Oswald Acted Alone

Today is the 60th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.

Oswald acted alone.  The more education you have, the more likely you are to know that. Gallup:

The latest poll, conducted Oct. 2-23, finds majorities of most key demographic groups believing that more than one person was involved in Kennedy’s assassination. Americans with postgraduate education are the exception, with more who say a lone gunman (50%) rather than multiple people (44%) killed the president. This was not the case when this question was last asked in 2013.

The views of college graduates (those without any postgraduate education) are closer to those of Americans with at least some postgraduate education compared with those without a college degree. Still, 57% of college graduates think there was a conspiracy among multiple parties, while 41% say Oswald acted alone.

Although majorities of all party groups believe Kennedy’s assassination involved a conspiracy, that view is less prevalent among Democrats (55%) than Republicans (71%) and independents (68%). Conversely, Democrats (39%) are more likely than Republicans (25%) and independents (25%) to support the idea of a lone gunman.

Paul Roderick Gregory at WSJ last year:

Less than a year after John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the Warren Commission released its findings to the public: JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, who acted alone. The new tranche of files the National Archives released last week contains nothing that calls that conclusion into question. But many Americans do anyway.

When the Warren report came out in September 1964, some 80% agreed with its finding that Oswald acted alone. Today more than 60% don’t believe Oswald acted alone. The persistent belief in a conspiracy has been fueled by the 400 books published on the Kennedys, most on the multitude of conspiracy theories revolving around Cuba, the Soviet Union, the Mafia, Texas oil interests, Lyndon B. Johnson and so on. One of the most amusing, in an effort to shift the blame from the leftist Oswald, lists my father and me as part of a White Russian conspiracy.


We did have a connection with Oswald. My father, a native Russian speaker, taught the language at a public library in Fort Worth, Texas. Oswald wanted a certificate of fluency in Russian and invited my father and me to his brother’s house. There we met Lee’s wife, Marina, for whom my father translated after the assassination. Moscow and some American leftists accused him of mistranslating her to shift the blame to Lee. Lee’s brother identified me as Lee and Marina’s only friend during their stay in Forth Worth.

I never doubted that Lee did it, or that he did it alone, when I saw his image on the TV screen as he was brought into Dallas police headquarters. As I told the Secret Service the next day, the Lee Harvey Oswald I knew would be the last person I would recruit for a conspiracy. He was genetically incapable of being either a leader or a follower.

The Warren report itself is a masterpiece in careful investigation. Its agents interviewed almost everyone who crossed paths with the Oswalds, down to fellow passengers on Lee’s bus to Mexico City and a landlord who once knocked on their door. The explanation of the sustained rejection of its findings rests with incredulity that history-changing events can happen by chance, especially through the actions of a nobody like Lee Harvey Oswald—a paranoid, delusional high-school dropout who expected his Historic Diary to make him an intellectual figure of the left.

I have a quite different picture as I remember waving goodbye to Lee and Marina as they boarded the night bus from Fort Worth to Dallas on Nov. 22, 1962, exactly one year before the assassination. Lee had all the attributes for a “low-tech” assassination: motive, resources, persistence, street smarts and the soul of a killer. He also needed a string of the coincidences that formed the brew for the conspiracy theories that seem to have won the day.

The loss of national innocence begun with JFK’s assassination has only gotten worse—the Pentagon Papers, WikiLeaks, Russiagate, evidence of a partisan bureaucracy, and questioning of formerly revered institutions such as the Supreme Court and Federal Bureau of Investigation. Can public trust be regained after such damage?

Crime Concern

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses the politics of economic policy and crime.  On these issues, Biden does not have messaging problems.  He has reality problems.

Richard Rosenfeld and Janet Lauritsen at WP:

On Oct. 16, the FBI released data for 2022 that showed a small drop in the nation’s violent crime rate, including homicide. That’s good news.

Unfortunately, the government’s other crime measurement system — the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) — tells a disturbingly different story. Its findings, released in September, show that violent crime victimization rose — by a lot.

...

One reason might be that fewer violent crimes were reported to the police in 2022 than in 2021. We don’t know why this might have been, but increasing police response times stemming from depleted officer ranks might have made some residents less inclined to file reports. Declining trust in or increasing fear of the police might have played a role as well.


Other reasons for the discrepancy might result from the different populations covered by the two data sources. As a household-based survey, the NCVS does not include people who are homeless or those in institutions such as prisons, jails and nursing homes. It also excludes crimes of violence against those younger than 12. If people included in the survey experienced changes in violence that differ from the changes experienced by those excluded from the survey, that could help account for the different violence rates.

Jeffrey M. Jones at Gallup:

Sixty-three percent of Americans describe the crime problem in the U.S. as either extremely or very serious, up from 54% when last measured in 2021 and the highest in Gallup’s trend. The prior high of 60% was recorded in the initial 2000 reading, as well as in 2010 and 2016.

Meanwhile, far fewer, 17%, say the crime problem in their local area is extremely or very serious, but this is also up from 2021 and the highest in the trend by one point over 2014’s 16%

...

More than three-quarters of Americans, 77%, believe there is more crime in the U.S. than a year ago, and a majority, 55%, say the same about crime in their local area.

Both figures are similar to what Gallup measured last year and rank among the most pessimistic readings in the respective trends. Gallup has asked Americans about the direction of local crime since 1972 and national crime since 1989. The high point in perceptions of increased local crime is the 56% registered last year, while the record high for national crime is 89% in 1992. Ratings of increased local crime were about as high as the current ratings in 1981 (54%) and 1992 (54%).

Lydia Saad at Gallup:

Forty percent of Americans, the most in three decades, say they would be afraid to walk alone at night within a mile of their home. This indicator of crime fears last reached this level in 1993, when, during one of the worst crime waves in U.S. history, 43% said they would be afraid. Between that year and 2021, an average of 35% of adults have feared for their safety within a mile of home, with the annual results ranging between 29% and 39%.

.

Conflicting Data on Crime

Many posts have discussed crime in the United States.

Richard Rosenfeld and Janet Lauritsen at WP:

On Oct. 16, the FBI released data for 2022 that showed a small drop in the nation’s violent crime rate, including homicide. That’s good news.

Unfortunately, the government’s other crime measurement system — the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) — tells a disturbingly different story. Its findings, released in September, show that violent crime victimization rose — by a lot.

...

One reason might be that fewer violent crimes were reported to the police in 2022 than in 2021. We don’t know why this might have been, but increasing police response times stemming from depleted officer ranks might have made some residents less inclined to file reports. Declining trust in or increasing fear of the police might have played a role as well.


Other reasons for the discrepancy might result from the different populations covered by the two data sources. As a household-based survey, the NCVS does not include people who are homeless or those in institutions such as prisons, jails and nursing homes. It also excludes crimes of violence against those younger than 12. If people included in the survey experienced changes in violence that differ from the changes experienced by those excluded from the survey, that could help account for the different violence rates.

Antisemitism and Hate Crimes

October 16 release from ADL:

Hate crimes data released today by the Federal Bureau of Investigation shows that reported hate crime incidents in 2022 rose to 11,634 incidents, the highest number ever recorded since the FBI started tracking such data in 1991. Reported single-bias anti-Jewish hate crime incidents in the country sharply rose by more than 37%, reaching 1,122 incidents, the highest number recorded in almost three decades and the second-highest number on record.

“Reported hate crime incidents across the country have once again reached record highs, with anti-Jewish hate crimes at a number not seen in decades,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, ADL CEO. “At a time when the Jewish community is already reeling in the wake of a terrorist attack that constituted the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust, the reality of this data is incredibly sobering. And yet, these numbers are not surprising. They are consistent with ADL’s own data and the trends we have been monitoring for years.”

According to the FBI data released today, a total of 14,631 law enforcement agencies, which represent only 77.5 percent of the agencies enrolled in the hate crime data collection program, participated in hate crimes reporting for 2022.
...

According to the FBI, the number of reported single-bias, anti-Jewish hate crimes rose from 817 in 2021 to 1,122 in 2022 and comprised more than half of all religion-based hate crimes in 2022, a trend that is consistent with data reported in prior years.
...

ADL, which keeps its own count of both criminal and non-criminal acts of hate against Jews, counted a total of 3,697 antisemitic incidents in 2022, the highest number on record since ADL began tracking such data in 1979. Assaults – considered the most serious incident type because it involves person-on-person physical violence – increased 26 percent in 2022.

Jews make up around 2 percent of the U.S. population. Yet, in 2022, according to the FBI data, reported antisemitic hate crime incidents accounted for 9.6 percent of all hate crimes.

Violent Crime Is Down. Americans Think It's Up

An October 2022 Morning Consult poll found that 74% thought violent crime was increasing nationally. 

It wasn't.

From the FBI:

The FBI’s crime statistics estimates for 2022 show that national violent crime decreased an estimated 1.7% in 2022 compared to 2021 estimates:

• Murder and non-negligent manslaughter recorded a 2022 estimated nationwide decrease of 6.1% compared to the previous year.
• In 2022, the estimated number of offenses in the revised rape category saw an estimated 5.4% decrease.
• Aggravated assault in 2022 decreased an estimated 1.1% in 2022.
• Robbery showed an estimated increase of 1.3% nationally.

The Menendez Indictment

From DOJ 

According to the allegations in the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:[1]

ROBERT MENENDEZ is the senior U.S. Senator from New Jersey and currently the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (“SFRC”). NADINE MENENDEZ began dating MENENDEZ in February 2018, they became engaged in October 2019, and they married in October 2020. Shortly after they began dating in 2018, NADINE MENENDEZ introduced MENENDEZ to her long-time friend WAEL HANA, who is originally from Egypt, lived in New Jersey, and maintained close connections with Egyptian officials. HANA was also business associates with FRED DAIBES, a New Jersey real estate developer and long-time donor to MENENDEZ, and JOSE URIBE, who worked in the New Jersey insurance and trucking business.

Between 2018 and 2022, MENENDEZ and NADINE MENENDEZ agreed to and did accept hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of bribes from HANA, DAIBES, and URIBE. These bribes included gold, cash, a luxury convertible, payments toward NADINE MENENDEZ’s home mortgage, compensation for a low-or-no-show job for NADINE MENENDEZ, home furnishings, and other things of value. In June 2022, the FBI executed a search warrant at the New Jersey home of MENENDEZ and NADINE MENENDEZ. During that search, the FBI found many of the fruits of this bribery scheme, including cash, gold, the luxury convertible, and home furnishings. Over $480,000 in cash — much of it stuffed into envelopes and hidden in clothing, closets, and a safe — was discovered in the home, as well as over $70,000 in cash in NADINE MENENDEZ’s safe deposit box, which was also searched pursuant to a separate search warrant. Some of the envelopes contained the fingerprints and/or DNA of DAIBES or his driver. Other of the envelopes were found inside jackets bearing MENENDEZ’s name and hanging in his closet, as depicted below.

...

 As part of the scheme, MENENDEZ provided sensitive, non-public U.S. government information to Egyptian officials and otherwise took steps to secretly aid the Government of Egypt. For example, in or about May 2018, MENENDEZ provided Egyptian officials with non-public information regarding the number and nationality of persons serving at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt. Although this information was not classified, it was deemed highly sensitive because it could pose significant operational security concerns if disclosed to a foreign government or made public. Without telling his professional staff or the State Department that he was doing so, on or about May 7, 2018, MENENDEZ texted that sensitive, non-public embassy information to his then-girlfriend NADINE MENENDEZ, who forwarded the message to HANA, who forwarded it to an Egyptian government official. Later that same month, MENENDEZ ghost-wrote a letter on behalf of Egypt to other U.S. Senators advocating for them to release a hold on $300 million in aid to Egypt. MENENDEZ sent this ghost-written letter to NADINE MENENDEZ, who forwarded it to HANA, who sent it to Egyptian officials.

At various times between 2018 and 2022, MENENDEZ also conveyed to Egyptian officials, through NADINE MENENDEZ, HANA, and/or DAIBES, that he would approve or remove holds on foreign military financing and sales of military equipment to Egypt in connection with his leadership role on the SFRC. For example, in or about July 2018, following meetings between MENENDEZ and Egyptian officials, which were arranged and attended by NADINE MENENDEZ and HANA, MENENDEZ texted NADINE MENENDEZ that she should tell HANA that MENENDEZ was going to sign off on a multimillion-dollar weapons sale to Egypt. NADINE MENENDEZ forwarded this text to HANA, who forwarded it to two Egyptian officials, one of whom replied with a “thumbs up” emoji. MENENDEZ made similar communications over the ensuing years. For example, in January 2022, MENENDEZ sent NADINE MENENDEZ a link to a news article reporting on two pending foreign military sales to Egypt totaling approximately $2.5 billion. NADINE MENENDEZ forwarded this link to HANA, writing, “Bob had to sign off on this.”

I

U.S. v. Menendez et al Indictment   [PDF, 994 KB]

Hatch Act

Trump's former chief of staff Mark Meadows argued that his case should go to federal court because he was acting in an official capacity.  They were not.  Claire O. Finkelstein at Slare:

[The] activities Meadows was engaging in were highly political in nature, and such activities are strictly forbidden under 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1), otherwise known as the “Hatch Act.” This statute forbids executive branch employees from “us[ing] [their] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” It is designed to prohibit executive branch employees from using their official positions to engage in partisan political activities.

In August of 2020, Richard Painter and I filed a complaint against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, for example, for the speech Pompeo gave at the Republican National Convention while on a diplomatic mission to Israel. This was a “personal capacity” speech delivered during an official business trip as secretary of state, while Pompeo was representing the United States in his official capacity—a clear Hatch Act violation. While the president and vice president are not subject to the Hatch Act, they are subject to a parallel criminal Hatch Act statute that makes it a crime to coerce political activity on the part of any federal executive branch official. Believing as we did that Trump was indeed attempting to pressure members of the executive branch into engaging in Hatch Act violations themselves, Richard Painter and I filed a criminal Hatch Act complaint under 18 U.S.C. §610 against Trump during the 2020 campaign, alleging that he was coercing political activity on the part of employees in the executive branch by attempting to “intimidate or coerce” them into supporting his aims.

In the Georgia indictment, the Hatch Act plays a critical role: The activities Meadows performed in the run-up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol building constituted a contribution to a partisan political effort to ensure that Trump was declared the winner of the 2020 election, despite having lost that election completely. Such naked political activities cannot be official duties for anyone who is a federal executive branch office holder. The entire Georgia campaign reads like one big Hatch Act violation—a civil Hatch Act violation for federal officeholders like Meadows and a criminal Hatch Act violation for Trump for pressuring his subordinates into civil Hatch Act violations.

It is striking how similar Trump’s behavior in Georgia in 2020 is to the criminal Hatch Act complaint we filed against Trump. The “perfect” phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which Trump attempted to coerce Raffensperger into coming up with 11,780 votes in order to reverse the results of the election in Georgia was an attempt to intimidate state officers into supporting Trump’s personal political aims—conduct that is precisely what the criminal Hatch Act provision was meant to address in the case of federal officers. In this case, the officers just happened to be state officials for the most part, with the possible exception of Meadows and other federal officials Trump tried to rope into his campaign.

Health Misinformation

 Many posts have discussed myths and misinformation.

 Kaiser Family Foundation:

Overall, health misinformation is widely prevalent in the U.S. with 96% of adults saying they have heard at least one of the ten items of health-related misinformation asked about in the survey. The most widespread misinformation items included in the survey were related to COVID-19 and vaccines, including that the COVID-19 vaccines have caused thousands of deaths in otherwise healthy people (65% say they have heard or read this) and that the MMR vaccines have been proven to cause autism in children (65%).

Regardless of whether they have heard or read specific items of misinformation, the survey also asked people whether they think each claim is definitely true, probably true, probably false, or definitely false. For most of the misinformation items included in the survey, between one-fifth and one-third of the public say they are “definitely” or “probably true.” While the most frequently heard claims are related to COVID-19 and vaccines, the most frequently believed claims were related to guns, including that armed school police guards have been proven to prevent school shootings (60% say this is probably or definitely true), that most gun homicides in the U.S. are gang-related (43%), and that people who have firearms at home are less likely to be killed by a gun than those who do not (42%).

Combining these measures, the share of the public who both have heard each false claim and believe it is probably or definitely true ranges from 14% (for the claim that “more people have died from the COVID-19 vaccine than from the virus”) to 35% (“armed school police guards have been proven to prevent school shootings”).

Health misinformation everywhere, and most uncertain whether true or false @DrewAltman: “The public’s uncertainty leaves them vulnerable to misinformation..."

Reality: ALL DEFINITELY FALSE!

Ivermectin works? No.

Vaccines cause autism? No.

COVID vaccines cause fertility? No.… pic.twitter.com/TP27fHuWBn

— Timothy Caulfield (@CaulfieldTim) August 22, 2023

Trump and Truth

Why haven’t the indictments hurt?

In part it’s b/c Trump voters generally believe it's Trump who tells them the truth.
More than conservative media and their own friends & family.
Trump leads among those say it's very important a nominee is honest & trustworthy. pic.twitter.com/WwR8GWci8l

— CBS News Poll (@CBSNewsPoll) August 20, 2023

Threats of Political Violence

Many posts have discussed political violence.

Sonam Sheth at Insider:

A Texas woman was arrested last week after the Department of Homeland Security said she made death threats against the Washington, DC, judge presiding over the special counsel Jack Smith's 2020 election interference case against Trump.

Abigail Jo Shry called Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is Black, a "stupid slave," adding, "You are in our sights, we want to kill you," according to an affidavit from a DHS officer.

"If Trump doesn't get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you," Shry said in the August 5 voicemail, the DHS alleged. "So tread lightly, bitch ... You will be targeted personally, publicly, your family, all of it."

Shry told Department of Homeland Security officials that she didn't really mean she'd kill the judge, according to the affidavit — but she's still facing a federal charge that carries up to a five-year sentence.

The Houston public defender's office representing Shry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Other Trump supporters online discussed targeting the grand jurors in another Trump case, according to media reports.

After Georgia prosecutors indicted Trump and 18 other co-defendants in a sprawling RICO case, far-right message boards lit up with threats of violence against the grand jurors — whose names were listed in the indictment — who voted to charge the former president.

One user wrote that the list of jurors' names was a "hit list," Media Matters reported. Another user responded, "Based. Godspeed anons, you have all the long range rifles in the world."

RICO

 James C. McKinley Jr. at NYT:

At the heart of the indictment against Mr. Trump and his allies in Georgia are racketeering charges under the state Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO.

Like the federal law on which it is based, the state RICO law was originally designed to dismantle organized crime groups, but over the years it has come to be used to prosecute other crimes, from white collar Ponzi and embezzlement schemes to public corruption cases.

It’s a powerful law enforcement tool. The Georgia RICO statute allows prosecutors to bundle together what may seem to be unrelated crimes committed by a host of different people if those crimes are perceived to be in support of a common objective.

“It allows a prosecutor to go after the head of an organization, loosely defined, without having to prove that that head directly engaged in a conspiracy or any acts that violated state law,” Michael Mears, a law professor at John Marshall Law School in Atlanta. “If you are a prosecutor, it’s a gold mine. If you are a defense attorney, it’s a nightmare.”

Prosecutors need only show “a pattern of racketeering activity,” which means crimes that all were used to further the objectives of a corrupt enterprise. And the bar is fairly low. The Georgia courts have concluded that a pattern consists of at least two acts of racketeering activity within a four-year period in furtherance of one or more schemes that have the same or similar intent.

J6 Indictment

 Special Counsel Jack Smith Delivers Statement

Tuesday, August 1, 2023

 

Washington, DC Statement as Delivered

Good evening. Today, an indictment was unsealed charging Donald J. Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. The indictment was issued by a grand jury of citizens here in the District of Columbia and sets forth the crimes charged in detail. I encourage everyone to read it in full. 

The attack on our nation’s capital on January 6, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy. As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies. Lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the U.S. government, the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election. 

The men and women of law enforcement who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6 are heroes. They’re patriots, and they are the very best of us. They did not just defend a building or the people sheltering in it. They put their lives on the line to defend who we are as a country and as a people. They defended the very institutions and principles that define the United States. 

Since the attack on our Capitol, the Department of Justice has remained committed to ensuring accountability for those criminally responsible for what happened that day. This case is brought consistent with that commitment, and our investigation of other individuals continues. 

In this case, my office will seek a speedy trial so that our evidence can be tested in court and judged by a jury of citizens. In the meantime, I must emphasize that the indictment is only an allegation and that the defendant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. 

I would like to thank the members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who are working on this investigation with my office, as well as the many career prosecutors and law enforcement agents from around the country who have worked on previous January 6 investigations. These women and men are public servants at the very highest order, and it is a privilege to work alongside them. Thank you.

SHH.. Maybe "Broken Windows" Was Right After All

A number of posts have dealt with homelessness.  California's failure in this respect is noteworthy.

Virginia Postrel points out that homelessness is two problems, not one.  The first is housing availability, which government can remedy by opening the way to more housing.  The second is public order.

A Ninth Circuit court decision equating bans on living on sidewalks and parks with cruel and unusual punishment limits what public authorities can do. (When the court recently affirmed the matter en banc, its conservative judges issued scathing dissents.) Along from the legal restrictions, there is a powerful cultural taboo against considering the public order aspects of homelessness, as opposed to its humanitarian dimension. We’re supposed to choose empathy over order, as though they can’t coexist.

...

[P]olicies to address the housing problem, however worthy, do not make complaints about the public order problem illegitimate. Normal people want to safely use the sidewalks, parks, subways, and bus stops that supposedly exist for everyone’s benefit. Safe camping sites, like the ones San Diego has opened, are a constructive alternative—but they’re paired with restrictions on “unsafe camping” that push people to use them. More could be done to provide similar safe spots, with toilet facilities, for people living in RVs they don’t want to give up in return for inside shelter that might later disappear. (In their situation, I’d make the same decision.)

If you want to build political support for the “mostly stable people who are quietly living in cars,” you can’t do it by pretending you’re addressing the visible problems that scare normal people. The current bait-and-switch breeds resentment, undermines civic institutions, and drives away the productive inhabitants on whom flourishing cities depend.

Jack Smith Statement

Special Counsel Jack Smith Delivers Statement
Washington, DC ~
Friday, June 9, 2023

Good afternoon. Today, an indictment was unsealed charging Donald J. Trump with felony violations of our national security laws as well as participating in a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

This indictment was voted by a grand jury of citizens in the Southern District of Florida, and I invite everyone to read it in full to understand the scope and the gravity of the crimes charged.

The men and women of the United States intelligence community and our armed forces dedicate their lives to protecting our nation and its people. Our laws that protect national defense information are critical to the safety and security of the United States and they must be enforced. Violations of those laws put our country at risk.

Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of the Department of Justice. And our nation’s commitment to the rule of law sets an example for the world. We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone. Applying those laws. Collecting facts. That’s what determines the outcome of an investigation. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The prosecutors in my office are among the most talented and experienced in the Department of Justice. They have investigated this case hewing to the highest ethical standards. And they will continue to do so as this case proceeds.

It’s very important for me to note that the defendants in this case must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. To that end, my office will seek a speedy trial in this matter. Consistent with the public interest and the rights of the accused. We very much look forward to presenting our case to a jury of citizens in the Southern District of Florida.

In conclusion. I would like to thank the dedicated public servants of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with whom my office is conducting this investigation and who worked tirelessly every day upholding the rule of law in our country. I’m deeply proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with them. Thank you very much.

Indictment of a Former President

 Trump is under indictment.  Austin Sarat:

The Constitution’s authors contemplated the arrest of a current or former president. At several points since the nation’s founding, our leaders have been called before the bar of justice.

Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution says that when a federal government official is impeached and removed from office, they “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”Tench Coxe Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

In his 1788 defense of this constitutional provision, Alexander Hamilton noted that, unlike the British king, for whom “there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable, no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution,” a president once removed from office would “be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” Trump has been impeached twice but not removed from office.

As a scholar with expertise in legal history and criminal law, I believe the punishment our nation’s founders envisioned for government leaders removed from office would also apply to those who left office in other ways.

Tench Coxe, a Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress from 1788 to 1789, echoed Hamilton. He explained that while the Constitution’s speech or debate clause permanently immunized members of Congress from liability for anything they might do or say as part of their official duties, the president “is not so much protected as that of a member of the House of Representatives, for he may be proceeded against like any other man in the ordinary course of law.”

In Coxe’s view, even a sitting president could be arrested, tried and punished for violating the law. Though Coxe didn’t say it explicitly, I’d argue that it follows that if presidents can be charged with a crime while in office, once out of office, they can be held responsible like anyone else.

Oath Breaker Gets 18 Years

 The Oath Keepers include current and former military and law enforcement personnel. They traffic in conspiracy theories and violence, including the Capitol insurrection.

Dan Berman and Hannah Rabinowitz at CNN:

Judge Amit Mehta on Thursday handed down an 18-year prison sentence for the leader of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election that ended with the violent attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
...

“I dare say, Mr. Rhodes – and I never have said this to anyone I have sentenced – you pose an ongoing threat and peril to our democracy and the fabric of this country,” Mehta said.

“I dare say we all now hold our collective breaths when an election is approaching. Will we have another January 6 again? That remains to be seen.”

The judge, refuting claims Rhodes made during a 20-minute rant earlier in the day, added: “You are not a political prisoner, Mr. Rhodes. That is not why you are here. It is not because of your beliefs. It is not because Joe Biden is the president right now.”

“I dare say, Mr. Rhodes – and I never have said this to anyone I have sentenced – you pose an ongoing threat and peril to our democracy and the fabric of this country,” Mehta said.

“I dare say we all now hold our collective breaths when an election is approaching. Will we have another January 6 again? That remains to be seen.”
...

The sentence is the first handed down in over a decade for seditious conspiracy and Mehta said he wanted to explain the offense to the public. He did not mince words.

“A seditious conspiracy, when you take those two concepts and put it together, is among the most serious crimes an American can commit. It is an offense against the government to use force. It is an offense against the people of our country,” the judge said.

“It is a series of acts in which you and others committed to use force, including potentially with weapons, against the government of the United States as it transitioned from one president to another. And what was the motive? You didn’t like the new guy.”
...

“Nothing has changed, Mr. Rhodes, nothing has changed. And the reality is as you sit here today and as we heard you speak, the moment you are released you will be prepared to take up arms against our government. And not because you are a political prisoner, not because of the 2020 election, because you think this is a valid way to address grievances.”
...

“It’s not simply a conspiracy theory or a false narrative about fraud. It’s about the Constitution,” Rhodes said, later shouting: “I am not able to drop that under my oath. I am not able to ignore the Constitution.”

The judge had none of that, and compared Rhodes’ comments to the heroism of police officers and others protecting the Capitol: “We want to talk about keeping oaths? There is nobody more emblematic of keeping their oaths, Mr. Rhodes.”

Asian Americans and America

From The Asian American Foundation (TAAF)

The Asian American Foundation (TAAF) today announced the findings of the third annual STAATUS Index—”Social Tracking of Asian Americans in the U.S.”—the leading study examining attitudes and stereotypes towards Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) in the U.S. The inaugural 2021 STAATUS Index was one of the first national studies on this topic in 20 years.

The survey is a nationally representative study based on a sample of 5,235 U.S-based respondents aged 16 and over, conducted online between February 9 to March 13, 2023.

This year’s survey reveals that 1 in 2 Asian Americans feel unsafe in the U.S. and nearly 80% of Asian Americans do not completely feel they belong and are acceptDiscrimination and lack of leadership representation contribute most to Asian Americans’ lack of belonging in the U.S. Additionally, the survey revealed that young and female Asian Americans are least likely to feel they completely belong and are accepted.

...

Key findings of the survey are listed below, and the complete STAATUS Index is available here.

Key Findings

1 in 2 Asian Americans feel unsafe in the U.S.; nearly 80% of Asian Americans do not fully feel they belong and are accepted.
‍‍
Discrimination and lack of leadership representation contribute most to Asian Americans’ low levels of belonging in the U.S., felt most acutely by young and female Asian Americans.

1 in 2 Asian Americans report feeling unsafe in the U.S. due to their race/ethnicity.

 

• 52% of Asian American respondents have felt uncomfortable or unsafe due to their race and ethnicity, along with 53% of Black, and 47% of Hispanic respondents, compared to 28% of white respondents.
• Asian Americans feel the least safe on public transportation (29%), followed by in their own neighborhood (19%), school (19%), workplace (17%), and their local market (17%).
• 12% of Asian American respondents feel unsafe where they vote.

Asian Americans—especially young and female Asian Americans—are among the least likely of all racial groups surveyed to feel belonging and acceptance in America.

• 78% of Asian Americans do not fully feel that they belong and are accepted in the U.S., similar to Hispanic (75%) and Black (76%) respondents; and compared to 43% of white respondents.
• Younger Asian Americans (17% aged 16-24 completely agreed to the statement about belonging and acceptance) and Asian American women (19%) are less likely to feel like they belong and are accepted.

Of those who do not feel like they belong

•  58% of Asian Americans say the top reason for feeling like they don’t belong is from experiencing discrimination directly due to their race.Asian Americans also say not seeing others like them in positions of power (43%) is another major reason for feeling a lack of belonging.
• Asian Americans feel like they don’t belong in the workplace (39%), in online spaces/ social media (39%), in their own neighborhoods (33%), and in schools (32%). 

Americans see China as a threat; view Asian Americans in different (and sometimes contradictory) ways. 

• 83% of respondents see China as a military/national security threat, 74% as an economic threat, and 44% as a health threat.‍
• Older and white Americans overwhelmingly (>80%) see China as a threat.
• Contrastingly, 79% of Americans do not believe people of Chinese descent living in America pose a threat to the U.S. Respondents also overwhelmingly (87%) are comfortable with Asian Americans’ employment in jobs that involve national security.
• Yet, nearly one-third of Americans see Asian Americans as more loyal to their perceived country of origin.
• Close to one-third (31%) think Asian Americans should be subject to additional scrutiny if they work in areas considered critical to U.S. global strategic competitiveness.

When asked what fueled anti-Asian violence: 

• 73% of respondents say it was due to blaming Asian Americans for COVID-19.
• 47% say that it was because people see Asian Americans as foreigners rather than Americans.
• 47% believe that the Chinese government is spying on America which led to the attacks.

Americans’ openness to improving their relationship with and understanding of AAPIs signals room for progress, cross-racial solidarity, and representation.

• 64% of all respondents believe that Asian Americans are somewhat or highly inaccurately portrayed in film/TV and 61% feel NHPIs are somewhat or highly inaccurately portrayed in film/TV.
• 69% of Asian American respondents felt that they were somewhat or highly inaccurately portrayed in film/TV.
• 26% of respondents said they could not name a famous Asian American figure and 32% could not name a famous NHPI person.
• When asked to name a famous Asian American figure, top responses were: Jackie Chan (who is not American), Bruce Lee (who died 50 years ago), Kamala Harris‍.

• To improve their relationship with Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, more than 60% of Americans would like more opportunities to interact with AAPIs and learn about their experience and history.

• 3 out of 5 Americans think that incorporating the Asian American experience into the teaching of American history is important.1 in 4 respondents thinks they share “a lot” of economic interests (26%) and core values (25%) with Asian Americans, signaling an opportunity to grow understanding & connections with AAPIs.

January 6: Seditious Conspiracy, Domestic Terrorism, Treason

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA v.ELMER STEWART RHODES III,KELLY MEGGS,KENNETH HARRELSON,JESSICA WATKINS,ROBERTO MINUTA,JOSEPH HACKETT,DAVID MOERSCHEL,THOMAS CALDWELL, andEDWARD VALLEJO, Defendants.Case No. 22-cr-15-APMGOVERNMENT’S OMNIBUS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM ANDMOTION FOR UPWARD DEPARTURE

These defendants were prepared to fight. Not for their country, but against it. In their own words, they were “willing to die” in a “guerilla war” to achieve their goal of halting the transfer of power after the 2020 Presidential Election. As a co-conspirator recognized, their actions made these defendants “traitors.”

Using their positions of prominence within, and in affiliation with, the Oath Keepers organization, these defendants played a central and damning role in opposing by force the government of the United States, breaking the solemn oath many of them swore as members of the United States Armed Forces. To support their operation, they amassed an arsenal of firearms across the Potomac River and led a conspiracy that culminated in a mob’s attack on the United States Capitol while our elected representatives met in a Joint Session of Congress. Two juries found all nine defendants guilty of participating in this grave conduct. These defendants are unlike any of the hundreds of others who have been sentenced for their roles in the attack on the Capitol. Each defendant therefore deserves a significant sentence of incarceration.

...

 “[T]he violent breach of the Capitol on January 6 was a grave danger to our democracy.” United States v. Munchel, 991 F.3d 1273, 1284 (D.C. Cir. 2021). “The chaos wrought by the mob forced members of Congress to stop the certification and flee for safety.” United States v. Fischer, 64 F.4th 329, 332 (D.C. Cir. 2023). As this Court has explained:

January 6, 2021 was supposed to mark the peaceful transition of power. It had been that way for over two centuries, one presidential administration handing off peacefully to the next. President Ronald Reagan in his first inaugural address described “the orderly transfer of authority” as “nothing less than a miracle.” Violence and disruption happened in other countries, but not here. This is the United States of America, and it could never happen to our democracy. Thompson v. Trump, 590 F. Supp. 3d 46, 61 (D.D.C. 2022) (footnote omitted).

But, because of these defendants’ actions, it did happen to our democracy. Rioters injured more than a hundred members of law enforcement and inflicted significant emotional injuries on law enforcement officers and Capitol employees alike. The attack caused substantial damage to the Capitol, resulting in millions of dollars of financial losses. But the cost to our democracy and system of government was incalculable. See United States v. Gardner, No. 21-cr-622 (Mar. 16, 2023), Sent. Tr. at 68 (identifying one of the “victims” on January 6 as “democracy itself”)

...

 In short, the defendants’ conduct displayed a clear, shared intent to stop Congress from certifying the results of the election, including through the organized use of force and the staging of weapons nearby. That conduct—calculated to stop the peaceful transfer of Presidential power for the first time in the nation’s history—is a quintessential example of an intent to influence government conduct through intimidation or coercion and warrants an upward departure pursuant to Note 4. Indeed, the terrorism enhancement in Section 3A1.4 is meant to “punish[] more harshly than other criminals those whose wrongs served an end more terrible than other crimes.” Benkahla, 530 F.3d at 313

Marijuana Policy Problems

 Zusha Elinson  and Jimmy Vielkind at WSJ:

The illegal marijuana trade is booming in California, seven years after the state legalized its possession, cultivation and distribution. Unlicensed sales totaled $8.1 billion last year, dwarfing legal sales of $5.4 billion, according to estimates by New Frontier Data, a cannabis analytics firm.

Lawmakers in New York are concerned their state is headed in a similar direction. New York legalized cannabis possession in small amounts in 2021. Two years later, just five shops sell marijuana legally in New York City, while 1,400 bodegas, smoke shops and other outlets without licenses do, according to an estimate by the city sheriff.

The persistence of the illegal pot business in the face of state legalization reflects a variety of forces. Slow rollouts of dispensary licenses leave unmet demand that unlicensed outlets are happy to serve. Police and prosecutors, facing pressing problems such as violent crime, give little priority to stopping illegal pot. And high taxes on legal sales fan the embers of illicit ones.

“When you start seeing tax rates that are approaching 30 to 40 percent on products, it’s really going to be difficult to compete against the remnants of an illegal market,” said Mason Tvert, a consultant who played a role in several state campaigns to legalize cannabis.

Some of the 22 states that have legalized marijuana possession have had better luck extinguishing the black market, said industry observers, because they have permitted more legal retail shops, streamlined the process of going legal or didn’t have such entrenched networks of dealers or growers at the outset. At the federal level, marijuana remains illegal.

Firearm Incident Data

From KFF:

Experiences with gun-related incidents are common among U.S. adults. One in five (21%) say they have personally been threatened with a gun, a similar share (19%) say a family member was killed by a gun (including death by suicide), and nearly as many (17%) have personally witnessed someone being shot. Smaller shares have personally shot a gun in self-defense (4%) or been injured in a shooting (4%). In total, about half (54%) of all U.S. adults say they or a family member have ever had one of these experiences.

From Pew:

The number of children and teens killed by gunfire in the United States increased 50% between 2019 and 2021, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the latest annual mortality statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic, there were 1,732 gun deaths among U.S. children and teens under the age of 18. By 2021, that figure had increased to 2,590.

The gun death rate among children and teens – a measure that adjusts for changes in the nation’s population – rose from 2.4 fatalities per 100,000 minor residents in 2019 to 3.5 per 100,000 two years later, a 46% increase.

Both the number and rate of children and teens killed by gunfire in 2021 were higher than at any point since at least 1999, the earliest year for which information about those younger than 18 is available in the CDC’s mortality database.