All the President's... Defense Attorneys
Added 2024-11-20 10:23:08 +0000 UTCOA1089 - Trump's Staff Infection, part 3 plus T3BE48!
In this installment of Fashwatch’s continuing review of Trump’s incoming legal team, we take a closer look at what we know about the top spots in his DOJ and some of the other most important lawyers in any Presidential administration: White House counsel, Solicitor General, and the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
1. “How a Corporate Law Firm Led a Political Revolution,” David Enrich, The New York Times (8/25/22)
Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
Comments
Regarding the T3BE answer, I believe Thomas's confusion between the norms doctors are socialized with and legal codification of said norms is an illuminating example of a core problem of capitalistic society. Specifically, this problem is obvious when private equity purchases healthcare companies and then attempts to min-max profits by pressuring doctors to ignore the norms they learn from other doctors and prioritize shareholders instead of patients. As Lewis Dartnell says in The Knowledge (2014), “Medicine and surgery … rely heavily on implicit or tacit knowledge—something you have learned how to do but would find extremely difficult to successfully convey to someone else in just words or pictures.”. Likewise, norms of medicine (e.g. a patient expecting a doctor to explain the risks of an operation) are pushed by doctors for the well-being of patients mostly because they'd stand out as weirdos among other doctors during their training and residencies. Thomas reasonably expects doctors to disclose the risks of operations because it is polite and respectful to the patient not to put one over them over weighty matters such as their own likelihood for survival. In other words, legal codification seems to lag behind medical ethics. So, as the antics of Martin Shkreli and the Sackler family have proved, doctors really should find time to codify their norms beyond oral tradition to protect them against erosion by profit min-maxing.
Baltakatei
2024-11-25 22:48:14 +0000 UTCA friend of mine asked why Trump is nominating so many snivelling little goons, I told him that Trump is hiring based purely on a person's willingness to eat shit and kiss Trumps ass. Hearing this e...I think my intuition was relatively correct 💀 I had always expected a fascist takeover to mostly be evil smart guys hired. But no! Silly me 😔
Jess C
2024-11-23 00:23:31 +0000 UTCB makes sense to me math-wise. Republicans have also been loudly proclaiming, in regards to student loan forgiveness, that debt just disappearing is absolutely not a thing that ever happens, so B must be right! I wish the man well in his continued repayment and/or bankruptcy.
can I get a CHEE-HOOOOO
2024-11-21 18:56:03 +0000 UTCI’m so grateful that you cover the deeper details and appointments. I’ve been looking everywhere & almost no news aggregators, especially the “main stream”, covers those folks until after pages of Gaetz. Even when specifically searched by names. I also have been waiting for the class action re: Google, Oracle, and fb/meta nonconsensually monetizing me outside of their own service that I signed up for. If I’ve been teaching AI models from things not posted to the public internet without my consent or residuals, they’re all complicit. They don’t want to lose any single fraction for a single one of the of fractions (or more) of pennies for millions & billions of people/hits/clicks, etc. They certainly don’t want it paid to the little people who need every fraction. Or any program of humanitarian interests for the most instead of keeping all the resources in their own pockets. At my expense. Oddly, big platforms are facing judgements in federal actions, and yet their products get worse & worse.
dddebz
2024-11-21 18:01:36 +0000 UTCA. because... tough luck you white collar late stage capitalism gamblers! Also, because I am an accountant and no accountant in their right mind would venture a numeric answer without reading the mortgage details.
Maria Kladaki
2024-11-20 21:48:55 +0000 UTCAlso realistically it would be more than $70k because there would be numerous fees, sales expenses, etc. also owed to the bank, as well as accrued interest. Maybe they actually sold the house for $60k and $50k was the amount recovered after all fees.
Junk Bonds and Junk Law
2024-11-20 20:33:28 +0000 UTCThe answer is B ($70000). In general, you owe the money and the foreclosure only covers the portion that they recover from it. They can come after you for the rest, but it’s expensive to do that and bankruptcy would eliminate that possibility. However, in some places, especially California, the answer would be A if the house is the owner’s primary residence. California laws do protect against this. But it’s not the owner’s primary residence (the fact of a rental tenant seemed superfluous but it’s not), so it gets no such protection even in California.
Junk Bonds and Junk Law
2024-11-20 20:31:48 +0000 UTCI think it's A, owing nothing. I think the foreclosure is the mortgagee saying "We would rather have the house than your money". I think there's also a "voluntary foreclosure" where you turn in the keys and walk away from the whole thing, and I don't think you would owe any money after that either.
Ashley V
2024-11-20 15:27:01 +0000 UTCHoping the correct answer is A. There was no mention of previous payments or interest owed, which would complicate the other three answers that have specific numbers. Matt has made me even more conscious of the situation at the border so I was interested/appalled to read the CATO Institute report on actual recent border policies and their actual outcomes. https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-released-criminals-so-he-could-jail-asylum-seekers
Rae
2024-11-20 14:39:37 +0000 UTC
