David Schraub
@schraubd.bsky.social
Sometimes lawyer. Sometimes law professor. All the time awesome. Associate Prof. at Lewis & Clark Law (con law and anti-discrimination). http://dsadevil.blogspot.com
Pinned
Reposted by David Schraub
Clients who think it's a good idea to get ChatGPT or Claude or whomever to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of their case rather than just speak to an actual attorney about it are the types of people with this in their Google history.
is it legal kill wife
what penalty for kill wife
what do i do if i kill wife
what defense to kill wife
what if i say kill wife accident
if no body can i still be charged with kill wife
what penalty for kill wife
what do i do if i kill wife
what defense to kill wife
what if i say kill wife accident
if no body can i still be charged with kill wife
February 14, 2026 at 4:36 AM
Clients who think it's a good idea to get ChatGPT or Claude or whomever to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of their case rather than just speak to an actual attorney about it are the types of people with this in their Google history.
AIPAC's pivot towards explicit interventions in elections has been a disaster from the start, and the Malliotakis endorsement over Rose was a harbinger of things to come.
The Crime versus the Blunder: AIPAC's Insurrectionist Endorsements
A few months ago, AIPAC announced it was breaking with its longstanding tradition to directly endorse and fundraise on behalf of political c...
dsadevil.blogspot.com
February 13, 2026 at 9:46 PM
AIPAC's pivot towards explicit interventions in elections has been a disaster from the start, and the Malliotakis endorsement over Rose was a harbinger of things to come.
Perhaps, but writing "None of these candidates take crypto money, AIPAC money, or money from any of the funders of fascism" isn't an example of it.
It's precisely bc I know of progressive Jews contributing to this antisemitism that I thought "I should check this out", but this is real weak sauce.
It's precisely bc I know of progressive Jews contributing to this antisemitism that I thought "I should check this out", but this is real weak sauce.
February 13, 2026 at 9:43 PM
Perhaps, but writing "None of these candidates take crypto money, AIPAC money, or money from any of the funders of fascism" isn't an example of it.
It's precisely bc I know of progressive Jews contributing to this antisemitism that I thought "I should check this out", but this is real weak sauce.
It's precisely bc I know of progressive Jews contributing to this antisemitism that I thought "I should check this out", but this is real weak sauce.
And that behavior by AIPAC, quite understandably, makes them rather disliked amongst many Democratic Party loyalists. Again, they have nobody to blame but themselves for the antipathy they've engendered amongst mainstream Democrats.
February 13, 2026 at 9:41 PM
And that behavior by AIPAC, quite understandably, makes them rather disliked amongst many Democratic Party loyalists. Again, they have nobody to blame but themselves for the antipathy they've engendered amongst mainstream Democrats.
There's just no way to compare AIPAC/Indivisible on the metric of "cudgel against Dems" or "fighting fascism" and think the former comes out better. AIPAC wields a cudgel against Dems (including pro-Israel Dems) all the time. AIPAC backs fascist pols all the time (including against pro-Israel Dems).
February 13, 2026 at 9:41 PM
There's just no way to compare AIPAC/Indivisible on the metric of "cudgel against Dems" or "fighting fascism" and think the former comes out better. AIPAC wields a cudgel against Dems (including pro-Israel Dems) all the time. AIPAC backs fascist pols all the time (including against pro-Israel Dems).
And of course, the broader context is Indivisible endorsing perfectly mainstream Democrats (like MN Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan) in Dem primaries. It's absurd to suggest that Dem groups can't have preferences in Dem primaries (AIPAC sure does--again, see its anti-Malinowski intervention in the NY-11).
February 13, 2026 at 9:41 PM
And of course, the broader context is Indivisible endorsing perfectly mainstream Democrats (like MN Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan) in Dem primaries. It's absurd to suggest that Dem groups can't have preferences in Dem primaries (AIPAC sure does--again, see its anti-Malinowski intervention in the NY-11).
Indeed, it's obvious that Indivisible has no problem with "Jewish PACs" generally or even pro-Israel PACs generally (it has no quarrel with J St, for instance). That's why it didn't say "Israel money" or "Jewish money" but "AIPAC money". It names AIPAC bc the problem is w/AIPAC, specifically.
February 13, 2026 at 9:41 PM
Indeed, it's obvious that Indivisible has no problem with "Jewish PACs" generally or even pro-Israel PACs generally (it has no quarrel with J St, for instance). That's why it didn't say "Israel money" or "Jewish money" but "AIPAC money". It names AIPAC bc the problem is w/AIPAC, specifically.
"Of course I'm not saying it's antisemitic to criticize AIPAC, but when you single them out ...."
"They weren't singled out."
"Ah. Well, nevertheless...."
It's not great how this "singled out" complaint gets trotted out as a reflex even where it obviously doesn't apply.
"They weren't singled out."
"Ah. Well, nevertheless...."
It's not great how this "singled out" complaint gets trotted out as a reflex even where it obviously doesn't apply.
February 13, 2026 at 9:41 PM
"Of course I'm not saying it's antisemitic to criticize AIPAC, but when you single them out ...."
"They weren't singled out."
"Ah. Well, nevertheless...."
It's not great how this "singled out" complaint gets trotted out as a reflex even where it obviously doesn't apply.
"They weren't singled out."
"Ah. Well, nevertheless...."
It's not great how this "singled out" complaint gets trotted out as a reflex even where it obviously doesn't apply.
"Singled out" is always a sketchy charge (most tweets/ads/white papers etc. focus on one subject -- that's normal, not "singling out"), but it's particularly inapt here bc the "offending" Indivisible statement DIDN'T single out AIPAC! It expressly grouped it together with, e.g., crypto money!
February 13, 2026 at 9:41 PM
"Singled out" is always a sketchy charge (most tweets/ads/white papers etc. focus on one subject -- that's normal, not "singling out"), but it's particularly inapt here bc the "offending" Indivisible statement DIDN'T single out AIPAC! It expressly grouped it together with, e.g., crypto money!
What we have, in short, is not a claim that "Jews buy elections" but a bog-standard policy disagreement. And AIPAC brought Dem antipathy on itself by (a) backing enemies of US democracy and (b) trying to crush even pro-Israel Dems if they care about Palestinian rights and equality.
February 13, 2026 at 9:08 AM
What we have, in short, is not a claim that "Jews buy elections" but a bog-standard policy disagreement. And AIPAC brought Dem antipathy on itself by (a) backing enemies of US democracy and (b) trying to crush even pro-Israel Dems if they care about Palestinian rights and equality.
But just sticking to Israel, as Malinowski demonstrates AIPAC wants to crush anyone who thinks the US needs to alter course to arrest the frighteningly illiberal democratic backsliding we're seeing in Israel, and so it is unremarkable that people who believe in such a shift wouldn't like AIPAC.
February 13, 2026 at 9:08 AM
But just sticking to Israel, as Malinowski demonstrates AIPAC wants to crush anyone who thinks the US needs to alter course to arrest the frighteningly illiberal democratic backsliding we're seeing in Israel, and so it is unremarkable that people who believe in such a shift wouldn't like AIPAC.
Of course, this doesn't get into the fact that AIPAC also has backed insurrectionists and extremists of the worst sort in the GOP (and done so even against Dems w/impeccable pro-Israel credentials -- e.g., backing Malliotakis over Rose in the NY-11). That can and should piss Dem groups off.
February 13, 2026 at 9:08 AM
Of course, this doesn't get into the fact that AIPAC also has backed insurrectionists and extremists of the worst sort in the GOP (and done so even against Dems w/impeccable pro-Israel credentials -- e.g., backing Malliotakis over Rose in the NY-11). That can and should piss Dem groups off.
And likewise, you're allowed to think that the US shouldn't change course at all--we should continue to give unconditional support to Bibi's govt no matter what it does w/r/t settlements, or price tag attacks, or aid obstruction, or annexation threats. But it's not a foul for Dems to disagree w/you.
February 13, 2026 at 9:08 AM
And likewise, you're allowed to think that the US shouldn't change course at all--we should continue to give unconditional support to Bibi's govt no matter what it does w/r/t settlements, or price tag attacks, or aid obstruction, or annexation threats. But it's not a foul for Dems to disagree w/you.
In any event, whether there (descriptively) will be a "change in course" vis-a-vis our alliance w/Israel--which needn't be a 180 flip to antagonism, it could just mean we enforce human rights conditions on aid--Indivisible is allowed to *want* such a shift, and oppose AIPAC for opposing it.
February 13, 2026 at 9:08 AM
In any event, whether there (descriptively) will be a "change in course" vis-a-vis our alliance w/Israel--which needn't be a 180 flip to antagonism, it could just mean we enforce human rights conditions on aid--Indivisible is allowed to *want* such a shift, and oppose AIPAC for opposing it.
I'm sorry, but AIPAC doesn't get to come in guns blazing against Tom Malinowski of all people and then start complaining about "purity politics". AIPAC is all about purity politics! Its purity is "100% Likudnikism, or GTFO." It is not at all surprising that many Democrats don't like that.
February 13, 2026 at 8:52 AM
I'm sorry, but AIPAC doesn't get to come in guns blazing against Tom Malinowski of all people and then start complaining about "purity politics". AIPAC is all about purity politics! Its purity is "100% Likudnikism, or GTFO." It is not at all surprising that many Democrats don't like that.
I can't imagine why a Democratic group isn't taking their cues from the UAE, Texas, and Florida. How mysterious. Inexplicable, really.
February 13, 2026 at 8:49 AM
I can't imagine why a Democratic group isn't taking their cues from the UAE, Texas, and Florida. How mysterious. Inexplicable, really.
Progressives allowed to look at how AIPAC has participated in politics in recent years -- from backing insurrectionists to sabotaging even pro-Israel pols who aren't Bibi-or-bust -- and decide that it is a bad political influence alongside other bad political influences (like the crypto lobby).
February 13, 2026 at 7:06 AM
Progressives allowed to look at how AIPAC has participated in politics in recent years -- from backing insurrectionists to sabotaging even pro-Israel pols who aren't Bibi-or-bust -- and decide that it is a bad political influence alongside other bad political influences (like the crypto lobby).
Indivisible's statement here seems a lot milder than what I wrote about AIPAC last week following the results of their NJ-11 intervention against Malinowski, for example, but we converge on the notion that the politics AIPAC is trying to promote in the Democratic Party are bad ones.
Still, that only underscores the broader point, which is that if you at all think of yourself as in the lane of “I care about Israel but they, and we, need to change course substantially to align with basic liberal values”, AIPAC is your mortal enemy trying to destroy your movement.
February 13, 2026 at 7:06 AM
Indivisible's statement here seems a lot milder than what I wrote about AIPAC last week following the results of their NJ-11 intervention against Malinowski, for example, but we converge on the notion that the politics AIPAC is trying to promote in the Democratic Party are bad ones.
Of course not (though I'd note they're not even the only lobby mentioned in the offending sentence).
But so what? Indivisible isn't saying it's opposed to all lobby groups, it's saying AIPAC specifically is a bad group w/bad policy objectives, which is a perfectly defensible position to take.
But so what? Indivisible isn't saying it's opposed to all lobby groups, it's saying AIPAC specifically is a bad group w/bad policy objectives, which is a perfectly defensible position to take.
February 13, 2026 at 7:06 AM
Of course not (though I'd note they're not even the only lobby mentioned in the offending sentence).
But so what? Indivisible isn't saying it's opposed to all lobby groups, it's saying AIPAC specifically is a bad group w/bad policy objectives, which is a perfectly defensible position to take.
But so what? Indivisible isn't saying it's opposed to all lobby groups, it's saying AIPAC specifically is a bad group w/bad policy objectives, which is a perfectly defensible position to take.
I backchecked the links on this, since I’ve known the (Jewish) founders of Indivisible since college, and the antisemitism claim apparently refers to this line?
“None of these candidates take crypto money, AIPAC money, or money from any of the funders of fascism.”
Is that it? That’s the sin?
“None of these candidates take crypto money, AIPAC money, or money from any of the funders of fascism.”
Is that it? That’s the sin?
February 13, 2026 at 5:36 AM
I backchecked the links on this, since I’ve known the (Jewish) founders of Indivisible since college, and the antisemitism claim apparently refers to this line?
“None of these candidates take crypto money, AIPAC money, or money from any of the funders of fascism.”
Is that it? That’s the sin?
“None of these candidates take crypto money, AIPAC money, or money from any of the funders of fascism.”
Is that it? That’s the sin?
So are we allowed to talk about the Epstein files again?
February 13, 2026 at 1:54 AM
So are we allowed to talk about the Epstein files again?
There are many reasons why some Jewish orgs abandoning coalitional allies is short-sighted. I'll add one more: when bigotry against other groups seeps into the mainstream, it inevitably bolsters antisemitism too. If you care about antisemitism, you can't afford NOT to care about other bigotries.
That Train Is Arriving On Schedule
One of my recent hobbyhorses has been to raise the alarm at one of the single most self-destructive trends I've witnessed in contemporary Je...
dsadevil.blogspot.com
February 13, 2026 at 1:05 AM
There are many reasons why some Jewish orgs abandoning coalitional allies is short-sighted. I'll add one more: when bigotry against other groups seeps into the mainstream, it inevitably bolsters antisemitism too. If you care about antisemitism, you can't afford NOT to care about other bigotries.
Yeah, Mr. Beast is really a stand-in for whatever his equivalent is circa 2032.
February 13, 2026 at 12:00 AM
Yeah, Mr. Beast is really a stand-in for whatever his equivalent is circa 2032.
Sometimes I look at my baby, and think of all of his potential, and all this things he might do and all the joys he might bring and all the wonderful possibilities the future may hold,
and then realize it's basically inevitable he will at some point become obsessed with Mr. Beast videos.
Oh well.
and then realize it's basically inevitable he will at some point become obsessed with Mr. Beast videos.
Oh well.
February 12, 2026 at 11:37 PM
Sometimes I look at my baby, and think of all of his potential, and all this things he might do and all the joys he might bring and all the wonderful possibilities the future may hold,
and then realize it's basically inevitable he will at some point become obsessed with Mr. Beast videos.
Oh well.
and then realize it's basically inevitable he will at some point become obsessed with Mr. Beast videos.
Oh well.