(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . L.L. #18, May 8 [1] ['The Geogre', 'View Profile', 'Greg Dworkin', 'Chloris Creator', 'Dan K', 'Thom Hartmann'] Date: 2026-05-08 [Preface:] I hope that I got rid of the “croquet mallet” background, above. At any rate, this is Laudable Links. Three curated links, with snark. Let’s get to them. What Is and Must Not Be: Lauren Stiller Rikleen, at The Contrarian, has an addition to the upcoming Democratic campaign attack on corruption: the Department of Justice as the grift store. Joe Patrice notes that Alan Dershowitz is still defending Jeffrey Epstein, for free. That seems like bad lawyering. Speaking of bad law, the Indiana Attorney General seems to have gone to visit a man who trolled state Republicans with “86” bombs, and now ACLU is suing him just because he wanted to help the guy work on his tone! The Department of Justice is now the one-stop shop for rip offs. That is the striking, and volatile, observation Lauren Stiller Rikleen, makes for The Contrarian in “The Justice Department’s Appalling Grift Store.” [Quote:|] In the past few weeks, Michael Flynn, a 2016 Trump campaign adviser, seems to have benefited twice from DOJ largesse. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about discussions with the Russian ambassador during the 2016 transition — a case that was dismissed after President Trump pardoned him. Not satisfied with the good fortune of a pardon and dismissal, Flynn sued the government, alleging malicious prosecution and related claims. The DOJ, which had been successfully fighting the case, reversed course under the Trump administration, paying a reported $1.25 million taxpayer-funded settlement to Flynn. And just days ago, the government submitted a court filing asserting it had reached yet another settlement in principle with Flynn on a different claim. [|End Quote] Another coeval and coevil figure, Carter Page, also got $1,250,000 for being not at all helpful to Donald Trump in 2016 and completely innocent of any ties to Russher. (It’s in the nature of Donald to reward people who have done him no favors!) Speaking of helping those who in no way helped Donald, of course, we remember the blanket clemency and pardon of 1,200 January 6th rioters. Because they did nothing special for him and will not do anything for him, expunging the record was plenty enough, right? So, when those same people sue the government for emotional damage, what can they expect? [Quote:|] It’s worth comparing, as the grift grows, the government’s efforts to protect its friends and supporters from accountability with this country’s treatment of wrongly convicted individuals. The justice system has long been marred by the numbers of people who have languished in prison for years, seeking to prove their innocence. Those who are fortunate enough to ultimately be exonerated struggle — often unsuccessfully — to receive any compensation. Unlike those who are pardoned, an exonerated prisoner is declared innocent in the eyes of the law, as opposed to being forgiven by a presidential benefactor. [|End Quote] In terms of an electoral wedge, presenting the exonerated against the pardoned will not pack much of a punch, but it is, nevertheless, a critical moral indictment of America at the best of times. As Donald showers every favored criminal and defendant with money, including himself, if he can swing the IRS self-dealing gag, then the comparison catches fire. It isn’t just that we have political prisoners, but a political criminal corps. The article discusses the mechanics of the Trump v. Trump suit where Trump will have to decide if Trump can get Trump to give Trump $10,000,000,000. [Quote:|] If the DOJ resolves this case for even a fraction of the billions sought, it will validate its disdain toward the taxpaying public and its contempt for conflict-of-interest requirements.[|End Quote] American commonwealth, please exit through the grift shop. Spite? Trolling? The party invitations? Personal complicity? These are answers to the question, “Why, Dersh? Why do you keep talking about Epstein and how he might not have been a monster?” Mistah Kurtz, he dead. Joe Patrice, at Above the Law, asks the question differently and wonders about Alan Dershowitz’s orientation in time: “Does Alan Dershowitz Realize He Doesn’t Have To Keep Standing Up For Pedophiles?“ After you stop repping a client (and Dershowitz did represent Epstein), the case is over. No more need to spin out the fine threads of “hebephilia” versus “pedophilia.” No need to speculate on prostitution versus rape. All you’re doing is making yourself ugly. [Quote:|] Triggered by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s closed-door testimony before the House Oversight Committee, Dershowitz Zoomed into a conversation with Greta Van Susteren, who deserves awards season buzz for (mostly) maintaining a straight face throughout. The Harvard Law emeritus professor has an interest in defending himself, of course, but rather than limit himself to denying any involvement in Epstein’s criminality, he decided to go the pedophilia really so bad? route. [|End Quote] He was horrible indeed. He said that Epstein was only a pedophile because he had sex with a 16 year old, but that would so not be pedophilia in England! [And we’re back to President Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” “Sex” is not only vaginal penetration, Dersh, and pedophilia is not only copulation with persons under the age of consent. He knows this.] He actually said that Epstein was “like a 3 or 4” in terms of sex offenders. Well, what are three or four between rich friends? [Quote:|] Yes, Dershowitz has had a curious fascination with getting rid of consent laws since the 90s, but that doesn’t mean he has to gratuitously draw attention to his own bad ideas. [|End Quote] Mr. Patrice, sadly, engages the argument. We don’t need to do this. It’s irrelevant: [Quote:|] Setting aside that maybe a professor of law should not be issuing Pitchfork scores for sex criminals, this glibly avoids the fact that the federal indictment flagged 14-year-old victims and those who have seen the unredacted Epstein files claim there’s evidence of victims as young as 9. [|End Quote] Pedophilia is not sexual intercourse alone. Epstein apparently did a great deal of “massage” (manual sex or oral sex). Don’t chase the year ranges, because they may show the severity of the offenses, but they don’t change the nature of the offense nor the prevalence. In fact, paying attention to this age/that age is exactly the game Dersh wants to play. “Bugger all this for a lark” [Written in the margin of an illuminated manuscript where the illuminator, apparently, grew agitated by the assignment.] [Quote:|] Dershowitz pivoted to “McCarthyism” — the last refuge of the scoundrel — his preferred description of the fate of Epstein’s associates. Even though the DOJ is bending over backward, in violation of federal statute, to keep those associates’ names from seeing the light of day. Dershowitz laments that “people have suffered grievously” simply for knowing Epstein. Really? Grievously? A lot of people have suffered mild social consequences for buddying up to Epstein and earned millions for their trouble. And no one seems to be getting in trouble for asking Epstein for a stock tip. [|End Quote] Mr. Patrice is a completionist when it comes to the disgraces of Alan Dershowitz, and so this article goes on to document more, more, and more. Dersh, for example, exclaims that “many of the victims” have had their names redacted. Really? Well, that’s a grave injustice, right, but perhaps not the way he means it. Was this guy ever really cool? Maybe you and I, the attorney general’s office, can come to an agreement about your tone How far from the Twitter files we’ve come, when Gym Jordan was howling about government figures calling Facebook and Twitter and asking them to be careful about disinformation. 86 all that noise! Matt Naham, at Law and Crime, tells us about a law suit brought by ACLU against the Indiana AG’s office on 1A grounds. This one’s a bit of a story, so hang with me, please. I really like the lead-in to this piece: [Quote:|] If the numbers “86 46″ are a legal nothingburger but “86 47” in the form of seashells on a beach is a clear threat to the life of the president of the United States, what is an Indiana man to do who says he’s been threatened with prosecution for posting “86” by itself in comments on multiple public officials’ Facebook pages? [|End Quote] Lee Lawmaster, an Indiana resident, was enraged by the indictment of James Comey. (With a name like that, how could he not be?) He therefore decided to simply post “86” on the Facebook pages of various Republican officials in Indiana. No other commentary with the numbers, just 86. [Quote:|] including Attorney General Todd Rokita, U.S. Sen. Jim Banks, and Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith. Lawmaster says Rokita’s office threatened to retaliate against him with prosecution as a result. [|End Quote] How? Well, not by an e-mail or letter. The GOP is very shy of documentary evidence these days. Instead, [Quote:|] Indiana Attorney General’s Office Director of Investigations Kurt Spivey showed up at Lawmaster’s house on May 1 to question him about his “internet activity,” threatened “we could easily indict you over this today,” and repeatedly told him to “tone down” his rhetoric. [|End Quote] The ACLU has filed suit against the Attorney General for violating the first amendment. As for evidence that things went down this way in these days of paperless Republican offices, Mr. Lawmaster has a Ring doorbell, and it recorded the whole exchange. [Quote:|] Spivey acknowledged that Lawmaster has the “right to freedom of speech” and to hold “whatever opinion you want” — before adding a crucial “but.” “But you crossed the line,” the investigator said, “with a threat like that. You know, maybe you and I can come to an agreement that we kind of tone down the political rhetoric a little bit.”[|End Quote] Look, Spivey is a nice guy. He wasn’t actually going to prosecute. He just wanted Lawmaster to agree to “tone it down.” You know, just curtail your speech, and then the government won’t have to punish you. I have no doubt that Spivey thinks he was being reasonable. The men who say to their beaten wives and children, “See what you made me do” think so, too. But now let me introduce you to the bravest person in government, the unnamed “department spokesperson.” [Quote:|] When Law&Crime reached out to Rokita’s office for a response to claims that it caused a citizen to stop speaking by making threats of prosecution, a spokesperson ridiculed Lawmaster and called the ACLU’s suit an act of “communism.” [|End Quote] This is a VERY special ignoramus, too. I’m going to feed you some empty calories here. It adds nothing whatever to the story, but it’s awfully rich. Here is the full Brave Spokesperson’s rationale: [Quote:|] “With death threats against elected officials being very prominent across the nation and in our state, the Attorney General and his family are a top target. There are—right now—two people being tried in separate Marion County cases for making violent death threats against the Attorney General. This is real, and our office takes true threats extremely seriously,” Rokita’s office said. “So, it’s pathetic that the ACLU has once again chosen to champion and defend one of the biggest losers as their client. Their mission these days has nothing to do with civil liberty — it’s just communism. We look forward to further draining the ACLU’s bank account by fighting and winning this case, just like we win most cases against this anti-American, deranged organization.” [|End Quote] Not even in the H.W. Bush vs. Dukakis campaign and “card carrying member of the ACLU” have we heard distilled putrescence hurled with such glib assurance as has done here. The spokesperson is so brave that she or he need not know to what it is responding or about what it is speaking. It only needs to hear particular nouns, and then the floods come. [Conclusion:] Once more, I haven’t found anything very deep to fetch, but I was shorter in time than usual. I do feel good, at least, in giving us all a voodoo doll to pierce (“spokesperson”) and an effigy of a person (Dershowitz) to regret. Then again, they gave themselves to us. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/5/8/800035239/community/l-l-18-may-8/ Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/