What We Think We Know re 6 January, Six Months Later

Nearly six months later, what do we know about January 6?

Joe Biden’s very comfortable election victory over Donald Trump remains untarnished by any serious accusation of fraud or error. Trump’s fans struck out in dozens of lawsuits; their comical, costly attempt to have Arizona’s vote “re-audited” by a biased and inexperienced group is embarrassing; and Trump’s lawyers are getting sanctioned for their legally frivolous arguments. Sydney Powell faces serious disciplinary charges in several jurisdictions, and the New York Court of Appeals just suspended Rudy Giuliani’s license pending a final decision, rejecting Giuliani’s defense that he’s no longer a danger to society because he promises to say nothing more about the election.

Many who entered the Capitol illegally have been charged with crimes. (None are from “Antifa,” as Trump fans initially swore.) This week, a woman pled guilty who did no violence and now thoroughly regretted encouraging those who did. Oathkeepers are pleading guilty and cooperating. While Trump supporters in public office insist Trump didn’t encourage the violence, many of those who committed the violence are telling courts that Trump did urge and inspire them.

Sane Republicans (or politicians who felt they could afford to) have denounced Trump’s continued obsessive campaign to undo the democratic election. Other Republicans have punished those Republicans for speaking up. Trump himself reportedly expects to be magically reinstated. (The Constitution provides no such process, and Trumpists still have never clearly identified any material fault in the process, so Trump may not actually expect any such thing, but may merely be trying to make sure the donations and attention keep flowing.)

Trumpists’ last-ditch argument seems to be that what happened wasn’t technically an “insurrection.” I’m unsure how much that label matters, but the Oxford Dictionary definition (“a violent uprising against authority”) would sure seem to apply. Black’s Law Dictionary gives, “A rebellion, or rising of citizens or subjects in resistance to their government, . . . any combined resistance to the lawful authority of the state, with intent to the denial thereof, when the same is manifested, or intended to be manifested, by acts of violence.”

Congress, our government’s lawful authority, was duly certifying presidential votes on the appointed day, January 6. Mr. Trump told people they’d lose their country if they didn’t fight for it. Many marched straight from his speech to Congress and successfully interrupted the process. “Combined?” Some of the accused conspired with each other in advance, making very detailed plans.

“Acts of violence?” You betcha. Abundant video evidence shows violence to people and official documents; many of the accused came with special tools for violence. Only a retreat by outnumbered police saved us from more extensive violence. Still, one officer died after being attacked and another shot a woman who was trying, with many others, to gain access to Congresspersons. Officers were allegedly hit by a barricade, a flagpole, and a lacrosse stick with a Confederate flag on it. One woman wanted “to shoot Pelosi in the friggin’ brain.” Others shouted that Vice-President Pence should be hanged, and erected a gallows. Note the “or intended to be.” The officers who physically prevented intruders from contact with Congresspersons sure thought the mob intended violence.

Above all, we know that many elected leaders, who would be screaming for blood if Palestinian sympathizers or Black Lives Matter folks had done this, insist it was kind of like a picnic the tourists had.

No, this was no picnic.

                                                          - 30 - 

 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 20 June, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will shortly be available on demand on KRWG’s site.]

[Not relevant to this post, but I particularly liked Algernon D'Ammassa's column this morning. I generally do like his columns. We, and the Sun-News, are lucky to have him doing what he’s doing.]

[There’s so much to say about all this; and so much to ask. I’m quite interested in how Trump partisans and other conservatives see these matters. Walt Rubel and I will be talking with two or three of them on this weeks “Speak Up, Las Cruces!” radio show [8-10 a.m. on 101.5 GM, KTAL streaming at the website given above , with those folks in from 9-10.] this Wednesday morning, 30 June. I’m always fascinated (and, yeah, sometimes dismayed) by how differently we can see things.]

 

[This old photo came to mind as I thought about our so differing points of view.  We're all to some degree myopic.  It'd be an interesting experiment (Pew or someone oughtta fund this, or maybe we can talk a TV network into it) to take a group of well-meaning, reasonable people of very different political viewpoints and expose them to the same diverse reportage on national events for a period of time, and determine whether that changed any minds, or at least improved the quality of the discussions.  ]

[To me, motorcycling through Massachusetts countryside, stopping to photograph this was automatic.  I'd never heard of the place.  I was laughing at visions of myopic hunters, and felt no inclination to enter the grounds.  I learned this morning from an on-line search, it's pretty famous for polo.  Its polo team was quite feared in the late 1960's.  Nevertheless, . . .]

Memories of a Long-Ago Trial

Sitting in the upstairs courtroom of our modest brick Las Cruces Municipal Courthouse reminds me of sitting there in 1975, a young reporter covering a federal kidnaping case.

Back then, this was the U.S. Courthouse. Now, morning shadows from the massive Federal Courthouse across Church St. darken Muni Court.

U.S. v. Lowe was tried here because it was too hot for Albuquerque.

The Lowes were a prominent ranching family in little Muleshoe, Texas. A lively but troubled soul named Eileen drifted into town and captured young Bob Lowe’s heart, much to his parents’ chagrin. Eventually the young couple were headed for divorce; but Eileen was pregnant.

Or was she? Bob’s parents had their doubts, partly because she’d miscarried not long before. But Eileen insisted she was pregnant.

Friends dropped her at the bus station so she could have her baby in an Oklahoma City hospital. She said they needn’t wait. She waved good-bye, bought a ticket, then boarded the bus West to Albuquerque.

In Albuquerque she went daily to view the newborns in the maternity ward. She liked one, and noted the parents’ information.

Soon after Mrs. N took her baby home, the doorbell rang. “Flower delivery,” Eileen said. “I’ll just set them down inside.” She put down the flowers then pointed a gun at Mrs. N and her mother. (One very embarrassed trial witness was a salesman she’d befriended in an Albuquerque bar. When Eileen said it frightened her to drive long distances alone after rodeos, he helped her buy a gun.)

The women unsuccessfully pleaded with Eileen not to take the baby. They did persuade her to take along some medicine the baby needed.

Eileen returned by bus to Muleshoe. Her friends met her and cooed over her new baby.

Papa Lowe and the preacher had seen a TV report of the Albuquerque kidnaping. They called Albuquerque police and learned that the little toe on the stolen baby’s left foot was crooked. When Eileen was out of the room, they extricated the baby from its footie pajamas to examine the toe. Bingo.

It was a dramatic, sad trial. Eileen’s mother had sold Eileen to a man at 14. Bob was her fourth husband. She cried a lot and appeared to faint once.

As the jury came in, a seasoned FBI agent told me that if jurors avoided looking at the defendant, the verdict was guilty. They did and it was. Eileen was sentenced to a substantial prison term.

A decade later, living in Taiwan, I wrote a novella based on such a kidnaping, but the kidnapper has gotten away with it. “Her” son is now twenty, and she’s a respected citizen, but when a chance incident threatens to expose her, . . .

Telling the bailiff recently about the trial, I wondered what Google would turn up about it. A 2016 article reported that after President Reagan pardoned her, Eileen Lowe moved to Albuquerque, to the dismay of baby John Paul’s parents.

Sitting in that old courtroom, I see ghosts from that trial.

Long familiarity with a town breeds many such ghosts. Long-dead friends’ names on public buildings. Places where one loved, fought, taught, learned, got drunk, or chatted after playing ball. Old men learn to live with ghosts, nodding casually to them, but never letting them take over. They have their place. If I listen, they’re pretty candid in reminding me of my shortcomings.

                                                            - 30 -

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 20 June, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will shortly be available on demand on KRWG’s site.] 

[Ms. Lowe would be in her 70's now.  I hope she found peace.] 

Our Crumbling World

Thursday I spent a half-day with high school students in a photojournalism class. The kids saw things in neat ways, some had a real good eye. It was refreshing.

One student had written a thought-provoking poem. (Sunday’s blog post will reprint the full poem.)

With the poem lingering in my head, I read that Donald Trump is telling Joe Biden to fire the Joint Chiefs of Staff if they think climate change is a big deal.

Eight years before Trump, when Obama was elected, VP Biden went with Obama to the Pentagon, where “the military sat us down to let us know what the greatest threats facing America were. And the Joint Chiefs told us the greatest threat facing America was global warming. Because there'll be significant population movements, fights over land, millions of people leaving places because they're literally sinking below the sea in Indonesia, because of the fights over what is arable land anymore.”

Presumably they told Trump that in 2017. Trump fired them. Recently, the [Trump-appointed] Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Mark Milley, testified before Congress that, “Climate change is a threat. Climate change is going to impact natural resources. It's going to impact increased instability in various parts of the world. It's going to impact migrations and so on. And in addition to that, we have infrastructure challenges here at home, witness some of our hurricanes and stuff.”

Trump says Biden should fire HIS chosen military chiefs for telling the truth. Sums up a lot.

Aiden Mobley’s poem, “Falling Dominoes,” didn’t mention climate change; but his words apply to that and to many other societal wrongs that we can either accept or help improve: “Our world . . . is filled with life. / But it’s falling like dominoes, by the hands of humanity. / Our world is crumbling, / while most people . . . choose to ignore it / and live on with their lives / as if they can’t do anything. / But then I think about the people trying. / Thinking about the people / who push a domino up / to help fix this broken world. / I think about life in the world, / and how the domino effect really takes place in so many places.”

Regardless of party affiliation, folks who deny reality with Mr. Trump are extremely fortunate they won’t have to explain to their grandkids – who’ll suffer the consequences – why we ignored clear red alerts. We must elect people who get it (e.g. Melanie Stansbury), remind all public officials of the urgency, support the City Office of Sustainability, and urge the County to create one. Whatever our politics, we all care about our children. For their sake mightn’t we listen to the generals, who are not barefoot tree-huggers?

So much is indeed “crumbling” around us: civility, truthfulness, community. Alone none of us can stop climate change; but we can each be more welcoming to folks whose politics, gender identities, religions, or ethnicities differ from ours. Sure, we all believe what we believe; but must we create a world of intolerance and aggression? Mightn’t we each try to “help fix this broken world?” Instead of pushing ourselves forward, might we help protect the vulnerable, poor, abused, and homeless?

When Aiden, 15, is shown falling dominoes and asked to write a poem, he thinks only of our crumbling world. Think about that. He speaks for many.

                                            - 30 -

  

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 13 June, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and is available on demand on KRWG’s site here.]

[It was a great group of kids, who had mad some nice images. (At Oñate High. Studying with Katya Gonzalez. Another friend, poet Tim Staley, who also teaches there, had assigned the domino poem.) Some fell asleep while I was talking; but with the lights out, teenagers fall asleep. I would have. And now, each passing year in my quite advanced age, increases my empathy with folks who fall asleep at inopportune moments. ]

Falling Dominoes

by Aiden Mobley

You know our world,

it’s filled with life

But it’s falling like dominoes

by the hands of humanity.

Our world is crumbling, while most

people out there are choosing to ignore it

and live on with their lives as if they

can’t do anything.

But then I think about the people trying.

Thinking bout the people who

push a domino up to help

fix this broken world.

I think about life in the world,

and how the domino effect

really takes place in so many places.

I. . . was told to write a poem including dominoes, and the only thing that came to mind. As I watched the dominoes fall onto the table was the world.

[Also want to mention in passing (a) that Randy (Great Conversations) Harris is back at his table just north of Las Cruces Avenue on Main Street during Saturday Farmer Market, where folks stop and pass the time of day or discuss ideas or politics; (b) Black Box Theatre is operating again.; and (c) long-time KRWG Jazz Show host Derrick Lee and others are putting on the inaugural Juneteenth Jazz Festival, an interesting set of jazz performances and lectures next weekend. This year on Zoom (at http://rebrand.ly/JuneteenthJazz) next year live, in Las Cruces. ] 

 

Justice Should Be Blind - to Whether the Defendant is Donald Trump or John Doe

A friend said recently that even if prosecutors proved that Donald Trump had committed huge crimes, we should never see a President of the United States in an orange jump suit.

He had no quarrel with Trump’s impeachment, or with VP Spiro Agnew going to jail in the ‘70s. If Trump cheated banks and government out of big bucks, they could and should pursue him civilly; but not jail an ex-president.

I disagree.

Trump should not be prosecuted vengefully, or because prosecutors disagree with his politics. If he’s a danger to our republic, we should fight that danger in appropriate ways. Twisting our legal system to jail him solely to protect our system would help destroy our system. Just as Trump should not have tried to use the Justice Department to attack political enemies, state and municipal prosecutors should not abuse the justice system – even trying to save it.

It sounds as if the alleged crimes involve massive violations of tax laws and perhaps massive frauds on banks. Allegedly, Trump used various schemes to compensate employees under the table, so that the amounts weren’t taxed, and that assets were significantly undervalued (to the taxperson) or extremely inflated (to lenders). If charges are proven in court, Trump should be treated as others who’ve committed similar crimes involving similar amounts of money. If they would go to jail, he probably should. If they normally wouldn’t, he probably shouldn’t.

It’s a key tenet of our democracy that no one is above the law. No one. Our founders would have loathed the thought of immunizing high officials against criminal prosecution. Yes, in practice powerful people abuse their power and escape punishment for misconduct, or their crimes are ignored by lesser officials to curry favor. My friend strongly argued that so much of the system is corrupt that it’d be unfair to jail this ex-president and not others who probably committed crimes.

Actually, although most presidents probably would be alleged by someone to have violated national or international law, flagrant and significant law-breaking is uncommon. Richard Nixon seems to have committed crimes, including obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting burglary, but Gerald Ford pardoned him. Bill Clinton committed perjury; but in criminal law “the exculpatory lie” (merely denying the conduct of which one is guilty) is rarely prosecuted. Warren Harding appointed a cabinet full of poker pals and cronies, some flagrantly dishonest, and some went to jail; but Harding, who appears not to have been personally involved in criminal activities, was pardoned by Death.

I might say LBJ and Nixon committed war crimes in Southeast Asia; Bush II clearly winked at illegal torture, and Obama probably violated international law in pursuing terrorists; but where the alleged crime is committed in the republic’s interest, we may have to grant some leeway, although just how much is a damned tough question.

Basically, we should not give a “Get Out of Jail Free” card to a criminal who gets himself elected president. It sends the wrong message. How does a judge sentence a shoplifter from Walmart when the president skates after stealing millions? Too many public officials already get away with misconduct.

Sure, I think Orange Hair wearing orange might be a healthy development for our country; but that’s a thought I’d try to put aside if I were a juror. Trump deserves the same treatment John Doe would get for the same conduct.

                                                   - 30 - 

 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 6 June, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will shortly be available on demand on KRWG’s site.]

[We are all somewhere on a continuum between taking whatever we can, without regard for others, manipulating them for our perceived gain, on the one hand, or trying to give more, in whatever ways we can, and take less. Religions get founded around figures like Jesus and Buddha who urge us toward the more generous and cooperative end of the spectrum – which often seems kind of boring and weak when one is young. I’m sure no saint on that score. Mr. Trump is as far toward his end of the spectrum as anyone I’ve run across. It would be an interesting challenge to be on the jury trying to decide the truth or falsity of specific accusations in a court. (Of course I’d be tossed off the jury, first because I’ve practiced law and second because I’ve expressed my views publicly; and if I weren’t, although I believe strongly in our duty to serve on juries when called, I’d advise the court of why Trump’s lawyers might reasonably question my ability to judge fairly.)] 

              SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI