Glenn Miller, tax attorney at Katten, placed an article in Quillette last September (quillette.com/2020/09/23/ral…), donated to Bob McDonnell in 2009 and Mitt Romney in 2012, even a GOP AG in WV. He threw a few hundred bucks to BdB in 2016, but nothing on record for Hillary or Biden.
Peters’ defense either mistakes Katten for a nonprofit or misleadingly portrays a charity directorship as a main gig. The point he seems to be missing is the founder of an astroturfy anti-CRT group featured on GOP platforms in the run up to 2020 with a long GOP donation history…
deserves skepticism when he claims (uncheckably) to have voted for Biden in that election, to have voted for Clinton in the election before it, and to be a political independent. Readers should be given the facts that inform that skepticism.
This happens again and again in the pages of the New York Times beneath the byline of Jeremy Peters.
Miller is not a frequent donor to both parties; he’s a frequent donor to one party. As far as I’ve seen, he doesn’t have a recorded donation to any Democrat since he threw some money to De Blasio in 2016. His consistent donations to Republicans run from 2009-2021.
Correx: @KatzOnEarth is right—there’s another 2019 BdB primary donation that pops up if you search by his employer rather than his occupation. Still I don’t think anyone would honestly look at this and go: ah, a frequent donor to both parties.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A couple months ago I did a radio interview for The Truce and the conservative host asked me whether the (then upcoming) Trump trial would lead to people no longer doing business in New York, and I tried to be accommodating and say maybe some die-hard Trump Republicans you know..
But he pressed the point and demanded I take politics out of it. And I told him that these are very common cases and every NY lawyer like me will advise someone setting up a business that they should respect the formalities of its separate existence, keep accurate books, etc.
It appears the Special Counsel’s office filed under seal its support for a Garcia hearing to evaluate Walt Nauta’s lawyer’s alleged conflicts, and Judge Cannon has decided to have it out in public.
The issue is that discussing Stanley Woodward’s representation of three potential witnesses in the secret documents case would reveal the fact of their grand jury testimony. Cannon has decided in a conclusory line that isn’t reason enough, but it’s not clear why she thinks so.
It’s also kinda weird to strike not only the proposed sealed supplement but also the motion for leave to file under seal from the docket. Cannon has denied that motion, which presumably might be an appealable issue, but then excised what she denied from the record. Strange.
By popular request, I will try to explain. According to the govt’s motion, they proposed a protective order, Trump responded with an entirely different form, and then the govt came back with a form based on a case before Judge Nichols.
Transactional lawyers like myself call this the battle of the forms. You just keep sending each other different templates for an agreement, and consequently you delay the work of marking up the other side’s language and isolating the substantive issues between you.
What I find lamentable about DeSantis’s curriculum is the strong echo of antebellum pro-slavery ideology it contains, apportioning credit to the slaveholders and the slave system for supposedly improving enslaved people. I’ll explain.
The chattel slavery practiced in the southern states and the colonies before them was a hideously cruel cradle-to-grave form to bondage. The contemporaneous pro-slavery ideology held that slaveholders were civilizing and improving a savage race from a state of pagan incivility.
The historical record reveals this pro-slavery ideology to be nonsense. Enslaved peoples were the bearers of their own traditions and evidently resourceful and innovative without the intervention of the enslavers, and often to their great frustration.