Blog Betty (Thomas Friedman is a Great Man was an online novel): Corruption on the Court

Wednesday, July 10, 2024

Corruption on the Court

That corrupt Supreme Court. Zachary Schermele (USA TODAY) reports:

Andrew Davis wanted protection after other students carved homophobic slurs into the door of his college dorm room.

Sydney Greenway hoped to avoid spending a week's grocery money on another textbook.

Tashiana Bryant-Myrick sought relief from the student debt hobbling her family's future.

For years, the U.S. Department of Education has been able to intervene to some degree in these scenarios. But a Supreme Court decision handed down just over a week ago reined in the agency's power to help everyday people. The news came as important deadlines loom for schools to implement key regulations, many of which now stand on shakier legal ground.

Three current and five former Education Department staffers, some of whom were not authorized to speak publicly, told USA TODAY they were dismayed by the ruling, which they fear will blunt the agency’s ability to oversee the American education system.

“I’m really, really nervous about what this means,” said Amy Laitinen, who previously served as a senior policy advisor on higher education in the Education Department and the White House. “I don’t think there’s any doubt that it will be bad for students and taxpayers.”

Education policy in the United States is primarily hammered out by state and local governments. When it comes to taking federal action – including to keep LGBTQ+ students safe, textbook costs down and student loan debt under control – Congress is generally slow to pass new regulations. (The main federal law overseeing colleges hasn’t been comprehensively reauthorized since 2008.)

Helping students often falls to the bottom of lawmakers' to-do lists. In that vacuum, the Education Department's role overseeing schools, especially colleges, has only expanded.

They are out of control. Senators Ron Wyden and Sheldon Whitehouse are taking the issue of corruption seriously:

U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, and Ron Wyden (D-OR), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland last week requesting the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate potential violations of ethics, false statement, and tax laws by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and the benefactors who have supplied him with undisclosed gifts.

Whitehouse and Wyden write in their letter that the full pattern of Justice Thomas’s omissions of outside income and luxury gifts from his legally required financial disclosures warrant criminal investigation by the Department of Justice.

“We do not make this request lightly. The evidence assembled thus far plainly suggests that Justice Thomas has committed numerous willful violations of federal ethics and false-statement laws and raises significant questions about whether he and his wealthy benefactors have complied with their federal tax obligations. Presented with opportunities to resolve questions about his conduct, Justice Thomas has maintained a suspicious silence,” wrote Whitehouse and Wyden.

“No government official should be above the law. Supreme Court justices are properly expected to obey laws designed to prevent conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety and to comply with the federal tax code. We therefore request that you appoint a Special Counsel authorized to investigate potential criminal violations by Justice Thomas under the disclosure, false statement, and tax laws; pursue leads of related criminal violations by donors, lenders, and intermediate corporate entities; and determine whether any such loans and gifts were provided pursuant to a coordinated enterprise or plan,” concluded the senators.

The senators’ letter requests that a Special Counsel be appointed to determine whether Justice Thomas violated federal ethics and tax laws by failing to disclose as income more than $267,000 in forgiven debt. An investigation by Chairman Wyden’s Senate Finance Committee uncovered that Justice Thomas failed to repay the principal of a $267,230.00 loan he used to purchase a luxury motorcoach. Justice Thomas did not disclose this forgiven debt on his ethics filings, as required by federal law, raising questions as to whether Thomas properly reported the associated income on his tax returns. Despite repeated opportunities to explain this apparent omission to the Finance Committee and Whitehouse’s Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, counsel for Justice Thomas has not provided a satisfactory response.

The letter also asks for a Special Counsel to review the many instances of undisclosed gifts given to Justice Thomas by billionaire benefactors. These gifts include multiple instances of free private jet travel; yacht travel; country club membership; luxury sports tickets; lodging; tuition for Justice Thomas’s grandnephew; and real estate transactions, home renovations, and free rent for Justice Thomas’s mother. The Ethics in Government Act required Justice Thomas to disclose all these gifts, but Justice Thomas failed to properly disclose them.

The letter notes that the omission of these gifts from Justice Thomas’s financial disclosures raises additional questions about what other gifts remain undisclosed and whether Justice Thomas’s benefactors properly reported such gifts for tax purposes where necessary. The letter points to reporting by the Washington Post that Leonard Leo secretly directed at least $25,000 to the firm operated by Justice Thomas’s spouse as evidence that additional investigation is needed to uncover the full scope of potential unlawful conduct related to any coordinated gifts program for certain justices.

The letter also points to several investigations and prosecutions by the Department of Justice of other government officials charged with less serious disclosure violations as evidence of prosecutorial precedent.

Whitehouse has repeatedly pressed the Judicial Conference to investigate Justice Thomas’s omissions of billionaire-funded gifts and income from his legally required annual financial disclosure reports. Whitehouse asked for an update in mid-June as to whether the Conference has decided to refer Justice Thomas’s undisclosed gift program to the Attorney General to determine whether the omissions were willful.

The text of the letter is below and a PDF of the letter is available here.

The Honorable Merrick Garland

Attorney General of the United States

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Garland:

We write to request that you appoint a Special Counsel to investigate possible violations of federal ethics and tax laws by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Clarence Thomas. Over the past year, public reporting and Senate investigations have uncovered evidence of repeated and willful omissions of gifts and income from Justice Thomas’s financial disclosure reports required by the Ethics in Government Act. The Senate is investigating these omissions as it considers improvements to ethics and tax laws.

The scale of the potential ethics violations by Justice Thomas, and the willful pattern of disregard for ethics laws, exceeds the conduct of other government officials investigated by the Department of Justice for similar violations. The breadth of the omissions uncovered to date, and the serious possibility of additional tax fraud and false statement violations by Justice Thomas and his associates, warrant the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate this misconduct. The Senate is not a prosecutorial body, and the Supreme Court has no fact-finding function of its own, making the executive role all the more important if there is ever to be any complete determination of the facts.

I. The Evidence of Misconduct by Justice Thomas Warrants Criminal Investigation

Senate investigations and public reporting have uncovered evidence that Justice Thomas likely violated federal law by accepting lavish gifts from wealthy benefactors and failing to report them. The full scope of Justice Thomas’s non-disclosures is still unknown, but the evidence assembled thus far suggests that, since his appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas has secretly accepted gifts and income potentially worth millions of dollars.

This conduct likely violates the Ethics in Government Act, which requires government officials, including Supreme Court justices, to file annual reports disclosing gifts and income accepted from outside sources. It is a crime “to knowingly and willfully . . . fail to file or report” such information. Justice Thomas’s disclosure omissions also implicate federal prohibitions against making false statements to the government, and raise questions about Justice Thomas’s and his benefactors’ compliance with federal tax laws.

Justice Thomas Failed to Report More than $267,000 in Income from Forgiven Debt

Since last year, the Senate Finance Committee and Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights have been investigating a loan of more than $267,000 connected to Justice Thomas’s purchase of a luxury motor coach. On October 25, 2023, the Senate Finance Committee released a memorandum, a copy of which is appended to this letter, concluding that in November 2008 the provider of the loan, Anthony Welters, ceased collecting principal or interest on $267,230.00 he loaned to Justice Thomas and his wife for the purchase of a 1991 Prevost Marathon motor coach. Documents obtained by the Senate Finance Committee indicate that no principal was ever repaid on the loan and that Justice Thomas only made interest payments on the loan prior to all payments ceasing on the loan. Forgiven or discharged debt is taxable income, and the Ethics in Government Act requires justices to disclose any “income from discharge of indebtedness.” Justice Thomas did not report any such forgiveness as income on his financial disclosure report covering the year 2008, or for any other year.

On December 19, 2023, and again on May 15, 2024, we invited Justice Thomas to address the evidence obtained by the Finance Committee. Those letters offered Justice Thomas an opportunity to state in plain terms how much in principal and interest on the loan he ever repaid to Welters. We also offered Justice Thomas an opportunity to state how the loan was forgiven or discharged. On both occasions, counsel for Justice Thomas provided an uninformative response. Justice Thomas’s counsel stated that Justice Thomas “made payments to Mr. Welters on a regular basis until the terms of the agreement were satisfied in full.” As we stressed to Justice Thomas’s counsel, “satisfied” could have any number of meanings in the context of repayment, forgiveness, or discharge of debt. The Finance Committee has still received no satisfactory response.

The Ethics in Government Act requires disclosure of any “income from discharge of indebtedness,” and the Tax Code treats discharge of indebtedness as taxable income; when debt is canceled, forgiven, or discharged for less than the amount owed, the borrower must report that difference as income on federal tax returns. Failure to repay any amount of the principal of the loan would almost certainly create commensurate taxable income for Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas failed to clarify whether or why he failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in forgiven debt on his federal income tax returns and pay the income taxes owed. We submit that the facts we have developed, combined with strategically evasive answers, creates predication for further investigation by relevant authorities.

Justice Thomas Has Failed to Report Gifts He Accepted from Wealthy Benefactors and Associated Companies

Public investigative reporting and information obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee has revealed that billionaire Harlan Crow has donated to Justice Thomas numerous gifts over the past twenty years, almost none of which were disclosed by Justice Thomas as the Ethics in Government Act requires. These gifts include multiple instances of free private jet travel, yacht travel, and lodging, as well as gifts of tuition for Justice Thomas’s grandnephew, and (through intermediate entities) real estate transactions, home renovations, and free rent for Justice Thomas’s mother, all of which Justice Thomas failed to disclose.

Justice Thomas has accepted a pattern of similar, undisclosed gifts from other wealthy donors as well, including private jet travel from Paul Anthony Novelly; private jet travel and country club membership from the late Wayne Huizenga; and private jet travel, luxury sports tickets, and lodging at a ranch from David Sokol. Our current list of publicly reported but not yet disclosed gifts and income is attached as an appendix to this letter.

The Ethics in Government Act required Justice Thomas to disclose these gifts. The Act requires disclosure of gifts, outside income, real estate transactions above certain monetary thresholds—which all of the gifts, outside income, and transactions detailed above appear to satisfy. None of these gifts seems to fall plausibly within the Act’s disclosure exception for “food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality.” As its plain text shows, the “personal hospitality” exception has never permitted nondisclosure of gifts of transportation, like private jet flights. Moreover, the “personal hospitality” exception applies only to hospitality “extended . . . by an individual, not a corporation or organization, at the personal residence of that individual or the individual’s family or on property or facilities owned by that individual or the individual’s family,” yet many of the gifts discussed above were provided not by individuals but by corporate entities connected to those individuals. As legal guardian, Justice Thomas was presumably responsible for his grandnephew’s education expenses, making tuition payments gifts to Justice Thomas himself—a commonsense understanding of federal law confirmed by legislative and executive branch guidance.

Justice Thomas has claimed that some omissions were “inadvertent,” and he has amended some past reports accordingly. However, Justice Thomas has not disclosed all of the gifts that have been uncovered, and there may well be more. His long history of omissions indicates a pattern of willfulness meriting investigation under the Ethics in Government Act. In 2011, Justice Thomas admitted to omitting hundreds of thousands of dollars of his spouse’s income from his disclosures, averring a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions” (despite accurately filing disclosure forms regarding his spouse’s employment for as many as ten years beginning in 1987). Similarly, earlier in his tenure on the Court, Justice Thomas properly reported transportation, including complimentary private jet travel and gifts to defray tuition expenses like those he subsequently omitted. Justice Thomas’s own past financial disclosure reports, combined with his later revisions, belie the notion that he was not aware of the simple requirements he was required to meet. We contend that this pattern of filings, misfilings, and corrections provides adequate predication for further investigation by relevant authorities.

We note that a similar referral may come your way through the Judicial Conference, which has an independent obligation to refer to you the question of whether disclosure violations are “willful,” if it finds reasonable cause to believe violations may have been willful, and which appears to be presently investigating Justice Thomas’s disclosures.

Separately, payments reportedly facilitated by Leonard Leo, who has been involved in arranging some of these free gifts for Justice Thomas and others, and is devoted to influencing the Supreme Court through other means, provide further grounds for investigation. Last year, the Washington Post reported that Leo directed payments of at least $25,000 to a consulting firm run by Justice Thomas’s spouse, with Leo specifying that the documents related to the payments should make “[n]o mention” of Mrs. Thomas. The furtive nature of the payments raises further questions about how many such payments were orchestrated, whether legitimate services were actually rendered, and whether such payments required additional reporting by Justice Thomas. We have not yet adequately been able to investigate the extent to which any or all these undisclosed gifts were part of a coordinated gifts program to reward recipient justices.

In addition to possible disclosure violations under the Ethics in Government Act, each of the undisclosed transactions discussed above implicates federal laws against making false statements to the government. Moreover, these gifts raise the possibility of related tax violations by Justice Thomas’s benefactors if they failed to report or pay any required gift tax. Because prosecutions have resulted of officials in other branches of government, relevant authorities should review this conduct in light of that prosecutorial precedent.

Justice Thomas’s Potential Misconduct Exceeds Past Examples of Misconduct by Other Government Officials Investigated by the Department of Justice

Investigation of these matters by the Department of Justice is appropriate and consistent with the severity of the evidence of misconduct presented here. Indeed, the Department of Justice has charged other government officials for less serious violations than the evidence suggests Justice Thomas committed.

For example, in 2016, the Department prosecuted a former Drug Enforcement Agency official for false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for failing to disclose gifts of private air travel received from 2010 through 2014. Also in 2016, the Department of Justice charged a Department of Veterans Affairs official under § 1001 for failing to disclose approximately $21,000 in gifts consisting in part of airline tickets and resort services. In 2010, the Department of Justice prosecuted a Department of Housing and Urban Development official under 18 U.S.C. § 1018 for his failure to disclose luxury sports tickets from someone with business before his agency. The officials pleaded guilty and received criminal sentences. The value, scope, and duration of the undisclosed gifts accepted by Justice Thomas dwarf the undisclosed gifts for which the Department of Justice prosecuted these officials, who entered pleas of guilty.

II. Appointment of a Special Counsel to Investigate These Extraordinary Circumstances Would Be in the Public Interest

Appointment of a Special Counsel is justified under Department of Justice regulations. Under those regulations, the appointment of a Special Counsel is appropriate when “criminal investigation . . . is warranted”; the “investigation or prosecution . . . by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present . . . extraordinary circumstances”; and “under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.” This matter meets those standards.

The evidence documented above suggests the strong possibility of multiple federal ethics, tax, and false statement violations by a Supreme Court justice and associated individuals. When the Department of Justice has conducted criminal investigations of a high-ranking government official, in several cases, the Department appointed Special Counsels.

Since no litigant appears before the Supreme Court more frequently than the United States government, represented by the Department of Justice, the Department may understandably hesitate to offend a member of that Court. Appointment of a special counsel would ensure proper, impartial investigation, separate from the Department’s broader litigating interests.

Appointment of a Special Counsel would serve the public interest. The public must have confidence that the judiciary and the Department of Justice execute their responsibilities fairly, impartially, and without respect to political expedience or partisan interests. Accordingly, any investigation by the Department of a sitting judge—especially a member of the highest court—must be conducted in a manner free of political motive. While we trust that the Department’s public servants would never succumb to such pressure, appointment of a Special Counsel would reinforce confidence in the independence, thoroughness, and reliability of any investigation. These same considerations counsel in favor of appointing a Special Counsel to investigate potential tax law violations without awaiting an IRS referral.

* * *

We do not make this request lightly. The evidence assembled thus far plainly suggests that Justice Thomas has committed numerous willful violations of federal ethics and false-statement laws and raises significant questions about whether he and his wealthy benefactors have complied with their federal tax obligations. Presented with opportunities to resolve questions about his conduct, Justice Thomas has maintained a suspicious silence.

No government official should be above the law. Supreme Court justices are properly expected to obey laws designed to prevent conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety and to comply with the federal tax code. We therefore request that you appoint a Special Counsel authorized to investigate potential criminal violations by Justice Thomas under the disclosure, false statement, and tax laws; pursue leads of related criminal violations by donors, lenders, and intermediate corporate entities; and determine whether any such loans and gifts were provided pursuant to a coordinated enterprise or plan.

We thank you for your attention to these matters.

It's a shame only two senators are actually taking action. Hayes Brown (MSNBC) notes:

Chief Justice John Roberts likes to present himself as an institutionalist, concerned with upholding the legacy of the Supreme Court. He has positioned himself as the voice of reason on a court that has swung steadily to the right since he was first confirmed to the role almost two decades ago. But this term, he authored a series of decisions that completely shattered the previous balance of power within the federal system. In opinions that on the surface show deference to Congress and the president, Roberts has managed to consolidate an unprecedented amount of power in the only branch of government that is entirely unelected.

Roberts’ opinions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Trump v. United States fundamentally reject one of the key premises of the constitutional order. If you’re an American reading this, you likely remember learning in school how the three branches of government — the legislative, executive and judiciary — operate through a separation of powers that distributes different parts of governing among them. A series of checks and balances prevents any one from assuming too much authority over the others.

In the first case, Loper Bright, Roberts has pantomimed a defense of the former principle while completely ignoring the latter. Previously, under the Chevron v. NRDC decision from 1982, courts were instructed to defer to executive branch agencies’ “reasonable interpretation” of imprecise or ambiguous statutes. This precedent was crucial, given the difficulties of drafting perfectly precise statutes, the broad sweep of many laws on the books, and the amount of power Congress has delegated to these agencies to figure out the details. In overturning Chevron, Roberts stripped that deference from agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Trade Commission, curtailing their ability to issue regulations and increasing the odds of those standards being challenged in lawsuits.

Roberts claimed the court was returning authority from agency bureaucrats back to the elected members of Congress who write the laws. (Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch went further in their concurring opinions, explicitly claiming that Chevron was a violation of the separation of powers that was now being rectified.) In practice, as MSNBC contributor Steve Vladeck pointed out, there is no realistic way for even the most productive Congress to pass clarifying legislation relating to every detail of every agency’s work. “The reality, then, is that the only transfer of power the Supreme Court accomplished by overruling Chevron is a transfer of power to the courts,” wrote Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “After all, it is now going to be up to judges to decide what each and every statute agencies enforce means.”

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Wednesday, July 10, 2024. Calls for Joe Biden to step aside as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee grow louder, the Israeli government bombs another school in Gaza and much more.

It just gets worse for Joe Biden. Bill Press has a column out at THE HILL about how Joe needs to step aside. Why does that matter? Bill Press is a yellow dog Democrat who thinks he's left but is more to the center. In fact, he's circles the center repeatedly, so much so than guest hosting UNFILTERED in January of 2005 with Rachel Maddow, Maddow had to repeatedly remind Bill that we "don't do that on this show" -- on air remind him -- we don't play Alan Colmes on this show. (Alan Colmes was the pathetic 'Democrat' on FOX "NEWS" when Sean Hannity needed a sidekick.)

That is who has turned against the notion of Joe running. Others will follow. James FitzGerald (BBC News) reports this morning:

The first Democratic senator has publicly questioned President Joe Biden's election chances, after seven congressman broke cover and urged the 81-year-old to step aside.

Senator Michael Bennet told CNN he expected the president to lose to Donald Trump by a "landslide", but stopped short of telling him to end his candidacy.

Questions have been raised about Mr Biden's fitness for office after a stumbling presidential debate performance against Trump late last month.

The president insists he can beat his adversary, and continues to hold support among key allies after congressional Democrats met to debate his leadership on Tuesday.

This as Nick Reisman (POLITICO) reveals a truly horrifying development:

President Joe Biden has a new problem: a competitive race in deep blue New York.

Elected officials, union leaders and political consultants are panicking over polls showing a steady erosion of Biden’s support in a state he won by 23 points four years ago. They’re so worried they’ve been trying to convince the Biden team to pour resources into New York to shore up his campaign and boost Democrats running in a half-dozen swing districts that could determine control of the House.

Biden aides have not focused on New York, committing no significant resources to a state where they expect the president to easily win all 28 electoral college votes in November.

But the warning signs are impossible to ignore and have been building over the past year. Two private polls conducted in a swing New York House district and reviewed by POLITICO — one in September and another in March — found former President Donald Trump leading Biden there by 1 point, a virtual tie. And public polls over the last four months found Biden’s lead had winnowed to just 8 points across New York — an unusually narrow gap in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1.

ALJAZEERA noted yesterday:

Hours after the talks, Mikie Sherrill, a Democratic representative from New Jersey, became the seventh elected Democrat to publicly call on Biden to drop out of the race.

“I know that President Biden and his team have been true public servants and have put the country and the best interests of democracy first and foremost in their considerations,” Sherrill said in a statement.

This is reality and this isn't ordinary. For either of the two main political parties in this country, this isn't normal. But Joe's oblivious, as Mike said "Get a barge, Biden's floating on Denial." Others aren't willing to deny the obvious. Carly Thomas (HOLLYWOOD REPORTER) explains:

George Stephanopoulos is apologizing after being caught on camera making a remark to a pedestrian about President Joe Biden running for another term in the White House.

According to a video obtained by TMZ, the media personality for ABC News was asked by a passerby while walking in New York City, in workout clothes, on Tuesday, “Do you think Biden should step down? You’ve talked to him more than anybody else has lately.” Stephanopoulos responded, “I don’t think he can serve four more years.”

After his comment made headlines, the Good Morning America co-host said in a statement obtained by NBC News, “Earlier today I responded to a question from a passerby. I shouldn’t have.” The Disney-owned news network also added in its own statement, “George expressed his own point of view and not the position of ABC News.”

Erin Doherty (AXIOS) notes:

Former President Trump now has an edge over President Biden in the three key swing states of Arizona, Georgia and Nevada, per new ratings from the nonpartisan Cook Political Report with Amy Walter.
Why it matters: The new ratings underscore that even if Biden survives the calls for him to step down, the Democratic Party still faces a bigger challenge ahead: Winning in November.

Driving the news: Arizona, Georgia and Nevada were all moved from Toss Up to Lean Republican by the Cook Political Report. Biden won all three states by narrow margins in 2020.

Are you getting how bad this is?

A few weeks back, I dictated the snapshot for the day after the debate and then what did I do?

Stayed in bed all morning just to pass the time

There's something wrong here they can be no denying

One of us is changing

Or maybe we just stopped trying

But it's too late baby, oh, it's too late.

-- "It's Too Late," written by Carole King and Toni Stern, first appears on Carole's TAPESTRY

Why?

Because there was what happened at the debate and what the media was doing.

So forgive me if I'm not thrilled by the nonsense of Kelly Rissman (INDEPENDENT) yesterday:

On stage stood the two oldest presidential candidates the country has seen.

President Joe Biden, 81, stood to the right. It was supposed to be a night where he reassured voters that he, already America’s oldest president, is up for another four years. His campaign hoped the night would dispel fears about him being closer to 100 than 50.

I don't know who you think you're helping at this late date. Did Joe lose the debate? No, he didn't. "And the winner was . . . Joe Biden (Ava and C.I.)" went up after the debate. The next day was the time for Kelly R and others to weigh in. But the press didn't do that and that's why I went back to bed. I'm not joking, I was so depressed because it was a media hit job -- read that day's snapshot.

Two weeks later, a few voices want to get honest? It doesn't matter.

Al Gore said he invented the internet!

Poppy Bush doesn't know how grocery scanners work!

We can give a million other examples of how the press lied. But the point is, once the media imposes a narrative, that's really it.

Reality: What happened at the debate no longer matters. The narrative has taken control. Joe Biden stumbled and fumbled due to old age!!!!

That was CNN, that was MSNBC. And it's too late. It is the media narrative and that's one of the reasons he needs to step down.

Last Friday on ABC was feeding the narrative (see Ava and my "Media: It's Time For Joe To Go"). He didn't have the expertise to pivot, to present a future. He just there and took it as he got punched over and by George with one question after another about losing the debate and why. That's not a slam at George. Joe'd already made his excuses before that interview. George did his job. I've called out George here plenty of times over the years. If he deserved it now, I'd call him out. But if anything, George was too nice on him. And that added to the pity factor.

There is no comeback from this. It is established in the popular memory. Old Man Biden's not up to the job. Let's see how he stumbles next!

But at any rate, it's too late for Kelly R's rescue attempt. The ABC interview was worse than the debate. He took punch after punch and failed to stand up for himself, for the country and failed to provide a plan for the next four years.

Donald's a crook. He is scary. But running on that (again) is not going to do the trick and Joe's wounded with the blood in the water, the sharks are circling. For the good of the party, he needs to drop out.

As Jared Mitovich (POLITICO) notes that yesterday THE NEW YORK TIMES published their second editorial calling for Joe to step aside:

In a piece published Tuesday that rebutted the president’s defense of his candidacy in recent days, the editorial board explicitly urged Democratic leadership to publicly call for Biden to step aside and coalesce around a new nominee in order to defeat former President Donald Trump. The board described the current “whisper campaign” in the party as an inadequate attempt to convince Biden to withdraw, calling him not only “defiant” and “floundering,” but “a man in decline” trying to circumvent the reality that he is a damaged candidate.

“[Democrats] need to tell [Biden] that he is embarrassing himself and endangering his legacy,” the editorial board wrote. “He needs to hear, plain and clear, that he is no longer an effective spokesman for his own priorities.”

Some liars are trying to insist that yesterday, everything changed, Joe gave a speech!!!!

Did baby make first words? Goo-goo, that's so cute.

In the real world, Sumanti Sen (HINUDSTAN TIMES) reports, "Joe Biden was seen carefully reading from teleprompters in a speech kicking off NATO’s annual summit on Tuesday, July 9, in Washington DC." And, sorry, that really does say it all.

Another day in Gaza, another school destroyed. Samuel Osborne (SKY NEWS) reports:

Dozens of people have been killed in an Israeli airstrike on a school-turned-shelter in southern Gaza.

The strike at the entrance to the school hit the tents of displaced families in the town of Abassan, east of Khan Younis, with most of the victims being women and children, according to Palestinian medical officials.

ALJAZEERA reports:

A three-month-old girl, Asmaa Ajour, lies in Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza after Israeli forces killed all her immediate family members in Gaza City.

Her grandmother Um Ramzi Qwaider recounted to Al Jazeera that Asmaa’s family moved from the Tuffah neighbourhood in eastern Gaza City a few days ago due to Israeli shelling and evacuation orders.

The family moved to the Sina’a neighbourhood in western Gaza City, but the Israeli military operation expanded suddenly overnight and the area was attacked.

“They were subjected to Israeli shelling, and [Asmaa’s] mother, father, sisters, cousins and uncles were killed,” Qwaider said.

She added that Asmaa remained in her dead mother’s lap for 12 hours until her grandfather managed to save her as Israeli forces fired bullets for hours.

“I don’t know how this orphaned child will live at this age without a father and mother. I don’t know how her life will be. I don’t know how she will be alone in this world,” Qwaider said.

Over the past three days, people have appealed on social media for authorities in Gaza to intervene and recover nine bodies of the Ajour family that are still lying at the scene.

Let's drop back to yesterday's DEMOCRACY NOW!

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

The official death toll from Israel’s war on Gaza has topped 38,200, but a new report in the British medical journal The Lancet estimates the actual death toll could be 186,000 or even higher. That’s roughly 8% of Gaza’s population. The report looks at how war leads to indirect deaths due to shortages of medical care, food, shelter and water.

As Israel’s war enters its 10th month, we’re joined by a Palestinian American who ended a 22-year career in the U.S. Air Force after an Israeli airstrike in Gaza killed his aunt, Saida Saleh Abu Hashem. Mohammed Abu Hashem served as a first sergeant in the 316th Civil Engineer Squadron of the U.S. Air Force. He’s the first to resign with a direct connection to Gaza’s massive civilian death toll. He recently co-signed a letter with 11 other former U.S. officials who resigned over the Biden administration’s policies toward Gaza, Palestine and Israel. The officials wrote in the letter, quote, “[T]his failed policy has not achieved its stated objectives — it has not made Israelis any safer, it has emboldened extremists while it has been devastating for the Palestinian people, ensuring a vicious cycle of poverty and hopelessness,” unquote. Mohammed Abu Hashem joins us now from Akron, Ohio.

Mohammed, thanks so much for being with us. Condolences on the death of your aunt. Can you talk about why you resigned and when you did it?

MOHAMMED ABU HASHEM: Thank you, Amy. And thank you for the opportunity.

I served 22 years in the Air Force. I hoped, as a Palestinian American, I could lead with my voice one day, because we know that representation matters. I never expected it to be at a time where we’ve seen the indiscriminate killing of — well, now new reports, as you stated, approximately 186,000 Palestinians, including my family members.

It was clear to me that I needed to step away, and I made my decision on October 21st, after trying my best to give evidence to the intelligence community. And when I never received anything back, I knew then, and along with watching other members of the State Department resign — I knew that no matter how high in the rank I would have reached, no one was going to listen in a time this administration was not going to change their mind.

AMY GOODMAN: Why did you join the military?

MOHAMMED ABU HASHEM: I joined the military in early 2002, in January of 2002, right after 9/11, really, because I felt a need and necessity as an 18-year-old when I watched the attack of 9/11. I was worried and concerned about the family that I have here, just like most people were concerned about what further escalation this was going to cause. And I was concerned for not only my family, but some of my friends and their family members that I consider family [inaudible] over here in America.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about your aunt and what happened to her in Gaza?

MOHAMMED ABU HASHEM: Absolutely. And I brought this evidence of what happened to one of my direct leads that has oversight on the personnel in the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The building, the apartment complex that they lived in, is a four-resident complex. And the majority of the people that lived there are shop owners, teachers, just regular, every single day people. Every single person that made it out told me directly that there was nobody out of the ordinary in the building. Yet the Israeli military claimed that it was a Hamas operational structure.

I rebutted that response and asked again, “How was it a Hamas operational structure?” At the very least, why they waited until all the residents to reenter the building before striking the residence? Because they did perform a roof knock that even my cousin told me about. And the majority of the residents of that building, to include the 12 children that was killed on that day, exited the building for approximately 90 minutes. My uncle informed me directly that as soon as they made it into the building and into their living room, they found themselves underneath the rubble.

AMY GOODMAN: And tell us exactly what you understand happened to your aunt, in particular, and who she was.

MOHAMMED ABU HASHEM: My aunt was just a housewife. She didn’t work. My uncle was the one that provided for the family. She has three kids. She was just a regular, everyday, household, you know, family member.

She was struck in the living room. And some of the residents were telling me that they could still hear her voice when they were pulling people under the rubble. And we were informed that there was a possibility that she was still alive while under the rubble, but they couldn’t get to her in time.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, that happened in October. Can you talk, then, about resigning but then not making that public until recently, months later? What led you to that decision, Mohammed?

MOHAMMED ABU HASHEM: In the beginning, I was going through my own struggles, not only just as an American member watching what’s happening and what’s unfolding, but as a Palestinian that has direct ties. And I tried to reach out to members of the media, but no one in the beginning was — the totality of what was happening was not as vast as what it is today, and I was not receiving the same kind of response. It wasn’t until I started reaching out to the other State Department resignations and making those connections with people that I finally started to get my story to the right people. And it wasn’t until June, when I was officially completely out of the military, that I was able to get my story out on The Washington Post.

AMY GOODMAN: Mohammed Abu Hashem, you made it to the rank of sergeant. You met another airman. Can you talk about meeting Aaron Bushnell and then what he would subsequently do, and when and where you met him?

MOHAMMED ABU HASHEM: Absolutely. It was crazy to me how our meeting was and the fact that I decided to move away from Washington, D.C., after everything that happened. I moved to Akron, Ohio, in February, and I took a position in a company that does home improvement. And within the first week of working in this company, I ran into — I was introduced to Aaron as another veteran who was currently ready to leave the service. And we just had a brief conversation, a 30-second conversation, how he enjoyed what his experience was like in the company. And it wasn’t until four days later, five days later, when I came back into work, that I realized, on the news articles, that that was the same individual that I was talking to.

And it really took me back. It took me a week to analyze and really think about the possibility that I could have had in the conversation with Aaron to let him know why I decided to leave the service, and me being Palestinian, what that conversation could have been like. My entire job as a first sergeant in the military was to take care of the welfare and the morale of the individuals that I served over. And it was just — it dawned on me then that I probably could have done more, if we went into a deeper conversation, for Aaron Bushnell. But, unfortunately, that’s when I heard about it, the very — the following weekend, or on Monday, when I came back into work, what happened.

AMY GOODMAN: And talk about how you heard, what you understood he did.

MOHAMMED ABU HASHEM: Initially, I saw the reports online, and I did not make the connection immediately, because when I was introduced to him, we never really introduced each other by name. We just — veteran to veteran, we just had a conversation. It wasn’t until the company announced that we lost a member that I started to make that connection. And it wasn’t until some of the people that I worked with came up to me and told me, that that’s when I realized who Aaron Bushnell was.

AMY GOODMAN: That the man who self-immolated, set himself on fire, was Aaron. Mohammed Abu Hashem, you have said that you have information that U.S. intelligence gave Israel information about what was going to happen, what happened on October 7th, before then. Can you talk about what you understand?

MOHAMMED ABU HASHEM: So, I spoke to members in the intelligence community that told me — this is I’m just quoting — that the intelligence that was provided to Israel on the 5th and 6th of October was more than sufficient for them to be able to stop Hamas. Regarding what kind of information was provided, whether it was confirmation of the movements that was happening around the Gaza Strip, or even if you refer to some of the Israel news articles, even their outposts near Gaza, they were informing their leadership that some type of movement was happening, and it was inconsistent with normal, everyday activity. What and how Israel used that intelligence to up their force protection levels or to move to an alert status, that is the unknown. And unfortunately, they’ve delayed that investigation into the matter so they can continue their assault on innocent women and children.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, it might surprise some to hear that the U.S. gave actionable intelligence to Israel before Hamas’s October 7th attack. So, if you could elaborate, as people listen, maybe some of them stunned?

MOHAMMED ABU HASHEM: We continuously — I mean, the Gaza Strip is one of the most heavily surveilled locations in the globe. And this is not just surveillance. We continue to do reconnaissance in the region, as well. So, it’s not far from realistic to say that we had evidence or that it was provided to the Israeli government or that the Israeli government shared intelligence with the United States that shows that there was some sort of threat level that should have been alerting all the military forces in the area of some type of imminent attack that was going to happen.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Mohammed, as you have become publicly known as a person who resigned, a first person with a direct connection to Israel’s assault on Gaza right now, have people approached you? And talk about this letter you signed with 11 others, officials, talking about their reasons for resigning connected to U.S. support for Israel.

MOHAMMED ABU HASHEM: Even before I signed the letter myself, I’ve had people reach out to me, asking me how they would deal with how they should move forward with the situation. And I always — it’s a saying in the military where we say you follow all orders unless they are illegal, unethical or immoral. I found that all three were violated, in my morals and my ethics, and, obviously, the legal aspect would be the American laws that were violated, as well. And every time I spoke to these members, I told them it’s up to them to find whether this violates their own morality and their own ethics, and it’s up to them to make that decision for themselves.

We understood — as the 12 members, we understood the power of raising our voices together to demand a change, because the American people deserve to have a government that follows ethical and moral standards. We have a duty to inform them, as it impacts their national security with the blind support we continue to provide for Israel. There aren’t many conflicts where everything is broadcasted live to the world. It’s on every social media platform. So we needed to step up to demand a change. And I hope that it would raise awareness with all our colleagues to use their voice if they stay in the State Department or to make a choice on whether they believe that this follows their own ethics or their own morals, in order for them to make a decision whether they want to stay or resign over this conflict.

AMY GOODMAN: Mohammed Abu Hashem, I want to thank you for being with us, former first sergeant in the U.S. Air Force. He resigned from his 22-year career in the Air Force over U.S.'s support for Israel in its war on Gaza. Mohammed is Palestinian American. His aunt was killed in Gaza by an Israeli airstrike on October 10th. He's the first to resign with a direct connection to Gaza’s massive civilian death toll.

When we come back, we’ll speak with investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill. He has a new report out, based on interviews with senior Hamas officials, about ongoing ceasefire negotiations and the group’s broader goals. He co-founded The Intercept. Now he’s co-founded a new news site. It’s called Drop Site. Stay with us.

Gaza remains under assault. Day 278 of the assault in the wave that began in October. Binoy Kampmark (DISSIDENT VOICE) points out, "Bloodletting as form; murder as fashion. The ongoing campaign in Gaza by Israel’s Defence Forces continues without stalling and restriction. But the burgeoning number of corpses is starting to become a challenge for the propaganda outlets: How to justify it? Fortunately for Israel, the United States, its unqualified defender, is happy to provide cover for murder covered in the sheath of self-defence." CNN has explained, "The Gaza Strip is 'the most dangerous place' in the world to be a child, according to the executive director of the United Nations Children's Fund." ABC NEWS quotes UNICEF's December 9th statement, ""The Gaza Strip is the most dangerous place in the world to be a child. Scores of children are reportedly being killed and injured on a daily basis. Entire neighborhoods, where children used to play and go to school have been turned into stacks of rubble, with no life in them." NBC NEWS notes, "Strong majorities of all voters in the U.S. disapprove of President Joe Biden’s handling of foreign policy and the Israel-Hamas war, according to the latest national NBC News poll. The erosion is most pronounced among Democrats, a majority of whom believe Israel has gone too far in its military action in Gaza." The slaughter continues. It has displaced over 1 million people per the US Congressional Research Service. Jessica Corbett (COMMON DREAMS) points out, "Academics and legal experts around the world, including Holocaust scholars, have condemned the six-week Israeli assault of Gaza as genocide." The death toll of Palestinians in Gaza is grows higher and higher. United Nations Women noted, "More than 1.9 million people -- 85 per cent of the total population of Gaza -- have been displaced, including what UN Women estimates to be nearly 1 million women and girls. The entire population of Gaza -- roughly 2.2 million people -- are in crisis levels of acute food insecurity or worse." ALJAZEERA notes, "Releasing the latest casualty report, the ministry said at least 88,241 people have been injured since the war began on October 7, 2023. It said 52 Palestinians were killed and 208 injured in the past 24 hours." Months ago, AP noted, "About 4,000 people are reported missing." February 7th, Jeremy Scahill explained on DEMOCRACY NOW! that "there’s an estimated 7,000 or 8,000 Palestinians missing, many of them in graves that are the rubble of their former home." February 5th, the United Nations' Phillipe Lazzarini Tweeted:

April 11th, Sharon Zhang (TRUTHOUT) reported, "In addition to the over 34,000 Palestinians who have been counted as killed in Israel’s genocidal assault so far, there are 13,000 Palestinians in Gaza who are missing, a humanitarian aid group has estimated, either buried in rubble or mass graves or disappeared into Israeli prisons. In a report released Thursday, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor said that the estimate is based on initial reports and that the actual number of people missing is likely even higher."

As for the area itself? Isabele Debre (AP) reveals, "Israel’s military offensive has turned much of northern Gaza into an uninhabitable moonscape. Whole neighborhoods have been erased. Homes, schools and hospitals have been blasted by airstrikes and scorched by tank fire. Some buildings are still standing, but most are battered shells." Kieron Monks (I NEWS) reports, "More than 40 per cent of the buildings in northern Gaza have been damaged or destroyed, according to a new study of satellite imagery by US researchers Jamon Van Den Hoek from Oregon State University and Corey Scher at the City University of New York. The UN gave a figure of 45 per cent of housing destroyed or damaged across the strip in less than six weeks. The rate of destruction is among the highest of any conflict since the Second World War."

The following sites updated: