If you watched The Rachel Maddow Show a couple nights ago, you saw her do a story about Jack Abramoff.  He was the lobbyist who concocted a scheme with Grover Norquest and Ralph Reed and others that defrauded American Indian groups he was supposedly representing.  Abramoff not only went to prison for his crimes, but his acts were so egregious that an Abramoff law was passed, specifically named for him -- and as Maddow pointed out with a sort of bemused relished, the first person ever found guilty of that law was just sentenced the other day.  And that person was -- yes, really -- Jack Abramoff.

I mention this because I actually sort of cross paths with Abramoff about 30 years ago.  That was when he was producing some movies in Hollywood.  In 1989, a friend of mine, Philippa Salisbury (who I wrote about here) had been in contact with him for some inexplicable reason -- but then, that was Philippa who was often in contact with totally-unexpected people for some inexplicable reason.  It was about a project, Three Men in Malacca, and she needed a treatment based on a one-page idea Abramoff had.  (A treatment is basically a short story version of a movie, before developing the actual screenplay.)

I wrote a 20-page treatment that had to do with old army buddies going back to Malaysia where they'd fought in World War II and got involved with an adventure about a buried treasure.  (Oddly, as I think about it, this is somewhat the premise of the new Netflix movie from Spike Lee, Da Five Bloods, which is quite good.  I'm not even remotely suggesting any overlap -- the movies are totally different -- just noting the whimsy of similarities as I tell this tale.)  I remember the subtext I added to the plot -- making it a bit of an twist of The Wizard of Oz, including that one of the old buddies had been a coward during the war, another was somewhat cold and imperious, and with the passing of years the third had become a bit feeble-minded, as they headed off onto their journey.

I was paid next to nothing for it. (Not hyperbole -- i could say it was three figures, which is true, but that would be giving it visions of grandeur because it had a kinship so close to two figures that if it got drunk and toppled over, there stood a good chance of it landing in that district...) This was on the hope that if it moved forward I'd get to write the screenplay.  It was a foolish thought, but it was earlier in my writing career days where such foolish, naive thoughts take residence, though not so early that I should have known better how foolhardy it was.  To be clear, it wasn't foolish so much because I was paid so little, but that I didn't own the property, so if nothing happened with the project, I couldn't ever do anything with it.  And nothing happened with the project.

And I liked the story a lot.  It was really a fun adventure that had other layers to it, along with a family relationship mixed in.  So, knowing that the project was pretty much dead, I wrote to the company that developed it and asked -- since the project was going nowhere and was based on a one-paragraph idea -- if I could return what I had been paid and perhaps get or buy the rights to it for a reasonable fee.  And the head of that company I wrote to was...Jack Abramoff.

I eventually received a letter back.  And he said, no.  In fairness to him, it was a very polite correspondence, and he had every right to say no.  And certainly, maybe some day he could develop it again.  I just didn't think he ever would -- that rarely happens in Hollywood.  Projects based on just a one-page idea that die are generally put in the bin and buried, and people move on  to something new and fresh.  And indeed, in the 30 years that have passed since then, not only has nothing come of the project since that letter, but Abramoff moved from Hollywood into political lobbying.  And has been to prison.  Twice. 

That was my only annoyance at the letter.  He had every right to say no, and was polite -- but I was certain the project would die, and I liked it so much and would have loved to pursue it.  So be it.  In the end, I'm at my desk typing...and he's in prison. 

Again.

And here below with the signature from Page 2 is the evidence.  A word that Jack Abramoff has probably grown to loathe...

Normally, I would be loathe to post this video, since it's pretty violently brutal -- but as far as I can tell from watching it and from all that I've read about it, including the police write-up (from which this video comes), nobody was hurt -- remarkable as that may seem.  Especially with the lesser-known addendum.

It took place four weeks ago, on June 1, in Riverside, California, which is about an hour east of Los Angeles.  There were social protests going on there, and in middle of them a car drove up, stopped and the driver got out to throw a firecracker.

From the video released by the police, here's what happened next.  If you've seen it, stick around anyway for some additional comment which I haven't seen.

​As I said, I wouldn't have posted this if I was aware that anyone had gotten hurt.  And I don't believe that's the case.  But this falls under the heading of "Getting Your Comeuppance."

This video has gotten a little bit of attention, and where that's occurred, it usually notes that the driver was able to run off without getting hurt.  And also the person in the passenger seat was able to get out of of the car before the big kaboom. 

Fine.  But what I haven't seen mentioned -- and I only noticed by playing the video over several times and pausing it is...there is someone is the passenger-side back seat who didn't get out!!  And is in the car when the firecracker explosion goes off.  I am absolutely certain of this.  (You can check it out yourself.)  And that never gets mentioned, as far as I have seen.  Fortunately for the person, what I suspect happened that keeps them safe is that the firecracker is thrown into the front seat, and since the passenger is in the back, the seats protect the person from getting hurt by any flying debris and flames.

By the way, as you can see in the heading on the video -- with police badge logos embedded -- there was an arrest made of the driver last Tuesday, June 23rd.  Here's the official police posting with the video. 

I don't know exactly everything that happened prior to the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta.  I don't know what all was said when the police were called about a black man asleep in his car.  I don't know what the police said when they first approached the car.  I don't know how drunk he was or if he was actually drunk.  I don't know the full specifics of what happened when the police tried to handcuff him.  I don't know why he ran.  I can make guesses -- most-especially about why he ran, but I don't know.

I do know that, taking the absolute worst into consideration for the sake of argument, that assaulting the police when drunk and shooting a Taser at them is not a crime punishable by death.

Further, even again assuming all the worst for the sake of argument, I also know that a Taser only has a range of about 15 feet (which I'm certain the police, being trained, know), so not only was there no lethal danger to the police from it, but as long as they stayed a whole five yards away, there was no physical danger to them of any kind whatsoever.  And because they had already searched Mr. Brooks, they knew that he didn't have any other weapon.  So, there was no physical danger from that either.

It would seem (once more, always assuming the worst -- even if "the worst" doesn't come to play here, but let's assume it does for the sake of argument) that if someone has committed a crime for which the penalty is not death and maybe a few weeks in jail, and if that person is running away from you, and you have the choice of shooting him to death or letting him go, the sane, humane, and legal response would be to let the person go.

And to be very clear, when I say "let the person go"...I mean only at that exact moment.  Because the police have several other options, the two of which seem most basic and easy are --

1) Walk back to your patrol car, put out an APB that a drunk man by the name of Rayshard Brooks and with his description is on foot, running in a certain directions and police cars should converge on that area.

And 2) Go back to his car, write down the license plate, get his registration from the Motor Vehicle Division (you're the police, after all, and can find that sort of thing out), and then send as many patrol cars as you want to his residence and wait for him to come home.

And then you don't have to kill him! 

For running away when drunk, with no lethal weapon in his possession. 

Which in every civilized country around the world, most-especially including the United States, is not considered to be a capital crime.

And this is assuming the very worst possible.  When you start going up the scale in increments of "not the very worst possible," the ghastly situation gets even worse.

Including answering the question, "Why did he run?"  Because it's getting to the point where it tragically seems like the answer to that is far too often, "My God, why in the world wouldn't he?"

When the worst possible punishment for someone's action is not the death penalty, then it would seem like there is no reason -- not even to shoot someone -- but to simply take out your gun.

Keep in mind, this wasn't a totally unexpected situation that suddenly went haywire and got completely out of control.  The police are actually trained for situations exactly like this.  Rayshard Brooks is not the first person to resist arrest and try to run away from an officer.  No, really.

And even more, this didn't occur in a vacuum. Seriously, given the international sea change in society happening in mass outrage around the globe, what on earth was the police officer thinking when he shot Rayshard Brooks to death for running away from him with no lethal weapon?  Has he not seen the news during the past three weeks??  It's tragic enough under any circumstance, but to ignore literally the entire world around him, it suggests his only immediate instinct was, "There is a black man running away, shoot him to death."

I am sure there is a defense and argument for the policeman who shot and killed Rayshard Brooks.  To be clear, that doesn't mean it's a good one.

Oh, dear God – it wasn't just a lunatic "threat," but Trump actually, really, truly did have his re-election campaign lawyers send a cease-and-desist letter to CNN for having published their poll results.  And apparently they did have an outside firm, the not-especially well-regarded McLaughlin Associates, analyze the results.
 
What a whiny little petulant child Trump is.  It's almost a miracle he hasn't threatened to sue every pollster, since after all every one of them have him behind Joe Biden -- by a lot.  Maybe he thinks this was a good idea for his base, but it was a brain-dead idea.  What a shock Trump is lost with the pandemic & Black Lives Matter.
 
But best of all is the response from CNN.  At first I thought maybe it was from The Onion.  But it was tweeted on the CNN account, and I found it on the CNN website.
 
And you have to love the CNN lawyer’s name – David Vigilante.  And no, again, this is not The Onion.

I have almost nothing to add to this.  Some things are just right and say all that needs to be said.  I do feel compelled to note a couple of thoughts about why the Trump cease-and-decease letter is so idiotic, beyond the obvious.  First is that there are two other polls with almost the same results -- showing Trump behind by 10/11 points, which is within the margin of error -- and there was no cease-and-desist letter sent to them.  This not only shows the letter to be childish and empty, but if the threat ever wet to court is probably all the evidence CNN would need to get it thrown out.  And second, since CNN was never going to retract its poll, and since a lawsuit could never go anywhere for the reason stated and more, the only reasonable outcome from sending the letter is ridicule and humiliation, pretty much the exact opposite of looking tough to anybody.

I can only keep repeating -- no, this is not The Onion.  

​I've embedded the text at the end in case the graphic of the original letter isn't sharp enough, though I think it should be.

If you have a hard time reading the graphic of the original letter, here's the text below --

​Dear Ms. Ellis,
 
This responds to your letter dated lune 9, 2020.
 
To my knowledge, this is the first time in is 40 year history that CNN
had been threatened with legal action because an American politician or
campaign did not like CNN's polling results.
 
To the extent we have received legal threat from political leaders in
the past, they have typically come from countries like Venezuela or other
regimes where there is little or no respect for a free and independent
media.
 
CNN is well aware of the reputation John McLaughlin and McLaughlin
Associates. In 2014 his firm famously reported that Eric Cantor was
leading his primary challenger Dave Brat by 34 points only to lose by 11
points -- a 45 point swing. The firm currently has a rating from
FiveThirtyEight.
 
In any event, McLaughlin was able to evaluate and criticize CNN's most
recent poll because CNN is transparent and publishes its methodology
along with its polling results. Because of this, McLaughlin was free to
publish his own critique of CNN's analysis and share his criticisms
across the U.S. media landscape. That's how free speech works. It's the
American way.
 
Your letter is factually and legally baseless. It is yet another bad
faith attempt by the campaign to threaten litigation to muzzle speech it
does not want voters to read or hear. Your allegations and demands are
rejected in their entirety.
 
 
Very Truly Yours,
 
David C. Vigilante

Some stories speak for themselves and don't need much comment to make the point.  One such is Attorney General William Barr having the Justice Department withdraw charges against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn who plead guilty to a felony and was fired by Trump for lying to Vice President Pence and to the FBI.  So, yeah, ho-hum, Barr and Trump wanted the case dropped because.  

All I'll add are two points that suggest the situation for Flynn might not be over.

The first is that Judge Emmet Sullivan has to accept the Justice Department's decision to drop the case.  One reason that's in question is that the reason the Department has given for dropping the case is that Flynn's lies (or indirect equivocations, they're now calling it...) were not relevant to the underlying investigation.  The problem for Flynn is that Judge Sullivan has already ruled on that very issue when Flynn's previous lawyers raised it, and ruled the opposite, that they were indeed relevant.  So, the judge may require to the Justice Department to explain their reasoning, and if he doesn't think they're valid could keep the case going.

The second is that in Flynn's plea deal, he admitted under oath to several other crimes.  So, even if the case is thrown out, those other crimes -- which, again, Flynn has admitted to under oath -- are actions that he could now be prosecuted for.  Clearly, the current Department of Justice is not going to file charge on them.  However, the statute of limitations won't run out until 2022.  So, if there is a new Administration under a new Attorney General, new charges against Flynn for crimes he has admitted to under oath could be filed.  Of course, that requires a new Administration, and also a willingness to pursue the matter and not have it been seen as political retribution.  But then, given that Flynn did admit to the crimes under oath, that might make a prosecution far more reasonable and, even perhaps, seen as justified.

I don't know what will happen.  I don't expect Flynn to end up going to prison now, just because that's the Trump World we live in, but -- that means nothing.  Because there's a larger world and there is also an outrage at this egregious miscarriage of justice.  So...we'll see. Operators are standing by.

For this week’s Al Franken podcast, I had planned to post a different one of his conversations, however given that Attorney General William Barr popped up in the news the other day when Judge Reggie Walton issued a ruling that said Barr "distorted" and  was "misleading" in his public statements about the Mueller Report, I thought we'd go with this one instead.  (Side note: Judge Walton was a Republican appointee by George W. Bush.) 

Anyway, today, Frank has a bit of a roundtable discussion, though it’s a small table with three people.  Dahlia Lithwick of Slate, Ian Bassin of Protect Democracy and Franken discuss (as he puts it) “Trump’s sickening lurch toward autocracy post-impeachment with the cooperation of Bill Barr.”

This will be really basic.  Because it's easy to follow the bouncing ball.

Ever since news broke about Trump's phone call extorting the president of Ukraine throughout the House Impeachment Hearing through the Senate Trial, Trump and his defenders have claimed that the whole "reason" behind him withholding funds mandated for the country was because of his "concern" about corruption.

Others have noted that it's impossible to find one other instance of Trump being even remotely "concerned" about corruption anywhere in the world, rendering the "reason" for withholding funds meaningless at best and infantile at worst.

But yesterday, the evidence against him got even more pointed and far-more blunt.

That's because on his Day of Many Pardons, Trump went around pardoning convicted felon after convicted felon who had been found guilty by impartial juries of...corruption.

Rod Blagojevich.  Convicted of corruption, attempting to sell a seat to the U.S. Senate to the highest bidder, literally caught on tape making his sales pitch.

Bernard Kerik, Convicted of corruption, having plead guilty to charges of tax fraud and lying under oath to Congress.

Michael Milken.  Convicted of corruption, having plead guilty racketeering and securities fraud charges, not only sentenced to prison but fined $600 million 

Judith Negron.  Convicted of corruption, sentenced to 35 years in prison for helping set up a $205 million Medicare fraud scheme while the owner of a mental health care company. 

Paul Pogue.  Convicted of corruption, found guilty of filing false income tax statements.  Trump singled out Pogue's charitable work in explaining the pardon.  Note:  The Pogue family's charitable work includes an $85,000 donation to Trump Victory, a joint fundraising committee for the president’s reelection campaign and Republican National Committee.

Angela Stanton.  Convicted of -- wait, hey!  Not corruption.  How about that?!!  Convicted of participating in a stole-car ring.  In recent years she has shown her efforts to better society by giving interviews about her support of Trump.

All of these people pardoned or had their prison sentences commuted...yesterday -- yesterday!!! -- by Trump, that tireless international champion against "corruption."  

That Trump spent so much intense, convoluted effort going after Hunter Biden for supposedly corrupt actions -- effort, to be clear, for which Trump himself committed a crime by withholding mandated funds, according to a report by the Office of Management and Budget -- is not only beyond insanely ludicrous, but by Trump standards you wonder why he didn't put Hunter Biden up for a Presidential Medal of Freedom instead!  Indeed, the only reason I can think of why he didn't is because, in the end, Hunter Biden didn't do anything actually corrupt.

And that in Trump World appears to be the biggest sin of all.

Today's comes from the eminent Constitutional scholar, Laurence Tribe --

For those new to these pages, Newton Minow is best known as the former patient and poker-playing buddy of my doctor father, Edward.  Among his other credentials, he was the FCC Chairman under President Kennedy, recipient of the Medal of Freedom from President Obama, and -- perhaps most important of all -- father of three daughters including the oft-mentioned around these parts, Nell.

He also hired Barack Obama to work at his Sidley Austin law firm in Chicago, where Michelle Robinson was also employed.

If you want to read the article by Newt that Tribe refers to, you can find it here.  It's very short and exellent.  But the quick summary is that he suggests Judge Amy Berman require all the prosecution lawyers in the Roger Stone case explain why their sentencing recommendation got changed in order to get to the bottom of the truth before making her decision -- and if she doesn't get a satisfactory answer, that she call Attorney General William Barr.

Gut-wrenching testimony on Tuesday to the Ohio state legislature by former Ohio State University wrestling captain Adam DeSabato telling of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) begging and crying for a half-hour that he deny his sex abuse charges, just like Jordan got others to drop theirs, and repeatedly calling Jordan a "coward."

The charges that Jordan wanted Adam DiSabato to drop included allegations that DiSabato's own brother had been sexually abused during the time Jordan was a coach and helped cover things up. I haven't found video that I can embed, but you can view the the Ohio Channel video of his testimony here, starting at the 17:15 mark.

I recommend it because it's so moving and raw, and also because the setting of him testifying in the state legislature is especially meaningful, but if you prefer to stick around these pages , this is a more low-key, 8-minute appearance by Mr. DiSabato this morning on CNN, in which (among many things) he says about Jim Jordan's denials knowing nothing about the abuse --

"I think it’s a boldface lie, because someone went to him and told him about an exam to his face and it’s been documented. There were several people that went up to him, we all complained. It was an open discussion in the locker room around anywhere we were at. But mostly when the physicals came around every year because, you know, it was a problem."