Tag: Donald Trump

Vote for Democracy ’24 #2

Back in September, I published a post about the age and health of President Biden and former President Trump. In it, I wrote:

On the other hand, when Donald Trump was president, he was not known to keep a very rigorous schedule of official duties. He didn’t seem to understand the complexities of the job, such as dealing with classified materials. He was volatile and resorted to bullying, name calling, and lying to try to get his way, regardless of facts, laws, or policies. Sometimes, when he is speaking without a teleprompter, he doesn’t seem able to construct cogent sentences. I don’t know if there is a medical diagnosis that elucidates these behaviors or not, but I don’t think his age is the salient factor.

While there are some in the media who have been talking about these things for years, Trump’s recent behavior has pushed these topics into the mainstream, both in the press and among some politicians. A few days ago, Trump repeatedly referred to his primary opponent, Nikki Haley, when he seemingly meant to say Nancy Pelosi. When campaigning, he has sometimes been confused about where he is. He has repeatedly said that he ran against President Obama, which he did not. He doesn’t seem to have much control over his emotional reactions and speech, for example, when he went on a rant at the New York trial over damages for fraud regarding his real estate businesses. His victory speech after the New Hampshire primary featured rambling, repetition, threats, and vitriol.

It seems that some of the tendencies he had during his presidency have heightened. What is even more alarming to me and to some observers is that Trump’s cognition and control seem to have slipped. I’ve been exposed to numerous people as dementia was developing and observed how their language skills eroded and how they struggled with self-control. It makes Trump’s recent behavior seem eerily familiar. That others are pointing it out confirms that it is not just a personal bias.

Donald Trump’s father, Fred, had dementia from Alzheimer’s disease for years before his death. Alzheimer’s disease is known to run in families and Donald’s age does become salient on this point, given that he is now 77 years old and the risk of developing Alzheimer’s increases with age. It’s also frequently not diagnosed in its early stages. While Fred Trump was diagnosed in his 80s, it’s likely that cognitive decline began years earlier, which would put Donald in the same age bracket as his father was when symptoms started to develop.

Despite all this, many Republican elected officials are currently endorsing Trump for the nomination and the presidency. They don’t seem to recognize the danger of having someone in cognitive decline and with poor impulse control exercising the powers of the presidency. Things could go very badly very quickly.

There is no health test to run for president. I do hope that, at the very least, there will be pressure for Trump to debate Nikki Haley so that potential voters can see how he answers questions and reacts to issues in real time. This would also reveal to other Republican party leaders what his current capabilities are so they could assess if he is fit to serve for the next presidential term. I don’t know whether or not they can set aside their own hunger for power or not but, perhaps, it will scare them enough to act to safeguard the country from the disaster of having a mentally incompetent person in charge.

Trump has been using increasingly authoritarian language and issuing threats against opponents and even other Republicans who disagree with him. He should not ever again be in a position where he can carry out these threats, many of which are illegal and would threaten the stability of our democratic institutions. Oh, and Trump is insisting a president should enjoy total immunity from prosecution, no matter what he does.

Please consider these things before you vote. Look at what each candidate says, does, and believes. Don’t just look at their party or family name.
*****
Join us for Linda’s Just Jot It January! Find out more here: https://lindaghill.com/2024/01/26/daily-prompt-jusjojan-the-26th-2024/

Vote for Democracy ’24 #1

The first major event in preparation for the November ’24 United States presidential election took place last night. Former president Donald Trump won the Iowa caucuses, which will give him twenty delegates in the Republican party nominating convention in the summer. The other twenty delegates were awarded among DeSantis, Haley, and Ramaswamy; Ramaswamy left the race and endorsed Trump after the results were announced. (The Democrats decided to use mail-in ballots with results announced on March 5th.)

Although the nominating conventions won’t be until summer, it is widely expected that the November election will be a contest between current president, Democrat Joe Biden, and the former president, Republican Donald Trump, along with several independent/small party challengers.

That all sounds normal, but it isn’t. Donald Trump is under 91 felony indictments, some in federal cases and others in the states of Georgia and New York. A lot of evidence of his conduct is already publicly available, through government reports, recordings of speeches and phone calls, public comments, interviews, testimony at hearings and trials, and the media. There is also a lot of evidence of other Republicans cooperating with criminal activity or excusing it.

This election is widely considered to be a test of American democracy and values. I’ve struggled with what my role should be in standing up for our Constitution, democracy, and the common good. I do a lot of behind-the-scenes actions, such as writing to my elected officials and other government leaders and donating to political candidates, lobbying organizations, and charities that express my values. I frequently post my views on political topics here at Top of JC’s Mind. In this late November post, I made clear how dangerous I think a second Trump administration would be.

Although I’m painfully aware of my lack of reach, I want to add my voice to those fighting to preserve democracy and promote a national government that serves the common good rather than just the rich and powerful. So, I’ve decided to start an election year series here at Top of JC’s Mind, “Vote for Democracy ’24”, to provide more visibility to these posts.

I plan for these posts to be informative, factual, and reflective of my views. Readers are welcome to add their own views in comments but there are two requirements. Comments must be respectful; I do not allow vulgarity, name calling, or threats on my blog. (I remind those who use “freedom of speech” as an excuse to say whatever they want, wherever they want that the First Amendment is about the government’s actions regarding speech, not private individuals.) Comments must also be based in fact. I will not allow my platform to amplify lies, conspiracy theories, or hatefulness. I will exercise my right to delete comments that violate these requirements. I will respectfully reply to people across the range of opinions if they do follow these requirements. I hope not to do this, but I will block particular people, if needed, or close comments, if things get out of hand.

In November ’23, I wrote:

I know that I will not vote for Trump or any candidate for office at any level who supports him and his dangerous ideas. I will try to get the word out as best I can what those dangerous ideas are because some of the people who support Trump only hear his rhetoric and not the countervailing facts. For example, I encourage people to read the indictments against Trump, which lay out a lot of the underlying evidence. It’s also helpful to read the report of the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, as well as the Mueller Report. I also am supporting voices and organizations that are working to uphold democracy, the rule of law, and the common good.

I’m also worried and scared about violence, oppression, and losing my free, if flawed, country to demagogues, authoritarians, and fascists.

While I tend to pay attention to politics and public affairs all the time, many in the United States don’t notice what is going on with government except in presidential election years. I hope to encourage people to look at facts and evidence and draw their own conclusions rather than just following along with a candidate or party by inertia. I have never joined a political party and have a history of voting for candidates from multiple parties. I value my right as a citizen to vote and want others to retain their freedom to do so without obstacles or intimidation. I hope that others in the United States hold similar values regarding voting and that those in other countries stay informed and are able to freely participate in their own governance, although I realize that is an impossibility in some places.

2024 will be a momentous year in US history. Pay attention.
*****
Join us for Linda’s Just Jot It January! Find out more here: https://lindaghill.com/2024/01/16/daily-prompt-jusjojan-the-16th-2024/

plans for a second Trump administration

The Trump presidency featured a wide range of cruel and immoral speech and actions, including separation of children from their parents/guardians who came to the US seeking asylum in violation of national and international law, then not keeping the records to reunite them; suppressing scientific COVID information while spreading misinformation that contributed to higher rates of death and illness in the US than in other nations with comparable medical systems; speaking approvingly of authoritarian governments while criticizing our allies; bullying and firing government officials he deemed insufficiently loyal to him personally; and lying about his election loss, filing baseless legal challenges, and fomenting an insurrection.

It was a difficult, dark time for the country that laid bare and worsened existing divisions along racial/ethnic, religious, partisan, gender, and geographic lines. The Republican party has devolved into a party driven by grievance rather than one dedicated to governing for the common good of all the people.

Donald Trump is the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president in 2024 while under indictment on 91 federal and state felony counts. There is a planning operation underway for a second term, dubbed Project 2025, through a group of right-wing think tanks that seeks to politicize the Justice Department to seek revenge for political views, to deport millions of immigrants and refugees, to invoke the Insurrection Act to allow the US military to operate domestically, and to give the president additional powers that are not subject to checks by the courts or Congress. Trump’s rhetoric during the primary campaign includes him talking about seeking revenge and retribution against members of the Biden family and administration and against Republicans who don’t agree with him, including former members of his administration. He has raised the possibility of the death penalty for former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley. He is using overtly fascist language, such as calling his perceived enemies “vermin.” Trump’s verbal attacks, both via social media and in person at campaign rallies and interviews, seem to be increasing threats of violence against those Trump targets, such as Judge Engoron and his law clerk in the New York civil fraud trial.

What is most alarming is that many Republicans in government and many Trump supporters are openly embracing anti-democractic, unconstitutional, and illegal actions, such as doing away with birthright citizenship, limiting voting rights for people who disagree with them, using the military against the public, and outlawing abortion and birth control. I am appalled that there are those characterizing the United States as a white Christian nation, when it is, in reality, a pluralistic society made up of people of many races and ancestral heritages with a wide range of personal beliefs.

I know that I will not vote for Trump or any candidate for office at any level who supports him and his dangerous ideas. I will try to get the word out as best I can what those dangerous ideas are because some of the people who support Trump only hear his rhetoric and not the countervailing facts. For example, I encourage people to read the indictments against Trump, which lay out a lot of the underlying evidence. It’s also helpful to read the report of the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, as well as the Mueller Report. I also am supporting voices and organizations that are working to uphold democracy, the rule of law, and the common good.

I’m also worried and scared about violence, oppression, and losing my free, if flawed, country to demagogues, authoritarians, and fascists.

This post was difficult to write, in part because I am so disturbed about what has been happening and in part because I know I’m just a small voice in a very large and loud media environment. But I had to try. The future envisioned by Trump and his acolytes is just too terrifying to silently ignore.

Photo credit: Photo by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash

age and/or competence

Here in the United States, there is lots of discussion and public opinion polling around whether there should be an upper age limit for the presidency and other powerful federal positions, such as Supreme Court justices.

This is sometimes termed more simply as “Is Joe Biden too old to run for re-election?” Joe Biden is currently 80. Donald Trump, current leader in the race for the Republican party nomination, is 77.

Thirty-five is the Constitutional minimum age for the presidency, presumably to allow the president to have gained some measure of life experience and maturity to handle such a demanding position, but there is no upper limit specified.

I prefer that there not be one.

Rather, I want to be able to look at the personal qualities and policy positions of the candidate. Their physical and mental health status is part of that analysis.

Age is not necessarily a good indicator of health status or fitness. Joe Biden, as evidenced by his physical examination results from February, 2023, does not have major medical issues. His gait is stiff due to some arthritis. He works out on a regular basis. He has been able to keep up a rigorous daily schedule, including frequent travel, both domestically and internationally.

The president has a stutter; sometimes, his word pacing and choice are efforts to compensate. That we seldom hear him stutter is a testament to the work he has done over the years to address this issue. There is no evidence of cognitive impairment.

Of course, not all recent presidents have been as extensive in reporting their physical exam results. Donald Trump’s results were not reported in detail.

In the more distant past, the physical condition of the president was often kept private. For example, the public did not know the extent of damage caused by Woodrow Wilson’s 1919 stroke. Franklin Roosevelt’s post-polio condition was kept out of the public eye as much as possible. Not even Harry Truman as vice-president knew how ill FDR was with cardiovascular disease before his death in 1945 at age 63.

My mother, who had experience with family members dealing with cognitive decline, observed that Ronald Reagan’s behavior and speech while he was president reminded her of someone who was developing dementia. She was not surprised when his diagnosis with Alzheimer’s disease was made public five years after he left the presidency. There was a lot of debate about when Reagan’s cognitive decline began and there is no definitive determination, although some analysis has shown that his speech patterns changed over the years of his presidency in ways that indicate cognitive decline. Reagan was 77 when he left office at the end of his second term.

So, circling back to the present debate on the age of presidential candidates, it seems to me that age alone is not a good indicator of health or fitness for the rigors of the presidency. President Biden seems to be doing well at age 80 with both the physical and mental demands of the job. I also appreciate his even temperament and moral grounding, which, as a fellow Catholic, I recognize as rooted in Catholic social justice doctrine and in line with the American concept of working for the common good, articulated in the Constitution as a call to “promote the general welfare.”

On the other hand, when Donald Trump was president, he was not known to keep a very rigorous schedule of official duties. He didn’t seem to understand the complexities of the job, such as dealing with classified materials. He was volatile and resorted to bullying, name calling, and lying to try to get his way, regardless of facts, laws, or policies. Sometimes, when he is speaking without a teleprompter, he doesn’t seem able to construct cogent sentences. I don’t know if there is a medical diagnosis that elucidates these behaviors or not, but I don’t think his age is the salient factor.

While I would prefer younger presidential candidates, in their fifties or sixties perhaps, it is much more important for me that the president be someone who is dedicated to the American people and the rule of law, trying to do what is right for the good of the country and protecting those who are under threat.

If that person happens to be 80-something, so be it.

New Poem: On August 24, 2023

For some reason I cannot ascertain, I’ve been having poetic responses spring to mind from current events lately. After having them rejected by the venues that I know that concentrate on current event poems, I am publishing them here at Top of JC’s Mind, as I did last week with my Georgia RICO indictment poem.

This one is much shorter, almost but not quite a haiku. (Syllable counting is difficult when you use numbers.) It is a response to Donald Trump surrendering to authorities at the Fulton County, Georgia jail and then raising money using his scowling mug shot, which I’ve already seen more times than I care to.

As always, comments are welcome.

On August 24, 2023

Inmate P01135809 
says “NEVER SURRENDER!” 
but he does.

GA RICO poem

No, really.

While reading the indictment from the Fulton County, Georgia grand jury last week, I found a poem.

No, really.

A found poem is one that is constructed from a preexisting, usually non-poetic text. As I was reading the 161 acts that are listed as evidence of racketeering, I was struck by the repetition of “an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Repetition is a common feature of poetry, so the rhythm of this mantra resonated with me. I took the last line from each of the 161 acts to construct this poem.

Most poems are meant to be heard, as well as read. This one is probably better experienced as a visual piece, allowing the repetition with its variations to weigh on you. As always, comments. are welcome

from The Acts of Violation of the Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act – a found poem by Joanne Corey

  1. The speech was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  2. This telephone call was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  3. These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  4. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  5. This meeting was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  6. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  7. The false statements and solicitations were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  8. These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  9. These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  10. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  11. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  12. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  13. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  14. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  15. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  16. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  17. These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  18. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  19. The request was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  20. These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  21. These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  22. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  23. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  24. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  25. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  26. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  27. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  28. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  29. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  30. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  31. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  32. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  33. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  34. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  35. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  36. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  37. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  38. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  39. This email was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  40. This request was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  41. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  42. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  43. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  44. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  45. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  46. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  47. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  48. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  49. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  50. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  51. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  52. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  53. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  54. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  55. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  56. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  57. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  58. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  59. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  60. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  61. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  62. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  63. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  64. These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  65. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  66. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  67. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  68. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  69. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  70. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  71. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  72. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  73. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  74. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  75. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  76. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  77. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  78. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  79. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxiii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  80. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xvi) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  81. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  82. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  83. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xvi) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  84. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  85. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  86. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  87. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxvii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  88. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxvii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  89. These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  90. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  91. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  92. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  93. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  94. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  95. This telephone call was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  96. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  97. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  98. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  99. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  100. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  101. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  102. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  103. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  104. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  105. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  106. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  107. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  108. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  109. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  110. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  111. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  112. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  113. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  114. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  115. These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  116. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  117. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  118. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  119. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  120. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  121. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxvii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  122. These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  123. This request was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  124. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  125. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  126. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  127. These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  128. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  129. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  130. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  131. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  132. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  133. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  134. These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  135. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  136. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  137. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  138. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  139. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  140. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  141. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  142. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(B) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  143. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(B) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  144. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  145. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  146. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xix) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  147. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xix) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  148. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xix) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  149. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(B) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  150. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(B) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  151. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(B) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  152. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(B) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  153. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(B) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  154. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  155. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(B) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  156. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  157. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  158. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxii) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  159. This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  160. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxv) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  161. This was an act of racketeering activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3(5)(A)(xxv) and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

One-Liner Wednesday: another indictment

Sadly continuing with a recent practice, here is a link to the most recent, devastating, sprawling indictment of Donald Trump, this time under the state of Georgia’s RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) law around interference in the 2020 election.
*****
Please join us for Linda’s One-Liner Wednesdays. Find out more here: https://lindaghill.com/2023/08/16/one-liner-wednesday-that-feeling-when/

One-Liner Wednesday: another indictment

“The purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.”

~ Paragraph 7 of the extremely sobering conspiracy and obstruction indictment of Donald Trump regarding the 2020 election results, which you can read in its entirety here.
*****
This way to refer to 45 pages in one sentence is part of Linda’s One-Liner Wednesday series. Learn more about the series here: https://lindaghill.com/2023/08/02/one-liner-wednesday-am-i-jinxing-it/. I promise that most of the entries will be more fun than mine…

Really?

I try to follow governmental/political news in the US and often write about it here, but, there has been such an avalanche of stories lately that I have been too overwhelmed to write about it. Yesterday, though, was such an odd conglomeration of things that I thought I’d try to post about it.

Speaker McCarthy and his slim majority in the House of Representatives seem incapable of actual governance, even after resolving the debt ceiling crisis. Instead of working on budget bills that put that legislation into practice, the majority-Republican committees are drafting proposals that make cuts in human needs programs that were slated to stay flat. They are also having a lot of investigations, even when they can’t produce evidence to support their allegations. They don’t seem interested in actually governing for the good of the people.

For example, yesterday they held a hearing with John Durham, who led a four-year investigation centered on the origin of the Federal Bureau of Investigations’ inquiry into possible ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia. You may recall that the investigation headed by Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 election resulted in multiple indictments and plea deals, including Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Konstantin Kilimnik, and over two dozen Russians, including military intelligence officers and companies and employees related to a Russian troll farm that hacked into the campaign- and election-related computers in the US. While not charging him as a sitting president, the Mueller report also detailed instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump. By contrast, the Durham investigation only resulted in one minor plea deal and two acquittals at trial, hardly the revelation of a “deep-state conspiracy” that some Republicans had suspected.

Curiously, during the hearing, Durham seemed ignorant of much of the Mueller report and contemporaneous news accounts from the 2016 election cycle. He did, however, praise Mueller as “a patriot” and state unequivocally that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election. A number of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, which has invited Durham to testify, seemed frustrated that he wasn’t engaging in their more conspiratorial ideas.

Then, in a bizarre counterpoint, the House Republicans voted to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) because of his work on investigating Trump, including the issue of Russian election interference. (A similar measure which had included a possible $16 million fine in addition to censure had failed last week.) Six Republicans, including five on the House Ethics Committee voted present; all other Republicans voted for censure while all Democrats voted against. Rep. Schiff, who was then chair of the Intelligence Committee and became one of the impeachment managers in the first Trump impeachment, appears to have been censured for fulfilling his Congressional duties. It’s expected that this is a first salvo in what may be a long siege of Republican efforts to impeach members of the Biden administration, including the President himself. It doesn’t seem, though, that the Republicans have evidence of actual wrongdoing that would warrant impeachments. They have been doing a lot of investigating of allegations but don’t have the actual evidence needed to prove their case.

Meanwhile, last night, Special Counsel Jack Smith turned over mounds of evidence, including grand jury testimony, to Donald Trump’s lawyers in the documents case that is being litigated in the Southern District of Florida. This is part of a process called discovery, in which the prosecutors give the defendant’s lawyers the information underlying their case, including any possibly exculpatory evidence. The indictment in the case is quite detailed but it seems that many Congressional Republicans have yet to read it. It’s sad that they seem convinced by conspiracy theories while ignoring actual evidence and that they spread this malady to voters.

It makes me very nervous for the future of our democracy, both short-term and long-term.

the first Trump federal indictment

Last Thursday evening, former President Donald Trump announced that he had been indicted by the federal court in South Florida. The indictment was unsealed the next day and Trump’s first appearance in court is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon.

The case involves the documents that were found at Trump’s Florida home but that should have been at the National Archives. It’s a very long saga, so I won’t try to summarize it, but you can read a timeline here.

The cases are under the auspices of Special Counsel Jack Smith. Because of the structure of being a special counsel, Smith did not have to get permission from Attorney General Merrick Garland or Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco to indict. (Special counsels are meant to be independent; if AG Garland were to overrule any of Smith’s decisions, he would have to report the reasons to Congress.) This is important because Garland and Monaco were appointed by President Biden and approved by the Senate, but Jack Smith is a career official in the Justice Department, not a political appointee. For five years, Smith headed the public integrity unit of the Justice Department, so he is experienced in investigations and prosecutions involving political corruption. Just prior to being named special counsel, he had been working on war crimes prosecution at a special court in The Hague.

The indictment document is what is termed a “speaking indictment,” which means there is quite a lot of detail about what led to the charges. For example, it lists each of the 31 documents that are the cause of the charges of Willful Retention of National Defense Information, a violation of the Espionage Act. Trump and his valet Walt Nauta also face charges of Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, making false statements, and withholding/concealing documents. The indictment contains photographs, verbatim conversations, and contemporaneous notes from one of Trump’s lawyers.

I’m glad that the indictment was unsealed so that everyone can read the charges and some of the evidence behind them. Even though it is a legal document, it’s fairly straightforward. There are many resources available with legal experts offering additional information.

Unfortunately, some people, including some Republican politicians, have been reacting negatively, seemingly without even reading the indictment. Some are even blaming President Biden, who had nothing to do with the investigation or indictment. Most upsetting, some are even espousing political violence. This is even more alarming knowing that Florida has relatively lax gun laws.

The judge who has been initially assigned to the case is Aileen Cannon, who, last year, ruled that a special master was needed to review the documents that had been found by the FBI when they carried out a search warrant at Trump’s home. Her ruling was overruled on appeal. It’s not clear if she will remain on the case or if she will recuse due to her prior involvement. She was nominated to the federal bench by Trump and confirmed by the Senate on November 12, 2020, after he had lost the election.

The Justice Department has asked for a speedy trial but Trump is re-shuffling his legal team again, which might slow things down. Scheduling could also get tricky if there are additional indictments, most likely state charges in Georgia over election interference and/or federal charges related to the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.

Trump is considered innocent until proven guilty at trial, but his behavior has been upsetting. His rhetoric has become more vengeful and his lack of respect for individuals and groups of people who are not his supporters has become even more pronounced. Unfortunately, this vitriol has spread to a large swath of Republican officials and Trump’s MAGA supporters. It’s frightening.

I’m hoping for the best but keeping an eye out for possible trouble. I’m also hoping that people will read the indictment before trying to comment on it. Primary source material is generally the best way to understand a situation rather than relying on someone else’s interpreration.