Too Rich For Trump’s Blood

Episode Notes

Transcript

Joe Patrice:

Welcome to another edition… Really thought I could get something usable that I could edit to. This is Nope, Thinking Like A Lawyer podcast. I’m Joe Patrice from Above the Law. Unfortunately, I’m also joined by Kathryn,

Kathryn Rubino:

Unfortunately.

Joe Patrice:

Sorry, that was a slip. That was a slip. I’m also joined by Kathryn Rubino and Chris Williams from my colleagues have heard Above, the Law, and we are here to do this show, which we do every week, where we talk about the bigger legal stories from the week that was over at Above the Law. But as per usual, we begin by showing a little bit of our human side with a segment we call Small Talk.

Speaker 3:

Small Talk.

Joe Patrice:

Okay.

Kathryn Rubino:

How was your weekend, Joe?

Joe Patrice:

It was great. I did a debate tournament thing. We got through that. I got home late last night and yeah, I’m

Kathryn Rubino:

Here. I don’t think you understand the purpose of small talk.

Chris Williams:

Perhaps that is still work.

Joe Patrice:

I did nothing else but that. Well, no, it’s not work. It is not about Above the Law in any way. Okay.

Chris Williams:

Okay. Let me clarify your other job.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, look, I do mostly

Chris Williams:

Is your small talk.

Joe Patrice:

I do mostly work. I unlike some people. Wow.

Kathryn Rubino:

Oh no. Wow. Okay. Chris, how was your weekend? Maybe we can demonstrate for him what small talk actually looks like.

Chris Williams:

Oh, it was great. Me and my baby, we watched this show called You u Haka Show, and it’s one of the best anime ever, and one of the fun things is I’m a nerd in a way that they’re not. So we’re walking through different shows that I like, oh, this is great. I’m like, yeah, so that’s been cool. There’s this game I’m playing on the side called Monster Hunter Rise, which is the sequel to Monster Hunter World, and it’s a different combat system, but it’s similar enough to be like, oh, I’m so used to these controls and cool to see how there’s different iterations of the monsters that I’m used to fighting. And then there’s also new monsters, and I’ve noticed been going on Rampage because one, there’s this, I’ve been killing a lot of monsters, and two, there’s this new features for the game called Rampage. There’s a siege mode and there’s a whole bunch of monsters that come at you in Canons and Balla and whatnot. It’s really fun. That’s awesome. Other than that, I’ve really just been in the house, but it’s been a decent weekend and caught up on some sleep and much needed.

Kathryn Rubino:

That’s awesome. I started a book club with some friends of mine, which I’m pretty excited about. Who? Shit. Yeah. Yeah. I’m kind of jazzed. We all have kind of similar tastes generally in books, and so we put a couple of selections each of us into a hat. Mine did not get selected, but that’s okay. I’m still excited To start.

Chris Williams:

Wait, you made a selection. Did tell us. Have an autobiography. I don’t know about,

Kathryn Rubino:

You’re so funny. Pretty good. No, my selection was actually the survivalist by Ana Colley, who is actually a former colleague of mine. She and I worked together when we were at Wilson, but she’s also a very successful writer. She’s written for Trevor Noah and other people, and she has a novel out that I haven’t had a chance to read yet, so I was like, let’s make all my friends read the book that I want to read anyway, but maybe next month.

Chris Williams:

I felt that way about when I was teaching. I was like, I’ve been planning to watch this James Baldwin documentary for a while. I’ll just assign it to my students and that way it’ll force me to,

Joe Patrice:

They use it to write.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. I mean, reading has not necessarily been the thing as a new mom that I am most focused on, but I feel like creating a book club really creates that kind of accountability that will force me to read it while I’m pumping or doing whatever I need to do.

Chris Williams:

That makes sense. Right now I’m reading this book called Dhir. I don’t remember the author’s first name, but I think the last name is Aquae, and I think the first book they wrote was Freshwater. It’s an interesting read. The sentences are simple, blunt, and just heavy. It’ll be like, oh, it’s raining outside. The rain reminds me of my tears. Anyway, Dom to eat some cereal. I’m like, what?

Joe Patrice:

Oh, hi mark.

Chris Williams:

Yeah. But yeah, it’s a fun read. We’re doing a bit of a cultural exchange, so I’m showing Aquila Animes and they’re like, have a book that they liked that I wanted to read and what have you. So it’s like a back and forth thing.

Kathryn Rubino:

Oh, that’s fun. See, Joe, that is small talk. See, we talked about things that were not related to. Not even just, okay, you want to talk about a debate tournament, fine, but you’re like, it happened. Boom. That’s it. There’s no sense of no sense who

Chris Williams:

You are. Here’s a prover human. I did a thing. Okay, next.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, literally your sentence and the tone of which you delivered. It also could have just been AI generated. Okay.

Chris Williams:

Honestly, I know I you AI folks for listening, we have the tips hotline, one of you needs to send in a chat, Joe Patrice. That just compiles

Kathryn Rubino:

Getting

Chris Williams:

The lawyer content.

Joe Patrice:

I put early on in chat GPTs unveiling, so I guess back when it was still 3.5 exclusively, I put in a write something in the style of Joe Patrice.

Chris Williams:

How’d that go? Was it robotic?

Joe Patrice:

It seemed like a bad caricature. It would say things and then just spice in Simpson’s references and basketball metaphors and stuff. I was like, I get why you think I would do things like that. It made sense sort of, but I mean it was clumsy and not really.

Chris Williams:

Okay. So for myself and listeners at home, what’s the bright line between bad and accurate?

Joe Patrice:

It did not read an engaging human article, but it did.

Kathryn Rubino:

Oh, good news. I can’t do our jobs. Good

Joe Patrice:

News. But it did grab random habits that I probably have about sports allergies and the Simpsons. That fair. I’ll give it that. I’ve always described it to people as it’s what a bad caricature must feel like if you’re on Saturday Live and somebody does that,

Kathryn Rubino:

Which ask Ellie.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, which obviously our former co-host, Ellie Al was a character on Saturday Night Live recently of course. And though, I mean that was pretty straight up. I mean, the whole point of it was that he kept getting cut off. So I guess we didn’t really see the impression. Anyway. Well, that’s actually a good segue, but let’s get out of small talk and we can segue. So yeah, this has been a banner run for Above, the Law. We had Ellie a character on Saturday Night Live, and then Stephen Colbert featured Above the Law in the monologue last week.

Kathryn Rubino:

So not any of our articles of course, but our columnist, Liz Dye, who is pretty exclusively these days on the Trump legal trouble beat, not for any reason, but the fact that there’s so much to cover, so much she could write probably double her production and still just write pretty exclusively about Trump legal troubles,

Chris Williams:

And it is horrible for the state of our democracy or whatever. But as far as content,

Kathryn Rubino:

There is that kind of uncomfortable push pull where you’re like, oh, this is terrible for our country, but people are going to click the shit out of this. I’m

Chris Williams:

Like, oh my God, it’s a slow day. There’s nobody bribing Clarence.

Joe Patrice:

So that’s an interesting point and one that is broader than her actual story here, which eventually we’ll talk about. But since you gave the entree to it, it does speak to the importance of having sort of open opinion-based journalism as opposed to kind of faux objective journalism because there’s a group argument, well,

Chris Williams:

Cause the fo objective journalism is owned by six corporations.

Joe Patrice:

Sure. But that’s also true, but I don’t even necessarily think that’s in many of their instances, the source of the problem. A lot of those entities are pretty good about their firewalling off of stuff. It becomes an issue when they start laying people off, but so long as they’re successful, they don’t do that. But the problem with the faux objective journalism is this is the whole thing about Trump’s whole political rise, the fixation on emails and for Hillary’s emails or Biden’s age, there’s coverage that blows out a proportion. Dumb stories as though they’re important because they sell papers and they put them out there and frame them as though these are important when they’re really doing it because they sell papers. And that’s distinct from where people who are much more open about how their feelings, when we say we get a lot of, it’s good for content that Trump does awful things, but we’re going to tell you that they’re awful things. We’re making clear that we would just as soon go back to having more stories about bonuses.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I’d love to just write for a while exclusively about what’s going on in big law, but then I would be missing key elements of what’s happening in the legal world, and that’d probably not be great either.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah, it’s annoying because some of those situations we don’t want to necessarily be the first line of coverage because some of them are Courtroom things where we don’t have the resources to have somebody in a Courtroom.

Kathryn Rubino:

We are much more secondary sourcing than primary

Joe Patrice:

Sourcing. And so those are stories that aren’t ideal necessarily, but if we don’t write about them, it seems like we have missed what legal is doing since that is most of what’s happening anyway.

Chris Williams:

I think there’s this line from a Palestinian poet and it’s like I’d rather write about birds chirping, but for me to do that, I’d have to not be hearing bombs all the time.

Joe Patrice:

So let’s get back to the actual story. The actual story that ended up being on Stephen Colbert that Liz wrote was about the cases here in New York. Trump owes some money up here to appeal those. He can appeal those without posting bond, but if he wants to appeal those without paying a hundred percent of what he owes first, he needs to either get a stay of the requirement of the execution of those judgments or post a bond of some sort, whatever. He put forward a barely bold motion claiming that he shouldn’t have to put up his money here because he’s too rich to have to do that.

Kathryn Rubino:

That seems like the opposite.

Joe Patrice:

That is normally the opposite of these situations. Yes,

Chris Williams:

It’s, but for a long time I’ve thought to myself, wouldn’t it be nice to just have fuck you money, or you have enough money where people leave you alone. So I guess some twisted way, it kind of makes sense, but

Joe Patrice:

So usually the purpose of these bonds is that you don’t want somebody to say, I’m going to go appeal this and in the meantime squander all the resources so that you can’t actually get paid. When I eventually lose and confirm that I lose his argument that he’s too rich to have to put up the money is he says, well, I’m so, so rich, there’s no risk. I would squander all this money before I could have my judgment executed upon, so therefore I shouldn’t have to even bother putting it up. This is lunacy,

Kathryn Rubino:

Obviously.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

I do appreciate the way you’ve phrased that. That was a good

Joe Patrice:

One. And obviously the plaintiffs have pointed this out, but the crux of it for me is I think it speaks to a longstanding issue. It’s why Trump’s always been very aggressive about not handing over his tax returns and stuff like that. I think this really speaks to he is not in fact, actually as rich as he likes to say he is, and it’s why he’s having his campaign pay, his legal bills and so on. He doesn’t have any of this money now. He may have a worth that’s high like that to the extent he owns real property in places, buildings and golf clubs and stuff that can be liquidated, but it’s a cash poor situation. I don’t think he actually has very much walking around money to be putting up in these situations, and he knows that to come up with that amount of money he would have to start selling things, and I think he might well have some properties that selling would be bad for him. So I think what we’ve gotten confirmed by his frantic efforts to say that he’s too rich to put up a bond is that he is not in fact too rich, rich enough to put up a bond.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. It’s pretty funny though.

Joe Patrice:

It is. Well, you got to kind of respect the hustle there. There were other arguments and he makes other arguments why he shouldn’t have to and yada yada, but to roll with I have too much money to be a concern that I might leave was really, really an impressive move.

Kathryn Rubino:

I think that it’s the sort of boldness of a lot of the legal filings in the various Trump cases that really are the most sort of gobsmacking. You wrote that down and then submitted it to a court.

Joe Patrice:

Like

Kathryn Rubino:

What?

Chris Williams:

I just imagine that there’s some fundamental misunderstanding here. Some accountant was like, Hey, too much of your money is in real estate. You don’t have any liquid assets. And he was like, I have too much money. Great. And then he just go

Kathryn Rubino:

And say, that’s what happens. But he didn’t file it. Right. It has to go through an actual attorney who’s admitted to a

Joe Patrice:

Bar. Well, so that’s the segue I was going with, which is there’s always a push pull with a client where you are trying to represent their interests, and sometimes that means telling them, I’m not going to make the argument you want me to. You are in a service-based economy, but also part of that service is protecting them when they’re wrong. And that does create some issues. And this goes back to a few weeks ago, we were talking about the emails and that you could see in the emails that Trump’s lawyers were sending back and forth with the judge how they kind of went from in writing style, a very clear clearheaded, legal ease kind of writing style to

Kathryn Rubino:

Get off by lawn insane

Joe Patrice:

Unhinged stuff. You realize that there’s a turnover point where they just are forwarding on things. Trump wrote them directly and you see that here too. Some of these arguments are situations where stronger willed lawyers would say, no, we’re not doing that, but they can’t get over.

Kathryn Rubino:

Well, I mean they would probably get fired or

Joe Patrice:

Choose not to. Yeah,

Chris Williams:

Right. One thing I found out that’s really easy to tell when Trump is actually just parroting through his lawyer is Trump talking when everything is in caps locked. So if it looked like he was screaming, I have too much money. That was Trump

Joe Patrice:

McDermott Will and Emory is vault’s number one law firm for associate satisfaction three years running. Why? Because they’re doing big law better. At McDermott, you define what your success looks like, they help you achieve it. Award-winning professional development program and hands-on mentorship propel you toward your goals while the industry leading wellness benefits help you feel your best. So you can do your best. Want to see how your life could be better at McDermott, head to mwe.com/ Above, the Law. So in the interests of continuing our conversation about Trump, I guess let’s talk, the immunity case was taken up by the Supreme Court last week. Obviously this was the case where Trump says that because he used to be president, he can’t be criminally tried for anything he did while he was president. This argument specifically talks about the, it is specifically raised in the January 6th case in dc.

There’s a possibility it could apply to other things, though there’s arguments whether or not it would because there’s slightly different fact patterns, but this was raised in dc, it went to the DC circuit. This is the DC circuit case where the Trump camp had the rather embarrassing claim made, the rather embarrassing, explicit claim that presidents can assassinate their rivals assuming the Senate doesn’t vote to convict them and never be held accountable. Which the best tweet I saw immediately after that was said in the oral argument in the DC circuit was somebody wrote, Joe Biden has the opportunity to do the funniest thing.

Kathryn Rubino:

See fair, not that I appreciate what he said, but there’s an honesty at least there, and at least there can be no pretending that isn’t the natural and logical consequences of what they’re arguing. Right? It’s not like somebody, some judge can say, agree to it and say, well, we didn’t think it could mean this. They’re like, no, no, it could right here, right now we’re admitting it.

Joe Patrice:

So the argument was that even though there’s no real reason to believe the presidents are immune from criminal liability, that somehow they have to be impeached and convicted by the Senate first before criminal proceeding can begin. This runs contrary to the actual statements of several senators who voted to acquit him in his second impeachment saying, we are not going to convict on this impeachment. He can be charged criminally. So that was clearly their intent. He argued that he was immune. The DC circuit, after taking a long time, wrote a very Lenivy and detailed opinion explaining that, no, this makes no sense. That was theoretically going to be the end of it. The Supreme Court decided last week that they would take up this case. The practical implication of this, of course, is that is not just that they’re going to take it up, but in a world in which their emergency powers are rapid and extreme.

Indeed, earlier today we got the Colorado ballot ruling handed down in an opinion that the justices didn’t even bother going to court for. I hear. They decided not even to expedite this, that they’re going to, they’ll hear oral argument maybe at the end of April on this issue. This then sets up a situation where they’ll probably drag this out until June or later to get an actual opinion on it. This then means in the meantime, it’s also true that even though they took up this case, which delays the risk of a trial happening before the election in the first place, they also managed to get five votes, at least I believe because four votes to take the thing up, but I believe it took five to stay the original ruling in the meantime, which they did do, meaning that the trial can’t go forward until this is resolved, which in the normal course you would just go forward with it and if they resolve it the other way, they reverse it, but you at least maximize your judicial resources. So they stayed this meaning they had the votes to push this off into the future. Now, is the Supreme Court going to rule that you can actually assassinate your political opponent without any repercussions? Maybe

Kathryn Rubino:

Probably not. Almost

Joe Patrice:

Certainly not. There is almost certainly not five votes for that.

Kathryn Rubino:

I do love your faith in the system, Joe. I think it’s probably true. It’s just

Joe Patrice:

Ridiculous. That said, but I don’t think anybody maybe Alito, I don’t think anybody actually thinks that that’s going to be the result here. But what they are capable of doing those that voted for this, taking this case up, is that they can delay this and then maybe Trump wins and then

Kathryn Rubino:

Bob’s your uncle. Yeah.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah.

Chris Williams:

I love that saying, by the way. Bob’s your uncle. Yeah, it’s

Joe Patrice:

Such a good one. It’s so good. What the fuck is Bob? Yeah, but I don’t understand what my takeaway from it was. It’s such a weird move for the Supreme Court who Supreme spends so much of its time, the majority of the Supreme Court complaining that the public doesn’t respect them anymore. We see Gallup polls, they’re becoming increasingly less respected. We have Amy Coney Barrett going around publicly complaining that people pay too much attention to us. I wish we could go back to where we were kind of obscure all this. They hate this and

Kathryn Rubino:

Then they keep doing it. And

Joe Patrice:

The answer here,

Kathryn Rubino:

It’s like they don’t don’t actually hate it. They actually kind of get off on the attention and the whole bad attention is still attention. They’re like toddlers that way,

Joe Patrice:

Knowing that there’s no way they’re going to agree to, yes, presidents have absolute immunity for everything given that they aren’t going to do that. Taking this up does nothing but make the court look bad. They could have just let this go and faded into obscurity, but they chose not to. And none of this even matters. If Trump loses, this was all just a complete sideshow. This is all a bid. Assuming he wins, he can then cancel all the prosecutions against him for four years or more depending on when he chooses to take Office for Life. But it’s so shortsighted of an institution desperately seeking to get itself back to respectability and that respectability, I got to say, I’m saying this, I kind of like that they don’t have respectability because I don’t agree with their current policy stance. But if I were giving them advice earnestly, you’re going to be a lot better off. You are going to be a lot better off passing rulings that get your worldview imposed if people don’t think you’re hacks, where you can claim that what you’re doing has some real grounding in the Constitution or whatever. This move was just so politically shortsighted.

Kathryn Rubino:

And I wonder though if it’s shortsighted or perhaps longer sighted in the sense that they have lifetime appointments and they don’t have to win election, but if Trump wins election, that cements their position for the next couple of nominations or whatever. And even if it’s only four years that Trump is in office, but they don’t need to be popular now, they can be popular in five years. And fundamentally, the attention span of the American public is not noted for being particularly long.

Joe Patrice:

Well, you get to a point or are getting to a point that that was Ellie’s angle was that there’s also folks who on that court who while it may be bad for the court itself, they don’t want to be there anymore and they would like to be replaced by Republicans. People like Thomas and Alito would love a situation where they could step down without shifting the balance of power. I mean,

Kathryn Rubino:

I’m not sure that’s true. I don’t think that they would like to step down. I think that they would like the comfort in knowing if they happen to die, they’ll be replaced. That’s a fair point. I don’t think either of them will ever step down.

Joe Patrice:

Friendly amendment taken. Yeah,

Kathryn Rubino:

And I mean, I think that the fact that I can see that with respect to both sides of the aisle, frankly, that it’s both a problem for Democrats and Republicans who are on the court, that they won’t step down the Ginsburg problem is the problem. Not just because Ginsburg was replaced with Coney Barrett or that’s not the only reason, but it’s okay to retire. Take a tip from Sandra Day. Okay. To pull away from the court. Yeah.

Joe Patrice:

Speaking of the Supreme Court, they have a new clerk coming in.

Kathryn Rubino:

Well, they got a bunch, but one that is already infamous, at least in the pages of Above, the Law Crystal Klans. I just can’t quit you. I’ve written a ton about Crystal Klans over the past couple of years. She’s a former turning point USA employee, and she got blown up because she wrote to coworkers, I hate black people. Like fuck them all. I hate blacks. End of story.

Joe Patrice:

Right. So now allegedly did that. We know those texts exist. Yes. She says she doesn’t remember them. Yes,

Kathryn Rubino:

She says she doesn’t remember them, but it does not reflect who she is.

Joe Patrice:

Right. Who amongst us doesn’t black out and type a bunch of racial.

Kathryn Rubino:

And there were also other reports of bigoted comments from Clanton. They were not the only set of reports that this is true. She was forced out of Turning Point USA. She bounced back though and got a job working for Ginny Thomas. What story, what embarrassing story for the Supreme Court is complete without a reference to Ginny Thomas.

Joe Patrice:

Now, she claims she can’t apologize or deal or anything for these because she’s got some sort of an NDAI gather with Turning Point. Whatever her stepping stone was, she went and worked for Judge Pryor. He, well,

Kathryn Rubino:

Right after working for Ginny, she went to as law, she went to George Mason Law School, and from there she worked for Corey Mays, first of Northern District of Alabama, then 11th Circuit, William Pryor. And it was just announced last week that she will be clerking for Clarence.

Joe Patrice:

Right. Pryor said that he wrote something about how she didn’t write them. It was some hacking attempt sort of a thing, which is weird because that doesn’t even comport with her own weird quasi story of it. So whatever. Put that to aside, all this happened now on the Supreme Court. Several people, including you, have pointed out that it’s a little rough for the world that somebody who might have been fired for being too racist for Turning Point is now on the Supreme Court that you got some pushback from a law professor on this claim.

Kathryn Rubino:

Yeah. I mean, listen, I’m not the only one who will refer to Crystal Clanton as the, I hate black people clerk or whatever her latest job is. And Professor Lube from Northwestern wrote an article in Slate saying that we need to give Crystal Clason a break, that this was a youthful indiscretion at best, and that Clarence Thomas is satisfied that she’s not, or no longer biased or a bigot. So this should be seen as a success story. But it might be nice if there was some earnest attempt of either apologizing, doing something that would indicate that she’s no longer, that the things that she allegedly texted were not true. There’s no sort of donation to any causes that work towards ending racism. No, nothing. It’s just further moving up the ladder of the right wing power structure and wherever she eventually winds up in the course of a career, I don’t think it’s going to be a surprise that this is how she first became at least known in legal circles.

Chris Williams:

I mean, we had a guy who, I think it was like 94, passed a crime bill that was super predatory on black folks, ended up becoming the president by saying, if you don’t vote for me, you’re not black. So I think that there’s a history of people being able to do a bunch of anti-black stuff and still be successful and then be able to be like, Hey, black folks, you got to vote for me. So I don’t really think she’ll get in that much trouble talking about Joe Biden, by the way.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. I don’t know. I’m reminded these sorts of youthful indiscretion kind of arguments. On the one hand, you want to be somewhat sympathetic to people growing up. On the other hand, I’m reminded of years ago during the Trump administration, there was a fight over a nominee for a position on, was it on the ninth Circuit or the District of Oregon? I can’t remember. I’m blanking. But out west and the nominee had had a bunch of college writings that were both racist and sexist. Now, he, unlike Clanton, very directly said, I did write those and they don’t reflect what I do now, and I apologize and I’ve matured and all of these things, which on the one hand is a good thing. Now, it was made a little bit testy to the extent that a lot of conservative judicial watchers, your Ed Whalens and Eli Shapiros both were coming out and saying, oh, it’s okay.

And we don’t think that he really should have apologized, and we don’t think there’s anything to apologize, which made his own apology a little more suspect within the confines of it. But that is what you want somebody to do. And so on one hand, that’s a good thing. On the other hand though, it is still somewhat problematic because, and this goes to your point about Rising through the hierarchy. There’s almost like a built-in plan these days that be the most despicable troll possible young. And that will open doors for you. And you can always apologize later. I will recant on my deathbed moment that

Kathryn Rubino:

You can get into heaven as long as you apologize right before you see per

Joe Patrice:

The gates. And so on the one hand, you want to be happy about people maturing and having apologies. On the other hand, to the extent that we ever reward this curses honorum of being as awful and vile as possible while young and moving on, that then becomes a pattern that gets endorsed by that system. So it is problematic all the way around. Although as you point out, this clerk has not gone the full bounds level of actually apologizing for anything. Right? Yeah.

Chris Williams:

I just want to know what the change of heart process is. How does one go from, I absolutely hate black people, full stop to what moderately dislike them. What’s the buildings roaming there? What’s the story of growth? I’m not really seeing much. It was categorical. It was categorical in its objection.

Joe Patrice:

Yeah. Okay. Well, I think that’s all of our stories for this week. Thanks everybody for listening. You should subscribe to the show, get new episodes when they drop. You should be giving reviews, stars, writing things. That all helps. You should be listening to the Jabot Kathryn’s other podcast. I’m also a guest of the Legal Tech Week Journalist Roundtable. You should listen to the other shows on the Legal Talk network. You should be reading Above the Law. Of course you read these and other stories before we talk about them. You should follow everything on social media at ATL blog, at Joseph Patrice, at Kathryn one, the numer one, the at writes for rent, the Physical Act of Writing, not rights like legal rights. Anyway. And you should do the same things on like Blue Sky, where I Joe Patrice, but otherwise everything’s the same. And with all of that said, we are done for this week. Peace.

Continue Reading