'I Relied on Others,' 'Documents Were Filed in the Wrong Place,' and Other Memorable Excuses
The year's highlights in blame shifting.

After two former Georgia election workers sued Rudy Giuliani for falsely accusing them of committing massive fraud in 2020, his attorney argued that the real culprit in that calumny was The Gateway Pundit. Meanwhile, Gateway Pundit publisher Jim Hoft, who faced a separate defamation lawsuit by the same plaintiffs, was arguing that his website "fairly and accurately reported on the claims made by third parties, such as Trump's legal team," which Giuliani led.
This month's $148 million verdict against Giuliani suggests that jurors were not swayed by his attempt to shift the blame for his baseless allegations. His consolation prize is top billing in my annual list of memorable moments in buck passing, several of which involved the tireless peddler of Donald Trump's stolen-election fantasy.
'Really Crazy Stuff.' That was Rupert Murdoch's private description of Giuliani's baroque conspiracy theory, which Fox News nevertheless helped promote. Although the outlet, like Hoft, blamed Giuliani et al. for the tall tale, its frequently credulous coverage of his allegations against Dominion Voting Systems resulted in a $787 million defamation settlement last April.
'I Relied on Others.' In October, Jenna Ellis, a member of Giuliani's "elite strike force team," pleaded guilty to a state charge of aiding and abetting false statements. Even while admitting that she had failed to fact-check the team's election fraud claims, Ellis tried to mitigate her responsibility, saying, "I relied on others, including lawyers with many more years of experience than I, to provide me with true and reliable information."
'There's Nothing There.' In January, we learned that President Joe Biden, who had slammed Trump's "totally irresponsible" handling of classified records, also had retained sensitive material he was not supposed to have. "We found a handful of documents were filed in the wrong place," Biden said, taking refuge in the passive voice. "I think you're going to find there's nothing there."
The Mask Slips. In May, after former White House COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci conceded that face masks had, at best, a modest overall impact on coronavirus transmission during the pandemic, CNN's Erin Burnett noted that his admission seemed to contradict what Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and other public health officials had been saying for three years. Murthy implausibly blamed ever-shifting science, saying, "Sometimes guidance does evolve over time as you learn more," which "can be disconcerting."
'Concerns Have Been Raised.' A year ago, the World Journal of Oncology retracted an eyebrow-raising study claiming that nicotine vapers face about the same cancer risk as cigarette smokers. Blaming the study's authors, who failed to address post-publication "concerns" about their "methodology," "data processing," "statistical analysis," and "conclusions," the journal's editors did not explain why they and their peer reviewers had overlooked these and other glaring deficiencies.
Black-Market Boosters. Nearly three years after New York supposedly legalized recreational marijuana, state-approved stores remain scarce and account for a tiny percentage of sales. Instead of admitting their complicity in this fiasco, state officials are promising a crackdown on the unauthorized vendors who have proliferated because the legal industry is hobbled by heavy taxes, burdensome regulations, and maddening red tape.
'Percocet via Snapchat.' At a Republican presidential debate in September, Vivek Ramaswamy blamed deaths from fentanyl disguised as pain pills on "bio-terrorism" abetted by social media. He conveniently overlooked the fact that such hazards are a product of the prohibition policies that he supports, which create a black market where the composition of drugs is uncertain and unpredictable.
'Floored and Shocked.' In August, after five of his deputies admitted torturing two men during an unlawful home invasion, Rankin County, Mississippi, Sheriff Bryan Bailey said he was "floored and shocked" by the "horrendous crimes" of "these few individuals." Yet Bailey's underlings had been committing similar abuses for nearly two decades, generating multiple complaints and lawsuits. "I'm going to fix this," he promised while insisting he was oblivious to that pattern of brutality. "I'm going to make everyone a whole lot more accountable."
© Copyright 2023 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But what does any of this have to do with Florida?
“The Libertarian case for dispensing with mitigation in criminal prosecutions.”
In 2023, unipolar got kicked in the balls a few times but will fight harder in the up coming year.
Last year, Russia ran out of munitions and the US backed
springsummerfall offensive will push them out of the Donbas.policies that he supports, which create a black market
And if Fentanyl were legalized, do you hallucinate that it would be hanging next to the Tylenol at Rite Aid? No, the black market would continue, as you just pointed out in your paragraph about the failure of "legalized" marijuana in New York. Vivek is right: Fentanyl IS a terror weapon being wielded against us by hostile foreign powers.
What do you think "legalized" means? Plenty of legal products are still regulated, some more rationally than others.
Shockingly, the more over-regulated a product is, the closer the market in that product resembles a "black market".
Why would hostile foreign powers be targeting the US underclass? Wouldn't it be far more effective for them to target the US ruling class?
Fentanyl is already legal
It's legal in the same way ketamine is legal, yeah. Just try going out and buying some.
Somehow the whole medicinal model is messed up. It's not going to doctors to be advised on what medicines to take, it's about going to doctors to get permission to get some medicine.
Given the current state of defensive medicine practices, I doubt any doctor would be willing to advise patients in OTC use of fentanyl. Just think of the lawsuits.
Regulated means illegal save for bribes.
If KAR, squirrel and others want to use Fentanyl they should be free to do so. The taxpayer should not be funding it or any of their obligations such as food, shelter, utilities, transportation, or education.
I have a theory that heavy narcotics use would cancel out SQRLSY’s raving mania and revert him to something approaching normal. Until the drugs wear off.
And if Fentanyl were legalized, do you hallucinate that it would be hanging next to the Tylenol at Rite Aid? No, the black market would continue, as you just pointed out in your paragraph about the failure of “legalized” marijuana in New York
I don't think Sullum supports excessive drug regulation, either. He would agree that's also a big part of the problem behind the so-called "opioid epidemic." People's inability to get reasonable amounts of painkillers for their actual pain because the government won't let doctors make those decisions.
That's a tiny part of the opioid addiction problem. By far, most addicts start out using illegally obtained drugs.
What's your excuse, Reason?
China is targeting the ruling class via bribes and the underclass via drugs.
You forgot one:
"But it was a RELUCTANT vote".
Still zero concerns about lawyers being criminally charged for offering legal advice, eh?
I bet that won't be a bad idea in hindsight.
"Aiding and abetting false statements," is what she pled to. How the fuck is that even a crime? If it were connected to anyone but Trump, Reason would be up in arms over the whole proceeding. And yet, far from that, Sullum lists her as being especially guilty of deflection.
The state accepted her so-called apology. But that's preposterous-if what she said is true, she made a good faith error. It should not be even slightly criminal.
Lawyers are officers of the court. They are not supposed to lie, or help their clients lie. In practice, a lot of lawyers learn a lot of damning stuff about their clients but turn a blind eye to it. However, if it can proven that they not only knew that their client was doing something illegal and continuing to do said illegal thing and aided them in doing that illegal thing they are just as vulnerable as their client. This doesn't mean lawyers are required to present evidence to convict their clients, but it does mean they can't actively participate in their clients' crimes, including perjury.
Corrolary to that is that interpreters in international cases are also officers of the court. The Constitution assures us that "judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, ... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." What happened was that when Boss Trump televangelism infiltrated the State, mystical male judges began to add the "so help me Ghawd" calque as a religious Test for officers of the court. Two solutions: decline the proffered help or recuse participation in Torquemada Inqusitions or Star Chamber proceedings under a religious test.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Also zero concerns of 5 felonies being reduced to a forgivable misdemeanor with no jail time or loss of law license if they make a public statement dems can use.
Certainly does not indicate drastically overcharging anybody.
Only Hunter Biden gets over charged per Sullum.
Pretty sure you just lit the Sarc signal there. What’s the over/under on when he regains consciousness from last night’s bender?
What.... Did you think $787+$148 million (close to a $B as in BILLION) dollar shut-them-up suits wouldn't result in a little blame shifting?? The real question is why so much is getting charged to shut-them-up.... This just as well be labelled 'hush' money.
How about reaching a little BIGGER into blame shifting memories...
- We leftards are proud [Na]tional So[zi]alists who blame-shift and call Republicans Nazi's.
- We leftards lobby endlessly and constantly for more gov-spending while we blame-shift Republicans for bankrupting the nation.
- We leftards gang-up in identity politics (gender/color) while we blame-shift Republicans for being racist and sexist.
etc, etc, etc, etc....
You expect fairness? No, those who can, do and get away with it.
It helps if you have the bulk of media on your side.
As long as the majority of Americans can get their cheesy poofs and watch sporting events, they do not give a shit anyway. At least not until they actually feel the pinch, then all hell breaks loose and they will cast their votes like a Weimar German.
'There's Nothing There.' In January, we learned that President Joe Biden, who had slammed Trump's "totally irresponsible" handling of classified records, also had retained sensitive material he was not supposed to have. "We found a handful of documents were filed in the wrong place," Biden said, taking refuge in the passive voice. "I think you're going to find there's nothing there."
And since then, we've learned that the main thing the FBI was looking for were documents related to Crossfire Hurricane, that Trump was actively trying to declassify at the end of his administration and the bureaucracy was fighting him. So the big scofflaw was all about the Deep State insulating itself.
And remember that Biden had classified documents dating back to when he was a Senator, and he presumably never had the authority to remove any of those to his private residence. Whereas Trump, by presumption, had all the authority to do anything he wanted with those documents.
And since then, we’ve learned that the main thing the FBI was looking for were documents related to Crossfire Hurricane, that Trump was actively trying to declassify at the end of his administration and the bureaucracy was fighting him.
Crossfire Hurricane clearly and greatly damaged our nation.
Trum,p is entitled to give payback.
I relied on NYT and Wapo to admit to government censorship practices instead of looking at the many studies showing censorship or listening to democrats discuss openly censorship.
/almost every Reason writer
Imagine being worse than Ramaswamy, Giuliani, and Ellis, not even realizing it, and thinking they're the problem.
We knew about mask inadequacies early on. I sent a friend an email back in 2021..."The CDC’s recent data suggests that mask mandates might be responsible for a 0.5% reduction of COVID infections relative to places without mask mandates. Which is it say, that if you might get 1000 infections without a mask mandate, you might get *only* 995 infections with a mandate in place."
CBS News March 5, 2021
The CDC report, published Friday, examined the association of state mask mandates and orders allowing restaurants to reopen with COVID-19 cases and deaths.
Researchers found that, from March 1 to Dec. 31, mask mandates were associated with a 0.5 percentage point decrease in daily case growth rates and a 0.7 percentage point decrease in death growth rates within 20 days of implementation.
Clearly lesé majesté against Christ's Donald Trump.
the journal's editors did not explain why they and their peer reviewers had overlooked these and other glaring deficiencies.
To me the most plausible explanation is that there was a narrative that had to be pushed. Only on finding SEVERE issues that could no longer be handwaved away did anything change.
Does it feel good to be a Maoist piece of shit, Jacob?
Sullum is a soulless, vacuous, unclean thing, I doubt he ‘feels’ anything. At least not like a living human or small animal would.
Hey how about all the authoritarian bolshie acts by Jakes favorite Federal agency..the DOJ? Catholic are domestic terrorists. Kids with mental illness should be sexually mutilated over their parents objections?
Misinformation agencies? Big Tech/Federal Govt censoring speech? JC...Reason seems to only care about abortion, open borders and of course sexually mutilating kids as a treatment for a mental illness.
It starts at the top. Rot and moral degeneracy have taken over Reason..Nick/Matt/KMW need to go. Cathy Young? Cathy neocon Young? hell why not give Jennifer Rubin or Max Boot a column?
But...but...but..."DRUGS!?!?"
...other than gin and terbackkky, yep. Religions have cash, cults don't. Commodities have bribes, drugs... not as many.
Re: masks, viruses and "the shifting science":
For one thing, what comprises a "mask" varied massively during the COVID plandemic. There was never any doubt that a properly worn N95/KN95 respirator would protect the wearer from most airborne aerosol exposure indoors. However, wearing the type with the exhaust flap would only protect the wearer, not those around them.
Additionally, the "science" (i.e., particle/fluid physics) never shifted in that if a person was to wear any type of reasonably thick or electrostatically charged cloth face (mouth AND nose) covering, it would by very simple physics reduce both the amount of particles/droplets/aerosols that a person expels into shared air, but also the distance any such substances traveled. Again, this entails actually covering the face tightly, which if you saw the types of "mask" wearing I did out in public, was a laughable contention.
So without a program to distribute (either commercially or government) adequate masks in sufficient quantities and an educational program (to say nothing of enforcement, LOL) on how to wear them, any "science" done after the fact on masks was sure to "shift" greatly. Who the hell knew whether those people surveyed (or the data gleaned on infections) controlled for mask types, mask hygiene, let alone the ability to know whether a person always wore a mask or wore it properly. IMO even trying to do any kind of scientific study on this was a fool's errand to begin with.
Suffice to say, I wore a high quality N95 level respirator when indoors in public places during the peak of the outbreak and never once caught COVID, so anecdotally I know it worked. Screw the gene therapy "vaccines" as well - I wised up after getting the first one.
All of which is to say that expecting a Fauci or anyone in public health - especially tenured, lazy government officials - to provide useful, consistent, controlled data and analysis on masks was and is a fool.
nice
https://amazoncashback.org/
nice
https://indianvirtualnumber.com/
Jake Sullum get's an "A" in logic and rhetoric for this one. Every single point was competently argued and aptly defended. As a fellow-sufferer from pedantry, I propose a toast to this most objective and capable Reason reporter, raconteur and investigator.
...the study's authors, who failed to address post-publication "concerns" about their "methodology," "data processing," "statistical analysis," and "conclusions,"
But other than that, it was a pretty good article.
What's funny to me is that the Congressional Black Caucus made allegations quite similar to Fox's about voting machines: ringing up votes for the wrong candidate, for example. But this was on January 6, 2005, and the machine maker was Diebold.
But there was a plot twist: Diebold went out of the voting machine business, but their technology was bought by...Dominion Voting Systems. Was that suspect voting technology used in Dominion Voting Systems' machines used to vote in 2020?
Another:
"[Michael Cohen] went on to say that he did not know that the AI service could generate fictitious cases, arguing that he trusted his lawyer to “vet my suggested additions before incorporating them.” Cohen said he's been represented by attorney David Schwartz on the post-release supervision matter since July 2022.
“He relied on his lawyer, as he had every right to do. Unfortunately, his lawyer appears to have made an honest mistake in not verifying the citations in the brief he drafted and filed,” E. Danya Perry, who's representing Cohen in support of his motion for early termination of supervised release, said in a statement to NBC News"
My dog ate my homework.