Yesterday, the first Federal Trump** indictment was unsealed. I posted a “breaking news” update on the Open Thread as soon as i saw it, but in case you missied it, the news was 37 counts. (I presume 7 charges is still correct. It’s 49 pages and I didn’t go through it in full. But “conspiracy” was one, “obstruction of justice” was one, and “willful retention under the Espionage Act” was one. The Espionage Act, combined with the Federal rules for venue, explains why Florida. We now know that for certain.
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
NPR “Shots” – For many, a ‘natural death’ may be preferable to enduring CPR
Quote – So why the controversy? It comes down to a widespread misconception of what CPR can, and can’t, do. CPR can sometimes save lives, but it also has a dark side…. The allure of CPR is that “death, instead of a final and irrevocable passage, becomes a process manipulable by humans,” writes Stefan Timmermans, a sociologist who has studied CPR…. “It seems too good to be true,” he said, and it is.
Click through for details. I won’t try to address every possible complication here – but this highlights the importance of Living Wills/DNR orders – and maybe even more the importance of respecting them.
Robert Reich – Should we be worried about RFK Jr.?
Quote – Were it not for his illustrious name, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would be just another crackpot in the growing number of bottom-feeding right-wing fringe politicians seeking high office. But the Robert F. Kennedy brand is political gold. RFK Jr. is now polling in the double digits against Biden. The latest CNN poll, taken less than three weeks ago, has him at 20 percent.
Click through for article. As always, click “keep reading” or whatever on the popup. His father would be APPALLED.
The New Yorker – The Legal Dynamics of Trump’s Second Indictment
Quote – Q – What are the considerations when the government approaches cases involving classified documents? A – There are a slew of them. From the government’s perspective, the crux of the matter is how much classified information they are willing to reveal, because the defendant has a constitutional right to confront the evidence against him. This means that the government cannot split the difference; it can’t convict someone based on evidence they are not allowed to see. So oftentimes how the government charges a case like this and how they try a case like this reflect decisions about what they are and aren’t willing to disclose.
Click through for full interview. The writer is not a lawyer, but the interviewee is, and is an expert on national-security law. I’ve already used the New Yorker once this month, so if you are paywalled out, email me and I’ll send it by return.
Food For Thought
