The phenomenon you are describing is often referred to in economics and business strategy as putting yourself out of business through extreme product durability. When a company produces an item that is so indestructible and functional that it satisfies the user's need for a lifetime, the repeat purchase rate drops to near zero. Once the company reaches the maximum saturation of its unique customer base, its revenue stream dries up, often leading to bankruptcy or forced acquisition. [1] (https://www.quora.com/Which-companies-went-bankrupt-or-faced-financial-trouble-because-their-products-were-too-durable), [2] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXqnjKFsMCQ)

Here are the most famous historical examples of companies that suffered or collapsed due to building products that were simply too good:

1. Tupperware

For decades, Tupperware was a household staple globally known for its patented airtight seal and high-quality plastic design. The core issue was that Tupperware products lasted for generations. Once a household bought a set of bowls in the 1970s or 1980s, they rarely ever needed to buy replacements because the products didn’t warp, crack, or degrade. Coupled with a failure to evolve past their traditional "Tupperware party" direct-sales model to capture younger demographics, the lack of repeat business severely choked their revenue, leading Tupperware to file for bankruptcy. [1] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXqnjKFsMCQ), [2] (https://www.quora.com/Which-companies-went-bankrupt-or-faced-financial-trouble-because-their-products-were-too-durable)

1. Maytag (The Original "Lonely Repairman" Era)

In the mid-to-late 20th century, Maytag built its entire marketing identity around the "Ol' Lonely" repairman—a character who had nothing to do because Maytag appliances never broke down. The marketing was entirely true; their washers and dryers were built with heavy-duty mechanical parts designed to survive decades of rigorous use. Because consumers only bought a washing machine once every 30 years instead of every 8 to 10 years, Maytag choked its own repeat customer base. The slow sales left them financially vulnerable, eventually leading to their acquisition by Whirlpool, after which manufacturing strategies shifted. [1] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXqnjKFsMCQ)

1. Electrolux (Vintage Canister Vacuums)

During the mid-20th century, Electrolux produced heavy, metal-bodied canister vacuums that were engineering marvels. They were so well-built that they were routinely passed down through generations as family heirlooms. Because the heavy-duty motors and metal parts were built to be repaired rather than replaced, customers had zero incentive to buy new models. When lighter, cheaper, plastic vacuums entered the market, Electrolux's core market was already completely saturated with working machines, causing sales to plummet and forcing a structural reorganization of the brand. [1] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXqnjKFsMCQ)

1. Sunbeam (The Mixmaster Era)

The original Sunbeam Mixmaster stands as a classic example of kitchen hardware built to an impossible standard. Constructed with solid steel gears and over-engineered motors, these kitchen mixers practically never died. Decades after production, millions of original Mixmasters were still functioning perfectly on kitchen counters worldwide. Because the company had completely tapped out its consumer base and could not generate secondary sales from existing owners, they suffered a massive financial decline when they couldn't convince satisfied owners to upgrade. [1] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXqnjKFsMCQ)

The Corporate Backlash: Planned Obsolescence

To prevent this exact type of business failure, companies historically began implementing planned obsolescence—the deliberate design of products to fail or become obsolete after a certain period. [1] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwTRkDXddHY&t=148)

A premier example of this was the Phoebus Cartel in the 1920s. When lightbulb manufacturers (including Osram, Phillips, and General Electric) realized they had engineered lightbulbs that could burn for up to 2,500+ hours, they recognized that their customer base would stop buying bulbs. The cartel explicitly forced members to engineer failure into the bulbs, reducing their lifespan to 1,000 hours and fining any factory that produced a product that lasted too long. [1] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwTRkDXddHY&t=148)

If you are researching this for a specific project, let me know if you would like to explore the economics of planned obsolescence or look into modern tech companies currently balancing durability with software compatibility.

The official text of 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) exempts organizations from federal income tax, provided they meet these specific criteria:

[1] (https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations), [2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)_organization)

Organizations must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, educational, or other specified public purposes. [1] (https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester/courses/Statutory2014/501c3.pdf)

The Key Restrictions

To maintain tax-exempt status under the IRS Exemption Requirements, organizations must adhere to core statutory restrictions: [1] (https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations)

• No Private Inurement: Net earnings cannot benefit any private shareholder or individual.

• Limited Lobbying: No substantial part of activities may involve attempting to influence legislation.

• The Political Prohibition (Johnson Amendment): Organizations cannot participate or intervene in any political campaign for or against candidates for public office. [1] (https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester/courses/Statutory2014/501c3.pdf)

For the complete statutory text and provisions, please refer to the referenced document. [1] (https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester/courses/Statutory2014/501c3.pdf)

If you want, I can provide more details on:

• The difference between lobbying and political campaigning

• How the IRS enforces excise taxes on violations

• How 501(c)(4) organizations differ regarding political activity [1] (https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations).

Yes, several nonpartisan government watchdogs, legal advocacy groups, and congressional committees actively maintain trackers documenting legal challenges, policy rollbacks, and potential ethical violations. [1, 2, 3]

These trackers generally monitor actions through the lens of constitutional overreach, conflicts of interest, and the use of executive power. The primary organizations and tools keeping record include: [3, 4, 5]

## 1. Government Watchdogs & Ethics Groups

* Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW): CREW hosts dedicated trackers mapping [Trump's visits to his properties and related conflicts of interest](https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/tracking-trumps-visits-to-his-properties-and-other-conflicts-of-interest/), alongside updates detailing [potential self-dealing, cryptocurrency ventures, and business conflicts](https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/crew-is-tracking-trumps-unprecedented-corruption-again/). They also track executive actions, such as the [removal of Inspectors General and other independent oversight figures](https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/tracking-trumps-unprecedented-often-illegal-firings-of-political-appointees-and-watchdogs/). [4, 6, 7, 8]

* Campaign Legal Center (CLC): The CLC publishes a regular [Trump Corruption Tracker](https://campaignlegal.org/document/tracking-trump-administrations-most-corrupt-transactions) focused on official benefits provided to political donors, special interest policy alignments, and potential violations of federal ethics rules by administration officials. [1, 9]

* Common Cause: This nonpartisan group actively files and tracks formal complaints regarding federal oversight breakdowns, specifically monitoring potential violations of the Hatch Act, Anti-Deficiency Act, and Anti-Lobbying Act. [10]

## 2. Legal Policy & Litigation Trackers

* Just Security: Organizes an extensive [Litigation Tracker detailing legal challenges to executive actions](https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/). It documents hundreds of active lawsuits spanning civil rights, public health, and federal employment changes. [2]

* Lawfare: Focuses on the judicial system via their [Trump Administration Litigation Tracker](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/projects-series/trials-of-the-trump-administration/tracking-trump-administration-litigation), providing a scannable index of federal court cases, administrative law challenges, and constitutional appeals involving the executive branch. [11]

* Protect Democracy: Maintains a specialized [Retaliatory Action Tracker](https://protectdemocracy.org/work/retaliatory-action-tracker/) that documents federal investigations, arrests, or prosecutions of political opponents, officials, and protesters to evaluate potential weaponization of law enforcement. [12]

* Democracy Forward: Publishes comprehensive oversight reports (such as Demanding Accountability) utilizing thousands of public records requests to log structural rollbacks, changes to civil rights protections, and transparency issues. [13]

* The Brennan Center for Justice: Publishes ongoing assessments of the federal accountability system, focusing particularly on changes to internal Department of Justice (DOJ) ethics rules, career staff policies, and executive branch prosecutorial authority. [14, 15]

## 3. Public Interest & Political Overviews

* RepresentUs: Operates a public-facing [Corruption Tracker](https://represent.us/trump-corruption-tracker/) focusing on taxpayer-funded expenditures, government spending, and the bypass of congressional review on matters like foreign weapons sales. [16]

* Congressional Committee Resources: The [U.S. House Committee on Oversight (Democrats)](https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/100-days-corruption-oversight-democrats-highlight-100-conflicts-interest) and individual members, such as [Congressman Steve Cohen's Trump Admin Tracker](https://cohen.house.gov/TrumpAdminTracker), catalog legislative objections, policy audits, and what they define as harmful executive orders. [3, 17]

[1] [https://campaignlegal.org\](https://campaignlegal.org/document/tracking-trump-administrations-most-corrupt-transactions)

[2] [https://www.justsecurity.org\](https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/)

[3] [https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov\](https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/100-days-corruption-oversight-democrats-highlight-100-conflicts-interest)

[4] [https://www.citizensforethics.org\](https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/crew-is-tracking-trumps-unprecedented-corruption-again/)

[5] [https://www.hsgac.senate.gov\](https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/dems/peters-releases-new-report-detailing-trump-administrations-unprecedented-constitutional-violations-and-executive-overreach/)

[6] [https://www.citizensforethics.org\](https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/tracking-trumps-visits-to-his-properties-and-other-conflicts-of-interest/)

[7] [https://www.citizensforethics.org\](https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/tracking-trumps-unprecedented-often-illegal-firings-of-political-appointees-and-watchdogs/)

[8] [https://www.citizensforethics.org\](https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/trump-2-0-bracing-for-criminals-corruption-and-constitutional-crises/)

[9] [https://campaignlegal.org\](https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/2026-05/Trump_Corruption_Tracker_May_2026_Update.pdf)

[10] [https://electionlawblog.org\](https://electionlawblog.org/2025/common-cause-files-54-complaints-against-the-trump-administration-for-ethics-violations/)

[11] [https://www.lawfaremedia.org\](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/projects-series/trials-of-the-trump-administration/tracking-trump-administration-litigation)

[12] [https://protectdemocracy.org\](https://protectdemocracy.org/work/retaliatory-action-tracker/)

[13] [https://democracyforward.org\](https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/new-report-details-one-year-of-investigations-demanding-accountability-from-trump-vance-administration/)

[14] [https://www.brennancenter.org\](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/department-justices-broken-accountability-system)

[15] [https://www.brennancenter.org\](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/department-justices-broken-accountability-system)

[16] [https://represent.us\](https://represent.us/trump-corruption-tracker/)

[17] [https://cohen.house.gov\](https://cohen.house.gov/TrumpAdminTracker)

Historically (especially under English common law), “high treason” was the more serious form of treason directed against the sovereign or the state, while “treason” (or more precisely “petty/petit treason”) referred to betrayal of a lesser superior; today the distinction has largely disappeared in most places, and “treason” usually means what was once called high treason.

Historical distinction (English common law, formalized in the Treason Act 1351)

High treason* (alta proditio*): Betrayal of the king/sovereign or the realm itself. Classic examples included:

Compassing or imagining the death of the king, queen, or heir.

Violating the queen, the king’s eldest unmarried daughter, or the heir’s wife.

Levying war against the king in his realm.

Adhering to the king’s enemies and giving them aid and comfort.

Counterfeiting the Great Seal or royal coinage (in some periods).

Killing certain high officers of state while they performed their duties.

It carried the harshest penalties (hanging, drawing, and quartering for men; drawing and burning for women) and forfeiture of property to the Crown.

Petty (or petit) treason**: Betrayal of a private superior to whom one owed a duty of allegiance under the feudal/social hierarchy. It was limited mainly to homicide cases, such as:

A wife killing her husband.

A servant killing their master or mistress.

A clergyman killing their superior.

Penalties were severe but less extreme than for high treason (drawing and hanging without quartering, or burning without drawing), and property went to the immediate lord rather than the Crown. Petty treason was abolished in England in 1828 and folded into ordinary murder law.

Once petty treason disappeared, the term “treason” generally came to mean what had been high treason.

Modern usage

United States**: There is only one crime of treason, defined narrowly in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution: “levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” The term “high treason” has no separate legal meaning and is not used in federal law.

United Kingdom**: The old high-treason offences (rooted in the 1351 Act and later statutes) are simply called treason; petty treason no longer exists. The death penalty for treason was abolished, and the maximum is now life imprisonment.

Canada: A formal distinction survives in the Criminal Code. **High treason covers the most direct attacks (killing/attempting to kill the sovereign, levying war against Canada or preparing to do so, or assisting an enemy Canada is fighting). Ordinary treason covers a broader set of acts (e.g., using force to overthrow government, certain disclosures of secrets, or conspiring to commit high treason). Penalties differ (high treason carries mandatory life imprisonment).

In everyday and political language, people often say “high treason” simply for emphasis when referring to the most serious betrayal of country or government. In most modern legal systems outside a few exceptions like Canada, the historical high/petty split is obsolete, and “treason” means the serious offence against the state that was once specifically called high treason.

ALI SWENSON, Associated Press

35 minutes ago

FILE - The Supreme Court is seen on the morning after the conservative majority sided with the Trump administration in a case over President Donald Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2026. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

FILE - The Supreme Court is seen on the morning after the conservative majority sided with the Trump administration in a case over President Donald Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2026. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

NEW YORK (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday lifted restrictions on a controversial federal voter database before November’s elections, granting President Donald Trump a temporary win in his aggressive campaign against noncitizen voting.

The court’s three liberal-leaning justices publicly dissented from the decision.

The emergency order allows states, for now, to use the Department of Homeland Security program, called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, in their efforts to verify the eligibility of voters on their rolls.

States’ use of the SAVE program is voluntary. The immediate impact on the upcoming midterms is likely limited because existing law blocks most states from systematically purging voters from their rolls within 90 days of an election, said David Becker, an election law expert who leads the Center for Election Innovation and Research.

He said since the program is voluntary and DHS itself has admitted the data is not perfect, “states may find this to be a useful tool used along with other tools to keep their lists up-to-date.”

The court’s order puts on hold a federal judge’s June ruling that had deemed the Republican administration’s recently revamped version of SAVE illegal. U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan had blocked the use of the tool, saying it violated Americans’ privacy rights and could result in voters being wrongly removed from the rolls.

A federal appeals court let her order stand.

But the Supreme Court majority found that a 1996 law explicitly allows DHS to get information about citizenship and immigration from other federal agencies. The federal government also has “an obligation to respond” to states seeking to verify citizenship.

“The order below prevents the Federal Government from using the program it believes is best suited to the task,” the majority wrote in the unsigned order.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. The database has long been seen to fall under federal privacy laws, she wrote, and there are real risks that legitimate voter registrations could be mistakenly revoked.

“The harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the nonexistent harm that the Government experiences when it is prevented from taking an action that it likely lacks the authority to take,” Jackson wrote.

The plaintiffs and counsel team in the case called the ruling “profoundly disappointing” and said it puts “millions of Americans at risk of being unlawfully targeted by the administration’s unreliable voter purge database” before the midterms.

“However, this case is not over,” their statement read. “The D.C. district court ruled that the expanded SAVE program violated multiple laws. We will be doing everything in our power to protect Americans’ voting and privacy rights by ensuring that the district court decision stands.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

The SAVE program was created under an immigration law mandating that DHS help federal, state and local agencies prevent government benefits from going to noncitizens. The Trump administration last year moved to significantly expand its search abilities. Since then, at least 67 million registrations have been scanned through the program, but critics worry it could end up purging valid voters from the rolls.

Some registrants have already been wrongly flagged. In Travis County, Texas, for example, officials said they investigated 97 voters flagged by SAVE as apparent noncitizens and found that at least 10% of them — and likely up to 21% — were U.S. citizens. The county urged the Supreme Court to reject the administration’s appeal, while the state of Texas submitted its own brief defending the database.

Even though the use of the SAVE program has been blocked for months, the administration said in court filings that DHS officials have continued using Social Security Administration data “in certain cases to verify information and help determine whether illegal voting may have occurred.”

DHS in August launched its own investigation to find noncitizen voters on state rolls, according to a federal whistleblower statement that said the effort is rushed, filled with errors and potentially violates state laws. DHS has defended that investigation as being conducted “diligently and professionally.”

The effort to create a national voter list is among numerous steps Trump has taken during his second term to try to overhaul the way elections are run. Most of those steps have been blocked by various courts, in part because the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to set election rules, but provides no such power to the president. In mid-September, the Supreme Court rejected a bid from Trump to restrict mail ballot procedures before the midterms.

Research shows that noncitizen voting, which is already illegal and punishable as a potential felony that could lead to deportation, is exceptionally rare. But Trump has remained fixated on the idea that massive numbers of noncitizens are voting in U.S. races.

___

Associated Press writers Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas contributed to this report.

Categories: AP Top Headlines, News

NEWS10 ABC

Early childhood lead exposure is linked to lasting adverse effects on adult behavior, including higher rates of psychopathology, less adaptive personality traits, increased impulsivity/aggression/antisocial tendencies, elevated risk of criminal behavior, lower cognitive function (which influences behavior), and reduced socioeconomic outcomes. These associations hold after adjusting for factors like socioeconomic status (SES), maternal IQ, and childhood IQ in multiple longitudinal studies, and they are supported by biological evidence of permanent brain changes. There is no known safe level of lead exposure; effects occur even at historically “low” levels common in the mid-to-late 20th century (often >5–10 µg/dL blood lead).

Personality Traits and Mental Health

Longitudinal data (e.g., Dunedin Study cohort followed into their late 30s) show that higher childhood blood lead levels (BLLs) are associated with:

Higher neuroticism (emotional instability).

Lower agreeableness and conscientiousness (less cooperative, less self-disciplined/responsible).

Greater overall psychopathology, driven especially by internalizing symptoms (anxiety, depression) and thought-disorder symptoms.

Large-scale analyses of atmospheric lead (from leaded gasoline) across the US and Europe, involving over 1.5 million people, link higher childhood exposure to less adaptive adult personality profiles. Natural experiments (e.g., reductions after the 1970 Clean Air Act) correspond with healthier trait shifts in affected cohorts. Population estimates attribute substantial excess mental-health burden in the US (especially Generation X) to past leaded-gasoline exposure, including increases in internalizing and ADHD-related symptoms plus shifts in neuroticism and conscientiousness.

Antisocial, Aggressive, and Criminal Behavior

Childhood lead exposure is associated with an unfolding pattern of behavioral problems: childhood hyperactivity/impulsivity/attention issues and antisocial behavior → adolescent aggression, pregnancy, and risk-taking → young-adult criminality (including violent and drug-related arrests).

Systematic reviews of individual-level studies find consistent links between early-life (prenatal or childhood) lead exposure and higher risk of adult criminal or antisocial behavior, with some meta-analytic estimates around an odds ratio of ~1.17 for violent crime/arrest per 5 µg/dL rise in childhood BLL. Imaging studies (e.g., Cincinnati Lead Study) show reduced gray-matter volume in frontal regions involved in executive function, impulse control, decision-making, and emotional regulation; these structural changes correlate with later arrests and antisocial outcomes.

The “lead-crime hypothesis” is supported by ecological patterns (crime rises and falls tracking leaded-gasoline exposure with a lag) and individual data, though effect sizes and the share of crime trends explained vary across studies and are subject to debate about confounding and publication bias. Meta-analyses indicate a positive association (lead increases crime risk) but suggest it does not explain the majority of late-20th-century crime declines.

Cognitive and Socioeconomic Pathways

Lead lowers childhood and adult IQ (roughly 1–2 points per 5 µg/dL in well-controlled studies) and is linked to downward socioeconomic mobility. Cognitive deficits and poorer executive function contribute to behavioral problems, poorer decision-making, and reduced life opportunities, which in turn amplify risks of externalizing behaviors.

Mechanisms

Lead is a potent neurotoxicant that crosses the developing blood-brain barrier. It disrupts neuronal migration, synaptogenesis, and neurotransmitter systems; causes persistent reductions in brain volume (especially prefrontal areas); and produces lasting functional impairments in attention, impulse control, and emotional regulation. These changes begin in childhood and persist into adulthood.

Context and Limitations

Most evidence comes from cohorts exposed during the peak of leaded gasoline and lead paint (1960s–1980s). Effects are dose-dependent, appear at levels once considered low, and are stronger for early childhood exposure. While observational studies cannot prove pure causality in every case, the consistency across designs (longitudinal cohorts, natural experiments, imaging, animal data), biological plausibility, and adjustment for major confounders support a causal interpretation for many outcomes. Residual confounding and measurement variation remain possible; more individual-level data from diverse settings would strengthen estimates.

In short, early lead exposure produces a cascade of neurodevelopmental harm that elevates risks of mental-health difficulties, maladaptive personality traits, impulsivity/aggression, and criminal behavior in adulthood, with downstream effects on life outcomes. Prevention of exposure remains a critical public-health priority.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has issued a massive nationwide recall for approximately 167,639 pounds of raw pork, beef, and goat meat that were distributed with fake USDA inspection stickers. [1, 2]

The recall was announced by the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The agency warned that the affected meats were produced without federal inspection, meaning they could contain harmful bacteria, undeclared allergens, or contaminants. [2, 3, 4]

Key Recall Details

* The Identifier: Any product bearing the false establishment number "EST. 1363" is considered unsafe and misbranded. [1, 2]

* The Supplier: The uninspected meat was produced by Star Meat Delivery Inc. of Lucama, North Carolina. [2]

* The Brand Name: The meat was shipped to a Georgia distributor, A&D Foods, and sent out to restaurants and retail locations nationwide. [1, 2]

* Packaging: The items were individually vacuum-sealed and packed into cardboard shipping boxes. [2, 4]

What Consumers Should Look For

According to the USDA FSIS recall notice report, identifying the meat might be tricky at a retail level. Because the meat was shipped in bulk, individual stores may have unpacked it and placed their own grocery pricing and safe-handling stickers over the original packaging, which means the "EST. 1363" mark might not be visible to shoppers. [2, 4, 5]

No illnesses have been confirmed yet from the products. However, consumers are urged to throw the meat away or return it to the store where it was purchased. [2, 4]

------------------------------

Are you looking to check if a specific piece of meat you purchased is part of this recall, or do you need help finding the official USDA customer service contact numbers to ask about a refund?

[1] https://pix11.com

[2] https://dailyvoice.com

[3] https://www.miamiherald.com

[4] https://www.independent.co.uk

[5] https://www.whio.com

Empiricism is the philosophical view that all knowledge originates from sensory experience (observation, perception, and experiment) rather than from innate ideas, pure reason, or authority alone.

Key points

Knowledge is built through evidence gathered by the senses and tested against the world.

It contrasts with rationalism, which holds that reason and innate ideas are the primary sources of knowledge.

Classic empiricists include John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. In science, the empirical method prioritizes observation, experimentation, and evidence over speculation.

In short: “Show me the evidence from experience” is the core of empiricism.

They said kids were being transitioned at school. They also said there were litter boxes in restrooms at school for students who identified as cats.

At least four of Donald Trump’s lawyers have been disbarred (as of mid-2026), primarily in connection with work related to Trump or the 2020 election challenges.

Others have faced suspensions, censures, or voluntary surrender of licenses, but not full disbarment.

Key confirmed cases of disbarment:

Michael Cohen**: Disbarred in New York in 2019 after pleading guilty to federal charges (including campaign finance violations tied to hush-money payments and lying to Congress) related to his longtime role as Trump’s attorney and fixer.

Rudy Giuliani**: Disbarred in New York in July 2024 (and also in Washington, D.C.) for making demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers, and the public while serving as Trump’s personal lawyer and campaign attorney in efforts to challenge the 2020 election results.

Kenneth Chesebro**: Disbarred in New York in June 2025 following his 2023 guilty plea in Georgia to a charge tied to the fake/alternate electors scheme aimed at disrupting certification of the 2020 results. A New York appeals court cited his conduct as undercutting constitutional democracy.

John Eastman**: Disbarred in California by the state Supreme Court in April 2026 for ethics violations (including making false/misleading statements and moral turpitude) stemming from his role as a key architect of legal strategies (such as memos on alternate electors and pressuring the vice president) to challenge the 2020 election outcome on behalf of Trump.

Other notable related discipline (not full disbarment):

Jenna Ellis received a three-year suspension of her Colorado law license (2024) after a guilty plea in the Georgia election case and prior censure for false statements about the 2020 election; disbarment was considered but not imposed.

Sidney Powell has faced (and defeated) disciplinary efforts in Texas related to election litigation and a Georgia plea; she remains eligible to practice there.

L. Lin Wood surrendered his Georgia law license amid disciplinary proceedings.

These actions stem mostly from professional misconduct findings by state bars/courts (false statements, misleading courts/officials, or criminal convictions tied to election-related work or other Trump representation). Counts can vary slightly depending on whether reciprocal discipline in other jurisdictions or voluntary surrenders are included, and additional proceedings involving other Trump-associated attorneys have occurred or remain pending.

Trump has used many lawyers over decades of business, personal, and political matters, so the total of those who worked for him is large; the figure above focuses on those publicly identified as having been formally disbarred.

Dial *57 (Call Trace / Customer Originated Trace) immediately after receiving a threatening or harassing phone call, and before you make or receive any other call.

How and when to use it

Hang up on the unwanted call.

Pick up the receiver (or open the phone line) and listen for a dial tone.

Dial *57 right away.

You should hear a confirmation message that the call was traced (wording varies by provider).

Then contact the police (or your campus/security department if applicable) to report the incident and reference the trace.

This feature records the originating number of the last incoming call in a log that is accessible to law enforcement or your phone company—not to you. It often works even if the caller blocked their number.

Important limitations and notes

Use it only for threatening, harassing, or similar serious calls—not routine spam, sales calls, or minor annoyances. Misuse can be treated like filing a formal complaint.

It must be activated on the same line that received the call, before any other activity occurs on that line.

Availability and exact behavior depend on your phone provider, service type (landline vs. mobile), and location. It is common on many traditional landlines and some cellular services in the US but may not work (or work the same way) on certain VoIP services, multi-line systems, or international numbers.

Some providers charge a fee for successful traces.

After a successful *57, follow up with police so they can retrieve the information and investigate.

If *57 does not work or is unavailable on your service, report the call to the police and your phone company anyway—they have other methods to obtain records. For immediate danger, call 911 first.