Reply Retweet Like
Scott Rome Jun 2
Replying to @nycsouthpaw
I believe when Trump fired Comey a grand jury was already sitting for Flynn
Reply Retweet Like
Adam Steinbaugh Jun 2
Replying to @nycsouthpaw
“I’d like to direct your honor to the holding of courts.” [one minute of awkward silence] [bailiff advances toward me]
Reply Retweet Like
lawhawk Jun 2
Replying to @nycsouthpaw
Who the hell was writing that?! That wouldn't pass muster in college, let alone law school, or as a practicing lawyer. And yet here we are.
Reply Retweet Like
Nicholas L. Hall Jun 2
Replying to @nycsouthpaw
Reply Retweet Like
Dog Dad Bod Jun 2
That is Rule 11 sanctionable.
Reply Retweet Like
Scott Rome Jun 2
Replying to @nycsouthpaw
So even if courts “had explained it that way” - wouldn’t matter. And yeah that is one of the most ridiculous citations I’ve ever see.
Reply Retweet Like
Joe 😵 Jun 2
Reply Retweet Like
southpaw Jun 2
Replying to @nycsouthpaw
Under this logic, the president could open a booth on Pennsylvania Ave to accept bribes, people under federal investigation could stop by with a briefcase full of cash, and he could order their investigations closed—all without incurring any criminal liability for himself.
Reply Retweet Like
southpaw Jun 2
Replying to @nycsouthpaw
He could call it the Trump Hotel.
Reply Retweet Like
Byron Sebastian Jun 2
Replying to @nycsouthpaw
He does
Reply Retweet Like
Michael T Sweeney Jun 2
Replying to @nycsouthpaw
Reply Retweet Like
southpaw Jun 2
Replying to @nycsouthpaw
Not a fan of footnote 48.
Reply Retweet Like
southpaw Jun 2
Replying to @nycsouthpaw
Footnote 53 is a howler even before you see the offhand answer that purportedly supports its premise. And did anyone proofread this?
Reply Retweet Like
Brooklyn11211 Jun 2
Replying to @nycsouthpaw
Sort of says it all.
Reply Retweet Like