EDITORS’ BLOG BACK TO TOP

Editors’ Blog

Your Quick Primer on Katie Zacharia’s False Claim to Have Taken the Bar in China

by Josh Marshall
Your Quick Primer on Katie Zacharia’s False Claim to Have Taken the Bar in China
by Josh Marshall

Since I was revising the post below as I got more information, here’s the latest on White House Press Secretary Katie Zacharia’s apparent claim to have taken the bar exam in China.

Judd Legum revealed yesterday that notwithstanding Trump’s and Zacharia’s claim that she was an attorney, it doesn’t appear that she ever took or passed the bar in the U.S. Today reporters pressed her on whether this was true. Had she passed the bar? In what state? Zacharia responded that she took it “when I moved to China.” Reporters took that, understandably, to mean that she took the Chinese bar exam when she lived there between 2011 and 2013. The Washington Post reported, for instance, that Zacharia “said she had passed a bar exam in China, a country where noncitizens aren’t allowed to practice in courtrooms.” But it’s more than that. Foreign nationals are not allowed to take the Chinese bar exam or practice law in China under any circumstances. Her LinkedIn bio says she worked at a Chinese law firm, Zhong Lun, while living in China. And that is possible. I assume it’s true. Foreigners can work at Chinese law firms but only for the purpose of advising on the law in the countries in which they are licensed to practice law. They are specifically barred from advising clients on Chinese law. I don’t know whether not having passed the bar in the U.S. would have been an issue on that front or not. Bottom line: In her first day on the job Zacharia gave everyone the impression that she took the bar exam in China. But that’s not true. Because she would not have been allowed to.

Zacharia Claim About Chinese Bar Exam Is False

by Josh Marshall
by Josh Marshall

As I noted in the earlier post, new Press Secretary Katie Zacharia claims she passed the bar exam in China and to thus be an “attorney” despite never having passed the bar in the U.S. A Post article said that foreign nationals aren’t allowed to appear in Chinese courts. And I took that to mean that perhaps you could take the bar exam but not appear in court. (Many U.S. attorneys never appear in court. That’s only one part of practicing law.) But it looks more stringent than that. And it looks like Zacharia’s claim is likely false. It’s difficult to confirm a technical point like this about a foreign country. But numerous websites which provide information about practicing law in China say that foreign nationals can’t take the bar exam under any circumstances. Starting in 2021 there appears to have been a pilot program which would allow foreign national to take the patent bar. But even that required foreigners to have permanent residence which is apparently quite difficult to get. Foreign lawyers can work in Chinese law firms, but only to provide guidance about the law in the countries in which they are licensed to practice. (She appears to have worked in that capacity.) They’re specifically barred from interpreting Chinese law or acting in the capacity of a Chinese lawyer. So it’s pretty tight.

Again, maybe there’s some technicality that made this possible for her which doesn’t come up in any of the explanations I’ve found. But it seems like a pretty across-the-board ban.

Perhaps Zacharia was being cagey. She was asked at her appearance today where she’d passed the bar, in what state. She responded, “When I moved to China.” Reporters understandably took that to mean that she took the Chinese bar exam. But perhaps she was trying to hoodwink them.

More to come.

Late Update: This just-published article in the South China Morning Post says definitively that at the time Zacharia claims to have passed the bar in China foreign nationals were barred from taking the bar exam.

Eligibility rules for China’s national judicial examination in 2011, when Zacharia reportedly began working in Beijing, required candidates to hold Chinese nationality.

Foreign nationals were therefore ineligible to take the examination, a step towards qualification to practise mainland Chinese law.

Employment at a Chinese law firm does not, by itself, establish that someone holds a licence to practise Chinese law. SCMP has asked Zhong Lun to clarify Zacharia’s role and qualifications. The firm did not immediately respond.

This Week on the Polltober Show: Does Republicans’ Huge Cash Advantage Matter?

by Allegra Kirkland
by Allegra Kirkland

Elon Musk is dumping heaps of money into the midterms and the Trump-aligned MAGA Inc. waited til the final stretch of the election to make its big ad spending push. But does any of it actually matter?

On this week’s episode of The Polltober Show, Kate and Josh break down the spending disparity between the parties, and dig in to why Democrats might be better positioned than they appear. Plus, they talk through an exclusive memo with new House and Senate odds.

If you want your question answered next week, drop it on the YouTube comments on the latest episode of the TPM Show or the Polltober Show itself. And don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube page for all of our Polltober episodes, livestreams, and other original content!

LOLWUT?: New Press Secretary Moochspan Edition 

by Josh Marshall
LOLWUT?: New Press Secretary Moochspan Edition
by Josh Marshall · The Backchannel

I couldn’t think what to say about this beyond simply reposting the first two grafs of this Washington Post article …

The White House on Tuesday scrambled to answer questions about the legal credentials of President Donald Trump’s new press secretary, Katie Zacharia, who made a brief and halting debut in the briefing room and later said she had passed a bar exam in China, a country where noncitizens aren’t allowed to practice in courtrooms.

Trump called Zacharia “an attorney” in his Friday announcement of her appointment, and her LinkedIn profile says she served as general counsel for Fix California, a nonprofit founded by Ric Grenell, a high-profile Trump adviser. Asked Tuesday where she had been admitted to the bar, Zacharia said China — not a U.S. state or D.C., where one would need to have been admitted to practice law in the United States.

Want to keep reading?

Join TPM to get full-access to our reporting, newsletters, and other member-only features.

Join TPM
JOIN

Dominance Politics, Elite Gatekeeping and Jon Ossoff 

by Josh Marshall
Dominance Politics, Elite Gatekeeping and Jon Ossoff
by Josh Marshall · The Backchannel

I’ve been in a conversation over the last few weeks about a possible piece I might write for another publication about Democrats and the politics of masculinity and power, particularly how this relates to how young men have shifted to the right in the Trump era. I mostly think that this is an issue that affects Democrats generally, and is not just narrowly about this or that demographic group. This has been a theme in lots of conversations at TPM over the last 20 months when it comes to the extra-ideological division among Democrats between “fight” and accommodation and civility. Going back even further, to late 2004, I’ve been writing about what I call “dominance politics,” or, originally, “bitch slap politics.”

I thought of this this weekend because there was a blip of attention to comments from David Brooks on The Newshour. “The insinuations that El-Sayed is involved in terrorism because he’s Muslim, ridiculous. Jon Ossoff, my advice to him is, if you start calling your political opponents Nazis, maybe it’s time to shut up. That’s just not what we do here in this country.” There are a slew of problems with this. Not least of which are false equivalence and appeals to ethnic hatred and bigotry. Ossoff didn’t call Mike Collins a Nazi. What Brooks is referring to is Ossoff’s debate swipe when he told Collins, “You’ve hired half the Third Reich to staff your congressional office and you have promoted neo-Nazi content online.” This isn’t some random swipe. It’s been one of the biggest stories of the campaign season that week after week reporters keep finding members of Collins campaign, political operation or family who are associated with far-right or neo-Nazi individuals and organizations or who distribute anti-Semitic propaganda. This is merely an aggressive statement of facts that are unambiguously in the public record. But it’s not the specifics of Ossoff’s attack or Brooks’ tut-tutting I want to focus on here. It’s the more general and more important issue of tut-tutting, elite gatekeeping and how this relates to how Democrats operate in the public sphere.

Want to keep reading?

Join TPM to get full-access to our reporting, newsletters, and other member-only features.

Join TPM
JOIN

AI and the Core Feature of the Silicon Valley Economy

by Josh Marshall
AI and the Core Feature of the Silicon Valley Economy
by Josh Marshall

As we have this ongoing discussion about AI, I want to return to the question of scale and externalities and how they are the defining feature of the Silicon Valley economy. We can’t make any sense of today’s discussion of LLMs and AI without placing it in that context.

“Externalities” are all the byproducts and secondary effects of, in this case, a business enterprise. If you make paint or industrial solvents you create various kinds of pollution in the process. How is that dealt with? Specifically, are you, the paint or solvent maker, responsible for dealing with those consequences? Even more specifically, do you have to pay for dealing with those consequences or are they absorbed by the society at large while the profits of the enterprise go exclusively to you? “Absorbing” those consequences can mean accepting levels of illness, diminished quality of life or simply having society at large pick up the tab for various kinds of remediation. The externalities are really just costs, but often semi-hidden ones. A huge amount of public policy deals with properly or improperly bringing costs and externalities into alignment.

Read More

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.

Featured

PODCASTS

See All

RECENT

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.

newsletters