[syndicated profile] askamanager_feed

Posted by Ask a Manager

It’s four answers to four questions. Here we go…

1. The CEO and head of HR who got caught cheating on a Jumbotron

I am dying to get your thoughts on this story that is going mega viral about a CEO and head of HR who were busted on Jumbotron at a Coldplay concert.

Apparently the other woman on the Jumbotron hiding her face and laughing is another HR professional at Astronomer. This has wayyy blown up. I would love to get your take on this!

It’s very bad. It’s already a huge problem for a married CEO to have an affair with his employee (who’s also married, although it would be a problem either way), but when the affair partner happens to be the head of HR?! How could anyone working there ever trust that the company would handle reports of sexual harassment appropriately? (Particularly if said complaints are against the CEO who’s having an affair with the head of HR…)

Moreover, the other woman shown in the video next to them is apparently the head of HR’s second-in-command, who she just promoted to that job after working with her at several other companies before this. Having another HR higher-up present is a sign of further mess, as she would have an obligation to report the relationship. Her presence and obvious awareness of their affair raises additional questions about conflict of interest in her performance of her job, too.

Oh, and the person the CEO is having the affair with is the only woman on their 12-person leadership team.

So, yeah, a mess, and none of them can credibly remain at the company.

2. My employees don’t want to earn raises by increasing their skills

I own a coffee shop in a rapidly growing town and have had success since starting in 2020. Prior to 2024 we had fairly high turnover, 20% per year. We only have 10-12 employees, myself included. At the beginning of 2024, we made the decision to raise pay significantly, start offering PTO, health, vision, and dental, and we have not lost a single person (unexpectedly) since!

To increase skills, I offer all employees raises if they can pass skills-based tests. If they pass all three tests, they get an almost 10% raise. Yet very few people have taken the test, and the overwhelming feedback is that “test anxiety” is too bad. The team’s attitude has become very negative and gossipy about me, as I am the only one who asks about their work and tries to instruct them on how they can improve.

I’m to the point where I feel like the best step would be to make the skills tests mandatory (after 18 months of employment) and those who would rather gossip than take relevant advice will be filtered out. However, this could very well lead to losing a lot of people which would bring back the high turnover issues we had before. What should I do?

Separate the test issue from the negativity and gossip, because they’re two different things. It only makes sense to make the test mandatory if you genuinely need people to have mastered those skills in order to stay in their jobs; if you don’t, then don’t require it. Requirements should line up with what you actually need.

Is the negativity and gossip all coming from people being annoyed that you keep coaching them on their work? And is the coaching being framed as to help them pass the test? It’s of course reasonable for managers to coach people on their work, and if you employees are bristling at that, then is it something about the way you’re doing it? Are you micromanaging? Picking the wrong time when they’re busy with something else? Being overly critical or having unrealistic standards? I don’t know, but that’s where I’d start looking, and you should ask people directly for their perspectives about that. If it’s not the way you’re coaching them and they just object to the idea of needing to get better at their jobs, then there’s a pretty serious problem with the people you’ve hired and are choosing to retain (and zero turnover is not always the right goal; sometimes you need some turnover). But start by finding out what exactly people are bothered by.

3. How can I tell colleagues their AI-generated writing is making my work harder?

I am a communications professional who does a lot of writing, mostly speeches and written messages for the president of our organization. I’m being promoted to a role that’s more focused on strategy, so some of the writing needs to come off my plate. I’ve worked with my supervisor to delegate some assignments to others across the organization. Our fundraising communications lead, for example, will write the fundraising message from the president. My problem is that writing keeps coming back to me having clearly been written by AI. I think it’s partly because the person submitting it thinks it’s good enough (it’s not), but mostly because they know it will go through me to put it into the president’s voice before it actually goes to the president — so they know I will just rewrite it if I have to.

It’s obvious that most of these deliverables are a slight rephrasing of something I’ve written in the past, with a few prompts to fit the topic of the new message, and very little editing. The classic signs of AI are all there, like overuse of buzzwords and certain sentence structures. Look, I use AI as a writing tool too, but it’s just that — a tool that can help me finesse or wordsmith, not something I ever use verbatim. Our president has a very high standard for anything with her signature attached. It has to sound like it is truly in her voice and sends an authentic message.

How can I help my colleagues understand that they need to do more than have ChatGPT spit out a draft? I’d guess the answer is to just give them really clear feedback on how the draft needs to be improved (whether or not it was AI-derived), and train them more thoroughly on presidential voice and tone. But the age of AI is making this problem a lot more rampant than it was before. I want to tell them that it’s really obvious this is an AI message, but I also don’t want to sound hypocritical because it is a part of my toolkit too. I also don’t manage any of these staff, they’re just colleagues across the org, sometimes lower than me in hierarchy but oftentimes at the same level. I can tell they use AI all the time in the work they produce in their own divisions, but when it comes from the president, the layers of approval are different and I need them to raise the standard.

First, training people to write in a specific person’s voice is hard. Unless these are professional writers, it’s a skill that the majority of people don’t have, and probably won’t develop in the time you have available to train them. So it might not be realistic to expect them to turn in copy that’s already in the president’s voice. But it’s definitely realistic to expect them to not give you slop, so focus there.

Also, you’re right that it makes sense to give really clear feedback on the specific ways the draft needs to be improved. But it’s also fine to say something like, “Can I ask whether you used AI as part of this? Some of it reading as AI to me, and we obviously never want our work to sound that way. So if that’s part of your process, it’s helpful for me to know so we can jointly figure out what will help get these closer to what we need.” (That’s more nuanced than “never use AI for these,” although that might ultimately be what you end up telling them. Approaching it this way also might make them more willing to be open about if it they did use it.)

4. Can I leave my master’s off my resume?

For reasons that are obvious, I am considering leaving the federal workforce. Jobs I’m considering require a bachelors degree and a certain number of years experience.

I have a master’s degree. Would it be bad form to leave the master’s off of job applications and resumes? Would employers be upset if they found out afterwards that I had a master’s and did not reveal this during the application process/interview? Could it lead to an adverse action if they did find out?

You can leave the master’s off your resume if you think it will make you a more competitive candidate. A resume is a marketing document designed to present your strengths, not an exhaustive listing of everything you’ve ever done. (The exception to this is if you’re filling out an application that explicitly asks for the highest level of education you’ve completed.)

That said, I wouldn’t automatically assume it will help to leave it off. In some cases it might — like if the master’s is in a totally different field and might raise questions about how committed you really are to the jobs you’re applying for now (which is BS for many reasons, but is a thing that happens) or if it’s likely to make them think they can’t afford you. But in many jobs it would be a plus or a neutral.

The post the CEO caught cheating on Jumbotron, my employees don’t want to earn raises, and more appeared first on Ask a Manager.

[syndicated profile] allthingslinguistic_feed

lingthusiasm:

We asked you if a burrito was a sandwich, and you said ‘no’. We asked you if ravioli was a sandwich and you said 'heck no’. We asked you if an ice cream sandwich was a sandwich and things…started to get a little murky. This isn’t just a sandwich problem: you can also have similar arguments about what counts as a cup, a bird, a fish, furniture, art, and more! 

So wait…does any word mean anything anymore? Have we just broken language??  It’s okay, linguistics has a solution! 

In this episode, your hosts Gretchen McCulloch and Lauren Gawne get enthusiastic about why deciding what’s in and what’s out of the definition of a word is so dang tricky, why people love to argue about it, and how prototype theory solves all the “is X a Y” arguments once and for all. 

Note that this episode originally aired as Bonus 9: Is X a sandwich? Solving the word-meaning argument once and for all. We’ve added an updated announcements section to the top and a few new things about prototypes and meaning to the end. We’re excited to share one of our favourite bonus episodes from Patreon with a broader audience, while at the same time giving everyone who works on the show a bit of a break.

Click here for a link to this episode in your podcast player of choice or read the transcript here.

Announcements:

In this month’s bonus episode we get enthusiastic about fictional gestures with Eric Molinsky, host of Imaginary Worlds, a podcast about sci-fi, fantasy and other genres of speculative fiction! We talk about the Vulcan salute from Star Trek, the Wakanda Forever salute from Black Panther, and the three-finger Hunger Games salute, and how all three have crossed over with additional symbolism into the real world. We also talk about gestures that have crossed over in the other direction, from the real-world origins of the Vulcan salute in a Jewish blessing, the two-finger blessing in the Foundation tv series from classical Latin and Greek oratory via Christian traditions, as well as religious gesture in the Penric and Desdemona series, smiles and shrugs in A Memory Called Empire, and more.

Join us on Patreon now to get access to this and 100+ other bonus episodes. You’ll also get access to the Lingthusiasm Discord server where you can chat with other language nerds.

Here are the links mentioned in the episode:

You can listen to this episode via Lingthusiasm.com, Soundcloud, RSS, Apple Podcasts/iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also download an mp3 via the Soundcloud page for offline listening.

To receive an email whenever a new episode drops, sign up for the Lingthusiasm mailing list.

You can help keep Lingthusiasm ad-free, get access to bonus content, and more perks by supporting us on Patreon.

Lingthusiasm is on Bluesky, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon, and Tumblr. Email us at contact [at] lingthusiasm [dot] com

Gretchen is on Bluesky as @GretchenMcC and blogs at All Things Linguistic.

Lauren is on Bluesky as @superlinguo and blogs at Superlinguo.

Lingthusiasm is created by Gretchen McCulloch and Lauren Gawne. Our senior producer is Claire Gawne, our production editor is Sarah Dopierala, our production assistant is Martha Tsutsui Billins, our editorial assistant is Jon Kruk, and our technical editor is Leah Velleman. Our music is ‘Ancient City’ by The Triangles.This episode of Lingthusiasm is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license (CC 4.0 BY-NC-SA).

[syndicated profile] lawyersgunsmoneyblog_feed

Posted by Scott Lemieux

This is, I assure you, a very real tweet sent out by the Vice President of the United States:

Is there a fancy German term for when a rhetorical question is a rhetorical question for precisely the opposite reason that the speaker suggests that it is?

In addition to being farcical on its own merits, there’s the additional problem that “we never saw the letter” is not compatible with the message being sent by the J.D.’s boss:

VANCE: They never showed us the letter TRUMP: We told them the letter is a fake

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) Jul 17, 2025 at 5:51 PM

The larger problem is that there’s zero chance that Rupert fuckin’ Murdoch would allow this story to run if it wasn’t absolutely rock solid, and I’m not sure that Julian Assange has a secret cache of risotto recipes that will immediately bury the story. I don’t think “have you heard Uncle Joe Brandon is old” is gonna do it either:

Begin the thawing of Hillary Clinton’s email server.

The post The murder of the slaying of the homicide of parody appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

oriolegirl: (baseball: the move)
[personal profile] oriolegirl
After the week of I just can't, I'm having a week of I totally can.

Monday was the nutritionist and adventures with ZipCar.

Tuesday I finally did the student loan paperwork I've been procastinating on for several months. And after an hour of freaking out about how the hell I'll pay the new montly payment amount, I realized that I'd mathed incorrectly. I generally like getting paid every other week, but sometimes it makes things complicated.

Wednesday I saw the therapist and we talked about the week of I just can't, and came up with a list of things to do to try to get out of that next time it happens, as well as a list of things not to do. Then I went to a TIAA webinar, similar to the one I skipped last week. Nothing really surprising there, and I'm meeting with my TIAA guy next week.

Today, after almost a year and a half, I finally put together the last bookcase I got at Ikea. And then I moved all of my books from the living room and put them on the shelves. Now all that's left is all the library books. Still, it's so much better. I did skip the student loan webinar I'd signed up for as I did do the paperwork yesterday so I didn't really need to hear about it. I'm sure there'll be a recording or something.

And tomorrow is Friday! I have three hours in a row of chat first thing, ugh, but then it's a pretty light day. And the weather should be cool enough and less humid enough that I'll be able to open all the windows! Truly something to look forward to. But there should also be a deluge of packages. I had carefully scheduled things to arrive over the course of three days but tracking says everything is coming tomorrow. Multiple trips up to the lobby to pick it all up, including the awkwardly large package and the stupidly heavy package. Gah. Still, windows open! Perhaps even a walk before the sun goes down.
[syndicated profile] icanhascheezburger_feed

Posted by Sarah Brown

Cats jumping on counters is the ultimate display of feline finesse and stealthy snack scouting! These clever kitties believe that the higher the perch, the better the view and the tastier the treats. Despite our best efforts to counter their shenanigans, they leap and bound with purrfect precision, turning kitchens into their own personal jungle gyms.

It's like they have an internal GPS guiding them straight to anything remotely edible. That mysterious allure of a plate left unattended or a shiny, suspiciously tasty wrapper is just too much to resist. Sure, they might get the "paws off the counter" talk now and then, but do they listen? Not a whisker! Instead, they give us those wide-eyed innocent looks as if to say, "Who, me? Just inspecting the premises."

Counter-surfing cats are the ultimate snack bandits, masters of the midnight raid, and champions of kitchen chaos. But honestly, how can you stay mad when they're this cute? Just try not to leave out any treats, or you might find your counters conquered by the sneakiest paws in the house!

Fluff. Chaos. Drama! Our weekly cat newsletter has it all -  subscribe here.

[syndicated profile] dailykos_feed

They’re having a meltdown over at r/conservative, the main political hub for right-wing users on Reddit. In thread after thread after thread after thread, pro-MAGA users are losing their minds over President Donald Trump’s gaslighting on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

On Wednesday, a furious Trump called his own supporters “weaklings” for demanding his administration release the Epstein case files. He said his “PAST supporters have bought into this ‘bullshit,’” and declared, “I don’t want their support anymore!”

Daaaamn. Epstein has been a central fixation of right-wing conspiracy theorists for years—one Trump himself has gleefully exploited. He repeatedly promoted the idea that Democrats, especially former President Bill Clinton, were implicated. And while the vast majority of the conspiracy ecosystem is nonsense, there is a legitimate core question: Who were the powerful people who abused the underage girls Epstein trafficked? If his co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of helping traffic the girls, who were the clients?

That gap in public knowledge—i.e., verifiable crimes but very few named perpetrators—has long fueled the Epstein conspiracies. And now Trump is pretending it’s all a “Hoax”? Even his base isn’t buying it.

For the first time in memory, a significant chunk of Trump’s online base is taking off the blinders. They’re not just furious that Trump is calling the Epstein files a Democratic smear job—they’re seeing it in the context of broader betrayals:

There are countless comments like that one: Trump said he’d end the war in Ukraine and cut the debt but now he’s arming Ukraine and signed a spending bill that adds trillions to the deficit. I want him to support Ukraine (assuming he doesn’t flip-flop), but it’s enraging his fanbase that loves Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. And the budget deficit? His base doesn’t yet realize how badly this bill will gut rural America—but they do know it explodes the deficit.

And yet … none of that made them waver much. Not until now. Not until Epstein.

And Trump is so rattled by the backlash that he’s pretending to dump them before they can dump him. “I don’t want their support anymore!” he wrote in Wednesday’s Truth Social post.

What happens next is anyone’s guess. Never underestimate the cult’s ability to rationalize themselves back into his arms. But this time? This break feels real. It might finally be too deep to mend.

[syndicated profile] dailykos_feed

A daily roundup of the best stories and cartoons by Daily Kos staff and contributors to keep you in the know.

They came for us. We stood strong. We won.

And we couldn’t have done it without your support!

DOJ's latest firing ensures Epstein scandal won't go away

Hmm … that’s not suspicious at all.

Senate GOP deals blow to rural America in voting to defund NPR and PBS

Republicans are doing what they do best: hurting their own base.

Democratic senators are fed up with GOP colleagues’ bullsh-t

“This is us simply trying to rush through one of the most controversial nominees we’ve had under this presidential administration.”

You won’t believe the latest evidence of Trump’s brain rot

He’s very good at making up stories, we’ll give him that.

Cartoon: Fed TACO

Will he stay, or will he go?

Even Republican elections officials aren’t down with Trump’s demands

Unfortunately for Trump, people who run elections are fanatical about election security.

Trump wants cane sugar in Coke—at the expense of corn country

He’s alienating his voters in the name of … Mexican Coke?

Click here to see more cartoons.

[syndicated profile] lawyersgunsmoneyblog_feed

Posted by Erik Loomis

Let’s watch Siskel & Ebert discuss Spinal Tap. We can kill two birds with one stone here–talking about At the Movies, which was must watch viewing for me for a long time, and talking about This is Spinal Tap, merely one of the perfect comedies of all time.

The post LGM Film Club, Part 502: Siskel & Ebert Review Spinal Tap appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

The Late Late Show

Jul. 18th, 2025 12:51 am
[syndicated profile] lawyersgunsmoneyblog_feed

Posted by Robert Farley

Huh.

In a decision that shocked the entertainment industry and comedy world, CBS said on Thursday that it was canceling the most-watched show in late night, “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” and retiring a franchise that has existed for more than three decades.

Mr. Colbert’s run — and “The Late Show” itself — will end in May.

CBS executives said in a statement that the cancellation was “purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night.”

“It is not related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount,” said the executives, who included George Cheeks, the president of CBS and a co-chief executive of Paramount, CBS’s parent. “Our admiration, affection and respect for the talents of Stephen Colbert and his incredible team made this agonizing decision even more difficult.”

Mr. Colbert said during a taping of “The Late Show” that he was informed of the decision on Wednesday night. When his studio audience unleashed a chorus of boos upon hearing the news, Mr. Colbert said, “Yeah, I share your feelings.”

Huh.

Late night talk show host Stephen Colbert went nuclear on his parent corporation, Paramount, after the company settled a bombshell lawsuit with Donald Trump for a whopping $16 million. 

Trump accused Paramount’s network, CBS, which also airs The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, of falsely editing an interview with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris before the election

Although the network didn’t admit to any journalistic wrongdoing, the massive settlement will cover Trump’s legal fees and his future presidential library.

Paramount also agreed to release unedited transcripts of 60 Minutes interviews with presidential candidates. 

Colbert didn’t hesitate to take shots at his parent corporation, confessing in his opening monologue on Wednesday’s episode that he was ‘offended’ by the actions of his employer. 

The late night host called the lawsuit against CBS a ‘nuisance,’ and claimed that Paramount could’ve ‘easily fought it’ citing the company’s own words calling the allegations ‘completely without merit.’

‘And keep in mind Paramount produced Transformers: Rise of the Beast. They know “completely without merit,”‘ Colbert joked, poking fun at the Paramount+ film that bombed at the box office

Huh.

The post The Late Late Show appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

[syndicated profile] dailykos_feed

President Donald Trump’s recent handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case files marks one of the few times where his MAGA base is not marching in lockstep with him. Trump and the Justice Department, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, continue to stonewall efforts to release documents related to Epstein, a convicted sex offender who was also charged with trafficking underaged girls.

While most congressional Republicans have resisted Democratic attempts to make the information public, a few have broken ranks. However, among conservative pundits, some prominent figures are more openly criticizing Trump.

White supremacist and former Mar-a-Lago dinner guest Nick Fuentes complained on a recent episode of his podcast that Trump’s actions regarding the Epstein case proves he is a “scam artist.”

“This entire thing has been a scam,” Fuentes said. “We are going to look back on the MAGA movement as the biggest scam in American history. And the liberals were right—the MAGA supporters were had.”

x

Longtime Trump supporter and notorious conspiracy theorist Alex Jones also complained about Trump’s actions and rhetoric chastising conservatives for their concern about the Epstein cover-up.

“Trump, if this continues down this line, if he starts saying ‘I'll excommunicate people,’ well—you're not allowed, unless it's a cult, to say to people, ‘You either agree with everything I do and don't question things, or you're not in our club. I don't want you.’ Well, that kinda sounds like a thoroughbred cult to me,” Jones said on his show on Wednesday.

Right-wing pundit Matt Walsh, who is most notorious for his attacks on transgender rights, conceded on his Monday show that Trump had mishandled the issue. 

“Pam Bondi needs to go, at a minimum,” he said, and accused her of lying to the public about Epstein’s purported client list, which she claimed to have during a Fox News interview in February.

Despite the protests of his true believers, Trump has always used his position to hype conspiracy theories without delivering on them. Before he became president, Trump claimed that private investigators were set to expose former President Barack Obama for purportedly not being a U.S. citizen. That never happened—but figures like Jones and Walsh continued to back him.

Now that they are on the other end of Trump’s lies, they are newly critical.

Trump is continuing his efforts to spin the story, including firing federal prosecutor Maurene Comey, who put Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell behind bars. But the anger at Trump is real from all sides, and his old technique for dodging blame doesn't seem like it will work this time.

[syndicated profile] lawyersgunsmoneyblog_feed

Posted by Paul Campos

President Donald Trump threatened to sue the Wall Street Journal over a story it published Thursday saying he sent a letter to the disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein on Epstein’s 50th birthday.

The letter bearing Trump’s name, reviewed by the Journal, is dated 2003 and is said to feature several lines of typewritten text surrounded by the outline of a naked woman, sketched in marker.

The illustration also includes two small arcs representing breasts, with Trump’s signature written below the waist and resembling pubic hair, the report said.

The letter reportedly concludes: “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

The president told the Journal in a Tuesday interview: “This is not me. This is a fake thing. It’s a fake Wall Street Journal story. I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women. It’s not my language. It’s not my words.”

He also said he would file a lawsuit against the newspaper, which is owned by the conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch, if it published the story:

“I’m gonna sue The Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else,” he said, according to the newspaper.

Sure you will Donnie.

The whole QAnon craziness is absolutely central to the Trump cult, so this is turning out to be a pretty tricky story arc. Maybe it makes no difference, maybe it’s the thing that destroys him, maybe it’ll be somewhere in the middle.

The next six months will be crucial.

The post Trump threatens to sue WSJ after paper reveals pervy letter he wrote to Jeffrey Epstein appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

[syndicated profile] snopes_feed

Posted by Emery Winter

People on social media are sharing dramatic videos of rushing flood waters as if they're footage of the deadly July 2025 flooding. They're not.
[syndicated profile] dailykos_feed

President Donald Trump’s Justice Department wants the cop convicted of violating Breonna Taylor’s civil rights to serve just one day in jail—and suggests he never should’ve been prosecuted in the first place. 

The DOJ made the surprising request late Wednesday night, asking a judge to sentence Brett Hankison—the only officer convicted so far on criminal charges related to the deadly 2020 raid on Taylor’s apartment—to a single day behind bars, which would count as time served. The department also recommended three years of supervised release and used the memo to argue that Hankison never should have faced civil rights charges in the first place.

Former Louisville Police officer Brett Hankison describes what he saw in the apartment of Breonna Taylor during testimony, March 2, 2022, in Louisville, Ky. A federal judge on Thursday, Nov. 16, 2023 declared a mistrial in the trial of the former Louisville police officer who fired stray bullets in the deadly Breonna Taylor raid. Hankison was charged with using excessive force that violated the rights of Taylor, her boyfriend and her next-door neighbors. The 12-member jury struggled over several days to reach a verdict. (AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley, Pool)
Former Louisville Police officer Brett Hankison describes what he saw in the apartment of Breonna Taylor during testimony, on March 2, 2022, in Louisville, Kentucky.

The request wasn’t just unusually lenient—it was blatantly political. It wasn’t signed by the career prosecutors who handled the case, but by Trump appointee Harmeet Dhillon, who now heads the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, and her senior counsel, Robert Keenan. Neither had a role in prosecuting Hankison.

Hankison, a former Louisville officer, was found guilty last year after firing 10 shots through a covered window and glass door during a botched “no-knock” raid, endangering Taylor and her neighbors. None of the bullets hit Taylor, but several tore through the apartment’s walls and into the unit next door. Taylor was fatally shot by another officer after her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired a warning shot with a legally owned firearm.

Taylor’s killing happened just weeks before the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, and became a key moment for the Black Lives Matter movement—one of several cases that sparked nationwide protests against police violence. Before Hankison’s conviction, the only person held criminally responsible in the raid was Kelly Goodlett, a former detective who pleaded guilty to federal charges for helping falsify the search warrant used to enter Taylor’s home and cover up her actions after Taylor’s death.

If Hankison gets a lenient sentence, it could reignite anger among activists who say the justice system protects police officers from consequences. His federal conviction was the first time any officer had been held criminally responsible in Taylor’s death. He faces up to life in prison, with sentencing scheduled for Monday.

But the DOJ’s new filing insists Hankison “did not shoot Ms. Taylor and is not otherwise responsible for her death.” The memo notes that the Justice Department respects the jury’s verdict, but questions whether the case should’ve gone forward at all, stating: “Counsel is unaware of another prosecution in which a police officer has been charged with depriving the rights of another person under the Fourth Amendment for returning fire and not injuring anyone.” 

Legal experts and former DOJ officials were alarmed. According to The Washington Post, Samantha Trepel, a former civil rights prosecutor who helped secure convictions against the officers who violated Floyd’s rights, called the memo “transparent, last-minute political interference” and “a betrayal of the jury’s verdict.”

The memo, she said, sends a dangerous message “that the Justice Department will not hold officers accountable who violate the law.”

Hankison was previously acquitted on state charges. His first federal trial ended in a mistrial in November 2023, but a second jury convicted him last November. Notably, they found him not guilty on a separate charge involving Taylor’s neighbors.


Related  | Justice Department smothers Biden-era police reform deal


The DOJ memo is just the latest sign of Trump’s aggressive efforts to dismantle Biden-era reforms meant to hold law enforcement accountable. In May, the department eliminated consent decrees in Minneapolis and Louisville, Kentucky, two cities at the center of the 2020 protests. Consent decrees are legally binding court agreements meant to enforce civil rights reforms in departments found to have engaged in unconstitutional practices.

And it fits Trump’s broader pattern: from Daniel Penny to Kyle Rittenhouse, he’s repeatedly embraced men who harmed or killed people of color, then turned them into heroes.

So yes, Trump loves criminals. But only the ones who serve his politics.

Physician, Heal Thyself

Jul. 17th, 2025 10:31 pm
[syndicated profile] lawyersgunsmoneyblog_feed

Posted by Erik Loomis

Barack Obama has had enough of Democrats failed leadership and wants more. That’s great, but dude, where have you been?

Former President Barack Obama has a stern critique for members of his party: Too many have been cowed into silence.

In private remarks to party donors on Friday night, Mr. Obama scolded Democrats for failing to speak out against President Trump and his policies, suggesting they were shrinking from the challenge out of fear of retribution.

“It’s going to require a little bit less navel-gazing and a little less whining and being in fetal positions. And it’s going to require Democrats to just toughen up,” Mr. Obama said at a fund-raiser for the Democratic National Committee at the home of Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey.

“What I have been surprised by is the degree to which I’ve seen people who, when I was president, or progressives, liberals, stood for all kinds of stuff, who seem like they’re kind of cowed and intimidated and shrinking away from just asserting what they believe, or at least what they said they believe,” he added.

Locked out of power in Washington, Democrats have been largely arguing among themselves about how to confront a hostile Trump administration. Mr. Obama’s remarks were circulated by his office on Monday.

He expressed particular disdain for law firms that he said had been willing to “set aside the law” in response to Mr. Trump’s actions “not because, by the way, that they’re going to be thrown in jail, but because they might lose a few clients and might not be able to finish that kitchen rehab at their Hampton house. I’m not impressed.”

Mr. Obama did not mention Columbia University, his alma mater, which is on the verge of paying hundreds of millions of dollars to settle with the Trump administration over accusations it permitted antisemitism on campus, or name any of the prominent Democratic law firms that have made deals with Mr. Trump’s White House.

But the former president’s comments were interpreted by people in the room as a critique of the party’s elites for having gone quiet when they were sorely needed to step up, according to a person who attended.

The excerpts provided by Mr. Obama’s office contained no evidence of physician-heal-thyself reflectiveness. Mr. Obama, after all, has scarcely been at the tip of the Democratic spear in resisting Mr. Trump. He has issued few public statements opposing Trump administration actions and has yet to appear this year at a rally, town hall or other public event staged by opponents of Mr. Trump.

Funny, I didn’t even read the reference to the title of this post until after I titled it. But really, Barry, where the fuck you been?

I don’t know what the tenor of commenters around here on this issue has been of late, but back in the first term of Trump, there was a lot of “President Obama has done everything he needs to do for us and stop criticizing him.” That’s just stupid. We are facing the end of American democracy. But Mr. Norms wouldn’t step up to lead against him. And he did almost nothing in 2024 either. And then we finally get to the summer of 25 and finally he intimates that maybe Democrats should be doing something. I agree. And it starts with the only Democrat who can actually tie all the parts of the party together and lead a future fight. That’s Barack Obama. No, he can’t run for president again. Yes, he is still the only man who can provide the key leadership here.

So Obama, yes, more of this. Start actually leading. John Quincy Adams did it after his presidency. Jimmy Carter did it in his own way too. You don’t have just to spend time with the world’s richest people and working on your library and building a fancy Hawaii compound. Of course you can do all those things too. But this is the future of America here. It’s all hands on deck. Only in America would a former leader just disappear while the nation’s political system collapsed.

The post Physician, Heal Thyself appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.

雨? Rain?

Jul. 17th, 2025 11:00 pm
[syndicated profile] maru_feed

Posted by mugumogu

3猫どーこだ? Where are 3 cats? 正解は―― The answer is — ↑ここでした! Here! いつもはなが難しい。 Hana is always difficult. 急にポツポ […]
[syndicated profile] icanhascheezburger_feed

Posted by Sarah Brown

Sometimes the only thing getting us through a day full of clawful coworkers is a lineup of cat memes that just get it. Whether it's that one guy who takes credit for your work, the boss who schedules a meeting that could've been an email, or the team member who disappears whenever there's actual work to do there's a cat meme for that.

These whiskered wonders purrfectly capture the drama, the eye rolls, the passive-aggressive snack note wars, and the deep desire to just curl up in a box and ignore all emails. One second you're trying to stay professional, the next you're relating a little too hard to a cat giving side-eye from a coffee mug.

Because when your coworkers are being the hissterical kind of exhausting, laughter is your best office survival strategy. And luckily, no one throws shade quite like a feline.

So grab your emotional support coffee, scroll through these relatable memes, and remember: you're not alone in your workplace catastrophes.

Fluff. Chaos. Drama! Our weekly cat newsletter has it all -  subscribe here.

Profile

etumukutenyak: (Default)
etumukutenyak

January 2022

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30 31     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 18th, 2025 05:11 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios