Anytime! I don’t respect her decision to advocate for Trump in any way, but she put herself in an extremely difficult situation. Not only are the facts extremely adverse to your side, you have to counsel such an unlikable, egotistical clown. She deserves so much of the criticism that she gets, even if only for being conceited enough to think she could come out of such a public trial without the sort of reputational harm she’s receiving.
You cannot blame a lawyer for allowing their client to testify, they literally have an ethical obligation to allow a client to testify if the client chooses to (ABA Model Rule 3.3(9) ). You can call her competency into question for other reasons, but she would absolutely be sanctioned if she didn’t allow him to testify.
Internet Shaquille is something that hasn’t been mentioned yet that I think really resonates with what you’re looking for. All of his videos are short, focused, and aimed at helping regular people in the kitchen (with the exception of his April Fools videos, which satirize clickbait videos). There is some humor, but the information density of his videos reflects his ethos of not wanting to waste your time. To this end, sponsor reads appear at the end of the video (if they’re sponsored at all), so you can completely skip them.
The basis for the suit is in the title of the article. Most of these big suits against administrative agencies boil down to anticipation of speculative future injury as a result of agency action. This is part of the modern conservative playbook to destroy the administrative state by undermining one of the most longstanding precedents in administrative law, Chevron deference. The Supreme Court is already set to deliver an opinion which may water down or completely destroy Chevron deference in this cycle (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo). Settled law doesn’t matter when it’s convenient to a conservative majority.