MD Chooses Moore vs. Cox

 

The voters have spoken; I think!

When the final tallies are in from all the mail-in/drop-box ballots, it seems that Democratic candidate Wes Moore and Republican Dan Cox will be the nominees. The differences could not be more pronounced. The challenges cannot be understated. Free State voters must choose between two views of America. One, which is progressive and believes in protecting individual rights, ending child poverty, working for climate change policies, safeguarding abortion access, and educational opportunity, and one which claims philosophical purity and denies climate change issues, fought against COVID masking and restrictions, denied Biden’s election and claims schools are indoctrinating children.

Cox, who touted a DJT endorsement, states he will return Maryland to true conservatism; he fought against the somewhat moderate policies of current Governor Hogan and tried to impeach him over Covid restrictions. Cox, a Republican Delegate from Frederick County, brought a busload of MAGA supporters to the January 6^th insurrection and decried what he called Marxist educational practices and governmental actions that were contrary to the MD Constitution. Cox also called VP Pence a traitor. He now claims that Bidens’ policies on immigration, inflation, and high gas prices will drive Democrats to the GOP side. The Governor endorsed Cox’s opponent, the more moderate Kelly Schultz, a member of Hogans’ administration; Hogan states now that he will not vote for Cox and has described him as a “Qanon whacko”. The Democratic Governors’ association poured money into ads boasting of the MAGA endorsement for Cox. It remains to be seen whether or not this was a wise decision. The Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor is a woman, Gordana Schifanelli, a lawyer from Kent County, who was active in defining and protesting school curriculum issues. She emigrated to the U.S. from Yugoslavia and is married to a disabled veteran. According to Kelly Schultz, the law practices of both Cox and Schifanelli have both been cited for fraudulent business practices and listed as “not in good standing.”

Wes Moore came through on top of a crowded Democratic race with nine candidates, some more viable than others, but all quite sincere. Three, Perez, Jain, and King, had served in the Obama administration. Franchot was the current state Comptroller, while Perez and Gansler were both previous statewide officeholders in previous administrations.

While Wes Moore was unknown to me, he is well-known in Baltimore, where he is famous for building the finances of the non-profit anti-poverty Robin Hood Foundation, where he once served as CEO, and promoted education. He is also a former investment banker, Black media star, entrepreneur, Rhodes scholar, member of Phi Beta Kappa, veteran, and author. Although he claimed to have survived the rough streets of Baltimore, he did not grow up there, but in New York. However, he has a success story that resonated with many, including Congressman Steny Hoyer and Oprah, who endorsed him. His running mate for Lieutenant Governor is Aruna Miller, a well-known and respected former Montgomery County Delegate whose family was from India and emigrated to the U.S. when she was seven years old. She was educated as a civil engineer and worked in the Transportation Department in Montgomery County, MD for many years. After serving in the State House of Delegates, she previously ran for Congress in the Sixth District but lost. If elected, this ticket would have the first Black Governor in Maryland and the first Lt. Governor from an Asian background.

According to Maryland Matters: Moore wasted no time trying to draw contrasts between himself and Cox. “The choice could not be more clear,” he said, accusing Cox of fomenting divisiveness and promoting “cynical policies of conspiracy theories and fear.”

The Attorney General (AG) nominations also present a contest of contrasts. The Republican is someone only Republicans could have found. Former Anne Arundel County Councilman Michael Peroutka was previously a member of the Constitution Party and claims to be a Christian Nationalist who “will bring God back to Maryland.” A retired lawyer, his website claims: “As Attorney General of MD, Michael will prosecute unlawful officials, secure the right to bear arms, defend life, restore election integrity, and protect our borders.”

The last time I looked when I crossed over into West Virginia, the borders seemed pretty secure to me!

According to a recent article in the NY Times: “Christian nationalism isn’t a route to the future. Its purpose is to hollow out democracy until nothing is left, but a thin cover for rule by a supposedly right-thinking elite, bubble-wrapped in sanctimony and insulated from any real democratic check on its power.”

The Daily Beast describes many of the January 6^th insurrectionists as believing in the theory “that America was meant to be a white Christian nation” and allows for racist rants such as were written by the anti-black Buffalo Tops store shooter. These are the same theories spouted by some on Fox TV as they discuss their concerns about white replacement and others who tout succession by the South. (Haven’t we heard of that before?)

Candidate Cox spouts a lot of stuff about the U.S. not being a democracy, but a republic and apparently relies on his endorsement from the MAGA crowd to put him in office. I am hoping the so-called “blue” state of MD will prove him wrong. However, MD is blue in the core and red on the edges, despite gerrymandering, and some have called it purple. Democrats will need to turn out and not be complacent as those on the fanatic right will show up.

Here are some definitions from How Stuff Works:

Is the United States a democracy or a republic? The answer is both.

The U.S. isn’t a “pure democracy” in which every decision is put to a popular vote, but today scholars use the terms “democracy” and “republic” interchangeably to mean any government where power is invested in the people, whether it’s exercised directly by the people or by their elected representatives.

While the United States was the first modern democracy, the world is now full of democracies and republics of various flavors: presidential republics, parliamentary republics, constitutional monarchies, and more. Each type of democracy has its advantages and disadvantages, but they all share founding principles like free and fair elections, guaranteed human rights, and the rule of law.

This American style of democracy is called the “presidential model,” since the president is the chief executive and is elected separately from members of Congress. As the head of the executive branch, the president also exercises certain powers, like the ability to veto bills passed by Congress, to appoint members to the Supreme Court, and to serve as commander-in-chief of the military.

Consequently, this multi-faceted nation once described as a melting pot, but encompassing peoples from across the world of all nationalities and races is not a Christian nation, not a nation of a single race; and those proclaiming these theories need to look at such ideas and hopefully, those who promote them will never be elected. Officials who promote hate and autocracies have no place here.

The Democratic candidate for AG is Congressman Anthony Brown, once a Lt. Governor under O’Malley and a previous candidate for governor who lost to Hogan. A lawyer and former JAG officer in the Army, he gave up a safe Congressional seat to run against the wife of his former running mate, Judge Katie O’Malley, whose father was once AG. Gets kinda complicated, right? Anyway, Brown is also African American, which should provide a stark contrast against a White Christian Nationalist opponent. According to his website, Brown will stand for justice, protect the environment, stand for reproductive rights and fight against gun violence. So, they set the stage; it will be up to Brown to get out there and make his argument to Marylanders. I certainly hope that he does, as that other guy is scary!

Below is an article from the Baltimore Business Journal with some opinions about his failed campaign in 2014:

Maryland voters, who lean Democratic by more than a 2-to-1 margin, didn’t just wake up Tuesday and change their minds on all matters of public policy. They saw Brown as a candidate who didn’t explain how he would differentiate himself from O’Malley; belatedly explained his role in Maryland’s failed rollout of the Affordable Care Act; never described how he would make Maryland more competitive for business; and who already played a role in two terms of tax increases. Heather Mizeur, who lost to Brown in the June Democratic primary, wrote an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun describing her effort to support Brown in the general election. She came away discouraged — still asking people to vote for Brown, but only as she held her nose. “I was told they had no interest in promoting new policies but were instead locked on a strategy to just draw contrasts with their opponent,” Mizeur wrote. “That is campaign doublespeak for settling to run negative attack ads rather than to promote a positive vision.” Those liabilities — combined with Brown’s negative campaign — led voters to either take a chance on Hogan and his promises of lower taxes or to sit out the election.

Brown has a good story to tell, about his immigrant physician father, his Swiss mother, and his upbringing and career, (if my memory is correct). I certainly hope that lessons were learned!

Now on to the last race in the statewide contests: the race for Comptroller. In this race on the Democratic side, the contest was between Bowie Mayor, Timothy Adams and State Delegate from Baltimore, Brooke Lierman (whom I volunteered for). Lierman won decisively, receiving 64% of the vote in the yet to be finalized, results. If elected, she would be the first woman in that office.

Her opponent is Republican Barry Glassman, a moderate former Harford County Executive, who describes himself as a Larry Hogan Republican and who is trying to distance himself from the others on the top of the ticket. He declared that their selection would make his race more difficult.

In the Congressional races, all the incumbents on the Democratic side won. In the race for the seat currently held by gun-toting Congressman Andy Harris, CD1, Heather Mizeur won the Democratic nomination, in what will be a tough race against the only Republican Congressman in the state. Although the Democratic legislature tried to redistrict the area to better favor an opponent, the courts overturned that division and returned the district to include more Republicans. The courts also revised the district for David Trone, CD6, and included a more Republican population, so he might have a more difficult time this year. Congressman Jamie Raskin used to have part of Frederick County in his district, but that was also redistricted out, so he no longer has any portion of Frederick County.

In Montgomery County-the Democratic County Executive race, where opponents to incumbent Marc Elrich went strongly negative and repeat opponent David Blair put in millions of his own money, while Elrich took public financing, there is no clear winner. Hans Riemer ran third and conceded, but Elrich has a narrow lead of about 276 votes over Blair as mail-in ballots continue to be counted. In the race in 2018, Elrich beat Blair by 77 votes.

In Frederick County, two county council members and a former board of ed member vied for the top spot on the Democratic ticket. Jessica Fitzwater bested Kai Hagen and Daryl Boffman for the nomination with 57% of the vote in unofficial tallies. She will face state Senator Michael Hough for the leadership of the county in November. Hough ran unopposed for the Republican nomination. Hough was once an aide to the controversial conservative and former Frederick Delegate, Alex Mooney, and is chief of staff for the same, now Congressman, Mooney in WV.

So, Marylanders, in these races the choices for Democrats should not be difficult. In every instance, the Democratic candidates are clearly the only rational choices, in my opinion.  Women need to step up for those who would protect a woman’s right to reproductive freedoms, bodily autonomy, and freedom to travel as they wish. Senator Romney complained recently that no one wants to restrict contraception; why should this be made into law? Uhh, Senator, there are bills proposing that in some states now!

Hey, this is my blog, my opinions! But voters cannot give in to pleas from ideologues, demagogues, racists, fascists, or be those who would vote only for gas price reductions. If you vote for someone who says they will fix the economy, you are buying a bag of air. They do not make these policies at the state level; the economy is an international, interrelated issue and inflation is just a portion of it.

Another blog will deal with why President Biden is getting a bad rap; he has implemented policies and signed legislation that helped the economy and reduced unemployment and much more. It will be a long autumn until the mid-terms. Hang onto your hats; there might be a lot of heated air blowing out there!

“Til next week-peace!

The Mean-Spirited Agenda of the Right

 

A photo appeared in the news this week of a demonstrator at an anti-abortion rally holding a sign which stated something like: ‘We are just getting started with Roe’. I do not know whether that was a threat or a promise, but either way, it is ominous. A war is being waged against American women and reproductive rights that will move on toward limiting contraceptive choices such as birth control pills or Plan B (the morning-after pill) if the more zealous have their way. Will tubal ligations (tying off the Fallopian tubes) become the only allowable choices to prevent pregnancy, or will that also come under scrutiny?

Maureen Dowd, writing in the New York Times on Sunday reported from Ireland, a “Catholic nation” that voted by a hotly debated national referendum in 2018 to allow abortion, after a series of horror stories of women and babies both dying in toxic pregnancies after abortions were denied. Women in Ireland had then traveled to England where abortions were permitted; now the Irish are wondering if Americans might travel to Ireland for safe abortion services. The women she interviewed described the atmosphere in Ireland when the referendum was being considered and explained it as not splitting the country because they created an empathetic network and civil discourse followed. They do not understand why more women are not in the streets and the President is not demanding Congress act for changes in the abortion laws. As they made clear, this issue is bodily autonomy and women’s rights. Women have spoken out and were encouraged to think about these issues in November when they vote. President Biden urged them to elect at least two more Democratic Senators so that our country is not paralyzed by the 50-50 Senate gridlock we now have.

Concern for a 10-year-old child who was impregnated by a rapist became another political football as the state authorities in Ohio claimed the story was untrue until the confessed rapist appeared in court. Right-wing media also reported that the story was fabricated and claimed that a police report was not made by the victims’ family, although they had filed it promptly. Then, of course, once proven wrong, they made much of the report that the rapist was an undocumented resident or “illegal alien” in their words. Since the girl’s pregnancy was just over the six-week allowed abortion limit in Ohio, her physician referred her to a doctor in Indiana. The girl’s family transported her to this neighboring state, where she received a safe abortion under medical care. Some anti-abortion activists claimed that she should have carried the pregnancy to term and that it would have been a blessing. Aside from the fact that a ten-year-old body often is not physically developed enough to safely carry a baby to term, a child that age is still a child and not socially mature enough to mother a baby. Authorities in Ohio even threatened to take the licenses of the physicians who cared for this child. Physicians are naturally becoming concerned about just what is legally allowed, as laws appear to differ from state to state in those states where restrictions are being put in place.

Approximately 30% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage often in the first trimester, frequently because of a problem with the ovum or implantation, such as with a tubal pregnancy. Some of the same medications used for a medical abortion are used to treat an ‘incomplete abortion’ or miscarriage where tissue remains in the uterus. A tubal pregnancy is a medical emergency and must be treated surgically and removed. Physicians are now concerned that these self-appointed medical watchdogs will interfere with their care for pregnant patients with normal complications. Already there are reports that emergency rooms do not want to care for patients bleeding from natural miscarriages and physicians who wonder how they can legally remove a tubal pregnancy that has no chance of progression in an abortion ban state. A ruptured tubal pregnancy could kill a mother if not treated promptly, but the procedure ends the pregnancy. When will legislators and preachers stop trying to practice medicine?

Crisis pregnancy centers (anti-abortion clinics) claim that a teen can carry a pregnancy to term and that her baby will find a loving family to adopt her child if she feels she cannot handle that responsibility. This belies the fact that mixed-race children and children of color are less likely to be adopted. These children frequently end up in the foster care system where they sometimes are shifted from one home to another and never become adopted; and according to the state, they are aged out at 18 and are left to fend on their own without resources. There are currently over 400,000 children in foster care in the United States. According to figures from the Annie E Casey Kids Count Foundation, approximately one-third are in the one to five-year-old range and 8% are babies. Racially, about 46% are white with Black and Hispanic children, each accounting for around 20%, while mixed-race children comprise about 8%, with other minorities making up the rest. That leaves about 60% of the children who are older than five and less likely to ever be adopted. While there are certainly many loving foster care families who take in many needy children or those with birth defects or who are emotionally impaired and give them loving care, there are also foster families who take in children mostly for the money they will receive from an overworked social welfare system that poorly vets their care. The foster care system also cares for children who have been removed from dangerous circumstances, such as those with addicted or abusive parents. These children often need psychological supports which our under-funded healthcare or Medicaid systems do not sustain adequately. Sadly, the pandemic has also increased the numbers of parentless children, many of whom are now living with relatives or older siblings.

Now, with no options for abortions in many of our poorest states and inadequate social safety nets for unwanted children born because of forced pregnancies, just where is the necessary care for these children coming from? The boxes of diapers, baby wipes, and formula promised to mothers in the crisis care centers seldom last past the six-week checkup, so where are these mothers to find the resources to care for these babies? Will we face a generation of even more divisions between the haves and have-nots if those who cannot afford to travel for abortion care out of Texas or Mississippi or Louisiana, for example, are the mothers then having children in those states? And despite Justice Amy Comey Barrett talking about safe havens at fire stations for unwanted babies, just how many will actually end up there? And they will not go immediately into warm, loving middle-class homes, no matter how many times that magic phrase is repeated.

Women seek abortions for a variety of reasons; not being able to afford yet another child is often one reason. Losing a college scholarship might be another; forced pregnancies may well result in forced poverty. Other reasons for abortion can be incest, abuse, or rape; some claim that these are excuses, but they occur more often than we know and are seldom reported to authorities. (The remark by Texas Governor Abbott that he would eliminate rape as an issue in Texas was laughable, but tragic. In 2021, Rolling Stone reports, around 16,000 rapes were reported in the state, with one-third stating the rapist was a family member. Now just how is this elimination going to occur?)

The Office of Population Affairs under Health and Human Services reports that teen pregnancies often interrupt the education of the mother who may then not graduate from high school and consequently have fewer opportunities to adequately support that child. The report further states: “Children born to adolescents are more likely to have poorer educational, behavioral, and health outcomes throughout their lives, compared with children born to older parents. However, like the challenges teen mothers face, the challenges their children face are largely explained by the mothers’ socioeconomic circumstances before having a baby. Moreover, the challenges for both mother and baby are more severe in the short term.”

Obviously, this nation is not caring well for those who are poor; nor is it caring appropriately for the poor who have children. There are Medicaid services and aid with maternal health care, but these are short-lived. Food stamps can only buy so much and the South is notoriously stringent with benefits. Inflation, such as we are seeing now, further diminishes the value of these social services. Yet the legislators and governors in these states are tripping over their tongues with rhetoric about preventing abortions and crafting heartbeat laws. Still, by their very actions, they set out to punish those children who are already living with reduced services and inadequate funding for mental health and preventive care.

Additionally, states reduce programs about sex education and instead promote abstinence programs that have never worked. In fact, a report by NPR shows that not only are they inadequate, but claims that they are also unethical, in that they fail to provide vital information about contraception and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases that teenagers often need. They cite an earlier study: According to a 2004 report prepared for House Democrats, language used in abstinence-based curricula often reinforces “gender stereotypes about female passivity and male aggressiveness” — attitudes that often correlate with harmful outcomes including domestic violence, the report notes.

The leader of the conservative group Concerned Women for America then claimed ‘that our culture has swung too far to the left and we as parents owe this abstinence education to our children so that they can delay sexual behavior until adulthood.’ (paraphrased,)

Today, many women see their rights being eroded in the area of bodily autonomy and wonder just what is next. Will so-called Covenant marriages be mandated or divorces become harder to get? Will women be punished for infidelity (aside from the fact that these acts take two)? If the states really think that they can restrict travel away from a state where an abortion ban is in place to another for abortion services, just what other restrictions can they propose? Will reporting on those who “aid and abet” a woman seeking her legal rights be enforced, and bounties paid? 

Of course, all of this is in parallel with a scandal detailing years of sexual abuse, which was ignored by those in charge of the Southern Baptist Convention, (the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S.) many of whom told women to stay with their abusers or were the abusers themselves. Hundreds were charged, as reported by Terry Gross of NPR, over the last twenty years; many were repeat offenders. However, often just as the Catholic Church had done, these abusers have moved around, yet been kept in positions of authority. The church also preaches that women should be subordinate to men. These same churches are supporting abortion bans and crisis pregnancy centers.

Do you see just how absurd this might become? Margaret Atwood had a limited imagination when compared to some of these folks!

“Til next week-Peace!

Where Can You be Safe?

Over the Fourth of July weekend in the United States, 220 people were killed by gun violence and nearly 570 were injured. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there were only five states where there were no reports of multiple shootings during that time period.

In Highland Park, Illinois, there was a horrendous mass murder at a Fourth of July parade attended by families with grandparents and grandchildren: three generations out to enjoy the Fourth. In the parade were police units marching and armed, but their handguns were no match for the 21-year-old gunman armed with a variation of an AK -15 who shot over 60 rounds. The shooter killed seven people and injured at least two dozen others in Highland Park. In nearby Chicago, while there were no mass murders, the total of killings and those injured by gun violence that weekend were higher than those in Highland Park, but the massacre got all the attention. That is often the case, even though mass killings account for less than 1% of the total killings. The authorities define a mass murder as an instance when four or more victims are shot in the same event by the same gunman. So far this year, they have identified 309 events as mass killings. And the year is only half over.

Is this the society you want? One where there is no place you go where you feel safe? So far this year, we have seen multiple killings in schools, at a grocery store, in a workplace, at a church, in a hospital; there have been shootings in the subway and on random streets in cities across the country. Children in DC and VA recently who were in their neighborhoods and playing outside were killed by being caught in a crossfire between warring factions or cars driving by, with occupants firing wildly.

One of the parade-goers who helped rescue a two-year-old boy, after the gunman killed his parents, said in an interview “we should be allowed to feel safe.”  And I agree, but when the current rogue court allowed relief from many of the gun restrictions the State of New York had imposed, it also allowed many more guns to be on the street, both there and elsewhere. We have over 400 million guns in this country owned by private citizens. Approximately 40% of the population owns a gun. So, since our population is around 333 million, there are a bunch of folks out there who each have a lot of firepower. Maybe they are collectors or perhaps even hunters, so a gun makes sense for them. People with prior charges, arrests, or mental health issues are supposed to have their applications to purchase a gun held up or questioned during the mandatory three-day waiting period, but NBC reported the FBI could not finish over one million background checks within that timetable, so the sale, by law, was permitted. However, over twenty-three million checks were completed on time, both in the years 2020 and 2021.

I do not own a gun. I do not wish to own a gun. Those decisions are a matter of personal choice. If you want to own a rifle or a pistol, I will not stand in your way. However, should you claim to need a semi-automatic and multiple magazines, I would disagree with your decision. Those are weapons of war and have no place in our civilized society. Physicians who attempted to assist the victims in Highland Park said that some bodies were eviscerated, while others had body parts strewn about the sidewalks. Really? We should, as a society, do better; we should demand that our country do better and get these weapons off the street. The assault weapons ban needs to be reinstated. We should begin a voluntary surrender program or even buybacks, where possible.

New Zealand and Australia have shown that these programs work. Of course, they are not as armed up as we here in the U.S. are, but those are countries that have respect for personal freedoms. After the shootings in Christ Church NZ, at the mosques there, they passed laws that banned semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles. They just weighed their options and decided that there were too many guns with high power around and wanted their use to stop. In an article in Vox, the author explained that Australia’s program came about after a mass shooter killed 35 people. Assault-style weapons were banned and a mandatory buy-back program and registry were instituted; seizures produced an additional 650,000 weapons. Suicide rates dropped and other criminal uses declined. In an 18-year follow-up period, there were only 13 mass murders. I understand these cultures differ from ours. Both are smaller countries somewhat isolated in the Pacific Ocean. New Zealand has just over 5 million people, while Australia counts its population at around 27 million, smaller than that of California, which has over 40 million people.

But, if after only one mass murder, they can determine a solution, surely, we can do something after over 300 this year alone. The recently passed gun laws were timid and did not really address the problem of semi-automatic or assault weapons. This needs to be corrected, but we currently have a Congress that is paralyzed. State governments are also paralyzed-both by a noisy minority. This must stop. Our children need to be able to go to school without fear; grandparents need to be able to join their families at a parade without fear; all need to be able to go to the grocery store without fear. Talking about mental health as the issue as Mitch McConnell did this week is misdirection. Other countries have disturbed youth also, but they do not have access to weapons of war with which to voice their disaffection.

In Japan this week, the former prime minister, Shinzo Abe, was assassinated as he gave a speech on a street corner. The assailant nursed some type of private grudge and used a homemade gun-like weapon to shoot him twice. In Japan, guns are restricted. There are fewer than ten killings a year with guns. The nation is in mourning because he was the longest-serving prime minister and was greatly respected.

Briefly, a few thoughts more. We have seen two mass murderers arrested recently. They each were young white males who had killed several people violently using assault weapons. The police took them into custody with no struggles or shots fired.

Contrast that with recent reports of black drivers stopped for questionable traffic violations. The most recent incident report noted over 90 shots fired as the unarmed driver tried to run away; 60 shots struck his body. Every few months there appears to be another story such as this one which took place in Ohio; one was in South Carolina, another in Texas. NPR reported in 2021 that since 2015 there have been reports of 135 unarmed Black men shot and killed by police who stopped them, often for no provocation or actual violation. Some of the shooting victims had mental health issues and seemed to not comprehend the commands they were given. The report also found that certain police officers seemed more likely to shoot than others. They noted that 75% of the officers involved in the shootings were white and found that, while most officers never fire a gun during their entire careers, some have done so more than once. These incidents are frequently never investigated. It is only when families question the accounts given to them that often the truth or body cam footage is revealed. Some say the more recent awareness began with the shooting of Michael Brown and the coverup attempted after his death. I do not know how we do this, but I think we need to do better. If you were black and read these stats, wouldn’t you be inclined to run?

Just as we would not allow vigilante crime and asked for justice in the case of Ahmaud Arbrey, we cannot allow vigilantes in uniform who sully the reputations of excellent police officers. As Joe Friday used to say, “just the facts, ma’am.”

“Til next week-Peace!

 

 

A Few Honest Folks?

The ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes was famously said to walk the streets looking for an honest man. (They also described him as badly lacking in manners and civil discourse and a man who had outbursts of public urination and defecation!) So, I am uncertain just how he would define honesty. But, since we have recently had a rash of public officials who were not familiar with truth-telling, it is good to come across several people who have testified honestly in the House Select Committee Hearings about January 6^th.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger recorded the call from the President and testified about that conversation where he was asked to find 11,780 votes so that they could declare him the winner of Georgia’s electoral votes. The Secretary could hardly get his explanation out in the conversation with the former President when he explained the multiple counts and ballot reviews. He also told the committee that one discrepancy was that many people voted for other offices on the ballot but did not vote for any candidate for president, leaving that ballot line blank so that other candidates in some counties received more votes than the Office of the President did. In his testimony, he spoke of the turmoil that resulted from opposing this request. Phones for his family members were “doxed” and unknown persons subjected them to cyberbullying and personal threats. He, his wife, and other family members were physically threatened and his daughter-in-law’s home was invaded. When asked why he just didn’t give up and quit, he simply answered that he had to remain faithful to his job and the Constitution.

The Arizona Speaker of the House also testified about pressures from the White House and its’ associates. He was not asked to find more votes but was asked to call the Arizona House back into session, so it could select a new set of presidential electors which would then cast votes in the president’s favor, although Biden had won the state by several thousand votes. He tried to explain that this was not something he could do subject to state laws. He explained he had taken an oath to defend the Constitution and his legislative office and could not go against this oath or his faith in making that vow. He also described attacks against him and his family and protestors surrounding his home with loudspeakers defaming his character. Although I disagree with this official in his devotion to former President Reagan, his personal conservatism, and his statement that if DJT were to run again, he would vote for him, I have to applaud the fact that his oath of office meant something to him; (even though the oath taken by the former president apparently meant nothing in his case).

Several officials from the Department of Justice also gave testimony in the Committee hearings.

NPR reports that “former Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, former acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, and former Office of Legal Counsel head Steven Engel all testified before the committee about the pressure they faced to use their positions at the Justice Department (DOJ) to help then-President Trump overturn his election loss.”

They mentioned daily phone calls from the White House to call the election fraudulent or to investigate ever-increasing conspiratorial claims, all of which were proven false. They explained they had even been told to just find fraud; the White House would take care of the rest. When they learned of a plan in transition from the president to name as a new acting Attorney General (AG), an inexperienced DOJ environmental attorney named Jeffrey Clark who was ready to do the President’s bidding, the upper staff of the Department of Justice uniformly threatened to resign. Rep Scott Perry, from PA, brought Clark to the attention of the president as one who would be on the team. Clark had prepared a letter for Rosen’s signature that would have been sent to several states and stated that the DOJ had found enough evidence to decertify the election and encouraged the states to choose new electors. Since none of this was true, Rosen, who was asked by the president to serve under Clark (preposterous!) showed that the senior staff would all resign if they put this unqualified person in the AG office. The president dropped this plan in the face of this collective action. These three officials all spoke about the integrity of the department and how moves such as this would threaten the independence and reputation of Justice. Here again, truth-telling and integrity are valued, as are the oaths the staff attorneys take to serve.

The NPR analysis criticized the DOJ senior officials for not going public with this episode of coercion by the president, which has been called a scheme leading to a constitutional crisis. Interestingly, Perry (who denied this) and several other members of Congress requested advance pardons that were not granted. Congressman Mo Brooks (who wore body armor and spoke at the Jan 6^th rally) requested blanket pardons for all who voted against certifying the election, some say.

Last week Jeffery Clarks’ home was searched on a DOJ Inspector General (IG) warrant carried out by Federal agents. They ousted Clark from his home, leaving him to stand on the street in his PJs. Also, Attorney John Eastman, mastermind of several election schemes and rally speaker, had his iPhone seized on a Federal warrant from the DOJ IG office. Reports show the agents used his own facial scan to unlock the phone. Well now, that no longer seems like such a secure method, does it?

Now comes the surprise testimony of 26-year-old Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. She spoke in a live hearing scheduled on short notice by the Select Committee. After her testimony, we learned she had recently changed attorneys, leaving a DJT-provided and funded lawyer, for one of her choosing after receiving somewhat thinly veiled warnings ‘to remain a team player, to say the correct things, and to keep in mind that if she wants to stay in DJT world, that the former president was reading transcripts of the hearings’. In a warning to others, Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney spoke against witness tampering and intimidation and asked several of those who had not given testimony to come forward.

Her desk was in a short corridor between Meadows’ office and the Oval Office and next to the office of the VP. Press photos pictured her in meetings, sitting along the wall in a meeting room, taking notes, and bringing messages. One person derisively called her the coffee girl. Be that as it may, she was in a position to hear exchanges among several of the major players in the White House, including attorneys, advisors, and security staffers. At times, she was in the Oval Office for discussions there. She was also present after DJT threw dishes across the room or pulled the tablecloth off his dining table, scattering the remnants of a meal across his private dining room. Hutchinson recounted assisting a White House valet one day in wiping ketchup off the walls after the president had thrown food. Somehow, I do not think those were duties in any of her job descriptions. Surely, they picture a man who never should have been elected.

She overheard parts of discussions that Meadows had with Congressmen such as Jim Jordan or Minority Leader McCarthy. She described escorting Rudy Giuliani from the White House and being told that January 6^th would be wild. Later, asking Meadows about it, she was told that some bad things might be happening. On January 5^th Meadows planned to go join Bannon, Giuliani, and others in the Willard Hotel ‘War Room’; she said she discouraged that; he ended up calling into the meeting.

There were lengthy discussions about the speech the president would give before the rally; the attorneys kept telling him to tone it down. Hutchinson attended the rally and was backstage before it started. There she heard the president arguing with security about the crowd. He wanted more people allowed into the protected area so the cameras would see a good crowd. The Secret Service said many people did not want to go through the magnetometers where weapons were being confiscated. DC police already had reports of marchers with bayonets fixed to flagpoles, armed men in trees, and marchers with AK-15s. The president reportedly told the agents that the armed marchers were not there to harm him, let them in. It was unclear if they obeyed his orders. He gave a speech telling his supporters “To fight like hell because if they didn’t, they would not have a country anymore”. In his speech, he also went after Mike Pence again.

After the march, he demanded to be taken to the Capitol to be with the marchers, but the security agents refused to do so, citing the danger and the unruliness of the armed mob. Hutchinson reported that the security detail told a story about the president becoming enraged in the secure SUV and becoming physical with the agents while trying to turn the vehicle, which finally brought him back to the West Wing.

As the day went on, she gave testimony about the many advisers and family trying to get the president to call off the mob. She reported, as others have, that the president was unmoved at the calls to “hang Mike Pence”, saying he probably deserved them. When he finally sent out a tweet, he further fanned the flames.

I will not recount all of her testimony here, but her reports are of a man clearly out of control listening to none of his advisors or family members; a man who could not concede an election he knew he had lost. Cassidy Hutchinson, like many before her, came to Washington as an intern. She was the first in her family to go to college; she had dreams about serving her country. Before she became the assistant to Meadows, she worked in the offices of Steve Scalise and Ted Cruz. She was a conservative Republican. Yet she also described in her truth-telling way, her disillusionment with those leading the country; how could they approve of attacking the Capitol? To her, those actions were un-American. To her, this meant that she had a duty to set the record straight, to tell the truth as she saw and overheard it.

We are all in her gratitude and salute her courage in coming forward.

‘Til next week-Peace!