Patterico's Pontifications


A Not So Hypothetical Hypothetical

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 12:03 am

Let me ask y’all a hypothetical.

In my hypothetical, I can write an absolutely fascinating post about the conflicts of interest held by an L.A. Times reporter . . . but the story I tell could be seen as aligned with the interests of one of my bosses.

Let’s say I can assure you that I’d write this story anyway — and could cite to several previous posts I’d written about the same reporter. The post would reveal an eye-opening insight about a story written by the reporter.

Can I just write that post and not mention the fact that its point of view is favorable to one of my bosses?

Would the folks who jumped down my throat all weekend agree with my lack of disclosure?

Here’s the thing: it ain’t a hypothetical. This is a post I have been sitting on for about a week and a half. I could easily make the disclosure, but I just generally don’t like writing about anything that has anything to do with my bosses — even if my post would only support their position. I really just think it’s best to keep the blog and the job separate.

I’ve told several people about this issue privately — and have even hinted about it on this blog. Everyone I’ve told says it would be a great post.

But I’ve shied away because of the messiness of the disclosure issues — which I have also told people about.

It’s a little aggravating to be foregoing such a great post, and at the same time watching some commenters mocking the very concept of disclosing arguably relevant information.

My belief in disclosure is not posturing. I take this stuff seriously, and it restricts what I do here.

56 Responses to “A Not So Hypothetical Hypothetical”

  1. Without knowing more, I’d wonder whether it was more a professional ethics issue than a simple disclosure issue.

    Itsme (5d7f22)

  2. If you must post, disclose. Better to lay motivation out on the line than to keep it hidden and be thought biased when bias plays no part in the post.

    If it means disclosing information locked away for good reasons or bad, then don’t post. If it means disclosing information freely available to anyone willing to put forth the effort to find it, then post. If you can post without revealing information that is truly irrelevant to the case, then post.

    Though in this case it sounds like you have something that must be disclosed for your words to have any impact of consequence. Sounds to me as if it would do you a world of good to consult with a certain party regarding this matter.

    It may simply come down to disclosing that, “LA Times reporter Bloviating Prevaricator has produced a number of stories regarding Judge Beleagured Adjudicator, who happens to be a good friend of mine. Evidence has come to my attention that Mr. Prevaricator has made claims detrimental to the good name of Judge Adjudicator and to his work on the LA County bench. Claims that can be proven false. I write now not just because Judge Adjudicator is a good friend and colleague, but also to correct Mr. Prevaricator’s calumny and lies.”

    Alan Kellogg (c06d0b)

  3. Email the particulars to me with some sites for me to check the facts, and I’ll write it.

    That takes you off the hook for any editorial commentary, but the issue gets raised.

    Your choice.

    wls (fb8809)

  4. I say post it. Who needs a job?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  5. Without knowing more, I’d wonder whether it was more a professional ethics issue than a simple disclosure issue.

    You really shouldn’t even wonder that without knowing more.

    I’ve told a couple of DAs about it and they want me to post it.

    Patterico (bad89b)

  6. When I was in the military I worked with a number of classified projects and loads of classified information. Watching the news was aggravating at times because sometimes I knew absolutely the report was missing key info or was completely inaccurate.

    But I had sworn to maintain the secrecy and agreed in writing to the nondisclosure rules. Many of those apply for the remainder of my life.

    I’d recommend not reporting it despite the temptation.

    voiceofreason (4b44fd)

  7. Wow, thanks for posting this Patterico. Now we can all see what a GREAT AND ETHICAL GUY YOU ARE!!!!!!

    (of course without being able to have any idea what the f you are talking about nor make any actual judgments for ourselves since you don’t reveal any details at all)

    What a masturbatory post….

    Dude (7676e6)

  8. I occasionally decline to write posts that I think would be good ones for just this reason. In order to post them honestly, I’d feel the need to disclose that the posts are taking the side of the company that gives me a regular paycheck, and I would prefer not to do that. I don’t blog even slightly anonymously, but I would prefer not to mention the company’s name unless I have to.

    Robin S (6c486a)

  9. So long as you don’t disclose anything you are legally not allowed to disclose, I say go for it.

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  10. There are no ethical issues involved, and the boss I’m talking about actually would come off looking better if I disclosed what I noticed. And that’s all it is: something I noticed about a couple of articles in the newspaper.

    The point is, if I hid the personal connection, some nut case could say: the only reason he wrote that post is to make his boss look good! Which would not be true. I wish there were no connection to one of my bosses, because then I could write the post without worrying about entangling the job and the blog.

    I sent the details to wls so he’ll know, but I told him I’m not sure I want anything written about it on my blog.

    Assuming he gets what I’m talking about from the links I sent him — a tall order because it’s very complex and I didn’t spend a lot of time explaining it — I’m OK with him commenting here in the comments re: whether he thinks I have any ethical issues (I don’t). But I don’t want him getting into the subject matter.

    Oh, btw, Dude: I don’t write this blog for idiots like you. I have a track record with people who actually read my site, as opposed to people like you who just helicopter in and scream about how great Balko is. Posts like this mean something to them because I have built up trust.

    Patterico (bad89b)

  11. It seems to me that the only aspect holding you back is that The Post brings your workplace into your blog in a way that you’re not entirely comfortable with. It harms no-one except some reporter to whom you have previously been critical. It doesn’t harm your employer, but rather benefits him. You’re not hiding the relationships involved…

    It sure doesn’t sound like an ethical dilemma, but rather a style one. You don’t want to mix business with pleasure even in this small way. My guess is that it will boil down to the question “Will the overall style and quality of my blog be maintained if I make an exception to this aspect of that style?”

    Obviously, it’s totally up to you. If it helps, I know that if you do decide to make the post, I know you won’t hide the relationships and the implication of those relationships from us. That’s just how you roll. 😉

    Darkmage (be2d37)

  12. I think you should ask a certain person whom alert reader Hank K. has spoken glowingly to you about and abide by her decision.

    nk (6e4f93)

  13. You’re talking about the 60 Minutes “reporter” who interviewed Lynne Cheney even though she represents her book, right?

    David Ehrenstein (7f3593)

  14. Unfortunately, nothing you do will exonerate you from those wishing you ill. Examples abound of the well-intentioned excoriated by their detractors, truth and ethics be damned. So, if you tell the story, tell all and prepare to take your shots; those of us who know your high standards will respect you even more. However, you and I know that those who seek to discredit you will make their attempts, full disclosure or no. Ideology trumps truth and high standards in today’s climate.

    TB (98cc7a)

  15. Patterico-

    As in the past, I love how you fire the first volley toward Balko, then adopt this “poor wittle old me” attitude claiming everyone is just jumping down your throat, that Balko is being just so, so unfair to you, that Balko is intemperate, etc, etc.

    This also made me laugh:
    “I challenge anyone to go back and look at the original post that started all this, and his intemperate response. Anyone who does that will see where the blame lies for this getting ugly.”

    Gee, I dunno.

    You impugn Balko’s integrity, you state he has ulterior motives, you state his “only” reason for being interested in Hayne was Maye, you feign that maybe it was unintentional (but then darkly find the ommission very “curious”), suggest that an error made by Balko was not due to a simple, minor mistake, but due to his bias, pepper your comments with crap like “I wish someone other than BALKO had written this,” etc. etc.

    BUT YOU OF COURSE ARE BLAMELESS and don’t deserve any of the blowback coming your way.


    Dude (7676e6)

  16. For those of us no longer in the LA basin, the disclosure probably really isn’t necessary.

    Besides, you’ve aroused my curiosity!

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  17. #14 Dude:

    I don’t see a lot of “blowback,” but I sure do see a lot of witless spuming and fuming.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  18. Ironically, you would post a negative story about your bosses because no one could accuse you of feathering your nest. Is this your logic Paterico?

    Alta Bob (c549e9)

  19. Sure; go for it. The disclosure handles the only issues that I can see.

    If you don’t, you’re a tease.

    Joel Rosenberg (677e59)

  20. Ironically, you would post a negative story about your bosses because no one could accuse you of feathering your nest. Is this your logic Paterico?

    Uh, no. I just generally try to stay away from the subject altogether.

    I may end up writing about this. I just have to think about it more.

    Patterico (bad89b)

  21. The connection to a boss is ridiculously tangential.

    Patterico (bad89b)

  22. I appreciate the full disclosure approach, but I think that I want to see disclosure where the relationship is boss/employee. I have much less need to see disclosure where the relationship is advocate/death row inmate.

    Cory Maye has no ability to reward his advocate whereas the boss can (potentially or theoretically)reward an employee. If the boss/employee situation not disclosed, it leaves one open to charges of brown-nosing at a minimum.

    quasimodo (edc74e)

  23. Why not simply qualify: “The importance of this story warrants exposure despite any appearance of conflict of interest.”

    boris (ad3d7f)

  24. Patterico, my advice is to stick to your original decisions on the style, content and purpose of your blog. It is a tough thing to do, but core to enjoyment of the blogging in my experience.

    SPQR (6c18fd)

  25. Cory Maye has no ability to reward his advocate whereas the boss can (potentially or theoretically)reward an employee.

    That’s the biggest difference between the Balko “conflict of interest” and yours.

    Balko criticizes doctor Hane because he thinks the doctor is unethical and and untrustworthy. His supposed “conflict of interest” is that the doctor previously testified in the case of Cory Maye. Balko has dedicated a lot of time and energy to free Cory Maye.

    But the reason Balko wants Cory Maye freed is not because Cory Maye is his boss, or because he has any particular interest in Cory Maye. He wants Cory Maye freed because he believes that Cory Maye was unjustly convicted.

    Balko’s underlying reason for criticizing Dr. Hayne is not because Dr. Hanye is an adversary of Cory Maye. And his reason for trying so hard to acquite Cory May is not because he likes Cory Maye personally (he does, but that came later, it wasn’t causal).

    Balko’s motivations for attacking Dr. Hayne and for trying to free Cory Maye are identical — he wants the crimnal justice system to be more well, just.

    Balko discloses that interest. He wears it on his sleeve. It’s not a conflict. The fact that that interest also motivated him to fight hard for Cory Maye doesn’t mean that his interests in stopping Dr. Hayne and freeing Cory Maye conflict. They are the same interest. And that interest is fully disclosed.

    Balko works on the assumption that everyone benefits if the criminal justice system is more fair. If Cory Maye is freed, that sets a precedent that benefits everyone who might end up in Maye’s situation. It carries no special personal benefit for Balko.

    The type of “conflict of interest” that should be disclosed is one that holds a special, undisclosed benefit for the advocate. Balko doesn’t get any special, undisclosed benefit if Maye is freed.

    However, in your case, Patterico, you apparently do have at least an implied “special benefit” that isn’t spread equally among your audience — namely, your boss gets to look good.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  26. Dude #14…

    Most of us that read this understand the possibility that people come here with an agenda…even Patterico has one when he posts…

    What you don’t understand that he comes from an ethical side most of the time, and when he hammers Balko about that, such as leaving information out of a post, and opines that he (Balko) may have done it on purpose, and backs that with information that Balko leaves out, he has a very valid point. Even if you don’t think that point reasonable, logic still dictates that it is reasonable. Alot of people don’t know all the facts of every situation, and so, Balko, when writing an opinion, needs to be sure that he is telling us all we need to know about a situation, not just what he wants to say to buoy his point beyond a reasonable standard. When Balko points out facts that are WRONG, and then crawfishes backwards to cover it, that leaves someone like me wondering what else he got wrong, and where his bias comes from. Personally, in death penalty discussions, I’m on the fence, so I’m more than willing to read both sides, and Balko’s side here is way to biased to leave out that he has an agenda about this specific doctor. Simple mistakes are still mistakes; errors of fact are still errors; information left out is still protecting an agenda. Why can’t Balko just tell us all, instead of making someone else clean up his mess?

    That is the point….not the mindless attacks…

    reff (bff229)

  27. P.S. to Phil…I don’t agree that the conflict of interest in the op-ed is so very clear, especially when you consider the op-ed attacks a doctor’s testimony that is shown not to be taken in the context that it was given. Balko changes the context, and that is unethical when writing an opinion. That the Supreme Court did the same thing is one of Patterico’s points about the op-ed, which backs his (Patterico’s) discussion of the op-ed. A person reading the op=ed for their first piece of information about this case would be getting the WRONG information about the case, and that is unethical.

    reff (bff229)

  28. I vote No.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  29. Trying to build a “conflict of interest” analysis about Patterico’s comments on Balko is a strawman. I don’t believe that I’ve seen Patterico use that term for why he thinks Balko should have disclosed his activism in the pieces on Haynes.

    SPQR (6c18fd)

  30. OK, DRJ, I do have one conflict of interest I think may affect Balko’s work at times, when he lets it slip through.

    It’s not the Cory Maye coverage in particular. But I agree that if Balko is changing the context of facts, in order to make them more persuasive than they would be in the proper context, he is being unethical.

    He obviously completely believes that Dr. Hayne is doing harm – to Maye, but more importantly, to society. And to the extent that, his interest in persuading his audience of what he believes may interfere with his interest in presenting the facts in the most accurate light possible, I agree that there is a conflict of interest.

    This happens all the time with prosecutors, too. If prosecutors were ordered to tell juries “I have a conflict of interest: my job is not to give you the straight facts; it is to give you the facts in the light I think is most likely to persuade you to convict. I will not tell you information I think tends to persuade you to acquite.” I would probably feel pretty good about that.

    In that spirit, I agree that Balko has something to disclose. But how does he disclose this conflict of interest? Perhaps by stating at the beginning: “I have a conflict of interest with you; I truly believe Dr. Hayne is a danger to society. I have already made up my mind. If you want to make up your mind on your own, and leave open the possibility that Dr. Hayne is NOT a danger, then our interests conflict.”

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  31. What I find particularly rich about this whole affair (Patterico taking Balko to task for not disclosing his biases) is that Patterico DOESN’T EVEN ALLOW OTHERS TO DISCUSS HIS OWN MAJOR BIAS on his site.

    He has threatened to BAN anyone who even brings up his occupation….PARTICULARLY is you were to suggest that his experiences in his occupation may bias how he sees an issue.

    When Balko previously suggested that Patterico’s profession might bias him against suspects and bias him for the police, Patterico went apeshit.

    Dude (7676e6)

  32. In the future, for fifteen minutes, everybody will have a conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest on the order of seriousness of Balko attacking Dr. Hayne for manifestly at-least-worse-than-questionable behavior having some benefit of perhaps helping to get Cory Maye out of the death house and/or Patterico publishing a putatively good story about a reporter that might, in some indirect way, make Patterico’s boss look good are certainly worth disclosing and discussing, but are hardly a reason not to go forward with a legitimate and interesting story

    Balko’s story is clearly legitimate and interesting; that Patterico’s is, as well, is the way to bet.

    I think Phil oversimplify’s a prosecutor’s obligations. A prosecutor does have an obligation to try to persuade a jury to convict, rather than acquit, but only when the prosecutor has a good-faith belief that the defendant really did it, and the prosecutor has sufficient proof to establish it.

    I doubt that Phil would want the prosecutor to “disclose” that part of it.

    “In the interest of full disclosure, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if I didn’t think that you really should convict this man — if I didn’t think he really did it, and that I’ve put forth sufficient proof that should persuade you — I have an obligation not to be here, trying to persuade you to convict him.”

    (I certainly wouldn’t; I don’t think prosecutors should vouch for their own cases.)

    Joel Rosenberg (677e59)

  33. If you learned of something equally deplorable in the same places and under the same circumstances, would you be as eager to disclose or as conflicted about doing it?

    Ms. Judged (becd1d)

  34. “Comment by voiceofreason — 10/9/2007 @ 4:03 am”

    And this is relevant to Patterico’s experience how? Plus, and this is a rhetorical off topic dig, you can reply or not and I won’t sweat it, you were in the military without managing to learn anything realistic about how to survive the effects of nuclear war why? Okay, I admit I was boring enough to actually study our manuals on nuclear battle.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  35. Christoph,
    (1) I didn’t realize I need to clear posts through you first
    (2) nondisclosure is the subject of this thread. many times it is an ethical, if not legal choice.
    (3)I think it is safe to say that I worked in nuclear operations plenty long enough to understand all too well what survivability really meant. Now you are claiming to be a nuclear operations planner at some point in your career?

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  36. VOR:
    (1) You don’t.
    (2) True — I’m just not understanding how protecting classified military secrets, something I can relate to, has anything at all to do with Patterico’s circumstances. I could be missing your point as to its relevance, in which case please both forgive and elucidate me.
    (3) Never was anything close to a nuclear operations planner, rather curious and a reader. When you worked in this field, if you did, I will point out there were many more warheads than today and larger warheads. On the other thread, basically you agreed with me in the end. Your initial point was about destroying the world a few times over. I said that is exaggerated, but the effects would be horrific. Then we ended up arguing over just how many cities would be struck and the totality of casualties in these cities, plus residual and effects on infrastructure and society. We both agreed they would be profound. My remaining criticism of you was you postulated a deployment of nuclear weapons that was very unlikely to be the case for a variety of reasons, but in any event your worse case scenario would still leave me correct in my core contention. Your repeated and dishonest statements about me relishing nuclear war were just silly, however.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  37. Joel, the reason I disagree with that “disclosure” is because it encourages the jury to give up their own reasoning powers with regard to the evidence, and trust the prosecutor, and that’s not what the jury is supposed to do under the law.

    On the other hand, acknowledging the prosecution’s bias helps make sure that the jury doesn’t rely on the prosecution to make the guilt/innocence decision for them.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  38. Christopher,

    (1) Disclosure is disclosure. Sometimes ethical or self-imposed limits are tougher to maintain than legal ones.
    (2) If other readers are interested in your claims they can view the other thread and make their own determination as to who was saying what. I’ve said all I plan to on the subject.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  39. Disclose it already! Bow to the will of your readers!


    Bradley J. Fikes (97f1f6)

  40. Indeed Bradley. He must submit to our will.

    The tease. 🙂

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  41. “What I find particularly rich about this whole affair (Patterico taking Balko to task for not disclosing his biases) is that Patterico DOESN’T EVEN ALLOW OTHERS TO DISCUSS HIS OWN MAJOR BIAS on his site.”

    That is not true, Dude.

    I will not allow people to use my blog to suggest that I am a bad prosecutor. That’s just a decision that I have made; as I have said, I try to leave the two disentangled for the most part, and it has worked out well to do so.

    But I’ll let you argue the flip side of the coin all day long: that my profession as a prosecutor makes me a bad blogger. I passionately believe that people who do opinion journalism must be open to having their journalism questioned. If I did it for a living, I would feel the same way.

    Now, you are an interesting fellow. I suspect you are a guy who used to post here named King Christian X. That person was an equally rabid Balko fan, whose IP addresses came back to RIPE (as do most spam comments), and who changed identities and IP addresses quickly.

    I suspect you are a comment spammer for a living, and I noticed that this site experienced a particularly egregious spam attack at precisely the moment you resumed commenting.

    You seem awfully familiar with the past history of Balko’s pissing contests with me. Yet I remember no “Dude” commenting back then.

    Assuming you are not Balko himself, and assuming you are not a comment spammer, then you know what I do for a living and I don’t know what you do.

    And you think I should allow you, a gutless anonymous pissant, to disparage how I do my job?

    Nope. I won’t. It’s not fair if you don’t tell us your name and place of work.

    But I’ll let you question my blogging all day long in comments here. Balko won’t let critics do the same on his blog. But I will.

    Patterico (977a5c)

  42. Phil,

    Prosecutors have an obligation to seek justice. Some of the most fascinating stories I have are ones I won’t tell on this blog because they deal with work-related issues in too specific a manner — but several of the stories relate to in-depth investigations I did that resulted in the dismissal of serious charges. Those are some of my proudest accomplishments as a D.A.

    Patterico (c1dc22)

  43. How did this Tuesday post on hypothetical conflicts of interest turn into what reads like a Friday Open Thread on whatever anyone wants to talk about?

    Wait, I know what happened. This thread has Balko-itis.

    DRJ (74c23b)

  44. But I’ll let you question my blogging all day long in comments here. Balko won’t let critics do the same on his blog. But I will.

    Comment by Patterico — 10/9/2007 @ 11:39 am

    What’s your point? Neither does instapundit and he’s pretty good.

    joe (6dd049)

  45. Some bloggers are willing to go to the extra time and trouble to deal with comments on their blogs; some aren’t. I think drawing conclusions about their integrity from that is a little much, and a little more much when it’s used as a slam against somebody else.

    (Now, if Patterico had said, “I’m so neurotically dedicated to my blogging that I’ll even burn hours of time I should be spending doing more sensible things in my comments section, while Balko uses his time more wisely,” it would have been charmingly self-deprecating, rather than self-servingly mildly, err, scolding.)

    Joel Rosenberg (677e59)

  46. Ouch.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  47. If this was your first post, having no knowledge of the Patterico watchdogs, would you post it?

    Chuck (a4fb19)

  48. Phil, let me explain it again for you, perhaps in different words. As you say, “Balko has dedicated a lot of time and energy to free Cory Maye”. In fact, Balko is completely invested in the Maye case. He is its public face. If Maye is ultimately vindicated, it will substantially advance Balko’s career – far more than indirectly making his boss look good would do for Patterico. For the current purpose, it’s as if Maye is Balko’s client.

    Now you say that “Balko’s underlying reason for criticizing Dr. Hayne is not because Dr. Hanye is an adversary of Cory Maye”. Well, maybe. And maybe not. We are not obliged to believe that just because you do. The fact is that one of the major obstacles to freeing Maye is Hayne’s testimony. If Hayne is discredited, then Maye’s case is helped enormously. So Balko digs up dirt on Hayne, real or not, and publishes it.

    Suppose that an appeals court judge, or a juror on a future retrial of Maye, reads Balko’s article, and comes away with a negative impression of Hayne. She has no idea that this will be relevant to her later, but in the back of her mind is filed the information that Dr Hayne of Mississippi is not to be trusted. So far as she knows, the article was written by someone who knows his facts, and who has no particular reason to dislike Hayne except for what his investigation has found. Then the Maye case comes before her, and she must evaluate Hayne’s testimony; that impression is bound to affect her judgment.

    Now suppose instead that Balko had disclosed his interest up front: “Dr Hayne is a major witness against Cory Maye, whom I believe to be innocent, and whose cause I have prominently championed”. The reader still gets the same impression of Hayne, but there’s a little asterisk on it, noting that “this information came from an advocate for someone called Cory Maye”. Then when the Maye case comes before her, she’s more likely to put 2 and 2 together, and give Hayne’s testimony a bit more credence than she might otherwise have done.

    Imagine if, some months before the OJ trial, Johnny Cochran had published an article demolishing Mark Fuhrman’s character, without mentioning that Fuhrman would be a major witness against one of his clients in an upcoming trial. That would surely be not just unethical but sanctionable. Can’t you see the parallel?

    Milhouse (c4a90c)

  49. Err on the side of caution when it comes posting anything that might compromise your effectiveness as a prosecutor or your office. Your day job is too important.

    Stu707 (adbb5a)

  50. Unfortunately, nothing you do will exonerate you from those wishing you ill

    Especially when you take on a newspaper! The LAT is comprised of vicious, amoral, and intemperate jerks, like 90% of all other news organizations. They like honest criticism about as much as they like reporting on Democrats caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

    If there’s no ethical concern and no confidentiality issues, I say publish it. With the disclosure, of course–now that you’ve made this post, not disclosing would be as pointless as it would be unethical.

    Whether journalists have a conflict of interest is a legitimate issue of public interest. Journalists can hardly claim that you’re attacking their independence if you’re pointing out that they are not independent.

    Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c)

  51. P #5:

    You really shouldn’t even wonder that without knowing more

    In that case, maybe you will write a post in a way that doesn’t raise the question.

    But whatever you say.

    Itsme (9a792c)

  52. Darkmage #11:

    It doesn’t harm your employer, but rather benefits him. . . .

    It sure doesn’t sound like an ethical dilemma

    But the latter doesn’t necessarily follow the former.

    Itsme (9a792c)

  53. P#25

    You said, “…your boss gets to look good.”

    So? I don’t see where Patterico said he would be doing it to make his boss look good. All he’s said is that revealing what a reporter has said about another would make the reporter look bad, and could make somebody else (perhaps his boss) look good. As long as the story is honest, and does not violate any confidentiality I say he should post.

    Alan Kellogg (795b28)

  54. Milhouse,

    That is a great summation of the issue.

    Thank you.

    Patterico (bad89b)

  55. But the latter doesn’t necessarily follow the former.

    Agreed. But from Patterico’s descriptions of the situation, I conclude that in this case there isn’t an ethical dilemma. I suppose Patterico could be feeding us a line of horsehocky, but I trust him to be pretty scrupulous in these matters.

    Darkmage (be2d37)

  56. Patterico, I’m glad those are among your proudest momements of being a prosecutor. I’m happy to hear that sort of ethical commitment is present in your county.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1161 secs.