My Favorite Punching Bag

Our esteemed statewide shame joke of an attorney attorney general Curtis Hill, as both of my readers know, is rather far down my list of esteemed attorneys in this state. (Indeed, I hold the state's best defender of child molesters in higher regard than Curtis Hill, but I digress).

As has been discussed on this blog previously, Curtis Hill is in some hot water with the Indiana Attorney Ethics and Disciplinary Commission for his grabassery. He was charged with ethical violations and has responded, to which the Ethics Commission replied that our jackass attorney general believes that, because he is an elected official, there are "layers of accountability" for him and the disciplinary commission is not the proper mechanism to hold him accountable (see the entirety here).

Pure bullshit.

This is a guy who has spent his entire career throwing the proverbial book at defendants who did not have the resources to defend themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if he was the type of prosecutor who overcharged on spurious grounds, threatening life in prison for a dime bag of weed or something, just to convince defendants to give up their constitutional right to see the evidence and confront witnesses against them.

This is just the kind of "justice for me but not for thee" attitude that I see all too often among our political elites. They can take that attitude and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, if you ask me. If I have to answer to the damn ethics commission, I don't think it's too much to ask that the elected chief attorney of the state answer as well.

Best quote from the disciplinary commission: "What [Curtis Hill's] motion boils down to is that the respondent seeks special and favorable treatment by the Court that no other lawyer would ever obtain. He seeks this Court, in essence, to declare that he is a lawyer whose conduct is above the Rules of Professional Conduct simply because he is the Attorney General. This Commission can think of nothing that would deepen the mistrust of the judicial system, diminish the esteem of the Supreme Court, and prejudice the administration of justice more than if the Court were to grant [Curtis Hill's] motion."

That sound you just heard? That was the mic being dropped.

For Those Who Missed It

WTHR Reports:

SPEEDWAY, Ind. (WTHR) — A former town executive of Speedway is taking a plea deal after being accused of misusing the town's money.

Kenneth Scott Harris served as a redevelopment contractor and stepped down in 2015 after the start of a state inquiry.

He was accused of owing the state of Indiana nearly $20,000.

In 2017, he told Eyewitness News he had made some mistakes and would be able to clear it up.

Now he's agreed to plead guilty to counterfeiting for submitting an altered invoice to the Speedway Redevelopment Commission. It was for a payment for a service at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

The plea include no jail time according to court records obtained by Eyewitness News.

I have questions:

• Who put this guy in charge? I presume it was the Speedway Town Council; which of our current members were members when the decision to put him in charge was made? Who voted in favor of putting him in charge? I believe that an answer to these questions would allow me to make a determination as to the judgment of such Town Council members.
• He is only charged with wrongdoing from March - May of 2015; he is charged with forging invoices on behalf of the Redevelopment Commission. It was not until December of 2015 that he stepped down. Who on the Town Council knew of his actions and allowed him to remain in his position?
• What qualifications did Scott Harris present to the Speedway Town Council that would justify the trust they put in him?
• Were those qualifications ever vetted?
• To what degree was there any oversight exercised as to Mr. Harris' activities running the Redevelopment Commission?
• I have noticed that the Town of Speedway has an enormous environmental liability for land purchased from PraxAir during Mr. Harris' tenure; where was the oversight on that? Where was the Town Council?

It may seem as though I am being overly harsh on our Town Council. I certainly don't mean to be. I am a supporter of the Redevelopment Commission generally. However, actions like those of Scott Harris engender mistrust from the community and undermine the effort as a whole; officials who enabled such actions should be called to count for their acts and/or omissions. It is not lost on me that Town elections are coming up. These questions, and many more, should be presented to our incumbent Town Councilors who seek re-election. 

If they are worthy of our trust, then they owe it to us to answer these questions.

Sen. Mike Young and his "Priorities"

I got an email from our illustrious state Senator Mike Young, he of the government-funded law degree. Anyway, included in that email was this little gem:

Like Senate Republicans, Gov. Holcomb is working to bring more high-paying jobs to the state, further develop a 21st century skilled workforce, support education and help protect our at-risk children.

As both readers of this blog know, I have a high opinion of Gov. Holcomb. However, I found this statement to be a bit of a stretch:

• Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not sure how continuing the bankrupting of labor unions through Right to Work laws "is working to bring more high-paying jobs to the state." It seems to me, it's working to ensure that the jobs in this state are low paying. I understand (if disagree with) the rationale for this. However, just own it!
• "Further develop a 21st century skilled workforce" sounds to me like "make the government pay to train workers that companies won't themselves pay to train." Why is it the government's job to make sure that companies have trained workers? Can't the companies train the workers themselves, the way they used to?
• "Support education" by continuing to siphon money to charter schools
• "Help protect our at-risk children" by having yet another "study commission" on how to improve DCS without actually giving it the money it needs.

Senator Young, please don't insult our intelligence any more.

Further, I actually followed the link on the quote; I have more thoughts on that, which I will post tomorrow.

Insult or Injury - Part 2

Tabletop Joe is no friend of Senator Mike Young's politics. This much is clear. And like most people, Tabletop Joe doesn't care to be lied to.

Mike Young likes to lie to me or, at the very least, communicate with me in bad faith. My lone reader will recall my recent rant about Mike Young and his track record on education. Well, this morning, Mr. Career Politician who got his law school paid for by the public and has spent his life currying favors for his donors Young sent me another message, this time touting the new policy that will allow for the use of public money to put metal detectors in schools. Nevermind the reason why the metal detectors are necessary, right?

Well, that inspired me to look up some advocacy groups' "scoring" of Senator Worthless Young. My research found:

• A grade of D from the Indiana Coalition for Public Education in 2016; and
• An award for Excellence from the American Conservative Union in 2016 (which scored positively, among other things, Sen. Young's votes to allow guns in the capital and school corporations to hire unlicensed teachers).

There is plenty more, but I note that Sen. Young brags about "protecting schools" while doing nothing whatsoever to curtail the epidemic of gun violence and undercutting the quality of the teachers in the classroom. 

I voted for Phil Webster in 2016 and would do so again in a heartbeat. I know Coach Webster personally, worked with him at Decatur Central, and have the utmost respect for him. Mike Young? Not so much.

Hearing Mike Young tout his record on education is like listening to Tipper Gore express her affection for the first amendment. 

Facts, Pesky Little Things

"Truth isn't truth!"

In light of this weekend's utterly amazing disregard for actual facts, I thought I'd do a bit of research on what "facts" are being debated in the current race for a seat from IN in the federal Senate.

Note, this is simply me regurgitating what I've read, but I will source the conclusions:

• Joe Donnelly says that Mike Braun has supported two proposals and a lawsuit to end health insurance coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. MOSTLY TRUE
• Joe Donnelly states that 43 of his legislative proposals have become law, including 21 since Donald Trump took office. MOSTLY TRUE
• Senate Leadership Fund (a Republican Super PAC) says, "Sen. Donnelly's family got caught outsourcing jobs to Mexico, and 'Mexico Joe' profited $80,000. MOSTLY FALSE

The remainder of the quotes I saw "adjudicated" as above were from the primary. I have less than zero interest in discussing Todd Rokita.

Additionally, PolitiFact did a primer on Mike Braun's business practices. Note, this is not a partisan hit job on him but rather an analysis as to the claims being made by the Donnelly people. You can read the whole thing here. A few notable quotes:

Braun is the CEO and owner of Meyer Distributing, an auto parts distribution company, and Meyer Logistics, a trucking company, based in Jasper, Ind.

The U.S. Labor Department found Meyer Distributing violated the Fair Labor Standards Act 26 times. The violations were related to unpaid overtime work for 25 employees between December 2008 and December 2010. Meyer Distributing had to pay $39,402 in back wages. The company settled one lawsuit with a fired employee in 2009 related to the same issue.

I would point out that these back wages settlements amounted to a bit more than $1,500/worker. While this may not be much money to a multi-state trucking tycoon who can dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into his own political campaign, $1,500 may have been the difference between making bills for a quarter and losing the home for some of Mr. Braun's employees. I know no more than the allegation and the settlement, so I won't discuss the merits of the case. I do know that lawsuits like these often settle for one reason or another, and the settlement does not make Mr. Braun or his company guilty. 

Nonetheless, when you brand yourself the "champion of the little guy," it's a bad look to be stiffing your employees to the tune of 2-3 weeks' pay (maybe more, given their low wages).

Another point hit on in the piece was Donnelly's accusations about distributing parts made in China. I guess my point is: who cares? Most everything that gets sold has component parts made elsewhere. It's a modern economy.

What I do care about more than the original location of Mr. Braun's company's products is his legislative voting record. I found this to be interesting:

As a state legislator, Braun voted against an amendment that allowed local governments to take back property tax incentives from companies that relocate outside Indiana.

So, I may be thinking about this wrong, but my impression of this bill is that if, say, the Town of Speedway gives Allison Transmission tax incentives to stay where it is, and the incentives last 10 years, then Allison should at least be obligated not to relocate to Illinois or Ecuador for 10 years. Apparently Mr. Braun, as indicated by his own voting record, feels otherwise. Campaign rhetoric can spin one way or the other; the funny thing about votes is they speak for themselves. As I've argued during depositions (with a slight variation for the present circumstances), "We will stipulate that Mr. Braun's vote means what Mr. Braun's vote means."

There's also this about Joe Donnelly:

Braun rebutted with Donnelly’s own record. Donnelly profited from a family arts and crafts business that relied on cheap Mexican labor to produce dye for ink pads. Import Genius recorded 35 import shipments from China for the company between 2008 and 2018. Panjiva, a similar import tracking company, found 31 shipment imports since 2011.

Domila McFarlane, a manager at Panjiva, noted the company had likely received further shipments by air, but U.S. data only looks at maritime shipments.

Donnelly sold his stocks in the company following the AP report on ties to Mexico in July 2017. 

Apparently inscrutable behavior in search of politics is the new norm; either that, or utilizing a modern import/export system as designed is just what business people do. Perhaps the takeaway here is not that business actions in self interest are inherently good or evil but rather that the system we design to influence and/or regulate those decisions needs to be improved.

We could certainly go on, but then again, can't we always?

NO COLLUSION

Collude (v): come to a secret understanding for a harmful purpose; conspire.

As we know, "collusion" is the noun form of the verb "collude." We also know that our president has insisted repeatedly that there was NO COLLUSION (he always seems to go all-caps for that assertion).

Because I can't get the tweet to properly embed, I will just quote it:

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!

OK. Let's back up a bit.

I thought the first line was "the meeting never happened." Let's just take a look at the timeline and the shifting company storyline:

• July 8, 2017 -  The meeting was about adopting Russian Children
• July 9, 2017 - OK, so they suggested to us that maybe they had some information implying that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party were being funded by Russia; nothing came of it and the suggestion was vague all along
• July 12, 2017 - Jay Sekulow (one of the most despicable people in America, he also happens to be one of Trump's lawyers), responding to a story from the day before that President Trump had signed off on the July 8 statement, categorically denies that President Trump had anything to do with the original statement. Sekulow repeats this claim on July 16, 2017, on Meet the Press.
• July 31, 2017 - Washington Post reports that President Trump personally dictated the July 8 statement
• August 1, 2017 - President Trump (via his Press Secretary) concedes that President Trump "weighed in" on the statement but did not dictate it
• January 29, 2018 - Jay Sekulow admits in a letter to Special Counsel Robert Mueller that President Trump did dictate Don Jr.'s statement
• June 2, 2018 - The NY Times publishes the January 29 letter
• June 3, 2018 - Rudy Giuliani (a walking disaster of a "lawyer" if ever there was one) claims that Sekulow was uninformed in June 2017 when he claimed that the President was uninvolved in Don Jr.'s initial statement
• June 4, 2018 - President Trump's Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders refuses to answer questions as to whether he dictated the letter
• July 26, 2018 - Michael Cohen (President Trump's longtime personal attorney and notorious liar) claims that the President had foreknowledge of the meeting and signed off on it
• August 5, 2018 - "My son went to this meeting to receive intelligence on Hillary Clinton."

So, in sum, we know the following about the infamous Russia Meeting:

1. They knew they would be meeting with representatives of the Russian state
2. They knew they were being offered Russian state intelligence
3. They intended to use Russian intelligence offered by Russian agents against an American opponent
4. They did not alert the FBI to any of this

Look, I'm not an expert in national security law by any means and I'm trying really hard not to just be a partisan liberal here. However, I think that maybe we just need to step back and ask ourselves whether we've gone through the looking glass here. I mean, do we really have to ask whether aiding and abetting foreign meddling in American elections is OK?

American Kleptocracy

It's not just Donald Trump, and it's not just the Republicans. Please read this story.

Employee Theft

I know that there has been a lot of local consternation regarding some alleged thefts from the Town of Speedway over the past few years. The two stories I have heard, in particular, involve the Redevelopment Commission and the Fire Department. I make no present comment on the veracity of those stories. However, I do write today to hearten my fellow Sparkplugs and note that we're not alone:

Two former Indianapolis Local Public Improvement Bond Bank employees have been charged with theft and insurance fraud by the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office after being accused of taking funds totaling nearly $400,000 from the bond bank.

Jacqueline Fitzgerald, 54, is charged with six counts of theft and two counts of insurance fraud, and Monica Durrett, 56, is charged with five counts of theft and one count of insurance fraud. While employed at the bond bank, the employees are believed to have claimed inappropriate benefit leave payouts and carried insurance on ineligible dependents. Fitzgerald also allegedly received unauthorized bonuses and incentive pay.

Fitzgerald and Durrett were fired from the bond bank in June 2017 after some of their alleged actions were discovered.

Both former employees had enrolled grandchildren in their employer-provided health insurance despite not being legal guardians of those children, according to a probable cause affidavit.

Fitzgerald was allegedly paid $170,000 during her last year of employment despite her annual salary being $57,523. She also arranged to be regularly paid for dozens of hours of benefit leave in addition to her normal paycheck.

Durrett also allegedly received inappropriate benefit leave pay. 

As tempting as it may be to blame Speedway's problem on something specific to Speedway, unfortunately, this problem appears to be rooted in human nature, not in Speedway.

 

Interesting . . .

I read in the "Failing New York Times" an interesting story today. You really should read it yourself. It was authored by a former White House stenographer, whose job it was to keep transcripts of conversations between the President and, well, anyone, to ensure that people accurately quoted what the President of the United States said. A few highlights:

On Friday, at a news conference with Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain a reporter asked President Trump about disparaging comments he had made about her to The Sun newspaper. He denied ever having said them and declared that recordings of the interview would vindicate him. “We record when we deal with reporters,” he said. “We solve a lot of problems with the good old recording instrument.”

Do we?

. . . . . . . 

As White House stenographers, we were among the handful of staff members who remained at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue when the administration changed. This was my first transition, but my boss had said every new administration she’d worked in since the 1980s was grateful for our help.

. . . . . . .

We carried a microphone and two recorders at all times, and let them run until the last reporter had left the room, just in case a reporter yelled a question over his shoulder with one foot out the door. Should the press actually misquote the president, we were there, armed with an official transcript of what the president did or did not say.

But now, we were faced with a president who didn’t want to be recorded.  

. . . . . . . 

Mr. Trump likes to call anyone who disagrees with him “fake news.” But if he’s really the victim of so much inaccurate reporting, why is he so averse to having the facts recorded and transcribed?

President Trump did criticize Theresa May to The Sun. We know because it was recorded.

It’s clear that White House stenographers do not serve his administration, but rather his adversary: the truth. 

As a self-righteous jackass who has done more than perhaps one person to put this horse's ass in the White House said a few months ago, "Lordy, I hope there are tapes."  (And that very much includes the infamous "pee tape.")

I guess when you lie every time your lips move . . . . .

Those Pence Brothers . . . They're Just so Nice!

Ugh! I think I need to go punch myself in the face just for writing that headline! Hopefully anyone who has ever read this blog recognizes the sarcasm in the title.

Anyway, this recently came to my attention:

Vice President Mike Pence turns nostalgic when he talks about growing up in small-town Columbus, Indiana, where his father helped build a Midwestern empire of more than 200 gas stations that provided an upbringing on the “front row of the American dream.”

The collapse of Kiel Bros. Oil Co. in 2004 was widely publicized. Less known is that the state of Indiana — and, to a smaller extent, Kentucky and Illinois — are still on the hook for millions of dollars to clean up more than 85 contaminated sites across the three states, including underground tanks that leaked toxic chemicals into soil, streams and wells.

Indiana alone has spent at least $21 million on the cleanup thus far, or an average of about $500,000 per site, according to an analysis of records by The Associated Press. And the work is nowhere near complete.

Well, I mean, what's $21m when you're a "christian first, conservative second, and Republican third" here in Indiana? It's not like you're some selfish school kid who wants to, you know, eat lunch or something. Million-dollar pollution problem? Great! Poor kids want lunch? Feed 'em to Rokita!

Kiel Bros. has paid for only a fraction of the overall effort.

OK. So here we are, the Pence family business has imposed tens of millions of dollars on us, the taxpayers, and people are still willing to believe in his so-called "fiscal conservatism." I tell you what, next time I'm looking for someone to get my spending under control, I'm not just going to let him (or her) do my spending for me!

In a statement, Pence’s older brother Greg Pence — who was president of Kiel Bros. when it went bankrupt and is now running for Congress as a Republican — distanced himself from the cleanup costs.

“Greg Pence has had nothing to do with Kiel Bros since 2004. This is another attempt by the liberal media to rehash old, baseless attacks,” campaign spokeswoman Molly Gillaspie said. 

A few things: first off, I forgot that the Pence brothers were multiplying . . . God help us! 

Second, Ms. Gillaspie, perhaps you weren't aware that underground pollution plumes take decades to develop. In fact, I'll bet that someone on one of the Pence teams has already acknowledged this:

Pence spokeswoman Alyssa Farah called the findings “a years old issue” that the vice president has addressed before. She did not elaborate.

So, what is it? Did the pollution occur during the Pence family's "stewardship" of Kiel Bros. or did it occur after? Maybe before? All I've seen is blah blah blah liberal media blah blah blah old blah blah blah liberal media blah blah baseless.

The fact that the company stuck taxpayers with the lion’s share of the cleanup bill rankles some observers, especially in light of the family’s reputation as budget hawks critical of government spending.

You don't say. It's like I've seen this tragicomedy before.

 Greg Pence, who is seeking the vice president’s old congressional seat, has total assets worth $5.7 to $26 million.

Nearly a decade after going under, Kiel Bros. sites still ranked among the top 10 recipients of state money for such cleanups in Indiana in 2013, the last year for which the petroleum industry has reliable spending data for the company. That was out of more than 230 companies seeking cleanup money that year, including major gas station chains with a substantially larger presence in the state.
Founded as an oil distributor by businessman Carl Kiel in 1960, the company expanded into the gas station business. Pence’s father, Edward, joined in the early years and, by the mid-1970s, rose to corporate vice president.
Mike Pence says he worked for the business — which mostly operated under the name Tobacco Road — starting at age 14. But it was his brother who took over after Edward Pence’s 1988 death and eventually became president.

Just so we're clear: the Pence family made a ton of money running this company. This company cut costs by polluting our air and water. Now we get to pay to not be poisoned while the Pence family gets to go and bring their special sauce to the nation as a whole.

 When an underground tank leaks, companies are liable for the damage, but Indiana has been especially amenable to using public money to pay for heavily contaminated soil to be excavated and for high-powered pumps to suck toxic liquid and vapor from the soil.

The state’s payout limit was $2 million per site until Mike Pence signed a 2016 law as governor, increasing it to $2.5 million. In 2016, Indiana paid out nearly two-and-a-half times the national average per incident, according to records.

I for one can't imagine why the state can't afford to do such trivial things as reform its child welfare issues, after a mere 15 years of studying the issue.

Pence 2018: Starve the kids and poison the water!

Right-to-Work and Freeriders

I went to the Union Jack Pub last night and had a pizza. It was delicious. I also had a few beers and some breadsticks. My family had a blast. Of course, at the end of the meal, I was presented a bill for something like $60, which seemed like a very fair price to me given the quality of our meal.

To my right-to-work friends, I ask you this: If I had the option of continuing to get the meal without paying for it, do you think I would have taken that option? If I chose to eat the meal and not pay for it, would that represent me exercising my freedoms? Or would that have represented me being a freeloader?

Thus concludes our lesson on right-to-work for the day. If I haven't made my point clearly, please ask clarifying questions in the comments.

Work Requirements, Food Stamps, Unemployment, etc.

I just saw on the news that the new "Farm Bill" that passed the U.S. House of Representatives contains a mandatory 20-hour/week work requirement for anyone who receives food stamps.

Huh.

My only experience with food stamps occurred when my first child was born and I was still in law school. I was working at the time, making approximately $15/hour. My wife, who had just given birth to a beautiful baby boy, was (understandably) not working; she had a newborn to care for. While at the hospital, a social worker visited us (as you can imagine, we were on the Healthy Indiana Plan, as spending $400/month on health insurance was not in the budget) and signed us up for food stamps; she gave us a folder with a bunch of "coupons" in it.

We tried to use them . . . once.

As it turns out, the "coupons" were only valid for specific brands and sizes, and the process of checking out at the grocery store was so arduous and embarrassing, we never used those "coupons" again. Also, as an aside, the "coupons" didn't really provide for much healthy food; to my recollection, it didn't provide for any fresh fruit or vegetables but was replete with coupons for mac n' cheese, sugary juices, etc.

Anyway, the news of this new work requirement got me "a-thinkin'" about some double standards.

First, is this work requirement ever going to apply to those who collect seasonal unemployment? I have a dear friend (self-proclaimed conservative) who works construction. He gets laid off yearly and collects unemployment every year. (I've never collected a dime of unemployment, for the record). Anyway, I wonder if he is going to have to satisfy any work requirements? Methinks probably not.

Second, as a former school teacher, I used to get "laid off" every summer; interestingly, I was never eligible for unemployment.

Why is it that construction workers, who get laid off every winter, are eligible for unemployment when they get laid off, when teachers, who get laid off every summer, aren't? Why is it that construction workers aren't required to satisfy a work requirement during the pendency of their unemployment?

It kind of puts the lie to many of the justifications for these work requirements in the first place, doesn't it?

Contracts of Adhesion

So, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case today regarding mandatory arbitration clauses. Snooze......

The thing about enforcing these clauses, one after another, in supposedly "freely bargained contracts" is that such enforcement fails to account for and/or appreciate the substantial disparagement in bargaining power.

Just last year, the Supreme Court enforced a mandatory arbitration clause in a consumer contract, for telecommunications services I think. The thing about those contracts, though, is that consumers ultimately only have a limited number of choices (how many cell phone carriers are even available in Indy, maybe a half dozen?) and if the subject clauses are in every contract, it is inescapable.

What is to prevent restaurants from routinely noting on their menus (in 5-point font, to be sure) that all disputes of any kind have to be arbitrated, at the expense of the complainant, individually, and in Hong Kong? Nobody would even notice at first, because the disclaimer is so small on the menu. Then, the clause becomes standard on every restaurant menu. When restaurants have compelled you to sue them in a private venue, individually, on the other side of the world, have they not rendered you powerless to dispute anything?

In this latest case enforcing mandatory individual arbitration clauses, the Supreme Court has essentially written a blank check to employers to participate in egregious wage theft. What is to stop a McDonald's franchise from forcing its employees to sign lengthy contracts as a condition of employment that bar banding together to sue for wage theft? Once that McDonald's franchise has effectively prohibited its employees from banding together, it could then steal wages from them (via phony deductions, etc.) to the tune of more than $2,000/year; not until the franchise stole from an individual in an amount exceeding approximately $10,000 would it be financially feasible to hire an attorney for the arbitration. (Not for nothing, consider how this plays out with a doctor who makes 20X what the McDonald's employee makes. It's a lot easier to get to the point of financial viability when you make $250,000+/year as opposed to $25,000/year).

Well, I could go on and on about Justice Goosestepper Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion while sitting in his stolen seat, but I'm sure my thoughts on him and the theft of that seat from its rightful occupant, Merrick Garland, are well known.

On Todd Rokita . . . the worst kind of "lawyer" there is

The kind that likes to call himself a "small-government conservative" yet has been on the government gravy train for essentially his entire career. From his own web site:

ROKITA, Todd, a Representative from Indiana; born in Chicago, Cook County, Ill., February 9, 1970; graduated from Munster High School, Munster, Ind., 1988; B.A., Wabash College, Crawfordsville, Ind., 1992; J.D., Robert H. McKinney School of Law, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Ind., 1995; lawyer, private practice; general counsel, Indiana state secretary of state’s office, 1997-2000; Indiana state deputy secretary of state, 2000-2002; Indiana state secretary of state, 2002-2010; elected as a Republican to the One Hundred Twelfth and to the three succeeding Congresses (January 3, 2011-present).

So, to be clear, he went straight through from Kindergarten through Law School, graduating in 1995 (I wonder what kind of grades he had? I note he doesn't brag about them . . .). He claims he was in private practice, but his first job appears to have been for the State of Indiana. He then went to work for the federal government.

I'm confused. How stupid does Todd Rokita think we are? He hates government, but has worked in government his entire career? Huh.

I also note that, even though he says he was a "lawyer, private practice," I can't find a single case in which he has appeared. Now, of course, it is possible that he did practice but didn't do litigation. However, I get the feeling that the more accurate story about him is that he clerked for the Secretary of State until a position opened up for him there, so that he could pursue political ambitions.

In other words, Mr. Rokita is a professional politician. One might even say he is a "swamp creature," if one were inclined to use such terms.

What an a$$hat. And don't even get me going on this, a bush-league stunt that any first-month law student should know better than to try, let alone someone who actually bears the moniker "Lawyer."

Todd Rokita - Indiana's Resident Jackass

Another day, another reason to think poorly of Representative Todd Rokita.

First, this, from Rep. Rokita's web site:

Representative Rokita is pro-life and believes that life begins at conception.  He strongly believes that to encourage a culture of life rather than one of death, tax dollars should not be spent on abortions or to fund organizations that encourage it. 

And this:

In 2017, he voted to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.  He was a cosponsor of this bill to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of fetal age.  

He lists numerous "pro-life bona fides" on his web site. If you have a strong stomach, check it out for yourself. Of course, that is Rep. Rokita's public side. Today, the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette provides us a glimpse behind the curtain:

a political action committee affiliated with Rokita has given $9,000 to the campaigns of a fellow Republican lawmaker who, years before his election, had approved of abortions for his future wife and a woman with whom he had an affair.

The Fund for American Exceptionalism has made four financial contributions since 2014 to the re-election campaigns of Tennessee Rep. Scott DesJarlais, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. 

Who is this Scott DeJarlais? Well, it's a good thing we have "the internet" so we can look him up:

 The anti-abortion, pro-family Tennessee congressman who pushed his patient and mistress to get an abortion also agreed that his wife should have two, according to court transcripts released Thursday.

Those documents, from GOP Rep. Scott DesJarlais’ 2000 divorce proceedings, paint a lurid picture of a doctor who had multiple affairs with coworkers and patients — at least one of whom he prescribed pain pills for — while he was chief of staff at a local hospital.

Or we could maybe find this out about Rokita's buddy:

A Tennessee congressman who supported his ex-wife’s decision to have two abortions, voted this week for a bill that would ban late-term abortions, according to news reports. 

We could go on and on about DeJarlais just as we could go on and on about Rokita.

Bottom line: everything I've heard about Rep. Rokita makes me a bit sick to my stomach. My parents used to tell me that I should be careful about who I hang out with, because "you're judged by the company you keep." Perhaps Rep. Rokita should think about that long and hard, though I suspect Rep. Rokita relies on his constituents not knowing or caring about his ongoing hypocrisy; I also suspect he is well aware that, short of hell freezing over, there is nothing he could ever do to get my vote.

For What It's Worth - Part II

Recall that yesterday's post dealt with the anti-Joe Donnelly ad populated by an alleged local businesswoman who just couldn't understand why Joe Donnelly would vote against the wonderful, glorious, and absolutely necessary tax "reform" plan. The point of that post was that we should be aware when someone is trying to play us.

Enter today's contestant for dishonesty - Sinclair Broadcast Group. For those who don't realize, Sinclair Broadcasting Group owns more than 100 local news stations and has required those local anchors to read certain scripted editorial content during the local news.

Watch for yourself:

One of the first lessons I learned in litigation: "If you look around the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's probably you."

For What it's Worth

Has anyone seen the latest hit job on Joe Donnelly? The one that purports to feature a local "small businesswoman" who really needs those tax cuts to "invest in her business" because she really wants to "help people."

Pardon me, I just barfed in my trash can.

For starters, if your business needs tax cuts to survive, you have a business model problem, not a taxation problem.

Further, what business person started a business primarily to help people? NOBODY! You start a business so that you can make money and support yourself and your family. Helping people is an added bonus and is only the goal if it is accompanied with the business person getting paid. Ken Nunn wants to help his clients, but that's presumably because he collects between 33% and 40% of the "help" that he provides. Do you think he gives a damn about his clients?

Finally, I can't help but notice that this small businesswoman, who so desperately needs those tax cuts in order for her business to thrive, is never identified. Who is she? What is this business of hers? Methinks that perhaps she's an actress paid by some outside advocacy group?

Here is the ad:

Who is "Cathy"? Anyone know? I can't help but notice that they don't use the name of her business or her last name. Methinks she is a "fictional character."