Author: TSA Press

Today
is
the
presidential
election,
and
as
always,
it
remains
incredibly
important
for
Biglaw
firms
to
do
their
best
to
not
only
make
sure
their
employees
perform
their
civic
duty
and
vote,
but
also
to
volunteer
to
help
others
do
the
same.
Back
in
2020,
many
Am
Law
100
and
200
firms
made
commitments
to
do
just
that,
announcing
that
Election
Day
would
be
a
paid
civic
holiday
—
but
this
year,
far
fewer
firms
are
offering
paid
time
off
to
vote.
In
fact,
we
know
of
only
one
firm
that
has
actively
publicized
that
it
was

offering
a
paid
day
off
on
Election
Day.

That
firm,
Mintz,
is
in
the
minority
in
2024
when
it
comes
to
offering
paid
time
off
for
employees
to
vote.
Firms
that
were
vocal
about
voter
participation
in
Election
2020
have
quieted
down
significantly
this
year.
The

American
Lawyer
has
additional
information:

Several
law
firms
that
gave
full
days
off
for
their
attorneys
and
staff
for
voting
and
Election
Day
activities
in
2020,
in
the
midst
of
the
COVID-19
pandemic,
didn’t
confirm
whether
they
were
doing
so
again
this
year.
Representatives
for
many
other
firms
also
didn’t
respond
to
messages
for
comment
on
whether
they
were
giving
staff
and
employees
a
full
day
off,
beyond
what
is
required
by
state
and
local
governments.

Overall,
Law.com
reached
out
to
15
Big
Law
firms
to
see
what
they
were
doing
to
make
voting
more
accessible.
Representatives
from
Paul,
Weiss,
Rifkind,
Wharton
&
Garrison;
Debevoise
&
Plimpton;
Hogan
Lovells;
and
Davis,
Polk
&
Wardwell
responded,
noting
their
firms
would
allow
personnel
time
off
for
voting,
with
most
adhering
to
the
law
in
New
York
and
other
states
that
mandate
two
hours
of
PTO
on
Election
Day
to
vote.

Four
years
ago,
Hogan
Lovells
made
Election
Day
a
paid
holiday
for
employees.
This
year,
the
firm
is
offering
employees
“two
hours
at
either
the
beginning
of,
or
end
of,
the
day
to
vote.”
Other
firms
that
gave
employees
the
day
off
to
vote
and
volunteer
in
2020
—
including
Orrick,
Jenner
&
Block,
and
Akin
Gump
—
did
not
respond
to
messages
from
Am
Law
seeking
comment
on
their
2024
Election
Day
plans.
Only
when
asked
about
the
firm’s
plans
did
Fenwick
&
West,
which
gave
employees

paid
time
off
for
Election
2020,
note
that
it
is
doing
the
same
thing
for
Election
2024.

It’s
certainly
disheartening
that
Biglaw
firms
aren’t
throwing
their
full
weight
behind
the
importance
of
voting
and
volunteering
for
the
2024
election
when
so
much
is
at
stake.
If
you
haven’t
voted
already,
please
make
sure
that
you
have
a

plan
to
vote
before
polls
close
today.

If
your
firm
is
giving
time
off
for
Election
Day
or
otherwise
supporting
voting
rights,
let
us
know.
Our
vast
network
of
tipsters
is
part
of
what
makes
Above
the
Law
thrive.
You
can

email
us or
text
us
(646-820-8477).

Fewer
Big
Law
Firms
Give
Full
PTO
This
Election
Day
[American
Lawyer]

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

Thomson
Reuters’
job
is
to
make
yours
better.

That’s
why
Practical
Law
provides
expert-written
and
maintained
how-to
guides,
templates,
checklists,
comparison
charts,
and
more,
combined
with
powerful
generative
AI
capabilities
that
help
you
move
faster
from
question
to
work
product.

Practical
Law
resources
are
written
and
maintained
by
our
expert
team
of
650+
attorney
editors
and
are
constantly
updated
to
reflect
the
latest
law
and
market
practice.

We’re
pleased
to
share
this
new
eBook,
which
contains
sample
resources
for
employment
lawyers.

Download
it
to
explore:

• Common
  Motion
  in
  Limine
  Issues
  in
  Employment
  Cases
• WARN
  Act
  Compliance
  Checklist
• Other
  Employment
  Law
  Resources

Download
Now

In
this
episode
of
The
Jabot,
I
chat
with

Mary
Anne
Franks,
a
leading
voice
in
intellectual
property
and
civil
rights
law.
Uncover
the
essence
of
fearless
speech
and
why
it’s
crucial
in
today’s
world.
Explore
bold
concepts
from
her
new
book
that
challenge
conventional
First
Amendment
beliefs.
A
must-listen
for
anyone
intrigued
by
legal
boundaries
and
free
speech
dynamics!

Highlights

• Life
  and
  career
  updates
  since
  2020.
• Transition
  from
  Miami
  to
  George
  Washington
  University.
• Balancing
  academia
  and
  publication.
• Clear
  communication
  as
  education
  and
  writing
  goal.
• Importance
  of
  free
  speech.
• Why
  focus
  on
  the
  First
  Amendment
  in
  the
  second
  book.
• The
  constant
  evolution
  of
  First
  Amendment
  discussions.
• Public
  and
  legal
  misconceptions
  about
  censorship.
• Members
  of
  Congress
  misunderstanding
  censorship.
• New
  framework
  for
  evaluating
  and
  understanding
  free
  speech.
• Definition
  and
  importance
  of
  “Fearless
  Speech.”
• Story
  of
  Dorothy
  Thompson
  as
  an
  example
  of
  fearless
  speech.
• Difference
  between
  protecting
  and
  promoting
  speech.
• University
  campuses
  and
  the
  issue
  of
  controversial
  speakers.

The
Jabot
podcast
is
an
offshoot
of
the
Above
the
Law
brand
focused
on
the
challenges
women,
people
of
color,
LGBTQIA,
and
other
diverse
populations
face
in
the
legal
industry.
Our
name
comes
from
none
other
than
the
Notorious
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
and
the
jabot
(decorative
collar)
she
wore
when
delivering
dissents
from
the
bench.
It’s
a
reminder
that
even
when
we
aren’t
winning,
we’re
still
a
powerful
force
to
be
reckoned
with.

Happy
listening!

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

Employers
have
a
fiduciary
duty
to
ensure
they’re
providing
their
employees
with
the
best
medical
benefits
for
the
best
price.
However,
they’re
often

struggling
to
access
their
data
from
their
third-party
administrators
in
order
to
do
this.
Under
the
Consolidated
Appropriations
Act
of
2021,
employers
are
supposed
to
have
better
access
to
their
claims
data
and
can’t
enter
into
an
agreement
with
a
third-party
administrator
that
limits
their
access.

For
one
industry
expert,
this
issue
is
top
of
mind.

“[Employers]
are
having
more
and
more
accountability
placed
on
them
as
purchasers,
with
less
and
less
responsiveness
from
the
industry,”
said
Elizabeth
Mitchell,
president
and
CEO
of
the

Purchaser
Business
Group
on
Health,
in
a
recent
interview.
“So
they
will
be
changing
how
they
think
about
healthcare
procurement.
Transparency
is
table
stakes.
It
is
an
expectation.
It’s
clarified
in
the
law
that
they’re
entitled
to
the
data,
and
they
will
be
looking
to
really
just
ensure
that
they
are
contracting
with
high-value
providers,
high-quality,
low-cost
providers.”

An
example
of
this
data
struggle
is
the

Kraft
Heinz/Aetna
case,
which
went
into
arbitration
in
December.
Kraft
Heinz
sued
Aetna
for
cherry-picking
data
and
other
reasons.
Some
employees
are
also
beginning
to
sue
their
employers
for
not
meeting
their
fiduciary
responsibilities.
This
was
seen
in
the

Johnson
&
Johnson
case,
in
which
an
employee
alleged
that
the
company
overpaid
for
prescription
drugs. 

Mitchell
also
shared
some
ways
PBGH
is
addressing
these
data
challenges.
The
organization
is
a
nonprofit
coalition
representing
about
40
private
employers
and
public
entities
in
the
U.S.

“We
work
really
closely
with
our
employer
members
on
how
to
be
an
effective
fiduciary.
…
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
are
doing
is
a
data
initiative
with
our
members
to
use
the
newly
available
[Consolidated
Appropriations
Act]
data
to
match
and
marry
it
with
their
claims
data
to
really
identify
who
are
top
performing
providers
in
various
regions,
and
doing
it
at
a
really
granular
level,”
she
said.
“Even
taking
the
step
of
using
their
data
is
protective
from
a
fiduciary
standpoint,
because
they
are
taking
big
steps
to
ensure
that
they
are
effectively
spending
the
money.”

She
added
that
PBGH
is
working
with
its
members
to
ensure
they
have
the
right
contracting
standards
in
place
and
have
more
accountability
from
their
partners.

Looking
ahead,
Mitchell
said
she
thinks
this
is
just
the
beginning
of
the
lawsuits
against
employers
for
not
upholding
their
fiduciary
responsibilities.
There
are
law
firms
actively
seeking
for
employees
to
sue
to
their
employers.

“There
is
every
indication
that
they
are
searching
for
employees
to
file
more
suits,”
she
said.
“So
it
is
expected.
It
is
definitely
getting
the
attention
of
a
lot
of
employer
C-suites
because
they
are
at
personal
risk,
personal
liability
due
to
the
[Consolidated
Appropriations
Act]
changes,
and
frankly,
they
have
not
been
getting
the
support
and
advice
from
their
trusted
partners
like
the
consultants
and
brokers
and
the
health
plans.
I
don’t
know
if
they
will
start
suing
any
of
them,
but
it
is
definitely
going
to
change
the
relationship.
It
has
to,
because
the
status
quo
isn’t
being
tolerated.” 

She’s
also
seeing
more
interest
in
employers
implementing
direct
contracting,
in
which
employers
contract
directly
with
a
physician
or
physician
group.
This
can
provide
cost
savings,
better
outcomes
and
better
access
to
care.

In
addition,
PBGH
is
actively
working
with
Congress
on
ways
“to
enable
successful
fiduciary
roles,”
Mitchell
said.

“There
needs
to
be
much
more
clarity
on
what
we
can
and
should
expect
from
plans
and
TPAs
and
all
the
middlemen
like
PBMs
and
some
accountability
and
transparency
there,”
she
argued.

Photo:
brazzo,
Getty
Images

*
“Several
Big
Law
firms
treat
nonequity
lawyers
as
full
partners
for
tax
purposes”
without
giving
them
the
share
of
profits
the
actual
partners
in
the
firm
receive.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Texas
loses
bid
to
bar
DOJ
from
sending
monitors
to
ensure
the
state
abides
by
voting
laws.
AG
Ken
Paxton
—
who
settled
outstanding
felony
charges
against
him

earlier
this
year
—
argued
that
Texas
was
fully
capable
of
keeping
things
legal.
[Lawyer
Monthly]

*
Biglaw
firms
not
as
eager
to
give
time
off
to
vote
as
they
were
four
years
ago.
[American
Lawyer]

*
Latham
&
Watkins
sanctioned.
[ABA
Journal]

*
New
solicitor
disciplined
for
making
up
emails…
and
without
the
help
of
generative
AI.
[LegalCheek]

*
Supreme
Court
takes
up
challenge
to
Louisiana
congressional
maps
or
“the
existence
of
the
Voting
Rights
Act”
depending
on
how
much
you
want
to
keep
it
real.
[Law360]

*
The
election
may
end,
but
uncertainty
about
Lina
Khan’s
work
at
FTC
will
remain.
[Corporate
Counsel]

Want
To
Work
Remotely?

Well,
you
probably
can’t.

Biglaw
Gets
Fuzzy
On
The
Lessons
From
Dewey’s
Collapse:

Lateral
partner
guarantees
are
back,
baby!

The
Supreme
Court
Is
Scary!

But
make
it
Halloween.

The
Latest
In
The
GOP’s
Election
Nonsense:

From
Georgia.

Don’t
Speculate
About
Your
Lawyer’s
Pregnancy
(Or
Anyone’s):

They’ll
tell
you
when
they’re
ready,
*IF*
you
need
to
know.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

The
Department
of
Justice
announced
they’d
be
monitoring
polling
sites
in
how
many
jurisdictions
across
how
many
states
—
which
led
to
Republican
leaders
in
multiple
states
saying
they’d
reject
the
DOJ’s
request
for
access?

Hint:
This
is
up
significantly
from
the
DOJ’s
presence
in
2020,
when
they
visited
44
jurisdictions
in
18
states.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

On
October
19,
Elon
Musk
announced
to
a
crowd
in
Harrisburg
that
he
had
a
“surprise”
for
them.
In
addition
to
a
$47
“payment”
for
referring
the
name
of
a
registered
voter
to
his
pro-Trump
America
PAC,
he’d
be
giving
away
$1
million
to
one
signer
per
day
through
November
5.

“We
are
going
to
be
awarding
a
million
dollars
randomly
to
people
who
have
signed
the
petition,
every
day
from
now
until
the
election,”
he
vamped,
adding
later
that
the
only
“ask”
was
that
recipients
be
good
spokespeople
for
the
PAC.

That
turned
out
to
be
less
than
100
percent
true,
as
became
immediately
apparent
when
the
“winners”

just
so
happened
to
be
present
at
Pennsylvania
rallies
to
collect
their
prizes
later
that
week.
But
in
case
there
was
any
doubt,
Musk’s
lawyer
Chris
Gober
confirmed
it
this
morning
in
a
hearing
before
Judge
Angelo
Foglietta
of
the
Philadelphia
Court
of
Common
Pleas
on
the
civil
complaint
seeking
to
enjoin
Musk
from
continuing
to
operate
an
illegal
lottery.

“There
is
no
prize
to
be
won,
instead
recipients
must
fulfill
contractual
obligations
to
serve
as
a
spokesperson
for
the
PAC,”
Gober
protested,
seemingly
defending
his
client
from
charges
that
he
was
running
an
illegal
lottery
by
admitting
that
he
was
engaged
in
fraud.

“The
opportunity
to
earn
is
different
from
the
chance
to
win,”
Musk’s
consigliere
Chris
Young

told
the
court.

According
to
the

Philadelphia
Inquirer:

Gober
acknowledged
that
Musk
used
the
word
“randomly”
in
his
speech.
But
he
said
that
was
not
meant
to
suggest
that
winners’
names
would
be
drawn
from
a
blind
pool,
as
occurs
in
a
lottery
or
other
game
of
chance
—
but
that
the
method
for
choosing
winners
would
be
random
because
it
wasn’t
going
to
follow
any
pre-determined
pattern
or
criteria.

“We
just
heard
this
guy
say,
my
boss,
my
client,
called
this
random,”
gaped
John
Summers,
the
lawyer
representing
Philadelphia
District
Attorney
Larry
Krasner.
“We
promised
people
that
they
were
going
to
participate
in
a
random
process,
but
it’s
a
process
where
we
pre-select
people.”

This
would
appear
to
confirm
the
DA’s
argument
in
his
complaint
that,
if
Musk

wasn’t
running
an
illegal
lottery,
he
was
violating
Pennsylvania’s
consumer
protection
statute:

To
be
clear,
it
would
be
no
defense
for
America
PAC
and
Musk
to
argue
that
it
was
not
engaging
in
a
lottery
if
their
scheme
actually
did
not
involve
a
chance
or
random
selection
of
winners.
In
that
event,
(a)
they
would
be
admitting
to
acting
deceptively
and
in
violation
of
the
Commonwealth’s
consumer
protection
law;
and
(b)
they
would
still
be
in
violation
of
the
Commonwealth’s
prohibition
against
the
operation
of
unlawful
lotteries.

And
indeed
the
petition
itself
seems
to
have
gone
through
several
revisions
in
an
attempt
to
square
with
the
mad
king’s
demands
with
the
provisions
of
state
law.
In
its
current
iteration,
it
refers
to
the
recipients
as
“earning”
their
checks
and
requires
them
to
provide
“a
signed
IRS
W-9
so
an
IRS
1099
can
be
issued.”

But
as
Krasner
noted
when
he
took
the
stand,
“That
doesn’t
sound
like
a
spokesperson
contract.”

The
hearing
was
highly
contentious,
with
Summers

calling
Musk’s
lawyers
“fraudulent
shysters”
at
one
point,
only
withdrawing
the
“shysters”
after
being
reprimanded
by
the
judge.

As
of
this
writing,
Judge
Foglietta
had
not
yet
ruled.
And
for
the
purposes
of
the
injunction,
any
order
is
functionally
moot.
This
is
the
final
day
before
the
election,
and
Musk’s
people
have
said
that
the
only
remaining
“earner”
will
be
from
Michigan,
not
Pennsylvania.
But
to
the
extent
that
Musk’s
henchmen
dropped
him
in
the
criminal
soup,
forced
to
admit
to
actual
crimes
on
the
witness
stand
after
the
billionaire
refused
to
show
up,
the
fun
may
be
just
beginning.

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

As
much
as
any
other
workplace,
attorneys
at
law
firms
sometimes
need
to
be
reminded
about
the
basics
of
polite
interactions.
Over
at
Ask
A
Manager,

Alison
Green
recently
answered
a
question
from
an
associate
at
a
boutique
law
firm.
The
associate
attended
a
work
event
with
colleagues,
and
she
did
not
drink
alcohol.
That
led
to
speculation
that
the
letter
writer
was
forgoing
drinking
because
she’s
pregnant.
And
it
became
a
whole
thing.

When
we
left
dinner,
one
of
the
colleagues,
Sara,
asked
me
outright
if
this
was
true.
I
asked
her
why
she
would
think
that
and
explained
that
I
wasn’t
drinking
because
I
was
going
to
a
big
party
tomorrow,
and
drinking
two
nights
in
a
row
is
just
too
much
for
me.

Another
colleague,
Rose,
cornered
me
and
said
that
she
heard
I
was
pregnant.
I
asked
where
she
heard
something
like
that,
and
she
proceeded
to
tell
me
all
the
associates
was
talking
about
it,
she
heard
I
was
“trying,”
and
she
thought
it
better
to
go
straight
to
the
source
than
just
speculate.
Rose
has
been
very
open
about
her
own
fertility
issues,
so
I
found
her
questions
absolutely
shocking.
I
told
her
that
if
I
have
something
to
announce,
she’d
hear
about
it.
I
repeated
to
her
that
I
was
going
to
a
party
tomorrow
and
didn’t
want
to
drink
two
nights
in
a
row.
Sara,
standing
nearby,
said,
“You
don’t
have
to
explain
yourself.”
Which
…
apparently
is
not
the
case!

Rose
proceeded
to
remind
me
that
if
our
boss
found
out
by
way
of
gossip,
he
would
be
livid.
Great.

That
feels
pretty
icky.
No
one
should
be
forced
to
disclose
the
details
of
their
reproductive
choices
before
they’re
ready.
And,
in
this
specific
case,
it’s
complicated
because
the
letter
writer
actually
*is*
pregnant,
but
she’s
early
in
the
process
and
not
at
the
sharing
stage
yet.

Green’s
response
is
appropriately
indignant,
which
makes
sense,
since
the
letter
writer’s
colleagues
are
out
of
pocket.

Not
only
is
it
rude
and
invasive
to
speculate
on
whether
someone
is
pregnant,
let
alone
confront
them
to
ask
them
about
it
(and
no,
Rose,
it’s
not
better
to
“go
straight
to
the
source”),
but
it’s
also
ridiculous
to
assume
someone
is
pregnant
just
because
they’re
not
drinking.
There
are
a
ton
of
reasons
someone
might
not
be
drinking
on
any
given
occasion:
your
own
reason
of
not
wanting
to
drink
two
nights
in
a
row,
or
they’re
on
a
medicine
that
prevents
it,
or
they’re
trying
to
drink
less,
or
they’re
driving
later,
or
they
didn’t
eat
a
lot
today
and
don’t
want
to
drink
on
an
empty
stomach,
or
they
prefer
not
to
lower
their
inhibitions
at
work
events,
or
they
just
don’t
feel
like
it.

It’s
bizarre
that
your
coworkers
care
so
much.
Even
if
they
see
drinking
together
as
an
enjoyable
bonding
ritual
at
work
conferences,
it’s
extremely
weird
to
be
so
put
off
that
someone
else
doesn’t
feel
like
it
—
and
I
wonder
if
you
not
drinking
made
them
feel
defensive
about
how
much
they
were
all
drinking,
given
that
you
described
them
as
“VERY
drunk.”
Some
people
get
like
that.

Just
a
reminder
—
a
law
degree
doesn’t
stop
some
people
from
being
gossipy
and
invasive.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

Hey,
Trump
supporters!

Let’s
apply
common
sense
to
some
things
you’ve
heard
recently.

Unlike
those
silly
politicians
who
just
call
each
other
names,
let’s
think
about
who
asks
you
to
believe
ridiculous
things
—
things
that
insult
your
intelligence.

Donald
Trump
says
that
he
won
the
election
in
2020.
Trump
says,
among
other
things,
that
Dominion
Voting
Systems
rigged
its
machines
to
throw
thousands
of
votes
to
Biden
from
Trump.
That’s
the
only
reason
Trump
lost
the
election;
the
Democrats
cheated.
Trump
wants
you
to
believe
this;
some
of
you
do.

I
spent
my
career
as
a
litigator.
When
you
get
retained
in
a
new
lawsuit,
you
frequently
ask
yourself
a
question:
Does
the
lawsuit
make
sense?
If
a
neutral
person
heard
the
facts,
would
that
neutral
person
naturally
believe
the
plaintiff
or
the
defendant?
Common
sense
can
help
you
think
about
a
case.

Let’s
apply
common
sense
to
Trump’s
allegations
of
cheating
in
the
2020
election.
Supposedly,
voting
machines
switched
thousands
of
votes
from
Biden
to
Trump. 
But
in
the
down-ballot
races
—
the
races
for
lower
federal
and
state
offices
that
appeared
on
the
same
ballot
as
Trump
and
Biden
—
Republicans
performed
spectacularly
well
in
2020.
Democrats
did
not
flip
any
of
the

state
legislative
chambers
that
they’d
targeted.
Republicans
gained
seats
in
the House
of
Representatives.
In
some
competitive
districts,
incumbent
Republicans

won
reelection
at
the
same
time
that
Trump
was
losing those
areas.

I’m
assuming
that
you
support
Trump,
and
you
hate
Democrats.
Democrats
are
all
lying,
thieving,
scums
of
the
earth.
But
could
anyone
—
no
matter
how
stupid
—
really
have
rigged
voting
machines
to
change
votes
for
Trump
into
votes
for
Biden
without
simultaneously
rigging
those
machines
to
change
the
results
in
the
down-ballot
races?
As
long
as
Democrats
were
going
to
steal
elections,
why
didn’t
they
steal
a
bunch
of
them?

Trump
has
never
explained
that
to
you
because,
of
course,
he
can’t.
But
he
wants
you
to
believe
it.
If
Trump
thinks
you’ll
believe
that
nonsense,
he
must
really
think
that
you’re
an
idiot,
huh?
It’s
a
good
thing
that
people
other
than
Trump
respect
you.

But
that
was
how
Trump
treats
your
memory
of
the
past.
How
does
he
view
your
intellect
as
it
relates
to
tomorrow’s
election?

Trump
says
that
tens
of
thousands
of
undocumented
workers
are
registering
to
vote
to cast
illegal
ballots
in
tomorrow’s
election,
making
the
election
results
fraudulent
(if,
and
only
if,
Trump
loses).
Let’s
apply
the
common-sense
test
to
this.

Millions
of
American
citizens
who
actually
have
the
right
to
vote
simply
don’t
bother.
Voting
is
a
pain
in
the
neck,
it
takes
time,
no
individual’s
vote
makes
a
difference
anyway,
whatever.
So
lots
of
American
citizens
don’t
vote.
But
tens
of
thousands
of
illegal
aliens
are
supposedly
champing
at
the
bit
to
vote.
I
guess
for
those
folks,
voting
is
not
a
pain
in
the
neck,
it
doesn’t
take
time,
their
votes,
unlike
yours,
really
do
matter.

Remember:
Those
undocumented
workers
are
not
only
itching
to
vote,
when
many
American
citizens
are
not,
but
they’re
itching
to
vote
illegally
at
risk
of
terrible
penalties
if
they’re
caught.
These
undocumented
workers,
who
presumably
traveled
a
fair
distance
to
get
into
this
country,
face
the
risk
of
deportation
or
imprisonment
(or
both)
if
they’re
caught
voting
illegally.
Trump
wants
you
to
believe
that
millions
of
American
citizens
who
could
vote
without
risk
don’t
bother
casting
a
ballot,
but
tens
of
thousands
of
illegal
immigrants
will
insist
on
casting
illegal
ballots
at
risk
of
being
punished
in
a
life-altering
way.

Trump
says
that
crap,
and
he
expects
you
to
believe
it.
He
must
really
think
that
you’re
an
idiot,
huh?

Tomorrow,
don’t
vote
for
the
guy
who
thinks
you’re
deplorable.
Either
vote
for
Kamala
Harris
—
who
shows
you
some
respect
—
or
just
stay
home.
The
whole
system’s
fraudulent
anyway,
and
your
vote
doesn’t
really
count.
Why
bother?

---

Mark Herrmann


spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of



The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].