Mediaboss Marketing

On Friday the U.S. Attorney and the FBI issued a joint statement that said - yes - we are committed to the First Amendment and the American right to peacefully demonstrate, which is planned for Monday in Washington. But - no - We will not tolerate violence, destruction, interference with government functions, or trespassing on government property, which is also a distinct possibility as well-organized and quite determined protesters plan to block the entrances into The Supreme Court building tomorrow morning..

The idea is if protesters can block access to the building, they can disrupt the court and somehow stave the decision of Roe v.

The rare joint statement, issued by U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves and Assistant Director in Charge Steven M. DAntuono of the FBI Washington Field Office, read, The U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia and the FBIs Washington Field Office are committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of all Americans to express their views peacefully during demonstrations that take place on a regular basis in the nations capital, including at the Supreme Court.

We also have a responsibility to ensure public safety and the orderly conduct of government business, the statement continued.

We will not tolerate violence, destruction, interference with government functions, or trespassing on government property. We are committed to working closely with our local, state, and federal law enforcement partners to stop any individuals who intend to commit violence or criminal activity under the guise of carrying out a demonstration.

The protests thus far, in front of the judges residences, have become increasingly ugly and with the distinct chance the Roe decision could come tomorrow around 10 a.m., law enforcement has become increasingly stiffened. I think there is a lot of vitriol, said Capitol Police chief Tom Manger in an interview with CNN several days ago. Somebody would even say there is hate speech going on between the two sides and that is concerning to me.

Of equal concern to law enforcement is the arrest of an armed gunman at the house of Associate Justice Bret Cavanaugh last week. A 27-year-old identified at Nicholas John Roske flew from California with enough implements and deranged mind to kill Kavanaugh and then commit suicide. This is a lawmans biggest fear since such a lone wolf is nigh impossible to predict.

As it were, two U.S. Marshals were guarding the Kavanaugh home at about 1 a.m. Wednesday after nightly protests and their presence apparently spooked Roske, causing him to call 9-1-1 and turn himself in to Maryland law enforcement. He has been booked on attempted murder and, if found guilty, could serve up to 20 years in prison.

The Capitol police, Washingtons Metro police, and several other agencies admit they are ramping up their forces for tomorrow. The protest organizers plan to meet about 7 a.m., split into three groups, and block the three automobile entrances to the Supreme Court property. DC Metro will launch a Civil Disturbance Unit tomorrow and the Capitol Police are adding overtime shifts, beefing up security, and staying in near-constant contact with local, state, and national law enforcement.

THIS FROM CNN: The increased security comes as the Department of Homeland Security is warning that threats in the U.S. could become even more volatile throughout the summer and the midterm election season, fueled by election-year misinformation and potential violence surrounding a final Supreme Court opinion in a case that stands as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade's holding of a federal constitutional right to an abortion.

Capitol Police recently warned officers about an abortion-related "Shut Down SCOTUS" protest slated for Monday that's organized by the activist group ShutDownDC. Intelligence officials are particularly concerned about social media posts urging violence against abortion rights protests, according to the Capitol Police memo.

"Like recent large pro-abortion rights demonstrators, counter-protestors are likely, although there are no indications of organized counter protests," the memo said.

The memo notes ShutDownDC has not committed violence in the past, but instead uses nonviolent civil disobedience, which has resulted in arrests at protests. The group has also protested at the homes of members of Congress and Supreme Court justices, the memo said.

The Department of Homeland Security previously warned that the impassioned abortion debate presents risks to protesters, lawmakers, Supreme Court justices and others, and it warned the threats could come from both sides of the issue.

In addition to the pending abortion opinion, the Supreme Court is poised to issue a ruling in its first major Second Amendment case in more than a decade.

Within hours following the leak of a draft opinion from the Supreme Court that would strike down Roe v. Wade, protests broke out at the court, and within days materialized at the homes of several justices.

Security officials at the court responded by erecting a tall, non-scalable fence around the building two days after the leak. The small police department also has leaned on its law enforcement partners to help fill in the gaps in security, especially for justices. The US Marshals Service has said it is assisting.

* * *

You will want to follow this story. And pray everybody involved behaves.

royexum@aol.com

Read more:
Roy Exum: A Tempest In A Teapot - The Chattanoogan

The Kansas Reflector welcomes opinion pieces from writers who share our goal of widening the conversation about how public policies affect the day-to-day lives of people throughout our state. Max Kautsch is an attorney whose practice focuses on First Amendment rights and open government law.

Following one of the more contentious and veto-heavy legislative sessions in recent memory, our states legislators and their constituents have had a few weeks to reflect. Hopefully, we are all thinking about more than just why some bills passed and some didnt. Closely examining that question has become increasingly frustrating because of the way the Legislature operates.

Perhaps we should be thinking more about how those legislative outcomes are the result of a deeply flawed legislative process in desperate need of reform.

I began my post as president of the Kansas Coalition for Open Government at the beginning of this month. The coalition, previously known as the Sunshine Coalition, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that, since its inception in 1999, has helped make Kansas government more transparent.

As the legal hotline attorney for the Kansas Press Association and Kansas Association of Broadcasters, Ive been on the coalitions board of directors since 2015. The organization serves as a resource for Kansans with questions about the transparency of their state and local government.

Most recently, the coalition put together eight basic ideas for legislative reform that were included in an article published on the Kansas Reflectors website May 8. Those eight proposed reforms involve streamlining and making more transparent the process by which bills become laws. Those suggestions were:

The coalition put together eight basic ideas for legislative reform that were included in an article published on the Kansas Reflectors website May 8. Those eight proposed reforms involve streamlining and making more transparent the process by which bills become laws.

The Reflector tells me that according to its metrics, the May 8 article has been widely read, and it led to a column from the Reflectors Clay Wirestone on May 17 focusing on the eight reforms. But feedback from the legislators themselves?

Crickets, reports editor in chief Sherman Smith.

Kansas voters cannot allow our elected leaders to avoid this crucial issue. Indeed, to achieve the best government possible for the people of this state and prove that our legislators act in the public interest and not their own, they must, at minimum, show a willingness to entertain the suggestions from the May 8 article to improve the legislative process.

After all, if elected leaders are not sensitive to the concerns of their voters, why should they remain in office?

The coalition will be sending an email this week from [emailprotected] to each of the legislators asking: Do you support any of the eight legislative reforms suggested in the Reflectors articles published May 8 and May 17? Why or why not?

To make sure all the legislators receive the email, the coalition has contacted the Legislatures information technology department, and I am reasonably certain that the messages will not go to legislators spam folders. At the very least, we ought to find out whether they are checking their email when not in session.

You can expect a report about the responses a month or so from now in this space. Until then, give some thought to how the Legislature passes these bills, not just why.

Ask yourself: Would I be better off knowing more about how laws are made? If the answer is yes, encourage your legislator to answer the coalitions email. And keep their responses in mind when you vote in August and November.

Through its opinion section, the Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary,here.

Read more:
With open government on the line, we're calling Kansas legislators to account - Kansas Reflector

UPDATE: Former Attorney General William Barr has been in the spotlight in this hearing, as the committee has run extensive video of his testimony, in which he talked of how he thought that Donald Trump was detached from reality as he began to embrace conspiracies about the election.

I was somewhat demoralized, because I thought, boy, if he really believes this stuff, he has lost contact hes become detached from reality, Barr said.

Barr said that he met with Trump in the Oval Office to inform him that the Justice Department had not found evidence of widespread election fraud. Barr said that Trump was as mad as Ive ever seen him and he was trying to control himself. He said that Trump told him, You must have said this because you hate Trump.

Barr said that my opinion then and my opinion now is that the election was not stolen by fraud, and I havent seen anything since the election that changes my mind on that.

At one point in his testimony, Barr laughed about Dinesh DSouzas recent movie 2000 Mules, which purports to lay out the case of election fraud. Barr characterized it as bunk.

Former U.S. Attorney BJay Pak testified to some of the false election claims, including one that a black suitcase full of ballots was being seen pulled from under the table, but that it it was actually an official lock box where ballots were kept safe.

Ben Ginsberg, a veteran Republican campaign attorney, testified that the 2020 election was not close, as he noted the number of cases brought by Trump and his allies without actual evidence. Trumps side lost more than 60 times in court, yet that did not stop him from continuing to claim the election was stolen, as he does today.

Committee member Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) presented a video showing how fundraising emails were used to collect money off of Trumps false election claims, with some murkiness over where the donations were going. A committee investigator said that most of the donations went to Trumps Save America PAC and not to fund the election challenge. Lofgren said that this gave donors a misleading sense of where their money was going.

Not only was there the big lie, there was the big ripoff, she said.

PREVIOUSLY: Former Fox News political editor Chris Stirewalt defended the networks election night call of Arizona for Joe Biden, a moment that drew a furor among Donald Trumps supporters as it signaled that the president would likely lose.

He testified that the networks decision desk was so certain of its controversial election night call of Arizona for Joe Biden well ahead of the competition that even as people were freaking out about it, we were looking at calling other states.

During his testimony, Stirewalt not only defended the call of Arizona but took pride over it, as it aced Fox News rivals. Not until later in the week did they follow in calling the state.

We were able to make a call early, Stirewalt said of the Arizona call. We were able to beat the competition. He said that the networks Decision Desk, partnered with the Associated Press and the National Opinion Research Center, had a different set of data than other networks, and as returns came in, the results lined up with their polling expectations.

His remarks are significant because they show how the election was playing to expectations, and not so unexpected as to give rise to suspicion over the results.

After Nov. 7, when networks called the race for Biden, Stirewalt said, Trumps chances of winning were none, barring something totally unexpected from happening. He said that Trump was better off to play the Powerball than betting he would win the election.

Fox News call of Arizona immediately came under fire from Trump and his allies, who encouraged viewers to instead tune into Newsmax and One America News Network, which were more aggressive in giving a platform to claims that the election was rigged or stolen. In the weeks following the election, Newsmax got a boost in viewership as Fox News dropped off.

Other Fox News personalities, like Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro and Lou Dobbs, gave a platform to those claims as well. The committee played a clip of Trumps appearance on Bartiromos Sunday morning show in late November, 2020, in which he again made claims about the results, and Rudy Giulianis guest spot on Hannity.

The network is facing defamation lawsuits from two elections systems companies, Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems, over claims that personalities and guests made on the air that the firms were involved in rigging the results. Fox News has defended itself by citing the First Amendment public interest in Trumps election claims.

In January, Stirewalt was let go by Fox News. He has said that he was fired, and departed around the same time as Bill Sammon, who retired. Sammon, who was Stirewalts boss, also was involved in the call of Arizona for Biden, and insisted that all of those on the Decision Desk be in unanimous agreement to do so. Stirewalt did not testify about the circumstances of his exit.

Stirewalt said that they knew it would be significant calling the state, but we already knew Trumps chances were very small and getting smaller based on the data they saw.

In video testimony that was played, members of Trumps campaign testified that Fox News call of Arizona was a key moment at the White House. Jason Miller told the committee that the reaction was anger and disappointment because it was Fox News, with many supporters of the president among its personalities, making the call.

We were pleased, but not surprised, Stirewalt said of the Arizona call.

Stirewalt also explained the red mirage. Because Trump attacked mail-in voting, many of the ballots for his reelection were cast on Election Day. In a number of states, those returns were counted first, giving the early impression that Trump was doing well. But so much of the mail-in votes, favoring Biden, had yet to be counted.

Stirewalt said that they went to great pains to warn viewers of the red mirage.

Everyone understood for weeks that was what was going to happen on election night, he said.

Yet Trump, apparently emboldened by an apparently inebriated Rudy Giuliani, in the words of Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), went ahead and declared victory on election night, despite advice from his official campaign advisers, including from senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, that all votes had not been counted and he should hold off on saying that he won the election. Trump, though, said that he had confidence in Rudy.

That quickly led to speculation among the press corps outside the Cannon Caucus Room on what happened, but Politico and other news outlets reported that his wife had gone into labor. Instead, Stepiens attorney will read a statement.

Another marquee name on the agenda is Chris Stirewalt, the former Fox News political editor who was let go after the January 6th attack. Although he has not said what he will testify about, the committee is focused on the origins of Trumps false claims about the 2020 election, including how conspiracy theories spread in traditional and social media.

The broadcast networks are carrying the proceedings live, as they did on Thursday, as are the major cable news networks. That includes Fox News, a change from last week then it chose to skip the hearing last week in favor of its primetime opinion hosts, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, who continued to blast the event as a partisan exercise.

Last weeks hearing drew about 20 million viewers, according to Nielsen, a healthy number for summer viewing although not at the blockbuster level. But the hearing got extensive coverage afterward, as clips were shared across social media.

Stirewalt was dropped from Fox News after the January 6th attack on the Capitol, in what the network said was a restructuring. But Stirewalt later wrote that he was fired from the networkafter defending the Fox News decision deskscall of Arizona for Joe Bidenon Election Night, the first major signal that Trump would lose his bid for re-election. Thattriggered a backlash against the networkby Trump and his supporters.

Stirewalt is now political editor for NewsNation.

A number of House members were in the gallery to watch Mondays proceedings, including Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) and Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC). The hearing is being held in the stately Cannon Caucus Room, with the room, lined with Corinthian pilasters, brightened by TV lights installed in the decorative molded ceiling.

See the article here:
January 6th Committee Hearing: Attorney General William Barr Says That Donald Trump Was Detached From Reality As He Advanced False Election Claims -...

Oklahoma women should move to Illinois

Presently, the state of Oklahoma suggests the most draconian laws against women in the country. Women, if youre interested in living in a community that respects your dignity and privacy, I welcome you to consider relocating to my great state of Illinois.

Jonny Petrocelli, Markham, Il

Many politicians seem to base their opinions on which way the wind is blowing, not on the wishes of their constituents.

When the Supreme Court decision on abortion was leaked to the press a few weeks ago, our Oklahoma governor and legislators rushed to enact one of the most stringent laws against women and abortion. Although nationwide polls disagreed, some Oklahomapoliticians said it was an essential piece of legislation.They said, "Every life is important and should be saved."

They must have changed their minds after schoolchildren were gunned down in Texas. They admitted it was horrible and sent their prayers, but unfortunately, the NRA stepped in and scared them back into their holes.They now stand up for the Second Amendment and claim everyone has the right to access a military gun that killed these innocent children.Guns have priority over lives that could be saved with good sense restrictions.

Maybe our politicians should listen more and reread the Second Amendment, written when muskets were the guns used.We do not have a militia, but we do have police and sheriff's departments to handle wrongdoing. They do not round up a civilian posse when bad events happen.Therefore, should civilians be able to access military type weapons or packages that could turn a rifle into a repeater gun?Being able to shoot a room of people is not as the Second Amendment states, "being necessary to the security of a free State."

Will politicians ever listen? Will they really care as long as the NRA and pours money into their campaigns?

Nadine Jewell, Oklahoma City

I am heartbroken over the evil that has overcome Uvalde, Texas. And I, as an Oklahoman, am outraged that our system has continued to fail us. Over the last 20 years, weve taught kids to hide, protectand wait for help. More must be done.

Gun-free zones are dangerous, and it is time to protect schools like we protect airports, hospitals, courthousesand banks, and we must stop threats with equal or greater force. I support the Second Amendment and believe that education is the key to gun safety, not legislation. I must be my own first responder to protect myself, my familyand my community, which is why I carry a firearm.

The evil in Uvalde was not caused by a gun, it was caused by a broken system that continues to push paper, policies, and legislation versus solving the root issue. We must heal the pain in our communities, strengthen families, and improve economic opportunities. Most importantly, it is TIME to fund meaningful programs that address mental health, safety, and firearm awareness and training.

Patricia Wisehart, state director, DC Project

News today seems to be either highlighting actions of fear, death and hate and just plain old incompetence.My question is why is it, and what is the real cause?

Is it possible that when we react to the actions and the rhetoric, we stop our thinking process of determining, what deep down, might be the real cause?

If at this time, we really start being inquisitive, we will win.If we stay involved in the symptoms of what is happening in our world, we moan and groan, we cry, and we continue to lose.

So now what?We start digging for answers.This will lead you to determining truth, listening then going and verifying, When we stop believing everything we hear, start being skeptical of so-called leaders.

We will see that the conversations approving of fear, hate and violence are not acceptable, and the ones based on kindness, respect and love are ones we will turn to for information.But no matter what, be skeptical, but listen always kindly.

The incompetence in our political leadership can be addressed, but only with changes allowed in the First Amendment.The strong two-party system has failed Oklahomans, as well as other states. Already states and cities, such as Alaska and NYC, have changed to Rank Choice Voting with positive results.

Dont give up on hope;this mess is fixable, it really is.

Cecil Sterne,Cleveland

See more here:
Letters to the editor for June 12, 2022, edition of The Oklahoman - Oklahoman.com

In America, we once thought of political courage as being willing to do something at ones own expense.

At the pointy end of that consideration are instances when people risk their lives or freedom to do the right thing. The men and women rotting in Vladimir Putins jails or dead by his order are proof that history will never exhaust its demand for political courage.

Here, thankfully, we have in recent decades mostly thought of political courage in terms of electoral risks: Gerald Ford taking the hit for pardoning Richard Nixon to bring the Watergate fiasco to a close, Barack Obama refusing the demands of Democrats to prosecute members of the Bush administration, or any politician who crosses the aisle to vote for a measure unpopular with his or her own party for the sake of an idea or policy they believe in.

Thats why we revere courageous leadership. A politician who will sacrifice his or her ambition or grasp on power in order to serve the people is a rarity, and also essential. We name states and cities for them and build monuments to their service. Had George Washington or Abraham Lincoln wanted to be despots, they could have been. Instead, they preserved government of, for, and by the people. In Lincolns case, even unto death.

I dont know if the share of politicians capable of actual courage really is lower today than when I first started covering them full-time two dozen years ago. Some of what I see as declining character in our leaders may be a byproduct of nostalgia, but holy croakano, people

We surely are living in a political age of desperate, shallow ambition and the cowardice it inevitably produces. No longer is it sufficient to help yourself; you must also hurt the other side.

Which brings us to the investigation into then-President Donald Trumps effort to steal a second term, the efforts of some Republicans in Congress to vandalize the Constitution to help him, and the sacking of the Capitol by a mob summoned to serve the ambitions of the coup plotters. Forget Lincoln and Washington. This was behavior unworthy of Nixon, who refused to contest some clearly dubious results after the 1960 presidential election and, when president himself, resigned the office rather than subject the country to a protracted impeachment fight.

What Trump and his gang did in the 2020 election and its aftermath is a big historical moment for our country, far bigger than the Watergate scandal we still discuss 50 years later. The coup effort and Capitol attack will long endure in the story of this century, along with the 9/11 attacks and subsequent wars, the panic of 2008 and the ensuing recession, and the coronavirus pandemic during which the 2020 election took place. Trump was the first president ever to pose a credible threat to the peaceful transfer of presidential power that has been our inheritance for 226 years.

Acts of such monstrous self interest and the craven lust for power evinced by the behavior of many in the Republican Party demanded a response of real statesmanship and courage; first from Republicans who had not succumbed to the scheme and then from Democrats. But as you know, both parties failed that test.

What should have happened was that, acting in mutual defense of the legislative branch and the constitutional order, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should have put an impeachment and trial on the fast track. A single, short article against Trump for trying to disrupt the transfer of power, including by sending an angry mob to the Capitol, would have been very hard to vote against for Republicans who hadnt been part of the power grab. If such an article had been passed by the House that week, I believe Trump would have been convicted and removed from office by the Senate.

Instead, Pelosi put three cable news stalwarts and sharp-elbowed partisans in charge of drafting the articles: Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, David Cicilline, of Rhode Island, and Ted Lieu, of California. What the House voted on a week after the attack was not designed to make it easy for Republicans to get to yea.

McConnell seemed content to let Democrats do it on their own. According to a book from two New York Times reporters, six days after the attack, McConnell told aides If this isn't impeachable, I don't know what is," but that Democrats are going to take care of the son of a bitch for us. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, though, made McConnell look like captain courageous. After saying in private in the aftermath of the attack that he would tell Trump to resign, McCarthy had shifted by Jan. 11 to saying he believed Trump was sorry for what he had done, to, by the end of the month, going to Mar-a-Lago to ask Trumps blessing and cheese for photos. Having voted with the coup plotters against election certification, McCarthy probably rightly determined his lot was already cast.

Once the impeachment doomed by partisan self-interest was out of the way, the question was how Congress should investigate what happened. The first and most logical answer was for leaders of the two parties in both houses to pick an outside commission with subpoena powers, as Congress did after the 9/11 attacks. It made sense because it took the responsibility out of the hands of people running for re-election. But in May of 2021, Senate Republicans blocked the creation of such a commission, citing expressly partisan reasons for doing so.

In reply, Pelosi formed a select committee to investigate the attempted coup and riot. Senate Republicans and others in the GOP assumed that House Republicans would use their minority seats on the panel to defend Trump, leak information beneficial to Republicans, and push the schedule (and narrative) in ways helpful to their own team. But McCarthy fumbled.

Two of the five members McCarthy picked for the committee had been part of the effort to steal the election. Pelosi said she wouldnt seat them, but that she would let the other three serve, and asked for McCarthy to pick two replacements. Instead, McCarthy pulled out completely in an attempt to block the committee. It was a botch. Pelosi named two cooperative Republicans, Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, and plowed on without any interference from McCarthy.

Almost a year later, after lots of leaks and speculation, the committee was finally ready to start its main hearings. Rather than adopting a somber, non-partisan tone, Democrats like Raskin and the head of the partys House campaign arm were out in advance boasting about how the hearings would hurt Republicans in Novembers midterm elections and blow the roof off the House. Like with Trumps second impeachment, a laudable goal was being mired in negative partisanship. At a time when Congress needed desperately to show that there were principles beyond partisan ambition, it sent the opposite message.

But the hearings that we saw last week were not that. They were sober and dignified and seemed mostly to resist gratuitous partisanship. And I hope they stay that way, because Im the next entre on the menu.

By the time you read this I may already have finished testifying, and my part is a small one, but Im not going to write here about what I have to say. Im still not entirely sure what I will say or what may happen, and dont want to close any doors or create any expectations. I had a pretty good perch for the 2020 election and was part of the best decision desk in the news business on election night. Im still so proud of the work we didwe beat the competition and stuck the landing. All I can do is tell the truth about my work and hope for the best.

But I do want to tell you why I agreed to testify before this committee, despite the straitened circumstances of its creation and the mistakes that were made along the way: because it is a duly empaneled committee of the United States Congress, and its chairman asked me to come forward and answer questions. I have no First Amendment grounds on which to refuse since I am not being asked to reveal a source or something like that. If I was in that spot, I would dig in my heels and fight until they either locked me up or let me go. But I have no such grounds.

I spend a lot of time talking about the need for stronger institutions and how Congress must reclaim its status as the first among equal branches. How could I then resist when Congress made a request of me that falls well within its powers? I would rather not have to face the same anger I did after we called Arizona for Joe Biden in 2020. I have no interest in starring in the sequel to that one. But neither could I find an acceptable reason as a citizen to refuse, so I will go. It is not a courageous thing for me to do, only unavoidable.

As a journalist, I feel very uncomfortable even playing this small role in these events. The first rule for my vocation is to tell the truth as best as you can, and the second is to stay the hell out of the story. I will fail in the latter today, but aim for the former.

Members of Congress in both parties failed us after Jan. 6, 2021, and in nearly every case, it was because of a lack of political courage. Once, that meant being willing to hurt your own ambitions or those of your party to do what you thought was right. Now, we cant even find a sufficient number of women and men who will pass up an opportunity to hurt the other side to do the right thing. The new standard in Washington is that any action must be both helpful to ones own career and harmful to the hated opposition. We saw that all too clearly as Republicans repeatedly shirked their duty surrounding this bizarre episode, but just as clearly as Democrats egged them on. Keeping the republic will require real courage from our leaders, even when it means passing on the cheap shots.

See the rest here:
The January 6 Committee and Me - by Chris Stirewalt - The Dispatch