this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
72 points (89.1% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3127 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The blinds were drawn at a handsome villa in an oceanfront gated community on the northern coast of this Caribbean island. Inside, a woman’s voice could be heard calling out “Ken” — but no one answered the door.

Records show this is the tropical refuge of Kenneth J. Chesebro, a lawyer who allegedly marshaled supporters of President Donald Trump to pose as electors in states won by Joe Biden in 2020, creating a pretext for Vice President Mike Pence to delay counting or disregard valid electoral college votes on Jan. 6, 2021.

Since then, Chesebro has kept a low profile. He decamped to Puerto Rico from New York last year, and some friends said he’d fallen out of touch. A prominent law firm issued no public announcement last year when it tapped him to run a new department and added no mention of him to its website.

Lawyers handling a case against him in Wisconsin have told a judge they were unable to locate him. Even the House select committee that investigated the pro-Trump attack on the Capitol did not depose him until last fall, after it had interviewed more than a thousand others and conducted public hearings, because it had trouble finding him, according to a person familiar with the situation who was not authorized to speak publicly.

A Harvard-trained lawyer once keen on liberal causes, and registered as a Democrat as recently as 2016, Chesebro may be the least well known of the small set of figures key to both indictments. His retreat from public life since Jan. 6 has deepened the mystery for former classmates and colleagues puzzling over how he became a central player in plans to reverse the outcome of a democratic election.

“The Ken I knew would not have been involved with that,” said Holly Hostrop, a lawyer who worked with Chesebro about 20 years ago on litigation against the tobacco industry that extracted millions in punitive damages for ailing smokers. “I have great respect for his legal skills and felt we were on the side of angels in that litigation. It makes me wonder how he got sucked into this.”

Chesebro and his attorney did not respond to requests for comment. As part of a rare interview with Talking Points Memo last summer, Chesebro issued a statement saying, “It is the duty of any attorney to leave no stone unturned in examining the legal options that exist in a particular situation.”

“This is what lawyers do,” he added. The successful appellate lawyer studied at Harvard University under Laurence Tribe, the preeminent legal scholar who advised congressional Democrats on both of Trump’s impeachments. Chesebro continued working with Tribe for about 20 years, on wide-ranging litigation involving class-action claims and punitive damages.

But friends said his politics seemed to shift after he reaped sizable returns from his investments in cryptocurrency in the past half-decade. He began to stake out more-libertarian positions in legal briefs, especially in his home state of Wisconsin, where he started donating to Republicans and working with a former judge, Jim Troupis, who Chesebro would later testify under oath had brought him into Trump’s orbit.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

"You still support capitalism," they angrily typed into the device they bought, for which they pay a regular fee to access the internet.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

1: There are plenty of forms of market socialism and only Marxists and really crunchy anarchists really want to abolish the idea of money, at least before the gay robots are running everything.

2: It is true that they probably live in and must survive in a capitalist country.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's the number two part that is at issue. They're berating someone for living in a capitalist society when they likely live in one themselves. You support a society by being part of it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the world wanted to embrace the ending of border controls, like, btw, humanity has largely had for most of its history of civilization, I think that would be a better point, since it would be more accessible to leave a society you don't support.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And yet OP is still being hypocritical for berating someone for doing the same thing they're likely doing.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I have very little problem believing he doesn't own significant amounts of stock and thus is not exploiting labor as part of the bourgeoisie class, petite or otherwise. I also don't believe he owns any rental properties, or is engaged in anti-union, apartheid, or colonial practices.

I think he's probably too young to have really gotten a chance to do any of that though, even if he has become aware of the fact that he lives in a post scarcity society that nonetheless embraces mass homelessness and profiteering of necessities as the means of encouraging compliance.

I also think he's willfully ignoring that it is not just capitalists that power, money, and influence has proven to corrupt.

So, hypocrite? I doubt it. Unfairly holding others to a standard he has not been tested by, sure, and being a bit of a dick about it, even if his general anger is on the whole justified though directed at the wrong people.

I can't think of a simple term for that last one though.