Eh, IDK. Sometimes a red shoe is just a red shoe. We'll have to keep our eye on her, tho.
Finally some common sense. I hate to say it, but each should be chipped tho w/ DNA the info so we don't have to spend tax dollars doing the test over & over again to the same people.
Adios.
Yep, maybe a shade or two lighter, but yes.
Do you need any para legal help, Anon?
Source is linked in original post.
https://m.theepochtimes.com/plea-deal-in-house-it-scandal-not-binding-on-other-us-attorneys-offices_2583670.html
As for lawyers, some were on here a few days ago saying the very thing the article says. But no, I am not going to search to find those breads. If Baker doesn't think it's notable, Baker doesn't think it's notable. But I have seen a helluva lot sketchier-sourced NOTABLES of late than this.
THIS. And we don't as yet know what other jurisdictions and what other charges he faces.
Yea I have noticed and I have gotten the distinct feeling some are working in tandem to nominate each other's posts. I remember reading a few months back about criteria needed for NOTABLES. I think it was just posted by an anon but we seemed to follow it for awhile. But I didn't save that post. Would sure be nice to have some clear guidelines as to what is necessary for a
NOTABLE
nomination to even be considered.