 |
| Fani Willis, Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney |
* * *
Once again, we have been warned, and a deadly and costly warning has been. Climate change, resulting in droughts, fires, flooding, rising oceans, and loss of life cannot be avoided. These things have occurred periodically for hundreds of thousands of years, but never before with the cooperation of the human race! That is the first tragedy.
We have been warned. Many have died in Hawaii. The second tragedy is that there are so many who refuse to recognize this warning.
But things just may be changing. A Federal District Court, it is reported, just ruled in favor of those who were challenging a Montana law that had forbidden ‘the state and its agents from taking the impact of greenhouse gas emissions or climate change into consideration in their environmental reviews, as well as the state’s fossil fuel–based state energy policy.’ But don’t start cheering. This is a lower court’s ruling, likely to be appealed, with the final outcome still unknown.
And again, let me point out that the sources of such wrong-headed legislation are the State legislatures that pass such laws. That is the third tragedy. Such misplaced State power goes back to the Founding Fathers’ refusal to confront the issue of slavery, resulting in the Civil War in 1861 and many of the problems that persist today in many seemingly unrelated areas, including failure to face up to climate change caused by human beings and businesses.
Thomas Jefferson had a way with words but he never made it sufficiently clear for many of them in Philadelphia, in declaring our independence in 1776, that ‘men’ meant only white males. And as for that trio of inalienable rights ‘men’ possessed, starting with ‘life and liberty,’ and usually completed with ‘property,’ qualms of conscience resulted in their switching ‘property’ to ‘the pursuit of happiness,’ something that left its meaning up to individual interpretation.
 |
| Jefferson was well-meaning but still had the mindset of an Eighteenth Century landowner. Today he might know better. |
The powers left to the States by the Constitution a decade later ended up in the not-so-trustworthy hands of State legislators. Right now, they are
the problem. The solution is to vote the rascals, usually Republicans, out of every
State legislature in the country. That is where the white supremacists, the bigots, the
libertarian deniers of the need for government for the people, the 10% of our taxpayers
that control 70% of its wealth, and other assorted foes of democracy are hiding.
JL
* * *
Letters Matter
Back on August 9, this blog included a letter from me published a few days earlier in the Palm Beach Post, concerning the transfer of high school athletes from one high school to another, in a way mimicking the similar movement available to college athletes, known as the ‘transfer portal.’
Well, lo and behold, that paper’s August 15 issue reported that an investigation of that process is going on. I don’t know if my letter had anything to do with it, or that the practice was already under scrutiny, but it does point up the importance of speaking your mind, writing a letter, and taking some action when you encounter a situation that you feel ought to be publicized and perhaps remedied.
| 'Ya gotta get into the right middle school, then the right high school, then the right college, if ya want a shot at the NBA. My cousin changed addresses seventeen times while he was in school and now he gotta trial with the Miami Heat.' |
JL
* * *
Inciting Violence is a Crime, Regardless of Who Does It, and the Georgia Indictment.
In a recent piece, published before the Georgia indictments came down, Yale professor Timothy Snyder pointed out ‘We can have the Constitution, or we can have Trump.’ Check it out at https://snyder.substack.com/p/we-can-have-the-constitution or simply CLICK HERE.
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution makes it clear that the likely Republican presidential candidate in 2024 might be prohibited from holding office! Read the Amendment’s words, included in the above-cited piece by Professor Snyder. They prohibit anyone who has previously taken an oath of office (Senators, Representatives, and other public officials) from holding public office if they have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States. A conviction in at least one of his pending cases would mean that such disqualification for holding office applies to him.
In the case being heard in D.C., we are all aware that the indicted former president has called Judge Chutkan's bluff. Her credibility is at stake. She need not wait for a motion from the prosecution to act on the conditions she imposed on the defendant, specifically to keep his mouth shut about matters which might come up in his trial. She can do it herself.
I feel that at a minimum, he should now be confined to house arrest (which might easily accommodate the required presence of the Secret Service) and a gag rule. As the judge made clear, 'his free speech rights, even as a political candidate, would have to give way to the rules of the court.' It is now the judge's move. We are waiting.
As Tom Snyder said, we have a choice: 'Trump or the Constitution.' If he is destined to go unpunished, the media
should stop wasting its resources on this failure of democracy being
perpetrated before our eyes, and devote itself fully to climate change, which
seems to be more threatening than the indicted former president, at least to the residents of Hawaii. And the hurricane season still has a way to go.
While we’re talking about our eyes, let’s turn them from the indicted former president and turn to his supporters, who, along with the defendant, are capable of inciting others to violence.
The problem is really a very simple one. You’ve read about the recent destruction by local government of a newspaper’s office in Marion, Kansas, incited by those whom the paper criticized, It echoed the destruction in 1836 of a newspaper’s presses (and the accompanying murder of its editor) in Alton, Illinois for their abolitionist position. Such violence does not occur unless someone incites it. (Read the full story of both incidents, as summarized in Professor Heather Cox Richardson’s daily ‘Letters from an American’ on August 12 at https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-12-2023 or just CLICK HERE.)
This is the kind of violence that can happen when someone already indicted, awaiting trial, declares that ‘IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU,' Fortunately a judge can remand such a defendant to the hands-on custody of the court, where a gag order can be enforced, by incarceration if necessary. A judge, like Judge Chutkan, has the power to do that, effectively silencing the indicted defendant.
But the judge has no power over the defendant’s supporters, not parties to the court action, and who retain the protection of the First Amendment’s right to speak freely. And the court’s silencing of the defendant in order that he does not influence witnesses and potential jurors, might actually spur them on. While his lawyers argue his case in court, the defendant cannot run around arguing it in public. That’s the way our legal system works.
But can his supporters do that in his place? It's a thin line that they tread, as the lady from Texas just discovered when she was arrested for threatening the lives of those opposing the indicted former president. But there are millions like her out there.
Their statements, in place of what the defendant can no longer say, but nonetheless is inspired by him, can lead to criminal acts by others. Do they, therefore fall beyond First Amendment protection?
I believe that those who inspire criminals to commit criminal acts should be accountable as well. This is what ‘aiding and abetting’ is all about. Without their being incited to commit such acts, their perpetrators would not have carried them out. Those under indictment cannot do that, but their unindicted supporters can.
Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis took care of this problem by including eighteen of the defeated former president’s accomplices in the Fulton County indictment, making them defendants, that is, if they show up for their initial appearances. (If they do not, we approach a ‘Fort Sumter' moment.) But as defendants, that would put some constraints on what they can say publicly. On the other hand, Special Counsel Jack Smith only indicted the former president, leaving a lot of parties out there to exercise what they believe are First Amendment rights.
Americans cannot be asked to surrender their Constitutional rights of which Professor Snyder writes because of fear of violent reactions by the supporters of the indicted, defeated, former president, a group not unlike the criminal perpetrators of this present-day tragedy in Marion, Kansas and its historic precedent in Alton, Illinois.
Those who incite others to commit crimes must be held accountable along with those who commit the crimes and share their guilt. Many supporters of the defeated former president fall into that category. Unfortunately, it might take the conviction of a former president of the United States to bring them to justice as well.
* *
In 1865, after the nation defeated those who went to war to destroy the Union, their punishments did not fit the crime, and we are still suffering the effects of that. That was a mistake we must be careful not to make again as those who want to destroy democracy in America right now find themselves in courtrooms to face justice.
The indictments on Monday evening of the defeated former
president and eighteen of his close advisors under Georgia’s ‘RICO’
anti-racketeering law might be a step in the right direction, treating the
defeated former president and his advisors as part of an organized ‘criminal enterprise.’ The Federal indictments in Washingtongenerally deal with the same illegal acts, but only
indict one defendant, the defeated former president. The Georgia indictment is broader, indicting
the co-conspirators which the Federal case does not, and touches areas not in
the Federal indictments. And in the
background stands Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment which can keep the defeated,
indicted, former president off of any ballot in the country.
It should be noted that Federal pardons (the Florida, New York, and Washington trials are in Federal courts) would not affect any Georgia conviction, should a future president grant them. The Georgia penalty for conviction in a RICO case is five to twenty years in prison or a fine up to triple the amount of money the ‘criminal enterprise’ involved. Because the indictments do not deal with monetary gain by the ‘criminal enterprise,’ conviction likely means prison time.
This
might pose a problem because of a general reluctance to imprison a former
president, and not enforcing that particular provision would contradict the concept
that justice is blind to the identity of defendants.
Objectors to punishing those convicted of the serious charges involved in all the indictments question whether or not the resulting damage to democracy in our country would be greater than the damage caused by the crimes themselves. Tom Snyder answered those objectors declaring that ‘we can have the Constitution or Trump’ We cannot have both. America has to make up its mind.
My guess is, despite D.A. Willis’ efforts for an earlier trial, that the complicated Georgia indictments will finally come to trial in 2025, after numerous legal delays, but that the Federal indictments will be tried in 2024, probably before Labor Day. I wonder what effect the results of such earlier Federal trials will have on the later Georgia trials.
In
any event, Georgia’s Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis and Special Counsel Jack
Smith are certainly comparing notes and working together to some unknown extent,
as the net around the conspirators tightens. These prosecutors’ minds are made
up. Yours should be too, once exposed to
the evidence.
Remember that allegations without evidence to support them are worthless in courtrooms, regardless of how many believe them. But do such worthless numbers still have weight outside of courtrooms in a nation that purports to be a democracy?
(My preceding thoughts are sufficient reason, by themselves, for you to forward this posting to those you think still have to be convinced.)
JL
* * *
Job
Creation Still in Wrong Areas
This blog has traveled this road before, but this is something not to be ignored. July job growth amounted to 187,000 new jobs. That may sound great, but a review of the attached report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates many of these to be the wrong kind of jobs. Check out where the new jobs are by reviewing the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ report at https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf or by CLICKING HERE.
I
don’t see employees laid off from information technology firms like Google
taking jobs in the two areas accounting for 120,000, or about 64% of these new
jobs created in July. I cannot see
programmers and coders becoming healthcare aides or handling the laundry in
hotels, (even four-star ones), especially at lower salaries than what they had
been earning.
Because the salaries of the new jobs are far less than those of the tech positions from which they were laid off, many leave the job market, at least temporarily, and are not reflected in the statistics reporting on it. To see how the number of higher-paid employees seeking unemployment benefits has increased, check out https://qz.com/whos-getting-laid-off-in-america-by-salary-range-1850374744 or CLICK HERE.
Both links are brief and easy to follow. Check them out and form your own opinion.
JL
* * *
Housekeeping on Jackspotpourri
Email Alerts: If
you are NOT receiving emails from me alerting you each time there is a new
posting on Jackspotpourri, just send me your email address and we’ll see that
you do. And if you are forwarding a posting to someone, you might
suggest that they do the same, so they will be similarly alerted. You can
pass those email addresses to me by email
at jacklippman18@gmail.com.
Forwarding Postings: Please
forward this posting to anyone you think might benefit from reading it.
Friends, relatives, enemies, etc.
If you want to send someone the
blog, exactly as you are now seeing it, with all of its bells
and whistles, you can just tell folks to check it out by visiting https://jackspotpourri.blogspot.com or
by providing a link to that address in your email to them. I
think this is the best method of forwarding Jackspotpourri.
There’s another, perhaps easier,
method of forwarding it though! Google Blogspot, the platform
on which Jackspotpourri is prepared, makes that possible. If you click on
the tiny envelope with the arrow at the bottom of every posting, you will
have the opportunity to list up to ten email addresses to which that blog posting
will be forwarded, along with a comment from you. Each
will receive a link to the textual portion only of the blog that
you now are reading, but without the illustrations, colors, variations in
typography, or the 'sidebar' features such as access to the blog's archives.
Either way will work, sending
them the link to https://jackspotpourri.blogspot.com, or
clicking on the envelope at the bottom of this posting, but I
recommend sending them the link.
Again, I urge you to forward
this posting to anyone you think might benefit from reading it.
JL
*
* *
No comments:
Post a Comment