Probably some bullshit due to Republican pressure from runoffs letting trump off the hook but small part of me Hope’s he is seeing the positive attention and just wants to go out like a G.
I mean he is done in the party regardless, but his whole life is probably built around Republican country clubs etc
Lol lawyers. Imagine not instantly removing her from firm for this “acting as a private citizen”.
Might as well get the full statement out there. If she was acting as a legal advisor, she was violating her firm’s policy. What can they do to a partner?
Foley & Lardner LLP is not representing any parties seeking to contest the results of the presidential election. In November, the firm made a policy decision not to take on any representation of any party in connection with matters related to the presidential election results. Our policy did allow our attorneys to participate in observing election recounts and similar actions on a voluntary basis in their individual capacity as private citizens so long as they did not act as legal advisers. We are aware of, and are concerned by, Ms. Mitchell’s participation in the January 2 conference call and are working to understand her involvement more thoroughly.
https://twitter.com/FoleyandLardner/status/1346150927116468225
Most partnership agreements allow for you to fire a partner. Just have to give them their equity stake back. Might be provisions that allow for some form of retribution for violating firm policies, but unlikely they’d try to do that.
Partners get fired all the time for all kinds of reasons.
Follow-up question. If they fire her and she tries to fight it in court, does it open her up to penalties or problems that she wouldn’t have if she just accepted it?
Any idea how high up in the food chain Mitchell is in this firm? Presumably the people at the very top get a little more latitude when it comes to following the rules.
I’ve never heard of a partner fighting termination so I have no clue what would happen.
I would assume that the partnership agreement would have provisions limiting your ability to challenge termination (and likely a clause that says any challenge would go to mediation), but don’t know.
Lawbros, help me out here.
Doesn’t the conversation become non-confidential if people who are not the attorneys are on the call? Trump is filing the suit in his personal capacity, so I would think even Meadows being on there invalidates any confidentiality claims?
Yeah, I know it’s a bullshit claim so trying to logical demonstrate why it’s bullshit is pointless. Nevertheless, I’m still curious.
ngl, I was confused for a second by the headline. Thought they meant physically leave, like he went out to an unscheduled lunch or to get his drycleaning or something.
I’m tired.
We’ve got CLAIM vs FACT charts at the presser haha.
“A lot of people will just roll their eyes and wait for the clock to run down,” said Leslie Vinjamuri, director of the U.S. and Americas program at Chatham House, the British research institution. “But by far the most troubling thing is the number of Republicans who are willing to go along with him, and what it’s doing to the Republican Party, playing out in real time.”
…
Patrick Chevallereau, a former French military officer now at RUSI, a defense research institution in London, said that the Trump call “shows that the current president is in a mind-set to do anything — absolutely anything — before Jan. 20. There is zero standard, zero reference, zero ethics.”
Presser is a plea to Republicans to vote tomorrow. Bleh.
lol, Massie says the quiet part out loud
https://twitter.com/davidlnoll/status/1346139136571400202?s=20
Now debunking the Newsmax greatest hits.
Big name partners get more latitude in the sense that the other partners won’t want to vote them out and lose the $ and prestige they bring in. Also, depending on firm structure, there may be committees that may have final say on decisions that if you’re on you have lots of power.
And she is one of those people?