Trump charged in superseding indictment in election interference case following SCOTUS ruling

The new indictment adjusts the charges to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.

ByAlexander Mallin, Katherine Faulders, and Peter Charalambous

Special counsel Jack Smith has charged former President Donald Trump in a superseding indictment in his federal election interference case that charges him with the same offenses in the original indictment, but is adjusted to the Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity ruling.

“The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions,” a Justice Department spokesperson said Tuesday.

Trump last August pleaded not guilty to federal charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election to remain in power. Last month, in a blockbuster decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken while in office, and sent the case back to the trial court to sort out which charges against him can stand.

In a separate filing Tuesday, the special counsel said he does not oppose waiving Trump’s appearance for an arraignment on the superseding indictment.

While the original indictment laid out five ways Trump allegedly obstructed the function of the federal government — having state election officials change electoral votes, arranging fraudulent slates of electors, using the Department of Justice to conduct “sham” investigations, enlisting the Vice President to obstruct the certification of the election, and exploiting the chaos of the Jan. 6 riot — the new indictment removes mention of his use of the Department of Justice, which was explicitly mentioned in the Supreme Court’s ruling as falling within his official duties.

While the original indictment mentions the Justice Department on over 30 occasions, the new indictment makes no mention of the DOJ.

It also reframes the portion of the original indictment outlining that Trump allegedly knew his claims of election fraud were false. (snip)

In multiple places, Smith’s new indictment adds clarifying language to state when he believes Trump was clearly acting outside of his official duties, saying, for instance, that Trump “had no official responsibilities related to any state’s certification of the election results” and highlighting when Trump was allegedly acting “not as President but in his capacity as a candidate for office.”

The superseding indictment also removes key allegations about Trump’s refusal to act as rioters stormed the Capitol.

The new indictment no longer includes allegations that Trump refused advisers’ requests to send a message calling off rioters and that Trump later refused to withdraw his objections to the certification despite the plea of his White House counsel.

The new indictment is 36 pages, while the original indictment was 45.

It comes just days after Smith, in a filing, urged the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a federal judge’s surprise dismissal of Trump’s classified documents case, which Smith is also overseeing.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-charged-superseding-indictment-federal-election-subversion/story?id=113193224

The Danger of Kash Patel

I’m reading through the Morning Memo from TPM (yeah, it’s 4PM; so what?🌞) and see a bit about an Atlantic article written by Elaina Plott Calabro. It’s a profile of Kash Patel. I’ve used up my Atlantic freebies, but am providing links here, plus a copy-paste of a thread that’s available for free. The link to the thread is just below the one for the Morning Memo, both beneath the copy-paste. Either the event detailed has somehow slipped my mind, or this is yet another example of how the Don’s administration was dangerous to US national security.

=====================

In the course of reporting on Patel, and the threat that he and other loyalists like him would pose to the country in a second Trump term, I struggled to shake what I learned about a series of events that took place on October 30, 2020. I want to share them with you here.

(snip-embedded tweet visible on the page)

On that Friday, according to multiple reported accounts, SEAL Team 6 was awaiting the green light on a rescue mission in West Africa. The admin had recently learned where gunmen were holding an American who had been kidnapped that week from his farm near the Niger/Nigeria border.

As multiple agencies coordinated on final details for the evening operation, the State Department worked to resolve the last outstanding task: securing airspace permission from Nigerian officials.

Around noon, Patel called the Pentagon with an update: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, he said, had gotten the approval. The mission was a go.

The SEALs were close to landing in Nigeria when DOD discovered that State had not, in fact, secured the clearance, as Patel had claimed. The aircraft were quickly diverted, and flew in circles for the next hour as officials scrambled to alert the Nigerian gov’t to their position.

With the operation window narrowing, Esper and Pompeo called the Situation Room to put the decision to the president: Either they abort the mission and risk their hostage being killed, or they proceed into foreign airspace and risk their soldiers being shot down.

But then, suddenly, the deputy secretary of state was on the line, Esper later wrote in his memoir: They’d been cleared, and the rescue operation was ultimately a success. But back in Washington, the celebration was checked by anger. How to make sense of Patel’s bad report?

Two people familiar with the exchange told me that Tony Tata, the Pentagon official and retired Army general to whom Patel had originally given the green light, confronted Patel in a rage. “You could’ve gotten these guys killed!” he shouted. “What the fuck were you thinking?”

Patel’s response: “If nobody got hurt, who the fuck cares?”

Through a spokesperson, Patel denied saying this, or making up the approval story. But three former senior administration officials independently cited the near catastrophe in West Africa as one of their foremost recollections from Patel’s tenure.

They remain unsettled by Patel’s actions, they told me, in large part because they have no clue what motivated them. If Patel had in fact just invented the story, as Esper’s team concluded, then why?

Was it because the election was in four days, and Patel was simply that impatient to set in motion a final potential victory for Trump, whatever the risk — was it as darkly cynical as that? Did his lack of experience mean he just had no grasp of the consequences?

I don’t know the answers to these questions. But three months of reporting later, they’re the questions I can’t stop thinking about it — particularly as Patel, in a second Trump term, could very well assume remarkable power atop America’s national security establishment.

Anyway, if you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll read the whole story, from our October issue, here:

The Man Who Will Do Anything for TrumpWhy Kash Patel is exactly the kind of person who would serve in a second Trump administration https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/10/kash-patel-trump-national-security-council/679566/?gift=PtjScmMpxEiEcpa5Z2F__gB8wOaSeKCNP9BBei0XHi0&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

• • •

https://morningmemo.talkingpointsmemo.com/p/the-colossal-systemic-failure-in

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1828233087819395144.html

Science on Tuesday

Chalk-coated fabrics could make clothes even cooler

August 26, 2024 Ellen Phiddian

US researchers have developed a chalk-based coating that can reduce the temperature under fabric by roughly 5°C.

The researchers say their environmentally benign substance could be used to coat any type of fabric and turn it into a radiative cooling textile.

“We see a true cooling effect,” says Evan Patamia, a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

“What is underneath the sample feels colder than standing in the shade.”

Patamia presented the team’s invention at the American Chemical Society’s 2024 Fall Meeting earlier this week.

Substances that can both reflect sunlight, and allow body heat to escape, are well-known to chemists. But they generally require costly or environmentally dangerous materials to make.

“Can we develop a textile coating that does the same thing using natural or environmentally benign materials?” summarises chemist Trisha Andrew, also at Amherst, of the work done by her and her colleagues.

Inspired by crushed limestone, which is used to cool buildings, the researchers tried solutions of calcium carbonate – the main component in limestone and chalk – as well as barium sulphate.

They used squares of fabric treated with a process called chemical vapour deposition, which added a layer of a carbon-based polymer onto the textiles.

When dipped in the solutions, the fabrics built up a chalky matte layer of crystals which could reflect UV and infrared light.

They tested the treated fabrics outside on a warm afternoon, and air underneath them was about 5°C cooler than the ambient temperature, and roughly 9°C cooler than air under untreated fabrics.

The coating is also resistant to laundry detergents.

“What makes our technique unique is that we can do this on nearly any commercially available fabric and turn it into something that can keep people cool,” says Patamia.

“Without any power input, we’re able to reduce how hot a person feels, which could be a valuable resource where people are struggling to stay cool in extremely hot environments.”

Andrew is now part of a startup aiming to test the process on larger bolts of fabric, to see if it can be scaled to industry.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/chemistry/chalk-coating-fabric-cool/

With thanks to personnelente-

an important read from Army Times.

A Little Background On GOP Attack Of Walz

CO2 pipeline setback: South Dakota Supreme Court rules in landowners’ favor

by Skylar Tallal Fri, August 23rd 2024 at 10:30 PM

DES MOINES, Iowa — Summit Carbon Solutions is facing a set back in its proposed CO2 pipeline project, as the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled in favor of landowners who sued to keep Summit from surveying their land.

It’s a reversal of a lower court decision, with the state’s high court now claiming it’s premature to categorize Summit as a ‘common carrier’ for public utility. It’s something Summit needs to be able to prove before it can use eminent domain.

“One of our main arguments is that Summit’s not a common carrier,” Jess Mazour the conservation program coordinator with the Sierra Club Iowa Chapter said. “So it really does change the game here in Iowa as well.”

Summit can’t start building its pipelines in Iowa until it gets approval in North and South Dakota.

The Sierra Club Iowa Chapter calls the decision a victory for landowners. Even though the Iowa Utilities Commission isn’t taking up the club’s reconsideration request, the club is moving forward with its plan to take the fight to court.

“We now have precedent on our side and we’re going to have a strong base for when we file our appeal in district court,” Mazour said.

A similar court case is already on the books in Iowa, with Iowa’s highest court set to hear oral arguments October 8 at the state capitol.

“A landowner in Hardin County, Kent, he was sued for denying Summit access to his land and we are fighting that and also challenging Iowa’s survey law,” Mazour said.

Eminent Domain has been a major issue in Iowa over the last few years. Some Iowa lawmakers joined the pipeline opposition but haven’t been successful in their efforts to change state laws.

The topic is also coming up on the campaign trail, specifically in Iowa’s congressional races.

Congressional Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) Iowa said carbon capture pipelines make sense for Iowa.

“So the carbon capture pipeline is only meant to lower the carbon intensity score of ethanol which makes it competitive globally,” Rep. Miller-Meeks said.

She said while eminent domain is a state issue, she hopes there will only be a limited number of landowners who don’t sign on voluntarily.

“Farmers and property owners need to look at the why the rationale and then determine if it’s in their best interest,” Rep. Miller-Meeks said. “Companies that are acquiring easements are looking at how do you make the land whole. How do you ensure farmers that you can grow crops in the near future?”

Iowa’s News Now did reach out to Summit for comment didn’t hear back.

https://cbs2iowa.com/news/local/south-dakota-supreme-court-rules-in-landowners-favor-set-back-for-co2-pipelines

Vance’s Trumped-Up Economics

Robert Reich Aug 25, 2024 (Posting Monday AM)

Friends,

Sorry to interrupt your Sunday but I think it useful in these final weeks before the election to give you the truth on important matters of public policy.

Today, Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance told NBC News that the tariffs Trump imposed during his term in office had not raised prices for Americans but had brought a significant number of jobs back to the United States.

Wrong on both counts.

In a careful analysis, researchers found the cost of Trump’s tariffs were “almost entirely borne by U.S. firms and consumers.”

That’s not surprising; tariffs function like taxes by raising the costs of imported goods. Trump’s proposal to raise tariffs on all imports as a means of raising revenue to offset a tax cut is obviously absurd.

Vance is also wrong about employment. Research clearly shows that the Trump tariffs did not bring jobs back to the United States.

Tariffs may be necessary for national security to protect critical industries such as semiconductors. But no one should be fooled into thinking they’re costless for consumers, or good for workers. The 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff made the Great Depression far worse than it already was.

That Vance would make these claims — which have been so convincingly debunked — should cause all of us some concern. He seems as unreliable as the person who named him his running-mate.

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/vances-trumped-up-economics

Women’s Equality Day!

(Some references, and resources for the day, and every day to come!

Thanks and h/t to Women for Kansas -A)

August 26, otherwise known as Women’s Equality Day, marks the anniversary of the certification of the 19th Amendment, which granted some women the right to vote.

Yet today, women have fewer rights than they’d had in decades. To recognize this, we acknowledge Women’s Inequality Day.

Empowering Women Voters in 2024

Women still aren’t equal under the law.

2024 Social Toolkit

Inequality impacts our health: although women pay $15 million more each year for health care than men, we spend more of our lives in poor health. Those who may experience pregnancy no longer have reproductive freedom; and when we do give birth, we (particularly women of color) face high rates of maternal mortality.

It impacts our work: we’re paid less than our male counterparts and are underrepresented in leadership roles. We also deal with workplace harassment, insufficient maternal leave, and disproportionate caretaking responsibilities that affect our ability to work.

It impacts our representation: women are severely underrepresented in politics, making up only 25% of the Senate, 29% of the House, and 31.9% of statewide elective executives.

How can we make policies that protect and serve women without more women in office? And in an age where our basic freedoms and bodily autonomy are under fire, how can we ensure our rights aren’t degraded further?

The 2024 federal election is a critical moment in the fight for our equality.

The people we elect in November will be in charge of our rights – including the right to reproductive freedom – for the next four years.

So when you cast your vote in 2024, will you vote for someone who defends those rights? Or someone who wants to take them away?

Our 2024 campaign centers around empowering women to make their voices heard at the ballot box by equipping them with essential voter information. We’re highlighting our free, bilingual one-stop-shop for nonpartisan election information, VOTE411.org.

This year’s Women’s Inequality “Day” campaign will take place from August 26-30, with unique calls to action engaging voters every day! Get involved by sharing content via our social toolkit.

https://www.lwv.org/WID

=====

International Women’s Day 2024 campaign theme is ‘Inspire Inclusion’

The campaign theme for International Women’s Day 2024 was Inspire Inclusion.

When we inspire others to understand and value women’s inclusion, we forge a better world.

And when women themselves are inspired to be included, there’s a sense of belonging, relevance, and empowerment.

Collectively, let’s forge a more inclusive world for women.

Read more about a definition of what it means to inspire inclusion here.

https://www.internationalwomensday.com/Theme

=====

BAD ROMANCE: WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE

Soomo, youtube.com

“Bad Romance: Women’s Suffrage is a parody music video paying homage to Alice Paul and the generations of brave women who joined together in the fight to pass the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote in 1920.” Watch here.

=====

WOMEN’S PROGRESS THROUGH THE YEARS…

Prior to 1918
Doctor’s weren’t allowed to advise married patients about birth control.
Prior to 1920
Women couldn’t vote in all elections until 19th Amendment was ratified.
Prior to WWII
Female teachers couldn’t be married.
During 1950’s
Domestic abuse was not considered a crime but a’family matter’.
Prior to 1963
Equitable wages for the same work, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex of the workers were not promised until passage of Equal Pay Act.
Prior to 1964
Discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex was not prohibited until passage ofthe Civil Rights Act.
Prior to 1965
State laws could prohibit the prescription or use of contraceptives by married couples. In some states, the woman needed her husband’s permission to purchase contraceptives.
Prior to 1969
Yale and Princeton didn’t accept female students.
Prior to 1969
Women couldn’t work at jobs that had been for men only.
Prior to 1971
Women with a law degree could be denied the right to plead a client’s case in court.
Prior to 1971
Private employers could refuse to hire women with pre-school children.
Prior to 1972
The Boston Marathon was an all-male event. There was no Women’s Division.
Prior to 1972
The right to privacy didn’t encompass an unmarried person’s right to use contraceptives.
Prior to 1972
Title IX of the Education Amendment didn’t exist. Schools that received Federal support didn’t need to provide the same programs to women as they did men.

Prior to 1973
Abortions weren’t legal in the entire U.S. until Roe v. Wade decision by Supreme Court declared the U.S. Constitution protected a woman’s right to terminate an early pregnancy.
Prior to 1974
Housing discrimination on the basis of sex and credit discrimination against women existed.
Prior to 1974
It was legal to force pregnant women to take maternity leave on the assumption they were incapable of working in their physical condition.
Prior to 1974
Single, widowed, or divorced women had to bring a man along to open a bank account or to cosign any credit application. Married women couldn’t open a bank account without their husband’s permission.
Prior to 1975
Women were excluded from serving on juries.
Prior to 1976
West Point Academy didn’t admit female students.
Prior to 1977
Harvard didn’t admit female students.
Prior to 1978
There was no ban on discrimination against women on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical issues.
Prior to 1984
Women were not allowed to join all-male organizations (Jaycees, Kiwanis, Rotary, Lions)
Prior to 1994
There were no funded services for victims of rape or domestic violence.
Prior to 2013
Women in the military were banned from combat positions.
Prior to 2022
Since the 1973 Supreme Court decision (Roe v. Wade), a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy was protected by the U.S. Constitution. This decision was reverse by the current U.S. Supreme Court in 2022.
Information provided by Soroptimist site. Learn more about Soroptimist’s by visiting their site here.

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE HISTORY OF WOMEN’S EQUALITY DAY

National Women’s History Alliance

Oklahoma state superintendent confirms new student test results are ‘very different’

Ryan Walters said his agency is explaining the new data to schools. District leaders deny there has been any explanation from the state.

By: Nuria Martinez-Keel – August 22, 2024 4:55 pm

(It’s very interesting. Well-written, but there are still little gold nuggets or Easter Eggs scattered throughout. It’s worth the click. Read it on my phone last night.)

Oklahoma state superintendent confirms new student test results are ‘very different’

‘Regretted it every day of my life’: Former MMA fighter Ronda Rousey apologizes for sharing Sandy Hook conspiracy theory years ago

“I should have been canceled, I would have deserved it. I still do,” Rousey wrote in an apology late Thursday.

(I intended to post this yesterday, but didn’t get to it. It’s still pertinent. It’s good to see people step up when they make mistakes.)

Ronda Rousey in 2018. Ethan Miller / Getty Images file

By Marlene Lenthang Aug. 23, 2024, 7:43 AM CDT

Former MMA fighter Ronda Rousey has apologized for sharing a Sandy Hook conspiracy theory 11 years ago on X, then Twitter, saying, “I’ve regretted it every day of my life since.”

The 37-year-old Californian pro wrestler shared a lengthy statement late Thursday night (early Friday EST) saying she had long wanted to apologize in the years since sharing the controversial conspiracy, and is finally coming clean.

“I apologize that this came 11 years too late, but to those affected by the Sandy Hook massacre, from the bottom of my heart and depth of my soul I am so so sorry for the hurt I caused,” she wrote. “I can’t even begin to imagine the pain you’ve endured and words cannot describe how thoroughly remorseful and ashamed I am of myself for contributing it.”

Rousey opened her apology saying “I can’t say how many times I’ve redrafted this apology over the last 11 years.” She revealed that she internally grappled over the timing of sharing an apology and feared she could “be causing even more damage by giving it.”

It all started with what she called “the single most regrettable decision of my life” — “I watched a Sandy Hook conspiracy video and reposted it on Twitter,” Rousey wrote. (snip-More)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/regretted-every-day-life-former-mma-fighter-ronda-rousey-apologizes-sh-rcna167913