Author: TSA Press

So…
everyone’s
been
talking
about

the
Biglaw
Biter.
Not
exclusively
in
Biglaw
circles,
or
even
just
within
the
legal
profession,
but
like

Page
Six
is
talking
about
the
story
that
Above
the
Law
broke.
Hell,
it’s

even
gone

international.

There’s
been

speculation
about
what
the
BB
is
up
to
now,
since
she’s
been
bounced
from
Sidley
Austin.
But
if
and
when
the
most
famous
Biter
in
Biglaw
gets
a
second
bite
at
the
apple,
will
she
f
it
up
again?

You
see,
there’re
rumors
this
isn’t
the
Biglaw
Biter’s
first
vampire
impression,
with
reports
that
this
was
even
something
she
playfully
mentioned
during
icebreakers
at
the
start
of
the
summer.
(Which
makes
sense,
it’d
actually
be
weirder
if
she’d
never
bit
anyone
ever
before
and
then
busted
out
the
move
in
Biglaw.)
Alison
Green
of

Ask
A
Manager
has

some
advice
for
the
Biglaw
Biter
in
all
her
future
professional
endeavors:

“Don’t
bite
anyone
at
work
ever
again!
It’s
a
form
of
assault,
and
the
fact
that
she
thought
it
was
OK
says
she
probably
needs
some
serious
remedial
education
in
how
to
relate
to
people
at
work,”
Green
said.
“The
only
people
you
should
ever
bite
are
those
who
have
given
their
explicit
consent,
and
at
work
that
should
never
even
be
under
discussion!”

Which…
yeah.
Seems
like
something
one
learns
a
lot
earlier
in
life
than
Biglaw,
but
here
we
are!
It
is
really,
really
salient
advice.

While
the
Biglaw
Biter’s
behavior
is
obviously
problematic,
truth
is,
there’s
lots
of
touching
you
should
probably
avoid
in
a
work
environment:

“Aside
from
handshakes,
I’d
say
default
to
not
touching
coworkers,”
Green
advised.
“If
someone
has
shown
themselves
to
be
a
hugger,
for
example,
they’re
probably
someone
who
will
be
more
welcoming
of
a
congratulatory
pat
on
the
shoulder.
But
otherwise,
or
if
you
haven’t
seen
enough
to
be
sure,
err
on
the
side
of
no
physical
touch.”

“There
are
other
ways
to
express
warmth
at
work
—
through
words,
tones,
smiles,”
Green
continued.
“Very
few
people
will
say
they’re
disappointed
that
their
colleague
didn’t
touch
them;
far
more
people
will
say
they
felt
uneasy
when
someone
did.“

So
take
note
Biglaw
Biter,
if
you
want
to
work
in
Biglaw
(or
pretty
much
anywhere)
again
you’ll
have
to
get
a
new
quirky
trait.

Earlier:

Summer
Associate’s
Naughty
Toddler
Impression
Gets
Her
Bounced
From
Biglaw

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

If
you
have
been
online
at
all
over
the
course
of
the
past
several
weeks,
you
know
a
little
something
about
the
raging
MAGA
civil
war.
It
is
impossible
to
follow
all
the
daily
twists
and
turns,
even
for
those
of
us
whose
job
it
is
to
stay
informed.

The
broad,
general
concept
is
that
conspiracy-minded
Donald
Trump
supporters
had
long
been
calling
for
Trump’s
Department
of
Justice
to
release
the
Jeffrey
Epstein
client
list
of
prominent
people
the
deceased
financier
had
supposedly
procured
underage
women
for
(thinking
and
hoping
that
the
list
would
be
populated
by
all
of
the
Democrats
they
hate).
It
seemed
like
this
might
be
close
to
happening
when
in
February

Trump’s
attorney
general
Pam
Bondi
said
it
was
“sitting
on
my
desk
right
now
to
review”
when
asked
about
the
Epstein
client
list
by
FOX
News.

Fast
forward
a
few
months,
and
the
official
stance
of
the
DOJ
has
changed
to
the
assertion
that
no
Epstein
client
list
exists.
Meanwhile,
Trump
has
been

viciously
berating
his
own
supporters
who
won’t
move
on
from
their
questions
about
Epstein’s
associates.

Naturally,
all
of
this
has
brought
a
lot
more
attention
to
Trump’s
previous
relationship
with
Epstein.
Although,
according
to
Trump,
the
two
had
a
falling
out
in
later
years,
it
is
no
secret
that
they
were
pretty
good
pals
for
quite
a
long
time.
We
know

Trump
flew
on
Epstein’s
private
jet
between
Palm
Beach
and
New
York
at
least
seven
times
during
the
15
years
or
so
when
they
seemed
to
be
friends.
Photographs
and
even
videos
exist
of
the
two
men
partying
together
over
the
years.

Then
there
is
how
the
two
once
talked
about
one
another.
There
was
a
time
when
Epstein
said
he
was
Trump’s
“closest
friend.”
As
to
how
Trump
felt
about
Jeffrey
Epstein,

Trump
said
to
New
York
magazine
in
2002,
“I’ve
known
Jeff
for
15
years.
Terrific
guy.
He’s
a
lot
of
fun
to
be
with.
It
is
even
said
that
he
likes
beautiful
women
as
much
as
I
do,
and
many
of
them
are
on
the
younger
side.”

Trump
has
gotten
away
with
brazen
lie
after
brazen
lie
in
his
political
career
with
no
apparent
loss
of
support
among
his
hardcore
base.
So,
perhaps
he
thought
he
could
do
it
yet
again
when
it
came
to
denying
the
extent
of
his
relationship
with
Epstein
and
defending
the
dramatic
flip
flops
on
the
Epstein
files
by
his
own
Justice
Department.

This
time,
it
seems
Trump’s
strategy
is
backfiring
spectacularly,
only
drawing
more
oxygen
to
the
flames.
I’ll
emphasize
again
that
there
is

just
too
much
for
any
one
person
to
fully
keep
track
of,
from
an
Epstein
accuser
allegedly
having

urged
the
FBI
to
investigate
Trump
decades
ago
to
Trump’s
recent
gambit
that

releasing
utilitarian
grand
jury
testimony
will
somehow
satiate
his
critics
(reminiscent
of
the
time
during
his
first
term
when
he
thought
rebranding
his
“border
wall”
as
“steel
slats”
would
somehow
settle
the
controversy).

To
focus
on
one
small
sliver
here,
the
way
the
president
has
chosen
to
target
his
legal
fight
over
the
Epstein
files
scandal
is
particularly
baffling.
On
July
18,

Trump
filed
a
$10
billion
defamation
suit
against
The
Wall
Street
Journal,
as
well
as
its
owner
Rupert
Murdoch,
over
new
reporting
from
the
legendary
financial
newspaper
that
Trump
had
contributed
a
sexually
suggestive
letter
with
a
crude
drawing
of
a
nude
woman
to
a
book
of
“bawdy
letters”
made
to
commemorate
Epstein’s
50th
birthday
in
2003.
Trump
defended
himself
on
his
social
media
platform
against
the
reporting
on
this
“FAKE
letter”
in
part
by
claiming,
“I
don’t
draw
pictures.”

And
that,
like
…
what?
“I
don’t
draw
pictures”?
I
mean,
forget
about
for
a
moment
the
fact
that
Trump
has
given
multiple
handmade
drawings
of
his
to
charities
over
the
years
and
that
the
naked
woman
drawing
in
question
has
a
similar
style
and
similar
signature
to
many
of
those.
Instead,
ask
yourself
whether
there’s
anyone
anywhere
on
earth
who
can
truthfully
claim,
“I
don’t
draw
pictures.”

Not
even
as
a
child?
You’ve
never
doodled
in
the
margins
of
a
notebook?
Never
sketched
out
a
rudimentary
map
in
the
roadside
gravel?
I
am
about
the
least
artistic
person
available
when
confronted
with
Pictionary,
yet
even
as
I
write
these
words
there
is
a
journal
sitting
right
in
front
of
me
on
my
coffee
table
with
a
bad
depiction
of
my
dog
scribbled
in
on
the
very
first
page
from
back
in
2020.

These
are
veterans
reporters.
The
Wall
Street
Journal
is
a
not
a
publication
to
put
something
out
that
they
know
they
could
be
sued
over
without
having
every
corner
of
the
story
locked
down
tightly
in
advance.
Remember,
it
was

The
Wall
Street
Journal
that
took
down
Theranos
and
its
notoriously
litigious
CEO
Elizabeth
Holmes.

Trump’s
lawsuit
against
The
Wall
Street
Journal
is
likely
to
only
bring
even
more
attention
to
his
Epstein
connections.
In
discovery,
it
is
likely
that
even
more
damaging
information
about
his

interventions
in
the
Epstein
case
will
come
out.
On
the
other
hand,
in
Trump’s
defense,
we’ve
got
“I
don’t
draw
pictures”
(he

has
doubled
down
on
that
claim
too,
saying,
a
bit
more
productively
“I
don’t
draw
pictures
of
women”
in
one
instance,
while
also
oddly
phrasing
the
claim
as
“I
never
wrote
a
picture
in
my
life”).

When
Trump
was
caught
saying,
in

the
infamous
Access
Hollywood
tape
from
2005,
how
he
kissed
women
and
groped
their
genitals,
he
defended
his
statements
with
a
memorable
characterization
of
them:
“this
was
locker
room
talk.”
Although
he
did
later
imply
that
the
video
had
somehow
been
altered,
when
the
recording
was
released
weeks
before
the
2016
presidential
election,
Trump
at
first
simply
acknowledged
its
content,
apologized,
and
went
on
to
win.

It
wouldn’t
have
been
that
hard
for
Trump
to
say,
when
confronted
with
the
old
drawing
he
allegedly
made
for
Epstein’s
50th
birthday,
something
along
the
lines
of,
“It’s
been
well
documented
that
Epstein
and
I
were
friends
a
very
long
time
ago
before
anyone
came
to
know
about
his
horrible
criminal
life,
I
had
no
idea
that
he
was
a
pedophile,
and
it
was
not
unusual
for
middle-aged
men
to
send
each
other
‘locker
room
drawings’
during
that
time
for
a
milestone
birthday.”
Instead,
Trump
comes
out
with,
“I
don’t
draw
pictures.”
Which
would
be
a
bit
like
denying
the
validity
of
the
Access
Hollywood
tape
by
saying,
“I
don’t
speak
in
parking
lots.”

Well,
Epstein
files
rabbit
holes
was
not
what
I
expected
to
finally
bring
the
MAGA
base
to
its
senses.
But
we’ll
see
what
happens,
and
I’ll
certainly
accept
the
unforced
error
on
Trump’s
part.
Good
luck
with
the
lawsuit,
bro.

---

Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD (affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].

When
most
people
think
of
hacking,
they
probably
think
of
some
Matrix-like
montage
of
all-black
suits,
otherworldy
tech
savvy,
and
an
obligatory
“I’m
in”
once
everything
goes
as
planned:

Lo
and
behold:
movies
and
YouTube
shorts
may
not
be
the
most
accurate
reflections
of
reality.
Turns
out
that
all
some
multi-million
dollar
hacking
schemes
require
is
to
just
ask
for
the
victim’s
password.

NBC
News
has
coverage:

Bleach
maker
Clorox
said
Tuesday
that
it
has
sued
information
technology
provider
Cognizant
over
a
devastating
2023
cyberattack,
alleging
that
[Scattered
Spider,
a
hacking
group]
pulled
off
the
intrusion
simply
by
asking
the
tech
company’s
staff
for
employees’
passwords.
…
“Cognizant
was
not
duped
by
any
elaborate
ploy
or
sophisticated
hacking
techniques,”
according
to
a
copy
of
the

lawsuit
reviewed
by
Reuters.
“The
cybercriminal
just
called
the
Cognizant
Service
Desk,
asked
for
credentials
to
access
Clorox’s
network,
and
Cognizant
handed
the
credentials
right
over.”

There’s
something
poetic
about
the
idea
that
a
tech
company
named
Cognizant
would
not
be
aware
of
an
imminent
“hacking.”
Cognizant’s
alleged
lack
of
awareness
ultimately
cost
around
$380M
in
damages.
Everyone
can
admit
that
two-factor
authentication
is
annoying,
but
come
on
people
—
you
should
at
least
have
1
factor!

The
Record
was
able
to
get
Cognizant’s
take
on
the
repeated
security
breaches.
Cognizant’s
spokesperson
placed
the
blame
on
Clorox,
saying
that
it
was
“shocking
that
a
corporation
the
size
of
Clorox
had
such
an
inept
internal
cybersecurity
system
to
mitigate
this
attack.”

Who
is
actually
responsible
will
be
for
courts
to
figure
out,
but
the
story
as
it
stands
makes
it
look
like
everyone
but
Scattered
Spider
fell
asleep
at
the
wheel.
Clorox’s
“No,
you”
account
of
what
happened
is
pretty
damning:

“The
Agent
further
reset
Employee
1’s
MFA
credentials
multiple
times
without
any
identity
verification
at
all.
And
at
no
point
did
the
Agent
send
the
required
emails
to
the
employee
or
the
employee’s
manager
to
alert
them
of
the
password
reset.”

Clorox
reportedly
gave
Cognizant
instructions
to
verify
a
caller’s
identity
before
giving
away
passwords
—
something
the
suit
claims
Cognizant
employees
failed
to
do
at

least
three
times.

Keep
your
eyes
peeled,
the
FBI
has
recently
announced
that
Scattered
Spider
has
pivoted
attention
toward
airlines.

ALERT—The
FBI
has
recently
observed
the
cybercriminal
group
Scattered
Spider
expanding
its
targeting
to
include
the
airline
sector.
These
actors
rely
on
social
engineering
techniques,
often
impersonating
employees
or
contractors
to
deceive
IT
help
desks
into
granting
access.…

pic.twitter.com/gowmbsAbBY

—
FBI
(@FBI)

June
27,
2025

Considering
Boeing
already
has
trouble

securing
their
airplane
doors,
I
wouldn’t
be
too
surprised
if
someone
finds
security
issues
with
their
tech.

Lawsuit
Says
Clorox
Hackers
Got
Passwords
Simply
By
Asking
[NBC
News]

Clorox
Lawsuit
Says
Help-Desk
Contractors
Handed
Over
Passwords
In
2023
Cyberattack
[The
Record]

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

In
one
of
the
more
stupid
episodes
in
an
already
stupid
run
of
them,
Pam
Bondi
gushed
to
social
media
that
the
Trump
administration
would
stand
up
to
“politically
minded”
judges
and
fire
Desiree
Leigh
Grace,
the
First
Assistant
U.S.
Attorney
for
the
District
of
New
Jersey.
Bondi
made
the
move
after
the
local
district
judges
formally
appointed
Grace
to
the
role
of
U.S.
Attorney
effective
this
weekend.

The
only
problem:
Firing
Grace
has
no
impact
on
that
decision.
Oh,
well,
and
the
other
problem
is
Bondi
couldn’t
fire
Grace
from
the
latter
job
if
she
wanted
to.
And
the
other,
other
problem
is
that
none
of
this
has
anything
to
do
with
the
judges
anyway.

Confused?
Bondi
sure
is.
But
that’s
par
for
the
course
with
this
Justice
Department
that
keeps
trying
to
solve
constitutional
Rubik’s
Cubes
by
eating
them.

Maybe
they’re
just
too
busy
trying
to
cover
up
the
Epstein
client
list
to
read
the
applicable
statutes.

This
all
started
last
week,
when
cable
news
talking
head
Alina
Habba,
currently
cosplaying
as
the
interim
U.S.
Attorney
for
New
Jersey,
informed
her
staff
that
she

suspected
her
tenure
would
soon
end.
Having
been
temporarily
named
to
the
job,
Habba’s
appointment
would
come
to
an
end
this
week
and
her
nomination
for
the
permanent
gig
had
stalled
in
the
Senate
because
even
that
Republican-controlled
body
balked
at
the
idea
of
putting
a
parking
garage
lawyer
in
charge
of
that
office.

When
this
happens,
the
law
requires
the
district
judges
to
pick
the
U.S.
Attorney.
Hoping
to
perform
an
end
run
around
the
Senate,
the
administration
wanted
the
judges
to
appoint
Habba.
As
Mark
Joseph
Stern
notes
in
Slate,
the
administration
has
already
relied
on
cooperative
courts
to

assent
to
their
picks
on
11
occasions
so
far.
The
judges
here…
declined.

Girl,
don’t
blame
Article
III
for
Article
I
and
Article
II
misbehaving.
The
judges
are
only
in
this
position
—
exercising
their
statutory
authority
under

28
U.S.C.
§
546(d)
—
because
the
administration
dug
deep
and
picked
a
nominee
that
could
pass
the
lowest
Senatorial
bar
imaginable.
Under
that
law,
the
Attorney
General
can
appoint
an
interim
U.S.
Attorney
for
120
days,
which
Bondi
did
in
choosing
Habba.
If
the
administration
fails
to
secure
a
permanent
appointment
confirmed
by
the
Senate
by
the
end
of
that
run,
“the
district
court
for
such
district
may
appoint
a
United
States
attorney
to
serve
until
the
vacancy
is
filled.”

But
either
way,
firing
Grace
from
her
job
as
First
Assistant
does
not
have
anything
to
do
with
her
new
job
as
U.S.
Attorney.
Bondi
seems
to
labor
under
the
illusion
that
the
judges
were
“promoting”
Grace
as
opposed
to
independently
picking
a
lawyer
who
happened
to
currently
be
the
assistant.
In
other
words,
Bondi
thinks
firing
Grace
disrupts
the
line
of
succession
when
there’s
no
line
of
succession
in
play.

It
doesn’t
matter
if
Grace
was
the
assistant
regional
manager
or
the
assistant
to
the
regional
manager
—
corporate
hired
her
to
be
the

manager
manager.

That
would
be
George
W.
Bush
appointee
Judge
Bumb.

Note
that
the
order
doesn’t
even
mention
Grace’s
current
(or
former)
job.
Indeed,
the
judges
were
reportedly
deliberating
between
placing
Grace
in
the
job
or
a
former
judge
—
which
is
to
say
nothing
about
this
decision
turned
on
the
person
being
a
current
DOJ
employee,
much
less
the
current
First
Assistant.
Bondi
basically
gave
Grace
the
rest
of
the
week
off
to
prepare
for
her
new
job.

Trump
—
and
only
Trump,
not
Bondi
—
could
fire
Grace
from
the
U.S.
Attorney
job
once
she
takes
that,
though
he
would
still
need
to
find
a
new
person
for
the
job
before
the
judges
find
themselves
having
to
pick
again.
Choosing
Habba
for
another
go
around
is
not
supposed
to
be
an
option,
but
if
the
administration
wasn’t
committed
to
dying
on
the
Habba
hill,
they
would’ve
already
given
up.

At
a
certain
point,
doesn’t
it
hurt
the
case
for
an
imperial
executive
branch
when
the
executive
constantly
presents
as
the
dumbest
lawyers
on
Earth?

Obviously
a
rhetorical
question.

Earlier:

Alina
Habba
To
Let
The
Screen
Door
Hit
Her
On
Her
Way
Out
Of
U.S.
Attorney
Job
(OR
MAYBE
NOT!)

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

If
you
have
been
online
at
all
over
the
course
of
the
past
several
weeks,
you
know
a
little
something
about
the
raging
MAGA
civil
war.
It
is
impossible
to
follow
all
the
daily
twists
and
turns,
even
for
those
of
us
whose
job
it
is
to
stay
informed.

The
broad,
general
concept
is
that
conspiracy-minded
Donald
Trump
supporters
had
long
been
calling
for
Trump’s
Department
of
Justice
to
release
the
Jeffrey
Epstein
client
list
of
prominent
people
the
deceased
financier
had
supposedly
procured
underage
women
for
(thinking
and
hoping
that
the
list
would
be
populated
by
all
of
the
Democrats
they
hate).
It
seemed
like
this
might
be
close
to
happening
when
in
February

Trump’s
attorney
general
Pam
Bondi
said
it
was
“sitting
on
my
desk
right
now
to
review”
when
asked
about
the
Epstein
client
list
by
FOX
News.

Fast
forward
a
few
months,
and
the
official
stance
of
the
DOJ
has
changed
to
the
assertion
that
no
Epstein
client
list
exists.
Meanwhile,
Trump
has
been

viciously
berating
his
own
supporters
who
won’t
move
on
from
their
questions
about
Epstein’s
associates.

Naturally,
all
of
this
has
brought
a
lot
more
attention
to
Trump’s
previous
relationship
with
Epstein.
Although,
according
to
Trump,
the
two
had
a
falling
out
in
later
years,
it
is
no
secret
that
they
were
pretty
good
pals
for
quite
a
long
time.
We
know

Trump
flew
on
Epstein’s
private
jet
between
Palm
Beach
and
New
York
at
least
seven
times
during
the
15
years
or
so
when
they
seemed
to
be
friends.
Photographs
and
even
videos
exist
of
the
two
men
partying
together
over
the
years.

Then
there
is
how
the
two
once
talked
about
one
another.
There
was
a
time
when
Epstein
said
he
was
Trump’s
“closest
friend.”
As
to
how
Trump
felt
about
Jeffrey
Epstein,

Trump
said
to
New
York
magazine
in
2002,
“I’ve
known
Jeff
for
15
years.
Terrific
guy.
He’s
a
lot
of
fun
to
be
with.
It
is
even
said
that
he
likes
beautiful
women
as
much
as
I
do,
and
many
of
them
are
on
the
younger
side.”

Trump
has
gotten
away
with
brazen
lie
after
brazen
lie
in
his
political
career
with
no
apparent
loss
of
support
among
his
hardcore
base.
So,
perhaps
he
thought
he
could
do
it
yet
again
when
it
came
to
denying
the
extent
of
his
relationship
with
Epstein
and
defending
the
dramatic
flip
flops
on
the
Epstein
files
by
his
own
Justice
Department.

This
time,
it
seems
Trump’s
strategy
is
backfiring
spectacularly,
only
drawing
more
oxygen
to
the
flames.
I’ll
emphasize
again
that
there
is

just
too
much
for
any
one
person
to
fully
keep
track
of,
from
an
Epstein
accuser
allegedly
having

urged
the
FBI
to
investigate
Trump
decades
ago
to
Trump’s
recent
gambit
that

releasing
utilitarian
grand
jury
testimony
will
somehow
satiate
his
critics
(reminiscent
of
the
time
during
his
first
term
when
he
thought
rebranding
his
“border
wall”
as
“steel
slats”
would
somehow
settle
the
controversy).

To
focus
on
one
small
sliver
here,
the
way
the
president
has
chosen
to
target
his
legal
fight
over
the
Epstein
files
scandal
is
particularly
baffling.
On
July
18,

Trump
filed
a
$10
billion
defamation
suit
against
The
Wall
Street
Journal,
as
well
as
its
owner
Rupert
Murdoch,
over
new
reporting
from
the
legendary
financial
newspaper
that
Trump
had
contributed
a
sexually
suggestive
letter
with
a
crude
drawing
of
a
nude
woman
to
a
book
of
“bawdy
letters”
made
to
commemorate
Epstein’s
50th
birthday
in
2003.
Trump
defended
himself
on
his
social
media
platform
against
the
reporting
on
this
“FAKE
letter”
in
part
by
claiming,
“I
don’t
draw
pictures.”

And
that,
like
…
what?
“I
don’t
draw
pictures”?
I
mean,
forget
about
for
a
moment
the
fact
that
Trump
has
given
multiple
handmade
drawings
of
his
to
charities
over
the
years
and
that
the
naked
woman
drawing
in
question
has
a
similar
style
and
similar
signature
to
many
of
those.
Instead,
ask
yourself
whether
there’s
anyone
anywhere
on
earth
who
can
truthfully
claim,
“I
don’t
draw
pictures.”

Not
even
as
a
child?
You’ve
never
doodled
in
the
margins
of
a
notebook?
Never
sketched
out
a
rudimentary
map
in
the
roadside
gravel?
I
am
about
the
least
artistic
person
available
when
confronted
with
Pictionary,
yet
even
as
I
write
these
words
there
is
a
journal
sitting
right
in
front
of
me
on
my
coffee
table
with
a
bad
depiction
of
my
dog
scribbled
in
on
the
very
first
page
from
back
in
2020.

These
are
veterans
reporters.
The
Wall
Street
Journal
is
a
not
a
publication
to
put
something
out
that
they
know
they
could
be
sued
over
without
having
every
corner
of
the
story
locked
down
tightly
in
advance.
Remember,
it
was

The
Wall
Street
Journal
that
took
down
Theranos
and
its
notoriously
litigious
CEO
Elizabeth
Holmes.

Trump’s
lawsuit
against
The
Wall
Street
Journal
is
likely
to
only
bring
even
more
attention
to
his
Epstein
connections.
In
discovery,
it
is
likely
that
even
more
damaging
information
about
his

interventions
in
the
Epstein
case
will
come
out.
On
the
other
hand,
in
Trump’s
defense,
we’ve
got
“I
don’t
draw
pictures”
(he

has
doubled
down
on
that
claim
too,
saying,
a
bit
more
productively
“I
don’t
draw
pictures
of
women”
in
one
instance,
while
also
oddly
phrasing
the
claim
as
“I
never
wrote
a
picture
in
my
life”).

When
Trump
was
caught
saying,
in

the
infamous
Access
Hollywood
tape
from
2005,
how
he
kissed
women
and
groped
their
genitals,
he
defended
his
statements
with
a
memorable
characterization
of
them:
“this
was
locker
room
talk.”
Although
he
did
later
imply
that
the
video
had
somehow
been
altered,
when
the
recording
was
released
weeks
before
the
2016
presidential
election,
Trump
at
first
simply
acknowledged
its
content,
apologized,
and
went
on
to
win.

It
wouldn’t
have
been
that
hard
for
Trump
to
say,
when
confronted
with
the
old
drawing
he
allegedly
made
for
Epstein’s
50th
birthday,
something
along
the
lines
of,
“It’s
been
well
documented
that
Epstein
and
I
were
friends
a
very
long
time
ago
before
anyone
came
to
know
about
his
horrible
criminal
life,
I
had
no
idea
that
he
was
a
pedophile,
and
it
was
not
unusual
for
middle-aged
men
to
send
each
other
‘locker
room
drawings’
during
that
time
for
a
milestone
birthday.”
Instead,
Trump
comes
out
with,
“I
don’t
draw
pictures.”
Which
would
be
a
bit
like
denying
the
validity
of
the
Access
Hollywood
tape
by
saying,
“I
don’t
speak
in
parking
lots.”

Well,
Epstein
files
rabbit
holes
was
not
what
I
expected
to
finally
bring
the
MAGA
base
to
its
senses.
But
we’ll
see
what
happens,
and
I’ll
certainly
accept
the
unforced
error
on
Trump’s
part.
Good
luck
with
the
lawsuit,
bro.

---

Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD (affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].

If
you
have
been
online
at
all
over
the
course
of
the
past
several
weeks,
you
know
a
little
something
about
the
raging
MAGA
civil
war.
It
is
impossible
to
follow
all
the
daily
twists
and
turns,
even
for
those
of
us
whose
job
it
is
to
stay
informed.

The
broad,
general
concept
is
that
conspiracy-minded
Donald
Trump
supporters
had
long
been
calling
for
Trump’s
Department
of
Justice
to
release
the
Jeffrey
Epstein
client
list
of
prominent
people
the
deceased
financier
had
supposedly
procured
underage
women
for
(thinking
and
hoping
that
the
list
would
be
populated
by
all
of
the
Democrats
they
hate).
It
seemed
like
this
might
be
close
to
happening
when
in
February

Trump’s
attorney
general
Pam
Bondi
said
it
was
“sitting
on
my
desk
right
now
to
review”
when
asked
about
the
Epstein
client
list
by
FOX
News.

Fast
forward
a
few
months,
and
the
official
stance
of
the
DOJ
has
changed
to
the
assertion
that
no
Epstein
client
list
exists.
Meanwhile,
Trump
has
been

viciously
berating
his
own
supporters
who
won’t
move
on
from
their
questions
about
Epstein’s
associates.

Naturally,
all
of
this
has
brought
a
lot
more
attention
to
Trump’s
previous
relationship
with
Epstein.
Although,
according
to
Trump,
the
two
had
a
falling
out
in
later
years,
it
is
no
secret
that
they
were
pretty
good
pals
for
quite
a
long
time.
We
know

Trump
flew
on
Epstein’s
private
jet
between
Palm
Beach
and
New
York
at
least
seven
times
during
the
15
years
or
so
when
they
seemed
to
be
friends.
Photographs
and
even
videos
exist
of
the
two
men
partying
together
over
the
years.

Then
there
is
how
the
two
once
talked
about
one
another.
There
was
a
time
when
Epstein
said
he
was
Trump’s
“closest
friend.”
As
to
how
Trump
felt
about
Jeffrey
Epstein,

Trump
said
to
New
York
magazine
in
2002,
“I’ve
known
Jeff
for
15
years.
Terrific
guy.
He’s
a
lot
of
fun
to
be
with.
It
is
even
said
that
he
likes
beautiful
women
as
much
as
I
do,
and
many
of
them
are
on
the
younger
side.”

Trump
has
gotten
away
with
brazen
lie
after
brazen
lie
in
his
political
career
with
no
apparent
loss
of
support
among
his
hardcore
base.
So,
perhaps
he
thought
he
could
do
it
yet
again
when
it
came
to
denying
the
extent
of
his
relationship
with
Epstein
and
defending
the
dramatic
flip
flops
on
the
Epstein
files
by
his
own
Justice
Department.

This
time,
it
seems
Trump’s
strategy
is
backfiring
spectacularly,
only
drawing
more
oxygen
to
the
flames.
I’ll
emphasize
again
that
there
is

just
too
much
for
any
one
person
to
fully
keep
track
of,
from
an
Epstein
accuser
allegedly
having

urged
the
FBI
to
investigate
Trump
decades
ago
to
Trump’s
recent
gambit
that

releasing
utilitarian
grand
jury
testimony
will
somehow
satiate
his
critics
(reminiscent
of
the
time
during
his
first
term
when
he
thought
rebranding
his
“border
wall”
as
“steel
slats”
would
somehow
settle
the
controversy).

To
focus
on
one
small
sliver
here,
the
way
the
president
has
chosen
to
target
his
legal
fight
over
the
Epstein
files
scandal
is
particularly
baffling.
On
July
18,

Trump
filed
a
$10
billion
defamation
suit
against
The
Wall
Street
Journal,
as
well
as
its
owner
Rupert
Murdoch,
over
new
reporting
from
the
legendary
financial
newspaper
that
Trump
had
contributed
a
sexually
suggestive
letter
with
a
crude
drawing
of
a
nude
woman
to
a
book
of
“bawdy
letters”
made
to
commemorate
Epstein’s
50th
birthday
in
2003.
Trump
defended
himself
on
his
social
media
platform
against
the
reporting
on
this
“FAKE
letter”
in
part
by
claiming,
“I
don’t
draw
pictures.”

And
that,
like
…
what?
“I
don’t
draw
pictures”?
I
mean,
forget
about
for
a
moment
the
fact
that
Trump
has
given
multiple
handmade
drawings
of
his
to
charities
over
the
years
and
that
the
naked
woman
drawing
in
question
has
a
similar
style
and
similar
signature
to
many
of
those.
Instead,
ask
yourself
whether
there’s
anyone
anywhere
on
earth
who
can
truthfully
claim,
“I
don’t
draw
pictures.”

Not
even
as
a
child?
You’ve
never
doodled
in
the
margins
of
a
notebook?
Never
sketched
out
a
rudimentary
map
in
the
roadside
gravel?
I
am
about
the
least
artistic
person
available
when
confronted
with
Pictionary,
yet
even
as
I
write
these
words
there
is
a
journal
sitting
right
in
front
of
me
on
my
coffee
table
with
a
bad
depiction
of
my
dog
scribbled
in
on
the
very
first
page
from
back
in
2020.

These
are
veterans
reporters.
The
Wall
Street
Journal
is
a
not
a
publication
to
put
something
out
that
they
know
they
could
be
sued
over
without
having
every
corner
of
the
story
locked
down
tightly
in
advance.
Remember,
it
was

The
Wall
Street
Journal
that
took
down
Theranos
and
its
notoriously
litigious
CEO
Elizabeth
Holmes.

Trump’s
lawsuit
against
The
Wall
Street
Journal
is
likely
to
only
bring
even
more
attention
to
his
Epstein
connections.
In
discovery,
it
is
likely
that
even
more
damaging
information
about
his

interventions
in
the
Epstein
case
will
come
out.
On
the
other
hand,
in
Trump’s
defense,
we’ve
got
“I
don’t
draw
pictures”
(he

has
doubled
down
on
that
claim
too,
saying,
a
bit
more
productively
“I
don’t
draw
pictures
of
women”
in
one
instance,
while
also
oddly
phrasing
the
claim
as
“I
never
wrote
a
picture
in
my
life”).

When
Trump
was
caught
saying,
in

the
infamous
Access
Hollywood
tape
from
2005,
how
he
kissed
women
and
groped
their
genitals,
he
defended
his
statements
with
a
memorable
characterization
of
them:
“this
was
locker
room
talk.”
Although
he
did
later
imply
that
the
video
had
somehow
been
altered,
when
the
recording
was
released
weeks
before
the
2016
presidential
election,
Trump
at
first
simply
acknowledged
its
content,
apologized,
and
went
on
to
win.

It
wouldn’t
have
been
that
hard
for
Trump
to
say,
when
confronted
with
the
old
drawing
he
allegedly
made
for
Epstein’s
50th
birthday,
something
along
the
lines
of,
“It’s
been
well
documented
that
Epstein
and
I
were
friends
a
very
long
time
ago
before
anyone
came
to
know
about
his
horrible
criminal
life,
I
had
no
idea
that
he
was
a
pedophile,
and
it
was
not
unusual
for
middle-aged
men
to
send
each
other
‘locker
room
drawings’
during
that
time
for
a
milestone
birthday.”
Instead,
Trump
comes
out
with,
“I
don’t
draw
pictures.”
Which
would
be
a
bit
like
denying
the
validity
of
the
Access
Hollywood
tape
by
saying,
“I
don’t
speak
in
parking
lots.”

Well,
Epstein
files
rabbit
holes
was
not
what
I
expected
to
finally
bring
the
MAGA
base
to
its
senses.
But
we’ll
see
what
happens,
and
I’ll
certainly
accept
the
unforced
error
on
Trump’s
part.
Good
luck
with
the
lawsuit,
bro.

---

Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD (affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

Actually,
speaking
as
a
former
employee,
none
of
this
(Trump
Media
deal,
subtle
DEI
rollbacks,
etc.)
was
ever
openly
addressed.
Since
the
firm
advertises
its
commitment
to
socially
progressive
causes
–
found
on
multiple
firm-wide
webpages
–
I
thought
this
was
a
tension
that
warranted
conversation.

—
Ryan
Powers,
who
was
recently

fired
from
Davis
Polk
over
his
political
op-eds,
in

response
to
critiques
from

Vivia
Chen
of
the
Ex-Careerist,
who
wrote
in
a

recent
article
that
“it’s
not
like
Davis
Polk
has
been
subtle
about
its
pivot
toward
Trump.”


Chen
concluded
her
piece
by
asking,
“So
is
Powers
heroic,
naive
or
annoying.
Well,
who
says
he
can’t
be
all
three?”
Powers
has
since
changed
his

Instagram
bio
to
read
“Heroic,
naive
and
annoying.”

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

ZIMBABWE –
In
a
field
of
paprika
plants
in
the
heart
of
Zimbabwe,
fourth-generation
farmer
Daniel
Burger
and
relative
newcomer
Miriam
Mupambawashe
discuss
the
quality
of
the
crop.

Burger,
36,
and
Mupambawashe,
59,
are
neighbours
and
partners
in
efforts
to
revive
the
country’s
once-flourishing
agriculture
sector
cut
down
by
a
ruinous
land
reform
drive
in
the
2000s.

The
reform
distributed
land
from
the
white
minority,
which
still
owned
most
of
the
best
farmland
20
years
after
independence
in
1980,
to
the
black
majority.
Around
4
000
white-owned
farms
were
confiscated,
some
with
deadly
violence.

Mupambawashe
was
among
thousands
who
received
land.
Though
she
initially
knew
little
about
farming,
her
small
subsistence
plot
now
thrives.

Other
farms
failed
or
were
abandoned,
with
some
new
tenants
unschooled
in
agriculture
and
others
–
including
politicians
who
were
handed
land
–
uninterested.

There
were
food
shortages
and
Zimbabwe
soon
required
international
aid.

“There
was
a
bit
of
a
tough
period
through
the
2000s
and,
unfortunately,
I
think
it
sort
of
refuelled
racial
tensions
to
an
extent,”
Burger
said.

“But
being
so
passionate
about
farming
was
the
motivator
for
me
to
move
forward,”
he
said.

Good
faith

Mupambawashe
moved
to
the
area
from
the
southern
city
of
Bulawayo,
around
200
kilometres
(125
miles)
away.

“When
we
first
came
here
in
2001,
it
was
a
forest
and
there
was
nothing
built,”
she
said. “Some
of
the
white
farmers
were
angry
but
we
managed
to
talk
to
each
other
in
good
faith
and
move
forward.”

“They
never
let
us
down
and
said,
‘You
grabbed
the
farm,
let’s
see
if
you
can
do
it’.
But
instead
they
brought
their
own
tractors
and
equipment
to
come
and
help,
which
we
felt
was
a
nice
gesture.”

It
was
hard
in
the
beginning,
especially
after
irrigation
equipment
was
stolen,
and
the
early
failures
were
“embarrassing”,
Mupambawashe
said.

But
today
her
plot
does
so
well
that
she
only
needs
to
buy
in
sugar
and
cooking
oil.

Burger
leases
land
from
her
and
lends
tractors
and
expertise.
His
family’s
land
was
among
the
few
hundreds
that
were
not
seized
in
the
2000s.

Nonetheless,
“For
a
long
time
we
became
wound
up
in
compensation,”
said
Burger,
vice-president
of
the
Commercial
Farmers
Union
of
Zimbabwe
(CFU)
that
represents
mostly
white
farmers.

“But
it
wasn’t
our
purpose.
Our
purpose
was
driving
agriculture
and
current
agricultural
affairs
forward,”
he
said.

Compensation
frustration

This
year,
some
farm
owners
whose
land
was
confiscated
received
the
first
compensation
payments
after
decades
of
waiting.
The
process
has
been
complex
and
divisive.

The
government
committed
to
compensation
as
part
of
an
effort
to
settle
arrears
and
reform
the
economy
in
order
to
be
able
to
regain
access
to
international
credit
lines
cut
two
decades
ago.

It
announced
in
2020
the
creation
of
a
fund
that
would
pay
out
US$3.5
billion
for
infrastructure
on
farms
but
not
the
land,
which
it
says
was
taken
by
force
by
colonial
settlers.
Unable
to
raise
cash,
the
government
in
2023
changed
the
offer
to
one
percent
in
cash
and
the
remainder
in
US
dollar
denominated
treasury
bonds.

In
April,
the
first
payments
were
made
to
378
of
780
farmers
approved
for
this
scheme.

Deon
Theron,
who
represents
the
Compensation
Steering
Committee
group
of
former
white
farmers,
says
the
introduction
of
the
bonds
has
annulled
the
original
deal
and
negotiations
need
to
start
over.

The
bonds
are
“unsecured”
and
there
is
“limited
recourse
in
the
event
of
non-performance
by
government,”
he
said.
“The
general
feeling
amongst
the
farmers
is
firstly
frustration
that
after
20-odd
years
we
still
have
not
received
anything.”

But
the
Property
and
Farm
Compensation
Association said
its
members
would
take
what
is
on
offer.

The
bonds
are
under
international
guarantee,
said
leader
Harry
Orphanides,
adding
that
“digging
in”
and
seeking
more
from
the
government
would
be
futile.

Tenure

Mupambawashe
and
Burger
are
encouraged
by
another
major
government
announcement
—
the
granting
of
land
ownership
rights
to
beneficiaries
of
the
2000s
land
reform.

The
tenure
announced
late
last
year
replaces
99-year
leases
and
means
the
new
owners
can
deal
with
the
property
as
they
wish,
including
putting
it
up
for
sale.

“It
makes
us
feel
settled,”
Mupambawashe
said.
“No
one
could
come
and
tell
us
to
move
off
the
land
or
take
it
away
from
us.”

“It
is
just
going
to
catapult
us
forward
as
a
nation
and
an
economy,”
Burger
said.
“We
used
to
be
the
breadbasket
of
Africa
and
we
lost
it
somewhat.
But
I
just
look
at
where
we
are
now.”

Source:


Efforts
are
being
made
by
Zimbabwean
farmers
for
growth

|
PE
Express

Post
published
in:

Agriculture