06 January 22
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
Just look at where the donations are flowing.
But CNBC produced a singularly important story about the expensive suits manning the engine room of the USS Ratfcker.
More than 140 Republicans in the House and Senate continued to object to the results of the election in which President Joe Biden defeated incumbent President Donald Trump, even after the pro-Trump attack on the Capitol. Trump, who was then the president, urged his supporters at a rally that day to march on Congress as lawmakers were in the process of confirming Biden’s electoral victory.
Data compiled by watchdog group Accountable.US shows a handful of corporations that chose to pause contributions or push back on what took place on Jan. 6 later moved ahead with financing the campaigns of GOP lawmakers who objected to the election results. A study by the Public Affairs Council published last month says more than 80% of corporate PACs did pause their contributions to federal candidates following Jan. 6.
If Omicron passed as quickly as did the attacks of conscience after January 6, we wouldn’t be having half as many problems as we do.
“Major corporations were quick to condemn the insurrection and tout their support for democracy — and almost as quickly, many ditched those purported values by cutting big checks to the very politicians that helped instigate the failed coup attempt,” Accountable.US President Kyle Herrig said in a statement. “The increasing volume of corporate donations to lawmakers who tried to overthrow the will of the people makes clear that these companies were never committed to standing up for democracy in the first place.” Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and General Motors are among the corporations that said they would pause their campaign contributions to all federal candidates after the attack on the Capitol but later opted to resume their donations, including to lawmakers who objected to the results of the 2020 election.
There’s an important point to be made here: American plutocracy would adapt swiftly and smoothly to American authoritarianism. Corporations would line up to play the role of Krupp or IG Farben in Steve Bannon’s 100-year Reich. Some of them actually would prefer it, just as it was industrialists and bankers who sought to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935. From the Washington Post:
Eventually, MacGuire laid it all out: He was working for a group of mega-rich businessmen with access to $300 million to bankroll a coup. They would plant stories in the press about Roosevelt being overwhelmed and in bad health…A few weeks later, news of a new conservative lobbying group called the American Liberty League broke. Its members included J.P. Morgan Jr., Irénée du Pont and the CEOs of General Motors, Birds Eye and General Foods, among others. Together they held near $40 billion in assets, Denton said — about $778 billion today.
Counting on the essential patriotism of American corporations has been a sucker’s game for a long time.
Former vice president Mike Pence speaks at the National Press Club in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2021. (photo: AP)
“You could see how much information they already had,” former Pence Press Secretary Alyssa Farrah told Axios of how much the committee had already gleaned
Axios reported on Wednesday that “many” figures around the former vice president have voluntarily testified, including his former chief of staff, Marc Short, and his former press secretary, Alyssa Farrah. Keith Kellogg, Pence’s national security adviser who was subpoenaed by the committee in November, also gave a deposition.
One of Axios’ sources said that neither Short nor Kellogg would have cooperated without first getting the green light from Pence himself.
Short, Farrah, and Kellogg aren’t the only staffers to cooperate. Axios notes that multiple tiers of Pence’s staff who were at the White House on Jan. 6 have been “integral” in helping the committee flesh out what happened. “From the two I was in, you could see how much information they already had,” Farrah told Axios of her meetings with the committee last year.
Pence’s staff could provide a goldmine of information about what former President Trump was up over the course of the more than three hours from when his speech at the Ellipse concluded, to when he finally tweeted that his supporters should stand down. Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said on Sunday that the committee had received first-hand accounts of Trump’s behavior during the attack on the Capitol. She did not specify who provided those accounts, but CNN later reported that Kellogg was a key witness.
It isn’t shocking that members of Pence’s staff would cooperate with the committee given how Trump has thrown his former vice president under the bus, blaming him for the administration’s inability to overturn the results of the election. The committee hasn’t had as much luck getting Trump’s staff to cooperate, although former Trump Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham told reporters on Wednesday that she “cooperated fully” with the committee after meeting with it earlier that day.
A police officer is visible through a broken window of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 7, 2021, the day after a pro-Trump mob broke into the building. (photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
Of 701 federal defendants, 74 have been sentenced, nearly all for misdemeanors
“Is it the government’s view that the members of the mob that engaged in the Capitol attack on January 6 were simply trespassers?” Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell asked incredulously in October. “Is general deterrence going to be served by letting rioters who broke into the Capitol, overran the police … broke into the building through windows and doors … resolve their criminal liability through petty offense pleas?”
But for all four defendants Howell has sentenced, she has imposed less jail time than prosecutors sought, saying that government plea deals in most misdemeanor cases are forcing judges to choose whether short jail terms or years of probation pose a stronger deterrent. And her decisions are not unusual, a Washington Post analysis found.
Federal judges in D.C. have gone below the government recommendation in 49 out of 74 sentencings held for Capitol riot defendants one year after the attack, about two-thirds of the cases. In eight cases where prosecutors asked for jail time, the judges instead opted for probation. Of the 74 people sentenced so far, 35 have been given jail or prison time, 14 home detention and 25 probation alone.
About a quarter of cases in what the government has called the largest investigation in U.S. history have resulted in guilty pleas as of Jan. 6 this year; out of 701 people charged in federal court, 174 have pleaded guilty. (One case was dropped against a man who never went inside the building; two defendants have died.) While half the defendants face felony charges, nearly 90 percent of pleas involve misdemeanors, as prosecutors so far have focused on closing less serious cases to marshal resources for more complex trials ahead.
Before the pandemic, about half of federal felony cases in Washington were resolved within a year. But the system has moved slowly for those accused of the most serious crimes due to the pandemic and the vast amount of electronic evidence, whether videos or social media, which had to be reviewed and shared. Prosecutors are also using the felony charge of “obstruction of Congress” in a novel way against 275 defendants, prompting legal challenges that have delayed plea talks. Those challenges are easing, however, likely speeding up guilty pleas, cooperation deals and the overall investigation, as well as increasing average sentences as more felony cases are decided.
Of the 367 people charged with at least one felony as of Thursday — including 156 charged with assaulting law enforcement — only seven cases have reached sentencing, and just three of those involved attacks on the police. No trials have been held, with the first set to begin in February. None of the 39 people charged with conspiring to stop the vote count, including members and associates of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, have been sentenced.
Although the Justice Department has argued generally that higher sentences would deter domestic terrorism, prosecutors so far have not formally asked judges to apply terrorism-related enhancements that could more than double the sentencing guidelines. Instead, they have used the threat of that enhancement to encourage guilty pleas, lawyers have said.
In addition to those charged, the government estimates more than 1,000 other people took part in the riot, including more than 350 who committed acts of violence in the insurrection that resulted in attacks on scores of police officers and left at least five dead.
It’s not unusual for federal defendants who plead early and cooperate to get better sentencing deals. And judges regularly sentence below government recommendations and the advisory guidelines calculated by probation officers, which factor in criminal and personal history, remorse and the seriousness of the offenses. Defendants also get to make recommendations at sentencing, with courts often splitting the difference. And Jan. 6 prosecutors began asking for jail time more often after judges’ initial complaints.
Nevertheless, U.S. district judges in Washington have lamented that they are limited by prosecutors’ decisions to let many rioters plead to a “petty offense” of illegally parading inside the Capitol or other misdemeanors, including at least 14 allowed to plead down from felonies. And even among seven felony cases sentenced so far, alongside 67 misdemeanor cases, judges have reduced the government’s proposed sentence in five of them.
Ed Ungvarsky, a longtime defense attorney who represented one Jan. 6 defendant charged with a misdemeanor, said strong comments by judges about a low-level case are common. Judges, he said, are “signaling the seriousness of the overall situation” and want to send a message to “actors charged and uncharged” — including “those who exhorted the activity at the Capitol that day” — that they have gotten a break, but “shouldn’t expect it again.”
Some felony defendants have gotten a break for pleading early. Prosecutors sought an 18-month sentence for Paul A. Hodgkins, who pleaded guilty to the felony of obstructing a joint session of Congress while carrying a “Trump 2020” flag into the well of the evacuated Senate on Jan. 6. Hodgkins was the first riot participant to face sentencing for that felony charge, which other defendants have argued is unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, an appointee of President Barack Obama, sentenced him to eight months.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson, another Obama appointee, gave the largest departure from a government recommendation to Cleveland Meredith, who headed to D.C. armed and threatening to kill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) but failed to make it in time for the riot. Prosecutors sought a roughly 41-month sentence; Jackson gave him 28, citing his mental health problems and “need of a comprehensive assessment and an intensive, multilayered treatment plan.”
By law, judges are required to consider several criteria in devising sentences, starting with the seriousness of the offense and “to provide just punishment.” The judges must also consider whether the sentence affords “adequate deterrence,” protects the public from further crimes of the defendant, the need to provide the defendant with treatment or training, and the defendant’s legal history and personal background. The judges must also avoid “unwarranted sentence disparities” among defendants with similar records convicted of similar crimes. Very few of the Jan. 6 defendants have prior criminal records.
Besides the 49 cases in which the judges have imposed lesser sentences than requested by prosecutors, the judges have increased the proposed sentence in 11 cases, and given the exact sentence requested by the government in 14 cases. Through a spokeswoman, the judges of the federal court in D.C. declined to comment.
The refusal to routinely impose heavy sentences shows “the prosecutors and judges are doing exactly as their oaths require,” said Jay Town, a former U.S. attorney in Alabama who served on a Trump-era law enforcement commission. “Judges are thoughtfully curating sentences for defendants under the totality of the circumstances, not just heedlessly following the government’s recommendations.”
The sample size of 74 sentencings is small, but a split has emerged among some judges appointed by presidents of different parties. Of the 11 sentences above the government’s recommendation, nine were exceeded by Democratically appointed judges, with Obama appointee Tanya S. Chutkan going higher than requested in seven. There are 10 judges appointed by Democratic presidents and eight appointed by Republicans who are handling Jan. 6 sentencings at the district court in Washington.
Of the 49 sentences that have been below the government recommendation, 30 were by Republican-appointed judges, though they are a slender minority on the court. As of Jan. 6 this year, Judge Carl J. Nichols went lower than requested in eight of his 10 sentencings. Judge Trevor N. McFadden went below the government’s request in five of the seven cases he has heard, while going higher in one. Both judges were appointed by President Donald Trump.
The results appear to have flipped some judges’ sentencing tendencies, given their backgrounds. Chutkan is a former public defender, and McFadden is a former Justice Department official, prosecutor and police officer.
When prosecutors asked for a two-month home confinement sentence for a defendant from Oklahoma who climbed into the Capitol through a broken window and pleaded guilty to parading, McFadden instead gave her two months of probation.
“I think the U.S. attorney would have more credibility,” McFadden said, “if it was evenhanded in its concern about riots and mobs in this city.”
Hundreds of people were arrested in D.C. during racial justice protests in 2020; not all were charged, and police were accused of sweeping up nonviolent protesters and observers. McFadden has rejected prosecution requests for home detention in four Jan. 6 cases, saying he thought it was ineffectual.
Chutkan stands out in exceeding government requests in seven of her eight cases so far, sentencing defendants who pleaded guilty to unlawful parading to prison terms of 14 to 45 days — above prosecutors’ requests for no time or 30 days.
“There have to be consequences for participating in an attempted violent overthrow of the government, beyond sitting at home,” Chutkan said in an October sentencing.
“People gathered all over the country last year to protest the violent murder by the police of an unarmed man — some of those protests became violent,” Chutkan said, apparently referring to McFadden’s comments. “But to compare the actions of people protesting mostly peacefully for civil rights to those of a violent mob seeking to overthrow the lawfully elected government is a false equivalency and ignores the very real danger that the Jan. 6 riot posed to the foundation of our democracy.”
Chutkan also gave the longest sentence thus far — to Robert S. Palmer, who got the 63 months in prison prosecutors sought for repeatedly attacking police officers at the Capitol with a fire extinguisher and a pole. In two other police assault cases, judges went slightly below government requests, issuing sentences of 46 instead of 48 months, and 41 instead of 44 months.
McFadden is not alone in regularly rejecting prosecutors’ suggestions, though his reasoning may be different from others. Historically tough sentencing judges Royce C. Lamberth and Reggie Walton, both Republican appointees, have repeatedly sentenced below government recommendations in misdemeanor cases.
“Even for people who were just there for a short period and walked through, the seriousness of what happened that day … the effect on the country is such that the courts have to treat it like a serious offense,” Lamberth told a defendant who was briefly in the building. But the judge also believed the 81-year-old veteran had “lived a life that is to be emulated,” and Lamberth “encouraged others” to plead guilty rather than go to trial.
“I hope others will follow your lead,” he said, in giving the man three months of home detention — a month shy of the government request.
Walton told a Florida man who recorded officers being assaulted and tried to open doors inside the Capitol that he had “disgraced this country in the eyes of the world.” But Walton gave him three years of probation for illegal parading, rather than the four months in jail prosecutors wanted.
Prosecutors have allowed 58 of the 74 sentenced defendants to plead guilty to “illegal parading or picketing,” a misdemeanor punishable by no more than six months in jail. Probationary terms could be longer, but legal precedent indicates judges cannot combine both supervision and incarceration for the parading charge.
In a recent sentencing memorandum, the Justice Department explained that those who “did not carry a weapon into the building, engage in violence or property destruction, or conspire or coordinate with groups intent on breaching the building” have been “permitted to plead guilty to a misdemeanor of their choosing.” Most have chosen parading; other misdemeanors can carry more jail time and a mix of probation and incarceration.
By allowing some defendants initially charged with felony obstruction to plead to misdemeanors punishable by up to a year in prison, and defendants facing such misdemeanor charges to plead down to parading, prosecutors have created a three-tier system that incentivizes defendants to plead guilty, defense lawyer have said. The U.S. attorney’s office for the District, which is leading the prosecution, declined to comment.
But some judges criticized the either-jail-or-probation sentencing aspect of the parading charge. They said it ties their hands, when a combination of jail time and years of supervision could better deter individual defendants and others from committing similar crimes, and probationary services could help defendants with drug, work or mental health problems.
Howell said that was why she rejected government requests for two to 12 weeks of jail time for four defendants in lieu of two to three years of probation. For one, she added two weeks of detention in a halfway house to get around the restriction.
While chiding the government for not “being more creative” in its recommendations, Jackson has gone below prosecutors’ recommendations in five out of eight sentencings. In the case of an Indiana man who went into the Capitol with a pocket knife, the Obama appointee said she was “hamstrung” by the government’s decision to let him plead guilty to parading.
As Howell has, Jackson chose to give him home detention and probation instead of the two months in jail sought by prosecutors, in part because he had started going to therapy, stopped using drugs and started a new job.
“It’s most beneficial to yourself and the public if I insist that you continue to get the help that you need,” she concluded.
In an address to the nation on the anniversary of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, President Biden accused former president Donald Trump of spreading a 'web of lies' about the 2020 election. (photo: Michael Reynolds)
He marked the anniversary of Jan. 6 by calling the former president who still hasn’t accepted his loss a liar and a loser. It’s about time.
“He’s not just a former president. He’s a defeated former president,” Biden said, twisting the knife in his conquered rival. “[B]ecause his bruised ego matters more to him than our democracy, or our Constitution…he can’t accept he lost.”
Too harsh? I don’t think so. It was, to borrow a phrase from an American winner, “altogether fitting and proper,” since the Capitol insurrection was the result of Trump’s big lie about the 2020 election having been stolen. Give Biden credit for going straight to the root of the problem. Trump didn’t just incite the mob on Jan. 6, he did so after pouring gasoline for months with his bogus “Stop the Steal” rhetoric.
That’s not to say that Biden merely engaged in petty bullying or name calling (indeed, Biden never uttered the former’s president’s name) at the expense of his moral authority. In my estimation, he struck the perfect balance. To borrow a ridiculous line sometimes invoked about the previous guy, This is the day that Biden became president.
It was serious, but not whiney. And he didn’t just mock Trump for losing. "You can’t love your country only when you win. You can’t obey the law only when it’s convenient. You can’t be patriotic when you embrace and enable lies,” Biden said. "Those who stormed this Capitol, and those who instigated and incited, and those who called on them to do so held a dagger at the throat of America.”
Liberals, of late, talk a lot about defending democracy, and this is a very valid and important thing to do. Unfortunately, in this environment, it can also come across as preachy, alarmist, and even weak (this was the same problem liberals faced in the 1930s, when they looked weak and impotent in the face of more dynamic and energetic fascist leaders).
That’s why it’s so important that Biden took the fight to Trump. Bill Clinton famously said that “strong and wrong beats weak and right.” Clinton was correct—and this lesson was especially important for liberals to learn. In this case, Biden has the benefit of being strong and right.
Of course, sometimes actions have unintended consequences, and we should acknowledge that possibility here. One potential downside of Biden’s tough talk could be baiting Trump into running again in 2024 (if he wasn’t already planning to do so). It was Barack Obama’s mockery at a White House Correspondents Dinner, after all, that apparently motivated Trump to run the first time.
But I think this is different. That was frivolous; Obama didn’t take Trump seriously. With Biden, this is a calculated decision, based on a realization that ignoring Trump will not cause him to go away, and ignoring Trump’s lies only gives them space to take root.
Let’s be honest. Biden did win. And I don’t just mean that Biden got the most votes, but also that he defeated Trump. That he prevailed. That he’s a winner. That he made Trump a loser.
And the fact that the very same people who fetishize winning and winners are willing to (with apologies to General Patton) “tolerate a loser” only makes sense in a world where the same people who call people “cucks” really are cucks.
The contrast between the winner and the loser washighlighted today in another way. As you might recall, Trump was going to speak today, then he decided not to, and then he issued a weak statement. Who looks stronger, the guy who gives a big speech at the Capitol or the guy who hems and haws before issuing a press release about it?
In his statement, Trump referred to the speech as “political theater” to distract from Biden’s failures as a president. Trump and I largely agree on Biden’s tenure as president. However, Biden is the president, and the sooner all Americans acknowledge this fact, the sooner we can all move on to criticizing Biden’s many failed policies.
Maybe Biden should have given a speech like this sooner, but I am sympathetic to why he didn’t. First off, end-zone dancing is unbecoming of a confident leader. After all, Trump was clearly defeated, and one might assume that the fact that this was self-evident would mean that Biden shouldn’t have to remind everyone.
Second, the rule about wrestling with a pig applies: It’s hard to win a gutter war against Trump, and even if you do you’ll be covered in filth.
This brings us to the final reason: Biden’s desire to be a uniter. Upon winning, you should govern “with malice toward none.” For a president who hopes to win re-election, this is both generous and politically necessary.
But here’s the thing: Trump’s fans see this as a war against an evil enemy, not an election among Americans. The MAGA forces lost at the polls in 2020, but they’re refusing to surrender.
Preserving liberal democracy is a daily battle, and, it turns out, so is establishing the fact that the 2020 election was decided legitimately. For now, at least, the two things go hand in hand. If you were hoping today was a day about bringing closure to a horrific event, think again.
To borrow another phrase from an American winner, it ain’t over till it’s over.
Chicago Public Schools CEO Pedro Martinez said principals can start offering in-person services for students on Friday if they have sufficient staff. (photo: Manuel Martinez/WBEZ)
CPS says academic and other supports will be available for students in schools starting Friday, but they need staff to make it work.
CPS CEO Pedro Martinez Wednesday evening argued that he had “no choice” but to cancel classes again because he lacked sufficient staffing with teachers at home. Just 10% of teachers came to school Wednesday after they voted in large numbers earlier this week to reject in-person learning.
But he said the district would be moving back to in-person learning. He said support and academic services would be available for students in schools starting Friday, and each school would decide its offerings depending on how many staff returned to schools. Martinez suggested students may get in-person instruction, packets to take home, help with college applications or virtual lessons.
He urged the union not to discourage teachers from returning to schools. Notably, teachers were reminded that if they don’t come in to schools, they wouldn’t be paid.
Mayor Lori Lightfoot made clear her frustration with another day of canceled classes amid stalled negotiations with the teachers union.
“We will not relent,” she said. “Enough is enough. We are standing firm and we are going to fight to get our kids back in person learning.”
When asked if she would go to court for an emergency injunction to stop the teachers union, she said, “We have taken steps in that direction.”
She did say that an unfair labor practice complaint had been filed. Meanwhile, the CTU filed its own complaint with the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board accusing CPS of an illegal lockout.
Teachers union members voted Tuesday evening to temporarily work remotely amid a surge in COVID-19 cases. In response, the mayor and Martinez canceled classes, calling the action illegal and unnecessary. They say schools are safe and think reverting to remote learning should happen only on a school-by-school basis.
Union leaders say there aren’t enough safety measures in place, particularly at a time when COVID-19 cases are at record levels, breakthrough cases in the vaccinated are common and many students remain unvaccinated.
In an update to members Wednesday night, CTU President Jesse Sharkey said there had been movement at the bargaining table in the last two days. He said there was “more movement” since Monday “than in the last few months. Unfortunately this confirms the pattern. The mayor won’t budget until we demonstrate our willingness to collectively assert our demands.”
The CTU vote called for teachers to work remotely until January 18 or until the current surge subsides, whatever comes first. They are demanding additional safety measures. These include requiring testing for everyone before returning to buildings, more regular testing in schools, high-quality masks for all who want and a COVID-19 metric that would trigger an individual school closing.
CTU wants that metric in place for the rest of the school year. On Tuesday, CPS proposed a metric, but it was only for the month of January. Sharkey called it “woefully inadequate.” CPS also says it has bought KN95 masks for students and staff, will increase contact tracing and is letting schools reinstitute a daily health screener.
This is the third major dispute with the teachers union since Lightfoot was elected mayor in 2019 and there’s no love lost between the two sides.
In an interview with WBEZ on Wednesday, when asked why Lightfoot adamantly opposes allowing teachers to go remote for eight school days while negotiations continue, the mayor characterized the CTU’s proposed return date of January 18 as “arbitrary” and questioned whether they would stick to it.
“They keep moving the goalposts,” she said. “Why would I believe … that they will actually come back? And, frankly, what it underscores is how arbitrary the decisions of the CTU leadership are in disrespect of our parents, our students and data and science. They don’t believe in any of that. What they believe in is exercising raw political power.”
Earlier in the day, Sharkey reiterated that teachers would return to schools after the latest COVID-19 surge subsides, even if there is no safety agreement reached with the school district. He noted Tuesday’s vote that teachers would return by January 18 or when the surge subsidies, whichever is soonest.
“We don’t want to go back to last year, no one does,” Sharkey said. “We think it’s reasonable to ask for testing and safety mitigations in the current context, and then we think quickly the surge passes and we’re able to get back [to] in-person instruction.”
Former prime minister Tony Blair speaks during a news conference in London on 6 July 2016, following the release of the Iraq Inquiry report. (photo: AFP)
A petition calling for the former prime minister to have his knighthood withdrawn has collected almost three quarters of a million signatures
The anger comes as a petition launched in the UK calling for the former Labour leader to have the honour withdrawn reached over 700,000 signatures.
Blair has been accused of war crimes over his role in the invasion of Iraq, which toppled longtime ruler Saddam Hussein and led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, widespread internecine violence and ongoing instability in Iraq and beyond.
There was further anger on Wednesday after it was claimed by Blair's former defence secretary Geoff Hoon that he had been told to "burn" a memo from the British attorney general which cast doubt on the legality of the Iraq war.
Rami al-Sakini, an Iraqi MP and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, told Middle East Eye that the knighthood should be withdrawn.
"Of course this is neither appropriate nor correct," said Sakini, who is an MP for the southern city of Basra, which fell under British administration following the invasion.
"Especially for Tony Blair, who participated in the occupation of Iraq and was a major reason for wasting the resources of this country."
Sakini, whose Sairoun party won the largest number of seats in Iraq's parliamentary elections last October, said giving Blair the title was effectively "honouring the violation" that was the Iraq war.
The actions of British forces in Basra have repeatedly come in for criticism with claims of willful killings, detainee abuse, and what the International Criminal Court has deemed "credible allegations of torture and rape".
Apart from the initial violence, many have argued that the subsequent chaos provoked by the invasion led to the rise of the Islamic State group, who capture vast swaths of Iraq and Syria in 2014 and have launched terror attacks around the world that have led to thousands of deaths.
Ali al-Baroodi, a teacher and campaigner in the former IS stronghold of Mosul - which was obliterated in 2017 in a foreign-backed campaign to defeat the militant group - told MEE that honouring Blair was "disgusting" referring to him as "B-Liar" as many anti-war campaigners have done.
"It's horrendous news to be honest," he said.
'A crime against humanity'
On Tuesday, Blair's successor as Labour Party leader, Keir Starmer, said that the former prime minister "deserves" to be knighted and cited a number of domestic reforms he introduced during his time in office, 1997-2007.
Speaking to ITV, Starmer said he understood many held "strong views" about the Iraq war, but said that this did "not detract from the fact that Tony Blair was a very successful prime minister of this country and made a huge difference to the lives of millions of people in this country.”
But for Iraqis, and many others across the globe, the 2003 invasion has come to be seen as an outrage.
Kamal Jabir, a politician with the Civil Democratic Alliance, and a former freedom fighter against Saddam Hussein in the 80s and 90s, said: "With millions of caring world citizens l stood firm in objecting the 2003 war against Iraq - I was hoping that Tony Blair as one of the young leaders of the Labour Party would have the courage and the wisdom not to follow [US President] George Bush’s wrong decision to invade Iraq using false and fabricated intelligence to justify an ugly and unfair war that paved the way to the rise of the present corrupt and Islamic extremist parties and gangs in Iraq."
Although Blair was leader of the Labour Party through three UK election victories, his reputation since leaving office has slumped heavily and continued scrutiny has been poured on the justification for the war.
The new revelations by Hoon, which come from his recently published memoirs, suggest that a "very long and very detailed legal opinion” from Attorney General Peter Goldsmith indicated that the invasion was on shaky legal ground.
“It was not exactly the ringing endorsement that the chief of the defence staff [Mike Boyce] was looking for, and in any event, I was not strictly allowed to show it to him or even discuss it with him,” wrote Hoon.
“Moreover, when my principal private secretary, Peter Watkins, called [Blair's chief of staff] Jonathan Powell in Downing St and asked what he should now do with the document, he was told in no uncertain terms that he should ‘burn it’.”
He said the legal document was not burned, but eventually locked away in a Ministry of Defence safe and is "probably still there."
A poll released by the British polling agency YouGov on Tuesday suggested the UK public was overwhelmingly opposed to the former premier being knighted.
According to the poll, 62 percent of the public either "tend to" or "strongly" disapprove of Blair receiving the honour, with only 14 percent in favour.
Meanwhile, 56 percent of Labour Party voters also disapproved.
Jabir told MEE that virtually the entire political establishment in the UK and US now accepted that the war had been wrong and that the damage caused in "wasted" lives had been incalculable.
"The 2003 war against Iraq was a crime against humanity - therefore Blair should be tried instead of getting rewarded," he said.
"Looks like the moral compass among the leaders in the UK is fading away like every other country in the world."
The John Day Dam is a concrete gravity run-of-the-river dam spanning the Columbia River near Goldendale, Washington. John Day Dam is part of the Columbia River Basin system of dams. (photo: iStock)
The West’s largest green energy storage project would destroy a Yakama sacred site. Now, the nation is fighting back.
Takala listened as the elder recounted the area’s history and explained the importance of the plants. “I remember him telling me that I have to keep fighting to protect that mountain for the future generations, so that they can continue to gather the first foods and medicines,” Takala said.
Now the site, located 20 miles south of Goldendale, Washington, is imperiled. Boston-based Rye Development is eyeing it for the West’s largest pumped hydropower storage project, a kind of giant battery that would help the Northwest decarbonize its power grid. And that raises a fundamental question: Will the renewable energy revolution break with the fossil fuel industry’s long history of ignoring treaty rights for the sake of development — or will it become yet another venue for environmental injustice?
Northwestern states have made ambitious pledges to reduce their fossil fuel dependence. That means that thousands of megawatts of coal and gas power will have to be replaced across the region, requiring a huge amount of new energy construction — and land. Washington’s State Energy Strategy estimates that by the middle of the century, the state will need at least 12 gigawatts of new solar additions, 4 gigawatts of offshore wind, and 2 gigawatts of onshore wind. (The average size of a coal plant in the U.S. is about 0.6 gigawatts; the biggest offshore wind farm in the world, Hornsea One, can generate up to 1.2 gigawatts.)
The Columbia River Basin is key to this development; it’s already a renewable energy corridor, with 274 dams on the Columbia and its tributaries, which currently produce over half of the Northwest’s electricity, and hundreds of wind turbines that line the area’s steep river banks and gorges. Counties like Klickitat, where the Goldendale project would be located, have sought to attract and expedite renewable energy development by, for example, conducting feasibility studies for projects such as pumped energy storage.
In 2017, Rye Development approached Klickitat County and the local public utility district to see if it could secure the necessary water rights and land leases. Situated on over 680 acres of land, most of which is owned by a company in charge of a defunct aluminum smelter by the river, the $2 billion project would consist of two 60-acre reservoirs, separated by 2,100 feet of elevation and a tunnel fitted with turbines. During times of excess energy, water would be pumped up to the higher reservoir. And during times of high demand when solar or wind energy aren’t available, water would be released to the lower reservoir, generating power as it flows through the turbines. According to Rye, it could store 1.2 gigawatts of energy — a significant chunk of Washington’s clean power needs.
THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES and Bands of the Yakama Nation strongly oppose the project. Constructing the storage system would essentially destroy Pushpum: The place would have to be blasted to create the two reservoirs and to carve a tunnel through the hillside. This would irreversibly damage or impact at least nine culturally significant sites found in the Pushpum area, including important archaeological and ceremonial areas, burial petroglyphs, and fishing and food-gathering locations, according to a cultural resources study the Yakama conducted in 2019 as well as several other previous assessments.
“We do want to see green energy projects because we’re salmon people, and we know that climate change is real,” said Phil Rigdon, superintendent of the Yakama Nation’s Natural Resources Department. “But we don’t want them on the backs of the resources we depend upon.”
It’s not the first time the nation has been asked to sacrifice important cultural sites for the greater good of the state, said Takala, an elected Yakama Nation councilmember who serves on the tribe’s legislative and fish and wildlife committees. The landscape around the Yakama Reservation is studded with what he calls “sacrifice zones”: Between 1933 and 1971, the U.S. built four major dams on the Lower Columbia River, including the John Day Dam, destroying fishing sites and, in some cases, settlements. The abandoned aluminum smelter is still leaking toxins at the site where the Goldendale project’s lower reservoir would be constructed. Wind turbines from the nearby Goodnoe Hills wind farm have restricted access to hunting and gathering sites. Proposed large-scale solar farms would further limit tribal members’ ability to gather roots, berries and medicine. Meanwhile, for decades, the Yakama Nation has been fighting for cleanup at the Hanford Site, a decommissioned nuclear production facility just a few dozen miles from the reservation.
The Goldendale project is also an example of what tribal members like Takala, as well as other tribes, scholars and the Government Accountability Office, consider a long history of inadequate and inconsistent tribal consultation. Around a third of Washington state falls under the Treaty of 1855, signed by the 14 tribes and bands that were confederated into the Yakama Nation. They ceded almost 11 million acres to the U.S. government, but retained the right to fish, hunt and gather food on those lands. Federal law requires that the Yakama Nation be consulted on projects that would impact its cultural and environmental resources.
But that consultation is often reduced to a single meeting or an email rather than any meaningful engagement with tribes, said Elaine Harvey, a biologist with Yakama Nation Fisheries and a member of the Kah-milt-pa Band. The Yakama Nation has declared that the siting of the project is inappropriate since it first formally found out about it in October 2017, after Rye Development applied for a preliminary federal permit. The Yakama Council sent letters to Rye Development and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 2018 and 2019, noting the detrimental impacts the project would have on an irreplaceable cultural site and arguing that Rye’s application omitted crucial information, including the results of a 2013 survey that clearly identified the site as being culturally important.
The Yakama Tribal Council raised this concern when Rye Development first consulted with them in September 2018, but its concerns went unaddressed. Instead, the company agreed to hire tribal botanists and archaeologists to study mitigation options, even though the tribe has stated that mitigation of such a sacred site isn’t an option, and that having tribal scientists included in the project does not resolve their concerns.
Erik Steimle, vice president of project development for Rye Development, said that the company has gone “above and beyond” the federally mandated consultation process. But the baseline isn’t exactly high. According to the draft license application submitted to FERC in 2019, the agency wrote to the leaders of the Umatilla, Warm Springs and Yakama tribes in March 2019, requesting consultation on the project. Upon receiving no reply, they filed an internal telephone memo noting their attempts, and the permitting process went on.
THE YAKAMA NATION’S position is clear: Tribes should be included early in a project’s development and have significant input on the location before it’s finalized. “Only the Yakama Nation can determine what is culturally significant to us,” Takala said. “How do you define consultation. Is it just a checkbox?” If the tribe says no, Takala added, then the project shouldn’t go forward.
This would be a step toward a consent-based system. Today, even though the federal government must consult tribes on developments that affect them, the project can proceed regardless of whether tribes agree. Consent, however, would mean that tribes could stop developments that harm their cultural, archaeological or sacred sites in unacceptable ways. That’s the standard enshrined in the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, one that the U.S. originally voted against.
In 2021, 19 tribal nations in Washington, including the Yakama, wrote such a standard into Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s landmark Climate Commitment Act, which he signed into law in May. The bill caps and reduces greenhouse gas emissions and creates a fund to pay for clean energy projects. One section required that state or private developers secure tribal consent, rather than merely consultation, for energy projects that would significantly harm sacred sites. But at the very last minute, as he was signing the rest of the bill into law, Inslee vetoed that section.
The move was a “low blow,” said Takala, who provided input on the legislation, and it angered many tribal nations and their supporters, who felt that Inslee had courted them to help pass the bill and then tossed them aside. Fawn Sharp, president of the National Congress of American Indians and vice president of the Quinault Indian Nation, called it “the most egregious and shameless betrayal of a deal I have ever witnessed from a politician of any party, at any level.”
If Rye Development manages to obtain all the necessary permits, the Goldendale energy facility could be operational by 2028. But it’s just one of several proposed projects on treaty lands. And without meaningful consultation and consent, Takala worries that the outcome of the clean energy revolution will be no different than previous waves of energy development.
On Oct. 6, the Yakama Tribal Council met once again with Rye Development. That day, the council issued a resolution, affirming that not only did it oppose the Goldendale project, it would oppose all future energy projects that threaten, damage or destroy important cultural sites. “Cultural resources are not a renewable thing for us,” Takala said. “How much more of the land — our land — has to be sacrificed?”
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
