Due to a technical error, mass emails were sent out of old articles
Hi everyone,
As some of you very likely seeing, there was suddenly an explosion of articles from my website. These articles were old and from my Substack. I was attempting to import the articles to the website.
THESE WERE NOT MEANT TO BE SENT EN MASSE!
I apologize for the error. Please just delete the emails so as avoid clogging your email. I am not sure what exactly caused this in the import process, but now that it is complete, there should be no further emails.
Again, I apologize for the issue. I am reaching out to WordPress so this doesn’t happen again.
In another display of the corruption that will seemingly permeate the upcoming Trump administration, the President-Elect has decided to nominate former Congressman Matt Gaetz for Attorney General. 1 The move, which has provoked controversy among Democrats and Republicans, comes amid a House investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against the former congressman involving a 17-year-old girl. 2 Said investigation was set to conclude with a report to be released by the House just two days before Gaetz’s resignation. While it is unclear if Gaetz will be confirmed by the Senate, the fact that he is under consideration is yet another sign that Trump’s second term will be an unmitigated disaster.
The Allegations Against Matt Gaetz
Regarding the many issues that come with Matt Gaetz, it is important to remember that he is innocent until proven guilty. That said, many of the allegations seem, at the very least, to be credible, if not downright proven.
Previously, the former congressmen faced a federal investigation after one of his associates, who was facing legal troubles of his own, offered testimony suggesting that Gaetz had sex with a 17-year-old. The associate, Joel Greenberg, had been paying multiple women, including the minor, to go to parties with him and have sex.3 Greenberg’s lawyer, according to The New York Times, provided prosecutors with additional evidence, arguing that they proved Gaetz had sex with a minor.
Then-congressmen Gaetz denied the allegations.
The Justice Department’s investigation into these revelations lasted two years, but it ended without pressing any charges against Gaetz. However, that wouldn’t be the end of the allegations.
Per The New York Times:
The House Ethics Committee began an investigation into Mr. Gaetz in 2021 when The New York Times reported that he was under federal investigation. But because there was an ongoing Justice Department investigation, the committee paused its inquiry until after federal prosecutors wrapped up their work.
Over the past year and a half, the committee has examined a range of allegations about Mr. Gaetz, including whether he showed nude photos of women to other members on the floor of the House; whether he used illegal drugs; whether he had sex with the 17-year-old and knew she was being paid; and whether he misused campaign funds for personal purposes.
Mr. Gaetz blamed Kevin McCarthy, the House speaker at the time, for reviving the investigation. Mr. Gaetz said the inquiry was retribution for his being a thorn in the side of House Republican leaders.
The panel interviewed several of the women who Mr. Greenberg said had sex with Mr. Gaetz, including the 17-year-old. The panel also subpoenaed Mr. Greenberg for documents he had related to Mr. Gaetz, some of which surfaced in a related civil suit that was later dropped.
In response to questions about the subpoena, Mr. Scheller refused to say what documents may have been handed over but said: “Mr. Greenberg has fully responded to all congressional requests.”
When Mr. Gaetz resigned his House seat following Mr. Trump’s announcement, the panel lost jurisdiction over him, and the investigation ended. On Thursday, lawmakers in both parties called on the panel to release its report.4
If Gaetz was involved with a minor, then he would be exposed to federal sex trafficking laws and would likely be expelled from the House and could even face criminal charges. However, with the resignation by Gaetz, the House is now struggling to determine whether or not they will release the report as originally planned.5
This is especially pertinent now as The Washington Post reports that a woman testified to the House Ethics Committee that Gaetz paid her for sex and that she personally witnessed Gaetz having sex with her friend, who was 17 at the time. In addition, a second woman has come forward, also represented by the same lawyer, and testified that Gaetz had paid her for sex at drug-fueled parties.6 All of this is to say that Trump’s decision to nominate Gaetz before he has ascended to office shows he either doesn’t mind the controversy or expects it to pass without much concern.
Release the Report
Thus far, the American public is not aware of the contents of the House’s report. With the loss of its jurisdiction over Gaetz, the House’s normal basis for releasing the report has been lost. However, these are not normal circumstances, and whether or not it is an embarrassment to the President-elect, who has been found civilly liable for rape, is irrelevant. 7
Matt Gaetz is on his way to becoming one of the most powerful men in the country. As attorney general of the United States and the country’s chief law enforcement officer, he would be in charge of the Justice Department. Whether the House likes it or not, it is now sitting on crucial information about a man who would be making critical decisions about enforcing federal law. Whether or not that man is a sexual predator is relevant to the future and quality of American law enforcement.
Even now, lawmakers across both parties are calling for the report to, at minimum, be released to the Senate so they can consider it during Gaetz’s confirmation hearings. 8 At a time when the nation is already struggling to put faith in its government, allowing Gaetz to ascend to one of the highest offices in the land without seriously challenging him on these allegations is beyond unacceptable.
I am hoping that the House and Senate will do the right thing, but then again, I remember what happened with Kavanaugh.
If you like my work and want to support me, you can find the donation link on my Kofi link. Thank you, I really appreciate it.
When it comes to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, the future of the Ukrainian people remains unclear. The Russian invasion has caused countless deaths among both combatants and civilians.12It makes clear that the painful reality of war can’t be ignored. For some, this painful reality is understandably overwhelming. They believe that continued aid to Ukraine must stop and negotiations with Russia must start. I stand firmly opposed to this position, understandable as it is. So long as the Russian Federation continues to operate with the underlying view of supremacy over Ukraine and its neighbors, such peace will not save lives. It will only hasten another war.
Why Did Russia Invade?
To understand the underlying implications of the larger of the war in Ukraine, we must first grasp the context of the people who are suffering and understand the context of the perpetrators of that suffering. Since Russia’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the United Nations have confirmed “30,457 civilian casualties… including 10,582 killed and 19,875 injured.” 3 Said count is likely to be higher, as this report was completed in 2023, and even then it was underestimating the total count.
However, what is rarely talked about with any frequency today is the underlying attitude of the Russian government that started in the war in the first place. Russia has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to violate Ukrainian national sovereignty, even going so far as to seize territory in Crimea and the Donbas region. As I noted in my piece for the UIS Observer in 2022:
” By 2013, those tensions would come to a head, with {Ukrainian President} Yanukovych killing an association deal with the European Union. In response, Ukrainians, particularly in the western regions, rose up against the Ukrainian president in protest. Hundreds of thousands of people marched throughout the country, supporting cooperation with Europe. Though Eastern Ukrainians were not as supportive, with many in Donetsk raising concerns about joining the E.U. By 2014, Yanukovych fled to Russia, and the nation’s parliament ousted him.
An interim government took power and initially refused to support entrance into NATO. But after the Russian invasion of Crimea in February of that same year, relations broke down, as Russian Vladimir Putin attempted to establish influence over Crimea and the Donbas region. Russian troops, with their insignias removed, illegally occupied and annexed Crimea. In a March speech, Putin claimed that the people of Crimea were robbed from Russia after the Soviet Union’s dissolution and that NATO’s eastward expansion merited the annexation. He further asserted there is “no legitimate executive authority in Ukraine.”
However, many Ukrainians and scholars firmly disagree. In an interview with The UIS Observer, Dr. Adriana Crocker, a professor of Global Studies at the University of Illinois Springfield, pushed back on that narrative. “Ukraine is an independent, sovereign country…” she said. “They should have the right to decide their future. Whether to be with the E.U., whether to be with NATO… should not be part of Russian decision-making. It is an internationally recognized sovereign country.
To an extent, Ukraine’s association with other countries and alliances is central to Russian interventionism, with Putin arguing that NATO officials promised to avoid expanding eastward and has demanded that Ukraine never enter the alliance. Such a narrative by Russia, says Dr. Crocker, ignores the complex process of getting into NATO in the first place and does not justify the use of its military.”4
While Russia has repeatedly argued that Ukraine isn’t a real country and is instead a flawed state that was created by the Soviets in the early 20th century, historians have repeatedly debunked him, even using the very maps he uses to make these arguments against him.567 This imperialistic and culturally patronizing world view of Ukrainians and their sovereignty is precisely the problem with any peace talks that can be had as it stands right now.
Even when we get into the supposed deal of restricting NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, the question falls into murky and, quite frankly, propagandized waters. While Putin has claimed that America agreed not to allow NATO to expand, but even that is highly contested. Not only by officials in Washington but also by historians and some of the actors themselves.
Former Secretary of State James Baker, who is the one who used the phrase not” one inch to the east” when referring to NATO expansion has disputed the characterization and has argued it was in the context of the unification of Germany. 8910 NATO statements have also emphasized that no binding agreement of any kind was made to the Russian government that would prevent other countries from joining NATO.11
It is not only murky on the Western side, but on the legal and Russian side. In the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (1990), there is not a single mention of NATO or its ability to expand further into Europe. 12 Mikhail Gorbachev, the former President of the Soviet Union, has gone back and forth on the issue. In one interview, he insisted that he was promised no NATO expansion and in another he denied it entirely.1314
Simply put, NATO expansion as a matter of any promised agreement is testy at best, and downright nonexistent at worse. There was no treaty signed requiring NATO to avoid expanding and Russia itself bears partial responsibility for NATO’ expansion due to its militaristic behavior. As I further explained just prior to the Russian invasion:
As Dr. Budzisz notes, this is not the first time that Russia has utilized its forces to maintain its influence along its borders. Russia has deployed its forces in Moldova in a region known as Transdniestria. It has occupied territory in Georgia, thanks to its invasion in 2008. The European Parliament official declared the Russian position in Georgia as an occupation. Far from being solely about NATO, the use of military force is a part of Russian foreign policy when its influence fails.15
Russia has created a hostile environment in Eastern Europe by virtue of attempting to create a sphere of influence through violence. To put it more simply, more countries joined NATO to avoid said violence. Russia pointing to NATO as the reason for its invasion while simultaneously insisting that Ukraine isn’t real betrays its real intentions: a blatant war of aggression. Russia invaded Ukraine because its leadership felt it had a right to do so. They don’t.
The Importance of Aid
While the invasion itself has made people sympathetic to the Ukrainian people, it is also worth reiterating how military and financial aid to the country helps its people avoid the atrocities committed by Russian forces. Since the war began, there have been multiple allegations against Russian military personnel, with a warrant being issued for Vladimir Putin for his abduction of Ukrainian children. 16 A UN Commission found long-standing abuses including “…summary executions, sexual violence and forced transfer of Ukrainian children into Russia.”17 To say Ukrainians need help to avoid such horrific outcomes is a massive understatement.
Aid is critical to that endeavor. Since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the United States has spent an estimated $175 billion on helping Ukraine. Of which, an estimated $106 billion going to the Ukrainian government. Breaking that down further, of the $106 billion that has gone to Ukraine, $69.8 billion has gone to military aid and $33.3 billion has gone to budget support. In other words, keeping the Ukrainian government running to keep critical services going to everyday Ukrainians. The remaining was spent on humanitarian aid. 18 For context, the total spent on Social Security in 2023, was an estimated $1.35 trillion, more than eight times the value of the entirety of our aid to Ukraine. 19
Providing aid to Ukraine doesn’t prevent us from taking care of our citizens. A lack of political will does. Republicans will inevitably try to make it an either-or scenario, and they have done so before but the truth of the matter is that military equipment, especially old military equipment, doesn’t provide for our citizens. Better social services and support do. We can work to support both Ukraine and the American people.20
If you like my work and want to support me, you can find the donation link on my Kofi link. Thank you, I really appreciate it.
For the last several days I have tried to gather myself after the unfortunate results of the 2024 election. After several months of working for The Progressive Turnout Project, and by extension, the Sean Casten reelection campaign, it was quite frustrating to see that the convicted felon and civilly liable rapist Donald Trump will one again be President of the United States.12 The resulting failure by the failure of Democrats to effectively challenge the former president on the campaign will inevitably lead to government mismanagement and immense suffering for millions of people.
What Can We Expect?
Previously, I noted that if elected, Mr. Trump would not only be incredibly authoritarian, but that he would also be incredibly corrupt. As I explained in my article A Second Trump Term Would be a Disaster (2024):
Throughout Trump’s time in office, he undermined the guard rails of our democracy and was notoriously corrupt. Before he assumed office, then-President-Elect Trump made it abundantly clear that he didn’t respect the guard rails on his financial dealings, refusing to put his business into a blind trust, as every President before him had done. Instead, he put his sons, Eric and Don Jr., in charge of a trust, effectively ensuring that he was not entirely separated from his business while President.
Despite claims by the former President that he could be trusted to separate himself from his finances, later reporting demonstrated otherwise. House Democrats on the Committee on Oversight and Accountability released a report titled “White House for Sale: How Princes, Prime Ministers , and Premiers Paid Off President Trump,” which revealed that Trump received an estimated at least $7.8 million from foreign governments, including China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Malaysia, Albania and Kosovo.
Such payments were almost certainly a violation of the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits federal officials from taking gifts from foreign governments or officials without permission from Congress. Despite this, Trump was allowed to continue his blatant corruption, even as it violated the letter of the law.
If Trump wins in November, there is little reason to believe he will change his behavior or how he handles his business.3
This corruption and conflict of interest while not yet apparent, as Trump is still President-elect, the likelihood that he will willingly submit to guardrails on his powers as remains incredibly low. To add to that, Trump will almost certainly not surround himself with people who will challenge him. Already, he has promised to nominate alleged sexual predator and former Florida Congressman, Matt Gaetz, to be his Attorney General.45
This move by Trump inevitably means that Gaetz will never see the House ethics report on his alleged sexual misconduct and drug use published. Combine that with Gaetz’s slavish devotion to Trump and it becomes increasingly clear that Trump will get whatever he wants from Gaetz. Whether other institutions such as the Supreme Court will check this behavior remains to be seen.
We can also expect further unqualified picks for higher office by Trump as his focus on loyalty will almost certainly be central in who he picks. For example, the decision to put Fox News host Pete Hegseth as the Secretary of Defense. 6 Hegseth, though a veteran, is a blatantly political and partisan decision to lead one of the most critical institutions to American national security.
As The Washington Post notes, Hegseth is “contemptuous” of rules of war that he sees as restricting how to win in battle as well as left-wing politics. In particular, Hegseth opposes the Geneva conventions which “….he suggests are outdated against enemies who don’t abide by them.”7 It is also worth noting that Hegseth also has tattoos that are commonly used among the Christian far-right. This strongly suggests that Hegseth will pursue an agenda of Christian Nationalism, which as I noted in my discussion with YouTuber NateTalksToYou, has no place in the highest echelons of American governance.8
All of this is to say that Donald Trump is already showing two major characteristics in his upcoming administration:
Brown-Nosing administrators in government
A Far-Right agenda that rejects the rule of law.
What Trump’s Administration Could Mean for Immigrants
The resulting brown-nosing and unwillingness to call Trump out will almost certainly to more draconian and hostile action against the migrant community, regardless of their legal status. Already, Trump has tapped Stephen Miller, a xenophobic and anti-immigrant advocate to be his Deputy Chief of Staff. Miller, who previously was outed for using white supremacist material in emails released by the Southern Poverty Law Center, has promised to de-naturalize immigrants he deems improperly brought into the country.910
It is worth reiterating that any sort of de-naturalization process would theoretically remove the legal status of people who, despite Miller’s absurd prognosis, are legally in the United States. Previously, the Trump administration in 2020 attempted to enact this process, but Miller has promised to go even further. 11 In a post on Twitter, Miller promised that said process would be “turbocharged.” 12
This proposed process should not surprise anyone. Cruelty, authoritarianism and control are all central points of Trumpism. To the figures surrounding Trump, cruelty is virtue and extremism is patriotism. Combine Miller’s appointment with the tapping of Tom Homan to be Trump’s border czar and it becomes increasingly clear that this administration will be an anti-immigrant monstrosity. 13
It doesn’t matter if the person came into the country legally, either through asylum or through any other process, the upcoming Trump administration views these people as outsiders unworthy of the title they lawfully earned.
If we can expect anything from this upcoming administration, it is that there will be extreme and unqualified people pursuing abusive that they have no business implementing. If there is one thing we can hope for, it is that the individuals under Trump are so unqualified that they fail to enact their agenda. One can only hope.
If you like my work and want to support me, you can find the donation link on my Kofi link. Thank you, I really appreciate it.
Donald Trump is a clear and present threat to the well-being of America
Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Yesterday, Trump’s former chief of staff, John F. Kelly, went on the record with The New York Times, warning that Trump is a fascist. The statement by someone so close to the former President is yet another example of how dangerous and unfit Mr. Trump is for the highest office in the nation. With election day under two weeks away, Americans must heed Mr. Kelly’s warning.
John Kelly’s warning
The warnings by Mr. Kelly, reported on by the Times yesterday, were part of a three-part recorded discussion with reporters. Previously, Mr. Kelly had warned about Mr. Trump’s dictatorial tendencies, alleging that the former President expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler. In his interview with the Times, Mr. Kelly explained that:
“Certainly the former president is in the far-right area, he’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators — he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure.”
Far from merely expressing poorly thought-out interest in Hitler and his allies, the former President, according to Mr. Kelly, is an active fascist. While Trump’s conduct while in office showed fascist tendencies and other advisors such as Mark Milley have warned that Trump is “fascist to the core,” it is deeply concerning that yet another former advisor to Mr. Trump is warning about Mr. Trump in such terms so close to the election.
Hitler’s Generals and Trump
These warnings from Mr. Milley and Kelly are not the only example of Mr. Trump’s extremism. Yesterday, the Atlantic reported that Trump wanted generals who were loyal to him in the vein of Adolf Hitler’s officers.
This week, I asked Kelly about their exchange. He told me that when Trump raised the subject of “German generals,” Kelly responded by asking, “‘Do you mean Bismarck’s generals?’” He went on: “I mean, I knew he didn’t know who Bismarck was, or about the Franco-Prussian War. I said, ‘Do you mean the kaiser’s generals? Surely you can’t mean Hitler’s generals? And he said, ‘Yeah, yeah, Hitler’s generals.’ I explained to him that Rommel had to commit suicide after taking part in a plot against Hitler.” Kelly told me Trump was not acquainted with Rommel.
Baker and Glasser also reported that Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, feared that Trump’s “‘Hitler-like’ embrace of the big lie about the election would prompt the president to seek out a ‘Reichstag moment.’”
Kelly—a retired Marine general who, as a young man, had volunteered to serve in Vietnam despite actually suffering from bone spurs—said in an interview for the CNN reporter Jim Sciutto’s book, The Return of Great Powers, that Trump praised aspects of Hitler’s leadership. “He said, ‘Well, but Hitler did some good things,’” Kelly recalled. “I said, ‘Well, what?’ And he said, ‘Well, (Hitler) rebuilt the economy.’ But what did he do with that rebuilt economy? He turned it against his own people and against the world.” Kelly admonished Trump: “I said, ‘Sir, you can never say anything good about the guy. Nothing.’”
This inclination by the former President to promote and praise the Nazis and their officers is not startling, but it is even more damning since Mr. Trump has touted using the military against his political opponents, arguing that bureaucrats and opposition politicos are “the enemy from within.” Indeed, the former President argued that so-called “radical left lunatics…” are more dangerous than hostile foreign nationals. If Mr. Trump were to have the generals and staff he wants, he would not only undermine the strength of our institutions, but he would threaten the rights of the American people.
Mr. Trump is an existential threat to the American people, and it shouldn’t take any more warnings for people to recognize that reality. We owe it to ourselves to deny this dangerous authoritarian from holding power ever again. Come election day, the American people must send this convicted criminal packing.
This newsletter should have been out last week, but due to scheduling issues and planning, I was unable to get it out until now. As some of you may know, I am trying out an audio version of the podcast which will goes over the weekly news from a progressive perspective. Below is last week’s episode.
Let me know what you think and have a wonderful day!
The Topics of the Week
The Upcoming Debate Between Tim Walz and J.D. Vance
The Rising Death Toll in Hurricane Helene
Trump’s Alleged Assassin Pleading Not Guilty
Trump’s Strange Support for Police Violence
Thanks again,
Conor
If you like my work and want to support me, you can find the donation link on my Kofi link. Thank you, I really appreciate it.
With the debate on Tuesday, The Progressive American will be live!
Image by NateTalkstoYou
Good morning everyone,
I hope this article finds you well. I am happy to announce another livestream for this week. This time, I will be streaming the Vice-Presidential debate between Governor Tim Walz and Senator J.D. Vance, which will occur this Tuesday, October 1st at 8:00 PM CST/9:00 PM EST.1 My stream, however, will be starting a bit earlier at 7:45 PM CST/8:45 EST.
Much like the debate stream I did several weeks ago, I will be reviewing some of the news surrounding the campaign cycle, polls and what I expect from the debate before getting into the debate proper. 2
While there are still questions about the significance of the debate, polls show tight race that leave little to chance. 3 To say the debate matter is a massive understatement. 4
You can watch it with the link below.
I look forward to seeing you all there!
Thanks,
Conor
If you like my work and want to support me, you can find the donation link on my Kofi link. Thank you, I really appreciate it.
Earlier this week, Thursday, September 26th, 2024, Mayor Eric Adams of New York City was charged with bribery, wire fraud and solicitation of funds from foreign nationals. 1 The indictment, which is now public, alleges that Mayor Adams not only sought out bribes, but was actively soliciting funds from Turkish nationals who sought favors from Mayor Adams, including “assurances that ADAMS would not make any statement about the Armenian Genocide.” 2 Adams has pleaded not guilty to the allegations in court on Friday, suggesting a long and painful fight.3 While Adams is innocent until proven guilty, the indictment is yet another example as to how important the rule of law is and also how nobody, regardless of party, is above it.
What are the Charges?
Adams is facing a litany of charges, including accusations that he was “…taking more than $100,000 in illegal gifts in exchange for using his political influence to help Turkey.” 4 In addition, Adams is accused of engaging in a so-called “straw donor” scheme in the New York mayor was accused of attempting to match his mayor campaign’s funds with support from foreign backers. Said funds were allegedly funneled through people living in the United States to Adams’ affiliates. 5
If convicted, Adams is convicted, he could face up to 45 years in prison. New York Governor Kathy Hochul is apparently now considering removing Adams from power, though she has yet to publicly state whether or not she will.6 If she does, it would not only prevent Adams from potentially using his office as a weapon to protect himself from prosecution, regardless of how successful such an operation would be, but it would also send a message that criminal action by public officials will not be tolerated.
Democrats Must Call Out Democrats
As many of my readers likely know, I have argued for and maintain the simple but critical principle that Democrats must hold fellow Democrats accountable. When Hunter Biden was convicted, I argued that it was not only the right thing to do but it was necessary to upholding faith in the rule of law. 7 When former Senator Bob Melendez was convicted in his federal corruption trial, the law once again showed its willingness to charge anyone and everyone who engages in criminal behavior.8
Democrats must not only call out Republicans who engage in criminal behavior, or defend criminals running for public office, they must also be willing and able to call out their fellow Democrats. In some extreme cases, they will have to remove them from the highest echelons of power when said corrupt Democrats fail the public trust. Simply calling out the GOP in its hypocrisy is not enough. Universal application of the law is critical to strengthening the peace and tranquility of the United States and its legal institutions.
While it remains unclear what will happen to Mayor Adams, one thing is for certain. Adams and other figures like him don’t belong in public office. Governor. Hochul should remove him from office immediately and put the rule of law first. The well-being of the people of New York and the American people depend upon equality before the law. It is up to our leaders to uphold that simple principle.
If you like my work and want to support me, you can find the donation link on my Kofi link. Thank you, I really appreciate it.
It is hard to write this piece, even more so because it is delayed. While I have been posting about the horrible situation involving the now late Marcellus Williams, I have struggled to find the words to describe the situation and my utter contempt for his eventual fate. With his execution on Tuesday, September 23rd, I can’t help but feel furious.1 Not only with the justice system that killed a man who had substantial evidence to suggest he was innocent, but also with myself for not dedicating an article to the issue at hand. Nonetheless, my hope is that this article, small in its significance as it is, and the story of Mr. Williams’ death will serve as a wake up call to end the death penalty.
An Unjust Justice System
The justice system has long been bigoted and unfailing in its failure to uphold equality before the law. Whether it is through now abandoned approaches to law enforcement such as stop and frisk, but also in sentencing guidelines and other mechanisms of the law, the justice system has consistently failed people of color.2 Especially African Americans. The abuse of African Americans is such a pervasive problem that a 2023 report by the United Nations condemned the substantive differences in treatment for Black Americans. That report explained that “Black people in America are three times more likely to be killed by police than whites, and 4.5 times more likely to be incarcerated.”3
The same system that upholds these disparities is the same system that brings that prejudiced and biased approach to the horrific practice we call the death penalty. A 2020 study found that killers of White people were over four times as likely to get the death penalty than killers of Black people and “… that 22 of the 972 defendants convicted of killing a white victim were executed, as compared with two of the 1,503 defendants convicted of killing a Black victim.”4 Previous examinations of the empirical literature have also found strong evidence to suggest that the race of a victim significantly impacted the likelihood of the alleged perpetrator getting the death penalty.5
Between 1972 and January 1st, 2024, there have been 9,800 death sentences issued, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Of those sentences, 1,532 people were executed and 179 were exonerated or 1.32 percent were exonerated. 6 Nearly 200 people who didn’t commit a crime, or at the very least not the one of which they were accused, were innocent. If they hadn’t been given a chance or support to prove their innocence, their blood would be on the hands of the states that continue this ridiculous practice. Even guilty pleas are not surefire guarantees of culpability. An estimated 18 percent of people who were later exonerated of wrong-doing pleaded guilty to a crime they didn’t commit.7
In what decent country would anyone support a system that allows even one innocent person to be killed? This is especially critical to ask when the evidence strongly suggests that the system is operating under the bigoted assumption of Black guilt and White purity. Amid all of this, executions are starting to rise in their frequency, jumping 64 percent in 2022, thanks to the Supreme Court’s willingness to allow these executions to take place at any cost. 8
The State Sponsored Murder of Marcellus Williams
Marcellus Williams was a 55-year-old man convicted for the 1998 murder of Felicia Gayle, a local journalist. Numerous appeals against his 2001 sentence to death have been made and despite the victim’s family requesting that Williams not receive the death penalty. Additionally, DNA testing of the knife showed another unidentified person’s DNA was on the knife, and not Williams. 910 Even worse is the fact during procedures to evaluate the new testing, it was determined that prior to Williams’ conviction, the knife was mishandled. This meant that the weapon was likely contaminated, making it nearly impossible for the state to provide any forensic evidence tying Williams to the murder.11
Even as the prosecutor’s office worked to allow for a reevaluation of the evidence and hearing, Missouri Governor Jim Parsons and Attorney General Andrew Bailey went out of their way to see Mr. Williams be put to death. When Ms. Gayle’s family agreed to have the sentence against Williams reduced to life in prison, Attorney General Bailey rejected the agreement and Governor Parsons refused to commute the sentence. 12 The justice system would fail Mr. Williams one more time when the Supreme Court of the United States refused to intervene in his execution.13 It didn’t matter to him that the only witnesses against Williams were two unreliable witnesses who financially benefited from their testimony. 14 The execution, according to the spirit of the justice system, go on. So, Marcellus Williams was killed by the state of Missouri.
What Now?
It is sadly too late for Mr. Williams. The only thing that can be done now is to push for the only acceptable action here: the complete and total abolition of the death penalty. No state can be trusted with the power and many states already have abdicated that power. Despite this, there are still far too many states that claim a power they should never have had in the first place.15
If there is to be any justice in this country, it is necessary and proper to not only pass federal legislation banning the practice but to pass a constitutional amendment ensuring its perpetual abolition. We owe it to Mr. Williams and all the people who have wrongly been accused of wrong-doing, and to ourselves, to end this barbaric and horrific practice that has no place in a decent society. It is time to kill the death penalty.
A Republican effort to alter the electoral college to help former President Donald Trump has fallen apart. Republican operatives were seemingly frustrated with Joe Biden’s victory in 2020. They proposed a new rule to Nebraska’s allocation of its electoral votes. If this rule had been applied, Nebraska, which has gone for Republicans since 1964, would have all of its electoral votes going to the winner of that state.1 Thankfully, Republican Governor Jim Pillen announced yesterday that the proposed change didn’t meet the requirement under the state’s constitution. If they had succeeded, however, the election would have been seriously changed. Here’s how.
Why Nebraska?
While most states are winner-take-all, meaning that all the electoral votes are are given to the victor of that state’s popular vote, a few states split their votes. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, are the only states in the country to split said votes, effectively tying their electoral votes to the popular will of their electorate. 2 The result is a much more competitive and sometimes tight fight for as much of the electoral votes in these given states.
Previously, Democrats have won Maine and Republicans have won Nebraska, with the loser in both states gaining 1 electoral vote.34 Where normally one party would gain all of the electoral votes in these states, the split vote makes it so that even a loss can still help a candidate get closer to 270 electoral votes, and by extension the presidency.
As such, each party wants to ensure that they can secure all of the votes in a given state. With Republicans in no position to change Maine’s laws, Republican operatives hoped to work in Nebraska to stack the deck.
What if They Succeeded?
In order to understand what is now only a hypothetical scenario that the GOP altered Nebraska’s electoral vote distribution, one must look to previous elections and the larger electoral map for the 2024 election. Doing so allows for an understanding of not only the previous elections, but how the electoral college is organized. Through this understanding, it becomes clear how changes in the electoral college can impact future elections.
When we look at the 2020 election, specifically in its results as it relates to Nebraska, we can see that while Trump won the state as a whole, Joe Biden was still able to win one electoral vote from the state, further diluting the vote for Trump. 5
Presidential Election Results 2020-270toWin.com; Screenshot by Author
While it wouldn’t change the election results thanks to Donald Trump’s political weakness and unpopularity, it still plays a role in weakening his chances. A 305 to 233 electoral count is still a victory for Biden in the 2020 election, even if Nebraska went completely for the former President. However, that is not the case in this election.
In a hypothetical race between Vice President Harris and former President Trump, a shift in Nebraska would be significant for the simple that this election is going to be close. Assuming that Harris and Trump hold onto the key swing states they need to stay competitive, and the Nebraska move was successful, there would be a serious problem. Namely, that neither candidate would have enough electoral votes to become the president-elect.
Hypothetical Election Map 2024 via 270toWin-Screenshot by Author
Under the current electoral system, Harris only needs to win three swing states: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. This is because Democrats are likely to gain one more electoral vote from Nebraska. However, if the GOP effort had been successful, Democrats would be one vote short and so would Donald Trump. This scenario would send the election to the House of Representatives, who would decide who goes to the White House and the Senate would decide who becomes Vice-President.6
Such a scenario is exceptionally unlikely under our current electoral system and count. The last time this happened was in the election of 1800 between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, with Jefferson becoming president. However, if this were to happen, it is almost certain Trump would become the next president as the GOP controls the House. However, thanks to the extreme nature of the proposed rule in Nebraska, and the backlash to it, this will almost certainly not happen.
Why Talk About This?
While these hypothetical scenarios are rare and it seems unlikely that the GOP effort to turn Nebraska into a winner-take-all state will go any further, it is important to talk about this for several reasons. While elections have rules and protections in place, those protections are set by precedent and statutes.
Said statutes and precedents are controlled, influenced and upheld by powerful people in both the state legislatures and in the judiciary. It is incredibly important for people to not only pay attention to the presidency but also the political figures up and down the ballot, as well as the figures on the state level that can influence these decisions.
If there is anything that can be taken from this situation it is that every American should keep their eye on their leaders, both on the federal and state level. If we are to improve our political system and the nation as a whole, we must endeavor to remain aware of the actions of our leaders. We owe it to ourselves.
If you like my work and want to support me, you can find the donation link on my Kofi link. Thank you, I really appreciate it.
