Republicans must support the Constitution!

Letter to the editor in Wyoming's, The Cheyenne Post newspaper,

Representative Liz Cheney (R)- Wyoming,  with her father the former Vice President Dick Cheney

I have lived and worked in Wyoming for most of the last 42 years. 

I am a registered Republican and I support Liz Cheney for the U.S Congress. I will be voting for her in this year’s Republican Primary in August, and I encourage everyone (!) to do the same.

As our Congressional representative, Ms. Cheney has demonstrated time and again that she puts The Constitution and The Country ahead of anything else. Specifically, ahead of party, ahead of personal gain, and ahead of political gain. There are not many elected officials who could say as much.

She has proven she will not kowtow or bend before immense political pressure to support lies and attacks on the very fabric of this country’s constitution.

Congresswoman Liz Cheney with January 6, House Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson

What we do not need is someone who will go along with anything that would weaken our democracy. Or would support the illegal overthrow of our elected government as some running against her do.

All Republican Wyomingites, as well as the state’s Independents and Democrats, are encouraged to show Americans that the people of Wyoming stand for the Constitution and the Country, ahead of all else. And to Vote to keep Congresswoman Liz Cheney for anther term, in this August, 2022 Republican Primary.

Thank You from Ed Krajsky in Jackson Wyoming

Why does Michael Flynn continue to receive a military pension? He is a traitor!

The questions Michael Flynn refused to answer come into focus
“General Flynn, do you believe in the peaceful transition of power in the United States?” It wasn't a trick question, but Michael Flynn wouldn't answer it.

Echo essay by Steve Benen published in the MaddowBlog

When it comes to understanding what transpired on January 6, 2021, there are few potential witnesses more knowledgeable than Michael Flynn, Donald Trump’s disgraced former White House national security adviser.

As we’ve discussed, Flynn (a retired US Army Lt. General!), for example, attended a December 2020, meeting in the Oval Office in which participants discussed declaring a national emergency as part of a scheme to keep Trump in power despite his defeat. The retired general also reportedly raised the prospect of deploying U.S. troops, seizing voting machines, and declaring martial law as part of an apparent coup attempt.


Yesterday, however, Flynn’s importance grew. Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified that Donald Trump instructed Mark Meadows, his then-chief of staff, to contact both Roger Stone and Flynn on Jan. 5, and Meadows followed those instructions.

What did they discuss? For now, only the participants know for sure.

That traitor Michael Flynn collects a military pension!

Given all of this, it’s not surprising that January 6 investigators subpoenaed Flynn, but as we learned in March, he refused to cooperate, repeatedly pleading the Fifth. What we did not know, however, is what questions led Flynn to express concerns about self-incrimination. New York magazine summarized: During the hearing, the January 6 panel played a clip from former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn’s deposition in which he paused for one minute and 36 seconds when asked if he felt the violence on January 6, was justified, then repeatedly pleaded the Fifth.

In a hearing filled with memorable moments, this stood out. Rep. Liz Cheney, the Republican vice chair of the bipartisan panel, (daughter of former Vice-President Dick Cheney!) was shown asking Flynn, via online conferencing, asking, “General Flynn, do you believe the violence on January 6th was justified?” After a 106-second delay in which Flynn conferred with counsel, the retired general wouldn’t answer. “Do you believe the violence on January 6th was justified morally?” Cheney asked. “Take the Fifth,” Flynn replied.

“Do you believe the violence on January 6th was justified legally?” Cheney asked. “Fifth,” Flynn replied.

“General Flynn, do you believe in the peaceful transition of power in the United States of America?” Cheney asked. “The Fifth,” he responded.

Remember, we’re talking about a retired three-star general who served as the White House national security adviser in 2017. Asked whether he believes in the peaceful transition of power in the United States, Flynn apparently felt that his answer might be used against him.

Does this picture look familiar?  Michael Flynn at dinner with Vladimir Putin.

As jarring as this was, let’s also not forget that as far as his former boss is concerned, Flynn may yet be welcomed back into public service. In April 2020, during his re-election campaign, Trump told reporters that he was open to bringing Flynn back in a second term. Asked specifically if he might invite Flynn into his administration, the then-president replied, “I would certainly consider it, yeah. I would. I think he’s a fine man.”

Two weeks later, then-Vice President Mike Pence added that he, too, would be on board with bringing Flynn back into government.

Several months later, Flynn was the beneficiary of one of Trump’s most brazenly corrupt pardons.

It was against this backdrop that he soon after sat down with the January 6 committee and pleaded the Fifth rather than share his opinion about the peaceful transition of power.

Supreme Court rulings Roe v. Wade now endorsing religious policies

This echo opinion raises the spectre of the elephant in the abortion policy room.  In fact, religious zealots forced the Supreme Court wrong minded decision to revoke Roe v. Wade, a decision that protected women from being victimized by illegal abortions.  This "pro-life" anti-abortion momentum has been funded, motivated by, advocated for and now will be enforced by Christian religious groups:

Decision makes a mockery of court- Echo opinion letter published in The Columbus Dispatch:

The Supreme Court’s recent overturn of Roe v. Wade is one of, if not the worst, decisions made by the Supreme Court in modern history. Not only does it make a women in 2022, have less control over their bodies then they did in the 70s, which is almost incomprehensible, but it’s also exposed the grievous faults and clear problems in the United States, especially with its longest institutions and ideals. 

In other words, the Supreme Court, designed to be non-partisan in interpreting law, has overrun the court with American “Christianity”, leading to an erosion of the core American ideal of separation of church and state. I respect all religious beliefs and think religion is great, but this goes beyond just religion. 

And, make no mistake, this issue is not a Democratic or Republican issue, but an American one.

This court decision makes a mockery of the independence of the Supreme Court and directly enforces religion upon millions of Americans. The nine justices who swore an oath to non-partisanship have essentially stomped on the Constitution. It seems as if the people who claim they love America the most are actually the ones celebrating the downfall of a cornerstone of American freedom.

Charles K. Quinn, Columbus, Ohio

US Supreme Court is inconsistent in applying the "equal protection" principle!

Echo opinion from Fort Myers, published in The News-Press

Other 'rights' may be eroded!

Protect women's health!

The decision by the Supreme Court to purposefully do significant harm to women may portend further decisions that continue to erode other "rights" we have become accustomed too. 

Although the current interpretation of the Second Amendment is under no threat from this court, keep in mind that its members will someday change and that the rights Roe v. Wade conferred on women were in force for longer than the right for an individual to carry an AR-15. 

Obviously, Justice Alito gives more protection to men - where is the "equal protection principle"?

Among the several bizarre reasons Justice Alito gave for his decision is the fact that the Constitution does not specifically contain the word "abortion" (there was no need as abortion was readily available and accepted as a sometimes necessary medical procedure; even Ben Franklin invented and promoted an abortion inducing potion). Well, the Second Amendment says a well regulated militia can bear arms but does not specifically say individual citizens can. A future Supreme Court may point that out.

Wilburn P. Reed, Fort Myers, Florida

January 6 House Committee is teaching important history

Opinion echo letter published in The Gazette, newspaper in Cedar Rapid Iowa newspaper: 

Spooky January 6 poster is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 images

I have been following the U.S. House special committee investigation on January 6, 2021. As someone who has taken part in campaigns for both Republican and Democratic candidates, this is not a political event. It is about supporting our constitution and defending our democracy. It is an opportunity for an educational moment for the American public.

According to Cornell Law School, an insurrection is defined as someone or "someones" who incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto. 

If you watch a network that has neglected its responsibility to the American public to cover the hearings, (aka #FakeFox) I suggest that you change the channel and pay attention to what is being said. 

These hearings are constructing an important accounting of American history that even most Republicans agreed is necessary in the immediate aftermath of that horrible insurrectionist day. Some Republicans like Rep. Liz Cheney, have now put country over party, knowing the peril that we face. 

Unfortunately, far too many want to ignore the hearings, even the testimony given under oath by top advisers in former President Donald Trump`s administration and campaign.

To ignore these hearings is to ignore a threat to the most important part of a democratic republic — elected officials’ willingness to relinquish power when they have lost. If we no longer have that, then we no longer have a democracy. That is the threat we face. I hope we rise to face it head on, and it starts with working to understand what led to January 6.

From Dan Voss, in Atkins Iowa

Regressive health policy- botched abortions: Vote to protect women!

"Back-alley arrangements were theoretically possible, but costly. For women without means, DIY remedies were personified by the coat hanger."

This echo essay is published by a man who describes one family's experience:

Opinion: A long-kept family secret reminds us of the peril of illegal abortions, echo opinion by Michael Sondergard, Press-Citizen opinion writer.

Aunt Margaret’s humble tombstone marks the beginning and end of her life, but not why she died, at age 21. That family bombshell was dropped several years ago by an older relative by marriage as we sat together at a wedding reception.

“Are you aware that your aunt Margaret died of a botched abortion?” she asked.

My jaw dropped. Until that moment, Margaret’s story had always been shrouded in silence and mystery. It was almost as if she had never existed.

I’m not even sure my late father, her younger brother, was aware of the details. Someone had said that Dad had been called out of a high school classroom to be informed of his sister’s death in a Muscatine hospital, but that was as much as I had ever been told.

After the explosive revelation, I began asking questions of two elderly women who had known Margaret while growing up in rural Iowa.

Their times had been defined by big events, including World War I (ignited by an assassination that occurred 25 days after Margaret’s birth), the so-called “Spanish flu” pandemic of 1918-19, and of course the Great Depression (1929-approx. 1939).

Alas, details about Margaret’s life are skimpy. A fun photo shows her and a female relative arm-in-arm, both playfully dressed in bib overalls, hamming it up in a farm field, a pale work horse standing idly nearby.

Sundays were spent at the Lutheran church, where services were conducted in Danish for immigrant families trying to build better lives.

My Body My Choice

Margaret played violin in the high school orchestra and performed in a small group with her dad, and later her brother, that entertained at rural shindigs like wiener roasts and hayrides.

“Happy times!” a friend recalled.

A portrait taken in the 1930s captures a lovely woman (said to be 5-foot-4 or 5-5) with wavy dark hair, dark eyes, and a serious disposition.

We can only speculate about why, or how, Margaret terminated the pregnancy. “It just wasn’t talked about,” her friend recalled.

Margaret is known to have had a boyfriend, said to be a “very Dane” farm-boy for whom marriage and childrearing were evidently not an immediate option.

Imagine Margaret’s inner turmoil. Religious teachings and social norms pushing in one direction, daunting economic burdens and social stigmas pulling in another.

Margaret had no legal, safe options for ending the pregnancy, abortion having been criminalized under most circumstances in most states since the mid-1800s.

Back-alley arrangements were theoretically possible, but costly. For women without means, DIY remedies were personified by the coat hanger.

Exactly how many women died from “botched” abortions is evidently unknown, but (IMO- thousands) of women did die, often from unsanitary conditions- Maine Writer- also, from hemorrhage.

Now that Republicans have packed the Supreme Court with a super majority of right wing justices ideologically and religiously inclined to overturn Roe vs. Wade, militant anti-abortion foes seem giddy with anticipation, as if the “good old days” were glorious.

Margaret’s tombstone, though, reminds us of what criminalized abortion can look like when women are denied the right to choose when they are ready for childbearing.

For intensely personal reasons, often amplified by race and poverty, women have always sought to end unwanted pregnancies — secretively and, if need be, alas, unsafely. They probably always will.

If stories like aunt Margaret’s tell us anything, they tell us that.

Michael Sondergard is a University of Iowa retiree and long-ago city editor of the Iowa Press-Citizen.

Vote Blue!

The Big Lie reality check in Texas

Face the truth!   The Dallas Morning News

Echo opinion letter published in the The Dallas Morning News

I enjoyed your half page of letters concerning the January 6 hearings. I find it incredible that even after all the compelling evidence that has been shown, some readers still can’t believe what their eyes and ears tell them is true. Their bogus arguments boil down to two premises:

1. We should ignore the first-hand evidence brought out by the committee and not worry about the attempt to throw out the lawful votes and the will of the people and attack members of Congress, because we need to focus instead on worldwide inflation, oil prices, the falling stock market and the 20-plus-year-old immigration issue.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, center, testifies as the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol on June 21, 2022, as Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers, left, and Georgia Deputy Secretary of State Gabriel Sterling, right, look on. (J. Scott Applewhite / ASSOCIATED PRESS)

2. We should reject their evidence because it is “partisan.” There are no pro-Donald Trump members on the committee. The fact that Trump’s attorney general, campaign manager, his own daughter and many of his own staff admitted that the “Big Lie” is a big lie can’t be real because the committee just doesn’t like Trump.

Sorry, I can’t buy either one. I like to live in reality.

Julie B. Morgan, Keller

January 6 Committee is protecting democracy as we know it!

Echo letter to the editor published in the Los Angeles Times:

Former Attorney General William Barr and former guy Trump

Transcript excerpt from William Barr as presented at the January 6, 2022 Committee hearings: "The (Justice) department, in fact, when we received specific and credible allegations of fraud, made an effort to look into these to satisfy ourselves that they were without merit. And — and I was in the posture of trying to figure out — there was an avalanche of all these allegations of fraud that built up over a number of days. And it was like playing Whac-A-Mole, because something would come out one day and then the next day it would be another issue. Also, I was influenced by the fact that all the early claims that I understood on — were — were completely bogus and silly and usually based on complete misinformation. And so, I — I didn't consider the quality of claims right out of the box to give me any, you know, feeling that there was really substance here. [End videotape]."

Rep. Liz Cheney (R) of Wyoming is co-chair of the House January 6 Committee 

Dear Editor: Watching the January 6 House hearings has at times been grotesque for what they have visually portrayed, and more so for what each of the interviews and video clips illustrated about what was happening within the Trumpziizm's government. 

Also, it is satisfying to see the unadorned truth and the cause-and-effect relationship between the Trump camp, the then, the former president himself, and the events leading up to and on the day of his leading of the attempted coup.

The remarks by the committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson and vice chair Rep. Liz Cheney were solemn and resolute, the case was laid out well, and it was readily supported by irrefutable statements from multiple participants. And there's much more to come.

If at the conclusion of the hearings, the Republican Party still supports any of the perpetrators of the "Big Lie" that the election was stolen from former President Trump, and if its leaders are elected or reelected to office, then democracy as we know it is ending.

Barry Bauling, Calabasas, California

Wyoming has a patriotic heroine in Liz Cheney!

 Dear Editor (Echo! Meaning, I agree with this essay) published in the Cowboy State Daily:

It is a curious obsession that keeps me tied to Wyoming, where I lived and worked for thirty-five years, and where my children and grandchildren still live. 

There are many wonderful things about Wyoming: the trout-fishing on mountain streams, the clear night skies in the mountains when there are too many stars to count and the kindness and warmth of old friends.

Nevertheless, there are other things are not to like about Wyoming, these days.  Chief amongst those unfortunate aspects of life in Wyoming is the fact that the loudest voices on Wyoming social media (including Facebook) are persons with extremist views and a low level of historical and political literacy.

These people have now taken over Wyoming's Republican Party and claims to represent the average Republican voter, when, in fact, they just represent angry anarchistic activism.

This kind of so-called Republican would make Eisenhower and Nixon ashamed.

They would make Eisenhower ashamed because he always put the nation’s welfare first and did not see government as the enemy, but rather as a vehicle for accomplishing worthwhile social goals like building the interstate highway system and integrating the military and schools.

Eisenhower had seen what really bad governments looked like in Europe, and he understood that an imperfect but essentially benign government like that of the United States was a force for good in the world.

He did not want to tear down the government. Likewise Nixon, despite his many personal failings, understood that the United States government had the power to do good in the world: to bring about peace between warring factions, to use government power to control inflation and to improve the lives of Americans.

The current crop of Wyoming culture warriors who emphasize guns, abortion, gender and race in their campaigns while name-calling “RINO” seem to be completely ignorant of real Republican presidents like these and like Reagan and even George W. Bush.

Instead, they idolize the habitually lying, boasting, bullying, preening narcissist and degenerate who preceded the current guy, and they thoughtlessly smirk, sneer and jeer at those who oppose them, often those who oppose them by speaking the truth.

To the current Wyoming Republican leadership, truth is anathema. No reasonable adult, for instance, doubts that Trump and his allies deliberately tried to subvert the results of the last presidential election by a combination of fraud, trickery, subterfuge, force and violence.

That is why there was a seditious riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and that is why all the stupid and unsuccessful lawsuits against the election results have failed.

The enemy of these people, the one who has drawn their vitriolic ire the most, is Liz Cheney, Wyoming’s lone representative to Congress.

Liz Cheney strong!

Representative Cheney is routinely called a “RINO” on social media in Wyoming, when she is, in fact, an ideologically committed Republican and, except for the fact that she is not slavishly obeisant to Trump, she is a loyal party functionary. 

Many of her Wyoming critics do not understand that kissing Trump’s feet (or other parts) is not the equivalent of being a good Republican.  Most of her Wyoming critics really don’t have any ideology, they are just angry.  Additionally, for many of them “RINO” is the only epithet they can spell that won’t get them thrown off Facebook.

There are lots of things to not like about Liz Cheney, including her record of voting the party line so closely for most of her career. 

But there is this to admire about her: when most Republican politicians either adopted the big lie that Trump had won the election, or slunk off and said nothing about that lie, Liz spoke up and called it what it was. 

When Trump organized and deployed a seditious criminal riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, Liz called it what it was and placed the blame where it belonged by voting for impeachment.

To judge from posts on Wyoming news pages on Facebook, truth-telling and historical and political literacy are in short supply among the loudest of Wyoming Republicans.

Liz should take some solace in the fact that although the loudest and emptiest of the Wyoming Republicans are often on Facebook, they are probably not the majority.

She should be proud also that truth telling is its own reward-it brings the reward of being able to hold one’s head up despite maintaining an unpopular position.

When the next volume of Profiles in Courage is published Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger will probably figure prominently in it. The current Wyoming Republican leadership and its degraded cheering section on social media, however, will recede into the obscurity they deserve.

Michael Krampner lived in Wyoming for 35 years and practiced law there, during that time.  Besides a law degree from the University of Wyoming College of Law, he also earned a Ph.D. in history from The University of Maryland.  He currently lives in Jerusalem, Israel.

Americans are paying attention to the January 6 Committee

J/6 Opinion: I thought the January 6 committee wouldn’t matter. 

But I was wrong, essay by Max Boot published in The Washington Post.

I admit to having been skeptical, ahead of time, of the hearings planned by the House select committee investigating the events of Jan. 6, 2021. What more is there to be said, I wondered? 

Frankly, the evidence of Donald Trump’s guilt in inciting an insurrection was already so obvious that it was hard to imagine that the committee would have much to add. This was not, after all, a situation such as Watergate, where the scandal happened behind closed doors. The entire nation saw Trump’s incendiary remarks and tweets, and the riot that followed, on national television.

I am happy to say I was wrong. The committee’s hearings are exceeding expectations, because it is not behaving like a typical congressional committee. There is no grandstanding and no preening. There are no petty partisan squabbles. There is not even the disjointedness that normally occurs when a bunch of politicians are each given five minutes to question each witness. There is only the relentless march of evidence, all of it deeply incriminating to a certain former president who keeps insisting that he was robbed of his rightful election victory.

The committee’s recent hearings — there have been two (now 6/21 three) in the past week, with more planned — have been organized like carefully choreographed television productions, and I mean that as a compliment. The committee has been focused on doing what all good television productions, whether factual or fictional, do: telling a story that enthralls the viewer.

January 6 Committee hearings Chairman Bennie Thompson and Co-Chair Liz Cheney

Only a few of the committee members have spoken so far. Imagine what heroic self-restraint it takes for elected officials to understand that they can make a greater impact with their silence than with noisy blather. The members are allowing their staffers to play an unusually prominent role not only in questioning witnesses on tape but acting as narrators for mini-documentaries laying out what they have found.

The biggest complaint against the committee, heard at ever-increasing decibels from Republicans, is that it is a partisan hit job — and never mind that two prominent Republicans sit on the committee. Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) are denigrated as RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) because they had the courage to act on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s convictions. (McCarthy initially held Trump responsible for the mob attack but voted against impeaching him.)

Accusations of partisanship have been amply refuted by the hearings, which have been entirely factual and notably free of partisan rancor. There have been no anti-Trump, much less anti-Republican, rants. The committee members are focused with forensic, factual intensity on the question of Trump’s responsibility for the events of January 6. They are making a case beyond any reasonable doubt in the court of public opinion, even if it remains to be seen whether there is sufficient evidence to indict Trump in an actual court of law.

The biggest complaint against the committee, heard at ever-increasing decibels from Republicans, is that it is a partisan hit job — and never mind that two prominent Republicans sit on the committee. Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) are denigrated as RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) because they had the courage to act on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s convictions. (McCarthy initially held Trump responsible for the mob attack but voted against impeaching him.)

Accusations of partisanship have been amply refuted by the hearings, which have been entirely factual and notably free of partisan rancor. There have been no anti-Trump, much less anti-Republican, rants. The committee members are focused with forensic, factual intensity on the question of Trump’s responsibility for the events of January 6. They are making a case beyond any reasonable doubt in the court of public opinion, even if it remains to be seen whether there is sufficient evidence to indict Trump in an actual court of law.

Barr’s statement was seen by some lawyers as evidence of the “criminal intent” that would be needed to convict Trump of crimes, such as sedition. Whether that is accurate or not, Trump’s own aides have made an open-and-shut case that he is not fit to run Mar-a-Lago, much less the United States of America. Either Trump is spectacularly delusional or spectacularly dishonest. Take your choice. Or maybe he’s both? Whichever the case, he has no business returning to the nation’s highest office.

January 6 Capitol attack demands justice for law enforcement

Maine Writer opinion: Americans learn more information every day about what happened on January 6, 2021, when #TFG incited an insurrection against the U.S. Capitol and threatened a coup against democracy; but, at the end of the day, the law enforcement officers that were charged with defending the building were left to deal with the brutal physical and mental health consequences. Although the Secret Service and other security protected the vice-president and the members of the joint session of Congress on January 6th, the fact is, the Capitol Police and Washington DC law enforcement continue to live with the horror.  No one protected them.

Smith v. Trump:  On January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol Police officers risked their lives to protect our democracy. They faced a violent, mass attack on the Capitol driven by racist, white supremacist rhetoric and intentional misinformation aimed at overturning the legitimate results of an election. And not coincidentally, it was an election in which record numbers of Black voters made their voices heard. The violent attack was designed to threaten and intimidate those involved in conducting and protecting the election certification process. It was not just an attack on people or property, but an attack on democracy itself.

January 6, 2021 U/S. Capitol insurrectionist mob!

Maliciously targeting those charged with conducting and protecting the certification of our elections mocks the very ideals of our constitution. This attack requires a response! We cannot rely on the political process to play out. We must act quickly to confront the lies that fueled the violence on January 6 in order to repair the damage done to our country and to deter future efforts in upcoming elections in 2022, and 2024.

That is why the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed suit on behalf of eight U.S. Capitol Police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on that fateful day, naming as defendants former President Donald J. Trump, Stop the Steal, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and other organizations and individual members of far-right extremist groups and political organizations responsible for the insurrection. These officers put their lives on the line to protect the votes and voices of everyone in this country, including Black voters and other voters of color.

The lawsuit, Smith v. Trump, argues that the attack on the Capitol violated the Ku Klux Klan Act* and was led by many who are self-described white supremacists. As the lawsuit alleges, former President Trump and others deliberately spread election fraud claims and incited violence against members of Congress and the law enforcement officers whose job was to protect them.

Even after being sued in court and targeted by prosecutors, many of the defendants and their supporters continue to glorify the attack and minimize the harm they caused, not only to the plaintiffs and other officers, but to the country as a whole. The organizations and individuals who participated in the violent insurrection on January 6 are responsible for an attack on our democracy. The Smith v. Trump lawsuit seeks to hold them accountable.

The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on December 3, 2021, adding detail as to various defendants’ actions in furtherance of the unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint. It also adds as a defendant the Make America Great Again PAC, which FEC records indicate is carrying on the work of Defendant Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., the former president’s campaign organization for the 2020 election.

*The Ku Klux Klan Act, of 1871, the third of a series of increasingly stringent Enforcement Acts, was designed to eliminate extralegal violence and protect the civil and political rights...

Russia is perpetrating evil and Ukrainian genocide

Russia's justifications for invasion don't Hold up any better now than in February.  Echo essay by Lawrence Wittner* published in the History News Network.

The Russian government’s justifications for its war in Ukraine―the largest, most destructive military operation in Europe since World War II―are not persuasive.

Although Russian President Vladimir Putin’s primary argument in defense of the Russian invasion has been the threat of Ukraine joining NATO, that action, had it occurred, would have been perfectly legitimate under international law. The UN Charter, which is an instrument of international law, does not ban membership in military alliances. And, in fact, a great many such alliances are in existence. Russia currently heads up the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a military alliance comprised of six nations in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Of course, Putin’s focus upon NATO is based on the notion that Russia’s national security would be endangered by the existence of a NATO nation on its border. But why should Russia’s national security concerns be more valid than the national security concerns of nations on Russia’s borders―particularly nations that, in the past, have been invaded and gobbled up as territory by Russia or the Soviet Union? Moreover, if a feared threat to national security provides valid grounds for a military invasion, this would also justify military attacks by many nations. Finally, the degree of danger to Russia posed by NATO might well be questioned, as the Western alliance has never attacked Russia during the 73 years of NATO’s existence.

Dangerous Putin strategies

Furthermore, as a practical matter, before the Russian invasion occurred, Ukraine’s joining NATO was not imminent, for key NATO nations opposed membership. Indeed, in late March of this year, more than two months ago, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky offered to have Ukraine give up its NATO aspirations and become a neutral nation. But the Russian government has not accepted this termination of the supposed NATO danger as a sufficient reason to end Russia’s invasion. Indeed, the Russian war effort grinds on, ever more ferociously and destructively.

Putin’s claim that Ukraine requires “denazification” is particularly hollow. Like most other nations, Ukraine has fascists among its population. But, unlike many other nations, where fascist views are rampant, and where there are large rightwing political parties, and fascist elements in the government, rightwingers in Ukraine draw only about 2 percent of the vote, and have only one representative in Ukraine’s parliament and none in its executive branch. As Russia’s vastly exaggerated claim of Nazi control of Ukraine is based heavily upon the existence of fascists within the Azov regiment, it’s worth noting that most of that fighting force was either killed or captured during the Russian siege of Mariupol. Ironically, Putin himself has been a strong supporter of neofascist parties throughout Eastern and Western Europe and they, in turn, have celebrated him.

Whatever the justifications, the massive Russian military invasion of Ukraine is a clear violation of the UN Charter, which has been signed by all the war’s participants. In Article 2, the Charter says: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Lest there be any doubt about the relevance of this statement to the Ukraine situation, the International Court of Justice ruled on March 16 that the Russia must halt its military operations in Ukraine. After a UN Security Council resolution along these lines was vetoed by Russia, the UN General Assembly, by a vote of 141 countries to 5, passed a resolution demanding that Russia “immediately, completely, and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.” The only 5 countries that supported the Russian position were Russia, North Korea, Syria, Belarus, and Eritrea. Even some of Russia’s closest friends, such as China and Cuba, abstained rather than back Russia’s violation of international law.

Danger!

Aside from its illegality, the Russian war in Ukraine is clearly an imperialist war. It is an attack by one of the world’s mightiest military powers upon a much smaller, weaker nation, with the clear goal of seizing control of all or part of Ukraine and annexing it to the Russian empire. Although, the Russian government formally agreed to respect Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty by signing the 1994, Budapest Memorandum, in 2014, Russia seized Crimea and militarily intervened in eastern Ukraine to support pro-Russian separatists. In a lengthy public statement Putin issued in July 2021, he denied the existence of an independent Ukrainian nation. Then, three days before the massive Russian invasion of February 24, 2022, he announced that Ukraine was “Russian land.”

This June, in a clear reference to his military conquest of Ukraine, Putin compared himself to Peter the Great, the eighteenth-century Russian czar whom he praised for waging decades of war to take back Russian territory from foreign rule.

Of course, Putin and his apologists are correct when they observe that, at times, other major powers have also flouted international law and the opinions of the world community. But that abysmal standard for the behavior of nations could justify almost anything―from torture, to nuclear war, to genocide. It’s hardly a prescription for the just and peaceful world that people of all nations deserve.

Maine Writer- Meanwhile, the evil Vladimir Putin is ordering genocide in Ukraine when children are being captured by Russians for the purpose of brain washing them against their culture, language and history. 

* Lawrence Wittner is a Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).

Mrs. Clarence Thomas: Ginni Thomas did not just suddenly erupt on January 6

Echo report published in The Hill, by Kimberly Wehle*

Maine Writer opinion introduction: Indeed, Ginni Thomas exposed a career of supporting right wing extremism during the  January 6, 2021 seditious riots, where rioters chanted "Hang Mike Pence". Mrs. Clarence Thomas didn't just suddenly show up during that dangerous riot. Rather, she participated in the lead up to it and encouraged the intentions.

In my opinion, this shadowy figure was paid to plant pipe bombs in Washington DC on January 6, 2021. Where did the money come from?  Does Ginni Thomas know where the money came from? #FollowThheMoney

Ginni Thomas- Mrs. Clarence Thomas: Unpacking potential conflicts of interest on the Supreme Court.

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection wants to speak with Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, a conservative activist and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) recently announced plans to invite her to appear.

Congress wants to hear more about her bombshell texts with former President Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows in which she urged that something be done to thwart Joe Biden’s White House win. Her husband, Clarence Thomas, a sitting justice, is now under intense pressure to recuse himself from cases relating to the 2020 election and the January 6 violence, short of resignation or possibly even impeachment.

An interview with the January 6 committee is vitally important, not only for what Ginni Thomas has to say about her texts, but because under oath testimony could reveal even deeper conflicts of interest infecting the nation’s highest court — and thus its very legitimacy, writ large.

In three election-related cases, Clarence Thomas voted in a manner seemingly consistent with his wife’s far-right activism, and failed to recuse himself in contravention of a federal law mandating disqualification from any proceeding in which his impartiality may be questioned, including due to the interests of a spouse.

Most disturbingly, he was the sole dissenter in a decision requiring the National Archives to turn over to the Jan. 6 committee White House records relating to the subject matter of its inquiry. 

Who paid for this scaffolding! Who constructed it? #HangMikePence was not a spur of the moment violent mantra. Instead, this deadly scaffolding exhibit was pre-planned and paid for. #FollowTheMoney

Ginni Thomas’s texts were provided voluntarily by Meadows before he stopped cooperating. It’s reported that Ginni Thomas may have communicated with others in the White House, too — if her husband’s vote reflected a desire to keep his wife’s involvement in Jan. 6 from public scrutiny, he was clearly flouting his ethical and legal obligation of actual — let alone perceived — neutrality.

The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer exposed a litany of potential conflicts arising from Ginni Thomas’ tightness with radical ideologues, noting even back then — before the text scandal — that “the claim that the Justices’ opinions are politically neutral is becoming increasingly hard to accept.” 

Ginni Thomas, who is a lawyer herself, runs a lobbying firm called Liberty Consulting, and is on record as declaring the “deep state” a danger to America because of “transsexual fascists” on the left.

She attended a “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington, D.C. on January 6, and posted a since-removed “LOVE MAGA people!!!!” message on Facebook that went viral. 

Evil MAGA sedition on January 6, 2020

Mrs. Clarence Thomas complained about Trump’s November 4 loss on a private Listserv called Thomas Clerk World, which includes a number of her husband’s former Supreme Court law clerks, including attorney John Eastman.

Eastman penned the infamous memos outlining a bogus theory for justifying former Vice President Pence’s stalling of the Electoral College certification. Pence ultimately refused, and a federal judge just this week pinged Eastman as “likely” having committed three federal crimes along with his client Trump, in that connection. (The court’s opinion specifically had to do with attorney-client privilege and work product claims, and thus has no bearing on actual criminal liability, which would have to come through the Justice Department.)

Ginni Thomas also served as a director of C.N.P. Action, a dark money group that, according to Mayer, “behind closed doors, connects wealthy donors with some of the most radical right-wing figures in America.” She’s also on the advisory board of Turning Point USA, a pro-Trump student group that reportedly sent protestors to the January 6 rally.

She has partnerships with right-wing groups that have other Supreme Court business, including Project Veritas, which is known for making secret videotapes of progressive public officials, and Cleta Mitchell, who was on the call in which Trump urged Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” enough votes to swing the state’s electors to him — ostensibly illegally.

Ginni Thomas was also a paid consultant to a group that filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of Trump’s Muslim travel ban, which was ultimately upheld over the dissenting votes of Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Sonya Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. And she serves on the board of a conservative group that filed an amicus brief in a Supreme Court case involving race-conscious affirmative action at Harvard. (Although during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson pledged to recuse herself from that case, due to a six-year role on the Harvard Board of Overseers, Thomas has not.)

Meanwhile, the host of hot-button issues now pending before this Court is hard to match in recent memory. They include the fate of Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to make decisions to end a pregnancy (a right the court already effectively overruled by refusing to halt the Texas six-week abortion ban). 

They also include the vitality of the longstanding separation between church and state, in a case involving whether taxpayer dollars must fund religious education, as well as the question of whether states and municipalities can regulate handguns outside the home. Another question of major constitutional significance currently pending before the court is whether the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate to meaningfully slow climate change.

Each of these cases presents a possible sea change in constitutional law itself if the court reverses longstanding precedent — whether expressly or under the guise of disinterestedness. Conservative groups would presumably want the new conservative majority to upend existing law on all of these fronts. If agencies cannot constitutionally enact regulations, big business wins. If states can’t constitutionally pass laws protecting the public from gun violence, proponents of an unfettered Second Amendment right win. If states must fund right-wing religious schools if it funds non-sectarian ones, the Christian right wins. And so on.

What’s more, an unpacking of potential conflicts-of-interest on this court could mean that past cases are tainted, too. The implications of looking backward and not just forward to future January 6 cases — as appears to Democrats’ primary focus when it comes to Clarence Thomas and his wife’s problematic texts — are hard to fathom.

One might argue that it’s better not to know what we don’t know, because the stakes of knowing are too high. But unfortunately, not knowing is the real problem here. If Congress doesn’t get to the bottom of things, it might soon be too late.

*Kimberly Wehle is a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and author of “How to Read the Constitution — and Why,” as well as “What You Need to Know About Voting — and Why” and “How to Think Like a Lawyer – and Why.”