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.
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
The speech was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This telephone call was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This meeting was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
The false statements and solicitations were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
The request was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
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.
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.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This email was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This request was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
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.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
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.
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.
These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This telephone call was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
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.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
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.
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.
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.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
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.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
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.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
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.
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.
These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This request was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
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.
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.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
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.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
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.
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.
This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
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.
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.
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/
“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…
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.
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.
Today, the United States reached its debt ceiling, which is the maximum amount of debt that it is allowed to have under current legislation. Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen can borrow money from pension funds and such to keep up with debt payments and government obligations until June but the responsible thing would be for Congress to immediately either raise the debt ceiling or suspend it. (The most responsible thing would be to eliminate the debt ceiling but no one is even discussing that.)
Like many other governments and corporations, the United States raises some of the money it uses for its operations through issuing bonds. Perhaps you are familiar with the US Savings Bonds program or with Treasury Bills, often called T-bills. The purchasers of these financial instruments are basically loaning money to the government, which then pays it back with interest on the maturity date. While some of these are held by individuals, the vast majority are held by large financial institutions, like banks and mutual funds, or by foreign governments. The United States dollar is considered the world’s reserve currency because of its stability and the reliability of the US government.
If Congress does not pass an increase in or suspension of the debt limit, the US government would default on its bonds, which could cause a steep downturn in both the stock and bond markets, a severe recession, higher unemployment, rising interest rates on loans, and higher prices. The impact would be global because many US government financial instruments are held in or by other countries. It would also cause some countries to mistrust that the United States will keep its word in other areas.
The US government also would not be able to pay its workers or to fully pay Social Security, veterans’ benefits, nutrition programs, and all the other programs that the federal government provides. This would be a huge hardship to many of their constituents, so why would Congress hesitate to raise the debt ceiling?
Politics.
Apparently, one of the things Kevin McCarthy promised in order to get enough “yes” and “present” votes to win the Speakership was that he would not pass a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling. Instead, McCarthy promised that the debt ceiling increase bill would mandate spending cuts, including to programs that are earned benefits, like Social Security.
This doesn’t make sense. The debt ceiling issue has to do with paying the bills for spending that has already been authorized by Congress. The time for debate about cutting the total amount of government spending is when debating appropriation bills for the next budget year.
Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment, Section Four to the US Constitution states, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” It seems that the House Republicans are trying to question the validity of public debt by threatening to default on it.
It’s also telling that Republicans passed debt limit increases without making a fuss three times during Donald Trump’s presidency when the budget deficits were higher than they are now under President Biden. Part of the reason deficits were higher was that the Republicans passed large tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and corporations, thus reducing revenue. At the same time, they cut the budget of the Internal Revenue Service so that it was more difficult to audit and catch high-income tax cheats.
It’s hypocritical for the Republicans to be complaining about the size of the national debt now, because it increased so quickly during the four years of the Trump presidency. 25% of the total national debt is attributable to the Trump years.
If the Republicans were serious about balancing the budget and beginning to pay down the national debt, they would be looking at ensuring the wealthy are paying their fair share in taxes. Current law, with lots of loopholes for the wealthy, often has the very rich paying a lower percentage of their income in taxes than their average employee does. Yet, one of the first pieces of legislation the Republicans in the House passed was to rescind that increased funding to the IRS to upgrade their systems and audit more high-income earners. This bill would result in lower tax revenue as tax cheats would have a lower chance of being discovered and forced to pay what they owe. Fortunately, the Senate will not take up this House bill so it has no chance of becoming law.
I have already written to my member of Congress, Republican Marc Molinaro (NY-19), to ask him to join with Democrats and the reasonable Republicans in the House to pass a clean debt ceiling increase or suspension. If Speaker McCarthy won’t put the bill on the floor, they may need to file a discharge petition to get the bill put up for a vote.
Unfortunately, that process takes several weeks, so they had better start now. Secretary Yellen will enlist whatever shuffling of resources are allowed while they do it, but the clock is ticking and folks – and the financial markets – will be worried.
Of course, it would be faster and easier if McCarthy put the good of the country first and introduced a clean bill today. It would also show that the House Republicans want to cooperate in the governance of the country to “promote the general welfare,” as the Preamble to the Constitution states.
Last week in the United States, we marked the second anniversary of the January 6th attack on our Congress by supporters of then-President Trump who were trying to keep the election of Joe Biden from being certified.
There was a short, solemn ceremony on the Capitol steps, led by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Families of officers who died in the aftermath of the attack read their names and a bell was rung in their memory. There was a period of silent reflection of 140 seconds to honor the 140 officers who were injured that day, some so severely that they had to leave their jobs permanently. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Republican House members chose not to attend. Only one was spotted among the 200+ Democrats commemorating the day.
In the afternoon, President Biden honored fourteen individuals with the Presidential Citizens Medal. Nine were police officers who worked to defend the Capitol. Sadly, three of the medals were given posthumously. I was especially moved by the acknowledgement that the two officers who died by suicide after dealing with trauma from the attack were its victims as much as if they had died as a direct result of physical injury. Also honored were five people who upheld the integrity of the 2020 election, despite threats and actions against them.
Meanwhile, the House Republicans not only did not show respect for the anniversary but also displayed their inability to govern effectively. Late in the evening of January 6th, Kevin McCarthy failed to be elected Speaker for the fourteenth time. Two years ago, McCarthy was among the 139 House Republicans who refused to certify state electors in the 2020 presidential electoral college, even after the mob had broken in, ransacked the Capitol, and threatened to harm or kill Vice President Pence, Speaker Pelosi, and members of Congress. Many of those 139 are still in Congress, including some who are known to have been involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election. It’s not known if any of them will eventually face charges or other consequences for their actions, but their refusal to honor the sacrifices of the officers who defended them two years ago was telling.
In the early morning hours of January 7th, McCarthy won the speakership on the 15th ballot because enough Republicans voted “present” rather than “no” for him to get the majority of votes cast. Unfortunately, McCarthy and the House Republicans so far have shown no intention of working with Democrats toward effective governance. They have passed a rules package that calls for votes on bills that the Senate will never take up, gutted the Office of Congressional Ethics, and passed a meaningless bill to require care for a baby born alive after an attempted abortion, meaningless because, in the rare instances where this occurs, those protections are already in place.
I am still holding out hope that there will be a few moderate Republicans who will join with House Democrats to pass needed bills into law over these next two years. It may take a lot of complicated maneuvers to get bills to the floor, such as discharge petitions. Of course, it would be much easier if McCarthy reaches out to craft bipartisan bills for the good of the American people but he hasn’t shown that level of political ability as of yet.
In the media, there are lots of summaries and lists as the old year closes and the new one begins.
Here at Top of JC’s Mind, I sometimes post about US politics to summarize what has been going on and offer my viewpoint in such a way that people who don’t follow US politics can get the gist of the situation. Over these last few weeks, though, it’s been impossible to keep up and synthesize what has been going in with the various investigations into our former president.
The House Select Committee on January 6th held its final public hearings and issued an 845 page final report. It has also released thousands of pages of transcripts from interviews they conducted. I haven’t been able to read all the materials but have seen and heard commentary from lawyers and analysts I trust. With these materials, there is lots of publicly available evidence showing what seemed to be happening at the time: that President Trump knew that he had lost a fair election to Joe Biden but orchestrated an elaborate plot to lie about it and try to stay in power. The plot encompassed not only the ultimate 1/6/21 attack on the Capitol but also pressure on lawmakers in various states to throw out legally cast votes and appoint alternate electors to the electoral college, pressure on the vice-president to fail to certify the electors so that the election would be thrown to the House where each state would get one vote and Trump would likely win, and the call for Trump supporters to descend on Washington and “be wild” on January 6th when Congress would meet to fulfill their Constitutional duty to certify the presidential and vice-presidential election.
The Select Committee referred Donald Trump and others to the Justice Department on a number of counts, including obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a false statement, and inciting, assisting, and/or giving aid and comfort to an insurrection. The Justice Department will be deciding in the coming months whether or not to file these charges or others. We know that there are grand juries reviewing evidence but we don’t know what they will decide or when. It does seem, though, that things are moving more quickly since the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Jack Smith and the Justice Department are also investigating other possible crimes of Donald Trump and his administration. One area of investigation is the presidential documents that Trump took with him when he left office. He then defied subpoenas to get the documents back to the National Archives. Some of the documents that have been recovered were classified, including some that should only be viewed in a secure location. Legal analysts think that the documents case may be getting close to the point of indictment.
Another area that is coming under public scrutiny is Donald Trump’s personal and business tax returns. Since Nixon, presidential candidates have released their tax returns publicly and have placed their business investments in a blind trust so that the public can see that they aren’t being influenced by personal financial factors when they are making decisions for the country. Trump refused to do this and fought the House Ways and Means Committee request to review his taxes and the IRS audits that should have been routine for all presidential and vice-presidential tax returns. The IRS hadn’t even begun the audits until Ways and Means Committee Chair Rep. Richard Neal requested them in 2020, midway through Trump’s term. Trump fought the returns being turned over all the way to the Supreme Court, which finally decided that they should be made available to the Committee just a few weeks ago. The Committee redacted personal data like Social Security numbers and released six years of returns publicly just a few days ago. They show that the Trumps paid little or no federal income taxes in most of those years and showed lots of business losses. There are lots of questions about the legality of some of the deductions, business expenses, and losses, but it will take forensic accountants to unravel all that information.
The release of the tax returns follows the recent New York State court ruling that convicted the Trump Organization of tax fraud. Trump, his three elder children, and the Trump Organization are also named in a civil lawsuit in New York for fraud for lying to insurers and lenders about the value of assets.
Meanwhile, in Georgia, a grand jury has been hearing evidence about attempts to overturn Biden’s victory in the state. After they finish their report, the Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis may decide to indict Trump in the case. It’s possible that federal charges could be made in the same case, but it’s worth noting that, if Trump were convicted on state charges, he could not be pardoned by a future Republican president, as would be possible for federal convictions.
I think that it is likely that Trump will be indicted on numerous charges over a period of time. It seems that there is a lot of evidence of guilt and I am hoping there will be accountability for Trump and for those who took part in the planning and execution of crimes against the Constitution and the people of the United States.
Guilty pleas or verdicts on some of the possible charges would bar Trump from ever again holding office. Of course, despite the losses of many Trump-backed candidates in the midterms, Trump has already declared himself as a presidential candidate for the Republican party for the 2024 election. So far, the campaign does not have many backers but I am scared about the prospect of Trump ever holding political power again, having experienced the harm he has already inflected.
Meanwhile, the new Congress is being sworn into office. It’s still unclear if Kevin McCarthy has enough votes to be elected Speaker of the House. (As I publish this, the House is schedule to convene for the Speaker vote in a couple of hours.) The Republicans are arguing among themselves so much that it may not be possible for them to pass much legislation, especially bills that the Democratic majority in the Senate would also agree to pass so that they could become law.
I’m trying to remain hopeful that support from Congress for Ukraine will remain strong, as well as for keeping the basic functions of the federal government running. The Republicans don’t have a great record for passing bills, though, so we’ll have to wait and see. I have the feeling that I will need to write to my member of the House frequently; he is a newly elected Republican who stressed his ability to work with Democrats to get things done. We’ll see if he can do that on the federal level. With the House majority so slim (only a four seat margin for Republicans), a handful of Republican moderates could join with the Democrats to pass bills, even if they have to use the discharge petition process to force a floor vote.
A photo from Attachment F of the Justice Department’s court filing last night, showing a variety of secret government documents found in former President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago, which was searched under warrant earlier this month. ***** Join us for Linda’s One-Liner Wednesday! Find out more here: https://lindaghill.com/2022/08/31/one-liner-wednesday-youre-never-too-old/
Joanne Corey 