Independent News

This post was originally published on this site

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today around the Biden administration’s attempt to end the previous administration’s anti-asylum Remain in Mexico policy. While the president first ended the inhumane policy nearly a year ago, one “bizarre” ruling from a judge appointed by the insurrectionist president eventually led to its forced reimplementation. 

Whether the Biden administration can end this policy once and for all is now before the conservative court. This case matters, not only because real lives are at stake, but because justices will be deciding whether an incumbent president has the power to legitimately end a predecessor’s flawed policy.

RELATED STORY: Dozens of groups file brief opposing Remain in Mexico policy as Supreme Court arguments approach

A wide coalition of groups rallied in front of the Supreme Court building as oral arguments approached, including signatories from a recent legal brief supporting the administration’s attempt to end Remain in Mexico, which is officially known as Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). The policy forces asylum-seekers to wait in dangerous regions of Mexico for their U.S. immigration court dates.

Among the vulnerable people named in that legal brief were Roberto and his son Mario, who were targeted by cartels just days after being sent back to Mexico. While Mario managed to get away, he has no idea what happened to his dad. Internal government emails have since warned of “heavily armed members of criminal groups” operating “with impunity” in regions where already vulnerable asylum-seekers are sent to wait.

“Everyone has a legal and human right to seek asylum here, yet dehumanizing and deadly anti-Black policies like ‘Remain in Mexico’ and Title 42 have gutted our country’s asylum system and left thousands vulnerable to violent atrocities, including sexual assault, kidnapping, and murder,” said United We Dream Senior Advocacy Manager Juliana Macedo do Nascimento in a statement received by Daily Kos.

While she warned the court’s ruling “will have far-reaching implications on the future of asylum in the U.S,” the ruling could impact any policy decision the Biden administration lawfully chooses to undertake. The lower courts, including the appeals court that backed Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s ruling, have already made it no secret that they believe Democratic presidents have no right to govern. Just yesterday, a Louisiana judge issued a ruling against the Biden administration’s decision to end the anti-asylum Title 42 policy. That judge was also appointed by the insurrectionist president.

In a widely celebrated decision two years ago last summer, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the previous administration had unlawfully ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. But the case in front of the justices today is very different. “In the DACA case, everyone, even those suing the Trump admin, agreed that DHS could terminate DACA if it went through the right procedures,” American Immigration Council Senior Policy Counsel Aaron Reichlin-Melnick tweeted.

“In today’s case, a judge said the Biden admin can’t end MPP, even if it goes through the right procedures,” he continued. “That’s the key difference.” Like the video embedded above from the #SafeNotStranded campaign notes, Kacsmaryk’s ruling states that Remain in Mexico has to remain in place until the government has infrastructure to detain every single asylum-seeker.

“Biden v. Texas will not simply determine whether the Remain in Mexico program can end,” Vox reported. “It could also allow Trump’s judges to entrench one of Trump’s policies—even when the American people voted to reject Trump.” This case is about vulnerable children and families who have already suffered so much and are simply asking for safety here. But it’s also about whether a duly elected president will be allowed to govern.

RELATED STORIES: Supreme Court to decide whether one federal judge can sabotage Biden’s immigration agenda

Conservative appeals court’s decision keeping Remain in Mexico in place slammed as ‘nonsensical’

Biden admin again tries to end Remain in Mexico policy, citing ‘endemic flaws’ and ‘human costs’

This post was originally published on this site

“He led the team in prayer in the locker room before each game, and some players began to join him for his postgame prayer, too, where his practice ultimately evolved to include full-blown religious speeches to, and prayers with, players from both teams after the game, conducted while the players were still on the field and while fans remained in the stands,” Smith wrote.

One of the main concerns the Supreme Court will be looking at is whether Kennedy was praying as a private citizen or as an assistant coach and school employee. The Ninth Court of Appeals had ruled that the coach was acting as a public employee and thus not authorized to pray in the area because the First Amendment doesn’t apply. 

Kennedy, however, claimed that accommodations for religion were too far from players, making it difficult for him to perform his duties as a coach should he want to pray. “There were no accommodations that were feasible,” he said.

“It was tough,” he added, “to be taken away from the thing that you love.”

However, the Bremerton School District told the Supreme Court last year that school officials had heard complaints from players’ parents that their children felt forced to participate in the prayers because of who was conducting them and where. One parent even said his son felt “compelled to participate” out of fear he would lose out on playing time.

School officials noted to combat this issue, they offered Kennedy time and space to pray before and after games, such as in the press box, but he insisted on praying on the field where students were close by. 

“For seven years this was Kennedy conducting prayer on the field, leading it, delivering it to the students,” said Richard Katskee, vice president and legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which is representing the school district.

The former coach put “himself on the 50-yard line and he makes a spectacle of things,” Katskee said. “There’s nothing about that that’s personal or private.”

Prior to losing his job, Kennedy was asked to stop the prayers and even put on leave when he failed to do so in 2015. As he continued to dismiss the school district’s requests not to pray on the field, in 2016 an evaluation of his performance determined he should not be hired for the next season, citing failure to follow district policy and failure to supervise student-athletes after games.

As a result, Kennedy chose not to reapply for his coaching position at Bremerton High School and instead filed suit against the Bremerton School District in federal district court in Tacoma, Washington.

The case brings up the constitutional question of how accommodating public schools must be to the religious beliefs of employees. Many have used the case to bring up the idea of separation of church and state. The Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that public schools could not offer prayers, even if participation by students is voluntary. Often students felt compelled to pray even if they were not comfortable because of the fear of teachers or higher authorities retaliating. 

Speaking to this and referring to Kennedy in conversation with CBS News, Rachel Laser, the president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said:

“When a coach uses the power of his job to be in a place and have access to students at a time when they’re expected to encircle him and come to him, that’s an abuse of that power and a violation of the Constitution.

“Religious freedom is not the right to impose your religion on others. We all need to have it, so that’s why the free exercise and establishment clause work together to protect religious freedom for all of us,” Laser added.

According to USA TODAY, some are concerned that if the conservative majority Supreme Court rules in favor of Kennedy, whether teachers can recite a prayer before classroom lessons will become the next topic of discussion.

The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision in the case this summer.

This post was originally published on this site

Last winter, when it looked like there was a sliver of hope that Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) cared enough about our country to break the filibuster to protect voting rights, Republican Sen. Susan Collins (ME) was deputized by her leadership to create a bipartisan gang to divert them. It worked. Sinema made sure that any hope of passing voting rights legislation was extinguished in what will be remembered as the longest and easily most craven speech of her career. Manchin joined her in refusing to vote with Democrats to pass his own bill.

Collins’ effort is apparently still limping along, with the gang reportedly still meeting to reform the Electoral College Act (ECA) of 1887. That law sets up the process by which Congress certifies Electoral College votes, allowing for members of the House and Senate to submit objections to the electoral results of any state, and to have those objections voted on. If a simple majority of both chambers votes to sustain an objection, it stands. The law also allows the governor of a state to certify which slate of electors goes to Congress in the event that multiple slates are submitted. A majority in both the House and Senate would be needed to reject a slate. Which all worked as it was supposed to, until Donald Trump and his efforts to exploit the ambiguities of the law.

The reform group is working on tightening up those ambiguities, but mostly trying to make sure that they do not do anything to actually make sure the election that happens before the ECA matters is conducted freely and fairly. Collins made sure to make a point of that Monday.

RELATED STORY: Reforming the Electoral Count Act is necessary, but not sufficient, to save our democracy

“We’ve reached consensus on some of the key issues, such as the role of the vice president, to have language making clear that it’s ministerial; increasing the threshold in both the House and the Senate that is necessary to trigger a challenge; and some issues involving the transition period. And a few other issues,” she said. But, she said “some in our group” want to include voting rights provisions. “I would much prefer that we keep this focus on the ECA. It’s 135 years old. It was a source of confusion and ambiguity on Jan. 6. And we need to take care of it.”

Listen to Jennifer Fernandez Ancona from Way to Win explain how Democrats must message to win on Daily Kos’ The Brief podcast with Markos Moulitsas and Kerry Eleveld

She expanded on that, telling Politico “There are some Democrats who feel very strongly about going back and revisiting the Voting Rights Act provisions. And my worry is that it will kill the bill.”

Of course she doesn’t want to restore voting rights. She’s a Republican. She wants to be perceived as doing something to protect presidential elections so people don’t notice she’s backing the white supremacist Republican efforts to keep Black, brown, young, and otherwise marginalized people from being able to exercise their most fundamental right in this country: voting. She and the other Republicans (and Manchin) insist that the problem in the 2020 election was solely about what happened on Jan. 6.

This is a substantial backslide from where Collins started with this whole diversionary tactic. Back in early January, when she was trying to make sure voting rights legislation was stopped in its tracks, Collins was talking about securing elections, as well. She said then that they needed to reform the ECA and were also “ looking at additional protections against violence and threats for poll workers and election officials.”

A group of Senate Democrats quickly drafted  their own version of ECA reform, the Electoral Count Modernization Act. They worked with “with legal experts and election law scholars” from “across the political spectrum” to “establish clear, consistent, and fair procedures for the counting and certification of electoral votes for the presidency” and address the ambiguities in the 1887 Electoral Count Act.

While those senators—Maine’s independent Sen. Angus King, Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Senate Majority Whip and Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-IL)—insisted that they also want to see voting rights legislation passed, they offered this to “clarify ambiguities in the electoral process after Election Day to truly ensure the will of the voters will prevail.”

That includes measures to keep bad partisan actors at the state level from hijacking the process and prohibiting state legislatures from appointing electors after Election Day to prevent the appointment of electors who would try to overturn election results. It would also make sure there is another layer of protection by allowing “limited judicial review” to make sure that courts could ensure that electors appointed by a state “reflect the popular vote results in the state.”

Those provisions are probably what Republicans like Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (WV) are complaining about when they say the Democrats want too much. She complained that “I don’t think we’ve made much progress over the last two weeks.” Asked if the bill could possibly pass, she said “I think we do. But it’s going to have to be a narrow bill to get it done.” Translation: There are not 10 Republicans who would be willing to make sure that our elections are free of voter suppression and that all elected officials abide by the will of the voters.

Democrats participating in the talks, meanwhile, remain cautiously optimistic. “We want to see what we can agree on, and hopefully we can move forward on that. I would hope that whatever we agree on we can vote on this year,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, (D-NH) said. “Now, we may not be able to agree on broader issues than just what’s in the Electoral Count Act. But if we reach agreement, I hope we can vote on that.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said “It’s very much alive. […] We can get a deal. We can get a deal, and we could get a whole bunch of votes in the Senate for it.”

Sure. It’s not terribly surprising that Collins is spearheading this play-act at elections reform. After all, while she fretted over the events of Jan. 6, she refuses to rule out supporting Trump if he runs again in 2024. So any Democrat counting on her to be working with them in good faith should keep that in mind.

Let’s be clear that passing electoral count reforms and doing away with the ambiguities of a 135-year-old law is critical. But it’s also not sufficient to restore our democratic processes. Passing this bill matters. But it’s not enough.

RELATED STORIES:

This post was originally published on this site

Are we even surprised that a candidate endorsed by Donald Trump is up to some shady business? A congressional campaign has denied text messages that indicate plans to commit election fraud after they were leaked by a fired former campaign manager. Congressional candidate Joe Kent’s team claims the texts are fabricated, but a former campaign manager insists they were not.

The texts were first published by right-wing blog Red Voice Media, which posted screenshots of the texts on Thursday. While the article did not specify how the texts were received, it noted that “the allegations against Kent are both heavy and concerning.”

The texts were then confirmed to be authentic to The Dispatch by former campaign manager Byron Sanford. Sanford was fired by Kent in December. He told the outlet that days before being let go, Kent sent messages to current Campaign Manager Ozzie Gonzalez via the secured app Signal, alleging he would buy the votes of less fortunate folks.

Listen and subscribe to Daily Kos Elections’ The Downballot podcast with David Nir and David Beard

According to Sanford, Kent planned to use cigarettes and pizza to bribe homeless people and undocumented immigrants to register to vote. He then planned to sort through their ballots to ensure they chose him as their desired candidate.

When asked about the texts, Kent told The Dispatch that his campaign has “been through this before … This is why I got rid of the guy—I just simply couldn’t trust him,” he added, speaking of Sanford.

Kent maintained the claim he made to the outlet in September that his campaign was dedicated to “election integrity”—an odd claim from someone supported by Trump who has cried about a stolen election without evidence for almost two years.

But here’s the plot twist: When investigating the issue, The Dispatch found that there was more drama to the campaign than shared. Sanford admitted to falsely accusing the Kent campaign of creating other Signal messages meant to hurt his reputation. That false accusation tarnished Sanford’s credibility, raising questions on whether these newly published texts too are false. However, through weeks of consistent investigation, The Dispatch verified they were from Gonzalez’s phone.

One text read:

“I’m 1000% down to register homeless people for cigarettes. I’ve been looking for nonprofits or existing orgs that will let us piggyback off their infrastructure but we’re just going to have to do it on our own. Should not be hard. Show up at a camp with 30 dominoes pizzas. Same with every ethnic minority. The stupider the better. Central Americans are perfect”

Another indicated the campaign’s intention to illegally secure votes:

“I’m also down to take all the trash bags of ballots back to my place to make sure they voted the correct way by shining a flash light through the envelope.”

And following in the words of Trump the intent of another text couldn’t be more clear:

“I’m literally going to steal the election. I’ll collect every ballot I can with some trust worthy [sic] Patriot prayer guys and then we will sort through them in my basement and burn the bad ones.”

Gonzalez defended himself, telling the outlets that not only was Sanford lying, but he “was found with my cell phone several times when it went missing at events throughout the summer.” He added: “Most media was captured on my phone and it got passed around frequently.”

To further tarnish Sanford’s credibility, Gonzalez shared screenshots with The Dispatch that he allegedly had of Sanford’s texts in which he claimed Sanford used offensive and ignorant language, including saying “fucking kikes,” “heil fucking Kent,” and “allah fucking akbar.” According to The Dispatch, the same verification process used to confirm Gonzalez’s texts was used to confirm the messages came from the Signal account associated with Sanford’s phone number.

While he initially denied the claims, Sanford later admitted to sending the antisemitic texts.

“I’ve donated to Jewish causes and I’m a staunch supporter of a one-state solution with Israel annexing the West Bank. I used a poor choice of wording to Ozzie but that’s how you work on Joe’s campaign with his current staff,” he told The Dispatch. “The reason Joe’s people are using this is because I told the truth about his campaign.”

Whether or not Kent was involved in this attempt to “steal the election” is not clear, but what is clear is that this campaign is a hot shady mess.

But of course, it comes as no surprise because this isn’t the first time Kent has made headlines. Kent has faced criticism for being connected to not only white nationalism but supporting the neo-nazi conspiracy of “replacement theory.” The conspiracy theory suggests that white people native to their countries are being replaced by non-white immigrants.

During appearances on conservative talk shows, Kent expressed anger towards people who label those who talk about “replacement theory” as racist. 

“[Democrats] are elite whites who have no issue whatsoever bringing in that unskilled cheap labor from country—you name the country, you name the ethnicity, that’s going to displace, a working-class white, a working-class Hispanic, or working-class Black African American,” Kent said. “And you know, they’ll say oh if you even mention that, then you’re some sort of neo-Nazi, white nationalist. That’s the replacement theories.

“Well no, you’re literally trying to replace an American—but you’re not, you’re doing it because you want cheap labor,” Kent added.

The outlet Salon even included Kent in their list of dangerous Republican candidates, noting that the candidate for Washington’s 3rd District was backed by the “Insurrection Caucus,” including Trump allies like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Madison Cawthorn, and Matt Gaetz.

This post was originally published on this site

Wisconsin Republican House Speaker Robin Vos just can’t get out from under the sham 2020 election investigation he created to placate Donald Trump.

The taxpayer-funded probe, with an estimated price tag of $680,000, has turned up exactly no evidence of fraud but it sure has fueled a movement of deluded election deniers. Vos originally tapped former state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman to run what has evolved into a total debacle. Now Gableman’s contract with the state Assembly is up, and Vos is seeking to end the probe and cut his losses.

Enter Donald Trump, who is threatening Vos with a primary challenge if he shuts it down, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

“Anyone calling themselves a Republican in Wisconsin should support the continued investigation in Wisconsin without interference,” Trump said.

“I understand some RINOs have primary challengers in Wisconsin. I’m sure their primary opponents would get a huge bump in the polls if these RINOs interfere,” he added, wielding an acronym for “Republicans In Name Only” that’s synonymous with traitor in Trump circles.

Trump didn’t name Vos, but he didn’t have to. Controversy over Vos’ costly, unproductive, and ongoing investigation has been raging since last year.

Vos originally announced the probe to appease Trump—a fool’s errand. The investigation served only to stoke false hopes among election deniers and give political opportunists a toehold.

Vos was left desperately trying to disabuse election deniers of the notion that state lawmakers could vote to decertify the 2020 election, part of an ongoing plot being pushed by Trump attorney John Eastman, author of the Jan. 6 scheme to deny congressional certification of Joe Biden’s win.

Gableman, who’s being compensated $11,000 per month, has missed several deadlines to file his report. He also seems to be terrorizing mayors, election officials, and others by targeting them with overly broad subpoenas, then asking a judge to jail them for noncompliance. Gableman’s targets dispute his characterization that they are violating the law. They are also insisting that he interview them in a public setting rather than privately, according to the Journal Sentinel.  

Vos is pressuring Gableman to close out his daily duties this week. But a hearing on those subpoenas is set for July and a favorable ruling for Gableman would result in several weeks or months more of deposition work. Gableman has also graced the airwaves of Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast to lobby for an extension.

Gableman’s cause has been taken up by some GOP state lawmakers, too.

“If Speaker Vos shuts down the Office of Special Counsel’s investigation now, not only will he be condoning cheating, he’ll be legalizing it,” said GOP Rep. Janel Brandtjen, who chairs the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections.

In the meantime, Vos and Gableman have been embroiled in several lawsuits related to cases filed by the liberal watchdog group American Oversight.

The drip, drip, drip of Wisconsin GOP drama comes amid a midterm effort that historically should favor Republicans. But a Marquette Law School poll in late February posted some daunting numbers for Republicans.

President Joe Biden’s job approvals (43% approve/52% disapprove) aren’t exactly great, but Trump’s favorability rating has plummeted to 36% favorable/57% unfavorable.

The favorables for incumbent GOP Sen. Ron Johnson, who’s up for reelection, are similarly dismal, with just 33% of Wisconsin voters viewing him favorably, while 45% view him unfavorably—his worst numbers in 10 years of Marquette polling.

At the same time, incumbent Democratic Gov. Tony Evers is faring relatively well in this polarized environment, with 50% job approval to 41% disapproval.

Oh, and Vos’ bottom-of-the-barrel favorables sit at 13% favorable, 28% unfavorable, and 50% who “hadn’t heard enough.”

Please proceed, Trump. Wisconsinites need to feel your continued presence in the state.

Want to help progressive organizers in Wisconsin get out the vote? Contribute here to their critical grassroots work.

—>>Later today, we will be hosting Ben Wikler, chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, on The Brief, from 4:30 PM ET to 5:30 PM ET. You can catch it below!

This post was originally published on this site

The attempts to get ex-cop and convicted murderer Derek Chauvin out of jail after he kneeled on George Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes just keep rolling in. This time, they’re coming in the form of an 82-page brief filed on Monday to detail Chauvin’s believed grounds for an appeal.

Chauvin filed a notice of appeal last September and argued in that document that the “District Court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s motion for change of venue or a new trial.” In the recent brief, attorney William Mohrman expounded. 

RELATED STORY: Derek Chauvin files for appeal after murdering George Floyd

“The threat of violence here was real in the extreme,” he wrote in the brief. “The courthouse was surrounded by barbed wire and soldiers during the trial. Prior to jury deliberations, National Guard troops were deployed throughout Minneapolis, businesses boarded up their buildings and schools were closed ‘bracing for a riot’ in the event Chauvin’s acquittal. The jurors, because they were not sequestered, saw this every day.”

Listen to Berkeley Law professor Ian Haney López discuss how Democrats can talk about race on Daily Kos’ The Brief podcast

Mohrman claimed pre-trial publicity was “more extensive than in any trial ever in Minnesota”; that “every potential juror and seated juror admitted detailed knowledge of both Floyd’s death, Chauvin’s involvement and the riots”; and prosecutorial misconduct was overlooked.

Many of them aren’t exactly new elements of the defense’s attempt to get a murderer out of jail. They were laid out in the notice of appeal. In that document, attorneys accused the state of committing “prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct” and abusing its discretion when it didn’t sequester the jury throughout the trial.

Attorneys also accused the court of failing “to make an official record of the numerous sidebar conferences that occurred during trials,” and not giving due consideration to an earlier motion for a new trial due to alleged “juror misconduct.”

The integrity of a particular juror in Chauvin’s trial was called into question just days after Chauvin was sentenced because that juror attended a march for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., CBS-affiliated WCCO reported last May.

Rachel Moran, a law professor from the University of St. Thomas, told WCCO then that an important consideration in the case is whether lawyers did their job in investigating jurors. The juror, Brandon Mitchell, said in a questionnaire WCCO obtained that he never took part in a protest about police brutality and that the phrase “Black lives matter” simply means Black people “want to be treated as equals and not killed or treated in an aggressive manner simply because they are Black.”

“If he had been asked about it and he tried to hide it, that could be an issue,” Moran said. “But at this point, I don’t see anything, any evidence that he tried to hide it.”

RELATED STORY: Derek Chauvin murders George Floyd in broad daylight, but Black juror is called into question

Another repeated defense refrain laid out in the appeal brief is this belief that Chauvin was sentenced too harshly. 

Well, the prosecution pushed for an upward departure from sentencing guidelines, and Judge Peter Cahill agreed with four of five of its claims that there were “aggravated sentencing factors” to qualify a longer sentence for the ex-cop in a pre-sentencing court document filed last May. Cahill found that Chauvin abused a position of trust and authority; was particularly cruel; committed an act of crime in the presence of children; and committed a crime as part of a group of at least three other people.

The one aggravating factor Cahill parted with the prosecution on was that Floyd was “particularly vulnerable” in comparison with other murder victims.

RELATED STORY: What to expect when Derek Chauvin is sentenced: Attorneys weigh in

Chauvin, who’s being held at a maximum security prison, was sentenced to 22.5 years last April. He pleaded guilty of depriving Floyd of his rights in the federal case against Chauvin late last year.

RELATED STORY: Derek Chauvin changes plea to guilty in federal case against him

This post was originally published on this site

Over the course of the now more than two-month-long invasion of Ukraine, kos has written several times about the difficulty of integrating unfamiliar weapons systems into an army—especially when that army is already engaged in a life-or-death struggle. Every single one of these systems comes with its own training requirements, not just for the person whose finger is on the trigger, but for all the mechanics, electricians, and support crews needed to keep it operating in the field. For some systems that training can be done in days. For others it extends into months.

Then there were issues with the supply chain. Even if the U.S. or some other NATO country shipped additional weapon systems into Ukraine, they had to come with a steady stream of parts and ammo to keep them running. Why Russia has been unsuccessful at shutting down that supply chain is going to be a subject of debate for decades, but there’s no doubt they’ve tried. To a large extent, the push that Russia is making toward the town of Barinkove, southwest of Izyum, is about cutting supplies to Ukrainian forces in eastern Ukraine.

The more different systems a military is using, the more different calibers and types of ammo they require, and the more parts and varied training are required, the less likely something is to work when it’s needed. A piece of artillery may be just in the right spot, but it’s no good without shells. A tank may be prepared to breech the enemy lines, but it won’t operate if it blows an engine gasket and there’s no spare. An anti-aircraft system may be the shiniest thing on the planet, but if no one on site understands how to operate it, it might be literally worse than nothing.

As the weeks have passed during Russia’s invasion, the floodgates on heavy weapons have opened—as kos predicted they would weeks ago.

Part of the reason for that is simple enough: Time. It doesn’t make much sense to train someone on a system that takes six weeks to learn if the war is expected to be over in days. When it became clear that Russia wasn’t going to roll into Kyiv and put on those parade dress uniforms, it suddenly made a lot more sense to introduce weapons and systems that took more time to learn and more time to integrate with Ukraine’s existing systems.

In almost all cases, it still makes the most sense to give Ukraine more of what they already have—mostly variants of Soviet-era systems that match up well with the Russian opposition. They know how to operate these systems and how to repair them. Where they need to be modified to bring a NATO-spec vehicle into line with Ukrainian standards, Ukraine already has shops set up to make those changes. As long as a stream of T-72 tanks, S-300 air defense systems, and Mi-17 helicopters can be kept flowing, it needs to flow.

However, there are already a wide variety of systems being sent to Ukraine. As Oryx records, new deliveries include a wide variety of drones, six different radar systems, three new types of APVs, five kinds of howitzers (using at least two new ammunitions), and three different kinds of artillery (again, with at least two different types of ammunition). 

As desperately needed as some of this equipment may be on the front lines, and as gratifying as seeing these systems in operation may be, particularly to the nations sending them, there is a real chance of helping Ukraine to death. Every truck that’s bringing 155 mm howitzer ammo is not carrying 122 mm. Or 152 mm. Every mechanic who spends a few weeks in Poland learning to repair an M198 is not learning to repair a D-30. Just shooting one round out of these things is not a cakewalk.

Watching the round-robin of calls between allied nations looking into what to send next can be extremely frustrating, and must be 100 times more frustrating in Ukraine. But coordination, cooperation, and those all important logistics have never been more vital than they are now. 

Almost from Day One, the supply chain going into Ukraine has been “remarkable.” Ukraine earned the time to integrate all those new systems by fighting back against Russian forces in those first few days. They didn’t just prove Russia wrong, they proved everyone who thought that by now we’d be in the “Russia takes all the cities, while Ukraine is reduced to partisan warfare” stage was way off base.

They earned a chance to not just survive, but to win, and now NATO is doing what they can to bring in a steady stream of not just older weapons, but some so new that we honestly don’t know much about them.

It would be easy for NATO nations to treat the invasion of Ukraine like an opportunity to clean out the closets and empty the hangers of everything they want out of the way anyway. But the best thing to do for Ukraine is still what kos said back on April 8: Give them what they know, or things that—like a Javelin anti-tank missile or Switchblade drone—are essentially disposable. 

It would be very easy to place an additional burden on Ukraine even while trying to help them, which is why all those meetings that are happening outside Ukraine, like the one chaired this week by the United States, are so important.

The more time Ukraine gets, the more it will be possible to replace older Soviet-designed systems with newer, more powerful, more effective systems. But they have to buy that time, and we have to help them.

Listen to Jennifer Fernandez Ancona from Way to Win explain how Democrats must message to win on Daily Kos’ The Brief podcast with Markos Moulitsas and Kerry Eleveld

This post was originally published on this site

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Monday halted Melissa Lucio’s execution, just hours before the mother of 14 was scheduled to be killed by the state for the accidental death of her baby daughter. Lucio sobbed when she was told the news by a state lawmaker, one of the many who rallied for a stop to her execution.

“I thank God for my life,” Lucio said in a statement released by Innocence Project. “I have always trusted in Him. I am grateful the court has given me the chance to live and prove my innocence.” She said her daughter Mariah, who was just two when she fell and died in 2007, “is in my heart today and always. I am grateful to have more days to be a mother to my children and a grandmother to my grandchildren.”

RELATED STORY: Texas board to make recommendation on Melissa Lucio’s case as advocates rally for her life

Lucio’s advocates had been anxiously awaiting word from an entirely different entity when the criminal appeals court handed down its decision. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles was to issue a recommendation to Gov. Greg Abbott by Monday afternoon, who would then decide if the execution would go forward or not. But following the appeals court ruling, the board said it would not be voting on her case.

Listen to Jennifer Fernandez Ancona from Way to Win explain how Democrats must message to win on Daily Kos’ The Brief podcast with Markos Moulitsas and Kerry Eleveld

“In a three-page decision ordering a stay to the execution that had been set for Wednesday, the Court of Criminal Appeals found that several of the claims raised by her lawyers needed to be considered by a trial court, including that prosecutors may have used false testimony, that previously unavailable scientific evidence could preclude her conviction and that prosecutors suppressed other evidence that would have been favorable to her,” The New York Times reported. KVUE shared the moment Lucio found out she would not die:

The petition submitted to the criminal appeals court by Lucio’s advocates earlier this month said the harsh interrogation technique used by investigators against the mom has contributed “to nearly one-third of all known wrongful convictions underlying the nation’s DNA exonerations.” One of the at least five jurors who has since regretted their decision sentencing her to death said they were never made aware of harsh techniques used against Lucio, or that she was a survivor of both childhood sexual abuse and domestic violence, which made her particularly vulnerable to such tactics.

Tivon Schardl, Capital Habeas Unit chief of the Federal Defender for the Western District of Texas and attorney to Lucio, said the mom is now entitled to “a new, fair trial.”

“Texans should be grateful and proud that the Court of Criminal Appeals has given Melissa’s legal team the opportunity to present the new evidence of Melissa’s innocence to the Cameron County district court,” Schardl continued. She noted, and thanked, the broad state and national support that urged a halt to the execution. In her statement, Lucio also said that she was “deeply grateful to everyone who prayed for me and spoke out on my behalf.”

“At last, Lucio will get her chance to mount a full and proper defense guaranteed to her by the U.S. Constitution,” the Houston Chronicle editorial board said. “Even as we celebrate this moment, we have to wonder how many others on Death Row deserve the same chance.” The Innocence Project pointed to a recent report noting that in the cases of the 161 people exonerated last year, misconduct by officials played a role in more than 100 of those cases. 

“So thankful that a court finally stepped in today and stopped Melissa Lucio’s execution,” tweeted Sister Helen Prejean, the noted anti-capital punishment activist. “The death penalty is always horrific, but executing a mother for a crime that never even happened? Melissa was coerced into making a false confession 15 years ago. May the truth come out now.”

And may the truth come out for the untold number of Melissa Lucios across the nation. Innocence Project said the mom deserves justice, and that it will continue to fight to prove her innocence in court. The organization urged advocates to take a moment and send a message to Lucio letting her know that they will continue to stay in her corner.

RELATED STORIES: 

Melissa Lucio, Texas mom facing execution for baby’s accidental death, asks court to spare her life

Melissa Lucio, Texas mom facing execution for baby’s accidental death, asks court to spare her life

This post was originally published on this site

Despite the fact that it’s been nearly impossible to find actual cases of voter fraud in the 2020 election, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis found a way to give credit to the Big Lie—complete with legislation authorizing an election police force.

DeSantis signed a bill Monday devoted to the GOP’s ongoing and dishonest allegations that former President Donald Trump’s presidential loss was the result of a stolen election.

“We’re taking a very strong stand against ballot harvesting. I think it’s justified and I think that people can have confidence that if someone’s voting absentee they actually got the ballot and they actually sent it in,” DeSantis declared at a news conference at Rookies Sports Bar & Grill, before signing Senate Bill 524 into law.

RELATED STORY: DeSantis out-Orwells Orwell with proposed $6 million police ‘election integrity unit’

According to CNN, the new law creates an Office of Election Crimes and Security in Florida’s Department of State with a price tag of $3.7 million; the originally proposed bill had a $6 million cost.

This post was originally published on this site

Contrary to conventional wisdom in Washington, not everything is coming up roses for Republicans out there in the states. Take Wisconsin, where Donald Trump and his allies are pushing an ongoing scheme to decertify 2020 that is ripping apart the Wisconsin GOP.

A February poll from Marquette Law school also held some bracing news for Republicans.

President Joe Biden’s job approvals (43% approve/52% disapprove) aren’t exactly great, but Trump’s favorability rating has plummeted to 36% favorable/57% unfavorable.

The favorables for incumbent GOP Sen. Ron Johnson, who’s up for reelection, are similarly dismal, with just 33% of Wisconsin voters viewing him favorably, while 45% view him unfavorably—his worst numbers in 10 years of Marquette polling.

At the same time, incumbent Democratic Gov. Tony Evers is faring relatively well in this polarized environment, with 50% job approval to 41% disapproval.

In April, thousands of Wisconsinites went to the polls for local elections. And in this supposed red-wave environment, Democrats held their own.

Today’s guest, Ben Wikler, chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, recently wrote, “In a 50/50 state, during a tough year for Democrats, we won more than we lost. Out of 276 races where WisDems actively engaged, investing in organizing, digital, and/or mail to voters, we won 147 of the races.”

Here were some key takeaways from Wikler’s post:

• Democratic performance in conservative Milwaukee suburbs—relative to 2018 numbers—looked strong.
• Right-wing candidates in school board races in blue and purple areas—like La Crosse, Eau Claire, Appleton, Beloit, Fond du Lac, and Oshkosh—fell flat.
• Pro-democracy poll worker Pamela Gantz beat Kelly Ruh, a fake elector subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 commission who was running for reelection as a De Pere alder.
• Cavalier Johnson won in a landslide, becoming Milwaukee’s first elected Black mayor.
• Pheng Thao makes history as the first elected Hmong member of the Appleton school board.

Wikler also noted that despite some GOP successes, Republicans had failed to find a message that appeals to anyone beyond their base. And that’s where we will pick things up with Wikler. What issues and messages worked for Democrats, what didn’t work for Republicans, and what lessons should Democrats carry into November?

You can watch the show live right here on Tuesdays at 1:30 PM PT/4:30 PM ET, while the podcast version goes live Wednesday mornings at all the usual places, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify. A full list of places to download the show is available here.