Agreed, I actually agree with the judge here (even though I disagree with her rulings and behaviour otherwise): > she added, asserting that asking him about th

Agreed, I actually agree with the judge here (even though I disagree with her rulings and behaviour otherwise): > she added, asserting that asking him about the memo on the stand would be “designed for media consumption and not for any great search for the truth.” It really is press fodder that will get 10x the attention of their buddy-buddy relationship between regulator and admissions office. The fact they were close friends and having lunch together regularily seems like a bigger story and a serious conflict of interest that gets glossed over to focus repeatedly on the joke memo + the judges reaction. The memo may have some minor relevance to the case for credibility attacks but this case is about much more than an individual DOE regulator's personality (especially considering it was the gov official not the Harvard guy who wrote it). But I guess the Streisand Effect cancels this out regardless.