Chutkan’s stark admonition came at the conclusion of her first courtroom session in the newest criminal case against the former president. The aim of the hearing was for special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutors and Trump’s attorneys to hash out disputes about the handling of evidence in the case. Once Chutkan enters a so-called “protective order” governing evidence, prosecutors say they’re prepared to share millions of pages of documents with Trump’s team, jumpstarting the case and setting it on a path to trial.
Mostly Monday Reads: WTF are we Becoming?
Posted: December 29, 2025 Filed under: #FARTUS, #We are so Fucked | Tags: @johnbuss.bsky.social John Buss, Attacks on Venezuala, freedom of the press, Invasion of Ukraine, Israeli attacks on Gaza, ProPublica, SCOTUS ICE Comments Off on Mostly Monday Reads: WTF are we Becoming?
“The Art of the Deal in real life!” John Buss, @repeat1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
The Trump-infested news cycle never ends these days. Gone are the days when weekend news reporting meant a lot of soft topics, and breaking news usually came in the form of natural disasters. Now, everyone’s busy trying to cover Trump’s latest disaster. It wouldn’t be 2025 without Trump making everything worse. Anyone who saw even the slightest bit of the Trump/Zelenski presser got a feel for the deranged statements of Trump. Zelenski’s exhausted and exasperated looks were priceless.
This is from the New York Times. “For Zelensky, Just Keeping Trump Talking Counts as a Win. Though discussions produced little tangible progress, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine at least avoided the type of setbacks that have blighted earlier meetings.” Constant Méheut has the analysis. I’ve shared the article so you may read it.
A new round of peace talks between President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and President Trump on Sunday seems to have produced little beyond a promise to meet again next month and a reminder of how distant a peace deal remains.
Yet for Mr. Zelensky, even a stalemate in the discussions counts as a measure of success.
Following setbacks in U.S. support for Ukraine this year, one of Mr. Zelensky’s main priorities when meeting Mr. Trump has been to prevent talks from derailing. After the meeting, Mr. Trump signaled that he would remain engaged in the negotiations — a win for Ukraine given his repeated threats to walk away. Mr. Trump also backed away from setting another deadline to reach a peace deal, after having previously floated Thanksgiving and Christmas as target dates.
“I don’t have deadlines,” Mr. Trump told reporters as he greeted Mr. Zelensky at Mar-a-Lago in Florida for the talks. “You know what my deadline is? Getting the war ended.”
Most important for Ukraine, Mr. Trump did not echo Russia’s maximalist demands to stop the fighting, a departure from earlier in his term when he often appeared to side with the Kremlin. The change was also notable because Mr. Trump had spoken with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia just before meeting Mr. Zelensky, the type of last-minute Russian intervention that has derailed Ukrainian hopes before.
That outcome may leave Mr. Zelensky hopeful that Kyiv and Washington have become more closely aligned in the peace negotiations. Several European leaders also joined the talks by phone, and Mr. Zelensky said that the United States might host a new round of negotiations next month that could include them.
“The fact that they’re talking is a victory in and of itself,” Harry Nedelcu, a senior director at Rasmussen Global, a research organization, said of the American and Ukrainian presidents.
Still, Mr. Zelensky acknowledged some division between them on Monday, noting that while Mr. Trump has agreed to help secure Ukraine, he offered such guarantees for only 15 years, short of the several decades that Mr. Zelensky and Ukrainians seek.
The situation between Israel and Gaza certainly shows the lack of any serious negotiations or peace plans in that region. This is from The Nation. This is written by Jeet Heer. “Netanyahu Is Destroying Trump’s Flimsy Peace Plans. The talk of a new Middle East is belied by Israel’s attacks on Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.”
No foreign leader has easier access to President Donald Trump than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose scheduled meeting today at Mar-a-Lago will be the fifth time he’s hobnobbed with the US president in the past 10 months. In February, Netanyahu was the first overseas dignitary to visit the White House in Trump’s second term, and now the year ends with another meeting. Few foreign leaders have buttered up Trump with the aplomb of Netanyahu, who describes Trump as Israel’s “greatest friend.”
In Trump’s first four years in office, these enthusiastic words were more than earned. As Al Jazeera noted, “During his first term, Trump pushed US policy further in favour of Israel’s right-wing government. He moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognised and claimed Israeli sovereignty over Syria’s occupied Golan Heights and cut off funding to the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA).”
Remarkable progress has, however, also been made in a year. Mr. al-Sharaa has garnered support from the United States, Russia and China. He has secured the lifting of economic sanctions. He has remained steady in the face of repeated military provocations from Israel, and has begun to lay the basis of state institutions. He has been embraced by Mr. Trump and was ushered to the White House last month.
“There has been growing frustration in Washington that Israeli actions were setting back something most of Washington and everyone in the Middle East would actually like to see succeed: a stabilized, unified Syria. The basic argument to Israel is, look, you actually have leaders in Damascus who are willing to say the word ‘Israel’ and talk about a potential future with normalized relations, yet you just keep bombing or looking for a surrogate to work through.”
And then, there’s the Venezuelan thing. This is from The Guardian. “US struck ‘big facility’ in Venezuela, Trump claimed without offering details. Trump alleged that US forces hit ‘very hard’ in what would mark his team’s first land strike on Venezuela if confirmed.” Edward Helmore has the lede.
Donald Trump has claimed that US forces struck a “big facility” in Venezuela last week – but the president did not specify what it was, or where, and the White House has not commented further.
“We just knocked out – I don’t know if you read or you saw – they have a big plant, or a big facility, where the ships come from. Two nights ago, we knocked that out. So we hit them very hard,” Trump told Republican donor and New York supermarket owner John Catsimatidis on Friday.
If a US strike is confirmed, it will mark the first land strike on Venezuela since the Pentagon began a buildup of US strike forces in region to interdict drug traffickers operating – the Trump administration claims – under the direction of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro.
The initial, stated purpose of the military buildup has since morphed into a blockade to disrupt the country’s oil exports that uses a global shadow fleet of oil tankers outside of Chevron, the single licensed exporter of Venezuelan oil.
Trump has for weeks warned that US forces are ready to expand the military campaign by striking targets inside Venezuela, a tactic that would in theory require congressional authorization.
The domestic situation of our country is not much better. Most of it is due to the deranged and unfit Trump appointments across the federal government. Nancy Gertner, writing for The Atlantic, has this headline. “Why the Supreme Court Is Giving ICE So Much Power. The Constitution inarguably applies to federal immigration agents—but the Supreme Court has taken away the hope of ever holding them to that standard.
Untold numbers of ICE agents have appeared on America’s streets in recent months, and many of them have committed acts of aggression with seeming impunity. ICE agents have detained suspected illegal immigrants without cause—including U.S. citizens and lawful residents. They have, in effect, kidnapped people, breaking into cars to make arrests. They have used tear gas and pepper spray on nonviolent protesters. They have refused to identify themselves, wearing masks, using unmarked cars, and switching license plates, presumably to avoid detection. They have kept people in detention without access to lawyers. They have questioned people simply for appearing Latino, speaking Spanish, and being in areas believed to be frequented by illegal immigrants.
Many of these tactics are plainly illegal. The Constitution incontestably applies to federal immigration officers: The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and excessive force and requires a warrant to search a private home. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process and bans self-incrimination. The Sixth Amendment establishes a person’s right to counsel. Why, then, are they getting away with not following the Constitution?
Their impunity traces back to two Supreme Court decisions that put far too much faith in ICE’s commitment to respecting people’s constitutional rights. As a result of these cases, people whose rights are violated by ICE agents have little to no recourse. Contrast that with the rules for police officers. If a police officer kicks down your door and searches your home without a warrant, questions you without a Miranda warning, or illegally arrests you, a provision known as the exclusionary rule may prevent the evidence gathered through those tactics from being admitted in your prosecution. And if you happen to be acquitted, you can sue for damages. None of that is true when it comes to ICE.
The first of these two cases is a 1984 decision, INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, that untethered ICE from the exclusionary rule. In a 5–4 opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor rejected the exclusionary rule for immigration courts, favoring, instead, “a deliberately simple deportation hearing system.” In a typical criminal case, the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct—the idea being that the police will avoid such conduct if it risks undermining a conviction. But for ICE, the Court decided, such deterrence is not necessary. Unless ICE conduct amounts to an “egregious” violation of the Fourth Amendment, the evidence that agents gather even through illegal means can be used in immigration courts. Key to the Court’s decision was a presumption that Fourth Amendment violations by ICE officers were not “widespread” and that the Immigration and Naturalization Service “has already taken sensible and reasonable steps to deter Fourth Amendment violations by its officers.” Such assumptions may not have been reasonable then; they are certainly not reasonable now.
A second Court decision appears to have eliminated, or at least seriously limited, the possibility of lawsuits for damages after individuals are unlawfully detained, searched, or experience excessive force at the hands of ICE. When the police engage in misconduct, the victimcan sue the responsible officers for damages. Again, not so for ICE. In the 2022 decision Egbert v. Boule, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, denied the rights of plaintiffs to sue Border Patrol agents for excessive use of force in the name of “national security.” There is every reason to believe that the Supreme Court would extend the rationale in Boule to shield ICE from liability as well. The Court would effectively be greenlighting ICE’s abusive tactics and insulating agents from damages when they are, in fact, no different from any state or city police officer who violates a person’s constitutional rights. As in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza,the rationale in Boule relies on the agency’s purported ability to self-regulate; after all, Thomas suggested, Border Patrol “must investigate ‘alleged violations’ and accept grievances.” Can anyone count on such care to come from Border Patrol under this administration? Again, the faith in these institutions to self-regulate seems tragically misplaced.
We’ve definitely seen some terrible things that go against our Constitution and the rule of law. It’s even more sad to see a rogue Supreme Court team up with the Rotter in the White House to initiate authoritarian measures. This final suggested read comes from ProPublica. It shows more evidence of the suppression of our Free Press. “Our Reporters Reached Out for Comment. They Were Accused of Stalking and Intimidation. Our journalists reach out to people they’re writing about to ensure fairness. But in this environment, they’ve found their efforts to do so are more likely to be vilified than appreciated.” Charles Ornstein has the story.
This summer, my colleagues were reporting out a story about the Department of Education’s “final mission,” its effort to undermine public education even as the Trump administration worked feverishly to close the agency.
As we do with all stories, the reporters reached out to those who would be featured in the article for comment. And so began a journey that showed both the emphasis we place on giving the subjects of our stories an opportunity to comment, as well as the aggressively unhelpful pushback we’ve faced this year as we’ve sought information and responses to questions.
Megan O’Matz, a reporter based in Wisconsin on ProPublica’s Midwest team, first asked the department’s press office for an interview in mid-August. At the same time, we emailed top administration officials who were making crucial decisions within the agency, including Lindsey Burke, deputy chief of staff for policy and programs, and Meg Kilgannon, director of strategic partnerships.
In response to the outreach to Kilgannon, department spokesperson Madison Biedermann told O’Matz to “Please direct all media inquiries to press@ed.gov.” Reached on her cellphone that day, Biedermann said she was happy to look into the request. We asked for a response within a week.
At that time, the published press phone number for the department appeared, at all hours, to be a black hole, with a recorded message saying it was “temporarily closed.” (It still indicates that.)
Hearing nothing more, O’Matz emailed the press office again Aug. 18. And again Aug. 28 with detailed questions. She left follow-up messages on Biedermann’s cell. And on Burke’s cell, including once on her husband’s cell as ProPublica tried to find a direct way to contact Burke. To ensure fairness and accuracy, it is our long-standing practice to try to reach those who are part of our stories so that they have an opportunity to respond to them. We’d rather get responses before we publish an article than after.
Reached on her cell Aug. 29, Kilgannon said she had no comment and hung up before O’Matz could explain what we planned to publish about her and her work. She did not respond to a subsequent email with those details.
On Sept. 8, still hearing nothing from Burke, O’Matz reached out to the department’s chief of staff, writing: “We have been seeking to talk to the secretary and to Dr. Burke. … Can you help us arrange that?” A week later, ProPublica arranged for a letter to be delivered via FedEx to Burke’s home outlining what our reporting had found so far and to let us know if anything was inaccurate or required additional context. We invited her again to talk with us, to comment or provide any additional information.
Finally, on Sept. 17, Biedermann wrote: “Just heard from an ED (Education Department) colleague that you sent these inquiries in writing to their home address. This is highly inappropriate and unprofessional. You have also reached out to employees on their personal cell phones, emails, and even reached out to employee’s family members. This is disturbing. Do not use an employee’s home addresses or relatives to contact them.” (The emphasis was hers.)
ProPublica replied the following day that it’s common practice for journalists to reach out to people we are writing about. “In fact, it’s our professional obligation,” O’Matz wrote.
Biedermann responded: “Reaching out to individuals about a work matter at their private address is not journalism — it is borderline intimidation. In today’s political climate it is particularly unacceptable. We received your inquiries (via email, phone calls, text messages, both on work and personal email address) and made a conscious decision not to respond, as we have every right to do.”
“You are not entitled to a response from us, or anyone, ever,” Biedermann wrote.
To be clear, at no time prior to this email did the department tell O’Matz that it had received her inquiries and would not comment. The article ran on Oct. 8, about two months after we first contacted the department. (I would highly encourage you to read it.)
The world has come a long way since the days of “All the President’s Men” and “Spotlight,” movies that favorably portrayed journalists knocking on doors and trying to reach sources to tell important stories — in those cases, about the Watergate break-in that led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation and the abuse scandal that enveloped the Roman Catholic Church in Boston and beyond.
I know these reads are long and perhaps a bit tedious and difficult to read. However tough it may be, it is essential that we pay attention to every single civil right, law, and constitutional value of this country that is under attack. I hope that next year will bring better responses as we strive to hold these officials accountable. We owe it to ourselves, our future citizens, and to every one of those who worked hard to make this country “a more perfect union.” We cannot go down this way.
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Mostly Monday Reads: Suppression and Lies
Posted: December 22, 2025 Filed under: freedom of speech, Greenland, Venezuala | Tags: #UberFascist Jeff Landry, @johnbuss.bsky.social John Buss, Attacks on Venezuala, Bari Weiss, freedom of the press, Greenland, Orange Caligula, Sharyn Alfonsi, Sixty Minutes 4 Comments
“Whoop, there it is! That explains everything!” John Buss, @repeat1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
Freedom of the Press, and the exercise of it, has been an essential part of modern American History. Now, with the invention of technologies that have evolved far beyond the days of the printing press when it was conceived, we have access to more. The generations born since the invention of radio and TV, and those who have followed forward to today’s internet technologies, have relied on the press for truth on wars, governance, social justice, foreign relations, science, medicine, and every other possible human endeavor.
My parents heard of the attack on Pearl Harbor almost immediately on the radio. I watched a man walk on the moon. My children have instant access to everything on their phones. Information is a vital part of the American Dream. Now, it has become part of the American Nightmare. Freedom of information has always relied on the availability of trusted sources. Our modern history is full of examples of state propaganda that we Americans have always pooh-poohed, the Tokyo Roses, the Baghdad Bobs, but we’ve always taken seriously the propaganda and acts of Paul Joseph Goebbels, who committed suicide to avoid being held to account. Free Speech is a pillar of democracy.
America, we have a huge problem.
This first read is from Today’s New York Times. It concerns the ongoing suppression of News at CBS. “‘60 Minutes’ Pulled a Segment. A Correspondent Calls It ‘Political.’ Sharyn Alfonsi, a “60 Minutes” correspondent, criticized the network’s decision to remove her reporting from Sunday’s edition of the show.” Michael M. Grynbaum has the byline.
In a move that drew harsh criticism from its own correspondent, CBS News abruptly removed a segment from Sunday’s episode of “60 Minutes” that was to feature the stories of Venezuelan men deported by the Trump administration to what the program called a “brutal” prison in El Salvador.
CBS announced the change three hours before the broadcast, a highly unusual last-minute switch. The decision was made after Bari Weiss, the new editor in chief of CBS News, requested numerous changes to the segment. CBS News said in a statement that the segment would air at a later date and “needed additional reporting.”
But Sharyn Alfonsi, the veteran “60 Minutes” correspondent who reported the segment, rejected that criticism in a private note to CBS colleagues on Sunday, in which she accused CBS News of pulling the segment for “political” reasons.
“Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices,” Ms. Alfonsi wrote in the note, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times. “It is factually correct. In my view, pulling it now, after every rigorous internal check has been met, is not an editorial decision, it is a political one.”
The inability of the rotter in the White House to deal with criticism means the rest of us must not read or see anything that might be off-putting to his serious ego problems. NPR has this take on the story. “CBS News chief Bari Weiss pulls ’60 Minutes’ story, sparking outcry.” David Folkenflik has the story.
Just a day and a half before it was set to be broadcast, new CBS News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss pulled a planned 60 Minutes investigative segment centering on allegations of abuses at an El Salvador detention center where the Trump administration sent hundreds of Venezuelan migrants last March.
Weiss told colleagues this weekend the piece — planned for Sunday night’s show — could not run without an on-the-record comment from an administration official. She pushed for 60 Minutes to interview Stephen Miller, senior advisor to President Trump, or someone of his stature. That’s according to two people with knowledge of events at the network who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing job security.
The correspondent on the story, Sharyn Alfonsi, condemned the decision in an email to 60 Minutes colleagues on Sunday evening, saying she believed it was “not an editorial decision, it is a political one.” (The email was obtained by NPR and other news organizations.)
A press release sent out Friday morning from CBS News’ publicity team had promoted the story, promising a look inside CECOT, “one of El Salvador’s harshest prisons.” The network ran a video promotion which has since been taken down on the air and on social media. The announcement cited “the brutal and tortuous conditions” some recently released deportees said they endured there. The release has since been revised.
The story had undergone repeated formal reviews by senior producers and news executives, as well as people from the legal and standards division, according to the two people at CBS, echoing Alfonsi’s account.
Alfonsi wrote that she and her colleagues on the story had sought comments and interviews from the Department of Homeland Security, the White House and the State Department.
“Government silence is a statement, not a VETO,” Alfonsi wrote in the email. “If the administration’s refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a ‘kill switch” for any reporting they find inconvenient.” (Alfonsi did not respond to an emailed request for comment.)
This is the take of the Washington Post and its reporters, Liam Scott and Scott Nover. “‘60 Minutes’ correspondent says CBS’s Bari Weiss abruptly pulled segment on Trump deportations. The segment on the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador’s CECOT prison was postponed after the Trump administration refused to grant the network an interview.”
CBS News abruptly pulled an investigative “60 Minutes” segment on the Trump administration’s deportations of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador’s CECOT prison after the Trump administration refused to grant an interview, according to a correspondent who shared her concerns in an email obtained by The Washington Post.
The decision came directly from the network’s editor in chief, Bari Weiss, according to an internal email sent to producers from the segment’s correspondent, Sharyn Alfonsi, who called the decision tantamount to handing the White House a “kill switch.”
“If the administration’s refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a ‘kill switch’ for any reporting they find inconvenient,” Alfonsi wrote.
“If the administration’s refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a ‘kill switch’ for any reporting they find inconvenient,” Alfonsi wrote.
Weiss defended the decision in a Monday morning editorial meeting.
“As of course you all have seen, I held a ‘60 Minutes’ story, and I held that story because it wasn’t ready,” Weiss told staffers, according to a person who attended the meeting and spoke on the condition of anonymity to share nonpublic comments. “The story presented very powerful testimony of abuse at CECOT, but that testimony has already been reported on by places like the Times. The public knows that Venezuelans have been subjected to horrific treatment in this prison. So to run a story on this subject, two months later, we simply need to do more.”
She continued: “And this is ‘60 Minutes.’ We need to be able to make every effort to get the principals on the record and on camera. To me, our viewers come first, not a listing schedule or anything else, and that is my North Star, and I hope it’s the North Star of every person in this newsroom.”
I’m not convinced. Are you?
Here’s a ridiculous story featuring the Louisiana Governor who truly is the state’s village idiot. It’s a continuation of Donald Trump’s quest to basically take over independent nations. It’s caused quite a stir because it appears to be illegal for the governor to accept this. We continue to see a Regime that thinks itself above the law or doesn’t care. This is from the AP. “Trump’s appointment of envoy to Greenland sparks new tension with Denmark.”
The leaders of Denmark and Greenland insisted Monday that the United States won’t take over Greenland and demanded respect for their territorial integrity after President Donald Trump announced the appointment of a special envoy to the semi-autonomous territory.
Trump’s announcement on Sunday that Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry would be the envoy prompted a new flare-up of tensions over Washington’s interest in the vast territory of Denmark, a NATO ally. Denmark’s foreign minister told Danish broadcasters that he would summon the U.S. ambassador to his ministry.
”We have said it before. Now, we say it again. National borders and the sovereignty of states are rooted in international law,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and her Greenlandic counterpart, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said in a joint statement. “They are fundamental principles. You cannot annex another country. Not even with an argument about international security.”
Here’s the take from the Louisiana Illuminator. “Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry selected by Trump to be special envoy to Greenland. This is reported by Julie O’Donoghue. “Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry selected by Trump to be special envoy to Greenland.”
President Donald Trump announced Sunday night that Gov. Jeff Landry would serve as his special envoy to Greenland.
“I am pleased to announce that I am appointing the GREAT Governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, as the United States Special Envoy to Greenland,” Trump said through a post to his social media network Truth Social.
“Jeff understands how essential Greenland is to our National Security, and will strongly advance our Country’s Interests for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Allies, and indeed, the World,” the president wrote.
Landry will remain Louisiana governor while serving in his new role for Trump.
“This in no way affects my role as governor of Louisiana!” he posted on the social media platform X.
Greenland has significant oil and gas reserves and has been a focal point for Trump on-and-off since he entered politics a decade ago.
On several occasions earlier this year, the president publicly mused about an American takeover of the island, which is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark. The threats have upset not only the Danes but also the European Union and Russia.
One of the more embarrassing quotes from Landry makes the purpose of the position even more off-putting. This is also from the AP source.
Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry said on X it was ‘an honor to serve … in this volunteer position to make Greenland a part of the US’
Greenland and Denmark are less than enthused. This is from The Independent. “Greenland outraged after Trump appoints envoy to make country ‘part of the US’. Trump stated Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry understands ‘how essential Greenland to our National Security’.”
The leaders of Denmark and Greenland have insisted the US will not take over the latter, and are demanding respect for the island’s territorial integrity following President Trump’s appointment of a special envoy.
On Sunday Mr Trump named Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as the US special envoy to Greenland, reigniting tensions over Washington’s interest in the vast, semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, which is a Nato ally.
The Danish foreign minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, announced he would summon the US ambassador to Copenhagen, expressing particular dismay at Mr Landry’s endorsement of Trump’s stated aim.
In a joint statement, Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen and her Greenlandic counterpart, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, declared: “We have said it before. Now, we say it again: national borders and the sovereignty of states are rooted in international law. They are fundamental principles. You cannot annex another country. Not even with an argument about international security.
“Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders, and the US shall not take over Greenland. We expect respect for our joint territorial integrity.”
The Trump administration put further pressure on Copenhagen on Monday, when it suspended leases for five large offshore wind projects being built off the East Coast of the U.S., including two being developed by Denmark’s state-controlled Orsted.
Mr Trump has repeatedly expressed a desire for Greenland, which is largely self-governing, to become part of the United States, citing security concerns and its valuable mineral resources. He stated on Truth Social: “Jeff understands how essential Greenland is to our National Security, and will strongly advance our Country’s Interests for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Allies, and indeed, the World.”
This item shows a significant issue with the position. Discussion among those of us who have been part of Louisiana’s higher education institutions will hopefully raise a few flags to the local politicos and media.
Screenshot
I’m seriously getting tired of my state and my country continually exhibiting behaviors and speech that give us pariah status. It’s embarrassing, and the actions are unjustifiable in any civilized, democratic nation. On the good side, if he goes there at all, we could find a good iceberg and let some hungry polar bears at him.
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Finally Friday Reads: We were Warned
Posted: September 19, 2025 Filed under: #FARTUS, #We are so Fucked, U.S. Constitution | Tags: @johnbuss.bsky.social John Buss, Authoritarism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, Shine on you Crazy Diamond 7 Comments
“Every time he wears a tuxedo…” John Buss, @repeat1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
We’ve gone way past the notion of creeping authoritarianism. We’ve got an executive branch that’s forcing us into a Soviet-style Command and Control Economy. We’ve also entered a deeper phase of attacks on the U.S. Constitution, which resemble the commands of Dear Leader in Korea to provide adequate adoration and no criticism. Our First Amendment Rights have never experienced such obvious frontal attacks. Meanwhile, the wannabe King was living it up in his usual white trash ways by embarrassing us in a State visit to the UK. He’s the perfect example of “The Ugly American” as outlined in the book of the same name. It’s going to take years to retrieve our international standing and influence.
This analysis in the PBS article compares our current attacks on Freedom of the press to those of Orbán’s Hungary and Putin’s Russia. I don’t have a working TV, and I have watched less of it over the years. I think the absurdity of “reality” TV finally did me in. However, it’s still an important source of information in this country as well as entertainment, and to see it be controlled by the current administration and its stupidity is beyond anything I’d ever expect. I grew up on the Smothers Brothers, Laugh-In, and other comedies that continually trolled Richard Nixon. I never thought we’d experience McCarthyism again, which was before my time, but taught repeatedly in American History as one of our darkest nights.
The defunding of PBS is just one nail in the coffin of truth to “We the People.” This article is a compilation of reporting from the above-mentioned authoritarian governments, mostly from the AP. “Trump’s moves against media outlets mirror authoritarian approaches to silencing dissent.”
Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has waged an aggressive campaign against the media unlike any in modern U.S. history, making moves similar to those of authoritarian leaders that he has often praised.
On Wednesday, Trump cheered ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show after the comedian made remarks about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk that criticized the president’s MAGA movement: “Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
It was the latest in a string of attacks against news outlets and media figures he believes are overly critical of him. Trump has filed lawsuits against outlets whose coverage he dislikes, threatened to revoke TV broadcast licenses and sought to bend news organizations and social media companies to his will.
The tactics are similar to those used by leaders in other countries who have chipped away at speech freedoms and independent media while consolidating political power, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a close Trump ally whose leadership style is revered by many conservatives in the U.S.
“What we’re seeing is an unprecedented attempt to silence disfavored speech by the government,” said Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College. “Donald Trump is trying to dictate what Americans can say.”
The first thing that does peeve me about this and related articles is the consistent use of the word “conservatives” in all of the analysis I’ve read. Traditional Conservatives do not support the suppression of the Free Press. It’s generally some kind of Populist Uprising within their ranks that leads to this sort of nonsense. I’m not defending the spineless bunch of Republicans that are enabling this, but we need to recognize what this represents. The Bulwark represents the example of our strange bedfellows these days. I repeatedly provide perspectives by Bill Kristol because I may not agree with him on many things, but he does respect the Constitution and continually warns us about the threat presented by our fascist-loving Executive Branch. Yesterday, he wrote this at The Bulwark. His analysis was presented along with that of Andrew Egger and Jim Swift under their daily heading. Yesterday it was “Yeah. It’s Fascism.” Kristol’s analysis was entitled “We’re Gonna Call It What It Is.”
JD Vance is outraged. How dare some people use the term “fascist” to describe the man to whom he has pledged fealty? How dare they apply the term to the movement to which he has hitched his star?
Very few individuals have seen President Donald Trump as close-up as John F. Kelly, the retired Marine Corps general who served for nearly a year and a half as White House chief of staff during Trump’s first term.
Kelly was and is a staunch conservative. In an interview with the New York Times shortly before the 2024 election, he explained that, “In many cases, I would agree with some of his policies.”
In that same interview, Kelly was asked whether he thought Trump was a fascist. Kelly answered by reading aloud a definition of fascism that he’d found online.
Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy.
Kelly then commented:
Certainly the former president is in the far-right area, he’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators — he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure. . . . He certainly prefers the dictator approach to government.
Unlike Vance, who saw in Trump a wagon to which to hitch his star, Kelly was at the end of a distinguished career when he joined the Trump administration. He meant to serve his country, not himself. He found that he was working for a fascist.
As for the movement which Vance aspires to lead once Trump leaves the scene, it too has many features of fascism.
In 1995, the Italian novelist and critic Umberto Eco perceived a “ghost stalking Europe (not to speak of other parts of the world).” That ghost was fascism.
Eco explained that “fascism was a fuzzy totalitarianism, a collage of different philosophical and political ideas.” Nonetheless he argued that “in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism.”
Among the elements of Ur-Fascism:
- “The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition,” he writes, which implies “the rejection of the modern world.”
- “Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
- “For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.”
- “Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders.”
- “Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.”
- “At the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
- “The Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo. . . . Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.”
- “Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
Sound familiar?
I still have the old family habit of watching NBC News. I stream it now on my small laptop, and it’s about the only old-school TV thing I do watch besides The Weather Channel during Hurricane Season. It’s the source of this article. “Trump suggests FCC could revoke licenses of TV broadcasters that give him too much ‘bad publicity’. Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr told Fox News on Thursday afternoon that ABC’s decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s show indefinitely may not be “the last shoe to drop.”
President Donald Trump on Thursday floated the possibility that TV broadcasters could lose their federal licenses over what he perceives as negative coverage of him, a day after Disney’s ABC yanked “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” off the air.
Speaking to reporters, Trump suggested that the Federal Communications Commission should revoke broadcasters’ licenses, arguing that many late-night hosts appearing on those networks are “against me” and that “they give me only bad publicity, press.”
“I mean, they’re getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away. It will be up to Brendan Carr,” Trump said on Air Force One, referring to the FCC chairman. “I think Brendan Carr is outstanding. He’s a patriot. He loves our country, and he’s a tough guy, so we’ll have to see.”
Trump also said of evening shows on network TV: “All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that. They’re an arm of the Democrat Party.”
A day earlier, Trump praised ABC for indefinitely pulling “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” after on-air comments its host made about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. “Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
For shits and giggles, here’s Nixon on Laugh-In with his Sock It to Me moment. I need some levity.
There’s more fascism afoot than just suppression of the press. The New York Times has this headline today. “Draft Bill Would Authorize Trump to Kill People He Deems Narco-Terrorists. Potential legislation circulating in the executive branch and Congress would grant President Trump sweeping military powers.” Only Congress has the power to declare war.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; . . .
I can only imagine what’s in Yam Tit’s dotard mind about Venezuela and their tossed-out piece of trash dictator. We can learn a lot from his petty attacks on Venezuela.
Draft legislation is circulating at the White House and on Capitol Hill that would hand President Trump sweeping power to wage war against drug cartels he deems to be “terrorists,” as well as against any nation he says has harbored or aided them, according to people familiar with the matter.
A wide range of legal specialists have said that U.S. military attacks this month on two boats suspected of smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea were illegal. But Mr. Trump has claimed that the Constitution gave him the power he needed to authorize them.
It was not clear who wrote the draft congressional authorization or whether it could pass the Republican-led Congress, but the White House has been passing it around the executive branch.
The broadly worded proposal, which would legally authorize the president to kill people he deems narco-terrorists and attack countries he says helped them, has set off alarm bells in some quarters of the executive branch and on Capitol Hill, according to people who spoke on the condition of anonymity about sensitive internal deliberations.
Three people familiar with the matter said that Representative Cory Mills, a Florida Republican and combat veteran who sits on the Armed Services Committee, was involved in developing the draft. Mr. Mills, a staunch Trump ally, declined to comment on the potential legislation or his role. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, declined to comment, citing a policy against discussing “drafts that may or may not be circulating.”
An administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters, said the draft originated with a member of Congress who had asked for technical assistance in improving it. The official portrayed its circulation for input by executive branch agencies as a routine courtesy that should not be interpreted as support for the idea.
The measure has emerged amid an escalating debate in Washington over the president’s war-making power and Congress’s role in authorizing the use of American military force, after the Trump administration opened a deadly campaign against the boaters.
The two boat attacks — killing what Mr. Trump has said were 14 people he accused of smuggling drugs toward the United States — were the latest in a series of military operations the president has taken without congressional authorization, raising constitutional concerns among some lawmakers in both parties, who say their branch should play a greater role in such decisions.
Critics have also said that Mr. Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have given illegal orders, causing Special Operations troops to target civilians — even if they are suspected of crimes — in apparent violation of laws against murder.
Meanwhile, RFK Jr. is trying to kill us all. I have a 3-week-old grandson and 2 four-year-old granddaughters. The granddaughters are fortunate to have two doctors for parents. My conversations with my youngest these days are unusual. I just keep asking, can Aiden get all the vaccines he needs? Are you keeping up with them? That’s the milestone these days. Are we vaccinating our children, and will they have to go to school with unvaccinated kids? This article actually comes under the title of “Good Grief”. It’s from Arstechnica.com. It’s written by Beth Mole. RFK Jr.’s anti-vaccine panel realizes it has no idea what it’s doing, skips vote. With a lack of data and confusing language, the panel tabled the vote indefinitely.”
The second day of a two-day meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices—a panel currently made up of federal vaccine advisors hand-selected by anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—is off to a dramatic start, with the advisors seemingly realizing they have no idea what they’re doing.
The inexperienced, questionably qualified group that has espoused anti-vaccine rhetoric started its second day of deliberations by reversing a vote taken the previous day on federal coverage for the measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) vaccine. Yesterday, the group voted to restrict access to MMRV, stripping recommendations for its use in children under age 4. While that decision was based on no new data, it passed with majority support of 8–3 (with one abstention). (For an explanation of that, see our coverage of yesterday’s part of the meeting here.)
But puzzlingly, they then voted to uphold access and coverage of MMRV vaccines for children under age 4 if they receive free vaccines through the federal Vaccines for Children program, which covers about half of American children, mostly low-income. The discrepancy projected the idea that the alleged safety concerns that led the panel to rescind the recommendation for MMRV generally, somehow did not apply to low-income, vulnerable children. The vote also created significant confusion for VFC coverage, which typically aligns with recommendations made by the panel.
Today, Kennedy’s ACIP retook the vote, deciding 9-0 (with three abstentions) to align VFC coverage with their vote yesterday to strip the recommendation for MMRV in young children.
That’s the deal in the executive branch today. Nobody knows what they’re doing, but they sure have a lot of conspiracy theories and paranoia to act on. I had those diseases up there listed under MMRV. I wouldn’t wish the cases I got on anyone, and I survived them. The Wall Street Journal‘s headline was even more disturbing. “RFK Jr.-Backed Panel Advises Against MMRV Combo Vaccine for Young Children. New members of key committee tweak routine childhood vaccine guidance as some states and insurers go their own way.” Thank goodness my kids live in Denver and Seattle!’
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s handpicked slate of vaccine advisers voted to no longer recommend a combined shot for measles, mumps, rubella and varicella for children under age 4.
The move came as some states, insurers, public health leaders and a U.S. senator called into question whether Americans should rely on the committee’s decisions.
Here’s what to know:
The details
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a key panel under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, voted 8-3, with one abstention, to no longer recommend MMRV, a combined shot immunizing against measles, mumps, rubella and varicella, also known as chickenpox, for children under 4. Parents would instead be recommended to get their young children one vaccine for varicella and a second known as the MMR vaccine that inoculates against the other three diseases, under the committee’s new guidance.
Here’s some craziness from Mint. The mainstream media hasn’t decided what to do with it yet, even though it’s almost a day old. I can probably list at least one million historical figures more in need of a holiday than the prince of hate speech. “Charlie Kirk Day: US Senate passes resolution to create National Day of Remembrance for slain far-right activist. The US Senate has unanimously backed a resolution to establish a National Day of Remembrance for Charlie Kirk on October 14. The measure now heads to the House for a crucial vote.” I have him slated for the dance and piss on his grave kind of tribute. No one should be shot and killed, but we do not have to make saints of political extremists.
One last one from ABC News. I guess one of his appointments refused to take bogus, trumped-up charges to court. “Trump poised to fire US attorney for resisting effort to charge NY AG Letitia James: Sources. Trump officials had pushed Erik Siebert to bring criminal charges against James.”
President Donald Trump is expected to fire the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after investigators were unable to find incriminating evidence of mortgage fraud against New York Attorney General Letitia James, according to sources.
Federal prosecutors in Virginia had uncovered no clear evidence to prove that James had knowingly committed mortgage fraud when she purchased a home in the state in 2023, ABC News first reported earlier this week, but Trump officials pushed U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert to nevertheless bring criminal charges against her, according to sources.
While sources caution that plans could still change, Siebert was notified on Thursday of Trump’s intention to fire him, sources told ABC News, and was told that Friday would be his final day on the job.
Since this is my day off, I’m going to pick up one of my guitars and play some David Gilmour licks. Take care of yourselves!
What’s on your Action, Reading, and Blogging list today?
Lazy Caturday Reads: The Heat Is On
Posted: August 12, 2023 Filed under: Cats, caturday, Crime, Donald Trump, just because | Tags: extreme heat, first amendment, freedom of the press, Hawaii wildfires, January 6 case, Judge Tanya Chutkan, limits on free speech, Maui 10 Comments
Happy Caturday!!
Sadly, I’m unable to post cat art today because WordPress has made it very difficult to resize images to manageable dimensions. Dakinikat seems to have figured out how to do it, but I’m still confused. I’m hoping I’ll be able to master the technique or learn to use one of WordPress’s other god-awful methods of posting. Today I’m reposting Tweets from Lorenzo the Cat.
(Dakinikat note: testing the images thing, so there are a few popping up here now.)
We haven’t talked much about the awful wildfires in Hawaii. Here’s the latest news.
Washington Post Live Updates: Maui death toll reaches 80 amid questions over emergency response.
The death toll from the Hawaii wildfires has risen to 80, Maui county officials said in an update late Friday, as firefighters continued work to contain fires on the island. Government officials are launching a review of the state’s emergency response, as residents criticized relief efforts as insufficient and records indicated that emergency sirens weren’t activated at the state or county level during the wildfires, though alerts were sent to cellphones and broadcast networks.
Here’s what to know
Read more recent updates at the WaPo.
Pre-Raphaelite Cats, Susan Herbert
From The New York Times, an opinion piece by writer and editor Lawrence Downes, who grew up in Hawaii: After the Shock and Grief, Hawaii Will Reinvent Itself Again.
The disaster that erased the beloved West Maui town of Lahaina this week comes with the bitter taste of bewilderment. Brush fires met high winds whipped by a far-off hurricane, and overnight a historic town was gone, a pile of smoke and ashes. A lush watercolor landscape is redrawn in gray and black. At least 55 people are dead, and many more are missing.
A hurricane just burned down a town. It’s all so weird and horrifying.
Living in Hawaii long enough gives you a familiarity with sudden catastrophes, the kind that can obliterate a community in a week, a day or an instant. To live in my home state or to love it from a distance is to know the continual threat of hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanoes.
But a lethal wildfire? That was new for Hawaii. And everything is changed.
We may not get a definitive verdict on whether Lahaina died for humanity’s environmental sins, but we know that climate change is making Hawaii hotter and drier and that invasive grasses have been allowed to run rampant. Drought on Maui turned the grass into ready fuel and heightened the risk of wildfires, and then a hurricane brushed by.
The planetary crisis is hardly Hawaii’s fault, but like other island areas in our rising oceans, it is unusually imperiled, and it has to do something. And when wildfires swept over Maui and the Big Island, it was a brutal reminder that Hawaii needs to be a serious climate leader, to nurture and spread the environmental consciousness that too many other states lack.
Hawaii will surely find ways to lower the risk of wildfires and get better at fighting them. Lahaina will rebuild, and residents will return. But climate resiliency is a far bigger challenge than adding fire trucks and subduing invasive grasses. It’s an expensive mess of problems across the state.
Will the communities on Oahu’s North Shore be able to retreat from the rising ocean before they are washed away? How will flower and fruit growers on Maui and the Big Island cope with extended drought? What happens if or when the coral reefs die, the native trees and forest birds are gone, weather patterns shift and the cooling trade winds disappear?
All good questions, and we all must “do something.” Climate change is happening. We can see it all around us.
JJ passed along this article about the extreme heat affecting so many people this year.
TechTimes: How Much Heat Can Your Body Take? Scientists Reveal the Maximum Limit.
According to AFP, new research shows the limit, known as the “wet bulb temperature,” representing the maximum combination of heat and humidity before sweat no longer evaporates from the skin, leading to heatstroke, organ failure, and death.
While this threshold occurs at around 35 degrees Celsius (95 Fahrenheit), recent research suggests it could be even lower.
Colin Raymond from NASA‘s Jet Propulsion Laboratory said the wet bulb limit of human survival has been breached only around a dozen times, primarily in South Asia and the Persian Gulf.
Although none of these occurrences extended beyond two hours, they effectively averted widespread mortality events associated with this critical threshold.
Nonetheless, specialists stress that fatalities resulting from intense heat are feasible even at less severe levels. Factors such as age, health, and socio-economic circumstances play a role in determining an individual’s susceptibility.
In Europe last summer, for instance, more than 61,000 fatalities were linked to heat, even in regions where the perilous wet bulb temperature range is seldom attained.
Scientists warn that dangerous wet bulb events will become more frequent as global temperatures continue to rise. The frequency of such events has doubled over the last four decades, driven by human-caused climate change.
According to Raymond’s research, wet bulb temperatures exceeding 35 degrees Celsius could become common worldwide if global temperatures rise by 2.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
To test the wet bulb limit, researchers at Pennsylvania State University evaluated young, healthy participants in a heat chamber. They found that the “critical environmental limit,” where the body can’t prevent further core temperature increase, was reached at 30.6 degrees Celsius wet bulb temperature, lower than previously theorized.
Read the rest at TechTimes.
In other news, here’s a shocking small-town example of the assault on the First Amendment that is happening in red states.
Kansas Reflector: Police stage ‘chilling’ raid on Marion County newspaper, seizing computers, records and cellphones.
MARION — In an unprecedented raid Friday, local law enforcement seized computers, cellphones and reporting materials from the Marion County Record office, the newspaper’s reporters, and the publisher’s home.
Eric Meyer, owner and publisher of the newspaper, said police were motivated by a confidential source who leaked sensitive documents to the newspaper, and the message was clear: “Mind your own business or we’re going to step on you.”
The city’s entire five-officer police force and two sheriff’s deputies took “everything we have,” Meyer said, and it wasn’t clear how the newspaper staff would take the weekly publication to press Tuesday night.
The raid followed news stories about a restaurant owner who kicked reporters out of a meeting last week with U.S. Rep. Jake LaTurner, and revelations about the restaurant owner’s lack of a driver’s license and conviction for drunken driving.
Meyer said he had never heard of police raiding a newspaper office during his 20 years at the Milwaukee Journal or 26 years teaching journalism at the University of Illinois.
“It’s going to have a chilling effect on us even tackling issues,” Meyer said, as well as “a chilling effect on people giving us information.”
The search warrant, signed by Marion County District Court Magistrate Judge Laura Viar, appears to violate federal law that provides protections against searching and seizing materials from journalists. The law requires law enforcement to subpoena materials instead. Viar didn’t respond to a request to comment for this story or explain why she would authorize a potentially illegal raid.
A bit more:
Emily Bradbury, executive director of the Kansas Press Association, said the police raid is unprecedented in Kansas.
“An attack on a newspaper office through an illegal search is not just an infringement on the rights of journalists but an assault on the very foundation of democracy and the public’s right to know,” Bradbury said. “This cannot be allowed to stand.”
Meyer reported last week that Marion restaurant owner Kari Newell had kicked newspaper staff out of a public forum with LaTurner, whose staff was apologetic. Newell responded to Meyer’s reporting with hostile comments on her personal Facebook page.
A confidential source contacted the newspaper, Meyer said, and provided evidence that Newell had been convicted of drunken driving and continued to use her vehicle without a driver’s license. The criminal record could jeopardize her efforts to obtain a liquor license for her catering business.
A reporter with the Marion Record used a state website to verify the information provided by the source. But Meyer suspected the source was relaying information from Newell’s husband, who had filed for divorce. Meyer decided not to publish a story about the information, and he alerted police to the situation.
“We thought we were being set up,” Meyer said.
Police notified Newell, who then complained at a city council meeting that the newspaper had illegally obtained and disseminated sensitive documents, which isn’t true. Her public comments prompted the newspaper to set the record straight in a story published Thursday.
Sometime before 11 a.m. Friday, officers showed up simultaneously at Meyer’s home and the newspaper office. They presented a search warrant that alleges identity theft and unlawful use of a computer.
The paper didn’t even publish the information, but a magistrate judge approved a search warrant! This is the kind of behavior by law enforcement that Trump would promote if he gets back into a position of power.
Speaking of Trump, here are some reports on the hearing yesterday in the January 6 case.
CNN: Judge Chutkan says Trump’s right to free speech in January 6 case is ‘not absolute.’
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan set the tone for how she would preside over the election subversion against Donald Trump in a hearing Friday focused on what limits would be placed on how the former president can handle the evidence prosecutors will be turning over to him.
Chutkan kicked off the hearing – the first in the case before her and one that took place in her courtroom at DC federal court house – noting that while Trump’s rights as a criminal defendant would be protected, his First Amendment right to free speech was “not absolute.”
“In a criminal case such as this one, the defendant’s free speech is subject to the rules,” she said.
The judge closed the hearing with a promise that the case would advance like any normal proceeding in the criminal justice system, but warned that the more “inflammatory” statements were made by a party, the quicker she would need to move toward a trial to preserve a fair jury.
“It is a bedrock principle of the judicial process in this country,” she said, while quoting precedent, “that legal trials are not like elections, to be won through the use of the meeting hall, the radio and the newspaper.”
“This case is no exception,” she said.
Kyle Cheney at Politico: Judge warns Trump: ‘Inflammatory’ statements about election case could speed trial.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan warned Donald Trump and his attorney Friday that repeated “inflammatory” statements about his latest criminal prosecution would force her to speed his trial on charges related to his bid to subvert the 2020 election.
“I caution you and your client to take special care in your public statements about this case,” Chutkan told Trump lawyer John Lauro during a hearing. “I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings.”
But Chutkan, aware of the national spotlight on her oversight of the explosive case, repeatedly emphasized that she intended to keep politics out of the courtroom and treat Trump like any other criminal defendant. That included potential consequences if he makes statements that could be construed as harassing or threatening witnesses.
“The fact that he’s running a political campaign has to yield to the orderly administration of justice,” Chutkan said. “If that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say about witnesses in this case, that’s how it has to be.”
“Even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel, if they can be reasonably interpreted to intimidate witnesses or to prejudice potential jurors, can threaten the process,” Chutkan added later. “The more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case which could taint the jury pool … the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly.”
Judge Chutkan has obviously grokked that a speedy trial would be Trump’s worst nightmare.
Glenn Thrush and Alan Feuer at The New York Times: Judge Limits Trump’s Ability to Share Jan. 6 Evidence.
The federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s prosecution on charges of seeking to overturn the 2020 election rejected his request on Friday to be able to speak broadly about evidence and witnesses — and warned Mr. Trump she would take necessary “measures” to keep him from intimidating witnesses or tainting potential jurors.
The caution from the judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, came during a 90-minute hearing in Federal District Court in Washington to discuss the scope of a protective order over the discovery evidence in Mr. Trump’s case, a typically routine step in criminal matters. Later Friday, Judge Chutkan imposed the order but agreed to a modification requested by the Trump legal team that it apply only to “sensitive” materials and not all evidence turned over to the defense.
She concluded the hearing with a blunt warning to Mr. Trump, and an unmistakable reference to a recent social media post in which he warned, “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!” — a statement his spokesman later said was aimed at political opponents and not at people involved in the case.
“I do want to issue a general word of caution — I intend to ensure the orderly administration of justice in this case as I would in any other case, and even arguably ambiguous statements by the parties or their counsel,” she said, could be considered an attempt to “intimidate witnesses or prejudice potential jurors,” triggering the court to take action.
“I caution you and your client to take special care in your public statements in this case,” she added. “I will take whatever measures are necessary to protect the integrity of these proceedings.”
Have a great weekend, everyone!!
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
dakinikat
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Recent Comments