The problem with Substack, from the perspective of a consumer of truthful news, is that I cannot afford to pay all the Substack commentators each month. To me, paying for Substack does not simply substitute for the NYT and WP subscriptions I have cancelled. So, thank you, Charlie Sukes, for sharing your viewpoint! Much appreciated by a very senior person on a limited income! When possible, I will pay for this one!
I've been reading your posts since you started The Bulwark which I supported with donations from the inception. I and many others have finite resources and cannot afford to support everyone so I have a question. If I am a paid supporter of your Substack does any of that support cross over to other writers? As you noted above, you link to many other great writers here but I simply cannot be a paid subscriber to all of them. It would be wonderful if there was a way to be a paid subscriber and have that support cross benefit the many writers here. I am not sure how the finances on Substack work.
Charlie- I’m behind your shows. With AdamK. You guys never talk about the idea regarding Russia that Trump is in on the game. He’s with Putin. Their goals are aligned. What if it isn’t that he’ s that he’s being played, We are being played. Possible?
Ahead in the polls in February, Australian conservatives announced their own DOGE and were using other MAGAcronyms.
Last night - obliterated in an historically bad result. Australians took one look at the far right populist fringe and gave a resounding, "Get stuffed" to it. Man, I love my country today.
A black (✅) woman (✅) Supreme Court Justice had to do what a bunch of white men couldn't be bothered to do (or else simply were not brave enough to do): defend the law of the land and the judges who order it.
There aren't enough prank pizzas in the world for that . . .
About Shakespeare's words: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” from the Wall Street Journal:
"The line comes from Shakespeare’s 'Henry VI, Part 2' and is spoken by Dick the Butcher, the dopey henchman of rebel leader Jack Cade. According to the attorneys’ interpretation ... Shakespeare’s point is to portray lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law who stand in the way of a fanatical mob."
Thank you for providing the opportunity for free subscribers to comment as well — some of us are on very limited incomes and unable to get behind the paywalls as you note. The loss of their voices diminishes the community we are building to defend the republic.
THE CASE FOR NOT RETAINING PAUL WEISS, SIMPSON THACHER, SKADDEN ARPS AND OTHER LAW FIRMS THAT HAVE SOUGHT TO REAP PROFITS BY SUPPORTING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES
We all know the commitments that a number of high-power law firms have made to the Trump administration to both promote their ideologies, especially through their pro bono programs, and to desist from contesting any element of their ideologies or the legality of any Executive Order, regulation or other position of the Trump administration. These law firms have succumbed to Trump's extortionate threats, rather than challenge them, both as victims and beneficiaries of Trump's abuses of power.
Any potential client of any of these firms needs to open their eyes to the potential backfire that such a retention may cause.
First of all, Paul Weiss, for example, would have a duty to disclose to any potential client any potential conflict of interest in representing them should any issue arise during negotiations or litigation that would cause a reasonable lawyer acting in good faith to challenge the legality of any act, regulation or position taken by the Trump administration on Constitutional or other grounds. Of course, a lawyer not acting in good faith might just find it convenient to neglect to raise what would otherwise be a meritorious issue in the client's favor because it would contravene the agreement with the Trump administration. Therefore, any potential client worth their salt would have to be on guard to foresee whether, somewhere down the road, the law firm may have a conflict of interest which they may either neglect to reveal or reveal and have to refer the client to a law firm that did not succumb to Trump's extortionate abuses of power.
On a different issue, these law firms may be missing out on hiring the best and the brightest law school graduates. I would expect that many law school graduates, especially those who have taken courses in legal ethics or professional responsibility, as my law school offered, may be more morally conscious than the boards of these high-power firms and will shun applying to them.
Furthermore, many law schools themselves may already be withdrawing invitations to these law firms to recruit graduates on campus, which may result in these law firms hiring less qualified graduates, who would naturally be assigned to handling their pro bono clients.
Indeed, it could be very precarious for a corporation or individual to retain one of these firms only to discover far down the road that they cannot or will not raise a valid legal issue to their benefit because it would cause them to violate their agreement with the Trump administration.
I worked with Perkins Coie on IPO’s when I was a junior associate at an accounting firm. So happy that they are sticking to their guns. Judge Jackson is absolutely right, we will not be a free society if judges are attacked. We are indeed going downhill quickly. Just a few weeks ago, I saw USCIS issued a warning to green card holders to mind their speeches and social media posts as their right to stay in the US is not guaranteed.
The problem with Substack, from the perspective of a consumer of truthful news, is that I cannot afford to pay all the Substack commentators each month. To me, paying for Substack does not simply substitute for the NYT and WP subscriptions I have cancelled. So, thank you, Charlie Sukes, for sharing your viewpoint! Much appreciated by a very senior person on a limited income! When possible, I will pay for this one!
I've been reading your posts since you started The Bulwark which I supported with donations from the inception. I and many others have finite resources and cannot afford to support everyone so I have a question. If I am a paid supporter of your Substack does any of that support cross over to other writers? As you noted above, you link to many other great writers here but I simply cannot be a paid subscriber to all of them. It would be wonderful if there was a way to be a paid subscriber and have that support cross benefit the many writers here. I am not sure how the finances on Substack work.
Charlie- I’m behind your shows. With AdamK. You guys never talk about the idea regarding Russia that Trump is in on the game. He’s with Putin. Their goals are aligned. What if it isn’t that he’ s that he’s being played, We are being played. Possible?
Great commentary and to the point
Ahead in the polls in February, Australian conservatives announced their own DOGE and were using other MAGAcronyms.
Last night - obliterated in an historically bad result. Australians took one look at the far right populist fringe and gave a resounding, "Get stuffed" to it. Man, I love my country today.
Those sweet boys anticipating your return are everything.
Charlie, I love Beryl Howell, adore the doggos & COVET that Chambers stove! What a beauty...
Love your Saturday Dogs picture.
Want your stove
A black (✅) woman (✅) Supreme Court Justice had to do what a bunch of white men couldn't be bothered to do (or else simply were not brave enough to do): defend the law of the land and the judges who order it.
There aren't enough prank pizzas in the world for that . . .
About Shakespeare's words: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” from the Wall Street Journal:
"The line comes from Shakespeare’s 'Henry VI, Part 2' and is spoken by Dick the Butcher, the dopey henchman of rebel leader Jack Cade. According to the attorneys’ interpretation ... Shakespeare’s point is to portray lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law who stand in the way of a fanatical mob."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/shakespeare-says-lets-kill-all-the-lawyers-but-some-attorneys-object-1408329001
Too tired to think about POS any more today. But the doggies - Nomi does the same thing even if I go get the mail. :-) Thank God for pets!
Thank you for providing the opportunity for free subscribers to comment as well — some of us are on very limited incomes and unable to get behind the paywalls as you note. The loss of their voices diminishes the community we are building to defend the republic.
THE CASE FOR NOT RETAINING PAUL WEISS, SIMPSON THACHER, SKADDEN ARPS AND OTHER LAW FIRMS THAT HAVE SOUGHT TO REAP PROFITS BY SUPPORTING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES
We all know the commitments that a number of high-power law firms have made to the Trump administration to both promote their ideologies, especially through their pro bono programs, and to desist from contesting any element of their ideologies or the legality of any Executive Order, regulation or other position of the Trump administration. These law firms have succumbed to Trump's extortionate threats, rather than challenge them, both as victims and beneficiaries of Trump's abuses of power.
Any potential client of any of these firms needs to open their eyes to the potential backfire that such a retention may cause.
First of all, Paul Weiss, for example, would have a duty to disclose to any potential client any potential conflict of interest in representing them should any issue arise during negotiations or litigation that would cause a reasonable lawyer acting in good faith to challenge the legality of any act, regulation or position taken by the Trump administration on Constitutional or other grounds. Of course, a lawyer not acting in good faith might just find it convenient to neglect to raise what would otherwise be a meritorious issue in the client's favor because it would contravene the agreement with the Trump administration. Therefore, any potential client worth their salt would have to be on guard to foresee whether, somewhere down the road, the law firm may have a conflict of interest which they may either neglect to reveal or reveal and have to refer the client to a law firm that did not succumb to Trump's extortionate abuses of power.
On a different issue, these law firms may be missing out on hiring the best and the brightest law school graduates. I would expect that many law school graduates, especially those who have taken courses in legal ethics or professional responsibility, as my law school offered, may be more morally conscious than the boards of these high-power firms and will shun applying to them.
Furthermore, many law schools themselves may already be withdrawing invitations to these law firms to recruit graduates on campus, which may result in these law firms hiring less qualified graduates, who would naturally be assigned to handling their pro bono clients.
Indeed, it could be very precarious for a corporation or individual to retain one of these firms only to discover far down the road that they cannot or will not raise a valid legal issue to their benefit because it would cause them to violate their agreement with the Trump administration.
Caveat emptor.
Sadly I had to say goodbye to one of my dear dogs this week. On top of everything else 😔
I'm so sorry, Thea. That's never easy and always heartbreaking. 😔 😢
I'm so sorry. I lost Tewlee 14 months ago. Still feel the pain at odd moments.
I'm sorry Thea, that always sucks
I’m very sorry, Thea. That is tough. 😢💔
I worked with Perkins Coie on IPO’s when I was a junior associate at an accounting firm. So happy that they are sticking to their guns. Judge Jackson is absolutely right, we will not be a free society if judges are attacked. We are indeed going downhill quickly. Just a few weeks ago, I saw USCIS issued a warning to green card holders to mind their speeches and social media posts as their right to stay in the US is not guaranteed.
The most infuriating thing about this is the consummate arrogance of these Trump people. Eminently punchable.