Politico’s “West Wing Playbook” is out tonight with a report about the pro-Palestine “Ceasefire Now’ protestors which are showing up at basically every Biden event.
Here’s the lede of the newsletter which gives a taste of it …
Continue reading “Everyone Has to Make Their Choices”Amid apparent infighting in the Oklahoma Republican Party, a resolution was passed over the weekend to formally condemn Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), who has caught the ire of Donald Trump supporters for working on the bipartisan immigration bill that Trump had asked congressional Republicans to spike.
Continue reading “Lankford Gets The MAGA Treatment For Defying Trump And Legislating”You’ve probably seen the stories about the UN Agency which allegedly had amongst its employees Hamas operatives who directly participated in the October 7th massacres in southern Israel. The story is both more and less than it seems. The background helps illuminate this as well as much of what we’ve seen over the last three months.
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) was founded in 1949 to administer refugee camps for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who had either fled the fighting or were driven out by the Israeli military during both phases of the Israeli War of Independence, what Palestinians call The Nakba. (Most of this happened during the first phase of the war.) There were camps in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. Those camps are still there 75 years later. “Camps” is a misnomer. Over time permanent buildings replaced temporary structures and tents. Schools, hospitals, civic buildings and businesses grew up. They are more like towns, or districts of towns. The vast majority of residents of the camps are third and fourth generation descendants of the original refugees of 1947-48. Under UNRWA’s framework they are also refugees. UNRWA still plays a central role administering these communities — running schools, hospitals, various civil services.
Continue reading “About That UN/Hamas Story”A lot of things happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM’s Morning Memo. Sign up for the email version.
It was a win for the ages.
A former president accused of rape and of defaming his victim by denying it.
The victim (though her strength, resilience, and aplomb defy use of that term) has now won two federal jury verdicts in NYC in the matter worth tens of millions of dollars.
Carroll v. Trump in both its iterations reaffirmed that no one is above the law, demonstrated that an experienced jurist can bring Trump to heel, and confirmed that the legal system can sternly punish those who discredit it and act with impunity to violate the law.
The nearly $90 million in judgments against Trump and in favor of Carroll put a nice, big, fat number on top of the underlying principles that were defended and ultimately vindicated.
I registered disappointment in some quarters that Carroll’s $83.3 million verdict Friday wasn’t as big in dollar terms as last month’s $148 million judgment in DC that bankrupted Rudy Giuliani. But the two verdicts compare favorably with each other and are arguably quite consistent.
First off, the Giuliani verdict involved two plaintiffs – Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss – so simply dividing their verdict in half (in truth, Moss won slightly more than Freeman) leaves each with $74 million. So in that rough sense Carroll won more than Freeman and Moss on a per capita basis.
Breaking it down a bit, Carroll won $18.3 million in compensatory damages compared to about $36 million apiece for Freeman and Moss. But she more than made up that difference with her punitive damages award of $65 million, quite a bit more than the $37.5 million apiece for Freeman and Moss.
Jury awards are notoriously difficult to compare, and these were in two different courts in two different parts of the country, with different defendants and claims. But I was struck less by how different the verdicts were than how similar.
While the gargantuan dollar figures enhance the schadenfreude, the real satisfaction is in seeing Carroll, Freeman and Moss individually striking blows for justice against a far more powerful figure and the forces arrayed behind him. It doesn’t always work that way, but it did here, and it is to their eternal credit that they bit the bullet and pursued their cases through to the end.
You know the story by now. E. Jean Carroll met conservative lawyer and Trump foe George Conway at a party at the home of Molly Jong-Fast back in 2019. That chance meeting prompted Conway to introduce Carroll to attorney Roberta Kaplan, which eventually led to Carroll winning two defamation judgments against Trump for denying he raped her. Here’s Conway relishing in the $83 million damages verdict:
My advice to you is that you never disclose that you were on this jury and I won’t say anything more about it.
U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, to the jurors in the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial
[F]ormer federal judge Barbara Jones, the court-appointed special monitor in Donald Trump’s New York business fraud case, just planted a financial bombshell that legal experts say suggests Trump lied knowingly and repeatedly on his federal financial disclosures about a major loan that never existed—and may have evaded taxes on $48 million in income.
Roger Parloff: What Justice Scalia Thought About Whether Presidents Are “Officers of the United States”
David Rothkopf and Bernard L. Schwartz on the threat posed by Donald Trump:
So, ask yourself, is that enough to make you do more than you have done? Is that enough to commit for the next 10 months to do more than you have ever done during an election year? To give more? To canvas more? To spread the word more? To help get voters to the polls? To ensure every member of your family, your friends, your co-workers do the same? The stakes are too high to do less than everything you can. The stakes are too high to allow this man to continue to play any role in American public life.
Heather Cox Richardson marked the 186th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s Lyceum Address, where he said:
Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;–let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap–let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;–let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.
University of Texas Law professor Steve Vladeck: What Texas is (and is not) doing to defy a Supreme Court setback
The Truce, from journalists Hunter Walker (of Talking Points Memo) and Luppe B. Luppen, explores the major fault lines that define Democratic politics today and asks big questions about the future of the party. An engrossing page-turner, The Truce grapples with the dangers that threaten American democracy and the complicated cast of characters who are trying to save it.
Example 1:
Example 2:
Do you like Morning Memo? Let us know!
This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at The Conversation.
The conflict in Ukraine will soon be heading into its third year with no sign of a ceasefire. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that many in the West are growing impatient with the emerged stalemate and reluctant to provide continued military support to Ukraine.
However, wars do come to an end, often with one side making concessions in exchange for peace. And over the course of the Ukraine war, influential voices in the West – be it those of the late Henry Kissinger, former President Donald Trump or high-ranking NATO official Stian Jenssen, to name a few – have raised the prospect of Ukraine having to cede land to Russia in exchange for peace.
As an expert on Western military interventions in transnational ethnic conflicts, I have seen how well-intentioned peace agreements offered to the perceived aggressor can inadvertently plant the seeds for renewed conflict. This is because such agreements can deliver in peace what the aggressor pursues in war: territory.
Rather than resolve the root cause of conflicts, this can reward revanchism – that is, a state’s policy to reclaim territory it once dominated – and embolden an aggressor to use war to achieve its aim. This is especially true when the West rewards aggression with generous peace agreements.
Take the former Yugoslavia.
It has been more than 20 years since the end of the Yugoslav wars, a series of conflicts that followed the breakup of Yugoslavia. During these wars, Serbia sought to unify large swaths of territories populated by Serbs and non-Serbs into a “Greater Serbia.”
The wars ended with military victories for Slovenia and Croatia over Serbia, and NATO intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. In the cases of the latter countries, NATO intervention was followed by numerous Western-imposed peace plans.
But two decades on, the region borders on renewed conflict as Serbia insists that its survival is dependent on it ability to solely represent and protect all Serbs, wherever they live.
Of course, each war is different, and the circumstances surrounding the invasion of Ukraine are unique.
But I believe the examples of Bosnia and Kosovo show that Western-sponsored treaties, when they sacrifice land for peace, can store up trouble for later – especially when it comes to revanchist nations.
Russian and Serbian revanchism has been evident ever since the countries they once dominated – the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, respectively – broke up in the early 1990s.
In 1992, Russia seized Transnistria, the Moscow-backed breakaway part of Moldova that borders southwestern Ukraine, under the pretext of securing peace. The same year, Russia intervened in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, autonomous regions within Georgia populated by pro-Russia but non-Georgian peoples, to “end the ethnic fighting.” In 2008, Russia expanded further into Georgia. The same scenario recurred in 2014 when Russia sent forces to Crimea and the Donbas to “protect” ethnic Russians from “Nazi” hordes.
Since the breakup of Yugoslavia, Serbia has similarly sought to reclaim its dominance of that region. It has done this under various pretexts. Serbia’s decadelong wars began in 1991 and included fighting in Slovenia purportedly to “keep Yugoslavia together”; in Croatia, it was to protect ethnic Serbs from the “fascist” regime; in Bosnia, Serbia claimed to be preventing the founding of an “Islamic state”; and in Kosovo, the stated aim was to fight “terrorists.”
Yet, a quarter of a century on – and despite hopes that the fall of former Serbian and Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic in 2000 might usher in a more peaceful era – political elites in Serbia continue to pursue the unification of all Serb-populated lands, or at minimum gain the West’s acceptance of a “Serb world” – that is, a sphere of Serbian influence in Bosnia, Kosovo and Montenegro where Serbia dominates.
The various peace treaties meant to stabilize and bring lasting peace to Bosnia and Kosovo have, to various degrees, failed, due in no small part, I would argue, to the very terms of settlement.
In Bosnia, the U.S.-brokered Dayton Accords of 1995 brought the Bosnian War to an end. But it also reorganized the state into two subnational units: the majority-ethnic Serbian Republic of Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The accords awarded 49% of the recently independent Bosnia’s territory to the Republic of Srpska despite Serbs constituting 31% of the general population and having committed genocide and ethnic cleansing in pursuit of crafting a Serb state within Bosnia.
Now, the Republic of Srpska seeks to secede and contravene the Dayton Accords through the establishment of parallel institutions and the withdrawal of its members from Western-brokered institutions.
In Kosovo, with each European Union-sponsored peace agreement to normalize relations between Serbia and Kosovo, security threats from Serbia escalate, as evidenced by a recent armed attack led by Milan Radoičiċ, an associate of Serbia’s president.
Meanwhile, what critics see as Western appeasement of Serbia’s revanchism has led to further concessions in regard to Kosovo. In contrast to Bosnia, the Kosovo model involves incremental appeasement through various peace agreements – the Ahtisaari Plan, Brussels 1 and 2 Agreement, Ohrid Agreement, and the Draft-Statute proposal. These plans offer political concessions to Serbia in exchange for the recognition of Kosovo’s independence.
To suggest that a similar fate to Bosnia or Kosovo may await Ukraine is not beyond the realms of reality.
Any such solution could be an off-ramp to war, but it would hand Vladimir Putin what he wants: control over Russian-speaking people and key strategic territory in Ukraine.
If the West follows either the Bosnia or Kosovo model for peace for Ukraine, the result would likely be the same: First, it would result in the reorganization of Ukraine into two political-administrative units, one under control of a pro-Western government in Kyiv, the other under the influence or direct control of Moscow. Second, it would see the promotion of complex political arrangements, such as ethnic veto powers, dual sovereignty and international representation, that yield institutional dysfunction and political instability. And third, there would be no robust security deployments or guarantees from the U.S. or NATO to deter future Russian aggression.
The current Western support for Ukraine’s defense will likely lead to its heavy involvement in any peace negotiations.
But ultimately, the implications of a Western-imposed peace in Ukraine may, if the past is any indicator, do little to appease Russian revanchism and may, in fact, encourage Russian elites to pursue a similar policy in Estonia and Latvia – states where Russians make up a quarter of the population.
The West may hope that a plan based on land for peace helps Ukraine by stopping the bloodshed, while at the same time appeases Russia and solves a geopolitical problem for the EU and the U.S.
But if the cases of Bosnia and Kosovo are anything to go by, it could on the contrary only whet Russia’s appetite for more territorial claims, and leave Ukraine feeling betrayed.
Drita Perezic, a security sector expert with the Balkans Policy Research Group, contributed to this article. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at The Conversation.
How well can ordinary citizens exercise a political function traditionally assigned to elected legislators?
Michigan is finding out. The state has assigned the job of drawing election districts to a group of citizens with no special qualifications. Selecting government officials by lot is a procedure first employed in Athens 2,500 years ago. This experiment has produced dramatic results – as well as a court challenge.
Continue reading “Michigan Selects Its Legislative Redistricting Commissioners The Way The Ancient Athenians Did”This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at The Conversation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has earned a reputation for strikingly conservative rulings. One of its recent decisions could put the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau out of business, another could hamstring the ability of federal agencies to enforce regulations, and a third could effectively outlaw medication abortions.
The 5th Circuit today looks very different than it did half a century ago, when it was on the front lines of enforcing civil rights. The 5th Circuit currently handles cases in three states: Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. Until 1982, it also covered Alabama, Georgia and Florida — the entire Deep South during the civil rights era.
Then as now, the 5th Circuit has had a complicated relationship with a Supreme Court that was ideologically sympathetic with the lower court. At times, the 5th Circuit was willing to go further than the Supreme Court on some issues. But the high court hesitated to rebuke the 5th Circuit.
Understanding the 5th Circuit’s work therefore can provide important insights into broader legal trends in the U.S.
The Supreme Court can handle only a limited number of cases each year, so it tries to establish general principles that lower courts can apply.
Federal appellate courts oversee the work of federal district courts that apply those general principles. Because the devil is in the details, an appellate court can interpret those principles broadly or narrowly, and in so doing can support or undermine Supreme Court rulings on a day-to-day basis.
Several recent 5th Circuit decisions threaten to undercut the power of federal agencies.
One notable example is the case of the abortion-inducing drug mifepristone. The 5th Circuit in August 2023 rejected the Food and Drug Administration’s relaxation of the conditions under which that drug can be used. That decision, if upheld by the Supreme Court, could severely curtail the ability of a woman to get an abortion. It could also portend widespread challenges to FDA decisions about the safety and effectiveness of drugs and medical devices.
The 5th Circuit suggested an alternative basis for restricting access to mifepristone. It expressed some sympathy for the plaintiffs’ broad reading of the 1873 Comstock Act, an anti-vice law, as forbidding the shipment of any “drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.” But that interpretation might effectively outlaw all abortions, because not only pills but virtually everything used in surgical abortions gets shipped across state lines.
Other 5th Circuit rulings that went against the federal government are also pending before the Supreme Court this term.
Among those, one notable case could eviscerate the ability of agencies to enforce regulatory laws through traditional in-house hearings. The 5th Circuit ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission must use jury trials in federal court instead of those in-house hearings, that the statute giving the SEC discretion about using agency hearings was unconstitutional, and that the administrative law judges who preside at agency hearings were unlawfully appointed. That ruling, if it stands, could hamstring numerous agencies that enforce federal regulations via in-house hearings.
In a second case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, the 5th Circuit ruled that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding mechanism was unconstitutional, because this agency gets its money from the Federal Reserve rather than from Congress.
That ruling could invalidate not only the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but also the Federal Reserve itself and the entire Social Security program, including Medicare, which also do not receive their funding from Congress.
The 5th Circuit has also expansively interpreted gun rights in cases that call many firearms regulations into question, rejecting a law that bars persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms and invalidating federal regulation of ghost guns.
These rulings are part of a striking pattern of restricting federal authority that makes the 5th Circuit distinctive among federal appeals courts across the nation.
But this isn’t the first time the 5th Circuit has stood out.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which barred racial segregation in public schools, the old 5th Circuit compiled a courageous record in promoting civil rights.
The 5th Circuit judges wrote or upheld rulings that required the desegregation of public schools, universities and other public facilities throughout the Deep South.
Those judges invalidated the segregation ordinance that was a key target of the 1955-56 Montgomery bus boycott, which propelled Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to prominence and helped to galvanize the Civil Rights Movement. The 5th Circuit even held the governor and lieutenant governor of Mississippi in contempt of court for defying desegregation orders in 1962.
The current 5th Circuit, in short, looks very different from its predecessor. That is no small irony, as the 5th Circuit sits in a courthouse named for John Minor Wisdom, one of the heroic judges of the civil rights era.
But it’s not only the 5th Circuit that has changed. So has the Supreme Court, which is now dominated by conservative justices.
The Supreme Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education wanted public schools desegregated, but the justices left implementation to federal district judges, whose knowledge of local circumstances could make the process go more smoothly. That approach too often encouraged foot-dragging and massive resistance. Still, the 5th Circuit’s persistence furthered the Supreme Court’s ultimate goal of breaking down segregation.
Today’s Supreme Court has very different priorities. Now, the justices are more interested in limiting federal power than in promoting civil rights.
The current court has undermined the Voting Rights Act, largely eliminated affirmative action and repudiated abortion rights.
Through its “major questions” doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for agencies to address problems that have a significant economic impact, the court has made it harder for agencies to undertake new initiatives.
The 5th Circuit these days is still promoting larger Supreme Court goals. Sometimes the 5th Circuit has gotten ahead of the justices, which might explain why the Supreme Court has reversed or limited some of the appellate court’s decisions and might do so again this year.
Then, as now, the 5th Circuit has had a symbiotic relationship with the Supreme Court. This term’s rulings will further clarify the workings of that relationship.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Rudy Giuliani opened up his finances to a bankruptcy court — and the world — for examination on Friday, revealing that among his assets are three New York Yankees World Series rings, dozens of watches, and a potential claim against Donald Trump.
Continue reading “Trump Owes Giuliani For Legal Work, Rudy Suggests In Bankruptcy Filing”After deliberating for less than three hours, the jury in the E. Jean Carroll civil trial against Donald Trump has determined that the former president must pay the writer $83.3 million in damages for defaming her in 2019 when she came forward accusing him of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s.
Continue reading “Jury Determines Trump Must Pay $83 Million In Damages For Defaming E. Jean Carroll”Kate and TPM’s Josh Kovensky chat with professor Gerard Magliocca, an expert on the disqualification clause, about what to expect in upcoming Supreme Court arguments on booting Donald Trump from the ballot.
Belaboring The Point is now on YouTube! Check out the latest video episode of the podcast here.
Continue reading “Listen To This: Heed History’s Warning”
