"'Believe her,' Agnifilo beseeched the jurors in his closing arguments for Combs’s defense. 'When she says to you that domestic violence is the issue, I’m asking you to believe her.'"

"This has been a pillar of the defense’s strategy: that Combs has taken responsibility for domestic violence but is not guilty of the charges he faces."

From "Diddy and Cassie a ‘modern love story,’ defense says in closing arguments/Sean 'Diddy' Combs’s defense team called the sex-trafficking case against him 'badly, badly exaggerated' as the trial nears its conclusion" (WaPo).

How does it happen that the lawyer addresses the judge as "honey"?

NEW: Lawyer is speechless after he accidentally calls a Colorado judge "honey" while arguing whether or not a violent s*xual assault counts as one act or can be broken into multiple acts.

So awkward.

Judge Terry Fox was seen holding back laughter during the incident.

Lawyer:… pic.twitter.com/6FJQyIiPds

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) June 21, 2025

I can see at the link that one theory is that something about the judge or the kind of argument they were having felt so much like talking to his wife that the endearment he uses on his wife popped in on its own.

Another guess would be that he's one of those men who use "honey" on women when he's putting them in their place. It's a diminishment, not an endearment. 

But what a screwup! He not only let the word slip out, he expended a lot of his time — his client's time — apologizing and attempting to recover.  

The NYT is trying to heart-warm us with a story about saving Canada geese!

With dismay, I'm reading "A ‘Quixotic’ Fight to Protect a Bird That Can Be Hard to Love/Two New York men who bonded over bird-watching at the Central Park Reservoir are united in their efforts to save the nests of its resident Canada geese."

Edward Dorson, a wildlife photographer and regular visitor to the reservoir, learned in 2021 that federal workers were destroying the eggs of Canada geese there as part of a government safety program to decrease bird collisions with airplanes. He tried to stop it. He reached out to animal rights organizations and wrote letters to various government agencies. He got nowhere. Then in December, he met Larry Schnapf, a tough-talking environmental lawyer, who spotted Mr. Dorson admiring the birds and introduced himself....

When's the last time a tough-talking lawyer walked up to you and introduced himself? 

Mr. Schnapf, 72, is a fast-talking, fast-acting networker who is not afraid to make noise. “I told Ed,” he said, “you’ve got to rattle the bureaucracy. All we’re trying to do is get them to talk to us, so we can come up with a plan.... I don’t see too many people like me who are worried about the geese."

Because people don't want the lakeside festooned with excrement... or the planes crashing. The heroes of this story are the egg-destroying feds.

"When you say things on a podcast like 'six women, all white, my understanding is you've got a six-pack of white women.'"

"Like that's not — that's something that you shouldn't — that no one should be saying as an officer of the Court and a member of the bar, right?"

Said US District Judge Arun Subramanian to lawyer Mark Geragos, quoted in "Diddy trial judge snaps at lawyer for calling prosecutors a 'six-pack of white women'" (Business Insider).

"The chairman of Paul Weiss sought to reassure employees at the giant law firm that the deal it had reached with President Trump was consistent with principles that the 150-year-old firm has long stood by."

From "Paul Weiss Chair Says Deal With Trump Adheres to Firm’s Principles/In an email message, the law firm’s chairman, Brad Karp, reassured employees that its deal with President Trump was in keeping with its principles" (NYT)(free-access link).

Here's Trump's post on the subject:

"Democrats seem to have no ability to stop him... So that leaves the courts, but for the courts to hold Trump accountable, to stop Trump...

"... they need for people to bring lawsuits and matters before them. And the people best equipped to do that are the big law firms in Washington. But if those firms are afraid that if they enter that fight, they could lose all of their business, Trump is then essentially taking one of his biggest adversaries off the playing field.... There are other lawyers who can bring these matters and that are skilled, but the ones with the most horsepower are potentially being sidelined. I've been reporting on this for the past week and a half, and I've learned that the leaders of these law firms have gone back and forth with each other about what to do.... Privately, they will all tell me how horrific they think this is. But publicly, they're saying very little."

Said Mike Schmidt, on "How Trump Is Scaring Big Law Firms Into Submission," today's episode of the NYT podcast, "The Daily" (link goes to Podscribe, with full transcript and audio).

And here's Schmidt's article from a few days ago: "Trump’s Revenge on Law Firms Seen as Undermining Justice System/The president’s use of government power to punish firms is seen by some legal experts as undercutting a basic tenet: the right to a strong legal defense" ("With the stroke of a pen last week, Mr. Trump sought to cripple Perkins Coie, a firm that worked with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, by stripping its lawyers of security clearances needed to represent some clients and limiting the firm’s access to government buildings and officials. That action came after he revoked security clearances held by any lawyers at the firm Covington & Burling who were helping provide legal advice to Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought two federal indictments against Mr. Trump.)

"I was the target of corrupt politicians for 4 years and then 4 years after that. So don't talk to me about targeting."

"Harris, characteristically, has made a lawyerly assessment of pros and cons. She and her advisers have queried whether, given the limited number of ATACMS available..."

"... they might be more useful striking Russian targets in occupied Crimea — especially given intelligence reports that Russia has pulled its aircraft that target Ukraine back to bases beyond the missiles’ 300-kilometer range. Another concern for the Harris team is whether the Russians might retaliate by giving long-range missiles to adversaries, such as the Houthis in Yemen, further threatening Red Sea shipping and perhaps Israel.... Lawyers have played a decisive role in national security policy — from Dean Acheson to Jake Sullivan. Harris would sustain that long line of lawyerly balancers and trimmers who weigh risks and benefits before they take action. She might turn a page in our domestic life, but not so much in foreign policy."

Writes David Ignatius, in "These people have seen Harris in the Situation Room. Here’s what they have to say. Harris is 'more hard-line than most people think,' says a retired four-star general who has briefed her many times" (WaPo)(free-access link).

Ignatius assumes we understand what "trimmers" are — "lawyerly balancers and trimmers." There are a lot of meanings to the word "trim," including distracting slang usages (see Urban Dictionary). But, relying on the OED, I've got to choose the nautical meaning: "To distribute the load of (a ship or boat) so that it floats on an even keel." There's also: "To adjust (the sails or yards) with reference to the direction of the wind and the course of the ship, so as to obtain the greatest advantage." But the load distribution metaphor is the one that has been used in politics. The OED has a separate entry for "trimmer," and meaning #5 is expressly political: 

"Roberta A. Kaplan, the celebrated lawyer who took on former President Donald J. Trump... is stepping down from the law firm she founded..."

"... after clashing with her partners over her treatment of colleagues... Her departure was announced after The Times informed her personal lawyers that it was preparing to publish an article about Ms. Kaplan that would shine a light on complaints about what some employees said was an unprofessional office culture that she presided over.... Ms. Kaplan and her wife are deeply connected to the Democratic Party and she has been a heroic figure to many liberal activists.... Several people whom she worked with told The Times that she had insulted employees, inappropriately commented on their looks and threatened to derail people’s careers...."

Writes David Enrich, in "Prominent Lawyer Roberta Kaplan Departs Firm After Clash With Colleagues/The well-connected attorney, who founded a powerhouse firm at the dawn of the #MeToo era, has faced complaints that she mistreated and insulted other lawyers" (NYT).

Kaplan represented E. Jean Carroll against Donald Trump and won a $83 million verdict. The law firm she founded was supposedly "driven by a progressive mission and free of the macho culture" found in other law firms (as the NYT put it).

We're told that these complaints about Kaplan coincided with her response to Andrew Cuomo's request for her advice on how to fight allegations that he had committed sexual harassment. Interesting. I think Andrew Cuomo is due for a comeback. He should — as rumored — run for mayor of NYC. Perhaps Kaplan can help. Rehabilitate yourself and him in one grand endeavor.

"The legal arguments of Mr. Trump and his allies were advanced by a lineup of veteran defense lawyers who seemed quite at ease..."

"... while [Adam Abbate, a prosecutor in District Attorney Fani Willis’s office] had a more halting, and at times fumbling, presentation, relying more on his recitation of precedent and case law. Regardless, Judge McAfee will be more interested in the substance of the legal questions, rather than the delivery style. He said after the arguments that he would rule within two weeks...."

From "Trump Lawyer Argues ‘Appearance of Impropriety’ Is Enough to Disqualify Prosecutor/Lawyers argued about whether the prosecutor Fani Willis has an untenable conflict of interest in the Georgia election case; her side called the disqualification effort 'desperate'" (NYT).

The Trump side argued both that appearance of impropriety is enough, but it also argued that it had proven actual grounds for disqualification — 6 of them.

C-Span video of the arguments: Part 1, Part 2.

"This is why we cheer for Rocky. Rocky is not supposed to win, but he wins. And that’s to me America. And Hunter is not supposed to win."

"He should be dead. And he faced a crossroad in his life, which we all do when we’re all struggling with things in our lives. And he could have chosen the easy path, which is to keep going and die, or do the hard thing, which is to change."

Said Georges Bergès, the owner of the gallery that sold Hunter Biden's artwork, testifying before House Judiciary and Oversight committee, quoted in newly released transcripts and reported in "Hunter Biden’s paintings have sold for a total of $1.5 million/Gallery owner, a Trump donor, has sold the work to 10 buyers; some bought multiple paintings" (WaPo).

The biggest buyer of the art — who bought 11 paintings for $875,000 — was Kevin Morris. Morris, we're told, "has become one of Biden’s closest friends while also acting as an attorney and financial benefactor."

"On some nights when Mr. Giuliani was overserved, an associate discreetly signaled the rest of the club, tipping back his empty hand in a drinking motion..."

"... out of the former mayor’s line of sight, in case others preferred to keep their distance. Some allies, watching Mr. Giuliani down Scotch before leaving for Fox News interviews, would slip away to find a television, clenching through his rickety defenses of Mr. Trump.... In interviews with friends, associates and former aides, the consensus was that, more than wholly transforming Mr. Giuliani, his drinking had accelerated a change in his existing alchemy, amplifying qualities that had long burbled within him: conspiracism, gullibility, a weakness for grandeur...."

Write Matt Flegenheimer and Maggie Haberman, in "Giuliani’s Drinking, Long a Fraught Subject, Has Trump Prosecutors’ Attention/The former mayor’s drinking has become an investigative subplot in Donald Trump’s federal case over 2020 election interference. But long before that, friends had grown deeply concerned" (NYT).

You see where this is going: 

Now, prosecutors in the federal election case against Mr. Trump have shown an interest in the drinking habits of Mr. Giuliani — and whether the former president ignored what his aides described as the plain inebriation of the former mayor referred to in court documents as 'Co-Conspirator 1.'... 

What Flegenheimer and Haberman are strongly suggesting: Trump should not be able to argue that he relied on the advice of his attorney, when that attorney was Giuliani, a notorious, conspicuous drunk.

When the accused hires a lawyer, "It is a power game, because usually the victim has no representation, and I think it is completely unacceptable and unfair."

According to Prof Sir Steve West, former vice-chancellor of the University of the West of England and president of Universities UK, quoted in "'It’s a power game': students accused in university rape hearings call in lawyers/Parents of young men facing conduct panels over assaults are raising the stakes by bringing barristers to them, academics say" (The Guardian).

Smita Jamdar, a partner at the law firm Shakespeare Martineau who advises universities on sexual assault hearings, said: “There are increasing numbers of students choosing to bring cases of sexual misconduct of all sorts to their university rather than the police, and increasing numbers of very serious allegations.”...

Jamdar said institutions often brought her firm in because an accused student had hired a lawyer and the university needed support. “Everyone ends up arguing over legal principles that are utterly bamboozling to most student conduct panels,” she said.... 

"I intended the comment as a mockery of lawyers. I laughed at the ridiculousness of how these incidents are litigated..."

"... and the ridiculousness of how I watched these incidents play out as two parties bargain over a tragedy." 

Said Daniel Auderer, vice-president of the Seattle Police Officers Guild, in an effort to explain his joking and laughing after a Seattle police officer, speeding through a crosswalk, struck and killed a 23-year-old woman.

Auderer is quoted in "Police union leader said woman killed by Seattle officer ‘had limited value’/Daniel Auderer denies wrongdoing, claiming he ‘intended the comment as a mockery of lawyers'" (The Guardian).

The speed limit was 25mph, and the car was going 74mph to get to the scene of a drug overdose. Auderer, at the scene of the crash, made a call to the union president. With his body camera on, he said, "She is dead," and, laughing, "No, it’s a regular person. Yeah. Just write a check. Eleven thousand dollars. She was 26 anyway. She had limited value.” 

"An Anonymous Source Goes Public/Ali Diercks, who was crucial to a major #MeToo story involving the CBS executive Les Moonves, talks about why she started sharing information."

That's the headline for today's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast.

We hear the Times reporter Rachel Abrams speaking with a lawyer, Ali Diercks, who chose to leak information about the document review she was doing for CBS after Les Moonves resigned from his position as the company's chairman and chief executive.

Here's the story Abrams co-authored back in 2018, based in part on the confidential information Diercks shared with her: "'If Bobbie Talks, I’m Finished’: How Les Moonves Tried to Silence an Accuser/A trove of text messages details a plan by Mr. Moonves and a faded Hollywood manager to bury a sexual assault allegation. Instead, the scheme helped sink the CBS chief, and may cost him $120 million."

Diercks's law firm, Covington & Burling, unsurprisingly, figured out that she was the source of the leak and she lost her job and her law license.

Diercks to Abrams: "Our career trajectories were thrown in diametrically opposed orbits by the same thing, the same catalyzing event. You know, a scoop like this is going to make your career and ruin mine at the same time."

Abrams, summing up: "She lost her career and struggled in isolation. I got a bigger profile and ended up with a book deal."

"You might read comments somewhere that I was, at some point, given 'permission' to deliver my remarks by the DEI Assistant Dean, Steinbach. Nonsense."

"For a good 20-30 minutes (I’m estimating), I was ruthlessly mocked and shouted down by a mob after every third word. And then Steinbach launched into her bizarre prepared speech where she simultaneously 'welcomed' me to campus and told me how horrible and hurtful I was to the community. Then she said I should be free to deliver my remarks. Try delivering a lecture under those circumstances. Basically, they wanted me to make a hostage video. No thanks. The whole thing was a staged public shaming, and after I realized that I refused to play along."

Said Judge Kyle Duncan, interviewed by Rod Dreher (at Substack).

So, the judge declined to deliver his speech after Steinbach quieted the crowd for him. He's also now calling for her to be fired. He says it was a "staged public shaming," but that's the same thing as saying that the protest was planned. He and his supporters are engaging in staged public shaming too, and they want a person not just disrupted on one evening but deprived of her job. That's tit for tat and a refusal to stand down.

"Our exaggerated reverence for the creative impulse derives from the romantics of the early 19th century... and filtered through from intellectual bohemia..."

"... to the upper middle classes.... Now, quite banal instances of human creativity are preposterously overvalued. Witness the often conceited superiority of those in only tangentially creative professions. Why should a newspaper columnist or an advertising copywriter feel himself to be more interesting than a banker or a cleaner? I have lawyer friends who complain of the rictus countenances and slipping eye-contact they get from artistic types at parties. But I know those parties. And I know my lawyers are the most interesting people in the room. ... [Some] argue that AI cannot be creative because it lacks internal understanding, is merely a 'king of pastiche'.... But this is close to what those original artists were doing too — the artist’s great struggle, the critic Harold Bloom argues, is confronting and overcoming the influence of predecessors. And does it even matter what’s going on internally now that human audiences fail to distinguish between a composition by a robot and one by Bach...?...  AI should disillusion us of the spurious glamour of creativity. It will be good for those who have suffered the social condescension of 'creatives.'"

Writes James Marriott in "AI spells trouble for creatives — about time too/Machines that can write and paint are a welcome rebuff to the prestige enjoyed by artistic types" (London Times).

"Simply, an Ivy League education can hide incompetence for a very, very long time."

2) Note that Gladwell has some data on good lawyers having a low LSAT.
And, of course,https://t.co/QnGPLVOTiQ

— Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) November 8, 2022

Pro se.

Witness has seen enough antics from Waukesha killer pic.twitter.com/RJA3XIOA3E

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) October 21, 2022

Why are we hearing this?

Here's a featured snippet of the long-running Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard trial. This is Heard on cross-examination, as she's made to listen to extensive audio of a fight the married couple had at some point in the past:

 

I can't take the time to watch the whole trial, but I am noticing things, especially the way social media is siding, apparently massively, with Depp. There's so much contempt for Heard that I'm inclined to construe things in her favor just to be fair. In the clip above, we're hearing 2 actors, doing who knows what to each other. Why does this ultra-private interaction exist in recorded form?

I looked up the answer. I found this Mirror article from 2 years ago (when Depp was losing a defamation lawsuit against The Sun): "Johnny Depp... told the court he frequently recorded conversations with Heard to remind her what had been said." That doesn't say whether she knew or whether the recordings were ever used in a constructive way.

I see that at The Spectator, Eleanor Harmsworth is speculating that the entire trial is Depp and Heard engaged in sexual role play: