Tag: United States

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…

Catholicism and governance in the US

When I wrote this post on the immediate aftermath of the Dobbs decision in the US Supreme Court throwing all abortion rule-making back to the states, I alluded to the way the opinion followed Catholic teaching and my fears for what that would mean.

Of the nine justices on the current Supreme Court, seven were raised Catholic. (Justice Gorsuch was raised Catholic but is now an Episcopalian.) Of the seven, only Justice Sotomayor was nominated by a Democratic president; her views seem to be more mainstream among Catholics in the US.

The five Republican-appointed practicing Catholics (Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Cavanaugh, and Barrett) and Justice Gorsuch are/were all either members of or closely affiliated with members of Opus Dei, a secretive, ultra-conservative group that rose to prominence in the fascist period in Spain. Leonard Leo, a board member of Opus Dei and, for many years, a powerful leader of the Federalist Society, was a supporter/promoter of all six Republican-nominated justices and is also known to have fostered relationships between conservative billionaires and various justices. Beyond the Dobbs ruling, there have been a number of Supreme Court decisions that seem to reflect the Opus Dei viewpoint more than Supreme Court precedent and mainstream Constitutional interpretation.

Sadly, many of the fears I had about the out-sized influence of conservative Catholic opinions about abortion have come to pass, in some states, aided and abetted by conservative, Catholic-raised governors, such as Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis of Florida. In states where abortion is illegal or restricted to early weeks, women have hemorrhaged, developed sepsis, lost their ability to carry a child, or even died from lack of timely abortion care. There is currently a lawsuit in Texas by women who were denied abortion care in cases of pregnancy complication or fatal fetal conditions; these stories illustrate what happens when you force the conservative Catholic viewpoint that privileges the life of the unborn over the life of the mother on the public and medical providers. Indeed, in many of the states with restrictive abortion bans, medical providers trained in women’s/maternal health are leaving the state and medical schools and hospitals are having difficulty attracting students and providers to their programs because they can’t offer the full range of services to their patients. This is worsening already critical shortages of providers, especially in rural areas. When statistics become available, we may see a worsening of maternal morbidity/mortality and infant mortality rates, which are already much higher in the US than in most other countries with advanced medical systems.

The states with the most restrictive abortion laws are seeing some other impacts. Young people are sometimes refusing to consider going to school or taking jobs in states that restrict abortion, not only for fear of not being able to get care they need but also in recognition of inequality on the basis of sex. Lack of choice about where service members will be stationed is adding to recruiting problems for the armed services. Currently, Sen. Tuberville of Alabama is holding up all high-level military appointments in the Senate because the military policy is to pay for service members to travel out of state for reproductive care that is not provided in the state where service members and their families are stationed. (Note: Federal money is not used to fund elective abortion. This controversy is about funding travel/leave only.) I don’t think that it occurred to me that the Dobbs decision would impact our military readiness as a nation, but here we are.

We are also seeing proof that the overruling of Roe is not the end of the story. In some states, the legality of birth control is being challenged in the legislature. Many Republicans on the national level are proposing a national ban on abortion, even though the Dobbs decision said that the issue should be decided state by state. Voters in the midterm elections are weighing in on the side of abortion rights as articulated in Roe; it seems they may continue to do so in future elections.

I’m also afraid that this ultra-conservative Catholic viewpoint on the Supreme Court is feeding the larger problem of Christian nationalism. The United States is not a Christian nation; it is a pluralistic nation. The First Amendment of our Constitution tells us that our country shall not have an established religion.

The Federalist Society members are supposed to be originalists. You would think they would know that.

As an American, it is my right to make personal decisions based on my beliefs. The government does not have the right to impose a religious belief on me. It seems to me that this Opus Dei-influenced Supreme Court has crossed that line more than once. Whether a future Court overrules these decisions or Congress passes laws clarifying their intent remains to be seen.

One-Liner Wednesday: Speak up for democracy!

As Heather Cox Richardson explains, now is the time for people in the United States and other democracies to speak up against illiberal democracy, Christian Nationalism, Project 2025, authoritarianism, plutocracy, and all other assaults on human dignity, rights, and freedoms.

This sobering message is part of One-Liner Wednesdays. Join us! (For the record, most of the one-liners are fun, pretty, or inspirational. I’m just a serious sort.) Find out more here: https://lindaghill.com/2023/07/19/one-liner-wednesday-new-book-next-week/

Supreme Court reform?

Back in October 2020, I posted some ideas about possible changes to procedures for the Supreme Court and other federal courts.

There has been much more public debate about this these past few years, particularly since the Supreme Court majority has been tossing precedents and inventing new doctrine on a regular basis of late.

One idea that makes sense to me is to raise the number of Supreme Court justices to thirteen to match the number of federal appellate courts. When the number of justices was changed to nine, there were nine appellate courts, so it makes sense to update the number to match because a Supreme Court justice is assigned for each appellate court. As it is now, some justices are responsible for more than one circuit. Doing this now would also help to redress some of the shenanigans that Mitch McConnell pulled in not allowing consideration of President Obama’s nominee while rushing through one of President Trump’s.

As I wrote in my October 2020 post, I think there should be rules for voting on judicial nominees in a timely manner, committee votes within sixty days and floor votes within ninety. The exception would be a Supreme Court vacancy that occurs after July first in a presidential election year which would be kept open for appointment by the winner of the election.

Because lifetime appointments are not stipulated in the Constitution, there has been a lot of discussion of making the term of Supreme Court justices eighteen years, after which they would serve on an appellate court if they were not ready to retire. I don’t know what that would mean for people who have already served longer than that or that were appointed expecting to serve for a lifetime. There is nothing in the Constitution that says Supreme Court nominations are for life, so no amendment is necessary to effect this change.

There have been a number of issues that have come to the fore more recently. One of them is the urgent need for ethics reform for the Supreme Court. Unlike other levels of the courts, there is no written code of conduct with guidance for recusals, conflicts of interest, etc. In other courts, judges are supposed to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. Given that both Justices Thomas and Alito are known to have accepted lavish gifts from prominent, rich Republicans, it would be helpful to have explicit rules to follow. It also upsets me that two members of the Court have been credibly accused of sexual harassment. There are serious questions about the spouses of two members of the Court earning money from work for/with people who might be seeking to influence the Court. I think there should be ethics reform and ways to enforce violations. As it is now, the Supreme Court justices are accountable to no one, which leaves them outside the usual system of checks and balances. (While it is true that provisions for impeachment and trial through Congress are in place, political forces are so prominent there that votes tend to be on partisan concerns rather than the evidence presented, so the threat of that doesn’t function as a deterrent to judicial misconduct.)

The Republican-appointed justices of the majority have undertaken what seems to be a concerted effort to overturn long-standing precedents. The most obvious is the Heller decision overturning national abortion rights but there are other instances, such as the recent decision against using race as a factor in college admissions which had been upheld numerous times since the 1978 Bakke decision, most recently in 2016. It’s not that precedents should never be overturned, for example, the Dred Scott decision, but those decisions usually advanced people’s rights; this Court seems to be taking away rights that had been previously recognized by the Court and the public. During their confirmation hearings in the Senate, these justices had all proclaimed their intent to respect precedent and “settled law” but they seem to have abandoned this principle.

The Republican-appointed majority are also inventing or embracing new legal constructs, such as the “major questions” doctrine, insisting that Congress must explicitly state the actions that they intend the executive branch department to implement. The Court used this to prevent rules regarding carbon pollution from the power industry. However, the justices overlooked explicit language from Congress giving authority to the Secretary of Education to waive student loans in time of national emergency in the recent case against the Biden administration’s targeted student loan forgiveness program. So, these justices appear to want Congress to be specific about things they don’t favor while ignoring the legislative language when they are specific. That’s not how our legal system is supposed to work.

There have also been major problems with the Court accepting cases without standing. In order to bring a case in federal court, a plaintiff has to show that they were harmed. The most obvious example of this is the 303 Creative case, in which a prospective web designer did not want to design sites for gay marriages but was afraid she would be violating a Colorado law barring discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. She said that a man had approached her to create such a site, giving the man’s name and contact information as part of her case. There are a number of problems, though. She had not started the business and so hadn’t had any legal challenges that caused harm. When a reporter contacted the man that had been named as the prospective gay client, they found out that he had no idea he was named in the suit, had never contacted the web designer for wedding services, is not gay, has been married for fifteen years, and is a web designer himself who wouldn’t need her services. The case should have been thrown out of court but the Republican-appointed justices still ruled in her favor on free speech grounds, saying that she shouldn’t be forced to use her words to support gay marriage, which she opposes on religious grounds. [As a creative who uses words as her medium, I have trouble thinking of a web designer for wedding sites as using “her words” when it’s usually the clients’ words/content/story that goes into a wedding website. It seems more like being a reporter. Whether or not you agree with what is being said, it is your job to report it accurately.]

All of this has led to a lack of public confidence in Supreme Court. Many of their recent decisions are opposed by a majority of citizens. What bothers me more, though, is that the courts are supposed to uphold our rights and freedoms, whether those are popular or not. If a person has the right to make their own medical decisions in conjunction with their health care provider, it should not matter what state the person is in, what their gender is, whether or not they follow a religious practice, or what their skin color is. A parent has a right to object to a book being taught in their child’s school and request an alternate assignment; that parent does not have the right to make that decision for anyone else’s child.

In the United States, every citizen is supposed to enjoy “equal protection of the laws” under the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s an ideal we should be working toward continually but sometimes it seems we are in the Orwellian situation of some being “more equal than others.” We need to get back on track and court reform can help to do that.

One-Liner Wednesday: race in the US

But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.

US Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson from the recent decision regarding affirmative action in college admissions on the basis of race

Join us for Linda’s One-Liner Wednesdays! Find out more here: https://lindaghill.com/2023/07/05/one-liner-wednesday-sometimes/

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.

Smoke


B took this photo in front of our house yesterday morning (June 7, 2023) as the early morning sun tried to break through the wildfire smoke coming down from Quebec, several hundred miles away.

Things got worse as the day went on.

The air at ground level smelled like a campfire and an orange-tinged haze reduced visibility so that you couldn’t see the hills or tell where the horizon was. You could see smoke in the air just looking across the street. You needed indoor lighting even with the drapes pulled back on the windows.

We were keeping a watch on the air quality index numbers from airnow.gov. By mid-afternoon, they reached 460, well into the hazardous category. At that level, people should stay indoors with filtered air. If people have to be outdoors briefly, they should wear masks that are good at filtering out particulates, such as N95 or Kf94. Fortunately, many people still have some on hand from our pandemic experience.

B came home from work early because the smoky air began penetrating the stairwells in his building. It became quite windy. I was hoping that there were some rain clouds up above the smoke but no precipitation fell.

We aren’t alone in this phenomenon. Much of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the US are having significant smoke impacts, sometimes even worse than areas in Canada that are much closer to the fires, due to a stationary low pressure system that is circulating in such a way that it draws smoke in our direction. It’s been a dry spring, so there are hundreds of wildfires in Canada right now, with over two hundreds that are considered out of control.

That’s a lot of smoke.

We need rain to help quell the flames and to prevent even more fires from erupting. Also, the plants and animals need more water. We are getting to what should be peak strawberry season here but the crop is expected to be low due to lack of rain, although a late freeze in May didn’t help matters.

As frequent readers may recall, I’ve been active around environmental issues for a number of years, particularly around climate change. I know that the extra carbon people have put into the air through fossil fuel extraction and use, deforestation, unwise agricultural practices, etc. has increased the risk of all kinds of extreme weather events. It makes the likelihood of heat waves, droughts, and wildfires higher and the changes in the air, land, and ocean temperatures make severe storms and stalled weather systems more likely.

We can see it with our own eyes.

I’m frustrated that corporations, politicians, and world governments did not make this a priority years ago. We might have averted some of the impacts we are experiencing now and reduced our future risk. I’m grateful that some action is coming on line now, but we need to make changes more quickly and more universally to reduce the severity of hurricanes/typhoons, wildfires, droughts, floods, sea level rise, biodiversity loss, heat waves, coral bleaching, etc.

In my little corner of the word along the New York/Pennsylvania border, we have a bit of improvement today. For the last few hours, our air quality is rated as “unhealthy for sensitive groups” rather than hazardous for everyone, although I know that, in the New York City area, airports have had to suspend service due to lack of visibility from the smoke. Washington, DC is having a purple alert for air quality, which is one level higher than red alert. The upper level winds have shifted enough that we aren’t in the worst sector today, but others are suffering higher levels than yesterday.

My fear is that a report that I heard today will come true – that this pattern will repeat itself throughout the summer.

It’s hard to predict.

A moment ago, I saw a bit of sunlight break through. I looked out the window and can see the sky with some clouds.

I haven’t seen the sky for a couple of days because of the smoke.

The clouds don’t look like rain is imminent, but I will try to have hope.