Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: To refer or not to refer – that is the question.
This post was originally published on this site
Jan. 6 Panel Has Evidence for Criminal Referral of Trump, but Splits on Sending
The shift in the committee’s perspective on making a referral was prompted in part by a ruling two weeks ago by Judge David O. Carter of the Federal District Court for Central California. Deciding a civil case in which the committee had sought access to more than 100 emails written by John C. Eastman, a lawyer who advised Mr. Trump on efforts to derail certification of the Electoral College outcome, Judge Carter found that it was “more likely than not” that Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman had committed federal crimes.
The ruling led some committee and staff members to argue that even though they felt they had amassed enough evidence to justify calling for a prosecution for obstructing a congressional proceeding and conspiring to defraud the American people, the judge’s decision would carry far greater weight with Mr. Garland than any referral letter they could write, according to people with knowledge of the conversations.
FT:
An exiled Russian journalist’s diary: ‘How can I help, here and now?’
The Kremlin has cracked down on independent media — but far from Moscow, their work continuesWhat can I do? How can I help personally? These questions have been on my mind since Putin announced on the fourth day of the war that he was preparing Russian nuclear weapons, and it became clear that this would definitely not end quickly and things would only get worse.During the first week of the war, Russian society was not yet cut off from the rest of the world, locked up voluntarily-compulsorily in the largest cage on earth. Because Putin presented the war as a “special operation”, and didn’t warn the public or even those close to him what he was about to do, the state propaganda machine was caught unawares.…
But I’ve lived my entire adult life under Putin — I turned 30 this year — so I knew that the authorities would very quickly put a stop to all this, silencing and punishing those who spoke out. I knew that in a matter of days the independent media would be quashed, my friends would (at best) be out of work, and society would be left to consume only propaganda.
Philips P O’Brien/Spectator:
The Russian army is running out of options
There is growing speculation that following the Battle of Kyiv the Russians are now going to consolidate their forces in the east and south to restart major offensives. This could include surrounding Ukrainian forces in the Donbas and or even, as one general hypothesised on CNN, a large thrust to seize the strategically located Ukrainian city of Dnipro.
Rushing Russian soldiers back into the war would be a sign of the panic engulfing Putin’s leadership and represent a huge risk for the Kremlin
The problem is that this would rely on a Russian army that does not seem to exist. Any force able to launch major operations in the east to advance rapidly through Ukrainian positions and seize major Ukrainian cities would need to be capable of quickly rebuilding and resupplying defeated units, learning a great deal from its earlier mistakes and mastering complex operations. The Russian army has struggled mightily with all of these things so far.
Paul Post/twitter:
The UN Security Council has been completely ineffective during the 🇷🇺-🇺🇦 war.
That’s not new, nor unexpected,…nor a problem.Just to make sure that we’re on the same page: the UN Security Council is the key governing body of the United Nations. The mission of the UN Security Council is described in Article 24 of the UN Charter.
Art 24 says, “In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the UN, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.”Be “Prompt and Effective” at maintaining peace?
During the Ukraine-Russia War, the Security Council has been viewed as neither.…On the other hand, the failure of the UN Security Council to consent to an action doesn’t prevent a state (major power or not) from taking an action.
That’s been seen clearly in the case of the Ukraine-Russia War.
Bill Scher/Washington Monthly:
In the Judiciary Wars, Republicans Like Lindsey Graham Play Dirtier Than Democrats
The South Carolina senator whined about Democratic tactics all through Ketanji Brown Jackson’s hearings. Oh, please.Graham’s monologue summed up the prevailing Republican view that in the battle for the judiciary, craven Democrats destroy lives with personal attacks while Republicans battle honorably by sticking to the nominee’s record.
That narrative ignores that it is possible to destroy someone’s life by smearing their record, such as falsely accusing someone of being soft on child porn traffickers.
Further, there are other ways to be indecent toward judicial nominees beyond savaging their work. Ask Merrick Garland. In 2016, when he was a Supreme Court nominee, he wasn’t asked any “hard questions,” as Graham suggested. Garland wasn’t asked any questions at all, because Senate Republicans refused to give him a hearing to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia.
By focusing on an allegation of attempted sexual assault when a teenage Kavanaugh was supposedly drunk at a party, Democrats might have looked like political dumpster divers. But after the powerful testimony of Kavanaugh’s accuser Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh’s petulant defense—which included asking a U.S. senator (and daughter of an alcoholic) if she was drunk—polls showed that more Americans believed Ford than Kavanaugh, and most opposed his confirmation. Moreover, what outraged Republicans overlook is that when Democrats focus on sexual misconduct charges during a judicial nomination process—as they did with Kavanaugh in 2018 and, back in 1991, with Clarence Thomas—they aren’t pursuing a strategy designed to steal a seat away from the president’s party.
John Stoehr/Editorial Board:
The four stages of ‘groomer speech’
We’re used to seeing conservatives accuse the powerless of sex crimes. We’re not used to seeing them accuse the powerful of the same.
Something I’ve been meaning to tell you. My dad is a pedophile. I’m not the victim. As always, though, there’s never just one. The ties that bound my family have largely come undone. Pain is now a feature, not a bug, of our lives.
It’s a story without end, never mind a happy one.
So you can imagine what it felt like to see Republicans in the United States Senate using the word “pedophile” (as well as “child-predator”) during the confirmation hearings of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Their use of it was loose, irrelevant, warped and worse. The purpose was advancing conspiracy theories already spreading. The goal was smearing the new Supreme Court justice with the smell of evil.
Worst of all, by overusing it, they watered down its meaning. They hollowed out its moral vital essence. They created conditions in which my dad and other pedophiles can now plausibly say their crimes weren’t so bad. Just look at what the Democrats are doing.
They’re the real criminals.
They’re the ones who should be eliminated.
Child abuse, predation, child molestation and rape – these are real problems responsible citizens much find humane ways of addressing while serving the often conflicting needs for rehabilitation and justice.
By trivializing them, the Republicans insult us.
They piss on the wounds of real victims.
Garrett Epps/Washington Monthly:
Ketanji Brown Jackson Was a Public Defender. Here’s Why That’s a Great Thing.
Jackson would be the first justice since Thurgood Marshall to represent significant numbers of criminal defendants. I learned firsthand how important that isAbout a quarter century ago, when I was a newly minted, untenured assistant law professor in Oregon, the state’s new governor nominated me to join the newly created Criminal Justice Commission. I had worked for the governor’s campaign, drafting position papers that enabled him, a Democrat in a very tough year, to win unexpected endorsements from police groups and rural sheriffs. This panel was tasked to examine state and local criminal justice issues. My appointment was not exactly a reward. It promised a lot of hard work and paid exactly nothing, but I felt proud to have a chance to serve my new home state.
But it was not to be. The new Republican majority in the state senate rejected my nomination out of hand. After my second year of law school, I had spent the summer as a clerk at the Federal Public Defender office in New Mexico. I know the FPD stint was the sole reason for my rejection because no one in the Senate Republican Caucus actually knew who I was. I use my middle name, Garrett, for all professional practice and writing. The Republican senators had boldly announced that they opposed “George Epps.” (In fact, at first, I thought they were opposing my sainted Uncle George, many years in his grave after a fabled career dealing cards at the Richmond, Virginia, Elks Club.)
Whoever the nominee really was, “George Epps” was rejected in a floor vote, and my brief political career ended.