header 1
header 2
header 3

Message Forum - GENERAL

Welcome to the Bethesda Chevy Chase High School Message Forum.

The message forum is an ongoing dialogue between classmates. There are no items, topics, subtopics, etc.

Forums work when people participate - so don't be bashful! Click the "Post Message" button to add your entry to the forum.


 
go to bottom 
  Post Message
  
    Prior Page
 Page  
Next Page      

06/14/23 05:19 AM #16585    

 

Joan Ruggles (Young)

Yes, it's correct that we should all wait for a trial and conviction. It's a shame the same courtesy was not offered to Hillary Clinton as cries of "Lock Her Up!" were ringing at every Trump rally despite FBI director James Comey saying that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against her. I imagine Mr. Smeby's blood must really be boiling after he read in the indictment that Trump retained and bragged of among the documents in his possession were military documents concerning "nuclear weaponry of the United States", "military contingency planning of the United States", "military capabilities of a foreign country and the United Staes".  Yeah, my blood would boil too. But maybe it was all a silly misunderstanding. We will wait to hear further information.


06/14/23 11:38 AM #16586    

 

Jack Mallory

A very clear and concise articulation of why Trump's prosecution is justified.

 


June 14, 2023 Updated 7:50 a.m. ET


Two weeks ago, a federal judge sentenced Robert Birchum, a former Air Force lieutenant colonel, to three years in jail for removing hundreds of secret documents from their authorized locations and storing them in his home and officer’s quarters.

In April, a judge sentenced Jeremy Brown, a former member of U.S. Special Forces, to more than seven years in prison partly for taking a classified report home with him after he retired. The report contained sensitive intelligence, including about an informant in another country.

In 2018, Nghia Hoang Pho received a five-and-a-half-year sentence for storing National Security Agency documents at his home. Prosecutors emphasized that Pho was aware he was not supposed to have taken the documents.

These three recent cases are among dozens in which the Justice Department has charged people with removing classified information from its proper place and trying to conceal their actions. That list includes several former high-ranking officials, like David Petraeus and John Deutch, who each ran the C.I.A.

 Now, of course, the list also includes Donald Trump, who was arraigned in a Miami federal courthouse yesterday and pleaded not guilty to 37 charges.

Are federal prosecutors singling out Trump because of his signature role in American politics? Or are they basing their decision to indict him solely on the facts of the case?

Sean Trende, a political analyst with RealClearPolitics, has offered a helpful way to understand these questions — and specifically when a former president should, and should not, be charged with a crime.

Start by thinking about all the other people who had engaged in behavior similar to that for which the ex-president was charged with a crime. If just some of those other people were charged, the ex-president should not be, Trende wrote. Prosecutors have a large amount of discretion about which cases to bring, and they should err on the side of not indicting a former president because of the political turmoil it is likely to cause, he argued.

But if the ex-president did something that would have caused anybody else to be charged with a crime, he should be, too. “The president shouldn’t be above the law,” Trende explained.

There is ample reason to believe that the document case against Trump falls into the second category: Had any other American done what he is accused of doing, that person would almost certainly be prosecuted. “The real injustice,” the editors of The Economist magazine wrote yesterday, “would have been not to indict him.”

Consider: Prosecutors have accused Trump of removing classified documents from government property and bringing them home with him. Those documents contained sensitive information, such as military plans and intelligence about foreign militaries. Trump made clear to others that he knew he should not have the documents and took steps to mislead investigators about them, prosecutors claim.

It’s true — as Trump’s defenders repeatedly point out — that other government officials, including President Biden, Mike Pence and Hillary Clinton, have also mishandled classified information without having been charged with crimes. But those cases were very different from Trump’s. The transgressions seemed to be accidental. The officials returned the documents when asked. They did not try to mislead federal investigators.

Trump’s alleged actions instead resemble those of the obscure officials I mentioned at the top of today’s newsletter. His behavior also seems to have been much more brazen than that of Deutch and Petraeus.

This pattern helps explain why legal experts have been much more supportive of the Justice Department’s indictment of Trump than of the case in New York charging Trump with violating campaign-finance law. The New York case has made some experts uncomfortable because it lacked a clear precedent. It does not seem to pass Trende’s standard for when a former president should be charged with a crime. There are no good analogies.

The New York case relies on a novel combination of statutes to charge Trump with a felony for hiding payments he made to conceal a sexual encounter. Perhaps the most similar case — the trial of John Edwards, a former Democratic presidential candidate, also on charges of concealing payments connected to an affair — ended with an acquittal on one charge and a hung jury on five others.

By contrast, the list of analogies to the document charges against Trump just keeps growing. Next week, Kendra Kingsbury, a former F.B.I. analyst, is scheduled to be sentenced to federal prison. She has pleaded guilty to having brought hundreds of classified documents to her home in Dodge City, Kan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/14/briefing/trump-arraignment-documents-case.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare


06/15/23 01:11 PM #16587    

 

Jack Mallory

Helped this little snapper to cross the highway this morning. Just think, been this cute, unchanged, through 90 million years of evolution. Come on, Southern Baptists, you can do it!


06/16/23 10:47 AM #16588    

 

Jay Shackford

 

Where’s Melania and the Kids?

 

To paraphrase the late, great Mark Twain, “The difference between a good guy and bad guy is like the ‘difference between a lighting bug and lightening.’” 

 

Regardless of your political affiliations, you have to admit that anyone who steals nuclear and military secrets as well as other classified documents, lies that he has them in his possession,  refuses to give them back to the government when asked politely and then defies a court order to return them could easily be classified as a “bad guy.”

 

But even more telling than Donald Trump’s reckless and self-destructive behavior is the fact that nobody showed up for his arraignments in Florida and New York — not Melania, not Ivanka, not Don Jr., and not Eric. If my dad faced similar or even lesser charges, you could have bet your bottom dollar that the entire Shackford family would be sitting right behind him in court showing their support.  

 

Now Jared had an excuse — he was counting how much of the $2 billion the Saudis gave him to manage their wealth management fund that he had lost in the stock market — a deal that Jared cut with the Saudis in the final days of the Trump administration. (Jared actually flew back to Washington from Saudi Arabia on January 6 while the insurrection was underway at the Capitol.)  Now, if we want to investigate graft, let’s dig deeper into that deal that makes the recently announced PGA and the bone-saw, Saudi-funded LIV tour merger look like small potatoes. 

 

A couple of other notes.  Read “The Right Call” by Sally Jenkins, who has been a sports writer for the Washington Post and Sports Illustrated as well as a commentator for ESPN for decades.  Her father, the late Dan Jenkins, was a Hall of Fame sports writer for Sports Illustrated and Golf Digest and that I had the good fortune of meeting and talking to during an NHL playoff game in Pittsburgh in 1972.  Sally examines what makes for greatness among the biggest stars in sports.  She once asked Seth Curry — the NBA Golden Star basketball genius who holds all the records for shooting three pointers — if she could touch his hands imagining that they would creamy soft like the touch on his shots.  To her surprise, his hands were as rough as sandpaper.  That’s what happens when you shoot 3,000 three pointers in practice during a typical NBA week.  

 

All of the principles of greatness — conditioning the body and mind, practice routines,  discipline, candor and honesty, looking outside the box for the right personal coaches and trainers, developing the right culture and environment to succeed under pressure — can be applied to other professions — politics, business, law, education, cooking, etc.  She interviewed coaches, great athletes from a variety of sports, psychologists and others to figure out what sets some players heads and shoulders above others.  

 

Once you finish that book,  watch “The Bear” on HULU.  Great dialogue and great acting.  Second season starts later this month. Bests everyone.  

 

 

 


06/16/23 04:28 PM #16589    

 

Jack Mallory

One of the great Americans of our era has died. Few individuals accomplished more to reveal the lies and pointlessness of the Vietnam war. Another veteran against the war, I salute him. 

It's a long story so I'm not copying it for you, but it's worth reading. If you can't get through the NYT paywall, I've also included the link to the NPR story.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/16/us/daniel-ellsberg-dead.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/16/1162158609/daniel-ellsberg-obituary-pentagon-papers


06/17/23 01:55 PM #16590    

 

Jack Mallory

An excerpt from a longer article about Dan Ellsberg, written by his son.

"Long before you edited your father, you helped him photocopy the Pentagon Papers. What was that like, being a partner in crime with him? Scary? Disorienting? Exhilarating?

"It was none of the above. I didn’t fully comprehend the implications. It was something my father asked me to do, and I admired him so much, I would have done anything he asked. Later in his life, he explained his motivations for involving me: feeling that he would soon go to prison, possibly for the rest of his life, he wanted to leave me with the example that there could come a time when one might be compelled to make a sacrifice or take personal risks for the sake of a greater good. My father did not teach me to ride a bike or catch a baseball. But he wanted to pass along that lesson.

How did your involvement come about?

"In October 1969 my father took me out for lunch and told me about his plans to copy what became known as the Pentagon Papers. His intention was to make them available to Congress, and he had some hopes that this might help end the war, though it would involve the risk of prison. He had been sharing with me books and writings by Gandhi, Thoreau, Martin Luther King, and other teachers of nonviolence, so I understood what he was talking about it. He asked if I would help him. So that afternoon I spent the day at a Xerox machine copying Top Secret documents. I was thirteen.

"Two years later the Papers were published in the New York Times and other newspapers, and my father went underground while he completed the work of distributing the documents to various media. Then he was indicted – ultimately with twelve felony counts, and facing 115 years in prison. When I was fifteen I was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury."

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/peacemaking/a-fathers-legacy-to-his-son-and-his-country?fbclid=IwAR2jIkkwcjwHpdqlU2W_SeODBf-pPRIe0cjE3C2n2TG_9X-NKZKOK6nyYS0_aem_th_AWAZX0oCNcc-M_3dfBsNo83Wqq_4rRa2II0psl3FCLNRVFIczjPadruAdavzSXR3VKk


Dad didn't teach his kid how to throw a ball or ride a bike, but did teach him to operate a Xerox copier. While copying the Pentagon papers! Wish I could leave my boys with such a fine lesson!

***************

Junior has started his pre-flight training. Both feet in the air as he/she hops and flaps!


06/18/23 04:54 AM #16591    

 

Joan Ruggles (Young)

The talk from the right about the "weaponization" of the Attorney General's office by Biden, with no evidence of anything of the kind, is hilarious in light of the fact that Trump is promising to do that very thing if reelected. Biden has carefully and wisely not interfered with Merrick Garland or Jack Smith. Yet at Trump rallies, they now resort to cries of "Lock him up" for............exactly what?  Don't you think they're due for a new jingle writer?

Meanwhile, at these same rallies, Trump promised to appoint an ally who would prosecute his enemies. He and his advisors believe in a Department of Justice that is under the thumb of the president. So often Trump accuses his opponents of engaging in the very behavior he hopes to emulate, even if Biden is doing nothing of the kind. So in his mind, it's criminal when he imagines Biden doing it, but if he does it, it's patroitic. He vows to go after the "Biden crime family' when the Trump family is under the crosshairs of the Department of Justice. 

Like Jay, I too have been wondering about the scarcity of the other Trump family members lately. I know Ivanks basically washed her hands of the political operation since her involvement with the White House didn't turn out to boost her brand as much as she had hoped. The boys seem to be laying low also. And Melania? The last we heard from her was in the indictment when she announced that Trump couldn't haul all the (classified-document-filled) boxes that he wanted to Bedminster because she had lots of (designer-dress-filled?) luggage to transport. I guess now she's at the spa? Ladies lunches? Making kids "Be Best"? 

There was a rumor - and I hesitate to indulge in such random speculation - BUT it was said that after the NYC indictment, upon returning to Mar a Lago for a rally, Trump asked Melania to join him. She reportedly - and I'm saying this is just a rumor - she reportedly replied "Fuck you!"  Sorry Mr. Smeby, I'm just quoting here. 


06/18/23 11:17 AM #16592    

 

Janet Lowry (Deal)

As ever, Joan is swifter and more articulate than I am, but for years, in fact ever since he oozed down that elevator, I have thought that if anyone wants to know what the former guy is up to, just listen to what he's accusing others of.

06/19/23 02:41 PM #16593    

 

Jay Shackford

Last week former Attorney General Bill Barr was quoted, "If even half the charges in the indictment are true, Truump is toast."  Below is a follou up intervierw with Robert Costa yesterday on Face the Nation.  Also, Joan is correct -- Melania is throwing around a lot of F-bombs at Mar-a-Lago lately.  

 

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR: Thanks for inviting me, Bob.  

ROBERT COSTA: Former President Trump now says everyone except you says this indictment is about election interference and should not have been brought. He said you know the indictment is total B.S. That's his- that's our shorthand for what he actually said. He's also known for watching the Sunday shows, and he obviously saw your appearance on another network last Sunday. Why is he wrong about this? 

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, you know, this is- this is not a circumstance where he's the victim or that this is government overreach. He provoked this whole problem himself. Yes, he has been the victim of unfair witch hunts in the past. But that doesn't obviate the fact that he's also a fundamentally flawed person who engages in reckless conduct, and that leads to situations, calamitous situations like this, which are very destructive and hurt any political cause he's associated with. And this was a case, entirely of his own making. He had no right to those documents. The government tried for over a year, quietly and with respect, to get them back, which was essential that they do, and he jerked them around. And he had no legal basis for keeping them. But beyond that, when- when he faced his subpoena, he didn't raise any legal arguments. He engaged in a course of deceitful conduct, according to the- the indictment, that was a clear crime if those allegations are true, and were- was outrageous. What he did was he, according to the indictment, is he took the documents out of storage, led his lawyer to believe that he'd be conducting a full search of the boxes, and then cause his lawyer to file with the court something saying that he had completed a search.

ROBERT COSTA: How strong is the special counsel's case on obstruction specifically?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, it's very strong, because a lot of the evidence comes from his own lawyers. And furthermore, there's evidence of him saying things that are completely incompatible with any idea that this was an innocent document dispute. 

ROBERT COSTA: Do you believe he lied to the Justice Department? 

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Do I personally believe it? Yes, I do. 

ROBERT COSTA: And do you believe that- that he continues to claim that he has all these privileges and rights under the Presidential Records Act, is he mischaracterizing the act? 

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Absolutely. The legal theory by which he gets to take battle plans and sensitive national security information as his personal papers is absurd. It's just as wacky as the legal doctrine they came up with for having the vice president unilaterally determine who won the election. The whole purpose of the statute, the Presidential Records Act, is- was to stop presidents from taking official documents out of the White House. It was passed after Watergate. That's the whole purpose of it. And therefore it restricted what a president can take. It says it's purely private, that have nothing to do with the deliberations of government policy. Obviously, these documents are not purely private, it's obvious. And they're not even now arguing that it's purely private. What they're saying is the President just has sweeping discretion to say they are, even though they squarely don't fall within the definition. It's an absurd argument. 

ROBERT COSTA: Do you believe if he is convicted, he should serve his prison sentence? 

Well, I don't- we haven't even gotten to the point of whether he's been convicted and also what his sentence should be--

ROBERT COSTA: If it happens?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: You know, I don't like the idea of a former president serving time in prison.

ROBERT COSTA: Republicans remain critical of the Attorney General who spoke out this week as well as Director Wray at the FBI, they've rallied the Trump side. Are they wrong to say that this Justice Department is acting in a political way? 

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, if they're pointing to this case, I think they're wrong. I think the Department had no choice but to seek those documents. Their basic argument really isn't to defend his conduct, because Trump's conduct is indefensible. What they're really saying is, he should get a pass because Hillary Clinton got a pass six or seven years ago. Now, I think, you know, that's not a frivolous argument. But I- I'm not sure that's true. I think if you want to restore the rule of law and equal justice, you don't do it by further derogating from justice. You do it by applying the right standard here. And that's not unfair to Trump, because this is not a case where Trump is innocent and being unfairly hounded. He committed the crime, or if he did commit the crime, it's not unfair to hold them to that standard. 

ROBERT COSTA: You say Trump's alleged conduct is indefensible. So many Republicans continued to defend him. What will it say if the party, your longtime party, puts him forward as their nominee? 

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, that's the problem. I don't think they're actually defending his conduct, but they are saying it's unfair to prosecute him. But that then raises another question. Okay, if it's unfair to prosecute, and that's not the whole answer. The question is, should we be putting someone like this forward as the leader of the country, leader of the free world, who is engaged in this kind of conduct? The other thing is, this is not just an isolated example. Trump has, you know, has many good qualities, and he accomplished some good things. But the fact of the matter is, he is a consummate narcissist. And he constantly engages in reckless conduct that- that puts his political followers at risk and- and- and the conservative and Republican agenda at risk-- 

ROBERT COSTA: Would he put the country at risk if he was in the White House again?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: He- he will always put his own interests, and gratifying his own ego, ahead of everything else, including the country's interest, there's no question about it. This is a perfect example of that. He's like, you know, he's like a nine year old, defiant nine year old kid who's always pushing the glass toward the edge of the table, defying his parents to stop him from doing it. It's a means of self assertion and exerting his dominance over other people. And he's a very petty individual who will always put his interests ahead of the country's, his personal gratification of his, you know, his ego, but our country- our country can't, you know, can't be a therapy session for you know, a troubled man like this. 

ROBERT COSTA: This is not the only special counsel investigation, an ongoing one on January 6th, so many witnesses being called in, you were the star witness for the House January 6th. Committee. Are you willing to testify? Or have you already testified before the special counsel? 

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, if they, you know, if they call me in as a witness, of course, I would- would testify, but all I said was what I said, you know, what I recounted in my book about this full story about a stolen election. 

ROBERT COSTA: Have you talked to them in any way behind the scenes, if not formal testimony? 

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, I'm not going to get into any communications I had with the government, but I don't expect to be a witness, but I'll be glad to be one if I'm called. 

ROBERT COSTA: Trump was just indicted and arraigned in the records case. Do you believe he's a target, potentially, in the January 6th case? 

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Yes. And I've said from the beg- by the way, I've defended him when I think there's cases that are unfair, like the one up in New York and so forth. And I've always said, I think the January 6th case will be a hard case to make because of First Amendment interest. But I'm actually starting to think they will pull the trigger on that, and I would expect it to be this summer. 

ROBERT COSTA: Do you believe the Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis will indict Trump in Georgia?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Yeah, I don't know much about her case. I don't know if it's, you know, a sound case or not. I'm skeptical about that. But I will- if--

ROBERT COSTA: Why are you skeptical? 

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Again, because of the First Amendment interests. You know, we don't want to get into a position where people can't complain about an election, and claim that an election--

[CROSSTALK] 

ROBERT COSTA: Trump said on tape he wants the Secretary of State to find votes. 

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Yeah, I know. But, you know, there's- they're innocent interpretations of what he said, you know, which is, look, of all the votes that we think are bad. you certainly can find among them some that are slam dunk, but whether that's the proper interpretation or not, I- I am more skeptical of that case. But on the other hand, I think it's likely that will be brought.

ROBERT COSTA: Former Attorney General William Barr, we really appreciate you taking the time to stop by. And "Face the Nation" will be right back. Don't go away.


06/19/23 03:37 PM #16594    

 

Jay Shackford

 

(Jack was right -- Daniel Ellsberg was one the unslung heroes of our time.  Below is a tribute to him published by The New Yorker and penned by Ben Bradlee Jr., the son of the late editor of the Washington Post during the Watergate saga.) 

 

Daniel Ellsberg’s Life Beyond the Pentagon Papers

After revealing the government’s lies about Vietnam, Ellsberg spent six decades as an anti-nuclear activist, getting arrested as many as ninety times in civil-disobedience protests.

By Ben Bradlee Jr.

June 16, 2023

 

 

Daniel Ellsberg, who died on Friday, of pancreatic cancer, at age ninety-two, became the father of whistle-blowing in America when he leaked the Pentagon Papers to the Times, in 1971. In the course of several months in 1969 and 1970, he copied seven thousand pages of top-secret documents that laid out how four successive Presidents, from Truman to Johnson, deceived the public about U.S. policy in Vietnam. But, at the time, Ellsberg was also planning an even more audacious reveal. Another several thousand pages, which were never released to the public, detailed Washington’s plans for an all-out nuclear war with the Soviet Union and China.

Ellsberg had been hired at rand Corporation, the Air Force-affiliated think tank headquartered in Los Angeles, in the throes of the Cold War, in 1959, and worked on an élite team that helped formulate U.S. nuclear strategy and the command and control of its nuclear weapons. While interviewing officers at a remote American air base in the Pacific, Ellsberg made the unsettling discovery that commanders there had been empowered by President Eisenhower to launch nuclear missiles themselves if time or circumstances did not permit authorization by the President. His job involved regular consultations with the Pentagon, and, after John F. Kennedy was elected President, in 1960, Ellsberg quickly became a trusted rising star, working under Robert McNamara, Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense. In the spring of 1961, when he was thirty, Ellsberg drafted the top-secret operational plans for general nuclear war issued by McNamara to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Soon after, Kennedy decided to seek out more detail on the effects of a nuclear war. He submitted a question, in writing, to the Joint Chiefs. The question was drafted by Ellsberg: “If your plans for general [nuclear war] are carried out as planned, how many people will be killed in the Soviet Union and China?’’ Ellsberg was shown the chiefs’ answer in the form of a graph—two hundred and seventy-five million would be killed initially, and fifty million more within six months, from injuries and fallout. If a U.S. first strike also included Warsaw Pact allies in Eastern Europe, and Moscow retaliated against our Western allies, the death-toll estimate would rise to six hundred million. “From that day on, I have had one overriding life purpose: to prevent the execution of any such plan,’’ Ellsberg would later write.

Ellsberg’s copying of classified material took place at night. He would smuggle batches of documents out of a safe in his office at rand, use a friend’s Xerox machine to copy them, and return them to his safe in the morning. After Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, he was charged with theft and espionage, and he surrendered to federal authorities in Boston. If convicted, he faced a possible prison sentence of up to a hundred and fifteen years. While awaiting trial, Ellsberg gave the nuclear papers that he had copied to his older half brother, Harry, for safekeeping. Harry buried them in a hole that he dug near the town dump of Hastings-on-Hudson, New York, where he lived. But, when Tropical Storm Doria hit the area in August of 1971, the nuclear papers were washed away, never to be found. Daniel later said that he regretted not having released the nuclear papers before they disappeared.

“It was just shattering to me when my brother lost the nuclear papers,’’ Ellsberg told me during more than forty hours of interviews that I conducted in the course of the past three years, while working on a biography of him. “They were much hotter than the stuff in the Pentagon Papers.’’

Ellsberg believed that he was never charged with possessing the nuclear papers because senior government officials, unaware that the documents had been washed away, feared that he would leak them. “They were afraid that, if they charged me, I would release it all,’’ he said, referring to President Richard Nixon and his national-security adviser, Henry Kissinger. Ellsberg remembered hearing Kissinger telling Nixon on the White House tapes, “I’m certain he has other stuff that he is going to unload at the trial.” And, Ellsberg added, “the key thing that they were worried about was the nuclear documents, including a big study by Kissinger, Dr. Strangelove, which they didn’t want out.” (Kissinger denies that he had any such concerns about the study.)

After the United States exploded a nuclear bomb over Hiroshima, in 1945, Ellsberg, who was then fourteen, felt “a sense of dread, a feeling that something very ominous for humanity had just happened.” He suppressed these thoughts at the time, he said, because “they could only sound unpatriotic.” Ellsberg’s life was a striking evolution from right to left—the tale of a top Harvard graduate who became a devoted marine and a committed Cold Warrior, then decided that he was on the wrong side of the Vietnam War. “On the way to becoming an antiwar and anti-nuclear activist in the middle of my life, I participated directly in a way that generated an increasing incidence of atrocities on the ground as well as from the air,” Ellsberg said. “How could I have joined that, and why did it take so long to see the wrongness of it?’’ He ultimately renounced the life of secrecy that he had long led in order to leak the Pentagon Papers—to become a whistle-blower, a peace activist, and one of America’s leading symbols of dissent.

As he aged, Ellsberg grew frustrated that people associated him primarily with having leaked the Pentagon Papers and that they knew little of the six decades that he had subsequently spent as an anti-nuclear activist, getting arrested as many as ninety times in civil-disobedience protests. “Really, only the people who’d been doing anti-nuclear resistance with me knew, though it’s actually been the theme of my life since I was twenty-seven,” he told me. “That part nobody’s written about at all.’’ In 2017, Ellsberg tried to remedy that, publishing “The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner,” a memoir of his role in building the American nuclear arsenal at rand and the Pentagon, which warned of nuclear disaster if the U.S. and other nuclear powers failed to take more active steps toward disarmament.

At first, President Nixon paid scant attention to the publication of the Pentagon Papers. But soon Kissinger was prodding Nixon to move against Ellsberg, whom he knew from his days as a Harvard professor. Kissinger said his counterparts from around the world were asking whether the United States could still be trusted to keep secrets. The Paris peace talks with North Vietnam could be jeopardized, as could Nixon’s upcoming secret trip to China, Kissinger added. They also feared, Ellsberg believed, that he might release the Administration’s secret plans to use tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam. At one point, Nixon huddled in the Oval Office with Kissinger and other top aides to plot retribution against Ellsberg. Though Kissinger has since denied it, he’s been widely quoted as telling Nixon, “Daniel Ellsberg is the most dangerous man in America, and he must be stopped at all costs.”

“We’ve got to get him,’’ Nixon agreed. “These fellows have all put themselves above the law, and, by God, we’re going to go after them.’’

Nixon ordered the formation of a Special Investigations Unit, which later became known as the Plumbers, an inside joke that referred to its supposed mission to stop leaks. For its first mission, the group burglarized the Beverly Hills office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist—to gather material they could use to blackmail him into not releasing the nuclear papers, he concluded. They failed, but Ellsberg’s case would become the direct line to Watergate. Several months later, the same ex-intelligence operatives who had led the Plumbers—Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy—plotted a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters, at the Watergate office building.

Ellsberg’s 1973 trial in Los Angeles drew Hollywood royalty, including Jane Fonda and Barbra Streisand. Streisand raised fifty thousand dollars for his defense by putting on a singing benefit that was attended by three of the four Beatles, among other celebrities. During the trial, a brazen effort by the Nixon White House to influence the presiding judge backfired. John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s top domestic adviser, offered the trial judge, Matthew Byrne, a job as director of the F.B.I. Byrne went to Nixon’s San Clemente estate during a break in the trial to meet Ehrlichman. When that scheme and the full extent of the Plumbers’ role in breaking into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist became public, the judge was forced to dismiss the case owing to government misconduct.

In the end, Ellsberg acknowledged that his release of the Pentagon Papers had no effect on Nixon’s handling of the war. Rather, it was the rampant lawlessness of the President and his men that proved pivotal to Nixon’s resignation, in 1974, and hastened the end of the war. “In short,’’ Ellsberg said, “although the Pentagon Papers themselves did not affect Nixon’s policy, and the war actually expanded after the Pentagon Papers came out, the criminal actions that the White House took against me and some others to prevent me from exposing his nuclear threats against North Vietnam were extraordinarily revealed in ways that no one foresaw.’’

Ellsberg always remained grateful to the Watergate star witness John Dean, Nixon’s thirty-one-year-old White House counsel, who publicly revealed that Liddy and Hunt, with the approval of Ehrlichman, had been responsible for planning the break-in at Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office. In 1975, Ellsberg went to Dean’s house in Beverly Hills to thank him for what he had done, and the two became friends. “While I was delighted my revelations helped Dan, I was laying it out because you couldn’t understand the behavior of the White House without understanding the Ellsberg break-in,’’ Dean told me. “The misbehavior against Dan exercised by the White House became the basis of the Watergate coverup. They are intertwined, no question.’’

Ellsberg often praised the leaks of classified documents by Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. “I waited thirty-nine years for someone to do what I had done and put out a large amount of classified information, and that was Chelsea Manning,” he told me. “I’d pretty much given up, frankly. Then, three years later, there was Snowden.” He added. “We do not have nearly the amount of whistle-blowing we need. My message to whistle-blowers now is ‘Don’t do what I did. If you have information that we are being lied to or the Constitution is being violated, do not wait until the bombs are falling.’ ’’

One thing that has changed today is that whistle-blowers are not nearly as stigmatized as they were when Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers; he was vilified by many at the time as a traitor. In 2021, at the age of ninety, Ellsberg made another intrepid leak to the Times, revealing that, in 1958, the Pentagon had drawn up plans for a nuclear strike against China over tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Because Ellsberg was revealing classified information, he challenged Washington to indict him under the 1917 Espionage Act, which had been used against him in the Pentagon Papers case. This time, the Department of Justice didn’t bite. “My dad seems to have achieved a venerable status as a righteous whistle-blower,’’ Ellsberg’s eldest son, Robert, told me. “There is no real claim that he harmed national security. His leaks were obviously in the public interest. He was willing to accept the consequences of his actions. And events tended to vindicate his judgment and responsibility.’’

On March 1st, Ellsberg sent an e-mail to friends and supporters notifying them that he had been diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer and that doctors had given him three to six months to live. He tried to make light of the grim news, noting that his doctors had cleared him to abandon his salt-free diet, and he could now eat anything he wanted. “This has improved my quality of life dramatically: the pleasure of eating my former favorite foods!’’ Ellsberg wrote.

“I feel lucky and grateful that I’ve had a wonderful life,” he went on. “When I copied the Pentagon Papers in 1969, I had every reason to think I would be spending the rest of my life behind bars . . . Thanks to Nixon’s crimes, I was spared the imprisonment I expected, and I was able to spend the last fifty years with [my wife] Patricia and my family, and with you, my friends. What’s more, I was able to devote those years to doing everything I could think of to alert the world to the perils of nuclear war . . . As I look back on the last sixty years of my life, I think there is no greater cause to which I could have dedicated my efforts.’’ 


06/20/23 12:04 PM #16595    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Jay, thanks for the two articles. I can't help but say though that although Bill Barr got it right about the classified documents case, it's so hypocritical to hear his sudden sense of morality when he thought nothing of being Trump's personal AG doing his bidding while Trump was President and as we know rephrasing the Mueller report to say it concluded there was no there there. Oh well it's better late than never and if he convinced some fox crowds when he's on Fox, that's a good thing. Also hard to take Chris Christie's conversion from Trump's transitional team head to a big Trump trasher. Again, though I think both men put their fingers up to see which way the wind blows, it's still better they got it right this time. Love joanie

06/20/23 04:23 PM #16596    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

This article by Daniel Ellsberg's granddaughter is very moving and personal that shows another side of her grandfather. Love, Joanie

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/18/daniel-ellsberg-movie-lover/


06/23/23 05:22 AM #16597    

 

Jack Mallory

An excerpt from HCR today, following up on one of Trump's most false and despicable attacks on American citizens. 

" . . . on Tuesday, Georgia’s State Election Board officially cleared election workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss of election fraud during the 2020 presidential election. Accused by both Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani of passing USB drives to change vote totals—Moss explained to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol that it was a ginger mint—the two women were so harassed by election deniers that Freeman had to flee her home out of concern for her safety. The board concludes that the fraud claims were “unsubstantiated and found to have no merit.”https://open.substack.com/pub/heathercoxrichardson/p/june-22-2023?r=asnwm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
 

John, you make unsubstantiated complaints about forum members declaring Trump guilty before before trial. Where are your complaints when one of the richest, most powerful men in the United States subjects two public servants to false accusations of election fraud, providing no evidence whatsoever and exposing them to the risk of attack by his supporters? 

 


06/24/23 09:54 AM #16598    

 

Jay Shackford

June 24, 2023

Chris Christy is doing something very, very important

He’s telling the unvarnished truth.  How gratifying is that. 

By Frank Bruni/The New York Times

Chris Christie made a complete fool of himself back in 2016, fan-dancing obsequiously around Donald Trump, angling for a crucial role in his administration, nattering on about their friendship, pretending or possibly even convincing himself that Trump could restrain his ego, check his nastiness, suspend his grift and, well, serve America. But then Christie, a former two-term governor of New Jersey, had plenty of company. And he never did style himself as some saint.

It’s all water under the George Washington Bridge now. The Chris Christie of the current moment is magnificent. I don’t mean magnificent as in, “He’s going to win the Republican presidential nomination.” I don’t mean I am rooting for a Christie presidency and regard him as the country’s possible salvation.

But what he’s doing in this Republican primary contest is very, very important. It also couldn’t be more emotionally gratifying to behold. He’s telling the unvarnished truth about Trump, and he’s the only candidate doing that. A former prosecutor, he’s artfully, aggressively and comprehensively making the case against Trump, knocking down all the rationalizations Trump has mustered and all the diversions he has contrived since his 37-count federal indictment.

 

None of the other candidates come close. They’ve for the most part gagged themselves or decided to play laughable word games about who Trump is, what he has done and what he may yet do.

It’s as if they were looking at this wild and repugnant hyena, with democracy in its jaws, and they know they should call it what it is and acknowledge what it’s poised to devour but they’ve decided that merely hinting at that is candor and courage enough: “I think it might be nice if we Republicans gave an herbivore a crack at the presidency,” “Let’s think about what a post-scavenger era for the Republican Party would look like.”

Then there’s Christie: “That’s one nasty, second-rate carnivore with no place on our savanna.” Never has a statement of the bestially obvious been so revolutionary.

In a poll released on Friday by The New Hampshire Journal, Christie had pulled into third place among Republicans in the state, far behind Trump, who had 47 percent of the vote, but not far behind Ron DeSantis, who had just 13. Christie had 9, followed by Mike Pence with 5. That partly reflects Christie’s decision to make his initial stand, so to speak, in New Hampshire. But it also reflects something else: He’s excellent at this.

Christie is to DeSantis what a Roman candle is to a scented votive. He explodes in a riot of color. DeSantis, on his best days, flickers.

My enchantment with Christie’s fireworks makes me a cliché. In an observant and witty analysis in The Atlantic on Monday with the headline “Chris Christie, Liberal Hero,” David Graham inventoried the adoring media coverage Christie has garnered, noting that while there’s zero evidence that Christie could actually win the contest he has entered, “pundits are swooning.”

But the swoon isn’t about Christie’s prospects. It’s about the hugely valuable contrast to other Republican presidential candidates that he’s providing. And about this: The health of American democracy hinges on a reckoning within the Republican Party, and that won’t come from Democrats saying the kinds of things that Christie is now. They’ve been doing that for years. It’ll come — if it even can — from the words and warnings of longtime Republicans who know how to get and use the spotlight.

Did you see Christie’s CNN town hall last week? Have you watched or listened to any of his interviews? He’s funny. He’s lively. He’s crisp. And he’s right. Over the past few weeks, he has described Trump’s behavior as “vanity run amok.” Trump himself is “a petulant child.”

At the town hall: “He is voluntarily putting our country through this. If at any point before the search in August of ’22 he had just done what anyone, I suspect, in this audience would have done, which is: said, ‘All right, you’re serious? You’re serving a grand jury subpoena? Let me just give the documents back,’ he wouldn’t have been charged. Wouldn’t have been charged with anything, even though he had kept them for almost a year and a half.”

 

Other candidates, who prefer not to talk about the charges against Trump, are reportedly worried that his indictment will mean ceaseless chatter about him and extra difficulty promoting their own (muted and muddled) messages. Josh Barro, in his Substack newsletter Very Serious, nailed the absurdity of that, pointing out that Trump’s front-runner status and enormous lead over all of them guarantee that he’ll always monopolize the conversation, indictment or no indictment.

 

“The Republican nomination campaign cannot — and will not — be about anything but Donald Trump, and the media is not going to invite them on TV to talk about topics other than Donald Trump,” Barro wrote. “So, since they are going to talk about Donald Trump all the time, they had better talk about why he should not be nominated.” Christie is getting invitations and attention because he is doing precisely that. Maybe, just maybe, some of them will take note and wise up.

To the conundrum of what, if Christie qualifies for the Republican primary debates, he’ll do about the required pledge that he support whoever winds up getting the party’s nomination, he has apparently found a solution that’s suited to Republicans’ willful and nihilistic captivity to Trump, the stupidity of the pledge and the stakes of the race: He’ll sign what he must and later act as he pleases.

“I will do what I need to do to be up on that stage to try to save my party and save my country,” he told Jake Tapper on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday morning.

Chris Christie, superhero? He has his own supersize vanity. He is arguably playing the only part in the crowded primary field available to him. And those dynamics may have as much to do with his assault on Trump as moral indignation does. Even so, saving his party and country agrees with him.

DeSantis, Pence, Tim Scott, Nikki Haley and other Republican presidential candidates are clearly telling themselves that they can’t do any good down the road if at this intersection they provoke Trump and run afoul of his supporters. Where have we heard that before? It’s a version of what Christie said to himself in 2016. He now sees the folly of that fable.

 

 

 

 


06/24/23 10:16 AM #16599    

 

Jay Shackford

Opinion The U.S. is more equipped than ever against covid. Thank you, Ashish Jha.

 

By Leana S. Wen

Contributing columnist/The Washington Post

June 21, 2023 at 6:45 a.m. EDT

 

The United States is in a better position to respond to emerging covid threats than it was a year ago. That’s in no small part because of the efforts of Ashish Jha.

 

When the physician and Brown University academic began his role as the White House’s covid-19 coordinator in April 2022, the United States was just emerging from the massive winter surge of coronavirus infections. Treatments were still difficult to obtain, and there was great uncertainty about how Americans were going to live with the ongoing threat of covid-19.

 

A year later, there are many reasons to be hopeful. As Jha explained to me in an interview during his final days on the job last week, excess deaths have remained close to zero for several months and overall mortality from covid has plummeted. This is a large reason President Biden announced Jha’s departure and the closure of the White House’s covid response team, which will be folded into a newly established office on pandemic preparedness.

 

“I think most Americans feel like we’re in a much better place,” Jha told me.

 

Key to this progress is his team’s work in expanding treatment access. Jha explained to me that when he began, it was clear that if someone infected with the coronavirus took the antiviral pill Paxlovid, their “chances of ending up in the hospital or dying were cut dramatically.” Yet he estimated that there were only 3,000 to 4,000 courses of Paxlovid prescribed a day. Within about three months, that number jumped tenfold thanks to aggressive efforts to educate providers, expand “test to treat” programs and ensure medication access in lower-resourced communities.

 

Jha also said the government is much better prepared for future variants because of significant improvements in the surveillance of the coronavirus through wastewater. Because many tests are now done at home, monitoring virus levels in sewage is a better way of detecting community infection levels than through case numbers and test positivity. Today, Jha said, this surveillance covers most of the country.

 

Wastewater monitoring should also provide early warnings of concerning new variants. Indeed, the question isn’t whether we will have new variants but whether they are so substantially different that they cause more severe disease and are immune-evasive. Jha told me the federal government has a process in place to quickly evaluate new variants and develop new vaccines and treatments if needed.

This will likely be put to the test this winter. Jha said he’s anticipating a rise in covid cases in the coming months, along with the usual rise of other respiratory diseases such as the flu and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The key, he said, includes preparing with a proactive vaccination campaign.

 

This is already happening. Last week, advisers to the Food and Drug Administration voted to replace the existing bivalent vaccine with an updated booster that targets XBB omicron subvariants. This week, I expect the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will recommend the updated booster as part of a broad fall vaccine campaign. With the recent FDA approval of two RSV vaccines for people 60 and older, older individuals will probably be able to receive the updated coronavirus booster, the flu shot and the new RSV vaccines this fall.

 

So, yes, older Americans will have to receive multiple shots in the coming months. But as Jha put it, “If it protects you through the winter and prevents death and serious illness that kills literally tens of thousands of seniors, that’s totally worth it.”

 

Though he said the United States is now better prepared for a future pandemic than when he started, he expressed worry about the loss of trust in public health, which he says needs “rebuilding.” As he returns to his position as dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Jha said he wants to think about how to “train the next generation of public health leaders” to engage with a broader swath of Americans, including “across the political spectrum.”

 

I share his deep concern about trust; after all, vaccines and treatments don’t make a difference if people don’t use them. Public health hinges on public trust — and restoring that should be the top priority, not only for experts in the field but also for everyone who cares about how we will respond to future health crises.

 

Nevertheless, I feel reassured by Jha’s optimism. We will indeed enter this next winter better equipped than we’ve ever been against covid-19. Jha and his team at the White House deserve credit for that.

 


06/24/23 11:55 AM #16600    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Jay, Thanks for the articles. I agree that it's great Christie's is telling the horrid truth about Trump and yes the writer acknowledged how Christy was a Trumpy for awhile but suggested he now saw the light. I think he knew then what Trump was. Still, so glad Christy is finally speaking the truth but I still have a lot of trouble with people like Christy who decide to throw the truth out and let power guide them like when Christie wanted to be on Trump's transition team . Where was his voice then? Well even if I don't trust the messenger it's good he is telling it like it is. Of course the others are afraid to say anything or are comfortable with authoritarian style governing. Love Joanie

07/03/23 05:17 PM #16601    

 

Jay Shackford

Welcome to the 1950s

By Dead-Center Shacks

 

As one of my Billy Goat Tavern buddies told me the other day, “We aren’t turning back the clock; we are flipping back the decades.”  

 

Bye, bye to:

 

  • a woman’s right to choose and health care policies designed to enhance the health of all women; 
  • affirmative action and policies designed however imperfectly to level a very uneven educational playing field; 
  • decades of progress increasing voting rights and against the reappearance of Jim Crow laws; 
  • a progressive tax system designed to help close the ever-increasing wealth gap between the few super-rich at the top and America’s declining and struggling middle class; 
  • the days when a thirteen-year-old kid could ride his bike through his neighborhood without fear of getting shot to death by a weapon of war during a July 4th celebration;
  • a political system where Democrats and small government, balance-the-budget, low-tax Republicans would vigorously debate their differences but ultimately reach a compromise and then go out for drinks together and keep the wheels of government running without threatening to default on the nation’s debt.    

 

Welcome to 2023!  

 

(Editor’s Note:  The Billy Goat Tavern was a greasy spoon located underneath Michigan Avenue and across from the Chicago Tribune building on Michigan Avenue where I would dine with my Tribune friend during my business trips to Chicago in the late 1980s and 1990s —usually set up so we could watch Michael Jordan later that evening play the Detroit Pistons. The cast for Saturday Night Live was also known to hang out there.)

 


07/04/23 12:04 PM #16602    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Yes Jay, you summed up the reversals of progress so well and the one caveat is for whatever reason the Supreme Court ruled in favor of voting rights in the last case on it before them. However they have hurt voting rights a lot in other cases deciding that there isn't discrimination so no need need for regulation etc. . Anyway I wish Alito and Thomas would be forced to leave the court after it's known they buddied up with wealthy donors and didn't mention it or recuse from cases involving them. They don't think they need any ethics rules that pertain to them. Love, Joanie

07/05/23 06:52 PM #16603    

 

Jack Mallory

No shit, this is REALLY a DeSantis campaign ad, a PRO DeSantis ad, not a spoof.

https://twitter.com/DeSantisWarRoom/status/1674899610379116546 

**********

The eaglet has fledged, but is shy about providing take off or landing pix.

These two snappers are not shy about pix. Big one about dinner plate size, little one fit in my palm before I sent it on its way into the woods.


 


 


07/07/23 08:58 AM #16604    

 

Jack Mallory


07/08/23 12:06 PM #16605    

 

Janet Lowry (Deal)

Jack-
Is it just me, or does that little loon not look like a little turtle grabbing a free ride?

07/08/23 10:01 PM #16606    

 

Jack Mallory

Janet--I paddled behind them for several minutes while the little one worked hard to scramble on board. I wondered if it were a recent hatchling out for a first paddle. One of those big snappers I often see would probably lunch on a little loonlet. 
 

Another shot of that same pair:


 

And a still life with drift wood:


 


07/10/23 01:42 PM #16607    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Jack, I love the pictures...they are great! Love, Joanie


07/11/23 08:09 PM #16608    

 

Stephen Hatchett

Jack, those two loon+loonlet pics --- well they just charmed my socks off.  Some of the best wildlife pics I've ever seen.  The little one has to be a recent hatchling, still downy.  Last time I saw a loon family was 51 years ago on a September canoe trip in Boundary Waters.  Wonder what it would be like to go back.  I couldn't manage the portages with that aluminum canoe now, but gear has changed.  My "origami" kayak only weighs 28 lbs, and would carry (probably) half the gear for two people for a week or 10 days.  Lake trout steaks cooked on coals followed by wild blueberry cobbler -- hmmm :)

And NO communication with the outside world -- double hmmm!!


07/12/23 02:20 PM #16609    

 

Jack Mallory

There weren't any loons, Stephen, but your imaginings sound like our kayak camping trip in the Everglades last February. Although we were in that monstrous tandem, loaded with all our gear plus stove and water/food for a week! Thankfully, didn't have to pick it up.  

Is there such a thing as the opposite of cute? Yesterday's walk--a big snapper asserting dominance/territory over a smaller. In the first pic, looks like rude words are spoken; the second pic is actually an attempt to bite. Third pic is Mitch McConnell, of course.


 


 

 

 


go to top 
  Post Message
  
    Prior Page
 Page  
Next Page