Middleboro Review and so on blogspot

FOCUS: Marjorie Taylor Green Should Be an Embarrassment, Not a GOP Superstar
Matt Lewis, The Daily Beast
Lewis writes: "Did springtime come early? In recent days, there have been signs that the Republican Party's support for Donald Trump - frozen rock-solid in time since 2016 - may be thawing."

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says indefensible and incredibly stupid things. And she’s the new soul of the Republican Party.

Did springtime come early?

In recent days, there have been signs that the Republican Party’s support for Donald Trump—frozen rock-solid in time since 2016—may be thawing.

Mike Pence, the former vice president, said “Trump is wrong” for suggesting that he (Pence) could have unilaterally overturned the 2020 election. Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called Jan. 6 a “violent insurrection.” Both men lived to tell the tale.

What is more, polling suggests that Pence isn’t just on the right side of history, he’s on the correct side of the GOP. This glimmer of hope suggests Trump’s cult-like hold on the Republican electorate may be eroding, as voters (who still like Pence) indicate that they want to move forward (not backward).

However, this silver lining has more than a touch of gray. To truly read today’s GOP, you must balance positive developments with competing evidence. For example: Don’t tell the “Gazpacho” police, but the most important endorsement in today’s Republican Party—second only to Donald Trump—is Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

That is the claim that was made by four top Republican strategists who spoke to The Daily Beast last week. “If you can’t get Donald Trump, you are going to want to have MTG in your back pocket,” an influential veteran GOP operative told Daily Beast reporters Asawin Suebsaeng and Sam Brodey. Not surprisingly, Greene’s spokesperson Nick Dyer concurred, saying the congresswoman has “become one of the most popular Republicans nationwide.”

Not too shabby for someone who has been kicked off of Twitter and her congressional committees. But for those who are hoping the GOP will come to its senses, it’s even more concerning when you put it in context.

While Greene, the QAnon queen, is the hot ticket if you want to win a GOP primary, Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are persona non grata in the party, having been censured by the RNC for serving on the Jan. 6 Committee.

That’s right. When given a choice between decent conservatives (who are brave enough to put their political careers on the line) and a woman who floated the conspiracy theory that a California wildfire was the result of Jewish space lasers, the Republican faithful are shouting, “Give us Barabbas!”

But you don’t have to take the word of veteran GOP operatives, or even yours truly. Just look at who the really desperate Republican primary candidates are turning to.

Last week, Politico reported on a 98-page PowerPoint presentation produced last month by veteran pollster Tony Fabrizio that said J.D. Vance, the famed Hillbilly Elegy author turned Trumpy candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, has suffered a “precipitous decline” in support and “needs a course correction ASAP.” According to Fabrizio, Vance’s negative numbers are driven by “the perception that he is anti-Trump.”

So where did Vance immediately turn to in his hour of need? You guessed it.

“I am so honored to have Marjorie’s support,” Vance told The Hill. “I’ve gotten to know her over the last year, and she’s precisely the type of leader we need in our party: genuine, honest, and courageous. Unfortunately, there are too few like her, and so long as that’s the case, Republicans may win an election from time to time, but we’ll never do the difficult work of truly taking our country back from the leftwing mob and the woke corporations.”

This development is both sad and telling.

As The Bulwark’s Mona Charen wrote last year, “Vance is an extremely bright and insightful man who could have been a fresh voice for a fundamentally conservative view of the world.” This is a guy from a tough background who joined the Marines, went to Yale Law School, became a business success in Silicon Valley, and authored a best-selling memoir. And here he is, lavishing Marjorie Taylor Greene with praise and acting desperate for her support.

And he’s not alone. According to Daily Beast reporters Suebsaeng and Brodey, “at least seven GOP candidates have landed that coveted nod from the freshman Georgia congresswoman, from the loudly pro-Trump Rep. Mo Brooks, running for U.S. Senate in Alabama, to the conservative personality Robby Starbuck, running for U.S. House in Tennessee.”

It has been observed that Republican politicians aren’t really afraid of Trump; they are afraid of his supporters. When you consider that these same supporters incentivize politicians to seek out Greene’s endorsement, this assessment sadly rings true. Even if Trump disappeared from the political scene tomorrow, the larger problem to contend with is the grassroots base he inherited and helped attract.

In the past, Greene has been criticized by popular conservatives, including Ben Shapiro, Erick Erickson, and Rep. Dan Crenshaw, with Shapiro calling her comparison of COVID safety measures to the Holocaust “nutso” and “demented nonsense.” This criticism hasn’t stopped her meteoric rise. Suebsaeng and Brodey also note that Greene has raised over $7 million since joining Congress last January, “making her one of the most prolific fundraisers in the entire House.” This is now a movement where the inmates run the asylum.

It’s tempting to dismiss Greene as a fringe character who is a mere mainstream obsession. But all evidence, including her status as the most sought-after Republican endorser (next to Trump), says otherwise.

She’s the heart and soul of the base now. It’s a sad state of affairs.

PEOPLE WILL IGNORE FUNDRAISING TODAY UNLESS WE FIGHT — It’s a terrific day for readership, but that won’t mater. If we do not make a determined stand for the basic funding RSN needs to do all of this — We Will Not Get It, period. Unfair, but very real. We will fight. It’s what we do.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611

Tuesday, January 18, 2022

RSN: FOCUS: Clint Watts | We're Training Our Own Insurrectionists

18 January 22

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

FOCUS: Clint Watts | We're Training Our Own Insurrectionists
Clint Watts, The Washington Post
Excerpt: "The Oath Keepers are among those who use their military skills to advance their extremist plots."

The Oath Keepers are among those who use their military skills to advance their extremist plots.

Sprinkled through the 48-page indictment of Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and 10 others for their alleged role in the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol last year is terminology I learned as a U.S. Army infantryman. According to the indictment: Oath Keepers used a “stack,” a formation designed to breach a building or room, as they entered the Capitol. The group prepared a “QRF”— quick reaction force — in Virginia and conducted a “recce,” or reconnaissance, to Washington for their operation that fateful day. They organized “military style basic” training to get recruits “fighting fit for inauguration,” and Florida members participated in “unconventional warfare” training.

While I learned these terms and tactics with the express goal of defending my country, Rhodes and his Oath Keepers, according to the indictment that charges the 11 with seditious conspiracy, used them in pursuit of overthrowing it. The Oath Keepers logo looks a lot like the black-and-gold half-moon shape of the Army Ranger Tab — what soldiers receive for completing Ranger school — and the lingo they allegedly used in encrypted communications channels as they coordinated preparations has military origins. Alongside military terminology and doctrine, those reviewing Thursday’s indictment will find a group seeking armament and transport — purchasing night vision goggles, rifles and assault weapons, and planning transportation and escape routes.

None of this is coincidence; many of the Oath Keepers present at the Capitol were military veterans. The U.S. government is unintentionally training its own insurrectionists — providing the specialized and strategic-thinking skills needed to carry out an insurrection with any hope of success.

Rhodes himself, who apparently remained outside the Capitol during the attack, is a former Army paratrooper. Jessica Watkins, who led the Oath Keepers’ Ohio contingent on Jan. 6, joined the group’s main stack formation that breached the Capitol and was named in the Thursday indictment, is also an Army veteran. Edward Durfee Jr., a former Marine and leader of the Oath Keepers northern New Jersey region, was, like Rhodes, outside the Capitol during the insurrection but was not named in the indictment. Another Oath Keeper in Washington that day but not charged in connection with the attack, Alaska State Rep. David Eastman, is a U.S. Military Academy graduate who served in the military police battalion in Anchorage. He was called on to resign by some fellow U.S. Military Academy graduates after his Oath Keepers membership was revealed.

The Oath Keepers’ military veterans were not the only former and active military present at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Air Force veteran Larry Brock Jr. was photographed inside the Senate chamber wearing a tactical vest and helmet and gripping plastic handcuffs. Days before, Brock posted on Facebook about a second civil war, referring to his military oath to defend against “all enemies foreign and domestic.” Jacob Fracker, an infantry rifleman in the Marines who deployed to Afghanistan twice, is accused of storming the Capitol. A psychological operations officer and an Army Reserve sergeant in the 174th Infantry Brigade and Navy contractor who obtained a secret security clearance were also present.

International military coups have occurred many times over the past century, and at the moment, I still do not worry about one coming from within our current force. But what about America’s former military and law enforcement members? Long before the insurrection were violent extremist attacks from former Army members Timothy McVeigh in the heinous 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Eric Rudolph in the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing and Kevin Harpham in his failed IED plot at a 2011 Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade in Spokane, Wash. Fears of extremists using military training and skills in violence and terrorism arose in a Department of Homeland Security warning in 2009 before vanishing amid political pushback.

Some have claimed the events of Jan. 6 were not a coup attempt but a largely peaceful protest or even a false flag. The Thursday indictment, however, alleges in some detail how the Oath Keepers prepared to carry out terrorism — violence in pursuit of political change — unlike anything the United States has witnessed in recent history. Never in two decades working on international counterterrorism did I encounter in research or in person an armed al-Qaeda or Islamic State cell that came close to breaching the halls of the Capitol or killing the vice president or members of Congress — a possible outcome that has to be taken seriously since numerous members of the Capitol mob and those who planned for the day said that part out loud. In a post on Nov. 10, 2020, titled “Call to Action! March on DC, Stop the Steal, Defend the President, … Defeat the Deep State,” Rhodes wrote that on Nov. 14, the Oath Keepers militia would be “sending some of our most experienced LEO [law enforcement officers] and military combat veterans into D.C. … and in the days to come.” Rhodes called on “all our LEO, military, Fire, EMS, and search and rescue brothers and sisters nationwide” — those who would be “eminently capable if things turn physical.”

The problem of domestic extremists relying on military training, tactics and knowledge is bigger than the Oath Keepers. Take the plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D). The Wolverine Watchmen militia charged in the plot conducted firearms training and combat drills in preparation. Constitutional Sheriffs, whose members are drawn from the ranks of current law enforcement officers, some of whom reportedly have ties to extremist groups, may or may not enforce the laws. The military and law enforcement, two essential stalwart institutions of a strong democracy, have been gravely challenged in the era of Donald Trump. The Justice Department’s new charges against the Oath Keepers simply add some of the most alarming details yet to the deeply troubling picture of the political instability that has manifested in this country.

The Defense Department apparently worried about being dragged into the appearance of a coup on Jan. 6, in the aftermath of the National Guard’s deployment during the previous summer’s protests over the murder of George Floyd by a police officer. Had troops shown up more quickly to the Capitol, the National Guard most likely would have come face-to-face with fellow soldiers who also served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Now, in recent weeks, we’ve seen Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin seeking to rid the military’s ranks of extremists, but the military’s response is lacking clarity about which groups should be deemed extremist and what behavior might be considered incitement to violence or dangerous.

Unlike in the case of international terrorism, where the U.S. State Department designates foreign terrorist organizations so that the Justice Department can then preemptively pursue investigations based on affiliations, no such designation process exists for domestic terror groups; there’s nothing similar to provide the basis for policing extremism in our own country or in the military’s ranks.

At the moment, extremist groups like the Oath Keepers are not trying to overthrow the government violently — they’re trying to take it over at the ballot box. Oath Keepers have been running for local offices in states like New Jersey and New York. Members of the far-right group the Proud Boys, white supremacists and neo-Nazis are running in elections, too. What is extreme when extremists are in power?

And what needs to happen now? In a less-talked-about move this week, the Justice Department stood up a unit focused on countering domestic extremism. But if members of Congress continue claiming those who participated in last year’s insurrection were peaceful when they were clearly not, or if those elected to office are members of the same extremist groups participating in insurrections, the silent majority will be overtaken by a violent minority.

The federal government must decide beyond cases at the individual level which ideologies and corresponding groups conducting or advocating violence to overthrow the government — in plain sight — are domestic terror groups. And only in the face of consequences will we see domestic terrorists and those inciting them curb their activity. If the evidence of extremist violence is available openly on social media, we must allow our federal investigators to preemptively open inquiries into organizations clearly intending to overturn democratic processes and overturn institutions. Both of these changes require Congress to pass legislation and the Justice Department to update regulations. If such changes are not made, we should not be surprised if the next insurrection succeeds in effectively ending our democracy.

WE THINK WE CAN DO MORE WITH A BETTER BUDGET — *Update: We’re sure we can do more with a better budget Right now our fundraising model revolves around staying afloat. We can raise money to keep RSN alive, because that’s apparently important to our readers, but we can’t raise money to make RSN more substantial, influential and effective. That’s obviously frustrating. We’re glad to be alive, let’s do better. We can.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611

Friday, January 7, 2022

RSN: FOCUS: Jimmy Carter | I Fear for Our Democracy

06 January 22

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

FOCUS: Jimmy Carter | I Fear for Our Democracy
Jimmy Carter, The New York Times
Carter writes: "One year ago, a violent mob, guided by unscrupulous politicians, stormed the Capitol and almost succeeded in preventing the democratic transfer of power. All four of us former presidents condemned their actions and affirmed the legitimacy of the 2020 election."

One year ago, a violent mob, guided by unscrupulous politicians, stormed the Capitol and almost succeeded in preventing the democratic transfer of power. All four of us former presidents condemned their actions and affirmed the legitimacy of the 2020 election. There followed a brief hope that the insurrection would shock the nation into addressing the toxic polarization that threatens our democracy.

However, one year on, promoters of the lie that the election was stolen have taken over one political party and stoked distrust in our electoral systems. These forces exert power and influence through relentless disinformation, which continues to turn Americans against Americans. According to the Survey Center on American Life, 36 percent of Americans — almost 100 million adults across the political spectrum — agree that “the traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.” The Washington Post recently reported that roughly 40 percent of Republicans believe that violent action against the government is sometimes justified.

Politicians in my home state of Georgia, as well as in others, such as Texas and Florida, have leveraged the distrust they have created to enact laws that empower partisan legislatures to intervene in election processes. They seek to win by any means, and many Americans are being persuaded to think and act likewise, threatening to collapse the foundations of our security and democracy with breathtaking speed. I now fear that what we have fought so hard to achieve globally — the right to free, fair elections, unhindered by strongman politicians who seek nothing more than to grow their own power — has become dangerously fragile at home.

I personally encountered this threat in my own backyard in 1962, when a ballot-stuffing county boss tried to steal my election to the Georgia State Senate. This was in the primary, and I challenged the fraud in court. Ultimately, a judge invalidated the results, and I won the general election. Afterward, the protection and advancement of democracy became a priority for me. As president, a major goal was to institute majority rule in southern Africa and elsewhere.

After I left the White House and founded The Carter Center, we worked to promote free, fair, and orderly elections across the globe. I led dozens of election observation missions in Africa, Latin America and Asia, starting with Panama in 1989, where I put a simple question to administrators: “Are you honest officials or thieves?” At each election, my wife, Rosalynn, and I were moved by the courage and commitment of thousands of citizens walking miles and waiting in line from dusk to dawn to cast their first ballots in free elections, renewing hope for themselves and their nations and taking their first steps to self-governance. But I have also seen how new democratic systems — and sometimes even established ones — can fall to military juntas or power-hungry despots. Sudan and Myanmar are two recent examples.

For American democracy to endure, we must demand that our leaders and candidates uphold the ideals of freedom and adhere to high standards of conduct.

First, while citizens can disagree on policies, people of all political stripes must agree on fundamental constitutional principles and norms of fairness, civility and respect for the rule of law. Citizens should be able to participate easily in transparent, safe and secure electoral processes. Claims of election irregularities should be submitted in good faith for adjudication by the courts, with all participants agreeing to accept the findings. And the election process should be conducted peacefully, free of intimidation and violence.

Second, we must push for reforms that ensure the security and accessibility of our elections and ensure public confidence in the accuracy of results. Phony claims of illegal voting and pointless multiple audits only detract from democratic ideals.

Third, we must resist the polarization that is reshaping our identities around politics. We must focus on a few core truths: that we are all human, we are all Americans and we have common hopes for our communities and our country to thrive. We must find ways to re-engage across the divide, respectfully and constructively, by holding civil conversations with family, friends and co-workers and standing up collectively to the forces dividing us.

Fourth, violence has no place in our politics, and we must act urgently to pass or strengthen laws to reverse the trends of character assassination, intimidation and the presence of armed militias at events. We must protect our election officials — who are trusted friends and neighbors of many of us — from threats to their safety. Law enforcement must have the power to address these issues and engage in a national effort to come to terms with the past and present of racial injustice.

Lastly, the spread of disinformation, especially on social media, must be addressed. We must reform these platforms and get in the habit of seeking out accurate information. Corporate America and religious communities should encourage respect for democratic norms, participation in elections and efforts to counter disinformation.

Our great nation now teeters on the brink of a widening abyss. Without immediate action, we are at genuine risk of civil conflict and losing our precious democracy. Americans must set aside differences and work together before it is too late.

Understand what is at stake with this lawsuit by reading the full article in the New York Times.

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611

Friday, December 24, 2021

A lawmaker is accused of inciting violence at the Capitol.

The New York Times published a piece co-authored by POGO’s executive director, Danielle Brian. It’s a major deal. But an even bigger deal is the topic at hand: a sitting House Representative faces a lawsuit claiming he helped incite the January 6 Capitol riots—and now he’s asking the Justice Department to defend him.

Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL) has called upon Attorney General Merrick Garland to defend his speech at a rally on January 6, saying that encouraging Americans to “start taking down names and kicking ass” was within his job description. But the Justice Department has no business defending an insurrection or its enablers. Read the full article in the New York Times to learn more.

If Attorney General Garland chooses to certify Rep. Brooks' actions, we will be at a huge loss. Not only would a certification allow Brooks to evade justice, but it would also open the door for the other defendants in the case—including former President Donald Trump—to follow suit. Our Justice Department would be left defending the right of elected representatives to incite an insurrection against their own government.

Thank you for helping us hold the government accountable.

Caitlin MacNeal
Director of Communications
Project On Government Oversight

Project On Government Oversight
1100 G Street NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
United States

Thursday, December 23, 2021

RSN: FOCUS: Laurence H. Tribe, Donald Ayer and Dennis Aftergut | Will Donald Trump Get Away With Inciting an Insurrection?

23 December 21

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

SANTA’S NOT STOPPING HERE THIS YEAR — We are already so far behind where we would normally be for December that any chance of catching up is gone. We will see a major drop in funding. Our readership numbers are actually up. People just refuse to contribute. We are forced to fight for basic funding. This is not good.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

FOCUS: Laurence H. Tribe, Donald Ayer and Dennis Aftergut | Will Donald Trump Get Away With Inciting an Insurrection?
Laurence H. Tribe, Donald Ayer and Dennis Aftergut, The New York Times
Excerpt: "In his nine months in office, Attorney General Merrick Garland has done a great deal to restore integrity and evenhanded enforcement of the law to an agency that was badly misused for political reasons under his predecessor."

In his nine months in office, Attorney General Merrick Garland has done a great deal to restore integrity and evenhanded enforcement of the law to an agency that was badly misused for political reasons under his predecessor. But his place in history will be assessed against the challenges that confronted him. And the overriding test that he and the rest of the government face is the threat to our democracy from people bent on destroying it.

Mr. Garland’s success depends on ensuring that the rule of law endures. That means dissuading future coup plotters by holding the leaders of the insurrection fully accountable for their attempt to overthrow the government. But he cannot do so without a robust criminal investigation of those at the top, from the people who planned, assisted or funded the attempt to overturn the Electoral College vote to those who organized or encouraged the mob attack on the Capitol. To begin with, he might focus on Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and even Donald Trump — all of whom were involved, in one way or another, in the events leading up to the attack.

Almost a year after the insurrection, we have yet to see any clear indicators that such an investigation is underway, raising the alarming possibility that this administration may never bring charges against those ultimately responsible for the attack.

While the Justice Department has filed charges against more than 700 people who participated in the violence, limiting the investigation to these foot soldiers would be a grave mistake: As Joanne Freeman, a Yale historian, wrote this month about the insurrection, “Accountability — the belief that political power holders are responsible for their actions and that blatant violations will be addressed — is the lifeblood of democracy. Without it, there can be no trust in government, and without trust, democratic governments have little power.”

The legal path to investigate the leaders of the coup attempt is clear. The criminal code prohibits inciting an insurrection or “giving aid or comfort” to those who do, as well as conspiracy to forcibly “prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” The code also makes it a crime to corruptly impede any official proceeding or deprive citizens of their constitutional right to vote.

Based purely on what we know today from news reports and the steady stream of revelations coming from the House select committee investigating the attack, the attorney general has a powerful justification for a robust and forceful investigation into the former president and his inner circle. As White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows was intimately involved in the effort to overturn the election. He traveled to Georgia last December, where he apparently laid the groundwork for the phone call in which the president pressured Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find 11,780 votes.” Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio reportedly promoted a scheme to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject duly certified Joe Biden electors. And from their war room at the Willard Hotel, several members of the president’s inner circle hatched the legal strategy to overturn the results of the election.

The president himself sat back for three hours while his chief of staff was barraged with messages from members of Congress and Fox News hosts pleading with him to have Mr. Trump call off the armed mob whose violent passion he had inflamed. That evidence, on its own, may not be enough to convict the former president, but it is certainly enough to require a criminal investigation.

And yet there are no signs, at least in media reports, that the attorney general is building a case against these individuals — no interviews with top administration officials, no reports of attempts to persuade the foot soldiers to turn on the people who incited them to violence. By this point in the Russia investigation, the special counsel Robert Mueller had indicted Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and secured the cooperation of George Papadopoulos after charging him with lying to the F.B.I. The media was reporting that the special counsel’s team had conducted or scheduled interviews with Mr. Trump’s aides Stephen Miller and Mr. Bannon, as well as Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Of course, there is no way to know for sure whether Mr. Garland’s Department of Justice is investigating the leaders of the attack behind closed doors. Justice Department policy does not permit announcing investigations, absent exceptional circumstances. Mr. Garland, unlike his predecessor, plays by the book, keeping quiet about investigations until charges are filed. But the first of the rioters to plead guilty began cooperating with the Justice Department back in April. If prosecutors have been using their cooperation to investigate the top officials and operatives responsible for the siege of the Capitol and our democracy, there would likely be significant confirmation in the media by now.

It is possible that the department is deferring the decision about starting a full-blown investigative effort pending further work by the House select committee. It is even conceivable that the department is waiting for the committee’s final report so that federal prosecutors can review the documents, interviews and recommendations amassed by House investigators and can consider any potential referrals for criminal prosecution.

But such an approach would come at a very high cost. In the prosecution business, interviews need to happen as soon as possible after the events in question, to prevent both forgetfulness and witness coordination to conceal the truth. A comprehensive Department of Justice probe of the leadership is now more urgently needed than ever.

It is also imperative that Mr. Trump be included on the list of those being investigated. The media has widely reported his role in many of the relevant events, and there is no persuasive reason to exclude him.

First, he has no claim to constitutional immunity from prosecution. The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has recognized such immunity only for sitting presidents because a criminal trial would prevent them from discharging the duties of their office. Mr. Trump no longer has those duties to discharge.

Nor is exclusion of the former president remotely justified by the precedent President Gerald Ford set in pardoning Richard Nixon to help the country “heal” from Watergate. Even our proud tradition of not mimicking banana republics by allowing political winners to retaliate against losers must give way in the wake of violence perpetrated to thwart the peaceful transition of power. Refusing to at least investigate those who plot to end democracy — and who would remain engaged in efforts to do so — would be beyond foolhardy.

Furthermore, the pending state and local investigations in New York and Atlanta will never be able to provide the kind of accountability the nation clearly needs. The New York case, which revolves around tax fraud, has nothing to do with the attack on our government. The Atlanta district attorney appears to be probing Mr. Trump’s now infamous call to Mr. Raffensperger. But that is just one chapter of the wrongdoing that led up to the attack on the Capitol.

Significantly, even if the Atlanta district attorney is able to convict Mr. Meadows and Mr. Trump for interfering in Georgia’s election, they could still run for office again. Only convicting them for participating in an insurrection would permanently disqualify them from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Some have expressed pessimism that the Department of Justice would be able to convict Mr. Trump. His guilt would ultimately be for a jury to decide, and some jurors might believe he deluded himself into believing his own big lie and thus genuinely thought he was saving, rather than sabotaging, the election. But concerns about a conviction are no reason to refrain from an investigation. If anything, a federal criminal investigation could unearth even more evidence and provide a firmer basis for deciding whether to indict.

To decline from the outset to investigate would be appeasement, pure and simple, and appeasing bullies and wrongdoers only encourages more of the same. Without forceful action to hold the wrongdoers to account, we will likely not resist what some retired generals see as a march to another insurrection in 2024 if Mr. Trump or another demagogue loses.

Throughout his public life, Mr. Garland has been a highly principled public servant focused on doing the right thing. But only by holding the leaders of the Jan. 6 insurrection — all of them — to account can he secure the future and teach the next generation that no one is above the law. If he has not done so already, we implore the attorney general to step up to that task.

THE FUNDING MODEL OF THIS ORGANIZATION IS RISKY FOR SURE — One is not required to pay before reaping the benefits. It's a bit like going to a coffee shop and only paying if you feel energized by the coffee/pastries. But who doesn't? From all the news groups and sources I read, this one is selective, relevant, and professional. The articles that RSN posts are timely and poignant. The funding model is that one pays voluntarily for what one values and benefits from. What could be more democratic than that? Please support this organization. The more of us who do, the less it costs each.
Mary, RSN Reader-Supporter

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611

Saturday, December 18, 2021

RSN: Juan Cole | Is Rep. Jim Jordan a Traitor to the United States?

18 December 21

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

Juan Cole | Is Rep. Jim Jordan a Traitor to the United States?
Juan Cole, Informed Comment
Cole writes: "Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has admitted that he authored a text sent to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows that was revealed by the January 6 Commission."

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has admitted that he authored a text sent to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows that was revealed by the January 6 Commission. The text read out by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said, “On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.” They identified it only as coming from a congressman.

Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) charged in the wake of the revelation that Jim Jordan is a traitor. Is that true?

Jordan’s office said that the sentence was truncated and that it was a forward on January 5 by Jordan to Meadows from former Defense Department Inspector General Joseph Schmitz, who also served as an executive with the rogue mercenary company Blackwater. Blackwater was expelled from Iraq for committing massacres with indiscriminate fire.

According to Ryan Nobles and Zachary Cohen at CNN, the full text that Jordan forwarded on Jan. 5 said,

“On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence. ‘No legislative act,’ wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, ‘contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.’ The court in Hubbard v. Lowe reinforced this truth: ‘That an unconstitutional statute is not a law at all is a proposition no longer open to discussion.’ 226 F. 135, 137 (SDNY 1915), appeal dismissed, 242 U.S. 654 (1916). Following this rationale, an unconstitutionally appointed elector, like an unconstitutionally enacted statute, is no elector at all.’”

Despite the citation of the Federal Papers and court decisions, this text is actually just a crackpot theory with no legal basis whatsoever, implying that Vice President Pence could have refused to certify President Biden’s election. He had no such prerogative.

As Jane C. Timm at NBC writes,

“The law governing the certification process, the Electoral Count Act of 1887, specifically limits the power of the president of the Senate precisely because a president of the Senate had intervened in the count previously. In 1857, after James Buchanan’s win, the Senate president overruled an objection against Wisconsin electors who had been delayed in their certification process by a snowstorm in 1856.
“One of the points of the Electoral Count Act is to constrain the vice president given this earlier episode and make it clear that he’s a presider, not a decider,” said former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center.”

The 1887 law allows members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to raise objections to votes, but gives no such role to the president of the Senate (i.e. the vice president), who merely certifies the vote of the legislators.

So the text by Schmitz, a Trump campaign adviser, is horse manure.

Did Jordan’s forwarding to Meadows constitute, though, an act of treason?

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution says, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

I don’t think treason is the right category here. I think the January 6 uprising was a form of sedition.

The US Federal Code has this to say,

” 18 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection: “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States”

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

We don’t have enough evidence yet to conclude that Jim Jordan gave “aid or comfort” to the Capitol rioters who were attempting to rebel against the laws of the United States. It seems entirely possible that he, and several other members of Congress, as well as Donald Trump, were in close contact with members of Oath Keepers and other far right militias who spearheaded the Jan. 6 attack. We do not know that for certain, however. Anyone who cheered on the invasion of the Capitol with an eye to preventing Congress from certifying Biden’s win would likely be guilty of rebellion or insurrection.

Seditious conspiracy, another possible charge, urges the use of force to overthrow the government. The text that Jordan forwarded does not mention anything about force. It proposes a (phony) legislative procedure.

Likewise, 18 U.S. Code § 2385 forbids advocating the overthrow of the US government by force.

As I have pointed out, in the 1950s members of the US Communist Party were in fact jailed merely on the imputation to them of a desire to overthrow the US government, with no evidence that they plotted to do any such thing or that they had advocated violence. In 1957 the Supreme Court finally ruled that you couldn’t be locked up for advocacy, only for actual violence.

The McCarthy-era persecution of leftists used the 1940 Smith Act, passed in the shadow of WW II, which threatened with condign punishment those who:

“knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association.”

The Smith Act is still on the books. I don’t think it should be used against Jim Jordan. But I would say that he is much more guilty of contravening it than the Seattle Seven Communist Party members ever were.

So, no. Jim Jordan is not a traitor. And unless we discover that he advocated the violence deployed by the Capitol insurrectionists, he probably couldn’t be convicted even of sedition, conspiracy sedition, or advocating the overthrow of the government.

Glenn Kirschner, a legal adviser to NBC who teaches at George Washington University, suggested that what Jordan did was a violation of federal code 1505, which forbids obstructing pending acts of Congress.

The code says,

“Section 1505 of Title 18, United States Code, as amended by the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, forbids anyone from corruptly, or by threats of force or by any threatening communication, influencing, obstructing, or impeding any pending proceeding before a department or agency of the United States, or Congress. In 1996 Congress enacted a clarifying amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 1515, which defines the term “corruptly” as used in section 1505 to mean “acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.” False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-292, §3, 110 Stat. 3459, 3460.”

The message from Schmitz that Jordan forwarded was false and misleading, and he sent it with the purpose of obstructing the Congress from certifying the election. So maybe Kirschner has a point.

We know that Jordan talked with Trump on January 6. If we ever find out what he said, it could be a basis for a charge of conspiracy sedition.

Retired Generals: The Military Must Prepare Now for a 2024 Insurrection Trump supporters stand on a Capitol Police armored vehicle as others take over the steps of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (photo: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images)

Retired Generals: The Military Must Prepare Now for a 2024 Insurrection
Paul D. Eaton, Antonio M. Taguba and Steven M. Anderson, The Washington Post
Excerpt: "As we approach the first anniversary of the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, we - all of us former senior military officials - are increasingly concerned about the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election and the potential for lethal chaos inside our military, which would put all Americans at severe risk."

As we approach the first anniversary of the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, we — all of us former senior military officials — are increasingly concerned about the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election and the potential for lethal chaos inside our military, which would put all Americans at severe risk.

In short: We are chilled to our bones at the thought of a coup succeeding next time.

One of our military’s strengths is that it draws from our diverse population. It is a collection of individuals, all with different beliefs and backgrounds. But without constant maintenance, the potential for a military breakdown mirroring societal or political breakdown is very real.

The signs of potential turmoil in our armed forces are there. On Jan. 6, a disturbing number of veterans and active-duty members of the military took part in the attack on the Capitol. More than 1 in 10 of those charged in the attacks had a service record. A group of 124 retired military officials, under the name “Flag Officers 4 America,” released a letter echoing Donald Trump’s false attacks on the legitimacy of our elections.

Recently, and perhaps more worrying, Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino, the commanding general of the Oklahoma National Guard, refused an order from President Biden mandating that all National Guard members be vaccinated against the coronavirus. Mancino claimed that while the Oklahoma Guard is not federally mobilized, his commander in chief is the Republican governor of the state, not the president.

The potential for a total breakdown of the chain of command along partisan lines — from the top of the chain to squad level — is significant should another insurrection occur. The idea of rogue units organizing among themselves to support the “rightful” commander in chief cannot be dismissed.

Imagine competing commanders in chief — a newly reelected Biden giving orders, versus Trump (or another Trumpian figure) issuing orders as the head of a shadow government. Worse, imagine politicians at the state and federal levels illegally installing a losing candidate as president.

All service members take an oath to protect the U.S. Constitution. But in a contested election, with loyalties split, some might follow orders from the rightful commander in chief, while others might follow the Trumpian loser. Arms might not be secured depending on who was overseeing them. Under such a scenario, it is not outlandish to say a military breakdown could lead to civil war.

In this context, with our military hobbled and divided, U.S. security would be crippled. Any one of our enemies could take advantage by launching an all-out assault on our assets or our allies.

The lack of military preparedness for the aftermath of the 2020 election was striking and worrying. Trump’s acting defense secretary, Christopher C. Miller, testified that he deliberately withheld military protection of the Capitol before Jan. 6. Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reportedly scrambled to ensure the nation’s nuclear defense chains were secure from illegal orders. It is evident the whole of our military was caught off-guard.

With the country still as divided as ever, we must take steps to prepare for the worst.

First, everything must be done to prevent another insurrection. Not a single leader who inspired it has been held to account. Our elected officials and those who enforce the law — including the Justice Department, the House select committee and the whole of Congress — must show more urgency.

But the military cannot wait for elected officials to act. The Pentagon should immediately order a civics review for all members — uniformed and civilian — on the Constitution and electoral integrity. There must also be a review of the laws of war and how to identify and deal with illegal orders. And it must reinforce “unity of command” to make perfectly clear to every member of the Defense Department whom they answer to. No service member should say they didn’t understand whom to take orders from during a worst-case scenario.

In addition, all military branches must undertake more intensive intelligence work at all installations. The goal should be to identify, isolate and remove potential mutineers; guard against efforts by propagandists who use misinformation to subvert the chain of command; and understand how that and other misinformation spreads across the ranks after it is introduced by propagandists.

Finally, the Defense Department should war-game the next potential post-election insurrection or coup attempt to identify weak spots. It must then conduct a top-down debrief of its findings and begin putting in place safeguards to prevent breakdowns not just in the military, but also in any agency that works hand in hand with the military.

The military and lawmakers have been gifted hindsight to prevent another insurrection from happening in 2024 — but they will succeed only if they take decisive action now.

National Progressive Group Labels Six Lawmakers 'Progressive in Name Only' in New Report Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-CA, was named in the RootsAction report. (photo: Andrew Harnik)

National Progressive Group Labels Six Lawmakers 'Progressive in Name Only' in New Report
Julia Manchester, The Hill
Manchester writes: "A national progressive grassroots organization is labeling six members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus 'progressive in name only,' or 'PINO' in a new report released on Thursday."

A national progressive grassroots organization is labeling six members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus "progressive in name only," or "PINO" in a new report released on Thursday.

The report released by RootsAction.org, titled "Meet The PINOs: "Progressive In Name Only," targets Democratic Reps. Madeleine Dean (Pa.), Donald Norcross (N.J.), Jimmy Panetta (Calif.), Joseph Morelle (N.Y.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (Del.) and Brenda Lawrence (Mich.).

The label is reminiscent of the derisive "RINO" label, meaning "Republican in name only," sometimes applied to out-of-favor members of the GOP.

Norcross responded to the report on Thursday, listing off his own list of progressive accomplishments.

“As a life-long union member, I wake up every day fighting for working families. I was elected by members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus as vice-chair of labor. And I proudly support the American Rescue Plan and the Build Back Better Act, which is the largest expansion of health care in over a decade and makes child care affordable for working families nationwide," Norcross told The Hill. "Additionally, I support expansion of clean energy programs that create green jobs with strong labor protections. I was among the first supporters of increasing the federal minimum wage. If that’s not progressive, I don’t know what is.”

The Hill has reached out to all the lawmakers highlighted in the report.

The group accused the six lawmakers named in the report of often acting "more like corporate centrists" on issues like "Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, cutting military spending, [and] robust civil liberties."

"Our research shows that many caucus members don’t actually legislate like progressives," said Christopher Cook, the report's author.

The report marks the first time a major progressive coalition has publicly gone after members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Additionally, the report comes less than a year before the 2022 midterm elections, when progressives are expected to participate in a number of Democratic primaries. The report calls on progressives to primary the lawmakers in question.

“How can we achieve these critical reforms when some so-called ‘progressives’ refuse to challenge the status quo? Some of these folks in strongly Democratic districts seem ripe for a serious progressive primary challenge, if not this coming year then certainly in 2024," Cook wrote.

A number of Congressional Progressive Caucus members, including chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), recently flexed the group's muscles by delaying a vote on President Biden's infrastructure bill because the legislation was originally supposed to pass alongside the massive Build Back Better social spending legislation. But leaders ultimately angered some of their own when they made a deal to vote on infrastructure first. The House later passed the Build Back Better spending bill, but it is now stalled in the Senate.

US Border Authorities Have Incorrectly Placed Immigrants With Medical Conditions in the Relaunched A U.S. Border Patrol agent instructs asylum-seeking migrants as they line up along the border wall after crossing the Rio Grande river into the United States from Mexico on a raft, in Penitas, Texas. (photo: Adrees Latif/Reuters)

US Border Authorities Have Incorrectly Placed Immigrants With Medical Conditions in the Relaunched "Remain In Mexico" Program, Attorneys Say
Adolfo Flores and Hamed Aleaziz, BuzzFeed
Excerpt: "Attorneys said they've identified at least 24 immigrants - including some with medical issues - who shouldn't have been placed in a Trump-era program that forces them back to wait in Mexico while their US asylum cases are completed, according to attorneys and an email obtained by BuzzFeed News."

At least nine immigrants identified by attorneys as being vulnerable have been taken out of the program, however, one was mistakenly returned to Mexico.

Attorneys said they've identified at least 24 immigrants — including some with medical issues — who shouldn't have been placed in a Trump-era program that forces them back to wait in Mexico while their US asylum cases are completed, according to attorneys and an email obtained by BuzzFeed News.

As the Biden administration prepared to reimplement the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which forced more than 71,000 immigrants to wait in Mexico, often in dangerous conditions, officials said they were working to restart it in a way that protect with known physical and mental conditions, as well as others who might be at increased risk of harm in Mexico due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

However, some immigrants who attorneys argue fall under those categories have been placed in MPP, also known as “Remain in Mexico,” since the first people were sent back to Mexico on Dec. 8. So far, lawyers have identified 12 members of the LGBTQ community and 16 cases of medical conditions they argue should have exempted the immigrants and asylum-seekers. (There was some overlap with four of the LGBTQ immigrants also having medical conditions.)

The email from the Border Project, a pro bono endeavor to provide legal aid to immigrants operated by the Jones Day international law firm, was sent to legal service providers and details some of the concerns they had with the recently relaunched MPP. The Border Project had agreed to provide legal services at the El Paso Central Processing Center on a short-term basis after the Biden administration, under a federal court order, restarted the program, which included setting up a hotline for immigrants.

The Border Project said it identified at least 24 immigrants who should've been excluded from MPP and had escalated their cases to Customs and Border Protection (CBP), including one man who was raped and threatened with death in Mexico after men learned that he and his partner were gay.

Attorneys also spoke with immigrants with health conditions they said should have kept them out of Remain in Mexico, such as cancer, HIV, and a recent amputation. The man had parts of his fingers amputated by the cartel in a video call with family to extort money from them, the email states.

At least nine of the 24 were taken out of MPP after the Border Project and its partners contacted CBP about their cases and they are waiting for the results from the rest, the email adds. However, at least one immigrant who was taken out of MPP after attorneys identified him was still returned to Mexico.

"CBP reported that they are working to locate him in Mexico and to bring him into the US," the email states.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a statement that particularly vulnerable immigrants, including those with physical and mental health challenges, the elderly, and those at risk of discrimination because of their LGBTQ status, will be exempted from MPP on a case-by-case basis.

The first vulnerability assessment is made at initial processing, the agency said. However, the DHS acknowledged that circumstances can change and immigrants who may not have been vulnerable when they were placed in MPP can become so at a later date. Consequently, an immigrant's vulnerability can be considered at each point of the process and the DHS said it encourages people who believe that their circumstances have changed to make CBP personnel aware.

Guidance on the re-implementation of MPP issued by the DHS said the following groups of immigrants should not be placed in the program: Immigrants with known mental or physical health issues, including a disability or a medical condition related to pregnancy; those with particular vulnerabilities given their advanced age; and people who face increased risk of harm in Mexico due their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Lisa Koop, associate director of legal services at the National Immigrant Justice Center, has been working with immigrants placed in the Remain in Mexico program to provide legal aid and identify those who might be classified as vulnerable. One man had a traumatic brain injury and another has cancer and needs treatment, Koop said.

"By the government's own terms these categories of people are not supposed to be placed in MPP," Koop said. "Yet we're seeing an alarming number of people who meet those categories who are still being enrolled in MPP."

Lawyers have been working to raise the alarm on these cases with CBP, Koop said. Immigrants have told Koop that US border officers aren't asking probing questions about their health, their sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Sending vulnerable immigrants back to Mexico under MPP was also an issue during the first iteration under the Trump administration. According to guiding principles for the policy, immigrants with “known physical/mental health issues” were prohibited from being placed in the program. Nevertheless, a report obtained by BuzzFeed found that this was not well explained to border agents and that immigrants were still returned to Mexico despite having medical issues.

Those sent back during the Trump administration included a 6-year-old Honduran girl described as having “crippled” legs, according to an internal government report obtained by BuzzFeed News that was addressed to senior DHS leaders. An 11-year-old boy with severe epilepsy and convulsions that prompted vomiting and memory loss, a Honduran woman who cannot hear or speak, and a woman with a serious precancerous disease were also caught up in MPP.

It can be a difficult process to get out of MPP even if attorneys accompany immigrants to official border crossings to ask CBP officers to have them taken out of the program. Adults and children can also spend hours on international bridges even as temperatures drop during the winter to plead their case.

President Joe Biden had made good on a campaign promise to undo MPP and even allowed some immigrants to enter the US to continue their case. But earlier this month, he was forced to bring back Remain in Mexico in order to comply with a federal court order when a judge determined that the administration erred in the way it had rolled back the policy.

The first two immigrants were returned from El Paso, Texas, to the Mexican city of Ciudad Juarez on Dec. 8.

The process for placing people in MPP may get better as time goes by, Koop said, but if the administration wasn't ready to have safeguards in place for vulnerable immigrants they should have delayed reimplementing the policy.

"The courts required them to make a good faith effort," Koop said. "It didn't require them to barrel ahead before they had safety measures in place."

In addition to the health issues, Border Project attorneys also said they were concerned about men being separated from their wives or adult children. One immigrant reported being separated from his wife, who was six months pregnant, epileptic, and asthmatic. His wife was allowed to enter the US and he was placed into MPP. Another immigrant was separated from his wife who has a heart condition while another was deaf.

The email from the Border Project said it highlighted the issues attorneys saw with the understanding that many in the administration had worked "tirelessly" to provide legal services to immigrants enrolled in MPP and in CBP custody.

"We have no doubt that these efforts — and other attempts to inject the rule of law into MPP — have been undertaken with the best intentions by people who care passionately about access to justice," the email states. "We have also encountered good intentions by some CBP officials."

One CBP officer at the El Paso Central Processing Center identified immigrants and reached out to attorneys on her own accord, the group said. Others at CBP worked to fix technological issues with the phone lines and help the Border Project identify immigrants who provided incomplete information in the hotline voicemails, they added.

Judge Rejects Purdue Pharma's Opioid Settlement That Would Protect the Sackler Family Since the early 2000s, Purdue Pharma faced countless lawsuits for misleading advertisements and distribution of opioid medications, namely Oxycontin. (image: Chicago Monitor)

Judge Rejects Purdue Pharma's Opioid Settlement That Would Protect the Sackler Family
Associated Press
Excerpt: "A judge has rejected OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy settlement of thousands of lawsuits over the opioid epidemic because of a provision that would protect members of the Sackler family from facing litigation of their own."

A judge has rejected OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy settlement of thousands of lawsuits over the opioid epidemic because of a provision that would protect members of the Sackler family from facing litigation of their own.

In a ruling Thursday, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in New York found that federal bankruptcy law does not give the bankruptcy judge who had accepted the plan the authority to grant that kind of release for people who are not declaring bankruptcy themselves.

The ruling is likely to be appealed by the company, family members and the thousands of government entities that support the plan.

A Purdue spokesperson said Thursday evening that the company was preparing a statement. Representatives of the two branches of the family who own the company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who was among a handful of state officials seeking to have the deal undone, called the ruling "a seismic victory for justice and accountability." Tong said the ruling will "re-open the deeply flawed Purdue bankruptcy and force the Sackler family to confront the pain and devastation they have caused."

Purdue sought bankruptcy protection in 2019 as it faced thousands of lawsuits claiming the company pushed doctors to prescribe OxyContin, helping spark an opioid crisis that has been linked to more than 500,000 deaths in the U.S. over the last two decades.

Through the bankruptcy court, it worked out a deal with its creditors. Members of the Sackler family would give up ownership of the company, which would transform into a different kind of entity that would still sell opioids — but with profits being used to fight the crisis. It would also develop new anti-addiction and anti-overdose drugs and provide them at little or no cost.

Sackler family members also would contribute $4.5 billion in cash and charitable assets as part of an overall deal that could be worth $10 billion, including the value of the new drugs, if they're brought to market.

Government entities and businesses agreed to use any money they receive fighting the opioid epidemic. The deal also calls for millions of company documents, including communications with lawyers, to be made public.

In return, members of the wealthy family would get protection from lawsuits over their role in the opioid crisis — both the 860 already filed and any others in the future.

Most state and local governments, Native American tribes, individual opioid victims and others who voted said the plan worked out in the bankruptcy court should be accepted.

But the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee's office, eight state attorneys general and some other entities have been fighting the deal. They argue that it does not properly hold members of the Sackler family accountable and that it usurps states' ability to try to do so.

A bankruptcy court judge approved the plan over the objections in September. But the opponents appealed to McMahon's court.

The main issue on the appeal was the lawfulness of the measures that would extend legal protections to family members.

Such "third-party releases" are not used in most bankruptcy cases, but they are common in cases such as Purdue's, in which the companies involved are burdened with lawsuits and have relatively little value — but their wealthy owners could contribute.

The Purdue deal would not protect family members from any criminal charges. But so far none have been filed, and there are no signs that any are forthcoming, though some activists are calling for charges.

In a hearing, McMahon focused in on how Sackler family members transferred $10.4 billion from the privately held Stamford, Connecticut-based company over the decade before the bankruptcy. McMahon wanted to know whether the money was moved in part to ensure a role for the Sacklers in bankruptcy negotiations.

But in her ruling Thursday, McMahon focused on whether the bankruptcy law allows releases for third parties when some creditors in the bankruptcy disagree. She also noted that other courts will weigh in on the case.

"This opinion will not be the last word on the subject, nor should it be. This issue has hovered over bankruptcy law for thirty-five years," she said.

Super Typhoon Rai: Dozens Feared Dead in Philippines Rai took many by surprise - strengthening to immense power in the final hours of its approach towards the country. (photo: BBC)

Super Typhoon Rai: Dozens Feared Dead in Philippines
BBC
Excerpt: "Super Typhoon Rai crashed into the country's southeastern islands on Thursday, leveling homes and bringing winds of about 195km/h (120mph)."

More than 30 people are feared dead and many are missing after a devastating storm swept over the Philippines.

Super Typhoon Rai crashed into the country's southeastern islands on Thursday, levelling homes and bringing winds of about 195km/h (120mph).

The strongest storm to hit the Philippines this year has toppled power poles, uprooted trees and left three million people without electricity.

The country's disaster agency says the reported death toll stands at 31.

Four people are confirmed killed and 27 are believed to have died, it said in a statement.

Rescue operations are now under way in the devastated regions.

There are growing concerns for the holiday island of Siargao, where the storm - also known as Typhoon Odette in the Philippines - first made landfall. Its governor said the island was "totally devastated" and estimated repair costs would be more than $400m (£302m).

And the governor of the neighbouring Dinagat islands, Arlene Bag-ao, said the region had been "levelled to the ground" by the typhoon.

"The fields and boats of our farmers and fisherfolk have been decimated," she said in a Facebook message quoted by news site Rappler. "[W]e have lost our homes. Walls and roofs were torn and blown off…. We have a dwindling supply of food and water. Electricity and telecommunications are down. This is why we urgently and humbly ask for everyone's help."

She said the damage "is reminiscent of, if not worse than, when Yolanda hit our province". More than 6,000 people died after that storm - also known as Typhoon Haiyan - hit the country in 2013.

On average about 20 storms and typhoons strike the Philippines each year.

The storm comes as the nation prepares for Christmas, a major holiday in the Philippines. More than 80% of the population declare themselves to be Catholic.

The latest update from the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (Pagasa) said that while Typhoon Rai has now passed west of the island nation, it is intensifying again.

Current predictions suggest it will head towards Vietnam before turning north towards China, Pagasa said.

Typhoon Rai is the most powerful storm to hit the Philippines this year.

What makes this storm so significant is the power it sustained as it moved across nine different land masses in the Southern Philippines.

Island after island, from Siargao to Palawan - a distance of more than 800km (500 miles) - was battered by relentless winds and exceptionally heavy rainfall.

Charities here have been quick to link the storm's ferocity to global warming.

Greenpeace Philippines warned that "as the climate crisis worsens… these typhoons will get worse, more unpredictable, and more destructive."

The Philippine Red Cross called Rai a "monster storm" and expressed concern that climate change is making typhoons "more ferocious".

Although not as strong as 2013's Super Typhoon Haiyan, which killed more than 6,000 people and devastated vast tracts of land in the Philippines, Rai took many by surprise - strengthening to immense power in the final hours of its approach towards the country.

Helicopters to Drop Poison on California's Farallon Islands Amid 'Plague' of Mice The Farallon Islands are home to what ecologists have called a 'plague-level infestation' of mice. (photo: Paul Broadbent/Alamy)

Helicopters to Drop Poison on California's Farallon Islands Amid 'Plague' of Mice
Maanvi Singh, Guardian UK
Singh writes: "A plan to eradicate a 'plague-level infestation' of invasive mice on California's Farallon Islands by dropping poisoned bait from helicopters has been approved by state officials."

Wildlife officials and ecologists say urgent and drastic measures are needed to eradicate mice, a threat to island’s endemic species

A plan to eradicate a “plague-level infestation” of invasive mice on California’s Farallon Islands by dropping poisoned bait from helicopters has been approved by state officials.

After hours of impassioned debate, coastal commissioners voted 5-3 in favor of the long-controversial plan put forth by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The approval comes despite the objections of local environmental activists who fear that rodenticide will kill not only the invasive mice, but also gulls and burrowing owls.

If the FWS regional director approves the plan as well, a poison drop over the islands, located just off the San Francisco coast, could take place by the fall of 2023, the wildlife agency said.

Wildlife officials and ecologists conducting research on the island have argued that urgent and drastic measures are needed to eradicate the mice, which are a threat to endemic species – including native arboreal salamanders, camel crickets and birds like the ashy storm petrel. Proponents of the plan have said using the rodenticide brodifacoum is the only way to quickly achieve total eradication of the mice, which were inadvertently introduced to the islands by sailors in the 19th century, and to protect native species that are projected to decline in the coming decades.

Supporters of the proposal also include conservation groups like the National Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy.

However, during hours of emotional debate before the vote, opponents warned that FWS plans to minimize collateral damage to seabirds, raptors and other animals weren’t foolproof. The proposal details that FWS staff would begin by “hazing” gulls to ward them away from the islands before the rodenticide is deployed, using techniques including lasers, pyrotechnics and effigies. Burrowing owls and other raptors – who might eat poisoned mice and themselves get poisoned – would be gathered up and transported off the island.

Hungry raptors flying along California’s coast won’t be able to stay away from a feast of ailing, poisoned mice on the island, said Sara Wan of Western Alliance for Nature and will die of poisoning. “I cry at the thought,” she said. “If I sound angry to you it’s because I am.”