Can patriotism be legislated?

Lawmakers
from
the
ruling
ZANU-PF
party
in Zimbabwe are
moving
a
motion
to
further
criminalize
government
critics. They’re
advocating
for
a comprehensive
strategy
to
promote
patriotism
and
national
identity.
Proposed 
measures
include formalizing
a
national
ideology,
establishing
a
national
institute
of
ideology
and integrating
“patriotic” education
into
the
curriculum. 

The
motion
comes
on
top
of the
contested
Patriotic
Act
of
2023
,
which
was
seen
to effectively
closed
the
door
on
dissent
In
Zimbabwe.
It
makes
provision
for criticism
issues
such
as
provision
of
health
care,
basic
services
and
accountability
to
be
judged
criminal.

The
government
dismissed
criticism,
saying
the
legislation
was
necessary
to
hold
accountable
individuals
who
threaten
“national
interests.”
It
said
the
legislation
was
modeled
on
the
Logan
Act
in
the
US,
which
bars
citizens
from
engaging
in
certain
unauthorized
communications
with
foreign
governments.
In
Zimbabwe,
violations
could
result
in
life
imprisonment
and
death,
termination
of
citizenship,
suspension
from
voting
or
holding
public
office.

Another
layer
to
repressive
legislation

In
a
recent
parliamentary
debate,
ZANU-PF
MP
Ophious
Murambiwa
suggested
that
it
should
be
criminal
to
speak
“evil” about
Zimbabwe.

“The
most
important
issue
is
to
love
our
country,
let
us
praise
our
country
in
all
circumstances,
whether
in
good
or
bad
times,
during
the
night
or
day,”
Murambiwa
said.

The
motion
has
prompted
opposition
lawmakers
and
human
rights
groups
to
push back
harder.

“Patriotism
is
not
blind
loyalty.
It
is
not
empty
slogans.
True
patriots
question
injustice,
challenge
corruption
and
demand
systems
that
serve
people
not
a
selected
few,”
Prosper
Mutseyami,
an
opposition
MP,
said.

“Our
patriotism
must
ignite
participation,
ensuring
that
every
Zimbabwean
plays
an
active
role
in
shaping
the
future.”

Human
rights
activists
say
its
another
attempt
to
silence
dissent.

“You
cannot
necessarily
legislate
patriotism,”
Nigel
Nyamutumbu,
the
Media
Alliance
of
Zimbabwe
programs
manager,
told
DW.
“It
is
a
concept
that
can
naturally
clamp
down
on
the
requisite
freedoms.
Patriotism
is
not
a
legal
concept
but
rather
a
political
nationalist
ideology.”

Activists
have
in
the
past
been
accused
of
treason
and
unpatriotic
behavior
for
expressing
concerns
over
human
rights
abuses,
corruption,
and
governance
in
Zimbabwe.

Abuse
of
parliament
and
constitution

Citizens
have
expressed
concern
over what
they
fear
are
attempts
to
enforce
a
one-party
state.
ZANU-PF,
with
its
absolute
majority
in
parliament,
is
seen
to
be
abusing
its
authority
and
violating
the
constitution.

“As
parliamentarians
we
are
supposed
to
uphold
the
constitution,”
Gladys
Hlatshwayo
an
opposition
MP
told
DW.
“Section
119
of
the
constitution
demands
that
parliament
protects
the
constitution
and
democratic
governance.”

In
June
2025,
Zimbabwe’s
High
Court
struck
down
sections
of
the
Patriotic
Act.The
court
ruled
that
the
drastic
penalties
prescribed
by
the
Patriotic
Act
infringed
on
various
sections
of
the
country’s
constitution.

Several
civic
organizations
and
a
private
citizens
had
petitioned
the
court,
arguing
that the
legislation
was
overly
broad
and
vague
and
had
high
potential
for
abuse
and
misuse.

“The
most
patriotic
people
are
those
who
hold
their
government
to
account.
A
government
must
not
be
seen
as
the
most
dangerous
institution,”
Eric
Chisora,
a
political
analyst,
told
DW.
“Whatever
they
[ZANU-PF
lawmakers]
are
doing
is
unreasonable
and
irrational.
Citizens’
rights
must
be
protected.”

A
need
for
law
reforms

Political
and
civic
rights
activists are
calling
for
the
repeal
of
colonial
legacy
laws
which
they
say
are
retrogressive.
Laws
such
as
the
Criminal
Law
Codification
and
Reform
Act,
with
provisions
have
been
used
to
incriminate
government
critics,
date
back
to Zimbabwe’s
pre-independence
era when
they
were
used
to
suppress
Black
majority
rule.

The
activists
are
concerned
over
the
shrinking
of
democratic
space
under
Emmerson
Mnangagwa,
Zimbabwe’s
president
since
2018.

“We
are
now
living
in
a
country
where
there
is
no
freedom
of
expression
due
to
the
number
of
pieces
of
legislation
being
passed
by
the
ZANU-PF
regime,”
Blessing
Vava,
executive
director
of
the
Crisis
in
Zimbabwe
Coalition,
told
DW.

“When
you
see
a
government
passing
repressive
laws,
just
know
that
it
is
not
a
popular
government.
Zimbabweans
must
fight
to
defend
the
constitution.”


Eddy
Micah
Jr.
contributed
to
this
article.


Edited
by:
Benita
van
Eyssen

Partner Who Wrote About AI Ethics, Fired For Citing Fake AI Cases – Above the Law

Most
of
the
time,
when
a
lawyer
unwittingly
cites
a
bunch
of
fake
cases
spit
out
by
artificial
intelligence,
it’s
because
they
never
bothered
to
figure
out
how
the
product
worked
or
even
superficially
consider
the
ethical
implications.
They
plead
with
the
judge
that
they’re
just

a
humble
scribe
of
Ashurbanipal

who
couldn’t
possibly
grasp
the
powerful
forces
involved
in
asking
a
mansplaining-as-a-service
bot
to
magic
up
some
cases.
As
an
excuse
it

doesn’t
always
work
,
but
tales
of
ignorance
have,
thus
far,

stayed
many
a
judge’s
hand
.

But
when
the
hallucinations
come
from
a
lawyer
who
once
published
the
article
Artifical
Intelligence
in
the
Legal
Profession:
Ethical
Considerations
,”
there’s
not
a
ton
of
wiggle
room.

Goldberg
Segalla’s
Danielle
Malaty,
who
authored
the
article
about
ethics,
is
now
out
after
taking
responsibility
for
a
fake
cite
in
a
Chicago
Housing
Authority
filing
asking
the
judge
to
reconsider
a
jury’s
$24
million
verdict
in
a
lead
paint
poisoning
case.
The
Authority
is
said
to
have
learned
about
the
lead
paint
hazard
in
1992
and
it’s
hard
to
contest
liability
for
a
harm
you’ve
known
about
since

End
of
the
Road

charted.
But
the
firm
struck
gold
with
an
Illinois
Supreme
Court
cite, Mack
v.
Anderson
,
that
could
not
have
supported
the
CHA’s
argument
better…
because
it
was
invented
out
of
thin
microchips
by
ChatGPT.

From
the

Chicago
Tribune
:

At
the
hearing,
Danielle
Malaty,
the
attorney
responsible
for
the
mistake,
told
the
judge
she
did
not
think
ChatGPT
could
create
fictitious
legal
citations
and
did
not
check
to
ensure
the
case
was
legitimate.
Three
other
Goldberg
Segalla
attorneys
then
reviewed
the
draft
motion

including
Mason,
who
served
as
the
final
reviewer

as
well
as
CHA’s
in-house
counsel,
before
it
was
filed
with
the
court.
Malaty
was
terminated
from
Goldberg
Segalla,
where
she
had
been
a
partner,
following
her
use
of
AI.
The
firm,
at
the
time,
had
an
AI
policy
that
banned
its
use.

How
did
this
happen?
Was
the
firm
huffing
the
same
lead
paint
that
Chicago
Housing
doesn’t
want
to
pay
for
foisting
on
kids?

According
to
the
Tribune
account,
lead
counsel
on
the
case,
Larry
Mason,
said
that
“An
exhaustive
investigation
revealed
that
one
attorney,
in
direct
violation
of
Goldberg
Segalla’s
AI
use
policy,
used
AI
technology
and
failed
to
verify
the
AI
citation
before
including
the
case
and
surrounding
sentence
describing
its
fictitious
holding.”
Not
quite
sure
what
this
policy
even
means…
has
the
firm
banned
“AI”
generally,
because
that’s
dumb.
It’s
going
to
be
embedded
in
the
guts
of
everything
lawyers
do
soon
enough

a
general
objection
to
AI
is
like
lawyers
in
the
90s
informing
the
court
that
they’re
committed
to
never
allowing
online
legal
research.
Hopefully
the
policy
is
more
nuanced
than
Mason
suggests
because
blanket
policies,
paradoxically,
only
encourage
lawyers
to
go
rogue.

But
more
important
than
the
“AI
policy”
is
the
part
where
“Three
other
Goldberg
Segalla
attorneys
then
reviewed
the
draft
motion

including
Mason,
who
served
as
the
final
reviewer.”
Don’t
blame
the
AI
for
the
fact
that
you
read
a
brief
and
never
bothered
to
print
out
the
cases.
Who
does
that?
Long
before
AI,
we
all
understood
that
you
needed
to
look
at
the
case
itself
to
make
sure
no
one
missed
the
literal
red
flag
on
top.
It
might’ve
ended
up
in
there
because
of
AI,
but
three
lawyers
and
presumably
a
para
or
two
had
this
brief
and
no
one
built
a
binder
of
the
cases
cited?
What
if
the
court
wanted
oral
argument?
No
one
is
excusing
the
decision
to
ask
ChatGPT
to
resolve
your
$24
million
case,
but
the
blame
goes
far
deeper.

Malaty
will
shoulder
most
of
the
blame
as
the
link
in
the
workflow
who
should’ve
known
better.
That
said,
her
article
about
AI
ethics,
written
last
year,
doesn’t
actually
address
the
hallucination
problem.
While
risks
of
job
displacement
and
algorithms
reinforcing
implicit
bias
are
important,
it
is
a
little
odd
to
write
a
whole
piece
on
the
ethics
of
legal
AI
without
even
breathing
on
hallucinations.

Meanwhile,
“CHA
continues
to
contest
the
ruling
and
is
seeking
a
verdict
in
its
favor,
a
new
trial
on
liability
or
a
new
trial
on
damages
or
to
lower
the
verdict.”
Maybe
Claude
can
give
them
an
out.




HeadshotJoe
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
.

‘I Don’t Even Draw, Bro’ Is A Really Weird Defense When ‘It Was Locker Room Talk’ Was Right There All Along – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Win
McNamee/Getty
Images)

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].

Zimbabwe Vigil Diary 19th July 2025


23.7.2025


18:54

On
a
welcome
wet
day
after
a
long
dry
spell,
Vigil
activists
again
met
outside
the
Zimbabwe
Embassy
in
London
to
continue
our
protest
against
the
human
rights
abuse
and
lack
of
democracy
in
Zimbabwe
perpetrated
by
ZANU
PF,
the
ruling
regime.



https://www.flickr.com/photos/zimbabwevigil/54665981317/sizes/m/

Thanks
to
those
who
came
today:
Tanyaradzwa
Dalza,
Mary-Ann
Dzapasi,
Jonathan
Kariwo,
Philip
Maponga,
Ziwanai
Mbanje,
Rumbidzai
Moyo,
Gladman
Mutauri
and
Ephraim
Tapa.
Photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/zimbabwevigil/albums/72177720327682584.

The
other
day,
we
saw
the
UK
Minister
for
Africa
paying
a
courtesy
visit
to
Mnangagwa’s
State
House.
This
came
as
a
shock
to
many
as
questions
arose
as
what
had
happened
to
the
demand
for
human
rights
and
democracy. Many
even
suspected
that
the
UK
was
trading
its
soul
for
30
pieces
of
silver
to
join
the
likes
of
China,
Belarus,
Russia,
and
others
in
the
plunder
of
Zimbabwe’s
resources.

Last
week,
the
US
Secretary
of
State
was
reported
to
have
directed
the
US
Embassy
in
Zimbabwe
not
to
opine
on
Zimbabwe’s
democratic
practices.
This
marks
a
departure
from
being
outspoken
against
human
rights
violations
and
electoral
malpractices
since
the
Zimbabwe
problem
started.
This
policy
also
appears
to
be
in
line
with
the
UK’s
thawing
relations
towards
Zimbabwe.

Given
the
fractured
and
directionless
opposition
in
Zimbabwe,
it
is
no
wonder
no
one
has
raised
concern
over
these
unholy
alliances.
Unless
civil
society
can
regroup
and
regain
its
voice,
the
Zimbabwe
crisis
will
soon
be
normalised
and
forgotten.

For
this
reason,
the
Zimbabwe
Vigil
and
ROHR
will
continue
to
stand
in
the
gap
and
call
out
the
Zimbabwe
military
dictatorship
and
those
who
aid
it
to
book.

Aluta!!!!

For
Vigil
pictures
check: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zimbabwevigil/.
Please
note:
Vigil
photos
can
only
be
downloaded
from
our
Flickr
website.


Events
and
Notices:  


  • Next
    Vigil
    meeting
    outside
    the
    Zimbabwe
    Embassy. 
    Saturday
    2nd August
    from
    2

    5
    pm.
    We
    meet
    on
    the
    first
    and
    third
    Saturdays
    of
    every
    month.
    On
    other
    Saturdays
    the
    virtual
    Vigil
    will
    run.

  • The
    Restoration
    of
    Human
    Rights
    in
    Zimbabwe
    (ROHR)
     is
    the
    Vigil’s
    partner
    organisation
    based
    in
    Zimbabwe.
    ROHR
    grew
    out
    of
    the
    need
    for
    the
    Vigil
    to
    have
    an
    organisation
    on
    the
    ground
    in
    Zimbabwe
    which
    reflected
    the
    Vigil’s
    mission
    statement
    in
    a
    practical
    way.
    ROHR
    in
    the
    UK
    actively
    fundraises
    through
    membership
    subscriptions,
    events,
    sales
    etc
    to
    support
    the
    activities
    of
    ROHR
    in
    Zimbabwe.

  • The
    Vigil’s
    book
    ‘Zimbabwe
    Emergency’
     is
    based
    on
    our
    weekly
    diaries.
    It
    records
    how
    events
    in
    Zimbabwe
    have
    unfolded
    as
    seen
    by
    the
    diaspora
    in
    the
    UK.
    It
    chronicles
    the
    economic
    disintegration,
    violence,
    growing
    oppression
    and
    political
    manoeuvring

    and
    the
    tragic
    human
    cost
    involved. It
    is
    available
    at
    the
    Vigil.
    All
    proceeds
    go
    to
    the
    Vigil
    and
    our
    sister
    organisation
    the
    Restoration
    of
    Human
    Rights
    in
    Zimbabwe’s
    work
    in
    Zimbabwe.
    The
    book
    is
    also
    available
    from
    Amazon.


  • Facebook
    pages:  

  • Vigil : 
    https ://www.facebook.com/zimbabwevigil 
  • ROHR: https://www.facebook.com/Restoration-of-Human-Rights-ROHR-Zimbabwe-International-370825706588551/
  • ZAF: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Zimbabwe-Action-Forum-ZAF/490257051027515

The
Vigil,
outside
the
Zimbabwe
Embassy,
429
Strand,
London
meets
regularly
on
Saturdays
from
14.00
to
17.00
to
protest
against
gross
violations
of
human
rights
in
Zimbabwe.
The
Vigil
which started
in
October
2002
will
continue
until
internationally-monitored,
free
and
fair
elections
are
held
in
Zimbabwe.

Post
published
in:

Featured

Wisconsin Institute For Law And Liberty Wins Right To Not Support Minorities – Above the Law

Enough
of
that!

Were
you
one
of
the
attorneys
barred
in
Wisconsin
losing
sleep
because
pennies
on
the
dollar
of
your
bar
dues
went
to
diversifying
the
profession?
Fret
no
longer!
After
devoting
hours
upon
hours
to
this
most
precious
cause,
the
Wisconsin
Institutite
for
Law
and
Liberty
has
come
to
an
agreement
with
the
Wisconsin
Bar.

ABA
Journal

has
coverage:

A
final
settlement
has
been
reached
in
a

December
2023
lawsuit

challenging
diversity
efforts
in
State
Bar
of
Wisconsin
programs.

The
bar
previously
agreed

in
April
2024

to
redefine
“diversity”
as
it
applies
to
its
Diversity
Clerkship
Program,
which
offers
paid
Wisconsin
summer
internships
at
private
law
firms,
corporate
legal
departments
and
governmental
agencies.
The
new
definition
says
diversity
“means
including
people
with
differing
characteristics,
beliefs,
experiences,
interests
and
viewpoints.”

For
what
its
worth,
this
definition
of
diversity
would
probably
still
manage
to
piss
off

whatever
pool
the
folks
at
Jubilee
pulled
the
pink
shirt
guy
from
.
I’d
be
surprised
if
the
story
ultimately
ends
here

stories
like
this
tend
toward
flaring
up
whenever
the
demographics
veer
a
little
too
female
or
immigrant.
Until
then,
enjoy
the
“diversity”while
it
lasts.


Suit
Challenging
Diversity
Efforts
In
Wisconsin
Bar
Programs
Fully
Resolved

[ABA
Journal]


Earlier
:

Wisconsin
Institute
For
Law
And
Liberty
Fights
For
Right
To
Not
Support
Minorities


The
Slippery
Slope
Of
Ending
Affirmative
Action
Has
Moved
On
To
Its
Next
Target:
Women
And
‘Proxies
For
Diversity’



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.

Joseph Mwale wins in Botswana


23.7.2025


18:17

Fide
Master
Joseph
Mwale
of
Malawi
is
the
winner
of
the
just-ended
tournament
in
Botswana.
Fresh
after
winning
the
Malawi
Open
this
same
month
Joseph
Mwale
passed
through
Zimbabwe
on
his
way
to
Gaborone,
Botswana.

He
won
the
tournament
with
6
points
out
of
7
games
played.
On
his
way
to
the
podium
he
won
6
games
and
drew
two
games.
Among
one
of
his
most
prized
wins
he
defeated
International
Master
Gillian
Bwalya
of
Zambia
who
came
second
in
Malawi
when
he
won
it!

He
was
also
tied
on
the
same
position
with
his
other
Fide
Master
friend
Banele
Mhango
of
South
Africa.
Third
place
went
to
a
Wonderboy
who
dismissed
IM
Bwalya
Gillian
in
their
game.
He
is
the
one
who
drew
against
FM
Mwale
in
the
final
round
to
win
the
12
000
Pulas
on
capturing
this
tournament.
IM
Bwalya
Gillian
came
fourth
with
5
points
so
was
CM
Spencer
Masango
of
Zimbabwe.

The
ladies
section
was
captured
by
Tanaka
Dziyanyi
of
Zimbabwe.
She
made
it
2
out
of
two
tournaments
after
winning
the
previous
JR
Mawere
International
Open
Chess
Tournament
held
in
Kwekwe
a
week
ago.
She
shrugged
off
the
competition
from
her
compatriots
Linda
Shaba
and
Tatenda
Ndou.
The
trio
completed
the
top
three
in
the
ladies
section
and
hence
Zimbabwe
dominated
in
the
ladies
section
of
the
Botswana
Open
Chess
Tournament.
The
tournament
had
players
from
Malawi,
Botswana,
Zambia,
South
Africa
and
Zimbabwe.

Post
published
in:

Featured

‘I Don’t Even Draw, Bro’ Is A Really Weird Defense When ‘It Was Locker Room Talk’ Was Right There All Along – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Win
McNamee/Getty
Images)

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].

Biglaw Return-To-Office Drive Opens Door To Passive-Aggressive Hostage Negotiation Over Bonuses – Above the Law

Partners
have
reportedly
taken
a
break
from
the
million-dollar
summer
homes
their
associates
toil
to
make
possible
to
let
the
rabble
know
that
their
hefty
bonuses
might
be
“in
jeopardy”
because
they
haven’t
done
enough
hallway
waving
this
quarter.
To
be
clear,
the
problem
isn’t
hours

tipsters
writing
in
about
this
practice
claim
to
be
on
track
for
north
of
2100

but
attendance,
because
if
an
associate
wigs
out
on
caffeine
and
adderall
while
furiously
citechecking
and
no
one
is
down
the
hall,
does
it
really
even
happen?

King
&
Spalding
partners
want
attorneys
in
the
office
more
and
are
in
the
midst
of
what’s
being
described
as
an
“awkward”
campaign
to
urge
folks
back
into
the
hallways.
As
usual,
associate
bonuses
have

become

a

bargaining


chip
.
And
it
might
not
just
be
going
forward,
with
some
veiled
threats
that
this
policy
would
apply

retroactively
.

Insiders
describe
this
as
a
massive
culture
shock
because
the
firm
has
never
exhibited
much
concern
about
office
attendance
before

even
known
to
describe
itself
as
a
“no
facetime”
firm
on
the
recruiting
trail.
The
target
for
attendance
seems
modest,
with
tipsters
claiming
the
firm
is
seeking
50
percent
attendance,
which
makes
the
dire
financial
threat
all
the
more
disproportionate.

To
be
clear,
none
of
this
is
in
writing
and
our
informants
say
the
conversations
about
bonuses
haven’t
involved
any
details,
though
the
insinuation
that
bonuses
may
be
retroactively
impacted
feels
like
bringing
a
nuclear
device
to
a
knife
fight.

Those
in
the
trenches

especially
those
who
ran
up
record
revenue
working
from
home
through
a
global
pandemic
unprecedented
since
attorneys
turned
drafts
via
passenger
raven
during
the
Black
Death

understandably
balk
at
firms
calling
them
back
into
the
office.
Many
young
lawyers
made
life
decisions
based
on
years
of
hybrid
work,
having
moved
further
from
the
office
or
scheduled
kids’
practices
for
Tuesday
afternoons
or
invested
in
an
all-sweatpants
wardrobe.
Those
folks
can’t
necessarily
turn
on
a
dime
when
a
firm
yanks
the
hybrid
floor
out
from
under
them.

That
said,
regardless
of
what
the
glossy
brochure
says,
law
school
doesn’t
produce
practice-ready
attorneys.
The
profession
relies
upon
on-the-job
training
and
there
are
a
lot
of
lessons
that
just
don’t
come
across
when
there’s
not
a
midlevel
standing
next
to
you
explaining
why
you’re
using
the
wrong
letterhead.
Senior
lawyers
keep
reporting
that
the
new
crop
of
lawyers
are

woefully
behind
where
they
should
be
.
And
that’s
before
you
consider
Gen
Z
lawyers
out
here
telling
senior
associates
Nah,
you
do
that

when
they
aren’t

biting
people
.

So
it’s
not
just
the
voyeuristic
thrill
of
watching
associates
bleed
out
in
real
time
or
providing
your
office
fling
more
privacy
than
a
Coldplay
concert.
Training
matters
and
some
of
that
has
to
be
in
person.
Still,
when
remote
work
brought
banner
earnings,
happier
lawyers,
and
fewer
dead
plants,
rolling
that
back
takes
a
deft
touch.
Which
is
to
say
the
opposite
of
“maybe
we’ll
take
away
your
bonus
for
not
predicting
in
February
that
we’d
have
new
priorities
in
July.”

Biglaw
bonuses
are
not
bonuses.
Some
firms
offer
supplemental
bonuses
for
high
performers,
but
the
lockstep
associate
bonus
is
really
deferred
compensation.
It’s
the
firm
paying
market
without
binding
itself
to
match
the
next
year.
When
the
“bonus”
is
really
part
of
the
expected
salary,
messing
with
it
becomes
shady.

Probably
a
partner
who
cares
more
about
having

a
captive
audience
to
laugh
at
his
jokes

because
their
financial
well-being
depends
on
it.

Returning
to
the
office,
like
introducing
a
new
tech
platform,
requires
buy-in.
The
whole
team
needs
to
be
sold
on
the
mission
and
leadership
needs
to
be
adaptable
to
make
it
happen.
This
isn’t
a
flip-switching
exercise.
Well,
it
can
be,
but
only
if
the
firm
wants
to
bleed
talent
like
a
Tarantino
character
with
a
neck
wound.
If
the
firm
wants
to
be
successful,
everyone
needs
to
understand
the
goal
and
feel
excited
about
pitching
in.
When
firms
talk
about
bringing
people
back
to
the
office
to
build
“community”
or
“culture,”
they’ve
got
it
backward:
the
firm
needs
a
strong
culture
first
so
people
want
to
come
in.

And
persuading
people
is
harder
than
threatening
people,
but
if
anyone
can
do
it,
it
should
be
the
lawyers.




HeadshotJoe
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
.

Building A Successful CLE: Leveraging Your Program For Career Advancement – Above the Law

Getty
Images



Ed.
note:
 This
is
the
fifth
post
in
a
series.

In
our
last
article,
we
focused
on
crafting
a
compelling
Ethics
CLE

one
that
goes
beyond
compliance
to
spark
real
conversation
and
reflection.

Now,
we
zoom
out.
Because
whether
you’re
teaching
ethics,
litigation
trends,
or
emerging
tech,
every
CLE
you
present
is
more
than
just
a
teaching
moment.
It’s
a
positioning
moment.
A
well-delivered
CLE
doesn’t
just
check
a
box

it
leaves
an
impression.

When
you
treat
your
CLE
like
an
asset
instead
of
an
obligation,
it
can
quietly
reshape
how
you’re
perceived
inside
your
firm,
with
clients,
and
across
the
industry.
Whether
you’re
trying
to
raise
your
internal
profile,
attract
clients,
or
carve
out
your
lane
in
a
crowded
practice
area,
your
CLE
is
a
strategic
opportunity
disguised
as
a
slide
deck.

In
our
previous
articles,
we
covered
the
tactical:
How
to
design
a
program,
bring
humor
into
dry
topics,
and
create
audience
interaction
that
doesn’t
feel
forced.
But
this
piece
is
about
the
long
game

and
how
a
great
CLE
can
accelerate
your
career.


CLEs
as
Career
Capital

Every
time
you
speak
on
a
topic,
you
reinforce
your
brand.
You
build
credibility.
And
you
signal
that
you’re
someone
who
knows
their
stuff
and
isn’t
afraid
to
claim
space.

Most
attorneys
don’t
see
it
this
way

they
treat
CLEs
like
a
compliance
chore.
Which
is
why,
when
you
take
it
seriously,
you
stand
out.

Here
are
four
ways
your
CLE
can
work
harder
for
your
career:


1.
Visibility
and
Recognition

Presenting
a
CLE

especially
on
emerging
or
high-stakes
topics

puts
your
name
in
circulation.
It
gives
colleagues,
peers,
and
potential
clients
a
reason
to
remember
you.
If
you’re
clear
and
compelling,
word
travels.
Suddenly
you’re
being
invited
to
speak
on
panels,
contribute
to
white
papers,
or
participate
in
client
briefings.

These
are
not
random
perks.
They’re
signals
that
you’re
becoming
a
recognized
voice
in
your
field.


Tip:

Record
your
CLE
and
repurpose
it.
Turn
it
into
a
blog
post,
a
LinkedIn
series,
or
even
a
client-facing
lunch
&
learn.


2.
Networking
With
Intent

Most
attorneys
show
up,
present,
and
disappear.
Don’t
do
that.
Stick
around.
Answer
questions.
Ask
attendees
what
resonated.
These
informal
touchpoints
are
gold.
You’ll
often
meet
potential
clients,
allies
in
other
practice
groups,
or
future
collaborators.


Tip:

If
it’s
an
internal
CLE,
follow
up
with
one
or
two
people
afterward.
Ask
them
what
they’re
seeing
with
clients
and
offer
to
compare
notes.
It
deepens
the
relationship
and
keeps
your
name
top
of
mind.


3.
Demonstrating
Real
Expertise

A
CLE
forces
you
to
organize
your
thinking

and
then
perform
it.
That’s
valuable.
The
attorneys
who
get
tapped
for
high-profile
clients
or
leadership
roles
are
often
the
ones
who
can
articulate
ideas
clearly
and
confidently
under
pressure.

If
you’re
trying
to
shift
into
a
new
area
of
law
or
elevate
your
internal
role,
a
CLE
can
be
the
fastest
way
to
show
what
you
know
without
having
to
pitch
yourself.
You’re
showing,
not
telling.


4.
Client
Development
(Without
the
Cringe)

Let’s
be
honest

most
lawyers
hate
selling.
But
sharing
valuable
content
through
a
CLE
doesn’t
feel
like
selling.
It
feels
like
helping.
When
done
right,
it
positions
you
as
generous,
smart,
and
up
to
date.

Clients
take
note
of
that.
Especially
when
you’re
solving
a
problem
they’re
quietly
trying
to
figure
out.
I’ve
seen
attorneys
land
major
matters
simply
because
a
GC
remembered
something
they
said
during
a
CLE.


Tip:

Choose
topics
that
matter
to
your
ideal
clients

not
just
what’s
trending.
And
don’t
bury
the
lead.
Tell
them
what
the
risk
is
and
how
to
navigate
it.


Turning
a
CLE
Into
Long-Term
Leverage

A
single
CLE
can
become
a
career
accelerant
if
you
treat
it
like
an
asset,
not
a
one-off.
Think
of
it
as
a
platform

not
just
a
presentation.


Record
it.
Clip
highlights
for
your
LinkedIn.

Rewrite
it
into
client
alerts
or
internal
training
modules.

Use
it
as
a
launchpad
for
deeper
conversations
with
existing
clients.
• Pitch
it
to
bar
associations
or
invite-only
roundtables.

What
starts
as
a
60-minute
talk
can
turn
into
months
of
content
and
dozens
of
door-opening
conversations

if
you
let
it.


What’s
Your
Topic?

Start
by
asking
yourself:

What
am
I
known
for?

What
do
I
want
to
be
known
for?

What
do
my
clients
(or
future
clients)
ask
about
most?

The
overlap
is
where
your
next
CLE
lives.




Sejal
Bhasker
Patel is
a
Rainmaking
Consultant
and
Author
of Rainmaker:
Unleashed

a
sharp,
strategic
playbook
for
attorneys
who
don’t
fit
the
traditional
mold.
She’s
the
founder
of
Sage
Ivy,
a
consulting
firm
that
works
directly
with
law
firms
and
attorneys
to
turn
relationships
into
revenue

without
selling
their
soul.
Her
work
is
blunt,
tailored,
and
built
on
one
core
belief:
Authenticity
isn’t
a
liability

it’s
your
strongest
competitive
edge.
www.sageivyconsulting.com

‘I Don’t Even Draw, Bro’ Is A Really Weird Defense When ‘It Was Locker Room Talk’ Was Right There All Along – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Win
McNamee/Getty
Images)

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].