You probably think this post is about you: Identifying and handling narcissists and other Cluster Bs

You’ve probably known someone who suffers from a personality disorder, even if you didn’t know what to call it.

                                                                                          

When we encounter these people, we feel hurt and confused, and we struggle to understand what is happening to us. We find ourselves entangled in an unhealthy relationship that seemed to start out blissfully, and we can’t figure out how we got here.

The most vexing type of personality disorder is the Cluster B personality disorder, which includes narcissistic, antisocial, borderline, and histrionic personality disorders. While I’m not a mental health professional, I hope to describe Cluster B personality disorders and provide solutions for dealing with those who suffer from them.

I’ll focus on two types—narcissistic and antisocial—but most of this information can be used to describe and cope with any of the Cluster B personality disorders. Indeed, the disorders overlap so much that the information here applies to any or all of them.

For clarity’s sake, then, I’ll refer to the person who suffers from the personality disorder as the “PD,” not to dehumanize them but to avoid wordiness and awkwardness.

What is Cluster B?

The American Psychiatric Association publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), a catalog of mental illnesses meant to aid mental health professionals with diagnosing various mental disorders.

The DSM classifies some of these illnesses as personality disorders, or a type of mental disorder characterized by a rigid and unhealthy pattern of thinking, functioning, and behaving.

Cluster A is reserved for the severe, odd, eccentric behaviors: paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal. Cluster C houses the anxious, fearful type: avoidant, dependent, passive-aggressive, and obsessive-compulsive.

Cluster B gives us the dramatic, emotional, disruptive types: antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic. These people find it impossible to regulate their emotions, which results in toxic behavior and severe relationship difficulties.

Cluster B diagnosis

When diagnosing a person with a Cluster B personality disorder, the mental health professional reviews a list of behaviors and analyzes whether the client exhibits many or most of those behaviors consistently over time. The client need not exhibit all of the traits on the list. Further, the disorders overlap, meaning that someone who suffers from one type of personality disorder will exhibit some of the traits of another type.

Narcissistic personality disorder

We throw the word “narcissist” around a lot, using it to describe someone who is egotistical. To us, the narcissist is vain and prideful, bragging and putting on airs.

Narcissists often behave this way, but narcissism is deeper and more sinister than this. The narcissistic actually harbors a deep self-hatred and compensates by displaying exaggerated feelings of self-importance and excessive need for admiration.

The narcissist would be obnoxious and frustrating but ultimately harmless, except for two key factors: They lack empathy and they are master manipulators.

To the narcissist, other people exist to provide narcissistic supply. In other words, your only function in the relationship is to praise them, to prop up their self-worth, and to never, ever criticize or question. If you fail to do this, you’ll first be the target of narcissistic rage, being called worthless, stupid, and unlovable. Then, you’ll be seamlessly replaced by a new target who provides a fresh source of narcissistic supply.

The Mayo Clinic lists these traits for narcissistic personality disorder:

·         Exaggerated sense of self-importance

·         Sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration

·         Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it

·         Exaggerate achievements and talents

·         Preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate

·         Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people

·         Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior

·         Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations

·         Take advantage of others to get what they want

·         Unable or unwilling to recognize the needs and feelings of others

·         Envious of others and believe others envy them

·         Arrogant or haughty, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious

·         Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office

Antisocial personality disorder

Like “narcissist,” we often carelessly misuse the term “antisocial” to describe a socially awkward person who doesn’t like to be around other people. This is inaccurate.

Those who suffer from antisocial personality disorder (formerly known as sociopaths) show no regard for the rights and feelings of others. They manipulate, use, and treat others with cold indifference and feel no remorse. At the disorder’s extreme, we find violent criminals such as serial killers, but not all antisocials are violent criminals. Most, however, find it hard to follow rules and conform to expectations, thereby finding it difficult to maintain healthy relationships, jobs, and living situations.

Because they are unable to see other people as individuals with rights, antisocials tend to treat others as appliances to be used and then discarded when they no longer serve a purpose. Violent criminals do this quite literally, but all antisocials use people and then cast them aside when they’ve served their purpose.

To explain this phenomenon, I use the example of a toaster. You’re happy with your toaster. It has functioned perfectly every day for years, toasting your bread in just the way you like without any problems. One morning, however, it fails to work properly. What do you do? You stop by Target on the way home from work, buy another toaster, and parade the new toaster into your kitchen right past the old one. You then pitch the old toaster into the garbage and never give it another thought. Why would you? The toaster is an inanimate object with no capacity to feel hurt, an appliance for you to use to satisfy your needs until it stopped working. This is precisely how an antisocial interacts with other human beings.

To the antisocial, you exist in order to meet his or her needs. The moment you stop doing that—or the moment you complain about it or otherwise fail to do it quietly and easily—you are replaced in the harshest and coldest manner imaginable.

For antisocial personality disorder, Mayo gives this list:

·         Disregard for right and wrong

·         Persistent lying or deceit to exploit others

·         Being callous, cynical and disrespectful of others

·         Using charm or wit to manipulate others for personal gain or personal pleasure

·         Arrogance, a sense of superiority and being extremely opinionated

·         Recurring problems with the law, including criminal behavior

·         Repeatedly violating the rights of others through intimidation and dishonesty

·         Impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead

·         Hostility, significant irritability, agitation, aggression or violence

·         Lack of empathy for others and lack of remorse about harming others

·         Unnecessary risk-taking or dangerous behavior with no regard for the safety of self or others

·         Poor or abusive relationships

·         Failure to consider the negative consequences of behavior or learn from them

·         Being consistently irresponsible and repeatedly failing to fulfill work or financial obligations

Key behaviors of the PD

The above traits manifest themselves in a variety of ways. I picked out four of the most common. If you’re in any sort of relationship with a PD, you’ve no doubt been on the receiving end of one or more of these behaviors:

Gaslighting

Here, the PD attempts to manipulate you in a way that makes you doubt your own sanity. You begin to question your perception of reality.

For example: Your boss yells at you for failing to complete a report by the deadline of Thursday at noon. You are sure that she originally said Friday at noon, but she is so adamant that you begin to doubt yourself. You retrieve the email in which she wrote “Friday at noon.” She then pivots, claiming that you are too literal, and now you’re trying to make her look bad by gathering evidence against her. She calls you vindictive and petty.

Boundary testing

PDs constantly test your boundaries to see which ones they can cross. It starts small at first and increases over time if the PD discovers that there are no consequences to these violations.

Example: An adult child has access to an elderly parent’s bank account. He “accidentally” writes a check from the account to cover his cell phone bill. The adult parent accepts this explanation and doesn’t insist on being repaid, and before you know it, the PD has written another check, and then another… and hundreds and then thousands of dollars are missing.

Instability

Any relationship has ups and downs, but a healthy relationship is mostly stable and seems to unfold at a normal rate. A relationship with a PD begins quickly and intensely, and then mimics a roller coaster ride. At some point, the PD may disappear entirely.

The PD may have a poor relationship history, littered with broken friendships, alienated family members, a spotty work history, damaged credit, lawsuits, and bitter divorces and breakups.

This outer instability is due to the inner instability of the PD’s inability to control their emotions.

Abuse and control

A relationship with a PD is always on the PD’s terms, and it can be damaging and downright dangerous. Abuse takes many forms, including verbal, financial, emotional, sexual, and physical. The PD does not recognize the rights and needs of other people, so he or she belittles, devalues, shames, steals from, and even injures other people without remorse.

Like the other behaviors, it starts almost imperceptibly and escalates.

Am I dealing with a PD?

Again, we’re not mental health professionals, and we’re not equipped to diagnose or treat anyone. Instead, we’re trying to take care of ourselves by figuring out why we feel so bad and what we might do about it.

Remember that you can’t control or change anyone else. You can only change your own behavior, so your focus must be on the relationship’s effect on you.

Consider these questions:

1) Changes in tone: Have you noticed a marked change from when the relationship began? A healthy relationship is exciting but begins drama-free and unfolds slowly and steadily. Perhaps you were put on a pedestal at first, but now feel that you have to prove yourself. You may feel insecure, particularly if you’re experiencing a “push-pull” dynamic.

2) Self-esteem: While self-esteem is an inside job, healthy relationships tend to support our self-esteem because we are loved and respected (despite our flaws) by those who we love and respect (despite their flaws). When you’re involved with a PD, you may feel ashamed because you are accepting treatment that you know is unacceptable or because you find yourself giving insincere compliments and affirmation.

3) Interactions: What are your conversations like with this person? Are they relatively calm and satisfying, or must you constantly defend yourself? Perhaps you walk away shaking your head and doubting yourself every time.

4) Invalidation: When you express concerns, are you heard or are your feelings invalidated? Your feelings should be acknowledged, even if the other person disagrees with you. Don’t accept: “You’re too sensitive… you’re so jealous… you’re too suspicious… you’re so negative….”

5) Cooperation: Is there a give-and-take, or is everything on the other person’s terms? Can you ask for things, request feedback, discuss problems? Are your texts, emails, and phone calls returned with reasonable promptness as you return those sent to you?

6) Abuse: Has the other person yelled at you, belittled you, disrespected you, taken money from you, cheated on you, talked about you behind your back, lied to you, stolen your ideas at work, manipulated you, or abused you in any other way?

7) Community: What do your friends and family think of this person? This is key: If you are completely honest and forthcoming about every aspect of this relationship, do the people who love you and have your best interests at heart believe that you should stay in this job, friendship, or relationship? CAN you be completely honest and forthcoming with others about the relationship?

8) Health: Listen to your body. Have you developed depression, anxiety, skin rashes, sleep disturbances including nightmares, stomach problems, fatigue, etc.? Are you taking care of yourself, or have you stopped exercising or eating healthy? When I ignore my heart and brain, the rest of my body starts complaining loudly. This could be indicative of any bad relationship or another problem, but it’s worth noting.

9) Your emotions: After you interact with this person, do you feel frustrated, angry, anxious, embarrassed, hopeless, sad? A healthy relationship makes you feel at ease, appreciated, optimistic, and happy.

10) Obsession: Do you find yourself thinking of this person constantly, trying to figure out why he said this or why she failed to do that? Do you talk about the other person constantly to other people? PDs are often the object of everyone’s fascination because their behavior is so outrageous. Perhaps the person is constantly receiving gifts, invitations, accolades, or help from people with whom they’ve got no real relationship.

In part, the obsession comes from the same place as addiction through a process known as traumatic bonding. In lab studies, rats who were offered treats as a reward every time they hit a lever with their paw accepted the treats but were unimpressed. Rats who never got a reward, of course, lost interest immediately. Rats who were given a reward intermittently—sometimes, they’d hit the lever and get a treat and sometimes not, but it was unpredictable—became obsessed with the lever and whacked it fervently.

It’s the same with you and PDs. They are manipulative and unpredictable, giving you rewards sometimes and cold indifference or even abuse at other times. This operates on the same centers of the brain as drug addiction, so it’s natural that we become obsessed. As the neuroscientists say, the quintessential dopamine trigger is “maybe.”

Consider each one of these points carefully. Then, you’ll have your answer.

How to deal with PDs in personal relationships

Unfortunately, it’s nearly impossible for mental health professionals to treat someone with a Cluster B personality disorder. Some change is possible, but sweeping changes are rare. In other words, if you choose to stay in a relationship with a PD, you will need to employ certain tactics to manage the relationship. Remember that you will be managing your own feelings, reactions, and expectations but will not be changing the PD.

Your choice of tactics depends both on the nature of your relationship with the PD and on the severity of the problem. It’s a spectrum.

The Zen approach

This gentle approach may be enough to solve the problem. Try to be mindful so you can remain detached: “Oh, that’s interesting. Look what he’s saying to me now. It makes sense that he’s angry at me, because I disagreed with him.” Remember that it’s not personal. Resist the temptation to fight back.

Set clear boundaries

PDs constantly test boundaries, so it’s important to have clearly defined boundaries and to enforce them. When setting boundaries, it’s important to communicate them clearly, to plan how you’ll respond when they’re tested, and to be consistent in enforcing them.

Example: It’s not helpful to say, “Don’t yell at me!” When you think about it, this isn’t a boundary at all and is an attempt to change the PD’s behavior. Instead, try: “When you yell at me, I feel threatened and can’t process what you’re saying. If you yell at me, I’ll walk away until you can speak to me in a reasonable manner.” Then, do it.

Detach

Limit your interactions with the PD. You might decide to visit your parents only on major holidays and call to check on them once a month. Another way to detach: Stop sharing your personal life with the PD, as this gives them ammo to create drama and to hurt you. Refuse to participate in the PD’s chaos. Conflict requires two sides, and if you calmly refuse to take the bait, you’re not involved.

You are 50 percent of every relationship. No matter what the PD does, you choose how and if to respond. Remember the three Cs: I didn’t cause this behavior, I can’t control it, and I can’t cure it.

No-contact rule

Here, you cut off all forms of contact with the person, cutting them dead. You declare relationship death.

If the PD is merely an acquaintance, a distant cousin, or someone you’ve been dating for a few weeks, no-contact is a sound choice. It doesn’t make sense to work on a relationship that barely exists anyway, and life is too short.

But no-contact is appropriate for closer relationships, too. If the PD is abusing you, stealing from you, or otherwise destroying your life, you may need to practice no-contact even if it’s your own mother.

This method is simple, but it’s not easy. It’s painful to give up on someone, and even if the person is abusive, you may miss them terribly. Still, if your well-being and peace of mind are at stake, this is a sacrifice you may be forced to make.

When you choose no-contact, you will likely need support. Seek therapy, surround yourself with close friends, and visit a supportive online forum. Start with the excellent Internet forum Out of the FOG. Here, you can share your experiences and learn from others, and there are numerous helpful tools and resources: https://outofthefog.website/

It’s crucial to practice self-care and get support in order to heal.

How to deal with PDs at work

Personal relationships with PDs are difficult enough, but when the PD is a boss, client, or co-worker, it adds an extra layer of stress and requires finesse because our livelihood is at stake.

Presumably, the no-contact rule isn’t an option here, so choose other tactics to protect yourself if the situation is untenable but you can’t change jobs.

First, consider whether Human Resources can help. If you can talk to an HR representative confidentially, do so. Many companies have mediation and other resources to help resolve conflict. At the very least, you want to start documenting your efforts.

Second, and speaking of documentation, be sure to document everything. Communicate in writing (email), and archive the emails. Don’t just save things on your work computer or hard drive, because those will not be available to you if you get fired or otherwise have to leave your job suddenly. Avoid being alone with the PD. You may need witnesses.

Even when you have an interaction in person, document your impressions through a process that lawyers call memorializing. If you have an in-person conversation, immediately follow up with an email. “As we just discussed in the hallway, we agreed that I would take off Friday, March 29, 2019, to be with my mother during her surgery.” For idea-stealers, try: “At today’s lunchtime meeting, I suggested that we start emailing the TPS reports and stop mailing them. This will save $x in mailing costs while getting the reports to our clients faster.” When emails are not appropriate, keep a journal.

Third, become a “gray rock” and keep things at a “medium chill.” This is a method of detachment that allows you to fly under the radar. A grey rock becomes flat and uninteresting, which is the opposite of the dynamic, successful, and interesting person that attracts the PD. When you operate at medium chill, you refuse to take the bait, to get involved in the PD’s drama. Do not give personal information or share opinions with this person. In particular, do not share workplace gossip or offer opinions about a co-worker. This is good practice anyway, so it’s an opportunity to clean up your behavior at work. When the PD asks you an intrusive question, respond with noncommittal answers such as: “It’s simply my preference” or “Let me think about that.” If the PD tries to draw you into office intrigue, respond with “It’s none of my business” or “That’s too bad” or “You should probably take it up with her directly.”

Fourth, remember the Zen approach. You can remain mindful and detached and choose how you react to provocation. Again, try the out-of-body approach: “Huh. That’s interesting. She’s making a joke about my divorce in this meeting with our boss. I wonder if she’s acting out because I just made a well-received suggestion. I can feel that she just pushed my buttons, because I think I’m embarrassed about my divorce. I’ll choose not to respond, because I want to maintain my professional demeanor and keep the focus on my work.”

Finally, know your legal rights. If you believe that HR won’t be supportive, talk to an employment lawyer. Review the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s information here: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/

Forgive yourself

It’s easy for anyone to be the target of a PD. We’re lured by the validation and promise of professional success, love, and acceptance. We tend to beat ourselves up for not being able to get out. Once we’re out, we beat ourselves up for failing to get out sooner.

Sometimes, we feel guilty for acting in our own self-interest. Feelings of guilt are normal, but as a friend of mine says: “I leave the metaphysics and philosophy to those well-equipped for such matters. I suspect this: If we consistently behave in ways that protect us from those who cause us pain, we will be happier and healthier. Moral culpability is important, but I stand by my practical position: If a car is careening towards me on the sidewalk, it doesn’t matter whether the driver is a terrorist or an elderly man suffering a heart attack. I must take action to protect myself.”

The very things that make you good—kindness, compassion, a strong work ethic, family values, and the desire to love and be loved—unfortunately make you a target for unhealthy people. When you feel discouraged, remember that you are learning. You are training yourself to spot this behavior in the future and to deal with it successfully.

Take care of yourself.

The number is a beast: How to raise your FICO score

We’re often told that it doesn’t matter what others think of us. This may be true in general, but when it comes to credit, reputation is everything.

If your credit score is too low, you will pay higher interest on your loans—if you can get a loan at all. Indeed, a low credit score means you may not be able to buy a house or make other large purchases.

For this reason, it’s crucial to know your credit score and to do everything you can to raise it.

The FICO score

The most commonly used credit score is calculated by the Fair Isaac Corporation, which is why it’s called a FICO score. Fair Isaac bases your FICO score on your payment history, the total amount of your debt, and how many open debt accounts you’ve got.

A FICO score of less than 580 reflects no credit or damaged credit, and it is unlikely that you’ll qualify for a loan with reputable lenders with this score. A FICO score of 580 to 669 is average, while a score of 670 to 739 is average. A FICO score of 740 to 799 is excellent, while a score above 800 is exceptional.

If your FICO score is 740 or above, keep doing what you’re doing. If it’s less than 740, it’s important to bring your score up if you ever hope to qualify for a mortgage or a car loan. (It’s possible to get a loan with a low FICO score, but the interest rate will be high.)

Checking your credit

Once a year OR anytime you’ve been declined for a loan, you’re entitled to request your credit report free of charge from the three major credit reporting agencies: TransUnion, EquiFax, and Experian.

If you plan to apply for a loan in the upcoming months, it’s important to get these reports now so that you’ve got time to review them and correct any errors. You don’t want to be surprised when you’re shopping for a home or car.

Go to www.experian.com, www.transunion.com, and www.equifax.com to request your reports. Do NOT request your reports through any other source. These other sources charge money for something you are entitled to receive for free, and they may be scams or try to sell you unnecessary financial products.

In most cases, you can request your credit report online and get it almost immediately.

Correcting errors

Step one is the easiest: Once you get your reports, read them carefully for any errors. Errors are common: A study by the Federal Trade Commission found that 26 percent of reports had an error that negatively affected the credit score.

For example, maybe your credit card company has reported that you were late on a payment when you were not. Perhaps your report shows an open account that you closed years ago.

If you see an error, contact the credit bureau that issued the report. They’re required to investigate, to review your documentation, and to correct the errors.

Once you’re sure your credit report is accurate, it’s time to tackle the bigger issues.

Pay your bills on time

This sounds obvious, but of course it’s where most people get into trouble. You can’t change the past, but if you begin to pay all of your bills on time, your credit score will begin to rise almost immediately. Older late payments have a smaller impact on your score than more recent late payments.

In particular, try to stay current on your credit card payments, as these can have the biggest impact on your FICO score. For example, if you are more than 90 days late with a single credit card payment, it can damage your credit for up to seven years.

Do everything you can to get current and stay current. Use tools such as automatic payments and calendar reminders.

Try to pay off credit card debt

The ratio of how much debt you owe compared to your credit limit affects your credit score. For this reason, it’s important to carry as little credit card debt as possible and to pay as much as you can toward the balance each month. Obviously, the worst practice is to max out your credit cards and pay only the minimum payment each month.

Don’t close old accounts

For the same reason, don’t close old accounts (as long as they’re not costing you money). When you close old accounts, it limits the amount of available credit you’ve got. As stated above, you want as little debt as possible compared to your available credit limit.

Limit new accounts

Whenever you apply for credit, it affects your credit score—particularly if you are declined. It’s tempting to apply for new credit cards or department store credit cards (particularly when they pester you to do so every time you’re at the register), but resist the temptation.

Whenever you apply for credit, the lender checks your credit. This is known as a “hard inquiry.” Too many hard inquiries and your FICO score goes down. (Plus, you’re trying to spend less money, so new revolving credit lines are a bad idea.) Hard inquiries stay on your credit report for two years, so take care to limit these.

Work with collection agencies

If you’ve got delinquent debt on your credit report, and these debts have been turned over to a collection agency, you can use this to your advantage.

If you can afford to pay the entire balance, contact the collection agency and offer to pay off the debt in exchange for the collection agency’s removing the debt from your credit report. This is called “pay for delete,” and it can raise your FICO score significantly. In addition to the collection agency’s promise to “pay for delete,” be sure to get a “pay for delete” letter for your records.

Ask for forgiveness

This doesn’t always work, but it’s worth a try. If your credit report shows a late payment or two, ask the lender if they’ll have the late payment notification removed. If you’re a valued customer and you’ve paid mostly on time, the lender may agree to do this simply to keep you as a happy client.

Should I become an authorized user?

I see this “tip” quite often, but it doesn’t seem worth it to me because it’s terribly risky.

If you know someone with better credit than you, such as a parent or a significant other, you can ask to be added to their credit card account as an authorized user. You get your own credit card on the account, and you can make purchases with the card.

Your credit score rises a bit because your available credit has increased, plus you’re demonstrating that someone will give you access to their credit.

I’m sure you can see the risks involved here. First, if your credit is bad, perhaps you’ll use your new credit card and plunge your benefactor into debt and damage his or her credit along with yours—to say nothing of the damage to the relationship. Second, if your benefactor defaults, you’re liable for his or her debt—and these late payments and defaults will damage your credit as surely as if you had defaulted on your own.

While this tip theoretically can raise your FICO score, I don’t recommend it and I’m surprised that any financial adviser would.

It can be discouraging and scary to order your credit reports, but if you face the problem head-on and do the hard work of repairing your credit, it’s worth it.

The art of the squeal: Learning from Congress's mistakes when questioning Cohen

Today’s testimony from former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen before the House Oversight Committee has been analyzed from every angle, so there’s little to be added. I noted a few missteps made by the members of Congress (many of whom are lawyers) who questioned Cohen, however, and it’s helpful to discuss those.

1) Don’t cross-examine crossly

Every law student who takes a trial practice class has heard this advice repeatedly, and with good reason. When you’re examining a witness who is not favorable to your side, it’s important to remain calm and professional. If you’re hostile and full of bluster, it becomes clear to the jury (or, here, the public) that you are not confident in your line of questioning. If the law and/or the facts are in your favor and you’re well-prepared, there is no reason to bloviate. If you raise your voice, appear hostile, or slam your hands on the table, you’re sending a clear signal that you’re sinking.

2) A witness with unclean hands

The Republican members of Congress were not the only bad actors here, however. Cohen’s testimony was favorable to the Democrats’ position, but there was no need for the Democrats to treat Cohen with extra friendliness. With a shady witness, such as a criminal co-conspirator, it’s a mistake to appear sympathetic to the witness. He’s done some bad things, and we’re not supposed to be his friend. A stern, businesslike demeanor signals that we don’t approve of this witness’s past actions, but we still need information that only he can give us.

3) Impeaching the witness

When a witness is giving damaging testimony, of course you want to show that the witness is not credible. Republicans tried to do this, but they persisted in making this grievous error: You cannot impeach a witness by using misdeeds to which he has already admitted. Everybody knows that Cohen is a convicted felon who, among other things, lied to Congress. It’s not helpful to continue to point that out. When you do this, the result is always: “Yes, I’ve done bad things. I’m a criminal. I lied before. You already know that.” If you can’t find novel ways to undermine the witness’s credibility, you’re just wasting time and distracting from your key points.

Further, when the Republicans kept harping on these points, everyone noticed that they were more concerned with impeaching Cohen than with eliciting testimony that could be helpful to Trump. The obvious conclusion is: Trump’s long-time lawyer and close business associate cannot offer any information favorable to Trump.

4) You’re one of us

Speaking of, the GOP strategy in the hearing and thereafter is to discredit Cohen. On social media and in the press, the GOP continues to point out that Cohen “is a convicted felon who has consistently engaged in deceptive and misleading criminal behavior including tax evasion, lying to financial institutions, and lying to Congress.”

Again, everyone already knows this, so the GOP’s strategy has three calamitous side effects: 1) Because Cohen was Trump’s close business associate for many years and because he was the GOP’s deputy finance chair until eight months ago, we wonder about the judgment of Trump and the GOP in continuing to work with him so closely for so long. Oddly, hours after Cohen’s testimony, Cohen’s profile was still live on the GOP’s main website. 2) We’re reminded that Cohen lied and committed crimes on behalf of (and probably at the direction of) Trump. We accept testimony from criminal co-conspirators regularly, so it’s odd to pretend that this is unusual. 3) We notice that the GOP is unable to offer any credible counterarguments to refute Cohen’s testimony.

Honesty is the best policy: Scandalized politicians are doing it wrong

We’ve all made our share of dumb mistakes, and as we watch the latest political scandals unfold, we’re relieved that we’re not public figures and can leave our own mortifying missteps in the past.

Politicians ARE public figures, however, and it’s a sure bet that their political enemies will stop at nothing to dig up evidence of their past misdeeds. The more salacious, the better, and if there’s a photo or video, pay dirt!

If you decide to run for a high-profile office, you may as well accept that everything in your past will be brought to light in a manner that is the least favorable to you. Knowing this, you’d think political candidates would do a better job of managing their scandals.

They’re doing a lousy job, however, so I hope to suggest a better way using three notable examples.

My strategy is this: Tell the truth. When we’re honest about our shortcomings, nobody can use them against us.

Note: This works only for past mistakes that are not still ongoing, and it doesn’t and shouldn’t absolve someone of blame for serious crimes such as sexual assault, murder, and war crimes.

We’re all hypocrites

When we’re judging the actions of someone we support, we tend to consider the underlying motives of the actor, and we do so sympathetically. On the other hand, if we’re judging the actions of someone we’re against, we tend to look only at the act itself, although we’re happy to ascribe bad motives to that act.

For example, most Trump supporters were once Bill Clinton’s detractors. These “values voters” were out for blood when Clinton’s (admittedly awful) sexual sins were exposed, but when confronted with Trump’s, these same people tell us they voted for “a president, not a pastor.” And those who are offended now at Trump’s (admittedly awful) sexual sins were silent during the Clinton scandals.

We are a deeply moral people—when it comes to judging people we don’t like. When it’s OUR guy, however, we promptly abandon our morals and adopt a libertine stance that would make Baudelaire blush.

We remain loyal even when the politician’s actions are REALLY bad. For this reason, I suggest that the best way to deal with scandals is to come clean—really clean, apologize, and move on.

In other words, if people strongly dislike you, you’ll never win them over no matter what you say or do. If they love you, they’ll forgive almost anything, and they’ll bring the undecided voters with them. To accomplish this feat, you’ve first got to give your supporters a chance to forgive you. The only way to do this is to acknowledge your mistakes fully and ask for forgiveness. Then, it’s up to the voters to decide.

Bill Clinton didn’t inhale

Bill Clinton turned 18 in 1964 and attended college during the ‘60s and ‘70s, where he protested the Vietnam War.

Given this timeline, it seems impossibly quaint now that Clinton ignited (sorry) a minor scandal when he revealed that he smoked marijuana when he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford when he was in his early 20s.

Clinton famously said: “I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn’t like it. I didn’t inhale it, and never tried it again.”

This dopey (again, sorry) statement was a rare misstep for the politically savvy Clinton, who often used surgically crafted phrases to defuse other scandals large and small.

Clinton was elected president anyway, so the gaffe didn’t do irreparable damage to his political career. Still, it distracted from his campaign, and it has followed him since.

A better way: Why not just say, “Well, I’m a child of the 60s, so yes, I tried marijuana. I think many of us did, right? It wasn’t for me, and I didn’t really try it again. Now, that I’m a parent… blah blah blah.”

It’s counterintuitive, but when you admit to something without holding back, it makes you relatable and diminishes the appearance of wrongdoing.

Elizabeth Warren is not Cherokee

This shouldn’t be much of a story at all, but Warren’s ham-fisted defenses have turned it into a scandal that threatens to derail her political career.

Pretty much everybody I know (including me) was told that we were “part Indian” and specifically part Cherokee. Many of us repeated these dumb family stories until we discovered as adults that they were false. (In my case, I researched my genealogy thoroughly, and my DNA test results supported my findings.)

Over the years, Warren publicly stated that she was proud of her heritage and was listed as a minority professor in Harvard Law School’s faculty directory. She even claimed to be an “American Indian” on her 1986 Texas bar card.

It appears that Warren genuinely believed that she was part Cherokee, so she wasn’t technically lying. Further, there is no evidence that she was given preference in hiring or school admissions as a result of her claim, nor did she use it to advance her career.

Still, it’s an embarrassing mistake. But the real gaffe is how she handled it.

When her claim of Cherokee heritage was challenged, she could have said, “Oh, gosh, my family always told me that I was part Cherokee. I believed this to be true, but to be honest, I’ve never seen any documentary evidence of this. I’ve never used it to advance my career, but of course I’ll stop claiming it unless I get better evidence. I’m really embarrassed to have made this mistake, and I’m sorry I misrepresented my heritage.”

Had she said this, Sen. Warren would have destroyed her opposition’s plan to characterize her as a phony and an opportunist.

Instead, she added fuel to the fire by standing by her story.

As Warren continued to defend her claim, the press reported the story widely, and then Donald Trump noticed. He offered to donate $1 million to Warren’s charity of choice if she could prove Native American ancestry.

Now, if you can be outsmarted by Donald Trump, you probably deserve what you get, and Warren took the bait. She promptly took a DNA test, which showed that she has a Native American ancestor (six or more generations back) but is mostly of European descent. She’s got more Native American ancestry than most Americans of European descent, but it’s not as if she’s got a Cherokee great-grandmother.

This stunt made her look silly, and Warren’s insistence on responding to her critics while standing by her story have ensured that it’s now a central part of her presidential campaign and will overshadow any of her substantive policy proposals.

Gov. Northam and blackface

Newly elected Virginia governor Ralph Northam is the latest politician to find himself embroiled in a blackface scandal.

Northam’s page in his 1984 yearbook from Eastern Virginia Medical School features a photo of two men, one in black face and one dressed as a Ku Klux Klansman. This was an occasionally-seen tasteless “odd couple” costume of the day. (The actress Kirstie Alley’s parents were killed in an auto accident while on their way to a Halloween party dressed in such a costume.)

It is unclear which one of the men is Northam or how the photo was selected for his page. (Northam has alternately said that one of the men is him and that perhaps neither man is him. He says he does not know who selected the photo, although it seems clear that students selected their own photos for their yearbook pages.)

No matter, blackface is and always has been racist, and there is no excuse for this. We understand that 1984 was 35 years ago, and yet we’re surprised that such an offensive photo would be published in a yearbook even at that time. What were they thinking?

Once the photo came out, Northam could have made this statement: “My God, what was I thinking? I don’t remember dressing in that costume or choosing that photo for my yearbook, but what if one of those men is me? That costume is inexcusable, and I should have known better. I am so sorry. In the 35 years since this photo was taken, I have… (and here, he could list the various ways that he has worked for racial and social justice).”

This would not have solved the problem, because it’s such an offensive photo, but it would be a much more helpful strategy than what Northam chose.

Instead, he gave conflicting explanations for the photo, which makes it seem as if he’s trying to deceive us. Further, he gave an embarrassing freewheeling press conference (never a good idea in these situations) in which he made several unhelpful statements and appeared to be on the verge of doing the moonwalk. Now, word is, he has hired a private detective to investigate whether he’s in the photo and has had several strategy meetings with his supporters, details of which were promptly leaked to the press. The resulting stories were not flattering.

As with Warren, Northam’s poor handling of the scandal has given the scandal legs. The more he tries to deny and deflect, the worse it will be.

I submit that all three of these crises could have been prevented by telling the truth and allowing us to recognize our shared vulnerability as human beings.

Ship of ghouls: The Mignonette, cannibalism, and the law's perfect storm

Now is no time to think of what you do not have. Think of what you can do with that there is.—Ernest Hemingway, “The Old Man and the Sea”

Truth is stranger than fiction. It’s also a far better teacher. For this reason, a law student’s textbooks are filled with real cases. As we read the decisions in these landmark cases, the often dry points of law spring to life. Then, and for the rest of our lives, we never forget the law, because we never forget the people. The parties to the case become our most effective professors.

One such landmark case is Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 QBD 273 DC (1884), which illustrates the crime of murder and the typically futile defense of necessity.

Embark on this ill-fated voyage, and you’ll never forget a single detail.

The Mignonette

John Henry Want had a problem. The wealthy Australian lawyer longed to fit into Sydney’s yachting society, but the more experienced yachtsmen scoffed at him. Nobody scoffed at English-built yachts, however, which were considered far superior to those made in Australia. In an attempt to win their respect, Want bought the Mignonette, an elderly 52-footer made in Southampton.

The Mignonette was too small to be seaworthy for a 15,000-mile voyage on the high seas, but there was no other practical way to transport it to Sydney. Want had the yacht retrofitted as best he could and hired a crew that consisted of Captain Tom Dudley, two experienced crew members, Edwin Stephens and Edmund Brooks, and to serve as cabin boy, 17-year-old orphan Richard Parker, who had never been to sea.

You can tell already that things aren’t going to end well for Parker.

Shipwreck

The Mignonette set sail from Southampton on May 19, 1884, and the voyage went smoothly for several weeks. To avoid high winds in the Mediterranean, Captain Dudley avoided the Suez Canal and instead opted for the long South Atlantic route.

On July 5, the yacht hit a storm in the vast South Atlantic between the islands of St. Helena and Tristan da Cunha, and the Mignonette sank quickly. The four men scrambled into the lifeboat and survived on the open seas for more than three weeks, drinking their own urine and eating a turtle they managed to catch and drag aboard.

Once the castaways exhausted the turtle meat and two tins of turnips they had salvaged from the sinking ship, they found themselves acutely dehydrated and starving to death. They began to discuss their meager options and came to this ghastly conclusion: They would resort to the Custom of the Sea.

Custom of the Sea

The Custom of the Sea is an ever-evolving set of unwritten traditions and practices that the crews of ships observe while sailing the high seas. This is distinguished from maritime law and the law of admiralty, which are codified and cohesive. The Custom of the Sea is an ancient edict to which sailors resorted when matters were grim with no rescue in sight. Stated another way, it is “desperate times call for desperate measures.”

One such desperate measure is the act of survival cannibalism in which starving sailors would draw lots to see which sailor would die so that the others might live.

Survival cannibalism is rare, of course, but we can all name a handful (sorry) of examples of it: the Donner Party, the Uruguayan rugby team featured in “Alive,” the Packer Expedition, and the Essex.

And, of course, the Mignonette.

As death drew close, the men on the lifeboat hung their heads and prepared to draw lots.

Nor any drop to drink

Before the men could draw lots, however, cabin boy Parker gave in to temptation and drank seawater, weakening him further and rendering him delirious. Mercifully, he lapsed into a coma and hovered near death.

The choice had made itself.

On July 23 or 24, Dudley and Stephens signaled to each other that Parker would be sacrificed. They decided that they would not allow him to die naturally because they reasoned that his blood would be nutritious only if it were fresh. Captain Dudley said a prayer and pushed his pen knife into Parker’s jugular vein while Stephens stood by to hold the boy down.

Later, Dudley and Stephens would claim that Brooks assented to this plan. Brooks maintained that he did not. It is undisputed that Brooks declined to participate in the killing itself.

All three men descended on Parker’s body and fed on his still warm blood, heart, liver, and other organs and flesh “like mad wolfs,” they would later recall.

Their grisly plan worked. On July 29, the passing ship Moctezuma spotted the men, and the three survivors were pulled from the bloodied lifeboat, the bottom of which was now littered with Parker’s body parts. As the Moctezuma crew members pulled the survivors aboard, Parker’s bloody viscera was visible under the cannibals’ fingernails.

Arrest and trial

The Moctezuma returned the men to England, where they went immediately to the customs house to report the incident. Captain Dudley and Stephens gave statements, which were required under the Merchant Shipping Acts in the event of a shipping loss.

Brooks had not participated in the killing, but Dudley and Stephens readily admitted the deed, perhaps believing that they were protected under the Custom of the Seas. Instead, they were arrested and charged with murder, which carried the penalty of death.

The shocking tale of the Mignonette hit the papers, and the trial was a sensation. While cannibalism is taboo and repugnant to a civilized society, public opinion strongly favored the defendants. Denizens of Victorian England agreed that if they were faced with such a decision, they too would make the same appalling choice. What else could one do?

There was another choice, however. The three men could have chosen to die alongside Parker should no rescue come.

The necessity defense

When someone is charged with murder, the accused sometimes offers an affirmative defense.

An affirmative defense says, “Yes, I did it, but I shouldn’t be held responsible because….” This is distinguished from a negating defense, which says, “No, I didn’t do it,” disproving all or part of the prosecutor’s case.

Self-defense is the prime example of an affirmative defense. The defendant says, “Yes, I committed the crime, but I should not be held responsible because I feared death or grave injury. I did it, but I had no other reasonable choice. Kill or be killed.”

This sounds similar to the plight of the Mignonette survivors: Yes, they killed Parker; they had no other choice. If they didn’t kill him, they too would die. Further, Parker would soon die anyway, so Dudley and Stephens merely hastened his death.

Self-defense doesn’t apply here, however, because Parker posed no threat to the other three men.

Instead, Dudley and Stephens attempted a “defense of necessity,” arguing that circumstances forced them to kill Parker and that they would have died but for their murderous act.

Conviction

After a long, blundering trial full of irregularities, this defense failed, which means that the English common law rejected the idea of necessity as an affirmative defense for the crime of murder. Because our law derives from the English common law, criminal law in the United States also does not recognize necessity as a defense for murder.

In fact, the necessity defense is difficult to invoke even as a defense to lesser crimes. The defense must prove these six(!) elements: 1) The threat was imminent and specific, 2) The necessity to act was immediate, 3) There was no practical alternative, 4) The defendant didn’t contribute to the threat, 5) The defendant acted out of necessity at all times, and 6) The harm caused wasn’t greater than the harm prevented. See State v. Cole, 403 S.E. 2d 117 (1991).

In Victorian England, the penalty for murder was death, and Dudley and Stephens found themselves facing the gallows. Due to the impossibility of their situation, however, the court was sympathetic and recommended clemency. The death sentences were commuted to six months in prison, after which Dudley and Stephens were freed.

Aftermath

Surprisingly, Captain Dudley embarked on another voyage to Australia, where he prospered as a boat outfitter and ship accessories dealer until he died of bubonic plague in 1900. Stephens descended into alcoholism and died in 1914. Brooks, who wasn’t charged with a crime and testified against his former shipmates, attempted to make a living as a live exhibit in freak shows. He died in 1919.

The events haunted the men for the rest of their lives.

Someone has placed a commemorative stone for Richard Parker in the churchyard of the Jesus Chapel on Peartree Green in Southampton near Parker’s childhood home in the village of Itchen Ferry.

Oddly, the real-life facts of this case are eerily similar to the fictional account in Edgar Allan Poe’s 1838 novel “The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket,” which predated the Mignonette case by nearly 50 years. In Poe’s novel, the survivors of a shipwreck kill and eat a fellow crew member in order to survive after they’ve polished off the turtle they caught.

The name of Poe’s cannibalized sailor: Richard Parker.

Hunchin' of the voting party: Has Texas got an illegal voter problem?

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced on January 25, 2019, that Texas Secretary of State David Whitley had identified 95,000 non-citizens on Texas voter rolls, and it appears that 58,000 of these people have voted in an election from 1996 to 2018.

President Trump repeated this claim on Twitter and offered it as evidence that illegal immigrants are voting in U.S. elections, which means that the need for a border wall is urgent. Several bloggers and media personalities further sounded the alarm.

It does sound pretty bad. It’s a terrible blow to those who argue that voter fraud is rare and that illegals don’t vote in large numbers. This isn’t a handful of votes we’re talking about; it’s 58,000! If true, this is a significant problem.

Texas is on the border, of course, and so it has a large population of Mexican and Central American immigrants—both legal and illegal. It also has one of the strictest voter ID laws in the nation.

How could this happen?

Green cards and visas

First, it’s important to understand the underlying claim, which has been distorted as it has been repeated.

Attorney General Paxton and Secretary Whitley did not claim that these voters are illegal immigrants. Instead, they used the term “non-citizens.”

Nobody on this list is an illegal immigrant, it turns out. The list includes only non-citizens who are Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR) or visa holders.

LPRs are citizens of another country who have been granted the right to reside permanently in the U.S., through a lengthy application process. (An LPR is said to have received a “green card” when his or her application to become an LPR is approved, because the LPR identification card was green when the term was coined.)

Once an LPR has resided in the U.S. for five years, he or she is allowed to apply for U.S. citizenship.

A visa holder is anyone who has permission to be in the U.S. There are various types of visas (from permanent immigrant visas to short-term tourist visas). Some visa holders become LPRs, while some do not.

In Texas, LPRs and certain visa holders are allowed to apply for a provisional Texas driver’s license. Illegal immigrants are not.

LPRs, visa holders, and other legal resident non-citizens are not allowed to register to vote in Texas, however.

How they got the numbers

The Texas Secretary of State’s office asked the Texas DMV to supply a list of LPRs and visa holders who had gotten Texas driver’s licenses between 1996 through 2018.

The Secretary of State’s office then took that list of names and compared it with the list of registered voters in Texas from the same time period. This search returned 95,000 matches of people who once held Texas driver’s licenses as LPRs/visa holders and who were also registered to vote in Texas at some point.

Of this list of 95,000, it appears that 58,000 have cast a vote in at least one election.

A critical eye

Voters’ rights and immigrant advocates in Texas argue that some of the cases may be mistaken identity. In other words, the names may be substantially similar, but the voting record may belong to a person with a similar name and address who is a U.S. citizen.

Further, the report does not account for the fact that more than 50,000 LPRs in Texas become naturalized U.S. citizens every year. For example, an LPR who got a Texas driver’s license in 1996 could have become a citizen in 2001, and may have registered to vote at that time. The period in question spans 22 years (1998-2012), and the matches were not compared with a list of naturalized citizens from that period. Visa holders may become LPRs and then apply for citizenship after five years’ residence as an LPR.

Under Texas law, election officials must mail a notice to voters 30 days prior to their voter registration being revoked. The voter then has this 30-day period to show proof that his or her voter registration is valid. (In this case, the voter would submit immigration paperwork to prove citizenship.)

A similar 2012 matching report in Colorado did not lead to discoveries of voter fraud or other illegal voting, and no changes were made based on that report.

Until the Texas matches are verified (by allowing those suspected of voting illegally to provide proof of citizenship and by asking county voting officials to verify identities), it is premature to say that 58,000 people voted illegally in elections in Texas from 1996 through 2018.