Category: News Feeds

Last
month,
the
small
town
of
Letcher
County,
Kentucky,
was
rocked
by
the
shocking
murder
of
District
Judge
Kevin
D.
Mullins.
Immediately
it
was
clear
to
authorities
who
was
behind
the
death:
Letcher
County
Sheriff
Mickey
Stines
was
arrested
the
same
day.
But
without
a
definitive
motive
for
the
crime,
intrigue
was
sparked
and
the
speculation
has
run
rampant.

At
a

preliminary
hearing
earlier
this
week,
several
details
emerged.
We
know
that
Mullins
and
Stines
ate
lunch
together
the
day
of
Mullins’s
death.
According
to
Kentucky
State
Police
(KSP)
Detective
Clayton
Stamper,
several
other
people
were
in
attendance
at
the
business
lunch,
and
one
overheard
Mullins
ask
Stines
if
they
needed
to
meet
privately
in
his
chambers.

The
hearing
also
featured
a

disturbing
video
of
the
shooting.
The
surveillance
video
shows
Stines,
moments
before
the
shooting,
using
his
phone
to
call
someone,
then
using
Mullins’s
phone.
Stamper
testified
that
both
calls
were
made
to
Stines’s
daughter,
and
the
daughter’s
phone
number
was
saved
on
the
judge’s
phone.

Stamper
also
testified
that,
when
arrested,
Stines
made
a
comment
that,
“They’re
trying
to
kidnap
my
wife
and
kid.”

After
the
hearing,
Stines’s
attorney,

Jeremy
Bartley,
commented,
“I
left
the
hearing
today
with
a
lot
of
questions
still
unanswered
myself.
We
hoped
that
there
may
be
more
light
that
would
be
shed
on
the
preceding
events.”

Since
the
shooting,
Stines
resigned
from
his
position
as
sheriff.

---

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].

Boutique
firms
continue
to
strut
their
stuff
when
it
comes
to
compensation,
oftentimes
blowing
the
already
hefty
salary
and
bonus
scales
offered
by
Biglaw
firms
out
of
the
water.

Gjerset
&
Lorenz,
a
healthcare
boutique
located
in
Austin,
Texas,
is
offering
up
some
big-time
salaries
that
are
sure
to
make
associates’
hearts
skip
a
beat.

According
to
a
recent
memo,
the
firm
did
so
well
this
year
that
associates
are
being
rewarded
with
compensation
that
surpasses
the
Cravath
scale
(which
the
firm
matched
just
last
year).
“We
know
the
novelty,
complexity,
and
quality
of
our
work
exceeds
that
of
BigLaw
and
we
want
that
to
be
reflected
in
our
salary
structure,”
writes

Shauna
Lorenz,
the
firm’s
co-founder.
Check
out
the
firm’s
new
salary
grid,
which
may
make
some
Biglaw
associates
green
with
envy:

• Class
  of
  2024:
  $265,000
  ($40K
  more
  than
  Cravath)
• Class
  of
  2023:
  $275,000
  ($40K
  more
  than
  Cravath)
• Class
  of
  2022:
  $300,000
  ($40K
  more
  than
  Cravath)
• Class
  of
  2021:
  $335,000
  ($25K
  more
  than
  Cravath)
• Class
  of
  2020:
  $380,000
  ($15K
  more
  than
  Cravath)
• Class
  of
  2019:
  $420,000
  ($30K
  more
  than
  Cravath)
• Class
  of
  2018:
  $450,000
  ($30K
  more
  than
  Cravath)
• Class
  of
  2017:
  $475,000
  ($40K
  more
  than
  Cravath)

The
Gjerset
&
Lorenz
salary
scale,
which
went
into
effect
on
October
1,
2024,
is
$15,000
to
$40,000
above
the
Cravath
scale,
depending
on
class
year.
Lorenz
continues
to
praise
the
firm’s
associates,
writing:

We
genuinely
appreciate
each
of
your
contributions
to
the
success
of
the
firm
and
are
incredibly
appreciative
of
your
flexibility
during
our
transition
of
several
projects
and
work
assignments
this
year.
Your
professionalism
and
dedication
to
our
clients
has
resulted
in
a
smooth
continuation
of
our
work,
and
in
many
cases
elevated
quality
and
innovation.

She
concludes
the
internal
memo
by
pledging
that
the
firm
will
monitor
changes
within
the
market
and
“further
adjust
salaries
as
necessary”
in
order
to
beat
Biglaw’s
salary
scale.
We
can’t
wait
to
see
what
their
year-end
bonuses
look
like,
which
reached
a
maximum
potential
of
up
to
$310K
last
year.

A
huge
congratulations
to
everyone
at
Gjerset
&
Lorenz!

(Flip
to
the
next
page
to
read
the
full
memo
from
the
firm.)

Remember
everyone,
we
depend
on
your
tips
to
stay
on
top
of
this
stuff.
So
when
your
firm
matches,
please
text
us
(646-820-8477)
or email
us (subject
line:
“[Firm
Name]
Matches”).
Please
include
the
memo
if
available.
You
can
take
a
photo
of
the
memo
and
send
it
via
text
or
email
if
you
don’t
want
to
forward
the
original
PDF
or
Word
file.

And
if
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Bonus
Alerts
(which
is
the
alert
list
we’ll
also
use
for
salary
announcements),
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
bonus
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
bonus
announcement
that
we
publish.

---

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.

---

---

As
we
enter
the
fall
of
2024,
the
legal
industry
and
lateral
market
are
demonstrating
remarkable
resilience
and
adaptability
amid
ongoing
economic
challenges.

But
even
as
trends
shift,
what
factors
most
motivate
a
lateral
move?
And
which
firms
most
embody
these
traits?

Above
the
Law,
in
partnership
with

Lateral
Link,
surveyed
more
than
700
attorneys
this
summer
for
insights
into
the
lateral
market.

Survey
respondents
were
asked
to
share
which
law
firm’s
offer
they
would
most
want
to
accept,
and
why
they
would
find
this
firm
appealing.

Respondents
also
weighed
in
on
their
career
goals
and
how
they
feel
about
their
own
lateral
prospects.

Download
the
free
report
below
to
see
if
your
firm
made
the
list.

Report
downloaders
may
be
eligible
to
receive
a
$10,000
Placement
Bonus
from
Lateral
Link
if
they
make
a
lateral
move
by
December
31,
2025,
contingent
upon
a
few
simple
requirements:

• 
  
  You
  are
  open
  to
  Lateral
  Link
  contacting
  you
  for
  a
  potential
  lateral
  placement
  in
  the
  United
  States
  or
  Asia;
• 
  
  You
  are
  placed
  through
  Lateral
  Link
  by
  December
  31,
  2025
  at
  an
  Am
  Law
  200
  law
  firm
  with
  a
  base
  salary
  of
  at
  least
  $200,000;
  and
• 
  
  You
  remain
  at
  your
  new
  Am
  Law
  200
  law
  firm
  for
  at
  least
  twelve
  months
  from
  your
  start
  date.   

Download
Now

By
filling
out
the
form
you
are
opting
in
to
receive
communication
from
Above
the
Law
and
its
partners.

---

About
Lateral
Link

With
a
presence
in
over
a
dozen
cities
across
the
United
States
and
Asia,
Lateral
Link
boasts
an
expert
recruiting
team
of
former
practicing
attorneys
dedicated
to
sourcing
top-tier
legal
talent
for
a
diverse
clientele,
which
includes
major
international
law
firms
and
Fortune
500
companies.
With
a
proven
track
record
of
tens
of
thousands
of
successful
placements,
Lateral
Link
specializes
in
connecting
exceptional
candidates
with
opportunities
in
the
legal
industry.

Don’t
just
take
their
word
for
it;
take
the
word
of
one
of
their
clients:

“When
it
comes
to
recruiting,
we
are
among
the
most
demanding
firms
in
the
U.S.
Lateral
Link
pre-screens
candidates
and
finds
us
people
with
the
credentials
we
require
–
without
exception.”
–
Hiring
Partner:
Quinn
Emanuel,
LLP.

Lateral
Link
looks
forward
to
working
with
you
to
make
a
successful
lateral
placement!

Some
of
our
nation’s
finest
Drug
Warriors
are
at
it
again.
And
by
“at
it,”
I
mean
doing
seriously
stupid,
seriously
unconstitutional
stuff
in
hopes
of
finding
drugs
or
(better
yet!)
cash
that
will
somehow
prove
they’re
doing
anything
at
all
to
stem
the
flow
of
illegal
drugs.

And
yet,
they
weren’t
even
after
a
truly
illegal
drug
here.
The
LAPD
was
going
after
some
supposedly
“unlicensed”
weed,
which
means
weed
that
isn’t
generating
tax
dollars,
rather
than
the
substance
that
is
mostly
legal
in
a
lot
of
places,
including
Los
Angeles,
California.

The
raid
was
botched
in
more
ways
than
one,
but
it
led
off
with
the
claim
always
made
by
Drug
Warriors
when
they
need
an
excuse
to
start
violating
the
Constitution.
(h/t Radley
Balko)

The
owners
of
NoHo
Diagnostic
Center
are
suing
the
LAPD,
the
city
of
Los
Angeles
and
multiple
police
officers,
alleging
they
violated
the
business
owners’
constitutional
rights
and
demanding
an
unspecified
amount
in
damages.
Officers
allegedly
raided
the
diagnostic
center,
located
in
the
Van
Nuys
neighborhood
of
Los
Angeles,
thinking
it
was
a
front
for
an
illegal
cannabis
cultivation
facility,
pointing
to
higher-than-usual
energy
use
and
the
“distinct
odor”
of
cannabis
plants,
according
to
the
lawsuit. 

Yep,
cops
on
Drug
War
duty
are
peeping
electric
bills
to
locate
grow
operations.
Even
when
they’re
wrong,
they
still
feel
they’re
right.
There
are
lots
of
reasons
a
place
might
be
using
more
electricity,
whether
it’s
someone’s
desktop
Bitcoin
rig
or,
in
this
case,
a
place
that
uses
a
lot
of
high-powered,
highly-specialized
medical
equipment.
And
“distinct
odor”
is just
a
useful
dodge —
something
used
to
justify
otherwise
illegal
entries
that
can’t
be
readily
disputed
because
there’s
no
body
cam
on
the
market
(yet)
that
is
capable
of
identifying
odors.

What
the
body
cams
can
catch
is
the
butchery
of
rights
and
some
incredibly
incompetent
policing.
We’ll
see
if
any
of
this
footage
survives
—
not
just
because
the
LAPD
might
want
to
cover
this
up,
but
because
the
officers
just
sort
of
blundered
around
the
building,
poking
and
prodding
at
x-ray
machines,
ultrasound
devices,
CT
scanners,
and
—
most
comically
—
an
MRI
behind
a
door
that
clearly
told everyone entering
not
to
bring
anything
metal
into
the
room.
And
for
good
reason,
as
one
officer
immediately
discovered.

The
MRI
machine’s
magnetic
force
then
allegedly
sucked
his
rifle
across
the
room,
pinning
it
against
the
machine…

An
officer
then
allegedly
pulled
a
sealed
emergency
release
button
that
shut
the
MRI
machine
down,
deactivating
it,
evaporating
thousands
of
liters
of
helium
gas
and
damaging
the
machine
in
the
process.
The
officer
then
grabbed
his
rifle
and
left
the
room,
leaving
behind
a
magazine
filled
with
bullets
on
the
office
floor,
according
to
the
lawsuit. 

Please
tell
me
more
about
this
“training
and
expertise,”
Officer
Disarmed-By-An-MRI-Machine.
Also,
explain
to
me
why
it
was
worth
the
sacrifice
of
a
multi-million
dollar
machine
to
save
a
gun
that’s
far
more
replaceable
than
you
are,
Officer
Doesn’t-Know-What-The-Fuck-He’s-Doing.
The
cop
shop
will
always
issue
you
another
one.
But
without
securing
a
win
or
a
settlement
in
this
lawsuit,
the
medical
facility
will
have
to
cover
the
repairs
out
of
its
own
pocket
due
to
your
inept
blundering.

The lawsuit’s [PDF]
allegations
further
highlight
the
complete
ineptitude
of
everyone
involved
in
this
raid,
starting
with
the
officer
who
secured
the
search
warrant.
Behold
this
amazing
display
of
detective
work
by
someone
who
shouldn’t
be
allowed
to
operate
MS
Word,
much
less
a
handgun.

OFFICER
FRANCO
conducted
surveillance
on
multiple
dates
in
2023,
reporting
the
“distinct
odor
of
live
cannabis
plant
and
not
the
odor
of
dried
cannabis
being
smoked,”
tinted
windows
–
which
he
attributed
to
efforts
to
conceal
cannabis
cultivation,
security
cameras
–which
he
associated
with
locations
where
cannabis
is
grown
to
prevent
theft,
and
two
individuals
in
similar
attire
at
the
premises
–
whom
he
concluded
were
performing
maintenance
or
expanding
the
cultivation
operation.

Pretty
hard
to
square
the
claim
of
a
pervasive
marijuana
odor
with
the
distinct
lack
of
marijuana
on
the
premises.
And
everything
Officer
Franco
claims
is
illustrative
of
illegal
operations
is
also
illustrative
of
plenty
of fully
legal operations
—
like
the
operation
and
housing
of
incredibly
expensive
medical
equipment
by
trained
professionals.

That’s
not
all
the
stupid,
though.
There’s
more
from
Officer
Franco,
who
couldn’t
even
be
bothered
to
compare
the
NoHo
Diagnostic
Center
to
its
nearest
electricity-using
neighbors
to
see
if
he
was
actually
witnessing
something
anomalous
(and,
I
guess,
drug-related)
or
just
the
sort
of
normal
usage
split
one
would
expect
in
a
situation
like
this.

OFFICER
FRANCO
compared
the
power
usage
of
the
TARGET
PREMISES
to
nearby
businesses
and
found
it
significantly
higher.

OFFICER
FRANCO,
therefore,
concluded
that
the
TARGET
PREMISES
was
cultivating
cannabis,
disregarding
the
fact
that
it
is
a
diagnostic
facility
utilizing
an
MRI
machine,
Xray
machine,
and
other
heavy
medical
equipment—unlike
the
surrounding
businesses
selling
flowers,
chocolates,
and
childrens’
merchandise,
none
of
which
would
require
significant
power
usage.

Officer
Franco
also
claimed
to
have
performed
an
“internet
search”
linking
the
lab
to
“Fouad
Ashour,”
despite
publicly-available
business
records
showing
the
business
had
been
incorporated
in
2021
by
its
Chief
Executive
Officer,
Ustiana
Shaginian.

This
isn’t
“training
and
expertise.”
It
certainly
isn’t
“expertise.”
And
if
this
is
how
Officer
Franco
makes
inferences,
there’s
something
seriously
wrong
with
the
LAPD’s
training,
as
the
lawsuit
points
out.
(Emphasis
in
the
original.)

Despite
the
TARGET
PREMISES’
legitimate
business
certification,
OFFICER
FRANCO,
as
a natural
next
step,
contacted
LAPD’s
Gang
and
Narcotics
Division
Cannabis
Support
Unit.
OFFICER
FRANCO
learned
that
the
TARGET
PREMISES, a
medical
diagnostic
center,
does
not
have
a
license
to
cultivate
cannabis,
a
finding
he
promptly
labeled
a
“violation
of
the
California
Health
and
Safety
Code.”

Based
on
his 15
years as
an
LAPD
officer
and twelve
hours of
narcotics
training,
and
based
upon
the
presence
of
security
cameras
(typical
of
any
reasonable
commercial
business),
tinted
windows
(a
reasonable
practice
for
any
medical
facility
concerned
with
patient
privacy),
high
power
usage
(as
any
diagnostic
facility),
the
alleged
odor
of
cannabis
plants
(in
a
busy
shopping
plaza
with
no
prior
reports),
the
absence
of
a
cultivation
permit
(which
no
diagnostic
healthcare
facility
would
possess),
and
the
presence
of
two
men
wearing
identical
company
branded
shirts
(unexpected
of
individuals
involved
in
illegal
cultivation),
OFFICER
FRANCO
found
probable
cause
for
cannabis
cultivation
at
the
TARGET
PREMISES.

Burn
him.
Burn
him
to
the
ground.
This
wasn’t
an
investigation.
This
was
an
officer
working
backwards
from
conclusions
he’d
apparently
generated
without
any
reasonable
suspicion
that
would
warrant
the
initiation
of
an
investigation
until
he
arrived
at
the
point
he
could
get
a
warrant
and
start
violating
rights.

Given
these
allegations,
I
would
sincerely
hope
the
city
of
LA
already
has
a
check
half-written.
All
it
needs
now
is
the
settlement
amount.
Allowing
this
to
move
forward
just
means
more
cops
are
going
be
asked
more
questions.
And
the
one
cop,
whose
name
leads
off
the
lawsuit,
has
answered
plenty
of
those
with
actions,
and
has
raised
a
similar
number
of
disturbing
questions
whose
answers
are
just
going
to
generate
more
liability
for
the
PD.

And
while
it’s
always
difficult
to
hold
a
city
or
entire
police
department
accountable
for
officers’
actions,
every
time
these
officers
attest
to
their
“training”
and
“experience”
in
warrant
requests,
depositions,
or
direct
testimony,
they’re
implying
the
errors
(or
willful
violations)
they
committed
were
at
least
partially
based
on
the
training
provided
by
their
employers
and
their
service
to
the
higher
power
(the
city)
that
signs
their
paychecks.
This
is
embarrassing
on
several
levels.
Hopefully,
NoHo
Diagnostic
will
get
some
justice
here.
And
even
more
hopefully,
the
city
will
decide
to
make
some
heads
roll
in
hopes
of
deterring
future
actions
like
these
that
not
only
violate
residents’
rights,
but
insult
their
intelligence
and
rob
them
of
their
tax
dollars.

LAPD
Raids
Medical
Lab
For
(Nonexistent)
Weed,
Get
Gun
Stuck
In
An
MRI
Machine

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

Appeals
Court:
Utah’s
Age
Verification
Is
Currently
Unchallengeable
Because
It’s
A
‘Bounty’
Law

Appeals
Court
Reminds
Law
Enforcement
That
‘No-Fly’
Doesn’t
Mean
‘No
Drive’

Court
Quickly
Rejects
California’s
Deepfake
Law
As
Blatantly
Unconstitutional

If
four
full
737s
were
crashing
daily
resulting
in
total
loss
of
life,
there
would
be
a
public
outcry
and
immediate
governmental
intervention.
Yet,
we
lose
an
equivalent
number
of
people
daily
—

275,000
American
lives
annually
—
to
adverse
drug
events
(ADEs).
This
public
health
crisis
largely
goes
unnoticed
because
it
happens
to
one
mother,
one
son,
one
sister,
and
one
friend
at
a
time
in
homes,
clinics,
emergency
rooms,
nursing
homes,
and
hospitals.
Outdated
surveillance
and
reporting
systems
mean
many
more

ADEs
go
unrecorded.
Most
ADEs
occur
when
medications
are
administered
and
taken
correctly,
contrary
to
the
popular
belief
that
this
is
most
frequently
due
to
non-adherence.
The
impact
is
worse
for
women,
who
are
twice
as
likely
to
experience
ADEs,
and
for
non-White
patients.
This
is
because
clinical
trials
for
the
generic
drugs
we
primarily
prescribe
were
conducted
years
ago
and
mostly
included
only
White
males
of
European
ancestry.

While
some
medication
harm
may
be
unavoidable,
studies
indicate
that

half
or
more
can
be
prevented
by
prioritizing
education,
equitable
healthcare
access,
and
technology,
which
will
require
legislative
action.

The
growing
public
health
crisis  

In
2016,
the
last
time
it
was
measured,
we
spent

$528
billion
on
non-optimized
medication,
a
staggering
figure
that
exceeds
the
cost
of
the
drugs
themselves
or
any
major
chronic
disease.
The
more
medications
a
patient
takes,
the
higher
the
risk
of
ADEs.
Currently,

over
40
million
patients
take
five
or
more
medications
daily.
With
the
“silver
tsunami”
of
baby
boomers
aging
into
Medicare,
this
number
is
expected
to
double
by
2040.
The
time
to
act
is
now. 
  
Despite
investment
in
precision
medicine,

pharmacogenomics
(PGx)
testing
is
still
underutilized
as
a
tool
for
reducing
avoidable
medication
harm.
PGx
testing
helps
determine
which
drugs
and
doses
are
likely
to
be
safe
and/or
effective
based
on
each
patient’s
genetic
makeup.
It
is
precision
medicine
for
medications.
Unlike
other
genetic
variations
that
are
usually
uncommon,

PGx
variations
occur
in
over
99%
of
patients.
A
single,
comprehensive,
multi-gene
test
can
help
maximize
the
safety
and
efficacy
of
many
commonly
prescribed
medications
used
in
mental
health,
pain
management,
cardiovascular
care,
cancer
care,
and
more.
Drug-gene
interactions
are
very
similar
to
drug-drug
interactions
–
in
fact,
the
FDA
has
stated
in

drug
development
guidance
that
they
are
similar
in
scope
and
should
therefore
receive
similar
attention.
The
key
differentiator
is
unlike
drugs,
genetics
cannot
be
altered.
 
Consider
the

1,300
patients
that
die
each
year,
not
from
cancer,
but
from
the
fluorouracil
or
capecitabine
treatment
itself.
For

5-7%
of
patients
with
DPYD
PGx
variants,
standard
doses
of
these
medications
can
be
toxic
with
a

25.6
times
increased
risk
of
treatment
related
death.
Or,
consider
the
8%
of
patients
with
certain
PGx
variations
impacting
citalopram
and
escitalopram
metabolism
that
are

34.3%
more
likely
to
become
suicide
victims
because
the
drugs
are
processed
out
too
quickly
to
provide
treatment
benefit
or
so
slowly
that
they
increase
adverse
effects
leading
to
treatment
discontinuation.
Perhaps
also
consider
the
patients
who
continue
to
receive
clopidogrel
without
PGx
testing
despite
an

FDA
black
box,
first
added
in
2010,
warning
that
patients
with
certain
PGx
variants
are
more
likely
to
have
another
heart
attack
or
stroke.
 
 

The
promise
of
PGx
testing 
 
Biomarker
testing,
including
PGx
testing,
can
help
turn
this
tide.
Numerous
studies
have
confirmed
that
optimizing
prescribing
with
PGx
testing
reduces

emergency
room
visits,

hospitalizations,
and

healthcare
costs.
A

large
trial
in
several
European
countries
across
various
specialties
and
care
settings
showed
a
30%
reduction
in
clinically
significant
adverse
drug
events
in
just
12
weeks.
A

recent
meta-analysis
in
adult
cancer
patients
showed
a
53%
reduction
in
significant
adverse
events
with
use
of
PGx
testing.
And
despite
the
lack
of
widespread
adoption,

medical
liability
risks
are
increasing
when
evidence-based
PGx
testing
is
not
discussed
with
and
offered
to
patients.
So
why
isn’t
it
standard
of
care? 
Numerous
hurdles
stand
in
the
way
of
PGx
testing
becoming
the
standard
of
care,
including:

• 
  Inconsistent
  insurance
  coverage:
  A
  significant
  barrier
  to
  equitable
  access
  and
  adoption
  of
  biomarker
  testing,
  including
  PGx
  testing,
  is
  
  inconsistent
  insurance
  coverage
  that
  has
  not
  kept
  pace
  with
  professional
  guidelines
  and
  advances
  in
  the
  evidence.
  This
  has
  led
  to
  further
  socioeconomic,
  racial,
  and
  ethnic
  disparities
  in
  accessing
  quality
  care. 
• 
  Lack
  of
  education
  and
  clinical
  decision
  support:
  Both
  
  provider
  and
  patient
  education
  and
  prioritization
  of
  integrated
  clinical
  decision
  support
  are
  necessary
  to
  realize
  the
  benefits
  of
  genomic
  medicine,
  including
  PGx-guided
  medication
  management. 
• 
  Pharmacists’
  lack
  of
  recognition
  as
  healthcare
  providers:
  Although
  many
  states
  recognize
  pharmacists
  as
  healthcare
  providers,
  they
  are
  not
  yet
  acknowledged
  as
  providers
  at
  the
  federal
  level.
  This
  lack
  of
  federal
  recognition
  hinders
  reimbursement
  for
  pharmacists,
  despite
  their
  provision
  of
  numerous
  and
  essential
  direct-care
  patient
  services
  that
  align
  with
  their
  training,
  including
  PGx-guided
  medication
  management. 
   

Support
biomarker
legislation
and
prioritize
PGx
education

To
address
insurance
coverage
barriers,

biomarker
legislation
has
been
enacted
in
sixteen
states
including
Arizona,
California,
Georgia,
Illinois,
Maryland,
Texas,
and
New
York,
and
introduced
in
eleven
others.
The
National
College
of
Insurance
Legislators
(NCOIL)
endorsed
model
biomarker
legislation
in
the
summer
of
2023,
setting
the
stage
for
expected
nationwide
adoption.
Typically,
this
legislation
requires
state
insurance
providers,
including
Medicaid
and
commercial
payers,
to
cover
tests
that
guide
treatment
decisions
based
on
medical
and
scientific
evidence
including
testing
covered
by
CMS
NCDs,
Medicare
Administrative
Contractor
LCDS,
or
nationally
recognized
clinical
practice
guidelines
and
consensus
statements.

Medicare
LCDs
have
covered
certain
evidence-based
PGx
testing
since
2020.

Clinicians
must
prioritize
educating
themselves
about
PGx
testing
and
incorporate
it
into
their
practice
to
improve
patient
safety
and
care.
Free
resources
can
be
found

at NIH
Inter-Society
Coordinating
Committee
for
Practitioner
Education
in
Genomics
(ISCC-PEG).
Healthcare
professionals
in
states
that
have
not
enacted
biomarker
legislation
can
learn
how
to
support
state
efforts
at

ACS
CAN. 

Other
legislative
actions
and
advocacy efforts
to
improve
drug
safety
and
reduce
ADEs
are
also
in
the
works.
They
include: 

• 
  Right
  Drug
  Dose
  Now
  Act
  of
  2024
  –
  
  You
  can
  urge
  your
  congressional
  representatives
  to
  support
  this
  act
  –
  learn
  more
  and
  sign
  support
  at
  
  Fourth
  Cause.
  Reintroduced
  by
  Swalwell
  and
  Crenshaw
  at
  the
  end
  of
  March,
  this
  bipartisan
  
  act
  would:
  • 
    Require
    an
    assessment
    and
    update
    of
    the
    National
    Action
    Plan
    for
    Adverse
    Drug
    Event
    Prevention; 
  • 
    Create
    a
    healthcare
    provider
    educational
    campaign
    on
    preventing
    adverse
    drug
    events,
    in
    part
    by
    using
    evidence-based
    PGx
    information. 
  • 
    Incentivize
    updates
    to
    electronic
    health
    record
    systems
    to
    ensure
    that
    healthcare
    providers
    are
    alerted
    to
    interactions
    between
    medications
    and
    genes
    when
    making
    prescribing
    decisions; 
  • 
    Enhance
    reporting
    systems
    that
    would
    assist
    with
    the
    reporting
    of
    PGx-associated
    adverse
    drug
    events 
  • A
    second
    associated
    bill
    
    authorizes
    sustained
    funding
    for
    PGx
    implementation
    research
    and
    guideline
    development. 
• 
  Pharmacy
  and
  Medically
  Underserved
  Areas
  Enhancement
  Act  –
  The
  bill
  would
  enable
  pharmacists
  to
  deliver
  Medicare
  Part
  B
  services
  that
  are
  already
  authorized
  by
  their
  respective
  state
  laws. Learn
  more
  at
  
  ASHP. 

The
Hippocratic
oath
of
“first
do
no
harm”
can’t
stop
with
direct
patient
care;
the
healthcare
industry
and
its
key
stakeholders
must
address
persistent
public
health
problems
systematically. We
have
the
tools
to
reduce
medication
harm
by
half
or
more;
it
is
long
past
time
to
make
this
a
public
health
priority.
Common-sense
legislation
needs
to
be
passed
to
ensure
we
move
beyond
an
outdated
system
for
medication
management
and
safety
that
is
no
longer
serving
providers
or
the
patients
they
care
for.
  

Editor’s
note:
The
author
on
the
PGx
committee
of
the
NIH
Inter-Society
Coordinating
Committee
for
Practitioner
Education
in
Genomics
(ISCC-PEG),
a
member
of
the
PGx
workgroup
for
the
American
Cancer
Society
Cancer
Action
Network
(ACS
CAN)
and
serves
on
the
steering
committee
for
STRIPE,
the
FDA
collaborative
community
for
PGx.

Photo:
z_wei,
Getty
Images

This
post
appears
through
the MedCity
Influencers
program.
Anyone
can
publish
their
perspective
on
business
and
innovation
in
healthcare
on
MedCity
News
through
MedCity
Influencers. Click
here
to
find
out
how.

*
Starbucks
CEO
broke
labor
law
telling
employees
considering
unionizing
that
they
“can
go
work
for
another
company.”
If
you’re
one
of
those
people
who
don’t
see
that
as
an
explicitly
anti-union
message,
this
is
a
company
that
refuses
to
use
small,
medium,
and
large
so
it’s
all
about
coded
messages.
[

CNN]

*
Student
loan
forgiveness
plan
back
in
action
according
to
judge.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Partner
banned
for
5
years
after
constantly
pestering
junior
attorney.
[Roll
on
Friday]

*
Sexual
assault
lawsuit
filed
against
Garth
Brooks.
[Reuters]

*
Big
fight
brewing
over
bleeding
edge
tech
tools
employed
by
law
enforcement…
where
junk
science
never
ceases
to
find
a
buyer.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Crowell
&
Moring
fail
to
get
a
COVID
rent
refund.
[Law360]

*
Sidley
trying
to
corner
the
private
equity
market
in
London.
[American
Lawyer]

*
Starbucks
CEO
broke
labor
law
telling
employees
considering
unionizing
that
they
“can
go
work
for
another
company.”
If
you’re
one
of
those
people
who
don’t
see
that
as
an
explicitly
anti-union
message,
this
is
a
company
that
refuses
to
use
small,
medium,
and
large
so
it’s
all
about
coded
messages.
[

CNN]

*
Student
loan
forgiveness
plan
back
in
action
according
to
judge.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Partner
banned
for
5
years
after
constantly
pestering
junior
attorney.
[Roll
on
Friday]

*
Sexual
assault
lawsuit
filed
against
Garth
Brooks.
[Reuters]

*
Big
fight
brewing
over
bleeding
edge
tech
tools
employed
by
law
enforcement…
where
junk
science
never
ceases
to
find
a
buyer.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Crowell
&
Moring
fail
to
get
a
COVID
rent
refund.
[Law360]

*
Sidley
trying
to
corner
the
private
equity
market
in
London.
[American
Lawyer]

*
Starbucks
CEO
broke
labor
law
telling
employees
considering
unionizing
that
they
“can
go
work
for
another
company.”
If
you’re
one
of
those
people
who
don’t
see
that
as
an
explicitly
anti-union
message,
this
is
a
company
that
refuses
to
use
small,
medium,
and
large
so
it’s
all
about
coded
messages.
[

CNN]

*
Student
loan
forgiveness
plan
back
in
action
according
to
judge.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Partner
banned
for
5
years
after
constantly
pestering
junior
attorney.
[Roll
on
Friday]

*
Sexual
assault
lawsuit
filed
against
Garth
Brooks.
[Reuters]

*
Big
fight
brewing
over
bleeding
edge
tech
tools
employed
by
law
enforcement…
where
junk
science
never
ceases
to
find
a
buyer.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Crowell
&
Moring
fail
to
get
a
COVID
rent
refund.
[Law360]

*
Sidley
trying
to
corner
the
private
equity
market
in
London.
[American
Lawyer]

Elie
Honig,
the
former
prosecutor
turned
cable
news
legal
analyst,
has

a
new
piece
in

New
York
magazine
bemoaning
special
prosecutor
Jack
Smith’s
latest
filing
in
Trump’s
January
6
case.

There
was
something
familiar
about
it…

And
while
the
king
was
looking
down,
the
Jester
stole
his
thorny
crown.

That’s
not
exactly
fair.
Turley’s
Trumpy
screeds
routinely
spout

legal
nonsense
when
he’s

just
not
making
up
facts.
Honig’s
work
presents
more
subtlety
—
more
reliance
on
just
casually
ignoring
basic
issues
to
further
his
chosen
narrative.
Like
when
he
parachuted
into
the
New
York
criminal
case
with
analysis
so
far
afield
of
the
facts
and
law

he
got
dragged
to
hell
and
back
by
those
actually
keeping
up
with
the
case.
So
it’s
sort
of
a
trend.

And
while
the
notes
you
DON’T
play
makes
for
good
jazz,
it’s
makes
piss-poor
legal
analysis.

In
Honig’s
defense,
the
article
recites
standard
operating
procedure
in
a
federal
criminal
case
and,
to
that
extent,
is
correct…
in
a
vacuum.

Except

United
States
v.
Trump
doesn’t
exist
in
a
vacuum
unless
you
mean
the
jumbled
refuse
left
in
the
bag
after
unplugging
the
cleaner.
It’s
about
a
massive
news
event,
involving
one
of
the
most
notorious
figures
in
the
world,
that’s
been
delayed
over
and
over
either
by
the
defendant
or
his
personal
Glee
Club
on
the
Supreme
Court.
To
borrow
from
another
political
figure
at
random,
the
case
exists
in
the
context
of
all
in
which
it
lives
and
what
came
before.

Nearly
everything
about
the
posture
of
this
case
is
exceptional,
rendering
any
“legal
analysis”
based
on
prosecuting
a
bog
standard
tax
evasion
charge
all
but
useless.
This
is
like
the
mayor
in

Jaws
telling
the
beach,
“well,
ordinarily,
there
aren’t
any
sharks.”

First,
this
is
backward.
The
way
motions
work
—
under
the
federal
rules,
and
consistent
with
common
sense
—
is
that
the
prosecutor
files
an
indictment;
the
defense
makes
motions
(to
dismiss
charges,
to
suppress
evidence,
or
what
have
you);
and
then
the
prosecution
responds
to
those
motions.
Makes
sense,
right?
It’s
worked
for
hundreds
of
years
in
our
courts.

Normally,
this
would
be
true.
Except
the
motion
in
question
seeks
a
ruling
on
presidential
immunity
which
is
a
motion
Trump
HAS
ALREADY
RAISED.
This
is
the
argument
that
got
the
case
appealed
—
first
to
the
D.C.
Circuit
and
then
to
the
Supreme
Court
—
in
the
first
place.
If
there’s
anyone
expecting
the
defense
to
shrug
off
the
immunity
argument
now
that
the
case
has
been
remanded
to
Judge
Chutkan,
I
have
a
bridge
to
sell.
But
the
defense
has
also
made
clear
its
intention
to

gum
up
the
process
and
delay
the
matter
indefinitely.

So,
yes,
Smith’s
motion
seeking
a
ruling
on
Trump’s
favored
defense
before
Trump
formally
files
that
motion
is
irregular.
But
it’s
only
happening
because
of

Trump’s
dilatory
strategy.
In
fact,
at
the
very
hearing
that
Honig
cites
where
Judge
Chutkan
called
it
“procedurally
irregular”
for
Smith
to
file
first,
Judge
Chutkan
also
said
that
Trump’s
lawyers
could
file
a
simultaneous
motion
to
avoid
any
perceived
prejudice
from
responding
second.
Or
as
she
put
it,
“We
can
all
walk
and
chew
gum
at
the
same
time.”

That
was
the
beginning
of
September.
The
defense
had
a
whole
month
to
go
ahead
and
get
its
motion
together.
Honig
elides
this
issue
in
his
righteous
rage
over
allowing
Smith
to
ask
for
a
ruling
on
Trump’s
primary
grounds
for
dismissal.

But
Smith
argued
that
a
compelling
reason
to
let
him
go
first
and
set
the
stage
for
the
immunity
argument
was
to
avoid
the
defense
trying
to
string
this
out
forever
with
piecemeal
immunity
arguments.
That
would
seem
to
make
this
move
in
the
interest
of
judicial
economy!
Probably
something
worth
mentioning…
though
Honig
does
not.

Which
brings
us
to
the
second
point:
Smith’s
proactive
filing
is
prejudicial
to
Trump,
legally
and
politically.
It’s
ironic.
Smith
has
complained
throughout
the
case
that
Trump’s
words
might
taint
the
jury
pool.
Accordingly,
the
special
counsel
requested
a
gag
order
that
was
so
preposterously
broad
that
even
Judge
Chutkan
slimmed
it
down
considerably
(and
the
Court
of
Appeals
narrowed
it
further
after
that).

Yet
Smith
now
uses
grand-jury
testimony
(which
ordinarily
remains
secret
at
this
stage)
and
drafts
up
a
tidy
165-page
document
that
contains
all
manner
of
damaging
statements
about
a
criminal
defendant,
made
outside
of
a
trial
setting
and
without
being
subjected
to
the
rules
of
evidence
or
cross-examination,
and
files
it
publicly,
generating
national
headlines.
You
know
who’ll
see
those
allegations?
The
voters,
sure
—
and
also
members
of
the
jury
pool.

A
few
paragraphs
before
this,
Honig
took
a
swipe
at
the
filing
as
unnecessary
because
“[t]he
story’s
structure
is
the
same
as
we’ve
long
known.”
You
really
have
to
pick
one,
bud.
Is
this
tainting
the
jury
pool
or
old
news?

But,
again,
Honig
is
right
that
this
isn’t
material
that
would
normally
end
up
going
public.
But,
also
again,
he’s
ignoring
that
Trump’s
defense
strategy
is
the
only
reason
this
is
happening.
The
Supreme
Court,
following
Trump’s
lead,
created
a
standard
that
not
only
immunizes
presidents
from
official
acts,
but
from
using
evidence
of
official
acts
even
to
prosecute
a
president
engaged
in
unofficial
act
criminality.
While
securing
that
ruling
was
a
real
coup
for
Trump
—
a
successful
one
for
him,
for
a
change
—
it
drew
the
battlelines
for
the
next
immunity
fight
around
which
conversations
and
actions
were
and
were
not
“official.”

And
that’s
how
the
docket
ends
up
with
a
voluminous
motion
filled
with
grand
jury
testimony
focused
on
who
Trump
talked
to
when
and
in
what
capacity.
It’s
the
natural
and
logical
consequence
of
the
standard
concocted
by
the
Supreme
Court
last
Term.
Honig
doesn’t
even
acknowledge
this,
much
less
suggest
how
an
immunity
argument
would
be
resolved

without
this
filing.
Even
if
Judge
Chutkan
ordered
Trump
to
file
the
motion
first,
Smith’s
response
would
look…
pretty
much
exactly
like
this.

By
the
way,
this
is
also
the
answer
to
Honig’s
snarky
aside
about
the
redactions
in
the
filing
when
he
said
Smith
“redacted
out
a
few
obvious
names
(who
ever
might
“Arizona
Governor
[Redacted
P-16]”
be?),
and
made
the
rest
public.”
Yeah,
because
the
titles
involved
are
pretty
significant
when
the
standard
is
“was
this
a
conversation
that
a
president
would
have
in
the
ordinary
course
of
their
duties.”
So
it
matters
if
Trump
called
a
governor
to
arrange
flood
relief
or
to
ask
them
to
find
more
ballots.

Bumbling
to
a
conclusion,
Honig
points
to
the
DOJ
Manual’s
edict
that
“Federal
prosecutors…
may
never
select
the
timing
of
any
action,
including
investigative
steps,
criminal
charges,
or
statements,
for
the
purpose
of
affecting
any
election.”

Remember,
Smith
begged
the
judge
to
flip
the
rules
on
their
head
so
he
could
file
this
document
first,
and
quickly
—
“any
action,”
by
any
reasonable
definition
—
with
the
election
right
around
the
corner.
Anyone
who
objected
to
James
Comey’s
outrageous
announcements
about
the
Hillary
Clinton
email
investigation
on
the
eve
of
the
2016
election
should
feel
the
same
about
Smith’s
conduct
now.
What’s
the
distinction?
Both
violated
ordinary
procedure
to
take
public
steps,
shortly
before
an
election,
that
plainly
would
have
an
impact
on
that
election.

Well,

I
did
NOT
object
to
Comey’s
announcements
about
the
Clinton
emails.
It’s
also
an
unfair
characterization
of
how
all
that
went
down
because
Comey
didn’t

announce
shit.
He
wrote
a
congressional
committee
to
clarify
that
when
he
months
earlier
testified
that
the
FBI
had
searched
everything,
it
turned
out
there
was
something
else
to
review
but
that
there
was
no
reason
to
believe
it
would
be
anything
but
redundant.

They
decided
to
make
this
mundane
notification
a
big
deal
(perhaps
in
a
way
that
Comey
should’ve
predicted)
and
it
turned
out
the
new
data
was,
in
fact,
redundant.

Context
matters
and
so
does
the
underlying
purpose
of
all
these
rules.
Defendants
move
first
because
the
defense
has
a
right
to
define
its
strategy
and
streamline
the
pre-trial
process…
which
doesn’t
matter
when
the
argument
is
already
teed
up
and
there’s
a
history
of
dilatory
tactics.
Factual
disclosures
shouldn’t
litter
the
pre-trial
process…
unless
the
specific
argument
the
defense
makes
requires
a
ruling
based
on
grand
jury
testimony.
And,
importantly,
the
DOJ
shouldn’t
take
an
action
that
could
impact
an
impending
election…
except
when
they
took
action
months
and
months
beforehand
and
none
of
this
would
be
happening
weeks
before
an
election
if
Trump
hadn’t
set
out
on
a
strategy
to
drag
this
out
forever
and
his
cronies
on
the
Supreme
Court
hadn’t
dutifully
sat
on
the
case
until
the
last
gasps
of
the
Term.

If
Honig
wanted
to
take
issue
with
these
conclusions,
he
could
easily
explain
why
—
given
all
that
context
—
there’s
still
overriding
reasons
to
stick
with
the
standard
procedure
that
Trump
has
shown
every
interest
in
hacking.
And
we
could
have
that
debate
as
a
legal
community,
but
he
doesn’t
want
to
get
into
that
so
he’s
just
not
going
to
mention
any
of
it.

Besides,
getting
into
that
sort
of
nuanced
and
honest
discussion
about
the
state
of
the
case
is
not
the
sort
of
analysis
that
earns
someone
the
love
and
admiration
of
that
audience
of
one.

Respect
the
hustle.

Jack
Smith’s
October
Cheap
Shot
[New
York]

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Elie
Honig,
the
former
prosecutor
turned
cable
news
legal
analyst,
has

a
new
piece
in

New
York
magazine
bemoaning
special
prosecutor
Jack
Smith’s
latest
filing
in
Trump’s
January
6
case.

There
was
something
familiar
about
it…

And
while
the
king
was
looking
down,
the
Jester
stole
his
thorny
crown.

That’s
not
exactly
fair.
Turley’s
Trumpy
screeds
routinely
spout

legal
nonsense
when
he’s

just
not
making
up
facts.
Honig’s
work
presents
more
subtlety
—
more
reliance
on
just
casually
ignoring
basic
issues
to
further
his
chosen
narrative.
Like
when
he
parachuted
into
the
New
York
criminal
case
with
analysis
so
far
afield
of
the
facts
and
law

he
got
dragged
to
hell
and
back
by
those
actually
keeping
up
with
the
case.
So
it’s
sort
of
a
trend.

And
while
the
notes
you
DON’T
play
makes
for
good
jazz,
it’s
makes
piss-poor
legal
analysis.

In
Honig’s
defense,
the
article
recites
standard
operating
procedure
in
a
federal
criminal
case
and,
to
that
extent,
is
correct…
in
a
vacuum.

Except

United
States
v.
Trump
doesn’t
exist
in
a
vacuum
unless
you
mean
the
jumbled
refuse
left
in
the
bag
after
unplugging
the
cleaner.
It’s
about
a
massive
news
event,
involving
one
of
the
most
notorious
figures
in
the
world,
that’s
been
delayed
over
and
over
either
by
the
defendant
or
his
personal
Glee
Club
on
the
Supreme
Court.
To
borrow
from
another
political
figure
at
random,
the
case
exists
in
the
context
of
all
in
which
it
lives
and
what
came
before.

Nearly
everything
about
the
posture
of
this
case
is
exceptional,
rendering
any
“legal
analysis”
based
on
prosecuting
a
bog
standard
tax
evasion
charge
all
but
useless.
This
is
like
the
mayor
in

Jaws
telling
the
beach,
“well,
ordinarily,
there
aren’t
any
sharks.”

First,
this
is
backward.
The
way
motions
work
—
under
the
federal
rules,
and
consistent
with
common
sense
—
is
that
the
prosecutor
files
an
indictment;
the
defense
makes
motions
(to
dismiss
charges,
to
suppress
evidence,
or
what
have
you);
and
then
the
prosecution
responds
to
those
motions.
Makes
sense,
right?
It’s
worked
for
hundreds
of
years
in
our
courts.

Normally,
this
would
be
true.
Except
the
motion
in
question
seeks
a
ruling
on
presidential
immunity
which
is
a
motion
Trump
HAS
ALREADY
RAISED.
This
is
the
argument
that
got
the
case
appealed
—
first
to
the
D.C.
Circuit
and
then
to
the
Supreme
Court
—
in
the
first
place.
If
there’s
anyone
expecting
the
defense
to
shrug
off
the
immunity
argument
now
that
the
case
has
been
remanded
to
Judge
Chutkan,
I
have
a
bridge
to
sell.
But
the
defense
has
also
made
clear
its
intention
to

gum
up
the
process
and
delay
the
matter
indefinitely.

So,
yes,
Smith’s
motion
seeking
a
ruling
on
Trump’s
favored
defense
before
Trump
formally
files
that
motion
is
irregular.
But
it’s
only
happening
because
of

Trump’s
dilatory
strategy.
In
fact,
at
the
very
hearing
that
Honig
cites
where
Judge
Chutkan
called
it
“procedurally
irregular”
for
Smith
to
file
first,
Judge
Chutkan
also
said
that
Trump’s
lawyers
could
file
a
simultaneous
motion
to
avoid
any
perceived
prejudice
from
responding
second.
Or
as
she
put
it,
“We
can
all
walk
and
chew
gum
at
the
same
time.”

That
was
the
beginning
of
September.
The
defense
had
a
whole
month
to
go
ahead
and
get
its
motion
together.
Honig
elides
this
issue
in
his
righteous
rage
over
allowing
Smith
to
ask
for
a
ruling
on
Trump’s
primary
grounds
for
dismissal.

But
Smith
argued
that
a
compelling
reason
to
let
him
go
first
and
set
the
stage
for
the
immunity
argument
was
to
avoid
the
defense
trying
to
string
this
out
forever
with
piecemeal
immunity
arguments.
That
would
seem
to
make
this
move
in
the
interest
of
judicial
economy!
Probably
something
worth
mentioning…
though
Honig
does
not.

Which
brings
us
to
the
second
point:
Smith’s
proactive
filing
is
prejudicial
to
Trump,
legally
and
politically.
It’s
ironic.
Smith
has
complained
throughout
the
case
that
Trump’s
words
might
taint
the
jury
pool.
Accordingly,
the
special
counsel
requested
a
gag
order
that
was
so
preposterously
broad
that
even
Judge
Chutkan
slimmed
it
down
considerably
(and
the
Court
of
Appeals
narrowed
it
further
after
that).

Yet
Smith
now
uses
grand-jury
testimony
(which
ordinarily
remains
secret
at
this
stage)
and
drafts
up
a
tidy
165-page
document
that
contains
all
manner
of
damaging
statements
about
a
criminal
defendant,
made
outside
of
a
trial
setting
and
without
being
subjected
to
the
rules
of
evidence
or
cross-examination,
and
files
it
publicly,
generating
national
headlines.
You
know
who’ll
see
those
allegations?
The
voters,
sure
—
and
also
members
of
the
jury
pool.

A
few
paragraphs
before
this,
Honig
took
a
swipe
at
the
filing
as
unnecessary
because
“[t]he
story’s
structure
is
the
same
as
we’ve
long
known.”
You
really
have
to
pick
one,
bud.
Is
this
tainting
the
jury
pool
or
old
news?

But,
again,
Honig
is
right
that
this
isn’t
material
that
would
normally
end
up
going
public.
But,
also
again,
he’s
ignoring
that
Trump’s
defense
strategy
is
the
only
reason
this
is
happening.
The
Supreme
Court,
following
Trump’s
lead,
created
a
standard
that
not
only
immunizes
presidents
from
official
acts,
but
from
using
evidence
of
official
acts
even
to
prosecute
a
president
engaged
in
unofficial
act
criminality.
While
securing
that
ruling
was
a
real
coup
for
Trump
—
a
successful
one
for
him,
for
a
change
—
it
drew
the
battlelines
for
the
next
immunity
fight
around
which
conversations
and
actions
were
and
were
not
“official.”

And
that’s
how
the
docket
ends
up
with
a
voluminous
motion
filled
with
grand
jury
testimony
focused
on
who
Trump
talked
to
when
and
in
what
capacity.
It’s
the
natural
and
logical
consequence
of
the
standard
concocted
by
the
Supreme
Court
last
Term.
Honig
doesn’t
even
acknowledge
this,
much
less
suggest
how
an
immunity
argument
would
be
resolved

without
this
filing.
Even
if
Judge
Chutkan
ordered
Trump
to
file
the
motion
first,
Smith’s
response
would
look…
pretty
much
exactly
like
this.

By
the
way,
this
is
also
the
answer
to
Honig’s
snarky
aside
about
the
redactions
in
the
filing
when
he
said
Smith
“redacted
out
a
few
obvious
names
(who
ever
might
“Arizona
Governor
[Redacted
P-16]”
be?),
and
made
the
rest
public.”
Yeah,
because
the
titles
involved
are
pretty
significant
when
the
standard
is
“was
this
a
conversation
that
a
president
would
have
in
the
ordinary
course
of
their
duties.”
So
it
matters
if
Trump
called
a
governor
to
arrange
flood
relief
or
to
ask
them
to
find
more
ballots.

Bumbling
to
a
conclusion,
Honig
points
to
the
DOJ
Manual’s
edict
that
“Federal
prosecutors…
may
never
select
the
timing
of
any
action,
including
investigative
steps,
criminal
charges,
or
statements,
for
the
purpose
of
affecting
any
election.”

Remember,
Smith
begged
the
judge
to
flip
the
rules
on
their
head
so
he
could
file
this
document
first,
and
quickly
—
“any
action,”
by
any
reasonable
definition
—
with
the
election
right
around
the
corner.
Anyone
who
objected
to
James
Comey’s
outrageous
announcements
about
the
Hillary
Clinton
email
investigation
on
the
eve
of
the
2016
election
should
feel
the
same
about
Smith’s
conduct
now.
What’s
the
distinction?
Both
violated
ordinary
procedure
to
take
public
steps,
shortly
before
an
election,
that
plainly
would
have
an
impact
on
that
election.

Well,

I
did
NOT
object
to
Comey’s
announcements
about
the
Clinton
emails.
It’s
also
an
unfair
characterization
of
how
all
that
went
down
because
Comey
didn’t

announce
shit.
He
wrote
a
congressional
committee
to
clarify
that
when
he
months
earlier
testified
that
the
FBI
had
searched
everything,
it
turned
out
there
was
something
else
to
review
but
that
there
was
no
reason
to
believe
it
would
be
anything
but
redundant.

They
decided
to
make
this
mundane
notification
a
big
deal
(perhaps
in
a
way
that
Comey
should’ve
predicted)
and
it
turned
out
the
new
data
was,
in
fact,
redundant.

Context
matters
and
so
does
the
underlying
purpose
of
all
these
rules.
Defendants
move
first
because
the
defense
has
a
right
to
define
its
strategy
and
streamline
the
pre-trial
process…
which
doesn’t
matter
when
the
argument
is
already
teed
up
and
there’s
a
history
of
dilatory
tactics.
Factual
disclosures
shouldn’t
litter
the
pre-trial
process…
unless
the
specific
argument
the
defense
makes
requires
a
ruling
based
on
grand
jury
testimony.
And,
importantly,
the
DOJ
shouldn’t
take
an
action
that
could
impact
an
impending
election…
except
when
they
took
action
months
and
months
beforehand
and
none
of
this
would
be
happening
weeks
before
an
election
if
Trump
hadn’t
set
out
on
a
strategy
to
drag
this
out
forever
and
his
cronies
on
the
Supreme
Court
hadn’t
dutifully
sat
on
the
case
until
the
last
gasps
of
the
Term.

If
Honig
wanted
to
take
issue
with
these
conclusions,
he
could
easily
explain
why
—
given
all
that
context
—
there’s
still
overriding
reasons
to
stick
with
the
standard
procedure
that
Trump
has
shown
every
interest
in
hacking.
And
we
could
have
that
debate
as
a
legal
community,
but
he
doesn’t
want
to
get
into
that
so
he’s
just
not
going
to
mention
any
of
it.

Besides,
getting
into
that
sort
of
nuanced
and
honest
discussion
about
the
state
of
the
case
is
not
the
sort
of
analysis
that
earns
someone
the
love
and
admiration
of
that
audience
of
one.

Respect
the
hustle.

Jack
Smith’s
October
Cheap
Shot
[New
York]

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.