#ActInTimeDEADLINETime left to limit global warming to 1.5°C 4YRS095DAYS21:15:50 LIFELINELand protected by indigenous people43,500,000km²Nature protection is part of fundamental law in Amazon countries | One lawyer's groundbreaking work in shaping climate law | California tribes rekindle ancient fire traditions to heal the land & themselves | EU expects to add record renewable capacity in 2025 | Lego opens solar-powered Vietnam factory to cut emissions & supply Asia | Africa is proof that investing in climate resilience works | New global fund for forests is a bold experiment in conservation finance | Clean power provided 40% of the world's electricity last year | Cape Cod pilot brings clean energy upgrades to low-income homes | Nations are considering to set the 1st global tax on emissions for shipping | Nature protection is part of fundamental law in Amazon countries | One lawyer's groundbreaking work in shaping climate law | California tribes rekindle ancient fire traditions to heal the land & themselves | EU expects to add record renewable capacity in 2025 | Lego opens solar-powered Vietnam factory to cut emissions & supply Asia | Africa is proof that investing in climate resilience works | New global fund for forests is a bold experiment in conservation finance | Clean power provided 40% of the world's electricity last year | Cape Cod pilot brings clean energy upgrades to low-income homes | Nations are considering to set the 1st global tax on emissions for shipping |
Showing posts with label rule of law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rule of law. Show all posts

Mar 19, 2025

Wednesday's Bible Thing


Psalm 10
  1. Why, Lord, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?
  2. In his arrogance the wicked man hunts down the weak, who are caught in the schemes he devises.
  3. He boasts about the cravings of his heart; he blesses the greedy and reviles the Lord.
  4. In his pride the wicked man does not seek Him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.
  5. His ways are always prosperous; your laws are rejected by him; he sneers at all his enemies.
  6. He says to himself, “Nothing will ever shake me.” He swears, “No one will ever do me harm.”
  7. His mouth is full of lies and threats; trouble and evil are under his tongue.
  8. He lies in wait near the villages; from ambush he murders the innocent. His eyes watch in secret for his victims;
  9. like a lion in cover he lies in wait. He lies in wait to catch the helpless; he catches the helpless and drags them off in his net.
  10. His victims are crushed, they collapse; they fall under his strength.
  11. He says to himself, “God will never notice; he covers his face and never sees.”
  12. Arise, Lord! Lift up your hand, O God. Do not forget the helpless.
  13. Why does the wicked man revile God? Why does he say to himself, “He won’t call me to account”?
  14. But you, God, see the trouble of the afflicted; you consider their grief and take it in hand. The victims commit themselves to you; you are the helper of the fatherless.
  15. Break the arm of the wicked man; call the evildoer to account for his wickedness that would not otherwise be found out.
  16. The Lord is King for ever and ever; the nations will perish from his land.
  17. You, Lord, hear the desire of the afflicted; you encourage them, and you listen to their cry,
  18. defending the fatherless and the oppressed, so that mere earthly mortals will never again strike terror.
Pray, hope, meditate, count your rosary - do whatever you think will ease your mind.

But know this: god is not coming to help you.

We save ourselves from this ungodly shit, or we won't be saved at all.


Jan 30, 2025

Duty To Disobey


An unlawful order in the military is an order that violates the Constitution, laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders.

Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) governs orders given in the military. 
It covers failure to obey orders or regulations, and dereliction of duty.

Soldiers who violate a lawful order can be held for criminal violations.

What are some examples of unlawful orders?
  • Orders that are vague, overly broad, or intended to harass or humiliate a service member 
  • Orders that violate established laws, regulations, or the UCMJ 
  • Orders that an officer gave that they did not have the authority to give 
What are some defenses to disobeying an unlawful order?
  • Lack of knowledge
  • The order was not lawful
  • Inability to comply
  • Mistake of fact
  • Duress
What should you do if you receive an unlawful order?
  • Consult with an experienced military defense attorney
  • Understand your rights
  • Present your case
If you're active duty military, Nat'l Guard, or reserves, and you're being ordered to violate the Constitutional rights of a US citizen - or anyone else - then you need to know your own rights and obligations.

GI Rights Hotline
877-447-4487

Jan 16, 2025

Slippery

I guess it's pretty easy to say Merrick Garland fucked this up. Sure looks like it.

It's just hard to tell how much damage Trump did at DOJ in his first term, and how much of a headwind Garland had against him from inside the department because of that damage.

That may be one of those things we just never get to know. Maybe it'll come out in somebody's memoir down the road.

But this is where we are, and this is what we've got, and we have no choice but to move forward - trying to keep track of all the Trump shit as we go - taking whatever solace there is to be found in the knowledge that some sunny morning, we're going to wake up to the ringing of bells because his obituary is all over the news.

MIllions of MAGA rubes will cry, as billions of normal people cheer.


Special counsel report says Trump would’ve been convicted for Jan. 6 ‘unprecedented criminal effort’

WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Jack Smith said his team “stood up for the rule of law” as it investigated President-elect Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, writing in a much-anticipated report released Tuesday that he stands fully behind his decision to bring criminal charges that he believes would have resulted in a conviction had voters not returned Trump to the White House.

“The throughline of all of Mr. Trump’s criminal efforts was deceit — knowingly false claims of election fraud — and the evidence shows that Mr. Trump used these lies as a weapon to defeat a federal government function foundational to the United States’ democratic process,” the report states.

The report, arriving just days before Trump is to return to office on Jan. 20, focuses fresh attention on the Republican’s frantic but failed effort to cling to power in 2020 after he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. With the prosecution foreclosed thanks to Trump’s 2024 election victory, the document is expected to be the final Justice Department chronicle of a dark chapter in American history that threatened to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, a bedrock of democracy for centuries, and complements already released indictments and reports.

Trump responded early Tuesday with a post on his Truth Social platform, claiming he was “totally innocent” and calling Smith “a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election.” He added, “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”

Trump had been indicted in August 2023 on charges of working to overturn the election, but the case was delayed by appeals and ultimately significantly narrowed by a conservative-majority Supreme Court that held for the first time that former presidents enjoy sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. That decision, Smith’s report states, left open unresolved legal issues that would likely have required another trip to the Supreme Court in order for the case to have moved forward.

Though Smith sought to salvage the indictment, the team dismissed it in November because of longstanding Justice Department policy that says sitting presidents cannot face federal prosecution.

“The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind,” the report states. “Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”

The Justice Department transmitted the report to Congress early Tuesday after a judge refused a defense effort to block its release. A separate volume of the report focused on Trump’s hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, actions that formed the basis of a separate indictment against Trump, will remain under wraps for now.

The report is unsparing in its details about schemes undertaken by Trump to undo the presidential contest, accusing him of an “unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results of the election in order to retain power.”

It recounts his role in trying to force the Justice Department to use its law enforcement authorities to advance his personal interests and in participating in a scheme to enlist fake electors in battleground states won by Biden, and it says he directed “an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification of the presidential election and then leverage rioters’ violence to further delay it.”

And it documents his fallout with his vice president, Mike Pence, over Trump’s demands that he refuse to certify the electoral count before Congress on Jan. 6, 2021. It says that just before he left the White House to deliver a speech at the Ellipse that day, he called Pence one last time and that when the vice president told him that he planned to issue a public statement that he lacked the authority to do as Trump had requested, “Mr. Trump expressed anger at him. He then directed staffers to re-insert into his planned Ellipse speech some language that he had drafted earlier targeting Mr. Pence.”

Though most of the details of Trump’s efforts to undo the election are already well established, the document includes for the first time a detailed assessment from Smith about his investigation, as well as a defense by Smith against criticism by Trump and his allies that the inquiry was politicized or that he worked in collaboration with the White House — an assessment he called “laughable.”

“While we were not able to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our team stood up for the rule of law matters,” Smith wrote in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland attached to the report. “I believe the example our team set for others to fight for justice without regard for the personal costs matters.”

The special counsel also laid out the challenges it faced in its investigation, including Trump’s assertion of executive privilege to try to block witnesses from providing evidence, which forced prosecutors into sealed court battles before the case was charged.

Another “significant challenge” was Trump’s “ability and willingness to use his influence and following on social media to target witnesses, courts, prosecutors,” which led prosecutors to seek a gag order to protect potential witnesses from harassment, Smith wrote.

“Mr. Trump’s resort to intimidation and harassment during the investigation was not new, as demonstrated by his actions during the charged conspiracies,” Smith wrote.

“A fundamental component of Mr. Trump’s conduct underlying the charges in the Election Case was his pattern of using social media — at the time, Twitter — to publicly attack and seek to influence state and federal officials, judges, and election workers who refused to support false claims that the election had been stolen or who otherwise resisted complicity in Mr. Trump’s scheme,” he added.

Smith also provided fresh analysis about his team’s prosecution decisions, writing that his office decided not to charge Trump with incitement in part because of free speech concerns, or with insurrection because he was the sitting president at the time and there was doubt about proceeding to trial with the offense — of which there was no record of having been prosecuted before.

Dec 31, 2024

Old News - But Still

It doesn't hurt to remind ourselves every day what a fucking fucked up loser MAGA's mango-faced dumbass ape god is.



Trump loses appeal of E. Jean Carroll $5-million defamation, sexual assault verdict

NEW YORK, Dec 30 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Monday upheld a $5-million verdict that E. Jean Carroll won against Donald Trump when a jury found the U.S. president-elect liable for sexually abusing and later defaming the former magazine columnist.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan rejected Trump's argument that the trial judge should not have let jurors hear evidence about the Republican's alleged past sexual misconduct, making the trial and verdict unfair.

The court said that evidence, including Trump bragging about his sexual prowess on an "Access Hollywood" video that surfaced during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, established a "repeated, idiosyncratic pattern of conduct" consistent with Carroll's allegations.
"Taking the record as a whole and considering the strength of Ms. Carroll's case, we are not persuaded that any claimed error or combination of errors in the district court's evidentiary rulings affected Mr. Trump's substantial rights," the court said in an unsigned decision.

The May 2023 verdict stemmed from an incident around 1996 in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan, where Carroll, now 81, said Trump raped her, and an October 2022 Truth Social post where Trump denied Carroll's claim as a hoax.
Though jurors in federal court in Manhattan did not find that Trump, 78, committed rape, they awarded the former Elle magazine advice columnist $2.02 million for sexual assault and $2.98 million for defamation.

That position is supported by most U.S. lawmakers.

'HOAX,' TRUMP SPOKESPERSON SAYS

A different jury ordered Trump in January to pay Carroll $83.3 million for defaming her and damaging her reputation in June 2019, when he first denied her rape claim.
In both denials, Trump said he did not know Carroll, she was "not my type," and that she fabricated the rape claim to promote her memoir.

Steven Cheung, a Trump spokesperson, said in a statement that Americans "demand an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded Carroll Hoax, which will continue to be appealed."

It was not clear if any appeal would go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump tapped Cheung last month to be his White House communications director.
Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer for Carroll, said in a statement: “E. Jean Carroll and I are gratified by today's decision."

Carroll's cases are continuing despite Trump's having won a second four-year White House term.

In 1997, in a case involving former President Bill Clinton, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously, opens new tab that sitting presidents have no immunity from civil litigation in federal court over actions predating and unrelated to their official duties as president.

EVIDENCE SHOWED PATTERN: COURT

Trump argued the $5-million verdict should be thrown out because the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is not related to Roberta Kaplan, should not have let jurors hear testimony from two other women who accused him of sexual misconduct.

One, businesswoman Jessica Leeds, said Trump groped her on a plane in the late 1970s. The other, former People magazine writer Natasha Stoynoff, said Trump forcibly kissed her at his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2005.

Trump's lawyers also said the trial judge should not have let jurors watch the 2005 "Access Hollywood" video, where Trump boasted graphically about forcing himself on women.
But the appeals court said that in each of these encounters, "Mr. Trump engaged in an ordinary conversation with a woman he barely knew, then abruptly lunged at her in a semi-public place and proceeded to kiss and forcefully touch her without her consent."
It said this was "relevant to show a pattern tending to directly corroborate witness testimony and to confirm that the alleged sexual assault (of Carroll) actually occurred."

The court also rejected Trump's claim that Kaplan should have allowed evidence that a prominent Democratic critic, billionaire LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, funded Carroll's case, saying it had "little probative value." Carroll is also a Democrat.

Judge Kaplan also oversaw the trial that ended with the $83.3 million verdict.

Dec 16, 2024

Beg Pardon



Biden must ignore pardon myths and protect Patel’s and Trump’s targets
Patel issued unprecedented threats. Biden must respond.


Since President Joe Biden began seriously considering an amnesty for people at risk of retribution from President-elect Donald Trump and his FBI pick (who comes armed with an enemies list), the pearl clutching and myth-spinning about pardons have spread. Biden should pay attention to history and case law, not misinformed critics.

The first myth: A broad amnesty would be unprecedented, an intrusion into the rule of law.
That is categorically false. More than a dozen presidents dating back to George Washington have granted amnesty to a defined, large group of Americans. As legal scholar Frank O. Bowman III pointed out:

George Washington issued pardons in 1794 to defuse the lingering tensions of the defeated Whiskey Rebellion. President Andrew Johnson made extensive (and controversial) use of the pardon power to civilly rehabilitate former Confederates. A century later, Gerald Ford issued a conditional amnesty and Jimmy Carter a full pardon to Vietnam draft evaders.
Presidential amnesties for categories of people have been commonplace. After Washington, President John Adams issued a broad pardon for those involved in the Fries Rebellion in 1799 in Pennsylvania (i.e., prosecutions of “any person or persons by reason of their being concerned in the said insurrection”). With a small exception, President James Buchanan, for example, pardoned Brigham Young and his Mormon followers who had engaged in a conflict with the U.S. military. In the 19th century, Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland also issued pardons to Mormon polygamists.

The White House Historical Association recounts that presidents from Thomas Jefferson to Warren G. Harding granted amnesty to various groups of Americans — citizens convicted under the Alien and Sedition Acts for Jefferson, and 24 political prisoners (including Eugene V. Debs) for Harding.

Moreover, the association explains, “As decided in Ex Parte Garland (1866), presidents may issue pardons at any time after the commission of a federal offense, even before federal charges have been filed or a sentence has been imposed.”)

What is entirely unique is that an incoming president and a would-be FBI director nominee have explicitly named people and groups (e.g., prosecutors) they want to go after. To meet that unique threat, Biden should issue amnesty to the most vulnerable group of Americans: witnesses against Trump whom Trump and Kash Patel have already threatened.

The second myth: Some people might not want amnesty.
Again, this is not a valid reason to refuse to extend it to those who very much do want and need protection. Some individuals enjoy immunity from prosecution on other grounds so won’t need additional protection; they would be excluded from the amnesty. House members on the Jan. 6 committee immune under the speech and debate clause, along with and federal and state prosecutors operating under the color of law, almost certainly cannot be prosecuted.

But that leaves some ordinary Americans, primarily witnesses and those who provided material to courts, grand juries, Congress and federal investigators, to twist in the wind. It’s small comfort that such people would eventually be exonerated. Criminal trials and appeals can cost millions of dollars and ruin reputations as well as likely increase the physical threats many of these figures already face.

The third myth: Amnesty would not completely protect the recipients.
It is correct that such an amnesty would not protect recipients from criminal investigation for future conduct, from civil suits or from IRS audits. It is an imperfect solution to the problem of a rogue, irresponsible president-elect empowering intended nominees to seek vengeance. However, by limiting the pardon to a discrete group of people, making clear this is essentially a witness protection program to insulate the recipients from Trump’s wrath, Biden can spare some conscientious citizens and alert the public to the dangers Trump and Patel pose.

The fourth myth: Accepting amnesty is an admission of guilt.
This is false. The most recent case on the scope of pardons, 2021’s Lorance v. Commandant, held that the defendant’s acceptance of a full and unconditional presidential pardon did not amount to an admission of guilt, and therefore the defendant did not waive his habeas rights upon accepting it.

Lorance also dealt with a common misperception concerning a Supreme Court case, 1915’s Burdick v. United States, which seemed to suggest that accepting a pardon constituted “a confession” of guilt. However, Lorance explained that that statement referred to how the pardon recipient might feel. In other words, though acceptance might make the recipient “look guilty” in the eyes of some, it does not make the recipient legally guilty.

Biden in his amnesty statement can underscore that acceptance is no admission of wrongdoing but rather confirmation that the incoming president poses extreme and unprecedented threats to political enemies — something indicative of an authoritarian regime, not a great democracy.

The fifth myth: This would open the door to pardon abuses by Trump and/or mar Biden’s legacy.
The first is laughable given Trump’s pardon track record (e.g., Michael Flynn, Sheriff Joe Arpaio) and his plans to pardon those convicted of violent crimes on Jan. 6, 2021. He needs no excuse to flout democratic norms. (By the way, Biden might not have considered amnesty had not Trump recently repeated his threats and chosen Patel for FBI director with barely a whisper of complaint from Republicans. If Trump renounced revenge and found a fit nominee, none of this might be necessary.)

As for Biden, his Hunter Biden pardon statement explained that he acted because “raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice.” It certainly follows that he should act to keep raw politics — unabashedly announced in advance — from leading to a miscarriage of justice.

If ordinary citizens face retribution for daring to testify against powerful bullies, few will do so. To preserve the justice system, to encourage people to provide evidence, Biden should grant them amnesty — in effect setting up a witness protection program. It is the least he can do for selfless Americans.

Nov 13, 2024

Today's Brian & Glenn

I think I get it - gotta be careful about setting precedent, and you don't wanna hand the bad guys a weapon they can use against you later (assuming of course we actually find our way outa this fucked up mess), and we have to interpret the law, and apply the law, and not try to make the law on the judiciary side - etc etc etc. I'm there. I get it.

But goddammit - I'm so fucking sick of rich people stomping around in smarmspace manufacturing loopholes - using and abusing the courts to duck responsibility.

Here's a thought: Obey the fucking law. Could we try that for a while?


Oct 24, 2024

Skullduggery Is Afoot

The effort to overthrow democracy in 2020-2021 didn't fail - when the movers and shakers go unpunished, it wasn't a failure - it was a rehearsal.


This piece in Wired is a long one. But it's important to remember that the Trump problem is complex and gnarly.

Synopsis:
  • Constitutional Sheriffs believe they're the ultimate and absolute authority
  • They get to choose which laws they enforce and which ones they can ignore
  • They've been testing their theories by seizing voting gear and harassing election officials
  • Some have been organizing private militias, and posses (ie: vigilantes) to patrol voting stations
  • Under the guise of "election security" they're being organized to ensure Republican wins at any cost
  • Their claims to power are not legit - "Sheriff" is not in the US Constitution


'Take Back the States': The Far-Right Sheriffs Ready to Disrupt the Election

Constitutional Sheriffs are duly elected lawmen who believe they answer only to god. They've spent the last six months preparing to stop a "stolen" election—by any means necessary.


Dar Leaf and Richard Mack don’t seem like they would pose a threat to US democracy.

Leaf, a sheriff from Barry County, Michigan, always has at least two pens clipped neatly to his shirt pocket and speaks softly with a Midwestern accent. When we meet at an April event in Las Vegas, Nevada, Leaf is immaculately dressed in a sheriff’s uniform, replete with the polished gold star.

Mack also wears a gold star—even though he’s no longer a sheriff. But in the Ahern Hotel ballroom in Vegas, Mack played the part. In a ten-gallon hat, Mack was genial; shaking hands with guests, joking with vendors, and taking selfies with supporters.

This wasn’t an average get-together. Leaf and Mack were at a conference for the far-right Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, or CSPOA, a group described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-government organization with links to many other extremist groups.
Constitutional sheriffs are actual elected sheriffs who also believe they are the ultimate legal power in their county, and that no federal or state authority can usurp their authority. They also believe that a sheriff’s power stems directly from the constitution, and that they can disregard any laws they deem unconstitutional—a belief that is not grounded in reality.

Leaf is on the board of the group; Mack is the founder. And there are hundreds of members around the country.

In Las Vegas, Mack referred supporters and journalists to Leaf, who was, he said, “doing more than anyone to uncover election interference” in his role as sheriff.

A staunch Trump supporter, Leaf has spent the last four years investigating voter fraud in the 2020 federal election in Barry County—even though Donald Trump won decisively there. He has attempted to seize voting machines, pushed wild conspiracies, and ultimately became the focus of state investigations himself. In at least one case, Leaf appears to have inspired an election official to refuse to verify a vote—an ominous warning ahead of the 2024 US election.

The conspiracies have also taken a physical turn: According to emails shared exclusively with WIRED by the nonprofit group American Oversight, Leaf has run a militia training course advising “potential jurors, homeschoolers, ladies and gentlemen” to “get a standard AR-15 type military grade weapon” and “500 rounds of ammo.” The emails also show that, ahead of the most consequential election in a generation, Leaf is in regular contact with a wide variety of election conspiracists.

Leaf and a number of his colleagues in the Constitutional Sheriff movement say that they have “posses” to patrol polling stations, monitor for “illegal” immigrant voters, and help sheriffs respond to reports of fraud—or anything else—on election day.

Mack, meanwhile, has been the driving force behind the modern day Constitutional Sheriffs movement. In the last six months, Mack’s group has mobilized across the US, building relationships with powerful figures close to Trump, training armed militias, and laying out plans for when Democrats inevitably, in their view, try to steal the election. They’re laying the groundwork to challenge the outcome of next month’s vote—and recruiting sheriffs to help them assert control if Trump loses.

“In a swing state like Michigan or Wisconsin, where the difference in the state's outcome is 50,000 to 70,000 votes, if a sheriff becomes an obstacle, then that could undermine that state's credibility, says Will Pelfrey, a professor of criminal justice and homeland security at Virginia Commonwealth University. “In a swing state, that could undermine the entire national election.”

A WIRED investigation reviewed hundreds of documents and conducted dozens of interviews over the course of the last six months. We found that the Constitutional Sheriff movement believes it is the last line of defense to protect American elections. At conferences in Las Vegas and Florida, as well as online in group chats and Zoom meetings, their discussions often turn to how sheriffs can utilize their unique power in order to, they say, safeguard democracy.

For years, sheriffs like Leaf who believe they have unlimited power to interpret and enforce the laws of the land have operated on the fringes. But as the election approaches, they have been increasingly empowered by those close to Trump and are more committed than ever to ensuring a Republican victory up and down the ballot. At all costs.

Today, one in four sworn law enforcement officers in the US report to a sheriff. In addition to running county jails, sheriffs and their deputies make approximately 20 percent of all arrests in the nation, according to one estimate, translating to around 2 million arrests every year. In nearly one in three US counties, sheriff departments are the largest law enforcement agency, meaning sheriff’s offices are the primary law enforcement agency for 56 million people.

“Sheriffs are really beholden to nobody,” says Pelfrey. “Once elected, a sheriff has tremendous power, and there have been sheriffs who have been convicted and still hold office. It's a bizarre thing. It shouldn't exist, but sheriffs are not beholden to a governor or to a president, and the only way to enforce state or federal laws for a recalcitrant sheriff is the National Guard. And that's not a viable system.”

At the April event in Las Vegas, Mack worked the room incessantly. Together with Leaf, he built links with the leaders of the election denial movement, discussing and preparing for the recruitment of like-minded citizens to patrol polling stations and stop “illegal” immigrants from voting in the election. The event was a veritable who’s who of the right-wing election denial movement, including former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, pillow salesman Mike Lindell, and the de facto leader of the movement, disgraced former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

On stage, Flynn told the sheriffs they have “a huge role and responsibility in this country” and that only their local-level work will halt voter fraud. During his speech, Byrne said that constitutional sheriffs would need to play a vital role in fighting the influx of “15 million military-age men.” He also claimed that a “well-regulated militia is not a dirty phrase” and urged sheriffs in attendance to build “surge capacity” by partnering with local militias.

“The constitutional sheriffs, or any sheriff in this county, have mega power at the county level,” Lindell told WIRED in Las Vegas. He suggested that sheriffs could arrest voters for illegally voting in the wrong county, adding that they could “put a moratorium” on the voting machines if they suspect fraud is taking place. And he cited Leaf, who spoke at the event, as an example that all sheriffs should follow.

“Our job is basically to make sure that my guys are educated on the election laws, start looking for the violations, trying to get the election clerks to start paying attention if somebody drives in and they've got a whole van full of people that look like they're not from around our area, and they can say no and then make them take it through the courts,” Leaf told WIRED that week, referencing the conspiracy that “illegal immigrants” were being relocated over the border by Democrats to sway the election in favor of Kamala Harris.

To make sure his deputies follow his lead, Leaf said he is working with others to produce a guide on how to properly police elections—something he said he was going to share with all sheriffs across the country in time for the US elections.

“The role of the sheriff has always been to maintain the peace, and he's your chief law enforcement officer and chief conservator of the peace of your county,” Leaf said. “And when you get people cheating on elections, that's disturbing the peace. You violated somebody's peace.”

None of these claims of constitutional power and control are true.

“There is no constitutional basis for their claims to power, zero, it's just not in the constitution,” says representative Jamie Raskin, the congressman from Maryland who spent decades working as a constitutional law professor at American University’s Washington College of Law. “County sheriffs have no more sovereign-state political power than municipal police chiefs or mayors or county commissioners. The whole claim is completely fictional. It's a pure fabrication.”

Still, anyone paying attention is nervous: Leaf has publicly defended members of the Wolverine Watchmen militia who plotted to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020. “It’s just a charge, and they say a 'plot to kidnap' and you got to remember that,” he told a local news outlet. “Are they trying to kidnap? Because a lot of people are angry with the governor, and they want her arrested. So are they trying to arrest or was it a kidnap attempt? Because you can still in Michigan, if it’s a felony, you can make a felony arrest.” And he has run an eight-week militia training course, called Awaken Our Constitution’s Sleeping Militia Clauses, that he openly advertised on his Facebook page as recently as January.

The contents of the course, according to emails reviewed by WIRED, are based on a 2010 booklet from Brent Allen Winters, a sovereign-citizen believer, titled “Militia of the Several States,” which outlines a belief that armed militias are granted their power not from the constitution but from God, harking back to a time during the American Revolution when men in some areas were fined for not bringing their guns to church. The booklet even cites the Old Testament as justification for organizing an armed militia.

As Winters and Leaf see it, a member of a militia has two duties: “Armed defense of the land from enemies foreign and defense of the law of the land from enemies domestic.”

In one slide, titled “Do Your Duty,” which was shown to attendees of Leaf’s training course, Winters wrote: “Get started. Get a standard AR-15 type military grade weapon. Get 500 rounds of ammo.”

“There should be militias connected with every sheriff,” Leaf told The Guardian in July.

Experts like Devin Burghart, executive director of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights and someone who has closely chronicled the Constitutional Sheriffs movement for years, are also tracking how the organization is now interacting with other extremist, “paramilitary” groups.

”The Vegas CSPOA conference was about more than recruiting far-right sheriffs,” Burghart claims. “It was about plotting a road map for coordinated election interference and insurrection 2.0.”


In the weeks after the 2020 election, Trump and his advisers were scrambling to challenge the election results when a relatively unknown former Army Reserve lieutenant colonel named Ivan Raiklin started tweeting. Raiklin told Trump that he should play the “Pence card” and force then vice president Mike Pence to refuse to certify the results of the election.

While Raiklin cited a real provision of the US legal code, his plan had no basis in law. Trump retweeted and endorsed Raiklin’s plan, and while it ultimately went nowhere, the “Pence card” was a precursor to the Trump internal legal team’s coup memo that laid out a plan for Pence to overturn the election result on January 6, 2021.

Four years later, Raiklin is now a superstar in the world of election denial. Ahead of the 2024 election, he has a new scheme to guarantee Trump’s win. It involves the constitutional sheriffs.

Raiklin has compiled a “Deep State target list” of more than 350 names, reviewed by WIRED, that includes elected Democratic and Republican lawmakers, FBI officials, journalists, members of the House January 6 committee, US Capitol police officers, and witnesses from Trump’s two impeachment trials. His plan is to get constitutional sheriffs to round up those people in livestreamed swatting raids so they can be punished for treason. Raiklin, who is closely connected to Flynn’s organization, also wants sheriffs to “deputize” people into armed militias or “posses” to help facilitate the arrests.

“We have hundreds of thousands that want to participate in retribution,” Raiklin said in a June video interview with Cliven Bundy, a Nevada cattle rancher who became a far-right icon after a dispute in 2014 over grazing fees led to an armed standoff with federal authorities. “Some people call it accountability.”

Raiklin met with Mack at the Las Vegas conference and tried to recruit sheriffs to his cause. In June, Raiklin and Mack met again and had “a good discussion,” according to Mack, who would not expand on what exactly the pair discussed. Raiklin refused to speak to WIRED in Vegas and didn’t answer questions sent afterward.

While Trump has not endorsed the Constitutional Sheriffs movement directly, he has spent recent years courting sheriffs around the country. In September 2018, Trump stood in the White House surrounded by almost four dozen sheriffs. Front and center was Thomas Hodgson, then sheriff of Bristol County in Massachusetts.

Hodgson was there to present Trump with a plaque, and praised him for his “strength of purpose” and “commitment to [his] convictions.” The inscription read in part: “There’s a new sheriff in town.” A supporter of the Constitutional Sheriff movement, Hodgson was tapped by Trump in late 2019 to become an honorary chairman of Trump’s Massachusetts reelection effort.

Trump held around a dozen meetings with sheriffs at the White House during his four years in office, more than any other president—and that’s not counting the regular appearances of sheriffs at Trump rallies and campaign stops. Mark Lamb, a constitutional sheriff from Pinal County, Arizona, spoke at Trump rallies in his home state and in Illinois. Trump also emboldened sheriffs by removing Department of Justice oversight that the Obama administration had put in place and restarting a program to allow sheriffs departments to buy military-grade weapons at discounted prices.

“Trump’s tough-guy, xenophobic, and conspiracy-minded persona gave sheriffs a new model in the White House,” writes Jessica Pishko, author of The Highest Law in the Land: How the Unchecked Power of Sheriffs Threatens Democracy. “Under Trump, constitutional sheriffs had a friend and protector at the highest level of government.”

While Mack’s group is at the forefront of the Constitutional Sheriffs movement, there are many other sheriffs across the US who hold similar beliefs about the power of sheriffs. The movement has also found purchase with other prominent right-wing groups. In 2021, the Sheriff’s Fellowship was launched by the Claremont Institute, an influential far-right think tank involved in the drafting of Project 2025, whose stated goal is to see the US revert to a Christian-centric nation based on principles espoused by the founding fathers. The fellowship, which was funded by Trump’s former secretary of education Betsy DeVos, is a five-day training course in “American political thought and institutions” and has featured multiple self-identified constitutional sheriffs, including Leaf.

The closer constitutional sheriffs get to the mainstream GOP, the more cause for alarm.

“The danger of authoritarian attack on the democratic process is at its peak when you get an alliance between extremist vigilante groups like [the Constitutional Sheriffs] with elements of the actual political system, like a political party,” says Representative Raskin. “That's a dangerous combination if Donald Trump is going to be leading the Republican Party into election denialism and a determination to prevail over the rule of law, and you have violent paramilitary groups backing them up.”

Richard Mack’s law enforcement career began with rejection. “My father had just retired from the Bureau a few years earlier and I wanted to follow in his footsteps,” Mack wrote in his 2009 book titled The County Sheriff. “But, this dream never happened as I had some problems with one of the Bureau's entrance tests.” He instead decided to join the Provo (Utah) Police Department in 1979, where he says he immediately became a “by-the-numbers jerk” whose primary goal was writing as many tickets as possible.

In 1982, Mack went undercover on the narcotics beat. “I had to live in the bars, drink, smoke, and act like the biggest partying druggie there ever was (something totally foreign to my conservative Mormon upbringing),” Mack wrote.

The assignment opened Mack’s eyes to what he saw as the injustice of the drug war and how it was targeting US citizens rather than organized crime groups. Disillusioned with the police force, in 1988 Mack moved home to Safford, Arizona, and successfully ran for Graham County sheriff. This was where the Constitutional Sheriff movement began.

Constitutional sheriffs claim their power comes directly from the founding fathers, even though there is no mention of sheriffs in the constitution. Many sheriffs—including Leaf—cite a quote from a Thomas Jefferson letter as their justification for the importance of the position: “The office of Sheriff [is] the most important of all the Executive offices of the county.” The line was indeed written by Jefferson, but the letter focuses on Jefferson's complaints about lifetime appointments of local judges and how they abuse their office, Pishko writes in her book.

The roots of the modern day Constitutional Sheriffs movement originate in the far-right Posse Comitatus group, which was formed in the early 1970s by William Potter Gale, a minister of a militant antisemitic, white-nationalist quasi-religion known as Christian Identity. Gale lionized the idea of the county sheriff as a protector of the ordinary citizen who had the power to call up posses or militias to root out communism, fight the desegregation of schools, and remove—or even execute—federal officials.

Over the years, the ideas popularized by Gale would inspire a variety of far-right groups, individuals, and movements, including Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Incidents like the sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco in the early 1990s, the latter of which resulted in dozens of deaths, would be used as further evidence by figures like Mack who already believed the federal government was overstepping.

At the same time, Mack coordinated with the National Rifle Association (NRA) to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the Brady Bill, signed into law by then president Bill Clinton in 1993. The law mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers—carried out by sheriffs. For sheriffs like Mack, who almost uniformly view Second Amendment gun rights as sacred, this was too far.

In 1997, the Supreme Court sided with Mack and the NRA, finding that the provisions in the bill that forced sheriffs to perform the background checks were unconstitutional. Mack was no longer a sheriff, but he catapulted to fame on the far-right for standing up to the government. He became a regular on the militia and pro-gun speaking circuits and even did PR work for Gun Owners of America, a more hard-line version of the NRA.

Over the next decade, Mack continued to mix in far-right circles. In the early 2010s, he became a board member of the Oath Keepers, an anti-government militia led by former Army paratrooper Stewart Rhodes, who is currently serving an 18-year sentence for his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. (Mack said he left the Oath Keepers around a decade ago when it became too militant, but CSPOA continued to support the group on its podcasts and newsletters in the years since the attack on the Capitol, helping raise money for Rhodes’ legal fund.)

In 2011, Mack founded the CSPOA to “take America back, Sheriff by Sheriff, County by County, State by State.” In 2014, Mack, together with members of the CSPOA and the Oath Keepers, was part of the now infamous armed standoff between the federal government and the Bundy family in Nevada.

The popularity of the CSPOA has waxed and waned over the course of its 13-year-old history, but the Covid-19 pandemic and protests following the murder of George Floyd in 2020 brought sheriffs back to the fold.

Mack reportedly encouraged sheriffs to ignore restrictions by federal and state officials meant to curb the spread of Covid; he also helped facilitate the spread of anti-vaccine disinformation as a board member of the conspiracy group America’s Frontline Doctors, a role for which he was, at one time, paid $20,000 a month. Mack, who to this day still refers to himself as “Sheriff Mack,” has not been a sheriff for almost 30 years. He unsuccessfully ran for other sheriff positions, and even governor of Utah and US senator in Arizona.

In interviews, Mack comes across as reasonable, repeatedly pointing out that the CSPOA is a nonviolent movement. But in the private members-only webinars he broadcasts weekly to his subscribers, he portrays a much darker side. In an August webinar, he said that his group was “obsessed” with monitoring next month’s vote and the “probability” that the election will be stolen as a result of the millions of illegal aliens being shipped into the country. In another webinar earlier this summer, Mack pushed an even darker conspiracy, that Democrats will allow Trump to win to instigate a civil war:

“The only way I see Trump winning is if they decide they want Trump to be in, that those who cheated last time are actually going to make sure he gets in,” Mack said. “Why do they want Trump in? Because they want the civil war to begin, and the violence that will be happening across this country will be horrendous.”

In September, Leaf appeared in Orlando, Florida, to discuss what extremism experts say is a “far-right blueprint for the next insurrection.” He was speaking at a conference organized by the Florida Foundation for Freedom, a group run by the CSPOA. Leaf was there to show other sheriffs how to take action.

The conference’s speaker list included a variety of election conspiracists with links to Trump—including far-right figure Mark Finchem, who is currently running for a seat in Arizona’s statehouse—and Christian nationalists, including Bill Cook, the founder of America’s Black Robe Regiment. Also speaking at the conference was Mary Flynn O’Neill, a director at America’s Future, the nonprofit run by her brother, Michael Flynn.

The event was organized by Bill Mitchell, the head of CSPOA’s Florida chapter, to promote a blueprint he created for constitutional sheriffs in other states to connect with like-minded election officials. The details of the plan were outlined in a seven-page document published on the foundation’s website, on CSPOA-headed paper.

“Take back the states, one constitutional sheriff at a time,” Mitchell said during a summer presentation about the plan.

When WIRED spoke to Mitchell, he denied that his plan was focused on disrupting the election. But the document clearly calls for citizen-led, local posses aligned with the CSPOA to recruit like-minded sheriffs, county commissioners, and supervisors of elections. Should those officials refuse to take action as directed, the plan states, allied sheriffs or posse-led grand juries will relieve them of their duties.

“Instead of a January 6–style centralized mass insurrection, these Florida activists developed a blueprint for a county-by-county-style revolt,” says Burghart, who analyzed the plan on IREHR’s website.

It’s not just Florida. In Las Vegas, Bob Songer, the sheriff in Klickitat County in Washington state, shared a 32-page guide with other sheriffs on how to recruit a posse, revealing that his own has 150 members. Leaf outlined how, when his Michigan election fraud investigation was going nowhere, he created his own “election investigation posse” consisting of two cybersecurity experts and a “clerk” to gather evidence.

Mack has also espoused his view that every sheriff should have his own posse. In a recent members-only webinar, viewed by WIRED, Mack and Sam Bushman, CEO of the CSPOA, wondered about the possibility of veterans temporarily moving to Leaf’s county in Michigan and being deputized to help his investigations into election fraud.

Mack’s views on the power of posses is deep-seated: “People get all upset when they hear about militias, but what’s wrong with it?” Mack reportedly said in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing at the NRA's national membership meeting, in which Mack was honored as the organization's law enforcement Officer of the Year. “I wouldn’t hesitate for a minute to call out my posse against the federal government if it gets out of hand.”

“There's no federal constitutional prohibition against a posse,” says Will Pelfrey, a professor of criminal justice and homeland security at Virginia Commonwealth University. “It's kind of terrifying, because you're empowering a lot of fringe people to do something that they probably shouldn't be doing.”

Like lynching, maybe?

It’s not exactly clear how many constitutional sheriffs currently exist. Back in 2014, the group claimed it had 485 sheriffs signed up. In 2017, Mack told High Country News the group had 4,500 fee-paying members. By 2021, that number had risen to 10,000, Mack told VICE News, adding that his group had “trained 400 sheriffs.” Two years later, Mack told AZCIR that his groups had trained 1,000 sheriffs.

When WIRED asked Mack how many sheriffs were currently members of the CSPOA, he said 300 sheriffs could be described as “really solid.” He would not divulge how many paying members the group has.

While Mack and the CSPOA are the most prominent part of the Constitutional Sheriff movement, there are many other sheriffs who espouse the same beliefs. A 2022 survey conducted by the Marshall Project found that close to 50 percent of the sheriffs polled agreed with the constitutional sheriff mantra that “their own authority, within their counties, supersedes that of the state or federal government.”

Many sheriffs have also shied away from publicly aligning themselves with Mack, something the former sheriff readily admits. And yet Trumpworld, the election denial movement, and some of the most prominent far-right influencers are now seeking to team up with the sheriffs to influence the outcome of the US election.

In September, election denial group True the Vote told its followers that it was working with sheriffs to monitor drop boxes. While Mack told WIRED he hasn’t spoken to True the Vote about this specific plan, he has confirmed that the CSPOA is still actively working with True the Vote, though he declined to say in what capacity. Bushman also wouldn’t give details of their collaboration, but said: “It's more than just supporting what they're doing.”

In multiple conversations with Mack over the last six months, he repeatedly asserted that the CSPOA advocates only for nonviolent action in efforts to combat the alleged (and unproven) widespread voter fraud that is now the group’s driving force.

But Mack also maintains deep ties to Stewart Rhodes and the Oath Keepers and is publicly meeting with figures like Raiklin, who in August also posted an ominous threat on X referencing the recent assassination attempt against Trump: “In a duel, each side gets one shot. They missed 36 days ago. Now it's [our] turn.”

Earlier this month, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security warned that “election-related grievances” could motivate domestic extremists to engage in violence around the election.

In a recent phone conversation, Mack’s tone sounded more deflated than antagonistic; he admitted that he was “frustrated” that more sheriffs were not taking a more active role in policing elections, a practice that has led to voters feeling intimidated in the past.

“President Biden and his administration have just caused so much extra work for the sheriffs, it's really hard to get them to focus on elections,” says Mack. Every sheriff in this country should verify the security and integrity of the voting in their county. Every single one.”

Dar Leaf, for one, remains focused. As he prepares to police an election while continuing to investigate the last one, he is clear-eyed about where the threat is coming from: immigrants and Democrats. He claims that America has received “other countries’ garbage,” and as a result, he needs to act.

“Any police officer who thinks that machine is bad or something criminal is going on,” Leaf says, “we have a duty to seize it.”

Sep 14, 2024

50+ Years Ago




The suit against Trump University was settled for about $25,000,000.

Trump has a criminal pedigree that's pretty amazing, and don't forget:

In 1973, Trump and his daddy owned about 35,000 residential rental units.

Three-Five-Comma--Zero-Zero-Zero

8 of those 35,000 units were rented to black families.

Not eight thousand. Not eight hundred. Eight. As in 8.

0.023%

This case was settled a few years later for an unknown amount.


Case: United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc.

1:73-01529 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Filed Date: Oct. 15, 1973
Closed Date: June 10, 1977

Case Summary

This case was brought against Fred and Donald Trump, and their real estate company, in 1973 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In October 1973, the Justice Department filed this civil rights case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (federal court in Brooklyn) against Fred Trump, Donald Trump, and their real estate company. The complaint alleged that the firm had committed systemic violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in their many complexes--39 buildings, between them containing over 14,000 apartments. The allegations included evidence from black and white "testers" who had sought to rent apartments; the white testers were told of vacancies; the black testers were not, or were steered to apartment complexes with a higher proportion of racial minorities. The complaint also alleged that Trump employees had placed codes next to housing applicant names to indicate if they were black.

The Trumps retained Roy Cohn, former aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy, to defend them; they counter-claimed against the government, seeking $100 million in damages for defamation.

The case was assigned to District Judge Edward R. Neaher. He dismissed the counterclaim and allowed the Fair Housing Act suit to proceed.

After two years, the matter settled with a consent decree, signed June 10, 1975. It included the ordinary disclaimer of liability (the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation), but prohibited the Trumps from "discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling." In addition to a general injunction against discrimination, the decree prohibits specific discriminatory practices, such as lying about the availability of apartments or interfering with individuals' enjoyment of their housing rights through threats or coercion. Fred and Donald Trump were ordered to "thoroughly acquaint themselves personally on a detailed basis" with the Fair Housing Act. The agreement also required the Trumps to place ads informing minorities they had an equal opportunity to seek housing at their properties. According to a contemporary article in the New York Times, Trump Management was required to furnish the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies, for two years; the League would get three days to provide qualified applicants for every fifth vacancy in Trump buildings where fewer than 10 percent of the tenants were black.

The Justice Department called the decree “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.” Newspaper headlines echoed that assessment. The New York Amsterdam News, for example, titled its article “Minorities win housing suit,” and told readers that “qualified Blacks and Puerto Ricans now have the opportunity to rent apartments owned by Trump Management.”

In his autobiography, Donald Trump took a different view: “In the end the government couldn’t prove its case, and we ended up making a minor settlement without admitting any guilt.”

For more information, see Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr. Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it (Washington Post, Jan. 23, 2016).

In 2017, the FBI released records of its investigation into the Trumps and their real estate company in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The documents included many pages of interviews with the company's then-current and former employees, interviews with residents of Trump properties, and people who had applied to Trump properties. The majority of interviewees were not aware of any discrimination occurring, but several contributed to the conclusion that the company was discriminating on the basis of race.

One interviewee, a black prospective tenant, noted that, in person, a leasing manager showed her several available apartments but later called her to tell her that she could not have an apartment in that complex "as they discriminated against blacks." He then asked her not to make any trouble as he needed the job.

Another interviewee, an employee of the company for two weeks, indicated that in his time at the company he fielded an inquiry from a black applicant who he judged to be an acceptable tenant but was told by another individual at the company that "they're blacks and that's that." He also indicated that he believed others working at the rental office used a code on the top of the front page of rental applications to "distinguish blacks from whites."

Also in the documents were records from the New York State Division of Human Rights and the NYC Human Rights Commission complaints and hearings about discrimination at Trump properties. The complaints were mooted when the company offered the complaining parties apartments in their properties. A 1968 hearing of the NYC Human Rights Commission, however, found that discrimination had occurred at a Trump property. The commission ordered the company to cease and desist from their discriminatory practices, pay damages to the complainant, and inform a fair housing organization whenever apartments at the property became available.

Aug 5, 2024

More SCOTUS




In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Jun 8, 2024

Convicted Felon Donald Trump



He can be president but he can’t be a nurse: The jobs Trump can’t get with felony convictions

Trump’s power and influence will help him avoid major hurdles facing millions of Americans with felony convictions trying to get back to work, Alex Woodward reports

  • He cannot legally bartend in Florida, but he can be president of the United States.
  • He can be legally denied certain public housing, but he could soon live at the White House.
  • He cannot legally possess a firearm in any state, but he could soon command the country’s nuclear arsenal.
Donald Trump joined the nearly 20 million Americans with felony convictions when a jury in New York found him guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree on May 30.

But unlike the millions of Americans re-entering society after conviction and incarcerations, who face countless barriers to decent jobs, housing, healthcare, childcare, and the ability to vote, among other hurdles, Trump can rely on his immense wealth, influence and potential path to the presidency to avoid them.

It is unlikely he will face any jailtime (Manhattan prosecutors are not seeking any), and if he wins the 2024 presidential election, the terms of a probationary sentence – the most likely outcome – could be jammed up by his challenges in federal courts to allow him to do the kinds of things one would need to do as president, like travel out of state.

“It’s a completely different world,” according to Wanda Bertram, communications specialist with the nonpartisan nonprofit research organization Prison Policy Initiative.

“He’s not even going to think about the kind of barriers that people who are coming out of prison are going to face,” she tells The Independent.

“Donald Trump is going to be able to avoid not just the immediate consequences of a felony conviction, as they apply to most people, but also the downstream consequences,” she says. “This thing that tends to happen to people where, because of their felony conviction, they can’t get a job, they can’t get housing, they can’t get healthcare, and then, because of the combination of those things, then they’re reincarcerated or convicted for something else.”

The heaps of contradictions facing Trump’s post-conviction life – can’t have a gun but can control the nation’s military, can’t hold certain occupational licenses but can be president, can’t vote in certain states but can be the thing people are voting for – were probably not the dilemmas that the nation’s founders considered.

But they expose the wild gaps between a powerful billionaire navigating the criminal justice system and the rest of us.

Nearly four out of every 10 people in state prison were jobless in the month leading up to their arrest, according the Prison Policy Initiative. Black people (46 per cent) and women (53 per cent) in state prisons were more likely to have not had a job in that time, the group found.

More than half a million Americans return to their communities each year after incarceration, but most face job rejection and long streaks of unemployment thanks to discriminatory hiring practices, occupational license restrictions and short-term and unstable, low-paying positions.

“If you’re Donald Trump, you can kind of make your own work,” Bertram says. “That’s the privilege of having a lot of money – you can gin up some new venture.”

Many state licensing laws include blanket disqualifications for people with criminal records, meaning that state boards don’t have to scrutinize applications or think twice about revoking licenses if they come from a person with certain felony convictions.

Other state boards may have more discretion to grant licenses to applicants with a criminal conviction, but for millions of people with records, “they’re just one more applicant,” Bertram says.

“They’re just a number,” she says. “They can try to appeal the decision, and they don’t hear anything. … Trump and so many billionaires and millionaires have so many other avenues of recourse to try to pull strings. … If you’re formerly incarcerated, you probably don’t have access to even the kind of legal assistance that might be able to help you overcome this.”

Trump can be president again, but state-level occupational licensing restrictions would block any other person with felony convictions from a range of jobs across the country.

Some of those restrictions, according to the Prison Policy Initiative and the National Conference of State Legislatures: Trump can’t work for a casino in Illinois or a vet in Indiana, in pest control in North Carolina, he can’t sell a car in Mississippi, or work in any healthcare setting in Virginia.

Even in New York, if he wanted a real estate brokers license, he would need permission from the secretary of state.

In Florida, he can’t be a firefighter or legally tend bar at his Mar-a-Lago compound; Florida law prohibits bars from employing bartenders who have been convicted of a felony within five years.

And unlike many people with felony convictions, Trump will still probably be able to vote for himself in the upcoming election, as long as he is not behind bars.

He can still vote from New York or his home in Florida if he is on probation.

Voting laws in Florida – where Trump is registered to vote – defer to the rules in the state where a person was convicted. The state’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis even announced he would personally ensure Trump could vote, despite rolling back voting rights for thousands of Florida residents with felony convictions.

In 2018, Florida voters overwhelmingly supported a measure to restore voting rights for most Floridians with convictions who had completed the terms of their sentence. But in 2019, DeSantis signed a law mandating that certain people with felony convictions can only regain their voting rights after they pay all related fines, fees and restitution.

“That would be easy for [Trump] to do,” Bertram says. “For most people who are coming out of prison, in Florida or elsewhere, they are saddled with a lot of criminal justice-related fees that are hard for them to pay off because they get in the way of other things that they need to do to get back on their feet right. … There’s a magnitude of difference between the fines that he’s paying, or the amount of money that he has, versus the amount of money that the average formerly incarcerated person or person with a felony conviction has and how much money they have to pay.”

May 31, 2024

No Go Zones


As a convicted felon (assuming a supremely fucked up Supreme Court doesn't ride to his rescue), Trump won't be able to enter these countries without some kind of "special accommodation" afforded him by the host nation:
  1. Argentina
  2. Australia
  3. Brazil
  4. Cambodia
  5. Canada
  6. Chile
  7. China
  8. Cuba
  9. Dominican Republic
  10. Egypt
  11. Ethiopia
  12. Hong Kong
  13. India
  14. Indonesia
  15. Iran
  16. Ireland
  17. Israel
  18. Japan
  19. Kenya
  20. Malaysia
  21. Macau
  22. Mexico
  23. Morocco
  24. Nepal
  25. New Zealand
  26. Peru
  27. Philippines
  28. Singapore
  29. South Africa
  30. South Korea
  31. Taiwan
  32. Tanzania
  33. Tunisia
  34. Turkey
  35. Ukraine
  36. United Arab Emirates
  37. United Kingdom

I Won't Say What I'm Dyin' To Say

Yes I will - Fuck your feelings, MAGA.



Now What?



Will Trump go to jail? Can he be president? What’s next after guilty verdict?

Donald Trump was convicted Thursday on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in his New York state hush money case.


Donald Trump was convicted Thursday on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in his New York state hush money case, becoming the first former U.S. president to be tried and found guilty of a crime.

Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.
The 12-person jury unanimously agreed on the verdict after deliberating for two days, finding that Trump falsified records to cover up a $130,000 payment before the 2016 election to an adult-film actress to keep her quiet about an alleged sexual encounter with him years earlier.

Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee in this year’s presidential race.

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan scheduled Trump’s sentencing for July 11. Trump is required to report to the New York City Department of Probation for an interview about his background, his mental health and the circumstances of his case that will be used to help compile a presentencing report.

Will Trump go to jail?

The charges against Trump are nonviolent Class E felonies, the lowest level in New York, and they are punishable by 16 months to four years in state prison.
Legal experts said it is unlikely that Trump, 77, would be incarcerated, given that he had not previously been convicted of a crime.

Other options for Merchan include sentencing Trump to probation, which would mean he would need approval from a parole officer to travel outside the state. Trump also could be fined or granted a conditional discharge pegged to the requirement that he stay out of further legal trouble, legal experts said.

Can Trump still become president after being convicted?

Trump remains eligible to campaign for the presidency and serve if elected. The U.S. Constitution requires that presidential candidates be at least 35 years old, a natural-born U.S. citizen and a resident in the country for at least 14 years. The 14th Amendment, passed by Congress after the Civil War, bars anyone who participated in an insurrection from running for the presidency, but Trump has not been charged with insurrection in the three other criminal prosecutions that remain active against him.

If I may, and IMHO: the 14th amendment doesn't require the guy to be charged with, tried for, or convicted of insurrection. A Colorado court has judged him to have engaged in insurrection, and both the Colorado Supreme Court and SCOTUS have let that judgement stand.
Trump is an insurrectionist,
so he can't serve as POTUS.

And also too:
A convicted felon can't get
security clearance.

We have some serious shit we have to work out.

Can Trump appeal?

Trump’s legal team will have 30 days from the New York verdict to file notice of appeal and six months to file the full appeal. Any appeals process would probably extend beyond the Nov. 5 presidential election. Legal experts said it is plausible that an appeals court would agree to stay Trump’s sentence until after the appeal is adjudicated.

How does this verdict impact his candidacy?

Polls before the guilty verdict Thursday had shown an often small but potentially decisive drop in Trump’s support if he were to be convicted of a crime. As of late 2023, polls showed that a conviction would shift the margins by between five and 14 points in President Biden’s favor. A recent Reuters-Ipsos poll last month showed just a two-point shift toward Biden if Trump is convicted, with a larger six-point shift if Trump is incarcerated as a result.