Updated Sat. Night, 04.26.25 — Hinderaker (again, clutching at straws) tries to offer tonight… some now decade-old anecdote, for the proposition that academia at Harvard is rampant with fraud and false evidence planting. This wild eyed conjecture / conclusion he reaches because the then Dean of Harvard’s law school didn’t personally respond to him — about his dubious skepticism during the spate of racist incidents — at the law school that year (2015). Wow.
How utterly narcissistic do you have to be to believe that people with busy lives owe you a specific response, when (I am certain) you don’t donate a penny to your alma mater(?). End trivial update. Monday’s status hearing ought to be a Corker, in Boston!
Not that that isn’t a very low bar to clear, but the point is since I have handled the defense of more than a few federal whistleblower / False Claim Act cases… the idea that Tangerine 2.0 might successfully assert that Harvard and the others have made the kind of lies that would be actionable under the False Claim Act, all while directly lying from the White House himself about all manner of things, but especially what DE&I does… do, and doesn’t do… is simply preposterous.
At bottom, those actions are equitable in nature… And the whistleblower must show that he or she was scrupulously truthful while the party charged was willfully lying, to the detriment of the purse-strings of the federal government.
Here, the federal government itself is willfully lying about the universities. And sum, there’s no sensible federal judge who would ever let Trump prevail in an action like that.
But very nice lil’ clutch at silly straws there Johnny boy… never mind that everything the university is doing is first amendment protected. And thus beyond the reach of the False Claims Act. Onward.
Powerline Lies... 
Sorry to see that you’re not feeling well. Since you’re sick, allow me to pick up the baton and run with a couple of things:
1) John Hinderaker’s post, Meat Is Back!
Good! I hope this means we’ll be seeing fewer posts from John about how the Democrats are going to force us all to eat bugs.
2) William Otis’s post, High minded blather impersonating Deep Thought
This one is rich. Bill complains about David Brooks’s column condemning Trump’s authoritarian lawlessness, writing:
Riiiiiight. Because objecting to a president’s policies (as Bill certainly did under Biden and Obama) is exactly the same as falsely proclaiming that the election was rigged, and instigating a violent (but deeply stupid) insurrection attempt.
After bleating on and on about Brooks’s supposedly hyperbolic wailing, Bill finally concedes something:
So, in other words, Brooks’s concerns are completely valid, but there’s a correct way to object to the administration’s lawlessness, and Paul and Bill have been demonstrating it every day by mildly murmuring their mild concerns about the blatant Constitutional violations we’ve been seeing from this administration on a regular basis.
Be sure to keep that up, Paul and Bill. It’s sure to make an impact any day now.
LikeLike