Thursday, April 25, 2024

To Be Historically Accurate, We Should Be Celebrating the Final Freeing of ALL Slaves in the United States on 6 December and NOT Juneteenth/19 June

 

The Washington Post recently ran this below article about Juneteenth becoming an Alabama State Holiday along with Jefferson Davis’ Birthday which is already a State holiday but only allowing state employees to have one day off so they have to choose which holiday they wish to celebrate.  The WaPo accurately describes the issue but fails to ask the underlying question: “Why is Juneteenth even a holiday?” Historically, 19 June or Juneteenth has no significance; see below after the WaPo extract for why.

 



NATIONAL

Juneteenth or Jefferson Davis? Ala. state workers may have to choose.

 

By Rachel Hatzipanagos  April 22, 2024 at 10:33 a.m. EDT

Alabama state Rep. Juandalynn Givan and other Black lawmakers have lobbied for years to have the state recognize the Juneteenth holiday.

“It’s an acknowledgment that history happened, and I think we need to do whatever we can to make sure our history is not lost,” Givan (D) said.

This year, lawmakers may have reached a compromise.

Under the bill H.B. 4, Juneteenth, celebrated on June 19, would become a state holiday. But state employees would be able to choose between recognizing Juneteenth or the birthday of the president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, on June 3 which is already a State holiday.

Complete WaPo article at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/04/22/juneteenth-jefferson-davis-holiday-alabama/?commentID=70807525-2fd5-42db-b196-f2a72ac6b8e9

The Insignificance of Juneteenth

Why is Juneteenth celebrated or 19 June a Federal Holiday when Slavery was not ended in all of the United States until the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on 6 December 1865? Hence, shouldn’t the Federal Holiday celebrating the end of Slavery be 6 December?

Ironically, two months before the end of the Civil War, on 8 February 1865, President Biden’s home state of Delaware voted to reject the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution and so voted to continue slavery beyond the Civil War. Hence, Slavery was still legal in Delaware (and Kentucky) until enough other states ratified the amendment thereby ended slavery in Delaware on 6 December 1865, almost six months after Juneteenth. In a symbolic move, Delaware belatedly ratified the amendment on 12 February 1901, 35 years after national ratification and 38 years after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation which, by the way, did NOT free Slaves in any Slave State that did not secede. Just to be consistent, Delaware also rejected the 14th Amendment during the Reconstruction Era.

Southern States in rebellion like Alabama and Texas were covered by the Emancipation Proclamation so Slaves there were freed on 1 January 1863. The Proclamation reads:

“That on the first day of January in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

Wednesday, April 24, 2024

Why EXPERT Legal Mind Jed Shugerman Believes New York Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Is Making an Historic Mistake Prosecuting Trump

OPINION

 

GUEST ESSAY

I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake.

April 23, 2024

By Jed Handelsman Shugerman a law professor at Boston University.

About a year ago, when Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, indicted former President Donald Trump, I was critical of the case and called it an embarrassment. I thought an array of legal problems would and should lead to long delays in federal courts.

After listening to Monday’s opening statement by prosecutors, I still think the Manhattan D.A. has made a historic mistake. Their vague allegation about “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud.

To recap: Mr. Trump is accused in the case of falsifying business records. Those are misdemeanor charges. To elevate it to a criminal case, Mr. Bragg and his team have pointed to potential violations of federal election law and state tax fraud. They also cite state election law, but state statutory definitions of “public office” seem to limit those statutes to state and local races.

Both the misdemeanor and felony charges require that the defendant made the false record with “intent to defraud.” A year ago, I wondered how entirely internal business records (the daily ledger, pay stubs and invoices) could be the basis of any fraud if they are not shared with anyone outside the business. I suggested that the real fraud was Mr. Trump’s filing an (allegedly) false report to the Federal Election Commission, and only federal prosecutors had jurisdiction over that filing.

A recent conversation with Jeffrey Cohen, a friend, Boston College law professor and former prosecutor, made me think that the case could turn out to be more legitimate than I had originally thought. The reason has to do with those allegedly falsified business records: Most of them were entered in early 2017, generally before Mr. Trump filed his Federal Election Commission report that summer. Mr. Trump may have foreseen an investigation into his campaign, leading to its financial records. Mr. Trump may have falsely recorded these internal records before the F.E.C. filing as consciously part of the same fraud: to create a consistent paper trail and to hide intent to violate federal election laws, or defraud the F.E.C.

In short: It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.

Looking at the case in this way might address concerns about state jurisdiction. In this scenario, Mr. Trump arguably intended to deceive state investigators, too. State investigators could find these inconsistencies and alert federal agencies. Prosecutors could argue that New York State agencies have an interest in detecting conspiracies to defraud federal entities; they might also have a plausible answer to significant questions about whether New York State has jurisdiction or whether this stretch of a state business filing law is pre-empted by federal law.

However, this explanation is a novel interpretation with many significant legal problems. And none of the Manhattan D.A.’s filings or today’s opening statement even hint at this approach.

Instead of a theory of defrauding state regulators, Mr. Bragg has adopted a weak theory of “election interference,” and Justice Juan Merchan described the case, in his summary of it during jury selection, as an allegation of falsifying business records “to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 election.”

As a reality check, it is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement. Hush money is unseemly, but it is legal. The election law scholar Richard Hasen rightly observed, “Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases.”

In Monday’s opening argument, the prosecutor Matthew Colangelo still evaded specifics about what was illegal about influencing an election, but then he claimed, “It was election fraud, pure and simple.” None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud. Calling it “election fraud” is a legal and strategic mistake, exaggerating the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the prosecutors cannot meet.

The most accurate description of this criminal case is a federal campaign finance filing violation. Without a federal violation (which the state election statute is tethered to), Mr. Bragg cannot upgrade the misdemeanor counts into felonies. Moreover, it is unclear how this case would even fulfill the misdemeanor requirement of “intent to defraud” without the federal crime.

In stretching jurisdiction and trying a federal crime in state court, the Manhattan D.A. is now pushing untested legal interpretations and applications. I see three red flags raising concerns about selective prosecution upon appeal.

First, I could find no previous case of any state prosecutor relying on the Federal Election Campaign Act either as a direct crime or a predicate crime. Whether state prosecutors have avoided doing so as a matter of law, norms or lack of expertise, this novel attempt is a sign of overreach.

Second, Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that the New York statute requires that the predicate (underlying) crime must also be a New York crime, not a crime in another jurisdiction. The Manhattan D.A. responded with judicial precedents only about other criminal statutes, not the statute in this case. In the end, they could not cite a single judicial interpretation of this particular statute supporting their use of the statute (a plea deal and a single jury instruction do not count).

Third, no New York precedent has allowed an interpretation of defrauding the general public. Legal experts have noted that such a broad “election interference” theory is unprecedented, and a conviction based on it may not survive a state appeal.

Mr. Trump’s legal team also undercut itself for its decisions in the past year: His lawyers essentially put all of their eggs in the meritless basket of seeking to move the trial to federal court, instead of seeking a federal injunction to stop the trial entirely. If they had raised the issues of selective or vindictive prosecution and a mix of jurisdictional, pre-emption and constitutional claims, they could have delayed the trial past Election Day, even if they lost at each federal stage.

Another reason a federal crime has wound up in state court is that President Biden’s Justice Department bent over backward not to reopen this valid case or appoint a special counsel. Mr. Trump has tried to blame Mr. Biden for this prosecution as the real “election interference.” The Biden administration’s extra restraint belies this allegation and deserves more credit.

Eight years after the alleged crime itself, it is reasonable to ask if this is more about Manhattan politics than New York law. This case should serve as a cautionary tale about broader prosecutorial abuses in America — and promote bipartisan reforms of our partisan prosecutorial system.

Nevertheless, prosecutors should have some latitude to develop their case during trial, and maybe they will be more careful and precise about the underlying crime, fraud and the jurisdictional questions. Mr. Trump has received sufficient notice of the charges, and he can raise his arguments on appeal. One important principle of “our Federalism,” in the Supreme Court’s terms, is abstention, that federal courts should generally allow state trials to proceed first and wait to hear challenges later.

This case is still an embarrassment of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selective prosecution. Nevertheless, each side should have its day in court. If convicted, Mr. Trump can fight many other days — and perhaps win — in appellate courts. But if Monday’s opening is a preview of exaggerated allegations, imprecise legal theories and persistently unaddressed problems, the prosecutors might not win a conviction at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/opinion/bragg-trump-trial.html

Why Are Ostensibly “Loyal” Americans Serving in Foreign Militaries While US Military Recruiting Woes Are a National Security Crisis and “Their own Country” Desperately Needs Them

I am 100% behind US material support for Israel and even having a US Carrier Battle Group blocking Iran and Syria from intervening but not for any US Military boots on the ground. What I don’t understand is why so many ostensibly loyal American citizens are serving in the IDF when their own country’s Military needs them so desperately to protect the homeland. 

From Fox News - 20 April 2024 Headline:

Navy expects to miss recruiting goal by more than 6,000 amid worldwide threats from China, Russia

The Navy is expected to fall short of its 40,600 recruitment goal by approximately 6700 individuals…. ADM Lisa Franchetti, chief of naval operations, told Congress last week that the U.S. requires an additional 18,000 sailors for operations at sea, while an additional 4,000 are needed for roles on land.… The U.S. Navy is as crucial as ever internationally as tensions continue to escalate in regions such as the Pacific Ocean and the Middle East.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/navy-expects-miss-recruiting-goal-more-6000-worldwide-threats-china-russia



WaPo 4 July 2023 Headline:

US Military’s Recruiting Woes Are a National-Security Crisis

America’s armed services are failing to meet their recruiting goals, with the Army in particular suffering the worst shortfalls in five decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/07/04/us-military-recruiting-crisis-is-a-national-security-emergency/858a8ff6-1a64-11ee-be41-a036f4b098ec_story.html

the Washington Post reported: “we can confirm the deaths of 23 American citizens — 21 who have served in the IDF, one who served in the Israeli National Police.”  Historically, about 1,200 Americans serve in the IDF at a given time but seems many more are serving now. 

The question is why would any loyal American serve in a foreign nation’s Military when their own country’s “Military’s Recruiting Woes Are a National-Security Crisis.”

The question for FOX News is why would they praise and glorify on air Daniella Symonds for serving in the IDF when she was born and raised on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and purports to be a loyal American yet can’t be bothered to serve in the Military of what is ostensibly her own Country and who desperately needs her services?

FOX News 19 Apr 2024

Daniella Symonds, who previously served in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), joined "Fox & Friends" 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/columbia-student-deeply-disturbed-anti-israel-protests-scared-americas-future-leaders

 

Monday, April 15, 2024

President “Geriatric Joe” Biden Once Again Lying But This Time It’s About Inflation

Here was President “Geriatric Joe” Biden’s response to a question on inflation during his joint press conference on 10 April 2024 with Prime Minister Kishida Fumio of Japan:

 But, look, we have dramatically reduced inflation from 9 percent down to close to 3 percent.  We’re in a situation where we’re better situated than we were when we took office where we — inflation was skyrocketing.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/04/10/remarks-by-president-biden-and-prime-minister-kishida-fumio-of-japan-in-joint-press-conference/ 

Either President “Geriatric” Joe Biden was having another one of his all too frequent “senior moments” or he was just outright lying. President Trump took office on 20 January 2017 when inflation was at 2.5% and over his 4 years in office annual inflation was 2017 2.1%; 2018 2.4%; 2019 1.8%; 2020 1.2%; and when he left office on 20 January 2021 he handed over to President Biden an inflation of 1.4% that month. So how did President Biden do? Here are his annual inflation numbers: 2021 4.7%; 2022 8.0%; 2023 4.1% and 1Q2024 3.3%. That is what Biden called: “better situated than we were when we took office where we — inflation was skyrocketing.” what a crock or as Biden would say: “a load of malarkey.” Progress in “Biden Speak” is after you have driven inflation up from 1.4% to 9.1% during your watch, any reduction is “progress.”

Trump never even had a single 3% or above month during his entire time in office and had months below 1% while except for his first two months while he was still benefiting from Trump’s economy, Biden never had a single month below 3% and 23 of his 39 months in office inflation was over 5%. He even had a month over 9% on Inflation.

I’m not surprised that this Biden gaffe was not mentioned in any of the Left-Leaning press including the Washington Post. There are “lies of omission” where a story is misleading because of what is left out and “lies of commission” where a story knowingly contains falsehoods Seems the WaPo is an expert in both types. Hence, their new tag line: Democracy Dies in Darkness and the WaPo is Turning Out the Lights.

Charts:

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/#google_vignette