It doesn't cost any money to defend against a suit that no judge would accept.
To allow a suit based on the assumption that the FEC was wrong and Forbes must have known so is the kind of insanity that gets a judge removed from the bench in even the most conservative jurisdictions.
So no, there's absolutely no valid excuse for Forbes to use the word in this case.
Yes yes, I know. What I'm saying is that there's no way they're going to be sued based on going by the determination of the FEC that anyone is guilty, least of all a politician who's known to be a serial liar.
On the other hand, using "alleged" when she HAS been declared guilty by the government agency implies that they may have gotten it wrong and/or that their ruling isn't legally binding. Either would add fuel to her and the rest of the GOP's martyrdom narrative.
If anything, the FTC should begin to fine every instance of a media outlet using "alleged" when someone has legally been found guilty.
Maybe the only way to finally fix the system is to stop tipping
No. The livelihood of servers is not an acceptable sacrifice to help servers. Defeats the point completely and there's no guarantee that it'll work.
so servers will go elsewhere until pay comes up
Go where? It's not like they all live in areas that have even a single place that pays servers a living wage or can afford to mo.
serving is usually a “job” not a career.
To paraphrase Matthew Perry (RIP): could you BE anymore condescending towards people with a career in the service industry?
I claim that many minimum wage jobs are easier to switch among
And you'd be wrong. People work minimum wage because it was the least bad job available. Unless you're part of a union, employers have all the power and afford none to workers.
If a job requires special skills and knowledge, it deserves pay as such.
Every job does. There's no such thing as unskilled labor.
Far from it, dude.
Ok, you've convinced me that I need a shitload of fries. Off to the airfryer I go!
Or his identical twin brother
And then culminating in Clinton
Is not a succession of words I particularly like in an article about Trump..
Not that I don't agree with you, but now I'm imagining what $12,000 worth of peanuts looks like and it's glorious 😁
The fine means she's been found guilty, Forbes.
Your use of the word "alleged" is unnecessary, misleading and makes it sound like you're taking the word of notoriously unhinged liar Perjury Greene over that of the FEC.
That’s “drinking” like a shotgun to the face is “eating”.
Would that make Kurt Cobain the 1994 Seattle speed eating champion?
I was in a band called Conceptual Disappointment. We had excellent stage design, but the music was mediocre at best.
It really doesn't. Lawyers on retainer are on paid no matter whether they have anything to do. That's what being on retainer mean.
It costs nothing to ignore an unlawful legal request, at least not when you already have lawyers on retainer to do exactly that. A publication the size of Forbes ABSOLUTELY do.
There's no legal or economic downside to ommitting "alleged" and it still sends the misleading message that she might be innocent, which could feed into her false martyrdom scam and actually help "earn" her a lot more money than the fine cost.
In conclusion: there's no potential downside to NOT spreading false doubt like that and there's a ton of potential downside to doing it.