Failing Trump administration. Sad!


I’d like to, but in two of your three examples, it was the CDC that shut the farms down, not suppliers abandoning them. In the third, the food plant was shut down by CDC and is now reopening under a different name. It is still owned by the original owners, and they’re making investments to improve the plant, and of course they’re changing the name, but it doesn’t seem to me that the owners have been driven out of the food production business by the unwillingness of customers to buy from them.

I’m suggesting that some companies would and do. In your example, Chipotle changed suppliers even without knowing which of the 60 suppliers were the problem. Yet surely other people continue to buy from one or more of those 60 suppliers, or Chipotle wouldn’t have to make that choice because they would not longer exist.

Companies make bad decisions to save money all the time, and the smaller their margins, the greater is the pressure to save money. Restaurants and supermarkets have very small margins. If car makers can continue to knowingly make and sell cars that explode and kill people (which happened), and if tire makers can continue to knowingly make tires that disintegrate and kill people (which happened), and if coal companies can continue to knowingly use practices that poison entire communities of people (which happens), it isn’t a stretch to think that, once the initial contamination problem is identified and ostensibly solved, food companies will go back to those suppliers. They only don’t if government regulators have effectively killed those suppliers.


To be fair, and I am not defending a company for having lax food safety controls, but we didn’t find evidence of them doing this on purpose. There is a difference between making a poor assessment of food safety requirements in your plant, and actively being knowledgeable about contamination and continuing anyway. This is why they didn’t get any jail time, because this was an unfortunate accident that could have been prevented if they had spent more time validating their cleaning methods, but is was not as if they knew their products were contaminated and sold them anyway. They were under the assumption that they were cleaning their produce sufficiently, albeit with little scientific evidence they were doing so.

Also, someone caught with marijuana rarely ends up paying a $150,000 dollar fine.

I am not saying that the system is perfect, but there are repercussions. And I say that being intimately knowledgeable about how sourcing decisions get made for food production. Companies like this lose business, it is cut-throat out there, when there are so many more suppliers to choose from.

Another thing, the FSMA (Food Safety Modernization Act) is actively being implemented industry-wide.

And it specifically deals with a lot of the issues that have caused recalls in the past. It is a massive change for a lot of companies, and will continue to make food safer in the U.S.

And of course that assumes the current administration doesn’t continue to remove regulations, which I wouldn’t put my money on.

I know it is fun to hate on the government, but non-political institutions like the FDA deserve our scrutiny, but also our support as well.


Not to derail, but how much jail or prison time would be the dollar equivalent, you think? Also, how significant was that fine to their bottom line? An ongoing problem with fines levied against businesses for breaking the rules is that on a cost/benefit analysis, its often cheaper to pay the fine (assuming you even get caught!) than forgo the money that could be made by breaking the rules. See: financial institutions.


Just to be clear the 150,000 dollar fine was levied directly against each of the 2 brothers involved in this issue, and not to their company.

From the linked USA Today article.

Each received five years probation and six months home detention. Each also was ordered to pay $150,000 in restitution and perform 100 hours of community service.


Sorry, hadn’t read the article. I was more opining on the general state of regulatory enforcement.

I’ve read it now and am astonished they even faced criminal charges. I would still call it a slap on the wrist relative to the likely outcome for a (black) dude nabbed for pot possession.

Anyway, back to commiserating 'bout the Mango Mussolini and his followers.


While a US Attorney, Alexander Acosta, Trump’s Secretary of Labor, worked as a fixer to get a rich guy a sweetheart deal instead sending him to prison for an underage sex ring:

In 2007, despite ample physical evidence and multiple witnesses corroborating the girls’ stories, federal prosecutors and Epstein’s lawyers quietly put together a remarkable deal for Epstein, then 54. He agreed to plead guilty to two felony prostitution charges in state court, and in exchange, he and his accomplices received immunity from federal sex-trafficking charges that could have sent him to prison for life.

He served 13 months in a private wing of the Palm Beach County stockade. His alleged co-conspirators, who helped schedule his sex sessions, were never prosecuted.

A guy who helps the filthy rich avoid the consequences of their clearly illegal actions? No wonder Trump likes him!


Only the best people!

Edit: Let me add that defending scum is something that does need to happen for our legal system to work. I can’t fault a lawyer for defending this guy and working to get the best deal – that’s the lawyer’s job. What we can fault is the system in place that lets money buy unjust resolutions to criminal acts.

I hope this guy had to register as a sex offender. Was that mentioned in the article?



Thing is … we’re talking about a prosecutor.


Hooooooooly shit, that website for Miller’s “Terrorism Awareness Project.” Normally, separating David Horowitz from his money for something so shoddy would be laudable, but as we all discovered in 2016, Miller’s intended audience isn’t that picky about quality. You can find the archived version of Miller’s site here—it’s terrible, top to bottom—or go directly to Miller’s “O Fortuna” video here. As Minhaj notes, “that tennis incel is now senior advisor to the president,” so there’s only so much value in shaking your head at the Young Stephen Miller Chronicles while muttering “That fuckin’ guy” to yourself. But there’s a vast gulf between “only so much value” and “no value at all,” and these days, we all have to take whatever we can get. That fuckin’ guy.

(The Miller stuff starts at about 9 minutes in.)


That Epstein article is infuriating when you realize the number of victims and amount of evidence. It’s one of the most nauseating examples of the disparate criminal justice systems faced by the ultra rich and everyone else.

It’s worth noting that he this is the same Epstein who held notorious parties in Manhattan in the 90’s, parties attended by Trump where he was alleged to have raped at least one 13 year old. Those lawsuits all collapsed due to shoddy legal work on the part of the folks filing but, given what we know about Trump and Epstein, I wouldn’t even be mildly surprised to learn that the allegations were true.

Trump, of course, also famously Told New York Magazine in 2002, “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”



Also agreed. Though I’m not a fan of prosecutors as a rule, so I’m going to be biased. The job leans heavily on people to “get results” regardless of what they are. So they pass on hard cases and cheat on others to keep their numbers up. Then they go into politics with their track record of being “tough on crime” or whatever.


Even still, we’re talking about over 60 cases of statutory rape, child pornography, child prostitution and on and on and the guy gets 13th months? There are no fucking deals when the crimes are that heinous. You lock the fucker up and throw away the key.


Like I said, I hate prosecutors, so I’m not giving them any benefit of the doubt.


I’m surely keen to know what you think prosecutors should be replaced with.


People not trying to further their political careers.


So you’d replace them with other prosecutors? Your problem is really not with the office. It’s the appointment process.

Full disclosure: I was a prosecutor.



I mean, if we’re going to toss that out there, you could also throw in CEO’s, surgeons, etc. Truly politicians come from all walks of life.

If you’re talking about appointees in Justice, well, who better to put there than people with legal backgrounds?
Bob Mueller is a prosecutor.



How much longer will he be Secretary of Labor? The civil suit just starting up is going to be massively ugly.