Search This Blog

Showing posts with label KEVIN STRICKLAND. Show all posts
Showing posts with label KEVIN STRICKLAND. Show all posts

Saturday, November 27, 2021

RSN: Dan Rather and Elliot Kirschner | The China Conundrum

 

 

Reader Supported News
24 November 21

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

“TODAY” REALLY MATTERS FOR DONATIONS — We are not making the kind of progress in terms of finishing the fundraising drive that we normally do. Still only a small fraction of you have responded. Today is a critical day for donations. Very important now.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

Chinese president Xi Jinping, seen pledging his vows to the party during the celebrations of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party, is shaking up Chinese society. (photo: Ng Han Guan/AP)
Dan Rather and Elliot Kirschner | The China Conundrum
Dan Rather and Elliot Kirschner, Steady
Excerpt: "I worry that in our hyper-politicized environment, with Republicans holding up nominees for vital national security and diplomatic posts in the Biden Administration, the dangers in our relations with China will only increase."

From Kenosha to Capitol Hill, from state houses to the Supreme Court, there is no shortage of urgent and grave storylines that we must confront as our democracy and the stability of our nation is under threat. But as journalists we are also trained to look for important stories that aren’t getting enough coverage, issues, places, and events that are bubbling on the backburner of our attention and have the potential to emerge as full-blown crises. A well-functioning government must do the same, especially if it has the power by its actions to fundamentally shape what comes next.

All this brings me to an issue that is always somewhat on my mind but has increasingly become more front and center: China.

Now to be sure, China is not a small or hidden story. America’s complicated relationship with the rising power keeps popping up in the headlines in many forms, but I worry that we aren’t stopping to think enough about the big picture, to weigh the risks and the potential for progress that might develop in the near term, and the more distant future.

The state of relations between the two countries is as fraught and as dangerous as I have seen in quite some time. Most of this is around China’s rapid military build-up. Its rhetoric is more bellicose and its actions more threatening, particularly when it comes to Taiwan. Now the issue of Taiwan is so complicated it cannot be handled in just one article (although here is a useful primer).

For the sake of our discussion, I note that for decades a status quo has allowed Taiwan to not only exist, but to emerge as a robust democracy and thriving economic power. But this status quo always been precarious. Mainland communist China sees Taiwan as unequivocally falling under its ultimate sovereignty, an issue Taiwan has not wanted to push for obvious reasons. Under this dance, the United States does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but we also tacitly see it as the independent-acting nation that it is.

The real question is what would happen if China decided to take Taiwan by force. Would the United States come to its defense? For a long time, America has had a policy of “strategic ambiguity” around this scenario. In other words, not definitively answering whether we would intervene in war has been a matter of national policy. This is a way to not threaten China directly, while also allowing Taiwan some level of assurance. It is not clear if this approach can continue as China has ramped up its threats.

It would be one thing if Taiwan was the only complicating factor between the two powers, but it is as much a symptom as it is a cause. It is clear that China, especially under its nationalistic leader Xi Jinping, wants to exert a more formidable military shadow over Asia and the rest of the globe, matching the economic might it has been pushing for decades.

This casts all of Asia into greater uncertainty. And other regional powers, from Japan to South Korea to Australia, are calibrating their actions accordingly. But the sphere of potential Chinese influence and conflict stretches beyond East Asia. India, Vietnam, and others are all having to react to Beijing’s growing ambitions.

China’s actions outside of its borders are complicated by what is happening internally. The horrific stories emerging of its treatment of the muslim Uyghur population in the country’s northwest points to human rights abuses on a massive scale, including torture and concentration camps. In a recent report, The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum said the government “may be committing genocide.”

We have also seen the brutal crackdown on democracy protesters in Hong Kong and the suppression of free speech and other rights in mainland China. Now we have a story sweeping the sports world and beyond. A top Chinese women’s tennis player, Peng Shuai, has disappeared after accusing a prominent Chinese politician of sexual assault. To their credit, the Women’s Tennis Association has spoken out forcefully, risking its financial stake in China. And many others are taking up the cause.

In short you have a country with severe repression and grave abuses against its own citizens. America, as a champion of democracy and freedom (even if those ideals are under assault here at home) cannot let these kinds of actions occur without response and pressure.

However, there are many areas where we need China’s help and goodwill. First and foremost is the climate crisis. We will not have a sustainable planet if the United States and China can’t work together on driving down greenhouse gas emissions. There were some hopeful signs out of the climate summit in Scotland with announcements of cooperation and action between the two countries. But we will need a lot more than words in the years ahead. Then there is the issue of our economies, which are largely interwoven. There are trade issues and supply chains. There is the robust Chinese middle class and the market potential they represent.

It is impossible to capture even a small part of the complexities of this relationship, and I don’t pretend to be an expert on China. But I have been an observer through more than 60 years of rapid change. I first went to Taiwan with President Eisenhower in 1960 when it was under the iron-fisted rule of General Chiang Kai-shek. This was just 15 years after the end of World War II, and most of American foreign policy attention was geared to the Soviet Union and Europe at the time. But I could tell, even then, that we ignored Asia at our peril. When I went to China with President Nixon in his groundbreaking opening of relations in 1972, much had changed.

The Vietnam War had led to a tragic American military return to the region. And China was about to begin a rapid rise in stature. I was then back in 1989 to cover the democracy protests in Tiananmen Square, when Chinese government authorities literally pulled the plug on our CBS News efforts in advance of their bloody crackdown.

I have come to China and the region many, many times over the years. I say this not to suggest it yields any significant wisdom or to pad my part as a reporter. It is just a reminder that Asia must be central to American concerns.

I have long felt that our own history, and the European roots of those who founded the United States, have blinded us to the strength and depth of the cultures and history of China, and the rest of Asia. It is not so much that Asia is rising in importance. It is that it has always been there and we are episodic in paying suitable attention.

I worry that in our hyper-politicized environment, with Republicans holding up nominees for vital national security and diplomatic posts in the Biden Administration, the dangers in our relations with China will only increase. This is no time for self-defeating chest pounding or foreign policy by sloganeering. There are no easy answers to how we weigh global interests around the climate with the human rights of those being persecuted. We have seen with the pandemic how interconnected our world is. Our public health, the prospects for war and peace, the hopes of peoples seeking freedom, all of this and so much more is at stake.

What I have seen over the years, however, also gives me seeds of hope. For all the differences we see at the level of government and nations, I have been struck by the people I have met in my travels in China, and throughout Asia. Most want what we all want, a safe and secure world for ourselves and our families. Taiwan is a shining example of a country that turned from authoritarianism to democracy. That alone is a threat to the mainland Chinese narrative that somehow democracy doesn’t work in Asia.

Now is the time for steadfastness and hope, for diplomacy and resolve. I know that the specter of China will continue to be raised as a cudgel to score easy points in American politics. I hope and pray that those making the actual policy can find the room to maneuver through dangerous waters into calmer seas ahead.


READ MORE


Jury Awards $25 Million in Damages Over Deadly 2017 Charlottesville Far-Right RallyWhite nationalist groups march with torches through the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville, Virginia, on 11 August 2017. (photo: Mykal McEldowney/AP)

Jury Awards $25 Million in Damages Over Deadly 2017 Charlottesville Far-Right Rally
Associated Press
Excerpt: "A jury has awarded more than million in damages against white nationalist leaders for violence that erupted during the deadly 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville."

Nine people who were physically or emotionally injured during the two days of demonstrations will receive payment

A jury has awarded more than $25m in damages against white nationalist leaders for violence that erupted during the deadly 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville.

The defendants were accused of promoting and then carrying out racially motivated violence during the “Unite the Right” rally. After a nearly monthlong civil trial, a jury in US district court in Charlottesville deadlocked on two claims but found the white nationalists liable on four other counts in the lawsuit that was filed by nine people who suffered physical or emotional injuries during the two days of demonstrations.

Attorney Roberta Kaplan said the plaintiffs’ lawyers plan to refile the suit so a new jury can decide the two claims this jury could not reach a verdict on. She called the amount of damages awarded from the other counts “eye opening”.

“That sends a loud message,” Kaplan said.

The verdict, though mixed, is a rebuke to the white nationalist movement, particularly for the two dozen individuals and organizations who were accused in a federal lawsuit of orchestrating violence against African Americans, Jews and others in a meticulously planned conspiracy.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer vowed to appeal. He said plaintiffs’ attorneys made it clear before the trial that they wanted to use the case to bankrupt him and other defendants.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs invoked a 150-year-old law passed after the civil war to shield freed slaves from violence and protect their civil rights. Commonly known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, the law contains a rarely used provision that allows private citizens to sue other citizens for civil rights violations.

Hundreds of white nationalists descended on Charlottesville on 11-12 August 2017, ostensibly to protest the city’s plans to remove a statue of Confederate Gen Robert E Lee.

During a march on the University of Virginia grounds, white nationalists surrounded counterprotesters, shouted, “Jews will not replace us!” and threw burning tiki torches at them. The next day, an avowed admirer of Adolf Hitler intentionally drove his car into a crowd, killing one woman and injuring 19.

Then-president Donald Trump touched off a political firestorm when he failed to immediately denounce the white nationalists, saying there were “very fine people on both sides”.

James Alex Fields Jr of Maumee, Ohio, is serving life in prison for murder and hate crimes for the car attack. He is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Fields is one of 24 defendants named in the lawsuit funded by Integrity First for America, a nonprofit civil rights organization formed in response to the violence in Charlottesville.

The lawsuit accused some of the country’s most well-known white nationalists of plotting the violence, including Jason Kessler, the rally’s main organizer; Spencer, who coined the term “alt-right” to describe a loosely connected band of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and others; and Christopher Cantwell, a white supremacist who became known as the “crying Nazi” for posting a tearful video when a warrant was issued for his arrest on assault charges for using pepper spray against counter demonstrators.

The trial featured emotional testimony from people who were struck by Fields’ car or witnessed the attacks as well as plaintiffs who were beaten or subjected to racist taunts.

Melissa Blair, who was pushed out of the way as Fields’ car slammed into the crowd, described the horror of seeing her fiancĂ© bleeding on the sidewalk and later learning that her friend, 32-year-old Heather Heyer, had been killed.

“I was confused. I was scared. I was worried about all the people that were there. It was a complete terror scene. It was blood everywhere. I was terrified,” said Blair, who became tearful several times during her testimony.

During their testimony, some of the defendants used racial epithets and defiantly expressed their support for white supremacy. They also blamed one another and the anti-fascist political movement known as antifa for the violence that erupted that weekend.

In closing arguments to the jury, the defendants and their lawyers tried to distance themselves from Fields and said the plaintiffs had not proved that they conspired to commit violence at the rally.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs showed the jury a vast collection of chat room exchanges, text messages and social media postings by the defendants to demonstrate the extent of their communications before the rally and try to prove their claim that they planned the violence well in advance.

“If you want a chance to crack some Antifa skulls in self defense don’t open carry,” Kessler wrote in a message about two months before the rally. “You will scare the shit out of them and they’ll just stand off to the side.”

The white nationalists maintained there was no conspiracy, and their blustery talk before the rally was just rhetoric and is protected by the first amendment.

Before the trial, Judge Norman Moon issued default judgments against an additional seven defendants who refused to respond to the lawsuit. The court will decide damages against those defendants.


READ MORE


Proud Boys, Oath Keepers Receive Subpoenas in Congressional January 6 ProbePro-Trump protesters gather in front of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in Washington, D.C. The mob stormed the Capitol, breaking windows and clashing with police officers. (photo: Jon Cherry/Getty Images)


Proud Boys, Oath Keepers Receive Subpoenas in Congressional January 6 Probe
Claudia Grisales, NPR
Grisales writes: "The Democratic-led House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol has issued a new round of subpoenas to far right extremist groups, including the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers."

The Democratic-led House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol has issued a new round of subpoenas to far right extremist groups, including the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.

In all, the panel issued five new subpoenas, which includes demands for records and testimony. Subpoenas were also issued for Henry "Enrique" Tarrio, who on Jan. 6 was chairman of the Proud Boys; Elmer Stewart Rhodes, president of the Oath Keepers; and Robert Patrick Lewis, chairman of 1st Amendment Praetorian, which provided security at multiple rallies leading up to Jan. 6. The groups and individuals have been asked to turn over documents and testify by early December.

For his part, Tarrio, who was recently revealed to be an FBI informant, is serving a five-month prison term for burning a Black Lives Matter banner and bringing high-capacity firearm magazines to Washington, D.C.

"The Select Committee is seeking information from individuals and organizations reportedly involved with planning the attack, with the violent mob that stormed the Capitol on January 6th, or with efforts to overturn the results of the election," the committee's chair, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said in a statement. "We believe the individuals and organizations we subpoenaed today have relevant information about how violence erupted at the Capitol and the preparation leading up to this violent attack."

Before these new demands of testimony and documents, the committee issued more than three dozen subpoenas for former Trump officials, allies and Jan. 6 rally organizers. The recent subpoenas issued on Monday included controversial figures Roger Stone and Alex Jones.

"The Select Committee is moving swiftly to uncover the facts of what happened on that day and we expect every witness to comply with the law and cooperate so we can get answers to the American people," Thompson said.

So far, the committee has met with about 200 unnamed witnesses voluntarily, received 25,000 pages of documents and received more than 200 tips through a hotline.


READ MORE


Kevin Strickland Exonerated, Released After 43 Years of Wrongful ImprisonmentKevin Strickland at an evidentiary hearing on Nov. 8 in Kansas City, Mo. (photo: Tammy Ljungblad/Kansas City Star/AP)


Kevin Strickland Exonerated, Released After 43 Years of Wrongful Imprisonment
Timothy Bella, The Washington Post
Bella writes: "For the first time in more than four decades in prison, Kevin Strickland allowed himself to make a wish list of all the things he would do if he were to be exonerated for a triple murder he has long said he did not commit."

The Black man convicted by an all-White jury in a 1978 triple murder in Kansas City has spent over four decades in prison

For the first time in more than four decades in prison, Kevin Strickland allowed himself to make a wish list of all the things he would do if he were to be exonerated for a triple murder he has long said he did not commit.

There are two places that Strickland — a 62-year-old Black man convicted by an all-White jury in 1979 and sentenced to life in prison without the chance of parole for 50 years — hopes to see: the ocean, which he has never visited in person, and his mother’s grave.

“If we don’t stop at the gravesite first, I’m going to get out of the car and I’m going to try to make it there on my hands and knees,” Strickland told The Washington Post.

Strickland will get that opportunity.

A judge on Tuesday exonerated him after more than 43 years in prison, making his case the longest confirmed wrongful-conviction case in Missouri’s history — and one of the longest-standing such convictions in the nation’s history. He was released shortly after the judge issued his decision.

Strickland was convicted of the 1978 murders of Sherrie Black, 22, Larry Ingram, 21, and John Walker, 20, even though no physical evidence linked him to the crime scene, family members provided alibis and the admitted killers said he was not there. The case was built on the testimony of Cynthia Douglas, the sole survivor and eyewitness, who later attempted multiple times to recant her testimony because she said she was pressured by police.

“Under these unique circumstances, the Court’s confidence in Strickland’s conviction is so undermined that it cannot stand, and the judgment of conviction must be set aside,” Judge James Welsh wrote Tuesday. “The State of Missouri shall immediately discharge Kevin Bernard Strickland from its custody.”

Tricia Rojo Bushnell, his attorney and executive director of the Midwest Innocence Project, said Strickland’s case was “a great example of how much a system cares about finality over fairness.”

While legal experts and elected officials in both parties supported Strickland’s case for exoneration, top Republicans in Missouri pushed back. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt (R), who is running for the U.S. Senate in 2022, said he believed Strickland committed the murders. Andrew Clarke, an assistant attorney general, argued that Strickland not only received a fair trial in 1979 but has “worked to evade responsibility” for decades.

Gov. Mike Parson (R) agreed with them, saying before Strickland was exonerated that pardoning him would not be a “priority.” Not long afterward, he pardoned Mark and Patricia McCloskey — a White couple who gained national notoriety for brandishing guns at peaceful social-justice protesters in St. Louis last year and pleaded guilty to firearms charges.

Spokesmen for Parson and Schmitt did not make them available for interviews.

Days before finding out he would be exonerated, Strickland spoke to The Post about his life and his chance at exoneration. Even with the groundswell of support, he said, decades of imprisonment left Strickland “pessimistic” about whether he would be released.

“I mean, I’m hoping for the best,” he said, “but I’m anticipating the worst.”

‘A fundamental American life’

Born June 7, 1959, Strickland was one of five children raised by parents who worked in the food service industry in a south Kansas City neighborhood. They lived across the street from his grandparents and great uncle, a handyman.

“We were pretty close-knit. We played together and went to school together,” said L.R. Strickland, 65, his older brother. “It was pretty much a fundamental American life.”

When he wasn’t busy as a junior deacon at his church, Kevin Strickland found ways to keep himself occupied — playing baseball, building go-karts from wheels that had fallen off old shopping carts, fishing and hunting rabbits, squirrels and groundhogs with his great uncle.

“Those were my best memories — my childhood,” he said.

But after his parents split when he was 16, Strickland said, he lost direction. His grades suffered as he and his siblings were largely left unsupervised at home. He began picking up “bad teenage habits” such as drinking and smoking marijuana, he said.

In early 1978, Strickland, then 18, became the father of a baby girl. He was eyeing potentially following his brother’s footsteps and joining the military, to give his newborn a chance at stability. His father also wanted him to stop his loose association with Vincent Bell, a neighborhood acquaintance who had come home from a stay in juvenile detention.

Strickland had a friendship with Bell’s sisters and would drive their father’s car for him regularly since the adult did not have a driver’s license, he said.

“My father told me to stay away from that boy: ‘He is bad news,’” Strickland recalled.

On April 25, 1978, Bell, 21, along with Kilm Adkins, 19, Terry Abbott, 21, and a 16-year-old, stopped on their way home to talk to Strickland outside his house, Strickland said. They chatted for a few minutes before Strickland told them he was going to spend time with his daughter.

The brief exchange ended, Strickland said, and he didn’t think much of it.

‘They picking up the wrong man’

Kansas City was grappling with high rates of violent crime at the time. In 1978, the city had 120 slayings, an increase of more than 20 percent from a decade earlier, according to data from the police department’s Citizens Task Force on Violence.

After they chatted with Strickland, Adkins and Abbott talked about what they could do to get back at Ingram, who had won $300 from Adkins in a craps game by using loaded dice, according to court records. To get retribution, they would pay a visit to Ingram’s rented bungalow on South Benton Avenue, where he hosted gambling parties.

Douglas, who was dating Ingram, had joined Black and Walker in drinking cognac, smoking weed and watching “Three’s Company” when Bell, Adkins and others stormed in and tied all four up. After plundering the home, they killed Ingram, Black and Walker in execution-style slayings, court records state. Douglas, who suffered nonfatal gunshot wounds to her thigh, slumped next to Black, her best friend, and pretended to be dead until the group left.

She freed herself and limped out of the house looking for help, eventually finding a 17-year-old girl outside, according to police records. Douglas begged for a hiding spot: “They don’t know I’m alive. They think they killed me.”

Around 10 p.m., Strickland was watching television when he was stunned by a news bulletin about the triple murder, he said. Strickland had stayed home that night, he said, and had been on the phone and playing games after eating dinner with family members. His alibi was verified by numerous relatives.

As Strickland’s girlfriend was dropping off their 7-week-old daughter for him the next morning, she allowed two Kansas City police detectives to enter the home, he said. They asked whether he would come to the police station to answer some questions. He asked police whether he had a choice. The answer was no.

Strickland, who acknowledged he had been drinking and smoking, said he was offended by what he called “stupid questions” by police on the ride to the station, such as them asking him how many guns he owned. In response, he “snapped” at them, he said, responding with, “I’ve got as many guns as you got.”

“I’m not thinking this is part of a police report or I’m under investigation,” he said. “I’m not thinking I’m a suspect at any point.”

When he got to the police station and the questioning intensified, it hit him: “Y’all are starting to accuse me of something.” It was at that point he realized there was a surviving victim — someone who was an acquaintance. He requested a suspect lineup that would easily clear his name for a crime he told them he did not commit.

Douglas — rattled less than 24 hours after she saw three of her friends brutally murdered — was shown a lineup of Black men that included Strickland. Eric Wesson, editor of the Kansas City Call, a Black-owned weekly newspaper, said she told him years later that she still had blood and brain matter on her face and in her hair. Douglas later acknowledged that police suggested she select a man in the lineup who went by “Nordy,” Strickland’s nickname.

“Just pick Strickland out of the lineup and we’ll be done,” Douglas recalled, according to court records. “It will all go away, you can go on, and you don’t have to worry about these guys no more.”

Douglas’s family has said Richard Zoulek, the detective who conducted the lineup, was the one who pressured her. John O’Connor, who worked as an investigator for the prosecutor’s office, described Zoulek in court this month as a “cowboy” known to have a bad reputation. Months after the killings, Zoulek fatally shot his wife and then took his own life, according to media reports.

Strickland said he was in “total disbelief” once police began reading him his Miranda rights.

“I’m thinking this lineup is going to turn the key and I’m going to walk on down to the bus station and go on about my business,” Strickland said. “Next thing I know, the lineup happens and police come over and tell me, ‘You’re under arrest.’”

Bell and Adkins were eventually arrested in June 1978 and charged with murder. Abbott was a suspect, but he and the 16-year-old were not charged. Before they were apprehended, Adkins told Bell that Strickland’s arrest was a good sign for them because police were “starting off wrong,” according to Bell’s court testimony.

“They picking up the wrong man,” Adkins said, according to Bell.

‘My life is gone’

Days before Thanksgiving, a bitter Midwest wind had overtaken Cameron — a small, flat city an hour north of Kansas City that is home to the Western Missouri Correctional Center.

Strickland, who uses a wheelchair and has faced health issues, entered one of the prison’s common areas wearing a gray uniform with a well-worn tag identifying him as Inmate 36922.

“You came here from D.C. for me?” he asked. “Well, let’s talk.”

His original trial in 1979 hinged on Douglas’s testimony. As the legal process went on, Douglas grew more convinced she had seen Strickland, even if she originally told police she did not know for sure. When asked by a county prosecutor whether there was “any doubt in your mind that the fellow with the shotgun was Kevin Strickland,” Douglas replied, “It is a fact.”

The trial ended with a hung jury after the only Black juror refused to find him guilty. Soon thereafter, Strickland was retried, this time with an all-White jury, and was convicted of the triple murder. Wesson, the editor, recalled that many in the Black community believed the quick decision was “racist to a degree.”

“They had a preconceived idea, regardless of what evidence was presented, that he was guilty,” he said.

When the jury announced a guilty verdict, Strickland, then 19, let out “a flood of tears” that felt voluminous enough to fill an ocean he had never seen.

“I didn’t know I could cry like that,” he said. “I thought, ‘My life is gone.’”

His brother, L.R. Strickland, was bewildered. But he wasn’t necessarily surprised, he said, given the mood in Kansas City and enthusiasm for “biblical justice.”

“I believe this city wanted some type of satisfaction and wanted someone to be held accountable,” he said. “I was just relieved my brother wasn’t given the death penalty.”

Four months after Kevin Strickland went to prison, Bell told the court that Douglas “made a hell of a mistake” by mixing up Strickland with the teenager allegedly with Bell’s crew at the scene of the crime. Bell, who along with Adkins received a 20-year sentence for their guilty pleas, stressed to the court that Strickland was not with them.

“I’m telling you the truth today that Kevin Strickland wasn’t there at the house that day,” Bell said in 1979. “I’m telling you the truth. Kevin Strickland wasn’t at that house.”

Bell died earlier this year at 64. Abbott, who was not charged in the triple murder but is serving a prison sentence for a robbery in Colorado, echoed Bell, telling an investigator in 2019 that there “couldn’t be a more innocent person” than Strickland. Adkins and the alleged accomplice who was a teen at the time did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Strickland’s time in prison has taken a toll on the baby he left behind. His daughter, who requested that her name not be used, for privacy reasons, told The Post that their relationship has been “challenged” from the start, especially when she would visit the prison as a child.

“I remember asking questions like, ‘Why is he here?’” she said. “But he always said how much he cared about me and would say, ‘When I get out of here …’ He always said ‘when,’ not ‘if.’”

‘Why me?’

As Strickland was fighting to have his case reexamined, Douglas was simultaneously trying to get someone to listen to her.

The first time Douglas approached a prosecutor after Bell’s testimony to indicate Strickland was not the right man, the prosecutor allegedly told her to go away and threatened her with a perjury charge, according to an affidavit signed by her ex-husband, Ronald Richardson. A similar incident happened in the 1990s, according to testimony from her sister, Cecile “Cookie” Simmons.

Wesson, who was friends with Douglas and Black growing up, said Douglas came to him for guidance in 2004, a shell of the funny, vibrant young woman he remembered. She contacted to him again in 2009, wondering how she could get her recantation out there. He suggested drafting an email to an organization that would listen, such as the Midwest Innocence Project, a nonprofit group that aids wrongfully convicted individuals.

“I am seeking info on how to help someone that was wrongfully accused,” Douglas wrote, according to court records. “I was the only eyewitness and things were not clear back then, but now I know more and would like to help this person if I can.”

Strickland, too, had reached out to the Midwest Innocence Project. After Bushnell joined the organization, she was tasked with going through older applications in a backlog of cases. Immediately, she saw Strickland’s case as “a shaky conviction.”

“I started to think, ‘What’s going on here?’” Bushnell said. “You get into the details and you see how Bell said clearly what happened and who did it.”

But when Strickland found out that Douglas had died in 2015 at 57, before she had the chance to formally recant her testimony, he said it felt as if his chances at exoneration had also expired.

“I think I cursed God: ‘Why me? Why did you tease me like this, God?’” he said. “I apologize to Him every day, but I cursed God.”

‘My chance to finally speak the truth’

His push for exoneration seemed to have stalled for good before his story was given a jolt of life by way of a Kansas City Star investigation last year reexamining the case. A couple of months later, Bushnell contacted Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker and asked her to open an investigation. The county attorney agreed. Among the new findings: Dozens of fingerprints, including those on the shotgun used in the murders, did not belong to Strickland.

“Every piece of evidence we looked at didn’t point to Kevin Strickland,” Baker told The Post.

When it was time for the evidentiary hearing in Jackson County Circuit Court, dozens of supporting witnesses were called to the stand — including Strickland.

“It was my chance to finally speak the truth about the entire situation,” he said. “I had to let it be known I had nothing to do with this crime.”

Days before the judge exonerated him on Tuesday, family, friends and legal experts interviewed said they felt cautiously optimistic or at least hopeful that Strickland would be home for his first Thanksgiving in decades. The stoic inmate broke down last week thinking about how if he were to be exonerated that his mother wouldn’t be there to celebrate. Rosetta Thornton died in August at 85.

Strickland did, however, still have the prospect of seeing the ocean. Before he exited the room for what turned out to be one of his final prison interviews, Strickland asked, “How are you going to live on planet Earth when you don’t see the ocean one time?”


READ MORE


CVS, Walgreens and Walmart Fueled Opioid Crisis, Jury FindsYou can't get heroin by prescription, but many heroin users start off abusing prescription opioids, then turn to this illegal opioid. (photo: Shutterstock)


CVS, Walgreens and Walmart Fueled Opioid Crisis, Jury Finds
Evan Simko-Bednarski, CNN
Simko-Bednarski writes: "A jury in Ohio ruled Tuesday that three major pharmaceutical chains bore responsibility for the opioid epidemic in two Ohio counties."

A jury in Ohio ruled Tuesday that three major pharmaceutical chains bore responsibility for the opioid epidemic in two Ohio counties.

The civil case, brought in federal court against CVS (CVS), Walmart (WMT) and Walgreens, marks the first time pharmacies have been found responsible in the nationwide epidemic.

"It is a precedent setting case," Mark Lanier, the lead trial attorney for Lake and Trumbull Counties, told CNN Tuesday.

Damages are set to be adjudicated in the spring. Lanier said that each county would be seeking over $1 billion in damages. Together, the counties represent some 440,000 Ohioans, according to court documents.

The suit, which was initially filed in 2018, was part of the federal multi-district litigation created that year to address the manifold claims against opioid manufacturers and distributors.

The counties alleged that the pharmacies "abused their position of special trust and responsibility" as registered dispensers of controlled drugs, and in so doing "fostered a black market for prescription opioids."

"Prescription opioid pill mills and rogue prescribers cannot channel opioids for illicit use without at least the tacit support and willful blindness of the Defendants, if not their knowing support," the complaint read.

In statements to CNN on Tuesday, all three pharmaceutical chains indicated that they would appeal the verdict.

"We are disappointed with the outcome of this trial. The facts and the law do not support the verdict. We believe the trial court committed significant legal errors in allowing the case to go before a jury on a flawed legal theory that is inconsistent with Ohio law," Fraser Engerman, a Walgreens spokesperson, told CNN.

"As we have said throughout this process, we never manufactured or marketed opioids nor did we distribute them to the 'pill mills' and internet pharmacies that fueled this crisis," Engerman added.

In a statement, Walmart criticized the trial as "riddled with remarkable legal and factual mistakes."

"Plaintiffs' attorneys sued Walmart in search of deep pockets while ignoring the real causes of the opioid crisis—such as pill mill doctors, illegal drugs, and regulators asleep at the switch—and they wrongly claimed pharmacists must second-guess doctors in a way the law never intended and many federal and state health regulators say interferes with the doctor-patient relationship," Walmart's statement read, in part. "As a pharmacy industry leader in the fight against the opioid crisis, Walmart is proud of our pharmacists, who are dedicated to helping patients in the face of a tangled web of conflicting federal and state opioid guidelines."

CVS similarly defended its pharmacists in a statement.

"We strongly disagree with the decision," CVS spokesperson Mike DeAngelis said. "Pharmacists fill legal prescriptions written by DEA-licensed doctors who prescribe legal, FDA-approved substances to treat actual patients in need."

"We're proud of the substantial work we've done to support our pharmacists in detecting illegitimate prescribing," he continued. "But the simple facts are that opioid prescriptions are written by doctors, not pharmacists; opioid medications are made and marketed by manufacturers, not pharmacists; and our health care system depends on pharmacists to fill legitimate prescriptions that doctors deem necessary for their patients."

Counties react

The verdict was happy news to officials in Lake and Trumbull counties, where damages are expected to fund opioid abatement measures.

"Today's verdict means a lot to Lake County, because it is a substantive step forward to real healing in this epidemic," Lake County Commissioner John Plecnik told CNN. "On behalf of all Lake County families, we thank the jury for sending a powerful message to rebuke those responsible for overselling opioids."

"This verdict will also mean greater resources to combat opioid addiction, which are desperately needed," Plecnik said. "I can't say this strongly enough, no one is immune to the impact of addiction and opioid abuse, and this is not just a victory for Lake and Trumbull, it is a victory for all Americans."

"Truly, in Lake County, we have not had a corner of the county that has not been impacted by this epidemic," Kim Frasier, head of Lake County's department of Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Services, said in a Tuesday afternoon press conference. "This verdict gives voice to those individuals and those families who have been so traumatized."

April Caraway, head of Trumbull County's Mental Health and Recovery Board, echoed the sentiment.

"We appreciate some vindication," she said. "This was difficult, but we wanted to do it for the people who've lost people."

Next steps

Lanier told CNN that attorneys for both sides are still scheduling the damages phase, where Judge Dan Polster will put a dollar figure to the damages suffered by Lake and Trumbull counties. In the meantime, an appeal is expected in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.


READ MORE


What Next for the Refugees Stranded Between Belarus and Poland?At least a dozen refugees have so far reportedly died in sub-zero temperatures along the Belarus-Poland border, but the real number is believed to be higher. (photo: Leonid Scheglov/Reuters)

What Next for the Refugees Stranded Between Belarus and Poland?
Arwa Ibrahim, Al Jazeera
Ibrahim writes: "Ali has been held at a detention center in Lithuania along with six members of his family since they fled southern Iraq in July."

Even if Belarus and the EU reach a deal, analysts say refugees may be long left in limbo at the border or in detention centres.

Ali has been held at a detention centre in Lithuania along with six members of his family since they fled southern Iraq in July.

The 45-year-old is among thousands of people – mainly from the Middle East – who made their way to Belarus over the summer in hope of reaching the European Union.

As an activist in the 2019 anti-government protests, Ali says he was forced to leave Iraq when armed groups targeted him and threatened his family.

After landing in the Belarusian capital Minsk, Ali, whose name has been changed for security reasons, was caught by Lithuanian border guards while crossing the frontier.

He says he has since been barred from claiming asylum or leaving the detention centre, where 200 others are also being held.

He complains of inhumane conditions, food scarcity and mental ill-health. He is especially worried about his eight-year-old son.

“We’re not criminals. Why are we being treated like this?” the father-of-four told Al Jazeera by phone. “We just want to live.”

Last week, Iraq repatriated about 400 citizens – mostly from the Kurdish region in northern Iraq – who had been stranded at the Belarusian-Polish border for weeks.

A spokesperson for the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), Jotiar Adil, told Al Jazeera that Erbil was working closely with Baghdad to repatriate more Kurdish refugees in Europe, but that it would not force anyone to return.

As the EU threatens more sanctions on Belarus, and Minsk refuses to back down, an agreement that will protect the interests of refugees seems increasingly farfetched, leaving Ali – who says he would rather die than go back to Iraq – and thousands of others in limbo as the migration crisis deepens.

“Even if they pay me, I won’t return. We saw death in Iraq. We’ll accept hell here,” said Ali.

Loggerheads

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, who enraged the West by cracking down on dissent following last year’s disputed election that secured him a sixth term, has been accused of masterminding the crisis in revenge for sanctions the West subsequently imposed.

The conflict has also fuelled animosity towards Russia, Belarus’s main supporter, which is also being blamed.

Last week, Lukashenko proposed a plan that involved Minsk sending 5,000 refugees in Belarus back home, if Germany took in 2,000 of them – an idea Berlin and the EU rejected as an unacceptable solution.

“We are witnessing the reluctance of many European leaders at making any kind of deal with Lukashenko,” said Federica Infantino, a migration policy fellow at the European University Institute (EUI).

“I don’t see the EU funding Belarus to keep migrants like in other cases,” she said referring to a 2016 deal between Ankara and the EU that stemmed the flow of refugees from Turkey into Europe in exchange for financial support from the bloc.

James Dennison, professor of migration policy at EUI, said Belarus was hoping to recreate a scenario akin to the 2015 refugee crisis, leading to the bloc paying sums of money and non-financial incentives to non-EU governments to keep migration flows at bay.

Although Dennison said Belarus’ approach was unlikely to work, he predicted the EU and Minsk may eventually agree on “some face-saving measure” that involve people being returned to their countries of origin, “possibly paid for by the EU or Poland.”

“However, how exactly both sides would achieve this, given that the majority of migrants are refusing to go home, remains to be seen,” he said, highlighting the uncertainty of their futures.

Last week, the situation reached a boiling point.

People camped in sub-zero temperatures and surrounded by barbed wire clashed with armed Polish border guards; the guards sprayed water cannon and tear gas on those aiming to start new lives in Europe.

The crisis appeared to ease slightly after Belarus cleared a camp near the border crossing and transferred people to another location, following a phone call between Lukashenko and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

But within days, Poland again accused Belarus of continuing to funnel refugees to the frontier. A solution appeared unlikely without Minsk’s demands being met.

“For Minsk, stopping the sanctions pressure and EU cooperation on migration issues are a baseline for it to resume delivering on previous agreements,” said Yauheni Preiherman, director of the Minsk Dialogue Council on International Relations.

“That’s a matter of principle that Minsk won’t compromise on.”

Deepening refugee predicament

Kalina Czwarnog, a board member of Ocalenie Foundation, a Polish organisation that supports refugees with legal and humanitarian aid, says that most of those who crossed into Poland from Belarus have either been sent back or held at detention centres, estimating that about 1,800 people – mainly from the Kurdish region of Iraq – were being held.

Similar reports have come out of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

Warsaw, which built a razor-wire fence along its frontier and imposed a state of emergency that bars journalists and aid workers from a 3km-deep (1.8-mile) strip along its frontier, has made it harder for people to access legal representation to seek asylum or humanitarian aid.

“Since the summer, many [refugees] have not been granted the right to seek asylum and are pushed back into Belarus where some say they’re being tortured,” she said.

Tadeusz Kolodziej, a lawyer at Ocalenie Foundation, said that people who manage breach the border are being immediately pushed back or handed over for deportation – a procedure that usually takes approximately 30 days.

“That’s better because they have the chance to seek legal representation for asylum during that time. We can potentially represent them in front of the court,” said Kolodziej.

He explained that the asylum-seeking process can be lengthy, taking months or even years as people remain in detention centres or “open camps” where they have some freedom of movement and the opportunity to seek undocumented employment.

In either case, refugees have a legal right to government aid in the form of shelter, food and some material support, but Czwarnog said camps are usually overcrowded and lack legal or mental health support.

According to Czwarnog, only those arriving in Poland in a critical medical state have been given a chance to seek legal protection and apply for asylum while being treated at a hospital.

‘Horrible position’

Lukashenko, who has acknowledged that Belarusian action may have helped refugees reach the European Union, has even floated the possibility of cutting gas supplies from Russia to the bloc if Brussels imposes new sanctions over the influx of refugees.

On Monday, he warned that if the crisis deteriorated “too far, war is unavoidable”.

His words echoed those of Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, who has said that the crisis could be a prelude to “something much worse”.

Polish authorities have deployed 15,000 troops along the border with Belarus, while Russia has increased its military presence near Ukraine, Belarus and the Kaliningrad enclave near Poland and Lithuania, and dispatched two bombers to patrol Belarusian airspace.

“There’s danger that all this may lay ground to military incidents,” said Preiherman, adding that an armed conflict would only put the refugees in an even more precarious state.

“They would be in a horrible position. No one, on either side, will care about them,” he said.


READ MORE



Study: Deadly Pesticide Still Legal in US Can Harm Bee Populations for GenerationsA blue orchard bee. (photo: Education Images/Universal Images Group/Getty Images)

Study: Deadly Pesticide Still Legal in US Can Harm Bee Populations for Generations
Olivia Rosane, EcoWatch
Rosane writes: "A new study shows just how dangerous pesticides can be for bees."

A new study shows just how dangerous pesticides can be for bees.

The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America this month, found that bee populations can take a hit for generations if a bee is exposed just once to a common pesticide during its first year of life.

"Especially in agricultural areas, pesticides are often used multiple times a year and multiple years in a row," study lead author and University of California in Davis ecology Ph.D. candidate Clara Stuligross told The Guardian. "So this really shows us what that can actually mean for bee populations."

Stuligross and her team studied a type of bee called the blue orchard bee. These bees are about the size of a honeybee, but they live alone and have a blue, metallic color, National Geographic explained. They are also important pollinators for native U.S. wildflowers and crops like apples, cherries, almonds and peaches.

The researchers exposed the bees to a neonicotinoid called imidacloprid, which is the most commonly used neonicotinoid in the U.S. and one of the most used in California specifically, according to The Independent.

Neonicotinoids are well known to be harmful to bees and other insects because they bind to their nerve cells and prevent the insect from transmitting electrical signals, National Geographic explained. However, this study is unique in showing how exposure can continue to impact bee populations for generations, something known as the "carryover effect."

The scientists exposed the bees to the pesticide at different life stages and got the following results, The Guardian explained:

  1. Bees exposed only in their first year of life saw 20 percent fewer offspring.

  2. Bees exposed once as adults had 30 percent fewer offspring.

  3. Bees exposed once as both larvae and adults had 44 percent fewer offspring.

The research therefore adds to the evidence the neonicotinoids are harming bee and insect populations, which have both taken a dive in recent decades.

"These findings support what many of us beekeepers and solitary beekeepers suspect is happening in agricultural fields," researcher and beekeeper Steve Peterson, who was not involved with the research, told National Geographic. "We are seeing massive declines in all kinds of insects over the past several decades and much of it may be due to pesticide residues in the environment."

A quarter of bee species have not been sighted since the 1990s, and insects that live on land have seen their populations fall by around 25 percent in the last 30 years and 50 percent in the last 75. Pesticides are considered a major threat to insect populations, along with other stressors like habitat loss, pollution and the climate crisis.

The latest research offers another argument that U.S. regulators should follow the EU and ban neonicotinoids.

"I hope that the EPA will review studies like this and carefully consider these kinds of effects in their risk assessment," Peterson told National Geographic. "I do think that multigenerational and non-direct contact studies need to be required as part of the risk assessment for pesticides."


READ MORE

 

Contribute to RSN

Follow us on facebook and twitter!

Update My Monthly Donation

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611







Monday, July 5, 2021

RSN: Andrew Rice | Merrick Garland vs. Trump's Mob

 

 

Reader Supported News
05 July 21

We Do Not Employ Ruthless Corporate Billing Practices

As a result, many of those who use the service totally disrespect the organization's financial wellbeing. What those who the use the service but do not contribute reasonably are saying is, “Be corporate, be ruthless.” Take a moment to consider what RSN does for you and what the ruthless do to you.

Get behind this thing.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611

Follow us on facebook and twitter!

Update My Monthly Donation

 

Reader Supported News
05 July 21

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

WHOEVER PAYS MAKES THE RULES — Here, now (however reluctantly) you pay — and yes, you make the rules. When you go to a free news site ask yourself “who is paying for this?” Whoever that is, that’s who the free information benefits. You pay for this. Who does this benefit? Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

Merrick Garland. (photo: Al Drago/Getty Images)
Andrew Rice | Merrick Garland vs. Trump's Mob
Andrew Rice, New York Magazine
Rice writes: "Those who hoped he would prosecute January 6 with gusto have been bitterly disappointed."

n the afternoon of January 6, as a horde of Trumpist dead-enders marched from the White House toward Capitol Hill, a contingent of a few hundred stopped roughly midway along the route at the Department of Justice. A bearded man in sunglasses and a red MAGA hat narrated the scene in a video filmed on his cell phone: “In front of the DOJ building with a whole lot of pissed-off people.” The department’s headquarters, known as Main Justice, is constructed out of limestone and features 20-foot Art Deco aluminum doors that slide shut at night. At some point, as the mob massed at the entrance, the night doors closed, making the building impenetrable.

The protesters waved Trump banners, shouting and chanting:

“Do your job!”

“Lock them up!”

“Fuck you! Do your job!”

Do your job … At no point in its history, perhaps, has the mission of the Department of Justice been so difficult, so polarizing, and so critical to democratic stability. President Donald Trump had given his supporters the deluded hope that the department might use its powers to substantiate his fantasy that the 2020 election was stolen. Over the course of the Trump administration, Democrats had demanded investigations of the president and his cronies, while Republicans countered with their own investigations of the investigators. The fact that one side was reasonable and the other maniacal did not diminish the reality that the dynamic — the politicization of prosecution — was poisonous to the workings of justice.

By the time Trump’s supporters arrived at Main Justice, the institution was already buckling under political pressure. Many of the department’s career civil servants had been working at home during the pandemic, at times leaving Trump’s appointees almost alone in the building. Attorney General William Barr had resigned, his loyalty finally overwhelmed by the president’s lunacy. Now Trump was badgering the interim AG, Jeffrey Rosen, to appoint a special prosecutor and ask the Supreme Court for a do-over election in six of the states he lost. Trump’s chief of staff was forwarding links to a YouTube conspiracist who suggested that Italy had used military satellites to remotely rig the election for Joe Biden. When Rosen refused to cooperate, Trump schemed to replace him with an amenable deputy. At a January 3 meeting in the Oval Office, Rosen and the deputy struggled over the job in front of Trump, and senior Justice officials threatened to resign en masse. The following day, military leaders convened a conference call with members of the Cabinet, and the acting Defense secretary advised that extremists were plotting to make January 6 a “pretty dramatic day.”

A few minutes after noon, as Trump was whipping his crowd into a frenzy, Politico broke the news that Biden had picked Judge Merrick Garland to be the next attorney general. To most Americans, Garland was known for one thing: his 2016 nomination to the Supreme Court, which was strangled by Republicans. The notion that an infamous victim of Trump-era partisanship might end up as Biden’s AG had a whiff of cosmic justice. “That’s a badass move,” tweeted David Corn, one of many prominent liberals delighted by the news. “I can barely control my happiness,” Joy Behar posted. “Irony,” Rob Reiner added, “thy name is Merrick Garland.”

The 68-year-old judge was at home in Bethesda, Maryland, preparing his remarks for an introductory press conference with Biden to be held the next day. But soon the news of his selection was overshadowed by the violent spectacle of rioters storming the Capitol. Right-wing extremism, as it happens, was something for which Garland was well prepared: Before he became a judge, he made his career as the top Justice official overseeing the investigation of the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City, the deadliest domestic terror attack in American history.

On January 7 in Wilmington, Delaware, Biden made an implicit reference to this newly relevant aspect of Garland’s experience. “What we witnessed yesterday,” the incoming president said, “was not dissent. It was not disorder. It was not protest. It was chaos. They weren’t protesters. Don’t dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob. Insurrectionists. Domestic terrorists. It’s that basic.”

When Garland came to the podium, though, he spoke in a more cautious register. He referenced Edward Levi, the Republican attorney general who stabilized the DOJ after Watergate, reestablishing the “independence of the department from partisan influence.” He talked about norms, regulations, and prosecutorial discretion. “As everyone who watched yesterday’s events in Washington now understands,” Garland said, “the rule of law is not just some lawyer’s turn of phrase; it is the very foundation of our democracy. The essence of the rule of law is that like cases are treated alike — that there not be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans, one rule for friends, another for foes, one rule for the powerful, another for the powerless.”

After four years of nearly existential struggle over the Department of Justice, Garland was striking a note of refreshing equanimity. Democrats breathed a decompressing sigh: sanity. It was only later that they realized, to their frustration, that his idea of justice might not deliver the reckoning they desire.

In the months since the Capitol was breached, the Justice Department has waged one of the most extensive prosecutions in the nation’s history. More than 500 Trump supporters have been arrested on charges ranging from trespassing to criminal conspiracy. For a flicker, it seemed as if an attack on Congress itself might be the outrage that united the parties. Garland breezed through his confirmation hearings, during which Republicans assured him that their opposition to his Supreme Court nomination had been nothing personal.

But the moment quickly dissipated. Those same Republicans later stymied a proposal for an independent bipartisan commission to investigate January 6, leaving it to others to mete out piecemeal accountability. (On June 30, the House voted along party lines to authorize a probe led by Democrats.) It is Garland, and his Justice Department, who will likely have the greatest say about the most shocking and visible crime of the Trump era. Though the entire country witnessed it on television, the meaning of the event remains unsettled. Was the assault a protest that got out of control? Or had some of the zip-tie-wielding crew really been intent on stringing up elected officials and initiating a coup? In the heated aftermath, federal prosecutors raised the possibility of charging leaders of the mob with seditious conspiracy — an archaic crime of rebellion. It sounded draconian, but if attacking the Capitol wasn’t sedition, then what was?

Garland has gone about his task with extreme delicacy. On his first day, he gave a well-received speech to his staff, pledging to “adhere to the norms that have become part of the DNA of every Justice Department employee.” Since then, he has scarcely said anything of substance about January 6. “In my career as a judge and in law enforcement, I have not seen a more dangerous threat to democracy than the invasion of the Capitol,” he testified before a Senate committee. In mid-June, as part of a broader Biden administration initiative, Garland unveiled a $100 million program to police domestic terrorism. But when pressed to say how he plans to address January 6 itself, he tends to reply obliquely, often referencing his history with Oklahoma City and an earlier form of right-wing extremism.

Garland’s first major public appearance as attorney general came on April 19, when he returned to the city to speak at a memorial service. His choice of venue seemed intended to send a message: He had been here before, and so had America. It had been exactly 26 years since a decorated Gulf War veteran named Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people, including 19 children. The commemoration at the site, now a national memorial, brought together survivors, first responders, and families of the victims. The day was breezy, and the atmosphere was intimate. Garland walked in a procession to a stage on the far side of the reflecting pool that runs down the center of the memorial. Over his shoulder were 168 sculpted chairs, decked with flowers, photos, and, for some of the children, stuffed animals.

As a crime, the mass murder was categorically different from the attack on the Capitol, but the beliefs that motivated McVeigh were eerily similar. He was a conspiracy theorist who believed that the “new world order,” an all-powerful deep-state cabal, was conniving to impose a global dictatorship. He was fanatical about the Second Amendment and lived on the gun-show circuit, peddling copies of a racist novel. He had ties to a Michigan militia. In 1993, McVeigh drove to Waco, Texas, to protest during the standoff between federal agents and a heavily armed cult. After the siege ended in an inferno, he decided to build his bomb. He called himself a patriot.

In the conventional telling, McVeigh’s act marked the culmination of a period of right-wing radicalism, creating a backlash that discredited his cause. But onstage in Oklahoma City, Garland witnessed firsthand how the bombing has since become yet another point of contention in the culture wars. The first officeholder to speak was Mayor David Holt, an anti-Trump Republican, who warned that “we here in Oklahoma City have a special understanding of what inevitably ensues when words of division and dehumanization are uttered and when lies are spread.” He was followed by Governor Kevin Stitt, a staunch Trump supporter, who offered a contrary interpretation: “Never in our lifetime has it been easier for us to be divided. There are groups that refuse to listen to another point of view. They try to cancel anyone who sees the world differently.”

Then Garland, who had been sitting impassively, came forward. He is brittle-looking, with a papery complexion and a downturned mouth. “Every year on this day, wherever I am, I reflect on the loss so many of you endured,” he began, his voice quavering, “the loss you continue to endure.” Then he told his version of the Oklahoma City story.

On April 19, 1995, Garland was sitting in his office at Main Justice, reading email — then still something of a novelty — when a message appeared with the subject line URGENT REPORT. Soon, CNN was broadcasting live footage of the destroyed Murrah building. Garland volunteered to oversee the investigation. Landing in Oklahoma two days after the explosion, he headed straight to a hearing for the freshly arrested McVeigh, then to the scene of the crime. It was nighttime, and floodlights were blazing. Rescue workers with dogs were searching for survivors. Garland took a still-functioning elevator to an upper floor and walked into an office. There were papers and a can of Coke on a desk, a coat was draped over a chair, then there was open air.

At the time, no one knew for certain if McVeigh had acted alone, and there was intense pressure to discover collaborators. Garland worried that the urgency might cause mistakes that would later hinder prosecution. He knew that the horror of the moment would diminish by the time the case went to trial. “Several years after,” he later said, “very bad crimes look different.” If the conspiracy investigation looked like an indiscriminate roundup, it might even end up changing the political context, bolstering the very ideology that motivated McVeigh.

Ultimately, prosecutors agreed that McVeigh acted with significant assistance from only one other conspirator, Terry Nichols. Garland oversaw the negotiation of a deal with a married couple who were also aware of McVeigh’s plan: In exchange for becoming star witnesses, the husband got a plea bargain and his wife wasn’t charged. Two of the primary FBI agents on the case would later call the arrangement “sickening” but justified.

Garland wanted to try the cases personally and was dismayed when Attorney General Janet Reno said she needed him in D.C. But he continued to oversee things from Washington. The gaudy spectacle of the O. J. Simpson trial was under way in Los Angeles, and Garland told the prosecutors to keep the proceedings simple, setting aside all but the most damning evidence. “Do not bury the crime in the clutter,” he said. The lead prosecutor wrote the phrase on a sign and hung it in the office. (It is today in the Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museum.)

McVeigh was convicted and executed. But a jury declined to convict Nichols on the most serious charges and deadlocked over whether to impose the death penalty. (He’s now serving a life sentence.) Over time, their extremist ideology appeared to fade, and the militias disbanded, although it was never clear whether law enforcement could take the credit. “Was it successful, or did it go back underground?” asks Donna Bucella, a former DOJ official who worked closely with Garland on the Oklahoma City case. As the number of militias dropped, there was a corresponding rise in the number of white-supremacist hate groups.

Michael German, a former undercover FBI agent who is a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, says some militant groups simply refocused on immigration and rebranded as “border patrols.” After 9/11, the FBI shifted its attention to international terrorism. “There’s an institutional bias that white-supremacist violence is not that big a deal,” German says. “It’s a bunch of stupid rednecks, and it’s not any kind of coordinated threat.”

Then the explosion of social-media networks brought extremist groups to the fore again. At Charlottesville in 2017, they displayed their new, youthful, rage-filled face, and 2020’s summer of protest gave them an opportunity to take their fight to the streets. During a presidential debate, Trump told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.” The movement had risen again — this time, with the president at its front.

In his every public utterance, Garland has conveyed that he is an institutionalist — someone who believes his project is to extract the Justice Department from the maelstrom unleashed by Trump. In a time of flagrant boundary violations, he is a rule-maker and a rule follower, a decorous man in an indecorous age. “He is conservative — not in the political sense,” says Seth Waxman, a friend from college and a fellow DOJ veteran. “He has a very high sense of propriety, and I am tempted to say that Merrick is a cautious person. Very, very careful and very, very thoughtful and discerning.”

Garland is also an insider — a Washington lifer with deep connections to the Democratic Establishment. The first item on his CV is a summer job on the campaign of Abner Mikva, a Chicago congressman who became an appellate judge and a mentor to Barack Obama. His wife is the granddaughter of the FDR adviser who coined the phrase “The New Deal.” Garland went to Harvard and Harvard Law and clerked for the liberal Supreme Court justice William Brennan. Although he did a stint as a prosecutor, he rose through the ranks at Justice on his talents as an administrator. According to Main Justice, a Reno-era book about the department, Garland was regarded within the building as a “type triple-A personality.”

After Garland’s success in Oklahoma City, President Bill Clinton tapped him to replace Mikva on the court of appeals for the District of Columbia. But Republicans held up Garland’s nomination for more than a year, an obstructionist move that was condemned by the ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat, Joe Biden, as “malarkey.” Garland kept his head down at Main Justice, and eventually, after Clinton’s reelection, he was confirmed. It took Garland some time to settle into the ruminative life of a judge. One of his first clerks, Clare Huntington, recalls that he would often come back from lunch and ask, “Okay, who called?”

“And it was like, ‘Nobody,’ ” she says.

Garland built a moderate voting record and a reputation for working across ideological divides. He had a fastidious approach to writing opinions that would culminate with his reading the text aloud to his clerks from a standing desk, making corrections with a yellow pencil. “He would literally go over every word and every punctuation mark,” recalls his former clerk Karen Dunn, now a prominent Washington attorney who remains close to Garland.

When John Roberts was a judge on the appeals court, he and Garland implemented a process called “de-snarking.” The liberal and the conservative read over each other’s opinions to make sure neither said anything too heated. “The idea is that these sort of clever negative cuts toward judges on the other side are both unnecessary and unhelpful,” Garland told his former law clerk Maggie Goodlander (who served as counsel to the first Trump impeachment inquiry and is now one of Garland’s advisers at the DOJ) at a public talk last year. “Judges are human beings, and they don’t like to be attacked in that sort of snarky way either, however thick-skinned you think we are.”

To hear his friends tell it, Garland’s un-snarky attitude extends even to the Republicans who not only blocked his 2016 nomination to the Supreme Court but denied him the dignity of a hearing. “We went back and forth on that,” says the Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, who is friendly with Garland, one of his former students. “He basically said, ‘Don’t worry about me.’ ” If Garland had complaints, he kept them to himself, just as he had in 1996. “I think he handled it with extreme grace,” Dunn says. “I think he genuinely did not take it personally.”

Garland is, in many ways, not a man of this time. Biden reportedly considered a range of candidates for AG — including Doug Jones, who was coming off three tumultuous years in the Senate, and Sally Yates, a #resistance hero — but it was Garland who best fit his favored Cabinet profile: moderate, mild-mannered, and well known to old Democratic hands. Biden intended to return Washington to seriousness, and who would be more judicious than a judge?

But nine long weeks would elapse between Garland’s selection and the day he took office. In the interim, the investigation began barreling along an aggressive track — guided by a prosecutor with a conspicuously different approach to the rule of law and the uses of the media spotlight. On January 6, dressed in running clothes, Michael Sherwin was mingling with the police who were watching Trump’s “Save America” crowd. A bald and blunt-spoken former Naval intelligence officer, Sherwin was a career federal prosecutor from Miami — a hard-ass schooled in that office’s knock-down-the-door-and-seize-the-Ferrari culture. He had risen fast in Trump’s Justice Department by handling sensitive investigations into a Chinese trespasser at Mar-a-Lago and a mass shooting by a Saudi Air Force pilot. Now he was the acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — an outpost roiled by political interference in the cases against Trump acolytes Roger Stone and Michael Flynn.

After Trump’s speech, Sherwin followed the marchers as they confronted police officers guarding the Capitol and began to scale the scaffolding erected for Biden’s inaugural. He alerted the FBI, which was scrambling to coordinate a response, and later joined law-enforcement officials as they regrouped at a nearby command post. As a result of Trump’s dissension-stirring at Main Justice, the acting attorney general and other top officials were apparently hesitant to act. “Rosen, as far as I could tell, was hiding under his desk,” says a Justice Department official who served during the Trump administration. (Rosen did not respond to requests for comment.) Sherwin took control of the initial stages of the criminal investigation.

In the immediate aftermath, federal officials were reported to be focusing on the organizing role of Trump’s loyalists, including leaders of the “Stop the Steal” movement such as Stone and Alex Jones. Sherwin said he was willing to pursue “all actors, not only the people who went into the building” — potentially even Trump himself. Within days of January 6, Sherwin had created what he called a “strike force” of prosecutors specializing in national security and public-corruption issues, declaring that “their only marching orders” were to build serious conspiracy cases against leading participants in the attack.

More than 350 defendants had been charged and more than a thousand subpoenas and search warrants had been issued by the time Garland was sworn in. On March 11, his first day as attorney general, Sherwin went to brief him at Main Justice. Sherwin was ready to divide the cases he called the “one-offs” — which could be disposed of with quick guilty pleas to trespassing or other minor charges — from the defendants who appeared to have shown serious malicious intent. The latter group made up less than 10 percent of the total, he estimated.

The most politically charged decision for prosecutors involved the issue of sedition. The rarely invoked law against seditious conspiracy makes it a crime to attempt to “overthrow” or “oppose by force” the authority of the U.S. government and carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. Charging some of the January 6 figures with seditious conspiracy would send a strong signal. But it would also require the Department of Justice to accuse a defeated president’s supporters of plotting an insurrection.

“I do think this is completely unprecedented and is going to be probably the most difficult part of dealing with the January 6 fallout,” says Gil Childers, a former federal prosecutor who flew out to Oklahoma City with Garland in 1995. “Do you make that decision to prosecute where you think you can get a conviction, but boy, is this really just going to further sour the political discourse in the country and even open the rift larger?”

Sherwin was already on his way out the door, preparing to leave his post in Washington and return to Florida. Before he left, he gave an interview for an admiring profile on 60 Minutes. “I wanted to ensure, and our office wanted to ensure, that there was shock and awe,” Sherwin said, describing the nationwide roundup of suspects. He indicated that “the evidence is trending toward” charging some with seditious conspiracy, adding that “I believe the facts do support those charges.”

The interview, which was not authorized by Sherwin’s superiors, caused an uproar at Main Justice. The department’s new leadership came down hard, asking an internal investigator to determine whether Sherwin had violated protocol by speaking about the ongoing case to the press without permission. Garland does not like prosecutors who look for attention on TV, and he doesn’t aim to inspire shock and awe. “He is the last guy who will feel it is incumbent to bring charges that might fail just because some idiot prosecutor said so on television,” says Larry Mackey, a former member of the Oklahoma City prosecution team. (Sherwin, who is now in private practice, declined to comment.)

Since Sherwin’s contentious departure, the volume of the January 6 investigation has lowered to a murmur. No one has been charged with seditious conspiracy, which is fine with some opponents of right-wing extremism. “This is to me just the kind of case where Merrick Garland will bring some real sober thinking,” says Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right. “Sedition has a nasty history. It’s often used against people who are not in favor in society.” Members of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and Three Percenters have been charged with a narrower (but still serious) felony, conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding, along with civil disorder and assault. But the possibility that those who incited the incursion might be held accountable for its violence has all but vanished as the Republican Party has rallied around Trump as its leader in exile.

In contrast to his immediate predecessor, William Barr, who enjoyed playing the culture warrior and slugging it out in public with Trump’s opponents, Garland has turned inward, focusing on steadying the battered department. Whenever possible, he has avoided confrontation and has made a number of decisions confounding expectations that he would decisively repudiate Trump. Most controversially, the department has continued to back Trump’s broad claim of immunity from a defamation suit brought by E. Jean Carroll, who, writing in this magazine in 2019, accused him of rape. This position could be logically extended to protect him from civil liability for inciting a mob. A former federal prosecutor recently wrote a Slate column headlined “Why Is Merrick Garland Defending Donald Trump?”

When it emerged that Trump’s DOJ had pursued leak cases that poked into the personal communications of reporters, members of Congress, their staff, and even their children — some of which carried over into the Biden administration — Garland briskly announced an internal investigation and held a peace summit with officials of top news organizations. (Naturally, the meeting was off the record.) Influential voices, including the publisher of the Washington Post, have called for a systematic review of the DOJ’s actions during the Trump administration. Garland has so far resisted the idea. The Post’s Jennifer Rubin recently labeled him “the wrong man for the job” in an excoriating column. “Afraid of being accused of partisanship,” she wrote, “he chooses not to do his job.”

Many who were expecting a grand legal Ragnarok with the Trump era have been bitterly disappointed. (The latest legal danger for the former president, the indictment of the Trump Organization on July 1, has come from New York prosecutors.) Under Garland, the January 6 prosecution has remained narrowly focused on those who actually breached the building — leaving untouched, for now, those who encouraged or organized the attack from afar. This may be the right course to follow from a legal perspective. But the event is now being treated as a deranged riot, not as an attempt to usurp the peaceful transfer of power or as an act of domestic terrorism, as Biden described it in the heat of the moment. Only the rabble who crossed the Capitol threshold are being held accountable.

On Memorial Day, I met with Albert Watkins, an attorney representing several of the defendants. He had flown to Washington on a private jet to take a guided tour of the Capitol to help him to prepare to defend his clients. “I too found repugnant what I saw on TV on January 6,” he said. “My heart, my mind, at that time was Who the fuck are these morons?” Watkins said he has since come to believe that his clients are just suggestible dupes who were intoxicated by Trump.

Watkins’s most notable client, the “QAnon shaman” Jacob Chansley, had appeared tattooed and shirtless, in a horned fur cap, on the dais of the Senate and left a note for Mike Pence: “IT’S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME JUSTICE IS COMING!” “I think they fucked up by moving as quickly as they did up front, treating these people as insurrectionists,” he said of the Justice Department prosecutors. “I have a client who, for better or worse, he won the best costume contest of the day.”

Watkins, thin and jug-eared, seemed to be enjoying the attention the case is receiving. As he sipped a beer at a Georgetown bar, he flipped through some iPhone photos he had taken at the Capitol. “It’s hard to defend somebody,” he said, “when there’s roughly 287 million miles of video footage of your client being where he’s not supposed to be.” He also represents Felicia and Cory Konold, siblings from Arizona charged with criminal conspiracy. Prosecutors have presented photographs of the Konolds marching with Proud Boys dressed in tactical gear along with a monologue Felicia posted to Snapchat in which she says, in part, “We fucking did it.” Watkins is challenging whether his clients understood reality well enough to have criminal intent.

A few days before, Watkins had told Talking Points Memo: “A lot of these defendants — and I’m going to use this colloquial term, perhaps disrespectfully — but they’re all fucking short-bus people. These are people with brain damage. They’re fucking retarded. They’re on the goddamn spectrum.” The quote had been widely condemned, but the lawyer didn’t care. Watkins may be a blowhard — his own website describes him as “self-centered, egotistical, and a self-proclaimed expert in all matters” — but he is representative of a freak-show political culture that Garland cannot wish away.

It’s an asymmetrical battle: Garland offers abstract commitments to impartial justice and the rule of law, and Republicans bash in the rhetorical windows. At a House committee hearing in May, a GOP congressman from Georgia likened the mob invasion to a “normal tourist visit,” while another from Arizona demanded to know, “Who executed Ashli Babbitt?” Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including Ted Cruz, have questioned what they call the “stark contrast” between the January 6 prosecutions and the department’s handling of crimes related to last summer’s Black Lives Matter protests. “This is highly alarming,” Senator Ron Johnson recently said on Fox News. “Every American should be concerned when we see the unequal administration of justice.”

Already, the conservative media is full of dire warnings of socialist repression — a grotesquely distorted reflection of the resistance rhetoric of the Trump era. When Garland announced his new strategy to combat domestic terrorism in June, Tucker Carlson delivered a paranoid monologue on Fox News. “So because of January 6, says the chief law-enforcement officer in the United States of America,” Carlson said, “we must now use law enforcement and military force to arrest, imprison, and otherwise crush anyone who leads opposition to Joe Biden’s government … We are living through the transformation of a formerly democratic republic into something else. We are looking at growing authoritarianism.”

Some of Garland’s admirers worry that he has been too wary of public confrontation. The day before the Senate voted on Garland’s nomination, Tribe expressed the hope of many liberals, telling me that as disappointed as he had been to see his former student denied the Supreme Court seat, he was now happy to see him poised to play an even more “historically significant role.” More recently, Tribe, who continues to talk to Garland, said that the attorney general had come to a crossroads. “I think if he continues to disappoint in a way that many people think he has thus far and does not appear to see the bigger picture,” Tribe said, “that will be terribly significant but profoundly dismaying. But if he does what I think he is capable of doing, he will have moved the country in a dramatic way past the terrible cliff that would have spelled the end of the democratic experiment.”

In recent weeks, the Department of Justice has started clearing what Garland might term the clutter, offering deals to some of the lesser trespassers and selfie-snappers. The first defendant to be sentenced, an Indiana hair-salon owner, pleaded to a single misdemeanor and was given probation, community service, and a $500 fine. A Tampa man who entered the Senate chamber carrying a Trump flag recently pleaded to a single felony. His sentencing — recommended to be in the range of 15 to 21 months — may set a standard. A hearing will be held in July. “Everyone else is sitting back and eating popcorn,” says the man’s lawyer, Patrick Leduc.

The more complex conspiracy cases against the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and Three Percenters are likely to move at the justice system’s normal, deliberate pace. Two members of the Oath Keepers have pleaded guilty to conspiracy and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. Still, the conspiracy cases are not slam dunks. “Did they all get together and say, ‘We are going to break into the building’?” asks Mackey, Garland’s former prosecutor in Oklahoma City. “How do I find the crime in this mountain of evidence? Anything beyond individual trespass, you’re going to have to show that there was an agreement among the people to violate the law. You start digging and you may or may not find a conspiracy.”

Even if those cases end in convictions, though, it is not likely to satisfy those who hoped the Trump era would end with a courtroom thunderclap. “That’s not the role of the criminal-justice system,” says Aitan Goelman, a Washington attorney who was also a prosecutor on the Oklahoma City case. “You’re not going to get some awesome closure.” The DOJ’s job — at least when the system is functioning properly — is to win convictions, not to provide resolutions to political conflicts. Garland is leaving the partisan crisis to others and concentrating on Justice, narrowly defined. Then again, from a distance, prosecutorial discretion can look a lot like passivity.

READ MORE


A child receives a Covid vaccination. (photo: Tamir Kalifa/NYT)
A child receives a Covid vaccination. (photo: Tamir Kalifa/NYT)

Covid Is a Greater Risk to Young People Than the Vaccines
Jeremy Samuel Faust, Katie Dickerson Mayes and CĂ©line Gounder, The New York Times
Excerpt: "The risk of vaccination must be compared against the risk of the disease that a vaccine prevents, not against zero risk."
READ MORE


'Already, one top Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Ro Khanna of California, is asking for Woods to testify in Congress broadly about the company's communication on climate change, while lawmakers named in the video are distancing themselves from the company.' (photo: Tom Williams/Getty Images)
'Already, one top Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Ro Khanna of California, is asking for Woods to testify in Congress broadly about the company's communication on climate change, while lawmakers named in the video are distancing themselves from the company.' (photo: Tom Williams/Getty Images)

ALSO SEE: The Biden White House Has an Exxon Problem


Fallout From the Exxon Sting Video Grows
Dino Grandoni, The Washington Post
Grandoni writes: "Keith McCoy thought he was talking to a job recruiter. Speaking on a Zoom video call in May, the longtime Washington lobbyist talked openly about efforts to blunt the Biden administration's climate agenda on behalf of the nation's largest oil and gas company, ExxonMobil. In reality, it was not job interview."

eith McCoy thought he was talking to a job recruiter. Speaking on a Zoom video call in May, the longtime Washington lobbyist talked openly about efforts to blunt the Biden administration's climate agenda on behalf of the nation's largest oil and gas company, ExxonMobil.

In reality, it was not job interview. It was a sting conducted by Greenpeace UK, an environmental group more than 3,000 miles away.

The release of the explosive, secretly recorded video has sent a shock wave across the Atlantic and through Washington as the White House and Congress debate a major infrastructure package - and the extent to which it should invest in clean energy that directly compete with oil companies like Exxon.

McCoy, the company's senior director for federal relations, described how ExxonMobil selects senators on which to apply pressure. The oil firm's public support for a tax on carbon emissions, he said, was an "easy talking point" with little chance of ever passing Congress. "Nobody is going to propose a tax on all Americans and the cynical side of me says, 'Yeah, we kind of know that.'"

The excerpts, aired this week by the British broadcaster Channel 4, have led to a rare mea culpa from the chief executive of the normally unapologetic Exxon.

In a blog post Friday, CEO Darren Woods called the recorded comments "entirely inconsistent with our commitment to the environment, transparency and what our employees and management team have worked toward since I became CEO four years ago." He reiterated the company's public position in support of the Paris climate agreement and carbon pricing. The company declined to comment further.

Already, one top Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Ro Khanna of California, is asking for Woods to testify in Congress broadly about the company's communication on climate change, while lawmakers named in the video are distancing themselves from the company.

"It's a confirmation of what many on the Hill and around the country have suspected," Khanna, chair of the House Oversight Committee subcommittee on the environment, said in an interview on Friday. "And that is that the fossil fuel industry, and Exxon specifically, has been engaged in a misinformation campaign, manipulating public opinion to deny the impact of climate change."

The clips arrive just weeks after Exxon spent millions of dollars in an unsuccessful effort to keep a slate of new independent directors off its board. Activist hedge fund leaders and pensions managers who pushed for the new board members say the company has failed to deal with climate change and plan for decarbonizing its operations.

In the video, McCoy argued Biden's goals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions are "insane." The president campaigned on making the country carbon neutral by the middle of the century. "We're playing defense, because President Biden is talking about this big infrastructure package and he's going to pay for it by increasing corporate taxes," he said in the recording. McCoy did not respond to requests for comment.

McCoy also admitted that Exxon funded outside organizations that sought to stymie past government efforts to halt raising temperatures. "Did we join some of these 'shadow groups' to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that's true," he said. "But there's nothing illegal about that. We were looking out for our investments."

And he described targeting Senate moderates, as well as those up for re-election, even as several of the Democratic lawmakers named in the video - including Sens. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Mark Kelly of Arizona, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Jon Tester of Montana - say they never spoke with McCoy during the bipartisan infrastructure talks.

"At no time during the bipartisan infrastructure negotiations did Kyrsten speak with or meet with this individual - nor would she be influenced by anything other than what is best for Arizona," Sinema spokesman John LaBombard said.

McCoy claimed to talk every week to the staff of Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, but the senator's office said McCoy was aggrandizing himself during what he thought was a job interview.

"Throughout his entire public service career, Manchin and those who work for him have always had an open door policy and a willingness to learn from those with varying and diverse opinions," his office said in a statement to The Washington Post. "But recently an Exxon employee greatly exaggerated his relationship and influence with Senator Manchin's staff in an attempt to advance his own career only to be misled by an activist organization with an agenda of their own."

Progressive activists seized on the video to urge Democrats to ignore Exxon's concerns and pass major climate legislation. "It's time for President Biden to pick a side: Exxon or the American majority?" Varshini Prakash, executive director of Sunrise Movement, and Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats, said in a joint statement.

Through much of the 1990s and 2000s, Exxon contended the science of climate change was too uncertain to act upon - even after its in-house scientists pioneered early greenhouse gas research decades prior. Now, the company admits climate change is real, presenting itself in ads as part of the solution with its research into algae-based biofuel.

For months, Khanna's subcommittee has been planning to hold a hearing in the fall on the spread of misinformation about climate change, threatening to subpoena Exxon if it did not cooperate.

"They have a self-interest to participate, to clear their name," he said. "If they refuse to participate, and if it comes to a subpoena, that would be a pretty big indictment and would undermine everything Darren Woods said."

The recording raises questions about the ethics of using subterfuge to get sources to speak candidly - a practice condoned at times in British journalism but generally off-limits for mainstream American reporters.

The tape was three years in the making, according to Lawrence Carter, a reporter at Unearthed, a Greenpeace UK affiliate. He began looking for ways to investigate the energy industry's lobbying on climate change after several oil majors, including Exxon, came out in support of the Paris climate accord, which calls for capping warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

"With lobbying stories, so much of it is happening behind closed doors," said Carter, who orchestrated the recording, feeding questions to an interviewer Unearthed hired. "We felt going undercover was the only way we were going to really reveal (Exxon's lobbying)."

"It's not something you would do lightly because it is an invasion of privacy," he added.

Industry codes for British broadcasters and newspaper are more permissive than U.S. publications, according to Glenda Cooper, a senior journalism lecturer at City, University of London. Intrusions such as an undercover recording can be seen as a last resort for information deemed to be in the public interest.

"It is seen as part of the investigative journalist's tool kit, if it can be justified," she said. "It's not the first thing that you do."


READ MORE


Kevin Strickland. (photo: Kansas City Star)
Kevin Strickland. (photo: Kansas City Star)

No Pardon for Kevin Strickland, Whose Continued Incarceration Is a National Shame
The Kansas City Star
Excerpt: "Kevin Strickland is still in prison, and Missouri's shame grows."

Friday, Gov. Mike Parson’s office released the names of 18 people he pardoned earlier in the week. They appear to be low-level, nonviolent offenders: an underage beverage purchase, a DWI, illegal hunting.

Strickland’s name was not on the list. He remains behind bars, though prosecutors have said he’s innocent of the murder charges that sent him to the penitentiary more than 40 years ago.

Parson offered no immediate explanation for his decision to leave Strickland off the list, probably because it is inexplicable.

To review: Strickland, who is Black, was convicted as a teenager in the murders of three people in Kansas City. He was found guilty by an all-white jury, largely on the basis of testimony from one woman.

That witness, Cynthia Douglas, long ago recanted that testimony. Two other men convicted in the case have confessed and said Strickland was not involved. He was home watching television with his brother and talking on the phone with his girlfriend, but their testimony was ignored.

In May, Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker said she had determined Strickland is innocent of the crime that took his freedom. More than a dozen state lawmakers signed a letter asking Parson to grant Strickland’s request for clemency.

No compensation for wrongfully imprisoned

Virtually everyone connected with the case, then and now, thinks the inmate should not be in custody.

Yet Strickland remains behind bars.

Parson’s stubborn reluctance to provide Strickland with the justice he deserves has drawn the attention of the world, and has mystified much of it. In an interview with KSHB-TV in June, the governor said he couldn’t tell if Strickland was innocent.

“I am not convinced that I’m willing to put other people at risk if you’re not right,” he said.

Strickland is a risk to no one. His life has been discarded by a system apparently uninterested in his actual innocence. Given a chance to show some grace to a man whose life has been stolen by Missouri, Parson has instead played to his base.

This year, the Missouri legislature passed a bill allowing prosecutors to seek release of a prisoner by asking a judge. We expect Parson to sign that bill, and Baker to seek Strickland’s release later this year.

We expect a judge to approve it, too.

But Missouri has some soul-searching ahead. It isn’t enough to say mistakes are made, and cases like Strickland’s are unavoidable. The state can’t rob a man of his life and then say oops.

Who pays a penalty if Strickland is exonerated? No one. Missouri will apparently not compensate Strickland for his four decades in prison. That means taxpayers are off the hook for the state’s denial of the inmate’s civil rights.

There are simply too many holes in the criminal justice system. It is simply too hard for prisoners to claim actual innocence once in custody. Too often, the innocent remain imprisoned while the guilty go free.

Lawyers have worked for years to obtain freedom for Kevin Strickland. The Kansas City Star helped bring his case to the public’s attention. Now his story has circulated across the nation, prompting outrage and confusion.

Parson had a chance — and still has a chance — to address that outrage and set Strickland free. Instead, this Independence Day, he’ll be celebrating while denying Strickland his independence. If you see him out and about — in Branson, maybe, where he was on Friday — ask him how that’s OK.

READ MORE


Dick Gregory in 'The One and Only Dick Gregory.' (photo: John Bellamy/Showtime)
Dick Gregory in 'The One and Only Dick Gregory.' (photo: John Bellamy/Showtime)

Showtime's "The One and Only Dick Gregory" Pays Tribute to the Legend Who Left Comedy for Activism
Gary M. Kramer, Salon
Kramer writes: "Dick Gregory was a groundbreaking comedian who spoke truth to power."
READ MORE


Ofer Cassif, centre left, and Ayman Odeh, centre right, members of the Israeli Knesset for the Joint List, attend a protest against the Israeli citizenship law outside the Knesset. (photo: Menahem Kahana/AFP)
Ofer Cassif, centre left, and Ayman Odeh, centre right, members of the Israeli Knesset for the Joint List, attend a protest against the Israeli citizenship law outside the Knesset. (photo: Menahem Kahana/AFP)

Israel to Vote on Renewing Law That Keeps Out Palestinian Spouses
Al Jazeera
Excerpt: "Israel's parliament is set to vote on Monday on whether to renew a temporary law first enacted in 2003 that bars Palestinian citizens of Israel from extending citizenship or even residency to spouses from the occupied West Bank and Gaza."
READ MORE


Oregon and Montana have been the hardest hit by the grasshopper swarms, particularly in the arid eastern flank of both states. (photo: AP)
Oregon and Montana have been the hardest hit by the grasshopper swarms, particularly in the arid eastern flank of both states. (photo: AP)


'A Scourge of the Earth': Grasshopper Swarms Overwhelm US West
Lee van der Voo, Guardian UK
Excerpt: "The drought has created ideal conditions for grasshopper eggs to hatch and for the insatiable eaters to survive into adulthood."
READ MORE

 

Contribute to RSN

Follow us on facebook and twitter!

Update My Monthly Donation

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611




"Look Me In The Eye" | Lucas Kunce for Missouri

  Help Lucas Kunce defeat Josh Hawley in November: https://LucasKunce.com/chip-in/ Josh Hawley has been a proud leader in the fight to ...