About three decades ago, an obstetrician and gynecologist named Shalom Press delivered my first child at Children’s Hospital in Buffalo. My regular doctor was away, and while I didn’t know his substitute, the birth of my son went smoothly. Afterward, I was far too busy to give any significant thought to exactly who brought him into the world.
Renoir’s Garden, 1917, Henri Matisse
But I had reason to think about Dr. Press a great deal several years later, when Buffalo, a longtime abortion battleground, erupted into chaos. By 1998, I was the managing editor of the Buffalo News when another local OB/GYN, Barnett Slepian, was murdered in his own home by an antiabortion extremist, James Kopp; in 2002, Kopp made a jailhouse confession to two of our reporters.
In the aftermath, Dr. Press became one of the last Buffalo-area doctors willing to withstand the public pressure and continue performing abortions. At one point, protesters invaded his office and chained themselves together with bicycle locks; at another, local police informed him that a Canadian newspaper had received an anonymous warning that he was “next on the list.” These experiences were both alarming and eye-opening for Press’s son, Eyal.
“One of the great successes of the antiabortion movement was to stigmatize a very common medical procedure,” he told me this week, “and to put people who defend abortion rights on the defensive.”
And part of that, he thinks, lies in the power of language — and a failure of media.
An award-winning journalist and author, Eyal Press knows a thing or two about how words can be deployed, or weaponized. When journalists agreed to accept terms such as “pro-life” to describe those who oppose abortion, they implicitly agreed to help stigmatize those who support it. After all, what’s the rhetorical opposite of “pro-life”?
Press — whose 2006 book “Absolute Convictions: My Father, a City, and the Conflict that Divided America” was lauded by the New York Times for “bringing light to a political issue that for far too long has generated nothing but blistering heat” — told me that the media shares some of the blame, inadvertent though it may have been, for ushering our nation to its current moment.
Thursday Reads: Day 4 of Shock and Disbelief
Posted: May 5, 2022 Filed under: just because 35 Comments
Girl with Blue Birds, Auguste Macke
Good Afternoon!!
Today is day four since we got the news from Politico on Sunday night that 5 Supreme Court justices have signed on to a draft opinion by Samuel Alito that would overturn Roe v. Wade and could impact multiple individual rights decisions based on the right of privacy. The sense of shock and disbelief hasn’t worn off for me; in fact, it has only gotten stronger each passing day. I know I’m not alone.
Yvonne Abraham at The Boston Globe: Alito’s hall-of-mirrors opinion on Roe reveals the GOP’s death spiral. Abortion rights and democracy fall together.
It has been a few days since Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s hall-of-mirrors opinion seeking to overturn Roe v Wade was leaked. But for those of us who support abortion rights, it will be a long time before the shock subsides, if it ever does.
We all knew something likethis was coming: Republicans’ machinations over the last few years left no doubt that one day soonwe’d arrive at the moment when the nation’s highest court would overturn the 50-year-old precedent….
But Alito’s decision – just a draft, the chief justice reminds us, but let’s get real here – is so expansive that his reasoning (if one can call it that) imperils other rights as well. As others have pointed out, Alito’s very restrictive interpretation of the 14th Amendment means other hard-won rights, including same-sex marriage, are now threatened….
Of all the spurious and outrageous assertions Alito makes in a ruling that would strip away the rights and safety of millions of citizens, one is especially galling.
Washing his hands of the consequences of the decision, Alito claims that abortion is now a matter for the voters – women voters, he says, as if they’re the only ones affected by pregnancies, planned and otherwise – to resolve. Turning the issue of abortion back to the states, half of which would outlaw it almost immediately, “allows women on both sides of the abortion issue to seek to affect the legislative process by influencing public opinion, lobbying legislators, voting and running for office. Women are not without electoral or political power.”
Mary Cassat (1844–1926), Lilacs in a window
Oh of course, elections will help settle the question of whether women who can’t afford to travel will now be forced to give birth, even if their pregnancies result from rape.
Why didn’t we think of that? Oh yeah, we did!
It takes a lot of nerve for Alito to call democracy the solution here, given how his GOP – his very bench – has been making a mockery of it for years. He and his colleagues have opened the door for virtually unlimited monetary influence in elections and destroyed the Voting Rights Act. One of his colleagues sits in a seat Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell stole from a Democratic president, refusing to consider Barack Obama’s nominee during an election year. McConnell then installed an anti-abortion zealot after voting began in the next election.
Also from The Boston Globe: Asserting that fetuses have rights, draft opinion could lead to abortion ban even in states like Mass., experts warn.
The strongly worded legal language used in the draft Supreme Court opinion that appears to overturn nearly 50-year-old abortion-rights protections could provoke conservative efforts to enact a universal, nationwide abortion ban, according to legal and policy analysts on both sides of the political debate. They say the case has already galvanized advocates who want a federal law criminalizing abortion….
But the legal arguments cited in Alito’s opinion could give political momentum to efforts to enact a federal abortion ban similar to what Mississippi enacted — or, potentially, even more restrictive — on the grounds the fetus is an unborn human being with its own rights. Attempts to pass a federal ban have been proposed before but always failed under the protections of Roe v. Wade.
In his ruling, Alito argues a woman has no constitutional rights to an abortion and suggests that fetuses deserve protection. A federal ban based on the ruling could set up legal challenges of state laws that protect an individual’s right to decide. Massachusetts’ Constitution grants far broader legal rights than the federal Constitution allows, say legal observers, who point out the state was the first to legalize same-sex marriage. But federal law trumps state law.
“The court ruling signals to those in Congress that it’s providing a blueprint for those who want to take away the reproductive rights of all people,” said Carol Rose, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union chapter in Massachusetts. “It suggests Justice Alito is providing something of a legal road map for people trying to criminalize abortion.” [….]
Elisabeth von Eicken
Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter: “If the Alito opinion savaging [the Roe decision and similar cases] ends up being the opinion of the court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.” Tribe added, “Predictable next steps after the Alito opinion becomes law: a nationwide abortion ban, followed by a push to roll back rights to contraception, same-sex marriage, sexual privacy, and the full array of textually un-enumerated rights long taken for granted.”
…Alito appears to refer to fetuses as human beings as a matter of traditional and common law and refers to a fetus as an “unborn human being,” which could give constitutional rights and protections to the fetus and set up legal challenges of state laws that do protect abortions. He refers to a fetus as being destroyed by abortion rights. Rose said the opinion fails to discuss the viability of a fetus. “They don’t distinguish whether you’re pregnant for one day or 24 weeks,” she said.
It appears that Alito is feeling the pressure of public opinion now, even though he claims it doesn’t matter. Reuters: EXCLUSIVE: U.S. Supreme Court’s Alito cancels conference appearance after abortion ruling leak.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has canceled an appearance at a judicial conference set to begin on Thursday after a draft decision he wrote indicating the high court would overturn its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that guaranteed the right to abortion nationwide was leaked.
Alito had been set to appear at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ judicial conference, a gathering of judges from the New Orleans-based federal appeals court and the district courts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, a person familiar with the matter said.
But he has since canceled, the person said, and Patricia McCabe, a spokesperson for the Supreme Court, on Wednesday said he was not attending. The spokesperson gave no reason for why Alito, who is the justice assigned to hear emergency appeals from the 5th Circuit, was not going.
Alito and Clarence Thomas have another appearance scheduled:
Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas were slated to speak separately on Thursday and Friday at the 11th Circuit’s judicial conference in Atlanta, according to an event program.
It was unclear if they would still attend. McCabe referred inquiries about their scheduled appearances to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which did not respond to requests for comment late Wednesday.
Alex Russell Flint
Here’s a terrifying example of the ways in which this opinion could be applied to other issues. Austin-American Statesman: Abbott says Texas could ‘resurrect’ SCOTUS case requiring states to educate all kids.
Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that Texas would consider challenging a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring states to offer free public education to all children, including those of undocumented immigrants.
“Texas already long ago sued the federal government about having to incur the costs of the education program, in a case called Plyler versus Doe,” Abbott said, speaking during an appearance on the Joe Pags show, a conservative radio talk show. “And the Supreme Court ruled against us on the issue. …
I think we will resurrect that case and challenge this issue again, because the expenses are extraordinary and the times are different than when Plyler versus Doe was issued many decades ago.”
The remarks came days after a leaked draft of a forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court opinion revealed that a majority of justices are poised to revoke Roe v. Wade, the landmark case establishing the right to abortion….
Abbott raised the possibility of challenging the ruling on education during a discussion about border security, after Pagliarulo asked whether the state could take steps to reduce the “burden” of educating the children of undocumented migrants living in Texas.
More horrors from Greg Hilburn at Lafayette, LA’s The Daily Advertiser: ‘We can’t wait on the Supreme Court’: In Louisiana, abortion could become a crime of murder.
A Louisiana legislative committee on Wednesday advanced a bill to make abortion a crime of homicide in which the mother or those assisting her in terminating the pregnancy can be charged.
The measure cleared the House Appropriations Committee on a 7-2 vote despite at least one of the representatives voting in favor acknowledging the bill is unconstitutional.
Rep. Danny McCormick said his House Bill 813 should move forward even though the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to overturn Roe v. Wade that guarantees abortion rights as soon as June, according to an opinion leaked from the high court this week.
“We can’t wait on the Supreme Court,” said McCormick, a Republican from Oil City.
McCormick’s bill says the unborn should be protected at fertilization.
He said the Rev. Brian Gunter of First Baptist Church in Livingston helped author the bill.
A powerful piece from media critic Margaret Sullivan at The Washington Post: The media fell for ‘pro-life’ rhetoric — and helped create this mess.
Read the rest at the WaPo.
More articles on abortion in the aftermath of the SCOTUS leak:
William Saletan at The Bulwark: The Politics of Overturning Roe Are Bad for Republicans.
Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern at Slate: Why the Supreme Court’s Leak Investigation Is a Sham.
Jennifer Scheussler at The Washington Post: The Fight Over Abortion History.
The New York Times: Abortion Pills Stand to Become the Next Battleground in a Post-Roe America.
For me, this is the only story right now, but feel free to discuss any topics in the comment thread.
Tuesday Reads: War on Women
Posted: May 3, 2022 Filed under: just because 42 CommentsGood Morning!!
It has finally happened. Roe v Wade will be overturned, and women will be stripped of their constitutional right to bodily autonomy. Forced birth will be legal in 22 states as soon as the decision is announced. Women will die. This is what Hillary warned us about in 2016. And it’s not just women who will have their rights taken away. Roe v. Wade is based on the right to privacy, which also underlies decisions about civil rights like gay marriage, the right of same sex people to have sex in their own homes, the right of adults to have access to birth control, and the right of people of different races to marry.
https://twitter.com/kriswernowsky/status/1521323384361127937?s=20&t=K8chrhPeQtX59UmB1yXVPw
As Dahlia Lithwick pointed out last year, we are not headed back to the way it was pre-Roe; this is going to be far worse than that. We are likely going to see laws establishing the “personhood” of fetuses. From the Slate article, Dec. 8, 2021
There has been a tendency, in the week since it became clear the U.S. Supreme Court will likely either uphold Mississippi’s unconstitutional 15-week abortion ban or overturn Roe v. Wade outright, to suggest that when this happens, America will return to the days “pre-Roe.” That is intended to mean, one assumes, that we will go back to a patchwork of laws in the various states, and see the grim return of women attempting to terminate their own pregnancies with sometimes lethal results as well as the backroom illegal abortions that were the norm before Roe became law. But it is not quite accurate to say this would be a simple return to life pre-Roe: If the boldest voices in the pro-life movement have their way, America would not so much be reverting to its pre-Roe past but slipping sideways into something that could be—believe it or not—much worse.
Michelle Goldberg made this point two years ago in the New York Times, after Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri passed a raft of (at the time) unthinkably punitive abortion bans immediately after Brett Kavanaugh was seated at the Supreme Court. As she wrote at the time, “it’s important to understand that we’re not necessarily facing a return to the past. The new wave of anti-abortion laws suggests that a post-Roe America won’t look like the country did before 1973, when the court case was decided. It will probably be worse.”
Anyone listening carefully to the newly ascendant views of abortion opponents can hear it—the talk of legal “fetal personhood” and of punishing mothers who endanger an embryo takes us into a new, uncharted, and theological realm that is quite different even from the status quo before Roe….
Prior to Roe, faith groups were hardly monolithic in their opposition to abortion. Many religious leaders stood firmly on the side of the health and welfare of mothers….But in the decades since, hard-line religious opposition to Roe has both solidified and moved the goal posts. Since 1984, the Republican Party platform has called for a constitutional amendment banning abortion nationwide. The ground has shifted.
In other words, this doesn’t necessarily end at “returning abortion to the states.” Talking to the New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner this week, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, talked about plans for a nationwide 15-week abortion ban in the years to come. Religious groups that oppose abortion now speak openly of a project set forth by scholars such as John Finnis, a professor emeritus at the University of Notre Dame, who argued in the Catholic journal First Things that legislators who wrote the 14th Amendment viewed unborn children as persons, such that unborn children would receive the full guarantees of equal protection and due process of the law under the 14th Amendment.
Yesterday, Lithwick wrote: The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Is Already Lost. Regardless of Roe falling, the leaks, and the Court’s disregard for the public it is supposed to serve, have already gone too far.
If the Supreme Court indeed strikes down Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Caseythis June, as the draft opinion leaked to and published by Politico tonight suggests it will, years of conventional wisdom about the court and its concerns for its own legitimacy will be proven wrong. Every single court watcher who spoke in terms of baby steps, incrementalism, or “chipping away” at one of the most vitally important precedents in modern history will have been wrong. Those who suggested that the court would never do something so huge and so polarizing just before the November midterms will have been wrong. And the people who assured us that Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were moderate centrists who cared deeply about the appearance of a non-ideological and thoughtful court, well yeah. They will have been wrong too.
If this draft opinion becomes precedent of the court, the results will be catastrophic for women, particularly for women in the states that will immediately make abortion unlawful, and in those places, particularly for young women, poor women, and black and brown women who will not have the time, resources, or ability to travel out of state. The court’s staggering lack of regard for its own legitimacy is exceeded only by its vicious disregard for the real consequences for real pregnant people who are 14 times more likely to die in childbirth than from terminating a pregnancy. The Mississippi law—the law that this opinion is upholding—has no exception for rape or incest. We will immediately see a raft of bans that give rights to fathers, including sexual assailants, and punish with ever more cruelty and violence women who miscarry or do harm to their fetuses. The days of pretending that women’s health and safety were of paramount concern are over.
Lithwick notes that the American people overwhelmingly support abortion rights, but the extremist on the Court simply don’t care.
…[I]n his draft opinion Justice Alito wants America to know he doesn’t care about voters’ feelings. “We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work,” Alito writes. “We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision.”
Ironically, whoever decided to leak the opinion cared very much about the political implications of the impending decision. It is one of the most brazenly political acts to ever come out of the court, actually. It is perhaps the most emphatic confirmation that there are simply no rules left at an institution that is supposed to be the one making the rules, but is instead currently under unprecedented public scrutiny for its very absence of binding rules.
https://twitter.com/lyzl/status/1521358662282973184?s=20&t=K8chrhPeQtX59UmB1yXVPw
Lyz Lenz grew up in a right wing “christian” home and is very familiar with the attitudes of right wing “christian” extremists. She writes at her blog Men Yell at Me: This Was Always The Plan.
I grew up one of eight children. We were washed, dressed in coordinating jumpers and shirts, and trotted out on stage at church on Right to Life Sunday, where our mother would testify that we were an example of always choosing life.
We went to rallies, too. Bows in our hair, marching beneath the angry shouts and the ghostly, whale-like images of aborted fetuses that would haunt me at night as I tried to sleep
My whole life, I knew the plan. Vote for politicians who’d nominate justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Abortion was murder. I heard this preached in churches; at Sunday dinners over brisket. I heard the plan at rallies for homeschoolers in D.C., where we’d lobby our senators for more rights for families — or so I was told.
I heard about the plan when, as a teen, I read fundraising fliers for Christian schools that would turn out a whole new generation of lawyers, lawyers with a Godly worldview, who’d overturn Roe v. Wade.
I heard about it again in 2016, when a nice lady from church smiled at me at school drop-off the day after Trump was elected. “I didn’t want to vote for him,” she whispered to me. I was hung over, and sick. “But he will put good judges in place to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
Later, when I wrote a book about Christianity and the Midwest, and then another about mythology and motherhood, people at book events, journalists in interviews and editors looking for a hot take would all ask me why people would vote for a candidate like Trump. “To overturn Roe,” I’d say. And they’d scoff. No, no. That can’t be it.
But it is. It’s always been the plan. And it’s never been a secret. The plan has been shouted at rallies. Held up on signs. It’s been plotted and spoken of and written about over and over.
Click on the link to read the rest. It’s well worth your time.
This is from historian Heather Cox Richardson at her substack blog, Letters from an American: May 2, 2022.
Tonight, news broke of a leaked draft of what appears to be Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s majority decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing access to abortion as a constitutional right.
That news is an alarm like the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision declaring both that Black Americans had no rights that a white man was bound to respect and that Congress had no power to prohibit human enslavement in the territories. The Dred Scott decision left the question of enslavement not to the national majority, which wanted to prohibit it from western lands, but to state and territorial legislatures that limited voting to white men.
According to law professor and legal commentator Neal Katyal, the draft appears to be genuine and shows that in a preliminary vote, a majority of the court agreed to overturn Roe v. Wade. It takes a hard-line position, saying that states can criminalize abortion with no exceptions for rape and incest. This is a draft and could change before actually being handed down, but it has already stirred a backlash. As soon as the draft hit Politico, which published it, security put up fences around the Supreme Court in expectation of protesters and counterprotesters.
We are in a weird moment, in which Democrats are trying to shore up democracy while Republicans are actively working to undermine it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) issued a statement after the draft leaked, calling the draft “one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.” They noted that the justices lied to senators to get confirmed, saying they considered Roe v. Wade settled law, and are now—if the draft is confirmed—stripping away from American women a constitutional right they have held for 50 years.
Richardson ties together the Court’s likely decision to strip women of their rights to the Republican Party’s war on democracy. Read the whole thing at the link above.
Republicans know very well that 70 percent of American voters support abortion rights, so they are instead focusing on the leak instead of the prospect of women once again becoming second class citizens. The Daily Beast: Laura Ingraham Wants FBI to Hunt Down SCOTUS Leaker: ‘Give Me Your Phone!’
The FBI should launch an investigation to find the person responsible for leaking to the press a Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, Laura Ingraham said Monday. The leak, which is the first of its kind, should also spur Chief Justice John Roberts to act, she said. “It’s incumbent upon him to bring in every law clerk before him… or the FBI. ‘Give me your phone. We want all your accounts. We’ve got to do our own—look at every device you’ve ever used, and find out who did this.’” The Fox host claimed that “there are names floated out there” for possible leakers but declined to go into detail. Ingraham then said she dreaded the consequences—as others on Fox News did earlier in the night—of the leaker being celebrated by those on the left. “That’s the end of the court,” Ingraham predicted. “Clerks are never going to be able to have this role at the court that they have now. They’re never going to be able to have access to opinions. I don’t know what will happen to the court, period, if that’s the case.”
I’ve been assuming this was leaked by someone who is outraged by the Alito opinion, but check out this Twitter thread from a Yale law professor:
Read the rest of the thread on Twitter.
One more from Aaron Rupar at Public Notice: The very simple reason Republicans are railing against leaks instead of celebrating the seeming demise of Roe.
You’d think Republicans would be taking a big victory lap, considering ending abortion rights is something most of them have campaigned on since the Nixon administration. Instead, however, they’re focusing on railing against whoever leaked the decision, and bemoaning the death of norms.
“To violate an understanding that has held for the entire modern history of the Court — seeking to place outside political pressure on the Court and justices themselves — is dangerous, despicable, and damaging,” lamented Sen. Mike Lee in a statement….
“This is a blatant attempt to intimidate the Court through public pressure rather than reasoned argument,” tweeted Sen. Ted Cruz. “I hope my fellow former clerks and the entire legal community will join me in denouncing this egregious breach of trust.” [….]
“The Court should not abide this coordinated assault by the left,” added Sen. Josh Hawley in a tweet of his own. “Issue the decision now.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell went as far as to suggest the leaker should be charged with a crime, even though legal experts say leaking a SCOTUS draft decision is not unlawful.
They are angry, because they know this decision goes against popular opinion.
Polls consistently show overturning Roe is opposed by a majority of between 58 and 70 percent of Americans….
And ending federal abortion rights isn’t just unpopular in blue states. According to Data for Progress, there isn’t a single state in the union where support for a federal ban on abortion — something antiabortion activists and Republicans are already talking about — has more than 30 percent support….
In short, while railing against abortion rights is a good way to rile up the Republican base, it doesn’t resonate with the general public. And that’s why Democrats are already expressing hope the SCOTUS draft decision could help them in the upcoming midterm elections.
That’s all I have the stomach for this morning. I expect there will be many more reactions forthcoming throughout the day and in the days and weeks to come.
Monday Reads: Changing your Ways, Changing those Surrounding You
Posted: May 2, 2022 Filed under: just because | Tags: Aborton Rights, Opioid Crisis, Senior Health, Universal Early Childhood Education 30 Comments
Paul Gauguin, Interieur avec Aline Gauguin, 1881
Good Day Sky Dancers!
I spent the weekend avoiding the news mostly. I did go out to vote for the one thing on our ballot here in Orleans Parish which passed. It was to increase the millage on our property taxes to expand the early childhood education programs here in our schools. It passed although the number of people voting was small and appeared to be those of us deeply committed to universal preschool.
I got into a discussion with the vote workers. It ended with they are all our children and they deserve it. It felt good to vote for the benefit of the village children. We all raise them.
Then, one of the forgotten headlines brought the news to me. Remember the Opioid Crisis? It’s still out there. I was spending the evening with my neighbor across the street and decided to check on the ballot returns at about 8 p.m. I couldn’t do it because I’d accidentally left my phone at home. I crossed the neutral ground about the same time I heard a series of shots coming from the abandoned naval base and the main buildings. I’m so immune to the sound of gunshots from there I really thought nothing of it.
I couldn’t locate my phone so I went back across the street to have my neighbor call me and then back across again. By that time, I heard a series of 10 shots, coming from back behind my house towards the canal where a large encampment sits at the far end of the old base’s parking lot. They live in the old gym facilities. They nearly burnt it down a few months ago. But, that’s another story.
Henri Matisse, Portrait de Marguerite Matisse (The Reader), 1906, Musée de Grenoble, France.
I had just gotten to the sidewalk by my gate when I saw this huge white guy with a white t-shirt and Bermuda shorts on running straight at me followed by his much shorter wife having come from the bar on the corner where the base entrance happens to be. I asked him what was going on. His reply was “oh, usual New Orleans shit, I’m just getting my ride and getting out”. At that time a van showed up in front of my house and he beat your basic beeline into it while his wife waited for him to negotiate the process. (Such gallantry!) I shouted these were white mostly rural folks dumped over there from Mississippi and other places because they don’t want to deal with their opioid issues there. I honestly have never met one New Orleans person hanging out there.
By that time, the street was a swarm of police cars and the ladder truck from the fire station down the street where I had voted earlier today. I headed straight for the side door to grab Temple, chase cats to the back, and head for my bedroom. My evening out was over. The next morning I heard exactly what was going on other than it was a shootout between a man and a woman and was the usual domestic violence scene these days with guns on both sides. Except, it poured into the street. To be precise, it poured into my street.
I know some of the people who live there. I know some of their parents too that show up to look for proof of life and take the newly born grandchildren from their addicted daughters to raise. That’s a village over there of someone’s children.
I’ve taken to writing my posts later and later because the news is filled with items that show that we’re not a functioning democracy anymore with a firm social contract to others. It causes me great sorrow and dismay. Today, was no different. The headlines are brutal be they from my neighborhood, our country, or our world. Dementia Don showed up in Nebraska Saturday night and created his usual hatefest, liefest, and bizarre mix-up of words. This, of course, reminded me of that time Ronald Reagan dumped the country’s mentally ill on the sidewalks of America and no one ever looked back.
These series of embarrassing rallies have got to say something about the way Republicans ignore the real problems that people in this country live with day-to-day. What family would let their elderly father appear in public like this? What merciful group of friends would encourage it?
Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Portrait of Pierre Renoir in a Sailor Suit, 1890,
I continue to think the bullies in this country are getting away with murder while the compassionate among us are derided as snowflakes. The Supreme Court issued an astounding unanimous vote on a flag display in Boston. I understand the logic but one of these things is truly not like the others. From USA Today: “Supreme Court: Boston can’t deny Christian flag if it flies other flags on City Hall flagpole. “This case is so much more significant than a flag,” a representative for the Christian group said. “Boston openly discriminated against viewpoints it disfavored,” when it excluded a Christian flag.”
So my first question is WTF is a Christian flag? I’ve never seen anything like that hanging in front of any church I attended or visited. The second is that I’ve basically come to avoid a lot of Christians these days seeing them mostly as grandstanding bullies and this comes off like that.
As I’ve said before, these folks are not your mother’s Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc. Church ladies who attend their church potluck in the basement over prayers and scripture. Nor are they the social justice arms of the “normal” churches that care about drug addicts, early childhood education, and the provision of appropriate senior care. I’ve got a small group of nuns in a convent around the corner who are likely horrified by the entire flag idea. These are the ones that provide the local free clinic and the senior living center down the street. This is the kind of good trouble Christians of my youth used to take on. We visited rest homes, fed hungry people, and fixed up homes. We never flew flags. Just did good. But, anyway, here we are. This is from USA Today.
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Boston may not deny a Christian group the ability to raise a flag at City Hall alongside secular organizations that are encouraged to do so to celebrate the city’s diversity.
The unanimous decision was the latest in a series of rulings from the high court favoring the protection of religious groups, though in this case the issue was more about the First Amendment’s protection of free speech than its promise that Americans may practice their religion without government interference.
“We conclude that Boston’s flag-raising program does not express government speech,” Associate Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court. “As a result, the city’s refusal to let (the group) fly their flag based on its religious viewpoint violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”
A mix of conservative and liberal justices joined the court’s opinion, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. There were no dissents.
That vote appeared to reflect the fact that the religious group had support that transcended traditional ideological and partisan lines. The Biden administration, for instance, sided with the group and against Boston in the case.
Vincent van Gogh, Mother Roulin with Her Baby (1888).
Well, I’m sure that’s going to attract all kinds of flags that we never imagined showing up there in Bean Town. I foretell the entire display coming down shortly before the Grand Wizard and other groups have a go at it. I’m not sure free speech is supposed to be a free-for-all of toxic one-upmanship.
Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper charges in a memoir out May 10 that former President Trump said when demonstrators were filling the streets around the White House following the death of George Floyd: “Can’t you just shoot them?Just shoot them in the legs or something?”
Why it matters: The book, “A Sacred Oath,” contains vivid, first-person revelations by a top Cabinet member, bolstering outsiders’ accounts of extreme dysfunction in Trump’s White House.
- Esper, who had earlier been Secretary of the Army, was fired by Trump after the 2020 election.
That moment in the first week of June, 2020, “was surreal, sitting in front of the Resolute desk, inside the Oval Office, with this idea weighing heavily in the air, and the president red faced and complaining loudly about the protests under way in Washington, D.C.,” Esper writes.
- “The good news — this wasn’t a difficult decision,” Esper continues. “The bad news — I had to figure out a way to walk Trump back without creating the mess I was trying to avoid.”
Behind the curtain: The book was vetted at the highest levels of the Pentagon. I’m told that as part of the clearance process, the book was reviewed in whole or in part by nearly three dozen 4-star generals, senior civilians, and some Cabinet members.
- Some of them had witnessed what Esper witnessed.
- During the book’s security review, Esper sued the Pentagon over a classification dispute.
Context: Esper enraged Trump by publicly stating in June 2020 that he opposed invoking the Insurrection Act — an 1807 law that permits the president to use active-duty troops on U.S. soil — in order to quell protests against racial injustice.
- Michael Bender — then with The Wall Street Journal, now with the N.Y. Times — reported last year in his book, “Frankly, We Did Win This Election,” that Trump repeatedly called for law enforcement to shoot protesters during heated meetings inside the Oval Office.
Breakfast in Bed’ Mary Cassatt, 1897
So, the most cogent take on all of this I feel is out there in The Atlantic with this piece by Derek Thompson: “This Is How America’s Culture War Death Spirals. Why Disney vs. DeSantis is the future of politics.” Declaring an end to the Republican-led culture war might make us more of a compassionate, caring, and functional democracy.
If you’re a conservative wondering where all this Millennial corporate activism is coming from, try to see things from the liberal perspective. Trump is a wannabe authoritarian who desperately tried to overturn a democratic election. He failed, but his clownish followers still stormed the seat of government, apparently thinking they could accomplish by force what the president couldn’t accomplish by law. State-level Republicans are purging bureaucrats who refused to go along with Trump’s attempted cancellation of the election. Meanwhile, Republicans have moved ever further to the right on LGBTQ issues; they are empowering citizens to enforce severe anti-abortion laws in Texas and many other states; and the Supreme Court’s conservative majority may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.
If Republicans have reasons to feel paranoid about liberal companies stomping on their values, Democrats certainly have reasons to feel paranoid about conservative lawmakers flirting with authoritarianism as revenge. Looking around at their political leadership, Democrats are bereft. The president is feckless, the Senate is pathetic, the House of Representatives is powerless, and the courts are strewn with Republican appointees. What lever of power is left? The cultural lever. This is the context in which LGBTQ Disney employees find it necessary to urge their executive team to act as their proxy army in Florida politics.
…
To review, today’s culture-war death spiral is being accelerated by reactive polarization on both sides. Republicans, freaked out by what they see as cultural disempowerment, are yanking politics right; Democrats, freaked out by what they see as political disempowerment, are pulling institutions left.
The Three Ages of Woman,1905, Gustav Klimt,
And ah yes, ladies, they are coming for our birth control, our uterus, and our basic right to our moral agency with aplomb. This is from the Washington Post and Caroline Kitchener: “The next frontier for the antiabortion movement: A nationwide ban. Advocates and some GOP lawmakers have started mobilizing around potential federal legislation to outlaw abortion after six weeks of pregnancy”. These folks are on the edge of the fight against democracy. They are theocratic fascists.
Leading antiabortion groups and their allies in Congress have been meeting behind the scenes to plan a national strategy that would kick in if the Supreme Court rolls back abortion rights this summer, including a push for a strict nationwide ban on the procedure if Republicans retake power in Washington.
The effort, activists say, is designed to bring a fight that has been playing out largely in the courts and state legislatures to the national political stage — rallying conservatives around the issue in the midterms and pressuring potential 2024 GOP presidential candidates to take a stand.
The discussions reflect what activists describe as an emerging consensus in some corners of the antiabortion movement to push for hard-line measures that will truly end a practice they see as murder while rejecting any proposals seen as half-measures.
Activists say their confidence stems from progress on two fronts: At the Supreme Court, a conservative majority appears ready to weaken or overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that has protected abortion rights for nearly 50 years. And activists argue that in Texas, Republicans have paid no apparent political price for banning abortion after cardiac activity is detected, around six weeks of pregnancy.
While a number of states have recently approved laws to ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy — the limit established in the Mississippi legislation at the heart of the case pending before the high court — some activists and Republican lawmakers now say those laws are not ambitious enough for the next phase of the antiabortion movement. Instead, they now see the six-week limit — which they call “heartbeat” legislation — as the preferred strategy because it would prevent far more abortions.
And no matter what lies they spin, that ain’t a heart. It’s a cluster of vibrating cells. The good news is that Women’s Groups are not asleep on reproductive rights issues.
BTW, Covid-19 isn’t done with us. New York Numbers are escalating into the yellow zone and there are still new variants on the horizon? Will that be the next public health issue thrown on the heap of let’s ignore the opioid crisis, let’s toss grandma out of her facility, and let’s just let women die of childbirth while we discuss pet religious and economic fetishes like tax cuts to rich people and corporations based on something other than science and reality?
Field Workers, Ellis Wilson, circa 1958-41
Oh, and back to my original concern. States are now determining what they will do with the Opioid settlement today. It’s time to make sure the people with the issue get the help they need.
The Sackler family and Perdue Pharma are being forced to confront their victims. (Via NPR)
For the first time during the long legal reckoning over the opioid crisis, members of the Sackler family who own Purdue Pharma heard directly from people who say their company’s main product, Oxycontin, wrecked their lives.
David Sackler, Richard Sackler and Theresa Sackler listened and watched during the roughly two-hour long hearing as people described surviving addiction and spoke of losing loved ones to the epidemic.
The Sacklers spoke briefly to confirm their presence, but did not respond to the testimony.
“You created so much loss for so many people,” said Kay Scarpone, whose son Joe Scarpone, a retired Marine, died of an opioid overdose.
“I’m not sure how you live every day. I hope you ask for God’s forgiveness for your actions. May God have mercy on your souls,” Scarpone said.
Many of the people who testified held up photographs of dead loved ones.
“As a physician and a mother, I have been consumed with grief,” said Dr. Kimberly Blake, whose son Sean died of an opioid overdose.
“In 2020, I was hospitalized with depression because I couldn’t face another Mother’s Day without him,” she said.
Here’s an update of what’s happening from BioSpace located in Seattle.
Arguments regarding the Purdue Pharma opioid settlement continue to be heard in court. On Friday, attorneys representing the Connecticut-based company and the Sackler family squared off against the Department of Justice over the question of whether or not legal wording can protect the family from future lawsuits.
On Friday, Bloomberg reported the Department of Justice is wrangling over a cornerstone provision of the settlement agreement that will provide a level of protection for the Sacklers against future opioid-related lawsuits. The settlement agreement locks the Sackler family into paying approximately $6 billion into the nationwide fund that will be used to manage the opioid settlement.
While the deal has been widely supported by state attorney generals, a division within the Department of Justice is questioning if the U.S. Bankruptcy Court has the power to craft an agreement that provides protection against future legal action, such as the one granted to the Sacklers.
The legal question will play out in court and, if the DOJ is correct, could dismantle the opioid settlement and clog up the courts with additional opioid-related lawsuits, according to Bloomberg.
The latest settlement agreement includes a provision that the Sackler family gives up all ownership of Purdue Pharma. It will allow the company to move forward with its reorganization plan and rebrand to Knoa Pharma. A majority of the new company’s profits will be used to lessen the ongoing crisis.
Purdue isn’t the only company to see legal action. Texas-based Natera is the subject of a securities-related class-action lawsuit that alleges the company withheld information regarding the reliability of its prenatal test, Panorama, and screening test for kidney transplant failure, Prospera.
There are updates on many states via Google as well as this site. I can speak from experience that ensuring these addicts have some form of treatment or care is important. Most of our major cities have issues that are worse than mine here in New Orleans.
I still try to work and vote local. If we all improve our neighborhoods and care about our neighbors, we build a better world. Most of us don’t need to let our religious flags fly. What we need to do is let our personal values and beliefs take flight with action. Love one another. Take compassionate action. Be kind to yourself and others. These are my daily mantras in these difficult days.
Have a good week Sky Dancers!
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Shaking the Tree
by Peter Gabriel
Souma Yergon, Sou Nou Yergon
We are shakin’ the tree
Souma Yergon, Sou Nou Yergon
We are shakin’ the tree
Waiting your time, dreaming of a better life
Waiting your time, you’re more than just a wife
You don’t have to do what your mother has done
She has done, this is your life, this new life has begun
It’s your day, a woman’s day
It’s your day, a woman’s day
Souma Yergon, Sou Nou Yergon
We are shakin’ the tree
Souma Yergon, Sou Nou Yergon
We are shakin’ the tree
Turning the tide, you are on the incoming wave
Turning the tide, you know you are nobody’s slave
Find your sisters or brothers who can hear all the truth in what you say
They can support you when you’re on your way
It’s your day, a woman’s day
It’s your day, a woman’s day
Souma Yergon, Sou Nou Yergon
We are shakin’ the tree
Souma Yergon, Sou Nou Yergon
We are shakin’ the tree
Changing your ways, changing those surrounding you
Changing your ways, more than any man can do
Open your heart, show him the anger and pain, so you heal
Maybe he’s looking for his womanly side, let him feel
You had to be so strong
And you do nothing wrong, nothing wrong at all
We’re gonna break it down
We’re gonna shake it down, shake it all around
No no no no no no
No no no no no no
No no no no no no
It’s your day, a woman’s day
It’s your day, a woman’s day
It’s your day, a woman’s day
It’s your day, a woman’s day
It’s your day, a woman’s day
It’s your day, a woman’s day
It’s your day, a woman’s day
It’s your day, a woman’s day
It’s your day, a woman’s day
It’s your day, a woman’s day
It’s your day, a woman’s day
It’s your day, a woman’s day
You had to be so strong
You do nothing wrong, nothing wrong at all
We’re gonna break it down
We’re gonna shake it down, shake it all around
Lazy Caturday Reads
Posted: April 30, 2022 Filed under: just because 16 CommentsGood Afternoon!!
By Matt McCarthy
Sigh . . . yesterday on Twitter, Elon Musk was reacting sympathetically to right wing white supremacists and holocaust deniers. Today he’s dispensing medical advice based on things some random people told him. I won’t post the links; you can find his idiotic ramblings easily enough. I sure hope Musk ends up backing out of this deal. He reminds me of Trump, and another Trump is not what the world needs right now, IMHO. Here are a couple of interesting articles on the Musk takeover:
The Wall Street Journal (no paywall): The Shadow Crew Who Encouraged Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover. Behind the scenes, fellow billionaires and internet provocateurs bent Tesla CEO’s ear; Jack Dorsey’s role.
Charlotte Alter at Time: Elon Musk and the Tech Bro Obsession With ‘Free Speech.’
White House Correspondent’s Dinner and Covid-19
Tonight the self-important members of the White House press corps will meet at their traditional dinner after the event was cancelled for two years because of the pandemic. On Tuesday, I wrote about the organizers’ decision not accept an offer of free installation of germicidal UV lighting to protect attendees from airborne transmission of the coronavirus. I really think it’s a mistake for the president and first lady to attend this event.
At Yahoo News, Michael Arceneaux offers other reasons why the Bidens should not be going to the dinner: Attending the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is a bad look for Biden.
Although the Biden administration waited until little more than a week out to confirm attendance – in part due to a recent COVID-19 outbreak stemming from the recent Gridiron dinner — it was confirmed that the president and first lady would attend the White House Correspondents’ Dinner….
Every president since Calvin Coolidge has attended the WHCA’s annual dinner with the exception of Donald Trump. To him, members of the media are “enemies of the people.” In 2019, the Trump administration banned any of its officials from attending the dinner.
The dinner was canceled in 2020 and 2021 due to the pandemic, so this marks the official return of a Washington tradition. I understand Biden’s good intentions, but the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is one of the traditions that I hoped would have died in the plague. Or at the very least, dramatically change while it was away.
Consider all the bad news in the world — some of which the diners are supposed to cover. Well, at least for the night, instead of doing their jobs, they are hobnobbing with celebrities par excellence. Given inflation, an ongoing plague, and the litany of other problems impacting the nation, the “nerd prom” resurgence feels ill-timed. Given the times, a return to spectacle strikes me as a bad idea.
The guest list points to the frivolousness of the event.
Martha Stewart will be in attendance as a guest of The Daily Mail. Michael Keaton will be a guest of ABC News. CBS News is apparently bringing Drew Barrymore and Melinda Gates as their guests to the dinner. Kim Kardashian and Pete Davidson will be sitting at the Disney/ABC table.
Quite a few of those White House correspondents are also frivolous lightweights, but that’s just my opinion. But back to the Arceneaux piece. He agrees with me about health concerns.
Oh, and the pandemic isn’t over, no matter what the White House Correspondents Association thinks.
On Tuesday, Vice President Kamala Harris shared her health news after returning from a weeklong trip to California. “Today I tested positive for COVID-19. I have no symptoms, and I will continue to isolate and follow CDC guidelines. I’m grateful to be both vaccinated and boosted,” Harris tweeted….
One other factor that we must consider: The president is 79 years old. With all due respect, at that age, if Biden can’t walk around in a protective bubble, he should at least avoid being in rooms with hundreds of people.
I understand the venue will be testing for attendance, but if it can happen to the vice president, why not the president?
Yet, here everyone is, partying the night away with celebrity guests — as the world falls apart and in the middle of a pandemic. I hope everyone has a good night, but it feels like the wrong time to have this kind of party.
I couldn’t agree more, and I will not be watching tonight.
The New York Times: Cases are rising in nearly every corner of the United States.
Coronavirus cases and hospitalizations are rising in a majority of American states, in what appears to be the first widespread increase since the peak of the Omicron surge in January.
Reports of new cases were nearly flat in the United States at the beginning of April, but as the month draws to a close, they are increasing in all but three states, signaling a wave that is increasingly national in scope.
“Most of the cases are relatively mild,” said Dr. Eric S. Toner, a senior scholar at the Center for Health Security at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Ted Takes Manhattan, by Matt McCarthy
The recent increase was once concentrated in the Northeast, but the effects of the highly contagious BA.2 subvariant is growing more geographically diverse. In the last two weeks, cases have more than doubled in states from West Virginia to Utah.
Hospitalizations are also on the rise nationwide, after plummeting early this month to their lowest point since March 2020. More than 30 states and territories have seen their hospitalization rates tick up in the past two weeks, and in much of the Northeast, the number of people hospitalized with the coronavirus has increased since mid-month by 40 percent or more.
“It’s not over yet,” Dr. Toner said in an interview on Friday. “It may be a mistake to relax all of our protective measures too quickly.”
Student Loans
The Biden administration is currently considering the possibility of forgiving some student loans. Here’s the latest:
The Washington Post: White House officials weigh income limits for student loan forgiveness.
The White House is considering income caps for eligibility for student loan relief that would exclude higher-earning Americans, as President Biden nears a decision on the matter, according to three people aware of administration discussions.
The administration is considering various ways to forgive some student loan debt through executive action. In recent weeks, senior Biden aides have examined limiting the relief to people who earned less than either $125,000 or $150,000 as individual filers the previous year, the people said. That plan would set the threshold at around $250,000 or $300,000 for couples who file their taxes jointly, the people said. No final decisions have been made, and the people familiar with the matter stressed that planning was fluid and subject to change.
The White House is also weighing exactly how much student debt to eliminate for each borrower. Biden indicated to reporters this week that the amount would be lower than $50,000 per person. Administration officials have also signaled that the White House will cut at least $10,000 per qualifying borrower, the people said, embracing a position Biden himself appeared to support in a private meeting with the congressional Hispanic Caucus. The administration has also discussed limiting forgiveness to undergraduate loans, excluding those who had taken out loans for professional degrees in fields such as law and medicine, the people said.
“There’s different proposals floating around the administration about how to structure this,” said one person involved in the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reflect private conversations. “Over the course of the past week especially, administration and congressional staff have focused the conversation on debt cancellation on how to best meet the president’s desire to ensure the most economically vulnerable people with student debt benefit from any action.”
Forgiveness of $10,000 wouldn’t even put a tiny dent in what I owe in student loans, but I’m on an income based payment plan, and my income is too low for me to have to pay anything. After 25 years, if I live that long, the debt will be forgiven. In the meantime the government is spending lots of money to get me to file paperwork every year to prove I can’t pay anything. But for anyone who can benefit from a $10,000 reduction, I wish you well. Meanwhile, the government has no problem subsidizing billionaires like Elon Musk who pay no taxes.
For more on this issue, here’s a long think piece on student loan debt by Jerusalem Demsas at The Atlantic: Who Really Benefits From Student-Loan Forgiveness?
Trump Crime Family News
The Washington Post: Trump grand jury ending in N.Y. with no charges against ex-president.
Friday Reads: Massive Respect to Congressman Jamie Raskin
Posted: April 29, 2022 Filed under: just because | Tags: Greene, House January 6 Committee, Jamie Raskin, The Insane Mrs 28 Comments
Emil Nolde’s Peonies and Irises (1936)
Good Day Sky Dancers!
The tone of speeches in the House of Representatives–pretty much from its inception–has always had outliers that prefer to rage against the other side rather than behave in a strict parliamentarian manner. The brilliant prosecutor and representative Jamie Raskin was called-out for using unparliamentary language against, of all people, Majorie Taylor Greene. The pearl-clutching is pretty amazing given the antics of Ms. Green have been so shameful she no longer holds any seats on any committee. But, sure, let’s call out Mr. Raskin for speaking the truth to crazy.
The controversial words were calling her “cheerleader for the insurrection.” That sounds like a pretty accurate description to me. Frankly, I wish more congress critters would stand up to these people on the floor and elsewhere. They deserve to be maligned for their actions and words. But then, watch Raskin’s speech to see what you think before I start going to the Beltway pundits and pearl-clutchers. Also, ask yourself wtf is that woman wearing on the floor of the House of the People? Is that outfit professional or do they have Pajama Thursdays now? The speeches were about setting up rules of the debate on a program of lend/lease for Ukraine similar to the one used for the United Kingdom of Great Britain prior to U.S. entry into World War 2. It wasn’t a PJ party.
Wassily Kandinsky’s Murnau The Garden II (1910)
So, I don’t see what all the fuss is about do you? However, some old white Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania complained. This is from The Hill which notes Raskin’s apology.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) on Thursday withdrew words he made on the floor after he called Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) a “cheerleader for the insurrection,” admitting that he had used “unparliamentary language” on the House floor.
Raskin, the lead manager during former President Trump’s second impeachment trial in 2021, did so after Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Pa.) asked for Raskin’s words to be taken down, a request that is made if lawmakers use offensive language or make remarks that could be considered unparliamentary.
The dispute took place during a debate on the rule for the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, legislation that would essentially speed up the delivery of military aid to Ukraine as it fights off an invasion by Russia.
Raskin criticized Greene immediately after her own two-minute speech on the bill. Greene had not mentioned Ukraine in her own remarks, but had focused on what she said was an “invasion” at the southern border. Greene has been critical of the Biden administration’s immigration policies.
“Gentlelady talked about a massive invasion. We had a massive invasion of our own chamber. And she continued to be a cheerleader for the insurrection, and deny what happened here,” an animated Raskin said.
Reschenthaler at that point asked for Raskin’s words to be taken down.
There was then a pause of about 15 minutes in proceedings before Raskin asked for unanimous consent to withdraw his words, which was agreed to without objection. He admitted to using “unparliamentary language.”
Die Blumenterrasse im Wannsee-Garten nach Süden – Max Liebermann, 1921
Check him out on Twitter. He appears to be another big fat liar for the right.
The real news that concerns Congressman Raskin is his role on the January 6 committee and what we know about the upcoming Public Hearings. This is the best news I’ve heard in some time. This is breaking news from NBC: “Jan. 6 committee to hold series of hearings starting in June The hearings will start June 9, with some taking place in prime time and others during the day.”
The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol will hold a series of hearings on the probe in June, Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said.
There will be as many as eight hearings, the first on June 9, with some scheduled for prime time and others during the day, he said.
Thompson told reporters as he left the Capitol on Thursday that the public will hear from outside witnesses, people “we’ve not heard from before,” adding that “their testimony will be on point as to why this investigation was so important.”
“We’ll tell the story about what happened,” he said. “We will use a combination of witnesses, exhibits, things that we have through the tens of thousands of exhibits we’ve interviewed and looked at, as well as the, you know, hundreds of witnesses we’ve deposed or just talked to in general.”
Joaquín Sorolla’s Louis Comfort Tiffany (1911)
Jamie Raskin gave us a bit of hope with his press interview yesterday. Here’s a bit of what he said via MSNBC and Steve Benen: ‘Raskin: Jan. 6 probe to expose previously unreported crimes. Jamie Raskin said we’ll soon learn about crimes related to the Jan. 6 attack “that have not yet been alleged.”‘
There’s been ample speculation of late about whether the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack will make criminal referrals to the Justice Department, most notably against Donald Trump. In fact, The New York Times reported this past weekend that the question of whether the former president crossed legal lines has effectively already been answered.
The evidence suggests the former president obstructed a congressional proceeding and conspired to defraud the American people, which could serve as the basis for a criminal referral to federal prosecutors. The report came two weeks after a federal judge released a ruling in a civil case that concluded Trump “likely attempted to obstruct the joint session of Congress” on Jan. 6, which would be a crime.
Judge David Carter added, “The illegality of the plan was obvious…. Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021.”
But as striking as these revelations are, there’s no reason to assume that we know the full scope of the possible criminal misconduct. Rep. Jamie Raskin spoke yesterday to The Washington Post and suggested new revelations are on the way.
“We have not been shy about criminal evidence we encounter, and our report will be profuse in setting forth crimes that have not yet been alleged. But, having said that, we are not a prosecutorial entity. Our job is to make a report to Congress and the American people about what happened on Jan. 6 and what needs to be done to prevent coups and insurrections going forward.”
When the Post asked whether there will be consequences for those behind the insurrectionist violence, the Maryland Democrat added, “As in most mob-style investigations, the Department of Justice seems to be working its way up from the bottom to the top. They have charged a lot of people with violent assault, destruction of federal property, interference with a federal proceeding and now, increasingly, seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to overthrow the government.”
I will never forget this nor should any other present or future citizen of the U.S.
Well, that’s interesting too. And, I imagine he has some dirt on MTG which is sure to raise eyebrows and justify his words on the floor. There are a few interesting ‘guests’ that will be questioned next month by the Committee.
Rudy Giuliani is expected to appear next month before the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The expected appearance comes after months of negotiations between lawmakers and the former mayor of New York, who served as former President Donald Trump’s personal attorney for much of his presidency.
Giuliani, a central figure in Trump’s failed bid to overturn the 2020 election, was subpoenaed by the committee in January and has been engaging with lawmakers, through his lawyer, about the scope of the subpoena and whether he may be able to comply with some requests.
In its subpoena, the committee alleges Giuliani “actively promoted claims of election fraud on behalf of the former President and sought to convince state legislators to take steps to overturn the election results.” The subpoena also states Giuliani was in contact with Trump and members of Congress “regarding strategies for delaying or overturning the results of the 2020 election.”
CNN has previously reported that Giuliani oversaw efforts in December 2020 to put forward illegitimate electors from seven states that Trump lost, according to three sources with direct knowledge of the scheme.
CNN also has previously reported that Giuliani may be willing to testify about claims of election fraud but that he did not intend to waive executive or attorney-client privilege.It is unclear whether the committee has agreed to honor Giuliani’s concerns about privilege, but he can invoke privilege protections in response to individual questions if he so chooses.As with other witnesses under subpoena, the committee has previously said it expected Giuliani to “cooperate fully.” The committee declined to comment Wednesday on Giuliani’s expected appearance.
So, that’s it from me today! It’s Friday so there’s got to be more things coming! BTW, all the artists’ gardens paintings in today’s post were suggested in this article from The Guardian written by Sarah Crompton in 2016. “Flower power: the gardens that caused modern art to bloom.” There are stories about each of these artists.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
dakinikat
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Recent Comments