This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Read about this with my mouth agape by irishintheD

and my palm attached to my forehead in yesterday's WSJ.

Even if the SP was an accomplished trial lawyer (he's not), how can the DA, who has an opprotunity to truly make a national splash, not understand the risk of bringing him in?

The majority of Trump's legal defense is attempting to discredit those that oppose him as opposed to actually winning on facts. She didn't think that maybe Trump's bulldogs would dig into both of their backgrounds for any teeny, tiny potential impropriety?

At least make them dig with a shovel...not a spoon.

edited to fix a double negative.