Media Search:



Without subpoena push, Jan. 6 investigation is going nowhere fast – The Boston Globe

The days of country over party are a relic of the past

Do you remember when President Obama left a letter of congratulations and encouragement for the incoming president, Donald Trump? Do you remember when it was likely that Vice President Al Gore had won the 2000 presidential election but he nevertheless conceded to George W. Bush to avoid a constitutional crisis? Do you remember when Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton voluntarily testified before Congress for 11 grueling hours regarding the Benghazi investigation?

Kimberly Atkins Stohr is 100 percent correct in her Jan. 14 Opinion column, When it comes to subpoenas, Congress must use its power or lose it. The days of country over party and doing the right thing are a relic of the past, at least for now. A prime example is that former president Trump and his Republican colleagues have made it the norm to refuse to voluntarily appear before Congress and voluntarily produce documents.

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection issued a fresh set of subpoenas Tuesday, including for Trump aide Rudy Giuliani. Congress must use its subpoena powers and the courts to the full extent to enforce its constitutional authority to pursue this investigation or risk permanently losing this fundamental constitutional check and balance. Given the nations dangerous shift toward authoritarianism, this is a particularly important step right now.

Gil Hoy

Brookline

There has to be a penalty to hold over those who refuse to testify

Kimberly Atkins Stohr warns, quite prudently, that we can lose congressional subpoena power if we dont use it. But she omitted one fundamental from her otherwise compelling column: namely, that Congress seems to have forgotten the literal meaning of the Latin sub poena: under penalty. That is, an individual summoned to testify at a hearing must do so under penalty of noncompliance. Until Congress can distinguish proactively between the power of a subpoena and a voluntary appearance, the discovery process for investigations of this sort will continue to stagnate.

Ira Braus

Pembroke

Hillary Clinton set the example for showing up

I am disgusted by the Republican toadies of former president Donald Trump, including aides and members of Congress (most of them male) who are refusing to testify before Congress. Its interesting that, as Kimberly Atkins Stohr notes, Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, sat through nearly two years of political harassment by Republicans, and never once refused to testify. She has more mettle than all of these others.

Paul Miles-Matthias

Seekonk

House panel can issue an interim report while it keeps searching for truth

The article House panel unsure of pressuring Pence, GOP lawmakers (Page A4, Jan. 17) frames the question of issuing a subpoena to former vice president Mike Pence and others as a binary choice: Hold high-ranking officials accountable, or issue a prompt report. Its feasible to do both: Issue subpoenas and fight for them in court, while issuing an interim report while any legal challenges are being considered.

Further, while its not permitted in a criminal court to use an invocation of the Fifth Amendment as an indication of guilt, the House panel is not a court, and these potential witnesses havent asserted Fifth Amendment protection. Its therefore entirely appropriate to see a refusal to comply with a subpoena as exactly what it is: an attempt to continue the ongoing attacks on our democracy.

Peter Squires

Cambridge

Excerpt from:
Without subpoena push, Jan. 6 investigation is going nowhere fast - The Boston Globe

Who Is George Hofstetter, Who Created The ‘CopStop’ App As A Teenager? – Oxygen

In an attempt to prevent police brutality against people of color, one Black teenager created an app that is designed to hold police accountable.

Peacocks upcoming documentary Use of Force: the Policing of Black America features interviews with numerous individuals fighting against injustice and police brutality. George Hofstetter is one such person. He began working on his app to prevent police violence when he was just 15 years old.

At a TEDxSeattle appearance featured in the documentary, Hofstetter explains that when he attended the technology event Hackathon, the organizers posed the question: could an app have saved Trayvon Martin? Martin was 17 when he was shot and killed in 2011 by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer. Zimmerman was found not guilty in the death of Martin in 2013.

Hofstetter decided to act on the question asked at Hackathon. Now 21-years-old, and the CEO at his own tech company GHTech Inc,he created CopStop, an app that records video and stores it on a person's phone when they are in contact with the police. It also sends alerts by text and email, sharing the persons location with up to ten contacts.

[CopStop] was born out of the idea that we need to figure out how to alleviate this overwhelming sense of anxiety that Black folks get, and other folks of color get when theyre talking to an officer after he or she pulls you over, Hofstetter explains in Use of Force. Its ridiculous that you can feel like youre frozen, that these folks that youre supposed to call after anything happens, that you feel like theyre ready to kill you, so I had to figure out some step in the right direction to figure out a solution with it.

The app caught the attention of football player and activist Colin Kaepernick, who in turn asked Hofstetter to speak to 300 young people at a Know Your Rights Camp in 2018, Bay Area outlet Press Democrat reported in 2019. Hofstetter told that crowd there that his fear became my inspiration. Hofstetter has also worked with Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf, and Megan Smith, the ex-United States chief technology officer and assistant to President Obama on utilizing technology for racial equality, the Press Democrat reported.

Now a University Innovation Fellow at Stanford University, Hofstetter says on his website that his goal is to, truly change the diversity numbers in tech, to eliminate the digital divide, and elevate communities of color.

Use of Force: the Policing of Black America debuts on Friday.

Get all your true crime news from Oxygen. Coverage of the latest true crime stories and famous cases explained, as well as the best TV shows, movies and podcasts in the genre.Sign up forOxygen Insiderfor all the best true crime content.

See original here:
Who Is George Hofstetter, Who Created The 'CopStop' App As A Teenager? - Oxygen

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. visited Seattle and was not welcomed – NBC Right Now

Martin Luther King Jr. day is a federal holidayrepresenting the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his work he did across the nation, many know him as a representative for the civil rights but do we know the back story of when he visited Washington?

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, 'I have a dream' 1963.

King was born on January 15th 1929, graduated from college and became a pastor in Alabama.

From the beginning he believed that the 'separate but equal' laws in place were wrong and wanted to help bring awareness to the racial injustice towards African Americans.

Rosa Parks refusal to move to the back of the bus in 1955 was the first time Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was chosen to lead a city wide bus boycott.

2 years later a group of civil rights activists formed the southern christian leadership conference to have non-violent protests for civil rights.

In November 1961 Dr. King accepted an invitation from his friend Reverend Samuel B. Mckinney to visit Seattle for the first time and talk about his movement, but was not welcomed with open arms.

"I think Washington like a lot of places and at the time it was 1961, Seattle in 1961 is not Seattle in 2021" said Dr. Jamie Nolan,Associate Vice President, Community, Equity, and Inclusive Excellence.

The visitation proved to be extremely controversial and had to even switch venues from where he was originally going to talk.

"I think in some ways the colder welcome, the cold shoulder in some ways really demonstrated you know where, its sorta of like if it's in the abstract we can be comfortable like theres this really important movement and civil rights yes!" said Dr. Nolan. "Equity for all people and justice for all people but then when it's right in your backyard and you're having to really confront who you are might be it's being a little different."

Moving forward in 1963 Dr. King gave his famous 'I have a dream' speech in Washington D.C., standing as the main representative for the civil rights movement for everyone participating.

"He was and continues to be an icon of the civil rights movement ad represents I think the multiple layers of the movement" said Dr. Nolan. "I think he stood for all efforts towards justice, especially for the black community in the united states but in doing so it was about justice for all."

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed in 1968, but his message didn't die with him.

"The work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is ongoing, although he represented the civil rights movement in that era, he represents the ongoing war as well" said Dr. Nolan.

With the black lives matter movement starting in 2013 after the George Zimmerman shooting and theacquittal of Trevon Martins murder, the message from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. still reins today bringing justice, healing, freedom and equality to black people around the world.

"It's important we commemorate this day and this time" said. Dr. Nolan. "That we understand it in our current historical context and it's not just something we look back on but rather use the moment as a way to both consider yes, we've maybe come a distance and we have yet so far to go."

While the work of Dr. King still resonated with some today, the flight for equality for some groups is still an ongoing issue.

Read more:
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. visited Seattle and was not welcomed - NBC Right Now

Democrats voting rights push in Congress is over. The fight for democracy isnt. – Vox.com

If you listen to some leading liberal voices, the Senate defeat of the Freedom To Vote and John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Acts could sound the death knell of American democracy.

In a Wednesday speech held before the Senate votes, President Joe Biden warned of future stolen elections: the prospect of [an election] being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed. Mother Joness Ari Berman, a leading journalist on the democracy beat, argued that the Senate is killing the Democrats last, best chance to protect American democracy.

Biden and Berman are right that American democracy is heading toward some sort of crisis, and theres good reason to think these bills would have improved the long-term outlook. But the reality is that the bills Democrats sought to pass were hardly the last, best chance to act in democracys defense.

For all the good they would have done, the bills would only have had a limited effect on the biggest short-term threat to American democracy: election subversion, in which partisan political actors distort or outright disregard legitimate election results. The battle against these tactics was always going to take place in multiple arenas, most of which are outside of Washington.

Across the country, at the state and local level, Trump supporters are volunteering or running for local positions that would put them in charge of the mechanics of elections. According to an NPR analysis, at least 15 Republicans who doubt or deny the legitimacy of Bidens election victory are campaigning for state secretaries of state. For anyone concerned with American democracy, defeating these candidates should be a priority.

At the federal level, Republicans have signaled openness to reforming the Electoral Count Act (ECA) the obscure federal law that opened the door to then-Vice President Mike Pence potentially overturning the 2020 election at Trumps behest. The reform isnt perfect but its worth pursuing, especially since a bipartisan coalition in the Senate might be willing to consider it.

These fights contesting thousands of local elections and passing less ambitious but bipartisan reform legislation may not be as emotionally satisfying as landmark elections overhaul. They wont address voter suppression and gerrymandering, which still pose challenges for American democracy. But they do move the needle in ways that the doomsaying this week can obscure.

The Democrats two bills would have addressed some large and significant problems, most notably state laws to suppress the vote and extreme partisan gerrymandering. These state efforts tilt the playing field in the GOPs direction and create significant burdens on groups attempting to get voters from minority communities to the polls; there is a reason why leading experts on democracy widely supported the Democrats voting rights proposals.

And yet the impact of these bills failures might not be as significant as some fear, at least when it comes to the next election cycle.

Studies suggest that voter ID laws, for example, dont significantly depress minority turnout. It doesnt make such laws okay, of course they sap valuable activist resources and theres little doubt about their racist intent but its worth noting that the evidence suggests their effects on election outcomes is fairly limited. Partisan gerrymandering remains a problem, particularly at the state legislative level, but the current round of House redistricting is turning out far less tilted in the GOPs direction than Democrats had feared.

Republicans are certainly still working to erode Democrats access to the ballot box, in ways that really do threaten American democracy. But their work has not been quite as effective as some dire analyses assumed (including my own), giving reformers more time to come up with solutions before the system is past the point of no democratic return.

The story is different when it comes to election subversion. Anti-democratic forces are moving to seize control over the system more swiftly than even some of the most pessimistic analyses had feared.

Election subversion can happen in different ways at different points in the byzantine American electoral process. During the actual vote count, partisan local election officials could deem Democratic ballots illegitimate on specious grounds or invent Republican ones. If this fails, Republican state election officials could refuse to certify a Democratic victory. Even if a presidential election is certified, a GOP-controlled state legislature could send an alternative slate of electors to the Electoral College. And if Democrats are still winning, a GOP vice president or Congress could assert power to overturn the election on their own.

None of this is hypothetical: The Trump campaign and its allies tried every one of these tactics in 2020, and failed over and over again because public servants at key points in the system did their jobs. But the former presidents camp is working assiduously to improve their chances in 2024.

Across the country, Republican partisans motivated by Trumps lies are flooding precincts and contesting election administration positions. Georgias new election law, SB202, gives the Republican legislature power to seize partisan control over local election administration. The Republicans that held the line against Trumps attempt to decertify elections in 2020 like Michigan Board of State Canvassers member Aaron Van Langevelde are being sacked by their own party. Many Republican candidates for state secretary of state in 2022 have publicly advanced Trumps Big Lie; several have reportedly formed an informal coalition aimed at rewriting US election rules in their partys favor.

And all of this is backed by a Republican base that overwhelmingly believes Trumps lies about a stolen 2020 election and a propaganda network, ranging from Fox News to Steve Bannons War Room podcast, aimed at ensuring their minds are never changed.

The voting rights legislation would have helped address some of the concerns about voter suppression. The Freedom to Vote Act, in particular, included chain of custody provisions that make it harder to outright manipulate vote counts and safeguards against state governments from removing election officials from their positions absent good cause.

But even if these provisions worked as intended a big if given GOP control over federal courts they dont go far enough. They do not prevent Republicans from refusing to certify election results, sending an alternate slate of electors to Washington, or otherwise seeking to overturn the results in January.

If you look at 2020, we came much closer to a successful subversion of the election results than a lot of people understand, Rick Hasen, an election law expert at University of California Irvine, told my colleague Fabiola Cineas. The bills that failed in the Senate would not have done much on the issue of election subversion.

If the 2024 election is close, American democracy is heading toward a potential crisis.

But lets not mistake that dismal assessment as the epitaph for democracy.

In their book Dictators and Democrats, political scientists Stephan Haggard and Robert Kaufman analyze what causes countries to transition from democracy to autocracy and vice versa. One of their core findings is that, when a democracy is tottering, laws provide less of a bulwark on their own than most people think. Rules need people to help enforce them; when it comes to democracy, one of the laws best guarantors are the citizens themselves.

The key to nearly every effective subversion strategy is control over institutions: when Trumpists are in positions of power, they get to set the rules of the game. If Democrats, non-partisan actors, or principled Republicans hold key jobs, as they did in 2020, the Trumpists cant break the system.

So in 2022, many of the biggest fights for democracy are hyper-local: races for county executive, judgeships, election administration positions, and statehouses. If pro-democracy candidates can win these races in large numbers, they will collectively pose a significant barrier to an election subversion campaign in 2024.

There is a nascent infrastructure for competing in such races. Run For Something, a liberal group that encourages young candidates to run for state and local office, has launched a multi-million dollar effort to contest positions that relate to local election work a direct effort to fight back against election subversion. Amanda Litman, the groups founder and executive director, told me that she is hoping to field candidates in roughly 2,000 such races in 2022 alone.

But they need more people to run in these races. And Run For Something candidates, in turn, need volunteers and donors who can power their races against anti-democracy, pro-Trump candidates.

This is the kind of effort liberals need to look toward today. Paradoxically, the failure of voting rights bills in Congress could give this cause a boost by directing activist energy away from Washington.

Democrats and liberals in general look to and make demands of the White House and DC when they have officials in power there, says Theda Skocpol, a Harvard political scientist who studies political movements. That is actually a weakness, because the focus needs to remain bottom up.

But Washington cant be ignored entirely. Some election subversion problems most notably, a repeat of Trump and congressional allies effort to overturn the election on January 6, 2021 can only be solved at the federal level.

Some of the most important vulnerabilities can be addressed by reforming the Electoral Count Act, a confusingly worded law from 1887 that currently governs the final stages of presidential elections. The law sets the procedures by which Congress certifies the results of the Electoral College tally, allowing simple majorities in both houses to reject the electors if they so choose. It also does not clarify the vice presidents constitutionally mandated role in supervising the certification process, opening the door to Trumps effort to pressure Mike Pence to reject the election results.

The congressional count creates an obvious point of vulnerability in a presidential election: a malign party that controls both houses could, in theory, overturn the results of a legitimate election. But at the same time, it is also a bulwark against some state-level election subversion a statehouse deciding to appoint its own competing slate of electors to the Electoral College. The Electoral Count Act would allow Congress to reject the statehouse-appointed electors and replace them with ones who actually reflect the will of the voters.

Reforming the Electoral Count Act thus means striking a balance between blocking undemocratic action at the federal level while preserving a bulwark against it at the state level. But legislators can craft a reform that addresses these nuances. The Washington Posts Greg Sargent reports that Sen. Angus King (I-ME) has a draft of an Electoral Count Act reform bill that would address these concerns by clearly prohibiting vice presidents from going rogue, requiring a supermajority to reject electors in Congress, and creating a judicial review mechanism that could block state legislatures from sending their own electors to Washington.

Something like Kings bill has a chance. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have signaled openness to fixing the Electoral Count Act; a bipartisan group of about 12 senators is currently meeting to discuss a potential bill. Its at least worth seeing if this yields something real.

Neither of these courses of action, contesting local and state elections and reforming the Electoral Count Act, are as satisfying as passing a landmark bill. Nor do they address the threats to democracy posed by voter suppression and gerrymandering. For Democrats, its less hitting a home run than a series of singles.

Ballgames can still be won with bloops and base hits. And Americans who care about their democracy still have agency; there are things they can do that really matter.

The future looks grim for American democracy. But liberals shouldnt allow realistic pessimism to shade into resignation or despair. Democrats in Washington may have squandered an opportunity to safeguard future elections, but many of the key battles to protect our democracy have yet to be fought.

Read the rest here:
Democrats voting rights push in Congress is over. The fight for democracy isnt. - Vox.com

Democracy Is Ours to Demand | Opinion – Newsweek

The ongoing war on voting rights isn't new or even particularly originalit neatly follows the blueprint that's been wielded ever since emancipation. A poll tax is a poll tax, whether it's levied in the form of a $1 fee, or an eight-hour wait in a voting line. In fact, even accounting for inflation, at a full day's wages we're charging more than ever for the ballot.

The attendant violence isn't new, either. I've seen white police officers beating marchers demanding the vote as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala. I saw rocks thrown at children integrating schools. Closer to home, my childhood eyes saw cops viciously beat a neighbor while arresting him for outstanding parking tickets. I heard his cries, saw his head bleeding and saw their red faces twisted in rage. It was Derek Chauvin's white rage: casual murder, delivering 9 minutes and 29 seconds of torturesimply because he could.

All of it, the laws, and the lynching, don't just disenfranchise voters and cast a specter of terror, they fundamentally degrade our government. As states continue to shutter polling places, gerrymander districts and pass laws with no purpose other than to disenfranchise citizens, faith in government teeters on the brink. On the far-right, elected representatives are openly musing about civil war, and a recent study found that only 20 percent of Americans are very confident about the integrity of our elections. To be frankly, count me in that fearful 80 percent.

Democracy depends on people's belief in its legitimacy. If that trust is shattered, we will tumble further into a vicious cycle of violenceas people reject the validity of governance and force becomes the only way to induce compliance to our social contract.

But if our nation's history provided the roadmap for stealing folks' ability to vote, it also offers a prescription for how we can restore that sacred right. My great-uncle George Jordan lived on Sunflower Street in Ruleville, Miss. around the corner from Fannie Lou Hamer. An ordinary man, raising a family and working a couple of jobs to pay his mortgage, he walked with her up and down dirt roads and into town to register people to vote. And he kept at it even when he was threatened with violence; even when the bank threatened to take his house. He knew that he was a child of God, he knew his neighbors were, too. He saw injustice and saw the vote as the way to claim his humanity.

One of the most basic lies people tell about the civil rights movement is the pretense it was primarily driven by soaring rhetoric from folks like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The truth is the power came from the legions of people standing behind him who demanded this country make good on its promise of democracy.

When Dr. King spoke on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on May 17, 1957, and condemned how, "all types of conniving methods are still being used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters," it was the crowd around him that lent those words strength. When he proclaimed, "The denial of this sacred right is a tragic betrayal," it was the anguished howl of people whose freedom was withheld that forced the government to listen. When he demanded, "Give us the ballot, and we will no longer plead to the federal government for passage of an anti-lynching law; we will by the power of our vote write the law on the statute books of the South and bring an end to the dastardly acts of the hooded perpetrators of violence," it was the courage of ordinary people that transformed oratory into legislation.

You and I might not feel we have the justice-warrior skills of Martin Luther King, Bayard Rustin, John Lewis, Ella Baker or Fannie Lou Hamer. But here is the thing: They were ordinary folkslike us, like my great-uncle Georgewho saw wrong and sought to right it. You are the only person standing exactly where you stand, seeing precisely what you see, from your vantage point, through the lens of your story. And you have the power to make the government listen. We are the midwives to help our democracy give birth to its better self.

We must meet the hatred that would erode our rights with fierce love. That means love in the form of looking at folks with whom we have enmity and seeing that their thriving and surviving is connected to ours. Love in the form of a mission to cut through the noise of toxic politics and legislate policies that serve all our children well. Love in the form of putting our own bodies in the street to demand a just societythat refuses to let political saboteurs steal the votes people died to win. The only way we can restore faith in our democracy is to ensure every person shapes the way they're governed. To change the narrative, we must demand Congress pass the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. We are the ones we've been waiting forauthors of a new American story.

The Rev. Dr. Jacqui Lewis is the first female or Black senior minister at the historic Collegiate Churches of New York City, an Auburn Senior Fellow and the author of Fierce Love: A Bold Path to Ferocious Courage and Rule-Breaking Kindness That Can Heal the World (Penguin Random House 2021).

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Read more here:
Democracy Is Ours to Demand | Opinion - Newsweek