The Department Of Retribution (Formerly The DOJ) Gets A Comey Indictment

Donald Trump took a giant step toward the furtherance of his authoritarian power yesterday with the indictment of James Comey. Here is how Alan Feuer, Jonah E. Bromwich, and Maggie Haberman describe it in The New York Times:

The clearest way to understand the extraordinary nature of the indictment on Thursday of James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, is to offer up a simple recitation of the facts.

An inexperienced prosecutor loyal to President Trump, in the job for less than a week, filed criminal charges against one of her boss’s most-reviled opponents. She did so not only at Mr. Trump’s direct command, but also against the urging of both her own subordinates and her predecessor, who had just been fired for raising concerns that there was insufficient evidence to indict.

The charges, which were filed around 7 p.m. in Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., thrust the Justice Department into perilous new territory. The push for the indictment trampled over the agency’s long tradition of maintaining distance from the White House and resisting political pressure, and it raised the prospect of further arbitrary prosecutions pushed by Mr. Trump against his enemies.

Heightening the break-glass moment, the felony charges against Mr. Comey, who stands accused of making false statements and obstructing justice, were rushed into court as Mr. Trump’s handpicked prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, hurried to beat the quickly approaching statute of limitations on Mr. Comey’s purported crimes.

The rush to prosecute Mr. Comey was the clearest example yet of how the normal process of justice has been reversed under Mr. Trump, showing how the president came into his second term with targets already in mind and ultimately pressured the Justice Department, over a degree of internal resistance, into finding a way to charge a former director of the F.B.I.

Ms. Halligan, who had been working as a top official in the White House staff secretary’s office and had previously served as a personal lawyer for Mr. Trump, had until now never prosecuted a single case in her career.

Mr. Trump nevertheless appointed her as interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia on Monday afternoon, after publicly berating Attorney General Pam Bondi on Saturday night for not moving more aggressively to prosecute Mr. Comey and two other figures who are longtime targets of his retribution campaign, Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, and Senator Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California. . . .

In voting to indict, the grand jury judged that the evidence it heard indicated that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Comey might have committed a crime. But prosecutors have expansive sway over grand juries, and it remains unclear, given the secretive nature of such bodies, how much the grand jurors were aware of the broader circumstances of the case. . . .

That Mr. Trump could successfully initiate such a case also increases the potential costs of opposing him, an expansion of presidential power that could chill public dissent across the country.

A Desperate Injustice By Tennessee Republicans

The following post is by Dan Rather and Elliot Kirschner:

In the 1950s and '60s, the forces that stood against a growing tide of civil rights were emboldened with a misguided belief that they represented the true America. They were bolstered by the living legacies of racism and white supremacy. They were empowered by the law and by tradition. They were invigorated by their own shamelessness. 

They believed they could act with impunity. They assumed that most Americans identified with their bigotry and cruelty. They concluded that the status quo that sustained them would continue indefinitely. 

They were wrong. They are now the villains in our history books.

 

It was tempting to believe that America had moved irrevocably beyond a world of such entrenched and pervasive injustice. We knew we had a long way to go on issues of race and equality. But to go backward? After all the sacrifice expended by so many to achieve progress?

 

And yet, here we are.

The expulsion yesterday of two young Black men from the Tennessee General Assembly echoes the old news footage of blocked schoolhouses and fire hoses and dogs set against young peaceful protesters 60 years ago. Reps. Justin Jones and Justin Pearson had been duly and lawfully elected. Their crime was having the temerity to challenge their fellow representatives on doing nothing about gun violence in the wake of mass murder at a Nashville elementary school. 

That the white colleague who had joined Jones and Pearson in their protest on the Assembly floor was not expelled tells you all you need to know about the role race played in the decision-making process. 

The Republicans who voted to expel Jones and Pearson would obviously claim that their decision wasn’t racially motivated. They argue that these two men disrupted the business of the government when they joined protesters and brought bullhorns to the Assembly floor. But the historical rarity of expulsion and the array of other sanctioning tools available show that this is ultimately about the same currents that have driven this nation’s uneven path toward greater justice since its founding — who has the power and who has the audacity to question an unjust status quo. 

Tennessee is a Republican state, but it is also heavily gerrymandered. It is a place where Republicans have complete control of the government and have used that control to silence voices of dissent.

 

This is different from the racism of the 1960s in some important ways. Those who seethed at Jones and Pearson would almost certainly welcome Black conservatives with open arms. One might safely assume that they are big fans of Justice Clarence Thomas.

 

But just because this situation is a bit more nuanced does not make it any less dangerous. This is about people being told they should know their place. This is about politicians who are so fragile that they can’t handle dissent. And make no mistake, this is also generational. It is not a coincidence that Jones and Pearson are in their twenties.

 

There seems to be a new era of protest and political involvement underway among the youth of America. They are overwhelmingly progressive, driven by issues such as gun violence, reproductive autonomy, protection of the environment, LGBTQ+ rights, racial justice, and preserving our democracy. They have energy and organization. And they are, by definition, the future.

 

That makes them a threat to those who are desperately clinging to some of the worst aspects of America’s past. 

After being expelled, Jones and Pearson reacted with steadfast determination and calm. They spoke compellingly about what they hope to accomplish. They were reasoned and focused. They understand the long game. 

In the 1960s, increased news coverage of the civil rights movement cast a bright spotlight on Jim Crow. 

The outrage that eventually ensued led to major changes. A similar spotlight now is on places like Nashville. And we are all forced to reckon with whether this is the America that we want for ourselves and our children. 

The expulsion of Jones and Pearson is part of a larger trend. There are anti-democratic measures taking place in other states. Books are being banned. History classes are being whitewashed. Voting rights are being curtailed. 

These are not the actions of people who are confident. These are people trying to entrench whatever power they can by whatever means necessary. 

They are desperate measures from desperate people who fear they have already lost the future. 

Sick And Tired Of Racism And Racial Injustice

It has happened again. A couple of days ago, police shot an unarmed Black man in the back (at least 7 times).

If this was an isolated incident, we could talk about "bad apples" among our police and expect city, state, and federal officials to remedy the situation. But it is not an isolated incident -- there have been multiple incidents of unnecessary and unjustified police violence across this nation. And politicians (especially Republicans) at every level have shown us they don't want to deal with the issue.

It brings to mind the quote from activist and American hero Fannie Lou Hamer. She said, "I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired". I understand. We should all be sick and tired of being sick and tired, because we have seen the racism and injustice in this country for far too long.

On Monday night at the Republican convention, former GOP governor Nikki Haley said the United States is not a racist nation. She was lying, and trying to cover up the GOP's refusal to address the issues of racism and injustice in this country.

Let me be clear -- there is no justification for shooting an unarmed person (in the back or anywhere else). And those who try to justify it are wrong. This is happening far too often to Blacks in the United States, and whether we want to admit it or not, it is largely due to the racism that pervades this country. It exists in our police and it exists in our justice system -- and sadly it exists in all of our social institutions (educational, business, government, etc.).

It is time for all Americans to be sick and tired of the racism and injustice in this country. It is time for action. We cannot be silent on this issue, because silence is helping only the racists. We must vote any politician out of office who refuses to deal with these issues. But we must do more. We must make sure there is no racism in our own actions -- and we must object to family and friends who speak or act in a racist way. And we must realize that all of our fellow citizens, regardless of the color of their skin, are our brothers and sisters. Nothing will change until we make it change.

If you aren't already sick and tired, then it's time you got sick and tired!

What Is Highest Priority For Fixing The U.S. Justice System ?

Both sides of the political spectrum thinks our justice system is flawed and needs to be fixed. For one side, the answer is to strengthen law and order, while the other side the answer is to reduce the system's bias against minority citizens. Which should be our highest priority?

The nation seems to be split between those two answers. A plurality of 49% says we need to strengthen law and order, but a substantial 43% says we should instead reduce the bias against minorities.

The groups wanting to strengthen law and order are Republicans (+60), Whites (+18), and rural citizens (+28).

The groups wanting to reduce bias against minorities are Democrats (+28), Independents (+11), Non-whites (+24), urban citizens (+3), and suburban citizens (+15).

I have to come down on the side of reducing bias against minorities. The Constitution guarantees that all citizens will be treated equally under the law, and that is simply not happening right now. If we strengthen law and order without addressing the bias, we will just make that bias even stronger.

While the law and order folks may not realize it (or want to admit it), crime has actually been falling for many years now. But what has not been falling is the bias against minorities. If we fix that bias, the police and courts can be respected by all communities, and that will also help to further reduce crime (because there will be greater cooperation with law enforcement officials.

Law enforcement is not an "us against them" game. We are all in this together, and all groups should be treated equally by our police and our courts. That's not just the right thing to do -- it's the constitutional thing to do.

The chart above reflects the results of a recent Gallup Poll -- done between October 5th and 9th of a random national sample of 1,017 adults, with a margin of error of 4 points.

Americans Are Divided By Race, Age, And Politics

In the past few days, it has become apparent that this is very much a divided country. After the no-bill decision by the St. Louis County Grand Jury (thanks to a one-sided view presented to them by a biased prosecutor), we now know that the police officer who shot an unarmed black teenager while he was trying to surrender will not be punished at all. Many in this country think that's just fine, while many others (including me) consider it a miscarriage of justice. What cannot be denied is the broad split that exists in the United States.

The charts above show this split. They were made from a YouGov Poll done between November 14th and 17th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults (with a margin of error of about 4 points). While the survey was taken a few days before the Grand Jury decision was announced, it shows clearly the divide that exists in America.

Whites, older citizens, and Republicans are convinced that the shooting was justified -- and that it was just an isolated incident. Minorities, younger citizens, and Democrats tend to believe the officer should be punished -- and that this incident is indicative of a broader pattern of police abuse of minorities (especially black citizens).

I have heard a lot of talk about how this country needs to come together, but I see little chance of that happening. Blacks cannot move toward the white attitude, because that would be a denial of the unfair treatment they receive daily in this country from the police (and the courts). And whites won't move closer to the black attitude, because most of them don't suffer the same kind of justice system inequities that blacks do (and tend to believe everyone is treated as they are).

Until whites (and older people and Republicans) can see beyond their own limited experience with the police and courts, and recognize that blacks are treated differently (because of their race), nothing will be done to solve the serious racial problems that permeate our society. And sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

No Justice

The verdict on Zimmerman has been reached -- not guilty. I can't say I'm surprised. I've known for a long time now that our justice system is badly broken and very unfair. The rich get justice, but the poor don't. And Whites get a lot more "justice" than minorities get. This verdict is just more proof of that.

There was no justifiable reason for Zimmerman to shoot an unarmed teenager (who was doing nothing wrong). But Zimmerman didn't like a young Black man walking in "his" neighborhood, and he had a gun to back up his hatred. All Zimmerman had to do was obey the police, stop following, and stay in his car, and no one would have been hurt. But he couldn't do that, because that wouldn't feed his macho racism. This killing was totally Zimmerman's fault, and it was murder -- or manslaughter at the very least.

I worked in various aspects of law enforcement for over 25 years, but right now I am deeply ashamed of our justice system (if it can even be called that anymore).

Leonard Peltier Should Be Freed

The man pictured above is Leonard Peltier. He was one of the leaders of the American Indian Movement in the early 1970s, when he was unjustly convicted for the murder of two FBI agents. He has now been in prison for 37 years this month. I have never believed he was guilty, but that the FBI needed to convict someone to save face -- and convicting Peltier not only accomplished that, but hurt the AIM organization. It is time that Peltier be released. Here is a bit of history regarding this miscarriage of justice:

On February 27, 1973, protesting the injustice and conditions on the reservation and bringing attention to the broken treaties, some 200 members of the American Indian Movement and their Oglala Lakota supporters occupied the town of Wounded Knee on Pine Ridge, the site of the 1890 massacre by the US 7th Cavalry which killed at least three hundred unarmed Indians - mostly women and children.

The occupation of Wounded Knee was met by a massive show of force by the FBI, US Marshals, and Tribal Police. Military armoured personnel carriers rumbled down the reservation's roads, and the occupation ended after a 71 day standoff which saw two Indians, Frank Clearwater and Buddy LaMont, killed by gunfire.

What followed was a period on the reservation referred to by those who lived through it as the "reign of terror."

Dick Wilson's tribal government funded GOON squads began a campaign of violence against anyone thought to be an AIM supporter or traditional Oglala Lakota. Entire neighborhoods were shot up, houses were burned, and at least sixty members of AIM or their supporters on the reservation had been found murdered.

The traditional people on the reservation invited AIM to play a more active role in helping protect them from Wilson's gangs. Leonard Peltier was one of those who came to Pine Ridge to help safeguard the community from the violence which engulfed them. . .

It was in this atmosphere that on June 26, 1975, two under cover agents of the FBI drove onto the private property of the Jumping Bull residence where members of AIM had a nearby camp.

Soon after a shootout erupted, with women and children fleeing in the crossfire, FBI Special Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams were killed.

The camp was soon surrounded and came under a hail of gunfire while people continued to flee.

A third death, that of Native American Joe Stuntz, shot through the head by a sniper's bullet, has yet to be investigated.

After one of the largest manhunts in FBI history, Peltier, who was at the AIM camp on that day, was arrested in February 1976 in Canada and accused of killing the agents.

Dino Butler and Robert Robideau, arrested in the United States, were also charged with the killings. However, both of them were acquitted of these charges by a federal jury in Cedar Rapids,Iowa, on the grounds of self-defense.

The jury decided that had they been among what was reported to be up to thirty or so involved in the shoot out, and had they been the ones who fired on and killed the agents, due to the fear and violence in the community at that time, those acts would have been justified.

Nevertheless, the FBI was determined to hold someone accountable for the deaths of their agents and turned their focus to Peltier.

Peltier was extradited to the United States for trial based on an affidavit signed by a young Native American woman named Myrtle Poor Bear who stated that she was Peltier's girlfriend at the time and had been a witness to the killings.

Myrtle Poor Bear, known to have been mentally unstable, later recanted, admitting that she had never met Peltier but was threatened into making the incriminating statements by the FBI.

The court in Peltier's case barred her from testifying about FBI misconduct on the grounds of her "incompetence."

The court also prohibited Peltier from using "self-defense," as Butler and Robideau did successfully in Cedar Rapids, as his own defense.

Honoring A Great American

Today is the day our nation has chosen to honor Martin Luther King, Jr. with a holiday in his honor -- and it is appropriate that we do this. Dr. King didn't just fight against racism, but also against war and for economic justice. He fought to make this country better for citizens of all races and colors, and it cost him his life. The kind of courage this remarkable man displayed should be a beacon for the rest of us -- and he should be honored, respected, and never forgotten.

Workers' Wages Still Plummeting

Last year, the CEOs of the big banks received an average raise of about 12% to add to the millions they were already making, and most other corporations followed suit with similar big raises for their CEOs. Meanwhile, Americans workers fell further behind. After inflation was figured in, worker wages actually fell by 0.6% just as it has been doing for years now. And this fall in worker wages did not just start with the current Republican recession. It has been going on for the last 40 years. Here's how Jeff Nielson of The Street puts it (I am posting only part of the article, but I urge you to read the whole thing):

In writing about the relentless collapse of Western economies, I frequently point to "40 years of plummeting wages" for Western workers, in real dollars. However, where I have been remiss is in quantifying the magnitude of this collapse in Western wages.


On several occasions, I have glibly referred to how it now takes two spouses working to equal the wages of a one-income family of 40 years ago. Unfortunately, that is now an understatement. In fact, Western wages have plummeted so low that a two-income family is now (on average) 15% poorer than a one-income family of 40 years ago.


Regular readers will recognize the chart above on U.S. average wages.


Using the year 2000 as the numerical base from which to "zero" all of the numbers, real wages peaked in 1970 at around $20/hour. Today the average worker makes $8.50/hour -- more than 57% less than in 1970. And since the average wage directly determines the standard of living of our society, we can see that the average standard of living in the U.S. has plummeted by over 57% over a span of 40 years.


There are no "tricks" here. Indeed, all of the tricks are used by our governments. The green line shows average wages, discounted by inflation calculated with the same methodology for all 40 years. Obviously that is the only way in which we can compare any data over time: through applying identical parameters to it each year.


Then we have the blue line: showing wage data discounted with our "official" inflation rate. The problem? The methodology used by our governments to calculate inflation in 1975 was different from the method they used in 1985, which was different than the method they used in 1995, which was different than the method they used in 2005.


Two obvious points flow from this observation. First, it is tautological that the only way in which data can be compared meaningfully is to use a consistent methodology. If the government thinks it has improved upon its inflation methodology, then all it had to do was take all of its old data and re-calculate it with their "improved" methodology. Since 1970 there is this invention called "computers" which makes such calculations rather simple.


This brings us to the second point: the refusal of our governments to adopt a consistent methodology in reporting inflation statistics can only imply a deliberate attempt to deceive, since it is 100% logically/statistically invalid to simply string together disconnected series of data -- and present it as if it represents a consistent picture. More specifically, we can see precisely what lie our government was attempting to get us to believe.


Roughly speaking, the blue line trends flat. Thus, the U.S. government (and most Western governments) has been lying about inflation for the last 40 years as a deliberate means of hiding the 50+% collapse in the standard of living for the average person. Meanwhile, the situation is more than reversed if you're one of the fat-cats at the top. While average American workers have seen their wages plummet by 57% over the past 40 years, in just 15 years (1992-2007) the 400 wealthiest Americans saw their incomes rise by 700%.


Now we have the complete picture: wages grinding steadily lower year after year, decade after decade for the Little People, while wages go straight up for the fat cats. To say this is unfair would rank as one of history's greatest understatements. This is economic rape, plain and simple. . .

Racism And Injustice In Florida

It looks like racism is alive and well in Sanford, Florida. The picture above is of 17 year-old Trayvon Martin. He was visiting his father in a Florida gated community, and walked to the store where he bought some iced tea and a bag of Skittles candy. As he walked back to his house, he was followed by a 28 year-old white man who claimed to be in the "neighborhood watch". He accosted Martin (even though he had already called police and been told not to approach him) because he said Martin was "walking suspiciously".

An argument ensued, and Martin was shot to death (even though he was unarmed and posed no clear life-threatening danger to the 28 year-old). If Martin had been white (instead of African-American), I doubt he would have even been approached by anyone. And that means he was shot to death because he was African-American.

The shooter should have been arrested and charged with murder (or at the very least manslaughter). But he wasn't, and no charges have been filed against him at all. The police said he shot the 17 year-old in "self-defense" (evidently a package of Skittles is a dangerous weapon when possessed by an African-American youth).

Frankly, the racism obviously involved here doesn't stop with the 28 year-old shooter. It evidently extends to the police and the District Attorney. You can bet if Martin had been the one with the gun and the 28 year-old in possession of a package of Skittles, Martin would have now been in jail (and probably without a bond). This is a miscarriage of justice that should not be happening in 2012 America.

If you agree, please go to this website and sign the petition demanding the District Attorney take appropriate action. We must take a stand to stop this kind of racist injustice in this country.

Gates Says Guantanamo Should Be Closed

It looks like some in the Bush administration may finally be figuring out what a public relations disaster the torture facility and illegal prison at Guantanamo Bay really is. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is now calling for Guantanamo to be closed.

But don't confuse his call for "Gitmo" to be closed with any desire for justice or fair play. He just realizes that the facility's existence is stark proof to the rest of the world that the United States does not believe in justice for anyone who is not an American.

Gates thinks that if the facility was closed down, we could go on mistreating people and no one would be the wiser. He obviously thinks the leaders of other nations are as stupid as he and his boss. He wants to destroy the symbol and continue the injustice. He says at least 100 of the prisoners would need to be incarcerated "forever".

He's even gone so far as to say Congress needs to pass a new law to "address the concerns about some of these people who really need to be incarcerated forever, but that doesn't get them involved in a judicial system where there is the potential of them being released."

How much clearer could he be? He wants Congress to pass a law that would deny any kind of fair trial to these people. Evidently, he thinks that even the rigged military tribunals are not unfair enough.

Didn't we stage a revolution in the late 1700's because we were not being treated fairly by the British government? What would Jefferson, Washington and the other founding fathers think of passing a law specifically to deny a fair trial to anyone? I think they would be shocked at the unfairness of the Bush administration! I think they would use words like "scandalous", "traitorous" and "unconstitutional".

Our forefathers understood that if you can deny a fair trial to anyone, then you can do it to everyone. They established our system of justice because they believed that even the most villainous among us deserved a fair trial. Now Bush and his henchmen are doing their best to destroy that system of justice.

Closing Guantanamo will not make the world think we are wonderful (even though it does need to be closed). They will still judge us by how we treat our enemies. The rest of the world is well aware that if we mistreat these prisoners now, we could do it to them tomorrow.

By the way, Guantanamo now holds about 385 prisoners. If only about 100 are truly dangerous to us, why are we still holding the other 285?