Glenn Kirschner – Georgia DA Fani Willis moves through Trump lackeys: Giuliani, Graham, Kemp and Meadows
Meidas Touch – Democratic Mom STUNS at school board hearing with speech of the year
Farron Balanced – DOJ Says They Can’t Trust Anything Trump’s Lawyers Tell Them
Robert Reich – How Republicans Could Steal The Next Presidential Election
Liberal Redneck – Student Loan Forgiveness
Beau – Let’s talk about hunger stones and more….
Yesterday, I went to see Virgil, arriving about 11:00 am and staying until visitation was over at 3:30.We enjoyed each other’s company, and Virgil returns all greetings. This facility is ony about 35 miles away, mostly on the nterstateand Sundat traffic isn’t bad, so it was not difficult going or coming back. There was a rainstorm on the way back … some of it was heavy, but all of it was brief. They say in Colorado if you don’t like the weather, wait 5 minutes, but I think it’s more accurate to say move 5 miles. I’ve known a co-worker to have dry weather at home, while the weather is dry at th e workplace, and still not be able to get to work because, inbetween, there was impassible snow. But I digress. I got home safely, but found myself fresh out of energy. I did just manage to place a grocery delivery order and that was about it.
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
The New Yorker – The Dangers of Trump-Prosecution Syndrome (opinion)
Quote – The legal process that the case is following illustrates the procedures in American jurisprudence that help to insure that prosecutors proceed methodically and fairly…. Legal experts and former Justice Department officials told me that, based on the publicly known evidence, prosecuting Trump for mishandling classified documents appears simpler than bringing criminal charges against him for his role in the January 6th storming of the U.S. Capitol. [Stephen] Gillers[, a professor of legal ethics at New York University,] [said] that, fairly or unfairly, prosecuting a former President requires meeting a higher legal and political threshold. “It has to be one-hundred-per-cent irresistible as a matter of law,” he said. “There can be no fact, no event, no piece of evidence that could support any room for ambiguity.”
Click through for full article. I was thinking myself even before i started reading that the insurrection was far more obviously harmful but much harder to prove his criminal intent, whereas the mishandling of documents is easier to prove, but possibly harder to generate interest in. (The dates of his speaking with Putin, sending something in writing to Putin – delivered, I believe, by Rand Paul – and the daytes of our highest and most qualified agents starting to die off could possibly be coincidental – though I would not believe that for an instant.) I do think he should be charged for both, if for no other reason, because then the coase would not necessarily be tried in the federal district in which the crime was committed – since they are different.
The New York Times – Captured, Killed or Compromised: C.I.A. Admits to Losing Dozens of Informants
Quote – The message, in an unusual top secret cable, said that the C.I.A.’s counterintelligence mission center had looked at dozens of cases in the last several years involving foreign informants who had been killed, arrested or most likely compromised. Although brief, the cable laid out the specific number of agents executed by rival intelligence agencies — a closely held detail that counterintelligence officials typically do not share in such cables. The cable highlighted the struggle the spy agency is having as it works to recruit spies around the world in difficult operating environments. In recent years, adversarial intelligence services in countries such as Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan have been hunting down the C.I.A.’s sources and in some cases turning them into double agents.
Click through – it is not paywalled, but is a gift link, so you will be able to read it in full with the possible exception of Lona – though she is good with VPNs. These events, not this specific article is what I was referring to in my comment on the other short take.
Food For Thought
Glenn Kirschner – Newly unredacted DOJ memo reinforces Bill Barr’s coverup of Trump’s obstruction of justice crimes
Meidas Touch – Texas Law BACKFIRES and accidentally labels Republicans COMMUNISTS (Too funy. Beto accurately knows that “communist” is an economic term [and he isn’t one] – the Texas law isn’t a bad one, but it should have used the term “authotitarian,” or “insurrectionist” – overthrowing the governmetn has nothing to do with communism.)
Ring of Fire – Trump Has Epic Meltdown As Scandals Get Worse
Ojeda Live – The West is drying up!
Armageddon Update – “Stay In Your Lane!”
Beau – Let’s talk about Trump, Special Masters, and a new subpoena….
Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”
When one enters the military, one takes an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Not the government. Not the presideent. Not even the nation, but the Constitution. (The President comes into that oath, along with “officers appointed,” who are all to be obeyed, but with qualifications – “according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” Alawful order must be obeyed. An unlawful order must not. That’s not explicit in the oath, but it is in the UCMJ and in regulations.
This article discusses the application of the First Amendment to members of the military. It refers to the First Amendment applying to the military :in diluted form.” I see it just a little differently: to me, supporting and defending the Constitution, and also expressing ideas contrary to the Constitution, are simply not compatible. The Constitution is not a perfect document (nor is it perfectly executed), and it can be changed – but that is not the job of the military. Military are more than welcome to express their thoughts on the need for change to their elected representatives. Rationally. The same is not true of expressing their opinions on social media with threats of violence, or implied violence.
==============================================================
Dwight Stirling, University of Southern California
Less than a month after the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin took the extraordinary step of pausing all operations for 24 hours to “address extremism in the ranks.” Pentagon officials had been shaken by service members’ prominent role in the events of Jan. 6.
Of the 884 criminal defendants charged to date with taking part in the insurrection, more than 80 were veterans. That’s almost 10% of those charged.
More remarkable, at least five of the rioters were serving in the military at the time of the assault: an active-duty Marine officer and four reservists.
Service members’ involvement in the insurrection has made the spread of extremism – particularly white nationalism – a significant issue for the U.S. military.
A blue ribbon committee called the Countering Extremist Activity Working Group was quickly commissioned in April 2021 to evaluate the extent of the problem.
The group found about 100 substantiated cases of extremism in the U.S. armed forces in 2021.
The latest instance occurred in July 2022, when Francis Harker, a National Guard member with white supremacist connections, was sentenced to four years in prison for planning an anti-government attack on police. Harker, who carried a picture saying “there is no God but Hitler,” was planning to attack police officers in Virginia Beach, Virginia, with Molotov cocktails and semi-automatic rifles.
Worried, Austin has tightened the rules regarding political speech within the military. The new rules prohibit any statement that advocates for “violence to achieve goals that are political … or idealogical in nature.” The ban applies to members of the military both on and off duty.
Also, for the first time, the new rules prohibit statements on social media that “promote or otherwise endorse extremist activities.”
While the intent behind the new rules is laudable, political speech – even of an offensive or distasteful nature – goes to the core of U.S. democracy. Americans in uniform are still Americans, protected by the First Amendment and afforded the constitutional right of free speech.
In light of the stricter policy, it is useful to consider how courts apply the First Amendment in the military context.
While soldiers and sailors are certainly not excluded from the protection of the First Amendment, it is fair to say they operate under a diluted version of it.
As one federal judge observed, the “sweep of the protection is less comprehensive in the military context, given the different character of the military community and mission.”
The “right to speak out as a free American” must be balanced against “providing an effective fighting force for the defense of our Country,” a federal judge noted in a separate case.
These and other federal judges point to the military’s need for good order and discipline in justifying this approach.
While never precisely defined, good order and discipline is generally considered being obedient to orders, having respect for one’s chain of command and showing allegiance to the Constitution. Speech that “prevents the orderly accomplishment of the mission” or “promotes disloyalty and dissatisfaction” within the ranks harms good order and discipline, and can be restricted.
In 1974, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that the Army can punish an officer for encouraging subordinates to refuse to deploy.
The officer’s comments included: “The United States is wrong in being involved in the Vietnam War. I would refuse to go back to Vietnam if ordered to do so.”
In 1980, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Army could legally fire an ROTC cadet for making racist remarks during a newspaper interview.
Explaining his political philosophy, the cadet said: “What I am saying is that Blacks are obviously further behind the whites on the evolutionary scale.”
In 2012, a San Diego district court ruled that the Marine Corps can lawfully discharge a sergeant who mocked president Barack Obama while appearing on the “Chris Matthews Show.” At one point the sergeant told the host: “As an active duty Marine, I say screw Obama and I will not follow his orders.”
While each of these statements is protected by the First Amendment in civilian life, they crossed the line in military life because they were deemed harmful to morale and represented what one federal court described as more than “political discussion … at an enlisted or officers’ club.”
In deciding these First Amendment cases, courts often hark back to why the military exists in the first place.
“It is the primary business of armies and navies … to fight the nation’s wars should the occasion arise,” the Supreme Court said in 1955.
In a separate case, the Supreme Court declared: “An army is not a deliberate body. It is the executive arm. Its law is that of obedience.”
Quickly following orders can mark the difference between life and death in combat.
On a national level, the degree to which an army is disciplined can win or lose wars. A mindset of obedience does not come solely from classroom training but from repeated rehearsals under realistic conditions.
As a military judge observed in a 1972 decision, while service members are free to discuss political issues when off duty, the “primary function of a military organization is to execute orders, not to debate the wisdom of decisions that the Constitution entrusts” to Congress, the judiciary and the commander in chief.
The U.S. military’s revised approach to political speech prohibits retweeting or even “liking” messages that promote anti-government or white nationalist and other extremist groups.
Does a restriction this broad comply with legal precedent?
As a law professor who has served more than 20 years in the U.S military, I believe the broader rules will probably be upheld if challenged on First Amendment grounds.
The most comparable case is Blameuser v. Andrews, a 1980 case from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals where an ROTC cadet espoused white supremacist political views in a newspaper interview.
Amongst other extremist remarks, the cadet told the reporter: “You see, I believe that in the final analysis, the Nazi Socialist Party will take over America and possibly the whole world.”
Finding that the statements harmed good order and discipline, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Army did not violate the First Amendment when it subsequently removed him from the officer training program.
The cadet’s “views on race relations draw into question his ability to obey commands, especially in a situation in which he regards the military superior as socially inferior,” the Blameuser decision said.
The military has wide latitude in deciding who is deserving of the “special trust and confidence” that comes with military employment. Military officials are free to consider political and social beliefs that are “inimical to the vital mission of the agency” in making hiring and firing decisions, the Blameuser decision said.
Social media posts expressing support for violent political activities will likely be treated in the same way.
As the Seventh Circuit said in Blameuser, by liking or retweeting an extremist message, a service member’s actions are “demonstrably incompatible with the important public office” they hold.
Dwight Stirling, Lecturer in Law, University of Southern California
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
==============================================================
AMT, I shared a Robert Reich article this week about right wing bullies – how long it took us to stand up to McCarthy – how the entire Republican Party has been affected – and, n general, why we are where we are. All that didn’t affect just out politics – it also affected our people. It turned many of them into bullies. A military filled with bullies is not our best defense against bullies. I fully support DoD’s efforts to retrain them and, if retraining is not possible, to remove them.
I also note that this article does not address religious bullying within the military, which is a related but different beast. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, founded and still led by Mikey Weinstein, continues to take that on.
The Furies and I will be back.
Yesterday, the radio opera was “Manon Lescaut” by Puccini. (Massenet also wrote one on this story; his is called just “Manon.”) Puccini’s libretto specifies that Manon is transported to and dies in “The deserts of Louisiana,” a phrase which always makes me smile, and sometimes giggle. But today, it occurred to me that some day that conceivably might be accurate. Not in the New Orleans are, of course; that area is far more vulnerable to sea evel rise. But just possibly some of the northern/eastern parts. Of course, if that does happen, there likely won’t ba anyone left to sing the opera, let alone provide an audience for it. Any remaining humans will have other things on their minds. But I digress. Puccini’s version makes much more of Manon’s brother’s pimp-like actions, while Massenet’s stresses Manon’s re-seducing he former lover after he is ordained a priest (Puccini did not go there.) Both have some lovely highlights. Both (I think not consciously – it’s just the way things were) objectify Manon. Puccini’s last line (reanslated) is “This is the end of Manon Lescaut,” and I’ll also stop and move on.
Today’s FFT is one I put together, but the idea is not original to me – it’s based on a comment made on a Crooks & Liars article. I would like to have shown a litter of kittens, but this was the best I could come up with on short notice.
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
The White House – Breakthroughs for All: Delivering Equitable Access to America’s Research
Quote – To tackle this injustice, and building on the Biden-Harris Administration’s efforts to advance policy that benefits all of America, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released new policy guidance [Thursday, 8/25] to ensure more equitable access to federally funded research. All members of the American public should be able to take part in every part of the scientific enterprise—leading, participating in, accessing, and benefitting from taxpayer-funded scientific research. That is, all communities should be able to take part in America’s scientific possibilities.
Click through for official memo. I found this out through Democratic Underground, and have not seen it elsewhere,. Just – Wow.
Crooks & Liars – Guess Who’s Behind Trump’s Resistance To Handing Over Documents
Quote – Fitton, the longtime head of the legal activist group Judicial Watch, had a simple message for Trump — it was a mistake to give the records to the Archives, and his team should never have let the Archives “strong-arm” him into returning them, according to three sources familiar with the matter. Those records belonged to Trump, Fitton argued, citing a 2012 court case involving his organization that he said gave the former President authority to do what he wanted with records from his own term in office.
Click through for story. This also appears to be a scoop. If you wondered how he got the cockamamie idea that those documents belonged to him, here’s your answer.
Food For Thought
Glenn Kirschner – Trump files nonsensical brief attacking DOJ/Mar-a-Lago search warrant; Judge tells him to try again
Meidas Touch – WTF: Texas Paul REACTS to Republican Candidate who supports STONING LGBTQ people
Lincoln Project – Poser
Ring of Fire – Trump Has Epic Meltdown As Scandals Get Worse
Armageddon Update – The Troops
Beau – Let’s talk about talking points that are destroying families….
Yesterday, the redacted affidavit from the Mar-a-Lago search warrant was released. So much was NOT redacted that I suspect all that was redacted was any information which might tend to identify the witnesses, or otherwise compromise DOJ sources (and also, just maybe, other Federal laws they are investigating him for). Yes, there are some all-black pages – but by my count they make up just under half of the complete document. Like all legal documents, the phrasing and vocabulary are as unsensational as possible, but the facts are there and are made clear. Of course MAGAts would not be convinced FPOTUS did anything wrong even if Jesus came back to earth and denounced him. But anyone with an open mind who can manage to get through the legalese should get it.
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance – Tomorrow Before Noon
Quote – Here’s the bottom line. Kemp delayed testifying, despite the DA’s persistent efforts—first voluntary and then by subpoena, to bring him in. Now, months into the process, he says she shouldn’t be able to make him testify before his election in November, even though he’s responsible for the delay. But Kemp is a fact witness. If he’d observed a car wreck and was called to testify, would he argue he shouldn’t have to before the election? Of course not. It’s a bad argument, tantamount to asking for special treatment because he’s on the ballot and doesn’t want to have to testify against the former president before the voting starts. And I’m sure that if the court permits him to delay past November, Kemp will find fresh reasons to claim he can’t testify after the election. Kemp also argues that he has sovereign immunity as the state’s governor, which should prevent his grand jury testimony. But again, Kemp isn’t a target of the investigation, he’s just a fact witness, so that doctrine shouldn’t apply.
Click through for details. Like Richardson, Vance sends her newsletter late at night, so “Tomorrow” in her title is now “Yesterday.”
Robert Reich – My father and Senator Joe McCarthy
Quote – During the Army-McCarthy hearings, McCarthy’s chief counsel was Roy Cohn. Cohn had gained prominence as the Department of Justice attorney who successfully prosecuted Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for espionage, leading to their execution in 1953. The Rosenberg trial had brought the 24-year-old Cohn to the attention of J. Edgar Hoover, who convinced McCarthy to hire Cohn as chief counsel for McCarthy’s Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, where Cohn became known for his aggressive questioning of suspected communists. My father thought Roy Cohn almost as despicable as Joe McCarthy. After McCarthy’s downfall, Cohn proved useful to a young New York real estate developer named Donald Trump who was then undertaking several large construction projects in Manhattan and needed a fixer and mentor. Cohn filled both roles.
Click through for story. Although I’m almost a year older than Robert, I didn’t even know there was such a thing as television until the nid-fifties, and we didn’t have one for a lot of years after that. I’m glad he did, and was old enough to remember that occasion. But … we are still (not again, still) fighting the same ogre today.
Food For Thought
Glenn Kirschner – Donald Trump’s personal handling of stolen classified documents increases odds he will be prosecuted
Meidas Touch – Former Navy Pilot HUMILIATES Ron DeSantis for Cringey ‘Top Gun’ Ad
The Lincoln Project – Last Week in the Republican Party, August 23, 2022
MSNBC – Lawrence O-Donnell – Trump Love Letters (continues with Uvalde school Board, but mostly about documents)
“Mrs F” – everyone has big feelings sometimes (Nameless – the entire soundtrack is a toddler having a meltdown I’m sure you have heard enough of those to imagine it.)
Beau – Let’s talk about Trump begging McConnell for help….