Or - that information could always just be accessible online, then there would be no additional cost.
That’s assuming that one’s self is somehow more special than anybody else. Adversarial relationships are for bored people who prefer drama to information anyway.
Sad day when hobbyists can outclass the pros who currently have their eyes glued to every twitch of that orange-infected sleazeball who wears elf mittens.
I’m trying to get my head around who exactly is being diminished here, but I agree someone is. She’s not just a former attorney she’s a former senior partner. It seems like her modesty is unhelpful here.
Strategic thing maybe? “Former Senior Partner at Dallas Law Firm …” does sound a bit less…impressive? More achievable? It’s just not as good a headline as a mom, and, possibly intentionally on her part, creates a bigger barrier to entry to it. Senior Partner does something, well that’s what they’re supposed to do and a big barrier to entry, a mom does it? Well a ton of people are moms; being a mom is normal. She might be trying to encourage more people to do FOIA requests.
That or we’re just way overanalyzing a woman’s choice of words, of course.
That is how she refers to herself, but I do see @anon74729030’s point: If a woman has children, often she will be referred to only as a mom, as if that’s the most important thing about her. Like it’s supposed to be amazing that she has kids and still manages to do other things. It’s more unusual to see a man referred to as a dad, unless the story has something to do with his children.
Why was the gender of the male prostitute mentioned, but the genders of the other prostitutes weren’t?
I don’t like this woman. In the video, she says “they were coercive both before and after the lawsuit” and immediately jumps to talking about “the level of this coercion” as accepted fact, without providing an example. I don’t think she argues well. Her motives seem to align with mine, so why don’t I trust her? I don’t like the way that the presenter inducts her as a patriot. I believe she’s a complicated and simple woman with noble and ignoble motivations (maybe I should write horoscopes).
“Married men are sleeping with other women!” is presented as if it was public business. I don’t like that any more than I did when they did it to Clinton. It’s disrespectful to the wives to drag it up, and I think it has little bearing on their job. There’s no mention of the hypocrisy of being a high-level federal government employee and breaking the law. It’s just “look at this dirty laundry”. In a private company I wouldn’t be too inclined to be that nice to the lady calling up and asking about my coworker’s sex lives, so I understand why the Secret Service doesn’t like her either.
Edit: it seems that most commenters agree. Did this site have some shakeup in the editorial standards? That link is bullshit for stupid people. I was drawn to the “liberal” side because it made more sense, but I’m increasingly put off by this kind of laziness and pandering.
It’s not that judges place to decide what is and is not in the public benefit. The issue in front of him, is whether the government is violating the spirit of the law, in obstructing her requests.
Pardon me if I believe that human risk assessment, personnel management, and HR foresight are supposed to be the Secret Services strongest suits. And have been documented here as, not so much.
You’ll never guess how this Texas mom discovers embarrassing secrets online for just $100000.
…actually, $30 per page for evidence of official misdoings isn’t bad. The Leveson inquiry cost £5 million for 2000 pages, or about $3000 a page. This must be a rare case of a Texas lawyer being 100x cheaper than a London-based one.